Argentina expert here
(sort of ...)
He then set out to carry out some economic reforms. Some of his economic achievements like a budget surplus and decreased inflation have been impressive.
First, "decreased inflation" is not true. The new government itself is responsible for the December/January inflation rate, which was much higher than what was experienced in most of 2023 and was caused by the first measures of the government after December 10 (above all a >50% devaluation of the ARS, which made many imported goods much more expensive). December and January had over 20% inflation monthly, while in 2023 most of the time it was around 10% monthly. I chose the monthly rate because the yearly rate doesn't really explain what's happening.
Now in February the inflation went down to 13,2%, which is an improvement over January, but still worse than in most of 2023. March is expected to have similar figures (10-15%).
The budget surplus was achieved with pretty simple measures, like reducing pensions (relatively to inflation) and subsidies, and closing several nationwide institutions, reducing thus personal costs. I agree with some of these measures, because some state institutions were inflated by clientelist structures, but with others I don't agree (see below).
But what I do not understand is that some of his policies aimed at slashing government programs and instituting extreme libertarian reforms, is triggering a
deep recession and reduction in the purchasing power of the Argentines.
The problem here is, as Don Pedro Dinero already wrote, a conflict between short term and long term effects.
A reduction of public spending is recessive in the short term, because the state makes up a quite big part of the demand in the local economy. Public spending in Argentina makes up about 37% of GDP, which is similar to the US (38%) but significantly lower than in Europe (often 40%+, for example Germany has 49% and Italy, Austria and France even more than 50%,
according to latest available figures). If you take this into account, even if the provincial/municipal level also is important and it decreased less, then it becomes "logic" that many local companies are now suffering decreasing sales in the internal market because of the federal states budget reduction. Above all the construction sector is affected directly by this.
Another problem is that due to the extreme inflation between December and January (together about 60%), the real salaries decreased, harming the local companies' sales even more, although they are partly responsible for this because many exaggerated their price increases.
What the government wants to achieve with this is a long-term effect: reduce inflation really significantly (at least to the level of pre-2022, to two figures anually) and achieve that the financial sector "normalizes", creating more stable conditions, which could be a pillar for future growth. Recession normally reduces inflation, as companies increasing prices too much will be punished by lesser sales. Currently this is already begining to work: it is likely that if current trends continue, in April and May the prices will rise below the 2023 average level. This is combined by a conservative Central Bank policy, reducing "money printing", which also reduces inflation according to the most established economic theories.
But the question is: if the recession is too deep, Argentina's economy could be harmed structurally, for example due to an exodus of talented workers to other countries. This would harm above all the industrial sector and reduce economic diversification. Some say the industrial sector is currently bloated and lacks competitivity. But on the other hand, Argentina is South America's only country designing and building complete own satellite missions and fabricating integrated circuits. If such strategic sectors are lost, the economy will suffer even more in the long term. There could be also a further structural poverty increase, and poverty rate is already high (35-42% in the last 6 years), which could cause a rise in welfare expenditure, or a loss of the general population's welfare level.
It's a gamble: it could work or not, or work for some time (like in the 90s when similar policies were tried), but then lead to a big bust (2001).