Paul Krugman reacciona a un artículo en el Wall Street Journal publicando este gráfico sobre la evolución del crecimiento económico de Chile:
Luego comenta:
The way the story is told now, the free-market guys moved in, liberalized, and then there was a boom. (...) Actually, as you can see from the chart above, what happened was this: Chile had a huge economic crisis in the early 70s, which was, yes, partly due to Allende and the accompanying turmoil. Then the country experienced a recovery driven in large part by massive capital inflows, which mostly consisted of making up the lost ground. Then there was a huge crisis again in the early 1980s — part of the broader Latin debt crisis, but Chile was hit much worse than other major players. It wasn’t until the late 1980s, by which time the hard-line free-market policies had been considerably softened, that Chile finally moved definitively ahead of where it had been in the early 70s.
Tyler Cowen contesta:
It's (...) incorrect to argue that the boom starting in the late 1980s stemmed from the considerable softening of hard-line free-market policies. More accurately, Chile increased its international credibility by becoming democratic, while showing that elections would likely leave the core economic reforms intact.
No os perdáis en la discusión en Marginal Revolution los informados comentarios del chileno Edgardo Barandiarán (su descripción en tres partes del progreso de Chile, así como sus respuestas posteriores a otros comentaristas).
(HT: Rallo)
