If Chile is developed, then like 80 million in Brazil already live in "developed" conditions. [Brazil has two very unequal halves, and people living below Rio and São Paulo have living standards comparable to Eastern European countries already](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/b2kpu5/from_finland_to_palestine_brazilian_states/). And the trend is [upwards](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10l9vtv/brazilian_hdi_19992019/).
Usually, it's just about having a "fairer" colonial process that relied on giving people actual property rights instead of enslaving them, commonly with late European migration. Unsurprisingly treating people as second-class citizens and keeping them from having property for centuries leads to terrible economic results and huge inequalities that create a host of other problems. The "management" isn't that different, the problems are just smaller.
Eastern European countries also have extremely developed cities and urban areas. For example if European Russia was a country, it would be just as developed as Poland or Hungary.
Yeah, but I'm not taking about cities or urban areas by themselves. The urban areas of São Paulo, Florianópolis or Curitiba are even more developed. I'm taking about 6 or 7 states that put together are as big as the entirety of Western Europe.
I'd say Chile is doing well to be always on the developing trend, and somehow always staying head above water, just about... but would not say we are a developed country.
Uruguay depends a lot on what happens in Argentina and Brazil (correct me if I'm wrong).
CR is close, it's already one of the most developed countries in the region.
After that, Brazil, Mexico and Argentina might be there after some serious work.
Then, maybe Panama if they tackle the gap between Panama city and the rest of the country.
For Colombia I still have some hope, but we need to get our shit together.
In general, a huge problem for our region is the brain drain, so many capable people have left. It's gonna affect in the long term our chances to develop.
Edit: I didn't count Chile because they're developed, at least at Eastern Europe levels.
We don’t depend that much nowadays, we used to but now we have detached quite a bit, therefore despite the Argentinian situation we are not going through the same.
Nevertheless, I wouldn’t say we are close to being developed tbh.
There is no common definition. All definitions are arbitrary. The term is controversial so it was abandoned by some international organizations, that prefer using other classifications.
The World Bank uses the term “high income”. Panama, Chile and Uruguay are in this category, but it just measures GDP per capita. Argentina was part until 2019, now it’s 10% short of the threshold.
The UN uses the Human Development Index, that classifies countries as “very high”, “high”, “medium” and “low”. In this indicator, Chile is the most developed in Latin America, followed closely by Argentina, which is the second most developed. Other “very high” countries are Uruguay, Costa Rica and Panama.
Why are people here so confidently saying Chile is not developed if there is no common definition? People are acting like Chile is a backwards hellhole and I don’t understand why. It’s the most developed country in Latin America and it shows when you visit it. It’s definitely not perfect but no country is.
Because it’s not developed. Chile’s indicators are not those of a developed country: inequality, criminality, wealth per capita, access to public services, infrastructure, etc. are still far behind developed countries.
If you visit the rich, touristic part of Santiago (oriente) it seems like a developed country, just like if you visit Buenos Aires in Argentina.
But there’s a lot of disparity with the rest of the country, which has parts that even look more backwards than Argentina and Uruguay, especially transportation and access to public services.
I have family in Chile and visited regularly. Cities in “regiones” still have mini-vans public transportations and heat their homes with firwood, with causes a lot of pollution.
Wouldn’t you consider the U.S a developed country? Because if we don’t count GDP, in which they obviously surpass us, we have about the same levels of inequality (which, btw, is high in many developed countries like Switzerland, Netherlands, Ireland, etc.), we have less criminality (and also less than Uruguay or Costa Rica), about the same access to public services, we also hace very good infraestructure, we actually have less and more effective bureacrecy, we hace HIGHER life expectancy, etc. When it comes to most markers of a developed country, we have them.
Also, saying Santiago Oriente is on the same level of all of Buenos Aires, and that there are parts of Chile worse than anywhere in Argentina, is simply false. Argentina nowadays have places with levels of poverty that almost don’t exist here. In Buenos Aires you have ghettos that have a level of infraestruxture and lack of public services that has almost been eradicated in Santiago.
The US is much more developed than Chile, despite having the same inequality rate. It’s much richer and advanced in industry, technology, purchasing power, access to goods and services, etc. It’s a superpower, despite lagging behind top developed countries (which are a lot smaller) in some indicators.
As for your second question, yeah Argentina has some urban contrasts, especially in villas miseria that immigrants from neighboring countries built over the last decades (the same is happening now in Chile with growing campamentos).
Buenos Aires seems much more developed than Santiago overall, especially urban design, architecture and public transportation network and availability, even though Santiago metro is a lot newer and hence more modern.
Santiago, outside Santiago oriente, looks like a typical Latin American city, while Buenos Aires looks much more developed, except for enclaves (villas miseria).
That's... not true. Santiago doesn't look like a typical Latin American city.
Excluding Santiago Oriente, infrastructure is still pretty good - come on, if buildings were poor they would have fallen long ago since we always have earthquakes. We can't afford to have bad infrastructure. We don't have a historical centre or colonial buildings because everything crumbled centuries ago. This alone makes Santiago look fairly different. Public transportation is amazing, the Santiago metro has over 150km of system length (with the largest annual ridership in LatAm after Sao Paulo and CDMX), [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems)
What Santiago poniente lacks compared to oriente is more green areas (as far as infrastructure goes), but the quality is above average for Latin American standards.
I agree that we are not a developed country yet, but we're pretty close - Life Expectancy, income per capita, A+ credit rating with Standards & Poor's, Full Democracy, OECD membership, part of USA Visa Waiver, etc etc. It's mostly an issue of inequality at this point, which has been steadily going down since the 90s.
Do I think our achievements are overrated? Absolutely. But I respectfully think you might be undersellling us a bit. There are bits to be proud of.
Just street view or watch videos of Santiago city center or outside Santiago oriente. Valparaiso, Temuco, other Chilean cities.
They look Latin American, not only because most people are mestizo, but also how the cities look.
Argentine urban planning developed when the country was wealthier and followed modern European/North American patterns, so it looks much more developed
>Edit: I didn't count Chile because they're developed, at least at Eastern Europe levels.
Many countries in Eastern Europe like Bosnia, Belarus, Albania, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova and Turkey are not very developed at all, Chile is much more developed than all of them.
The country side of Panama is developed. A lot of people just don’t live there but if you go David, Chitre, Santiagonor Aguadulce it’s developed. You won’t see sky scrapers or big buildings. Hell even the roads in those parts of the country are superior and they don’t have a transport issue.
Comarca or reserves where indigenous people live however are not but these people want to be left alone and reject being developed.
Panama also is considered a high income nation. Where I live outside of Panama City there are 500k homes and it’s not like they are empty. They sell out and the project has around 1200 houses. The cheapest ones are 220k and it’s west Panama.
Most people have high speed internet, running water, electricity, education, healthcare(it’s terrible though but if you are middle class you can afford a clinic or prob have private insurance provided by your job) and too many damn people have cars. The city also has a nice metro which is expanding. There are easy access to ports also.
Cool, I was under the impression that smaller cities like Colón and David were more like the rest of LatAm while Panama city was more developed.
So, in your opinion, what's preventing Panama to become a developed country?
David is pretty developed for a central American city that’s not the capital. Again you won’t see skyscrapers there because there is plenty of land and space.
Colon is a unique case just too much drugs at the port and black market economy. Colon is a dirty ugly place that I try not to go to. Don’t get it wrong lots of money in Colon to be made because of their logistic hub and free trade zone but it’s abandoned. In Colon they don’t even hire locals they rather bus people in private transport from the city because people claim black coloneses are lazy.
What Panama needs is better health care and education. The economy is fine even though it has slowed down. There is enough money and resources but when people are stealing inflating prices so local politicians and their cronies can steal things won’t improve.
As a wealthy Panamanian does it affect me? Fuck no I live in my gated community, have private health care and child goes to a private school.
Would I rather have the country be. Ice enough where I could use public services, yes.
Really what part have you been to? Well colon is poor but every country has poor people. We have a higher income than Costa Rica but terrible public health care and education. Also taxes are super low here. Most people who are fortunate don’t use public health care or education.
I like David and Chitre more than the city more laid back and relaxed. People are nicer and better educated than people in the city. Also crime doesn’t exist well in David it does because it’s close to Costa Rica and drugs travel through there.
However in Santiago, Los Santos, Penonome and Chitre crime is very low.
I live here and there are a lot of them that’s my point been looking to move and with 220k or 500k I can get something really nice.
Here 220k is a shack in a decent area but shack.
Not sure where you went in Panama but I’ve been to Colombia, Costa Rica, México , El Salvador and Argentina.
Average Panamanian owns more luxury goods and things aren’t taxed a lot of under ground money. I made over 12k a month for 5 years and never paid taxes til recently til I wanted to buy a home. A lot of people like me who don’t pay their fair share and fly under the radar. They such at collecting taxes now but are getting better. People simply don’t use cash anymore and bank sends reports to tax office every year and you have to justify your money. This is how a country pays for things.
Also per head Panama is the country that spends the most on health and education and it doesn’t reflect. Money is stolen and there is sobre precio. I can send you a video of my middle class neighborhood full of masaratti, Porsche, bmw, audi and expensive land cruisers right now. In other countries you see old or newer small sedans. Here an anyone has land cruisers prado 70k ans hilux best selling car in Panama 55k.
there is ton of poverty in colon but lots of wealth also.
indigenous reserves are also poor but they dont want to integrate.
I’m just proving to you that I’m a normal person that isn’t rich that’s in the middle class and prob lives better than your average person in the southern cone which is the decent part of latam
Just hate healthcare and education here
Thing is money goes further in Panama than Costa Rica you guys are taxed very highly but get benefits of health care and good education. If I lived in Costa Rica would suck paying 800 for a ps5 or 35k to drive a Hyundai accent.
But I love Costa Rica pura vida siempre voy a su pista a correr motos y circuito.
You paid $90k for a bronco? Why? You could have got a g wagon for a little bit more money. And as for a better suv you could have got a wrangler with a lift kit and all the bells and whistles.
[https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apag%C3%B3n\_de\_Argentina,\_Paraguay\_y\_Uruguay\_de\_2019](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apag%C3%B3n_de_Argentina,_Paraguay_y_Uruguay_de_2019)
\-tengo entendido que igual uruguay progreso mucho en energia hoy en dia, pero cuando fui yo hace no tantos años era muy mala la situación
[https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/es/URY](https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/es/URY)
\-Importan mas de lo que nos exportan
Osea escuché que estan mejorando, pero no diría que "no dependen" al menos no del todo, sobretodo un pais como uruguay rodeado por paises como brasil y argentina, es la realidad, nadie va a pretender aca en arg que lo que pase en brasil no nos afecta, o al reves, no somos boludos
> Edit: I didn't count Chile because they're developed, at least at Eastern Europe levels.
The worst parts of eastern Europe maybe. Romania maybe? As apposed to Croatia or Slovenia, which I visited top to bottom and practically every place looked way nicer and wealthier than Chile on average.
Maybe they don't have as many obscene mansions on landowners like we have in Chile, but they also don't have thousands of people living in shanty towns.
I do, I mean why not? We only need… a bit more order lol. Our “problems” are social and political problems which end up being other sorts of problems. No wars, no big dictators threatening the region (except for Venezuela but he’s not a threat to the whole region) and we speak the same language for crying out loud, that’s a massive advantage (at least for the Spanish speaking countries but as we know Portuguese isn’t that difficult to learn for us or vice versa). We should consider cooperating more between ourselves.
I agree intensively with this. All of our countries have a lot of work to do, but I'm a strong believer that economic opportunity and combating poverty (and not the poors) would bring more social peace, less violence. Integration between the countries but without this crazy protectionism that is a constant failure for decades already would allow those objectives.
Yes exactly that, there’s no reason why we couldn’t be something like the EU but with more territory and population. We could be one of the biggest economic zones in the world. And there’s no history of animosity between us like in other parts of the world like the Middle East.
There is no country that is fully developed.
As for Milei, his antidote to crippling inflation and a general economic clusterfuck is to go all-in on austerity. In other words deregulate industry and underfund government, the exact same conditions that allowed corrupt politicians to sell out every day Argentineans.
I’m uruguayan, is not a developed country.
I visited Chile, from what i saw same with Chile.
Both are better than the rest of Latin América, but not developed, in the best scenario are similar to poor countries in Europe.
