back
95 comments
As someone who comes from a very poor country, I feel like academics don’t do enough to help understand why some countries succeed and why some don’t. They blame “colonialism” or some such thing, but that doesn’t explain this. Argentina was rich in the early 20th century:

> Something has gone awry in what was the most successful of all the 19th-century liberal republics in Spanish America. In the early 20th century, Argentina’s per capita GDP ranked among the world’s top ten, on a par with Australia and Canada and ahead of France and Italy.

What explains the coups and political instability? If the GDP is the same, why is the government of Canada and Australia so much more stable than Argentina? This seems to be one of the biggest things holding back Latin America, but there seems to be no effort to understand what’s causing it.

> but there seems to be no effort to understand what’s causing it.

I recommend "Why Nations Fail" by Acemoglu and Robinson, a thoughtful look at success/failure factors common across a number of countries.

Unlike the implication of the title itself, it's not a "one grand theory" but a set of factors that incrementally tip the scales in one direction or the other.

Sure, factors like colonialism certainly play a role, but terms like that are usually used as lazy tropes rather that thoughtful analysis. Acemoglu and Robinson don't focus on such broad factors except to the degree that they might encourage/discourage some more primary factors.

Yeah. The book has some great insights around institutions. My notes from the book https://ashishb.net/book-summary/book-summary-why-nations-fa...
It's worth considering Argentina's political history in addition to its economic history. From independence, it quickly became a "feudal dictatorship" under Juan Manuel de Rosas, leading a confederation of largely autonomous provinces, from 1829-52. Then a "cold civil war" ensued from 1852-61 between the dominant province of Buenos Aires and the rest of the Confederation, with Buenos Aires eventually winning under Bartolome Mitre, who established a voice-voting faux-democracy that enshrined de facto one-party rule from 1862-1910.

This period of false democracy coincided with Argentina's miraculous economic rise, as well as the subjugation of its remaining autonomous indigenous peoples. The first free election in Argentina was held in 1916, and only fourteen years later the adolescent system was thrown into disarray by the Infamous Decade and half a century of periodic coups.

The past 38 years since the election of Raul Alfonsin in 1983 have been the longest continuous period of democracy and peace in Argentine history, by far. When we compare Canada's origin under the partially democratic English system or Japan's gradual adoption of Western values from 1868 to Argentina's eruption from an ossified Spanish Empire in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars, we see more "anchors of stability" in the former two, in one case the tradition of English parliamentarianism and in the second the Japanese "flexible monarchy" that gradually relinquished power. But this is an unpleasant conclusion for those looking to change the fortunes of countries that lack such guideposts; traditions take a long time to build, and for every George Washington there are five Santa Annas.

Almost all Latin American countries are presidential republics. This is a system of government that basically guarantees instability. The separation of the executive and the legislature is supposed to provide greater accountability, but eventually leads to populist presidents quarrelling with intransigent representatives. The result is political logjam and either the president finally disposes of the legislature, or the military gets rid of both.

In contrast, Australia and Canada both have Westminster parliamentary systems, where the executive is drawn from the legislature. Thus, the prime minister is guaranteed a base of support there and populist candidates cannot entirely circumvent it. The system has its flaws, but it does seem to be more stable in the long run.

I think that this can be better qualified. Presidential republics make sense if you have a truly federalist system, formed by existing states that have unified under one government. The US for example does not have a centralized health care system, police force, banking system, legal system, and education system.

Some, though not all, countries that have copied the US presidential system are in actuality centralized with most power being invested in the federal government and by proxy, the president. It is a recipe that dictators like as they can pretend to be democratic leaders but not actually have to share power.

If your country is centralized parliament works best. If it is decentralized then any parliament is going to be toothless like the UN, entirely dominated by single strong internal powers like the EU, or incoherent like in Star Wars :)

>Almost all Latin American countries are presidential republics. This is a system of government that basically guarantees instability

What about all the european presidential republics, and the US?

According to this theory the USA should be a failed state then?
That explanation wouldn't work for the era at the end of the 1800s when Venezuela adopted a USA type constitution that was meant to imitate the USA as closely as possible.
Joe Studwell has written a book called "How Asia Works" that tries to tackle the question of what economic policies help countries get wealthy. You can read a review about it here [1]. But basically he boils down to 3 policies:

1. Land reform - Forcibly buy up farms and distribute it to farmers. This forces landlords into cities to develop more productive businesses.

2. Export discipline - Encourage companies to sell overseas rather than to the domestic market. This helps them become more competitive worldwide.

