Central / South America as Advanced as North America

I've been pondering the reasons why North America (United States and Canada) is so much more advanced than the rest of the Americas. What are the reasons for this? To put it into alternate history, what would have to change in Central / South American history to have the rest of the new world be as advanced as the US and Canada?

Does the fact that the English Protestants colonize the US and Canada matter? Is there some sort of work ethic among them that was lacking in the Hispanic and Catholic colonies? Did the fact that Central and South America had larger populations of more advanced societies matter? Could the rest of the Americas be compared to the Southern portion of the US in that the economies were agricultural and slave based long after the northern US began to industrialize?
 
Perhaps some part could be said that the English colonies' trade wasn't that restricted compared to the Latin European colonies? France kept most potentially good colonists from New France, and Spain and Portugal alongside the French severely restricted trade, holding a monopoly on it. As all my old textbooks said, England didn't try to interfere much despite nominal control laws until after the Seven Years' War due to the great profits shutting up any real complaints.

From there, I guess the whole republicanism combines with that trading enterprise to gaurentee most of the territories get built up quickly and all.
 
I've been pondering the reasons why North America (United States and Canada) is so much more advanced than the rest of the Americas. What are the reasons for this? To put it into alternate history, what would have to change in Central / South American history to have the rest of the new world be as advanced as the US and Canada?

Does the fact that the English Protestants colonize the US and Canada matter? Is there some sort of work ethic among them that was lacking in the Hispanic and Catholic colonies? Did the fact that Central and South America had larger populations of more advanced societies matter? Could the rest of the Americas be compared to the Southern portion of the US in that the economies were agricultural and slave based long after the northern US began to industrialize?

I think for many, the issues is more complex than simply poor work ethic. Take Mexico, for example. Like much of the former Spanish Empire, Mexico had a caste system, with Creoles, Mestizos, Mullatos all competing against one another. Large native populations remained in much of the Latin America with a Spanish ruling class and a racially mixed class in the middle. These internal divisions create all sorts of problems in forging political consensus in the new states created in the 1810s.

In Mexico, the already fractious nature of the population was coupled with a large territory. Moreover, in central Mexcio (OTL Mexico), the geography conspires against the power of central authority: the twin mountain ranges of the Sierra Madres (Occidentale and Orientale), the arid regions of Sonora and Chihuahua, the jungles of Oaxaca and Yucatan, all create shelter for insurgents and guerrillas. Hence, it's very difficult for any Mexican government to keep a rebel movement from forming, resulting in mounting poverty and a lack of industrialization. In Central America, similar factors fueled the disintegration of the United Provinces of Central America; in northern South America, the disintegration of Gran Colombia. It continues to aid insurgent groups (i.e. FARC and the Shinning Path). Brazil is blessed with a huge territory, but almost no infrasturcture or natural supplement; its terrain and flora combine to make expansion of infrastructure difficult. Argentina is comparatively well-off and at certain points in the early 20th century, its GDP per capita is equivalent to the developed world; however it loses out from the opposite dynamic as Mexcio: nearly a quarter of its population is concentrated in the area around Buenos Aires. This means that even though Argentina is about the size of the 1783 USA, it does not have multiple constituent parts and hence lacks the stability that Madison outlines as a theoretical boon for a large republic. If one controls Buenos Aires, then one can control Argentina. Terrain similar to that described in Mexico combined with caste-like politics also helps to explain Bolivia, Uruguay, and Paraguay.

The colonial policy of Spain--fostering an extractive economy, limiting new settlement, unconsioucsly abeting the caste system--combined with a "manana" mentality didn't help but isn't IMO the root cause. Also, the US benefited from an enormous run of good luck: though it is geographically vast, it has large river systems to facilitate transportation in much of the country. The range of climates in the US is on the whole more similar than that in Argentina and more temperate and suitable to European agriculture than the rest of Latin America, making it a greater draw for immigrants. The US also has the windfall of the founding fathers and approximately 30 years of stunning progress (1776-1806: successful ARW, Constitutional Convention, LA Purchase). It's something of quiet miracle that a country that 300 years ago didn't exist, is now the richest on the planet.
 
Perhaps some part could be said that the English colonies' trade wasn't that restricted compared to the Latin European colonies? France kept most potentially good colonists from New France, and Spain and Portugal alongside the French severely restricted trade, holding a monopoly on it. As all my old textbooks said, England didn't try to interfere much despite nominal control laws until after the Seven Years' War due to the great profits shutting up any real complaints.

From there, I guess the whole republicanism combines with that trading enterprise to gaurentee most of the territories get built up quickly and all.

Again, I think it's more complicated: many of the new states created in the 1810-20s benefited from British trade (a large part of the reason for Canning's support of their independence). They would also benefit from British investment (building railroads, for example). While this colonialism earned Britain the ire of many countries (evident in the Falklands War, for example), the infrastructure could have had beneficial effects. So too the capital gained from trade, though not the colonial economy (reliance on the metropole for refined goods) this encouraged. To this extent however it's an accident of English distraction with civil strife (in the 1600s) and contiental conflicts (in the 1700s) that kept the American colonies free to develop all sorts of things they weren't supposed to.
 
It is funny if you traveled back to the end of the XVII century and compared for instance Mexico and New England, you would see old universities, infraestructures, cities and huge ports in New Spain while you would see small settlements of fur traders, settlements of refugees in New England...

Personally I think it would have been better for South and Central America not have had silver and gold mines and to have had coal and iron ones.
 
I recently read that the World Bank was trying to figure out why its strategy of building mega-projects consistently failed to help the nations in which they were built. The conclusion was that corruption was the most important gating factor. In corrupt nations funds for projects were misdirected and the projects themselves were altered to benefit corrupt individuals. In nations with low corruption mega-project were not needed and a policy of helping private enterprise proved more useful.


You can take a look at perceived corruption in a map like this:

World_Map_Index_of_perception_of_corruption.png

If it is true that corruption inhibits development then the question for alt-hist is "what POD would make Central and South America less corrupt?"
 

Rockingham

Banned
My own idea- the fact that the US had large areas open for immigration was an advantage. Unlike the Latin states, which typically were densely filled enough that immigration from their own territories filled the gap(Argentina and Mexico are the notable excpeptions), the US was able to take may immigrants from Europe, and thus kept up with and absorbed many of the European ideals and concepts, as well as allowing a flow of new cultures and skilled individuals, thus avoiding stagnation. For example the numerous Jewish immigrants were a definate boon.

My point is demonstrated in Argentina, which entered a period of economic growth and approachement to modernity while it was being settled by numerous European immigrants, and entered a slump when this ceased.

The Mexican exception is easily explainable- the colonialists were simply not loyal to it-unlike Argentina and the US, they came without Mexico's acceptance, and were neither hindered nor aided by Mexico.

In Mexico, the already fractious nature of the population was coupled with a large territory. Moreover, in central Mexcio (OTL Mexico), the geography conspires against the power of central authority: the twin mountain ranges of the Sierra Madres (Occidentale and Orientale), the arid regions of Sonora and Chihuahua, the jungles of Oaxaca and Yucatan, all create shelter for insurgents and guerrillas. Hence, it's very difficult for any Mexican government to keep a rebel movement from forming, resulting in mounting poverty and a lack of industrialization. In Central America, similar factors fueled the disintegration of the United Provinces of Central America; in northern South America, the disintegration of Gran Colombia. It continues to aid insurgent groups (i.e. FARC and the Shinning Path). Brazil is blessed with a huge territory, but almost no infrasturcture or natural supplement; its terrain and flora combine to make expansion of infrastructure difficult. Argentina is comparatively well-off and at certain points in the early 20th century, its GDP per capita is equivalent to the developed world; however it loses out from the opposite dynamic as Mexcio: nearly a quarter of its population is concentrated in the area around Buenos Aires. This means that even though Argentina is about the size of the 1783 USA, it does not have multiple constituent parts and hence lacks the stability that Madison outlines as a theoretical boon for a large republic. If one controls Buenos Aires, then one can control Argentina. Terrain similar to that described in Mexico combined with caste-like politics also helps to explain Bolivia, Uruguay, and Paraguay.
Uruguay? It geography would seem ideal.... as for Paraguay, taking on Argentina and Brazil at the same time did that(war of the triple alliance). And what about Chile?

