South America

The Hispanic Tradition of Liberty

Neither Peron-style corporatism nor Christian socialism have enabled innovation and prosperity in Latin America.


Why are most Latin American countries still underdeveloped? The region suffers from a prevalent culture of corporatism and a general distrust of market forces which leaves "a limited number of dominant companies to bargain with state agencies and trade unions over public resources," write economist Edmund S. Phelps and law professor Juan Vicente Sola.

The system's few beneficiaries—politicians, union bosses, and the heads of protected business sectors—justify their privileges with nebulous, collectivist notions such as "social harmony" or "national unity." This stifles individual initiative, private sector innovation, and competition resulting in sluggish levels of job and wealth creation and minuscule amounts of consumer choice.

Phelps and Sola point to Argentine strongman Juan Domingo Peron, who ruled his country from 1946–1955 and 1973–1974, as the archetype of the anti-individualist South American autocrat. Peron nationalized industries, extended the state's reach over large swathes of the economy, and brutally curtailed individual freedom in the name of solidarity. His brand of politics was influential far beyond Argentina, as local despots with military backgrounds and a penchant for heavy-handed interventionism—Colombia's Gustavo Rojas Pinilla, Peru's Juan Velasco Alvarado, and Venezuela's Hugo Chávez—copied Peron's style and substance.

If Peronist-style corporatism was the only Latin American alternative to 21st century socialism, the region's future would be unequivocally dire. Massive migration from Latin America to the United States might introduce a collectivist mindset anathema to the American founders' philosophy of limited government. Fortunately, however, there is a parallel legacy of freedom, property rights, and individualism in the Spanish-speaking world, a cultural inheritance that George Mason law professor Leonard Liggio called the "Hispanic tradition of liberty." Though widely forgotten, it has produced spectacular results in the past.

Peron, for example, found more than enough wealth to redistribute because Argentina was one of the richest countries on the planet at the start of the 20th century. In 1913, Argentina "was richer than France or Germany, almost twice as prosperous as Spain, and its per capita GDP" almost equaled Canada's, according to Edward L. Glaeser, Rafael Di Tella, and Lucas Llach, writing in the Latin American Economic Review in 2018. The source of those unprecedented levels of wealth was Argentina's 1853 constitution, which made private property inviolable, outlawed expropriation, encouraged immigration, and allowed the free circulation of goods across provinces. It also ended slavery, protected press freedom, and established the right to freely worship.

The Argentines who sought to create a republic after the downfall of dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas found their inspiration in a treatise on the fundamentals of republican political organization, published in 1852 by Juan Bautista Alberdi, a classical liberal polymath. He observed that the men who had gained independence from Spain prized military glory above all else, disdaining commerce and luxury as they aspired to the Spartan ideal of an austere, secluded warrior caste unmoved by material desires. Such lofty principles did quite little to improve South America's primitive economic conditions.

Alberdi argued that Argentina and other fledgling South American nations needed "free immigration, commercial freedom, railroads, and unrestrained industry." The new republics could secure independence only if they allowed tradesmen to flourish, brought in settlers to work vast expanses of empty land, and created links between far-flung, isolated regions via railroads and waterways. Alberdi persuaded the Argentines that their constitution had to value practice over theory and address the country's immediate needs, not atemporal abstractions or the conditions of European nations with many centuries of previous development.

Subsequent large-scale migration to Argentina is a testament to the remarkable success of Alberdi's political and economic project, which made Argentina a global power—especially in terms of agricultural exports. According to economist Blanca Sánchez Alonso, Argentina received 3.8 million net immigrants between 1881 and 1930, ranking third behind the United States and Canada as the main migrant destination in the Americas. As journalist Marcelo Duclos writes, many Old World migrants chose New York or Buenos Aires as their final destination "exclusively based on a ship's time of departure."