3. Financial control - Encourage banks to loan to companies that export instead of real estate companies.

[1] https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/what-studwell-got-wrong

I think a lot of it comes down to corruption. The recurring theme in Argentina is that the large landowners and right-wing politicians hoard the wealth of the country; although living standards rise slowly, most people are left behind. Then there's a socialist movement which nationalizes industry and promises reform. But they're just as corrupt, and use the levers of monetary policy to line their pockets. International investment reels in horror, the debt skyrockets, they print more money, inflation goes wild, then they default on the debt and there's a few years of depression. Finally, the right wing gets back into power, removes the currency controls, issues new currency - essentially wiping out ordinary savings but safeguarding land-based wealth - and privatizes everything again. Rinse and repeat.
How will voluntary bitcoin adoption affect this? In other words, once economic actors have a currency that can't be manipulated by government, want changes?
So basically the US today.
The simple explanation is the timeline of the resolution of power struggle of the ruling classes in respective countries. Both Canada and Australia were Crown colonies and subsequently member states of the Commonwealth of the British Empire.

England experienced extreme violence during its period of power struggle between contending members of ruling classes. If you review the history of England from Henry VIII until the consolidation of the conflict in what they call "The Glorious Revolution", you will note the same volatility and frequent change of power, extreme violence, and vulnerability to external powers. Had England experienced its power consolidation period in modern times, and was vulnerable to external powers capable of projecting power and influence using modern means, it would be another Argentina. In England's case, a chance event of inclement weather neutralized the armada of the super power of the time (Spain), and it should be noted that another invading force (Dutch Orange) finally resolved the matter.

The Anglo-Empire (currently administered by the American cousins) enjoys relative concord among the ruling set and the subject classes are effectively propagandized to accept their station in life. (A cursory review of any English work of literature or film supports this assertion.)

Should Latin America, Far East, Middle East, or any other non-Anglo region ever enjoy a sufficiently long period unmolested by the Anglo-Empire, they too will pass through their period of contention among the ruling classes and arrive at a stable formula for exercising governance over a docile population.

>>> Should Latin America, Far East, Middle East, or any other non-Anglo region ever enjoy a sufficiently long period unmolested by the Anglo-Empire, they too will pass through their period of contention among the ruling classes and arrive at a stable formula for exercising governance over a docile population.

That stable formula may in turn be imperialist. Colonialism is not the sole province of the Anglosphere. China has already reached this kind of stability and freedom from foreign molestation, to the detriment of its neighbors and conquered peoples.

It's also worth noting that countries subjected to Anglo colonialism and Common Law have fared better than those colonized by Spain or France, in large part because British colonies were not organized as plantations run by a few wealthy landlords (at least, not nearly to the same extent). Most of Latin America still hasn't even experienced land reform, keeping large swaths of the population at the level of subsistence. Moreover the lack of property rights and security driven by the occasional socialist/populist uprisings result in a lack of credit or investment that would help build a middle class. The middle class is the group you refer to derogatively as "subject classes [...] propagandized to accept their station in life." That class in China and in the Anglosphere lives a materially much more comfortable existence than the subject classes of LatAm, Africa or South Asia. The material comfort, more than the propaganda, is the key to preventing populist uprising.

I've often questioned why some new world countries fared better than others.

In your opinion, what could have staved off the Anglo-empire meddling in Argentina's case? Had the governing class in Argentina joined (or succumbed to) the Anglo financial system early in the 20th century would the foreign powers that be have promoted stability rather than instability in that country?

... why some countries succeed and why some don’t ...

Not for want of trying.

That's literally the topic of the foundational book of modern economics, Smith's An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. And there've been many, many, many subsequent attempts at answers. If there is a modern concensus, it's that there is no accepted answer or understanding.

There are several reasons. It's difficult to run controlled experiments. There are a limited number of examples to study. There is a phenomenally entangled set of factors. And many attempts are influenced by specific experiences, ignorance, or ideological alignment.

You'll find free-market fundamentalists, institutionalists, Keynesians (fiscal policy), monetarists, American School (National System, following a national policy), socialists, communists, neoliberal school, feudalists, physiocrats, cyberntics / systems theorists, complexity economists, biophysical economics, and numerous others.

Among texts I'd recommend:

Mancur Olson, The Rise and Decline of Nations.

Lloyd Jeffrey Dumans, The Overburdened Econommy.

