How could have Mexico become a Developed Country on par with Spain?.


The instant everybody realized how much gold and silver was present in a lot of that territory (California, Nevada, and Colorado in particular) somebody would have moved in. If the U.S. didn't for whatever reason it would have been the British. We know this would have happened because that was how Britain acted IOTL (Boer War was the same thing).

I don't think they were ever going to hold onto that territory, though the whole western Pacific Coast being Canadian is an interesting thought.
 
Last edited:
The instant everybody realized how much gold and silver was present in a lot of that territory (California, Nevada, and Colorado in particular) somebody would have moved in. If the U.S. didn't for whatever reason it would have been the British. We know this would have happened because that was how Britain acted IOTL (Boer War was the same thing).

I don't think they were ever going to hold onto that territory, though the whole western Pacific Coast being Canadian is an interesting thought.

On the contrary, I think loosing the north was not a thing set in stone. The country put concern in gaining a stronger grip in their northern territories since independence ended. Had they had more success in that, it would make a difference in retaining some, if not all.
 
On the contrary, I think loosing the north was not a thing set in stone. The country put concern in gaining a stronger grip in their northern territories since independence ended. Had they had more success in that, it would make a difference in retaining some, if not all.

Yeah, the trick is that they have to keep the most important parts. Holding onto Arizona, New Mexico, and maybe southern California (the desert wasteland parts) won't make a big difference for Mexico.

Those are the parts that much stronger people have a major interest in annexing.
 
Yeah, the trick is that they have to keep the most important parts. Holding onto Arizona, New Mexico, and maybe southern California (the desert wasteland parts) won't make a big difference for Mexico.

Those are the parts that much stronger people have a major interest in annexing.

Well, then it's a matter of analyzing the cases.

Would the Americans have a big interest in pulling Texas and Bear Flag Republic type uprisings if Mexico had managed to have a stronger presence and/or a more stable government? Would a more populated north make the area less appealing for American adquisition? Would they even have an opening if the Texas rebellion is squashed?

I'd speak of Great Britain, but I don't know at the moment their exact interests about the region. Other than their attempt to turn independent Texas into a buffer state.

But well, ultimately, retaining the north is not a vital step to fulfill the thread's question. It laregly helps, but it's not vital. Might even be overboard, who knows.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
1. Prevent the Texas Revolt.

2. Prevent the 1846 Mexican-American War

3. Keep the country out of ruinous debt thereby preventing the French Occupation/Maximilian.

While holding on to these territories could do all sorts of wonderful things for Mexico, probably the right changes and luck could have brought them up to the Spanish level by the 21st century.

BTW, Spain is a developed country with a better safety net than Mexico, but it still faces high unemployment and debt.

When did Spanish standard of living surpass Mexican? Was it always thus, or was there a crossover point in the 19th or 20th century where Mexico pulled ahead?

Is Mexico ahead of Argentina, Chile and Uruguay in standard of living, or behind all three?

For worse, mestizaje seems to correlate with limits on development and persistence of social injustice. However, Argentina demonstrates that even without that, social cohesion can be poor.
 
Perhaps Emperor Maxmilian is able to better consolidate his power by either a Confederate victory or a longer Civil War, one with the Union even more battered.
Once French influence recedes, the Second Mexican Empire becomes over time a stable constitional monarchy, differing from the chaotic revolutions of the early 20th C. in OTL.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps not have Santa Anne and others trying to push federalization everyone, which caused so many areas to try to secede. Going slower might have worked better. Though admittedly it might have simply made everyone drift apart faster.
 
Mexico ... was instead governed by a very corrupt one party system.

This. Mexico didn't have anything approaching a stable government until AFTER World War II. Without a functioning government Mexico was doomed to wallow in poverty. Now with the drug cartels things really aren't much better...
 
