Roy Hora analyzes Milei's paradoxical economic leadership: historical continuity versus radical rupture

Economic historian Roy Hora offers a complex perspective on Javier Milei’s trajectory as Argentina’s president. According to his analysis, the evolution of the leader over these years—since his arrival at Casa Rosada to the present—reveals a less disruptive transformation than he promised during his campaign and more aligned with Argentine political traditions. In an interview with LA NACION, Hora dissects presidential leadership, its economic foundations, and the historical implications of the policies implemented.

From Radical Outsider to Political System Figure

When Milei took office, he presented himself as a genuinely innovative political experiment, characterized by his outsider status challenging the establishment. However, as his administration progressed, the reality has been more nuanced. “The electoral success Milei achieved not only in 2023 but also in 2025 made him a figure with much greater capacity to resonate with the Argentine political system,” Hora notes.

This historical phenomenon has few comparisons. The scholar identifies Juan Domingo Perón as the only previous “true outsider” who came from outside the established political system. The paradox is that Milei’s own presidential achievements—especially the reduction of inflation and electoral results—transformed the promise of tearing down the entire system into a figure capable of understanding and operating within traditional political dynamics. Hora emphasizes that, although Milei maintains elements of rupture, his management exhibits clear continuities with the long history of powerful leaderships that characterize Argentine politics.

Unprecedented Economic Adjustment: Magnitude and Historical Context

The most distinctive aspect of Milei’s administration is the magnitude of fiscal adjustment implemented in its early months. “The very drastic reduction of public spending launched in the first months of his government has no parallel in Argentine history,” Hora affirms. While other presidents—from Perón in 1952-53 to later governments—implemented austerity plans, none reached the scale of Milei’s.

According to the economic historian, this adjustment responds to the accumulation of macroeconomic problems extending back at least two decades. Hora identifies two particularly critical breaking points: first, the massive increase in public spending during Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s second term, which raised spending by more than 15 percentage points of GDP, creating an unsustainable scenario in the medium and long term. Second, the inability of subsequent administrations—both Mauricio Macri’s and Alberto Fernández’s—to effectively alter this course.

The combination of inflationary stagnation, deterioration of public services, and economic dysfunction inevitably opened the door to a radical challenge to the prevailing economic model.

Argentina in the 20th Century: The Economic Tragedy of a Poorly Positioned Nation

To understand the current situation, Hora proposes a long-term analysis that dates back to the late 19th century. During that period, Argentina built a solid institutional order that, combined with exceptional natural resources—especially the pampas—positioned it as a dynamic economy. Between 1880 and the 1920s, the country experienced accelerated growth, even surpassing North Atlantic nations. At that time, Argentina boasted the sixth or seventh largest navy in the world, and when measured per capita, it ranked among the top three globally.

However, this relative prosperity led to a complex social transformation: Argentina became a sophisticated urban society, with significant middle classes, workers integrated into unions, and a metropolis like Buenos Aires competing in modernity with major European capitals. This ambitious social structure—expecting rising levels of well-being—inevitably clashed with economic limitations when international circumstances changed starting in the 1930s.

According to Hora, the true Argentine dilemma lies in a 20th-century economic tragedy: while Europe and the United States became the engines of global capitalism, Argentina was always “poorly framed” within that universe. Argentine society was too similar to the United States in terms of wage levels, consumption patterns, and aspirations, but the economies were competitive, not complementary. Unlike Brazil—whose tropical agriculture and mineral resources made it compatible—Argentina faced direct competition with the U.S. in temperate climate products.

From Closed Industrialization to a Dead End

Faced with this structural tension, Argentina chose to protect its industrial sector and close its economy. This path “could produce more welfare, but hardly generate the strong growth of the previous period,” Hora explains. Since then, “the engine of Argentine growth has been gradually losing momentum,” and from the 1990s onward, in a less friendly global environment for closed industrialization, welfare gains became increasingly marginal.

The logical consequence was an economy that ceased to function within a globalized system, leading to the current crisis. What we are witnessing now marks a rupture with the previous model: Argentina is repositioning itself toward global openness, but in a complex geopolitical context.

Global Opening in a Hostile World: The Alliance with the United States

Here emerges a fundamental paradox. “Now Argentina is opening up much more than in other times, and perhaps this is not the best moment for that,” warns Hora. The contemporary world is moving in a direction that contradicts the logic of globalization that characterized previous decades. Milei’s government bets its stability on an alliance with the U.S., establishing an unprecedented closeness between an Argentine government and Washington.

This alignment is a historic novelty. Several previous administrations—from Juan Domingo Perón to Arturo Frondizi—tried to establish productive relations with the U.S. through foreign investment in sectors like energy and automotive, but always faced structural tensions. Now, according to Hora, there is a genuine opportunity because Argentina’s new economic pillars—energy and minerals—are products that could position the country in a more complementary rather than competitive relationship with the U.S.

However, this opportunity crucially depends on two fragile factors: first, the personal relationship between Milei and Donald Trump, two disruptive figures whose continued presence in power is not guaranteed; second, the ability to turn this personal rapprochement into sustainable public policy over time. The economic historian recognizes that “we will see if this new international alignment is strong enough to address some of Argentina’s structural problems.”

The window of opportunity exists, but geopolitical and sustainability risks are significant in a context where globalization itself is being questioned worldwide.