AP Photo/Fernando Vergara
The Economist Magazine set off a storm of controversy last week when it published an article entitled, “Why are Latin American workers so strikingly unproductive?” The subheading of the piece, which examined the economic situation in Central and South America, read “a land of useless workers.”
An accompanying photograph depicted a street musician — seen above. After being slammed by readers and critics, the magazine altered its headline and added a note explaining the article’s intent.
These slight changes do not mask The Economist’s racist and inaccurate views about Latin America. The article plays into stereotypes of Latinos as lazy while demonstrating a lack of understanding about the region. Sadly, it fits with the Economist’s history of disrespecting non-white populations.
In an “Editor’s note” that now prefaces the article, The Economist explained that their aim was “to draw attention to the structural causes of low average labor productivity in Latin American countries.” The sub-headline “a land of useless workers” was replaced by one reading “a land of frustrated workers.” Nice try. Consider that this 1,600-word piece quoted economists from think tanks and cited data from organizations like The World Bank. But no one seems to have bothered to interview any actual Latin American workers.
The article itself remains fundamentally flawed. The Economist asserts that the lack of growth in Latin America is due to factors like limited competition, corruption, and a large informal (underground) economy. The article describes Latin America’s informal economy as “huge.” But if so many people are participating in a robust informal sector, it defies logic to characterize them as “strikingly unproductive.” While these workers may not be counted by conventional economic metrics, they are certainly not “useless” or “frustrated.” A more thoughtful assessment might have questioned why informal economies are excluded from standard measures of productivity.
Worse, The Economist’s article contains no meaningful mention of the U.S. role in Latin America. As the Center for Economic and Policy Research has pointed out, our government has long influenced the economic and political trajectories of Latin American countries through sanctions, control of international financial institutions, trade policy, and aid programs. U.S. policies have contributed to the region’s underdevelopment, the better to serve as a source of labor and raw materials for global conglomerates. For the Economist to focus on Latin America’s lack of growth while ignoring this critical historical context is shoddy journalism.
The article also states, “Around 300 million people across the continent have come to rely on social-spending handouts for their income, health care, their children’s education.” While ostensibly describing issues facing Latin American governments, the use of the word “handouts” is problematic. This terminology would likely not be applied when referring to the generous welfare state in Scandinavian countries or to the free public education available to all U.S. children. Yet when discussing Latin America, The Economist dismisses lawful government programs for vulnerable people as “handouts.”
The Economist has an unfortunate legacy of trafficking in racist tropes. In 2015, it drew criticism for a cover story about U.S. Latinos featuring an American flag made of chili peppers. In 2012, it illustrated a story about the Mexican economy with a drawing of a cactus wearing a sombrero. The magazine has similarly offended other groups, including Arabs and Asians.
There are serious economic problems in Latin America that deserve attention. However, The Economist’s biased take on the situation does not add much to the discussion. Perhaps that’s because The Economist maintains one office in Latin America, an area home to 662 million people. Or because, according to its own statistics, The Economist’s editorial staff is three-fourths British and white. There is not any classification listed for its Latino/Latin American editorial staff unless it is the category “other” (5%).
Anyone who has spent time in Latin America knows that its people are hard-working and resilient. They often work under substandard conditions for subsistence-level wages. And most countries in Latin America, in fact, do not offer generous social service programs.
Like people around the world, Latin Americans work to survive, to thrive, and to create a better life for themselves and their families. To suggest otherwise is insulting – and The Economist’s myopic analysis says more about the magazine than it does about Latin American workers.
Raul A. Reyes is an attorney and contributor to CNN Opinion and NBC Latino. You can follow him on Twitter, @RaulAReyes.
This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.
