What would a first-world Mexico look like

:rolleyes:

I've never understood where the sentiment that Mexico is unable to fix or improve itself comes from...

There are a whole crapload of obscure PODs taht could lead to Mexico reforming, stabilizing, and growing economically, and of course there are a few choice obvious PODs, like Iturbide sticking around, or Santa Ana never becoming dictator...

Iturbide sticking around results in a conservative state and eventually liberal revolt.

Santa Ana never becoming dictator means an ultra-liberal state caused by Valentin Gomez Farias, and eventually a conservative revolt and a lack of internal stability.

I think the only plausible things would be that Mexico holds on to Californian and Coloradoan gold as well as Texas oil until the present. This would likely mean that you would have to go all the way back to the abolition of slavery in 1829 by Guerrero. Then the 6 April Law may not have been passed by Bustamante, and Santa Ana never comes to power, so Texas doesn't revolt.

Howerver, Texas would still revolt at some point because the settlers saw themselves as Americans on American land and never as Mexicans. The US would take everything they did in real life.

It just is not feasable to have a strong Mexico unless the USA doesn't share a border with Mexico. This means that the POD is before the Louisiana Purchasewhich ends up meaning no Mexico ever happening.
 
What is your basis for this claim?


Tobit,

Claim? It's something that has been stated by Mexico's government itself. I based my "claim" as you put it on various news reports, official statements, travel warnings, personal observations, and the like.

Did you know the Mexican army has been called out to fight drug gangs in several Mexican states? Did you know that Mexican police officers and commanders are being killed daily, if not hourly? Did you know there are regions in Mexico where Mexican government officials cannot travel? Where various narco-gangs are the government? Things are slowly sliding towards hell down there and most us north of the Rio Grande haven't a clue that it's occurring.

The Economist has had several stories on the subject over the last six months. While the national "mainstream" media in the US has been largely silent on the issue for whatever reasons, local media outlets near the border report on Mexico's increasing difficulties almost daily. The Chirstian Science Monitor has been covering the problem too.

In fact, here's a link for you: CSM Report. You can use that as a starting point for further reading on the topic.

My business takes me around the globe and I've visited Mexico many times since the early 1990s. Unlike many, I haven't visited as a tourist. I've been out in the "real" Mexico and not sipping booze on a beach in some barbwire-fenced tourist enclave that the Mexican police and army patrol.

Also, because I visit to work there, I require a special visa. When I apply to the Mexican consulate for that visa and inform the US State Dept. of my trip, both governments issue me a written document containing general warnings about the troubles and specific warnings about regions I should not to visit.

I subscribe to the State Dept.'s travel warning update service. Here are some excerpts from the warning emailed to me on the 20th of this month:

This Travel Alert updates security information for U.S. citizens traveling and living in Mexico. It supersedes the Travel Alert for Mexico dated October 15, 2008, and expires on August 20, 2009.

Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades. Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez. During some of these incidents, U.S. citizens have been trapped and temporarily prevented from leaving the area. The U.S. Mission in Mexico currently restricts non-essential travel to the state of Durango and all parts of the state of Coahuila south of Mexican Highways 25 and 22 and the Alamos River for U.S. government employees assigned to Mexico. This restriction was implemented in light of the recent increase in assaults, murders, and kidnappings in those two states. The situation in northern Mexico remains fluid; the location and timing of future armed engagements cannot be predicted.

The situation in Ciudad Juarez is of special concern. Mexican authorities report that more than 1,800 people have been killed in the city since January 2008. Additionally, this city of 1.6 million people experienced more than 17,000 car thefts and 1,650 carjackings in 2008. U.S. citizens should pay close attention to their surroundings while traveling in Ciudad Juarez, avoid isolated locations during late night and early morning hours, and remain alert to news reports. A recent series of muggings near the U.S. Consulate General in Ciudad Juarez targeted applicants for U.S. visas. Visa and other service seekers visiting the Consulate are encouraged to make arrangements to pay for those services using a non-cash method.

