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

Prevent the American military interventions in Central and South America, as well as preventing the "War on Drugs", and Mexico has a better chance.
It's worth noting that the cartel-related violence only escalated in the past two decades, due to the Mexican government cracking down on them. Prior to that, the "War on Drugs" was probably a net-benefit to Mexico, in that it led to an infusion of capital from American drug-consumers. And, despite the escalating cartel-violence Mexico's economy has been steadily growing(observe that Mexico's growth was actually substantially slower before the cartel violence began).

This suggests that the presence or absence of cartel violence isn't a primary determinant of Mexico's economic trajectory. Secondary or tertiary perhaps, but not enough to shift their overall trajectory.

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
This...actually doesn't look that bad. Mexico has substantially narrowed the gap with Uruguay, Argentina and Chile, and leap-frogged Venezuela(which I think reflects poorly on the notion that holding Texan/Californian oil would do them many favours). Only Spain and Panama have surpassed Mexico, but I don't think either country can really be considered a peer competitor. Mexico has also narrowed the gap with America in the post-WW2 time period(of course the same is true of virtually every country).

I think it really needs to be recognized that the gap between Latin America and Europe was considerably narrower in 1900 then it is today. This is despite Europe having suffered two devastating wars, the loss of it's colonies, the fall of it's Eastern half fall to communists and the financial costs of the Cold War. Even with American-sponsored coups considered, it's hard to argue that Latin America "suffered more" through the 20th century then Europe and East Asia did- and yet Latin America's economic performance hasn't reflected that.

I'm skeptical about blaming economic policy, since economic policy has varied so much throughout Latin America and yet even it's best performers have still lagged relative to Europe and East Asia. I'm also skeptical about blaming "culture", since so many Latin Americans(especially in the Southern cone) are descended from recent European immigrants.

So what does that leave? Something's clearly undermined Latin America as a region, but I've no idea what it is.
 
Last edited:
So what does that leave? Something's clearly undermined Latin America as a region, but I've no idea what it is.

I would also point out that southern Brazil also experienced relative decline over the same time period, from ranking among the wealthier regions of the world to not.

http://noelmaurer.typepad.com/aab/2...ountry-before-1914-economically-speaking.html

I wonder if it might be a simple matter of geography? Australia and New Zealand, similarly isolated in the Southern Hemisphere far from the major high-income economies of the Northern Hemisphere, also experienced some relative decline. I don't know nearly enough about South Africa to comment, sadly.

But then, the Australasians saw nowhere near as much relative decline as the Argentines and Uruguayans. Politics matters.

Is it possible to knit together a post-war economic order where the higher-income economies of Latin America are just as integrated into the emergent multilateralism of the West as Australasia? What would it take, their inclusion in the Allies?
 
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.

This brings up a core point in these Mexican economic discussions. You have to find a way to either strengthen Mexicos ability to defend itself, or cripple the US somehow. The former is probably more realistic.
 
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.

Lots of Americans, and residents here are. Unfortunatly those skills are not well connected to the market. Probablly a marketing opportunity there for someone with the energy & a bit of capitol and the sales skill.
 
The fact that many of the immigrants who came to southern cone nations in the late 19th century and beyond were "non-Hispanic" Europeans is irrelevant. Just as "non-British" immigrants, and later non-European immigrants to the USA have, by and large, been assimilated in to the American culture so the immigrants to the South American cultures became culturally pretty much the same as the older inhabitants. Of course every group of immigrants, if large enough, causes the host culture to absorb some (or a lot) of the culture of the immigrants, but it would be unusual to have this cause a drastic change in the host culture. If the host culture is dysfunctional with endemic corruption, rigid class distinctions, limitations on education and so forth, any change from immigration will be slow at best. Don't forget that many Latin countries very much had preference for immigrants who would fit in more easily - an example being a preference for Catholic immigrants.

If those locals with wealth prefer to spend it on luxuries or land acquisition with a disdain for industrial investment then you need foreign investors to fund this. If the cost of doing business includes significant corruption/bribery, taking local partners in with heavily discounted buy in (or none) and a significant risk of expropriation and/or inability to take profits out of the country, then your country is unlikely to attract much foreign investment except in extractive industries or something where a quick return can be made.

The endemic economic problems of most of South and Central America are most assuredly not due to a need for better defenses against the American military. In fact one could argue that many South American countries spend too much on their militaries, over and above potential needs.
 
Mexico actually did alright when compared to many of its Latin American peers, but lagged Europe and East Asia in economic growth during the postwar period of huge economic growth. It was outperformed by all of the Eastern European and Southern European economies during the period. During the 1973-1990 period of slower global economic growth it performed better than much of Latin America, but still lagged Southern Europe and Asia. Chile is unique because it experienced low growth during the world economic boom and like Ireland became more open and grew during the 1973-1990, matching Spain's economic growth during the period. However, a few countries like Ecuador, Romania and Venezuela's per capita GDP actually declined during the 1973-1990 period, with all three having been oil exporters. During the most recent period of 2000-2016 Mexico's performance has been only marginally better than Southern Europe, countries that have experienced the worst recessions in their recent history, but were already more developed.

GDP as a % of the beginning period.

1950-1973
Japan 595%
Greece 400%
Spain 350%
Portugal 339%
South Korea 331%
Bulgaria 320%
Italy 304%
Romania 294%
Yugoslavia 281%
Brazil 232%
Albania 227%
Hungary 226%
Czechoslovakia 221%
Poland 218%
Mexico 205%
Ireland 199%
Ecuador 177%
Colombia 163%
Argentina 160%
Venezuela 142%
Chile 137%
Uruguay 107%

1973-2000
South Korea 509%
Ireland 314%
Chile 205%
Spain 204%
Portugal 196%
Japan 181%
Italy 177%
Greece 158%
Uruguay 158%
Mexico 150%
Colombia 145%
Brazil 143%
Poland 137%
Hungary 127%
ex-Czechoslovakia 125%
Albania 121%
ex-Yugoslavia 111%
Argentina 108%
Peru 105%
Bulgaria 101%
Ecuador 79%
Romania 86%
Venezuela 79%

2000-2016
Albania 285%
Romania 279%
Bulgaria 267%
Peru 246%
Poland 238%
South Korea 231%
Colombia 214%
Uruguay 214%
Ireland 212%
Chile 211%
Czech Republic 200%
Hungary 192%
Ecuador 187%
Argentina 169%
Brazil 167%
Mexico 157%
Japan 152%
Spain 150%
Portugal 139%
Greece 132%
Venezuela 132%
Italy 127%
 
Lots of Americans, and residents here are. Unfortunatly those skills are not well connected to the market. Probablly a marketing opportunity there for someone with the energy & a bit of capitol and the sales skill.

That's a good point, though businesses would need to know to quickly 'bring-in' such a team if contacted by a potential partner/customer in the US. One idea might be that they have an English version of their web site where the 'contact us' option goes to a different person -- someone who speaks English well. Similarly, they could have a 'press 2 for English' option on their phone system.
 

Deleted member 67076

Have the PRI lose in 1988, begin the reforms and free trade agreements earlier to have Mexico start shifting to ESI about a decade earlier than OTL. It'll be painful at first, but the long term growth will be greater than OTL.

Or we could always go back and have Mexico avoid its 1911 Revolution and instead develop into a mature democracy that grants it the critical stability a Latin American country needs more than anything. For better or for worse, the Mexican revolution was insanely destructive, wiping out 10% of the population and causing massive infrastructural damage that took decades to fix.

I wonder if it might be a simple matter of geography? Australia and New Zealand, similarly isolated in the Southern Hemisphere far from the major high-income economies of the Northern Hemisphere, also experienced some relative decline. I don't know nearly enough about South Africa to comment, sadly.
Australia and New Zealand have the benefit of being absurdly stable, receiving steady flows of immigration, and lacking the gatekeeper state apparatuses prominent in 20th century Latin America.
 
That's a good point, though businesses would need to know to quickly 'bring-in' such a team if contacted by a potential partner/customer in the US. One idea might be that they have an English version of their web site where the 'contact us' option goes to a different person -- someone who speaks English well. Similarly, they could have a 'press 2 for English' option on their phone system.

I was looking at the reverse. The initiating business in the US hire a temp Spanish speaker for the first contact calls. If a dialogue develops then a long term arraignment can be made.
 
This brings up a core point in these Mexican economic discussions. You have to find a way to either strengthen Mexicos ability to defend itself, or cripple the US somehow. The former is probably more realistic.

I can do the second. Napoleon dies on Elba in a horse riding accident and the U.S. suffers and existential whipping. The North and the South end up as separate countries and the British are able to create an Indian buffer state with Tecumseh as most influential person like they wanted. That ends American aggression as a big issue for Mexico.

The problem is that that doesn't do anything about Britain. Taking them down is a lot harder.
 
I can do the second. Napoleon dies on Elba in a horse riding accident and the U.S. suffers and existential whipping.

Napoleon's return from Elba happened after the War of 1812 ended. The peace treaty was signed in December 1814.
 
Napoleon's return from Elba happened after the War of 1812 ended. The peace treaty was signed in December 1814.

Seriously? I must now contend with the fact that a ton of info my APUSH teacher gave me was not true.
 
Have the PRI lose in 1988, begin the reforms and free trade agreements earlier to have Mexico start shifting to ESI about a decade earlier than OTL. It'll be painful at first, but the long term growth will be greater than OTL.

Or we could always go back and have Mexico avoid its 1911 Revolution and instead develop into a mature democracy that grants it the critical stability a Latin American country needs more than anything. For better or for worse, the Mexican revolution was insanely destructive, wiping out 10% of the population and causing massive infrastructural damage that took decades to fix.

I would think between the two the latter is much more likely. The 1988 elections were rigged, so any change that could prevent the PRI from winning is... well, I'm not sure for certain how it could develop. Would depend on how it happened.
 
The problem with Mexico, and much of Latin America, is at best only partly due to the evil gringos. A good number of locals of Hispanic heritage supported the California and Texas breakaways from Mexico because of the corrupt and incompetent government far away in Mexico City. True they got screwed in the long run mostly, but at the time that was not the expectation. Significant US interference in Mexico/Latin America did not start until the late 19th century - issues with EUROPEAN interference such as Maximilian in Mexico, the later Venezuelan Crisis etc was more the rule.

The bottom line is that Mexico, and much of the rest of Latin America, had a home grown dysfunctional social system of a semifeudal nature coupled with endemic corruption that has echoes to this day. Revolving door governments, then replaced by a one party system and the like. This is not a recipe for either home grown investment and entrepeneurship nor foreign investment except in resource extraction (oil, mineral, agriculture). The reality is even if your country has decent natural resources and an adequate population base unless you have an internal society with rule of law, social mobility, educational opportunity, and a reasonable level of civil rights you won't get the sort of development that is being discussed. Extractive industries, initially developed by foreigners with foreign money - sure. These may be nationalized later, usually to the detriment of the industry. Balanced development across the board - no way.

If you want to change Mexican development prior to the recent past, you need to have Mexico be a different society. You could give Mexico all that land, you could sink the USA under the sea, but if Mexican society remains what it was OTL...
So... We can thank Spanish colonial administration for our situation...
 
This brings up a core point in these Mexican economic discussions. You have to find a way to either strengthen Mexicos ability to defend itself, or cripple the US somehow. The former is probably more realistic.
That can be done by the Spanish investing more in strengthening their colonies Paraguay-style, perhaps pushed by a disastrous war where they either lost territories or got invaded/bombarded/raided by the British or Dutch.

Different Bourbon reforms, I guess...
 

Deleted member 97083

It's worth noting that the cartel-related violence only escalated in the past two decades, due to the Mexican government cracking down on them. Prior to that, the "War on Drugs" was probably a net-benefit to Mexico, in that it led to an infusion of capital from American drug-consumers. And, despite the escalating cartel-violence Mexico's economy has been steadily growing(observe that Mexico's growth was actually substantially slower before the cartel violence began).

This suggests that the presence or absence of cartel violence isn't a primary determinant of Mexico's economic trajectory. Secondary or tertiary perhaps, but not enough to shift their overall trajectory.


This...actually doesn't look that bad. Mexico has substantially narrowed the gap with Uruguay, Argentina and Chile, and leap-frogged Venezuela(which I think reflects poorly on the notion that holding Texan/Californian oil would do them many favours). Only Spain and Panama have surpassed Mexico, but I don't think either country can really be considered a peer competitor. Mexico has also narrowed the gap with America in the post-WW2 time period(of course the same is true of virtually every country).

I think it really needs to be recognized that the gap between Latin America and Europe was considerably narrower in 1900 then it is today. This is despite Europe having suffered two devastating wars, the loss of it's colonies, the fall of it's Eastern half fall to communists and the financial costs of the Cold War. Even with American-sponsored coups considered, it's hard to argue that Latin America "suffered more" through the 20th century then Europe and East Asia did- and yet Latin America's economic performance hasn't reflected that.

I'm skeptical about blaming economic policy, since economic policy has varied so much throughout Latin America and yet even it's best performers have still lagged relative to Europe and East Asia. I'm also skeptical about blaming "culture", since so many Latin Americans(especially in the Southern cone) are descended from recent European immigrants.

So what does that leave? Something's clearly undermined Latin America as a region, but I've no idea what it is.

Business Insider: How an overlooked impact of Mexico's drug violence is holding back its economy

"Recent research has shown that high levels of violence in Mexico — like the 7.6% increase in homicide rate the country experienced in 2015 — not only have a negative impact on workers, but also prevent complex economic activities from starting and growing."

UPenn: Drug Trafficking, Violence, and Mexico's Economic Future

"The drug cartels challenge the viability of safe and secure business environments not only for large companies such as Pemex but also for small business owners and average citizens. In July 2010, gunmen ambushed a birthday party in the Mexican state of Coahuila, killing 17 people and injuring many more. Some sources believe these mass killings were the result of the innkeeper’s not paying the extortion fees that had been demanded of him. Clearly, the carnage of Mexico’s drug war is now affecting all strata of society — from impoverished migrants to the wealthiest elite and from neighborhood businesses to Mexico’s largest firms."

Forbes: Mexico's Astonishing Costs Of Fighting Drug Cartels Have Not Reduced Violence

"Mexico’s efforts to reduce the alarming levels of violence are having a significant impact on the country’s economy. In 2013, the cost of fighting the powerful drug cartels rose to almost $172.7 billion (more than twice Mexico’s foreign debt), according to the Global Peace Index 2014, published this week by the London-based Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP).

The sum, which is almost one tenth (9.4%) of Mexico’s GDP, amounts to $1,430 per person. Mexico’s violence containment costs are not only monetarily much higher than those incurred by Syria, Iraq and Libya, but among the highest in the world. Mexico ranks 25th in this category among 162 nations. The global economic impact of violence is estimated at $9.8 trillion or 11.3% of the global GDP."
 
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

Perfect observation. I'll also add that we tend to think that of European nations as simply more prone to be richer than the rest of the world. IMHO, that's a narrative mostly created during 19th century Imperialism and even by the Non-Alligned Movement. This notion doesn't materialize in statistics if look into a long period in history. From the 19th century up until the expansion of the EEC to the Mediterranean, Southern Europe's economic and political conditions were very similar to their former colonies in the Americas. Heck, rich industrialized societies weren't a rule even in Northern Europe. If we go further back in time to the late 19th century and early 1900's even Norway had a pretty shitty economy, about 1/3 of the population had to immigrate to the Americas.

Therefore, if we want to take the butterflies seriously, if we want to make Mexico as rich as Spain with a POD in the 1800's we have two problems to solve: Mexico's and Spain's shitty economy and politics.
 
Looking at this chart we can see that Mexico matched Spain's GDP in the 1960s. As this is a pre-1900s forum, we need to bring these circumstances about earlier, either kneecapping Spain or giving Mexico a boost.

1024px-GDP_pc_Argentina_Mexico_Spain.svg.png
 
Top