Difference

Straight-forward answer: four reasons, which I will explain each.

1. USA and Canada, both of them, were colonies of settlement. All the rest of the Americas was colonies of exploitation. Colonies of settlement make citizens, colonies of exploitation make a ruling elite and a large disenfranchised populace.
2. Latin American countries had a hard time fighting for independence, didn't have any outside help in it, were forced to arm themselves quite costly and in a rush, and suffered economic sanctions upon independence.
3. Latin American countries, with a few exceptional moments in time, were plagued by unstable politics and foreign interference, seriously curbing their economic development.
4. Whenever a Latin American country was somewhat determined or effective in nation-building, a foreign power (usually the USA) would clamp down on the local government and install a corrupt dictatorship that would exile key business and culture people, dismantle local enterprises and indebt the country buying weapons or luxury goods for the elite.

Added paragraph [1]: There is some debate over the validity of the dichotomy between colonies of settlement and colonies of exploitation (there has been a lot of interest in recent decades to debunk the basics of Marxist theory of history). While it is easy (and honest) to agree that these are broad categories and that a truer understanding of the political and economic evolution of the Americas requires a deeper analysis of local specificities; the dichotomy is still useful in many ways. One of them is to stress the inherent difference between the realities of Spanish and Portuguese colonisation of Central and South America versus British colonisation of North America (not as much versus French colonisation of Québec, but I digress).

Added paragraph [2]: The chief difference is political, not economic (though Marx considered the economic aspect over-prevalent). Colonies of settlement (like the 13 Colonies, which are the consummate model of it) create autonomous political (and therefore economic) institutions, while colonies of exploitation create authoritarian institutions. A typical colony of settlement brings profit to the colonial power by way of tax revenue and offers strategic advantage (Australia and New Zealand effectively made the British Empire a key power in Asian politics, even providing troops to aid in future wars). A typical colony of exploitation (of which Brazil is the most typical) brings profit to the colonial power by sheer extraction of ores (gold, in Brazil and Colombia, silver in Mexico and Bolivia), plantation of commercial crops (coffee, cotton, tobacco, sugar cane), slave traffic and tax revenue (usually much higher). Citizens of a colony of exploitation do not expect to be treated as equals. They are servants of an empire, that is it. Citizens of a colony of settlement will regard themselves as citizens of the colonial power much longer (Canada still used the British red ensign until 1965, Australia and New Zealand still have flags that are deface blue ensigns, and all of these countries contributed with voluntary troops to wars fought by the UK).

The chief difference is that the colony of settlement is designed for development in short time. A colony of exploitation (variously called "plantation colony", "mining colony" etc.) is just used to make quick bucks for the colonial power. A colony of settlement is intended to exert territorial control, so it needs a faithful population, at least nominally loyal to the motherland. Just consider how the Franco-Canadians still have the old flag of France as their own and still have "Je Me Souviens" (I Remember) as their motto! France was kicked out of North America decades before the USA war of independence. It's been 250 years and they still remember! That's the spirit of a settlement colony!

Now compare that with Brazil, for instance, where a woman was only allowed to go if she was either a prostitute, a murderess, a witch or Jewish (or any combination whatsoever). Men were sent there with the promise of making a quick buck and then returning rich. No industry, no press, no schools, no local political representation. When Brazil became independent it didn't have any schools, no press, no factories (perhaps a few clandestine ones) and had had no true political expression before that. It took 66 years before such things started to develop! 

Colonies of settlement usually become independent in a smooth way. The USA is, in fact, the only exception to this rule. And this may be because part of the original 13 colonies comprised colonies of exploitation (Virginia and the old South were plantation colonies where cotton, tobacco and other commercial crops were planted for the European market). But even then, the USA had outside help (France).

Now compare this with the Latin American countries. They had to fight toe and nail for independence (and only succeeded because Spain, invaded by Napoleon, was in a bad shape). They had to buy guns in the black market (as they were "rebels" and no industrial power would openly support a rebellion against another European power) and hire mercenaries (like Labatut, Cochrane and others) to help arm, train and lead their forces against the loyalists. This was much more expensive than the case of the USA, which had the help of France almost for free, as the French wanted to "stick it back" in the English. Upon independence, the USA were victorious in their claim that they had no liabilities towards the UK, so they started from scratch without any debt. The Latin American countries not only had indebted themselves to arm and train their forces but also were often forced to accept negotiated truces and treaties for their independence to prevent further attacks. Those which didn't accept these negotiations were stricken with economic sanctions. Brazil, for instance, was blocked from all international commerce for about four years (1822-1825) and suffered sanctions until 1850, when the last demand of the UK was accepted. Brazil also had to share the foreign debt of Portugal and to take a loan in pounds sterling that was greater than a decade of tax revenue, which would be squandered in the vain attempt to prevent the secession of its southernmost province (which only happened because the UK was not interested on Brazil controlling the River Plate and helped Cisplatine rebels against Brazil!). Another aspect that seriously encumbered the progress of Latin America is patrimonialism. But more on it later.