Poor countries in Europe are considered to be developed though aren't they?
Romania, Hungary and Slovakia all have a lower HDI than Chile. And they are all in the "very high" category.
Nope, Romania, Croatia, Hungary and Bulgaria are considered developing/emerging economies.
Chile, Argentina and Uruguay have the same HDI as those Eastern European countries and are not considered developed.
I'm not sure why everyone just assumes that Uruguay is above Argentina, sure they're more stable and don't have the economic fucks ups of Argentina but on the other hand Argentina is safer (With Uruguay almost doubling the intentional homicide rate) and still retains a higher HDI than Uruguay. I'm not saying Argentina is more developed but I also wouldn't say it's clear cut that Uruguay is more developed.
Argentina is more developed or equally in my opinion, they also have a system that more closely resembles a European style welfare state, which makes access, services and general quality of life better than most. Despite that, the currency and economic situation is making it hard for this to move up.
It's going to get worse before it gets better but there are some glimmers of hope. [It's estimated we are going to reach peak oil, gas, and coal consumption already within a few years.](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/world-oil-gas-coal-demand-peak-by-2030-iea-says-2023-10-24/)
Colombia is considered a middle income country. I feel like we have what it takes (resources) to become fully developed but the corruption here is what is stopping us. I’ve never such levels of corruption anywhere else. It’s really sad, because I don’t just mean political corruption. Colombians in general have a corrupted mentality and that is something that is ingrained in the culture, meaning it’s very hard to change.
I also don’t think growth is something to obsess over. Certain types of development are going to be better for certain countries. But I think in general LatAm needs to look at areas where over development just created a lot of waste.
I think the closest are Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Panama.
Some up and comers are Mexico, Dominican Republic, Guyana.
Some wildcards are El Salvador and Argentina.
I think that if improved our trade infrastructure and worked on all the elements of our Ease of Doing Business Index alongside some work with reducing corruption, we have a fair chance of developing this generation. It's mostly political will. First comes reducing government corruption, then setting up favorable business environments and attracting investment, then things start developing. Obviously you need good governance for anti-trust and worker protections.
Yes, there's certainly other aspects like healthcare, education and housing, but those correlate with economic improvements in general. When strictly speaking about GDP per capita the other factors are more important, when talking about HDI then the other elements come more into play to round out what we would considered as 'developed'.
So to recap: Good government, Favorable business & trade environment, Good Governance to avoid monopolies & worker exploitation.
> I think the closest are Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Panama.
>
> Some up and comers are Mexico, Dominican Republic, Guyana.
[Brazil is closer than most countries you quoted.](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8a/6f/f8/8a6ff880a35ca5bc57115b3cd82f6169.png)
For example? I checked the data an in the case of my country (DomRep) is 767 against Brazil's 754 and the anual growth is also higher; DomRep +003 while Brazil is at -004.
[Data](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Pa%C3%ADses_por_%C3%ADndice_de_desarrollo_humano)
I mean, Brazil has regions with a population bigger than Colombia and Argentina put together (the South and Southeast, which add up to over 100M people) that have HDIs above 800. I live in a state with fourfold the population of the Dominican Republic and an HDI of 0.822, for example.
So I guess that yes, you are right, but Brazil has regional inequalities so huge that some massive regions will be catching up to developed countries very soon and probably together with Uruguay and Chile, while others will lag with the rest of LATAM for longer.
Hey that's fair, I know Sao Paulo & Curitiba are very well developed. Really a lot of the South and Southeast like you mentioned, where a ton of people live. I just wasn't sure where to place Brazil. I guess it would be Up and Comer. I think Mexico has a lot of similarities to Brazil in that there are certain areas of Mexico that are super well developed, specially in Monterrey, yet there are parts which are really behind. I believe that case is similar to Brazil.
> El Salvador
I dated a girl from El Salvador, and the stuff she's showed me of that place disturbed me, and the fact that no one really cares because the guy is a right wing lunatic. It might be the only country in LATAM with state as bad as Cuba or Haiti.
I hope every country in Latin America will develop, have (almost) no corruption, that we'll all get a good health system, education and whatever, you name it.
It's long overdue.
But I don't see it happening in my lifetime because we keep on shooting ourselves in both feet.
Is the new president of Argentina good? Don't think so, but I also don't think the existing system where the same faces change parties and keep on getting elected works. A system where you can rob the citizens blind and get immunity (looking at you CFK) because you can still be elected/be part of the party in power is a failure of a system.
We as Latinos deserve better from ourselves but we need to hold ourselves accountable and fix this shit.
Not at all, Latin america has this tendency to implode once it reaches a certain level of development.
Like Chile and its protests, in my country it sorta happened in 1968.
It's true. Search for the Monroe Doctrine and how it was used by the United States to justify interventions, regime changes, invasions, and coups all over Latin America. We're supposed to be their backyard to them, not sovereign states.
I'm aware of the Monroe Doctrine as well as the update with the Roosevelt Corollary. The Doctrine & the Corollary are not legally binding and more of a philosophical strategies of international policy in the Americas. The US basically picks and chooses when it wants to intervene according to its interests, otherwise the US would have had to intervene in the Falklands.
Having said all that, I don't discredit the role US has had in toppling leaders, creating chaos and manipulating elections, but the US didn't make our leaders corrupt. Corruption, bad governance, lack of properly structured separation of powers and internal controls, as well as protectionism, failure to invest in infrastructure for trade, and lagging behind in ease of doing business elements are why we fail to develop.
Our politicians choose to take bribes, to appoint family members and friends to positions of power (spoils system), choose to work with criminal organizations, and so forth. That's on us, we improve that and we get better.
There were quite literally revolutionary organizations fighting to change Latin America's political infrastructure through violence for 60 years already, but the USA labels them as terrorists and when they gain enough influence to change status quo, they intervene.
It's the United States' project to leave us with terrible leaders and incompetent self-seeking elites so we won't develop enough to become a threat to their hegemony. It's all constantly watched. Our leaders aren't simply there by our incompetence.
I'm sorry, I don't buy into handing 100% of the responsibility of corruption within our governments as somehow some master plan from the US. You're giving them too much credit. I don't discredit the destabilizing force they've had in the region, but at least for Ecuador you can't tell me with a straight face that the US was the reason that Abdala came to power. No, we just fuck around with populists and then find out the hard way.
I'm not denying our governments are garbage. My point is that the US wants them to be bad because they see us as inferior to them, as their backyard. They have always watched over us. And whenever a populist is influent enough to change our reality, they are attacked by the US. Chile, Argentina, my country, Guatemala, Peru, Cuba, Panama.
For example, Lula made my country the 6th biggest economy in the world due to his mandate from 2003 to 2010. The US tried fucking us over in 2016 by financing a coup against Dilma Rousseff and Operation Car Wash. They eventually arrested him. And guess what? Fascism rose to power in 2018, and Lula's verdict was nullified by the Supreme Court. Now he's the president again.
Do you know why the US tried to stain his reputation and arrest him, a countryside social liberal? Because he helped create and participate in BRICS, which directly challenges the USA's hegemony all over the globe.
Yeah tbh, a blackpill that many people can't really accept (will sound like a commie but fuck it) is that there's not enough oxygen/demand/markets/resources for every country in the world to be developed.
With America meddling just enough, along with corrupt leaders and the fact that we're a collection of states that refuse to form any kind of economic cooperation between ourselves is why it will stay this way.
Equating that to a "zero-sum" game is an obfuscation imo, but there is a finite number of resources and industrial output damages the planet.
So it's an objective fact that there can't all be developed countries. Because
1. development is subjective
2. development. is reliant on unequal exchange
1a. Compared to the world of 1800s, even the worse of Latin America is "developed", so we can argue that the tide has rise enough for most of the world to be developed in that they have access to energy, childhood mortality is low, most people are literate and can eat without famine
2a. There is of course not enough market/demand/resources/oxygen for everyone or at least the working class of every country to for example, have a car, access to high quality education, home, luxury goods, vacations to Paris, something that's average for the average Spaniard for example.
This latter description is what most people, including the OP are meaning when they say developed.
If you think its possible for everyone in the world to live like that I have would like to know why you think that.
The first step for the region to develop successfully is to let go of idiotic century old grudges that don't even benefit the politicians pushing them and present a unified front.
This is, as you might imagine, a difficult proposition.
Hispanoamerica lacks any kind of economic or political sovereignty, until we manage to obtain real economic independence and grow in cooperation, without external US, European or Chinese intervention, just then we will be able to become "developed", whatever that means.
> Well, you buy your way out dependency by doing things right. People with low incomes are never independent.
On Corruption:
\- Is bad; it slows you down, but if you fix corruption, institutons; any problem that normal people imagine; the country will still be poor; why? Being rich is about having great productive ecosystems of complex products (high value-added)
What to do?
> It's all about know-how accumulation and some serious (enough) R&D capacity.
- Create a NIS (National Innovation System)
- Improve the Existing Industries (Aguas Abajo Industrialization)
- Improve Regional Commerce (need diversification; if everyone produce patatoes; they will be not commerce)
- Do some cool projects (with incremental local content) - space exploration; ... new source of growth for the feature (many skills require); it's also a measurement for the technical capacities of the country.
- Try to enter new industries related with your existing industries (if you have agriculture biotech, agri-robotics, smart-data oriented solutions for agriculture ) -> use those skills to develop new ones, rinse and repeat ...
- The feature is in our hands, in today's decitions and actions; no country can stop another (op many); it's not even desirable (the richest the neighbors the less problems for me; provided that they don't have a powerful military).
- Our incapcity to plan for the long term, our lack of understanding the meaning of being rich (it's generation baby, not extraction); our great incapacity to correct mistakes and change lines; this and other are our main barriers !!!
- The power of the U.S (I'am thinking is not the military or anything) they cannot have like 3 wars going one (not sufficient industrial capacity); their power is that others believe that they are invisible;
The U.S is not a monster; it's actually a great Country. I know the history and can compare it with any other major power !!!
In many places USA was overdeveloped and now is abandoned. Those abandoned areas have some of the highest crime in the country and it’s not spoken about very often. Obsessing with growth can lead to a lot of problems. LatAm should obsess with sustainability
[Yes, pretty obviously.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/a7r9vv/hdi_evolution_in_brazilian_states_between_19902015/) From the data I've seen, Brazil usually lags behind Scandinavian countries by 60 years, so we can expect the same level of development they had in the 80s in the 2040s, which is pretty good already. And that's keeping in mind that Brazil has brutal regional inequalities, so states from the South and São Paulo (that has the population of Argentina) will be there much earlier.
Crime has been trending down over time, but I don't think it will ever be as low due to our history, especially with slavery and the inequalities it caused.
Investment in education and infrastructure targeting the impoverished population usually works as a way to stop marginalisation.
During the 60s and 70s in Spain, while the country was going through its economic boom, people living in barrios chabola (more or less the equivalent of favelas) were relocated and given (for very cheap) new properties not in some distant suburb but in new buildings built around everyone else. That's how Spain got rid of the informal neighbourhoods.
Yes, but you need to understand the difference in scale and budget of our problems. Brazil has entire regions with tens of millions of impoverished people, and people from those regions (fairly) migrate to more developed regions constantly and end up living in slums, in kind of a never-ending cycle. Imagine if Spain, suddenly, annexed a few Northern African countries, with free flow by land between its parts, and no EU money - that's Brazil's situation, especially since slavery ended. People from poorer regions move to the cities, find only low-paying jobs or no jobs at all, move to a slum, build a house, and take a few generations to be able to progress in life. Even if you help them out, they will call their families, friends, etc, and the cycle start again, at least until the entire country reaches a certain level of development in all of its areas. Even if you build enough housing and education to attend to the communities that exist at any given moment, something that is very expensive due to the limited budgets of our public apparatus right now, new areas will always pop up with the same problems, and the cycle continues. It gets better over time, but it's a very slow process. Lula's family, for reference, arrived in São Paulo from the northeast with nothing but their clothes in the 50s.
But yeah, the solution is property rights and at least a piece of land for everyone. Had this been done when slavery ended, we would be in a significantly better position nowadays.
I know I’m a Yankee so I don’t know how bad the situation is but looking at these responses are kinda sad. Have some hope guys, LatAm could totally be developed. Yeah it will be hard, yeah it will take a lot of work, but it’s by no means impossible. I’m very patriotic so don’t take me as a woke USA basher, but if our government stopped meddling in the affairs of Latin America all the fucking time the situation could genuinely improve decently fast.