How'd you like the bit about "small unit combat"? Or the 1800 thousand murders in a city of only 1.6 million? Open your eyes a little, didn't it?

When you consider the US' past behavior towards Mexico and Mexicans, treating both better is a very laudable goal. However the desire to do that can and has been taken too far. Our current knee-jerk, politically correct, mealy-mouthed nonsense now "requires" us to say nothing bad about Mexico and Mexicans no matter what.

Well, too bad. I'd rather stick to the truth.

I like Mexico, I like visiting for work in Mexico, and I like most of the Mexicans I meet and interact with. Sadly, as much as I hope to the contrary, Mexico is still slowly circling the drain.


Bill
 
Last edited:
I think the only plausible things would be that Mexico holds on to Californian and Coloradoan gold as well as Texas oil until the present.


General Houston,

I don't think that Californian/Coloradan gold or Texan oil would make any difference. In the OTL Mexico pissed away healthy revenues from silver and other minerals in the 1880s and 1890s and pissed away massive revenues from oil in the 1980 and 1990s.

Riches and foreign patrons aren't going to do the job. Mexico has had riches and still failed, while powerful "friends" would simply make Mexico another client state.

Democracy isn't necessary either, Singapore "proved" that. What is required is greater respect for the "rule of law".

Nichomacheus has it right. Mexico needs a change in culture in order to posper.


Bill
 
Hmph, this thread is making me mad.

Look, I'm not denying that Mexico and indeed much of Latin America is not in the best way right now, but I'm getting annoyed by the insistence that Mexico is inherently unstable and fucked up.

There ARE ways to make any country, no matter its current status, first world, if one looks at history hard enough. But the claims that Mexico must be annexed completely by the US are quite aggravating, and all seem to be made by people who obviously don't know nearly enough about Mexican or Latin American history.

Rant over...
 
The problems of Mexico are rooted in the weaknesses of Latin culture and Latin colonialism.

I can't believe I'm the first person to use this word in a pre-1900 'Make a nation great!' thread, but the term Meiji comes to mind. A strong, progressive, wide-reaching reform of Mexican society at any point from its founding right up until today could have done wonders for it, even reform from the barrel of a gun.

The most obvious answer is a Mexican Ataturk, someone with the authority, vision, and political capital to totally re-write the society's laws, mores, and culture. Mexico is uniquely suited to this kind of man, thanks to its wide variety of presidents and viceroys and emperors who ended up as ruler by diverse means, so to shoehorn in a suitable Mary Sue from nowhere wouldn't be too difficult. Mexico has plenty of resources like silver, oil, heroin, and hemp which can allow it to flourish if it plays its cards right, and is situated in a strategically viable position for long-term trade.
 
Nichomacheus has it right. Mexico needs a change in culture in order to posper

For what it's worth, this wasn't the point I was making (or at least intended to make). While there are certain cultural legacies (British colonial legislatures vs. Spanish audencias) that are obstacles, there are others that are potential benefits (Catholic educational centers, a history of dealing with indigenous populations rather than forcing them off land to name two). My posts were intended to say that despite the apparent need to change such supposedly deep-seated events, they can be altered or entirely compensated for by a few well-chosen events as late as the early 19th century.

Culture is after all the accretion of past institutions, practices, beliefs. As long as free will and decent amount of chance exist, future institutions, practices, and beliefs can change to the point to which later observers will say that cultures changed (via some ineffable process). It's quite possible that Mexico could develop a steady rule of law, given the right circumstances. My point: the necessary circumstances are not impossible, even fairly late in Mexican history. (Just as the necessary circumstances to turn the USA into an anarchic backwater are also not impossible).
 
For what it's worth, this wasn't the point I was making (or at least intended to make).


Nichomacheus,

Quit being politically correct, we're all adults here.

It's precisely the point you were making and you know why? Because of what you wrote two paragraphs after you sugar coated your position so no one's feelings would get hurt.

Here's the sentence I'm referring to:

Culture is after all the accretion of past institutions, practices, beliefs. As long as free will and decent amount of chance exist, future institutions, practices, and beliefs can change to the point to which later observers will say that cultures changed (via some ineffable process).

