Why does Argentina need to learn from Chile in trade? The value of consistency over time

Argentina faces a trade paradox. While the country seeks to “level the playing field” against imports by focusing on reducing domestic taxes and internal costs, there is a mirror image that has operated for decades on the other side of the Andes: Chile. This country has invested time and consistency in building a completely different trade architecture, based on stable agreements and policies that do not change with every government change.

Chile: The Lesson of 25 Years of Consistent Trade Policy

While Argentina has swung between extreme openness in the 90s and protectionist closures afterward, Chile has maintained a clear stance. Over the past 25 years, the southern country has signed 34 trade agreements covering approximately 60 economies, representing 86% of the global gross domestic product. These numbers are not just statistics: each of these pacts creates an accumulated advantage for Chilean companies that Argentine companies integrated into Mercosur do not enjoy.

Chilean companies enter international markets with preferential treatments, reduced tariffs, and predictable regulatory frameworks. In contrast, Argentine companies within Mercosur face an uneven playing field from the start. The difference is not in productive capacity but in the institutional architecture that governments build or dismantle over time.

The Argentine Pendulum: From Openness to Extreme Protectionism

Argentina’s trade history is the story of a pendulum that never stabilizes. The 90s brought openness, but then a brutal shift toward extreme protectionism during Kirchnerism. Outdated import substitution policies were revived, non-tariff measures like DJAI and SIRA multiplied, and non-automatic licenses reemerged. But the extreme peak was during Guillermo Moreno’s administration, when an unusual rule was implemented: anyone wanting to import had to prove they exported. Automakers weren’t really selling abroad; they simulated olive exports to obtain international purchase permits.

Trade missions to Angola became political expeditions where entrepreneurs participated not to sell but to accumulate “points” with authorities and secure import authorizations. The winter temperature of 20 degrees in Angola mattered little if the real goal was the approval of those controlling trade from their desks.

Export Retentions: Another Level of Inequality

While there is talk of “leveling the playing field” for importers, a reality directly affecting Argentine exporters exists: retentions. Export taxes that almost no other country applies. The current government is moving toward elimination—a poison that has stifled external competitiveness for decades. It has just signed a trade agreement with the United States, which could be a first step.

But here’s the problem with temporality. Chile didn’t need to wait to reach agreements with powers to build its trade network. Time passed, consistency accumulated, presidents and parties changed, but none abandoned the pursuit of new agreements. Argentina, within Mercosur, has limited capacity to unilaterally modify its tariffs. Its institutional structure would require profound transformation not only of the bloc but also of Brazil.

The Factor of Time in Trade Policy: What Chile Understands and Argentina Forgets

It’s not just about signing an agreement with the United States. It’s about maintaining it so that changes in government don’t cause zigzags. Chilean presidents change. Ruling parties alternate. But no one considers abandoning the accumulation of trade agreements. It’s an institutional continuity that Argentina has not managed to build. Trade openness takes time. Agreements take time. International trade confidence takes time.

Argentina has the opportunity to use time differently. Not waiting years to “level the playing field” on imports while its exporters still pay retentions. Not changing policies with every new government. Not genetically modifying Mercosur tomorrow if domestic political incentives demand it. Chile demonstrated that time is an ally of consistent trade policy. Argentina needs to learn that time is not a luxury but a strategy.