The Problems That Never Went Away

Regardless of who is in power, Brazil faces the same stubborn realities. High interest rates discourage investment, fiscal deficits persist, and a heavy reliance on soybeans, iron ore, and oil makes the economy vulnerable to global price swings.

Cárdenas Angarita captures this frustration clearly: Brazil’s economy remains heavily dependent on commodities. Although reforms have been attempted, they have not been very successful in diversifying exports or reducing vulnerability. Her comment reflects a deeper truth: Brazil’s structural weaknesses have survived every ideological shift, leaving the country moving in circles reforming, recovering, and relapsing.

Yet beyond these shared constraints, the two presidencies left sharply different imprints on Brazil’s institutions, global partnerships, and sense of direction. Experts say this contrast between confrontation and reconstruction now defines Brazil’s economic identity.


Bolsonaro’s Years: Reform and Regression

Experts acknowledge that Bolsonaro achieved one long-delayed breakthrough the pension reform that many considered politically impossible. But that success came at a steep cost. His confrontational style, environmental controversies, and frequent ministerial turnover eroded trust, both domestically and abroad.

As one expert summarized, Bolsonaro proved that reform is possible but made Brazil a riskier partner. The Amazon fires, rising deforestation, and weakening of environmental oversight raised Brazil’s risk perception and limited access to green and sustainable finance. Foreign investors began to link governance with credibility a link that would later shape Lulas international recovery strategy.

Bolsonaro’s close personal alignment with then U.S. President Donald Trump gave Brazil short-term visibility but weakened its multilateral diplomacy. Several respondents observed that this approach exposed the country to unilateral trade pressures while reducing its ability to defend itself through established international institutions. The lesson, experts note, is that charisma cannot substitute for coherence in economic diplomacy.


Lulas Return: Rebuilding Bridges and Restoring Faith

Lulas comeback marked a change in tone, language, and priorities. The experts describe his presidency as a period of reconstruction socially, institutionally, and diplomatically. His government revived Bolsa Família, re-emphasized climate commitments, and restored relations with international organizations such as the G20, BRICS, and WTO.

Gonzlez Tognazzolo notes that Lulas more active economic diplomacy has helped Brazil negotiate better tariff conditions. Yet she adds, Diplomacy can open doors, but competitiveness must be built at home. That balance between restored credibility and persistent inefficiency defines Lulas challenge.

Experts agree that Lula has improved Brazil’s image and investor confidence. Environmental repair and international engagement have reopened channels of green finance and development cooperation. However, they warn that goodwill must be matched by credible fiscal management and deeper reforms that raise productivity. Without these, even the most inclusive social policies risk becoming fiscally unsustainable.


Two Legacies, One Challenge

When the survey turns to long-term legacies, the expert consensus is both fair and realistic. Bolsonaro’s years demonstrated that structural reforms are possible, but also showed how fragile institutions can become under political strain. Lulas era, meanwhile, restored Brazil’s moral and diplomatic standing but must still prove that compassion and fiscal restraint can coexist.

Sols Quevedo expresses the dilemma precisely: Programs like Bolsa Família help reduce poverty, but Brazil also needs policies that promote formal employment and technological upgrading. His words link two often disconnected priorities inclusion and competitiveness.

Experts note that investor confidence now depends more on predictability than ideology. Lulas Brazil enjoys renewed credibility, but it is conditional: trust must be reinforced through steady governance and measurable results. In the end, both leaders have pushed Brazil forward in different ways one through reform, the other through restoration yet the path to lasting growth lies somewhere between them.


Foreign Policy as an Economic Tool

Foreign policy, the survey shows, has become an economic instrument. Under Bolsonaro, diplomacy was often personalistic and unpredictable, limiting Brazil’s ability to respond to tariff threats or attract sustainable investors. Under Lula, Brazil has returned to its traditional multilateralism, rebuilding alliances with Latin America, the European Union, and Africa while reasserting a cooperative tone in global forums.

Experts largely support this direction but remain cautious. They view diplomatic normalization as essential to restoring credibility, but not a replacement for domestic reform. As one respondent observed, Goodwill abroad cannot compensate for low competitiveness. The consensus is clear: diplomacy strengthens Brazil’s international standing only when backed by consistent fiscal and industrial policy at home.


Cautious Optimism and Clear Priorities

Despite their warnings, the experts’ tone is not pessimistic; it is measured and hopeful. They believe Brazil has the resources, the human capital, and the goodwill of its international partners to turn its economy around. But that transformation requires patience, discipline, and continuity across administrations.

From their insights, three recurring priorities stand out:
 
1. Fiscal credibility: enforceable and transparent fiscal rules to stabilize expectations.


2. Productivity and jobs: reforms that promote innovation, education, and formal employment.


3. Diversified diplomacy: active engagement in multilateral platforms to reduce dependency on a few key markets.

Experts also point to the importance of regional cooperation. Strengthening South American value chains in energy, food security, and green technology could help Brazil balance global exposure with local resilience. This, they suggest, is where Lulas diplomacy can move beyond symbolism and generate real economic depth.


Conclusion: From Polarization to Pragmatism

The experts’ reflections challenge simplistic narratives. Bolsonaro’s years showed that reform without stability weakens trust; Lulas show that social renewal without discipline risks fragility. Both legacies, in their own way, brought Brazil to the same crossroads: the need to align fiscal realism with social aspiration.

Ultimately, the difference between the two leaders is not ideological but institutional. One presidency tested Brazil’s endurance; the other now tests its capacity to rebuild. The underlying message of the survey is unmistakable Brazil’s progress will depend on credibility, continuity, and the political maturity to pursue reforms that survive elections.

If that balance can be achieved, Brazil may not only regain its footing but also redefine its role in Latin America as a country that grows with conscience, leads through cooperation, and believes once again in its own stability.

Because in the end, Brazil’s greatest reform is not written in law or policy — it’s written in the faith of its people to build again, and to believe again.