The core of this article was written a week before the results of the primary elections on August 11, which massively rejected the national economic and social policies implemented by current President Mauricio Macri, as demonstrated by the 15 point spread between the victorious Alberto Fernandez and Macri. These primary elections will be followed by the national presidential, provincial and municipal elections to be held on October 27.
The core of this article was written a week before the results of the primary elections on August 11, which massively rejected the national economic and social policies implemented by current President Mauricio Macri, as demonstrated by the 15 point spread between the victorious Alberto Fernandez and Macri. These primary elections will be followed by the national presidential, provincial and municipal elections to be held on October 27.
Economic turmoil rocked the country following these results, including a 30% devaluation of the peso and a spike in inflation, now estimated at 50%. This crisis is filled with contradictions, however. Argentina now has a presidential pre candidate (Fernandez) who has symbolic power because he is the presumptive victor on October 27, but who lacks governmental instruments to address current turmoil, while President Macri has instruments but very low credibility both within the country and with international institutions.
This article explains the orientation and impact of the policies that led to the electoral defeat of the current national government in the recent elections. The only exception to this defeat was the results for the primary election of the Mayor of the city of Buenos Aires, Horacio Rodriguez Larreta, who won by approximately 13 points over the main opposition candidate.
If we compare Macri’s electoral promises of 2015 with the results of his policies four years later, we will realize that the differences are sobering. “Zero Poverty,” as Macri proclaimed in his presidential address to congress a few months after being elected in March 2016, was one of the main goals of his government. Four years later we see instead rising inflation and unemployment, growing dependence on the IMF, increased tariffs for water, electricity and gas, contraction of the economy, increased prices for basic food items, and the consequence of all of these: an increase of poverty.
Statistics produced by several national, academic and private agencies present different numbers, but reach the same conclusion: poverty has increased in the country as a whole. Reports prepared by the Centro de Estudios de Ciudad (CEC) of the University of Buenos Aires, show that between 2015 and 2018 the poverty level in the country increased 2.1 percent, and the level of destitution went up 0.5 percent. Destitute people, or “indigentes ,”are those wholive in households whose income does not allow them to buy basic food items (Canasta Básica Alimentaria, as defined by the National Institute of Census of Argentina, the INDEC) . This means that at the end of 2018 there were 14.3 million poor people (1.4 million more than in 2015) and 3 million destitute (300,000 more than in 2015) in Argentina. A study by the Universidad Católica Argentina (UCA) that measured poverty by income roughly confirms this picture for 2018, and adds that 46.3% of those in poverty in Argentina are children.
In 2019 these numbers have not improved. In an interview published in July 2019 in La Nación, one of the two main newspapers of the country, UCA researcher Eduardo Donza estimated that poverty in the country increased in 2019 to about 35%, based on the figures collected by the national government in the Encuesta Permanente de Hogares (National Household Survey).
Poverty has also increased in Buenos Aires, a city of almost three million people, the center of an extended metropolitan area of 14 million, and the richest in the country. As a whole, poverty and destitution grew between 2015 and 2018 in the city. A different report published by CEC in 2019 about the city, shows that while in 2015 9.4% of households were considered poor, this figure reached 14.7% by 2018. This is to say that there are 225,000 more poor people in the city than in 2015. Adriana Clemente, Director of CEC concludes in the introduction to that report that in the last three years the city added almost 100,000 more destitute people who cannot cover their basic food needs and that experience all kind of deprivations related to health, housing, and education. Given that the population growth of the city during this period was almost zero, this increase of destitution and poverty in the city of Buenos Aires should be explained by the government’s macro economic policies and the lack of anti-crisis measures by the administration of the wealthiest jurisdiction of the country.
Yet these figures don’t tell the whole story, which is one of two cities. I have been living in Buenos Aires since January 2019 for my sabbatical, and I can see how many new public infrastructure projects have been completed over the last four years by the municipal government, improving the way people are moving around the city. Municipal agencies have also actively upgraded the physical environment of some of the biggest slums. These improvements, however, have been dwarfed by the impact of the macro economic policies of the national government. For instance, I wonder how some slum dwellers, who today enjoy better housing, will be able to repay their loans and pay for services, given that unemployment is growing.
