Continuités et ruptures dans l’accumulation et la régulation en Amérique latine dans les années 2000 : le cas de l’Argentine, du Brésil et du Chili

Abstract

Après avoir rappelé les traits marquants permettant de caractériser l’évolution globale des économies latino-américaines, ce travail examine les principales transformations intervenues au niveau des formes institutionnelles et des régimes d’accumulation en Argentine, Brésil et Chili pendant les années 2000. Dans le sillage d’un nouveau cycle de croissance associé à une évolution favorable des termes de l’échange et au boom des exportations vers la Chine, l’analyse des cas permet d’identifier une grande diversité de trajectoires nationales. En Argentine, les transformations les plus marquées suite à la crise de 2001 se situent au niveau de la déconnexion croissante de l’économie à l’égard de la finance internationale et de la participation croissante de l’État dans la régulation d’ensemble. En ce qui concerne le Brésil, le processus de financiarisation de l’économie amorcé dans les années 1990 a conféré un rôle décisif au régime monétaire dans le mode de régulation bien que l’État renforce sa présence au sein des formes institutionnelles dans les années 2000. Le Chili, pour sa part, connaît, dans le cadre d’un mode de régulation stabilisé, un affaiblissement du dynamisme de l’activité économique, mettant en évidence les limites de l’accumulation extensive.Même si les sources de vulnérabilité diffèrent selon les pays, tous les trois sont sensibles à un éventuel retournement des prix des exportations primaires. En même temps, les trois pays analysés partagent le risque de subir les effets de « maladie hollandaise » pénalisant la diversification productive et l’emploi.

Fiscal Consolidations and Informality in Latin America and the Caribbean

“…In an IMF technical note, Batini et al (2014) indicate that the theoretical and empirical results for low income and emerging countries are not clearly established, and relatively few studies have adopted the narrative approach to establish more robust empirical results. Because of their specificities, in terms of institutional context, level of development, exposure to financial and currency crisis, political instability, high inequalities, labour market structure, exchange rate regime, insertion in the world trade or export basket composition, size and development of the public sector (as evidenced for three LAC countries by Miotti et al, 2012), the conduct of macroeconomic policy in developing countries differs necessarily from practices in advanced economies, and the stabilization policies transmission mechanisms identified by the literature could be altered by these structural differences, whose importance has been highlighted by Boyer (2015). The political process leading to decision making is also very different from what is observed in advanced economies and this dimension cannot be neglected.…”

“…Budget mismanagement led to forty years of fiscal austerity in Jamaica, and a high and growing fiscal deficit generates concerns about the sustainability of Costa Rica's welfare system. On the contrary, improved fiscal management and sounder public finances in several countries of the region led to the implementation of countercyclical policies and therefore reduced the impact and duration of recent economic crises (Vegh and Vuletin, 2014;Miotti et al, 2012). In this context, it becomes highly important to understand which instruments are the most appropriate to prevent such dramatic events from happening and what the consequences of such interventions on the economy are.…”

Diversity of Capitalisms in Latin America

“…• Within the same mode of development, Argentina and Brazil exhibit quite distinct long run trajectories. In Argentina, the recurring incapacity to build a stable compromise between agro exporters, domestic industrial capitalists, workers, and citizens manifests itself via the barrier of a growing external balance deficit (Miotti et al 2012). In a sense, the 2018 economic situation is not without similarity with the early 1976 crisis but of course the electoral democracy changes the determinants of economic policies.…”

Types of Capitalism in Latin America

“…38 What is crucial in this discussion regarding labor policy is that in Brazil and Argentina there is a relative coordination/pressure on the part of an active labor union movement that is complementary to an internal market oriented economy, while in the case of Mexico and Chile labor weakness, low union density, and atomization are complementary to an economy based on external competitiveness. In the case of Chile this implies decentralized negotiations that insure wage increases by enterprise that depend on local conditions and that do not go beyond productivity (Miotti, Quenan and Torija, 2012): in Mexico this implies an economy based on wage repression in order to attract foreign capital in a subcontracting scheme.…”