Fallacy of success of social policy of lula and rousseff governments


Published on

Published in: News & Politics, Career
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Fallacy of success of social policy of lula and rousseff governments

  1. 1. FALLACY OF SUCCESS OF SOCIAL POLICY OF LULA AND ROUSSEFF GOVERNMENTS Fernando Alcoforado * The Bolsa Familia program and low unemployment rate have been presented by the governments of Lula to Dilma Rousseff as indisputable proof of the success of social policy of PT (Worker Party) adopted in the last 12 years in Brazil. More than 50 million people, or over 25 % of the population are served by the Bolsa Familia program, ie , equivalent to the population of South Africa. As the unemployment rate, its most recent value (5 % in October 2013), according to IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), is not only lower than that of Switzerland (3.1%) and Austria (4.9%). In 2013, the Rousseff government allocated 20.6 billion reais for the Bolsa Família program to benefit 14.1 million households, or one in four Brazilians. It should be noted that in 2004, the dimensions of the Bolsa Familia program were much smaller because the total amount disbursed was 5.5 billion dollars, divided by 6.6 million households. For 2014, the figures indicate that a record should arise because the budget for the Bolsa Família program is 25.2 billion dollars. Such a rapid rise in the number of people dependent on government assistance did not happen in part of Europe plunged into a severe economic crisis since 2008. It can be stated that if the curve of growth of recent years is maintained, half of Brazilians could be benefited from the resources of the Bolsa Familia program in ten years. The governments of PT use the Bolsa Família program as an example of a successful social policy. It is, however, a fallacy because the number of dependents of the program increases each year. A social policy of the government would only be successful if it reduced the number of beneficiaries of the Bolsa Familia program evolve with time. The increase in the number of beneficiaries of the Family shows that poverty continues to increase in Brazil. For the PT government, there is little to lose and much to gain from the uncontrolled growth in the number of beneficiaries of Bolsa Família program with the use of public funds because, besides being a relatively inexpensive program that has little popular rejection, remains dependent on the state a portion increasing of citizens who feel compelled to vote for the current power holders in electoral contests. With proper advertising, loyalty that electorate every four years is usually high. This is an outright purchase of votes with public money. One of the most serious problems of the Bolsa Família program is the fact that only 12 % of enrolled in the program have shed the money today, according to the Ministry of Social Development. And you cannot say that they necessarily have overcome thanks to help from the government misery. The effect of the Bolsa Família program can also be one explanation for the low unemployment rate recorded in Brazil [See the article by Gabriel Castro Por que o número de beneficiários do Bolsa Família só cresce (Why the number of beneficiaries of the “Bolsa Família” Program only grows) posted on the website < http://veja.abril .com / news / Brazil / number - of - beneficiaries - the - bag - so - family - grows >]. The methodology applied by the IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) considers only the unemployed person who has more than ten years, sought a job in the thirty days preceding the survey and did not return. With Bolsa Família program
  2. 2. guaranteed indefinitely, some economists argue, many people do not engage diligently looking for a new job. As a consequence, they are not seen as statistically unemployed by IBGE. The IBGE placed the current unemployment rate in Brazil in just 5.3% in October 2012 and more recently by 5% in October 2013. Paradoxically, the index of the Department of Statistics and Socioeconomic Studies (DIEESE) situates rate unemployment in Brazil at 10.5 %. Why is there such a discrepancy between the two indices? Article by Bernardo Santoro of Liberal Institute under the title Governo manipula para baixo taxa de desemprego do Brasil (Government handles down Brazil's unemployment rate), published on the website < http://www.epochtimes.com.br/governo-manipula-para- baixo-taxa-desemprego-brasil / #. U0fKhZBOXcc>, shows that the two indices, the IBGE and DIEESE are not certain. The methodology applied by the IBGE is absurd, without any seriousness and masks the real index. The author of this article states the following: Imagine that gentleman enters the train car and sells bullet is considered employed, and that beggar came begging and you paid for cutting grass of your garden and / or yard. All are considered employed according to IBGE methodology. Now, if you pay the beggar with a plate of food and some leftovers for him to take away, or change a service one unemployed for a favor, all are considered "unpaid workers" without compensation, but employees? Yes, this is the definition of the IBGE. Another interesting fact, if an individual gives up looking for work, it is not considered unemployed , but "discouraged", and that means it will not enter the calculation of the index, so will not affect the increase in unemployment or employment, even being unemployed. Get it? Not? Rather, the subject gives up