Did change or tradition have more influence on economics and politics in Latin America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries?
This, of course, is a matter of opinion. My own view is that tradition had a greater influence overall.
The reason for this is that democracy did not take firm hold in the countries of Latin America and their economic situation with respect to the rest of the world did not change either. Latin American countries went through revolutions, but did not become democratic. They typically continued to be ruled by caudillos rather than be true democrats. At the same time, the continued to have something of a colonial relationship to the rest of the world. Their economies were still based on selling raw materials to Europe and the United States while importing finished goods.