You mean it first industrialized and then deindustrialized the country?
Because if so, not really. Most of their industrializing policies had the opposite effect. What they really achieved was to reduce the industrialization pace to snail-speed, and then to turn it negative.
On the first half, it was not for lack of trying, though. It was just for lack of competence.
You’re wrong and I can quote a number of economic histories to show so. The industrialisation push in Latin America was successful - to a degree. It followed the UN plans for developing a country under the Bretton Woods system. And it worked. But all that work was unwound by the Nixon shock and then the Volcker shock.
The only way to develop a major industrial economy under the Western system post 1945 seems to have been - be a reliable and essential US ally - be given privileges to survive the occasional systemic shock. “Kicking away The Ladder” and “How Asia Works” are good books about this.
That was true of Nixon-Volcker and it was true of 2008-COVID periods. The truth is that under the dollar monetary zone the rules are what they are, until they get changed. Those who survive relatively unscathed are generally given a permissive path to do so.
Because if so, not really. Most of their industrializing policies had the opposite effect. What they really achieved was to reduce the industrialization pace to snail-speed, and then to turn it negative.
On the first half, it was not for lack of trying, though. It was just for lack of competence.