Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since Southern Brazil is not an independent country and therefore more difficult to compare with others, we can assume Southern Cone to mean only Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. These 3 countries have the highest HDI rankings and are in the top 5 Latin American countries with highest per capita GDP (PPP) consistently the past 25 years data. Chile is actually even ranked 1st in per capita GDP in some rankings now, 2nd in some (switching with Panama). I know Argentina is facing an economic downturn and had boom-bust cycles before, but with those data, the Southern Cone can still be considered the wealthiest region in Latin America (region being defined here as two or more adjacent countries grouped together with a name). I am interested if there are any particular reasons or if there is something among Southern Cone countries that make them more "prosperous" or wealthier than other Latin American countries. I am not interested in the nuances of the word "prosperous" at all.
The 3 countries are next to each other. Argentina and Chile share one of the longest borders in the world. Maybe the Andes does act as a natural barrier, but they should still have some things in common. I am not a Latin American expert, that's why I posted a question here, but I really have to doubt the credibility of any poster who claims that Argentina and Uruguay have no sociocultural similarities, and the grouping is arbitrary and merely geographical.
Argentina had a horrible history of economic collapses and dictatorships and regimes falling, and currency meltdowns. It is no better than any other Latin American country. Infrastructure development is so poor only Buenos Aires has a metro. At least multiple Brazilian cities have metros.
I'd say Chile and Uruguay are more stable politically and economically. Lots of Argentines have bailed out of Argentina and are in Spain or Italy.
Argentines put out propaganda that they are wealthy, but the reality is they are hardly wealthier than Peru with basically the same problems.
Southern Brazil isn't a country, what are you talking about? If we were to list the wealthiest regions in LatAm, there are areas like Campeche in Mexico or Casanare in Colombia which are much wealthier than South Brazil. Actually, in Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and Distrito Federal have much higher gdp per capita than Southern Brazil.
For many decades Chile was far from being one of the wealthiest countries of LatAm. Other countries like Mexico or Venezuela held such place. Then it's arbitrary to say that is the most prosperous region, when it hasn't been for most part of history.
Prosperous means well off, but it also means "flourishing", "buoyant", "booming". Argentina's sociopolitical history is completely different than that of Chile, or any other LatAm country, for that matter. Uruguay too. Argentina is far from being one of the most prosperous LatAm countries, it has very serious economic issues. Uruguay or even Chile aren't prospering or growing to a greater degree than most other countries in the region either. Today they are, accidentally (considering they have nothing in common politically speaking), the three countries with the highest HDI in LatAm. It wasn't so in the past, it won't be so in a few years.
There isn't any basis to lump these countries together socioculturally speaking either. Whatever these countries have in common in terms of cultural practices, migration, sports or whatever, they also have it with other countries up north.
The Southern Cone cone is made up of Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and the southern Brazilian states of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina. Respectively, they have Percap GDPs of 24, 20k, 22k, 18k and 19k. Just north of that boundary, are Peru, Bolivia and Paraguay, and the rest of Brazil, with GDPs of 13k, 7k, 9k, 13k.
Those in the southern cone are more prosperous, about double the GDP and PPP of the countries bordering them to the north. That is indisputable. The OP's question asks what factors contribute to that discrepancy.
In my opinion, it is because the southern cone received the bulk of its population stock through immigration of skilled and educated Europeans in the post colonial era, displacing the traditional colonial economies and establishing modern industry and economics.
The temporary prosperity of Mexico and Venezuela was based largely on oil reserves, exploited in the OPEC era
Southern Brazil isn't a country, what are you talking about? If we were to list the wealthiest regions in LatAm, there are areas like Campeche in Mexico or Casanare in Colombia which are much wealthier than South Brazil. Actually, in Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and Distrito Federal have much higher gdp per capita than Southern Brazil.
For many decades Chile was far from being one of the wealthiest countries of LatAm. Other countries like Mexico or Venezuela held such place. Then it's arbitrary to say that is the most prosperous region, when it hasn't been for most part of history.
Prosperous means well off, but it also means "flourishing", "buoyant", "booming". Argentina's sociopolitical history is completely different than that of Chile, or any other LatAm country, for that matter. Uruguay too. Argentina is far from being one of the most prosperous LatAm countries, it has very serious economic issues. Uruguay or even Chile aren't prospering or growing to a greater degree than most other countries in the region either. Today they are, accidentally (considering they have nothing in common politically speaking), the three countries with the highest HDI in LatAm. It wasn't so in the past, it won't be so in a few years.
There isn't any basis to lump these countries together socioculturally speaking either. Whatever these countries have in common in terms of cultural practices, migration, sports or whatever, they also have it with other countries up north.
Sao Paulo is part of the Southern cone (southern of capricorn line) and southeast Brazil.
Brazil is a federal state, each state have their own taxes, police force, schools and so on… Brazilians states are self-suficent they would become countries if they want, we are talking about states bigger and more populated than most countries over the world. Rio Grande, Santa Catarina and Parana have 11 millions people each one, São Paulo has 45 millions people, they are not only rich areas of a country because they are economicaly independent.
No one has mentioned climate. Tiny or petro states aside (Panama, Singapore, and the Gulf States) the wealthiest countries tend to be in temperate climates-Europe, Northern America, East Asia, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the Southern Cone. I guess Central Asia, if anyone would call their climate temperate, is the exception but they have the issue of being formerly part of the USSR while being completely landlocked. Not saying climate is the reason but maybe there is something there more than just correlation.
The 3 countries are next to each other. Argentina and Chile share one of the longest borders in the world. Maybe the Andes does act as a natural barrier, but they should still have some things in common. I am not a Latin American expert, that's why I posted a question here, but I really have to doubt the credibility of any poster who claims that Argentina and Uruguay have no sociocultural similarities, and the grouping is arbitrary and merely geographical.
-Argentina is a country that wasn't that affected by colonial oppression. There was never the scale of conflict/enslavement/juxtaposition for power, land or rights between cultures; Native Americans vs Africans vs Whites vs Mestizos; as there were in other countries that were colonised and settled in long before Argentina was.
-The same is partially true for Chile where colonial settlements started later than in other countries, although in general has experienced more cultural conflict than in neighbouring Argentina.
-Uruguay is basically a mini Argentina historically, with some nuances from Brazil.
Argentina was the first and arguably the only country to have ever reached developed status at some point in its history in Latin America. Venezuela is arguably the second country to have done so but only for a brief period and nowadays Chile is on the cusp of approaching developed status at least to the level of Baltic countries.
With Argentina it was the promise of land to immigrants from Europe in order to make the land productive. This created an Agrarian powerhouse of which Argentina remains to this day as one of the top food producers in the world. Also the invitation of the British to build the railways which allowed transport of produce for export from the port of Buenos Aires - one of the most glamorous and richest cities in the world at the time.
With Venezuela it was the petrol boom which made it a global top 20 country in GDP in the late 60's on-par with Norway at the time.
With Chile it was the emphasis on law and order and the rooting out of corruption during and post Pinochet. This allowed for more funds from its mineral sector to build infrastructure which allowed for further growth instead of being siphoned off into politicians pockets in smoky rooms as happens in many Latin American countries.
Uruguay I'm not too informed on but I believe it also benefited from Argentina's rise, following a similar model. Same with Southern Brazil.
Southern Cone has more agreeable climate for Euros, so more Euros moved there during Colonial times, and Great Migration period. They brought with them their economy.
Since Southern Brazil is not an independent country and therefore more difficult to compare with others, we can assume Southern Cone to mean only Chile, Argentina and Uruguay. These 3 countries have the highest HDI rankings and are in the top 5 Latin American countries with highest per capita GDP (PPP) consistently the past 25 years data.
exactly, it only has been so for the past 25 years. What about the other 180 years of Republican history of Latin America? What I'm saying is that you're starting from a false premise. The "Southern Cone" hasn't been the most prosperous area of LatAm for most of its Republican history, hence, there is no basis to discuss why is "the most prosperous".
