Hi! As a Mexican who will soon begin his doctoral studies at GMU I was pretty excited about this course. I will like to point only that , although widely used by economists, most historians find Maddison data far too blunt; Coatsworth has better estimates for the growing gap in National Income between the US and Mexico - among other states - in the 19th Century. Also I would like to point, that recent studies have put in consideration that Mexico’s economic growth rate fared relatively well if compared against other countries. So to compare Mexico and the US is somewhat unfair and misleading, as it is not about what Mexico did wrong, but mainly what the US did right. The US case is an exception, one that must be studied in its own merits. Just to end, I subscribe the "weak financial system" hypothesis as the most important factor in Mexico’s slow development. For any who reads Spanish and it is interested in Mexico’s economic history, I think you will find this small article - written by me- interesting. http://www.dineroenimagen.com/2012-11-27/11695 Thx and keep the good work!
Comments
Hi Fernando, Thanks for the interesting comment. I agree that a weak financial system was one of the most important reasons that Mexico had trouble in the 19th century. I will take a look at your article. I also think that the US should be studied in its own right in terms of what it did well. I got my Ph.D. from GMU and my dissertation was on the subject of whether Latin America really did perform poorly after independence or whether the US was just exceptional (made everyone else look bad). I basically concluded that a lot of it was US exceptionalism, but that there were ways in which Latin American countries fell behind. When you say that the Maddison data is too blunt, can I ask what you mean? I like Coatsworth's work very much and there is a strong field of Mexican historians, so I'm curious to know their opinion on this topic.
Add new comment