So, if a society's institutions, practices, and beliefs change then it's culture has been changed.

It's quite possible that Mexico could develop a steady rule of law, given the right circumstances.

Certainly. Mexico could develop a steady rule of law through changes in its institutions, practices, and beliefs or - in other words- by changing its culture.

Now, I am in no way suggesting that every aspect of Mexico's culture is somehow "bad" or "wrong", far from it. As you point out, there are many beneficial aspects.

I am suggesting that certain aspects of Mexico's culture have harmed it's development however. Any of the PODs explored in this thread will result in a change in Mexico's culture, not the totality of Mexican culture but those parts of Mexican culture that have not been beneficial.

My point: the necessary circumstances are not impossible, even fairly late in Mexican history. (Just as the necessary circumstances to turn the USA into an anarchic backwater are also not impossible).

I strongly agree with both those statements.

FWIW, Uber Ameoba's suggestion of a "Mexican Attaturk" would be very interesting to explore.


Bill
 
Bill,

You're essentially, right. In hindsight, I was arguing against a position you hadn't taken, but which previous (non-forum) interlocutors on the subject have taken. I fell into arguments against them, rather than reading your post carefully. My apologies.

As to the Mexican Attaturk, IMO the easiest thing to do is this: Santa Anna is born with a completely different personality and / or upbringing. This would probably begin to have effect some time in 1821 (when he caputred Veracruz for Iturbide) or in (when he joined the disaffected generals who supported the Plan de Casa Mata 1822). His actions alone probably aren't going to stop either, but they will lay the groundwork for future exploits.
 
Mexico was a first world nation once that has since been consistently pile-driven by the course of human events since, wasn't it?
 
What is your basis for this claim?

Read about what's going on in Mexico now. The drug gangs have platoon-sized units with modern military equipment usurping the government of towns, torturing and murdering police and military generals, etc.

Calling it on the verge of becoming a failed state is a bit much, but it's not looking nice now.
 
I guess what always catches me on the idea that Mexico is sliding into a failed state situation is the idea that the horrible lack of law is mainly based in Northern Mexico. The US government only restricts its employees to essential travel in Northern Mexico. I of course agree that northern Mexico has a huge problem with rule of law and has always been a problem for the Mexican government. The Mexico is more than "northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez." The fact is that much like Italy Mexico has a problem with an essentially divided country.

This was the same problem that has plagued every Mexican government and has led to such problems as the Republic of the Rio Grande or the Yucatan situation. Now these problems are very big but have nothing to do with the culture of Mexico. Different levels of development and the problems of centralized power in very big country are huge difficulties for any culture to overcome.

Mexico is still slowly circling the drain
Mexico is still a huge drawing point of immigration from all over latin america.

It happens to be home of the eighth richest city in the world.

Rank Cities ranked Est. GDP in Cities ranked by Est. GDP in Real GDP
estimated 2005
1 Tokyo 1191
2 New York 1133
3 Los Angeles 639
4 Chicago 460
5 Paris 460
6 London 452
7 Osaka/Kobe 341
8 Mexico City 315
these are estimations done by by Pricewaterhouse Cooper based on UN numbers.

And Mexico's growth rate has been a very steady positive growth for the last decade.

What does their culture have to do with that? or even what do you see as the cultural deficiencies that have led to the rule of law issues in Northern Mexico? Could you explain what exactly are the problems with the culture that you see? You probably can't and thats ok, but I think that is exactly the problem with saying that there is something wrong with a culture when there are so many angles to any specific situation.
 
Mexico needed a government that was stable over a long period of time, relatively non-corrupt, and promoted conditions that favored economic development in such a way that it benefited the majority of its citizens rather than just an elite few. This is really obvious in hindsight, but the problem is that it has never had a government that filled these three conditions.
 
The problems of Mexico are rooted in the weaknesses of Latin culture and Latin colonialism.

