Volume 44, Number 173,
April-June 2013
Towards a New Development Model?
from a Regulatory Perspective. Argentina 2003-2010
Ignacio de Angelis, Mariana Calvento and Mariano Roark
Institutional Forms: The Market ( ...continuation )

On the whole, starting in 2003, the Argentinean economy grew by 79.5% by 2010.3 As seen in Figure 1, the manufacturing sector had the biggest stake in this growth, breaking with the deindustrialization trend and initiating an import substitution industrialization process that was extremely dynamic in the first years, but reduced later on by the return of the services sector to the main role in growth dynamics.

Although industry contributed the most in terms of total absolute growth, regarding change in gdp participation as compared to the previous time period, the areas that grew the most were the natural-resource-intense sectors: hunting, agriculture and fishing doubled their share (going from an average of 4.8% from 1993 to 2001 to 8.6% between 2002 and 2010), followed by mining exploitation and quarries, which saw the annual average in dollars contributed to gdp double.

Figure 1. Contribution of Productive Sectors to gdp Growth, 2003-2010
Source: Prepared by the authors based on data from the Central Bank of Argentina (bcra, 2011)

On the other hand, when analyzing the configuration of the industrial sector, we can corroborate that beyond its restructuring in terms of absolute contribution to economic growth and the surge of a significant number of small and medium-sized enterprises generating employment and primarily focused on the internal market,4 many of the features of the sector were not substantially modified as a result of the neoliberal regulation mode, constituting an important limit on the transformative ability of the accumulation mode.

First, there is still a strong concentration among the leading sectors of the industrial branch. Small and medium-sized enterprises that emerged in this period, developed under the protection of the exchange rate and an offer basically oriented towards domestic consumption (textiles, tools and machinery, flours, among others), only make up a small proportion of the total overall volume. The sectors that received the most benefits were industries that developed in highly concentrated markets with the chance to set domestic prices and export some of their production (Neffa, 2010: 307). These sectors also benefitted from a lack of State control.

Secondly, the foreignization of the productive structure remained largely the same. As Kasacoff (2011) indicated, greater dynamism in the sector was in response to the acquisition of companies and factories, and not to the creation of new firms.5 In this context of a universe made up of over 400,000 companies, the 500 largest benefit the most from the model, of which 80% contain foreign capital. At the same time, in the upper echelons of business, represented by the top 100 companies in terms of invoicing in 2008, 72% have foreign capital, 3% are national and foreign capital partnerships and only 25% are composed entirely of national capital (Azpiazu and Schorr, 2010: 40). These numbers make clear the weakness of national capitalism, which is a sign that the neoliberal development model still persists.

3 The economy grew a total of 29% during the convertibility regime (bcra).

4 According to the sme Department of the Ministry of Industry (Sepyme), 135,000 new smes were created between 2003 and 2010, about 20% in the industrial sector. Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (Msmes) account for 99% of the total of 985,000 companies. This segment also generates around 70% of employment, 40% of gdp and 15% of exports.

5 In the acquisition process, the big change was that Brazilian capital began to take on a key role.

Published in Mexico, 2012-2017 © D.R. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).
PROBLEMAS DEL DESARROLLO. REVISTA LATINOAMERICANA DE ECONOMÍA, Volume 49, Number 193, April-June 2018 is a quarterly publication by the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán, CP 04510, México, D.F. by Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas, Circuito Mario de la Cueva, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán,
CP 04510, México, D.F. Tel (52 55) 56 23 01 05 and (52 55) 56 24 23 39, fax (52 55) 56 23 00 97, www.probdes.iiec.unam.mx, revprode@unam.mx. Journal Editor: Moritz Cruz. Reservation of rights to exclusive use of the title: 04-2012-070613560300-203, ISSN: pending. Person responsible for the latest update of this issue: Minerva García, Circuito Maestro Mario de la Cueva s/n, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán, CP 04510, México D.F., latest update: June 27th, 2018.
The opinions expressed by authors do not necessarily reflect those of the editor of the publication.
Permission to reproduce all or part of the published texts is granted provided the source is cited in full including the web address.
Credits | Contact

The online journal Problemas del Desarrollo. Revista Latinoamericana de Economía corresponds to the printed edition of the same title with ISSN 0301-7036