An Editorial from El Diario:
The “plural economy” and their avatars
It is possible that in the countries of the contemporary world, it has never been known the term “plural economy” much less ever attempted to implement it. The great economists and politicians who appeared during the nineteenth century never made any reference to that novel economic category. Politicians, much less.
The categorical novelty was possibly the first time in Bolivia, a country where all sorts of experiments in economics is practiced, but usually fail noisily. Here, the term has even been stated (as theory) by the Constituent Assembly in 2005 and attempted to be implemented through the new constitution, in force since February 2009, as has received the following review by economist Gabriel Loza, published on April 20 in a local newspaper: “It seems nobody likes the definition of plural economy that is in Article 306 of the Constitution: the opposition objects to the term and there are sectors of the ruling party that simply do not accept or understand the concept.”
This article is extensive and includes five subtitles and the first of which states that “The Bolivian economic model is plural” and then states that “The plural economy consists of the economic forms of community organization, state, private and social cooperative”.
Although the provision lists the economic forms, it does not make a definition of what is “plural economy”, leaving the interpretation to the public, while at least some demand for clarification does not occur by the Constitutional Court, which surely will be involved in the mess.
While the clarification of the case occur, the population is subjected to this economic rule and, all, the country is on track in that sense, it would mean that “plural economy” means that it is practiced: 1) The “community economy” or socialism system in pre-Colombian communities and would be the basis for socialism and then march toward communism. 2) The “state economy” i.e. state capitalism, as is occurring. 3) A “private economy” that is capitalistic and finally the “cooperative” economic organization whose practical model would be the current mining cooperatives.
As stated in the Constitution, these four forms of economic organization are in application and Bolivians can adopt and implement the system that they seem more appropriate as “The State recognizes, respects and protects” the ones into practice. Also, according to following items included in Part IV of the Constitution (Articles 306-315), legislated on the subject, namely that the Bolivian economy functions in four different directions: a look to the feudal past, others look to state capitalism, others direct their efforts toward individual capitalism and others using the cooperative meaning, develop capitalist forms with alleged socialist orientation.
Thus, each of these four and other forms of plural economy pulls to their side, trying to actually slaughter the national body problem manifested in a series of conflicts not only between departments but also between provinces, cantons and far away little towns. In summary, it appears that the project of “plural economy”, apart from the fruits being produced, yet offer remarkable surprises in the future.
This exceptional description of current coca-growing ochlocracy economic “policy” is very benign in its last paragraph. There are absolutely NO words to explain the incompetence of this government. The MAS does more damage than good. The ignorance of the majority of the voters continues to give them support to these useless, demagogue government.