Chilean academic: Latin American inequality drives migration pressure

Cantero proposes ‘common floor’ of socioeconomic dignity across the region

Chilean academic Carlos Cantero has published an opinion piece in UPI arguing that Latin America’s entrenched inequality functions as a social force — one that drives both migration and political unrest — and calling for what he terms a “common floor” of socioeconomic dignity across the region.

The commentary opens by citing the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean’s recent “Ruptures and Opportunities” report. Cantero says the report describes a world entering a period of “profound reconfiguration” and portrays Latin America as caught in three “mutually reinforcing traps”: weak economic growth, persistent inequality that erodes social cohesion, and insufficient institutional capacity to sustain long-term development. Other forces aggravate the picture, from population aging to organized crime, he writes, but behind many of these challenges lies a deeper problem: unequal access to opportunity.

Cantero argues that inequality should be understood not just as a statistic but as a force. “Inequality is usually presented as a statistic or a photograph of society at a particular moment,” he writes. “But it can also be understood as a force that creates pressure and eventually produces movement.”

He points to the exodus of millions of Venezuelans as one of the largest population movements in the region’s modern history, and to political upheaval and public protest elsewhere in the region as expressions of frustration over inequality, inadequate public services, and limited social mobility. Cantero acknowledges that these phenomena have different causes and should not be reduced to a single explanation, but argues they share an important characteristic: people react when the distance between their expectations and their lived reality becomes too great.

At the center of Cantero’s argument is what he calls the Gradient Principle. Borrowing from physics and mathematics, he writes that a gradient describes “the direction and intensity of change” — differences in pressure produce wind, differences in elevation cause water to flow, and the steeper the gradient, the greater the potential movement. Human societies, he concedes, do not obey the laws of physics; people possess culture, values, aspirations, and freedom of choice. But the gradient, he argues, provides a useful metaphor for what happens when differences in wealth, opportunity, and access to basic services become extreme.

The commentary connects this idea to the work of Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela, whose concept of autopoiesis described living organisms as systems that continually reproduce themselves through networks of relationships. The concept was developed to understand biological systems, not to establish a law of social behavior, Cantero notes, but its underlying insight is valuable for thinking about society. No community is a mere collection of independent individuals, he writes; when serious imbalances persist within social networks, the consequences eventually spread beyond the people who suffer most directly from them.

Migration, in Cantero’s framing, is not primarily a border problem. “Borders are often where deeper problems become visible, not where they originate,” he writes. People move for many reasons, including political repression, insecurity, family considerations, and economic opportunity. When individuals conclude that the place where they were born offers little chance of a dignified future, the gradient between where they are and where they hope to be becomes an incentive to move. A border may regulate that movement, he argues, but “it cannot by itself eliminate the forces producing it.”

The same principle applies to social protest, according to Cantero. Governments can restore public order after demonstrations, he writes, but “restoring order does not necessarily resolve the conditions that generated the anger.” If citizens continue to believe that institutions are unresponsive, opportunities are inaccessible, or the rules are fundamentally unfair, the pressure remains.

Cantero is careful to note that the Gradient Principle does not mean inequality automatically produces migration or rebellion, or that every difference within society is harmful. Differences in income, achievement, and circumstance are part of every functioning society. The problem, he argues, arises when the gradient becomes so steep that large numbers of people lose confidence that effort can improve their condition. The appropriate objective, therefore, is not to eliminate differences but to prevent them from becoming so extreme that they fracture social cohesion.

His proposed response is what he calls a “common floor”: a minimum threshold of socioeconomic well-being beneath which no person should be allowed to fall because of birthplace or social position. The common floor, he writes, begins with access to quality education, healthcare, decent work, and basic security, sustained by institutions capable of maintaining these conditions over time.

The concept draws on the work of economist Amartya Sen, whose conception of human development holds that development cannot be measured solely by national income but must also concern the real capabilities people possess to make meaningful choices about their lives. Cantero writes that the purpose of the common floor is not to guarantee identical outcomes but to ensure that dignity and opportunity do not depend on geography or inherited circumstance.

Cantero concludes that the challenge cannot fall to government alone. The private sector, civil society, and citizens all share responsibility, he argues, for building a common floor of dignity and opportunity beneath every citizen. Borders and police can contain movement and unrest for a time, but lasting stability requires reducing the gradient itself and preventing social differences from becoming chasms.

The UPI piece identifies Cantero as a Chilean academic at the International University of La Rioja in Spain and the author of “Digital Society: Reason and Emotion.” He is described as an international lecturer, adviser, and consultant focusing on adaptability in the digital society, ethics, social innovation, and human development. UPI notes that the views and opinions expressed in the commentary are solely those of the author.