This same report also documents the vast inequalities among different urban areas. The populations living in the neighborhoods of the “southern zone” (“zona sur”) are in the worst conditions in terms of health, income, employment and housing, which translates into higher infant mortality, higher unemployment, and overcrowding. In contrast, those located in the “northern zone” (“zona norte”) are in the best condition with higher incomes, lower percentage of overcrowding and people without health insurance, a higher percentage of adults with high school degrees, and a higher proportion of educated young people. A third zone, the central one, is the more extensive one with almost half of the territory (46%) and more than half of the population (53%) of the city, and presents indicators in between the other two zones.
All of this is due to an unequal distribution of health and educational services, opportunities, and quality of labor in the different zones of the city. The results are, for instance, that unemployment is 134% higher in the south than in the north. Following this comparison, data shows that the south has 77% higher overcrowding, and a 50% higher infant mortality rate.
These socio economic and spatial inequalities between north and south have developed over a long period of time but are now more present than ever, showing two different realities: an affluent city of European and high-tech design buildings, both old and new, and a city of self-built houses that pile one on top of the other, and which lack services, paved streets, and public spaces.
Walking around the city, we can see not only the contrast between affluent and poor neighborhoods, including the decay of the south, but we also see decay spreading into middle class neighborhoods. These are the palpable results of the policies of “adjustment” (“ajuste”) and austerity adopted by the current administration, following the advice of the IMF. The economy has contracted, prices for essential services have dramatically increased, and many businesses have closed. It is not surprising that there is more unemployment and as a result more poverty and destitution.
These economic points have been the key messages of the opposition and articulated by many political leaders at the national provincial and local levels, including the more prominent coalition Frente de Todos. This coalitionis campaigning on many distributive policies to restart the economy again.
These data and the deteriorating living conditions of the Argentine population are the keys to understanding the surprising electoral results of the primary elections of August 11. Despite the polls within Argentina and in Wall Street, the Argentine people spoke up and supported the Alberto Fernandez — Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner ticket, which offers an alternative vision of economic growth and the distribution of its benefits.
Margarita Gutman is Professor of Urban Studies and International Affairs at The New School.
Economic turmoil rocked the country following these results, including a 30% devaluation of the peso and a spike in inflation, now estimated at 50%. This crisis is filled with contradictions, however. Argentina now has a presidential pre candidate (Fernandez) who has symbolic power because he is the presumptive victor on October 27, but who lacks governmental instruments to address current turmoil, while President Macri has instruments but very low credibility both within the country and with international institutions.
This article explains the orientation and impact of the policies that led to the electoral defeat of the current national government in the recent elections. The only exception to this defeat was the results for the primary election of the Mayor of the city of Buenos Aires, Horacio Rodriguez Larreta, who won by approximately 13 points over the main opposition candidate.
If we compare Macri’s electoral promises of 2015 with the results of his policies four years later, we will realize that the differences are sobering. “Zero Poverty,” as Macri proclaimed in his presidential address to congress a few months after being elected in March 2016, was one of the main goals of his government. Four years later we see instead rising inflation and unemployment [GA1] ,growing dependence on the IMF [GA2, increased tariffs for water, electricity and gas, contraction of the economy, increased prices for basic food items, and the consequence of all of these: an increase of poverty.
Statistics produced by several national, academic and private agencies present different numbers, but reach the same conclusion: poverty has increased in the country as a whole. Reports prepared by the Centro de Estudios de Ciudad (CEC) of the University of Buenos Aires, show that between 2015 and 2018 the poverty level in the country increased 2.1 percent, and the level of destitution went up 0.5 percent. Destitute people, or “indigentes ,”are those wholive in households whose income does not allow them to buy basic food items (Canasta Básica Alimentaria, as defined by the National Institute of Census of Argentina, the INDEC) . This means that at the end of 2018 there were 14.3 million poor people (1.4 million more than in 2015) and 3 million destitute (300,000 more than in 2015) in Argentina. A study by the Universidad Católica Argentina (UCA) that measured poverty by income roughly confirms this picture for 2018, and adds that 46.3% of those in poverty in Argentina are children.
