Editing Economy of Guatemala (section)

==Macroeconomic development==

[[Guatemala]] became more economically developed and stable from 1990 to 2011. The annual [[gross domestic product|GDP]] growth rate for Guatemala in 2000 was 3.6%, but just 0.9% in 2009, increasing slightly in 2010 to 2.0%<ref name="UN Better Future">United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2011; Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future For All. New York. 2011.</ref><ref name="UN Assessment">United Nations Development Programme. Assessment of Development Results Evaluation of UNDP Contribution Guatemala. New York. 2009.</ref> 
The poverty rate in Guatemala in 2006 was 54.8%, and the extreme poverty rate was 26.1%. Latin America as a whole had a poverty rate of 33% and an extreme poverty rate of 12.9% in 2009.<ref>UNDP Contribution Guatemala. New York. 2009. 
United Nations. 
Achieving the Millennium Development Goals With Equality in Latin America and the Caribbean Progress and Challenges. 
New York. 
2010.
</ref> The data indicate that [[Guatemala]] is behind other Latin American countries, in terms of lowering poverty rates, but there has been an increase in economic activity in terms of [[gross domestic product|GDP]] and development. Guatemala's [[human development index|HDI]] increased from 0.462 in 1990, to 0.525 in 2000, to 0.550 in 2005, and 0.574 in 2011.3 Guatemala ranked 131st in [[human development index|HDI]] in 2011.<ref name="UN Better Future"/> Other important human development statistics such as the total fertility rate in [[Guatemala]] decreased from 4.8 births per woman in 2000 to 4.2 births per woman in 2006.<ref name="UN Assessment"/> During the same period, [[life expectancy]] increased from 67.9 years in 2000, to 69.9 years in 2006.<ref name="UN Assessment"/>

The following table shows the main economic indicators in 1980–2021 (with IMF staff estimates in 2022–2027).<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2022/October/weo-report?c=258,&s=NGDP_RPCH,NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,PCPIPCH,GGXWDG_NGDP,&sy=1980&ey=2027&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1 | title=Report for Selected Countries and Subjects }}</ref> Inflation below 5% is in green. The annual unemployment rate is extracted from the [[World Bank]], although the [[International Monetary Fund]] find them unreliable.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) - Guatemala {{!}} Data |url=https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS?locations=GT |access-date=2023-01-30 |website=data.worldbank.org}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"
!Year
!GDP
<small>(in Bil. US$PPP)</small>
!GDP per capita
<small>(in US$ PPP)</small>
!GDP
<small>(in Bil. US$nominal)</small>
!GDP per capita
<small>(in US$ nominal)</small>
!GDP growth
<small>(real)</small>
!Inflation rate
<small>(in Percent)</small>
!Unemployment
<small>(in Percent)</small>
!Government debt
<small>(in % of GDP)</small>
|-
|1980
|19.2
|2,660.2
|7.7
|1,070.3
|{{Increase}}3.7%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}10.7%
|n/a
|n/a
|-
|1981
|{{Increase}}21.1
|{{Increase}}2,857.9
|{{Increase}}8.4
|{{Increase}}1,140.2
|{{Increase}}0.6%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}11.4%
|n/a
|n/a
|-
|1982
|{{Increase}}21.6
|{{Decrease}}2,854.5
|{{Increase}}8.5
|{{Decrease}}1,126.2
|{{Decrease}}-3.5%
|{{Increase}}4.9%
|n/a
|n/a
|-
|1983
|{{Increase}}21.9
|{{Decrease}}2,819.3
|{{Increase}}8.9
|{{Increase}}1,140.0
|{{Decrease}}-2.5%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}6.7%
|n/a
|n/a
|-
|1984
|{{Increase}}22.8
|{{Increase}}2,862.6
|{{Increase}}9.3
|{{Increase}}1,163.1
|{{Increase}}0.5%
|{{Increase}}3.2%
|n/a
|n/a
|-
|1985
|{{Increase}}23.4
|{{Decrease}}2,861.9
|{{Increase}}11.0
|{{Increase}}1,338.7
|{{Decrease}}-0.6%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}19.2%
|n/a
|n/a
|-
|1986
|{{Increase}}23.9
|{{Decrease}}2,849.4
|{{Decrease}}5.9
|{{Decrease}}705.8
|{{Increase}}0.1%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}32.8%
|n/a
|n/a
|-
|1987
|{{Increase}}25.4
|{{Increase}}2,949.2
|{{Increase}}6.9
|{{Increase}}797.0
|{{Increase}}3.6%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}10.8%
