October, 18 2019, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Dan Beeton, 202-239-1460
New Report Reviews Changes in Bolivia's Economy under Evo Morales's Presidency
Bolivian Economy Has Been the Fastest-Growing in South America While Following Heterodox Policies
WASHINGTON
A new research report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) analyzes Bolivia's economic changes since 2006 in the context of the Bolivian government's main policy decisions. It finds that it has been policy choices, not merely a "commodities boom," that have been the driving force in Bolivia's surge to be the fastest-growing economy in South America over the past five years. Strong economic growth has allowed Bolivia to reduce poverty by 42 percent and extreme poverty by 60 percent since President Evo Morales took office in 2006.
"Bolivia has shown that it is possible for a small, poor country in South America to make substantial economic and social progress, with macroeconomic stability, solid income growth and redistribution, through a mix of state-led, heterodox economic policies, and markets," said Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director of CEPR and a co-author of the paper.
Notably, the Bolivian government ended 20 years of IMF agreements in 2006; many of the policies responsible for Bolivia's economic success since 2006 were previously opposed by the IMF, including most importantly the renationalization of hydrocarbons (also opposed by former president Carlos Mesa, as the IMF noted in 2005).
The report finds that:
- By 2018, real GDP per capita had increased by 50 percent above its 2005 level. While the region overall has experienced a sharp slowdown over the last five years, Bolivia's per capital GDP growth was the highest in South America. Since 2006, Bolivia's real per capita GDP has grown at double the rate for Latin America.
- In the first eight years of the Morales administration, national government revenue from hydrocarbons increased nearly sevenfold, from $731 million to $4.95 billion. Most of the increased revenue resulted from nationalization and associated policy changes, including a doubling of production by 2013. These revenues were central to allowing the government to achieve macroeconomic stability and accomplish most of its other goals.
- Bolivia's unemployment was nearly halved (from 7.7 percent to 4.4 percent) in 2008, and has continued at roughly around that level through 2018.
- Bolivia has recently held investment at very high levels as compared to the past, with investment averaging 21.8 percent of GDP annually in the past five years (2014-2018).
- Public investment has increased with the growth of Bolivia's economy, even during periods of unfavorable terms of trade. Bolivia has had the highest public investment, as a percent of GDP, in the region.
- Starting in 2010, Bolivia's Central Bank has applied unconventional monetary policy through a quantitative easing program, in order to purchase financial instruments issued by state-owned enterprises as well as government bonds. In December, 2018, almost half (44 percent) of the Central Bank's balance sheet was invested in domestic assets (up from 12 percent in 2010).
The paper also notes that "significant challenges remain," in diversifying Bolivia's export markets and products and reducing current account and public sector deficits, but that Bolivia's public debt is fully sustainable.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380LATEST NEWS
'Truly Disturbing': FEC Republicans Vote Unanimously to Give Even More Shadow to 'Dark Money'
"Preventing the disclosure of the sources of political spending would deprive voters of critical information and undermine the essential need for checks on monetary power," warned one democracy watchdog.
May 17, 2024
All three Republican members of the Federal Election Commission on Thursday voted in favor of a new rule change that would have made it even easier for right-wing megadonors to hide their political campaign contributions from public view.
While the three Democratic members forced a deadlocked vote that prevented passage of the proposal, pro-democracy watchdogs said the unanimous vote by the Republican-appointed members shows the powerful commitment by GOP forces to increase the ability for wealthy individuals and corporate interests to mask their political giving.
FEC chairman Sean Cooksey was joined by his two Republican colleagues Allen Dickerson and James "Trey" Trainor III in backing the measure, but all three Democrats—Commissioners Shana Broussard, Dara Lindenbaum, and vice chair Ellen Weintraub—voted against to nullify it.
The proposal, Sludgereported earlier this week, would "supercharge" the flow of so-called "dark money" in political campaigns and was proposed by Dickerson, a Trump-nominated member who "previously worked at an anti-campaign finance regulation organization funded by conservative political megadonors."
"As democracy faces its biggest test yet around the world, it is difficult to believe that the world's oldest democracy is even considering further eroding the public's right to know who is influencing their elections."
Dickerson's proposed rule change, per the FEC, would have allowed advocacy groups or campaigns to "withhold, redact, or modify contributors’ identifying information in campaign finance disclosure reports"—reports currently mandated so that the public is made aware of who is funding such organizations.
Ahead of the vote, Scott Greytak, director of advocacy for Transparency International U.S., said the implications if it passed would reach far beyond the United States.
"With half of the world's population living in countries that will hold a nationwide vote this year, the United States must embody and exemplify the importance of transparent and informed elections," Greytak said in a statement opposing the proposal. "As democracy faces its biggest test yet around the world, it is difficult to believe that the world's oldest democracy is even considering further eroding the public's right to know who is influencing their elections."
In a May 2 memo detailing his argument in favor of exempting donors from mandated disclosure requirements, Dickerson claims it is "a Constitutional right" because "Americans are entitled to make political contributions without being attacked, threatened, or fired."
In view of such arguments, which right-wing forces have made for some time, Stuart McPhail, director of campaign finance litigation with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), has explained why such bad-faith misdirection is an effort to obscure what's really going on.
While it's true that some groups historically were granted exemptions for donor disclosures—including the NAACP and the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), whose supporters and members faced coordinated, state-sponsored violence due to their political activities—claims like the one Dickerson makes, McPhail contends, fails on various merits.
"Campaign finance disclosure does not subject any viewpoint to discriminatory burdens," McPhail explained in a 2022 blog post. "Rather, the aim of the laws has nothing to do with expression at all: they target transfers of wealth that could be and are used to corruptly influence officials, defraud voters and undermine democracy. Rather than state-sponsored suppression, dark money funders face criticism from concerned and less powerful citizens."
It should be clear, he continued, that powerful "Dark money groups, their donors, and the candidates are trying to evade responsibility, not prevent retaliation." When people like Dickerson make such moves, argued McPhail, they are trying to help groups and their allies "to avoid accountability by hiding their donors and silencing critics who may speak out against them."
This is why Thursday's votes in favor of such a proposal, said Craig Holman, Ph.D., a government ethics expert with Public Citizen, should be viewed with alarm.
"Commissioners of the FEC, regardless of party affiliation, have always defended the need for disclosure of campaign money sources – until now," Holman said following the 3-3 vote. "Preventing the disclosure of the sources of political spending would deprive voters of critical information and undermine the essential need for checks on monetary power. It is truly disturbing to see half of the Commission now undermining that core principle, which is so important to an open democratic society."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shameful': 16 Dems Help GOP Pass Israel Security Assistance Support Act
Even if the bill passes the Senate, President Joe Biden has threatened to veto it.
May 16, 2024
Despite U.S. President Joe Biden's threat to veto the Israel Security Assistance Support Act, 16 Democrats in the House of Representatives on Thursday voted alongside 208 Republicans to pass the bill, which will now head to the Senate.
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense Chair Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) introduced H.R. 8369, which his office claimed "curbs President Biden's misguided efforts to withhold critical security resources appropriated in U.S. law by compelling the delivery of defense weapons to Israel as they fight to protect themselves against radical terrorists."
The House vote was 224-187, with only three GOP members opposing the legislation—Reps. Warren Davidson (Ohio), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), and Thomas Massie (Ky.)—and six Republicans and 13 Democrats not voting.
The Democrats who supported the bill are Reps. Matt Cartwright (Pa.), Angie Craig (Minn.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (N.C.), Lois Frankel (Fla.), Jared Golden (Maine), Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), Greg Landsman (Ohio), Jared Moskowitz (Fla.), Frank Pallone (N.J.), Mary Sattler Peltola (Alaska), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), David Scott (Ga.), Darren Soto (Fla.), Thomas Suozzi (N.Y.), and Ritchie Torres (N.Y.).
"These are the fringe extremists of the Democratic Party."
"These 16 House Democrats just voted with Republicans to ignore U.S. human rights law and fast-track weapons to Israel," the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project said on social media, listing the lawmakers. "Shameful."
Noting that the bill would cut off funds from the National Security Council as well as the Defense and State departments until withheld weapons were sent to Israel, Justice Democrats declared, "These are the fringe extremists of the Democratic Party."
While generally supporting Israel's seven-month assault of the Gaza Strip—as critics worldwide decry it as genocide—Biden has recently halted the delivery of some weapons and threatened to withhold more from the Middle East ally, which has now killed over 35,272 Palestinians in the Hamas-governed enclave and wounded another 79,205, according to local officials.
The White House said in a statement earlier this week that the Biden administration "strongly opposes H.R. 8369," which "would undermine the president's ability to execute an effective foreign policy" and "could raise serious concerns about infringement on the president's authorities under Article II of the Constitution."
"The bill is a misguided reaction to a deliberate distortion of the administration's approach to Israel. The president has been clear: We will always ensure Israel has what it needs to defend itself. Our commitment to Israel is ironclad," the White House asserted. "The administration will continue to use all funds appropriated for Israel consistent with legal requirements, including in the recent supplemental, rendering this bill unnecessary and unwise."
