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.
To determine the root reasons of why Argentina has declined so much since the early 1900s, was it basically that Argentina (with a political and legal system based ultimately on that of the Spanish and an army trained by the Prussians), as a major settler country, was "trying" to imitate major anglophone settler countries like the US, Canada, or Australia and yet it was stuck in its "Latin American" self (not meaning to be racist whatsoever) in terms of the slow integration of the immigrants and consequent labour unrest, as well as the adverse reactions of the conservatives, and thus it's backfired on Argentina ever since (with Peronism aggravating these problems in the long run)?
The thing is that other Latin American countries, like Chile, Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Guatemala, and Mexico, didn't get as many European immigrants or quite as much British capital, didn't enact progressive universal suffrage laws quite as early, and all had Prussian-trained armies and Iberian-style political/legal systems; and they haven't had heartbreaking declines the way that Argentina has had. To summarize, is it that a) Argentina (along with Uruguay) received a huge influx of impoverished European immigrants who weren't on the whole as quickly integrated as their counterparts in the US, Canada, etc., leading to much labour unrest, among other things, b) the enaction of the Sáenz Peña Law in 1912 for native-born, male citizens which was progressive for Latin America but not as progressive as that law's developed-world counterparts, and c) the presence of a Prussian-trained army - plus the reaction of the traditional conservative elite (during the Great Depression - with the 1930 coup) towards these developments, that has made Argentina different from other Latin American countries in that regard?
As to why argentine politics produce such stupid economic policies .. i'm not sure. I do recall reading , once, the results of a study that measured "collectivist vs. individualist" attitudes per country. (I would post it if i could find it again) South America has the most collectivist populations in the world, while the high performers (US, Can, NZ, Aus, Netherlands) all have the most individualist.
....... To summarize, is it that a) Argentina (along with Uruguay) received a huge influx of impoverished European immigrants who weren't on the whole as quickly integrated as their counterparts in the US, Canada, etc.,.........
And yet, Uruguay has thrived. So, maybe the immigration is not it.
Argentinians seem to thrive on drama and they have a rather unfortunate habit of electing dramatic and crooked politicians. If the show is colorful, that's what they want. Circuses all the way.
And yet, Uruguay has thrived. So, maybe the immigration is not it.
I'm not saying that the immigration is everything. And Uruguay has indeed had a less corrupt political culture than Argentina, but its economy has been held hostage by the vicissitudes of the Argentine economy and political crises (and the Uruguayan economy, too, is not as developed as those in First World countries), and Uruguay itself did have a repressive dictatorship from 1973 to 1984.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oregonwoodsmoke
Argentinians seem to thrive on drama and they have a rather unfortunate habit of electing dramatic and crooked politicians. If the show is colorful, that's what they want. Circuses all the way.
I'm just wondering, have Argentines thrived on drama in that regard more than many other Latin Americans? If so, why?
As to why argentine politics produce such stupid economic policies .. i'm not sure. I do recall reading , once, the results of a study that measured "collectivist vs. individualist" attitudes per country. (I would post it if i could find it again) South America has the most collectivist populations in the world, while the high performers (US, Can, NZ, Aus, Netherlands) all have the most individualist.
But you can't say necessarily that Argentina has a more collectivist population than other Latin American countries? And were you referring to one or more studies on collectivist vs. individualist countries conducted by Hofstede and similar researchers?
And yet, Uruguay has thrived. So, maybe the immigration is not it.
Argentinians seem to thrive on drama and they have a rather unfortunate habit of electing dramatic and crooked politicians. If the show is colorful, that's what they want. Circuses all the way.
What you are describing reminds me somewhat of politics in Louisiana(the part about circuses and a colorful show).
Disastrous monetary policies, Latin American Debt Crisis in the 80s, unhealthy focus on agriculture, the decline of the British Empire (which was Argentina's largest investor to the point many people considered it a defacto colony) after WWI, and unstable governments all contributed to Argentina's economic decline. To be fair to Argentina, the rest of Latin America isn't any better.
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.