Gregory Clark, A Farewell to Alms. (The series this is part of contains numerous other explorations of economic history.)

Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation

Arnold Toynbee, Lectures on the Industrial Revolution.

> I feel like academics don’t do enough to help understand why some countries succeed and why some don’t

What have you read so far? Did you do any research? The field of philosophy and political science does not lack publications.

I can recommend "The Rise and Decline of Nations" by Mancur Olson. Further authors which I still have to go through, but seem relevant:

    Theodore Dalrymple
    René Girard
    Roger Scruton
    James Burnham
Correlates with the number of Scottish people involved in establishing the country?
I visited around 10 years ago and found it to be a truly interesting country, though indeed mired in recent controversy and historical bloodshed and all the political to-and-fro discussed in the article, but also full of delights and fascinating people and strong cultural elements (grilled meat! Late night dancing!), a clear cross between old Europe and the new world, more than any other perhaps. My anecdote on the finance system: the local street market had signs posted by the local government that mandated prices-in order to curb inflation. That was a first for me, seeing vendors unable to set their own prices.
> local street market had signs posted by the local government that mandated prices-in order to curb inflation. That was a first for me, seeing vendors unable to set their own prices

I'm sorry, could you be more specific about what it is what you saw?

There are no "government mandated prices" in this country, at least not like you make it sound(Apologies upfront if I miss understood you).

There is a government program where all big market have to carry products where their price is fixed by the government. The idea is that you can always have the chance to go for a cheap product if you are poor, but it's not for instance that all milk brands have to have the same price.

And milk can get pretty expensive pretty fast in this country: It always come in 1 litre recipients, and the cheapest one (The one that is within the mentioned program) is right now at ~70 pesos (Some 73 dollar cents at the official dollar price, 40 cents at the current rate for the dollar in the back market... but foreigners can hardly get this price for their dollars).

I don't know what the prices are in other countries, but I think tourists will find prices rather high compared to their countries once tourism starts again.

Yes, it was an outdoor farmer type market in a suburb of Buenos Aires, there were signs saying for example, butter costs 10 pesos a kilo(or whatever, sorry I can't recall the values). Maybe I misunderstood but it seemed to be a notice that the consumer shouldn't pay higher than that price, to keep inflation controlled. It was not a tourist market at all, everything in español.
> And milk can get pretty expensive pretty fast in this country: It always come in 1 litre recipients, and the cheapest one (The one that is within the mentioned program) is right now at ~70 pesos (Some 73 dollar cents at the official dollar price, 40 cents at the current rate for the dollar in the back market... but foreigners can hardly get this price for their dollars).

That's actually extremely cheap by international standards, if this source[0] is to be trusted. Of course it seems expensive for most argentinians because wages are also terribly low.

[0] https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_price_rankings...

There’s something sick about their economy. Quite a few economic dynamos emerged from the legacy of bloodshed and dictatorships. Argentina has natural resources. It has institutions. But perhaps it lacks vision and the will to carry out that vision.
We have a very crooked political caste. I'm giving this as an example; I don't want to get into a political discussion. But in the last government alone, we received around 50 billion dollars from the FMI also alone, that was entirely dilapidated.
Corruption is quite bad in Argentina. This is not limited to politicians, it's at all levels of society.
What is sick is the degree and extent of corruption in every level of society.
> Speculators amass basic necessities and grocery stores were as empty if not emptier in December 2019 than any supermarkets in the UK at the height of the pandemic.

I don't remember that.

Yeah, I don't remember supermarkets here in Argentina being particularly empty in December 02019. On the other hand, it's hardly unusual for supermarkets here to have a noticeable amount of empty shelf space, especially Chinese supermarkets off main streets on Sundays; maybe in the UK that's what they looked like at the height of the pandemic?

I don't remember bars in Palermo being full of English-speakers at the time, either, just the occasional group.

Overall, though, I feel like the article is mostly accurate.

Yeah, that didn't happen.
Me neither.
Two factors: Religion/culture and corruption

https://m-g-h.medium.com/in-data-we-trust-2978dacc8c22

PS: I grew up there

>Argentina did not pledge allegiance to the US in the Second World War and was officially neutral.

This is a weird way to put it. The US entered WW2 after more than two years of fighting. Did Stalin "pledge allegiance to the US"?

The whole article reads like a propaganda piece.

The first para throws shade on the Russian vaccine because someone who took it tested positive later. As if this doesn't happen with USA's vaccines.

