How come Canada and the USA are highly developed countries, but Mexico is not?

Question

This is probably a stupid question but I really am wondering why it's like that? How come Canada and the USA are countries with a high quality of life, but Mexico doesn't. If Canada and the USA have made their countries to what they are now, how come Mexico didn't or hasn't? Is it because they are closer to the equator and it's too warm for people? Because I notice there are lot's of 3rd world countries near the equator. Is it just because Canada and the USA don't get along with the Mexican government? Because I have noticed that Canada and the USA sometimes disagree but they still are always allies, but Mexico is like the loner from the scene?

I'm 15 so I don't know much about this stuff, so sorry if it's a weird question lol!

Just to make it clear, I am basically asking why two countries on the same continent can become highly developed, but another country/reigion right next to those countries can't or hasnt.

Answer 1

Centuries of mis-rule resulted in deficient infrastructure, both physical (roads, highways, bridges, utilities, etc) and social (legal system, institutions, social programs, etc). Mexico has frequently suffered a coup, in which the government gets deposed and some illegal leader takes over. Until 1992, mexico was under a military dictatorship (although a relatively civilized and reasonable one). The people's inability to control the government and build a legal framework is the primary reason of Mexico's mediocre existence today. All other important for development factors, including education, infrastructure, investment, etc would have followed if they had their act together. However, Mexico is making some impressive progress and recently showed it's resilience and commitment to democracy in the face of the presidential election loser, Mr. Obrador, who attemted to destabilize the country to his own benefit. Under the new president, Mexico is in good hands.

Answer 2

The last answer makes good sense. I would add that Mexico's biggest handicap in the 20th century was not corruption or dictatorship -- other countries such as S Korea and Italy have done well despite having these for a large chunk of the century. It was economic nationalism, and therefore protectionism and cronyism (jobs for the boys). The lack of openness to foreign investment in particular (ie, mostly, US ownership of Mexican businesses). In the 1980s, "Communist" China had a freer economy than "free" market Mexico.

The problem I suggest has its roots much earlier in history. The Spanish conquest of Mexico was aggressive, very destructive of the indigenous civilisation, and came with plunder as a major goal. The Aztecs before them were cruel and wicked and deserved their fate, but this doesn't justify what the Conquistadors did. The inner motive of greed and grasping, destroying rather than building, promotes the kind of tumultuous polity that Mexico has suffered from since c1790. The US and Canada, by contrast, were built largely on hope, pioneering, desire from freedom, opportunity, and other relatively noble desires. For all America's problems there is an intrinsic virtue and generosity in the social fabric and a willingness to help one another.

As for the equator factor.... there is a theory that the Europeans were motivated to industrial development because life in their climate was hard, and the Africans and Asians were not because subsistence there is relatively easy. But I don't beleive it. North America is harsher and the Native Americans never developed an industrial revolution, nor did the northern Chinese. More credible, to me, is the theory that the agricultural revolution was only possible in N Europe because above 20 degrees C evaporation exceeds rainfall and an agricultural surplus could not be generated with mediaeval technology. (Native Americans did not have an arable-dominated economy.) The agricultural surplus generated by the agricultural revolution was a necessary precursor to the industrial revolution, many historians say.

Really I think it is just destiny. Britain had the good karma to start a cycle of world progress that was destined to happen soon after 1700AD, and industrial development spread from there first to nearby countries such as Germany and to colonies such as Massachusetts because of trade and cultural contact, and from there to other Western regions. Nowadays, everywhere except black Africa is making economic progress and in half a century's time the most major world economies will be the two most populous, India and China. By 2200 the whole world will be "developed". The present phase of vast differences between one place and another seems important because it lasts longer than a lifetime but in the great cycle of time it is a short (4 centuries) transition from a world in which almost everyone was poor (pre-1800) to one in which almost everyone is materially comfortable (post-2200).

Answer 3

Basically, America and Canada have enjoyed stability, and Mexico has not. I am a senior in Economics, and whatever anyone else says, it has nothing to do with "needing a free market system". They have that, BUT because there is such instability in the government, people and businesses haven't been able to invest in the future, because they don't know how much of a future they have. There is a semi-descriptive example in America...because of the tax-bracket system, there are actually cases where it would be LESS profitable to see your income increase, and so then why would you put in the extra work?

Furthermore, there is a great deal of "have and have-nots" syndrome. The rich in Mexico are very rich, and the poor are very poor and very numerous. Because of the poverty and the vast numbers, firms can pay low wages, and anyone who complains can be quickly replaced. There is not enough governmental scrutiny to prevent exploitation of workers.

Also, the lack of infrastructure as other people have said. Imagine Los Angeles WITHOUT the freeway system, and you have some idea what Mexico City is like. Some people drive 30 miles to work and it takes 2 hrs...so that costs on gas, time, etc.

