WI Haiti has to pay no reparations?

Really? Oh well, thats a relief but then what are the specific reasons that made Haiti do worst than the rest of the Caribbean and what could we change here after the Revolution to make things better? I thought the reparations thing could be star but I suspect is not enough.

I will write up a more detailed response later, because Haitian (under)development history is essentially my main field, but I still have to attend to other work right now. But what I want to say briefly is that there are a few different models for why Haiti is so undeveloped, and none of them are perfectly satisfactory. That is to say that no one has all the answers. From an AH perspective, you could take one theory, and assuming it correctly addresses the reasons for underdevelopment, resolve those problems and come up with a plausible "developed Haiti" scenario. But people from other schools can still try and poke holes in it.

But some really brief specifics; Haitian isolation from international trade paired with serial exogamy of the ruling classes meant that a middle class really struggled to develop in Haiti, while there was a near constant outflux of capital. Despite plentiful fish off the shores of Haiti, by 1910 almost all the fish on Haitian dinner tables was imported from New England. There was also a cash crop monoculture dependence on coffee that wasn't even that profitable. Frankly, even if Haiti were to maintain sugar production it would still be increasingly undercut by other markets and face the same underdevelopment IMO. Constant political instability also played a significant factor in underdevelopment in somewhat of a vicious cycle, although there are also certain cultural standards in Haiti that boost the instability such as a common belief in the validity of violent revolution (although arguably, this belief also may also simply exist in a vicious cycle with the instability).

The reparations were a problem, but to an extent I think it's overemphasized and served to merely inflame the other structural/institutional tensions that would have been there and put Haiti in the same place regardless.

The Duvalier dictatorship(s) is the main problem. Haiti in 1950 had the largest tourism industry of the region, a modernized sugar and coffee plantation economy, and even a bit of light manufacturing if I remember right

I like this, but one issue is that keeping the government stable or avoiding a similar noiriste backlash in 1950s Haiti is easier said than done. Haitians ourselves also tend to see Duvalier as exceptionally bad, which he was in many ways, but his rule was also the culmination of trends built upon for decades by this point. I think the critical strengthening of the army by the American occupation forces, paired with the weakening of civilian institutions and the agitation of black nationalism made the place a tinderbox by the time they left. EDIT: I should note that while there are numerous arguments that the American occupation helped to drive underdevelopment afterwards, like I presented here, there are also several counter-arguments and it's far from an area of consensus.

I do agree that the best chance Haiti has though is some sort of 1950s export-oriented industrialization like South Korea. There simply aren't the natural or human resources to industrialize or develop in the age of coal and steel.
 
Last edited:
I will write up a more detailed response later, because Haitian (under)development history is essentially my main field, but I still have to attend to other work right now. But what I want to say briefly is that there are a few different models for why Haiti is so undeveloped, and none of them are perfectly satisfactory. That is to say that no one has all the answers. From an AH perspective, you could take one theory, and assuming it correctly addresses the reasons for underdevelopment, resolve those problems and come up with a plausible "developed Haiti" scenario. But people from other schools can still try and poke holes in it.

But some really brief specifics; Haitian isolation from international trade paired with serial exogamy of the ruling classes meant that a middle class really struggled to develop in Haiti, while there was a near constant outflux of capital. Despite plentiful fish off the shores of Haiti, by 1910 almost all the fish on Haitian dinner tables was imported from New England. There was also a cash crop monoculture dependence on coffee that wasn't even that profitable. Frankly, even if Haiti were to maintain sugar production it would still be increasingly undercut by other markets and face the same underdevelopment IMO. Constant political instability also played a significant factor in underdevelopment in somewhat of a vicious cycle, although there are also certain cultural standards in Haiti that boost the instability such as a common belief in the validity of violent revolution (although arguably, this belief also may also simply exist in a vicious cycle with the instability).

The reparations were a problem, but to an extent I think it's overemphasized and served to merely inflame the other structural/institutional tensions that would have been there and put Haiti in the same place regardless.



I like this, but one issue is that keeping the government stable or avoiding a similar noiriste backlash in 1950s Haiti is easier said than done. Haitians ourselves also tend to see Duvalier as exceptionally bad, which he was in many ways, but his rule was also the culmination of trends built upon for decades by this point. I think the critical strengthening of the army by the American occupation forces, paired with the weakening of civilian institutions and the agitation of black nationalism made the place a tinderbox by the time they left.

