Philanthropy or development? State power loss and the role of Mexican economic elites in promoting development
Keywords:
economic development, internationalization, transnational firms, MexicoAbstract
After 20 years of a gradual but accumulative dismantling of the devices which the state used to promote and plan development, this article analyzes the role played by Mexican economic elites in furthering development. It examines the strategies pursued by the largest 15 economic groups in this country, the evolution of their alliances with transnational firms, the extent to which they have been able to profit from such alliances to transfer and spread technological, organizational and market knowledge, in order to link the country with productive international chains in niches demanding investments in education and research and development (R&D). I conclude that the results are mixed, although in general not very promising. Except for a couple of cases, Mexican largest groups have retreated to traditional sectors or to facilitate the operations transnational companies in the country.
Downloads
References
AGHION, Philippe; HOWITT, Peter. Endogenous growth theory. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999.
AGÜERO, Felipe. La responsabilidad social empresarial en América Latina: Argentina, Brasil, Chile, Colombia, México y Perú. Miami: University de Miami, 2002.
AMSDEN, Alice. The rise of “The Rest”: challenges to the West from late-industrializing economies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
BARAN, Paul. The political economy of growth. New York: Monthly Review, 1973.
BELLAMY, Richard. Liberlism and modern society. Oxford: Polity Press, 1992.
EASTERLY, William. The elusive quest for growth: economists’ adventures and misadventures in the tropics. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001.
EVANS, Peter. Embedded autonomy: states and industrial transformation. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2005.
EVANS, Peter; RAUCH, James. Bureaucracy and growth: a cross-national analysis of the effects of ‘weberian’ state structures on economic growth.
American Sociological Review, n. 64, p.5, Oct. 1999.
FRANK, Andé Gunder. Lumpenbourgoisie: lumpendevelopment-dependence, class and politics in Latin America. New York: Monthly Review, 1972.
HAGGARD, Stephan; LIM, Wonhyuk; KIM, Euysung. Economic crisis and corporate restructuring in Korea: Reforming the Chaebol. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
HOUNIE, Adela; PITALLUGA, Lucía. La CEPAL y las nuevas teorías del crecimiento. Revista CEPAL, n. 68, p. 7-33, ago. 1999.
KELLER, William W; SAMUELS, Richard J. Crisis and innovation in Asian technology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
LALL, Sanjaya. Comptetiveness: technology and skills. Boston: Edward Elgar, 2001.
LODGE, George C; VOGEL, Ezra F. Ideology and national competitiveness: an analysis of nine countries. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1987.
SALAS-PORRAS, Alejandra. Changing the bases of political support in Mexico: probusiness networks and the market reform agenda. Review of International Political Economy, n. 12, p.129-154, Feb. 2005.
SKLAIR, Leslie. Assembling for development: the Maquila Industry in Mexico and the United States. London: Unwin Hyman, 1989.
THORP, Rosemary. Perspectiva histórica de los debates contemporáneos sobre el comercio y el crecimiento en América Latina. Istor, v.2, n. 10, p. 42-68, 2002.
YOON, Gene; CHOI, Sang-Chin. Psychology of the Korean people: collectivism and individualism. Seoul: Dong-A Publishings, 1994.