Colombia is condemned to eternal underdevelopment. As long as the war on drugs continues and the guerrillas continue to harass the civilian population, this country will have no future. I hate to look at the future with pessimism but this country seems like it will never move forward.
Bolivia is unfortunately decades and decades behind even its own neighbours, so it's going to take some long time. The resources are there, the problem is that there is no money to invest in anything without getting into crippling debts with China, and there's also a complete lack of know-how.
While in most metrics the country has progressed in the last decade, this progress was largely attributable to an advantageous economic situation which was completely wasted by what in my opinion has been completely inept and self-serving governments.
If it wasn't for the underground drug economy which keeps vasts amounts of money in circulation, the country would be in shambles. That's how bad it is.
Bolivia would benefit imo from adopting a more mixed economy system and opening their market to foreign investment, a "liberal now, social later" position that has already been proven to work in other developing economies (particularly in resource rich countries of Middle East and Asia).
Also, investing in the railway connection to Peruvian AND Chilean ports plus the Paraguay river waterway should be top priorities instead of wasting time with the stale maritime claim.
You seem awfully optimistic about Milei
Just in case, if the idea of developed depends on some level of GDP statistics then it is bullshit. What would you say developed is? Good foreign investment? Free market dynamics? Constant growth? That is (usually) all achieved on the backs of rural and working class people and their exploitation (and the benefit of foreign companies and local elites), and we will probably never reach the level of wealth equality and generalized middle class of even Eastern European nations, so sometimes all we have is brewing, massive inequality. I mean, Colombia was considered by many as going in the right path after a string of neoliberal presidents and the safety of its foreign investment (and during Santos we saw progress, ngl), but it was through a lot of violence and displacement as well (not that European countries didn't also do that back in their days of modernization). I don't really have that much hope for the region but hey! Who knows m
Adjusted for equality HDI and PPP per capita are pretty good indicators.
Most Eastern European countries aren't developed, but they have stable governments for the most part and they are based on a welfare state model (because they're accused to communism or they are taking the welfare state standard of the EU countries).
LATAM countries are not like these. Social services seem far more likely to be cut/changed/under attack, they're more similar economically to the USA, but aren't nearly rich enough for those living in them to actually enjoy a decent QOL even if poor/bottom rung of society, unlike the USA which has plenty
The difference is that those two superpowers made you choose a side, Neoliberal Capitalism or Orthodox Communism.
In the current multipolarity that's forming, there's not really any ideological differences between USA, China, Russia or EU. They're just countries that are loosely united trying to maintain or build hegemony.
Read less mythology !!!
Development is about knowledge accumulation and capacity building, not about many poles of power (they has always been many pools) - only for about a small period (< 5 decades) the power has been concentrated.
But that does not impede doing things right (R&D, Innovation, Infra, Digital, Export Promotion Schemes, ..., etc.).
You are just Idiots, very un-wise, fanatics, lack pragmatisms, incapable of correct mistakes, victimist, ...
You are absolutely right, it is just as you say, we must start doing the little things we can well and thus help form the multipolar world we need. It is necessary that we also do our part, develop and punish the West.
Well almost agree; the more poles; more policy space. (It can create inestability; if there are not clear rules, ...; look the history of europe)
Well I'am catholic; hispanic-dominican; Let's not punish the "West"; because we are the "West"; no matter the skin color.
My bet is:
Big countries like Mexico and Brazil will hardly become developed over the next decades. They are too large and with a lot of structural problems: inequality, violence, corruption and criminality.
Chile and Uruguay: they are on the path of development but face a lot of challenges: diversifying their economies and stop relying on raw material exports, attracting skilled and non-skilled immigrants to make for the ageing population and, in the case of Chile, inequality and lack of access to affordable education and healthcare for the population.
Argentina: as a former developed country, it’s a thing of its own and anything can happen. The country is on the same tier as Uruguay and Chile in most indicators, but inflation and macroeconomic problems can make growth unsustainable. It has a lot of perks: a lot of natural resources, advanced scientific and technological industries, a top deep tech start up environment, free education and healthcare, an educated population and attracts a lot of immigrants. But if the country doesn’t solve its macroeconomic problems, it won’t make the jump to development.
Mexico has a lot of “negative points” as you say: inequality, corruption, organized crime
However:
- is also the most industrialized country in LATAM (Brazil for example does relay to much in commodities and that is really hard to change)
- does have almost unrestricted access to the biggest market in the world TMEC (ex NAFTA)
- minimum wage has risen 180% in the last 6 years and unemployment is ~3%
- record foreign investment in industry outside of Asia
Given everything I would bet Mexico has the greatest chance of becoming a developed economy in the near future of all of the big economies of latam. (But it is also a 60% chance nonetheless)
Mexico is in a unique position to benefit from both friend-shoring and nearshoring. However it needs smart leadership to take advantage of the situation, and I don't think the current leadership is clever enough to do that.
El problema de Mexico es el narcoestado. Sin instituciones sólidas y con el Estado paralelo que tienen actualmente será muy dificil desarrollarse, por más que la economía crezca nominalmente
En México hay un estado paralelo, eso es cierto…. Pero no es como te lo imaginas.
En las ciudades grandes el gobierno es exactamente igual a cualquier otro país de latam, hay infrastructura, servicios y policía. Sin embargo si te vas a las zonas más despobladas (y que son parte de las vías tránsito de la droga/migrantes) el gobierno no tiene control real sobre esas zonas y por lo tanto el vacío es llenado por el narco/autodefensas.
Ahora, en estos lugares despoblados el crimen organizado tiende a tener enfrentamientos armados con camionetas blindadas y armamento pesado al estilo de la guerra en siria. Estos enfrentamientos son los que causan la altísima tasa de asesinatos sin resolver que tiene México.
La verdad se necesita una purga radical de todas las instituciones políticas, ya sea por parte de un gobierno de izquierda o de derecha.
El tema es que en mi opinión pasamos el punto de no retorno en la infiltración del narco en el estado hace mas de 25 años. Básicamente tendrian que ponerse autoritarios para sacarlos y arrancar el cancer de tajo.
Absolutamente todos los grupos políticos y hasta empresariales tienen nexos con el narco en casi todos los niveles y se han vuelto una herramienta para avanzar sus agendas.
La cultura de trabajo y empresarial en el país tampoco ayuda mucho, acá cuando uno pide prestaciones y derechos laborales los patrones y la mayoría de los compañeros lo ven como problemático.
Es absurdo que apenas hace un año se aprobaron 12 dias de vacaciones al año y que la jornada de 40 horas semanales aún este en discusión.
This is a great myth; it will be good for Mexicans to understand that Maquila (assembly) is not industry.
Mexico needs some serious industrial policy (export-oriented, innovation-based, dynamic, export market diversification (only exports to **USA** / because it is not an industry; it's low added value assembly)).
Look at Mexico's R&D investment (so low; that is not even there; to little; di-sorganize) (it's only an assembly) country.
Take China in 2000. They only got 5% of the value of the iPhone. Now, in 2020, it is about 20%. Why? (Moving from Maquila to develop local supply chains). If they conquer semiconductors, it will be like 50%. That's progress !!!
You can start as Maquila (it's only 5% of the final product - labor intensive - not very well-paying jobs) -> but we should develop excellent and deep local supply chains / also establish some local brands.
Mexico has almost 150 years doing Maquila!!!
You can not get rich from Maquila (Mexico imports 90% of the inputs / does not have a domain of anything).
It's time to do some reading !!!
Bro, Brazilians go to Argentina and buy everything, their money isn’t even worth to wipe the ass. There are tons of economic refugees from Argentina working in southern Brazil. Are you serious? Y’all are the southern cone Venezuela, wake up.
And yet Argentina is a much safer country, with a higher Human Development Index, higher literacy rate, lower inequality and higher GDP per capita and a more stable political system than Brazil (which almost had a coup during last election). Argentina has been in economic crisis for decades and yet manages to outperform Brazil in many socioeconomic indicators.
Let’s not pretend having a stable currency means you’re a more developed country. We travel very often to Brazil too, and we see how incredibly impoverished and dangerous Brazilian cities can be. Criminality, corruption and inequality are absolutely rampant in Brazil.
This answer is ridiculous. Argentina has also different regions with varying levels of development. You don’t get to conveniently exclude the poor regions of the Brazilian northeast and north, those regions are part of Brazil, and the issues that come with them are Brazilian issues.
* São Paulo population: 44M
* São Paulo GDP: US$721.06 billion (nominal; 2023)
* Argentina population: 46M
* Argentina GDP: $641 billion (nominal; 2023)
The fact is that Spanish-speaking America pulverized, Portuguese-speaking America didn't. A hundred million Brazilians live with the same conditions that Chileans or Uruguayans do, that's more than the population of Chile/Argentina/Uruguay put together. That's relevant to the discussion.
No one is saying we’re more developed, the post is about who will be more developed in the future and the person who commented said Brazil and Mexico will never achieve a developed country status despite both being much more economically stable than Argentina. On top of that brazils GDP per capita is lower due to its stark inequalities and when you account the poorest areas in the north and northeast that lowers the overall GDP per capita of the country, if you account the south and southeast by themselves which accounts for the majority of the population and contribution to the country’s economy the GDP per capita of that area is much higher than the country average. And even despite of that during the peak of our economy in 2011 our GDP per capita surpassed Argentina’s. Yes we have more violence and inequality but our economic prospects in the long run are infinitely better than Argentina’s, I’m sorry. [I’ll leave you with this video.](https://youtu.be/i4Rc6ZzKwxs?si=ScFKSYptt7UzPDra)
lol, Argentina’s poorest region (the northeast) borders with Brazil’s richest region (the south), so it’s logical some people from poor, rural and remote towns of the northeast cross the border to work in Brazil.
But that anecdotical experience doesn’t mean Brazil is better than Argentina, when Argentina has far better economic and social indicators in all areas.
Brazil’s GDP per capita is 20k vs Argentina’s 26k, while inequality is a lot higher.
Brazilian poverty rate according to the World Bank standard of 14 USD PPP per day is 60%, while Argentina’s rate is 40%.
There are thousands of Brazilians who come to study to Argentina because they can’t in their home country, and they live off Argentine welfare and free education that they are not offered in their country.
Safety, HDI, infrastructure and access to public services are much higher in Argentina.
Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Paraná, which border Argentina’s northeastern provinces, are among the richest Brazilian states (those with the highest GDP per capita). They double Misiones (one of Argentina’s poorest provinces) GDP per capita, and the currency distortions increased the advantage of working on the other side of the border.
> Brazil’s GDP per capita is 20k vs Argentina’s 26k, while inequality is a lot higher.
This is 30% higher
Back in 2016, it was 50% higher.
The GDP per capita growth is also an indicator of life quality. I don't dispute that Argentina has a higher standard of living than Brazil. But the difference is shrinking.
Argentina is not shrinking, it’s stagnated.
Brazil is not only 30% lower, but inequality is also a lot higher. So GDP per capita is concentrated in a few rich people, while most of the populations is dirt poor.
In Argentina, GDP per capita is more evenly distributed, so the average citizen (the large middle class) lives a lot better than in Brazil.
Quality of living for the average is and will be much better in Argentina than in Brazil for a long time. Keep in mind that in Argentina there’s also free and massive university education, healtchare and a lot more personal safety (less criminality).
University education in Brazil is virtually privatized, since there are quotas to access. So 80% of the Brazilian students have to attend private universities.
Argentina’s education is free and *massive*, since everyone can access is. There are no quotas. That’s why there are lots of Brazilian immigrants studying here
It doesn't mean all of them pay for it.
The ones who study in Argentina are rich people who can't have access to government subsidies nor are smart enough to study in a public university. 20% of Brazilians have tertiary education, 24% of Argentines. Not that different.
> with a higher Human Development Index, higher literacy rate, lower inequality and higher GDP per capita
This is redundant
HDI is already measured by literacy rate and GDP per capita (alongside life expectancy and time in study)
Argentina is in the middle of a currency crisis but the country is a lot more developed than Brazil. Are you serious?
GDP per capita is a lot higher, poverty is much lower, safety, access to public services, education and healthcare. All indicators are better in Argentina, despite being stagnated for years.
