The 1980s were a disaster for Latin America. Debt spiraled, GDP collapsed, banks and currencies fell apart. It's known as the "lost decade." So when reforms came in the 1990s, the question was whether they would actually turn things around.
Arminio Fraga wrote about this in a 2004 Journal of Economic Perspectives article, using data like GDP per capita, inflation, school enrollment, and life expectancy across the region. The growth in the 1990s came from the Washington Consensus, which meant tighter budgets and increased trade. It brought down inflation and stabilized currencies. People's lives improved too, with fewer kids dying young and increased literacy. But productivity didn't grow much, and there was still inequality, with countries like Argentina and Venezuela continually experiencing crises.
I think Latin America was better off in the 1990s compared to the 1980s, even though growth was uneven. The Chile and Mexico examples compared to Argentina and Venezuela's struggles helped make the picture clearer. One thing I'd push back on is that the article doesn't connect the reforms to what was happening globally. Trade and technology were changing the world economy during the same period, and that context matters.
The question I'm left with is why productivity didn't improve even though education and health did. Life expectancy and literacy rates increased, which usually translates into faster growth like in East Asia, but it didn't in Latin America. If the economy isn't growing even though people are healthier and more educated, then the region isn't making the most out of its human capital. Looking at the types of jobs, rural versus urban areas, and how the labor market changed across the two decades could help explain the gap.