Mexico’s forthcoming national election is a great opportunity to take a step back and rethink the bigger picture of public insecurity in Mexico. Crime incidence data shows that the policies and actions of the last three administrations — Calderón, Peña Nieto and López Obrador — have not significantly reduced most crime and violence indicators.
If insecurity is to improve in Mexico, understanding what has gone wrong in security policy is of utmost importance. A good starting point is to question the core public premises behind the actions of the different administrations.
We could plausibly state that the Calderón administration assumed that “winning the war” was a matter of relative coercive power, which implies that a sufficiently powerful and well-designed intervention by state forces would reduce criminal organizations’ activities. This was clearly not the case. Other variables proved to have a greater effect, such as the inelastic demand for drugs and corruption by public officials.
The Peña Nieto administration was not fully explicit in its approach to fighting insecurity, which seemed to be a lighter version of Calderon’s policy but with less initiative and more reactivity in the use of public force. The results were no better.
The López Obrador government changed the core premise, at least in the discourse. It assumed that individuals — especially young people — commit crimes and join criminal organizations because of economic necessity. Massive amounts of unconditional cash were allocated to disincentivize criminal activity, coupled with a more passive role by state forces, mainly the military, which took control of public safety. Again, the problem of insecurity has not improved in Mexico.
Contrary to what the AMLO administration assumed, the government’s allocations have become a complement to other types of incomes — including that from criminal activities — rather than a substitute. And there is no solid evidence showing that necessity has a linear relationship with the likelihood of committing a crime, as the policy seems to assume.
Reducing the state’s use of force has not reduced criminal violence either because most of that violence is related to confrontations among criminal organizations in which the state is merely a spectator.
The above paragraphs are obviously a massive simplification but provide a useful guide on how not to think about the solutions to Mexico’s insecurity problems. The security strategy of the new administration, whether headed by Claudia Sheinbaum or Xóchitl Gálvez, should learn from past failures and ask the right questions when designing policy interventions.
Increasing the state’s coercive power is a necessary but not sufficient condition to effectively reduce crime and violence. We need to think beyond what the different administrations have already implemented.
Here are two key questions we should be asking ourselves when designing the new administration’s security policy.
First, how can the current public insecurity problem be turned into something more manageable? It is clear that state organizations are overwhelmed. When a problem is as big and complex as public insecurity in Mexico, a useful approach is to first consider how to make the problem smaller before thinking about potential solutions.
An obvious option to simplify the fight is to legalize drugs in order to minimize black markets and the conflict surrounding them. This will not solve the problem by itself but will free a lot of budgetary and human resources to fight “easier” crimes and will reduce the incentives for corruption.
Obviously, legalization is not trivial, but we should start thinking about and working on it.
Second, how can we reduce the lethality of criminal organizations’ confrontations? Criminal organizations and conflicts among them exist in most countries, but not all confrontations are equally lethal. The variance is strongly related to the sort of weapons that these organizations utilize to confront each other. In this respect, illegal arms trafficking from the United States is a key problem to tackle. The current administration has taken an important step by explicitly including the topic in the agenda and acting upon it. It should now be a priority.
Overall, the very least we should ask is that the new policies and actions be based on evidence. There is already significant knowledge on the matter, which should be used.
Vidal Romero is a professor in the Political Science Department at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM), Codirector of ITAM’s Center for the Study of Security, Intelligence and Governance (CESIG), and a faculty affiliate at ITAM’s Center on Energy and Natural Resources. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University.
This article was originally published by the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Mexico News Daily, its owner or its employees.
“In this respect, illegal arms trafficking from the United States is a key problem to tackle.” . . . and the US is not doing all it can do to stop the flow of arms across the border . . . Why?
Because of corruption, greed, and like it has been for decades in the United States. Yet, these morons are quick to point out that Mexico is “not safe” With 300 million guns in private hands and no concetrated effort to stem the flow of guns across the border . . . the bad neighbors have the gall to publish advisories of travel in Mexico. Personally, since I moved here 18 months ago . . . I have never felt safer nor experienced more emotional maturity than I have in Mexico.