This. Mexico didn't have anything approaching a stable government until AFTER World War II. Without a functioning government Mexico was doomed to wallow in poverty. Now with the drug cartels things really aren't much better...
I insist, as long as Mexico continues as a corrupt nation the narcoviolence and inefficent governments will continue. I think Mexico needs a cultural change to truly succeed.
Before the 1900 a good POD could be a surviving Mexican Empire or an earlier peaceful transition from porfiriato to democracy.
 
I insist, as long as Mexico continues as a corrupt nation the narcoviolence and inefficent governments will continue. I think Mexico needs a cultural change to truly succeed.
Before the 1900 a good POD could be a surviving Mexican Empire or an earlier peaceful transition from porfiriato to democracy.
Does your surviving Mexican Empire include its northern territories?
There's no way Mexico keeps these territories on its own, only with a strong European alliance(s) and/or a weak USA.
But of course there's a TL for everything.
 
But why couldn't you find someone who spoke Spanish on your end?

A fair question. It would certainly help if far more Americans were multilingal.

However, in this case, an English-speaking company had the idea and the capital. If you want investment, you'll do what it takes to work with those that have the money, even if that means you hire some people who speak that language (English, Chinese, or whatever). If you aren't willing to do that, you're note really interested in investment or partnership.
 
part of the problem is the cultural colonial setup. The Spaniards did not set up a self governing colonial society. They set it up on a feudal/extractive/exploitative basis. thus, when independence came, all over Spanish colonies, you have a warlord situation. That doesn't lend itself to first world ambitions. The church situation, dominating 'education' aimed more at keeping people stupid and believers of the faith than in actually educating the populace, was another setback.

Mexico certainly had a lot going for it. but, the cultural aspect kept them from realizing much of it. It is very, very rare for a US situation to present itself, where the culture lends itself to unity, and leaders who were looking to create a country, not a dictatorship.


that said, it's incredibly arrogant to want to deal with a Spanish speaking company and expect them to cater to your language.
 
Have the Mexicans be conquered by a less horrible colonial power than the Spanish Empire. All throughout Latin America, the Spanish established backwards, underdeveloped feudal colony after backwards, underdeveloped feudal colony. After independence, Latin American elites inherited broken, corrupt societies based on mass exploitation and poverty. Mexico in particular was incredibly poorly equipped to deal with the American imperial threat, which has only set it back further.
 
Spain's per capita economic output throughout the 19th and first half of the 20th century was on par with Latin America. By 1950, Spain's per capita GDP was actually lower than Mexico's and even Peru's. During the postwar period lasting until 1973, Spain and much of Western Europe's economies took off growing at a much faster rate than its former colonies. By 1973, Spain's per capita GDP was nearly equal to Argentina's and 58% higher than Mexico's. Though Spain's economy did not grow as rapidly after 1973, it still outperformed most of Latin America. By 2016, Spain's economic output was nearly double of Mexico's and nearly 7 times that of its poorest former colony, Honduras.

Spain's economy during the 1950-1973 period allowed the country to become a major industrial nation, and the world's ninth largest economy and its GDP per capita grew by 350% during that period known as the "Spanish miracle". Much of the growth actually took place beginning in the late 1950s and the 1959-1973 period was the period with the highest growth. Tourism from Northern Europe boomed and the country became more integrated into the European economy. Latin America in contrast continued to rely on export of commodities while importing high-tech goods from the U.S. Europe and Japan, additionally most countries remained heavily protectionist. Despite this, Mexico's economic growth was higher than many Latin American countries during the period, it just wasn't as high as Southern Europe or East Asia.


