Latin America -- Live-Blog III Posted by Michael Signer

We've all finished coffee -- in a crowded room where a multitude of different Latin American accents slipped and slided, and the pastries were finished in about three seconds -- and have sat back down for the second session:  "Is It the Economy?"

Albert Fishlow, a bearded Columbia professor with a shock of white hair, introduces the panel -- and asks why, if the neoliberal economic policies of integration between the U.S. and Latin America are working, is every politician elected in opposition to neoliberalism?

This is a discussion that ends up being less about hard economic practices and more about the supportive interplay between macroeconomics and the construction of stable civil societies and republican political institutions.  Every commentator -- and most of the questioners -- concentrate on the problem of why societies that are benefiting from neoliberalism oppose it when allowed to express their opinions through democracy.  (It all reminds me of the false consciousness syndrome argued by Thomas Frank in the United States -- how poor red staters support the Republican Party when it screws them, pretty much, at every turn).

Cecilia Lopez Montano, the President of the Fundacion Agenda Columbia, speaks first, with strong and animated hand gestures and a higher decibel level than the others.  She says that Colombia is the only country in Latin America with a true crisis of democracy, because of the increased paramilitary strategies of the drug cartels.  Colombia's in trouble.  Latin America needs increased autonomy from the U.S. -- "neo-populism" (I'm not sure what this is) is a great problem, and "messianic leaders. "

[Her voice is rising -- I see a few bemused smiles, even stifled laughter -- I think more at her passion than at what she's saying.]

Man, she's panicked about the situation in her country, is my cheap pop-psych analysis. 

Later, she also gets agitated about how the states address social problems.  It's too expensive, bankrupts the emerging states, hurts the attempt to increase employment -- and doesn't really make much of an impact.

As an aside, I guess it wouldn't be a surprise that the Harvard Club would be stuffy (this is from a Princeton guy), but the humidity in this room has to be 99% and it feels like it's 100 degrees.  Or maybe it's just me, in the stir and fluster that is live-blogging (if I knew the emoticon for "dryly put," I'd put one here now).

Felix Pena, the Director for International Trade of the BankBoston Foundation, also focuses on why in elections people vote against neoliberal ideas.  Reading glasses, very studious-looking.  He says the problem is perhaps the very idea of neoliberalism.  Some governments, you look at their policies, and they're not neo and they're not liberal.  But not Chile. 

The focus of everyone is Chile, Chile, Chile.  Big developments there -- leadership in Latin America.  Pena says the major lesson we can learn from Chile is not the economic model -- but rather the conciliation between the demand for political reconstruction and economic neoliberalism.  At a meeting of the new Cabinet members yesterday, they used the terms "agreement," "dialogue," and "harmonization."

Fishlow notes that, yes, everyone's talking about Chile -- but they've been lucky because copper is priced high today.  Most of the exports have done well.  But this may just be a fortunate moment for them -- economices dependent on commodities. 

Fishlow then asks about technocrats and the importation of foreign-educated Ph.D's who take prominent positions in Latin American governments.  Pena says that frameworks for the technocrats are needed -- technocrats should respect politicians, because they're the ones who relate to the people.

I guess what he's talking about is basic bureaucracy, a professional management class -- and fusing civil servants with the basic premises of democratic governance.  It reminds me of Charlottesville, where I live now, which has a city manager system of governance, and a weak city council whose mayor is selected internally.

Cecilia Lopez talks again -- how can we talk about democracy when 40% of the population is poor, doesn't have the money to purchase necessities.  If the economy is so poor that inflation can't even be controlled, how can you have political institutions?  She's really talking about constitutionalism and civil society, not "democracy" itself.   But her point stands.  The economies need to be robust, not fragilely dependent on commodities -- again, politics and the economy dance in tandem.

Another attendant asks, simply, "How much poverty can a democracy put up with?"  And talks about how the Millenium Summit was disappointing. 

The problem of corruption comes up -- self-dealing and income transfer.  Again, an issue that's foundational to, rather than derivative, of economic policy.