Argentina and Uruguay obviously have a lot in common indeed, but it's just two countries. And Uruguay is just a small buffer state, it was part of both Brazil (Cisplatina) and Argentina, it could perfectly be another Argentine province, had history been slightly different. But what about Chile? For a good part of the XX century it was just as poor as any other country up north. And, again, what do these three countries have in common politically speaking, apart from a few episodes like Operación Cóndor and such? Argentina's sociopolitical history has been completely sui generis; Chile too and Uruguay. Argentina had Peronismo and a very particular political development; Chile had Chicago school, Pinochet, etc. Uruguay had all the conditions to be as rich and developed as of now (or even more) as Western Europe: it already had very advanced labour laws, and a fairly well educated and homogeneous populations in the early XX century, population growth was already under control in the mid XX century (unlike most other LatAm countries, including Chile, and another proof that both countries are not as similar as you think); yet it failed. And the reasons why it failed resemble much more these of Peru under Velasco's regime, than what was happening in neighboring Argentina.
Southern Brazil is not a country and doesn't count, if you consider other Brazilian states up north are wealthier, as I already showed.
So, you have 2 countries that were consistently among the most developed of LatAm for most of its history, and one of them might as well be a province of the other. And a third one (Chile) was far from being the most developed in the area for most of its Republican history, even if today is clearly the most developed. That doesn't seem enough to say that the "Southern Cone" is the most prosperous area of LatAm. And what does these countries have in common in terms of political history, institutions, etc? Very little, actually.
Quote:
the Southern Cone can still be considered the wealthiest region in Latin America (region being defined here as two or more adjacent countries grouped together with a name).
No, it can't. As I said, Panama is wealthier. Other countries like Mexico or Costa Rica have equal or lower poverty rates than these of Argentina. Then it's far from being the wealthiest area of LatAm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133
Southern Cone has more agreeable climate for Euros, so more Euros moved there during Colonial times, and Great Migration period. They brought with them their economy.
that isn't true either. Many other areas of LatAm received large waves of European migration. I'd say Mexico, Venezuela, Costa Rica, received larger numbers of Europeans than Chile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cebuan
The temporary prosperity of Mexico and Venezuela was based largely on oil reserves, exploited in the OPEC era
What made Mexico one of the most developed LatAm countries, especally in the mid XX century, wasn't related to oil reserves. It was more related to industry and agriculture.
Southern Cone has more agreeable climate for Euros, so more Euros moved there during Colonial times, and Great Migration period. They brought with them their economy.
The main reason was government policy as large swathes of Colombia and Ecuador also have an agreeable climate for Euros.
Argentina in particular had a policy of coaxing European migration with the offer of land. A country like Colombia for example since its birth and father Simon Bolivar, rejected many Eurocentric values in favour of a new Mestizo identity and was wary of Europe's marxist tendencies infiltrating the country at that time therefore it was a country closed to European migration. On the flip-side it was more open to Middle Eastern migration and there are many powerful Middle Eastern families such as the Turbay. 2 of Colombia's presidents have been of Lebanese descent.
Southern Chile had a similar policy to Argentina's in order to help subjugate and displace the native Mapuche population.
exactly, it only has been so for the past 25 years. What about the other 180 years of Republican history of Latin America? What I'm saying is that you're starting from a false premise. The "Southern Cone" hasn't been the most prosperous area of LatAm for most of its Republican history, hence, there is no basis to discuss why is "the most prosperous".
Argentina and Uruguay obviously have a lot in common indeed, but it's just two countries. And Uruguay is just a small buffer state, it was part of both Brazil (Cisplatina) and Argentina, it could perfectly be another Argentine province, had history been slightly different. But what about Chile? For a good part of the XX century it was just as poor as any other country up north. And, again, what do these three countries have in common politically speaking, apart from a few episodes like Operación Cóndor and such? Argentina's sociopolitical history has been completely sui generis; Chile too and Uruguay. Argentina had Peronismo and a very particular political development; Chile had Chicago school, Pinochet, etc. Uruguay had all the conditions to be as rich and developed as of now (or even more) as Western Europe: it already had very advanced labour laws, and a fairly well educated and homogeneous populations in the early XX century, population growth was already under control in the mid XX century (unlike most other LatAm countries, including Chile, and another proof that both countries are not as similar as you think); yet it failed. And the reasons why it failed resemble much more these of Peru under Velasco's regime, than what was happening in neighboring Argentina.
