Causes of the backwardness of Latin America

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
I would like to put the following suggestion up for discussion. A change in the world order. The pre world War I order had the worlds largest market (The British Empire) committed to free trade. One of things you need to industrialise is a market to sell your industrial goods to, in Britain’s case it was India and in the LA countries case it was Britain and its colonial possessions. There was also a large amount of capital available to invest in Industrialisation from all the major European Countries and America. Britain was by far the largest investor. The Great War changed this, European countries now needed to keep their Capital at home to pay of the debts accrued in the war and America wasn’t going to invest everywhere at once. This greatly slowed down the pace of industrialisation in LA. The thing that killed in off was the great depression and things like the Ottawa agreement. This closed the markets to LA produce and made further industrialisation difficult. This then leads to political instability and the cycle goes on. Two things have changed in the recently, first of nearly everyone has finished paying for the last 2 world wars freeing up Capital to invest in places like LA. Bodies like GATT and the WTO have steadily reduced tariffs once again allowing LA produce equal access to the world markets. This coupled with a recent bout of political stability has lead to rising growth in LA in general. Notice how the current set of economic problems came about the same time as a capital flight form the emerging markets. The availability of capital is an important factor in LA economic development.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Originally posted by Pirate Scum
King, your argument ties in nicely with mine. Structural, internal causes could explain LA's backwardness throughout WWI. Then your analysis would kick in, postponing development even more. It was only after WWII that most LA nations really began to industrialize, with some exceptions (Argentina and México comes to mind).

I have to say that there will be no one answer to this question I thought I would throw it into the pot. Structural problems will certainly figure, I notice the two most successful countries Argentina and Mexico probably had the freest labour force. Internal problems are also important, economic progress is helped by stability and hampered by instability. These will have to join in the argument. I am not so sure on location, Britain used a market of India to industrialise or more precisely Britain industrialised by de-industrialising India. Which was half way around the world.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Originally posted by Pirate Scum
What about France's growth during the XIX century? It was pretty unstable, yet it grew pretty fast...

There are always counter examples. Stabilty helps but it is not essential. Plus if memeory serves me right the actual economic climate was fairly stable bar the odd revolution it was political instabilty. Also France acquired a colonial empire to supply it with a captive market to help out.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Originally posted by Petrus
There wasn't much in India to "de-industrialize." :)

India was very wealthy and had a very large but small scale cotton industry. It was this that was whiped out intially British Manufactured cotton cloth could be produce cheaper and whipped ou the industry. What happened was the large umber of Indian industries where replaced by a small number of British Factories. Relatively speaking. Wealth was then transfered from India by buying low value cotton and selling high value cotton goods. This money acculated in Britian and soon people need to invest it. Along cam ethe railway which was highly capital intensive and industralisation well and truly kicks off.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Originally posted by Pirate Scum


Yes.:D

But at least I think that I have begun a refutation of some of the most common arguments about the relative backwardness of LA. Those that are based on religion, national origin of the colonizers, or some inherent laziness of Latin Americans, wouldn't you agree?

Yes I would. For me Religion is a non-starter. There are lots of examples of Catholic countries doing well. The origin of the coloniser is also a non-starter because Britain held India far longer than it held the 13 colonies yet India is not doing so good, in fact Britain built an awesome administrative machine in India and fat lot of good that did. As for the Laziness obvious spending most of your day sleeping under a tree is not going to help, but it never held the French back.:D
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Originally posted by Oexmelin


True. The only serious somewhat leftist movements, namely the 1830s uprising and the 1870's Commune were either channeled through "bourgeois" regimes (Monarchie de Juillet) or militarily crushed (1832, for instance, which is the short-lived uprising featured in V. Hugo Les misérables or the Commune, squashed by the Versailles government under the amused eyes of the "ex-Prussians" Germans).

All countries have problems with Leftist movement. Britian had the Luddites running rampage, for example. In the case of Britian and France these were supressed or coopted. In the case of Argentina for example they got a free riegn under Peron. Which didn't do much good.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Originally posted by Admiral Yi

I repeat for any Euro within hearing: every single one of your countries is going to have very, very serious problems with its pension system.

All of them? Are you sure?
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Originally posted by Admiral Yi

No, not sure. :eek: Only sure about Spain and France.

