By Misión Verdad — Feb 26, 2026During the last few weeks, a clear narrative shift has been observed among the spokespeople for economic opinion in Venezuela.The consensus among economists has shifted from “debacle” to “optimism.” This change in discourse came after the US government announced oil agreements with Acting President Delcy Rodríguez.Since then, the fervor for the new impetus of the Venezuelan economy has been increasing since the publication of the licenses recently issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), such as GL 49, GL 50, and GL 48, which authorize the operations of Western oil companies in the country.In the heart of the truthSeveral economists with opposition leanings in Venezuela have minimized and, in many cases, dismissed the objective reality of the economic sanctions and their harmful effects on the Venezuelan economy.There are exceptions, such as the case of economist Francisco Rodríguez, who has published various investigations on the impact of sanctions in Venezuela, standing out recently for his analysis in the report “The Human Consequences of Economic Sanctions” (2023), published by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).Other works by Rodríguez include “Sanctioning Venezuela” (2022) and “Sanctions, Economic Policy, and the Venezuelan Crisis” (2022), published through the Sanctions and Security Research Project. In these works, Rodríguez has criticized the Venezuelan government’s economic management but has emphasized, with supporting data, the destructive nature of foreign sanctions.Another exception is the case of Luis Vicente León, an economist best known for his role at the firm Datanálisis. León, in a less academic and more reflective setting, has consistently criticized the sanctions against Venezuela’s oil activities, outlining their impact on the national economic base.Luis Oliveros, an economist and professor at the Metropolitan University (UNIMET), has questioned the role of sanctions in the deterioration of living conditions for the population. Consequently, he has also criticized fellow economists and opposition politicians for defending these measures and for being “out of touch with the reality people are experiencing.”On the other hand, there is a second group of economists, including Asdrúbal Oliveros, José Guerra, Ángel Alvarado, Ronald Balza Guanipa, Rafael Quiroz, Ricardo Hausmann, and even the chemical engineer and tireless economic commentator Henkel García, among others, who have chosen to emphasize their criticisms from two fundamental angles of opinion.First, by referring almost exclusively to internal economic management (before and during the sanctions). This line of argument suggests that “macrostructural imbalances”—exchange controls, expropriations, and hyperinflation—had already destroyed a large part of the economy before the imposition of far-reaching sanctions.That line of discourse focused primarily on the economic policy of Chavismo, instead of highlighting, for example, the loss of more than 90% of the country’s foreign exchange income, and the impact of that fact on an economy in which all sectors are directly or indirectly linked to oil revenue, as happened in 2020, at the expense of the sanctions.Second, they took positions on the “shared responsibility” or limited impact of the sanctions; some experts acknowledge the harm caused by the measures, but claim that they “complicate” pre-existing problems.This supposedly “more objective” angle of analysis was based on the premise of recognizing the sanctions as a precise and undeniable reality. However, the political undertones and style of the statements made by some of these spokespeople almost always pointed toward economic fatalism, pessimism, a refusal to acknowledge achievements, a minimization of successful reforms, and a politically biased treatment of the overall situation.For all Venezuelan economists in the opposition, the arena of economic discussion is also a terrain of political debate. This is a logical reality, since, regardless of one’s political leanings, all economic debate must necessarily be political. The problem in this case is bias, and how it works in the face of changing concrete situations.The sanctionsDuring the last few weeks, several economists who downplayed or dismissed mentioning economic sanctions as a central point for their estimates have changed their narratives to a more optimistic ground.Recently, Asdrúbal Oliveros considered that the positive behavior in oil production will generate an “expansionary effect” on the entire economy, admitting that it has been marked by a deep contraction in recent years. Oliveros also estimated economic growth of around 12% this year. According to the analyst, the main driver of this improvement will be the hydrocarbons sector, which could experience an expansion of 30%.The economist associates the growth of Venezuela’s oil activities with the current state of relations between Venezuela and the US entity, which has