I can't believe I'm the first person to use this word in a pre-1900 'Make a nation great!' thread, but the term Meiji comes to mind. A strong, progressive, wide-reaching reform of Mexican society at any point from its founding right up until today could have done wonders for it, even reform from the barrel of a gun.

The most obvious answer is a Mexican Ataturk, someone with the authority, vision, and political capital to totally re-write the society's laws, mores, and culture. Mexico is uniquely suited to this kind of man, thanks to its wide variety of presidents and viceroys and emperors who ended up as ruler by diverse means, so to shoehorn in a suitable Mary Sue from nowhere wouldn't be too difficult. Mexico has plenty of resources like silver, oil, heroin, and hemp which can allow it to flourish if it plays its cards right, and is situated in a strategically viable position for long-term trade.

The problems of Mexico are rooted in the weaknesses of Latin culture and Latin colonialism.

I can't believe I'm the first person to use this word in a pre-1900 'Make a nation great!' thread, but the term Meiji comes to mind. A strong, progressive, wide-reaching reform of Mexican society at any point from its founding right up until today could have done wonders for it, even reform from the barrel of a gun.

The most obvious answer is a Mexican Ataturk, someone with the authority, vision, and political capital to totally re-write the society's laws, mores, and culture. Mexico is uniquely suited to this kind of man, thanks to its wide variety of presidents and viceroys and emperors who ended up as ruler by diverse means, so to shoehorn in a suitable Mary Sue from nowhere wouldn't be too difficult. Mexico has plenty of resources like silver, oil, heroin, and hemp which can allow it to flourish if it plays its cards right, and is situated in a strategically viable position for long-term trade.

The problem for Mexico doing that is that it's too close too the US. I remember Abdul said in a thread in which somebody was comparing Japanese succesfull Meiji restoration and Ottoman's failed attempts to reforme that geography favoured Japan and didn't favoured the Ottomans: Japan was an island with a lot of people, close only to one of 1900 word powers, Russia (and only to its least populated parts); the Ottoman empired was sparesely populated, and bordered Russia, Austria-Hungary, and British-controlled Egypt.

If geography was bad for the Ottomans, it was much worse for Mexico, since it had an enormous and undefendable land border with a great power which was the only one in the continent, and thus had no other great power willing (or able) to limit his expansion.

In early XIX century, "Argentina" had important differences with Mexico: it hadn't been the home of a rich, powerfull and populous pre-columbian empire; thus, it hadn't atracted many Spanish high noblemen and aristocrats who could use the vast amerindian workforce to mantein a high status of living; thus, by 1800, Argentina was far less populated than Mexico. The lack of a real traditional aristocratacy, the existance of less rigid rules concerning social hierarchization, and the fact that, specially since the late XVIII, the capital of Rio de la Plata was a commercial city instead of one in which the wealth came mainly from the land and the mines created slightly different societies.

Yet both regions shared important cultural aspects. In both places, colonial laws wtitten by people who usually ignored completely the local realities, and who didn't take local interests into account. Thus, they were ignored in the colonnies whenever possible. This created a culture in which there wasn't a great respect for the Law, as "the law" was something so arbitrary and inadecuate to local conditions that cities were often forced not to apply them if they wanted to prosper.

Morover, in both places there wasn't a tradition of self-government (except at a muncipal level with the cabildos, and even their autonomy was relative). This, convined with the lack of respect for the law, created the conditions for a great inestability after the end of the Spanish era. Both countries (and almost all Spanish America) experienced civil wars and tyranies inmediatly after their independence.

Yet Argentina was far from everybody, and, due to this geograhpical circunstance, had time to recover. Nobody grabed territoritory during the civil war (well, technically, GB did in 1833, but it only took a couple of islands). Argentina was able to stabilise and then expand greatly in the 1860s and 70s, gaining thousands of square miles of territory.

Mexico, on the contrary, had to face two wars against his inmediate neighbour before he had time to recover.

