NAFTA and Democracy in Mexico

A Successful Failure?

Pablo Calderón Martínez

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351110334
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politica e relazioni internazionali
• Subtopic: Politica

After describing NAFTA as 'the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere', Donald Trump's election seemed to represent the final nail in the coffin for North American economic integration. Following a decade of stagnation, however, Trump's victory presents a timely opportunity to reconsider North American integration and evaluate NAFTA's democratic track record in Mexico.

In this book, Pablo Calderón Martínez presents a detailed analysis of NAFTA's influence as a political tool for democracy in Mexico. Extending beyond a mere economic or social exploration of the consequences of NAFTA, Calderón Martínez uses a three-tiered analysis based on causality mechanisms to explain how the interactions between internationalisation and democratisation unfolded in Mexico. Calderón Martínez's analysis demonstrates that Mexico's internationalisation project under the framework of NAFTA gave shape to, if not made, Mexico's democratisation process.

An original and timely resource for scholars and students interested in understanding how – in cases like Mexico where transitions to democracy are characterised by a finely poised balance of power – small influences from abroad can make significant long-lasting differences domestically.

1Introduction

‘NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere’. During the first Presidential debate between then Republican candidate Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, President Trump uttered these provocative words in a clearly accusatory tone; Secretary Clinton’s husband Bill had ushered NAFTA through congressional approval and was responsible for its early implementation (although much of the negotiation and the actual signing of the treaty was done by the Bush administration) and thus the Clintons were responsible for job losses all across the United States. According to President Trump, Mexico was not a ‘friend’ of the United States and Mexico had instead been taking advantage of its northern neighbour since the signing of the treaty.

Such a negative interpretation of NAFTA is certainly not new, nor is it one that is prevalent solely in the United States. The idea that NAFTA has been nothing less than an unmitigated disaster has also been a popular view amongst academics and politicians south of the border for some time now. The Zapatista movement launched a ‘war’ on the Mexican state on the very day the agreement was implemented, which in itself speaks volumes. Similarly, three-time presidential candidate Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas’ popular drive towards the presidency in 1988 was, initially at least, driven by his opposition to the neoliberal tide that was to move Mexico towards the Washington Consensus and the eventual signing of NAFTA. Recently Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Cárdenas’ political heir who has now matched his record three runs at the presidency, may not take Trump’s virulent stance against NAFTA but he seems at best unconvinced by the agreement. According to López Obrador, NAFTA ‘didn’t hurt but it wasn’t the panacea’ and appeared relatively unconcerned by the risk Trump poses to North American economic integration (Cattan and Rodríguez, 2017). Finally, in academic circles the ‘official’ version that sees NAFTA as nothing short of a success is sometimes met with scepticism and even derision.

In some ways this book agrees with some of the more sceptical views: no, NAFTA was not the panacea that was promised, and yes, it did have some negative social and economic consequences in all three countries. On the other hand, there is no doubt that NAFTA did drastically increase trade between the three signing nations and did contribute to the modernisation of the Mexican economy. This book, however, focuses more on NAFTA’s political rather than strictly economic consequences; particularly on the agreement’s – admittedly sometimes limited – role as a force for positive democratic change in Mexico. This book will argue that the political consequences of NAFTA, which were often unintended and sometimes even unwelcomed, are perhaps the most important legacy of the experiment. As such, this work looks back at what has been the political legacy of an unlikely experiment in economic integration between two developed economies and consolidated democracies with what can only be described as a developing country (both in terms if its economy and its democratic evolution).

This book will build on and contribute to the broad literature on the theoretical, practical, and even ethical analysis of democracy and democratisation, which has almost certainly been the most researched topic in comparative politics over the last three decades (Boix and Stokes, 2007: 9). The end of World War II meant that democracy went from being one of many forms of political organisation to being widely recognised as the preferred form of government for liberal-capitalist industrialised societies. Immediately after the breakdown of the Soviet Union and the subsequent democratisation of Central Europe, which was meant to signal, as famously hailed by Francis Fukuyama, the end of the historical development of political systems, it seemed as if democracy was on track to becoming the only form of political organisation. The rapid increase in the number of countries that began a progression towards democracy since 1989 gave an unprecedented impetus to the ‘third wave of democratisation’ and seemed to confirm the notion that the democratisation of the globe was only a matter of time. Regardless of how controversial these assumptions may now seem, the fact is that a succession of events around the globe between the mid-1970s and the late 1990s (as well as those immediately following the global financial crisis of 2008 and the recent waves of democratisation and anti-democratisation), have spurred an even greater interest in democratisation as an academic field. Important studies on democratisation, both theoretical and empirical, added to the already well-established literature on the theory and practice of democracy and political systems.

