It's worth considering Argentina's political history in addition to its economic history. From independence, it quickly became a "feudal dictatorship" under Jua

It's worth considering Argentina's political history in addition to its economic history. From independence, it quickly became a "feudal dictatorship" under Juan Manuel de Rosas, leading a confederation of largely autonomous provinces, from 1829-52. Then a "cold civil war" ensued from 1852-61 between the dominant province of Buenos Aires and the rest of the Confederation, with Buenos Aires eventually winning under Bartolome Mitre, who established a voice-voting faux-democracy that enshrined de facto one-party rule from 1862-1910. This period of false democracy coincided with Argentina's miraculous economic rise, as well as the subjugation of its remaining autonomous indigenous peoples. The first free election in Argentina was held in 1916, and only fourteen years later the adolescent system was thrown into disarray by the Infamous Decade and half a century of periodic coups. The past 38 years since the election of Raul Alfonsin in 1983 have been the longest continuous period of democracy and peace in Argentine history, by far. When we compare Canada's origin under the partially democratic English system or Japan's gradual adoption of Western values from 1868 to Argentina's eruption from an ossified Spanish Empire in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars, we see more "anchors of stability" in the former two, in one case the tradition of English parliamentarianism and in the second the Japanese "flexible monarchy" that gradually relinquished power. But this is an unpleasant conclusion for those looking to change the fortunes of countries that lack such guideposts; traditions take a long time to build, and for every George Washington there are five Santa Annas.