The Economist’s endorsement of (eventual loser) Mr. Serra in the Presidential election highlights some issues worth watching in the new Rousseff administration. “Mr Serra also has faults, notably a worrying tendency to try to micromanage everything. But his record suggests that he would move faster to cut wasteful spending and eliminate the fiscal deficit, and that he would be keener to mobilise private capital for much-needed infrastructure. Monetary policy would no longer have to carry all the burden of keeping inflation under control, allowing Brazil’s egregiously high interest rates to fall (and helping to halt the excessive appreciation of the real). Ms Rousseff would tackle such distortions more gradually, if at all. In an uncertain world that is unnecessarily risky. For all his achievements in fighting poverty and making Brazil a fairer place, Lula is bequeathing a country where one in two homes lack mains sewerage and educational standards remain woeful. Those should be priorities for public spending. There are two other reasons why Brazilians would do well to favour Mr Serra. The first is that Ms Rousseff is not Lula. She lacks his extraordinary political gifts and perhaps also his innate pragmatism. By contrast, although Mr Serra may be a poor campaigner, he has been an effective minister, mayor and governor. Second, although no political party has a monopoly when it comes to corruption, there are plenty of signs that the PT has become too cosy with power. After eight years under the PT Brazil would benefit from a change at the top.” This is part of my survey of the 30 best articles from The Economist over the past two years to gain insight into whether Brazilian attitudes towards America have declined, and global attitudes towards Brazil — comments welcome!
2 thoughts on “Brazil’s presidential election Second round, second thoughts?”