Southern Brazil is not a country and doesn't count, if you consider other Brazilian states up north are wealthier, as I already showed.
So, you have 2 countries that were consistently among the most developed of LatAm for most of its history, and one of them might as well be a province of the other. And a third one (Chile) was far from being the most developed in the area for most of its Republican history, even if today is clearly the most developed. That doesn't seem enough to say that the "Southern Cone" is the most prosperous area of LatAm. And what does these countries have in common in terms of political history, institutions, etc? Very little, actually.
No, it can't. As I said, Panama is wealthier. Other countries like Mexico or Costa Rica have equal or lower poverty rates than these of Argentina. Then it's far from being the wealthiest area of LatAm.
that isn't true either. Many other areas of LatAm received large waves of European migration. I'd say Mexico, Venezuela, Costa Rica, received larger numbers of Europeans than Chile.
What made Mexico one of the most developed LatAm countries, especally in the mid XX century, wasn't related to oil reserves. It was more related to industry and agriculture.
Although you know many facts about Latin America, the reasoning and conclusions are odd. No one cares which countries were rich or poor 50 or more years ago. 180 years of economic data is simply unnecessary to say who is rich or poor now. Venezuela being the primary example of how fortunes can be reversed. Besides, Argentina and Uruguay were still top 5 in those 180 years. Chile is at the first or second in recent years, and again, as mentioned, within top 5 the last 25 years, maybe even longer. But you still refuse to acknowledge that the Southern Cone is prosperous, because Panama's GDP per capita is higher, even if it hasn't been higher than Chile's the past five years. Panama, when combined with its neighbors Costa Rica and/or Colombia, don't have a higher GDP per capita either, so it can't constitute a prosperous "region". Panama is also a small country and its prosperity pretty much tied to the canal, which its neighbors lack.
Acknowledging that Uruguay can be an Argentine province, but Southern Cone have not much in common simultaneously? Temperate climate may or may not be a factor in these countries' prosperity but it is definitely something they have in common, but you even have to discredit this similarity?
Argentina had a horrible history of economic collapses and dictatorships and regimes falling, and currency meltdowns. It is no better than any other Latin American country. Infrastructure development is so poor only Buenos Aires has a metro. At least multiple Brazilian cities have metros.
I'd say Chile and Uruguay are more stable politically and economically. Lots of Argentines have bailed out of Argentina and are in Spain or Italy.
Argentines put out propaganda that they are wealthy, but the reality is they are hardly wealthier than Peru with basically the same problems.
There are really two Argentinas - the European-oriented one, which includes especially Buenos Aires but also other areas along the coast and in the Pampas (including secondary cities like Rosario), and possibly Patagonia; and the classically Latin American one, consisting of the interior (especially the Northwest and the Northeast). The former Argentina, facing the coast and thus direct European ship traffic, was able to develop quite a bit (at least when the economic cycles allowed it), benefit from European immigration, and have successful agriculture. Whereas the latter Argentina has been geographically handicapped in many ways, and many of the people have been mestizo, thus no different than many Latin American countries like Peru or Ecuador. In recent decades, the Argentine interior has encroached upon the Argentine Pampas/coast economically, politically, and socially, thus contributing to the never-ending cycles that have paralyzed Argentina for more than 60 years now.
In general, what makes the Southern Cone the most prosperous region in Latin America? I'd say a combination of white population (more like North America, Europe, or Australia than the rest of Latin America), temperate climate (again, more like North America, Europe, etc.), and economics (especially early in the 20th century, with Argentina being economically linked with the British Empire). In Chile's case, at least as much Chicago Boys economic reforms as anything else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
