In the 1950s, many Latin American countries experienced pro-poor reforms implemented by populist parties, like the Justicialist Party in Argentine, the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement in Bolivia, and the Brazilian Labour Party.
So can I say that the 1950s is a "golden age" for Latin America in terms of welfare and development?
Yes. The 1950's were certainly the Golden Days for Latin America.
I agree. Beginning in the 50s and into the late 60s, several Latin American countries experienced robust growth rates, high rural to urban immigration, healthy demographic growth rates, although the modern-traditional gap increased.
In my view, the 50s of the last century are a golden age for Latin America?
Please see the research:
Gaitán G. Once ensayos sobre la violencia, Bogota, 1998
Bethell Leslie. Latin America: Economy and Society Since 1930. Cambridge
University Press, 1998, р. 178
Thorp, Rosemary. Progress, Poverty, and Exclusion: An Economic History of
Latin America in the 20th Century. N.Y., 1998,р. 182
That is an interesting question Yue.
I am inclined to agree with Maria Amparo and Nikola but.....
The 1950s were not the disaster that later economists in the 1980s said. Correct
But we cannot go back to the 1950s either, so maybe a golden era but not necessarily relevant today?
Please see Chapter 4 in the attached book which tries to evaluate the 1950s but also before and after
Best wishes for your research!
Ronaldo
I would understand the 1950s as some kind of "take-off" phase in state-building, economic development, education, etc., strengthened in the 1960s by on the one hand the Alliance for Progress, on the other by first attempts of import-substitution. In this view, the 50s appear as a golden age because they were, in many parts of the continent, the first moment of political engagement with pressing issues. For the moment, that was great. Seen from today, not so much. I am thinking about the forced industrialization and indigenismo that were big in the 50s and can be critizised quite harshly now.
Ronaldo, forced industrialization means the heavy support for industrializations by means of nationalist policies (for instance, in the production of cars). This was important (or could have been) for the economic and maybe social development, but not so much for the environment. And it led to an ignorance towards the countryside and rural development. Indigenismo refers to the attempt to turn indigenous peoples into peasants and rural proletariat via several state policies between 1940 and 1980.
OK but why would the ISI policy not do that at that time? You can't read back current concerns to that era when LA was entering a phase of accelerated national growth particularly in the Southern Cone
The auto industry there which was national owned at first (IKA) was key driver for industrialisation and also the extension of the internal market with the production of local consumption goods.
Indigenismo is something else, an ideology based on supposed indigenous values. The capitalisation of agriculture yes is an issue but also part and parcel of how capitalism develops
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Statistics
- Applied Statistics
- Survey Design
- Questionnaire