In a recent discussion with Tania Costa on CiberCuba, Cuban economist Mauricio de Miranda suggested that the 176 measures approved in June 2026 were not crafted to enhance the daily life of Cubans. Instead, these measures seem to be a political gesture aimed at certain sectors within the U.S. government that are keen on business opportunities.
Mauricio de Miranda, a member of the Cuba Transformation group consisting of five Cuban economists, believes that the announcement and subsequent approval in the National Assembly are primarily intended for "the other side of the shore" to notice. He argues, "These measures are essentially a message to specific individuals in the U.S. government: look, we are capable of opening up our economy, we will open to the private sector, we won't budge an inch from our political system, but if some of you are not concerned with the political aspect and are interested in business opportunities, here you'll find all the possibilities you want."
According to de Miranda, this approach could have dire consequences. "This is extremely serious for Cuba's future," he stated.
The Political Weight of Economic Policies
De Miranda contends that when economic policies are enacted, they cannot be separated from the nature of the state implementing them. "It's crucial to understand that when economics is addressed from a normative perspective and becomes economic policy, it is deeply intertwined with politics. What kind of state will execute these policies?" he questioned.
He warns that without institutional checks and balances, the outcome is predictable. "If there are no political counterweights, if there isn't an orderly legal framework, what you'll witness is a transition akin to Russia's or political changes similar to those in Russia," he explained.
Lessons from Post-Soviet Transition
This isn't just a vague analogy. In December 2025, Mauricio de Miranda published an analysis on the authoritarian capitalism of post-Soviet states on Cuba x Cuba. He discussed how Russia and Central Asian republics shifted from bureaucratic communism to a patrimonial capitalism where party elites transformed into oligarchs through opaque privatizations.
In such frameworks, economic reforms didn’t benefit the general population but rather those who already held political power. De Miranda firmly states, "This issue isn't about economists; it's a political system problem and a political decision."
International and Domestic Responses
These remarks align with the U.S. State Department's view, which labeled the reforms as "superficial smoke signals" just a day after their ratification. The Trump Administration responded by imposing new sanctions on five entities linked to GAESA and on Alejandro Castro Espín's wife four days following the announcement.
The Food Monitor Program also sounded the alarm, warning that selling stakes in state companies without transparent bidding could lead to "crony capitalism," echoing Miranda's concerns.
Additionally, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, addressing the 56th OAS General Assembly in Panama City, demanded immediate economic and political reforms from the Cuban regime, describing it as a collapsing state with "no other option."
A Vision for a Different Economic Future
The Cuba Transformation group, which includes Mauricio de Miranda alongside Pedro Monreal, Pavel Vidal, Omar Everleny, and Ricardo Torres, offers an alternative: a social market economy developed within the framework of a democratic rule of law, as Miranda puts it.
Without such a framework, Miranda concludes, any economic opening in Cuba risks becoming just another iteration of privatization for the usual beneficiaries, under a new guise.
Impact of Economic Policies on Cuba
What are the 176 measures approved in June 2026?
The 176 measures are a set of economic policies approved in June 2026, perceived as a political gesture aimed at U.S. government sectors interested in business opportunities, rather than improving the lives of Cubans.
How do the 176 measures affect the Cuban economy?
The measures are seen as potentially leading to a transition similar to Russia's, lacking institutional checks and balances, which might not benefit the general population but rather those already holding political power.
What is the position of the U.S. on these reforms?
The U.S. State Department has criticized the reforms as superficial, and the Trump Administration has imposed sanctions on entities linked to GAESA and individuals connected to the Cuban regime.