Best realistic scenario for a more successful Latin America?

Latin America is unique among what is considered or was considered the developing world in that most of the major colonies achieved their independence not in the 20th century but by the early 19th century. Not too long after the US own independence.

With that in mind where could things have gone better to have a much more successful Latin America from Mexico down to Argentina by the mid 20th century at least?
 
Quiet easy. Keep Brazil as monarchy so it might develope powerful and stable nation. Argentina was on early 20th century stable and rich republic so it is easy avoid things going total shitstorm. Stable and democratic Brazil and Argentina might help rest of SA.
 
The first half of the 19th century.

Well there are a few good TLs currently ongoing with this basic premise. Miranda's Dream by Red_Galiray, ¡Por la Patria, Viva México Fuerte! by Arkhangelsk, and Mexico Ascendant: The Tale of a Failed Texan Revolution by theman7777 all come to mind and fit the POD window. *Shameless self-plug* There's also The Colombian Empire by me ;) There's also others I failed to remember, and many more older ones that can be found if you know where to look.

Generally, though, a lot of people agree that political stability is one of the key factors for a more successful and richer Latin America. People are less likely to invest in or emigrate to a country that's unstable, and frequent coups, civil wars, or dictatorships make it hard for entrepreneurs to build up capital. A lot of political instability lead to greater economic woes, which fed further political trouble. Prevent a lot of the initial instability, and the region as a whole will be able to progress better with a more solid foundation. Unfortunately the legacy of the Spanish colonial government did not make this easy, but it also wasn't impossible.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The first half of the 19th century.

That's too late, in my opinion. The United States and Canada have been more successful than the rest of the New World mostly because British systems of law, land ownership, and representative government were infused into them from the start. Latin America wasn't similarly blessed.
 
That's too late, in my opinion. The United States and Canada have been more successful than the rest of the New World mostly because British systems of law, land ownership, and representative government were infused into them from the start. Latin America wasn't similarly blessed.

Some Latin American nations were quiet close on Anglo-American style government. These could develope more stable system if them just would be allowed do that. And some Latin American nations has been stable democracies very long.
 
That's too late, in my opinion. The United States and Canada have been more successful than the rest of the New World mostly because British systems of law, land ownership, and representative government were infused into them from the start. Latin America wasn't similarly blessed.

I think that it is too late, but more because of economic, population and political reasons, not because of the british system of laws.
 

Lusitania

Donor
USA and Canada have been successful due in part by investment first by British in those two countries first in resource development then Manufacturing. Add to that stable democratic government that negated the most negative parts of one party system such as corruption (there was corruption but not as extensive). This plus immigration allowed them to grow and prosper.

Brazil and Argentina plus maybe Chile are the countries which could of emulated the North American example.

Stable government, be it republican or constitutional monarchy with strong rule of law go along way to provide the basis for prosperous country.
 
Latin America inherited such an underdevelopment from Spain, and then they had an issue similar to modern Africa in that other countries wanted cheap raw exports from them.

I think Argentina is the Latin America country with the best potential, all things considered, since after all in OTL it achieved something. But in any case, the countries were very corrupt (like modern Africa) and it was very easy to ask for "favours" from members of their legislature or persuade them into your line of thinking (if you're British or American or whatever). Every country from Colombia to Chile had that problem.

A more stable early Argentina would mean quite a bit for the continent as a whole. It really hurt the potential of the country when it had to endure decades of low-intensity civil war.

For stability, you had Chile, which only had a few short civil wars (nothing like, say, Colombia) up until the chaotic period of the late 1920s/early 30s, and was nominally a democracy the whole time.
 
Quiet easy. Keep Brazil as monarchy so it might develope powerful and stable nation. Argentina was on early 20th century stable and rich republic so it is easy avoid things going total shitstorm. Stable and democratic Brazil and Argentina might help rest of SA.

How does a monarchy make Brazil more prosperous?
 
How does a monarchy make Brazil more prosperous?

Well, you just butterfly the 1889 coup, the 1890 crash, the two revolts of the navy, the federalist war (over ten thousand people died in the military terror following the coup), you butterfly away the congress being closed and the pwoer being given to the landowners, you also prevent the coffe and milky policy, and to keep it short, you prevent the worst shitstorm to happen in Brazilian history that was the old republic
 
How does a monarchy make Brazil more prosperous?
The First Republic that overthrew the Empire wasn't quite popular nor was it really a republic (more of an oligarchy led by agrian landowners). Voting rights decreased while the oligarchs kept putting all their baskets in specialized crops, like sugar, coffee and rubber while industry was a bit neglected. General instability and political unrest. Regionalism?

The last Emperor, Pedro II, on the other hand, was and is widely beloved by the Brazilian people for his reforms, patronage of the arts and sciences, and the general economic prosperity of the era. His daughter too was rather well liked. Abolitionism and trying to help the lower class factored in heavily to the 1889 coup.

It's less that a monarchy makes Brazil more prosperous and more that the Old Republic was a disaster in terms of political stability and economics. Keeping the monarchy would've kept things more stable and prevented the landowners from exploiting the nation as much as they did OTL.
 
Best realistic or wank? We could throw a bunch of PODs for most, if not all countries, for instance. In Argentina's case, make sure Dorrego defeats Lavalle instead of the other way around and manages to unify the country by 1830.

Of we can avoid the Latin American debt crisis - in Argentina particular case, also keep incompetent finance ministers like Celestino Rodrigo and Martinez de Hoz from getting any amount of power, so the collapse in this graph is averted
okRL0y1.jpg

The 1980s, instead of being a lost decade turn into a decade of boring and stable economic growth, as well as democratization. Debt to GDP ratios remain manageable. By the 2000s, the combination of low interest rates, high commodity prices and an ATL healthy economy turns the region into a much more highly productive, prosperous place. Done.
 
Top