|n/a
|n/a
|-
|1988
|{{Increase}}27.3
|{{Increase}}3,093.7
|{{Increase}}7.4
|{{Increase}}841.8
|{{Increase}}3.9%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}10.3%
|n/a
|n/a
|-
|1989
|{{Increase}}29.5
|{{Increase}}3,260.3
|{{Increase}}8.6
|{{Increase}}946.8
|{{Increase}}3.9%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}13.0%
|n/a
|n/a
|-
|1990
|{{Increase}}31.5
|{{Increase}}3,403.7
|{{Decrease}}7.5
|{{Decrease}}808.9
|{{Increase}}3.1%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}38.0%
|n/a
|n/a
|-
|1991
|{{Increase}}33.6
|{{Increase}}3,540.5
|{{Increase}}9.2
|{{Increase}}966.0
|{{Increase}}3.0%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}35.1%
|2.6%
|n/a
|-
|1992
|{{Increase}}35.9
|{{Increase}}3,699.9
|{{Increase}}10.2
|{{Increase}}1,045.4
|{{Increase}}4.6%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}10.2%
|{{Steady}}2.6%
|n/a
|-
|1993
|{{Increase}}38.0
|{{Increase}}3,825.6
|{{Increase}}11.0
|{{Increase}}1,110.0
|{{Increase}}3.4%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}13.4%
|{{Steady}}2.6%
|n/a
|-
|1994
|{{Increase}}40.2
|{{Increase}}3,951.2
|{{Increase}}12.5
|{{Increase}}1,229.0
|{{Increase}}3.5%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}12.5%
|{{Steady}}2.6%
|n/a
|-
|1995
|{{Increase}}42.8
|{{Increase}}4,116.0
|{{Increase}}14.0
|{{Increase}}1,348.9
|{{Increase}}4.4%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}8.4%
|{{Steady}}2.6%
|n/a
|-
|1996
|{{Increase}}44.8
|{{Increase}}4,212.4
|{{Increase}}15.0
|{{Increase}}1,408.2
|{{Increase}}2.8%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}11.1%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}2.7%
|n/a
|-
|1997
|{{Increase}}47.5
|{{Increase}}4,362.0
|{{Increase}}17.0
|{{Increase}}1,559.6
|{{Increase}}4.1%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}9.2%
|{{Steady}}2.7%
|n/a
|-
|1998
|{{Increase}}50.2
|{{Increase}}4,512.1
|{{Increase}}18.4
|{{Increase}}1,656.4
|{{Increase}}4.6%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}6.6%
|{{Steady}}2.7%
|n/a
|-
|1999
|{{Increase}}52.8
|{{Increase}}4,639.2
|{{Decrease}}17.4
|{{Decrease}}1,527.2
|{{Increase}}3.7%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}5.2%
|{{Steady}}2.7%
|n/a
|-
|2000
|{{Increase}}55.4
|{{Increase}}4,752.9
|{{Increase}}18.1
|{{Increase}}1,555.6
|{{Increase}}2.5%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}6.0%
|{{Steady}}2.7%
|18.0%
|-
|2001
|{{Increase}}58.0
|{{Increase}}4,862.2
|{{Increase}}19.7
|{{Increase}}1,655.0
|{{Increase}}2.4%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}7.3%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}2.8%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}19.1%
|-
|2002
|{{Increase}}61.4
|{{Increase}}5,027.9
|{{Increase}}21.9
|{{Increase}}1,795.8
|{{Increase}}4.2%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}8.1%
|{{Steady}}2.8%
|{{DecreasePositive}}17.4%
|-
|2003
|{{Increase}}64.2
|{{Increase}}5,138.5
|{{Increase}}23.1
|{{Increase}}1,847.3
|{{Increase}}2.6%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}5.6%
|{{Steady}}2.8%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}19.8%
|-
|2004
|{{Increase}}67.9
|{{Increase}}5,307.3
|{{Increase}}25.0
|{{Increase}}1,951.8
|{{Increase}}3.0%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}7.6%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}3.0%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}20.6%
|-
|2005
|{{Increase}}72.2
|{{Increase}}5,512.6
|{{Increase}}28.2
|{{Increase}}2,151.7
|{{Increase}}3.1%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}9.1%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}3.1%
|{{DecreasePositive}}20.0%
|-
|2006
|{{Increase}}78.6
|{{Increase}}5,864.7
|{{Increase}}31.3
|{{Increase}}2,337.0
|{{Increase}}5.6%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}6.6%
|{{Steady}}3.1%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}20.9%
|-
|2007
|{{Increase}}85.6
|{{Increase}}6,246.2
|{{Increase}}35.0
|{{Increase}}2,556.8
|{{Increase}}6.0%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}6.8%
|{{Steady}}3.1%
|{{DecreasePositive}}20.8%
|-
|2008
|{{Increase}}90.4
|{{Increase}}6,454.9
|{{Increase}}40.2
|{{Increase}}2,873.1
