Opinion Sur
In the current global circumstances, ‘adjustment’ and ‘transformation’ represent very different socioeconomic options. The ‘adjustment’ implemented by the European countries is focused on restoring the pre-crisis dynamic by reducing their humongous fiscal deficit and high indebtedness level. On their part, the rest of the countries face profound change processes; some copying the way affluent countries work, others seeking to transform the dynamic responsible for the contemporary economic concentration. Known road that one of “adjustment”; diverse trajectories always under construction transformation’s are. There is certain confusion in the use of the terms ‘adjust’ and ‘transform’. That confusion is induced by interests that try to take advantage of it, but is facilitated by the unawareness of large segments of public opinion regarding that manipulation and, particularly, the implications associated to such different views.
First of all, it is worth reflecting upon the fact that political and social circumstances can bring new meaning to certain words. In the past, movements and diverse ideologies used to perform transformations and adjustments of what they did and preached without those words necessarily meaning a certain political orientation on their own. Even today, when a situation becomes unsustainable and it is compulsory to take another course of action, it is pointed out that a course adjustment is necessary. But what is really important is whether that adjustment will restore or transform the circumstances that generated the problems and the instability that we attempt to solve. In any case, and beyond the 17 meanings the Diccionario de la Lengua Española (Royal Spanish Academy’s Dictionary) assigns to the word ‘adjust’, it is impossible to ignore that ‘the adjustment’ has been loaded with a specific connotation.
The thing is that ever since the Washington Consensus for ((the)) countries of the Southern Hemisphere and the great contemporary crisis that is striking United States and the European countries, ‘adjustment’ has been associated to a certain socioeconomic policy: facing the crisis by focusing on cutting back on public expenditure and the serious indebtedness of the State. In that approach, leveling public accounts would reinstate the ‘normal’ economic functioning, however at an immense social cost. From there, growth would reemerge and there would be a return to the markets’ full validity and operation as the mechanism that will collate the millions of decisions that are taken daily in every corner of the country and the planet. Those holding deciding power seek through these measures to avoid the collapse of a certain way of functioning and, with it, the interests that have sustained and motorized it, especially, financial capital. It is barely a concern for them that the prevailing economic dynamic has had generated a tremendous concentration of wealth and, therefore, an equally enormous inequality.
The adjustment conceived under these terms has implications regarding social justice and income distribution; regarding the financial capital’s role to impose where to channel savings (towards speculating or financing production); regarding ‘externalities’ that lead to environmental destruction, irresponsible consumerism’s overflow, harm to social cohesion, threats on an effective democratic governability and loss of the very sustainability of economic growth.
Instead, the word transformation came to represent another socioeconomic policy which seeks to change the course and the way countries and the global system function. In this perspective, transformation implies moving towards a sustainable development that combines equity and organic growth, respecting each country’s own modalities and adapting to the changing circumstances that characterize any reality. Fiscal accountability is accepted but based on distributive justice and an equitable sharing of burdens, efforts and results. The economy’s steering wheel is not handed over to the markets but, instead, public power is used to guide them in a new direction; one that will not reproduce the disastrous ‘externalities’ (in fact almost inevitable and predictable consequences) of the existing way of functioning.
Transformation also implies promoting values that are far from the unbridled greed a great part of the financial world possesses and the indifference with which the most vulnerable segments –that is, our majorities- are condemned. This approach prioritizes the strengthening of social cohesion that underpins a fuller political, social and economic democracy.
Within this transformation there is much to adjust, amend, correct, improve, so trajectories can be enriched and the chosen course can be reinforced. However, that ‘to adjust’ has nothing to do with the ‘adjustment’ that reinstates an order of things that leads to recurrent implosions, to growing economic concentration with its inequality, poverty and destitution counterpart.
Such is the case, for example, when the way in which subsidies are granted is adjusted so that they reach only those who really need them and not the entire population indiscriminately. In this case, it is not just about a subsidies’ cut back but it is its distribution that changes: those who have the most will not receive them anymore and those who have the least will keep them. The crucial part is that with this saving in public expenditure, the State will be able to cover social and productive infrastructural needs without having to resort to indebtedness or a larger currency emission. It is a way of improving income distribution, strengthening public finances and contributing to diminishing inflationary pressures. These measures are part of and reinforce a country’s change of course; they boost its transformation and its march towards a fairer and more sustainable development.
Of course one could wonder why the policy of only focusing subsidies on those who needed the economic backing was not implemented from the beginning. Answers can be quite diverse. For one thing, the commotion of the moment when those initial decisions were taken compelled to speed up choosing options without the time to elaborate them nor to clear ignorance and improvisation. At the same time, there may be sectors capable of developing sustainable competitive advantages but that require certain initial support in order to position themselves in a highly competitive global market, same as it happened in the past with so many sectors in affluent countries. It is also true that there are phases in countries’ development where what is required without delay is a massive injection of public funds into the economy: that is the case when going through a serious social emergency or when, while coming out of a crisis, it becomes necessary to revitalize the domestic market in order to consolidate an incipient recovery. Once these circumstances are overcome, it will be the time to adjust the applied policies and even to transform their nature just like when a social emergency caves in it is possible to shift gradually from subsidizing popular consumption to financing the establishment of inclusive productive ventures.
It is valid then to state that our countries face very different choices and that, in that context, socioeconomic policies that sustain a new course cannot remain immutable; they need to be transformed as things move on and new changing challenges to be addressed appear. This fact, almost a truism, should not be ignored as it would risk blocking the very transformation process. As time goes by and circumstances change, even the transformational policies must be adjusted, transformed.
