Thursday, January 17th 2013 - 16:49 UTC

Uruguay poised to grow 4% this year; Argentina and Brazil, 3.4%, says World Bank

Uruguay’s economy is poised to grow 4% this year and in 2014, which is above the region’s average, according to the World Bank’s latest Global Economic Prospects issued this week. However Uruguay will be ranked twelfth in the growth ranking of Latinamerica this year but ahead of Brazil and Argentina with 3.4%.

Latin America remains vulnerable because of its dependence on commodities exports, particularly to China

Latin America remains vulnerable because of its dependence on commodities exports, particularly to China

The WB report anticipates Latinamerica and the Caribbean will expand 3.5% this year which is higher than the 3% of 2012, but the overall performance of the region is not homogeneous. The ranking is as follows: Paraguay, 8.5%; Panama, 7.5%; Haiti, 6%; Peru, 5.8%; Chile, 5.1%; Guyana, 4.8%; Suriname, 4.5%; Bolivia, 4.4%; Dominican Republic, 4.3%; Nicaragua, 4.2% and Costa Rica and Uruguay, 4%.

Regarding the leading economies of the region, the World Bank estimates that Brazil will expand 3.4% (after a dismal 0.9% in 2012); Mexico, 3.3% (4%); Colombia, 3.8% (3.5%) and Argentina, 3.4% (2%).

Last October the WB had estimated that Latam and the Caribbean would grow an average 3.8%, but uncertainties in the European Union, China and the US forced to lower the forecast.

Uruguay’s 4% expansion is based on a climate of “more complacent” economic policies mainly Brazil but also ‘strong foreign and domestic demand’.

However the World Bank also points out that the strongest deceleration among developing countries last year took place in Latam and it is still threatened by tensions from speculative capital inflow, the slowdown in the EU and US and its own policy mistakes, basically the consequences of not applying the anti-cyclical rule.

Of the 412 billion foreign capital influx (both private and public) which found its way to the developing countries from January to October 2012, Latam and the Caribbean received a third. Likewise in the third quarter of last year industrial production started to recover from several irregular performing previous quarters, and again seemed to succumb in the last quarter.

As the region and particularly South America are growingly dependent from exports to Southeast Asia, mainly China, the risk of deceleration is even greater than expected, and this applies to those countries exporters of commodities.

Brazil’s performance could experiment the impact of the lower interest rates policy while Mexico will be subject to the ups and downs of the US economy and Argentina will be influenced by the effects of advancing “interventionist policies” in the economy.
Paraguay will recover from recession caused by the major drought of 2012 while Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, energy exporters, face lower growth expectations, says the bank’s global economic prospects.


14 comments Feed

Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.

1 redpoll (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 08:08 pm Report abuse
I wouldnt bet on this. Uruguay seriously overspent on thier budget last year. Instead of fixing the problem of overspending the govt proposes to raise more taxes through IRAE to cover the hole
2 ChrisR (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 08:13 pm Report abuse
”Argentina, 3.4% (2%).”

Really? And how is that going to happen when the economy is in free fall and the farmers are under continuing pressure from TMBOA?

It is because of AG that Uruguay has slid down the ranking. All we need is someone, anyone, with the backbone to tell TMBOA to go fuck herself (I cannot imagine anyone else doing it).
3 AzaUK (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 09:21 pm Report abuse
is this including inflation figures?
4 yankeeboy (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 09:29 pm Report abuse
I have a serious question that no Rgs seems to want to answer:

Why would the farmers accept 5/1U$ for their exchange rate rather than the real exchange of 7.6/1U$.
Baffles me
and hopefully they won't
and they have the power to topple this “gov't” if they want to

BTW my guess is Arg will still be in recession next year and for many years to come.
Happy Stagflation
Buy sugar
5 BAMF Paraguay (#) Jan 17th, 2013 - 10:22 pm Report abuse
Paraguay @ the #1 spot with 8.5% growth. Also we have no debt. I figure that the actual growth should be around 20% since if you consider that soybeans crop will be about 100% more than in 2012 (worst drought in history) and that soybeans allow account for about 10% of GDP, then you have an effective growth just from soybeans of 5-10%. Add that the construction boom that is starting again, things are looking good.

Ohh and don't forget the black market, which accounts for about 70% of the real GDP; things like smuggling products into Brazil and Argentina especially marijuana (Paraguay is #2 producer in the world).
6 redpoll (#) Jan 18th, 2013 - 12:17 am Report abuse
Bamf Yes you really need to get that black market sorted out.
ost politicos are in up to thier elbows and beyond. But you forget to mention the oil prospects in Paraguay which look good if you can ever get your corrupt bureseaucrats give the companies a clear run
Also the gold prospects. See Latin American Minerals Paraguay (Lamp) The blooming stuff is practically on the surface and shows some pretty good ore grades
7 Simon68 (#) Jan 18th, 2013 - 03:30 pm Report abuse
4 yankeeboy (#)
Jan 17th, 2013 - 09:29 pm

I think I commented on this in another thread, but I believe that the Agrarian Federation is suggesting to its members to not sell the present crop if they can avoid it, but to manifest against the incredibly high export tax, which together with all other taxes represents almost 75%!!!!!!!!
8 yankeeboy (#) Jan 18th, 2013 - 03:35 pm Report abuse
So in pesos terms they're getting 12.5% of what they would get if they were in the USA?
I don't see how that would fly here.
They should do like the French withhold the crops and put the tractors in the streets.
They could topple her gov't within a month.
9 ChrisR (#) Jan 18th, 2013 - 08:51 pm Report abuse

I think you have got a point here.