|{{Increase}}3.7%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}11.4%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}3.3%
|{{DecreasePositive}}19.6%
|-
|2009
|{{Increase}}91.6
|{{Decrease}}6,395.8
|{{Decrease}}38.0
|{{Decrease}}2,654.1
|{{Increase}}0.6%
|{{Increase}}1.9%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}3.5%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}22.8%
|-
|2010
|{{Increase}}95.3
|{{Increase}}6,511.4
|{{Increase}}41.5
|{{Increase}}2,836.1
|{{Increase}}2.8%
|{{Increase}}3.9%
|{{Steady}}3.5%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}24.0%
|-
|2011
|{{Increase}}101.6
|{{Increase}}6,794.3
|{{Increase}}47.4
|{{Increase}}3,172.1
|{{Increase}}4.4%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}6.2%
|{{DecreasePositive}}3.1%
|{{DecreasePositive}}23.8%
|-
|2012
|{{Increase}}107.2
|{{Increase}}7,017.7
|{{Increase}}49.9
|{{Increase}}3,267.8
|{{Increase}}3.1%
|{{Increase}}3.8%
|{{DecreasePositive}}2.8%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}24.6%
|-
|2013
|{{Increase}}112.0
|{{Increase}}7,183.1
|{{Increase}}53.0
|{{Increase}}3,397.6
|{{Increase}}3.5%
|{{Increase}}4.3%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}3.0%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}25.0%
|-
|2014
|{{Increase}}118.8
|{{Increase}}7,457.9
|{{Increase}}57.8
|{{Increase}}3,632.1
|{{Increase}}4.4%
|{{Increase}}3.4%
|{{DecreasePositive}}2.7%
|{{DecreasePositive}}24.7%
|-
|2015
|{{Increase}}127.6
|{{Increase}}7,849.1
|{{Increase}}62.2
|{{Increase}}3,825.9
|{{Increase}}4.1%
|{{Increase}}2.4%
|{{DecreasePositive}}2.5%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}24.8%
|-
|2016
|{{Increase}}130.1
|{{Decrease}}7,847.2
|{{Increase}}66.0
|{{Increase}}3,982.0
|{{Increase}}2.7%
|{{Increase}}4.4%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}2.6%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}25.0%
|-
|2017
|{{Increase}}133.9
|{{Increase}}7,912.5
|{{Increase}}71.6
|{{Increase}}4,233.0
|{{Increase}}3.1%
|{{Increase}}4.4%
|{{DecreasePositive}}2.5%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}25.1%
|-
|2018
|{{Increase}}141.8
|{{Increase}}8,210.5
|{{Increase}}73.3
|{{Increase}}4,247.5
|{{Increase}}3.4%
|{{Increase}}3.8%
|{{DecreasePositive}}2.3%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}26.4%
|-
|2019
|{{Increase}}150.1
|{{Increase}}8,518.5
|{{Increase}}77.2
|{{Increase}}4,379.8
|{{Increase}}4.0%
|{{Increase}}3.7%
|{{DecreasePositive}}2.2%
|{{Steady}}26.4%
|-
|2020
|{{Decrease}}149.2
|{{Decrease}}8,300.2
|{{Increase}}77.6
|{{Decrease}}4,318.6
|{{Decrease}}-1.8%
|{{Increase}}3.2%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}3.6%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}31.5%
|-
|2021
|{{Increase}}167.8
|{{Increase}}9,148.9
|{{Increase}}86.0
|{{Increase}}4,687.8
|{{Increase}}8.0%
|{{Increase}}4.3%
|{{Steady}}3.6%
|{{DecreasePositive}}30.8%
|-
|2022
|{{Increase}}185.8
|{{Increase}}9,931.4
|{{Increase}}91.3
|{{Increase}}4,879.9
|{{Increase}}3.4%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}6.4%
|n/a
|{{DecreasePositive}}30.1%
|-
|2023
|{{Increase}}198.6
|{{Increase}}10,402.8
|{{Increase}}95.6
|{{Increase}}5,006.7
|{{Increase}}3.2%
|{{IncreaseNegative}}5.6%
|n/a
|{{DecreasePositive}}30.0%
|-
|2024
|{{Increase}}210.6
|{{Increase}}10,809.0
|{{Increase}}102.9
|{{Increase}}5,280.9
|{{Increase}}3.8%
|{{Increase}}4.3%
|n/a
|{{DecreasePositive}}29.7%
|-
|2025
|{{Increase}}222.3
|{{Increase}}11,183.1
|{{Increase}}110.2
|{{Increase}}5,545.5
|{{Increase}}3.6%
|{{Increase}}4.0%
|n/a
|{{DecreasePositive}}29.6%
|-
|2026
|{{Increase}}234.6
|{{Increase}}11,564.2
|{{Increase}}117.9
|{{Increase}}5,815.0
|{{Increase}}3.5%
|{{Increase}}4.0%
|n/a
|{{DecreasePositive}}29.4%
|-
|2027
|{{Increase}}247.5
|{{Increase}}11,957.2
|{{Increase}}126.1
|{{Increase}}6,094.9
|{{Increase}}3.5%
|{{Increase}}4.0%
|n/a
|{{DecreasePositive}}29.3%
|}

=== Electrical infrastructure in rural Guatemala ===
[[File:Guatemala electricity production.svg|thumb|Guatemala electricity production by year|400px]]
