Talk:Economic history of Argentina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleEconomic history of Argentina has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
June 22, 2012Good article nomineeListed

This article needs a massive overhaul[edit]

3 years after Delief called for reorganization and this topic has yet to be addressed. The entire article needs a major overhaul, a decreased reliance on POV statistics published in the CIA Factbook, and a serious increase in citations. There are a number of quotations directly from either books or politicians that are completely un-cited. This article requires serious work. If no one addresses it within the next few weeks I will take the duty upon myself. Bellfazar (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Further, I have found that most of the section entitled "Debt restructuring and the role of the IMF" is lifted directly from without citation which is inconsistent with both Wikipedia policy and the Creative Commons license that uses. Bellfazar (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

why isn't the unemployment rate updated?[edit]

It's lower now as is the poverty index —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Upgrade in Economy table[edit]

Poverty line is now 25%. Could someone look up the new numbers and update the table?

I'm adding a 'needs attention' template message to this article. It needs major topical reorganization. It borrows heavily from the CIA World Factbook. A seperate 'History' section might be useful. Delief 19:10, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

It is incredibable that wikipedia doesn't cover the recent developments in the economic sector in argentina, since the CIA is not a really credible source in this game it needs serious attention by some local activist groups who are part of the changes going on. (a reader)

I hope this is better now. I've done what I could; the CIA might be credible with respect to numbers but it's not neutral regarding other things.
I'm going to replace billions by thousands of millions throughout the article, in order to avoid the ambiguity of the word, and to make it internationally neutral (1 billion = 1012 for everyone but Americans and now also British). (I would sincerely prefer to talk of gigadollars if the word was in wide use.) --Pablo D. Flores 19:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PS: Could the author of the economy table template (Template:Economy of Argentina table) check the numbers and denominations? There's data in the BCRA. I think they're more or less fine, but the public debt is stated as more than 500,000 million dollars (that's what $ stands for), and that's not the case. It seems $ was meant to mean pesos. --Pablo D. Flores 19:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poverty is now 23%; why hasn't this been updated for so long?

Reorganization and expansion[edit]

I've touched a few things here and there, reorganized the sections, and moved a couple to separate articles. Things to be mentioned or expanded in this article or its children, off the top of my head:

  • Outsourcing (call centers are popping out everywhere, nascent software industry maybe trying to emulate India?).
  • Analysis of the recent inflationary trend.
  • Imports (not specified anywhere; the INDEC groups them in very broad categories).
  • Main industrial complexes (soy, oil, autos, etc.).

--Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Current policies[edit]

Current policies are a touchy issue. I've just removed this...

Mr. Kirchner administration policies gear to more state control on the economy. On March 2006 he nationalized previously privatized water and sewage services. Continuous monetary expansion is reigniting inflationary expectations.

... since I believe it's more an editorial piece than a fact. Kirchner did not nationalize anything: the government withdrew concessions from private companies. "State control" is a very broad term and suggests massive interventionism. Monetary expansion does not imply inflation, and it's only some people who claim that expanding the economy produces inflation. The monetary base has in fact decreased lately, as you can easily check, so in fact what's really meant by those analysts (you know who) is that paying higher (decent) salaries to low- and middle-class workers who lost purchasing power during the devaluation is bad, while e. g. lowering exports taxes is good...

... None of which should go into the article. In short, I suggest that we stick to dry figures and indisputable facts (for example, "the government has withdrawn the concessions of X and Y, and the state has re-gained control of Z and W services, though there are plans to re-privatize Z"). Plus all the sources (references to press articles) that are needed. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

9.6 % inflation is not an indisputable fact. There's been controversy about those figures. I travel there often (three or four times a year) and I can tell you right now people are laughing at the alleged 9%. Andres, Nov. 2007. (NSU) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only were the citizens disbelieving the 9% inflation rate; so were the economists. A recent article published by The Economist explained that Argentina recently set up a variable "method" to calculate inflation, whereby if an article in the price index suddenly rose "sharply" in price, it was removed from it, allegedly because "it ceased to be representative of what people buy". According to the same article, the economist calculate inflation to be over 30%. The article is found here. --the Dúnadan 15:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and as a side note, monetary expansion, does produce inflation (Eco 101: increasing the supply of money; leaving demand and supply of goods and services unchanged, produces an increase in price). --the Dúnadan 15:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Upgrade in Economy table[edit]

I done an updated to the economic table, i used this one because its widely used in other economy pages and i though it would be good to keep and standard through out the economic country section —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ckill (talkcontribs) 23:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Purchasing power[edit]

Here can be viewed a ticket to a recent major motion picture, apparently purchased in Argentina for $8.00 ARS (a little over 2.50 USD for activities/services that normally go for around 8-11 USD). knoodelhed (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"One of the richest countries in the world in the early 20th century"[edit]