looking for work and are not considered unemployed. Simple as that! In this account of "discouraged" is a part of the beneficiaries of Bolsa Família Program (BFP) who are unemployed and decided to live the benefit, rather than work. Most of the other beneficiaries are in the same situation as "People Not economically active". Yes, BFP beneficiaries do not enter the account of unemployment, even if they are unemployed, but really they are employed, so come on account of employment. Two weights and two measures. Ie, the person has no job, no longer wants to work but is considered "discouraged", not affecting the unemployment rate. Or, I have no job, but I'm not unemployed. The Government managed to create a new category to replace parasitism. In this same category also enters who is receiving unemployment insurance because it is to the IBGE getting insurance is not unemployed, just "discouraged", even if he have a job. Shocked? Calm, as the situation worsens! Not content to leave all these unemployed out of unemployment, IBGE decided that people who were not working in the week of the survey, but who worked at some time in the previous 358 days, and were willing to leave unemployment as "People marginally connected to PEA (Economically Active Population)" and excluded from the index (some beneficiaries of the Bolsa Família Program are located here as well). Again, are unemployed, but why not just enjoy it and want to work, are not considered unemployed. Finally, people who are "moonlighting" and receive less than the minimum wage are considered "employed". For example, the individual replaces an attendant at a gas station for a weekend and get R$ 50. Even though he worked only two days in the month and received less than 10 % of a minimum wage, the IBGE considers "employee". Noting that nonsense, the editor and translator of Ludwig von Mises Institute Brazil, Leandro Roque wrote the article A real taxa de desemprego no Brasil (The real unemployment rate in Brazil), in which he takes all these people who are unemployed and not considered by IBGE, but does not enter the index, and puts together the other
  3. 3. 5.3% who are also unemployed in October 2012 , but the IBGE could not do magic to delete the index , they are: 1) People disheartened; 2) People unoccupied ; 3) People with income less than the minimum wage / hour / minute; 4) Persons marginally attached to the PEA (Population economically active) ; and 5) " Workers " unpaid. With all those unemployed who were left out of the index score was scary, instead of 5.3% of the IBGE (October/2012) and / or DIEESE 10.5% in the same period, we have impressive 20.8 % of unemployed in Brazil. The same methodology is applied today vary between 20 % and 20.5 % the unemployment rate due to low mobility of this in 2013 (from 5.3% to 5 % depending on the methodology of dishonest IBGE) . Even the lowest rate since 2009 was 20 % according to the calculation of Leandro Roque, carried through all the variables collected by IBGE since 2002. Course the PT and especially to President Dilma Rousseff what matters is that the index magically stay below reality. A paradoxical situation is that, on one hand, the official unemployment rates are at historically low levels and on the other, public spending on unemployment insurance rises nonstop. The logical thing would be public spending on unemployment insurance to be the minimum possible with occurrence of low unemployment rates. This contradiction exists only because the official unemployment rate is wrong, undersizing the number of people without jobs effectively in Brazil. The Brazilian government is cheating the official data of formal employment. Adding the growing unemployment with the increasing expense of Bolsa Familia program, one can conclude that there are many Brazilians increasingly depending on state handouts to keep. Can this be a sign of a healthy economy? Of course not. Can a government on such data celebrate the economic and employment picture in Brazil? Obviously not. Just as the neoliberal governments of Collor, Itamar Franco, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Lula and Dilma Rousseff failed to neoliberal economic policies which resulted in meager economic growth over the past 24 years, Lula and Dilma Rousseff governments also failed in its social policy not reducing the unemployment rates in Brazil. * Alcoforado, Fernando, engineer and doctor of Territorial Planning and Regional Development from the University of Barcelona, a university professor and consultant in strategic planning, business planning, regional planning and planning of energy systems, is the author of Globalização (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova (Des)ordem Mundial (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2000), Os condicionantes do desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Tese de doutorado. Universidade de Barcelona, http://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/1944, 2003), Globalização e Desenvolvimento (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX e Objetivos Estratégicos na Era Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of the Economic and Social Development-The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe Planetária (P&A Gráfica e Editora, Salvador, 2010), Amazônia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e combate ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011) and Os Fatores Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), among others.