People are not safer in Mexico, that’s an objective fact. If you mean white Americans are safer in Mexico, yes, that’s true.
Amen.
Policy based on evidence is good!
“the government’s allocations have become a complement to other types of incomes — including that from criminal activities — rather than a substitute“ what is the evidence for this statement?
“Calderón, Peña Nieto and López Obrador — have not significantly reduced “most” crime and violence indicators”. Actually from 2013 to 2018 (PRI) the % Mexicans who feel unsafe went up from 68% to 80%, and from 2018 to 2024 (MORENA) declined from 80% to 61%. So “most” indicators show crimes are actually reducing the last 5 years. Evidence shows not to put MORENA in the same category with PRI and PAN.
Legalization of cannabis will not have much effect if the problem is now with synthetic drugs. Makes sense to legalize synthetic drugs for better quality control, but unlikely to happen. It will take a while before reduced arms imports will have any effect.
So the evidence (perception index and statistics) says things are already improving. Looks like voters are putting their confidence in Morena, and will let Morena built on what has been achieved up to now.
Scientists can play a role by investigating the effect of the social programs. Is there a study? Lets support the effort of MORENA by providing objective evidence needed to continue or adjust the present policies.
“Let Morena build on what has been achieved…”
Do you work for Morena?
This is the party (AMLO’s campaign) that accepted money from cartels, ended the drug war (but not in a good way) and who has let the traffickers run rampant until they now control a third of Mexican territory.
Mexico won’t survive another AMLO and six more years of his hands-off policy.
If you have any proof of payments, hand it over to the law, they will be very happy to receive it.
. . . the Cartels are a money making machine . . . human trafficing, drugs, exploiting & extorting business ( in Mexico and perhaps too across the border in the USA ), and a criminal incarceration rate of less than 10 percent of all crime . . . so by association, the Cartels have been paying off “both sides of the border” and will continue until corruption in BOTH governments is exposed AND shamed in the arena of public awareness . . .
Yes, across the border here in the U.S.A., too. All the people needed to run and be bribed by the cartels are here well vertically integrated. I’m not sure what the border inspections are for except to make life miserable for legitimate crossers like me.
Mexicans citizens living in Mexico can not legally carry a firearm. Yet -three innocent tourists were all shot in the head-in Mexico-by a Mexican citizen. Guns are not the problem. Coddling dirtbags is not the solution. Cowering to Narcos is not the solution. AMLO is NOT the solution. People have lost faith-rightly so. Take back your country.
*Mexican.
Who pays this so called analyst? Complete trash. All crimes have actually dropped significantly since the new government change. The single area where the decline has been slow is in homicides. You have to put things into context in order to understand the current situation. Calderon declared war on drugs, which in short skyrocketed deaths and drug cartels, (his security czar is a convicted criminal in the US). AMLO, inherited the country with this cancer. His strategy is addressing the core reasons for the delinquency in the country and has made great strides in all areas. This will take time and continuity. Claudia will continue to adjust AMLO’s strategies and we will see a safer Mexico for all. It’s now time the USA addresses its drug consumption and deter weapons proliferation.
Amen. Drug abuse is rampant even in jails and prisons here in the U.S.A. Hopefully, Mexico’s lawsuit will impact weapons diarrhea.
Thank you. Cartels are no longer constrained to drug trafficking. I don’t believe that Mexico should make illegal what satisfies the drug demands in OTHER countries except when it becomes toxic waste like undiluted fentanyl and rotbrain meth. Mexico needs to decide for itself what to do with drugs for its own citizens but I don’t want to see addiction in Mexico like it is in the U.S.A. Parading in military gear, usurping Mexican sovereignty, assassinating media and government officials, and the like should, in my opinion, meet with draconian measures just as with meted to al Qaeda by the U.S.A. Yes, tackle the sociopathy of inter-cartel violence but don’t blame it on the U.S.A. and the corrupt/kook gun industry here.