Immigration wasn't as adecuate for Mexico as it was for Argentina, because Mexico was far more populated. Argentina could direct immigrants to the pampas (occupied by small groups of Indians till 1870), Patagonia and and to provinces which, even if they were settled, hat still plenty of place, like Santa Fe, Entre Ríos, Cordoba, Mendoza, Misiones ond other places. Mexico couldn',t because the lands which were rich and relatively empty had been taken by the US. And even if there were others left, the Texas incident had created a general mistrust towards inmigration, that made most Mexican governments discourage it.

Yet I think your solution of a Mexican Attaturk is possible: but it has to take into account the threat posed by the fact that the US is so close geographically. Maybe if there were troubles in the US when this Mexican Attaturk acted it would have been possible. It's possible, but he'd had to act fast...
 
Last edited:
My previous post refers to the XIX century, and the difficulties posed by the US to Mexico becomming a first world country in that century.

If we talked about the XX century, things would be different. In the XX century, the US was no longer a menace for Mexico's existance, nor were they a menace to Mexico's territorial integrity. With the proper XX centuries Pod, Mexico might still not have become a "super-power" stretching from Oregon to Panama, but it could have easily become a place like Greece.

But here again, the problem is the US (but in a different way;)): since the US borders Mexico, Mexico will inmediatly be compared to the US, and so, even if Mexico had Greek standarts of living, it would still be looked badly, because people wouldn't compare it to Bulgaria, Albania or Turkey, but to the US, his northern neighbour.

Even today, Mexico has almost the same GDP than Chile, and is not too far below Chile or Argentina in the HDIndex. It ranks higher than Malaysia, Brazil, Russia, Montenegro or Turkey, and way higher than South Africa in the HDI rankings. Yet people constantly praise countries like Malaysia, Turkey or SouthAfrica, because they compare them to Indochina, the Middle East and Sub-saharan Africa. But for some reason they don't compare Mexico to central America or Northern South America, but instead compare it to the US.

I live in Argentina, and I believe that part of the superiority complex other Latin Americans say we Argentinians have is due to geography: it's not the same if your northern neighbours are Paraguay and Bolivia, than if they are the USA. A country is rich or poor, more developped or less developped, by comparison to others.

I've got the feeling that Mexico is been treated unfairly due to it's geographical situation. It's never compared to central American countries or to other third world countries.

I know drug traffic is a serious problem, but remember Mexico is not a great producer of illicit drugs. Being the easiest road to get to the US (the largest market for illicit drugs) the one that goes across Mexico, it's fairly logical that drug-trafficants would want to establish themselves there.

That's a serious problem, and has to be combated. Combatting drug-trafficants is not easy, specially if it has been tacitly tolerated for decades. But from that to saying that Mexico will split appart there's an enormous distance. :rolleyes: What we are seeing now is the violent reaction of drug-trafficants who are for the first time being combatted by the federal government. The fight is serious, of course, but I'm sure that sooner or later it'll be the government who'll win.
 
Last edited:
Another XIX century Pod that mightr have led to a better Mexico is to have Texas, Arizona, New Mexico or California settled by free Amerindian and mestizo peasants from central and Southern Mexico prior to 1836. I admit it's borderline ASB, but let's think about this just for a while.

Let's say a liberal like Hidalgo takes power in 1810. He grants equal rights to Indians and tries to redistribute land in the haciendas among the peasants, but meets a lot of resistance. So a compromise is made: big land-owners might keep the land they had, but individual peasants may leave. Morover, the government would grant them lands in the North.

History has shown as that when people who are for all purposes quasi-serfs recieve lands in property, they usually become:

- very thankfull of the government who gave them that land

- willing to defend that land (and the government who gave them that land) from any "enemies" that might appear, even if it implies the lose of their lives.

French peasants were willing to die for the French Republic and for Napoleon in huge numbers, because the Republic had created the conditions that allowed them to occupy the lands that belonged to the emigrées, and Napoleon had granted them property titles over the lands they had taken from the nobles during the Revolution. The grandsons of these peasants were still so thankfull of Napoleon two generations later that Napoleon III profited from this to get elected president.