I do not know how interested you are here. Just about every state in Westenr Euroep has a problem with pensions. However soem countries have significantly smaller problems than others. Britian for exmaple has a state pension which is worth next to nothing and large amount fo privately funded pensions has smaller problems than most.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Originally posted by Browning

...their progress was slowed again, since the wealth was divided faster by the populist governments than it could be produced, even with the booming exports from L.A. to the post war Europe.

It is just that the societies (and the govts) failed to realise the fact, that you have to work hard first, and after that you can spend your money. This observation is stressed in the West European (Protestant? Germanic?) life philosophy.

However, the contemporary Western Europe seems to step back from this philosophy, just look at the growing (internal) debt of the E.U. countries.

Internal debt need not be a major issue. US internal debt skyrocked under Regan but this did not hold backthe US economy. As long as you are willing to pay the cost of having a high internal debt then you can quite happly have one.

This arguement is a total red herring. The problem with Protestant work ethic arguement is that no can quite explain why the Protestant God gave his people coal fields while Catholic one didn't. In fact if we go to Catholic areas with large numbers of Coal fields (like Bohemia for example) we seen a quite an impressive work ethic.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Originally posted by Browning


Well I do not necessarliy call it a Protestant philosophy (I put a question mark and another option, see?)

However we call it, it is a difference in approach:
1. Let's work now so that we are rich later on
versus
2. Let's spend the whole money now even before we earn it.

I see the second approach across the L.A. countries, and I am affraid that I observe it also in the E.U. - but not so in the U.S.A.

I disagree here. The USA under Bush right now is cutting taxes and increasing expenditure, spending money now even before we earn it. Now I ain't sayign its wrong but you can't claim the US isn't doing it. What you are describing and social and poltical situations in a country not cultural. In Europe a lot of countries remember the truma of World War II and remember that the rise of Hitler was aided by large scale social dislocation caused by the great depression. Many countries believe than investing money preventing this, is money well spent. In Latin America we see different forces at work leading to large scale corrpution in the societies but it is not linked to religion.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Originally posted by Petrus
King, Browning...one second here. :)

I don't think your respective positions are far from each other.

King, It is a Protestant philosophy. :) I would suggest re-reading Max Weber's "Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" and "The Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyan. You will see that the Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) is very much a, well, Protestant ethic.

Nevertheless, you still raise a valid point in questioning the reasoning behind the PWE. Why would "God" validate one's salvation through economic success? And only Protestant salvation at that...

I just can't buy it. I do not see work ethic being linked to religion. Belgium was a very sucessful industral country and yet is not protestant. I think we should look else where. In Britian the governments key duty was defend the right of private property this allowed industral progress. As other countries adopted this idea so too did they begin to advance industraly. This is not based on religion, the Anglican communion is the closest of all protestant faiths to Catholism. In Scotland where the Kirk was all powerful up untill the late 1950's there was no major difference compared to England. So I see it as a social politcal posistion wand using the word protestant is misleading in my opinion.

Originally posted by Petrus

Browning, I likewise agree that one of the prime differences between North and South America is the absence of the PWE as a driving philosophy in countries of (let's call it) Latin origin.

Yet, these positions are reconcilable.

In countries where the people were influenced by the Protestant work ethic (Northern Europe and America) there is a more developed tradition of market economy. This tradition began PWE thinking went something along the lines of, "if I am to be among God's chosen he will show me I am saved by making my life better here on earth. Therefore I will risk capital to see if God will make my investment pay off and prove my salvation de facto."

This thinking did not permeate the "Latin" countries and thus began the great divergence we witness today.

No that is not protestatism at all or at least not the sort I got taught. As far as I knew yes it was gods will if you failed but success or failure did not valid your faith. We all knew that Catholic swould burn in hell, God had ordained it that way. The real reason that non-comfomists proved so successful in business was because political power was denied to them in Britain so they had to turn to business. It is the same reason that Jews became sucessful bankers, they had no choice.

Originally posted by Petrus
However, arguments about Shrub (um, Bush jr.) and contemporary American politics can only distract us from the central issue and are a waste of time debating in this context.