However, despite the vast academic literature on the subject, we are not yet able to fully understand – let alone predict – how, why or when democracy will prevail; in fact, political science is far from even finding a consensus on what democracy is and what it is not. Even as theories of democracy become increasingly complex and the methodology increasingly accurate, the academic community is still far from reaching a consensus on any of the causes of democracy (Geddes, 2007: 317–319). The third wave of democratisation, and perhaps more poignantly the ‘democratic recession’ experienced since 2006 (Diamond, 2015) has only accentuated the difficulties political scientists face when explaining, predicting and even defining democracy. Hence, democratisation studies remain at the fore of comparative politics. Recent events in the Arab world (democratic transitions, regressions, civil war, and authoritarian strengthening), the threat of democratic regressions in Latin America and Africa, the emergence of strong a populist backlashes against traditional liberalism (both in political and economic terms) in some developed societies, the increasingly salient role international organisations have in the democratic politics of sovereign states and the virulent reactions we have seen against them, and (perhaps most importantly) the challenges to democracy worldwide as we witness the possible emergence of a new non-democratic (and it would seem one becoming increasingly authoritarian) hegemon on the world stage (i.e. China), are all issues that remind us of the continuous relevance of democracy and democratisation studies.

As the study of democratisation enjoys some sort of a revival, this book embarks on a novel analysis of one of the most emblematic cases of the ‘third wave’: Mexico. The Mexican transition is significant in the context of the third wave for many reasons; it was one of the final countries to achieve a democratic transition in Latin America, it followed a rather unique form of authoritarianism (one that was actually seen as a democracy at some stage) and in many ways it was a text-book example of the kind of elite-driven transitions which were meant to guarantee their success. Besides these factors, there are many other aspects that make the Mexican transition a worthy case study.

Although a further reasoning of why Mexico represents a solid case study for the analysis of the role of internationalisation on democratisation will be developed later, I should accentuate at this point that more than a study of a country’s transition to democracy, this is a holistic and ambitious analysis of Mexico’s redefinition. This redefinition is nowhere more evident than in the project of internationalisation Mexico embarked on; and it is with the particularities of the North American Free Trade Agreement in mind that I find academic and practical value on the analysis of Mexico’s democratisation, as well as value in its potential to shed a light on the role internationalisation projects can play in transitions to democracy elsewhere. This book does not pretend to be an exhaustive analysis of what was a very complex and protractive process of democratisation – there is simply not enough time to do so and many wonderful studies of the sort have been carried out before – nor will it claim to develop new theories in the field of democratisation based on this single (albeit important) case. The aim, however, is to develop a detailed analysis of the relationship between a very unique case of internationalisation and some very specific changes in the political, social, institutional and economic structures of Mexico, which, as I will evidence, had an influence on its respective processes of democratisation. In so doing, I will develop a hypothesis about the interactions between internationalisation and democratisation that can help explain other cases. Certainly, a new theory of democratisation cannot be developed from the experiences of one case study, but this analysis can be used effectively as a foundation to develop a hypothesis on the workings of a very specific particular correlation. The goal of this book then is not to explain every detail of democratisation or develop a new theory behind it. The goal is far more modest and realistic; to explain how the transition to democracy in Mexico was, to a great extent, shaped by its internationalisation project.

Before dealing with the particular issues that concern this project, I believe it is necessary to present a fairly detailed structural overview of the book. Since this is a study that aims to formulate working hypotheses, as well as analyse the already very complex processes of internationalisation and democratisation, the structure of the project is of paramount importance. Hence, this chapter will describe the main elements of the research and present an overall introduction to the thematic areas this project engages with. This book agrees with the simple and fundamental view that ‘for the scientific study of politics to progress then research needs to be related to theory’ (Peters, 2008: 45), and, as such, this book will attempt to offer a clear explanation of the relationship between the theory and the reality of our case study. It is in this opening chapter that the reader will get a detailed account of how this will be done.

In this first chapter I will develop a theoretical framework on comparative politics that will, hopefully, explain why this study is, above all, worthy of being made; I will then present some arguments to back my selection of Mexico as a relevant case study (i.e. one that can be used to explain democratisation elsewhere) as well as ‘introducing’ the case study to the reader; I will present my main hypothesis; I will discuss the scope of my research; and finally I will offer a general description of the chapters of the book.

