News •
The social ramifications of the rise of export economies were vast. The acceleration of the export economies and related commerce fostered a tendency toward urbanization. The period was one of general population growth in much of Latin America, most spectacularly in the temperate, staple-producing zones of South America. Within the overall increase, the rise of cities was particularly noteworthy. More than simple size was involved; cities like Rio de Janeiro, Buenos Aires, and Mexico City became sophisticated, cosmopolitan urban centres. Urban reforms, many inspired by the sweeping transformation of the French capital under Napoleon III and his city planner, Georges-Eugène Haussmann, allowed cities to vie with each other for the title of “Paris of South America.” At the same time, incipient industrialization brought conflicts between urban workers and capitalists. Workers had for decades been organizing themselves into mutual aid societies and other nonideological associations. At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, new groups began to emerge. At times with the special participation of recent European immigrants, workers established trade unions, pressing their interests with strikes and other activities. In this early phase, ideologies of anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism had particular influence in many areas. By the early 20th century, moreover, the growth of government and service sectors had created urban middle classes that were ready to enter politics.
In the countryside, social relations underwent greater change over a short period than at any time since the conquest. Increasing ties to the capitalist world economy did not always lead to wage labour but rather fed the diversification of work relations. In fact, one tendency of the period was the strengthening—or even extension—of certain nonwage forms of labour. In parts of Peru, Mexico, Central America, and other areas, debt peonage was often used in export agriculture. In this system, employers or labour agents advanced a sum to workers, who would then have to labour on a ranch or plantation to pay off their debt. Because of manipulations by the owners, the workers often found that their indebtedness only grew the longer they toiled, so that debt peonage became a form of de facto slavery. The nature of this system is controversial, however, as it was possible that the debt simply represented an advance payment as an incentive, which the worker was seldom forced to repay if he left the job. So-called vagrancy laws, by which authorities could force unattached gauchos or peasants to work on large rural estates, were also enacted in countries such as Argentina and Guatemala. In the Central Valley of Chile, existing tenancy arrangements suffered modifications that cut back the rights and privileges of poor rural workers. Brazil and Argentina, on the other hand, experienced the emergence of unique systems of farming by European immigrants, which brought modern wage systems to important areas of their economies. Indeed, in those countries, immigration of Italians, Spaniards, and other Europeans transformed the ethnic composition and habits of whole regions. Argentina alone received almost 2.5 million people in this period.
Throughout Latin America the position of rural workers came under attack from the large plantations, ranches, and estates that were expanding to take advantage of potential profits from the export economies. In south-central Brazil coffee plantations spread westward, pushing back small foodstuff production; in Argentina the ranching frontier pressed southward, displacing indigenous groups. Peasants and indigenous communities had resisted encroachment by neighbouring estates throughout the early national period and continued to do so into the 20th century. Nevertheless, the balance of power was shifting in favour of the large landowners. Early liberal moves to break up communal landholding paled beside the more energetic initiatives of the later 19th century. Although indigenous communities survived in the Andes, Mexico, and Central America, they commonly lost land, access to water and other resources, and some of the limited autonomy they had enjoyed.
The Roman Catholic Church also was the target of ever more aggressive liberal attacks after mid-century. In much of Latin America the church had been the preeminent source of capital and a major property owner. As in the case of indigenous communities, the justification for those assaults was based in liberal ideology; politicians argued that property had to be placed into the hands of individuals because they would be more likely to develop it efficiently and thus contribute to economic progress. In Mexico, governments began large-scale appropriations of church holdings. This inspired the Cristero Rebellion (1926–29), in which communities rose up in violent defense of the church without the support of the bishops.
Oligarchies in power
Along with the export economies came political transitions. The increased revenues that burgeoning commerce provided allowed elites to consolidate more orderly political systems in some countries. Political unrest continued, however, in others; Colombia, for instance, experienced a series of civil wars toward the end of the 19th century.