It is funny if you traveled back to the end of the XVII century and compared for instance Mexico and New England, you would see old universities, infraestructures, cities and huge ports in New Spain while you would see small settlements of fur traders, settlements of refugees in New England...

Personally I think it would have been better for South and Central America not have had silver and gold mines and to have had coal and iron ones.
You make a good point, its a matter of time as much as anything else. This NA's era(Mexico being likely to rise as well due to NAFTA).... who's t osay the US won't shrink into irrelevancy and Latin America take up the slack in the 22nd century? No nation is permanently powerful or wealthy, although some, unfortunately, seem cursed with eternal poverty.
 

Rockingham

Banned
If it is true that corruption inhibits development then the question for alt-hist is "what POD would make Central and South America less corrupt?"

I tend to think that its more the other way round- development inhibits corruption. The more developed a nation is, the harder it is for corruption to take place. Corruption hinders development, but it doesn't prevent it. So its something of a self-reinforcing cycle:
more corruption leads to less development, less development leads to more corruption

less corruption leads to more devlopment, more development leads to less coruption.
 
I'm just gonna fling this, mind you, I was raised Catholic. It seems to me that many of these nations had a wealthy elite, and perhaps a military elite. When you add in a religious elitist factor, it tears apart the oppurtunity for said state to advance, do to having 3 self serving factions to an allready somewhat stunted economy.

Seems to me like the Wealthy will screw the poor, and fear the military, while condescending to the Church. The military will pretend to champion the poor, keep the rich afraid, and skim what it can from the church. The poor see the wealth of the rich, the oppurtunity of the military, and the ostentatious uselessness of the clergy.


The middle-class not only suffers, but rarely manifests itself....

No middle class, no chance at long term success as a state. JMO...
 
I think a lot of the reasons have to do with the system of colonization set in place. The U.S.A. and Canada are essentially Western European nations set in the American continent, and culturally and governmentally it shows. Their governmental system were set up as associations of English free men organzing themselves in ways similar to the ways they would have organized themselves in Europe.

In Latin America, almost everywhere but Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile, we have colonies set up over existing populations, and an autocratic caste-based mode of government took root. The people were never given a chance to organize optimum government as they were in North America. Governments in Latin America are corrupt because they don't have a tradition of accountability to their people.

That's the short answer, but it basically answers all the questions.
 
I tend to think that its more the other way round- development inhibits corruption. The more developed a nation is, the harder it is for corruption to take place. Corruption hinders development, but it doesn't prevent it. So its something of a self-reinforcing cycle:
more corruption leads to less development, less development leads to more corruption

less corruption leads to more devlopment, more development leads to less coruption.

I cannot agree more. When comparing english and spanish colonisation why do we always look at the US/Canada vs. Mexico/Colombia why do not we compare Chile/Uruguay vs. Pakistan/Sudan?
 
I recently read that the World Bank was trying to figure out why its strategy of building mega-projects consistently failed to help the nations in which they were built. The conclusion was that corruption was the most important gating factor. In corrupt nations funds for projects were misdirected and the projects themselves were altered to benefit corrupt individuals. In nations with low corruption mega-project were not needed and a policy of helping private enterprise proved more useful.


You can take a look at perceived corruption in a map like this:

If it is true that corruption inhibits development then the question for alt-hist is "what POD would make Central and South America less corrupt?"