In Guatemala lack of access to electricity is concentrated in rural areas, although informal settlements around urban peripheries also tend to lack metered service.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Jimenez|first=Raul|date=2017|title=Barriers to electrification in Latin America: Income, location, and economic development|journal=Energy Strategy Reviews|volume=15|pages=9–18|doi=10.1016/j.esr.2016.11.001|bibcode=2017EneSR..15....9J |issn=2211-467X}}</ref> Guatemala's post-civil war efforts to improve electrical access in the countryside have proceeded under the auspices of the Rural Electrification Plan (Spanish: PER), a public-private partnership between the government's Ministry of Education and Mines (Mineduc) and private power companies.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Grogan|first=Louise|date=2018|title=Time use impacts of rural electrification: Longitudinal evidence from Guatemala|journal=Journal of Development Economics|language=en|volume=135|pages=304–317|doi=10.1016/j.jdeveco.2018.03.005|s2cid=155166026}}</ref> Over the period 2000 to 2011, the PER improved rates of electrical grid connectivity among non-indigenous (62 to 82 percent) and indigenous (48 to 70 percent) households in Guatemala.<ref name=":2" /> Continuity of the electrical grid is robust, with both groups reporting only about one hour per day of unavailability.<ref name=":2" /> Even when rural users are connected to the grid and pay subsidized rates, they often have difficulty affording electrical appliances, which translates into low power consumption (less than five percent of average US residential usage).<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last=Taylor|first=Matthew J|date=2005|title=Electrifying Rural Guatemala: Central Policy and Rural Reality|journal=Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy|language=en|volume=23|issue=2|pages=173–189|doi=10.1068/c14r|bibcode=2005EnPlC..23..173T |s2cid=56233492|issn=0263-774X}}</ref> This low power usage by rural customers is often not profitable for power companies,<ref name=":3" /> disincentivizing further expansion of the grid. As of 2014, one third of Guatemala's poorest rural residents still lacked electricity.<ref name=":0" /> By contrast, only around 8% of high-income rural residents lacked service,<ref name=":0" /> demonstrating that affordability plays a role in the accessibility of electrical grids.

In 2016, domestic hydroelectric power supplied the majority (about 34 percent) of Guatemala's electricity.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.cnee.gob.gt/estudioselectricos/Docs/Atlas%20SNI-2017-BR.pdf|title=República de Guatemala: Atlas del Sistema de Transmisión y Generación Eléctrica, 2017|last=Arroyo|first=Arnoldo|date=2017|website=Comisión Nacional de Energía Eléctrica, Guatemala|access-date=2019-05-12}}</ref> The planning process for constructing new hydropower dams was updated by the Guatemalan Congress in 1996 and 2007 (Decree 93–96, the "General Law of Electricity"),<ref name=":4">{{Cite journal|last1=Aguilar-Støen|first1=Mariel|last2=Hirsch|first2=Cecilie|date=2017|title=Bottom-up responses to environmental and social impact assessments: A case study from Guatemala|journal=Environmental Impact Assessment Review|language=en|volume=62|pages=225–232|doi=10.1016/j.eiar.2016.08.003|bibcode=2017EIARv..62..225A }}</ref> giving project developers more power over the process, especially with regards to environmental impact assessments (EIA).<ref name=":4" /> A study in Guatemala covering the period 2009 to 2014 found that private construction firms generally have little knowledge of the rights of rural indigenous peoples their projects may be affecting.<ref name=":4" /> Firms typically hire consultants to perform EIAs and liaise with affected communities.<ref name=":4" /> However, consultants are frequently disinterested in adequately informing rural communities of the potential impacts of proposed projects.<ref name=":4" /> Instead, consultants frequently resort to bribery and manipulation to obtain consent to proceed with hydroelectric projects.<ref name=":4" /> Interlocutors from within the government say that there is internal pressure to approve EIAs even if they are performed inadequately,<ref name=":4" /> showing that visions of Guatemala's energy future may be overriding the interests of segments of its populace.