The strange and misunderstood reasons for the Brazilian crisis

Brazil is a mess. The economy is collapsing, with an estimated decline of about 3.5% in GDP this year (perhaps worse), and inflation has accelerated, to two digit levels, way above what used to be the upper limit of the inflation target band. Worse, politically the country is paralyzed, with an impeachment process in course with a very uncertain outcome.

The conventional view is sort of split on why this happened. Some suggest that it was the slowdown of the international economy, and the decline in commodity prices, that forced Brazil to adjust (for example, that would be Simon Romero's story in the NYTimes, if you add corruption to the mix; more on that below). The alternative is more explicit about the negative effects of the Workers' Party (PT in Portuguese) policies, suggesting that they reduced confidence and, hence, investment (something along these lines can be seen in the Wall Street opinion pages; see here; subscription required).

In the policy/confidence variation version the argument is that the government spent too much, in particular, in the second Lula administration, and more so in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis. There was an attempt to reduce fiscal spending with Dilma Rousseff's election (in this interpretation mostly disguising the spending with creative accounting, more on that below), but that was temporary, and only after Dilma's reelection did the fiscal problems became unsustainable and required adjustment.

Both stories are flawed. First, even though the global economy is growing slowly, and some peripheral economies like China are also slowing down, Brazil has no clear external problem. Current account is negative, but the country is in no danger of an external crisis or default on its foreign obligations, in particular because it is sitting on a huge pile of international reserves. As I noted before Standard & Poor's actually agrees with that view on the justification that they used to reduce Brazilian grading status (last week Fitch's followed the lead and also downgraded Brazil's debt), since they do not cite the external situation as a problem.

So the notion that Brazil needed a fiscal adjustment, to throw the country in a recession, and reduce imports, and solve the external problem seems unfounded. The same is true for the notion that a huge depreciation of the real was needed. In fact, the depreciation has only contributed to the acceleration of inflation, with no impact on the external accounts. Exports have tanked (since the global economy is not doing well), and so did imports (given the recession). Inflation will also have a significant impact on real wages, and will worsen income distribution (which had improved during the PT administration).

But what about the internal problems (both S&P and Fitch actually do blame the fiscal problems). This arguments is even worse, and has some serious logical limitations. Note that this suggests that fiscal deficits in domestic currency might be unsustainable and that inflation results from excessive demand associated to too much government spending. I have discussed this several times in the blog, so I won't delve too much into it.

There is no way a country can default on debt in its own currency. By definition you can  always print money. And yes inflation might follow, but not because printing money causes inflation. The economy is generally, and certainly Brazil is not, at full employment. Hence, money printing might lead to more spending and more output, not inflation. However, another effect might be a fear of depreciation, and a run for dollars, and the depreciation might have an inflationary impact.

In other words, the reasons for austerity are not connected really to fear of domestic default. Austerity could be used to solve a current account problem, which is not the case in Brazil, as we saw, or it might be a way of leading to a recession, increasing unemployment and reducing the bargaining power of workers, as Kalecki noted long ago. It is a way to discipline the labor class. And that is what is going on in Brazil (on the slowdown of the economy essentially following the same argument see this paper by Serrano and Summa).

The government could actually spend itself out of the recession (don't worry, it won't). And by the way, since revenue responds to the level of activity, the fiscal outlook would improve. So if the Brazilian crisis is not external and is not fiscal, what caused this crisis. It is a self-imposed political crisis. The relevant question is why is this policy implemented by a left-of center government.

One has to first remember that on some level PT always accepted the conventional thinking when it came to fiscal issues. Lula famously said in his letter to the Brazilian people that he wanted "fiscal equilibrium to be able to grow," suggesting that he had incorporated the notion of contractionary expansion. But, in all fairness, there was some dissent within the party, and with the Plan of Acceleration of Growth (PAC in Portuguese) and, in particular, after the 2008 crisis, it seemed that PT was ready to use government spending to promote economic development. So why after winning the close election last year, in which Dilma decried the economic program of the Social Democratic Party of Brazil (PSDB in Portuguese) did she essentially adopted it?

It is clear that part of the government accepted that fiscal expansion had gone too far, and that workers' demand, and the real wages, were too high. The political pressure was certainly felt, and in addition the nagging issue of corruption might have also played a role. Also, for some reason the so-called New Economic Matrix (which in my view, I might be wrong) was very conventional, trying to reduce interest rates and promoting a moderate fiscal adjustment was seen as a failure for the wrong reasons. The lower interest rates, and the more depreciated currency should have stimulated growth, while the adjustment should have controlled prices. Obviously this New Developmentalist idea failed, since depreciation fueled inflation (which wasn't high, just at the higher end of the target at around 6.5%) and the economy slowed down.

However, the lesson taken from this experiment was that the government lost credibility, since the fiscal adjustment wasn't strong enough and the delays in the payments to public banks (the infamous 'pedaladas'), in particular the development bank (BNDES in Portuguese), were behind the crisis. In this view all depends on 'confidence fairies.' That is, the lack of confidence reduced domestic investment, and lower growth. A terrible side effect of the generalized acceptance of this view is that now the political use by the opposition of the delays in payments to the public banks, something that was not new, in the impeachment procedures will create a permanent legacy, reducing the ability of future governments trying to pursue expansionist policies.

Finally, a word on the issue of corruption. Yes, there is a significant corruption scandal in Brazil, and before anybody complains, I do hope they get everybody and that the people that are proven guilty end up in paying the price (jail presumably; by the way, if they had something on the president it would have been used for impeachment, rather than a bureaucratic budget issue). I just want to note that there is no evidence (I haven't seen any credible evidence at least) that corruption is worse now, than say with the military back in the 60s and 70s, when most of the connections with big construction firms started. Also, the problems at the state oil company (Petrobras) being investigated go at least back to the Cardoso government. And corruption is not a problem of the government coalition per se. Members of the opposition are involved too, and an impeachment would actually bring to power some of the most evidently corrupt politicians in the country. In that sense, if corruption has not changed, it can hardly be seen as having caused the economic situation. Corruption is just one of the elements used by political groups to obtain advantages.

The problems of corruption that matter in Brazil are associated to the fact that one cannot govern without basically paying for political favors in congress and that means paying the main political force there, the Brazilian Democratic Party Movement (PMDB in Portuguese). It is well known, for example, that Cardoso payed for changing the constitution and allowing his re-election, to cite an example that is old enough, and not connected to the current government. But the country did grow significantly in the past, in spite of corruption.

And, by the way, the changes in the Finance Ministry, with the appointment of my ex-classmate (at all levels, undergraduate, master's and PhD courses) Nelson Barbosa, are unlikely to lead to any significant changes. The fiscal adjustment will continue as he very clearly announced.