Below is a video interview I did for the Council on Foreign Relations’ Campaign 2012 series. In it I talk about the three big issues in U.S.-Latin America policy facing the next presidential term: security, immigration and economic relations. I look forward to your feedback in the comments section.
(To watch the video on Youtube, click here.)
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Source: UNCTAD World Investment Report 2011
In the wake of the 2008 economic crisis, economists, investors, and even politicians have pinned their hopes on the major emerging markets as the new engines of global growth. International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde’s recent visit to Latin America (she has also made the rounds in China, Russia, and Japan) demonstrates this increasingly prominent macroeconomic role. Perhaps a first, the multilateral head came to ask for funds, not lay down rules. But for emerging economies to truly drive global growth, the real engine will be the private sector. While less measured than central bank reserves or monetary flows, anecdotal evidence suggests that this too is happening – with foreign direct investment now flowing from emerging to more mature economies. And it isn’t just China searching for bargains.
A recent example of this worldwide trend includes Mexican-based Grupo Bimbo’s purchase of Sara Lee’s U.S. and European operations for close to $1 billion. The acquisition caps a two decade-long global expansion, buying up brands such as Entenmanns and Thomas’ and establishing plants in places as far flung as Beaverton, Oregon and Fort Worth, Texas. Begun by Spanish immigrants, Grupo Bimbo began with a family cake shop on the outskirts of Mexico City. In the post World War II economic boom the Servitje family expanded into breads, cookies, and candies, delivering their wares first in Mexico City, then throughout Mexico, and now throughout the world. Today Bimbo owns plants in 19 countries, and is the largest baker in the United States.
Other recent acquisitions – such as Lenovo’s purchase of German electronics supplier Medion and Tata Group’s buyout of Jaguar and Land Rover – show a similar shift. To be sure, U.S. and European capital still pour into emerging economies – even in the midst of the global recession. FDI from developed to emerging economies nearly doubled from 2007 to 2010. It is not just diplomats but also Wall Street and the City of London that are adapting to a multipolar world. Developing countries are investing abroad more than ever, eating into advanced economies share of overall FDI outflows (down from 84 percent in 2007 to 71 percent in 2010). Most of the investment outflows (almost two thirds) go to their emerging market peers. This, perhaps more than other factors, will lead to the touted “rise of the rest.”
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
To view this video on YouTube, click here.
The Council on Foreign Relations just released a great conversation on the Latin American lessons for the European debt crisis. With panelists Adam Lerrick, Chairman of Sovereign Debt Solutions Limited, Ernesto Zedillo, former President of Mexico (1994-2000) and William R. Rhodes, President and Chief Executive Officer of William R. Rhodes Global Advisers (and head of Citibank during the 1980s), and moderated by Roger Altman, Founder and Chairman of Evercore Partners, it provides wide-ranging insights on the issues the European Union faces.
Though a different time and place, much is reminiscent of the early 1980s in Latin America. Over a year later, Europe can barely contain, much less resolve its problems. Contagion is a growing threat, with worries over the last six months about Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and most recently Italy. The IMF struggles to play its traditional role – establishing the rules of the game, evaluating Greece’s progress, and (so far) certifying its compliance. The ever mounting costs of dithering too are there.
But, as the Europeans will quickly remind you, there are big differences that matter (though perhaps not the ones they are emphasizing – such as levels of development, culture, and institutional strength). The problem is, if anything, much worse today in Europe than it was in Latin America in the 1980s – debt to GDP ratios in Greece (160-170% of GDP) – Italy (roughly 120%) and Belgium (90-100%) are higher. Markets too are much more interconnected than thirty years ago, making it both harder to resolve problems, and more painful globally if you don’t. And with the Euro, Greece or others can’t devalue their way back to growth – a viable option for Latin American nations.
