La Alianza del Pacífico y los éxitos que los países pueden alcanzar individualmente

El 23 de mayo, Chile, Colombia, Perú y México, los 4 miembros fundadores de la Alianza del Pacífico, se reúnen en Cali, Colombia, para su séptima cumbre presidencial en solo dos años. Se unirán a otras nueve naciones observadoras: Canadá, Costa Rica, Guatemala y Uruguay, del hemisferio occidental, así como Australia, Japón, Nueva Zelanda y España. El rápido progreso de la Alianza desde su creación en Lima, Perú, en abril de 2011, dibuja un claro contraste con las iniciativas de comercio global actuales. A pesar de la victoria del brasileño Roberto Azevedo para liderar Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC), el Círculo Comercial de Doha todavía necesita asistencia, pocas esperanzas de que esas negociaciones terminen en futuro próximo. Muchos acuerdos comerciales relacionados con América Latina también se encuentran en una pausa (véase el hace tiempo atascado pacto Mercosur con Unión Europea). Pero la naturaleza de la Alianza, concentrada en los resultados, ha generado la expectativa que esta iniciativa será mucho más exitosa que las ya existentes, y le preceden numerosos intentos para la integración regional de América Latina. La nueva alianza equilibra la posición geográfica de cada uno de sus miembros para integrar de manera más efectiva a las naciones en la nueva economía del Pacífico, mientras que las posiciona como nuevo nexo entre Asia y el resto de economías de América Latina. En la consecución de este objetivo, el compromiso que comparten las Alianzas del Pacífico con el libre mercado les distingue de países como Argentina y Venezuela, mercados potencialmente atractivos, carentes del suficiente respeto por la propiedad privada y el Estado de Derecho, como para facilitar la gran inversión de dólares en transacciones comerciales y flujos de capital que implica la inmersión en la nueva economía del Pacífico. A nivel funcional, la Alianza ha seguido pasos prácticos para lograr objetivos sensatos. La formación del Mercado Integrado de América Latina (MILA), a través del vínculo de mayo 2011 entre mercados bursátiles de Chile, Colombia, Perú fue un facilitador importante de la capitalización del nuevo bloque, asegurando que su recursos pudieran fluir de manera sencilla y barata hacia donde pueden ser más efectivos, con la confianza de que se pueden retirar según sea necesario (…..)

Link: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/05/23/actualidad/1369319917_273516.html

Economy needs both Reform and Investment

One way President Barack Obama can begin to put the IRS scandal behind him is by proposing a comprehensive tax reform. Beyond usual Washington theatrics, real problem is that the U.S. tax code is unbelievably complicated, clocking in around 74.000 pages, with all rulings, regulations and other material. The greater the complexity, broader bureaucrats’ powers to determine status of an individual, a corporation or association. A radically simplified tax code, even one that raised more revenue, would be good politics, good economics. (source: by Fareed Zakaria – The Washington Post – 23/05/2013)

U.S. tax code is at the heart of a system of institutionalized, legal corruption. Code is so vast because companies, industries and lobbying groups receive special preferences in return for campaign contributions, a cash-for-favors scheme Washington would denounce as crony capitalism in any Third World country. You can see the corruption at work in the fierce opposition to efforts to lower the corporate tax rate. After demanding this reduction for years, companies are now lobbying hard, and spending heavily, to retain their own special tax breaks, which is what drove rates up in the first place. Corruption aside, consider the economic costs of the gargantuan tax code. At 4 million words, it is multiple times larger than those of France and Germany. In 2010, Americans spent $168 billion to comply with the code. Last year taxpayers made 90 million calls to IRS toll-free telephone number asking for help.

In World Bank’s 2013 “Doing Business” report, the United States ranks a woeful 69th in the category of paying taxes. In Michael Porter’s survey of 10.000 graduates of the Harvard Business School, published in January 2012, the U.S. tax code was named the biggest drawback to doing business compared with other countries. The respondents recommended “simplifying the code” five times as often as they suggested “reducing taxes.” In our ongoing, spirited debate about austerity programs, the data are increasingly convincing that the Keynesians have been right. As someone who has long been advocating big investments in infrastructure, job-training and science, I’m delighted. But case against austerity is turning into the case against reform. Some of the most eloquent anti-austerity voices, including Paul Krugman in his influential blog, are dismissing the idea that there is any need for structural reforms, that these are effectively plans that will hurt workers and help greedy capitalists. But the record of past several decades shows that structural reforms, often induced by a crisis, have been a crucial path to growth. After the Asian economic crisis, the countries that opened up their economies grew strongly. Chile’s reforms in 1980s and 1990s set the stage for its long boom. Mexico’s reforms over past decade are paying off. One of the reasons that rich countries such as Canada, Germany and Sweden are doing so well these days is that, in the wake of their own economic crises in the 1990s, they undertook major, market-friendly reforms, and made their welfare states more sustainable. Changes in policy were relevant to countries’ subsequent success.

In Europe, countries such as Greece and Italy will not get sustained growth simply from stimulus spending and easy money. Most have rigid labor markets, high labor costs and inefficient and protected industries and guilds. Without change, these economies might get a temporary boost but will remain uncompetitive in a long run. Italy ranks 73rd on “Doing Business” survey, behind most emerging markets. In Greece’s vast state-owned industries, workers used to labor for 35 hours a week but were paid for 14 months a year and could retire with full pensions in their 50s. Did none of this have to change? Story of Japan’s stagnation over the last two decades is complicated. But some part of Japan’s failure to sustain growth was that it never reformed its protected industries, agriculture and retail chief among them. Between 1991 and 2008, Japanese government spent $6.3 trillion on construction, more than the total size of its economy. That’s why Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been clear that to enable Japan to sustain its current revival, he wants to make the changes that his nation was unwilling to make in the last decade. It is true that many of the people urging austerity programs were also urging the countries to engage in structural reforms. But the two are not connected. Is it possible to be in favor of investment and reform. In fact, that’s exactly what United States needs to ensure the next generation of growth.