I do think they are valid. The situation still exists and thus contempary situation is just as significant as the situation 200 years ago.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Re: Re: Weber et alii

Originally posted by Browning


Well, this is diffucult to say. The most economically active part of Germany now isthe Catholic South. The most economically active part of Germany during the most of the XX century was the West, partially catholic, and the North. During the most of the XIX there was nothing like a "center" of activity. There were some regions lagging behind, such as Bavaria or Prussia, but this is clearly due to their perceived role as agricultural regions than to anything else, and you cannot say that Silesia was not a developed region.

It was part social, Prussia was held back by Junkers who feared the industral working classes. The Prussian army of 1914 was still primarlily recruited from rural areas to ensure it could be used to surpess urban discontent. It was also party due to resources. Sileasia and the Rhur where both near coal and iron ore fields. Prussia and Bavaria were not. It is the same when we look at Beligium and the Netherlands. Belgium had large Coal and Iron ore fields, the Netherlands did not. So Belgium devolped and the Netherlands did not. We look to the Dual Monarchy, it was Bohemia-Movaria and Gallicia that had the coal and iron ore fields so they devolped ahead of the rest fo the monarchy. It is the same pattern through out Europe.

Originally posted by Browning

And as for Weber being outdated, well some people claim that the economical theories of Adam Smith are also old fashioned.

which why most counties use Keynes or Friedman for economical insperation.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Well Pirate you seem to have all the answers. So I have a questionf or you why do people believe in the protestant work ethic if there is so little evidence supporting the theory?
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Originally posted by Pirate Scum


Trick question?;)

Why do people believe in God with zero evidence?

Because it massages the ego of the target countries and reinforces the idea of cultural superiority and "right to rule", the "white man's burden", and many other similar ideas...

I was thinking the same thing here. We are successful because it was ment to be. Sheer luck is never what the fans want to hear.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Originally posted by Pirate Scum


And it's a neat reversal of the materialist (usually Marxist) interpretation, i.e., ideas determine material reality instead of the other way around...

As any God fearing Protestant will tell you, Godless Marx cannot be right. Otherwise there would be no God.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Originally posted by Pirate Scum


:D

Actually, Marxism is good for Latin America because it's a secular Protestant ethic.;)

Quite true, but several CIA backed governments may find marxism hard to swallow.

Sorry I should of said alleged CIA backed governments.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Originally posted by Petrus
Yes but Pirate Scum, it is also imporant to remember that the vast majority of wealth was pumped into Protestant colonial holdings as investments.

This is because (wheather true or baseless) the investors believed that God would reward them with profit by way of validating their membership as one of the "Elect."

This dynamic was absent in Latin America. This translated (among other things) into a lack of investment into Latin America as well as the stunted development of institutions which helped to foster further economic development as the years progressed.

As far as I know the main thing that was pumped into the North American colonies was religious disidents, including quite a lot of Catholics. Most British investment went to the Sugar islands which made more money. The NA colonies were more useful as a market of industral products. Again though india was more useful here being a much larger market.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Originally posted by Petrus
All of course are correct. However, investors were needed to front the cash for the colonies in the first place. As were investors for the ships, and supplies, and don't forget the insurance, which also came of age during this period...in Holland--the personification of the Protestant Work Ethic. :)

I don't argue that colonies cost money, even the low grade ones. However the North American colonies would remain relatively unimportant economically till the mid 1850's (ok they weren't colonies by them, but I hope you know what I mean). It took a very long time for them to really pay off. The PWE was a really slow burner here.
 

King

Part Time Game Designer
11 Badges
Dec 7, 2001
12.504
30
47
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
  • Victoria 2 Beta
Originally posted by Browning

I will have to find an excuse for things like Jamaika, which were small and private, but still are a backwater - it seems that the spirit of enterprise must be present in the society as the whole, and this is not the case for slave - operated plantations.

Wasn't the early economy of the US also strongly dependant on slavery, and wasn't slavery outlawed far earlier by the British. As a final note Britain richest colony in therunup to World War II was Malaya, which certainly wasn't famous for it's spirit of enterprise.

Originally posted by Browning

And finally commenting the posts about the 'pure luck': is it really a coincidence that 8 out of 10 richest countries are of anglosaxon culture (or were strongly influenced by it) ?

How many of those 8 countires are rich in resources as well?