The presidential election in Peru is more evidence of the fact that macroeconomic growth alone is not enough to understand whether people are becoming more prosperous. Too many basically sit back and wonder why those Peruvians don't know what's good for them when they vote.
But the issue of growth comes back to an entirely unoriginal point I keep making, namely that commodity-driven growth is unstable. An article from the Brookings Institution, while even giddy about Argentina of all places, provides a glimpse into the problem.
Traditional Dutch disease has been linked primarily to the effects of high commodity export prices or volumes in one sector at the expense of other sectors. The symptoms are already apparent in commodity exporting countries like Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia, where the volumes of non-primary net exports have been falling rapidly and industrial output and employment are starting to dwindle despite solid GDP growth figures.
The authors also discuss "financial Dutch disease" and argue that a bit of financial tweaking will largely address the problem. History suggests otherwise. Plus, growth alone says nothing about distribution of wealth. In short, nice looking growth rates obscure problems with employment (not to mention the fact that the nature and wages of the employment is almost never discussed) and commodity dependence. These are very old ideas and arguments, but so often get lost in the shuffle.