Across the region, groups tied to the export economies came to dominate politics in this era. In 1871 Guatemalan liberals linked to the rising coffee sector ousted the conservative regime that had controlled the country since 1838. The years 1876–1911 in Mexico, meanwhile, marked the iron-fisted rule of Porfirio Díaz, who began his career as a liberal fighting under a banner of election for one term only and ended up as a dictator who customarily manipulated his country’s political structures to ensure that he and his allies would remain in power. That regime, known as the Porfiriato, was a particularly clear example of the late 19th-century regimes’ ties to the new economic order. The Díaz government, like other progressive dictatorships in Latin America, worked to promote railroad construction, to force reluctant peasants and indigenous groups to work on rural estates, to repress popular organizing, and in other ways to benefit the dominant elites. Through such initiatives the governments of the day diverged from pure liberal tenets according to which the market alone determines the shape and nature of economic change. In many countries ruling groups began to adopt the ideas of positivism, an ideology stressing a scientific analysis of human history and efforts to accelerate progress. In Brazil the decentralized old republic, dominated by rural elites, replaced constitutional monarchy in 1889 and took as its motto the positivist slogan “Ordem e progresso” (“Order and progress”). That phrase summed up what the ruling groups in Brazil and across Latin America sought in the mature age of export-oriented transformation—the maintenance of the hierarchies that they dominated and the achievement of prosperity and a “civilization” that represented an approximation of North Atlantic models. Thus both oligarchic republics and liberal dictatorships evolved as part of the new order of the 1870–1910 period.
Roger A. Kittleson David BushnellNew order emerging, 1910–45
The advances in economic growth and political stabilization that were evident in most of Latin America by the early 20th century came up against an array of challenges as the century wore on. The forward momentum was not necessarily lost—although Mexico experienced negative economic growth along with great political turmoil during the first decade of the Mexican Revolution beginning in 1910—but some partial changes of direction occurred, and new problems kept emerging. The challenges were of both internal and external origin, ranging from steady population increase for the region as a whole to the consequences of Latin America’s ever-closer incorporation into the world economy. The external factors are generally easier to identify, if only because of the suddenness of their impact.
Economic and social developments
World war and world trade
Few Latin Americans felt strong emotional identification with either of the contending alliances in World War I (1914–18), except for the immigrant communities in southern South America and the ranks of generally Francophile liberal intellectuals. Of the major countries, only Brazil followed the example of the United States in declaring war on Germany, while Mexico and Argentina, which respectively saw the United States as a bullying neighbour and a hemispheric rival, vied for a leadership role in behalf of Latin American neutrality. Yet all countries were affected by the wartime disruption of trade and capital flows, particularly those that had in recent years most successfully penetrated European markets with their own exports and become important consumers of European goods and financial services. Argentina was an obvious example. The outbreak of war brought a sharp decline in its trade as the Allied powers diverted shipping elsewhere and Germany became inaccessible. Although exports soon recovered, mainly in the form of meat to feed Allied troops, imported manufactures were scarce because overseas factories were devoted to war production, and scarcity drove up prices.
Wartime disruptions were only temporary, and they gave way to a frenzied boom in the immediate postwar period as Latin American exporters cashed in on pent-up demand in the former warring powers. An extreme case was the “dance of the millions” in Cuba, where the price of sugar reached a peak of 23 cents per pound in 1920, only to fall back to 3.5 cents within the space of a few months, as European production of beet sugar returned to normal. Similar postwar booms and busts occurred elsewhere, even if less sharply, and demonstrated some of the hazards of Latin America’s increasing dependence on the world economy. Those hazards were underscored again by the costly program Brazil felt compelled to undertake to support the price of coffee, buying up surplus production and keeping it off the market. First tried in 1906 and briefly repeated during the war, this “valorization” policy was reinstated during the 1920s in the face of persistent weakness of the world coffee price. Yet one reason for the latter was the expansion of cultivation in other Latin American countries, above all Colombia, which by the end of World War I had emerged as the second leading producer—encouraged by, among other things, the Brazilian price support efforts.
Conditions in the world market were in the last analysis unfavourable for Latin America’s terms of trade, since demand for most of the primary commodities that the region specialized in was not keeping pace with the growth of production. Nevertheless, the decade of the 1920s was generally a period of economic growth and renewed optimism. All countries continued to pursue an outward-directed growth strategy insofar as they pursued a conscious strategy at all, placing few impediments in the way of import-export trade. Foreign investment also resumed on a massive scale and now came chiefly from the United States, whose stake rose to $5.4 billion in 1929 as against $1.6 billion in 1914. New capital flowed both into productive activities, like the Venezuelan petroleum industry (controlled by U.S., British, and Dutch interests and by the late 1920s the world’s leading exporter though not producer), and into loans made by Wall Street bankers to Latin American governments.
The emerging force of nationalism
The growing importance of foreign capital inevitably provoked a nationalist backlash, which reinforced the cultural nationalism already strong among groups of intellectuals and the anti-imperialist sentiment provoked by U.S. intervention around the Caribbean and in Mexico. Cultural nationalism was associated above all with conservatives who cherished the Iberian heritage as a shield against corrupting Anglo-Saxon influences, while the leading anti-imperialist spokesmen tended to be leftist. Incipient left-wing parties and labour unions were also in the forefront of economic nationalism, because, among other reasons, foreign-owned firms provided a more popular target than local enterprises. British nitrate investors in Chile thus faced serious labour unrest, as did the Boston-based United Fruit Company, hit by a violent strike in late 1928 in the Colombian banana zone. Petroleum investors in Mexico faced serious labour unrest in addition to a simmering conflict with the government itself over the control of subsoil resources, which the new constitution of 1917 had declared exclusive property of the nation.
A further escalation of economic nationalism came with the world economic depression of 1929 and after, though more as a defensive reaction than as a conscious policy. For Latin America, the depression put an abrupt end to the inflow of foreign capital and at the same time brought a drastic decline in the price of the region’s exports, which in turn reduced the capacity to import and the governments’ revenues from customs duties. At one point, a pound of Cuban sugar was selling for less than the U.S. tariff on the sugar. In response to the crisis, Latin American countries raised their own tariffs and imposed other restrictions on foreign trade. Even if the immediate purpose was conservation of scarce foreign exchange rather than the theoretical goal of increasing economic independence, the result was a decided impetus to domestic manufacturing, whose beneficiaries later appealed to nationalist sentiments to preserve the gains made. In Colombia, textile production increased during the 1930s at a faster rate than in England during the Industrial Revolution, despite the fact that the government continued to see protection of the coffee industry as its primary economic mission. But manufacturing made important gains in almost all the larger Latin American nations, which already before the depression had begun the development of an industrial base. It remains to be said, however, that, except for Mexico with its well-established iron and steel industry, manufacturing still consisted almost wholly of consumer goods production.
On another front, to save available jobs for native inhabitants, numerous countries adopted measures during the depression that required a given percentage of a company’s employees to be citizens. In Brazil, for similar reasons, tight restrictions were imposed on the flow of immigrants. Even without restrictions, however, and despite the fact that some countries recovered quickly from the effects of the depression, Latin America in the 1930s was simply not as attractive to immigrants as before.
Population and social change
In some countries the life of most inhabitants seemed little changed in 1945, at the end of World War II, from what it had been in 1910. This was the case in Paraguay, still overwhelmingly rural and isolated, and Honduras, except for its coastal banana enclave. Even in Brazil, the sertão, or semiarid backcountry, was barely affected by changes in the coastal cities or in the fast-growing industrial complex of São Paulo. But in Latin America as a whole more people were becoming linked to the national and world economies, introduced to rudimentary public education, and exposed to emerging mass media.
