The latest data from Ministry of Tourism on the results of the first quarter of the year revealed a paradoxical situation: although the number of visitors increased 22% compared to 2020, the Actual expenditure what they did was a 15% lower.
The 1.22 million people who entered the Uruguay three years ago they spent 128 million dollars less between January and March of this year, 15% below. According to the economist from the consultancy CPA Ferrere, Nicholas Cichevski“that is explained almost entirely by the drop in spending by Argentines”, he wrote in a Twitter thread.
In the first quarter of 2020, tourists from the neighboring country spent around 571 million dollarswhile in 2023, 431 million dollarswhich meant a 25% decrease.
In outbound tourism In general, Uruguayans spent this year 471 million dollarsa 25% more compared to the same period three years ago. This is the highest figure since 2011. However, it gives a positive balance of 270 million (-45% compared to 2020), the lowest since that year, due to the decline in inbound tourism spending.
If the focus is placed on those who traveled to Argentina, the same phenomenon is observed: between January and March it reached $291 million which, contrasted with the 431 million dollars spent by residents in Uruguay, give a balance of 139 million dollars (when rounding). This balance is a bottom 64% to $396 million in 2020.
How was the balance according to the regions and items
The CPA Ferrere economist prepared a disaggregated table where the comparison between tourist spending in each region in the first quarter of 2020 and this year is seen.
There, he indicated that “the real expenditure of tourists in Montevideo fell 34% (-52 million dollars); in east point, 17% (-79 million); in Cologne, 23% (-7 million); in rock, 10% (-6 million); and in the Coast, 16% (-5 million). On the other hand, spending grew by piriapolis (11 and Gold Coast (4%).
“At the item level, the real fall in income from outbound tourism is explained by falls in Accommodation (fall of 20% or 65 million dollars); Feeding (10% or 23 million); Shopping (10% or 10 million) and Culture/Recreation (8% or 8 million),” Cichevski said.
The discussion regarding the analysis of bilateral balances
“The drop in spending by Argentines is explained by the loss of income in that country plus what it means to have to resort to the blue with a dollar twice the official one,” observed the economist. jose licandro in the same thread, where he added: “On the contrary, the recovery of our income plus the lower exchange rate explains the other.”
Your colleague aldo motto, stated: “Technically, trade balances, whether bilateral with countries or by item, should matter little, except for Trump or similar mercantilist positions. What is relevant is the aggregate current account, depending on its composition and impact on intertemporal sustainability”.
Lastly, the economist partner of the consulting firm Exante, Paul Rosselli, commented: “I think that what does not make sense is to assign normative objectives to bilateral balances. Analysis of trade balances by industry or markets are useful and usual to understand trade patterns and their evolution over time”.
Source: Ambito