I do agree that the best chance Haiti has though is some sort of 1950s export-oriented industrialization like South Korea. There simply aren't the natural or human resources to industrialize or develop in the age of coal and steel.
Mmh, I dont think Haiti has the chance to occupy the same niche as south Korea in terms of industrial development. With Haiti low population and closeness to USA it could end like central american maquilas. Could at this point following a path similar to Cuba be maybe a posibility?
 

Deleted member 67076

With Haiti low population and closeness to USA it could end like central american maquilas.
Haiti had 3 million in 1960, its more than enough to start special economic zones and ride out the wave of initial outsourcing in the 1980s to dramatically upgrade its shipping, telecoms, logistics chain, and manufacturing capacity in order to compete with firms across Asia. Its not like you can get any closer and so shipping costs are drastically lessened. The weak currency is an additional boon for both foreign investors and domestic firms looking to make their products competitive.

Combined with tourism (more than the rest of the Caribbean sans Cuba with around 100,000 for Haiti if Im remembering the numbers right- a number to surge the moment the Cuban Revolution kicks in) bringing in hard currency to subsidize industry its pretty easy to rapidly jumpstart urbanization and industrial growth, first focused on the internal market and later the regional market come an oil shock. Importation of machinery being subsidized also means mechanization of agriculture earlier which improves the amount of cash crops produced- sugar, cotton, coffee, etc. Both of these things together spur the growth of a wealthy upper class and a middle class to service the new elite (this was the case historically), of which the latter are most likely to invest back home in businesses and services or at least send remittances abroad.

And of courses, the 50s-80s were a time of historically low oil prices with relatively easy international lending making funding all the major developments in education, roads, machinery, ports, etc much easier for the time being.

Basically, the parts are there to see absolutely massive levels of growth from the 50s to the mid 80s, talking probably minimum 7% per annum, possibly as high as 10 or 11% during a good boom year. You're going to immediately surcharge from OTL levels to medium income states like Thailand, Pakistan, or Colombia by the early 80s. Already thats above the status of most of Central America.
 
Haiti had 3 million in 1960, its more than enough to start special economic zones and ride out the wave of initial outsourcing in the 1980s to dramatically upgrade its shipping, telecoms, logistics chain, and manufacturing capacity in order to compete with firms across Asia. Its not like you can get any closer and so shipping costs are drastically lessened. The weak currency is an additional boon for both foreign investors and domestic firms looking to make their products competitive.

Combined with tourism (more than the rest of the Caribbean sans Cuba with around 100,000 for Haiti if Im remembering the numbers right- a number to surge the moment the Cuban Revolution kicks in) bringing in hard currency to subsidize industry its pretty easy to rapidly jumpstart urbanization and industrial growth, first focused on the internal market and later the regional market come an oil shock. Importation of machinery being subsidized also means mechanization of agriculture earlier which improves the amount of cash crops produced- sugar, cotton, coffee, etc. Both of these things together spur the growth of a wealthy upper class and a middle class to service the new elite (this was the case historically), of which the latter are most likely to invest back home in businesses and services or at least send remittances abroad.

And of courses, the 50s-80s were a time of historically low oil prices with relatively easy international lending making funding all the major developments in education, roads, machinery, ports, etc much easier for the time being.

Basically, the parts are there to see absolutely massive levels of growth from the 50s to the mid 80s, talking probably minimum 7% per annum, possibly as high as 10 or 11% during a good boom year. You're going to immediately surcharge from OTL levels to medium income states like Thailand, Pakistan, or Colombia by the early 80s. Already thats above the status of most of Central America.
As a latinoamerican, I am really sceptic of things going as well as you describe. Specially if part of the plan consost of expecting one of our elites to act as their are supposed to. That level of development is gonna activate political and economical demands from the population which are gonna be sentenced as communist and get installed their own version of the Plan Condor. Of course thats assuming Haitian bourgeoisie dont reinvert their gains in the national economy rather than financial especulation or capital flight. South Korea was in a delicate frontier zone of the cold war and far away from USA, essentially forcing the US to treat south Korea more like an ally letting them develop and even helping them. In Latin America, USA would rather keep even countries with little resources like Haiti dependant, as a captive market for american comsumer products and maybe letting them industrialice just a little but according to the needs of the American market, so Maquilas.
 