Over the summer, I was talking about this topic with a coworker who's family is from Latin America, him being a first generation immigrant. Based on things I had heard from other people, I advanced my observation that the Latino nations were very tolerant of corruption. He immediately agreed, and cited an incident of his uncle, who still travels down there; whenever he gets pulled over by the local police, all his uncle did was bribe them and they'd let him go.

Therefor, I'm of the opinion that the Latin American cultures aren't themselves corrupt, by very tolerant of corruption, much the presidency of US Grant. Why? Dunno. One person mentioned that it stems from their lenient, carefree, "It could be worse," attitude, but I can't say anything on that.
 
Therefor, I'm of the opinion that the Latin American cultures aren't themselves corrupt, by very tolerant of corruption, much the presidency of US Grant. Why? Dunno. One person mentioned that it stems from their lenient, carefree, "It could be worse," attitude, but I can't say anything on that.

:rolleyes:
Or you could just read the rest of the thread as to WHY there isn't a culture of political accountability in Latin America, instead of spouting vaguely racist anecdotes about how "they're just different down there".
 
:rolleyes:
Or you could just read the rest of the thread as to WHY there isn't a culture of political accountability in Latin America, instead of spouting vaguely racist anecdotes about how "they're just different down there".
I fail to see how it was racist if he simply suggested it was an institutional weakness like one we had during the Gilded Age, one of the most famously corrupt times in US history. It's called "making a comparison," and it's a valid one at that. Time was, you could bribe just about any major police department in the US, proof of which being that men like Capone ran their gangs even while in jail. And the fact was that at the time, people accepted it as natural. Hardly "just different over there."


Edit: And besides, once you get to know him, you'll realize that Blizrun himself is the epitome of "just different over there." He's a kook. (;)
 
I fail to see how it was racist if he simply suggested it was an institutional weakness like one we had during the Gilded Age, one of the most famously corrupt times in US history. It's called "making a comparison," and it's a valid one at that. Time was, you could bribe just about any major police department in the US, proof of which being that men like Capone ran their gangs even while in jail. And the fact was that at the time, people accepted it as natural. Hardly "just different over there."


Edit: And besides, once you get to know him, you'll realize that Blizrun himself is the epitome of "just different over there." He's a kook. (;)

I suppose I may have gone a bit far in characterizing his accusations (though I did say "vaguely" ;)). Wouldn't you say that corruption of the sort you described in the U.S. declined as the result of more accountable government that appeared in the wake of the Progressive and Populist eras?
 
I suppose I may have gone a bit far in characterizing his accusations (though I did say "vaguely" ;)). Wouldn't you say that corruption of the sort you described in the U.S. declined as the result of more accountable government that appeared in the wake of the Progressive and Populist eras?
I would, though it was hardly a quick or total correction. (The New York Police Department, bigger than the US Coast Guard, is rife with corruption still.) But now that the Cold War is over and US leaders don't fear/feel a need to support strongmen friendly to the US, I (personally) feel that democracy in Latin America has a change to grow stronger. It hasn't been a total or uniform success (my opinion of Chavez will become apparent over time in the political chat section), but now the local democracies have a chance to succeed or fail on their own, and not solely due to the US. A free press that can criticize the establishment can expose, discourage, and eventually root out corruption.
 
I would, though it was hardly a quick or total correction. (The New York Police Department, bigger than the US Coast Guard, is rife with corruption still.) But now that the Cold War is over and US leaders don't fear/feel a need to support strongmen friendly to the US, I (personally) feel that democracy in Latin America has a change to grow stronger. It hasn't been a total or uniform success (my opinion of Chavez will become apparent over time in the political chat section), but now the local democracies have a chance to succeed or fail on their own, and not solely due to the US. A free press that can criticize the establishment can expose, discourage, and eventually root out corruption.

I agree with all of that. Ultimately, populist movements like Chavez' are just the same old politics as usual, just pandering to the masses instead of to the elites. Not that Venezuela's elite aren't still just as elite as they were before Chavez...
 
Top