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).Prevent the American military interventions in Central and South America, as well as preventing the "War on Drugs", and Mexico has a better chance.
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).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
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: