Democracy Course - week 1

Our group does not entirely agree with Pancho, though his opinions provide valuable insight about how Argentine citizens view their history.  As far as the smart/stupid argument, we can’t agree.  It’s true that the Spanish came to collect resources and return home, but this only means that their mindset, not their intelligence was any different than the settlers of the U.S.  The North American settlers were fleeing their (mainly English) homes in order to find a new one.  They were interested in development.  The majority intended to live in North America permanently and wanted to better their lives; thus, they had a vested interest in the land, its development, and its success.  This vested interest in the territory was not true for the Spanish until after independence, which was already much later than the American Revolution.

This vested interest spurred development and industry, while the Spanish colonies stagnated, stuck in an exploitive situation that hindered development.  As a result, North America, a half-century ahead of its Southern neighbors, was able to create more industry, manufactured goods and advanced products, while Latin American countries were (and in many cases, are still) stuck with raw, primary materials as their principal source of income.  By the time Latin America realized independence, and more importantly stability, the United States and the other “center” countries had far surpassed them in advanced production of non-primary goods.  The liberal free-market policies only helped to keep LA in its place, or at least only develop at a much slower rate while the center nations prospered more.  Other policy prescriptions, such as ones similar to the current leftist sweep through LA, are unable to overcome the gap between the center and developed nations. 

The cattle ranching industry and resulting gaucho culture contributed to the economic realities that currently separate the United States and Argentina.  Cattle ranching and export of beef became so lucrative (especially once refrigerated container ships were developed) that other investment and industry (that developed in the US, Great Britain, and other “center” countries) were discouraged in Argentina.  In the present day, manufactured goods, technology, service, and other advanced products are worth much more in the international market.  Thus, the nations that were forced to develop high-tech industries and encourage entrepreneurialism now fare much better than nations (like Argentina) who did not start developing new industries as early, and instead relied longer (and in many cases still rely) on primary goods.

That the North American colonies treated its native populations better, encouraging trade and enlightening their own development (Pancho’s argument), is hard to believe.  Both situations are equally horrifying.  Both were extremely cruel with intentions of annihilation.  To compare them and believe one was better than the other is more than a stretch.  We treated our native populations just as badly without trying to incorporate them into society, and pushed them out of areas we wanted to be in.   

Pancho also commented that early development in North America included an ability to form intelligent, smart society in North America.  We have already dismissed the “intelligent, smart” aspects, but it is true that society developed very differently in the two continents, which is closely related to the divergent paths of political structures on the two continents.  The division of South America into countries was partially based on regional power-holding caudillos – what kind of political culture does this create?  One set up perfectly for dictatorships.  As discussed in class, Latin America could have been unified as one nation like the United States, but instead broke up into quarrelling polities.  In North America, a society very concerned with the rights of man political participation, DEcentralized power was always very important to the colonists, based on their hatred of the English king.  This led to an early development of democracy in the United States.  In the Latin American case, the sum of the parts is less than the whole, and the divided states were much weaker actors than the conglomerated United States.

Then we spoke with David about corruption in Latin America and its prevalence here in comparison to the U.S.  He feels that this is what continues to hinder development in this part of the world and that it is extremely difficult to break this cycle.  It is so ingrained into society and the way government functions, that it is impossible to fix.  He said that the dictatorships created this culture of corruption leaving a legacy for the ‘democratic’ governments that follow.  This idea goes hand in hand with path dependency.  It is costly to change such a structure, not only monetarily.  What political figure would want to take a chance to make such a leap for their country?  The cost of one’s political career can be devastating as well as a leap in lifestyle change.

So now the U.S. isn’t so dependent on manufacturing, but our technology, engineering (go GT), and service industry.