
GDP, then and now
In a fascinating NYT Economix post ominously titled
What Happened to Argentina?, Harvard economist Edward Glaeser examines the causes of the steady descent of Argentina's economy over the last century.
A century ago, there were only seven countries in the world that were more prosperous than Argentina (Belgium, Switzerland, Britain and four former English colonies including the United States), according to Angus Maddison’s historic incomes database. In 1909, per capita income in Argentina was 50 percent higher than in Italy, 180 percent higher than Japan, and almost five times higher than in neighboring Brazil. Over the course of the 20th century, Argentina’s relative standing in world incomes fell sharply. By 2000, Argentina’s income was less than half that of Italy or Japan.
But why? Here, he trots out the usual demons and villains.
Peronism was not only protectionist, but it also favored large state enterprises and significant regulation of the economy. Neither strategy has been particularly good for growth. Argentina’s inbred banking system has historically had trouble weathering severe shocks. Decades of political instability have made property rights insecure and investment unattractive.
But that's not all. Glaeser digs deeper. In comparing Buenos Aires to Chicago, he notes that, "Chicago was a seedbed of technological innovations, including the skyscraper, the zipper and the electric washing machine. Buenos Aires’s entrepreneurs, such as the industrious Torcuato DiTella, often succeeded by importing American technologies, as DiTella did with gas pumps and refrigerators." Instead of inventing things, they sold things other people invented. And why did that happen? Education. Or, rather, the lack thereof. "Throughout the 19th century," he writes, "Chicago was almost completely literate, because the rural migrants who came to the city had been well educated in the common schools that dotted America’s farmland. By contrast, more than a fifth of Buenos Aires’s population was illiterate until 1900, reflecting the far lower levels of education in rural Argentina." And thus, "In 2000, Argentina was doing about as well as would be expected based on its education levels in 1900." Here's a graph showing that:

The question then: Can this be rectified? And will the government here try?