"Furthermore, this bill, if enacted, could lead to spiraling unintended consequences, prohibiting the United States from adjusting our security assistance posture with respect to Israel in any way, including to address unanticipated emergent needs, even if Israel and the United States agree that military needs have changed and supplies should change accordingly," the White House warned.
The president has faced mounting pressure—including from some Democrats in Congress—to limit or fully cut off U.S. weapons to Israel, as rights groups have documented Israeli forces' use of American arms to commit alleged war crimes.
Despite such evidence, the Biden administration concluded in a report to Congress last week that Israeli government assurances about U.S. weapons use are "credible and reliable so as to allow the provision of defense articles" to continue.
Politicopointed out Thursday that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) signaled the chamber may not even take up the measure, saying that "the president has already said he'd veto it, so it's not going anywhere," while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) pledged that "we will sustain the president's veto, as we have done consistently throughout the 118th Congress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Jews for Jamaal' and Squad Push Back Against AIPAC Attack on Bowman
"It's our duty to fight back," said Rep. Summer Lee, arguing that no super PAC "should be able to drop millions to usurp the conversation for their agenda."
May 16, 2024
As the leading U.S. pro-Israel lobby's political action committee unleashes a nearly $2 million ad blitz targeting Congressman Jamaal Bowman, Jewish allies of the New York Democrat—who is an outspoken critic of what he and many experts call Israel's genocide in Gaza—on Thursday joined progressive lawmakers in condemning right-wing efforts to defeat pro-Palestine incumbents.
United Democracy Project (UDP), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) super PAC, has booked $1.9 million in television ads to influence the outcome of the Democratic primary in New York's 16th Congressional District, according to Wednesday reporting by Sludge's David Moore.
"This new ad spending in New York shows once and for all that my opponent, George Latimer, is bankrolled by a right-wing super PAC that has received over $40 million from Republican megadonors who want to defend Republican insurrectionists, overturn voting rights, and ban abortion nationwide," Bowman said in a statement.
"Democrats across New York deserve better, and will reject these attempts to buy our elections and undermine our democracy," he added.
Jews for Jamaal, a pro-Bowman coalition spearheaded by the group Jews for Racial & Economic Justice Action, said in a statement that "we recognize this media blitz for what it is: a desperate move by powerful interests to silence the district's first Black representative in history."
"UDP is overwhelmingly spending its millions in Democratic primaries, mostly against Black and brown Democratic incumbents who speak out against war and for the human rights of Palestinians," the coalition continued. "This massive amount of spending distorts the political landscape, drowning out the needs and voices of everyday constituents with the interests of a few wealthy donors."
"It undermines the very foundation of our democracy, which must be built on the principles of transparency, accountability, and genuine representation," Jews for Jamaal added.
As more and more Democrats speak out against Israel's assault on Gaza—which according to Palestinian health officials has killed, maimed, or left missing more than 125,000 people—and violent repression by Israeli soldiers and settlers in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, AIPAC has lashed out at even the mildest criticism of Israeli government policies and practices, which many experts around the world call genocidal.
Last November, Slate's Alex Sammon reported that UDP was set to spend approximately $100 million in a bid to unseat both pro-Palestine congressional progressives and more moderate Democratic candidates who the powerful lobby group believes don't sufficiently support Israel. Sammon said that Bowman, along with fellow "Squad" members Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), and Summer Lee (D-Pa.) are among UDP's top targets.
Some of those lawmakers also rallied to Bowman's defense on Thursday.
"It's our duty to fight back," Lee said on social media. "As somebody who knows these folks intimately, I can speak to the damage UDP causes not just to the candidates they target and smear, but to the communities attached to us and democracy itself."
The congresswoman—who won her primary last month—continued:
Their campaign against me in 2022 was steeped in dog whistles and disinformation. Their most shameful million-dollar attack against me was just unsubtly implying I was a [former U.S. President Donald] Trump supporter... in mailers where my skin was oddly shadowed or darker. For three weeks, they plastered the airwaves and mailboxes in wall-to-wall attacks that overwhelmed our midsized media market. Cable and broadcast, digital and streaming... even children's programming on YouTube was targeted.
Omar asserted on social media that "a people-powered movement will always be stronger than special interest groups."
"We got your back, Jamaal Bowman," she added.
Bush said that Latimer "is being used as a Trojan Horse for far-right billionaires and anti-abortion extremists."
"But from the Bronx to St. Louis, we won't let them win," she vowed.
Bowman, in turn, posted in support of Bush, whom he pledged to defend against "Republican billionaires... coming for her."
Last month, another coalition—the youth-led Protect Our Power campaign—was launched in support of progressive congressional incumbents under attack by AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups.
"The only thing that beats organized money is organized people," the young organizers said at the time. "Fortunately, that's what we know how to do best."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular