The economist Elías Amor warns that the Cuban regime is pushing self-employed workers out of the merchandise import business to concentrate this activity in small and medium-sized enterprises (Mipymes), a decision he deems detrimental to the private sector as a whole because it eliminates competition.
In an interview with Tania Costa, Amor explained the real scope of this regulatory change. "Now they want to put an end to self-employed workers, to the business of importing food, clothing, and non-commercial hygiene products, and they want Mipymes to be able to engage in that activity."
The measure has direct consequences for thousands of Cubans who have supported their families for years by traveling abroad to seek goods. "This means that many self-employed Cuban workers, who would go abroad as mules to carry merchandise and then sell it in Cuba, will lose their business," noted the economist.
Amor does not hesitate to label the decision as a mistake. “That is truly a pity, in my opinion, because the good thing is precisely that there is competition.”
The legal framework supporting this change is the Decree 160/2026, published in the Official Gazette on July 28, 2026, and effective from August 4, which establishes that wholesale trade is prohibited for individual self-employed workers but open to private companies, Mipymes, and cooperatives.
This was complemented by the Decree-Law 133/2026, which allows for the direct import and export to Mipymes and cooperatives, although only with prior authorization from the Ministry of Foreign Trade. On August 28, the MINCIN also relaxed wholesale trade regulations for those same actors, further deepening the regulatory asymmetry with independent workers.
The phenomenon of "mules" is a practice that has been established for decades due to scarcity. Cubans travel to Panama, Mexico, Spain, or the United States to buy clothing, food, and hygiene products, and then bring them back to the island to sell. In practice, it has served as a pressure release valve in response to the State's inability to supply the domestic market.
Love frames this decision within a broader pattern. In his view, the regime needs the private sector to produce, but without relinquishing control. And that is the kind of decision he believes harms the private sector when adopted.
The economist rejects betting on state-owned enterprises and is emphatic about it: "State-owned enterprises are a dead weight that will need to be buried in their time, and those that can be transformed into private should be." Instead, he advocates for Mipymes and self-employed individuals as the true engines of economic change.
Regarding the real independence of Mipymes from the regime, Amor acknowledges that Díaz-Canel warned the private sector about abusive pricing and tax evasion in the August 2026 meeting, but adds: “There are over 10,000 Mipymes in Cuba, and it is very difficult for all of them to align with the interests of the regime.”
The economist also points out that the prevailing distrust among actors in the Cuban private sector is not coincidental. "It is typical of an authoritarian system like the Cuban one to be distrustful, because the networks of trust that exist in a democratic system do not exist here."
Love concludes with an underlying political reading. "Of course, one can weaken a regime through the economy. Completely agree. That's right."
Filed under: