![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldLike neighbouring Argentina, Uruguay stands out as the only First or Second World country of any size that has resisted the global trend towards below-replacement fertility rates, to such a degree that they are above replacement levels. Despite that relatively high rate of natural increase, over the past generation the country's population growth has been slowed dramatically by emigration, as the BBC reports:
This massive emigration began in the 1960s, starting thanks to the relative decline of Uruguay's living standards:
The scale of this emigration is all the more surprising when you consider the fact that historically, Uruguay has been characterized by massive immigration, particularly from southern Europe, developing at more-or-less the same rate as neighbouring Argentina (a major recipient of Uruguayan immigrants, with a quarter-million in Buenos Aires alone). Then again, considering how GDP per capita has been stagnant over the past couple of decades, that isn't surprising.
The first comparable situation that leapt out at me was the relative decline of Atlantic Canada relative to the rest of English Canada: both Atlantic Canada and Uruguay have (increasingly distant) histories of prosperity, and both Atlantic Canada and Uruguay have mobile populations. Thinking back to my October post on Southern Hemisphere economies, another comparison that comes to mind is with New Zealand: Might Uruguay have somewhat the same sort of relationship to Argentina and the wider world that New Zealand does to Australia and the wider world?
"Emigration is a problem for Uruguay because people who are moving are skilled and high-skilled workers. So it can be read as a loss of human capital," [Andrea Vigorito, an economics lecturer at the University of the Republic] says.
In a recent study she co-authored, she found that between 1996 and 2002 almost 100,000 people left Uruguay - 3% of the entire population.
This coincided with a lengthy and deep recession. The devaluation of the Uruguayan peso, meanwhile, devastated people's savings and salaries.
Many of those leaving joined friends and relatives who fled in the 1970s, to escape the country's repressive military junta.
"Once the first colonies of Uruguayans established themselves abroad, this creates networks that make it easier for the following waves to settle there," Ms Vigorito says.
"Also, Uruguayan emigrants are skilled compared to the Uruguayan population and to other Latin American emigrants, and this makes it easier for them to move and settle abroad."
It also means that the benefits of billions of dollars of government spending on providing good quality, free education are never felt in Uruguay.
And the loss of young emigrants is one reason why the country has the highest proportion of elderly people in the hemisphere.
This massive emigration began in the 1960s, starting thanks to the relative decline of Uruguay's living standards:
Economics motivated emigration in the 1960s, but political repression became a major factor during the 1973-85 military regime. Official figures suggest that 180,000 people left Uruguay from 1963 to 1975. In 1973 about 30,000 left, in 1974 nearly 60,000, and in 1975 nearly 40,000. According to the General Directorate of Statistics and Census, 150,000 Uruguayans left the country between 1975 and 1985. By 1989 only 16,500 of them had returned. If the 180,000 who left between 1963 and 1975 are added, the proportion of the population that emigrated from 1963 to 1985 can be estimated at about one-tenth.
The scale of this emigration is all the more surprising when you consider the fact that historically, Uruguay has been characterized by massive immigration, particularly from southern Europe, developing at more-or-less the same rate as neighbouring Argentina (a major recipient of Uruguayan immigrants, with a quarter-million in Buenos Aires alone). Then again, considering how GDP per capita has been stagnant over the past couple of decades, that isn't surprising.
The first comparable situation that leapt out at me was the relative decline of Atlantic Canada relative to the rest of English Canada: both Atlantic Canada and Uruguay have (increasingly distant) histories of prosperity, and both Atlantic Canada and Uruguay have mobile populations. Thinking back to my October post on Southern Hemisphere economies, another comparison that comes to mind is with New Zealand: Might Uruguay have somewhat the same sort of relationship to Argentina and the wider world that New Zealand does to Australia and the wider world?