Maddison, Angus. The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective--cited at does not say that. Any reliable source to confirm this assertion? Codik (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

"Illegal" inmigrants?[edit]

I saw in the history page of "Talk:Economy of Argentina", that the aforementioned discussion page has been moved here, so I think I should discuss here about the article "Economy of Argentina". If that's not the case, tell me so and I will delete my section and post it at the discussion page of that article. In the section "income equality" of the article, it says textually that "The social gap is worst in the suburbs of the capital, where beneficiaries of the economic rebound live in gated communities, and many of the poor (particularly illegal immigrants) live in slums called villas miserias.". If I'm not mistaken, there is no such a thing as "illegal" inmigrants in Argentina, only undocumented inmigrants, since the Constitution states as its purpose to secure the blessings of liberty to "all men of the world who wish to dwell on Argentine soil". In fact you can verify that in the Wikipedia article about Illegal Inmigratrion ( I don't know who added the illegal inmigrants phrase arround parentheses, since the citation link that is used to verify that paragraph doesn't even mention the word. The statement in parentheses about "illegal inmigrants" should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing topics[edit]

This article is in a good shape, but there are many topics that are either just suggested or directly ommited. I will list some of them.

  • Being a colony, Buenos Aires could legally trade only with Spain. Spain was not so interested in Buenos Aires, as described. The consequence is not mentioned: Buenos Aires relied in a network of smuggling in order to obtain the supplies Spain did not provide. This smuggling was tolerated by the local authorities (as it was the only means of the city to survive), and influenced the political disputes previous to the war of independence.
  • Slavery never played a significant role in Buenos Aires, because of the commercial restrictions mentioned, but should be mentioned nonetheless, even if just to clarify it. Slavery was a huge force influencing the economies of other countries at that age (such as Brazil or the United States), and some readers may consider it a missing topic.
  • Things changed when Buenos Aires was appointed capital city of the viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, no longer neglected by the Spanish commerce. And then returned back to the previous state after the battle of Trafalgar in Europe, when Britain achieved naval supremacy.
  • The civil war had an economic cause. Buenos Aires, as head of the viceroyalty, had the direct control of the national customs at the only authorized port. This harmed the local economies, but it was accepted that way because of the Spanish monarchic authority. But with the Spanish authority gone, the other cities wanted higher autonomy, and Buenos Aires wanted to keep that specfic state of things of the colonial times. There are wars caused by this.
  • There's no mention to the Baring Brothers loan to Rivadavia, the begin of Argentina's external debt.
  • There's no mention to the highest criticism of the British railway lines: a web centered in Buenos Aires, linking the city with only the areas of interest to the British (no links to umproductive areas, nor between local areas).
  • The economic projects of the PAN are not mentioned.
  • There's not even a link to the Infamous Decade, nor to the Roca–Runciman Treaty. There's no mention to the disputes about the oil, nor to the big movements of people from the countryside to the cities.
  • To say that Perón was "one of the leaders of the coup" of 1943 can be misleading. If we talk about the coup as a historical period, yes, he was a leader. But if we talk about the June 4 1943 coup, he was not. He was involved, but not as a leader, his leadership grew later.
  • The economic actions of Perón go far beyond just the expansion of unions and industrialization. He ended the national debt, nationalized the railways, the Central Bank, the international commerce, created a merchant navy, etc; all of which was under British control. On july 9, 1949, he declared the economic independence of Argentina.
  • There were political controversies during the presidency of Arturo Frondizi regarding the oil. See es:La batalla del petróleo (no article on this wiki yet)
  • The contemporary section does not even mention Roberto Lavagna, who established the economic plan that ended the economic crisis, first under the presidency of Eduardo Duhalde and then under Kirchner. There's no mention to the controversy about the country's real inflation, as the INDEC was intervened by the government and displays false numbers to make it seem lower than it is (which is acknowledged that way by people from the UN to even Kirchner's allies as Hugo Moyano). The recent controversy about the huge cut of subsidies should be mentioned as well. Cambalachero (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
A pair of minor details in the article. First, we should not place direct links to wikipedia in Spanish. If there's no article on a given topic, it's better to write a stub, link it, and include the interwikis and translation required tags on it. Second, the images should not "sandwich" the text, nor be placed immediately toguether.
I think this is already a good article (meaning that it has quality), but I want to work myself with it a little before nominating it. Cambalachero (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The sandwiching effect is indeed unfortunate, WP:IMAGE suggests staggering the images left and right, but some sections (such as "Export-led boom") are not long enough to do that, and I'm loath to remove any of them without replacement because I think they're a fine addiction to the article.--Frère Jacques (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction[edit]

