Great piece. I wonder what the impact of non-renewable resource extraction was on this dynamic. Argentina was famously rich from silver exports, but I believe that dried up before the start of your analysis. Timber extraction from old growth forests could also be significant. The decline in the world market for wool was also significant. Australia pivoted from wool, gold and timber in the early days to coal/iron ore/etc over time but neither NZ or Argentina had the resources or proximity to buyers like China to make that work. Do you also think NZ and Argentina are both in the same figurative and literal boat in being so distant from potential export markets? The recent rise in shipping prices has to be hitting them harder than other competitors.
There was also some non-renewable resource extraction during the golden age of Argentina. The Quebracho tree was extensively exploited for its very hard wood, and specially for its high tannin content (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebracho_tree). Tannin was used for leather tanning, and Argentina, as a major leather producer, consumed a large portion of the tannin produced for its tanning industry.
"Do you also think NZ and Argentina are both in the same figurative and literal boat in being so distant from potential export markets?" => Yes. And this likely contributed to the less than stellar performance of Argentine industry.
Javiero, why do people think the Roca-Runciman treaty triggered Argentina’s decline?
I recall being told that New Zealand’s decline was due to the UK joining the EEC in 1973, which cut off NZ’s largest export market. But based on your data it looks like NZ’s decline pre-dated this event.
- The concessions by the treaty delayed or halted Argentina's industrial development by exposing Argentina's industry to unfair competition by British industry.
- The treaty ruined Argentina's meat packing industry. This one is patently false, as evidenced by the export figures from the 1930s.
- A fuzzier argument is: the treaty was humiliating to Argentina, reducing it to a colonial relationship with the UK. The decline of Argentina is a series of humiliating events, so somehow it must related to the treaty (?).
Great piece. I wonder what the impact of non-renewable resource extraction was on this dynamic. Argentina was famously rich from silver exports, but I believe that dried up before the start of your analysis. Timber extraction from old growth forests could also be significant. The decline in the world market for wool was also significant. Australia pivoted from wool, gold and timber in the early days to coal/iron ore/etc over time but neither NZ or Argentina had the resources or proximity to buyers like China to make that work. Do you also think NZ and Argentina are both in the same figurative and literal boat in being so distant from potential export markets? The recent rise in shipping prices has to be hitting them harder than other competitors.
There was also some non-renewable resource extraction during the golden age of Argentina. The Quebracho tree was extensively exploited for its very hard wood, and specially for its high tannin content (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebracho_tree). Tannin was used for leather tanning, and Argentina, as a major leather producer, consumed a large portion of the tannin produced for its tanning industry.
"Do you also think NZ and Argentina are both in the same figurative and literal boat in being so distant from potential export markets?" => Yes. And this likely contributed to the less than stellar performance of Argentine industry.
Javiero, why do people think the Roca-Runciman treaty triggered Argentina’s decline?
I recall being told that New Zealand’s decline was due to the UK joining the EEC in 1973, which cut off NZ’s largest export market. But based on your data it looks like NZ’s decline pre-dated this event.
The reasons I've seen cited are:
- The concessions by the treaty delayed or halted Argentina's industrial development by exposing Argentina's industry to unfair competition by British industry.
- The treaty ruined Argentina's meat packing industry. This one is patently false, as evidenced by the export figures from the 1930s.
- A fuzzier argument is: the treaty was humiliating to Argentina, reducing it to a colonial relationship with the UK. The decline of Argentina is a series of humiliating events, so somehow it must related to the treaty (?).