The USA became politically stable almost overnight. There has been no interruption of the due electoral process in the USA since the inception of the Constitution. There is an unbroken line of four-year terms for presidents and two-year terms for the House of Representatives. The concept of a coup d'état is so alien to the reality of the average American citizen that the English language doesn't even have a word for it! That's why you use the French term "coup d'état" (a blow against the state). In Latin America we have a proper phrase for it ("golpe de estado") and even related words ("golpista", one who leads a coup, "golpismo", the ideology that justifies a coup, "golpe blanco", one that is executed amongst the leadership of the regime, "autogolpe", one that is performed by the head of government against the legislative and the Constituion etc.).

In most of Latin America this is not the case, which is in part explained by the huge investment on the military. A lot of the firepower used by the USA in the colonial war was provided by France. When the war ended, France retreated and the military level of the new country was suddenly reduced. In Latin America, as the country had invested on guns, uniforms, artillery and everything else, these things remained in the country and had to be maintained and operated by people capable of handling them: trained soldiers and military specialists. That means that the military class which had spearheaded the independence movement was powerful enough to take the state again, and (because they had been directly responsible for the creation of the state) the military leaders considered the state under their tutelage. Whenever politics deviated from what the military leaders envisioned, they'd rally their troops and guns and take down the civil government which was "corrupting" the ideals of the Republic. The combination of militarist ideology, a subjugated populace and political rivalry between the civilians and the military (the first considered by the second as latecomers and moochers of the hard work executed by the "fathers of the nation") explains why political stability was difficult.

This situation echoes patrimonialism, one defining aspect of the Latin American landscape. The structures put in place by the colonial powers were not meant to produce a political system, but to control the territory and its resources. In the USA, for instance, all land was public until it was occupied and used by a family. So, most of the territory was taken and used by small units (homesteads) which were responsible for strengthening politically and economically the society at large. In Latin America, all territory was ascribed to trustees of the colonial empire ("capitães donatários" in Brazil, I don't know how they were called elsewhere, but the institution existed). Each trustee would cede his trust to men of his confidence and so on until all land was given to someone. Land grants preceded occupation. Which means that no homesteads could develop anywhere, as all land had been previously assigned to powerful people, who would use military power to clamp down on local communities unless they submitted. Submitting meant to accept that all land had a lord and that you should pay tribute to him even if he lived hundreds of kilometres away. You would not pay to him directly, but to his appointees and their thugs. 

Given enough time, this situation created a landed elite of very wealthy people who had very little connection to any actual business (they just collected tribute from the settlers of the lands their forefathers had been granted). These were the civil political leaders of Latin America since independence -- and their chief concern was to keep the money flowing into their pockets. If anything threatened the flow, it would be destroyed. If a foreign power didn't like something about the way the country was run, they'd change it, lest the foreign power would invade and take matters onto its own hands. The Latin American elites became too conservative, and sometimes overly loyal to foreign interests in order to preserve their own position.

Patrimonialism also encumbers progress because progress is disruptive. The new rich will demand laws that may threaten the flow of money into the pockets of the elite. The Brazilian elite, for instance, enacted laws against industry up to 1930, because what was good for industry was bad to the plantation business that made them wealthy  and was not nice in the eyes of Europe and the USA, the chief consumers of the plantation crops (coffee mostly). Only the crash of the stock exchange, in 1929, which ruined overnight more than 90% of the Brazilian elite, would clear the path to industrialisation of Brazil.

The combination of bad government, patrimonialism, political instability and difficult foreign relations is bad for business. You know business is like a train: it will derail if the path ahead has sudden sharp turns, but will go on well if the path ahead is mostly straight, level and smooth. Political tension and coups d'état wind up, bends and roughens the way ahead of business.

But whenever a Latin American state attained relative stability (like Argentina, Chile and Uruguay) or had a government determined to implement political and economical reforms to improve the country (like Guatemala 1954, Brazil 1954-1964, Cuba 1959, Dominican Republic 1961, Ecuador 1980, Chile 1970-1973) something bad happened in the way, destabilising the country again. Such interference has been usually by grace of the USA since at least 1898. It is notable that the frequency of coups d'état in Latin America intensifies after the World War I, when the USA started to be more active in Latin America.

8.6k Views · View Upvotes · Answer requested by