The advent of populist movements, from the left and the right, has been accompanied by a rejection of globalization and a systematic call for the reappearance of an all-powerful government, aimed at correcting the ills that afflict humanity.
This populist narrative does not deny the extraordinary progress in terms of prosperity and poverty reduction that has characterized the world in recent decades, but it argues that “savage” or unfettered capitalism has caused extreme income inequality, benefiting mainly the rich.
The narrative is appealing, but it has served less to improve the welfare of the population than to consolidate new interests in power. This poses a clear dilemma in the context of electing Mexico’s next president: Closing the country’s doors to the world, or finding ways for the entire population to reap the benefits of the enormous opportunities that come with proximity to our two northern neighbors.
The economic liberalization that Mexico embarked on since the 1980s was little more than an acceptance that global technological change opened opportunities the country couldn’t seize without significantly changing its economic strategy and institutional framework. Today, the Mexican economy is much larger and more productive than it was half a century ago, and citizens enjoy political freedoms previously unimaginable.
The election of a new president, regardless of the winner, will determine the state’s willingness to chart a course that allows the entire population to live in an environment of security and certainty, or to persist in the institutional and economic destruction initiated by the outgoing government of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
The key point for those seeking progress for Mexico has to be accepting that globalization is an inexorable reality that has been extraordinarily beneficial for the country. The ills often associated with it — such as violence, inequality and poor-quality education — have been the result of what has not been done. The country can only attempt to isolate itself from globalization if it is willing to pay the price in terms of low growth, increased poverty and more inequality, losing out on the technological change upon which future progress depends.
The outgoing administration has attempted to play two contradictory games. On the one hand, it has allowed the continuation of integration with our northern neighbors, but did nothing to improve infrastructure or opportunities for the population to participate in that economic space. On the other hand, the administration has undermined the country’s security, hindered the development of energy capacity and created an environment of enormous uncertainty regarding the future, including the conditions necessary for the USMCA to continue after the review in 2026.
All of this calls into question the sustainability of current sources of growth. The winner of the election in June will have to define policy on this matter immediately.
Nations that, in recent decades, chose to face up to these challenges share very similar characteristics: They focused on improving the quality of their educational systems, built the necessary infrastructure and modified legislation to facilitate the transition of their economies. Above all, they changed their way of understanding development and embarked on a crusade to ensure that all of society could join the process.
By observing nations that thrive and those that lag behind, the path is evident. The successful countries embraced globalization and continue to do so, in parallel with adjusting and adapting their strategies and policies to ensure that their populations have access to every possible opportunity.
Mexico has followed a less consistent and more uncertain path. While there was a clear and consistent vision in the first iteration of Mexican reforms in the 1980s and 90s, the truth is that this did not last long. The liberalization of the economy was inconsistent with the way companies and banks were privatized, and many of the reforms, especially those undertaken in the previous administration of Enrique Peña Nieto (extraordinarily ambitious in themselves), were executed in such a way that they never gained legitimacy, and were therefore politically vulnerable.
The crucial point is that Mexico has spent decades pretending to reform when, in reality, it has only adapted at the lowest possible cost, preventing more successful and attractive results from being achieved for the population. That is the real dilemma for the next government.
Mexico has not embraced the need to be successful, has not accepted the imperative (and inevitable) nature of the new reality, all of which has made possible the attacks the country is now experiencing against its own future.
Globalization has not ceased to exist; the question is whether Mexico will eventually make it its own, or continue to pretend that its economic and political impoverishment is merely a matter of chance.
Luis Rubio is the president of México Evalúa-CIDAC and former president of the Mexican Council on International Affairs (COMEXI). He is a prolific columnist on international relations and on politics and the economy, writing weekly for Reforma newspaper, and regularly for The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times.
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.
It seems like Sr. Rubio is using “globalization” as a euphemism for the neoliberal capitalist world order. In that regard (1) his assertion that there are exemplar countries for Mexico to emulate is notably not accompanied by their actual names, and (2) his assertion that “globalization” (i.e., the neoliberal capitalist world order) is “inexorable” and “inevitable” is neoliberal political ideology, not an objective description of reality. (Such naturalization of one’s preferred ideology is a way of cutting off debate and, in this case, undermining the possibility that democracy can reasonably challenge and create alternatives to plutocracy.)
I am happy to read your comment. I could not have written my same thoughts nearly as articulately as you have. Thank you.
Gracias.