As to the equator theory, India, Israel, Egypt, and I'm sure there are others have pretty good economies.

Answer 4

It's not a stupid question at all! In fact, doing noted political columnist Gwyn Dyer some time ago wrote a column on a very similar theme:

if one could go back in time to about 1910 or 1915, Argentina and Canada where at basically the same stage of political and economic development. Since then, Argentina has gone basically to hell, economically and politically speaking, while Canada has forged ahead. (The ultimate yardstick of the relative social and economic development of these two countries is the substantial movement of Argentinian immigrants to Canada -- and the "non-existent" immigration flow in the opposite direction.

Mexico would have been a little behind Canada in, say, 1915, but the analogy continues. Since then, Canada's governments have been basically honest and productive, while Mexico has politically stagnated under a long authoritarian government that squashed economic development. (Argentina, to continue our little analogy, head a long dark political nightmare underJuan Peron, and then frequent sessions of democratic governments inevitably overturned by despots or military rulers.

Another important element has been the development of an independent judiciary in Canada that is smart and honest. If you are a foreign investor, you can count on basically fair treatment in Canada.

Mexico has much potential, but it also has a great deal of negative political history to overcome. The dispute of the results of the last federal election there was a case in point: it may be that the current conservative president was elected fair and square, but there is a substantial portion of the population that does not believe this, and this is setting the stage for political mischief that, in the long term, will only worsen Mexico's economic and political health.

Speaking as a political lefty, I think that Venezuela is now on its way to becoming the next economic basket case in South America. Chavez might mean well, but he is certain to frighten off foreign capital and to create his country's political system. Venezuela is doomed!

Answer 5

WIki says, "According to the World Bank, Mexico ranks thirteenth in the world as regards GDP and has the fourth largest per-capita income in Latin America, ranking it among the highest in Latin America. Since the economic crisis of 1994–1995, the country has made an impressive economic recovery. According to the director for Colombia and Mexico of the World Bank, the population below the poverty level has decreased from 24.2% to 17.6% in the general population and from 42% to 27.9% in rural areas from 2000-2004 [2]."

I was looking at equator issues lastly. Interestingly, I was researching Southern Italy today, and it appears that they have three times the crime rate as the Northern Italians (Wiki); and are sometimes looked down upon by other Italians. Also, in Asia, it seems that economic development rises from the equator rising and getting better as you head north. Japan with higher development (N. Korea is exception).

Also, I'm finding a correlation between average height and where a person lives in relation to the equator. Those living close to the equator are shorter, and grow as they head north (have not study southern migration yet). In the America's, the Mayan are short, and the further north (Cherokee) taller ... Alaskan natives (Aleutians) being the tallest. The Southern Italians are shorter than the Norther Italians ... Northern Italians are shorter than the Swedish ... who are shorter than the Norweigians (Vikings). So to in Asia ... Vietnamese shorter than Chinese ... shorter than Japanese ... shorter than Russians. There have been studies that show that successful ppl are taller ... and this may be part of this repeating correlation that I'm exploring (no definite conclusion yet … just hypothesizing). Even average animal sizes and clan's formed change with relation in the equator (chimps, apes, horses, cats (lions, panthors), bears, polar bears. Just observations.

Answer 6

I think Canada takes the cake there. Just look at the talent the WWE has taken from Canada: Bret Hart, Owen Hart, Edge, Christian, Chris Jericho, Chris Benoit, The Hart Dynasty, Natalya, Jacques Rougeau, Lance Storm, Maryse, Trish Stratus, and many more. BQ: Talented team that I think is the future of the WWE. From how much impressive they've been so far, I expect to see them as Tag Team Champions in less than two months.

Answer 7

Several factors:
Neo-colonialism: The bigger countries basically keep other countries from participating in the world economy. The Monroe Doctrine is one example.

2) In the develop process, when it could have emerged onto the world economy, Mexico was in the throws of political turmoil, sort of self induced pain

Nice book to read is Guns,Steel and Germs, does a nice easy job of understanding why some nations are ahead and some behind.

Answer 8

You have obviously never been to Mexico City or Acapulco. Mexico is a very developed country. they have businesses, a stock market, industry. They evn make more American automobiles tha the U.S. does. Get this, they even have univeristies and many Mexicans are highly educated. There are many underdeveloped parts of the U.S. and Canada as wellThe temperature has nothing whatsoever to do with it. You really need to do some looking beyond the stereotypes.

Answer 9

Mexico has a govt that is totally selfish this is inplain english. they do not want others to get ahead and so therefore they try to come over here and make money which is worth more and send to their families and in the process some of them lose their lives and die and guess what does the govt really care no. That is a form of what communists are like they don't have a good govt and therefore their is no caring.

Answer 10

I might say that corruption of government leaders in Mexico has much to do with the country being as underveloped and poor as the United States.