Regional Integration, Development, and Governance in Mesoamerica

Alina Gamboa

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9783030253493
• eBook ISBN: 9783030253509
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: American Government
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book provides an overview of governance and development in the Mesoamerican Region (MAR), the design and scope of the Plan Puebla Panamá (PPP), its relationship to pre-existing regional organisms and its transformation into Proyecto Mesoamérica. The PPP was introduced as a holistic project that would reverse the cycles of poverty in Mesoamerica. However, the plan incited huge opposition from many groups within Mesoamerica, and throughout its duration few of its objectives were met. The author analyses the plan and describes the regional setting and precursors, as well as the US policy towards the Mesoamerican countries. Using this approach with an analysis of governance in Mesoamerica, this monograph shows a more complete picture of why this ambitious development project did not reach its goals and draws applicable insights to other regions where governance is complex.

© The Author(s) 2020

A. GamboaRegional Integration, Development, and Governance in Mesoamericahttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25350-9_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Alina Gamboa¹

(1)

Universidad Anahuac México, Mexico City, Mexico

Alina Gamboa

End Abstract

Mesoamerican regionalism began as an effort to tackle the shared problems of this area. As a relatively new construct based on an ancient identity, the Mesoamerican Region (MAR) showcases several of the debates present today in the study of regionalism and regionalisation. Although regional borders in the Americas have never been defined to the satisfaction of all (see Phillips 2004), most literature on regionalism has divided the Americas into “North,” “Central” and “South.” Mesoamerica overlaps parts of North America and Central America, however, in lieu of being formed independently from the previous boundaries, Mesoamerica is directly involved, interdependent with, and linked to the political economy of these regions. In other words, the North and Central American regions were not dismantled, nor did they regroup to make room for this new region; instead, the MAR overlaps the previous spaces. This overlapping is not a new phenomenon in Latin America; for example, geographically Mexico has always been considered as part of North America, but culturally, it is included into the cultural-linguistic region of “Latin America,” which includes everything from Mexico to Argentina and Chile. In light of this multiple categorising, it is unlikely that Mesoamerican regional processes will ever be independent of North, Central American, and Caribbean integration processes. This reinvention of Mesoamerica, sparked in 2001 by the Plan Puebla Panama (PPP) and other projects, heightened the awareness of the region and its role in the political economy of the Americas (see Villafuerte 2004; Lopez-Calva and Lustig 2003; Pisani and Wayne 2003). Fuelled in part as a response to the (then) forthcoming Free Trade Area of the Americas Agreement (FTAA), the PPP continued even after the collapse of FTAA negotiations in 2005. However, the project and the region underwent many changes during its seven-year existence. This case exemplifies how regions are continually shifting, changing direction, and adapting their geographical span.

Regionalism provides fertile ground for analysis in the International Political Economy (IPE) field of enquiry. The increasing number of regions and the ever-changing scope and nature of these has raised several questions for scholars of IPE, particularly the significance that this trend has on world order (Payne and Gamble 1996). The PPP (2001–2008) was one of the regional projects that shared the MAR space. It launched amidst a large amount of media hype and controversy; over its seven-year span, it was relaunched, restructured, and finally replaced with a new regional project. Nevertheless, regionalisation—the deepened economic or political relationship that can result from regionalism (Hettne 2000)—did not occur to the extent expected.

My research, which consists of a case study of the PPP, exemplifies the difficulty of implementing regional projects in Mesoamerica. By approaching the case study using the notions of regionalism, regionalisation, and governance, we can see the role of the PPP as a multidimensional regional development project, in shaping the Mesoamerican region. Dismissing the PPP as a failed project without a thorough analysis runs the risk of missing an enriching debate on the making (or unmaking) (Söderbaum 2016) of this region. My research will approach the case of the PPP, seeking to identify the cracks that caused the demise of the project and the effects it had on shaping the MAR. I argue that the PPP was not implemented in its entirety due to a weak and fragmented system of governance at all levels.

