In the news recently, events of extreme importance to Latin American economies, and thus to the global economy, since governments, businesses, and individuals from all over the world have been purchasing land (relatively inexpensive land) on the continent:
March 18, 2009 at 8:34am
Bolivian President Evo Morales has distributed thousands of hectares of land to Guaraní communities from Alto Parapetí, in the eastern Bolivian province of Santa Cruz.
At a ceremony this past weekend, Evo Morales delivered 38 thousand hectares to the Guarani, opening a process of land allocation that will end in December 2009.
The land was expropriated from huge land owners last month for failing to comply with the new Constitution. Morales himself accused them of letting the land lie fallow and making the Guarani work in slave-like conditions…….
He also said that Bolivia will continue to respect private property, “but we want people who are not interested in equality to change their thinking and focus more on country than currency.”
And more here on the principles behind Morales’ actions, the Pachamama.
Its an old move and did not work well before. In times of crisis of capitalism its alway the move toward collectivisation that is given a posotive spin. Used to be workers now its indiginous workers. Check history of the Ejido movement in Mexico. Basically, giving land to the indians/indegenous poples expropriated from spanish (or mexicans of eurpean ancesstry) hacenderos (hacienda owners). Done under President Juarez (first indigenous president of Mexico) and later under Caredenas who alsonationalized oil lands from U.S. oil companies in Mexico. The former had the effect of crippling ag production (and also the paralllel in the majority ethnic group lashing out at the minority dominant group, such as say Malaysia) the latter the exploitation of the damn yankees replaced by the corruption of PEMEX buracrats and also increased ineffeciency. Nothing new here lila, the past is prologue and the bolivians are copying the mexicans albeit 100 years later……
Hi Robert –
Yes. Very true. And it was done in India too. But Morales and Carreras have both argued that they would forge a middle way between socialism and neoliberalism. I know, I know. Third way has become a joke. Smacks of New Labor and that sort of thing. It’s always the same old in a new guise.
I haven’t commented on this because I am somewhat new to Latin American politics.
And between the shibboleths of the right and the shibboleths of the left, it is hard for someone who hasn’t specialized in the area to make an intelligent comment. But my interest in food and land prices got me looking in that direction..
so you see Morales going the way of Chavez? Others think differently.
I don’t have anything to add, both of you stated what I would have had I beat ya to it. Something I have wondered about though…has there ever been any former colony of the Spanish Empire that has been an economic/political success story?
I can only think of Argentina before Peron.
It has occured to me that it might have something to do with Catholicism, but have never made the connection.
Jc,
Depends what you mean by success. By various measures Mexico is the 10th or 13th economy of the world and has a GDP equal to that of India but with 1/8 the population! Also, a GDP at times higher than Russia. Course compated to the U.S. and the lack of U.S perspective it seems very poor. Hey they make cars and Monterrey in northern Mexico has a higher GDP than Buenos Aires or Prague for that matter. Could it be Catholicism? Who knows, perhaps its shamanism as most of the latin american countries (ave for Urugauay and Argentina) are mostly amerindian or indgenenous and most confabulate a light version of catholicism with local flavor (killing chickens and so forth integrated into a belief in the virgin mary) So, not likely to be Catholicism and not that practiced in Rome or per Baltimore Catechism. Its more the issue of eurpean minorities beng historically productive, literate and wealthy coping with restive indigenous majorities while keeping a facade of democracy. Its tough act. Think of the U.S. as having been less succesful in wiping out the native americans and now we have 200 million native americans wary and never integrated into mainstream–would you blame protestanism?
JC –
the Catholic-Protestant analysis is Weber’s, I believe. It has some merit when you try to figure out the movement of the preeminent empires in Europe..I mean, why did the dominant nation move from being Italy, to Spain and Portugal, to France, to Holland, and to England. But that might be more a westward movement or a combo of cultural, geographical and economic factors related to why industrial revol. became viable in England first…
There’s an interesting paper on that somewhere, I’ll dig it up.
Robert –
Not only Mexico, Brazil leads the Brics in some ways- same problems as India though – huge disparity between rich and poor, very diverse to the point of difficulty, and corruption – although after the past year or so, hard for anyone in the US to lecture any other country again on corruption.
Bovespa has done very well, in the bounce and real has strengthened as well.
Uruguay is very successful and Chile too.
So i think is an American (Norte) stereotype…maybe? (no offense Jeff)
Lila
Perhaps, Lila. I was going to mention Chile and probably should have, except that their resurgence came about as a result of a military dictatorship, not constitutional rule.
Robert also makes a valid point…in all of the americas, no nation has smaller populations of original natives than US and Canada. Plus that part of the US that had a typical new world raw material export economy crashed with the War of Northern Aggression but before that wasn’t all that different from “banana” republics in many aspects.
As for Italy, parts of it did pretty well during the 13th century until the black death episodes (and then later) relative to northern countries.
PS, I’m not above cultural chauvinism. It’s inculculated from birth and is hard to eradicate entirely, despite my attempts.
You’re right about Chile – but from my perspective (which is pragmatic) – doses of one man rule might be needed between doses of 500 men rule (oligarchy) and everyman rule..
Point two is also true. I don’t attribute US success to imperialism – not at all. Probably more a drain in the long term. But while US may have had a smaller indigenous population, it surely inherited the mantle of British imperialism and the institutions that went with it, and kept the dollar artificially high…
I am sure I have cultural chauvinism too..maybe a bit less, from having spent most of my life abroad studying other people’s culture. But it’s a distortion anyway – I read all about robins and roses growing up without ever having seen either, and while surrounded by tamarind and myenahs about which my books said nothing at all..
Here’s the irony. Americans have always vilified the Japanese Empire (T Roosevelt was an exception). They were latecomers to the colonial power grab and non-white…then there was was WW2 propaganda which carries to this day “rape of nanking” etc.
And yet…with the lone exception of North Korea, every former japanese colony has been a success story in every manner. I believe a big reason for this is that while the Japanese did exploit their colonies, they also invested huge sums in infrastructure and industry. Unlike the Euros, the Japanese developed their empire.
Jeff –
can you be more specific…
name the countries..
And I’d be cautious of logical fallacies in that..
post hoc ergo propter hoc etc
those colonies might have done well because of other factors making for success – factors which might have been what made them as attractive as colonies in the first place
Lila
There are two, Taiwan (Formosa) and Manchuria. Both were highly industrialized by the Japanese prior to WW2 (and during). Korea was too, but that was primarily in the northern part, which had ample hydropower and metal resources. The South was agricultural and poor so it’s emergence is post-colonial and largely unrelated.
I’ll have to think about that..
The British contributed infrastructure too but the motive was – so I read – mostly for extractive purposes.
I daresay British law and English were contributions – but there are those who’d find that cultural imperialism.
I prefer looking at the successes or lack thereof from a broader perspective than colonialism.. Broader meaning reaching further back into history, reaching into geographical, economic and technological factors and then looking at what else was happening in the world..
I recall Philip Curtin (eminent economic historian and author of books on East Indian trade) once writing that world systems theories sweep far too much under the rug..
A quick google search brought this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=gO0NAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=japanese+development+of+formosa&source=bl&ots=CBH3A0T-7l&sig=bPc0JqVJAVYEbBvDdbU5lu_jUcc&hl=en&ei=P-cZSvG4Ipi6tAOUjoHaCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1