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.