The chaotic juggling of one despotic, corrupt, and/or inept leadership after another, combined with a consistent failure of any policy or conflict to reach any lasting or significant political or cultural change, is the nature of the sad events comprising post-colonial Mexican history. It is challenging to think of a Mexican leader or administration that can be attributed with bringing about any net positive change for the average Mexican citizen.
Mexico is rich in natural resources. It has a substantial working-age population. For the past 150 years, it has had no foreign threats worth mentioning and has one of the lowest defense expenditures by percent of GDP in the world. The potential for direct foreign investment is strong. These are all considerable advantages. Despite all this, Mexico still struggles as a developing nation.
Corruption in Politics and Law Enforcement is systemic. Decades of socialist policies have failed to address either economic disparity or mobility. Economic mobility remains low, particularly among the poorer states in southern Mexico. The Mexican economy is heavily reliant on the United States. Though nine out of ten Mexican adults are literate, education beyond age 13 is uncommon. Deaths from drug-trade related homicides have been in the tens of thousands. Access to potable water is limited in many areas. Television ownership ranges from two to three out of every ten Mexicans.
Mexico’s progression toward consensual government has been slow and fluctuating. Whether autocratic or democratic, the leadership of Mexico has almost consistently involved itself in corruption, potentially including the administration of President Obrador. For 200 years, the focus of the Mexican leadership has been almost entirely on economic distribution, rather than on economic mobility. There is no evidence that the administration of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador will reverse this trend.
Interestingly, the U.S. has supported liberal governments within Mexico almost without fail since the end of the Mexican-American War. Juarez and Madero were both fortunate to have the recognition and support of the U.S. government. The French occupation of Mexico in the 1860’s was ended under pressure from the U.S. A considerable amount of Mexico’s infrastructure was financed by U.S. companies during the Porfiriato. The U.S. has provided billions of dollars in bailout money to stabilize the Mexican economy.
Remittances from immigrants, both illegal and naturalized, amount to tens of billions of dollars a year. This is income Mexico receives from workers they do not have to pay or provide any services for. In fact, in 2015 the Mexican central bank reported more money was brought in from remittances than from oil revenue (in terms of foreign income). Despite all benefits it receives from the United States, Mexico remains a quasi-third-world backwater almost completely dependent on U.S. economic stability. Historically, the most important resource a nation can develop in order to advance economically and socially is its own human capital. Mexico has been markedly slow to do this. Quality education is lacking. Confidence in the judicial system is constantly waning. Security from the violence of the drug trade is non-existent in many areas. Furthermore, Mexico’s rich oil production allows for an emphasis on wealth redistribution rather than wealth creation. Physical capital (oil and the monetary wealth it generates) is a vanishing commodity; human capital (in the form of an educated and motivated work force) is a commodity with the potential for infinite production.
~AD
Share This:
