| Published May 31, 2025
Cuba’s enduring poverty is primarily the result of its socialist policies rather than the U.S. embargo. The article critiques the Cuban government’s attribution of economic hardships—such as shortages, rationing, and limited access to goods—to the long-standing U.S. embargo, labeling this as a form of “economic warfare.” Geloso contends that this narrative serves to deflect blame from the country’s own policy failures.
To support this claim, Geloso references a study utilizing the synthetic control method, which estimates that only about 10% of Cuba’s economic decline can be attributed to the U.S. embargo. The remaining 90% is linked to internal factors, including central planning, nationalization of industries, price controls, and political repression. The study also notes that by 1989, Cuba was approximately 55% poorer than it would have been without the implementation of socialist policies.
While the article emphasizes the detrimental impact of Cuba’s socialist policies, it’s important to acknowledge that the U.S. embargo has also had significant effects. According to a 1997 report by the American Association for World Health, the embargo contributed to shortages of food and medicine, leading to malnutrition and poor water access. The report concluded that “a humanitarian catastrophe has been averted only because the Cuban government has maintained a high level of budgetary support for a health care system designed to deliver primary and preventative medicine to all its citizens.”
The implications of the article’s argument—that socialism, not the U.S. embargo, is primarily to blame for Cuba’s poverty—are significant in both economic and geopolitical terms:
1. Reframing the Narrative
-
Global perception shift: If more evidence supports the claim that Cuba’s poverty stems from internal policies rather than external pressure, it could weaken longstanding international criticisms of the U.S. embargo.
-
Cuban government accountability: The regime may face increased scrutiny for using the embargo as a scapegoat to justify shortages and economic stagnation.
2. Policy and Diplomatic Impact
-
U.S. policy debates: The findings could bolster arguments against lifting the embargo, reinforcing the view that doing so would only prop up a failed system rather than improve conditions for Cubans.
-
Aid and investment decisions: Global institutions and foreign investors may become more cautious about engaging with socialist or highly centralized economies.
3. Broader Lessons on Economic Models
-
Warning to other nations: The Cuban case could serve as a cautionary example of what can happen under prolonged central planning, state ownership, and price controls.
-
Fuel for ideological debates: Free-market advocates may use this to argue against socialist experiments elsewhere, while defenders of socialism may challenge the methodology or historical context.
4. Humanitarian Messaging
-
Shift in aid focus: If the root issue is policy-driven rather than embargo-driven, humanitarian efforts may increasingly aim to promote political and economic reforms, not just material relief.
Overall Takeaway:
Cuba’s persistent poverty is overwhelmingly the result of its own socialist policies—not the U.S. embargo, according to the featured analysis. While the embargo has caused real hardship, especially in health and trade access, the bulk of the economic decline stems from decades of central planning, price controls, and state ownership that stifled productivity and innovation.
This reframes the debate, placing greater responsibility on the Cuban government and offering a cautionary tale about the long-term consequences of rigid socialist economics.
SOURCES: ZEROHEDGE – Socialism, Not The Embargo, Explains Nearly All Of Cuba’s Poverty
THE DAILY ECONMY – Socialism, Not the Embargo, Explains Nearly All of Cuba’s Poverty