From the colonial economy section: "nor established native civilizations to subject to the encomienda" ... "feudalist society, based on work relations such as the encomienda". As the first one is unsourced, I would suggest its removal. This one too: "Milcíades Peña consider this historical period as pre-capitalist, as the production was destined to overseas markets" ... "agriculture and livestock had little to do with foreign trade, as the output was principally consumed by the producers themselves and by the small local market". Presumably in the former case it refers to either a later period, or a different kind of (non-agricultural) exports. For the sake of clarity, it should be specified.--Frère Jacques (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion about the economic system is about the Spanish America in general, not about a region in particular, but I thinks it adds valuable information (after all, this article is about the "economic" history, not plain or general history, so the more economic things we can add to it, the better). The difference of foreign trade or closed economies can be noted more clearly comparing coastal cities, like Buenos Aires and Montevideo, and cities inside the country. Coastal cities traded with the European powers (either legally or by contraband), while the others made things for themselves, contact between cities was slow. Cambalachero (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


When a certain book is used more than once, just at different pages, it's not needed to include the full cite book template as reference in each case. It is better to list the book in a "Bibliography" section, and then each reference should be the surname of the author and the page, as in "Ferrer, p. 22". In the long run, the reference section becomes more ordered and legible. Cambalachero (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Economic history of Argentina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 14:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

This article has been sitting around for a long time at WP:GAN (in round figures, five months), and its also quite a long article, so for these two reasons I decided to review it.

I think that this article could make GA-status this time time. On the plus side, it appears to be comprehensive (its long); it's well illustrated and well referenced. On the minus side, I don't believe that the WP:Lead is compliant (in addition, its not easy to read); and I don't like the Colonial economy section, most of that was stating what Argentina was not. I would have expected an encyclopaedia, and that is what wikipedia is, to state what a "thing" is, not what a "thing" is not. On that basis, not not going to "quick fail" this article: I will review it.

I'm now start a full review of this article, section by section. I normally leave the WP:Lead until last and I will do the same here. However, in this review I'm going to start at the Post-independence transition section, work my way to the end, then do Colonial economy and then the Lead.

As this is a long article, this part of the review is likely to take me several days.

I'm quite happy for the nominator and/or other editors to post comments, questions, etc. If they relate to a particular section of the review, I'm happy for them to immediately follow my comments. Pyrotec (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Post-independence transition -
    • 1810–1829 -
  • ☑Y Pyrotec (talk) - Time is rather "difficultly" addressed, if at all. The subsection title is "1810–1829", but the first paragraph has no dates; the second paragraph starts "During this period, ..", but there are discussions covering 1810-1850 and 1850-1870, and the third paragraph goes back to start at "between 1812 and 1816".
  • ☑Y Pyrotec (talk) - I think that "time" needs to be added to the first paragraph. This could be done with minimal effort in the first sentence of the first paragraph by, adding for example, "With independence, in 1818, an era in which commerce was controlled by a small group of peninsular merchants came to an end.". The same could be done for "The first government" and the first and second Triumvirates.
I have added a few dates to this section. There is a bit of overlap between the rule of Artigas and the Supreme Director so it's hard to tell when one began and the other ended without access to the source.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • ☑Y Pyrotec (talk) - Sorry to come back to this again. The second paragraph states off: "During this period", but it is unclear as to what that means. The subsection title is "1810–1829", but most of this paragraph is covering six decades of growth (in cattle exports) from 1810 to 1870, but it ends on Terms of Trade from 1810 and 1825.
The period under analysis in that paragraph is "between independence and the golden age", so it covers the wider 1810-70 period. I moved it out of the subsection accordingly.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • ☑Y Pyrotec (talk) - In the third paragraph Battle of Cepeda needs a date.
Done.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Placemarker - provinces to be added later, or removed).
  • ☑Y Pyrotec (talk) - I think the fifth paragraph should say "lack of an Argentine merchant fleet ....".
Done.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the unsourced claims, and removed the 'says who' tag as the word 'notorious' appears in the original source.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
    • 1829–1870 -

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Looks OK.
  • Export-led boom -

....stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Looks OK.
    • 1870–1890, Baring crisis to World War I -
  • Looks OK.
  • Interwar period -
Hi Pyrotec, and thank you for taking the time to review this article. I agree with most of your comments so far, and in particular with your criticism of the lead. Large swathes of this section, namely the parts outlining the opinions of different scholars on the causes of Argentina's troubles, were added just days ago; perhaps they should be moved to a separate section. Adding dates to the 1810–1829 should prove easy (Cambalachero might be able to help with the phrases quoting Norberto Galasso's books), but solving the issues with the "Colonial economy" section might be harder, because relatively little has been written about Argentina's economy during that period, and much of it is not freely available on the internet.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi eh bien mon prince, thanks for your comments. My plan is to complete this stage of the review and I'll probably then put the review "On Hold" whilst the problems are fixed. If I ask for something to be fixed that can't be fixed due to (say) lack of references. Put a comment directly under mine stating the problems. We can discuss it and possibly come to some agreement. In the worst case, if there is no reference for something that needs a reference (see WP:WIAGA cluase 2(b)) it might be necessary to remove the statement (or reword it). Pyrotec (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Interwar period (continued) -
  • Looks OK.
  • Relative lag -
  • Looks OK.
  • Stagnation
  • ☑Y Pyrotec (talk) - The third paragraph has the term "tablita": I don't know what this is and I can't find it in wikipedia. It needs clarification.
  • ☑Y Pyrotec (talk) - In the final paragraph the term "heterodox package" needs a link or clarification.
The definition of 'tablita' and a link to the appropriate article for 'heterodox package' have been added.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Free-market reforms -
  • ☑Y Pyrotec (talk) - The last but one paragraph of the previous section states: "the Austral substituting the discredited peso.", but in the third paragraph of this section it states: "The cornerstone of the reform process was a currency board, under which the peso was fixed by law at par to the dollar ....". A step seems to be missing (or perhaps this is a grammar problem - it does not say that the peso has come back.
Something was indeed missing: the peso replaced the austral in 1992. This has been corrected.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Economic crisis & Return to growth -
  • These two sections look OK.
  • Colonial economy -
  • ☑Y Pyrotec (talk) - The first three paragraphs aught to be re-written. I see this as a problem of poor grammar: they mostly state what Argentina "was not". Part of the first paragraph could be rewritten (for example) as:

Present-day Argentina, unlike Mexico or Peru, did not become an important centre of the Spanish colonial economy because it had fewer economic advantages.[8] There were no deposits of gold or other precious metals (even though the name Argentina means 'land of silver')[9] nor established native civilizations to subject to the encomienda. Only two-thirds of present Argentina was occupied: almost one third of the consisted of the Patagonian Plateau, which was unoccupied during ......

  • I'm not insisting that it is done this way. I don't regard the current text as "well written" as per WP:WIAGA and this is one way of reusing the existing text and citations to improved readability.
  • The final three paragraphs are OK.
I have made a few changes to the wording in this section.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • ☑Y Pyrotec (talk) - This should comply with WP:Lead, that is provide both an introduction to the topic and summarise the main points (in a way that reflects their importance). There is quite a lot of material in the Lead that does not appear anywhere else in the article. This is regarded as "teasing"
  • The first paragraph is a single-sentence paragraph, but it reads like an lecture, as do the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs.
  • The term/phrase "Argentine paradox" used in the first paragraph appears nowhere else in the article.
  • Di Tella used in the third and fourth paragraph appears nowhere else.
  • Duncan and Fogarty appears nowhere else.
  • Díaz Alejandro appears nowhere else.
  • Note: if these sources are important (not my decision to make), they should appear in the body of the article and depending on their relative importance, appear in the Lead in summarised form. Pyrotec (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I moved most of the 'teasing' material to a new section (causes of progressive decline), and restored an earlier version of the lead.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

At this stage I'm putting the review On Hold. I'm willing to respond to any or all of these points (it helps if specific comments are place below the point in the review where I have made them). Pyrotec (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting and informative article on the Economic history of Argentina

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This article has been much improved, so I'm pleased to be able to award it GA status.

Congratulations on a fine article. I suspect that with a bit more work this article could possibly make WP:FAC, but I would recommend submitting it to WP:PR first. The WP:Lead, I suspect, would need some more work to take it beyond GA. However, this is a good article and quite a strong Good Article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

International rankings[edit]

This article is about a specfic country, not about international economy as a whole. We don't need several sections "list of country by..." figures. By the way, they are all unreferenced. Cambalachero (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, they have no place in this article, if the IP keeps adding them after four different editors have reverted him, he should be blocked.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Economic history of Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Veiga's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Veiga has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

Very good article, which thoroughly describes the economic history of Argentina. I did not detect inaccuracies nor serious omissions. Below are some references that may be useful to improve the article or simply to recommend for further reading:

Di Tella, Guido, and Carlos Rodriguez Braun (1990), Argentina, 1946-83: The Economic Ministers Speak, New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Dornbush, Rudiger and Sebastian Edwards, eds. (1991), The Macroeconomics of Populism in Latin America, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Kiguel, Miguel, and Nissan Leviatan (1991), “The Inflation-Stabilization Cycles in Argentina and Brazil,” in Bruno, Michael, et al., editors, Lessons of Economic Stabilization and its Aftermath, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 191-232.

Murphy, Ricardo Lopez and Federico Sturzenegger (1996) “The Feasibility of Low Inflation: Application to the Argentine Case, The Journal of Policy Reform, 1(1), 47-73.

Pazos, Felipe (1972), Chronic Inflation in Latin America, New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Veiga has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

  • Reference : Ari Aisen & Francisco Jose Veiga, 2010. "How does political instability affect economic growth?," NIPE Working Papers 5/2010, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)