Mexico 1940-82: Higher Priority on Political Stability and Economic Growth than on Social Change Mexico’s political and economic stability from 1940-1982 can be well understood by looking at one of Sergio’s televisions. In Mexican Lives, Judith Adler Hellman introduces the reader to Sergio Espinoza, a businessman who once employed some 700 workers to produce televisions, stereos and sound systems. His televisions’ high production costs, low quality, high prices and inaccessibility to the poor sketch a rough microcosm of the period from 1940-1982 by laying bare the inefficiencies of import substitution industrialization and the vast inequalities in Mexico. From 1940-82, economic growth and stability came at the expense of social justice and political pluralism. In particular, the Mexican campesinos, the backbone of the revolutionary Zapatista uprising, suffered from the economic development model and from the PRI’s ability to muzzle dissent. The basic model employed after Cardenas to promote growth in the Mexican economy was Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI), whereby Mexico attempted to build domestic industry and a domestic market. The strategy quickly started paying dividends, and the “import-substitution policies of the Mexican state were successful in generating rapid and sustained economic growth” (Sharpe 28). ISI ushered in the “Mexican Miracle” of economic growth; the Mexican growth hovered around 6% annually for some thirty years (Hellman 1). The government created incentives for investment and lowered taxation to spur domestic investment. Despite the strong economic indicators, the spoils of growth were not shared by many. Those groups who bled and died from 1910-1917 for a more just and equitable Mexico were subsequently denied the fruits of economic growth and transparent political representation. Efforts to accelerate growth since the mid 1930s “have tended to produce- or at least, to reinforce- a highly inequitable pattern of income distribution” (Hansen 71). According to Roger Hansen, the author of The Politics of Mexican Development, “no other Latin American political system has provided “more rewards for its new industrial and commercial agricultural elites” (87) since 1940 and “in no other major Latin American country has less been done directly by the government for the bottom quarter of society” (87). Mexico’s development created a middle class and brought a certain measure of industrialization but further disenfranchised the poor. Mexico’s leaders implemented a development policy which violated the ideals of the revolution by shirking the responsibilities of a social democracy. In his essay “Guatemalan Politics: The Popular Struggle for Democracy,” Garry H.
Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated racism and economic exploitation, and paved the way for all-consuming, cultural wars in the centuries to come.
Mexican Lives is a rare piece of literature that accounts for the human struggle of an underdeveloped nation, which is kept impoverished in order to create wealth for that of another nation, the United States. The reader is shown that the act of globalization and inclusion in the world’s economies, more directly the United States, is not always beneficial to all parties involved. The data and interviews, which Hellman has put forth for her readers, contain some aspect of negativity that has impacted their lives by their nation’s choice to intertwine their economy with that of the United States. Therefore it can only be concluded that the entering into world markets, that of Mexico into the United States, does not always bring on positive outcomes. Thus, one sees that Mexico has become this wasteland of economic excrement; as a result it has become inherently reliant on the United States.
Time and rules have been transforming countries in many ways; especially, in the 1850’s and the 1920’s, when liberals were firmly in control across Latin American region. Liberalism can be defined as a dominant political philosophy in which almost every Latin American country was affected. A sense of progress over tradition, reason over faith, and free market over government control. Although each country was different, all liberals pursued similar policies. They emphasize on legal equality for all citizens, progress, free trade, anti-slavery, and removing power from church. Liberals declared promising changes for Latin American’s future. But Latin America had a stronger hierarchical society with more labor systems, nothing compare to the United States societies. Liberals weren’t good for Latin America. What I mean by “good” is the creation of a turning point or some type of contribution towards success. I define “good” as beneficial or helpful. The Latin American economy was stagnant between 1820 and 1850 because of independence wars, transportation and the recreation of facilities. I describe this era as, “the era when Latin America when off road”.
...most important manufactured goods and, once the domestic goals were achieved, to export finished products. Mexican capital, Mexican industry and Mexican raw materials would be used in this important endeavor. If foreigners wanted to invest, they were restricted to manufacturing industries rather than extractive ones. Even in manufacturing, foreign investments could not control the majority of interest in any company: the so-called 51% rule”. With Aleman’s new emphasis on the economy, “far from wanting to organize the lower classes for social change, Alemán sought to keep them pacified. Corporatism suited the purpose, because just as it could be used to mobilize, it could also be used to immobilize, by subjecting labor and peasant unions to government control. Reflecting the priority on stability, the party was renamed Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI).”
Gleijeses Piero. Shattered Hope The Guatemalan Revolution and The United States, 1944-1954. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.
From the time of its colonization at the hands of Spanish Conquistadors in the early 1500’s, Guatemala has suffered under the oppression of dictator after dictator. These dictators, who ruled only with the support of the military and only in their own interests, created a form of serfdom; by 1944, two percent of the people owned 70 percent of the usable land.