At the end of this era, Peron and his supporters attacked the foundations of Alberdi's classical liberalism in order to impose their model of corporatist autocracy. As Alejandro Herrero, a professor at Argentina's Universidad Nacional de Lanús, writes, Peronist theoreticians denounced the 1853 constitution's "egotist individualism" which they claimed "harmed Argentina's Christian tradition." Although the constitution's second article stated that "the federal government will sustain the Roman Catholic cult," the Peronists decried its purported atheist element. Even worse, they argued, the constitution was imbued with the materialist economic doctrines of the Manchester school of thought, whose adherents defended free trade policies in 19th century Britain. So in 1949, when the Peronists drafted a new constitution, they restored the country's Christian legacy by "binding the individual to society," which meant increasing restrictions on economic and personal liberties.

It was not only in Argentina that classical liberal policies brought considerable economic success, only to be overturned by collectivists under a religious guise. In Colombia, too, mid–19th century governments eliminated the state's tobacco industry monopoly, abolished slavery, got rid of academic requirements to practice all professions except medicine, allowed full freedom of worship and expression by striking down defamation laws, and radically decentralized the collection of taxes. As historian David Bushnell wrote in his book The Making of Modern Colombia: A Nation in Spite of Itself, the country's constitutions of 1853, 1858, and 1863 increasingly sought "to diminish the government and other corporations' control over individuals' decisions and activities." As a result, "it seemed that the state itself was about to vanish," since it was broadly accepted that "the best government is that which governs least."

Colombia's 1863 constitution was especially radical since it left the central government only in charge of foreign affairs, national defense, and some amount of taxation (along with a few other duties). The president had weak powers and was elected for two-year terms. In turn, the nine states that comprised the United States of Colombia were sovereign, to the extent that they each gained the right to command an army and some issued their own stamps. This hyper-federalism proved counterproductive since several states raised commercial tariffs against one another and occasionally fought the central government. Some governments took anti-clericalism too far, expelling the Jesuits in 1850 and expropriating church lands and buildings shortly thereafter.

Nonetheless, the emphasis on international trade and the tobacco industry's liberation from state control produced the first export boom not related to precious metals, which had been extracted since colonial times. A thriving export market of cotton, quinoa, and coffee soon took hold. As economist Salomón Kalmanovitz writes, these new links to global markets led to much greater economic growth than in the previous decades. Between 1850 and 1870, Colombia increased its per capita exports by 247 percent, a growth rate that surpassed Uruguay, Cuba, and Argentina, the region's exporting powerhouses. This bonanza led to greater development of cities, which became new centers of commerce with improved fluvial transport.

Then, in 1880, Rafael Nuñezan up-and-comer within the Liberal Party and a critic of the 1863 constitution—won the presidency (and was elected to a second term in 1884). He raised tariffs on foreign goods and got a new constitution ratified in 1886, all part of his program of moral regeneration or an attempt to remake the country in the image of orthodox Catholicism.

The 1886 constitution's main author was future president Miguel Antonio Caro, purveyor of a brand of Christian socialism he described as the Hispanic antidote to the purportedly immoral, foreign influences of free trade and classical liberalism. By the early 20th century, Liberal Party ideologue Rafael Uribe Uribe espoused a protectionist creed which he called "state socialism." Since both liberals and conservatives had turned socialist, remarked journalist Juan Lozano y Lozano in 1950, all that was left was interventionism, the nationalization of industries, and the growth of bureaucracy. The recipe for the model of failure that Phelps and Sola outline was fully set in place.

In both Argentina and Colombia, the enemies of individualism and free trade appealed to Catholic and Hispanic traditions in order to undermine the principles of classical liberalism. Such an approach, however, relied on a false dilemma. In the modern era, some of the earliest arguments in favor of individual rights, limited government, and economic freedom arose in 16th and 17th century Spain, among the late scholastic clerics of the School of Salamanca, a group of Jesuit and Dominican scholars who turned to natural law in order to answer pressing questions that arose from the discovery of the New World and the rise of the Spanish Empire.