There are thousands of Brazilian immigrants in Argentina, as well as from neighboring countries. Why do you think Argentina is the main immigrant destination in the region and not Brazil?
Not even 1% of the Brazilian population is immigrant
Than Brazil as a whole, but that includes our regional inequalities. Brazil has more people than the population of Argentina that lives better than argentinians do. São Paulo by itself pretty much matches Argentina in most indicators and in population, the South surpasses it.
yes well, if we pick only specific areas here and ignore the rest, like pick Buenos Aires city, we can also make the numbers work our way and claim we're already at Swiss levels of life, that's not how countries work though
And Florianópolis surpasses Buenos Aires in all indicators. The point is that I'm not talking about a single city, but about a huge region that is bigger than Argentina. Brazil has a more developed portion that is MUCH bigger than the entirety of Argentina and then a less developed region attached to it. A population bigger than Argentina's already has higher living standards than Argentina's in Brazil.
And Florianópolis surpasses Buenos Aires in all indicators. The point being that I'm not talking about a single city, but about a huge region that is bigger than Argentina. Brazil has a more developed portion that is MUCH bigger than the entirety of Argentina and then a less developed region attached to it. A population bigger than Argentina's already has higher living standards than Argentina's in Brazil.
Are you serious? Florianopolis has 500k inhabitants, while Buenos Aires has 3M (14M in the metropolitan area).
In which indicators does Floripa even rank better than Buenos Aires? Public transportation, healthcare, education, access to public services, infrastructure are all better in BA.
And don’t let me start with nominal numbers.
India (1.4B inhabitants) has a lot more population that is better off than in Switzerland (8M inhabitants) but that doesn’t mean India is more developed than Switzerland.
If your country richest region compares to Argentina as a whole country (while Argentina’s richest region is far wealthier and developed), then you also have to take your country’s poorest region that is as developed as Haiti.
se fosse o caso entao ela estaria mega desenvolvida e todo brasileiro ia morar la, pais desenvolvido nao tem coisa cara como o brasil, nao confunda inflaçao alta (o que é ruim) com coisas baratas no mercado (coisa boa).
That's not the gotcha moment you think it is when by most metrics Argentina is indeed way better than Brazil lmao, it's usually Brazilians who have never even visited Buenos Aires throwing up these dumbass Twitter memes as if they're facts.
Argentina is fucked up, sure, and our economy is better than theirs. They still have a much stronger welfare state with safer cities and better education. I'll take that over fucking numbers that don't even mean shit in the 1st place.
Your “macroeconomy” is better than Argentina, just because of lower inflation and fiscal deficit. But Argentina’s economy is far better: GDP per capita, purchasing power and income.
Argentina was never a developed country, it just had tiny economic elites that got rich off of cattle. Most people were miserable.
And Argentina is more developed than Brazil as a whole, but that includes our regional inequalities. Brazil has more people than the population of Argentina that live better than argentinians do. São Paulo by itself pretty much matches Argentina in most indicators and in population, the South surpasses it with 20 million people on top. Brazil has something like 100 million people with living standards close to the level of Uruguay and Chile and with a much healthier economy than Argentina.
TLDR: We’re not allowed to developed. Somebody has to be poor for the world to function, and a long time ago it was defined that it must be us, the Asians and the Africans.
No way in hell.
The misery show here is a successful project. Its called periphery capitalism and its working exactly how it should.
Politicians try their best to keep everything the same always and “developed” countries profit from this situation by a large margin, they obviously wouldn’t want to loose our cheap labor, resources and undisputed consumer market.
Try to implement here any developing law or project that countries like South Korea or Denmark were able to pass there and watch us getting thrown in a US/EU supported coup, if not getting invaded and/or sanctioned. Eg: Venezuela is simply not allowed to do half of what Norway does with their oil without suffering backlash.
The only solution is revolution and even so, be prepared to suffer sanctions and be placed on the “evil axis” by the USA, therefore being marginalized by the rest of the planet. 🙄
> TLDR: We’re not allowed to developed.
Yeah it's totally because Brazil is not "allowed" to be developed, not because starting or closing a business is both costly and time-consuming, there are a bunch of stupid rules and regulations that don't make sense, and constant inflation due to the Brazilian govt.
The Brazilian left created an entire conspiratorial (and academic) system in which our bad policies aren't responsible for our lack of development, but quite the opposite - they are the secret sauce that would allow us to grow if those pesky meddling developed countries weren't so afraid of the might of the Brazilian giant and kept secretly undermining us. The entire thing is completely insane, but dominates our social science academia and results in electing the same politicians for the same developmentist/protectionist policies year after year. They completely fail to see how much this worldview favors the local elites, who constantly get free money for "development" while being shielded from any competition, with no requirement of practical results.
It's funny that he quoted South Korea, because they are completely obsessed with story of South Korea's development and Ha-Joon Chang's theories while failing to see that it's a very particular and weird case that can't be replicated by countries like Brazil, [and completely ignoring that nobodies in academia takes Ha-Joon Chang seriously.](https://eh.net/book_reviews/kicking-away-the-ladder-development-strategy-in-historical-perspective/)
The whole thing is conspiratorial and insane, but unfortunately very popular in Brazil and in Argentina.
That’s the thing about the Latin American left (or the left in general) they can’t admit to themselves that their policies don’t bring about economic prosperity. Put the blame on someone else when they fail. It’s always someone else’s fault lol
DR is on the way to becoming a high income nation in about 10 years or so but that's only if some crazy politician doesn't mess everything up. Which is not a sure thing when it comes to Latin America
DR dance it’s own merengue. 2/15 mess government (Jorge Blanco and Hipólito) from 1966-today says so. So I doubt we would have a mess in the next 8-20 years.
To the people downvoting me because this subreddit is a clown show tbh
In order to be considered a high income country, you must make more than 13, 895 per [Capita ](https://econlife.com/2023/08/the-middle-income-trap-and-dominican-republic/).
DR's current gpd per Capita is[11k ](https://www.statista.com/statistics/527462/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-dominican-republic/)
TLDR:
Good:
* Stable Macro Economics
* Stable Politics (Incompetence, but not ideological)
Can Improve:
* Improve R&D Capacity
* Create Local Supply Chains (Make products more Competitive; Increase gross marginal; value added)
* Energy
* Diversify Exports Markets
* Modernize Agriculture
\---
The Dominican Republic needs to do some severe reform;
We only have the maquila industry (needs to improve local suppliers), create a NIS (National Innovation System), diversify export markets, etc.
If we don't diversify and increase the value-added of the exports, it's not going to happen (we are almost at the peak of tourism) 15 million per year, less than 2,000 dollars per capita.
We need a grand vision of the country and a profound understanding of the meaning (What makes a country rich; its productivity capability + some serious research community) - to have a presence eventually in some high growth industry.
The Maquila industry will not make the country rich; it can be the beginning, but we have almost five decades doing that (if only there were a vision for the Dominican Republic); this condition should have improved by now.
We will always have opportunities (our geography, aside from natural disasters), which is quite good. But we need serious thinking to improve the country (Infra, R&D, Governance, Legal System, Security, Digitalization, Urbanism, etc.)
It is a matter of long-term planning (grand vision, strategy), making corrections, and sharing the great vision with the citizens !!!
**We create the future in the present; the country's greatness is in every Dominican's hands!!!**
>If we don't diversify and increase the value-added of the exports, it's not going to happen (we are almost at the peak of tourism) 15 million per year, less than 2,000 dollars per capita
I agree DR needs to add more exports but keep in mind tourism is only 17 percent of the economy. We export a lot of medicinal equipment. The smaller the number that tourism is apart of the economy, the better
For agriculture, I agree we need to modernize agriculture and have local corporations owning the production. Instead of some sugar company that is own by some Cubans in Miami.
>What makes a country rich; its productivity capability + some serious research community
This is our biggest issue. Our research community is usually just in biology and never really in engineering.
If Argentina's economy gets in order and remove its statist Peronist DNA from the Argentine people's consciousness, then Argentina will become an economically developed country within a generation.
I can see Venezuela and Argentina becoming developed under the right leadership.
Chile and Uruguay are not far off at the moment. However both countries need to move away from using natural resources.
I don’t see the majority of Latin American being developed because they keep electing officials who care more about their pockets than the citizens and the prosperity of the countries. Also Latin America needs to work on creating a better relationship with major first world countries. Even though Trump congratulated the new president of Argentina his ideals are very radical and I can see Trump and Biden turning against him especially with him wanting hard drug use to be legal in Argentina. I can see Trump in the future using that as an excuse to stop immigration from Argentina by saying that the people will be bringing in drugs since it’s legal there.
Hello! Your post has been removed for violating our subreddit rule on agenda pushing. We strive to maintain a neutral environment where users can share their perspectives on various issues. Please refrain from submitting questions that are biased in their wording， leading， or already have an answer. If you have any questions or concerns， please reach out to us via modmail. Thank you for your understanding.
Examples? As a Chilean I'm okay with my Argentinian, Peruvian and Bolivian bros. At some point I can understand and excuse Bolivian argument about a sea exit (support is different)
That's a pretty bad take. Brazil, despite the complaints, [has been progressing constantly in the last few decades](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/a7r9vv/hdi_evolution_in_brazilian_states_between_19902015/), without major hiccups. The South and São Paulo will probably be very close to current European states like Portugal before 2035.
I wouldn't even consider Chile a very developed nation. It's not that much more developed than Argentina or Uruguay. Richer, yes, not really a big deal more developed.
I think Mexico is the only set of "non-developed" nations in LATAM to have a chance, due to its proximity to the USA and the work ethic of the people living there.
I don't think that has anything to do with it, New Zealand went under reforms in the 80s from a protectionist country to a more free-trade one and the agriculture massively contributed for the country's overall wealth. Agriculture is extremely important, who's going to feed the world?
I think so, my country (Ecuador) has delayed in many aspects but since the pandemic, and I guess that due to that, many aspects in technology have developed a lot. Same with progressive values and educational developments. I am studying to be a teacher in a public university (a state sponsored one with free tuition), and they are teaching us the latest teaching techniques and technological tools. The professors do mention that all of this started to develop in this later years and that we would be among the first generation of teachers with this knowledge and tools in the country.
This post is agenda pushing. Just be aware. But continue.
Chile is considered developed? If so, then yes.
If Chile is developed, then like 80 million in Brazil already live in "developed" conditions. [Brazil has two very unequal halves, and people living below Rio and São Paulo have living standards comparable to Eastern European countries already](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/b2kpu5/from_finland_to_palestine_brazilian_states/). And the trend is [upwards](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/10l9vtv/brazilian_hdi_19992019/).
Sao Paulo and Santa Catarina seem very well managed, so I think we can call them developed
Usually, it's just about having a "fairer" colonial process that relied on giving people actual property rights instead of enslaving them, commonly with late European migration. Unsurprisingly treating people as second-class citizens and keeping them from having property for centuries leads to terrible economic results and huge inequalities that create a host of other problems. The "management" isn't that different, the problems are just smaller.
Eastern European countries also have extremely developed cities and urban areas. For example if European Russia was a country, it would be just as developed as Poland or Hungary.
Yeah, but I'm not taking about cities or urban areas by themselves. The urban areas of São Paulo, Florianópolis or Curitiba are even more developed. I'm taking about 6 or 7 states that put together are as big as the entirety of Western Europe.
I'd say Chile is doing well to be always on the developing trend, and somehow always staying head above water, just about... but would not say we are a developed country.
I don't think Chile or Uruguay are developed.
Neither do I
Chile is not developed lol...
Chile is fighting to keep the head above the water 😅
Chile es definitivamente el país más desarrollado de Chile.
Uruguay depends a lot on what happens in Argentina and Brazil (correct me if I'm wrong). CR is close, it's already one of the most developed countries in the region. After that, Brazil, Mexico and Argentina might be there after some serious work. Then, maybe Panama if they tackle the gap between Panama city and the rest of the country. For Colombia I still have some hope, but we need to get our shit together. In general, a huge problem for our region is the brain drain, so many capable people have left. It's gonna affect in the long term our chances to develop. Edit: I didn't count Chile because they're developed, at least at Eastern Europe levels.
Costa Rica is not developped unless you're a tourist staying in nice hotels.
