Argentine society in the 19th century

Student’s Name

Institution Affiliation

Course Name and Code

Professor’s Name

Date

Argentine society in the 19th century

Before World War I started, Argentina’s future looked bright. By 1913, Argentina was among the top 10 richest countries globally. This was due to its fast industrialization and modernization of institutions after it got its Constitution in 1853. During peacetime, Argentina’s per capita income was almost the same as Switzerland’s. After the war, it dropped to the level it is at now, which is middle-income. Even though many ideas have been put forward to explain the sudden drop, it seems that the institutional setting is the most important factor in determining the long-term fate of the economy. Even though there is a lot of evidence in academic works, the alternative way for Argentina to develop is still not well known. (de Rosas, 2002). In this study, we use the fact that institutional failures change over time and the large amount of historical data on Argentina to make a reliable assessment of how formal and informal political institutions have helped the country improve over time.

From a historical point of view, it is clear that Argentina’s economic growth was affected by the country’s huge growth spurt during the Belle Époque and its infamous change from a wealthy country at the beginning of the 20th century to a poor one that continues to this day. So, the paper emphasizes how important institutional framework is for making sure growth and development are sustainable. It shows, through the history of Argentina’s fall into poverty, that even smart leaders may not be able to save a country from economic stagnation if its political institutions are weak both in law and in practice (Alberdi, 2002). The case study of Argentina in this essay shows that transition to dictatorship or democracy can hurt long-term growth if the de facto political institutions, like giving non-elites easy access to collective action, do not support the changes in the law.

Many ideas and theories have been put forward to explicate why Argentina’s economy has been getting worse. Many people say that Argentina’s lack of development is due to its slow-moving institutions, but others disagree (Mansilla, 1997). In general, these theories focus on the following factors that slow long-term development: the role of the frontier expansion closure, the contribution of differences in political traditions associated with large-scale immigration in the 19th century, underinvestment in human capital, immigration policies, the role of comparative advantage in agriculture, the negative effects of this advantage on technology, and the role of culture as a brake rather than a driver.

Until the middle of the 20th century, Argentina’s growth was based on the export of primary goods, just like Australia and Canada. Even though it was cut off from important international markets, Argentina was able to become rich through exports because it had few native people, a low population density, and a lot of natural resources. What happened to a country that was so much better off in its first 50 years after it got rid of Spain is still a mystery. When you compare Australia’s and Canada’s development paths to Argentina’s, there is a big gap between 1896 and 1899 (Sarmiento, 2002). When compared to the other two countries, Argentina had already started to fall behind.

From a global point of view, the way institutions have changed in Argentina is very different from what has happened in the United States, Canada, and Australia. After Argentina’s Constitution was passed in 1853, a lot of people from Europe and other parts of the world moved there. This helped the country’s economy grow quickly. When it was passed in 1912, the Sáenz Pea Law finally gave people of all ages the right to vote, just as the 1853 Constitution had said they would (Lugones, 2002). Unlike the US, Canada, and Australia, Argentina has never fully adopted a free democracy based on the rule of law. In 1930, when the military broke the law and went against the constitution, it set Argentina on a path of unstable institutional growth marked by frequent changes between dictatorship and democracy.

In Argentina, politicians like Juan Péron rose to power even though there was a lot of election fraud and the system of checks and balances was almost broken (Nouzeilles e al., 2002). Because of this, the country was less able to help its institutions grow over time. Institutional instability, which showed up in both legal and practical ways, slowed down the implementation of projects that would have helped the economy grow. So, it led to the government favoring groups with the most power and a lot of people looking for rent at the expense of productive economic activity. Overall, Argentina’s institutions set the country up for decades of low economic growth and low productivity.

References

Nouzeilles, G., Montaldo, G., Kirk, R., & Starn, O. (Eds.). (2002). The Argentina reader: history, culture, politics. Duke University Press.

Sarmiento, D. F. (2002). Civilization or Barbarism?. In The Argentina Reader (pp. 80-90). Duke University Press.

Alberdi, J. B. (2002). Immigration as a Means of Progress. In The Argentina Reader (pp. 95-102). Duke University Press.

de Rosas, J. M. (2002). The Caudillo’s Order. In The Argentina Reader (pp. 75-79). Duke University Press.

Mansilla, L. V. (1997). An Expedition to the Ranquel Indians: Excursion a los indios ranqueles. University of Texas Press.

Lugones, L. (2002). National Identity in a Cosmopolitan Society. In The Argentina Reader (pp. 209-214). Duke University Press.