Latin America’s “lost decade” of the 1980s also holds cautionary tales for Europe. In searching for solutions the powers that be — governments, banks, the private sector, and the IMF — have to devise a plan that provides some sort of hope for the people that must live with it, otherwise it will be doomed to fail. They also can’t – or at least shouldn’t — wait seven years to resolve the problem, the time between the Mexican default and the launch of the Brady plan.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Shoppers carry an electronic item outside a store in Caracas (Jorge Silva/Courtesy Reuters).
As journalists, policymakers, and activists of various stripes and interests focus on the rise of the global middle class, scholars struggle with how exactly to define this category of people worldwide. The method matters, as differences can make one exceedingly optimistic or pessimistic as to today’s reality, tomorrow’s promise, and of what people, governments, companies, and markets should and should not be doing to encourage this growth.
One way of measuring the middle class is in relative terms, by looking at who is within the middle range of incomes in any given country. Scholars such as Lester Thurow, Nancy Birdsall and William Easterly have done this in various formats. But it is often unclear exactly what their results mean for emerging economies, where the middle of the country is not necessarily one and the same as the middle class. It is also hard to use this approach comparatively, as the “central” income range differs widely from country to country.
Another approach is to use absolute thresholds, which has the advantage of getting at attributes that are more universally acknowledged as middle class. The question here becomes how to define this “fixed band.” The most expansive calculation – used by Martin Ravallion at the World Bank — classifies a middle class person as anyone who makes between $2 and $13 a day in PPP terms. Intended to measure the expansion of the middle in emerging markets, this definition includes those who have just made it across the World Bank $2 poverty line. By this measure, China and India have made incredible strides over the past fifteen years, developing a true middle class. But to those in advanced Western economies many of these people would almost certainly be considered abjectly poor, questioning the comparative value, and universality of this scale.
On the more restrictive end, a study by Branko Milanovic and Shlomo Yitzaki sets the the upper and lower bounds of the global middle at the average incomes of Brazil ($4,000 in 2000 PPP terms) and Italy ($17,000) as, and counts anyone earning between $12 and $50 a day as middle class. These may not be the right threshold incomes either, however, particularly because this bottom line leaves out the millions in India and China who earn less than $12 a day and yet still, as households, lead quite comfortable middle class lifestyles. This definition puts Mexico’s middle at less than half the population, in contrast to those that count Mexico as now majority middle class.
Finally, a Brookings report by Cárdenas, Kharas and Henao takes a slightly different approach to the issue. Based on an earlier study by Kharas, they use the poverty line in Portugal and Italy – the lowest among advanced European countries – as the lower limit and twice the average income in Luxembourg, the richest European nation, as the upper limit of the global middle. As the authors note, their calculation “excludes those who are considered poor in the poorest advanced countries and those who are considered rich in the richest advanced country.”
Source: Cárdenas et al., "Latin America's Global Middle Class," Brookings (2011).
By this definition, the Latin American countries with the largest middle classes are Mexico (60%), Uruguay (56%), and Argentina (53%), while Bolivia (13%), Honduras (16%) and Paraguay (19%) fall on the lower end of the spectrum. As a whole, the region cannot be called middle class, but it is moving in the right direction, and may qualify in the near future. The model predicts that by 2030 over half of Latin American countries will have a majority middle class. It contrasts with China and India in this regard, where, despite great progress, a true middle class as a substantial percentage of the overall population is still decades away.
Recognizing the enormous expansion of the middle class in Latin America and worldwide does not deny the destitute poverty in which hundreds of millions, even billions, still live. But ignoring the progress of recent years also has its perils for the poor. Better measuring and understanding the rise of the global middle is vital precisely because it suggests paths for those still less fortunate to follow.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bundles of confiscated drug money worth two million euros ($2.7 million) are displayed at a police headquarters in Madrid January 18, 2011. (Andrea Comas/Courtesy Reuters).
On Tuesday, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) released a new report on global money laundering, “Estimating Illicit Financial Flows Resulting from Drug Trafficking and Other Transnational Organized Crime.” The upshot? It is really hard to estimate. But, the report does provide some tangibles. Surveying numerous studies, it calculates that illicit global proceeds amount to over $2 trillion dollars every year (roughly 3.6 percent of global GDP), with some $1.6 trillion of this laundered. Within these staggering figures, roughly $870 billion of these revenues relate to drug trafficking and organized crime, and close to $580 billion of those illicit funds are laundered through financial institutions. The study drills down and looks specifically at the global cocaine market, estimated at some $85 billion. Most of this, again, is laundered.