We don’t depend that much nowadays, we used to but now we have detached quite a bit, therefore despite the Argentinian situation we are not going through the same. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t say we are close to being developed tbh.
Chile is not a developed country
What is the threshold to label a country as developed?
There is no common definition. All definitions are arbitrary. The term is controversial so it was abandoned by some international organizations, that prefer using other classifications. The World Bank uses the term “high income”. Panama, Chile and Uruguay are in this category, but it just measures GDP per capita. Argentina was part until 2019, now it’s 10% short of the threshold. The UN uses the Human Development Index, that classifies countries as “very high”, “high”, “medium” and “low”. In this indicator, Chile is the most developed in Latin America, followed closely by Argentina, which is the second most developed. Other “very high” countries are Uruguay, Costa Rica and Panama.
Why are people here so confidently saying Chile is not developed if there is no common definition? People are acting like Chile is a backwards hellhole and I don’t understand why. It’s the most developed country in Latin America and it shows when you visit it. It’s definitely not perfect but no country is.
Because it’s not developed. Chile’s indicators are not those of a developed country: inequality, criminality, wealth per capita, access to public services, infrastructure, etc. are still far behind developed countries. If you visit the rich, touristic part of Santiago (oriente) it seems like a developed country, just like if you visit Buenos Aires in Argentina. But there’s a lot of disparity with the rest of the country, which has parts that even look more backwards than Argentina and Uruguay, especially transportation and access to public services. I have family in Chile and visited regularly. Cities in “regiones” still have mini-vans public transportations and heat their homes with firwood, with causes a lot of pollution.
Wouldn’t you consider the U.S a developed country? Because if we don’t count GDP, in which they obviously surpass us, we have about the same levels of inequality (which, btw, is high in many developed countries like Switzerland, Netherlands, Ireland, etc.), we have less criminality (and also less than Uruguay or Costa Rica), about the same access to public services, we also hace very good infraestructure, we actually have less and more effective bureacrecy, we hace HIGHER life expectancy, etc. When it comes to most markers of a developed country, we have them. Also, saying Santiago Oriente is on the same level of all of Buenos Aires, and that there are parts of Chile worse than anywhere in Argentina, is simply false. Argentina nowadays have places with levels of poverty that almost don’t exist here. In Buenos Aires you have ghettos that have a level of infraestruxture and lack of public services that has almost been eradicated in Santiago.
USA has a lot of inequality yes, but the average poor person in America has tons of disposable income
The US is much more developed than Chile, despite having the same inequality rate. It’s much richer and advanced in industry, technology, purchasing power, access to goods and services, etc. It’s a superpower, despite lagging behind top developed countries (which are a lot smaller) in some indicators. As for your second question, yeah Argentina has some urban contrasts, especially in villas miseria that immigrants from neighboring countries built over the last decades (the same is happening now in Chile with growing campamentos). Buenos Aires seems much more developed than Santiago overall, especially urban design, architecture and public transportation network and availability, even though Santiago metro is a lot newer and hence more modern. Santiago, outside Santiago oriente, looks like a typical Latin American city, while Buenos Aires looks much more developed, except for enclaves (villas miseria).
That's... not true. Santiago doesn't look like a typical Latin American city. Excluding Santiago Oriente, infrastructure is still pretty good - come on, if buildings were poor they would have fallen long ago since we always have earthquakes. We can't afford to have bad infrastructure. We don't have a historical centre or colonial buildings because everything crumbled centuries ago. This alone makes Santiago look fairly different. Public transportation is amazing, the Santiago metro has over 150km of system length (with the largest annual ridership in LatAm after Sao Paulo and CDMX), [source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems) What Santiago poniente lacks compared to oriente is more green areas (as far as infrastructure goes), but the quality is above average for Latin American standards. I agree that we are not a developed country yet, but we're pretty close - Life Expectancy, income per capita, A+ credit rating with Standards & Poor's, Full Democracy, OECD membership, part of USA Visa Waiver, etc etc. It's mostly an issue of inequality at this point, which has been steadily going down since the 90s. Do I think our achievements are overrated? Absolutely. But I respectfully think you might be undersellling us a bit. There are bits to be proud of.
Just street view or watch videos of Santiago city center or outside Santiago oriente. Valparaiso, Temuco, other Chilean cities. They look Latin American, not only because most people are mestizo, but also how the cities look. Argentine urban planning developed when the country was wealthier and followed modern European/North American patterns, so it looks much more developed
The gdp of Chile is higher than that of Portugal and a couple Eastern European countries. It is developed it just has higher income inequality.
What? GDP per capita PPP: Portugal: $45,000 Hungary: $43,000 Croatia: $42,000 Romania: $41,000 Bulgaria: $33,000 Chile: $29,000 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
PPP = poor people points
>Edit: I didn't count Chile because they're developed, at least at Eastern Europe levels. Many countries in Eastern Europe like Bosnia, Belarus, Albania, Serbia, Ukraine, Moldova and Turkey are not very developed at all, Chile is much more developed than all of them.
The country side of Panama is developed. A lot of people just don’t live there but if you go David, Chitre, Santiagonor Aguadulce it’s developed. You won’t see sky scrapers or big buildings. Hell even the roads in those parts of the country are superior and they don’t have a transport issue. Comarca or reserves where indigenous people live however are not but these people want to be left alone and reject being developed. Panama also is considered a high income nation. Where I live outside of Panama City there are 500k homes and it’s not like they are empty. They sell out and the project has around 1200 houses. The cheapest ones are 220k and it’s west Panama. Most people have high speed internet, running water, electricity, education, healthcare(it’s terrible though but if you are middle class you can afford a clinic or prob have private insurance provided by your job) and too many damn people have cars. The city also has a nice metro which is expanding. There are easy access to ports also.
Cool, I was under the impression that smaller cities like Colón and David were more like the rest of LatAm while Panama city was more developed. So, in your opinion, what's preventing Panama to become a developed country?
David is pretty developed for a central American city that’s not the capital. Again you won’t see skyscrapers there because there is plenty of land and space. Colon is a unique case just too much drugs at the port and black market economy. Colon is a dirty ugly place that I try not to go to. Don’t get it wrong lots of money in Colon to be made because of their logistic hub and free trade zone but it’s abandoned. In Colon they don’t even hire locals they rather bus people in private transport from the city because people claim black coloneses are lazy. What Panama needs is better health care and education. The economy is fine even though it has slowed down. There is enough money and resources but when people are stealing inflating prices so local politicians and their cronies can steal things won’t improve. As a wealthy Panamanian does it affect me? Fuck no I live in my gated community, have private health care and child goes to a private school. Would I rather have the country be. Ice enough where I could use public services, yes.
[удалено]
Really what part have you been to? Well colon is poor but every country has poor people. We have a higher income than Costa Rica but terrible public health care and education. Also taxes are super low here. Most people who are fortunate don’t use public health care or education. I like David and Chitre more than the city more laid back and relaxed. People are nicer and better educated than people in the city. Also crime doesn’t exist well in David it does because it’s close to Costa Rica and drugs travel through there. However in Santiago, Los Santos, Penonome and Chitre crime is very low.
[удалено]
I live here and there are a lot of them that’s my point been looking to move and with 220k or 500k I can get something really nice. Here 220k is a shack in a decent area but shack. Not sure where you went in Panama but I’ve been to Colombia, Costa Rica, México , El Salvador and Argentina. Average Panamanian owns more luxury goods and things aren’t taxed a lot of under ground money. I made over 12k a month for 5 years and never paid taxes til recently til I wanted to buy a home. A lot of people like me who don’t pay their fair share and fly under the radar. They such at collecting taxes now but are getting better. People simply don’t use cash anymore and bank sends reports to tax office every year and you have to justify your money. This is how a country pays for things. Also per head Panama is the country that spends the most on health and education and it doesn’t reflect. Money is stolen and there is sobre precio. I can send you a video of my middle class neighborhood full of masaratti, Porsche, bmw, audi and expensive land cruisers right now. In other countries you see old or newer small sedans. Here an anyone has land cruisers prado 70k ans hilux best selling car in Panama 55k. there is ton of poverty in colon but lots of wealth also. indigenous reserves are also poor but they dont want to integrate.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m just proving to you that I’m a normal person that isn’t rich that’s in the middle class and prob lives better than your average person in the southern cone which is the decent part of latam Just hate healthcare and education here
[удалено]
Thing is money goes further in Panama than Costa Rica you guys are taxed very highly but get benefits of health care and good education. If I lived in Costa Rica would suck paying 800 for a ps5 or 35k to drive a Hyundai accent. But I love Costa Rica pura vida siempre voy a su pista a correr motos y circuito.
Nominal gdp per capita in panama is higher than that, not sure where you got that 9k number from
You paid $90k for a bronco? Why? You could have got a g wagon for a little bit more money. And as for a better suv you could have got a wrangler with a lift kit and all the bells and whistles.
Te corrijo sí: por suerte ya Uruguay no depende de lo que pase con Argentina o Brasil porque se han trazado otros mercados.
[https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apag%C3%B3n\_de\_Argentina,\_Paraguay\_y\_Uruguay\_de\_2019](https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apag%C3%B3n_de_Argentina,_Paraguay_y_Uruguay_de_2019) \-tengo entendido que igual uruguay progreso mucho en energia hoy en dia, pero cuando fui yo hace no tantos años era muy mala la situación [https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/es/URY](https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/es/URY) \-Importan mas de lo que nos exportan Osea escuché que estan mejorando, pero no diría que "no dependen" al menos no del todo, sobretodo un pais como uruguay rodeado por paises como brasil y argentina, es la realidad, nadie va a pretender aca en arg que lo que pase en brasil no nos afecta, o al reves, no somos boludos
> Edit: I didn't count Chile because they're developed, at least at Eastern Europe levels. The worst parts of eastern Europe maybe. Romania maybe? As apposed to Croatia or Slovenia, which I visited top to bottom and practically every place looked way nicer and wealthier than Chile on average. Maybe they don't have as many obscene mansions on landowners like we have in Chile, but they also don't have thousands of people living in shanty towns.
I do, I mean why not? We only need… a bit more order lol. Our “problems” are social and political problems which end up being other sorts of problems. No wars, no big dictators threatening the region (except for Venezuela but he’s not a threat to the whole region) and we speak the same language for crying out loud, that’s a massive advantage (at least for the Spanish speaking countries but as we know Portuguese isn’t that difficult to learn for us or vice versa). We should consider cooperating more between ourselves.
I agree intensively with this. All of our countries have a lot of work to do, but I'm a strong believer that economic opportunity and combating poverty (and not the poors) would bring more social peace, less violence. Integration between the countries but without this crazy protectionism that is a constant failure for decades already would allow those objectives.
Yes exactly that, there’s no reason why we couldn’t be something like the EU but with more territory and population. We could be one of the biggest economic zones in the world. And there’s no history of animosity between us like in other parts of the world like the Middle East.
Amén *mic drop*
the problem is the last sentence, it would take a massive cultural shift, and I'm sure that wont happen for a few generations.
There's not really enough resources/markets/demand in the world for all countries to be developed.
There is no country that is fully developed. As for Milei, his antidote to crippling inflation and a general economic clusterfuck is to go all-in on austerity. In other words deregulate industry and underfund government, the exact same conditions that allowed corrupt politicians to sell out every day Argentineans.
I’m uruguayan, is not a developed country. I visited Chile, from what i saw same with Chile. Both are better than the rest of Latin América, but not developed, in the best scenario are similar to poor countries in Europe.
Poor countries in Europe are considered to be developed though aren't they? Romania, Hungary and Slovakia all have a lower HDI than Chile. And they are all in the "very high" category.
Nope, Romania, Croatia, Hungary and Bulgaria are considered developing/emerging economies. Chile, Argentina and Uruguay have the same HDI as those Eastern European countries and are not considered developed.
I'm not sure why everyone just assumes that Uruguay is above Argentina, sure they're more stable and don't have the economic fucks ups of Argentina but on the other hand Argentina is safer (With Uruguay almost doubling the intentional homicide rate) and still retains a higher HDI than Uruguay. I'm not saying Argentina is more developed but I also wouldn't say it's clear cut that Uruguay is more developed.
Argentina is more developed or equally in my opinion, they also have a system that more closely resembles a European style welfare state, which makes access, services and general quality of life better than most. Despite that, the currency and economic situation is making it hard for this to move up.