resulted in oil licenses and the lifting of restrictions on the Venezuelan economy. Oliveros has also called for the need to close the exchange rate gap, which requires a new exchange system and the necessary flow of petrodollars.On the other hand, Ricardo Hausmann has suggested that there will be economic growth in Venezuela this year, but he has focused his assertion on political conditions. He states that any growth figure for 2026 will be fragile if it is not accompanied by a reinstitutionalization that allows for a return on investment.Rafael Quiroz has advocated for national stability and political stability as key factors in attracting investment. He has supported oil reform, and expressed positive views on the reform to the Organic Hydrocarbons Law. In recent statements, he mentioned that a complete institutional transition in state agencies, including PDVSA, could take up to three years. Therefore, he does not see the current growth phase as contingent on political change. Quiroz also made assessments about oil licenses, acknowledging their favorable impact on Venezuelan activities.Ronald Balza, dean of the Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences at the Andrés Bello Catholic University (UCAB), is part of the moderate opposition economist sector. He recently projected a possible growth of 10.4% of Venezuelan GDP for this year. He also questioned the initiatives to dollarize the Venezuelan economy, and alluded to the new oil revenues as a component element of “exchange rate stability.”Henkel García has repeatedly stated the obvious fact that oil remains the “key” to the economy. He has emphasized that appropriate public policy in this sector will generate benefits for the rest of the national industry. Echoing Hausmann and other commentators across the political spectrum, including María Corina Machado, he has spoken about the Hydrocarbons Law and licensing, arguing that with institutional reforms, production could reach between 1.3 and 1.4 million barrels per day within two years, “after a political transition.”José Guerra, a former anti-Chavista congressman and founder of the Venezuelan Finance Observatory (OVF), stated that the definitive stabilization of prices in the country depends largely “on the maintenance of oil agreements with the US.”“There is no doubt that the economy will grow,” he said, adding that the new revenues should be used to address the social debt. Guerra admitted that the new Hydrocarbons Law seeks to attract foreign companies, allowing the private sector and foreign companies to “obtain licenses” from the US regime and “market oil independently to revive the Venezuelan industry.”The general trend in claims among this group of opposition opinion leaders shares common criteria:• Starting in January, there will be more revenue from oil sales from Venezuela.• Foreign exchange earnings are a catalyst for multisectoral economic growth and clearly impact the country’s Gross Domestic Product.• Foreign currency income is a stabilizing factor for the exchange rate, reducing the gap, and mitigating devaluation and inflation.• Licenses are a central factor in the development of Venezuela’s energy activities.• For growth to be sustainable, institutional changes and a transition are necessary, implicitly acknowledging that sanctions hinder foreign investment.The use of coercive sanctions appears as a transversal axis that connects these criteria. In fact, these spokespeople seem to frame their comments as if the government in Miraflores were a different government than that of President Nicolás Maduro, ignoring the fact that Delcy Rodríguez has recently held the positions of the Executive Vice Presidency, Economic Vice Presidency, and the Ministry of Hydrocarbons.In very concrete terms, there has been no regime change in Venezuela, and the strategic line of economic management is preserved. The only things that are changing in the Venezuelan economy are the easing of the coercive framework, the revitalization of oil trade, and the flow of foreign currency.Rejecting Defeatism: Why Negotiation is Not Betrayal in the Face of US Imperialist Aggression Against VenezuelaThe shift in rhetoric exposes the omissions, silences, and distortions that have dominated economic opinion for years. It was never “the regime;” it has always been the sanctions.Perhaps an enlightening element regarding the reality of economic sanctions in Venezuela does not come from any Venezuelan economist, but from Donald Trump himself. Trump reiterated that his administration is working “closely with Venezuela’s new president, Delcy Rodríguez,” to “drive extraordinary economic progress for both countries.”The only thing the US administration has done is to relatively and partially loosen some of the constraints that were unjustly imposed on the national economy, all in exchange for oil that could have flowed freely for years if it had not been for the measures Trump himself implemented. (Misión Verdad)Translation: Orinoco TribuneOT/JRE/AU