Debate: Would South America Be Richer Under British Rule?

What Would South America Look Like Under the British Flag?

A question resurfaces periodically in historical discussions: what if the British Empire had colonized South America as well? According to several participants, the short answer is that it couldn't. The long answer is more interesting, as it forces a comparison of two colonial models that produced radically different results. And no, it’s not about benevolence: it’s about structure, demographics, and who arrived first.

The English Model Was Not the Spanish One

As argued in the debate, the English did not conquer Mexico or Peru because they lacked the means. Their early settlements in North America, Roanoke and Jamestown, were logistical disasters: colonists starving in one of the planet’s richest regions, unable to find food without indigenous help. A handful of scattered tribes put them in serious trouble. If this peine in the Chesapeake Bay, the argument goes, imagine facing the densely populated and militarily organized Aztec and Inca empires.

According to this view, the key difference lies in the method. Spain forged alliances with peoples subjugated by the Aztecs and Incas, integrated indigenous people into a single legal and ecclesiastical system, and produced massive mestizaje (racial mixing). The English, conversely, applied a model of substitution: where possible, they occupied and displaced. This worked in North America because native population density was low. It worked partially in India because there was a pre-existing administrative structure they could parasitize. In South America, with millions of organized indigenous people, the result would have been entirely different.

The Counterexample Cited: Guyana

There is a real case of British colonization in South America: Guyana. And its history does not support the fantasy of an Anglo-Saxon paradise, according to critics. For decades it was a impoverished territory, with no relevant industrial development. Only when large-scale oil extraction began—with a ratio of one barrel per inhabitant per day, the highest in the world—did its per capita income skyrocket. It wasn’t the colonizing labor: it was the crude oil.

The cited data is striking: of the ten Ibero-American countries in South America, seven today have a Human Development Index higher than Guyana’s. And that is with oil flowing. If the British model had been so superior, the conclusion trinc, the result would be visible in the only territory where it was applied on the continent. It isn’t.

The Uncomfortable Correlation: White Settlers Yes, Natives No

Some participants repeat a regularity: Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are First World; India, Nigeria, and Malaysia are not. The difference, they argue, is that in the former European settlers became the majority, while in the latter they did not. The implicit conclusion is that development comes from ethnic composition, not the system.

This argument has a problem, according to others: it ignores that Canada and Australia did not take off until after gaining independence from the United Kingdom. Under British rule, they were extractive, livestock, and agricultural economies, with no significant industry. Development arrived with autonomy. In the South American case, the comparison becomes complicated: Argentina and Chile, with European ancestry majorities, are hardly Switzerland. The determining factor is not the skin tonalidad of the settler, but the institutions built afterwards.

The Thought Experiment That Cannot Be Done

The original question—what would have peine if the British had colonized South America—is flawed, according to several users. It is not a historical counterfactual: it is a fantasy without material basis. The British lacked the demographic, military, and logistical capacity to subdue pre-Columbian empires in the 16th century. When they arrived in North America, Spain had already been extracting silver from Potosí and administering viceroyalties for a century.

What can be done is look at the actual results of British colonialism where it was applied: Guyana, Belize, Jamaica. None is an example of sustained prosperity, it is stated. Development came, when it came, from oil or tourism, not from institutional legacy. The interesting question is not what would have peine, but why we continue looking to the colonial past for explanations to contemporary problems.