Taxing the ‘crop of the century’: the role of institutions in governing the soy boom in South America

Abstract

The recent global commodity boom created new opportunities and challenges for countries that are net agricultural producers. Natural resources literature has explored how the sudden appearance of extraordinary revenues in resource rich countries impacts upon growth, political institutions, and conflicts. However, there has been less attention paid to how already existing arrangements can shape distributional conflicts that emerge as a response. This article analyses the design and implementation of fiscal policy during the soy boom in Argentina and Brazil. It is argued that domestic institutions play a key role in mediating the capacity of the state regarding the design and implementation of tax structures related to natural resources.

Crop booms as regime shifts

“…Beyond social influence [ 10 , 54 , 68 , 108 ] and land rush dynamics [ 64 , 68 , 109 ], other self-reinforcing mechanisms have been cited in the context of agricultural expansion. These include agglomeration economies [ 98 , 110 ]; policies that stimulate the emergence of powerful actors and rural elites, who lobby for more favourable regulations [ 100 , 111 ]; in-migration of farmers attracting more migrants through network and herd effects [ 13 20 , 112 , 113 ]; or reinvestment of high profits [ 18 ]. Strikingly, all except the last are social in nature.…”

El alcance de la Regulación Privada Transnacional: el caso de la multinacional Monsanto en Argentina

“…La crisis económica, política e institucional del 2001, marcó el alejamiento del paradigma neoliberal asociado al Consenso de Washington. El Estado post-neoliberal que emergió trajo consigo objetivos de redistribución económica, pero su financiamiento fue posible por el alto precio de los commodities que alentaron el modelo agroexportador (Giraudo, 2021). En este sentido, la elite política se apoyó en el «Consenso de las Commodities» que fue central para su reproducción, es decir, reproducir de su capital económico, político y por lo tanto simbólico.…”

“…Esto significó un alejamiento del paradigma neoliberal asociado al Consenso de Washington que había marcado la política económica argentina durante los 90. El Estado post-neoliberal que emergió trajo consigo objetivos de redistribución económica (Giraudo, 2021).…”

“…En este contexto, la soja ha sido un producto clave para la recuperación económica y política del país, ya que le permitió al gobierno aumentar sus recursos fiscales -dado que la tributación de este producto exportable está centralizada en el Estado Nacional- (Giraudo, 2021). Esto hizo que el gobierno cuente con recursos para financiar políticas públicas (como por ejemplo el programa Plan jefes y jefas de Hogares Desocupados o la Asignación Universal por Hijo), que tuvo un impacto positivo en la disminución de la pobreza y la inequidad y a la vez, le permitió al Estado hacer frente a las obligaciones financieras internacionales (Bianchi y Szpak, 2017;Rapoport, 2010).…”

The Politics of Fiscal Legitimacy in Developmental States: Emergency Taxes in Argentina Under Kirchnerism

“…In line with Evans's argument, one alternative would be to adopt quasi-predatory strategies over those sectors, for example, through the expropriation of monopolistic industries, as it often happens in relation to oil production, mining, and steel, or through the political exclusion of the targeted sectors. Giraudo (2021) moves close to this idea, arguing that the low political embeddedness of rural elites, and the centralisation of the Argentine federal system, is what allowed the central government to capture significant revenues from the soybean sector at the expense of rural actors and provinces (contrary to Brazil, where these actors could negotiate favourable concessions). The alternative to predatory or exclusionary approaches would be to develop forms of state embeddedness that grant sufficient social legitimacy for an asymmetric tax production policy.…”