The report provides some hints as to how this happens. Of the $85 billion cocaine market, most (estimated at $61 billion) stays in the retail markets – the United States and Europe primarily. Producers – mostly Andean farmers – receive in total $1 billion, or just over 1 percent of the gross profits. This leaves, by their estimates, roughly $23 billion for those processing and moving the drugs from the fields to the domestic wholesalers. Shipping cocaine from producing regions to transit locations generates at least $8 billion in profits.
When it comes to laundering this money, at least half occurs locally, and most of the rest in nearby countries. In South America, the report estimates that some $13 billion dollars of laundered cocaine money likely flows into and through local banks and local businesses, and roughly $7 billion is probably cleaned nearby, often in the Caribbean. The report also touches on the profound (and mostly negative) impacts of these flows on local economies, including corruption, real estate price distortions, large income disparities, and weaker growth (since criminals aren’t usually looking for long term productive investments in local economies).
The report ends on a fairly pessimistic tone. Drawing on a separate, heavily cited 2009 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Drug Intelligence Center, the UNODC estimates that Mexican and Colombia’s drug-related money laundering may amount to between $18 and $39 billion each year. The authors argue that, unlike taking down kingpins (who are easily replaced), seizing illicit funds has much more severe and long lasting impacts on illicit trade. But, then the report goes on to show that our global ability to find and stop these financial flows is abysmal – estimated at far less than 1 percent – not much different than the fees brokers charge to clients to buy and sell stocks, and less than hedge funds take to manage your (legal) money. With the cost of doing business – at least in terms of money laundering – remaining low, the UN office points out the vital need for international law enforcement to truly step up and follow the money.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
An elderly Guatemalan woman rests before leaving Bolivia from Santa Cruz (David Mercado/Courtesy Reuters).
For those of you that haven’t seen this yet — the Economist’s Americas editor Michael Reid provided a great overview of Latin America’s progress in recent years, as well as the challenges that lie ahead in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sub-Committee on the Western Hemisphere two weeks ago.
The following are two, slightly less optimistic pieces – based on economics, and in particular income inequality. FOCAL recently released a policy brief authored by Guillermo Perry and Roberto Steiner on “Economic Growth and Inequality” in Latin America. Two graphs stand out here. The first, on page 3, reflects that while inequality is getting better in Latin America, the situation is still pretty abysmal, as the most equal countries in the region are still more unequal than most countries across the globe. The figure on page 5 suggests a possible explanation: Latin American countries have among the least progressive taxation systems in the world.
A World Bank study from 2008, “The Measurement of Inequality of Opportunity: Theory and an application to Latin America” gives a sense of just how much this matters in the lives of Latin Americans. Analyzing data from 6 countries in the region, it shows that up to half of differences in income are due to structural inequalities. Getting ahead in Latin America today, it seems, still depends on being born a specific race, in a particular place, and within a certain kind of family.
Lastly, CFR’s independent Task Force report “Global Brazil and U.S.-Brazil Relations” argues that the U.S. must take Brazil seriously as the newest pillar in a multipolar world.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
U.S. President Barack Obama and Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff toast during lunch in Brasilia (Ho New/Courtesy Reuters).
Today the Council on Foreign Relations is releasing its independent Task Force report, “Global Brazil and U.S.-Brazil Relations”. I sat in as an observer for the Task Force, ably led by co-chairs Samuel W. Bodman — former Secretary of Energy under George W. Bush — and James D. Wolfensohn — chairman of Citigroup’s international advisory board and former president of the World Bank Group — and directed by my CFR colleague, Julia Sweig. The project’s 30 participants hail from diverse backgrounds, some old Brazil hands and others with functional and/or wide-ranging expertise. Needless to say, the four meetings that took place over the course of a year yielded a stimulating and fruitful dialogue. Although there were some differences of opinion among Task Force members (some of which are noted in the additional comments and dissents section of the report), everyone agreed to Brazil’s rising importance.