In 2019 these numbers have not improved. In an interview published in July 2019 in La Nación, one of the two main newspapers of the country, UCA researcher Eduardo Donza estimated that poverty in the country increased in 2019 to about 35%, based on the figures collected by the national government in the Encuesta Permanente de Hogares (National Household Survey).
Poverty has also increased in Buenos Aires, a city of almost three million people, the center of an extended metropolitan area of 14 million, and the richest in the country. As a whole, poverty and destitution grew between 2015 and 2018 in the city. A different report published by CEC in 2019 about the city, shows that while in 2015 9.4% of households were considered poor, this figure reached 14.7% by 2018. This is to say that there are 225,000 more poor people in the city than in 2015. Adriana Clemente, Director of CEC concludes in the introduction to that report that in the last three years the city added almost 100,000 more destitute people who cannot cover their basic food needs and that experience all kind of deprivations related to health, housing, and education. Given that the population growth of the city during this period was almost zero, this increase of destitution and poverty in the city of Buenos Aires should be explained by the government’s macro economic policies and the lack of anti-crisis measures by the administration of the wealthiest jurisdiction of the country.
Yet these figures don’t tell the whole story, which is one of two cities. I have been living in Buenos Aires since January 2019 for my sabbatical, and I can see how many new public infrastructure projects have been completed over the last four years by the municipal government, improving the way people are moving around the city. Municipal agencies have also actively upgraded the physical environment of some of the biggest slums. These improvements, however, have been dwarfed by the impact of the macro economic policies of the national government. For instance, I wonder how some slum dwellers, who today enjoy better housing, will be able to repay their loans and pay for services, given that unemployment is growing.
This same report also documents the vast inequalities among different urban areas. The populations living in the neighborhoods of the “southern zone” (“zona sur”) are in the worst conditions in terms of health, income, employment and housing, which translates into higher infant mortality, higher unemployment, and overcrowding. In contrast, those located in the “northern zone” (“zona norte”) are in the best condition with higher incomes, lower percentage of overcrowding and people without health insurance, a higher percentage of adults with high school degrees, and a higher proportion of educated young people. A third zone, the central one, is the more extensive one with almost half of the territory (46%) and more than half of the population (53%) of the city, and presents indicators in between the other two zones.
All of this is due to an unequal distribution of health and educational services, opportunities, and quality of labor in the different zones of the city. The results are, for instance, that unemployment is 134% higher in the south than in the north. Following this comparison, data shows that the south has 77% higher overcrowding, and a 50% higher infant mortality rate.
These socio economic and spatial inequalities between north and south have developed over a long period of time but are now more present than ever, showing two different realities: an affluent city of European and high-tech design buildings, both old and new, and a city of self-built houses that pile one on top of the other, and which lack services, paved streets, and public spaces.
Walking around the city, we can see not only the contrast between affluent and poor neighborhoods, including the decay of the south, but we also see decay spreading into middle class neighborhoods. These are the palpable results of the policies of “adjustment” (“ajuste”) and austerity adopted by the current administration, following the advice of the IMF. The economy has contracted, prices for essential services have dramatically increased, and many businesses have closed. It is not surprising that there is more unemployment and as a result more poverty and destitution.
These economic points have been the key messages of the opposition and articulated by many political leaders at the national provincial and local levels, including the more prominent coalition Frente de Todos. This coalitionis campaigning on many distributive policies to restart the economy again.
These data and the deteriorating living conditions of the Argentine population are the keys to understanding the surprising electoral results of the primary elections of August 11. Despite the polls within Argentina and in Wall Street, the Argentine people spoke up and supported the Alberto Fernandez — Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner ticket, which offers an alternative vision of economic growth and the distribution of its benefits.
Margarita Gutman is Professor of Urban Studies and International Affairs at The New School.