Deleted member 67076

As a latinoamerican, I am really sceptic of things going as well as you describe.
I'm one too dude, but I don't particularly subscribe to the America sabotaged everything school of thought that's quite prevalent in our historiography. It ignores way too many historical mistakes Latin American government's made. I suspect here we're probably going to have to agree to disagree on many things.

Specially if part of the plan consost of expecting one of our elites to act as their are supposed to. That level of development is gonna activate political and economical demands from the population which are gonna be sentenced as communist and get installed their own version of the Plan Condor.
Its in their interest to reinvest in the economy, and there's already the varied pillars of economic growth there. US policy toward the Caribbean furthermore was generally to let immigration act as a release valve for discontents rather than boots on the ground intervention.

Of course thats assuming Haitian bourgeoisie dont reinvert their gains in the national economy rather than financial especulation or capital flight.
That usually isn't what happens during the boom years; usually they invest in maximizing their gains in whatever is working now; i.e, ramping up production through better techniques and imported costs. This still gives you a boom up until the 1980s in which incredible strides in everything from education to living standards would have been made. Of course I wonder why there would be capital flight during the boom years. There's no incentive to do so, and if things go bad the diaspora helps offset costs through remittances.

South Korea was in a delicate frontier zone of the cold war and far away from USA, essentially forcing the US to treat south Korea more like an ally letting them develop and even helping them. In Latin America, USA would rather keep even countries with little resources like Haiti dependant, as a captive market for american comsumer products and maybe letting them industrialice just a little but according to the needs of the American market, so Maquilas.
The same ISI to ESI development model I describe has been replicated to varying degrees of success in Thailand, Indonesia, Mexico, Taiwan, the Dominican Republic, Bulgaria, arguably 70s Iraq, Iran, Chile, Israel, Malaysia, Pakistan, and the Czech Republic.

All of these would be a dramatic increase over the historical trajectory of Haiti, and fall in line with the point of your thread. There's a lot of leeway in this, and banking on the US inevitably sabotaging everything so sticking to Central American standards (a rather unique if depressing scenario involving civil war and lack of interlocking infrastructure more than any one single issue as a cause of stagnation and degradation) is a bit misplaced, I feel.
 
I'm one too dude, but I don't particularly subscribe to the America sabotaged everything school of thought that's quite prevalent in our historiography. It ignores way too many historical mistakes Latin American government's made. I suspect here we're probably going to have to agree to disagree on many things.


Its in their interest to reinvest in the economy, and there's already the varied pillars of economic growth there. US policy toward the Caribbean furthermore was generally to let immigration act as a release valve for discontents rather than boots on the ground intervention.

That usually isn't what happens during the boom years; usually they invest in maximizing their gains in whatever is working now; i.e, ramping up production through better techniques and imported costs. This still gives you a boom up until the 1980s in which incredible strides in everything from education to living standards would have been made. Of course I wonder why there would be capital flight during the boom years. There's no incentive to do so, and if things go bad the diaspora helps offset costs through remittances.


The same ISI to ESI development model I describe has been replicated to varying degrees of success in Thailand, Indonesia, Mexico, Taiwan, the Dominican Republic, Bulgaria, arguably 70s Iraq, Iran, Chile, Israel, Malaysia, Pakistan, and the Czech Republic.

All of these would be a dramatic increase over the historical trajectory of Haiti, and fall in line with the point of your thread. There's a lot of leeway in this, and banking on the US inevitably sabotaging everything so sticking to Central American standards (a rather unique if depressing scenario involving civil war and lack of interlocking infrastructure more than any one single issue as a cause of stagnation and degradation) is a bit misplaced, I feel.
Before the ISI part, the country is gonna spend maybe even century under cash crop agroexport bussiness. If United Fruits or another yanqui company gets into the national economy getting them off to modernice the country is gonna be hard and even if a patriotic government achieves to united both people and elite behind this plan (really hard) the Company is gonna have a really easy time in lobbying the US government to intervent against this "commie" government that dared to favor industrialization or local farmers over the interest of Chiquitas or another equivalent company. The escenario you describe is something I would like to see happening but I cant see the political factors lining up in favor of Haiti or any of our countries. Also the south Korean and Taiwan model needed in both cases dictatorships in order to have the earlier part of their industrialization work.
 
Top