Then there's corporatism. Vargas nakedly copied Mussolini in this regard and compiled labor legislation based on the Carta del Lavoro. All, from factory workers to their employees banded into thousands of corporations, all of whom used political pressure to acquire public subsidies and favorable regulation.

But there's a catch. Unions and the like are indifferent to society as a whole, they only act to serve their own immediate interests. Whenever one of them makes gains, there are cheers. They talk of "rights", but those can just as well be called "privileges". Few ask the question: at what cost? Someone else had to lose, because they follow a rent-seeking logic, capturing state funds (which are finite) and using bureaucratic obstructions to block off access to new competitors, make it harder for newcomers to enter the profession and propping up the cost of their services. Sure, they may get wealthier, but the youngest workers have difficulties, consumers have more expensive services and national innovation and progress are slowed down. Perhaps every consumer is already part of his own corporation who also pushes for its interest. But that is not always the case, and even if it is not every corporation has the same power and the whole game is zero-sum.
It's destructive competition.

This became obvious when taxi drivers opposed the introduction of Uber and other alternatives. They used pompous rhetoric, but behind it lay the self-interest of a small group wishing to preserve a monopoly even though this limited options for costumers.

And since it is heavily bureaucratic in nature, it is prone to becoming ossified over time, obstructing any change and even technological advancement. Such was the case with the old guilds of Europe, which by the eve of the Industrial Revolution were already seen as obstacles to development and died out or were abolished from the French Revolution and onwards.
Across Latin America this system was fed and expanded, and its negative side had an impact.

As it existed, the Latin American populist model had a tendency towards political radicalization. In the 40s and 50s Varguismo had a centrist moderate party (the PSD), but towards the 60s the system was collapsing under the weight of uncontrolled spending in infrastructure and Brasília's construction and both left and right grew increasingly radical, leading to the 1964 coup d'etat. It's responsibility in large part ultimately lies in the contradictions of the structure set up by Vargas.

And as a strand of populism, Peronismo/Varguismo tend to overlook the importance of institutions to development. The formation of contracts and other interactions between strangers relies on the security provided by impartial courts, a government that doesn't act unpredictably and the like. Vargas and other dictators didn't care about this or the whole theory behind it and in fact degraded institutions by basing their power on a cult of personality, which naturally becomes a negative factor after the ruler's death. Rather than Péron or Vargas or random tin-pot African or Arab dictators, Botswana's case should be studied as an example of Third World development.

Ultimately it's a product of another time, another continent (e.g. Latin America is now heavily urbanized, there is no peasantry to speak of) and another stage of capitalism. A decades-old idea only boomers subscribe to (I know quite a few who enthusiastically repeat rusty old Third Worldist rhetoric and rage against international capital), mired in nostalgia for a dreams of a future that never came to be. To demand classical Peronism in this day and age is to look towards the past. It had its run, it made its achievements and suffered under its contradictions, but now it can at most serve as an inspiration rather than a ready-made model.