ETECSA’s new provision on the prices of its services has generated a great deal of critical reaction, and with good reason; this is something fundamental for a society in the 21st century: sustained and expanded access to communication and information.
The decision places a very considerable portion of the population outside the reach of a connection that has become a fundamental part of daily life, here and everywhere, particularly for very sensitive sectors such as students, but not only for them.
The limit of 360 Cuban pesos (6 gigabytes) per month is insufficient for many of the people who use the data service the most. Making people largely dependent on what is sent “from abroad,” besides being insufficient, places those who have someone to ask for it in a very uncomfortable position, to say the least. It exerts unpleasant, unwelcome pressure, with impacts on social conscience.
This is not just an isolated problem affecting an essential service; it is compounded by the electricity crisis, the limitations in the water supply, the price of food, the transportation situation, the state of hygiene and order in the city, the inflation that continues unabated, the increasingly widespread sale of stores in USD and freely convertible currency (MLC), etc. It is also compounded by previous decisions with adverse results, such as monetary reorganization and bancarization.
To keep this text short, I will not address here many general aspects closely related to this situation, which we have discussed many times; I will only make a brief reference to this specific issue.
There is no single possible answer
The main argument given to justify this price increase is the financial situation of the Communications Enterprise (ETECSA), which is undoubtedly entirely true, and this could significantly affect the services it is supposed to offer, as well as paralyze its development.
However, this truth does not have a single possible answer; ETECSA is a state-owned enterprise that is supposed to operate in a specific context and under a socialist government.
The response to a situation like this, when a fundamental social service is put at risk, can and should have other alternatives, but this is only possible as part of a specific way of organizing the economy and managing economic policies.
Monopolies are common
It is also true that ETECSA is a monopoly; in a “centrally planned” economy — in reality, today, one that is “bureaucratically planned” and has been almost entirely state-owned for decades — monopolies are common, especially in activities like this.
The problem isn’t just the existence of monopolies, which shouldn’t exist, except for natural monopolies (a situation in which a single enterprise can produce a good or service at a lower cost than if there were multiple competing enterprises).
The problem lies in the ability, or lack thereof, of the socialist state to regulate them properly and in accordance with social interests, even when, in some way and under certain circumstances, some fundamental activities, such as this one, must be subsidized.
Although, to be more precise and not leave things hanging, it must be understood that the problem in an economy like Cuba’s today is not only, but also, the existence of unjustifiable monopolies and oligopolies.
Need for business reform
The problem goes much deeper because, even when there are, and still are, different state-owned enterprises for the same activity, the regulations, pricing and policies are centrally established, without possible competition. Therefore, the effect is the same as if they were monopolies.
This is the confusion and interference of state functions and powers that should correspond to enterprises. It’s a detrimental situation that hasn’t been resolved to date.
Hence the need for business reform as part of a comprehensive economic reform; without it, it’s more of the same, with or without monopolies. I think it’s necessary to say it clearly. Without this process, about which we’ve talked so much, there is no possible solution to the problem of Cuba’s economy.
Sometimes I’m surprised to see some analyses that talk about the Cuban economy and its alternatives (often through mass media, where the debate continues to be highly biased and where there is an attempt to impose a predetermined editorial criterion at all costs) as if we were in a developed country, with strong international alliances, etc., and not on an underdeveloped, poor, blockaded and practically isolated island. In other words, these are assertions based on a theoretical intoxication that has little to do with the specific circumstances of the country here and now.
Redefining socialism
On one occasion, I stated that history has brought us here and that we shouldn’t give up anything, but we must clearly redefine the kind of socialism we should and can have under these conditions and stop clinging to past dreams that, moreover, have proven unviable in many countries, by the way, under much better conditions than those in this country today.
This isn’t about just any reform or continuing to nurture a Frankenstein. It’s about doing what must and can be done, in a well-designed and conducted manner, with a sense of reality and preserving the pillars of the national project: national sovereignty, social justice, and economic and democratic development. We have also addressed this at length.
The necessary consensus
The solution isn’t behind us, it’s ahead and, of course, broad discussion with the people about what should be done is essential. For my part, for years I have put forward proposals to participate in this debate.
The consensus necessary to move forward cannot be built bureaucratically and by imposing decisions. It must be done with the greatest active participation of the people, with clear concepts. That is probably one of the most important lessons of the decades of revolution already experienced: remember the workers’ parliaments.
