“Milei is relying only on the market – but history shows that this does not work.”

Mr Dewey, under the government of Javier Milei, inflation in Argentina has fallen. Isn't that a success?

You can look at it that way, but this success has come at a high price. The government has drastically cut social spending. This means that millions of people, especially those in the poorer segments of the population, are left without state support. The poverty rate has risen and the informal economy is growing rapidly.

What specific measures have led to this?

The government has made massive cuts to social assistance, subsidies and support programmes. People with disabilities, low-income families and other disadvantaged groups are particularly affected by these cuts. At the same time, unemployment has risen because the economy does not respond immediately to the reforms.

Argentina has long struggled with inflation and national debt. How does Milei's policy fundamentally differ from that of his predecessors?

While the Peronist governments under Néstor and Cristina Kirchner financed high social spending and the reduction of foreign debt through export taxes and generally higher corporate taxation, Mauricio Macri increased foreign debt and, on the other hand, lowered corporate taxes. Milei, on the other hand, wants to do both: cut spending and lower taxes. He is pursuing a policy of shock therapy and hoping that the economy will recover on its own.

Could this be exactly the strategy that Argentina needs?

I have my doubts. There is no development plan that would create long-term investment and jobs. Milei believes that the market alone will fix it, but history shows that this does not work. In the 1990s, a similar policy under Carlos Menem in Argentina led to massive social inequality and economic instability.

Despite the massive cuts, Milei's popularity remains high. Why is that?

On the one hand, there is a deep rejection of the previous Peronist governments, which left many voters without a real alternative. Previous governments, I would say since 2011, have not created jobs and made the economy more dynamic. Quite the opposite. On the other hand, Milei presents himself as an uncompromising fighter against the political establishment. His radical rhetoric, and even cruelty seems to be well received by many Argentinians, even if they feel the direct consequences of his policies.

Political polarisation is not just an Argentinian problem. What are the reasons for this global trend?

Yes, we see this in many countries. Extreme positions are gaining popularity, while moderate forces are losing influence. The political centre is being weakened because many people feel that their situation has not improved but rather worsened under the previous moderate governments. This explains the success of populist politicians like Milei.

What long-term consequences do you expect for Argentina?

If Milei's policies fail, the country could slide into an even deeper crisis. Social inequality could continue to grow and, without state intervention, the economy could be in danger of falling into a downward spiral. The big question is: what comes next? Because Milei's failure would not automatically mean that a better alternative is in place.