Later, we encounter western-journalism's gold standard phrase: "Many Argentinians welcomed...". What does many mean? Any number greater than 1.

For the record, the US entered WW2 after more than four years of fighting- Japan was the proximate cause of US entry, and they had been engaged in their horrifying, semi-demi-hemi genocidal war in China since the Marco Polo bridge incident of 1937, two years before Hitler stared anything serious in Europe.

I suspect the authors point is that most countries in Central America were original members of the United Nations (signing the declaration in January 1942) and Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru, Ecuador, Uruguay and Venezuela all joined the war between 1943-5. Argentina was the last country in South America to join the war, at the end of March 1945- Hitler survived little more than a month of war with Argentina. And for those countries, it largely was about pressure from the US.

Vice versa, if anything, since Stalin was already fighting the Germans.
I think the article was being disingenuous juxtapositioning that the president had the sputnik vaccine, then mentioning they got coronavirus.

I'm sure the decision to use sputnik or moderna, Johnson etc. is not deterministic in getting COVID-19

People that received Pfizer algo caught it, so yes, it's not a particularly insightful comment.
I suspect centuries of colonialism and a literal fascist dictatorship didn't help.
South Korea was a fascist dictatorship until the 1980s and is now a global economic powerhouse.

China has been a literal dictatorship for decades and is now the world's largest economy.

It's probably not the dictatorship.

I was hoping for an in depth historical treatment of Argentina's fall from the club of wealthy nations, but this article feels much more shallow. It's immediately clear that the author is neither an economist nor sociologist, and I would hazard to say has never lived in Argentina. While strictly true that the Macri administration's "neoliberal toolkit" failed, I feel like the article suggests that there is some inherent flaw in neoliberalism, whereas in reality Argentina is uniquely ungovernable. I'm reminded of the classic quote: "There are four types of nations- wealthy, poor, Japan, and Argentina". There is so much wealth in the county- you see these massive infrastructure projects everywhere: huge hydroelectric dams, well-constructed pristine highways in even the most remote parts of the country, beautiful parks... but for the most part, these projects are used to feed the corrupt state. The amount of corruption and bureaucracy is difficult to grasp as an outsider. I remember the first time I visited Chile by bus. At immigration before we got off the bus, they made an announcement that we should not try to bribe the Chilean police, as they wouldn't take kindly to it. They couched it in terms of the police being too proud to take a bribe, as though there were something abnormal about that. This illustrates the key sociological problem to me- beyond the normalization of bribery, there is a pervasive bureaucracy used for resource extraction by the political class, and I think it has too much momentum to end.

To return briefly to the economic side and why I think a bit of neoliberalism would be a breath of fresh air, I'm reminded of when the government banned beef exports. They wanted to lower the price of beef, and thought they could do this by banning exports. I don't think it's uncharitable to say that any moron could predict how this would play out with a bit of thinking. Ranchers stopped raising unprofitable cattle, switched to soy (which the government then also raised export tariffs on) and other crops. Argentina is rife with this type of economic magical thinking, not just in the political elite, but in the popular classes they pander to. Argentina has been poor since the advent of Peronism, and yet the average person- perhaps like how a fish might not be aware of what "water" is- continues to support the same policies that continue not working 80 years later.

In summary, I think that the author should take a more in depth look at the sociological and economic currents that make Argentina such a unique case of a poor country that by every right should be wealthy.

Edit: I feel like the above comes off as too negative, so I want to add that Argentina is a great place to live, especially if you are a person of means, and not tied to the Argentine Peso. There are a lot of world class software developers in Buenos Aires, and apparently Argentina is one of the top spots to buy 0day exploits. The culture, food, weather (you can choose anywhere from arctic to tropical depending on your preferences) are all perfect for me- I just can't stand the bureaucracy and corruption.

"Argentina has been poor since the advent of Peronism"

This argument is quite short-sighted, as it doesn't even try to understand or explain October 17, 1945. It just brushes it away like a nuisance that breaks that idillic Argentina previous to the Great Depression with a wealthy working class that never was.

The government banned beef export again a month ago. It didn't work before, but this time...this time it won't either
I’m from a much poorer country (Bangladesh) but I see the same thing. We squander a large fraction of what little we have to this sort of corruption.
> Argentina has been poor since the advent of Peronism, and yet the average person- perhaps like how a fish might not be aware of what "water" is- continues to support the same policies that continue not working 80 years later.

Much has been written on this very topic. Compelling logic, written by very smart people. Yet, it has become impossible to talk about. Such intellectual waste.