Spanish theologian Francisco de Vitoria, for one, argued that commerce, far from being a domain of greed and sin, brought enormous benefits to human welfare. Vitoria also maintained that rights were universal and thus applied not only to Spaniards, but also to the indigenous people of the Americas, an argument which Bartolomé de las Casas famously reiterated at the Council of Valladolid in 1550. Juan de Mariana refuted the notion of racial purity and rejected the persecution of converted Jews. He also denounced the Spanish monarchy's predilection for taxing its subjects without their consent and debasing the currency––a practice he equated with tyranny.

Mariana and Francisco Suárez even argued that, since there were clear limits to monarchical power and sovereignty depended on popular consent, regicide was justified if a king turned tyrannical. Among others, Martín de Azpilcueta understood the subjective nature of prices and the link between the money supply and inflation, an evil he attributed to governments bent on minting coins to pay for their foreign wars and general profligacy. Contemporary Latin American governments—especially those of Venezuela and Argentina—continue to ignore such lessons at a terrible cost to their citizens' well-being.

The inheritance of the School of Salamanca proves that, contrary to what Peron and other interventionists have claimed, the Hispanic tradition of liberty has its roots in Catholic thought. Today, Latin Americans need to rediscover that legacy—and that of later, secular thinkers such as Alberdi—to break free from the corporatist trap of poverty, devalued currencies, and chronic underdevelopment.

NEXT: The Courts Can't Decide How Many Ballot Drop Boxes Ohio Needs, and Now Everyone Else Is Confused Too

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Without disputing the underlying premise, I will state that it will become increasingly difficult to convince America’s Hispanic populations to rediscover classical liberalism when native born American populations seem increasingly partial toward socialist fantasies.

    If anything, those immigrants that fled socialism will have to be the ones to remind us.

    1. Like Cubans before them?

      1. Cuban immigrants are a good example.

        Makes $140 to $180 per day online work and i received $17984 in one month online acting from home. I am a daily student and work simply one to a pair of hours in my spare time. Everybody will do that job and online makes extra cash by simply You can check more.

        open this web……↓↓↓↓↓↓↓↓ ­­⇛­⇛­⇛­⇛­⇛­►Click here

      3. Wasn’t the Hispanic demographic in the USA the highest per capita to vote Libertarian in the last election? I seem to recall seeing articles accompanied by memes joking that “Hispanics are woke AF!”

        1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $28658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31647 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

          what I do…….Click here

    2. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make Abi me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…CMs after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…>>Visit Here

    3. “I will state that it will become increasingly difficult to convince America’s Hispanic populations”

      By this, I presume that you mean Hispanic populations in the United States.

      That’s not who this article is talking about.

    4. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions……Click here

    5. Google paid for all online work from home from $ 16,000 to $ 32,000 a month. The younger brother was out of work Abe for three months and a month ago her check was $ 32475, working at home for 4 hours a day, and earning could be even bigger….So I started…..Visit Here

    6. If anything, those immigrants that fled socialism will have to be the ones to remind us.

      Not really. The former inhabitants of East Germany overwhelmingly wanted to join the West for the economic benefits, yet they vote strongly for communists and fascists.

      People who were actively persecuted for political reasons in a socialist country despise socialism; people who simply “fled” for economic reasons frequently bring the totalitarian mindset that they were indoctrinated into with them.

  2. This demonization of commerce has always puzzled me. Commerce is just people trading with each other. The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, cobbler, furniture maker, you name it, they are just ordinary people using money instead of barter. Most countries seem to have no problem with this.

    Then the butcher hires an assistant. Not an apprentice, who is close to a slave in classical terms, but a wage laborer assistant, and suddenly the butcher is no longer a butcher: he’s an evil greedy businessman. Heaven forbid he runs his shop so well that he can expand it as the town expands.

