In 2022 the economic pie increased and yet
the distribution was worse
.
The number of poor is greater and that only means that the benefits of the growth of 5.2% of the GDP did not reach the pockets.
The last time a similar pattern was registered in Argentina -
economy and poverty growing
-, it happened with the government of Carlos Menem.
Then, from 1999 to 2021, in all the years in which there was expansion of economic activity, poverty fell.
With the Kirchner government, that line is now being broken
.
Yesterday INDEC published that the rate that measures the number of people living in poverty went from 37.3% to 39.2% between 2021 and 2022. Per capita income (GDP per capita) rose 3% according to statistics from the International Monetary Fund.
“GDP measures the formal economy, which grew and more or less follows inflation behind.
The poor live off the income from informality that is not reflected in the GDP,” explains Jorge Colina, an economist at Idesa.
In 2022 the wages of informal workers rose 65.4%.
The poverty line 112%.
The year in which a similar behavior was registered was 1996: per capita income increased 4.3% and poverty rose to 43.6% (from 42%) according to a long series prepared by the Center for Distributive, Labor and Sociales of the University of La Plata (indec poverty gave it 27.9% but also increasing).
In 1996 the economy emerged from what was called the Tequila Effect, a banking crisis in Mexico as a result of the devaluation of its currency, which ended up having an impact on emerging and leveraged economies such as Argentina at that time.
The country recovered quickly from that ups and downs. But the sequels remained
.
Between 1996 and 1999 came a period of growth at Chinese rates, but its benefits did not spill over to the poorest.
Unemployment increased 6 percentage points in two years.
Some 500,000 jobs disappeared in 24 months.
The proportion of the population with work fell 2 points.
Precariousness among the employed increased more than 7 points.
All while the economy was growing, expanding and inflation was almost zero (at times there was even deflation).
Until 1999, the year in which per capita income contracted 4.4% (and would do so for four consecutive years).
Menem managed to keep the economy going until the end of his term.
Not only thanks to the fact that they lent him money, but also because the impact of the devaluation of the real hit him just before leaving.
Otherwise he would have ended up like Kirchnerism: recession, poverty and allegations of corruption.