Guatemala held democratic elections in 1944 and 1951, they resulted in leftist government groups holding power and rule of the country. Intervention from the United States and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) backed a more conservative military minded regime. A military coup took place in 1954 to over throw the elected government and install the rule of Carlos Castillo Armas. Carlos Armas was a military general before the coup and with the CIA orchestrated operation he was made President from July 8th 1954 until his assassination in 1957. Upon his assassination, similar militant minded presidents rose to power and continued to run the country. Due to the nature of military dictatorship, in 1960, social discontent began to give way to left wing militants made up of the Mayan indigenous people and rural peasantry. This is the match that lit Guatemala’s Civil War, street battles between the two groups tore the country and pressured the autocratic ruler General Miguel Ydigoras Fuentes to fight harder against the civilian insurrection. Similar to the government Abductions th...
Peeler, John A. Latin American Democracies. Chapel Hill, NC and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1985. Print.
Globalization, the term used to describe the dominant framework of international relations following the cold war, is affecting many aspects of politics and social experience. This is seen in the Zapatista rebellion and movement in Chiapas, Mexico that has benefited from globalization and transnational support. This paper examines the relationship of transnationalism and social movements with the Zapatistas as a case study. In particular, this paper argues that the Zapatistas are part of the anti-globalization cycle of protest. As a result, they have used the master frame of this cycle of protest and aligned that frame in light of their particular situation. Because this frame was resonant with transnational activists a network of support was formed, which pressures the government from above, increasing the chances of success of a movement. The paper concludes by examining the implications of the Zapatistas for social movement research, with particular regard for Tarrow’s “strong thesis” about movements in a transnational era
Kehoe, Timothy J. (November 2010). Why Economic Reforms Have Not Generated Economic Growth in Mexico. Kim J. Ruhl Department of Economics, NYU Stern School of Business. Retrieved from http://www.kimjruhl.com/storage/data/KehoeRuhlJEL.pdf
The Mexican Revolution began November 20th, 1910. It is disputable that it extended up to two decades and seized more than 900,000 lives. This revolution, however, also ended dictatorship in Mexico and restored the rights of farm workers, or peons, and its citizens. Revolutions are often started because a large group of individuals want to see a change. These beings decided to be the change that they wanted to see and risked many things, including their lives. Francisco “Pancho” Villa and Emiliano Zapata are the main revolutionaries remembered. These figures of the revolution took on the responsibility that came with the title. Their main goal was to regain the rights the people deserved. The peons believed that they deserved the land that they labored on. These workers rose up in a vehement conflict against those opposing and oppressing them. The United States was also significantly affected by this war because anybody who did not want to fight left the country and migrated north. While the end of the revolution may be considered to be in the year of 1917 with the draft of a new constitution, the fighting did not culminate until the 1930’s.
The Russian and Mexican revolution’s differed in the ideas they adopted but they were similar in the way they met their goals and started their uprisings. The Russian revolution was made with the goal to create an egalitarian government that was based off of Karl Marx’s socialism principles. In short, t...
The history of political instability in Mexico and its need for revolution is very complex and dates back to the colonization of Mexico by the Spaniards in the 1500s. However, many aspects of the social situation of Mexico when the Revolution broke out can be attributed to the thirty-year dictatorship of President Porfrio Diaz, prior to 1911. The Revolution began in November of 1910 in an effort to overthrow the Diaz dictatorship. Under the Diaz presidency, a small minority of people, primarily relatives and friends, were in ...
Around the 1930s, Brazil and Latin American began following the process of Import Substitution Industrialization, which lasted until the end of the 1980s. The ISI policies devaluated the currency in order to boost exports and discourage imports, followed by adopting different exchange rates for goods (Watkins). ISI in Brazil had an interesting effect; it created a three-prong system of governmental, private, and foreign capital being directed at the infrastructure and heavy industry, manufacturing goods, and the production of durable goods. The program worked at first but then became a serious economic problem. When the 1980s came around Brazil realized that ISI policies lead to inefficient industries because of their lack of exposure to international competition, the policies ignoring the rural sector, and finally limiting the local producers. Following the end of the ISI policies, Brazil went through many plans to correct the economy and none seemed to work until the Real Plan made real changes to the country.
“In the 1840s, a new generation of politicians emerged, challenging the persons and policies of those who had held power since the end of the 1820s” (Safford, 67). It was a political change in Latin America because before there were only caudillos that only filled the political role in a country and those caudillos still acted like the kings during the colonial period. With new liberals that challenged the norms at the time period led to radical changes, such in Mexico. Since the caudillos didn’t do much that was different that their former colonist rulers. After the Wars of Independence, caudillos came into power because of the liberalism failure to get away from the colonialism legacy. Many of these caudillos took advantage of the failure of these changes that were promised by liberals. Caudillos such as Jose Manuel de Rosas from Argentina took control over the country and caused many problems between the people. Even though Rosas brought order in Argentina, he failed because of the strict leadership and may people feared off until he left in exile to England in 1852. That is one of the differences is that caudillos were the leaders that still follow the colonialism legacy, while the new liberals in the 1840s were the ones that actually