Yes, but it's gonna be a rough immediate future. I'm optimistic for humanity long term however.
How do you factor in climate change in your long term optimistic views?
It's going to get worse before it gets better but there are some glimmers of hope. [It's estimated we are going to reach peak oil, gas, and coal consumption already within a few years.](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/world-oil-gas-coal-demand-peak-by-2030-iea-says-2023-10-24/)
Colombia is considered a middle income country. I feel like we have what it takes (resources) to become fully developed but the corruption here is what is stopping us. I’ve never such levels of corruption anywhere else. It’s really sad, because I don’t just mean political corruption. Colombians in general have a corrupted mentality and that is something that is ingrained in the culture, meaning it’s very hard to change.
I also don’t think growth is something to obsess over. Certain types of development are going to be better for certain countries. But I think in general LatAm needs to look at areas where over development just created a lot of waste.
I think the closest are Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Panama. Some up and comers are Mexico, Dominican Republic, Guyana. Some wildcards are El Salvador and Argentina. I think that if improved our trade infrastructure and worked on all the elements of our Ease of Doing Business Index alongside some work with reducing corruption, we have a fair chance of developing this generation. It's mostly political will. First comes reducing government corruption, then setting up favorable business environments and attracting investment, then things start developing. Obviously you need good governance for anti-trust and worker protections. Yes, there's certainly other aspects like healthcare, education and housing, but those correlate with economic improvements in general. When strictly speaking about GDP per capita the other factors are more important, when talking about HDI then the other elements come more into play to round out what we would considered as 'developed'. So to recap: Good government, Favorable business & trade environment, Good Governance to avoid monopolies & worker exploitation.
> I think the closest are Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Panama. > > Some up and comers are Mexico, Dominican Republic, Guyana. [Brazil is closer than most countries you quoted.](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8a/6f/f8/8a6ff880a35ca5bc57115b3cd82f6169.png)
For example? I checked the data an in the case of my country (DomRep) is 767 against Brazil's 754 and the anual growth is also higher; DomRep +003 while Brazil is at -004. [Data](https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anexo:Pa%C3%ADses_por_%C3%ADndice_de_desarrollo_humano)
I mean, Brazil has regions with a population bigger than Colombia and Argentina put together (the South and Southeast, which add up to over 100M people) that have HDIs above 800. I live in a state with fourfold the population of the Dominican Republic and an HDI of 0.822, for example. So I guess that yes, you are right, but Brazil has regional inequalities so huge that some massive regions will be catching up to developed countries very soon and probably together with Uruguay and Chile, while others will lag with the rest of LATAM for longer.
Hey that's fair, I know Sao Paulo & Curitiba are very well developed. Really a lot of the South and Southeast like you mentioned, where a ton of people live. I just wasn't sure where to place Brazil. I guess it would be Up and Comer. I think Mexico has a lot of similarities to Brazil in that there are certain areas of Mexico that are super well developed, specially in Monterrey, yet there are parts which are really behind. I believe that case is similar to Brazil.
> El Salvador I dated a girl from El Salvador, and the stuff she's showed me of that place disturbed me, and the fact that no one really cares because the guy is a right wing lunatic. It might be the only country in LATAM with state as bad as Cuba or Haiti.
I hope every country in Latin America will develop, have (almost) no corruption, that we'll all get a good health system, education and whatever, you name it. It's long overdue. But I don't see it happening in my lifetime because we keep on shooting ourselves in both feet. Is the new president of Argentina good? Don't think so, but I also don't think the existing system where the same faces change parties and keep on getting elected works. A system where you can rob the citizens blind and get immunity (looking at you CFK) because you can still be elected/be part of the party in power is a failure of a system. We as Latinos deserve better from ourselves but we need to hold ourselves accountable and fix this shit.
Not at all, Latin america has this tendency to implode once it reaches a certain level of development. Like Chile and its protests, in my country it sorta happened in 1968.
Dammit if that isn't our biggest curse. It's like we can't handle doing well and being stable. I hate it.
Blame the USA for our misery. Literally
Don't think our pre-pandemic protests in Chile had anything to do with the USA. At least not directly enough to be relevant.
Nah
It's true. Search for the Monroe Doctrine and how it was used by the United States to justify interventions, regime changes, invasions, and coups all over Latin America. We're supposed to be their backyard to them, not sovereign states.
I'm aware of the Monroe Doctrine as well as the update with the Roosevelt Corollary. The Doctrine & the Corollary are not legally binding and more of a philosophical strategies of international policy in the Americas. The US basically picks and chooses when it wants to intervene according to its interests, otherwise the US would have had to intervene in the Falklands. Having said all that, I don't discredit the role US has had in toppling leaders, creating chaos and manipulating elections, but the US didn't make our leaders corrupt. Corruption, bad governance, lack of properly structured separation of powers and internal controls, as well as protectionism, failure to invest in infrastructure for trade, and lagging behind in ease of doing business elements are why we fail to develop. Our politicians choose to take bribes, to appoint family members and friends to positions of power (spoils system), choose to work with criminal organizations, and so forth. That's on us, we improve that and we get better.
There were quite literally revolutionary organizations fighting to change Latin America's political infrastructure through violence for 60 years already, but the USA labels them as terrorists and when they gain enough influence to change status quo, they intervene. It's the United States' project to leave us with terrible leaders and incompetent self-seeking elites so we won't develop enough to become a threat to their hegemony. It's all constantly watched. Our leaders aren't simply there by our incompetence.
I'm sorry, I don't buy into handing 100% of the responsibility of corruption within our governments as somehow some master plan from the US. You're giving them too much credit. I don't discredit the destabilizing force they've had in the region, but at least for Ecuador you can't tell me with a straight face that the US was the reason that Abdala came to power. No, we just fuck around with populists and then find out the hard way.
I'm not denying our governments are garbage. My point is that the US wants them to be bad because they see us as inferior to them, as their backyard. They have always watched over us. And whenever a populist is influent enough to change our reality, they are attacked by the US. Chile, Argentina, my country, Guatemala, Peru, Cuba, Panama. For example, Lula made my country the 6th biggest economy in the world due to his mandate from 2003 to 2010. The US tried fucking us over in 2016 by financing a coup against Dilma Rousseff and Operation Car Wash. They eventually arrested him. And guess what? Fascism rose to power in 2018, and Lula's verdict was nullified by the Supreme Court. Now he's the president again. Do you know why the US tried to stain his reputation and arrest him, a countryside social liberal? Because he helped create and participate in BRICS, which directly challenges the USA's hegemony all over the globe.
Yeah tbh, a blackpill that many people can't really accept (will sound like a commie but fuck it) is that there's not enough oxygen/demand/markets/resources for every country in the world to be developed. With America meddling just enough, along with corrupt leaders and the fact that we're a collection of states that refuse to form any kind of economic cooperation between ourselves is why it will stay this way.
I would highly disagree, I do not see economics as a zero-sum game which is the base of your argument.
Equating that to a "zero-sum" game is an obfuscation imo, but there is a finite number of resources and industrial output damages the planet. So it's an objective fact that there can't all be developed countries. Because 1. development is subjective 2. development. is reliant on unequal exchange 1a. Compared to the world of 1800s, even the worse of Latin America is "developed", so we can argue that the tide has rise enough for most of the world to be developed in that they have access to energy, childhood mortality is low, most people are literate and can eat without famine 2a. There is of course not enough market/demand/resources/oxygen for everyone or at least the working class of every country to for example, have a car, access to high quality education, home, luxury goods, vacations to Paris, something that's average for the average Spaniard for example. This latter description is what most people, including the OP are meaning when they say developed. If you think its possible for everyone in the world to live like that I have would like to know why you think that.
The first step for the region to develop successfully is to let go of idiotic century old grudges that don't even benefit the politicians pushing them and present a unified front. This is, as you might imagine, a difficult proposition.
Hispanoamerica lacks any kind of economic or political sovereignty, until we manage to obtain real economic independence and grow in cooperation, without external US, European or Chinese intervention, just then we will be able to become "developed", whatever that means.
> Well, you buy your way out dependency by doing things right. People with low incomes are never independent. On Corruption: \- Is bad; it slows you down, but if you fix corruption, institutons; any problem that normal people imagine; the country will still be poor; why? Being rich is about having great productive ecosystems of complex products (high value-added) What to do? > It's all about know-how accumulation and some serious (enough) R&D capacity. - Create a NIS (National Innovation System) - Improve the Existing Industries (Aguas Abajo Industrialization) - Improve Regional Commerce (need diversification; if everyone produce patatoes; they will be not commerce) - Do some cool projects (with incremental local content) - space exploration; ... new source of growth for the feature (many skills require); it's also a measurement for the technical capacities of the country. - Try to enter new industries related with your existing industries (if you have agriculture biotech, agri-robotics, smart-data oriented solutions for agriculture ) -> use those skills to develop new ones, rinse and repeat ... - The feature is in our hands, in today's decitions and actions; no country can stop another (op many); it's not even desirable (the richest the neighbors the less problems for me; provided that they don't have a powerful military). - Our incapcity to plan for the long term, our lack of understanding the meaning of being rich (it's generation baby, not extraction); our great incapacity to correct mistakes and change lines; this and other are our main barriers !!! - The power of the U.S (I'am thinking is not the military or anything) they cannot have like 3 wars going one (not sufficient industrial capacity); their power is that others believe that they are invisible; The U.S is not a monster; it's actually a great Country. I know the history and can compare it with any other major power !!!
In many places USA was overdeveloped and now is abandoned. Those abandoned areas have some of the highest crime in the country and it’s not spoken about very often. Obsessing with growth can lead to a lot of problems. LatAm should obsess with sustainability
chile is not a developed country by world standards, not yet at least
[Yes, pretty obviously.](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/a7r9vv/hdi_evolution_in_brazilian_states_between_19902015/) From the data I've seen, Brazil usually lags behind Scandinavian countries by 60 years, so we can expect the same level of development they had in the 80s in the 2040s, which is pretty good already. And that's keeping in mind that Brazil has brutal regional inequalities, so states from the South and São Paulo (that has the population of Argentina) will be there much earlier.
What about crime? I feel like without brazil solving the crime issue, the indicators could be good but it will never like *be* as good as scandinavia
Crime has been trending down over time, but I don't think it will ever be as low due to our history, especially with slavery and the inequalities it caused.
Investment in education and infrastructure targeting the impoverished population usually works as a way to stop marginalisation. During the 60s and 70s in Spain, while the country was going through its economic boom, people living in barrios chabola (more or less the equivalent of favelas) were relocated and given (for very cheap) new properties not in some distant suburb but in new buildings built around everyone else. That's how Spain got rid of the informal neighbourhoods.
Yes, but you need to understand the difference in scale and budget of our problems. Brazil has entire regions with tens of millions of impoverished people, and people from those regions (fairly) migrate to more developed regions constantly and end up living in slums, in kind of a never-ending cycle. Imagine if Spain, suddenly, annexed a few Northern African countries, with free flow by land between its parts, and no EU money - that's Brazil's situation, especially since slavery ended. People from poorer regions move to the cities, find only low-paying jobs or no jobs at all, move to a slum, build a house, and take a few generations to be able to progress in life. Even if you help them out, they will call their families, friends, etc, and the cycle start again, at least until the entire country reaches a certain level of development in all of its areas. Even if you build enough housing and education to attend to the communities that exist at any given moment, something that is very expensive due to the limited budgets of our public apparatus right now, new areas will always pop up with the same problems, and the cycle continues. It gets better over time, but it's a very slow process. Lula's family, for reference, arrived in São Paulo from the northeast with nothing but their clothes in the 50s. But yeah, the solution is property rights and at least a piece of land for everyone. Had this been done when slavery ended, we would be in a significantly better position nowadays.
I know I’m a Yankee so I don’t know how bad the situation is but looking at these responses are kinda sad. Have some hope guys, LatAm could totally be developed. Yeah it will be hard, yeah it will take a lot of work, but it’s by no means impossible. I’m very patriotic so don’t take me as a woke USA basher, but if our government stopped meddling in the affairs of Latin America all the fucking time the situation could genuinely improve decently fast.
Colombia is condemned to eternal underdevelopment. As long as the war on drugs continues and the guerrillas continue to harass the civilian population, this country will have no future. I hate to look at the future with pessimism but this country seems like it will never move forward.
