the misapplication of the true “” development model in Chile has led to a hybrid that is a “horse mackerel salmon type”: some development has given us, but which we are trapped in income average. And despite having all the tools, some have to spare, a kind of curse of the eternal promise that never was.
It develops here, incidentally, the Byzantine discussion between supporters and detractors of the “model”, where each one defends stockings truths that chose as the flag of struggle, seasoned with the respective slogans.
In simple, true model is pro competition in all sectors, which has associated a total opening – in that sense, the model is not ‘importing’ or ‘exporting’ per-, resulting in the efficient development of the various sectors productive private and, as a reflection of him, the proportional efficiency in the public sector.
But does the Government really on the original model of development? Little or nothing. The Government is rather pro company, and is part of a responsible for the underdevelopment vicious circle. As the theory is reaffirmed by examples, here are two.
First example: the bad signal that is sent with the recent adoption of the Court’s defense of free competition (TDLC) to the agreement between the FNE and the Chinese company Tianqi, where was authorized to acquire 24% of SQM, subject to restrictions (for six years) m corporate annex in order to limit access to sensitive information from SQM which Tianqi, following the acquisition, could access. In an international market with imperfections of the supply and the demand side, the cross “link” between those who ought to be two major competitors, ends up “align” interests. Think that limit emails, phone calls, meetings, lunches, veto topics of conversations, or put Chinese walls to sensitive information (walls that are difficult to control in practice and no one does) – and more over for a limited time of 6 years – , will not produce effects “hinder competition”, is a superlative naivety. And does not attack the underlying theme: internal and external competition. But the President of the Republic, finance, or economics, say nothing. Now, if this operation is welcomed foreign investment… at what cost?
Second example: the “thaw” (3500 MHz) spectrum band in which they operate Entel, Claro and VTR, described by them as “expropriation”. Meetings with Minister of economy (4 times met with clear, Telefónica and Entel); the “custom” of the Minister to his boss’s advisors to help unlock the conflict who had come to upper echelons of the currency, and the concern of the Government for the harsh debate that it was taking place, is worrying. Acquired rights? A Fisheries Act II? If you think that this is positive because it clears uncertainty in the industry and favors the call of the Executive to local and international investors to invest in the country, we are back to the same thing: bad signal at internal and external level, in a country where what is needed is to strengthen the competition on all levels. Bread (supposedly) for today, hunger tomorrow.
The Government is more than pro-market, pro enterprise, which is not the same. First thing – probably has longer – results that ultimately result in the country enter the world developed with greater cross-cutting welfare. Second, although there are certain fruits in the short term, also there are more lobby, are favoured cartels, “care for more” with each other, and are more muddled discussion about the original model that was never implemented well.
Poured in this op-ed content is the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial line nor the counter position.
