The Mystery of Capital

The invisible maze: how regulatory and fiscal suffocation strangles the private sector and employment

By Dr. Nelson Jorge Mosco Castellano

The recurring debate over the health of Uruguay’s economy tends to focus on fluctuations in short-term activity and monthly statistics on formal employment.
Behind an appearance of macroeconomic stability lies a structural problem of profound importance: the progressive suffocation of the private sector under the weight of an oversized State, regulatory and fiscal hypertrophy, and a cost structure that defies any logic of competitiveness.
Far from operating as a free engine, the private creator in Uruguay carries a monumental tax and bureaucratic burden that conditions survival.
To gauge the scale of this state intervention, it is enough to look closely at taxation figures.
Revenue collected exclusively by the General Tax Directorate (DGI) stands at around 17.11% of GDP. When social security contributions through the BPS and departmental taxes are included, Uruguay’s overall tax burden comfortably rises to a range of 25% to 27% of GDP, exceeding 35% under measurements of equivalent fiscal pressure.
This structure rests primarily on two distortionary pillars.
The overwhelming weight of indirect taxes. With VAT at the forefront, consumption taxes account for more than 56% of DGI revenue, falling regressively on household budgets and broadly reducing purchasing power.
Corporate income and social security. The Tax on Income from Economic Activities (IRAE) taxes corporate profits in a small domestic market, while employer contributions to the BPS embed a direct additional cost in formal wages.
The economic burden on companies does not end at the tax counter.
Operating formally in Uruguay means navigating a hypervigilant regulatory maze that consumes unproductive resources.
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) —the true backbone of genuine employment— devote hundreds of hours each year solely to meeting formal requirements imposed by the DGI, the BPS, the Ministry of Labor and Social Security, and departmental governments.
At this point, the conceptual contributions of Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, in fundamental works such as The Other Path and The Mystery of Capital, remain fully relevant.
De Soto demonstrated empirically that when the extra-legal costs of formality —taxes, registrations, permits and labor regulations— exceed the benefits of operating within the law, the State does nothing more than erect an artificial barrier that marginalizes productive initiative.
Excessive bureaucracy does not protect consumers or organize the economy; rather, it acts as a mercantilist system of exclusion.
It turns capital into ‘dead capital’ and forces entrepreneurs either to retreat into informality or to bear ruinous fixed costs, showing that the law, when hypertrophied and hostile, becomes the principal obstacle to economic development and the accumulation of social wealth, even to survival itself.
Added to this framework are the fixed costs of legal structures, mandatory balance sheets and registration fees, compounded by sectoral distortions, protected monopolies and public prices plus taxes that make basic inputs more expensive than international standards.
The sum of these burdens is not neutral.
At the end of the chain, all these fiscal and regulatory overcosts artificially increase the price of goods and services, reduce investor profitability and inexorably limit the hiring of formal labor, condemning the economy to chronic underemployment and discouraging the private initiative the country needs in order to grow.
Public employment, which some believe can replace it, adds dead weight to the individual who seeks to support himself legitimately.
Hernando de Soto addresses a central paradox: why does capitalism succeed in the West but systematically fail in the rest of the world —the Third World and former communist countries— even though the citizens of these nations possess enormous amounts of talent, effort and resources?
The answer is not a lack of initiative or physical capital, but the legal inability to transform physical assets into formal and productive capital.
De Soto defines capital not as accumulated physical resources —a house, a plot of land, a machine— but as the latent economic energy that is released when assets are fixed within a system of legal representation.
In developed countries, property is not merely a roof over one’s head. Once formally registered, it generates clear property titles that can serve as collateral for loans and mortgages, support the creation of companies, or attract investors.
In developing countries, assets exist —self-built housing, workshops, informal landholdings— but they lack this ‘representational duplication’.
They remain trapped in what the author calls ‘dead capital’.
The volume of informal capital in the ‘developing’ world is colossal.
De Soto and his team carried out field measurements in Peru, Haiti, Egypt and the Philippines, demonstrating that the value of assets accumulated by informal sectors far exceeds foreign direct investment and international aid combined.
Without secure and universal property titles, those assets cannot circulate, cannot be divided, cannot generate bank credit and cannot be used as financial leverage to expand production or hire workers. They are forms of wealth that cannot generate more wealth.
Why do people operate informally?
Not out of whim or a cultural preference for illegality, but because the cost of entering the formal legal system far exceeds its benefits and makes it unviable to live from one’s work while enjoying social rights.
Through field experiments, De Soto documented that legally registering a small business or a property in the developing world can require months or years of Kafkaesque bureaucracy, bribes and compliance with rules designed by an elite disconnected from reality.
When the law is a privilege for a few and an obstacle for the majority, the law itself pushes people into informality.
Developed countries were not born rich. Over the course of their history —especially the United States in the nineteenth century— they unified and simplified dispersed local legal systems into a single formal property system accessible to all.
In developing countries, two realities coexist.
Official laws —imported from European codes or designed by technocrats and lobbies— are copied by political elites to buy voters, yet remain inefficient and exclusionary.
Alongside them are the contracts and customary rules that informal society itself creates to regulate day-to-day transactions.
As long as the State is unable to ‘absorb’ and formalize this spontaneous law of ordinary people —simplifying it and reducing its cost— the economy will remain fractured.

The mystery of capital resolved: institutional architecture

The ‘mystery’ lies in the fact that capital is a mental and institutional creation, not something tangible.
No one can ‘touch’ capital. One can touch land or a building, but capital is the abstract value that emerges when property is registered within a network of legal security that enables systemic trust.
The fundamental conclusion is that overcoming poverty and reactivating the private sector do not depend on international financial assistance or abstract macroeconomic plans, but on a legal and institutional revolution that democratizes access to formal property, dismantles bureaucratic monopolies and allows citizens’ efforts to become a genuine engine of credit and production.

Fiscal and regulatory suffocation
Dead capital and informality
Institutional architecture and property

Continue reading in Global Order and Geopolitics