When all you are getting for your produce is 25% at best and with the pesos in free fall against the USD, what have they got to lose?

It would probably be rough with the La Camping-it-up fairies ganging together (otherwise a bitch slap would run them off) and maybe armed. But don't the farmers have guns as well?

Bullies up against farmers with guns will soon capitulate: they are not fighting for their farms are they, just TMBOA few pesos.
10 BAMF Paraguay (#) Jan 19th, 2013 - 11:52 am Report abuse
@6 But you see Red, the black market is just another word for free market. As a libertarian, I am very fond of the free market and all of the benefits I gain from it. International products are considerably cheaper here than in the countries that they are produced because of 0% tax. We expect the government to do too much in this world; in Paraguay we have learned to not rely on the government for much.

#7-9 As a Paraguayan farmer watching our neighbors get it in the rear from TMBOA, is extremely sad. However, farmers are notorious for being against centralized government as we see nearly no benefit from such a system. So you can bet that farmers will simply not pay the taxes. There are always bribes, loopholes, schemes, and then the good ol' black market to go to.

Remember this, Black Markets only occur because of Government Regulation. Argentina, welcome to the dark side.
11 hjarta (#) Jan 19th, 2013 - 06:31 pm Report abuse
I wish you well in your referendum, at least you can hold one which is more than Cameron is offering us here i the UK. We will keep on trying that is if our poodle Pm doesn't bow down to the yanks and the rest of Europe. once again good luck and please don't vote for the MBOA
12 redpoll (#) Jan 20th, 2013 - 01:58 pm Report abuse
Bamf While I am basically a free marketeer you have to agree that in some cases some sort of central regulation and control is necessary
An extreme example of control was the Volstead act which introduced Prohibition into the States which set up the fortunes of organizations like the Mafia
In the case of agriculture there are farmers and also greedy miners of soil stability and fertility who dont give a damn either for the land or the health of the customers who consume thier products either. So there have be some regulations which can be centrally controlled and enforced for the general good of all. In the case of the cattle industry without regulation of vaccination against aftosa (FMD) no country would be declared free of this disease. Certainly in this country we would not be getting the prices we are without the promotion of our beef by INAC and the trustworthiness of out Ministry figures. As to our govt experimental farms I think they are a good investment for the taxes we pay to support them, especially in plant beeding and animal genetic improvement. I certainly would have no desire to leave that sector in the hands of the big companies whose first priority is to make quick profits for thier shareholders. Its a big problem isnt it?
Qubrando una lanza.. (=breaking a lance) for Uruguay, whatever else you may say about the present government, we are one of the least corrupt countries in South America
13 BAMF Paraguay (#) Jan 21st, 2013 - 05:45 pm Report abuse
Red - At initial glance government regulation for the protection of consumers and promotion of new industry seems tempting. But looking deeper one can find some major issues. In cases of the government regulation to protect consumers, you have to question if they are not only protecting a company or an industry. Regulation of the car industry leads to an oligopoly because smaller companies are unable to comply with the bureaucracy of the larger companies. Large companies require their own internal bureaucracy, which creates extra costs, and as a means to remain competitive they lobby to make laws that require these bureaucracies for all in the industry. Regulation of Wallstreet is only good for the people already in the business. Regulation of healthcare is excellent for those that are already in business, because they are the ones creating the new rules.

As for greedy companies, if they break the law, then they are held responsible. If it is illegal to knowingly sell harmful products to your clients you will be held responsible. If you damage your own property, but affect no one else's, then that is your own problem. If you damage your property and mine, then I can sue you. This is common practice already and no regulation is needed, the law already prohibits a company/person from damaging someone else's property.

And agriculture...

Well as a farmer/rancher let me just guarantee you that aftosa (FMD) exists in Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, and it always has. Government vaccination programs don't work, it is just a big scam. If they did, the USA, Britain, Paraguay, Brazil, etc., would never have a problem. Better is to say that if your cattle contaminates mine, you are responsible for the damages.

And agricultural assistance from the government, we don't need it. Their varieties are obsolete and produce less than the private sector. It is a waste of money.
14 redpoll (#) Jan 21st, 2013 - 07:42 pm Report abuse
Bamf Some interesting concepts there , most of which as farmer rancher of many years standing I would disagree with! Will formulate a reply in due course.

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!


Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!