Well said! There should be a “like” button below these comments. Yours would garner a ton.
I agree completely with Arthurmartin. The LAST thing we need is a return to the antiquated policies of the previous administrations (by handing over our precious natural resources to the capitalist in the name of globalization)
And the PRIAN will provide “an environment of security and certainty” ( who believes that?), while Morena will “persist in the institutional and economic destruction initiated by the outgoing government of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.” What destruction? AMLO has done pretty good to repair some of the damage done by previous governments.
“violence, inequality and poor-quality education have been the result of what has not been done.” Violence is down, inequality is much less, education is improving the last 5 years. Indeed, here somebodies questionable opinion is brought as fact. Mexico’s “economic and political impoverishment” is not a “matter of chance” but a result of mismanagement by previous governments; let the 4th transformation continue!
seems like all those making comments live somewhere else, not in Mexico. Or their fantasyland is in some expat paradise. AMLO has destroyed Mexico, not that his predecessors did any better.
regardless of your play on words. Luis is one Mexico’s most brilliant analysts, and you should pay attention to what he has to say.
I wonder if this comment’s reliance on laughable hyperbole (“AMLO has destroyed Mexico”) and hectoring elitism (‘Pay attention to the brilliant neoliberal analyst!’) is evidence that Mexico’s plutocracy defenders have reached the end of their rhetorical rope.
Aye. Mi Spanish teacher de México 50 years ago calls AMLO a communist. We see this rhetoric within wholly USA discussions too. I’m not sure that the BS is laughable, though.
Vivo en Californias Alta y Baja.
I have to agree, mostly, with Hendrick Kues.
AMLO has done an admirably good job of continuing to move the country in a more democratic and egalitarian direction. By no means would I say Mexico is a democratic country nor is it’s social structure egalitarian in any noticable way. But better today than a decade ago.
The greatest obstacle to greater democracy and social development of the population is governments adherence to monopolistic economic policies and it’s hesitation to criminalize the practice. Monopolies are, by definition, no good for anyone but the shareholders, certainly not society or the workers and hence, not for the general economy as a whole.
As one long trained in the laws and institutions of the USA and with ancestry instrumental in the Revolution, I point out that our Republicans point out that the USA is NOT a democracy but a Republic and with the likes of th tRumpian insurrection and cancer I consider Mexico superior in this regard although I have severe criticism of cartel rule.
As we better celebrate Cinco de Mayo than in México I remind México that its independence from European predation is, in my opinion, was far more important than its independence from Spain UNLESS it backslides into globalist subserviency/recolonization. Globalization can bring Mexican subservience in the future as it has in the past, yet it can bring benefits as well. Globalization and nonglobalization have to be done intelligently and not at the whim of foreign powers governmental, corporate, or autocratic. We have a comparable stress in the U.S.A. where we have allowed foreign ownership of real estate, corporations, and even harbors as outsourcing of electronics, industry, and even agriculture. Your view is grand for foreign opportunists but has failed both of these countries.
Mira en la autopista nueva (en construcción) en el Boulevard Industrial en Tijuana!!!
It may be off topic but as a recent expat living in Queretaro, what I see as obstacles to Mexico’s success are not that complicated to resolve. Mexicans are getting screwed on prices. They pay US prices but earn MX income, someone please explain to me why products on Amazon Mx are often more than 3 times the price of the US website. Why do products and produce from 5 hours away cost as much as they do in the US. The import tariffs are not that much higher. Who is making the profit? The lack of physical infrastructure- if Colombia can provide potable water across the country, Mexico surely can figure it out.
Clearly the schools are not churning out enough students with enough education to meet the needs of industry. But then the US hardly gets high marks for over educating its population.
Geography and class disparities will always pose challenges to Mexico achieving a more egalitarian society but the succession of governments, right or left, seem to always start with good intentions but only get the job half done before moving on to a different pressing issue.
As I said, I am new here but not new to geopolitics and I know that absolutes and blaming one group or another obscure the fact that pragmatism is a dying philosophy in most countries’ leadership.
Living and traveling in Mexico for 18 years, I would be happy with any government that keeps up with the growth that is happening. The infrastructure has reached capacity in all the places I have traveled in the past few years… Sonora (Hermosillo, Guaymas/San Carlos, Puerto Peñasco), Mazatlan, Tijuana, Cancun, Mexico City, Monterrey .. to name a few. I don’t hear enough from this current administration about fixing the rivers of sewage or the availability of water.