Mexico after Fox: Free-market liberals who’ve done something for the poor
Published on: November 5, 2006
show comments
  • Odracir Barquera

    Dear Mr. Fukuyama,
    Being Mexican, and very interested in politics, I have to say I agree in general terms with what you express in this article; especially the way you interpret the actions of Lopez Obrador. I just have a few comments I believe should be noted:
    1) When you talk about the problem of having single terms, you mention both governors and state legislators have 3-year terms. Governors actually have 6-year terms (like the President), it is city mayors and local legislators who have 3-year terms, along with the Federal Diputados (Representatives). Senators also have 6-year terms.
    2) In the next paragraph, you mentioned that over the past 6 years legislation has been blocked, when the Congress has been held by opposition parties since 1997 (the last 3 years of Zedillo). But the argument in general is debatable, since it is just structural reforms that have been blocked but many other laws have passed unanimously. The Congress has actually supported Fox on many issues (Access to Information, Social Development, etc.), but his administration hasn’t been too keen on negotiating with the political parties/actors.
    3) When you talk about the IFE being one of Ernesto Zedillo’s legacies, I partially agree. Let’s not forget that the IFE was actually created under the Salinas Administration. It was in 1996 though when it was granted full independence. But in all fairness, the IFE is a legacy of both Salinas and Zedillo.
    4) Finally, regarding Progresa-Oportunidades, this program is actually being adjusted to be implemented in New York City. There’s an editorial on the NYT about this from Oct. 17th.
    Best regards,
    Odracir Barquera

  • Travis Whetsell

    Forgive my ignorance. Im a recent bacceloreate whose interest is in IR theory, and i’ve recently read The End of History.

    On dependency theory, i was wondering if there was a possible counter refutation to the refutation provided in The End of History. In the End of History you stated that dependency theory was refuted by the rapid emerengce of Asian economies like Singapore. And, while i tend to agree with the idea that dependencias hold stubbornly to dead Marxist theory, which perhaps leads to a self fullfilling profecy about the undeveloped world’s dependence on the developed one, I wonder if perhaps this refutation can be countered thusly: Asian economies were able to rapidly emerge according to the dictates of free market theory, because unlike their Latin American counterpart they were free from a regional hegemon’s influence. Not, because they employed the principle’s of free market theory more efficatiously.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.