AHC: First World Latin America

CthulhuFhtagn

Banned
With a PoD any time after 1900, make the average HDI in Latin America* at least 0.808 and the average GDP per capita at least $14,000**.


*To avoid arguments over semantics, let's just say that it's every country in America except for the US and Canada.
**In OTL 2013 US dollars.
 

Realpolitik

Banned
That's going to be really hard after 1900. These countries have a history of colonialism (racism was a far bigger issue here than in Argentina and Chile, which have done way better) and institutionalized class problems that make industrialization tough, for one thing, and they were mostly agrarian in nature. El Salvador and Nicaragua are not easy places to industrialize with every profit incentive going towards agriculture. And there were powerful outside interests as well.
 

oreocruncher

Realpolitik said:
That's going to be really hard after 1900. These countries have a history of colonialism (racism was a far bigger issue here than in Argentina and Chile, which have done way better) and institutionalized class problems that make industrialization tough, for one thing, and they were mostly agrarian in nature. El Salvador and Nicaragua are not easy places to industrialize with every profit incentive going towards agriculture. And there were powerful outside interests as well.
Click to expand...

Plus Cold War shenanigans, as well as some sordid American dealings, which results in distrust of American interests there...
 

Seleucus

This isn't *that* difficult. The Latin American current GDP per capita is ~$11.8k, so it's not that far off. Adding 0.2% to the yearly growth rate would easily do it, so small changes alone could probably do it.
 

PoorBoy

Well, we could have no Panama Canal. That way, ships would have to go to Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, or Chile, and at least the Southern Continent would not be as geographically and economically isolated as it is OTL.
 

Realpolitik

Banned
Seleucus said:
This isn't *that* difficult. The Latin American current GDP per capita is ~$11.8k, so it's not that far off. Adding 0.2% to the yearly growth rate would easily do it, so small changes alone could probably do it.
Click to expand...

To clarify, I'm talking El Salvador, Guatemala, and the like in Central America, not South America.

Perhaps butterflying the civil wars of the 80s might help.
 
packmanwiscy

packmanwiscy

PoorBoy said:
Well, we could have no Panama Canal. That way, ships would have to go to Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, or Chile, and at least the Southern Continent would not be as geographically and economically isolated as it is OTL.
Click to expand...

What if the Canal was just given to Panama in the first place? That would make Central America at least a bit more prosperous, I would imagine
 

ImperatorAnonymous

let's see...

Brazil: keep the emperor and make sure they use the huge amount of money they get from coffee to industrialize... but that falls before 1900... although the part about industrializing keeps fair up to 1910

Colombia: harder... perhaps if, on 1903 on the treaty that ends the thousand day war you force a reform in the Constitution that long term gets the country more stable, it could be doable, or at least avoids the disaster of La Violencia and the following armed conflict... if you manage to get Colombia a better deal about Panama (i.e: avoiding the seccession) and get the same deal OTL Panama got with the canal, even better

Mexico: I have no idea, I tend to believe it is almost impossible with a post-1900 but I cannot be sure

Argentina: avoid the political instability in the Post WW2, no Peron might not do the trick... no Videla might be more suitable...

Venezuela: keep the governments as post-Mlitary Regime, just give them a bit more of a social state mind (i.e: more education and help for the poor between 1950s-1990s) you avoid (likely) a Chavez-like regime, and keep on the oil stimulated growth...

as for the rest of the region, I have no idea...
 

Dunning Kruger

Stalinist regimes take over most of South America during the 1930s. Like Stalin they commit atrocities across their populations but along the way successfully create industrial economies. During WWII, they become engines of manufacturing for the war effort against the Nazis. Following the collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989 they successfully reform their political and economic regimes and successfully progress in the 21st century.

There's a ton of flaws with this thesis but I think this is the scenario that gives you the best chance. That I believe this is an indication of how challenging I think this is.
 

Thanksforallthefish

It's not really hard: Avoid military coups. Implement wealth distribution and social programs, with an European model (i.e Sweden, Germany). In multiethnic countries, make movements for equality stronger, but not falling into outright communism. With a culture of stable democracy, corruption will be less endemic than OTL. And there you go.

Of course, to prevent the endless cycle of coups and counter-coups, you'll need to prevent US/Soviet involvement in Latin America. And that's easier said than done. Maybe either:

1: The USA considers it to be firmly on its' sphere, and the CIA does not feel the need to foster coups, or they intervene in the countries on a different way.
2: A stronger Non-Alligned/South American Unionist movement scares away the US and USSR, and Latin America seeks its own path.
3: Latin America is firmly in the USSR sphere, and it remains stable under communist regimes (near impossible, and probably would result in a way different Latin America)
 

Realpolitik

Banned
Remember-Argentina and Chile can be considered First World, or near it, nowadays. Guatemala and the like are anything but. Brazil is somewhere in between. It's a varying region.
 

Deleted member 67076

For Dominican Republic, have Balagauer lose his Fourth presidency in the 70s. His austerity measures at the time left the country with a stagnating economy. If the Social Democrats of the PRD had won, reform would have come earlier and thus led to the high rates growth rates of the 80s and 90s much earlier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

CthulhuFhtagn

Banned
Soverihn said:
For Dominican Republic, have Balagauer lose his Fourth pregnancy in the 70s. His austerity measures at the time left the country with a stagnating economy. If the Social Democrats of the PRD had won, reform would have come earlier and thus led to the high rates growth rates of the 80s and 90s much earlier.
Click to expand...

Huehuehuehue...
 

Mr.brightside

Prevent or lessen WW1. A more economically stable Europe is essential to a first world south America. On second thought a earlier rise of china could do it to. All you need is a market for South American food or resource.
 

SlideAway

Just wanted to point out that Western Europe and Japan pre-WWII had living standards that were in general no better than - and often worse than - Latin America. Japan's per capita income was actually the same as Peru's before the war. It was only in the postwar era that Latin America fell behind.
 

Realpolitik

Banned
Plumber said:
Avoid the Lost Decade by averting the rise of neoliberalism.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's enough in the case of Central America, you've got much deeper problems-chronic inequality, oligarchy/dictatorships, violence, and things like United Fruit far before the 80s/90s.
 

Realpolitik

Banned
SlideAway said:
Just wanted to point out that Western Europe and Japan pre-WWII had living standards that were in general no better than - and often worse than - Latin America. Japan's per capita income was actually the same as Peru's before the war. It was only in the postwar era that Latin America fell behind.
Click to expand...

Never heard this before. Interesting. Are you talking the Americas as a whole, or Central America specifically?

Again, I'm counting South America as a separate case, so that's why I'm more pessimistic than some other people here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top