We addressed a wide range of issues, including Brazil’s economic health, its energy agenda, its role as a dominant regional power and its relationship with the U.S. government. The report’s core recommendations focus on deepening cooperation between Brazil and the United States so that both can more effectively advance their common interests (and better manage areas where we might come into conflict). In particular, the Task Force points to Chinese monetary policy, climate change mitigation, the expansion of the biofuels industry and regional counternarcotics policy as issue areas that provide opportunities for bilateral cooperation. It calls for Washington to better appreciate Brasilia’s increasing potential as a global strategic ally. As a sign of goodwill, the Task Force recommends a particular concrete step: fully endorsing Brazil as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
The report’s most basic takeaway is that Brazil is the newest pillar in a multipolar world and must be treated as such. Slotted to become the world’s fifth largest economy within the next decade, it grew at a stunning pace of 7.5% in 2010 (whether this is sustainable remains a big question mark), and is expected to expand 4.5% this year. Unemployment and inequality — perennial concerns for the nation—have fallen. Still, Brazil’s economic outlook is not entirely rosy. In the short to medium term, rising exchange rates and inflation threaten Brazil’s growth. Decrepit infrastructure and an overwhelmed public education system threaten its longer term competitiveness. Whether Brazil can take on these myriad obstacles effectively remains to be seen.
Whatever its economic future may hold, the Task Force report is worth a full read, as it provides important insights and ideas on how both Brazil and the U.S. can manage the challenges that lie ahead, and the U.S.-Brazil relationship, for the better of both nations.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Venezuelan President Chavez looks on as his Brazilian counterpart Lula da Silva speaks during their meeting at Miraflores Palace in Caracas in July, 2010 (Jorge Silva/Courtesy Reuters).
Jorge Dominguez’s recent testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere gives an overview of Latin America’s progress toward democratic consolidation in recent history, and the role the international community has played in this slow, but steady, march.
Time and America’s Quarterly have two good pieces on Mexico’s state level elections last weekend. While both rightly focus on the PRI’s strength coming out of the election, it didn’t win everywhere. The party lost nine municipalities it previously held in the state of Hidalgo, due in large part to successful alliances between the PAN and PRD. Meanwhile, the PRD mayor of Mexico City urges that these ties must become stronger to give his party and its allies a fighting chance in the 2012 presidential elections.
A recent New York Times article looks at the current state of illegal immigration from Mexico to the U.S., highlighting how changing dynamics within both countries dissuade Mexicans from crossing the border illegally. This discussion addresses issues I raised in the past, namely changing demographics and new economic realities, including the rise of the middle class in Mexico and the region more broadly.
Lastly, for readers worried about Brazil’s overheating, this Economist graph won’t calm your fears.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Thousands of commuters pack the Se metro subway station in Sao Paulo (Paulo Whitaker / Courtesy Reuters).
Two recent studies look at the rise of Latin America’s middle class. The first, by ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean), shows that nearly across the board, the share of Latin America’s middle has expanded (the exceptions being Argentina, where it shrank and Colombia, where it held steady). The second study from Brookings places Latin America in a global comparison and looks toward the future. Here, they define the middle class on global terms, as those that earn enough to be above the poverty line in the two advanced European countries with the lowest poverty lines (Portugal and Italy) and earn less than double the median income of Luxemburg (the richest advanced country). Again the Latin American metrics are impressive. Using 2005 numbers, it finds the middle class now comprises over half of the population in four countries: Mexico (61 percent), Uruguay (56), Argentina (52), and Costa Rica (52). Data since then show that Brazil too has crossed this threshold. Impressive too are the results of their simulations for the future – even in their more conservative estimates, most Latin American countries will become solidly middle class over the next two decades (the current leaders overwhelmingly so).
