“Picaresque derives from Spanish picaresco … relating to picaro … which also derives from Spanish, [and] means ‘rogue’ or ‘bohemian.’ [or ‘adventurer’] … Typically, the picaresque novel centers around a wandering individual of low standing who happens into a series of adventures among people of various higher clases, often relying on his wits and a little dishonesty to get by….” Merriam-Webster

The first known use of the term was in the Spanish novel, Lazarillo de Tormes, relating the tale of a poor orphan apprenticed to a blind, wily beggar who teaches him to live by his wits, with the ultimate aim of purchasing his dead father’s shop. Published in 1554, the novel antedates by generations and centuries novels such as Moll Flanders, Oliver Twist, or Huckleberry Finn, which also depicted less than savory characters. Perhaps the best known “picaresque” novel was the French Gil Blas (1615), similarly depicting a street-wise personage who in the end “goes straight” and retires in honorable comfort.

In a nutshell, the Spanish form of the picaresque or picaro (pronounced peekuhroh in Spanish) represents a man or woman who desires to live right but is pushed by circumstances to cheat, all the while desiring to return to an honorable life before death.

I seriously doubt the McKinsie consultants who analyzed the disappointing measurable economic growth in Latin America (see last week’s blog post [Last Week’s Post]) were required to read Lazarillo de Tormes or Gil Blas, but they should have been. That might have given them an insight that, in my opinion, was lacking in their final report. 

In her zeal to ensure the American indigenous peoples were properly “cared for”, the crown imposed impossibly suffocating regulations and requirements on the colonists. For example, the land they stewarded was not considered legally theirs and could not be bequeathed to their inheritors (see the series on ranchitos beginning here). In this case, the colonists and their descendants (known as Criollos) either ignored the regulations or pretended to submit to them while cleverly circumventing the strict application of Spanish laws so as to eventually be de facto owners of their lands.

Before the reader judges them too harshly, please remember that our American Pilgrims also decided to ditch the socialistic requirements imposed on them by their financial backers in London. They abandoned the communal approach and adopted the private property approach and thereby were able to pay their financial backers despite having gone against the arrangement those backers had required and imposed. The Spanish colonists and Criollos could not do the same with the Spanish crown. Instead, they resorted to the picaresque.

The infuriating reality is that some colonists or criollos treated the indigenous peoples very well, including actually granting lands to the more industrious and worthy, whereas others treated them terribly. The point is that this was the case even with the Crown’s exasperating regulations and laws. How much better would it have been had the crown recognized the need to reward her subjects with lands from the very beginning along with injunctions to treat the “natives” with respect and love.

We’ll never know, but we can surmise.

And so the picaresque is intimately associated with the Spanish, especially the Spanish descendants in Latin America, even though it is a term that is applicable to peoples from all areas of the world. Mark Twain, call your office!

And that is what I found a bit annoying with the McKinsey report on Latin America. In effect it called for more regulations in order to induce those living by their wits (street vendors and others in the “informal economy”) to come out and join the legitimate economy and to be measured by conventional means.

And go hungry.

This was not in the report, but that would be the effect. At least at this time.

At the moment, many entrepreneurial street vendors and others in the underground economy in Latin America earn and save enough to send their children to college or to place them in more advantageous circumstances thereby improving the lot of their homes. 

The street vendor economy may not be able to be measured at the present. However, given time, their descendants will be outstanding members of the “measured economy” and that will improve the measured results overall for all of Latin America.

McKinsey’s report goes on to recommend other steps such as “family planning” and “property value capture” (meaning higher property taxes). These go beyond the scope of this post but we hope to revisit in the future. For now, the reader will notice that the proposals for the most part do not empower the Latin American family or home economy, but certainly grow the State. Precisely what our neighbors need less of!