This paper examines whether Brazil's much-publicized economic progress under President Luiz Lula constituted genuine transformation or a superficial continuation of existing neoliberal policies. Drawing on the work of Hunter, Perlman, and Amaral, the paper traces Brazil's political economy from the Cardoso era through Lula's two terms, exploring why a president elected on a socialist mandate ultimately maintained orthodox macroeconomic policies. Key factors include Brazil's dependence on foreign investment, the absence of a credible socialist reform alternative following the collapse of communism, and persistent poverty and social inequality despite apparent macroeconomic stability. The paper concludes that economic stability under Lula came at the cost of meaningful reform for Brazil's poorest citizens.
Brazil has been portrayed as a symbol of progress in recent times. It has been compared with major developing powers such as India and China, but important questions arise: can we really trust these media reports? Is Brazil actually as significant an economic power as the media claims? Has President Luiz Lula's continuation of neoliberal economic policies actually benefited the country in terms of employment and overall growth?
Hunter, Perlman, and Amaral seem to disagree. They examine the growth of Brazil's economy over the past decade and more, and conclude that while Lula was expected to turn around the country's economic condition, he ultimately failed to bring any real change. Crippling poverty has found no relief, social disparities abound, and national debt remains a major issue.
The 2002 election marked a prominent and positive shift in the country's political thinking. Brazil, which had long resisted a socialist agenda, finally elected a former union leader with strong socialist inclinations. The Workers' Party (PT) had consistently opposed President Cardoso's economic policies and championed socialist reforms. The very fact that Brazilians elected a president with a socialist mandate indicated that the country was ready for serious change.
Cardoso had not been an outright failure in economic terms. His policies initially had a positive impact on an already battered economy. He inherited massive national debt and an intractable inflation rate, and as Foreign Minister and later as President, Cardoso was able to contain inflation and increase foreign investment. However, the effects of these measures were short-lived, and Brazil clearly needed more — particularly in terms of improvements in wages, employment, and education. By the end of his term, Cardoso's economic policies had become a sore point with voters, and both Lula and his rival José Serra — the candidate Cardoso himself had supported — chose to distance themselves from his record.
How did Lula actually fare once elected as President of Brazil? This is an important question because it has implications for setting Brazil apart from other Latin American economies marred by high unemployment and poor performance. Lula had very limited room for change when he took office, even though he wished to avoid following Cardoso's path. He soon realized he would have to remain on the same track for two key reasons.
First, since the collapse of communism, socialist idealists had lacked a sound, reliable reform plan. In the absence of such a plan, they were compelled to depend on tested mainstream policies. Second, even had a credible reformist plan been available, Lula's government was constrained by the demands of foreign investors.
Foreign investors feel more comfortable with mainstream liberal policies than with socialist ones, and foreign investment was critical to the survival of Brazil's economy. It had been a major source of debt servicing, and Brazil could not afford to alienate investors. This heavy dependence on foreign investment also meant that Lula's government had to allow investors considerable influence over domestic economic policy. Amaral et al. explain the effect of foreign investor sentiment on the Brazilian economy:
"…if the capital markets had decided Brazil was insolvent, the resulting pressure on the Real and domestic interest rates would guarantee that Brazil would in fact be insolvent. If capital markets had decided Brazil was solvent, Brazil would in fact have been solvent. The investor community was entirely aware of this role, noting that Lula needed to strongly signal a fiscally conservative orientation, so that he could 'win the game' of investor sentiment."
"How investor sentiment controlled Brazil's domestic policy"
"Macroeconomic stability achieved at expense of the poor"
Janice E. Perlman. Re-Democratization in Brazil: A View From Below.
Urban Poverty and Politics in Rio de Janeiro 1968–2005.
You’re 65% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.