Three interesting points come out of these studies. First, it reaffirms Latin America’s increasingly positive economic story. In addition to exports, Latin American countries can increasingly rely on domestic consumption to fuel economic growth and advance well-being.
Second, on these metrics Latin American nations far outpace China and India. While the absolute numbers of the middle class in these Asian giants are substantial, as a percentage of the overall population they remain miniscule – a paltry 3.8 percent in China and 2.5 percent in India. And they aren’t likely to catch up any time soon. Even in the best case scenarios this gap won’t close for two decades. This vast difference – and the structural ramifications for these economies – grants Latin America a potential competitive edge in today’s globalized world.
Finally, if the old truism holds, the rising middle class should be good for democracy. Preliminary evidence suggests that this is indeed the case. The expansion of the middle class and of democracy have coincided in most places in the region. But more telling than this correlation, policies favored by the middle – health care, security, education, and general economic openness – are increasingly on the political agenda, suggesting that the votes of this group matter. These dual trends hold out the hope that an expanding middle can provide both more resources to the state (through increased tax intakes) and demand greater accountability and transparency of their respective governments, deepening democracy in the process.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Plans for a $340 million overhaul of Rio de Janeiro's iconic Maracana stadium are among those behind schedule for the World Cup (Sergio Moraes / Courtesy Reuters).
The UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) released its report on foreign direct investment (FDI), with generally good news for Latin America. While 2010 investment worldwide was fairly flat (and fell in developed economies), it soared forty percent in the region – reaching nearly $113 billion. Of the just over a trillion in worldwide flows, Latin America captured a tenth of the total (and over twenty percent of that invested in emerging economies).
These investments were divided between natural resources, domestic market players, and outsourcing venues. Within the region the biggest winners were Brazil (nearly doubling to $48.5 billion), followed by Mexico ($17.7 billion) and Chile ($15.1 billion). And, according to ECLAC, the trend is set to continue – it expects FDI to the region to rise a further fifteen to twenty-five percent in 2011.
A few interesting trends jump out of the data. One is the geographic pull of the Southern Cone. While investment in Mexico and Central America increased, the real upswing occurred in South America—almost four times as much. Brazil and Chile gained the most, but Peru, Bolivia and Argentina all saw large inflows. Only in the Caribbean did FDI actually fall.
You also see quite stark differences in the type of investment. In South America nearly a majority of FDI poured into natural resources—oil, gas, copper, iron, and soya. Further north, a greater share of the money went into manufacturing. There the biggest winners were Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic – all countries with free trade agreements with the United States (NAFTA and CAFTA). These trends, if they continue, suggest long-term structural economic differences may develop between the north and the south of the hemisphere.
The report also provides some context for the much-touted (and in some quarters much feared) rise in Chinese investment. It has indeed increased: last year China invested twice as much in Latin America as it did over the previous two decades combined. Directed almost solely at natural resources, it is also geographically concentrated, with most going to just three countries – Brazil, Argentina and Peru.
But the data reveals that China is still just the third largest investor — behind the U.S. and the Netherlands (the latter’s investment bumped up significantly last year due to Heineken’s acquisition of Mexico’s FEMSA brewery). Interestingly, China trails the combined Latin American investment in the region. Taken together, multilatina outlays hit a record $43 billion – almost triple China’s $15 billion contribution. These investments were more apt to go into financial services, retail, and utilities – value-added activities with more positive trickle down effects for the broader economy. This suggests Latin American nations should be more enthusiastic about trade missions from their neighbors than from China.
The report also hints at the hurdles the region continues to face. The proportion of investment in high tech fell far short of its global competitors—only eight percent compared to fifty-two percent among the Asian Tigers—and limited mostly to Brazil and Mexico. The region has a lot to do to upgrade educational systems and its workforce in general to change this balance.
And, with the exception of perhaps some smaller island economies, FDI isn’t going to be the ticket to the big time. It can’t make up for domestic savings and investment. In the end, growth will have to come from home. Nevertheless, these flows can provide a leg up if these nations can translate this investment into productive growth.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
