Political corruption trickles down the entire social and economic skeleton of Mexico, or formally, The United Mexican States. The system of corruption is undoubtedly to blame for the state's lack of development- but to what extent? Starting with the state's most authoritative leaders and policy makers, the corruption that has become a permanent fixture in Mexico exists in every facet of the society. Can any one factor be cited as a catalyst, or necessary component for this corruption to run such a rampant course? Can any one characteristic of a nation mired in corruption be singled out as explanatory, like colonialism or imperialism? In contemporary Mexican society, corruption is part of life. Much like the majority of nations in the world, there is a vast system in place which operates a nation, government. Whether a family of five living in Chihuahua will be granted a housing subsidy, or if an outspoken politician across the nation is assonated; these are merely events occurring within a government. However, in Mexico, the high level of corruption is hindering the progress of the nation.
[...] The word itself, even if stripped of any or all context, floats from the tongue on top of a wind of disappointment. Perhaps the negativity that always accompanies the word is the root of this disappointment. I think the aura of disappointment that comes naturally with the word is due to the close relationship between corruption and exploitation. In the case of Mexico, social and economic development opportunities are avoiding the nation. For a country with magnificent resources and a large labor force to lose out on the socioeconomic development that their geographical proximity practically guarantees is exploitive to its citizens. [...]
[...] The political corruption in Mexico exists systematically, but what effect has this system had on the development of the nation? Economist Richard Posner argues that a universally accepted system of bribery might aid in the development of a country like Mexico by “greasing the wheels” of bureaucracy.(Becker-Posner) This theory neglects to consider one factor that is monumental to a state in development: foreign investment. The majority of former Soviet Satellite states remain underdeveloped, with corrupt private companies working hand in hand with government. [...]
[...] Moving an entire upper management from the US to Mexico on a daily basis creates high overhead costs. If improvements were made, foreign executives would more willingly accept relocation packages without fearing for the safety of themselves, and their families. Shang-Jin Wei, Harvard trained economist and analyst for the International Monetary Fund explored the cost of doing business in Mexico. In his published papers, Wei examines Mexico and Singapore, and discovers how Mexico's level of corruption a stifling effect on foreign investment and economic growth”. [...]
[...] (Treisman) The 1917 Constitution makes Mexico a Federal Republic. Despite this, the same political party held office for more than eight decades. Also, Mexico has no history of exposure to Protestantism or British rule- instead Spanish, and Catholicism. On September 6th 2006, Vencente Fox relinquished power to Philipe Cadaron of the PAN political party. If September 6th is considered Mexico's first genuine exposure to democracy, then Mexico exemplifies the trends found by Treisman. However, this merely raises the issue of how and why Mexico's government was able to operate the way it did, and why this supposed democracy did not mimic the United States Mexico is blessed with a one thousand, nine hundred and fifty one mile border with the most influential nation in the world. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
