The meeting, symbolic and mediated, did not go unnoticed: many interpret that it seeks to reactivate the influence of Peronism in the economic discussion, showing that there is a bloc that aims to propose its own economic project again, different from the one promoted by the current government.
In parallel, the economic analysts consulted in more formal forums have warned about the fragility of the recent recovery. At a private sector meeting, participants alerted to the need to avoid “years of saw” (one good year, another bad), and suggested that the priority is to aim for sustained growth, macroeconomic stability, and policies that favor national production.
Among the points of concern are: the uncertainty of international reserves, the need to reactivate credit in pesos and dollars, and a pending debate about where to direct economic policy: should it continue with deregulation and openness, or resume a more interventionist course, focusing on production and social issues? Home to economists traditionally identified with heterodoxy.
On the other hand, those who view the current administration —and by extension its liberal/neoliberal orientation— with distrust emphasize that the recovery shown by some indicators (such as the recent GDP growth) is based on very low foundations, after years of crisis. In that sense, they warn that growing “by rebound” does not imply that a sustained development or a structural improvement of social conditions has begun.
What these debates mean for Peronism and its economists
The meeting driven by Cristina Kirchner with economists should not be interpreted only as a symbolic gesture. Many perceive it as a sign that Peronism is trying to reconstruct its own economic project —a structural alternative — in the face of the crisis that, according to these economists, the current model does not resolve. This recomposition may seek to articulate social, union, and political support under an idea of “national economy” with planning, strategic state intervention, and priority given to the internal market.
The debate is not reduced to “more adjustment vs. more spending.” There are those within that space who recognize that Argentina needs macroeconomic order, but also consider that the engine of growth must once again rely on production, employment, and real investment, not just on finance, indebtedness, or market decisions.
This reordering of the economic discourse in Peronism —or at least among part of its economists — can turn into a concrete agenda if they manage to mobilize political support. Its success will depend on whether they can translate criticism of the current model into credible, structured, and viable proposals.
Why this debate is relevant now
Because after a prolonged crisis, many social sectors are demanding a project with a long-term perspective —not just temporary patches.
Because the Argentine economy continues to show imbalances: inflation, exchange instability, uncertainty about debt and reserves —which requires more comprehensive alternatives.
Because Peronism, with its past of state intervention and social policies, could position itself as a force proposing another direction against the current liberal/neoliberal model dominated by markets and speculation.
Because, ultimately, what is at stake is not just the technical-economic debate: it is the question of a national project, for a country for its people and not for speculators.
Comments