Much more recently, in the 1960s, Aymara peasants from the Andes began gradually establishing themselves as small farmers in Chapare, Bolivia. Among other products, they started cultivating coca for internal consumption (coca leafs has been consumed in the andes since before the time of the Incas, as it alliviates the effects of doing physical efforts at very high altitudes). This brought them serious trouble with both Bolivian governments and with the US. Yet they have proven willing to do almost anything to defend these lands and their products from all intervention from Bolivian or foreign governments.

If Northern Mexico and Southern US had been recently settled by free farmers from central Mexico, the US might have had much more trouble in anexing this territory. It might even be unwilling to take them, because, sort of genocide or mass expulsions, what could you do with territories densly settled by people who don't like to be under your rule? And these peoples would have been were Spanish speaking Christian agricultures, not Nomad pagan Indians, which might make a difference in the XIX century

It's still borderline ASB, because:

1) I don't think the roads of the time permitted a mass exodus of people from central Mexico to Texas. There weren't railways, and roads were very bad, if there were roads at all.

2) Landowners would be as opposed to letting peasants leave as they would have been to a land reform.

3) Peasants would want the lands they were already cultivating, not distant lands in the North. They might not be willing to leave everything they had and go North. How would they trust the government, even if it's a Mexican government, with all their history behind?

4) Mexican peasants had cultivated their lands for millenia... but would they had been able to cultivate the lands of Texas without infraestracture and modern tools?

5) Both Amerindians and reformers like Hidalgo (who came from the Church) around 1810, IIRC, favoured more a "communitarian" approach that an "individualistic" one. They would prefer to strenghten local communietes and give them land in common property than to divide them in individual parcels. Let alone encouraging peasants to leave their land, and to establish for themselves as individual holders on the distant North!

6) Many other reasons

Still, I think it's an idea that no one ever mentions, and I find worth mentioning.
 
The fight is serious, of course, but I'm sure that sooner or later it'll be the government who'll win.

Great posts all around, and this last part I certainly agree with.

I think we got a bit off topic with some of the arguments given. But in the realm of AH everything is possible and it begins with the idea that events shaped history and by changing the events very slightly could have ensured a different outcome.
 
Mexico might be facing heavily armed drug gangs, but to say it is on the verge of a failed state is vastly overstating the problem. The drug gangs are exploiting gaps in the modernizing Mexican state, but those gaps will get filled. The police and civil service will get better pay and training, the military will get better weapons, and the drug gangs will be forced back into the shadows.

Columbia was on the verge of becoming a failed state. Mexico is not ANYWHERE near Columbia. The drugs are not fueling a rebel movement, and the drug gangs are not advancing a political agenda or trying to take territory. They are not actively engaged in an attempt to overthrow the government. Basically, its a bad crime problem, not a civil war.

A longer lived Juarez continues to institute reforms- after having first gone after the Church he next targets the large landowners. Diaz's rebellion provides Juarez the push he needs for massive land reform?
 
The Mexico is more than "northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez." The fact is that much like Italy Mexico has a problem with an essentially divided country.


Tobit,

I'm well aware that Mexico is a huge country with many different regions. Remember that I've worked in nearly all of them. Mexico is even more divided Italy too. There isn't something as "simple" as Italy's north-south divide, in Mexico there's a bewildering north-central-coastal-south divide.

This was the same problem that has plagued every Mexican government and has led to such problems as the Republic of the Rio Grande or the Yucatan situation. Now these problems are very big but have nothing to do with the culture of Mexico. Different levels of development and the problems of centralized power in very big country are huge difficulties for any culture to overcome.

To the contrary, those problems have everything to do with culture. You see, Nicomacheus and I are using the term "culture" in it's broad sociological context and not in the narrow "funny hats, foods, and holidays" sense that you are. When we mention culture we're talking about things like the rule of law, social equality/heirarchies, the value/types of education, xenophobia/xenophilia, optimism/fatalism, social/economic advancement, and a myriad of other basic sociological, political, and economic institutions, practices, and beliefs. The culture we're talking about is the nuts and bolts of any human society and not something as superficial as "Cinco de Mayo" and marachi bands.

