What went wrong in Latin America? - Martin Daunton
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 05. 2024
- In the Great Depression, producers of food and raw materials complained that they received low prices and paid high prices for industrial imports. Latin America adopted ‘import substituting industrialisation’ to encourage production behind tariff barriers. This approach continued after the war as more countries gained independence.
Did this policy result in inefficient industries and state regulation without delivering improved welfare? By the 1980s, the policy was in retreat with a turn to market liberalisation and export-led growth.
This lecture was recorded by Martin Daunton on 9th April 2024 at Barnard's Inn Hall, London
Martin is Visiting Professor of Economic History.
He is a British academic and historian and he is Emeritus Professor of Economic History at the University of Cambridge.
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:
www.gresham.ac.uk/watch-now/i...
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/support/
Website: gresham.ac.uk
Twitter: / greshamcollege
Facebook: / greshamcollege
Instagram: / greshamcollege
Excellent. I learned so much from this lecture. Argentina is an amazing country and I wish it and its people the best.
Economists from various camps will differ, but we should ask them “What is the tipping point (percentage) of excessive dependence on FDI (foreign direct investment) and of government spending on debt service? How are these relative to GDP growth and GINI (income and wealth) distribution?”
It seems that economic monopolization was driven both internally (large landowners, corporate and government elites) and externally (trade, processing/manufacturing firms and governments of Great Britain, Spain, US).
Confflating the Wall Street Crash and The Great Depression is not very helpful. Canada's banks were secretly bankrupt during the G.D., barely surviving on "discreet government support". If USA "Lend-Lease" had not been passed when it was enacted, the Canadian government itself would have also been close to WW2 bankruptcy by mid 1942. Argentina has far too many people on the left and the right who prefer to chase mirages and worship delay when prompt painful measures could forestall being much more severely injured later. They have plenty of company when it comes to ignoring those very obvious, slow moving, economic train wrecks.
Canadian banks had the right to create branches, thus their prosperity in the GD.
Another brilliant and illuminating lecture
In my opinion a point overlooked by this interesting British historian is the fact that the Pinochet's regime was capable not only of reforming the grounds of the Chilean economy, but also of laying the foundations of stable political institutions which were the pillars of Chile's prosperity during 30 years. On the other hand, the Argentinian military regime did not build solid institutions for the future of Argentina.
The problem was, by which I agree, dependence on foreign investment and foreign bonds, coupled with the appropriation of much of the land by the oligarchy. Perfect... Now, when a regime comes in trying to change that economic matrix it is also wrong.... The culprits are Perón or Getulio Vargas... Very sad not to mention the state crimes committed by the military dictatorships that tried to implement (and failed miserably) neoliberalism, with tens of thousands of thousands of dead and disappeared, all backed by the States. .. Another thing. Those doctors that you says "coming back", if their families would remained in Europe, wouldn't have had any opportunities to go to university, which in Argentina is free. In short... A very poor vision of Argentine history.
Very informative lecture.
Professor Dalton ignores the obvious. Argentina was one of the richest nations in the world until WW2 and, at that time it had lots of British investment. After that, Peron got rid of the British and the Argentine economy plummeted. The foreign capital was needed for growth.
This professor wouldn't a be a Leftist would he?
That's exactly what he said. I guess you missed that part or you didn't listen to the entire lecture.
Common people poor, that why they supported peron
b@@ndorobei4391 And 80 years later their salaries are only compatible to Cuba & Haiti...
Where did Britain get the foreign capital from to launch its own industrial revolution???
36:28 Gen. Getúlio Vargas did create the labour legislation we still have and it was inspired by Mussolini's Carta del Lavoro from 1927. It was put into law in 1943 when Brazil was already part of the Allied Powers in WWII. Vargas headed the 1930 Revolution (a power takeover through political means) and ruled until 1937 in a democratic fashion but then started the Estado Novo (New State) that lasted until 1945. The New State was the bloodiest and most ruthless dictatorship we ever had. The difference between the Argentinian and Brazilian cases is that Vargas did revolutionize the country and the State: he greatly diminished the large land owner's power and started a real industrialization process (with the help of Franklin Roosevelt and Nelson Rockefeller); he also built the State infrastructure creating the institutions like the National Institute for Geography and Statistics (IBGE), the scientific research funding institution and, most importantly, the Electoral system with secret vote and a Electoral Tribunal. When Vargas became president in 1930, Brazil was a phony democracy but when he left we had all the institutions needed to hold fair elections. Vargas was later elected president in 1950 - a presidency that faced strong opposition since before the president elect was sworn in. The situation got so extreme that we ran the real risk of a civil war but Vargas found a way out: on August the 24th, 1954, after asking his heart surgeon son to show him where exactly was the heart located in the chest, he put a bullet in his heart. He killed himself, the opposition and the risk of a civil war.
The most important public administration college in Brazil is the Getúlio Vargas Foundation (FGV).
Franklin Roosevelt, through the US treasury, financed the construction of a steel works company, the National Steel Works Company (CSN); Nelson Rockefeller helped Vargas with the loans needed to build a mining company that's now called Vale S.A. - the seventh largest mining company in the world.
It's really hard to try to listen when it sounds lite someone is smacking into the mic. Wish the audioengineer had cleaned up the recording in post production
Re Advert: Two front wheels, one rear is necessary for stability!
Great analysis, interesting and factual. As an argentinian I found your take full of some very interesting remarks and data. Thanks so much.
Excelent lecture. Argentina had never been really rich. Rich "stancieros" (land owners) and foreign-based meat exporters had the real money and did not reinvest in
...industrialization. When USA take over the british economy after wwii, the american midwest was able to overcompete argentina exports.
It was very rich. Its production per capita was similar to USA even if it was unequal. NOW Argentina is 1/10th of the production per capita of USA.
@@celdur4635 not structurally rich. It is the same as if you have won the lottery at a certain point, which is different than being rich because you have the means to produce wealth.
@@Lan_Zadura Doesn't matter. They had a top 10 economy by size, with a tiny population. That's not a poor country.
By the same token even in 1900 children worked the coal mines of England.
NOW Argentina is poor and also has a very low per capita income, the worst of both worlds.
@@celdur4635 Yes, it is a poor country and it always was.
Only by chance and for a brief period of time it got an inmense influx of money.
The economic structure was always one of a poor country.
You only have to compare to developed countries using other indexes, not only GDP.
Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this informative content cheers Frank 😊
Strong similarities between Melbourne and Buenos Aires in terms of a. receiving lots of immigrants (with their descendants having vibrant ethnic communities), b. having a vibrant café culture and being sophisticated and cultured and "European"-feeling all around, and c. their urban areas sprawling over lots of pretty flat land.
What is completely missing from this lecture, as from way too many lectures, articles, books, and so forth, is the major role that the British defeat at Buenos Aires all the way back in 1807 (during their invasions of the Rio de la Plata) played in a. allowing the oligarchy-inclined land tenure system to continue unimpeded and b. having the British government pivot instead to strictly economic influence in subsequent dealings in Latin America (except the joint British-French naval blockade of Buenos Aires in the late 1840s) such that the British play a more extractive role than in their settler colonies like Canada or Australia.
Had the British won in 1807, it's extremely likely that Argentina (including Uruguay) would itself have turned into a settler colony along Canadian or Australian lines. Argentina wouldn't have had a militarized oligarchic autocracy, it wouldn't have over-relied on foreign capital, it would have had higher domestic savings, and the capital and loans would have been in the hands of the national and provincial governments, not in the hands of the British and other foreign governments.
A lecture like this, which frequently compares real-life Argentina to Canada and/or Australia, screams for a connection with the British (mis)adventure of 1806 and 1807.
I don't mean to be rude, but that is much of a fantasy. Politically imposible to create because there was already a sovereign rule over the land. Things happened the way they happened for strong reasons. Even though there are always "serious events" that spark widespread effects, there is also a wide range of contingencies that can not be modified without massive efforts that Britain was not capable or even interested to take at the time.
From the UK viewpoint, the strategic objectives were actually achieved. It brought the Spanish Empire in South America to its end, and opened massive extents of productive territory for commerce, and left the South Atlantic open for its expansion projects. And you must not leave Napoleon out of the equation. France made of the UK an ally and a savoir for Spain.
In the other hand, the 1806-1807 "adventures" actually ignited the birth of Argentina and the other countries that somehow "fell off" from the hands of Buenos Aires in the next few years. Secretly, Britain was the best and only ally, even personal sponsor of the American revolutionaries of the time. And after the Independence, the main foreign investor, and preferred commercial party. British settling projects were favored and got huge amounts of land thanks to the land tenure system you mention.