    And if the poor sod happens to do so well that he can match the town’s growth into a real city, thousands of people needing meat, and he streamlines his operation, uses power tools, processes truckloads of meat every day, and the sins have multiplied so much that the pop condemns him as a corrupt capitalist.

    It’s enough to make you think that statists are afraid of modernization, of efficiency, of new ideas needing new workers, creating new businesses to sell new products to willing consumers. But surely that can’t be the case, can it?

    Rhetorical question, no need to answer. But I still don’t understand it.

    1. Somewhere along the line they’ve confused voluntary association and mutually beneficial and peaceful interactions with exploitation. Economic freedom is just freedom.

    2. In Latin America, I believe it has something to do with the influence of the Catholic Church.

      At its most basic level, commerce involves the acquisition of wealth and/or material things.

      The Catholic Church has often taught, especially to the poor of Latin America, that the desire for material things was sinful and that they should focus on the next life, not their current, short lived current life.

      1. Well now …. that is interesting. I know something of the sort has been one of the big differences between Protestants and Catholics, but never paid much attention.

        Yes, very interesting, and thank you.

        1. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me,NUt so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…

          ===========► Click here

      2. “The Catholic Church has often taught, especially to the poor of Latin America, that the desire for material things was sinful and that they should focus on the next life, not their current, short lived current life.”

        Vatican hardest hit.

        1. That is God’s wealth.

      3. Sound enough teachings. Because the idea were that people fall very next thing into excess as matter of course and then must try new priorities.

        It must be to hear that sound of condemning yon languishing man’s materialism that makes many hear billions of sales vanishing in fire.

        But remember: you can’t sell much to those dying or seeking interment even if the all the while the competition sells flowers.

      4. Um, and to focus on the next life, the Church also refused reincarnation, preferring to call it “resurrection” less terminally.

        The next life isn’t the one that has been abandoned whatsoever the facts.

    3. “Commerce is just people trading with each other.”

      Slavery was just commerce; people trading other people with each other. Commerce is always imbued with a moral dimension, whether that dimension is obvious or not; whether small or large.

    4. What if his ambitions take a turn to become political, become mayor, and he wants to tax people like his employees so the city can buy pretty things like statues that BLM would associate with??

    5. You’re leaving out the most important thing in Latin America government: corruption. As soon as you get big enough to notice you’ll be hit up for a bribe. So commerce always has a corrupt side down there, especially as your business expands.

      By its nature, anything other than a tiny business is involved in the corruption that depresses the entire region

      That’s why they see businesses negatively.

    6. This demonization of commerce has always puzzled me. Commerce is just people trading with each other.

      Yes, that’s all it is. When you wage war against commerce (or “capitalism”), you wage war against people. Leftism is anti-human.

  3. Am I wrong in thinking that this is the best article Reason has published in at least 4 yrs.?

    Certainly this one article puts the entirety of Dalmia and a majority portion of Boehm, Suderman, Brown, and Britschgi’s careers to shame.

    1. Well last month, Daniel, had a good article about Uruguay; if you missed it you should check it out. Seems like he is the new guy on the South/Central American beat and I agree a breath of fresh air around here.

    2. I have no interest in your second sentence but agree this is a great article. Never heard of most names so its a good way to learn something new

    3. “The region suffers from a prevalent culture of corporatism and a general distrust of market forces which leaves “a limited number of dominant companies to bargain with state agencies and trade unions over public resources,” write economist Edmund S. Phelps and law professor Juan Vicente Sola.”

      Luckily, once when they cross into the US, their culture is transmogrified into libertarianism by all our sweet Magic Dirt.

  4. Except for the whole “conquering the indigenous peoples” thing and the “bringing millions of slaves” bit.

    1. Are you really concerned that C./S. America is going to re-conquer its indigenous peoples and restart the slave trade?

      1. no, just pointing out one overlooked part of the so-called “tradition of liberty”

        1. By this measure, no society in all of human history could be said to have a “tradition of liberty.”

          1. The point of history according to George Santayana were to learn from it, not to put it on trial and give it the death penalty as if one is not to possess critical facultures nor critical culture i.e. liberty.

            Santayana, born in 1863 (per article era), considered himself as much a Spinozist. He also wrote a bildungsroman of a book.

  5. One such tradition is the political dynasties getting names after the family. Somocistas (replaced by Sandinistas and Daniel Ortega has been around for forty years now), Peronistas, Odristas, Fidelistas….

  6. I have always linked their tendency of authoritarian government to having had a Bolivar instead of a Washington. We really don’t realize how lucky we as a nation are to have had a first president that refused life time rule and started a hundred-year tradition of no more than 2 terms then peacefully passed the reins over to the next President. 8 years is probably the maximum number of years anyone can remain in power without becoming despotic. I shudder to think what might have happened to the US had FDR not been sickly and WWII not taken his attention off of his power grabs over the economy and the US in general.

    1. He wasn’t the first to seek a third term, though.

  7. Start making cash right n0w…. Get m0re t!me with your family by d0ing j0bs that 0nly require for y0u t0 have a computer and an internet access and y0u can have that at y0ur h0me. Start bringing up t0 $8668 a m0nth. I’ve started this j0b and I’ve never been happier and n0w I am sharing it with y0u, s0 y0u can try it t00. Y0u can check it 0ut here…

    ==========================➤Visit Here

  8. What’s this doing…

    Massive migration from Latin America to the United States might introduce a collectivist mindset anathema to the American founders’ philosophy of limited government.

    …in my Reason?

    1. Somebody bring the smelling salts; I think Dalmia fainted.

    2. The road to serfdom is paved with open borders.

    3. I was wondering how that slipped in there.

    4. Revealing the true nature of

  9. Juan Bautista Alberdi … his proverb was, “To govern is to populate.”

    He had to live in exile for fourteen years during a dictator’s reign but afterwards wrote the book that inspired the 1853 Argentine constitution. He was the most prominent among the Generation of ’37’ner intellectual debate hall.

  10. Very good info thank you for sharing.
    contoh cv lamaran kerja

  11. Every month start earning more cash from $20,000 to $24,000 by working very simple j0b 0nline from home. I have earned last month $23159 from this by just doing this 0nline w0rk for maximum 3 to 4 hrs a day using my laptop. This home j0b is just awesome and regular earning from this are much times better than other regular 9 to 5 desk j0b. Now every person on this earth can get this j0b and start making dollars 0nline just by follow instructions on the given website….Check my site.

  12. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started……….COPY HERE====Go For More Details

  13. No mention of the effect of bribery and official corruption on depressing morale, innovation, economic growth, and prosperity? Anyone who does well enough to be noticed is forced into paying bribes by corrupt officials.

    From the police to the judges, corruption is a way of life in Latin America since the end of colonialism. That’s why they don’t get into First World status.

  14. So libertarian leaning Hispanics adopted an open borders policy, the new immigrants vote in collectivist strongmen, and then their countries turn to shit.

    What lesson are we supposed to learn from this?

    1. His panic. That is all.

    2. “It was not *true* libertarianism.”

  15. Have any of these Latin American countries invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, participated in world wars or cold wars? They may be the most libertarian region of the planet.

    1. Some in World War 1. All in World War 2.

      1. Their participation was pretty marginal compared to the war mongering states of Europe, Asia and North America. In this century, their participation has been nil, compare again to Europe, Asia and North America.

  16. “Massive migration from Latin America to the United States might introduce a collectivist mindset anathema to the American founders’ philosophy of limited government.”

    Others flagged this sentence previously.

    How does one distinguish the immigrants who boost the economy and are grateful to their new country and its institutions…from the other kind of immigrants?

    I am not entirely sure of the answer, but getting the answer right is fairly important as far as having a good country is concerned.

  17. What they need is Drumpfian style corporatism. Or Republican style capitalism.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.