By way of example let's use the last sentence in your quote above: "Different levels of development and the problems of centralized power in very big country are huge difficulties for any culture to overcome." The US had (and still has) different levels of development in a very big country, but it overcame that problem because it avoided centralized power for a long period. Mexico never did and the reason is culture.

Mexico is still a huge drawing point of immigration from all over latin america.

Most of whom either are on their way to the US, working seasonally, or illegal. And Mexico treats its illegals in ways that would make the ACLU froth at the mouth.

It happens to be home of the eighth richest city in the world.

I take it you've never been to Mexico City? Never watched out the window of the plane as it dives through the layer of smog that blankets the Valley? Try actually visiting it once.

The simple numbers you quote seem good until you actually look at the demographics beneath them. Statistics are like that, you need to understand how the numbers are derived and what they actually measure. The numbers for Mexico City are skewed by a number of factors.

Greater Mexico City is "rich" and has a "high" GDP because, first, there are over 18 million people live there and, second, nearly all the country's richest people live there. Something less than a tenth of Mexicans live there, but they account for over a fifth of Mexican spending.

Another major factor skewing the numbers is that a huge part of Mexico's economic activity takes place in the Valley at the expense of the rest of the country. For example, Veracruz is the major eastern container port. Because the roads around the port are so bad, it's both faster and cheaper to ship materials from Veracruz by rail to factories in the Valley than it is to ship materials more than 100km outside of Veracruz.

And Mexico's growth rate has been a very steady positive growth for the last decade.

Once again, you need to understand what that "growth" rate has actually measured. A large part of Mexico's "growth" has come from the privitization of previously nationalized businesses. The break-up of the government telecom monopoly alone acounted for tens of billions in "growth".

What does their culture have to do with that? or even what do you see as the cultural deficiencies that have led to the rule of law issues in Northern Mexico?

Culture has everything to do with this and remember, I'm using a definition of culture that you're not familiar with. It's much the same with the term "rule of law". Your question about northern Mexico leads me to think that you seem to believe it's simply about obeying or breaking the law, but we're not using such a narrow definition in this thread. Any political dictionary will give you a comprehendable definition that will explain term's usage in this thread.

Anyway, Mexico's troubles with the concept of "rule of law" extend throughout the country and throughout it's history.

Could you explain what exactly are the problems with the culture that you see? You probably can't and thats ok, but I think that is exactly the problem with saying that there is something wrong with a culture when there are so many angles to any specific situation.

I have given examples and there have been other examples already written in this thread. The problem here is that you've a different concept of what "culture" is from the rest of us in this thread. As I already wrote, we're using a sociological term and you're using something else.

I've also wrote that only certain aspects of Mexico's culture have been detrimental to its development while other aspects of that same culture are entirely laudable. It's not some simplistic case of Mexican culture being wholly "good" or "bad". Real life is not binary, not black and white. Instead, it is infinite shades of grey.


Bill

P.S. There are currently only two nations on DoD's list of nations that could destabilize rapidly; Pakistan and Mexico. Does that give you an idea about how seriously the professionals view this problem?
 
Last edited:
The problem with "law and order" is that it really is directed at two different groups. Order has meant keeping the peasants in line and law is getting the lords to obey the same rules as the peasants.
De Soto suggests the two major factor that impeded and continues to impede economic development in Latin America is 1) lack of rule of law and 2) overcomplicated and overburdening bureaucracy.
 
I'm going with the dictionary, or rather Wikipedia definition of "first world" countries- I'm using the list of IMF-declared advanced economies as a comparison.

• Australia • Germany • Luxembourg • Slovenia
• Austria • Greece • Malta • South Korea
• Belgium • Hong Kong • Netherlands • Spain
• Canada • Iceland • New Zealand • Sweden
• Cyprus • Ireland • Norway • Switzerland
• Denmark • Israel • Portugal • Taiwan
• Finland • Italy • San Marino • United Kingdom
• France • Japan • Singapore • United States

I think we can always use a different list, but I never thought that Slovenia, Greece, or Portugal were particularly well-to-do compared to their neighbors.
 
Top