The debate over the Super RIGI is no longer only about tax benefits or the need to attract capital. The focus is beginning to shift toward another question: **what Argentina obtains in exchange for granting exceptional advantages for thirty years**.
Ariel Aguilar, Undersecretary for Commercial Development and Investment Promotion of the Province of Buenos Aires, brought that question to the Senate during consideration of the bill: “**Zero requirement for local productive development**,” he summarized.
The phrase touches one of the most sensitive points for industry and business chambers. An investment of US$1 billion can generate suppliers, employment, technology and new local capabilities. But it can also import almost all its equipment and inputs and operate with limited links to Argentine companies.
For Aguilar, the bill does not establish sufficient tools to avoid that second scenario. One of the questioned points is that the regime does not guarantee mandatory percentages of purchases from national suppliers. “**There is no national procurement requirement**,” the official warned when analyzing the scope of the bill.
The problem is particularly relevant for SMEs. If the State grants extraordinary tax, customs and regulatory benefits, the discussion is whether it should also use that negotiation to demand productive integration. The issue is not minor: that is where an investment becomes —or does not become— industrial policy.
### Thirty years, but without equivalent counterparts
Aguilar also questioned the thirty years of stability provided by the regime. “**No country offers a comparable term**,” he said during his presentation, focusing on the scale of the guarantees granted compared with the obligations required.
The argument is simple: if the State gives up resources and freezes conditions for three decades, it should know what it receives in return. The official also called for an assessment of tax expenditure. That is, measuring how much the State will stop collecting as a consequence of the benefits granted. From that perspective, it is not enough to count the announced amount of an investment. Its fiscal cost and its impact on suppliers, employment, knowledge and national added value must also be measured.
### Two models
Aguilar's position is part of the productive line supported by the Buenos Aires Ministry of Production headed by Augusto Costa.
The position does not reject major investments. It debates the conditions under which they should enter. The point is political and economic: **an investment does not automatically equal development**.
A factory can be located in Argentine territory and, at the same time, generate few linkages with the local economy. It can import technology, capital goods and inputs without developing national suppliers.
That is why the Super RIGI debate is beginning to become a discussion about the country model. On one side, a view that considers it sufficient to attract capital and generate stable conditions for investments to arrive. On the other, a policy that seeks to use those investments to develop national companies, technology, skilled employment and productive chains.
Aguilar asked the Senate to review the bill before moving forward with an opinion. His central argument was summarized in a phrase that will probably continue to appear in the business debate:
**“If the State grants extraordinary benefits, it should also demand local productive development”**
