Work accidents in Argentina
Year
Incidence rate (in thousands)
Rate losses (in thousands)
Lost labor duration (in days)
Rate of deaths (per million)
Days not worked
1996
84.3
1,701.9
20
233.2
6,173,376
1997
77.4
1,063.2
13.7
220.9
4,639,087
1998
72.9
1,067.6
21.5
223.4
7,740,303
1999
76.7
1,556.3
20.3
204.7
7,763,370
2000
77.5
1,579.1
20.4
185.9
7,771,910
2001
69.0
1,414.2
20.5
159
6,956,680
2002
62.4
1,427.1
22.9
152.1
6,381,975
2003
72.7
1,642.8
22.6
152.2
7,748,171
2004
80.2
1,913.2
23.9
150.1
10,245,610
2005
81.4
2,003.6
24.6
142.8
12,022,892
2006
80.7
2,212.2
27.4
149.1
14,765,377
2007
82.5
2,458.2
29.8
149.8
17,818,104
2008
80.6
2,455.8
30.5
123
19,012,471
2009
78.9
2,212.6
30.6
130.6
17,366,014
2010
71.3
2,206.8
31.2
138.1
17,581,681
2011
73.3
2,453.9
33.6
140.9
20,395,891
2012
69.4
2,470
35.7
147.6
21,390,013
Given the severity of the effects of industrial accidents on worker mental health and suffering, we have to consider this not as a cold chart with numbers, but as a starting point for meditation. We can observe two key issues. The first is the magnitude of the social and health impact of accidents. The second, and this is a critical point, is the importance of state policies designed to prevent accidents and to make primary care compulsory in mental and physical health once an accident happens and the drama starts.
Observing the table above, it is possible to visualize some of the consequences of the impact of labor policies from different economic perspectives applied in Argentina. They are the neoliberal paradigm and the Keynesian paradigm, both economic prospects applied since the return of democratic governance. The first one lasted from 1988 (year of the fall of the “Plan Primavera” [Spring Plain]) until 2001, when the “exchange rate crisis” took place (also known as the “1 to 1” [1 dollar = 1 peso]). The second paradigm is applied to exit the “convertibility” and extends up to the present.