Even in Argentina, Brazil, and Cuba, where the number of immigrants had been significant up to the depression—in Cuba’s case, from the neighbouring West Indies and, above all, from Spain—population growth was mainly from natural increase. It was still not explosive, for, while birth rates in most countries remained high, death rates had not yet been sharply reduced by advances in public health. But it was steady, the total Latin American population rising from roughly 60 million in 1900 to 155 million at mid-century. The urban proportion had reached about 40 percent, though with great differences among countries. The Argentine population was approximately half urban by the eve of World War I, fewer hands being required to produce the nation’s wealth in the countryside than to process it in the cities and provide other essential urban services. In the Andean countries and Central America, however, urban dwellers were a decided minority even at the end of World War II. Moreover, the usual pattern was that of a single primate city vastly overshadowing lesser urban centres. In Uruguay in the early 1940s, Montevideo alone had 800,000 inhabitants, or over one-third of the nation’s total, while its closest rival contained about 50,000. Yet even that was as many as lived in Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras.
Latin America’s population is less easy to classify in terms of social composition. Rural workers still made up the largest single group, but those loosely referred to as “peasants” could be anything from minifundistas, or independent owners of small private parcels, to seasonal hired hands of large plantations; with different degrees of autonomy and different linkages to national and world markets, they were far from a cohesive social sector. What such rural workers most clearly had in common was grossly inadequate access to health and education services and a low material standard of living. A socioeconomic and cultural gulf separated them from traditional large landowners as well as from the owners or managers of commercial agribusinesses.
In the cities an industrial working class was more and more in evidence, at least in the larger countries, where the size of the internal market made industrialization feasible even with low average purchasing power. However, factory workers did not necessarily form the most important urban sector, to some extent because the growth of cities had been more rapid than that of the manufacturing industry. São Paulo in Brazil and Monterrey in Mexico won fame chiefly as centres of industry, but more typical was the case of Montevideo, a commercial and administrative centre first and foremost that attracted the lion’s share of the country’s industry because of its preexisting leadership in population and services rather than the other way around. Moreover, port, transportation, and service workers—or miners, as in the Chilean nitrate fields—rather than factory workers usually led the way in union organization and strike actions. One reason was the high proportion of women workers in early factories, who, though even more exploited than male workers, were perceived by radical activists as less-promising recruits than stevedores or locomotive firemen.
In urban settings the most important social development in the short run was the steady expansion of middling white-collar and professional groups. The extent to which these can be termed a “middle class” is open to question, for, while “middle” by the economic indicators of property and income, they were often ambivalent about their place in society—uncertain whether to embrace the work and savings ethic conventionally associated with the middle class of the Western world (or, later, of East Asia) or to try to emulate traditional elites. The middle sectors were, in any case, the chief beneficiaries of the expansion of educational facilities, which they strongly supported and used as means of upward mobility. Urban workers, for their part, had access to primary education but rarely secondary; at least they were now mainly literate, whereas most rural Latin Americans still were not.
Lack of formal education had long reinforced the relative isolation of the peasantry from political currents at their nations’ centres, not to mention from new fads and notions from abroad. Yet, starting in the 1920s, the rapid spread of the new medium of radio throughout Latin America exposed even illiterate people to an emerging mass culture. Additions to transportation infrastructure also contributed to greater integration of isolated population clusters. The most essential rail lines had already taken shape by 1910, but the coming of automotive transport led to a major upgrading and extension of highways, and the airplane introduced an entirely new mode of transportation. One of the oldest airlines in the world is Colombia’s Avianca, whose founding (under a different name) in 1919 was of particular importance for a country where railroad and highway building had lagged because of difficult topography. Air travel similarly played a key role in knitting together far-flung sections of Brazil previously connected by coastal steamer. Transport improvements of all kinds favoured the creation not only of national markets but of shared national cultures, in the latter respect reinforcing the effects of popular education and radio.