Within the logic of this reform and this new model, there are many things that need to change.
The socialist state, through its government, must retain the ability to use its resources and regulations based on a clearly defined horizon and in accordance with what the people themselves define as their priorities.
This is not incompatible with enterprises operating as enterprises.
To each his own
To enterprises, what is the enterprises’: that is, to operate efficiently and profitably (both state-owned and cooperative and private, each with its specific characteristics, and state-owned enterprises exercising the leadership that corresponds to them).
And the government should follow what is (should be) a socialist government’s role: that is, regulate, guarantee and properly manage resources and investment policies, including the various types of essential and targeted subsidies (never indiscriminately) according to priorities; establish and guide the balance and reproduction of a necessarily diverse economy without allowing the hegemony of capitalist interests to prevail.
There are many examples, even in capitalist economies, where services like the subway receive state subsidies due to the social (and economic) importance of that activity. Cuba has historically done this in sectors like health and education.
Innovative and efficient management
Frequently, the fundamental argument for certain decisions or non-decisions is that there is no money due to the blockade, etc., and that is certainly the case. The policy of aggression has an immensely negative impact, but the response must be to obtain what is lacking through innovative and efficient management and to use what is available in the most rational way and, I insist, in response to society’s priorities.
It is not possible, for example, to maintain an investment policy that clearly favors investment in tourism infrastructure (more than 30% of the total) when food production and other priorities receive significantly reduced figures, even more so when the underutilization of rooms and tourism capacity in general is evident; that is a whole issue.
There is one dimension that has to do with the economic development strategy: where, for what purpose, and to what extent, existing resources should be allocated. The other is related to the model under which the economy operates: that is, creating the necessary conditions for enterprises to operate with sufficient autonomy and efficiency.
This depends largely on the powers granted by the current economic model and the general economic context, including the existence and transparency of dynamic markets. These include the monetary market, under adequate state regulation, fundamental services such as banking, insurance, etc., and a dynamic that integrates all the actors that make up the national economy — that is, a macroeconomic environment that favors and incentivizes efficiency.
A fundamental service
Beyond this necessary condition, when a case like ETECSA’s is at stake, and when what is at stake is a fundamental service for society, the enterprise’s needs should be covered with state subsidies (as I have stated, there are different economically and technically sound options for doing so), and not directly putting the burden on a weary population without options.
It’s a pipe dream that the national population abroad will cover these deficits. That’s neither economically nor politically sustainable.
Obviously, I’m not talking about free services. This isn’t about that, but rather about adjusting prices to levels that are affordable for a population that values this as a fundamental service.
It also makes sense to call on the population to use this service as rationally as possible, etc., and, of course, to rationalize the very use made by government agencies, not always with the necessary justification. But what is not convenient, from any point of view, is to continue placing the burden of the economic adjustment on common citizens.
Should the customers pay?
In a case like this, there is more than one possible policy where the government, acknowledging the importance of this service, steps in to rescue the enterprise with more efficient use of available resources and not view ETECSA, fundamentally, as a foreign currency generator that charges its deficits on the price its customers, who are largely ordinary citizens, must pay.
There is more than one possible way to do this. Economic literature is full of feasible examples to use. Obviously, to make this possible, the operating model of the economy and the priorities and logic of economic policy, including investment policy, must be transformed.
This is not just about the economic efficiency of enterprises; it is also, and essentially, about the social efficiency of the economic system as a whole.
The government is responsible for providing explanations
It is also necessary to outline a strategy with figures: quality, expected volumes of revenue in foreign currency and Cuban pesos, necessary investments with dates, goals, etc., to overcome the current situation of ETECSA.
Furthermore, in my view, it was not primarily ETECSA, but the government, that was responsible for publicly and firsthand explaining this fact.
As I have noted before, this is an issue whose social and political impact goes far beyond the situation of a specific enterprise, given the surprise caused by the reference to the enterprise having been subject to considerable embezzlement, as expressed by the head of the entity. This is also another issue, and no less important.
It would be most positive if this new moment of tension were useful for a profound national reflection on where we stand and what path we should follow. Correcting what needs to be corrected and changing everything that needs to be changed. I have often said that time is a critical variable; can anyone doubt it today?
________________________________________
*This text was originally published on the author’s Facebook profile. It is reproduced with his express consent.