1950 Per Capita GDP in 1990 dollars
Venezuela $7,462
Argentina $4,987
Uruguay $4,659
Chile $3,670
Mexico $2,365
Peru $2,308
Spain $2,189
Colombia $2,153
Guatemala $2,085
Cuba $2,046
Costa Rica $1,963
Bolivia $1,919
Panama $1,916
Ecuador $1,863
Nicaragua $1,616
Paraguay $1,584
El Salvador $1,489
Honduras $1,313
Dominican Republic $1,027

1973 Per Capita GDP in 1990 dollars
Venezuela $10,625
Argentina $7,962
Spain $7,661
Chile $5,034
Uruguay $4,974
Mexico $4,853
Costa Rica $4,319
Panama $4,248
Peru $4,023
Colombia $3,499
Guatemala $3,297
Ecuador $3,290
Nicaragua $2,921
Bolivia $2,357
El Salvador $2,342
Cuba $2,245
Paraguay $2,038
Dominican Republic $2,005
Honduras $1,581

2016 IMF GDP per capita PPP
Spain $36,416
Chile $24,113
Panama $23,024
Uruguay $21,527
Argentina $20,047
Mexico $18,938
Costa Rica $16,436
Dominican Republic $16,049
Colombia $14,130
Venezuela $13,761
Peru $12,903
Ecuador $11,109
Paraguay $9,396
El Salvador $8,909
Guatemala $7,899
Bolivia $7,218
Nicaragua $5,452
Honduras $5,271
 
Mexico wasn't affected by millitaty interventions in the 20th century. It was instead governed by a very corrupt one party system. Perhaps if this system wasn't implemented Mexico could have become a developed country. After all countries that suffered under military dictatorships like Spain, Chile, Portugal have developed more than Mexico despite that Mexico had peace and an a stable government.
Chile became "developed" BECAUSE of that brutal military dictatorship, not in spite of it.
 
On the flip side, you could have Mexico match Spain by screwing Spain over (Worsen the Carlist Wars? Extend the Spanish Civil War? Have Franco join the Axis and then get invaded?).
 
Manage all that (no, I can't begin to figure out how) and Mexico now includes Arizona, California (pre Gold Rush), Colorado (pre Pike's Peak Gold Rush), Nevada (pre Comstock strike), New Mexico, and Texas. Just the major mineral strikes (not even considering the amount of oil in the Permian Basin in TX & NM and the Midway-Sunset Field in CA which, to date, exceeds 4 BILLION barrels of production) produced around $20B in 2015 USD. Mexico could be a Top 3 global economy (IOTL just California is equal to the #6 National Economy, ahead of, among others, France & India, Texas is # 11, ahead of Canada and South Korea) if all three of the factors listed could be achieved (and the incredible corruption that has periodically infected various Mexican Administrations is also stopped).

But mineral/oil wealth is not a guarantee of national prosperity, as much of Africa can attest.
 
But mineral/oil wealth is not a guarantee of national prosperity, as much of Africa can attest.
it's no guarantee, but......
Mexico already had an infrastructure of mining extraction. It was blown to bits in the quest for independence, but there was still a culture of mining. Africa, on the other hand, had no culture of mining (except local) and was exploited heavily by outsiders who graciously (sarcasm here) accepted the white man's burden, sending the riches to white countries while impoverishing and taking advantage of the African countries (pretty much as the native americans were in Spanish America). In Spanish America, though, enough time had passed that the American Spanish could, theoretically, still extract the minerals, while keeping the riches in America, similar to what the US did. sans the destruction of war (including independence and warlord/dictator wars), it would be possible to redirect the riches to the benefit of Mexico, or at least a good deal of it. you still have the problem of spreading the wealth around so that a sizeable portion of the population benefits rather than just a select few. In any case, it is far better to have mineral wealth, than to not.
 
Even with post-1900 POD, Mexico could become a developed economy like Spain by following PODs:

1) Porfirio Diaz didn't get overthrown and Mexican Revolution butterflies away; Porfirio Diaz' presidency was pretty stable economically even though his government was too corrupt.

2) An earlier FTA with the United States and Canada; more free trade and investment in Mexico earlier would have encouraged further economic growth beyond oil extraction.

3) Prevent the rise of interest rates in the United States which made Mexican debt unpayable that would have been prevented the lost decade of the 1980s.
 
Top