Why Only Mexico?

Comparing in political science is, for the most part, the method by which we are able to develop hypotheses through inference and generalisation. The essential objective of the study of politics has to be ‘the creation of knowledge, defined as inferences or generalisations about politics drawn from evidence’ (Almond, 1996: 52); in political science, the only evidence we have is the observable events that have already taken place. In an ideal world the experimental method would be used when trying to develop any sort of scientific explanation, however, there are many obvious practical and ethical impediments that make the use of the experimental method in political science uncommon. Therefore, the only way that we can advance inferences and generalisations from observed events without being able to replicate them is by comparing political systems – be it different countries at a particular time, different countries at different times or a particular country at different times – in order to advance hypotheses on specific outcomes. In this sense, comparative politics becomes the only way for political science to develop theories that come close to explaining political phenomena. In simpler words, comparison is ‘a basic methodological concept, not merely a convenient term vaguely symbolizing the focus of one’s research interests’ (Kalleberg, 1966: 72); obviously then, in political science, a study is comparative not because of its area of interest (i.e. different political systems) but because of the methodology that is used to develop hypotheses. In that sense, this book can and should be described as a work of comparative politics, as it essentially analyses the evolution of a single case study across a set period of time; it is, in essence, a comparison of Mexico before and after NAFTA.

But if comparison is the main methodological tool of comparative politics, then why not compare as many political systems as possible to explain democratisation? Why ‘settle’ with one? Shouldn’t theories be ‘inferred from facts and not the other way around’ (Fukuyama, 2011: 24)? Is it not obvious that the statistical method (i.e. large-n studies) is better suited for the analysis of correlations as it allows for the control of specific variables? To a great extent this is absolutely true: if the key distinguishable element of comparative politics vis-à-vis other disciplines in political science is its ability to control, then ‘its generalisations have to be checked against “all cases” ’ (Sartori, 1970: 1035). Large-n statistical studies, however, are perhaps more about hypothesis testing than they are about hypothesis generation. In recent years there has, undoubtedly, been a real increase in large-n statistical analyses thanks to improvements in quantitative methodology, data gathering and overall availability of case studies. Indeed, the conjectural element of comparative politics ‘is usually dismissed as a matter of guesswork, inspiration or luck – a leap of faith, and hence a poor subject for methodological reflection’; but, as John Gerring points out (2007: 98), ‘there are two moments of empirical research, a light bulb moment and sceptical moment’. Without getting carried away and understanding the obvious limitations of a single case study analysis, this book will be more of a ‘light bulb moment’ rather than a ‘sceptical moment’.

Similarly, case-study and small-n research fulfils specific functions. There are times, for instance, when the limited availability of cases makes the use of large-n studies redundant. What would have been the point of applying the statistical method to analyse the emergence of the first democracies during the earlier stages of industrialisation? Surely a less intense statistical analysis of the few democracies that existed in 1850 would not be as enlightening as an intensive analysis of the few cases available. This book is an ideal example of when a focused (or small-n) comparison is better suited than a large-n study. Since there is only a handful of examples of institutionalised internationalisation processes, and even fewer that have coincided with the development of democratic institutions at domestic level, we have a rather limited pool of case studies. If on top of this we consider that there have arguably only been two attempts of regional integration between highly developed, consolidated democracies with less developed, democratising countries – the European and North American regionalisation projects – our options become even more limited. If we are to develop the idea that specific projects of internationalisation matter in the process of democratisation, therefore, we are only really left with the two cases of regional integration that attempted integration of consolidated democracies with democratising countries. Of these two cases, the dynamics behind the European project’s democratising influence (the so-called process of ‘democratisation by integration’ (Dimitrova and Pridham, 2004)) have been widely researched and conceptualised (the literature on Europeanisation is almost endless). Similarly, studies of dual/multi-level transitions are not entirely unusual (e.g. González, 2008; Haggard and Webb, 1994; Pickles and Smith, 1998) but these rarely focus on processes of internationalisation under the specific contexts of institutionalised (NAFTA may be hampered by an organisational weakness bordering on the absurd, but a weak institutional structure is still structure) regional integration. Mexico’s transition(s) under NAFTA’s ‘shadow’, thus, is not only a perfect opportunity to analyse how institutionalised internationalisation projects affect democratisation, but it is certainly the only relevant case study outside Europe.

The choice of using ‘only’ one case study – Mexico – is not only informed by the relative lack of comparable cases; after all a comparison with European countries (mainly Southern European, as will be explained in the next section) or o...