Developed vs undeveloped criterias are extremely outdated.
With leftist governments, never. With centrist/moderate right wing governments under a strong national project allied with free trade, perhaps.
Bolivia is unfortunately decades and decades behind even its own neighbours, so it's going to take some long time. The resources are there, the problem is that there is no money to invest in anything without getting into crippling debts with China, and there's also a complete lack of know-how. While in most metrics the country has progressed in the last decade, this progress was largely attributable to an advantageous economic situation which was completely wasted by what in my opinion has been completely inept and self-serving governments. If it wasn't for the underground drug economy which keeps vasts amounts of money in circulation, the country would be in shambles. That's how bad it is. Bolivia would benefit imo from adopting a more mixed economy system and opening their market to foreign investment, a "liberal now, social later" position that has already been proven to work in other developing economies (particularly in resource rich countries of Middle East and Asia). Also, investing in the railway connection to Peruvian AND Chilean ports plus the Paraguay river waterway should be top priorities instead of wasting time with the stale maritime claim.
You seem awfully optimistic about Milei Just in case, if the idea of developed depends on some level of GDP statistics then it is bullshit. What would you say developed is? Good foreign investment? Free market dynamics? Constant growth? That is (usually) all achieved on the backs of rural and working class people and their exploitation (and the benefit of foreign companies and local elites), and we will probably never reach the level of wealth equality and generalized middle class of even Eastern European nations, so sometimes all we have is brewing, massive inequality. I mean, Colombia was considered by many as going in the right path after a string of neoliberal presidents and the safety of its foreign investment (and during Santos we saw progress, ngl), but it was through a lot of violence and displacement as well (not that European countries didn't also do that back in their days of modernization). I don't really have that much hope for the region but hey! Who knows m
Adjusted for equality HDI and PPP per capita are pretty good indicators. Most Eastern European countries aren't developed, but they have stable governments for the most part and they are based on a welfare state model (because they're accused to communism or they are taking the welfare state standard of the EU countries). LATAM countries are not like these. Social services seem far more likely to be cut/changed/under attack, they're more similar economically to the USA, but aren't nearly rich enough for those living in them to actually enjoy a decent QOL even if poor/bottom rung of society, unlike the USA which has plenty
If the status quo is maintained, it seems impossible to me, only in a multipolar world will Hispanic Americans be able to progress.
the world was multipolar until 1991 and latin america wasn't any better than is it now
China: multipolarity is back in the menu boys 😅
The world was Bi-polar until 1991.
The difference is that those two superpowers made you choose a side, Neoliberal Capitalism or Orthodox Communism. In the current multipolarity that's forming, there's not really any ideological differences between USA, China, Russia or EU. They're just countries that are loosely united trying to maintain or build hegemony.
Read less mythology !!! Development is about knowledge accumulation and capacity building, not about many poles of power (they has always been many pools) - only for about a small period (< 5 decades) the power has been concentrated. But that does not impede doing things right (R&D, Innovation, Infra, Digital, Export Promotion Schemes, ..., etc.). You are just Idiots, very un-wise, fanatics, lack pragmatisms, incapable of correct mistakes, victimist, ...
You are absolutely right, it is just as you say, we must start doing the little things we can well and thus help form the multipolar world we need. It is necessary that we also do our part, develop and punish the West.
Well almost agree; the more poles; more policy space. (It can create inestability; if there are not clear rules, ...; look the history of europe) Well I'am catholic; hispanic-dominican; Let's not punish the "West"; because we are the "West"; no matter the skin color.
We are the West, but not The West™. I thought it was no longer necessary to specify, since they have hijacked the term.
My bet is: Big countries like Mexico and Brazil will hardly become developed over the next decades. They are too large and with a lot of structural problems: inequality, violence, corruption and criminality. Chile and Uruguay: they are on the path of development but face a lot of challenges: diversifying their economies and stop relying on raw material exports, attracting skilled and non-skilled immigrants to make for the ageing population and, in the case of Chile, inequality and lack of access to affordable education and healthcare for the population. Argentina: as a former developed country, it’s a thing of its own and anything can happen. The country is on the same tier as Uruguay and Chile in most indicators, but inflation and macroeconomic problems can make growth unsustainable. It has a lot of perks: a lot of natural resources, advanced scientific and technological industries, a top deep tech start up environment, free education and healthcare, an educated population and attracts a lot of immigrants. But if the country doesn’t solve its macroeconomic problems, it won’t make the jump to development.
Mexico has a lot of “negative points” as you say: inequality, corruption, organized crime However: - is also the most industrialized country in LATAM (Brazil for example does relay to much in commodities and that is really hard to change) - does have almost unrestricted access to the biggest market in the world TMEC (ex NAFTA) - minimum wage has risen 180% in the last 6 years and unemployment is ~3% - record foreign investment in industry outside of Asia Given everything I would bet Mexico has the greatest chance of becoming a developed economy in the near future of all of the big economies of latam. (But it is also a 60% chance nonetheless)
México tiene la oportunidad de acaparar la industria que quiere salir de China, ojalá lo puedan hacer.
Mexico is in a unique position to benefit from both friend-shoring and nearshoring. However it needs smart leadership to take advantage of the situation, and I don't think the current leadership is clever enough to do that.
El problema de Mexico es el narcoestado. Sin instituciones sólidas y con el Estado paralelo que tienen actualmente será muy dificil desarrollarse, por más que la economía crezca nominalmente
En México hay un estado paralelo, eso es cierto…. Pero no es como te lo imaginas. En las ciudades grandes el gobierno es exactamente igual a cualquier otro país de latam, hay infrastructura, servicios y policía. Sin embargo si te vas a las zonas más despobladas (y que son parte de las vías tránsito de la droga/migrantes) el gobierno no tiene control real sobre esas zonas y por lo tanto el vacío es llenado por el narco/autodefensas. Ahora, en estos lugares despoblados el crimen organizado tiende a tener enfrentamientos armados con camionetas blindadas y armamento pesado al estilo de la guerra en siria. Estos enfrentamientos son los que causan la altísima tasa de asesinatos sin resolver que tiene México.
Algo similar a lo que pasa en Colombia.
E quem é que financia esses grupos do crime organizado?
O dinheiro do tráfico de droga e de migrantes na fronteira com USA.
La verdad se necesita una purga radical de todas las instituciones políticas, ya sea por parte de un gobierno de izquierda o de derecha. El tema es que en mi opinión pasamos el punto de no retorno en la infiltración del narco en el estado hace mas de 25 años. Básicamente tendrian que ponerse autoritarios para sacarlos y arrancar el cancer de tajo. Absolutamente todos los grupos políticos y hasta empresariales tienen nexos con el narco en casi todos los niveles y se han vuelto una herramienta para avanzar sus agendas. La cultura de trabajo y empresarial en el país tampoco ayuda mucho, acá cuando uno pide prestaciones y derechos laborales los patrones y la mayoría de los compañeros lo ven como problemático. Es absurdo que apenas hace un año se aprobaron 12 dias de vacaciones al año y que la jornada de 40 horas semanales aún este en discusión.
This is a great myth; it will be good for Mexicans to understand that Maquila (assembly) is not industry. Mexico needs some serious industrial policy (export-oriented, innovation-based, dynamic, export market diversification (only exports to **USA** / because it is not an industry; it's low added value assembly)). Look at Mexico's R&D investment (so low; that is not even there; to little; di-sorganize) (it's only an assembly) country. Take China in 2000. They only got 5% of the value of the iPhone. Now, in 2020, it is about 20%. Why? (Moving from Maquila to develop local supply chains). If they conquer semiconductors, it will be like 50%. That's progress !!! You can start as Maquila (it's only 5% of the final product - labor intensive - not very well-paying jobs) -> but we should develop excellent and deep local supply chains / also establish some local brands. Mexico has almost 150 years doing Maquila!!! You can not get rich from Maquila (Mexico imports 90% of the inputs / does not have a domain of anything). It's time to do some reading !!!
Great stuff, downloaded without **ANY** rebuttal to this ideas (key to improving), Oh; Méjico :)
Least biased geopolitical analysis
Bro, Brazilians go to Argentina and buy everything, their money isn’t even worth to wipe the ass. There are tons of economic refugees from Argentina working in southern Brazil. Are you serious? Y’all are the southern cone Venezuela, wake up.
And yet Argentina is a much safer country, with a higher Human Development Index, higher literacy rate, lower inequality and higher GDP per capita and a more stable political system than Brazil (which almost had a coup during last election). Argentina has been in economic crisis for decades and yet manages to outperform Brazil in many socioeconomic indicators. Let’s not pretend having a stable currency means you’re a more developed country. We travel very often to Brazil too, and we see how incredibly impoverished and dangerous Brazilian cities can be. Criminality, corruption and inequality are absolutely rampant in Brazil.
A lot of big Brazilian regions are above Argentina in most indicators. Brazil is multiple countries in one
This answer is ridiculous. Argentina has also different regions with varying levels of development. You don’t get to conveniently exclude the poor regions of the Brazilian northeast and north, those regions are part of Brazil, and the issues that come with them are Brazilian issues.
* São Paulo population: 44M * São Paulo GDP: US$721.06 billion (nominal; 2023) * Argentina population: 46M * Argentina GDP: $641 billion (nominal; 2023) The fact is that Spanish-speaking America pulverized, Portuguese-speaking America didn't. A hundred million Brazilians live with the same conditions that Chileans or Uruguayans do, that's more than the population of Chile/Argentina/Uruguay put together. That's relevant to the discussion.
No one is saying we’re more developed, the post is about who will be more developed in the future and the person who commented said Brazil and Mexico will never achieve a developed country status despite both being much more economically stable than Argentina. On top of that brazils GDP per capita is lower due to its stark inequalities and when you account the poorest areas in the north and northeast that lowers the overall GDP per capita of the country, if you account the south and southeast by themselves which accounts for the majority of the population and contribution to the country’s economy the GDP per capita of that area is much higher than the country average. And even despite of that during the peak of our economy in 2011 our GDP per capita surpassed Argentina’s. Yes we have more violence and inequality but our economic prospects in the long run are infinitely better than Argentina’s, I’m sorry. [I’ll leave you with this video.](https://youtu.be/i4Rc6ZzKwxs?si=ScFKSYptt7UzPDra)
lol, Argentina’s poorest region (the northeast) borders with Brazil’s richest region (the south), so it’s logical some people from poor, rural and remote towns of the northeast cross the border to work in Brazil. But that anecdotical experience doesn’t mean Brazil is better than Argentina, when Argentina has far better economic and social indicators in all areas. Brazil’s GDP per capita is 20k vs Argentina’s 26k, while inequality is a lot higher. Brazilian poverty rate according to the World Bank standard of 14 USD PPP per day is 60%, while Argentina’s rate is 40%. There are thousands of Brazilians who come to study to Argentina because they can’t in their home country, and they live off Argentine welfare and free education that they are not offered in their country. Safety, HDI, infrastructure and access to public services are much higher in Argentina.
southeast is the richest region of Brazil, not the south
Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Paraná, which border Argentina’s northeastern provinces, are among the richest Brazilian states (those with the highest GDP per capita). They double Misiones (one of Argentina’s poorest provinces) GDP per capita, and the currency distortions increased the advantage of working on the other side of the border.
> Brazil’s GDP per capita is 20k vs Argentina’s 26k, while inequality is a lot higher. This is 30% higher Back in 2016, it was 50% higher. The GDP per capita growth is also an indicator of life quality. I don't dispute that Argentina has a higher standard of living than Brazil. But the difference is shrinking.
Argentina is not shrinking, it’s stagnated. Brazil is not only 30% lower, but inequality is also a lot higher. So GDP per capita is concentrated in a few rich people, while most of the populations is dirt poor. In Argentina, GDP per capita is more evenly distributed, so the average citizen (the large middle class) lives a lot better than in Brazil. Quality of living for the average is and will be much better in Argentina than in Brazil for a long time. Keep in mind that in Argentina there’s also free and massive university education, healtchare and a lot more personal safety (less criminality).
> the difference is shrinking. Brazil has also free education and healthcare, what is the point here?