I guess the effect might be described as the British trying to take a bite bigger than they could take, finding it kind of hard and untasteful and choosing to take another path. Canning's work was exceptional in that sense. He managed to create a neo-colonial system all along the Americas without engaging the main military efforts to be focused elsewhere.
If you see the next steps in the pollitical evolution of the territories, you will find British fingerprints all over the place. From the overt brute force capture of Malvinas to placing an agent as "First Argentine President" (Rivadavia), to the sponsorship of San Martin and the "rehabilitation" of Cochrane, to the support of Lusitan/Brasil interests in Uruguay... and the list goes on and on, year after year deep into the XXth Century.
The point is military defeat didn't stop the British at all, actually made its strategic objectives achievable. Figure this: what if instead of the revolutionary and loyalist armies fighting each other (and later the internal factions for decades) they were together fighting a British occupation... While the Argentines were ending the Viceroyalty in the South, the Anglo-American war was in the making, and Napoleon was at its peak and about to shove his nose where he shouldn't never have.
What does the speaker consider to be the "inter-war period"? Argentina's GDP has been on pretty much the same trajectory since the 19th century. US, Canada and Italy took off on a different trajectory just after WWII.
42:59 - All this Peronese rhetoric about work sounds a lot like an infamous slogan found on an infamous gate somewhere in northern Europe: Arbeit macht frei (work will set you free.) 🤔
The Argentinians simply didn't see the sea change in the global economy. Industrialize and technologize or die. They are now simply not able to catch up. And to go with it, there is constant capital flight as well as intellectual flight. The beneficiaries of both are the industrialized Western nations.
Based on population, climate, language, income from agricultural resources, they could of course theoretically raise to the level of current mid-eastern Europe. But they will hardly apply the methods to success. 10% of them should be sent to learn from North Europe, but they'll rather stick to USA, which is not appropriate for them.
@@HansGrob no one person or minority group of people can change a country. even if you know the way forward, you have to live in the context you're in.
@@johnnynephrite6147Necessarily wrong, because if true, nothing had changed. The whole societal development is both individual and collective.
@@HansGrob What?
Brazil's monopoly of natural rubber production started to end in 1900 when the UK started to produce it in Malaysia from seeds smugled decades before that. The rubber producers are known here as "Rubber Barons" and the English translation fits because they were also Robber Barons - they robbed from the workers here and from their buyers - and that's what lead Britain to adapt the tree to a different environment.
Why is the description so scary in terms of big companies controlling more and more in the developed world?
The Teatro Colón (Columbus Theater) is the best opera house in the world according to Leo Beranek's "Concert Halls and Opera Houses" 2nd edition, 2003.
Just sorry to see how little attention has been paid to Prebisch's ideas of a latin free trade area/customs union to boost a rational import substitution.
Plus also not getting a more profound analysis on the Chicago boys' policies, and compare them to Prebisch's ideas.
UK has never had agricultural reform and its very heavily ologarchic. In fact British say this tight control of the farmland made people migrate to the cities and trigger industrialization. So now this is bad for other countries? Almost 100% of countries that had smallholders are wretchedly poor today, its the exception and not the rule that smallholder countries like the US were successful.
These scholars present theoretical models that just dont fit in the historic reality. Once you study the detailed history of each country, the models fall apart. A part of the puzzle thats always missing is the merit of individual intelectual and technological contributions, which vary greatly from country to country.
@@Joao-id4dn Here is a simple 2 factor model that DOES work to the extent that the two factors combined explain half the variance in economic growth between countries, with most exceptions being explainable by obvious things like having a lot of oil or a lot of rich tourists:
Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, _IQ and the Wealth of Nations_ , 2002.
Unfortunately, 99% of social scientists have minds that are stuck so stubbornly in the 18th century with its Tabula Rasa ideology that they will not even look at data that contradict it. Some social phenomena cannot be understood until we get beyond Tabula Rasa assumptions.
One minute and he says Argentina one of the richest country in the world. No we weren't. There were no industries, no navy, no army, no infrastructure, no nothing. We produced grain and meat for England. That grain and meat was transported in English trains, manufactured in English or American companies (like Swift) and send to England on board of an English vessel. That's it.
1920s, Argentina had higher GDP per cap than US and higher beef consumption per cap.
Then came Peronism .
Before Peron, they blamed Yrigoyen as well... It's a shame people don't study history anymore, just repeat slogans
If a country has high exportable resources in proportion to its population, then it can have a high per capita income even if it is unindustrialized. But I agree that to support a larger population at a high standard of living, industrialization eventually becomes necessary. The real question is why did Argentina, like Spain, fail to make that transition.
The US supported the military regimes of Argentina, Chile Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay?
yes. All pro-capitalism, all aligned with US interests. I dunno about Bolivia tho..
we also supported the communist Chinese and allowed them to join the WTO, take over UN seat etc.
@@MayorMcC666 yes, indeed.
Also using chinese laptops, cellphones, appliances, maga hats made in China...
'Doublethink', Orwell.
Yes and No. They always had a difficult relationship. It is a very easy way out to portrait south american dictatorships as puppets of US state.
The reality is that they had their own agendas and they would seek support anywhere they could find it.
@@MayorMcC666 Just don't use your 'Made in China' products
What has happened in argentina is currently happening in canada, usa.
Rather Canada only. Second richest country in 1960. Too much socialism. Sweden followed the same path. From third richest to Nr. 10 today.
A problem with saying this is that while Canada, the US, etc. are all sliding, at least they have much more equitable economic and land-tenure systems than Argentina. Thus, while they might end up about a quarter to a half of the way through to an Argentina-style slide, they won't go all the way down.
Independence of Argentina was on 1816, not 1810...
1816 was the declaration of Independence. 1810 was the beginning of the war of Independence. So, technically speaking, the Professor is correct. No Spaniard ruled the Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (later Argentina) after 1810. All governments made at the time were all "gobiernos criollos" = government of the locals.
Correct. The prof got his tenure coz no one cares abt Argentina
Just say it already: xolonies established by souther European nations aren't doing well.
The reasons are multiple.
He has not mentioned the role of the Catholic church and the resulting overpopulation of urban areas .
19:12
French intelectual influence...... that's the trouble with "Latin " América
If some countrys become extremly sucessfull some others have to be the losers!
has any economist described themself as 'neoliberal'? No
Learned yet biased historians. We listen but us unlearned yobs wonder why Far Right always gets lumped with Fascism.
Surely mutually exclusive; far right Capitalist is no friend of government authoritarian Fascist. Or maybe, as a recent Harvard leader explained; it depends on Context.
It doesn't depend on context. That is just a Harvardite excuse to keep misusing the word. Historically, all generally recognized fascist regimes included all three of the following characteristics: a one party state headed by a dictator; a large and socially prominent military sector; a centralized economy dominated by a small number of large corporations with close ties to the state. To call anything else "fascist" is just ahistorical nonsense.
Corruption
Thank for saving me from years of study. It’s just that simple. And being so simple, it’s equally simple to solve.
Chile, Argentina and Uruguay are still the best latin american countries and the only ones that may one day become developed countries
Except that Mexico (North America) and Costa Rica (Central America) are already members of the OECD.
@@AlbertSchram ok, i would perhaps add Costa Rica to that list. As for Mexico, no, too much corruption and crime
The movement of why ? many Italians went to Argentina, the USA, is poorly documented.
What I saw in 2024 in Italy , from my point of view, is that expulsions has greatly enriched the heirs who are now in 2024, masters of Italy.
For example, having a surname ending in O was poorly considered between 1900 and 1944 in Italy, see how far the exclusion went...
Nice point
How long did you spend studying historical economics in Italy when you were there? It sounds like you had a fascinating time.
Unfortunately, I didn’t quite understand the point you were making. Could you rephrase it?
@@MarcosElMalo2 To cut a long story short: as in the UK, in Italy ,there remain two kinds of citizens: the degenerates and the rich land heirs, the others were between 1824-1964 expelled to America. Yes I am off topic, but that is my observation.
Why putting Latin America on the title just to talk about Argentina? Latin America has many countries and ir very large.
Because it is the only South American country that attempted autonomous development, because it still has the largest middle class in Latin America, because it was, after the United States, the country that received the most European immigration between 1850 and 1930 and attracted the most foreign investment. Because it was one of the healthiest countries of the world. Therefore, no other Latin American country is comparable.
And how about him talking about Canada all the time? If you put any of those latin American countries next to America they would totally have out preformed Canadians. Canada is joke
The problem with latin America is latin Americans (source: I was born and still live in Latam :/)
The USA. Im just answering the headline
Dogma, ignorance, half truths and plain lying.
But yep, ¡ Viva Milei !
What went wrong to Hispanic America? 1939-1945 that went wrong.
Went right. For you and us. Imagine the alternative.
@@Mrbobinge We have been decieve and manipulated. You will discover the truth soon, in a few years. If you like documentaries wach "Europe the last battle."
the CIA thats what went wrong
Canada sucks why does he keep mentioning it?
Europe went wrong with Latin America
Historically and presently, a financially empowered cabal robs the people.
Yeah I guess this sort of cabal emerged in Europe and undermined Latin America life.
But it wasn't the European people.
Latin America went wrong with Latin America. Europe was conflagrated like never before, twice, within 40 years between 1914-1945. Rose back to incredible status later again.
@@manomancan Marshall Plan
@@MarcosElMalo2 The Marshall Plan was peanuts compairde to the economic policy of Window Guidance which was implemented, not only in Europe, but also in Japan.
Uruguay is doing well (Swiss immigrants)
Full of prejudices and incorrect information. Blames foreign ownership of capital and global commerce integration for the failure of Argentina when it was the key for its success back in 1860-1930. Then justifies the fascist policies of Peronism. Apparently he learned Argentinian history by reading The Guardian or El Pais or other leftist leaflet.
The true causes of Argentina's failure: 1. The unimpeded persistence of the Spanish colonial legacy (e.g. land inequality and its attendant consequences for political and economic stability) made possible by the failure of the British to keep Buenos Aires and the Plate from 1807 onward (when I say "British", think Australia or New Zealand, not India or Nigeria), and 2. no forward-looking reforms in Argentina corresponding to Batllismo in early 20th century Uruguay or the economic reforms in Spain in the mid-20th century or the land and economic reforms in Chile later in the 20th century.
@@yodorob Totally disagree. Farming in Argentina is second to none in the world. Over 70% of crops are produced on leased lands from totally fragmented ownership. And this has been the case in the last 30 years at least.
Macho, tú escuchas lo que te da la gana. La conferencia dice justo lo contrario de lo que le estás atribuyendo: señala la inversión extranjera como elemento que impulsó la economía argentina (e incluso señala la desglobalización de los 30 como factor de colapso), critica las políticas de Perón (cosa que no le impide explicar los razonamientos que le dieron popularidad) y acaba alabando a los Chicago Boys por pragmáticos.
Hay que ser muy cerrado de mente para tildar eso de "izquierdismo".
What a low grade historian. Gresham has gone down hill. Maybe it's mates is mates....
This man is a Britain hater . He blames his own country for the failures of every country on earth . The real reason Argentina has failed is that it sells base products with low margins . Argentina should have processed the products before export ,giving more employment and better profit margins . .The butchery and packaging should;d have been done in Argentina ,
If the British had been victorious in their invasions of the Rio de la Plata in 1806 and 1807, Argentina (including Uruguay) would have been fashioned into something similar to Canada or Australia (with India, Nigeria, Jamaica, etc. being a different story).
A historian who thinks that genocide occurred in Australia really isn't much of a historian at all. What a disgusting, disgraceful slander.
There was no genocide in Australia: The English settlers mingled with the aborigines and made a mestizo nation like Mexico and Peru. They did the same in Canada and the US. It is also a slander: Apartheid was created by the Spaniards, it's a lie that that was an Anglo-Saxon creation. Shame on you, historian!
@@cesarortega6223 Yes, there was abundant intermarriage between our indigenous people and our British and Irish settlers - there still is! I cannot speak for what happened in North America. Apartheid was created by the Afrikaners, not the English and not the Spaniards, in South Africa, so indeed it is a lie that it is an Anglo-Saxon creation. Shame on the historian indeed!
It didn't occur in Tasmania, the US, or Canada. Crystal clear. The genocide occurred from Mexico to Chile. Can't find the reason why it's still full of indigenous people though.
@@jeremybray9586Sounds like you need to spend some quality time with South Africa's 1913 Land Act
You’re not important enough for your opinion to matter in this world.