By Jeremy Warner
I'm not going to
get into the rights and wrongs of Argentina's claim on the Falklands, but if I
were a Falkland islander, I'd continue to avoid the embrace, well meaning or
otherwise, of these Latinos of the South Atlantic like the plague – for,
largely unreported by the Western press, Argentina is once more an economic
basket case.
But how can that be? Since abandoning the folly of its
fixed exchange rate regime with the dollar, Argentina has surely come on in
leaps and bounds, right?
Wrong, though that has certainly been the narrative
regularly trotted out by opponents of the euro, who frequently point to
Argentina to demonstrate the merits of free floating over fixed exchange rate
regimes. I've even used it myself. Unfortunately, Argentina far from proves the
case, as I've been discovering in the past few days in researching the
Argentine economy. With Greece and possibly others set to exit the eurozone
over the next year or two, it's worth exploring the lessons.
True enough, Argentina did rebound quite sharply after the initial trauma back in 2001 of abandoning the dollar peg and defaulting. But the climb back to pre-crisis levels of economic activity has been long and hard. Real incomes have only quite recently begun to exceed their pre-crisis levels.
What is more, it is plain as a pikestaff that there is
another crisis just around the corner. Indeed, Argentina is essentially already
in it, with a return to the bad old ways of hyperinflation and extreme capital
flight. There has not been a published IMF staff report on Argentina since
2006, an omission which nearly always means that the IMF's assessments have
become so uncomfortable that the incumbent government has refused to sanction
subsequent publication.
Indeed the stand-off has become so bad that the IMF
has recently been forced to fire a warning shot across Argentina's bows over the quality of the
country's economic data,
a process which with continued non compliance would mean eventual expulsion
from the fund. So unreliable has the official data become that The Economist
has dropped it from its website.
This might seem a trivial matter, but it is not.
Argentina has been routinely misreporting both its inflation and GDP data.
Inflation, recently reported at 9.7pc for January, is more likely three or four
times that amount. It follows that real GDP growth is much less than reported.
Once a model for the region, Argentina's official
statistical office, INDEC, has been bullied and perverted by the de Kerchner
government to the degree where it can no longer be seen as anything but a
peddler of lies and misinformation. Holders of inflation linked bonds are being
regularly cheated out of their just rewards. The situation is just as bad as
that which led to the meltdown of 2001, if not worse.
By the way, if you want to give yourself a giggle, take a look at this Paul Krugman blog, in which he cites Argentina as an example of how
doing the unorthodox thing – defaulting and devaluing – can yield great
results. Sorry Paul, but you've been working on the basis of fictitious data.
So what's gone wrong? The answer is that devaluation
and default is not enough – it also needs to be accompanied by structural
reform, which Argentina has failed to enact. Argentina's problem is that it
remains mired in a politically and economically corrupt past. Until these things
change, it will continue to stagger from one crisis to the next, regardless of
the exchange rate regime it adopts. Devaluation is no substitute for structural
reform.
Given the origins of its immigrant population, it is
perhaps no surprise that the Argentine economy actually has quite a lot in
common with the troublesome periphery of the eurozone. In terms of its
problems, it's Italy, or even Greece, magnified several times over. Members of
the technocratic governments that now run Italy and Greece often argue that in
order to become modern, competitive economies, they need the straightjacket of
the euro, they need to be forced into the economic reform which they have for
so long ducked.
I've always found this a somewhat strange argument,
for it implies that these countries cannot be trusted to modernise unless under
the boot of Berlin. It's the same sort of argument as used to be peddled by the
Major Government in the UK when Britain was part of the ERM. Unless we looked
the Deutschemark in the face, it was said, we'd never exorcise our propensity
to inflation and economic instability. In our case it turned out to be tosh,
but in Argentina's?
Before the economic crisis of 1999-2002, Argentina had
attempted to purge itself of its inflationary past by adopting a currency board
system which sought irrevocably to peg the currency to the US dollar.
Maintaining a currency board is not the same as establishing a currency union.
Sovereignty is maintained and you can in extremis always exit the peg.
But the discipines it imposes are quite similar. Only
a bit like Greece, Argentina never really played by the rules; the currency
board was never properly maintained and it leaked badly at the edges. It was
only a matter of time before it broke down. Spendid country that it is,
Argentina cannot reasonably pretend to stewardship of the Falklands until it
has addressed its own problems. By the look of it, it's going to take a while.
No comments:
Post a Comment