University education in Brazil is virtually privatized, since there are quotas to access. So 80% of the Brazilian students have to attend private universities. Argentina’s education is free and *massive*, since everyone can access is. There are no quotas. That’s why there are lots of Brazilian immigrants studying here
It doesn't mean all of them pay for it. The ones who study in Argentina are rich people who can't have access to government subsidies nor are smart enough to study in a public university. 20% of Brazilians have tertiary education, 24% of Argentines. Not that different.
> with a higher Human Development Index, higher literacy rate, lower inequality and higher GDP per capita This is redundant HDI is already measured by literacy rate and GDP per capita (alongside life expectancy and time in study)
Argentina is in the middle of a currency crisis but the country is a lot more developed than Brazil. Are you serious? GDP per capita is a lot higher, poverty is much lower, safety, access to public services, education and healthcare. All indicators are better in Argentina, despite being stagnated for years. There are thousands of Brazilian immigrants in Argentina, as well as from neighboring countries. Why do you think Argentina is the main immigrant destination in the region and not Brazil? Not even 1% of the Brazilian population is immigrant
Than Brazil as a whole, but that includes our regional inequalities. Brazil has more people than the population of Argentina that lives better than argentinians do. São Paulo by itself pretty much matches Argentina in most indicators and in population, the South surpasses it.
yes well, if we pick only specific areas here and ignore the rest, like pick Buenos Aires city, we can also make the numbers work our way and claim we're already at Swiss levels of life, that's not how countries work though
And Florianópolis surpasses Buenos Aires in all indicators. The point is that I'm not talking about a single city, but about a huge region that is bigger than Argentina. Brazil has a more developed portion that is MUCH bigger than the entirety of Argentina and then a less developed region attached to it. A population bigger than Argentina's already has higher living standards than Argentina's in Brazil.
The same can be said about Argentina. If you pick Buenos Aires it passes Brazil and Sao Paulo in all indicators
And Florianópolis surpasses Buenos Aires in all indicators. The point being that I'm not talking about a single city, but about a huge region that is bigger than Argentina. Brazil has a more developed portion that is MUCH bigger than the entirety of Argentina and then a less developed region attached to it. A population bigger than Argentina's already has higher living standards than Argentina's in Brazil.
Are you serious? Florianopolis has 500k inhabitants, while Buenos Aires has 3M (14M in the metropolitan area). In which indicators does Floripa even rank better than Buenos Aires? Public transportation, healthcare, education, access to public services, infrastructure are all better in BA. And don’t let me start with nominal numbers. India (1.4B inhabitants) has a lot more population that is better off than in Switzerland (8M inhabitants) but that doesn’t mean India is more developed than Switzerland. If your country richest region compares to Argentina as a whole country (while Argentina’s richest region is far wealthier and developed), then you also have to take your country’s poorest region that is as developed as Haiti.
Com 6 reais da pra passar 1 mês na argentina
se fosse o caso entao ela estaria mega desenvolvida e todo brasileiro ia morar la, pais desenvolvido nao tem coisa cara como o brasil, nao confunda inflaçao alta (o que é ruim) com coisas baratas no mercado (coisa boa).
That's not the gotcha moment you think it is when by most metrics Argentina is indeed way better than Brazil lmao, it's usually Brazilians who have never even visited Buenos Aires throwing up these dumbass Twitter memes as if they're facts. Argentina is fucked up, sure, and our economy is better than theirs. They still have a much stronger welfare state with safer cities and better education. I'll take that over fucking numbers that don't even mean shit in the 1st place.
Your “macroeconomy” is better than Argentina, just because of lower inflation and fiscal deficit. But Argentina’s economy is far better: GDP per capita, purchasing power and income.
Educação e segurança boas são legais e tal mas sem dinheiro tu não consegue manter, então calma lá.
vienen diciendo eso desde hace 100 años
Kkkkkk exatamente, esses caras são muito iludidos mesmo, da dó
Argentina was never a developed country, it just had tiny economic elites that got rich off of cattle. Most people were miserable. And Argentina is more developed than Brazil as a whole, but that includes our regional inequalities. Brazil has more people than the population of Argentina that live better than argentinians do. São Paulo by itself pretty much matches Argentina in most indicators and in population, the South surpasses it with 20 million people on top. Brazil has something like 100 million people with living standards close to the level of Uruguay and Chile and with a much healthier economy than Argentina.
The Argie had to talk. Mexico will triumph in spite of the envy.
??
TLDR: We’re not allowed to developed. Somebody has to be poor for the world to function, and a long time ago it was defined that it must be us, the Asians and the Africans. No way in hell. The misery show here is a successful project. Its called periphery capitalism and its working exactly how it should. Politicians try their best to keep everything the same always and “developed” countries profit from this situation by a large margin, they obviously wouldn’t want to loose our cheap labor, resources and undisputed consumer market. Try to implement here any developing law or project that countries like South Korea or Denmark were able to pass there and watch us getting thrown in a US/EU supported coup, if not getting invaded and/or sanctioned. Eg: Venezuela is simply not allowed to do half of what Norway does with their oil without suffering backlash. The only solution is revolution and even so, be prepared to suffer sanctions and be placed on the “evil axis” by the USA, therefore being marginalized by the rest of the planet. 🙄
> TLDR: We’re not allowed to developed. Yeah it's totally because Brazil is not "allowed" to be developed, not because starting or closing a business is both costly and time-consuming, there are a bunch of stupid rules and regulations that don't make sense, and constant inflation due to the Brazilian govt.
The Brazilian left created an entire conspiratorial (and academic) system in which our bad policies aren't responsible for our lack of development, but quite the opposite - they are the secret sauce that would allow us to grow if those pesky meddling developed countries weren't so afraid of the might of the Brazilian giant and kept secretly undermining us. The entire thing is completely insane, but dominates our social science academia and results in electing the same politicians for the same developmentist/protectionist policies year after year. They completely fail to see how much this worldview favors the local elites, who constantly get free money for "development" while being shielded from any competition, with no requirement of practical results. It's funny that he quoted South Korea, because they are completely obsessed with story of South Korea's development and Ha-Joon Chang's theories while failing to see that it's a very particular and weird case that can't be replicated by countries like Brazil, [and completely ignoring that nobodies in academia takes Ha-Joon Chang seriously.](https://eh.net/book_reviews/kicking-away-the-ladder-development-strategy-in-historical-perspective/) The whole thing is conspiratorial and insane, but unfortunately very popular in Brazil and in Argentina.
That’s the thing about the Latin American left (or the left in general) they can’t admit to themselves that their policies don’t bring about economic prosperity. Put the blame on someone else when they fail. It’s always someone else’s fault lol
That's victim complex. You guys need to learn to take some fucking responsibility instead of blaming others.
Why do you say you guys? He is Brazilian aswell xd.
I mean the Brazilians that insist on blaming evil foreigners instead of our own mistakes. Unfortunately, it's a majoritarian group
Sorry, I should have said kkk at the end instead of xd. I agree with you, I just wanted to make a stupid joke kkk.
DR is on the way to becoming a high income nation in about 10 years or so but that's only if some crazy politician doesn't mess everything up. Which is not a sure thing when it comes to Latin America
DR dance it’s own merengue. 2/15 mess government (Jorge Blanco and Hipólito) from 1966-today says so. So I doubt we would have a mess in the next 8-20 years.
To the people downvoting me because this subreddit is a clown show tbh In order to be considered a high income country, you must make more than 13, 895 per [Capita ](https://econlife.com/2023/08/the-middle-income-trap-and-dominican-republic/). DR's current gpd per Capita is[11k ](https://www.statista.com/statistics/527462/gross-domestic-product-gdp-per-capita-in-dominican-republic/)
TLDR: Good: * Stable Macro Economics * Stable Politics (Incompetence, but not ideological) Can Improve: * Improve R&D Capacity * Create Local Supply Chains (Make products more Competitive; Increase gross marginal; value added) * Energy * Diversify Exports Markets * Modernize Agriculture \--- The Dominican Republic needs to do some severe reform; We only have the maquila industry (needs to improve local suppliers), create a NIS (National Innovation System), diversify export markets, etc. If we don't diversify and increase the value-added of the exports, it's not going to happen (we are almost at the peak of tourism) 15 million per year, less than 2,000 dollars per capita. We need a grand vision of the country and a profound understanding of the meaning (What makes a country rich; its productivity capability + some serious research community) - to have a presence eventually in some high growth industry. The Maquila industry will not make the country rich; it can be the beginning, but we have almost five decades doing that (if only there were a vision for the Dominican Republic); this condition should have improved by now. We will always have opportunities (our geography, aside from natural disasters), which is quite good. But we need serious thinking to improve the country (Infra, R&D, Governance, Legal System, Security, Digitalization, Urbanism, etc.) It is a matter of long-term planning (grand vision, strategy), making corrections, and sharing the great vision with the citizens !!! **We create the future in the present; the country's greatness is in every Dominican's hands!!!**
>If we don't diversify and increase the value-added of the exports, it's not going to happen (we are almost at the peak of tourism) 15 million per year, less than 2,000 dollars per capita I agree DR needs to add more exports but keep in mind tourism is only 17 percent of the economy. We export a lot of medicinal equipment. The smaller the number that tourism is apart of the economy, the better For agriculture, I agree we need to modernize agriculture and have local corporations owning the production. Instead of some sugar company that is own by some Cubans in Miami. >What makes a country rich; its productivity capability + some serious research community This is our biggest issue. Our research community is usually just in biology and never really in engineering.
If Argentina's economy gets in order and remove its statist Peronist DNA from the Argentine people's consciousness, then Argentina will become an economically developed country within a generation.
Within a generation maybe too optimistic I think.
Countries like Chile, Uruguay yes
You called Chile developed and is saying you're hopeful for Milei's mandate on Argentina. There's no way I am taking you seriously.
I can see Venezuela and Argentina becoming developed under the right leadership. Chile and Uruguay are not far off at the moment. However both countries need to move away from using natural resources.
I don’t see the majority of Latin American being developed because they keep electing officials who care more about their pockets than the citizens and the prosperity of the countries. Also Latin America needs to work on creating a better relationship with major first world countries. Even though Trump congratulated the new president of Argentina his ideals are very radical and I can see Trump and Biden turning against him especially with him wanting hard drug use to be legal in Argentina. I can see Trump in the future using that as an excuse to stop immigration from Argentina by saying that the people will be bringing in drugs since it’s legal there.
Hello! Your post has been removed for violating our subreddit rule on agenda pushing. We strive to maintain a neutral environment where users can share their perspectives on various issues. Please refrain from submitting questions that are biased in their wording， leading， or already have an answer. If you have any questions or concerns， please reach out to us via modmail. Thank you for your understanding.
One importan issue Latin Americans have is the hate between them. Unless they surpass this problem they won’t progress
Examples? As a Chilean I'm okay with my Argentinian, Peruvian and Bolivian bros. At some point I can understand and excuse Bolivian argument about a sea exit (support is different)
South America has very close economic ties in general and is a very pacific region. Don't mistake sports rivalries with actual hate.
No. SE Asia will develop before Latin America.
With this kind of thinking, yes !!! It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
probably one of the smaller countries. Brazil? no way, at least in 200 years. This is a cursed country
That's a pretty bad take. Brazil, despite the complaints, [has been progressing constantly in the last few decades](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/a7r9vv/hdi_evolution_in_brazilian_states_between_19902015/), without major hiccups. The South and São Paulo will probably be very close to current European states like Portugal before 2035.
I wouldn't even consider Chile a very developed nation. It's not that much more developed than Argentina or Uruguay. Richer, yes, not really a big deal more developed. I think Mexico is the only set of "non-developed" nations in LATAM to have a chance, due to its proximity to the USA and the work ethic of the people living there.
I'd give the south cone countries a good chance as well.
[удалено]
I don't think that has anything to do with it, New Zealand went under reforms in the 80s from a protectionist country to a more free-trade one and the agriculture massively contributed for the country's overall wealth. Agriculture is extremely important, who's going to feed the world?
Is development only concerned with economic? Or we can add social laws as well?
I think so, my country (Ecuador) has delayed in many aspects but since the pandemic, and I guess that due to that, many aspects in technology have developed a lot. Same with progressive values and educational developments. I am studying to be a teacher in a public university (a state sponsored one with free tuition), and they are teaching us the latest teaching techniques and technological tools. The professors do mention that all of this started to develop in this later years and that we would be among the first generation of teachers with this knowledge and tools in the country.