I think that has a lot to do with it. Even some of that is the result of having suddenly acquired a large indigenous population that was still tribal in its patterns and had no background in Western political/economic systems. But part of it is also attributable to Spain, which had a very centralized, top-down government and economy at the time of the settlement of Latin America. Everything had to go to Madrid for approval and economic resources were also doled out through Madrid.
This model had developed gradually but of course was firmly established by the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella, which unified Spain and concentrated the power. It was a system which, over the years, was helpful to Spain in many ways and probably did enable it to do the quantity of exploration and settlement it did for a couple of centuries. Yet at the same time, it was inflexible, unrealistic and unsuited to the conditions.
But in many ways, when the criollos finally rebelled, they simply put in place tiny models of that system in their own countries. This accounts for the Latin American preference for the strong man, the centrality of the state, etc. But it's not a successful model.
Many have observed that the Spanish just spent all the money they got and when it was gone they were broke. I think it is unusual that we invest not only money but lots of effort on improving the quality of life. That has produced an unknown level of general prosperity. I note that many other countries just work for money and don't make the investments in infrastructure that we do. India is one example and Iraq may be another. In all those societies, ones home just presents a wall to the world. all the emphasis is on the inside. Who cares if the streets are littered with trash, beggars, and open sewage?