Search

This paper makes an economic assessment of Jair Bolsonaro's presidency. It analyzes the triangle of incompatibilities: high income inequality-reprimarization of the economy-high economic growth; and if one adds the environment, one could say the impossible squaring of the circle. The result of this impossibility is economic stagnation, persistent high inequality, deterioration of the standard of living, especially of the poorest, and serious damage to the environment through deforestation. The pandemic and the war in Ukraine have shaken an already "sick" economy and reveal the structural crisis in Brazil, as well as the turning points in the functioning of the labor market. The present ruptures suggest the political exhaustion of the current presidency and that the country is at a crossroads. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since its appearance in 2020, Brazil and Mexico have been among the most affected countries in the world by covid-19. Their respective presidents, Jair Bolsonaro and Andrés Manuel López Obrador (known as AMLO), have played a leading role in specific policies during the pandemic. Their choices were both singular and counter- intuitive. On the health front, AMLO initially underplayed the seriousness of the situation, and the Brazilian president, Bolsonaro, defended a frankly negationist attitude, with a dramatic balance sheet, without his popularity being seriously affected. On the economic front, they have chosen policies that contradict not only each other but also their own supposed ideological stances. Bolsonaro, who is ranked on the far right, has implemented an emergency transfer program on a scale comparable to those of developed countries and the most massive the country has ever seen. Conversely, AMLO, considered a progressist, provided just a minimum policy package, maintaining his previous electoral program. By adopting a comparative approach and mobilizing a unique and diversified set of data, the objective of this paper is to explore these apparent contradictions. After having established the precise diagnosis of the policies implemented to deal with the crisis and the economic and health situation in the two countries during the 2020-2022 period, we propose an original interpretation grid of the central role played by the two presidents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Has China's economic success brought about Brazil's economic failure? Or should we look elsewhere for the causes behind the disaster into which the South American nation is currently sinking? There is a path out of the rentier trap, but it is narrow. Brazilian administrations have preferred not to pursue loans, convinced that raw materials prices would keep rising, and that even without making structural changes, it would be possible to enact policies designed to reduce the wage gap and mitigate poverty, with no concern for declining competitiveness, and a blind eye to the top 1%, which is becoming wealthier. An increasingly asymmetrical relationship with China has made room for crisis, but not growth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Having considered differing definitions of poverty for developed and developing countries, poverty in Latin America is analyzed, especially rural poverty in Brazil. Once the region's economic situation during the 1980s and 1990s and the implications of this for poverty are considered, the objective is to develop a microeconomic analysis of poverty without abandoning the macroeconomic approach. This leads to a study of the various Conditional Cash Transfer Programs implemented in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico and a discussion of the impact of monetary transfers, social costs and fiscal policies in the evolution of poverty. Finally, we conclude that the efficacy of these policies depends on the specific needs of the rural and urban poor, because what is important is reducing economic and social inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globalization in Brazil: guilty or scapegoat? After the sequence of structural adjustments decisions suggested by the IMF, Brazilian economy became wider opened, as the consequences from financial globalization were stronger than those from commercial globalization. Nevertheless, social and economical reality didn't show much improvement. On the contrary, figures on economic increase and inequalities show Brazil behind the average of developing countries. Even if the effects caused by "mondialisation" on weakened economies are well known, globalization can not be taken as the only guilty of weak economic increase, for maintaining the high level of inequalities or for the increase of precariousness. Responsibility must be searched on high inequalities in where operates "mondialisation", on weakness of public policies, on irresponsible way of opening of the economy and in fiscal policy in favor of financial sector. Other countries have reached quite different results, once the have adopted different public policies, which goal was to establish control and reduction upon the negatives effects of globalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]