Cuban economist and journalist Miguel Alejandro Hayes argues that the 176 economic measures recently approved by Cuba's National Assembly do not constitute a true reform. Instead, he sees them as a reshuffling of power within the Castro regime, masquerading as economic openness.
In an analysis published on June 25 in the magazine El Estornudo, Hayes contends that the critical question isn't about the dominant type of ownership in the new scheme. It is, rather, about why a dictatorship would allow foreign franchises, private companies with over a hundred employees, and the elimination of middlemen in imports without relinquishing any political control.
"These measures are primarily about redistribution: a new social pact and the ongoing partition of the country towards national private ownership," Hayes writes. "The answer lies not in the economy but in power."
Economic Power Shifts Since Raúl Castro's Era
Hayes outlines a timeline of two key phases in this shift of economic power that began during Raúl Castro's leadership. Initially, the military-business conglomerate GAESA relinquished control over retail chains such as CIMEX, TRD, and Cubalse.
In the subsequent phase, GAESA handed over control of imports, remittances, and foreign trade banking.
The result today is a private sector that manages what was previously under military control, yet with complete opacity regarding the true owners.
"Cuba suddenly resembles Delaware," Hayes notes, drawing a comparison to the U.S. state known for corporate leniency and business anonymity.
Political Survival Over Economic Development
In earlier comments to this outlet, Hayes was even more forthright about the process's limits: the measures "are not aimed at development but at the political survival" of the regime.
"They will never remove the entry barriers to economic activity; any legal business on the island will remain subject to clientelism and political silence," he warned.
Key Features of the 176 Economic Measures
The package of 176 measures, presented by Prime Minister Manuel Marrero Cruz to Parliament during an extraordinary session on June 18 and 19, includes allowing private banking under the Central Bank's supervision, private exchange houses, lifting the cap of 100 workers for micro, small, and medium enterprises, enabling business multiproperty, and offering greater openness to direct foreign investment, including from Cubans living abroad.
It also proposes ending the universal subsidy of the ration book, in place since 1962, to replace it with targeted aid for retirees and vulnerable individuals.
Marrero himself acknowledged before the Assembly that the implementation will generate "contradictions" that the government will need to address "on the go."
Other economists share Hayes's skepticism. Mauricio de Miranda from the Cuba Transformation group pointed out that GAESA is "not even remotely" mentioned in any of the 176 measures and warned that without democratic reforms, the outcome could be an authoritarian, patrimonial capitalism akin to what emerged in Russia after the Soviet collapse.
The United States, meanwhile, described the measures as "superficial smoke signals" that do not represent a genuine change in the political model, a sentiment that aligns with Hayes's interpretation: "The regime seeks to rebuild the social and political pact that sustains Castroism by opening economic opportunities designed to purchase complicity in exchange for political loyalty."
Understanding the Impact of Cuba's Economic Measures
What are the goals of Cuba's new economic measures?
The measures primarily aim to redistribute power within the regime, rather than genuine economic reform. They are seen as a strategy for the political survival of the regime.
How do these measures affect the private sector in Cuba?
The measures enable the private sector to handle what was previously managed by the military, but with no transparency about the actual ownership. This creates a resemblance to Delaware, known for its corporate secrecy.
Why are experts skeptical about these economic changes?
Experts believe that without democratic reforms, the changes may lead to an authoritarian form of capitalism, similar to post-Soviet Russia, rather than true economic development.