For this reason, the PPP should not be evaluated solely on the policies or projects it encompassed. Upon reviewing the institutional changes made for the transition from PPP to Proyecto Mesoamérica, the regional institutional structure shows a positive transformation. However, my analysis shows that this structure was only ONE aspect of the governance structure needed to implement a multifaceted regional project. Changes did not occur at other levels of governance. Out of the 99 projects proposed at the inception of the PPP, only large infrastructure projects advanced, projects that were overseen by fewer government actors. Many considered that the PPP failed since it did not complete many of its objectives or make a significant impact on poverty reduction. But, that is not the whole story, the PPP shaped the making of the MAR in other ways, mainly through the networking of non-governmental groups that opposed many of the components of the PPP. Although the original networks are no longer in place, they set a precedent, and enrich our understanding of regionalism—that which occurs outside of formal institutions.

1.1 Brief History of the Plan Puebla Panamá

The year 2000 marked a new expectancy in Mexican politics. After a historic defeat of the political party that governed during seven decades, a president from the opposition party took office. This defeat promised to change the modus operandi of Mexican politics, as well as bring forth desired development and growth. One of the issues discussed during the presidential campaign was the notable inequality existing in the nation. Not just between the rich and the poor throughout the country, but also between the north that had seemingly benefited from the increasing trade and investment promoted by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the south-southeast which remained lagging. During Vicente Fox’s Presidential campaign, he asserted that during the six years NAFTA had been in place, this inequality had increased instead of diminishing with the increased trade and growth as measured in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (CG-PPP 2002: 4–5). President-Elect Vicente Fox and his transition team¹ worked from the moment of their victorious July election to formulate a plan that would help integrate the weaker southern Mexican states into the rest of the national economy, promote development, and boost the welfare of its inhabitants.

The governments of Central America were working on another development plan as a response to the devastation that had occurred during Hurricane Mitch in 1998. They created, together with the IDB, the Central American Business School (INCAE), and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC/CEPAL), a study, presented in Madrid in 2000 named “Central America facing the twenty-first Century” (CG-PPP 2002: 9–10), it is also known as the “Madrid Agenda.” During an extraordinary meeting of the Tuxtla Mechanism for Cooperation and Dialogue (hereafter Tuxtla Mechanism)—the instrument for addressing issues conjointly between Mexico and Central America—the then Mexican President-Elect Vicente Fox proposed to unify both development plans highlighting the similarities of the conditions found in the southern parts of Mexico with those of Central America. The unification of the development plans was considered a novel idea for regional development (see Declaración Extraordinaria 2001). It was, however, not the first proposal for a regional project, since during the Tuxtla Mechanism meeting held in Guatemala (year 2000), the concept of a “Mesoamerican Region” or a “Mesoamerican Community of Nations” had already been suggested.²

The idea was that a joint development plan, coupled with the existing Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) between Mexico and some of the Central American countries, would be able to tackle regional problems and issues effectively. The Plan Puebla Panama, known as the PPP, was named after the geographic span it covered: from the central Mexican state of Puebla through to Panamá. Mexico and the Central American countries worked separately on the diagnostic chapters and proposals for the plan and then, in March of 2001, presented them as the blueprint for development for the region (CG-PPP 2002: 7–9).

The PPP came under scrutiny by academics, politicians, and pressure groups from the time it was first announced. Many critics attacked the use of the term “Mesoamerica” to describe the physical geography covered by the plan. Others criticised the similarities it had with proposals presented by the previous administration.³ Debates grew about whose interests were prioritised in this development project and who would benefit. Most critics agreed that little help would reach the poorest inhabitants of the region, those whose interests were supposedly at the forefront. Throughout its first year of life, the PPP was at the centre of debates, criticisms, and protests held by academics, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), civil society groups, indigenous groups, and opposing political parties. These critics claimed vindication each time the PPP fell into a crisis.

As a result, the 2002 report on the advance of the PPP included an extensive section on changes made on the focus and structure of the Plan. This report stated that the initial document was a “first explanation of objectives and strategies, along with a set of projects made up mainly of infrastructure projects. Because of this, it was deemed necessary to reinforce the social and environmental aspects of the Plan and, in general, the whole sustainable development strategy for the region” (CG-PPP 2002: 1). In addition to presenting the advances of the PPP after one year of its existence, the project coordinators acknowledged the criticisms that had been made and began a series of adjustments to the Plan.

The PPP went through an initial institutional restructuring within each of the individual participating governments. