What would a stable Brazil actually look like?

[Sardar]

I've seen a lot of threads on the survival of Imperial Brazil or even a better Old Republic, but I haven't seen many that actually go into more depth about what this alt-Brazil would actually look like. For simplicity's sake (and my own personal preference) I'm just going to say the the Empire continues due to either one of Pedro II's sons surviving or the coup of 1889 being crushed or averted entirely. Now I know this puts the POD in the 1800's, but more I'm interested in the effects going into the 20th century. And considering the Pedro II died in 1891, I don't really see any significant changes happening before then. What I want to know more about is:

-What would be the state of Brazil's economy? Would economic development go faster under a more stable government, or would Brazil's economy largely be the same as it was under the Republic, only marginally better? Would Brazil be a top 5 (GDP) economy today?

-How would Brazilian culture be affected by a stable political environment? I assume football would still become immensely popular, but what, if any, differences would there be?

-Would we see the poverty of OTL Brazil, just on a smaller scale? Or would things like favelas not exist? Would Brazilian infrastructure be improved? Would this Brazil have greater ecological protections for its huge ecological treasures?

-What would the effects be on other Latin American countries? Would we see other monarchist movements in South America in attempts to emulate the success of Brazil, assuming the Empire survives?

-What would the effects of the Portuguese Regicide and Revolution be? Would a surviving empire try to restore their cousins to the Portuguese throne, or simply offer asylum to the Portuguese Royal Family?

-What, if any, affect would this more powerful Brazil have on World Politics? Would they join WW1 and WW2 (assuming it still happens)? How would American policy in South American be affected by another power that they can't just push aside in the Cold War, if it still happens?

To offer some of my own thoughts, I would assume that Brazil would continue it's growth, though slowed, into the early 20th century. It would keep being seen as one of the only places that could offer stability and good returns to international investors in Latin America, especially after WW1, and would probably be seen by the United States as a friend rather than a rival. Though they would still be feeling the negative effects of the Paraguayan War, I see no reason that a more stable government could solve many of these problems instead of exacerbating or ignoring them entirely. As to later in the 20th and 21st centuries, I don't really have a good idea of what alt-Brazil would look like other than that it may continue to be a very strong economy, a huge tourist magnet and have a lot of prestige as respected power.

What would everyone else's thoughts on this be?

 

[Logothétes]

Take the South East, apply it to the whole country.

 

[CountDVB]

I’m gonna day this regarding what the poster said regarding on a more successful Venezuela.

One of the problems with Latin America's policies and economics it's how countries hope to rely in a single commodity (or 2-3 if they are lucky), set at prices they do not control and sold to industries and sectors in which the Latin American exporter doesn't invest in R&D. The easiest example of this is Chile and saltpeter by the late 19th century, and how those valuable deposits they've conquered from Peru and Bolivia became worthless when a well educated nation without access to saltpeter invested in R&D to replace it. But this mentality happens across the continent: exploit a raw resource, invest as little as possible in R&D (if at all), export it with as little value added as possible and pretend the price will remain high forever.
Due the resource trap, this type of economy also fosters strongman style politics. Sort of "Hey, if the plantation owner is a cool guy, he'll allow the peasants to have a relatively nice life and will look after them, that's the way to go", but replacing the plantation owner with a national leader. Essentially because raw resources exports don't really require a strong civil society nor the type of economic ecosystems in which the country requires a diversified and well educated workforce.

To put it bluntly, OP seeks to create a superpower under these premises, instead of against them. That's not how it works. Superpowers (or simply affluent countries) require resources which can integrate into a value chain (as Calbear says, iron and coal are rather important), a well educated and diversified workforce capable of creating and promoting the creation and export of goods and services with high added value, permanent investments in R&D in order to keep up in the global technological race, diversified exports so the eventual drop in price of a single commodity doesn't drag the entire country and a political system which fosters grow instead of the reliance in one single good strongman who'll do so (because even if such a paragon were to become president, he'd still be corruptible, die, be couped, overextend term limits, make mistakes, etc).

Combine this with the aforementioned strong man policy and my own thoughts that said strongman policy was enhanced by the cultural significance of Catholicism influencing that type of conservatism.

You’d need to have a constitutional monarchy and have the regent basically push back against the Church to liberalize the nation to build the cultural infrastructure and support to best use the natural resources at hand, supporting the intelligentsia.

As for how it would look like... I don’t know. A good deal of Catholic nations follow similar trends and models of issues regarding authority and cultural trends. The main sorta exception is France, but even then, that was through effort.

 

[TastySpam]

Brazil has some challenges present that would be difficult, regardless of who was in charge. I don't think it's as simple as getting the entire country to look like the Southeast. The Grand Escarpment, which separates coastal flatland from...the rest of Brazil, makes it very difficult for Brazil to build up the same kind railroad infrastructure that you saw in Germany or America. Linking coastal cities to either each other - or to the inland of Brazil. Add that in with Brazil not particularly being near any large economic engines and that infrastructure issue becomes much more problematic. The United States has something similar with it also so much larger than its neighbors meaning that it has to depend on internal trade - but America had easier geography. But that's difficult for Brazil given the Grand Escarpment issue.

Geography obviously isn't destiny - but it certainly hurts.

 

[Sardar]

Combine this with the aforementioned strong man policy and my own thoughts that said strongman policy was enhanced by the cultural significance of Catholicism influencing that type of conservatism.

You’d need to have a constitutional monarchy and have the regent basically push back against the Church to liberalize the nation to build the cultural infrastructure and support to best use the natural resources at hand, supporting the intelligentsia.

As for how it would look like... I don’t know. A good deal of Catholic nations follow similar trends and models of issues regarding authority and cultural trends. The main sorta exception is France, but even then, that was through effort.

I would agree, seeing the major trends of Latin/Mediterranean"countries (Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece) in the 20th century. But I would also point out that if the coup of 1889 did not happen, I'm pretty sure that the Liberal party that was in power had or was planning to introduce several liberalizing reforms which actually sparked the overthrow of the government. I imagine that should Brazilian democracy be firmly established in the 1890's, the conservatism of the plantation class would have a huge effect on the government, but IMO it would be tempered by opposition parties and the democratic process. I would also imagine that Brazil would make efforts to shift away from a cash-crop oriented economy as it was trying to do, and to continue to promote industry. To the extent which those efforts are successful, I'm not sure.

And as for the intellectual scene, after doing some reading on Wikipedia Brazil seems to have some pretty good universities and educational institutions OTL, even though to my knowledge there wasn't a real university during the Empire. Maybe after 1910 when Portugal is "lost" to the Republicans we will see Brazil establish true Universities to replace Coimbra? The Brazilian Imperial family was pretty liberal and supportive of education, so I would think that they would support the development of universities going into the 1900's.

Brazil has some challenges present that would be difficult, regardless of who was in charge. I don't think it's as simple as getting the entire country to look like the Southeast. The Grand Escarpment, which separates coastal flatland from...the rest of Brazil, makes it very difficult for Brazil to build up the same kind railroad infrastructure that you saw in Germany or America. Linking coastal cities to either each other - or to the inland of Brazil. Add that in with Brazil not particularly being near any large economic engines and that infrastructure issue becomes much more problematic. The United States has something similar with it also so much larger than its neighbors meaning that it has to depend on internal trade - but America had easier geography. But that's difficult for Brazil given the Grand Escarpment issue.

Geography obviously isn't destiny - but it certainly hurts.

That's what I was thinking. I usually see people thinking that if the Empire survived it would South American USA, but I thought that most likely wouldn't be the case. There would probably be more spending on infrastructure in a more stable political climate, but getting to the level of the USA which has probably the best geography in the world is obviously not possible. What would be the effects on a Brazil with significantly improved infrastructure during the next hundred or so years and into the modern day?

 

[Irvine]

I would say that a monarchical Brazil could be more aligned with the US, due to being more conservative in the general sense, even if its interests remain the same.

A rich Brazil could change the current paradigm in the West of thinking about Latin America like a non-properly western region. More if the butterflies make Argentina prosperous too.

 

[Irvine]

No monarchies would pop up in South America due to Brazil's successes. The other Latin American nations don't have native royal families and no one would dare to look like a fool by proposing to bring a personal union with Spain, the only country who could restore the monarchy is maybe Mexico, they could put an Iturbide in the throne but this would be very unlikely.

 

[Sardar]

No monarchies would pop up in South America due to Brazil's successes. The other Latin American nations don't have native royal families and no one would dare to look like a fool by proposing to bring a personal union with Spain, the only country who could restore the monarchy is maybe Mexico, they could put an Iturbide in the throne but this would be very unlikely.

That is true, but I feel like envy of Brazil might breed some for of Monarchist movement. Now, I agree that it would most likely not be successful at all, but we could see some interesting shenanigans going on in Latin America over who might get to claim the thrones of the many hypothetical kingdoms there.

 

[Irvine]

That is true, but I feel like envy of Brazil might breed some for of Monarchist movement. Now, I agree that it would most likely not be successful at all, but we could see some interesting shenanigans going on in Latin America over who might get to claim the thrones of the many hypothetical kingdoms there.

Which families could get those thrones?

 

[Sardar]

Which families could get those thrones?

Probably some Spanish prince, but as I said, it is exceedingly unlikely that it will happen. But I thought it was fun to think about.

 

[Irvine]

Probably some Spanish prince, but as I said, it is exceedingly unlikely that it will happen. But I thought it was fun to think about.

They don't like Spain bro. It's different from Brazil/Portugal and US/Britain.

 

[Sardar]

They don't like Spain bro. It's different from Brazil/Portugal and US/Britain.

I guess so. I mean they could choose a Criollo family, but again it probably wouldn't work.

 

[Gukpard]

Take the South East, apply it to the whole country.

The south east is poor and unstable, sure, it got a massive GDP, but the riches are concentrated, and we still got political infighting between the left and the right on a unnerving level. A stable Brazil would be like the south.

No monarchies would pop up in South America due to Brazil's successes. The other Latin American nations don't have native royal families and no one would dare to look like a fool by proposing to bring a personal union with Spain, the only country who could restore the monarchy is maybe Mexico, they could put an Iturbide in the throne but this would be very unlikely.

Agreed.

But do you see, Argentina was so broken and unstable when brazil became independent that there was this idea to invade it, unite it by force and put Empress Leopoldina (Pedro I wife) at their throne, imagine the ramifications if such thing happened!

 

[Irvine]

But do you see, Argentina was so broken and unstable when brazil became independent that there was this idea to invade it, unite it by force and put Empress Leopoldina (Pedro I wife) at their throne, imagine the ramifications if such thing happened!

Bro, as far as I remember, the plot to annex La Plata was to put Carlota Joaquina, Pedro's mother, in the Buenos Aires throne. This was before the Brazilian independence.

Pedro I could've kept Cisplatina and vassalized Bolivia(they made a proposition to Rio de Janeiro). But conquering Argentina would be hard.

 

[Gukpard]

Bro, as far as I remember, the plot to annex La Plata was to put Carlota Joaquina, Pedro's mother, in the Buenos Aires throne. This was before the Brazilian independence.

Pedro I could've kept Cisplatina and vassalized Bolivia(they made a proposition to Rio de Janeiro). But conquering Argentina would be hard.

Well, you don't need to conquer Argentina, just defeat enought warlords to make them fall in line with a friendly government imposed in Buenos Aires.

Like, Romania and Germany had hohenzollern kings, but Germany didn't annexed Romania. (I know that both cases are terribly different on the way that the monarchy was installed, but my point is that you can have the same house in power of two countries without annexing them together).

 

[Sardar]

@Gukpard and @Irvine I like discussing potential monarchies, but I want to focus the discussion on the economic, social and political changes in Brazil (this is what some other threads veer off into, and I don't want to do that) . It seems both of you are actually from Brazil, so I would definitely like to hear more from both of you.

 

[Gukpard]

@Gukpard and @Irvine I like discussing potential monarchies, but I want to focus the discussion on the economic, social and political changes in Brazil (this is what some other threads veer off into, and I don't want to do that) . It seems both of you are actually from Brazil, so I would definitely like to hear more from both of you.

A stable Brazil would be basically if the entire Brazil was Paraná and Santa Catarina (because Rio Grande do Sul is also very ideologically conflicted).

I don't know what else to add, let me call @Gonzaga from Rio Grande and @Guilherme Loureiro .

 

[CountDVB]

Economic changes would be having the coal and or iron needed for mass industrialization, least enough to keep up, while federalizing and delegating power would be needed.

 

[Irvine]

A stable Brazil would be basically if the entire Brazil was Paraná and Santa Catarina (because Rio Grande do Sul is also very ideologically conflicted).

I don't know what else to add, let me call @Gonzaga from Rio Grande and @Guilherme Loureiro .

I disagree. The northern regions would still be poorer.

Even if we addressed the regional inequalities, we can't transplant the level of infrastructure you have in places like Paraná or Rio Grande do Sul to a place like Amazonas or Pará. The way I see, the South and the Southeast would be much richer and the North and Center-East would be somewhat richer.

Northeast being the wildcard here, considering that is an easy access region, but with serious climate difficulties. California managed to bypass this, but even a more stable Brazil is no US.

 

[Sardar]

A stable Brazil would be basically if the entire Brazil was Paraná and Santa Catarina (because Rio Grande do Sul is also very ideologically conflicted).

I assume that this would be mostly the Southern Provinces provinces right? Those places have the necessary resources for industrialization, IIRC, and would probably be the richest. But the Northern and Amazonian provinces would still be poorer, but better off. How would this affect the country other than in economic terms? Would certain provinces be more protected than OTL due to ecological concerns? Would Brazilian culture be different?

Economic changes would be having the coal and or iron needed for mass industrialization, least enough to keep up, while federalizing and delegating power would be needed.

I believe that federalizing changes were in the cards in the last years of the Empire, but were thwarted by the the coup. A more gradual and stable federalization would probably happen.

I disagree. The northern regions would still be poorer.

Even if we addressed the regional inequalities, we can't transplant the level of infrastructure you have in places like Paraná or Rio Grande do Sul to a place like Amazonas or Pará. The way I see, the South and the Southwest would be much richer and the North and Center-East would be somewhat richer.

Northeast being the wildcard here, considering that is an easy access region, but with serious climate difficulties. California managed to bypass this, but even a more stable Brazil is no US.

Would the Amazonian provinces just be left to their own devices (i.e, protected or reserved) or would it be even more exploited than OTL?

Another topic would probably be immigration. A more stable Brazil would probably receive tons more immigrants from Europe, and attract more Catholic immigration away from the USA. How much more "white" could Brazil be today?