The roots of making America in Argentina

Last post presented evidence that upward mobility was quite widespread in late 19th-century Argentina. The question is why? What made it so easy for immigrants to make America? Leticia Abad (Middlebury) and Blanca Sánchez-Alonso (UCEU) give one plausible answer.

But first, Prof. Abad shoeing me her childhood home in Buenos Aires. When she was growing up, the neighborhood was downright slummy. Now it is merely somewhat run down. I give it another ten years before the first yoga studios open up and she learns the exquisite pain I feel visiting Prospect Heights or Windsor Terrace.

And now, the reasons why immigrants to Argentina made America so successfully. In 1895, native-born Argentines still earned more on average than Spanish and Italian immigrants. Italians, though, managed to outperform Spaniards despite being rather less literate (78% versus 88%) and mostly farmers (69% versus 41%) when they got off the boat. Not to mention the language barrier; it is easy for an Italian speaker to learn Spanish, and you can hold simple conversations across the line, but the two languages are not identical. I have held conversations with people across the Spanish-Italian barrier, the first time on a crowded train from Glasgow to London in 1990. I could nonetheless not possibly hold a professional conversation in Italian. 

Yet despite these disadvantages  somehow Italians sorted into higher-paying occupations. How?

The authors’ explanation is that the Italians established deeper and better networks. Basically, once Italians got a foothold in high paying occupations, it became more likely that later arrivals would follow in their footsteps and sort into those occupations. These networks raised both groups’ wages, but the Italians were better at it. (The below map shows the concentration of Italians in Buenos Aires neighborhoods in 1895.) 

So there you have it! The immigrants were able to make America so successfully because they stuck together and helped their countrymen, even after multiple generations in the New World. We don’t know if these ethnic networks were stronger or lasted longer in the Argentine Republic than they did in the United States, but it is certainly possible. Half a cheer for assimilation, then! Sometimes it’s a good thing if the melting pot doesn’t quite melt completely.

But there is another, slightly more depressing, explanation for the why the immigrants made America in the Río de la Plata. One that might also possibly explain some of Argentina’s (and indeed, the whole Cono Sur’s) relative failure. 

Comments

[Chris Manteuffel]

You can't just stop there! What is this other reason?

[Luciano]

A few factors worth expanding:

1. Not all Italian immigrants received the same conditions. Earlier ones (after 1880 and upto 1902) received very good land in the Pampa Húmeda, one of the most productive soil in the world. After a generation or two, the agricultural surpluses allowed these immigrants to expand into other businesses or provide higher education to their descendants.
2. A similar fate in a smaller control group can be observed on the Volga Russians (ethnic Germans?) Which settled in smaller numbers in Argentina's Mesopotamia.
3. Latter immigrants and a higher proportions of Spaniards settled in cities rather than farms.
4. On language and networks there was further division within Italian peoples: Genovese, Piedmontese, Southerners, etc., all settled in different areas. Southerners in particular (mostly Neapolitan) settled more in cities and probably had a lower progress rate than earlier farmers, unless they brought special skills.

[Randy McDonald]

What were the regional origins of immigrants from Italy in Argentina, anyway? I know that the earlier generations of French immigrants skewed strongly Pyrenean, Basque and Bearnese especially.

(I suppose the regional origins of Spanish immigrants might also be relevant.)

[Vincent Geloso]

I know this will make me look sycophantic, but I love reading your blog Noel! Honestly, I have been reading it religiously now that I discovered it! (I found it after I saw your Philippines paper at the SSHA).

Now that I said that, I will say that each time I think of Argentina, I think of Canada (I am biaised though as I am Canadian). The reason for this is that both countries were roughly as rich as each other for most of the 19th century (see notably Altman for incomes and my 2017 paper in Economics & Human Biology on heights being roughly the same in both countries). I am interested to get your take on why Canada took off and Argentina "flat-lined". I saw many papers on this, but few that I find super convincing.

[Randy McDonald]

I've pointed out in the past that the high-income economies of the Southern Hemisphere all have experienced some degree of relative decline after the Second World War. Argentina and Uruguay are most obvious, but outside of southern Brazil and South America generally Australia and New Zealand also saw a bit of a slide.

Could it be substantially a matter of geographical distance from markets, and perhaps also of institutional separation from post-war Western institutions?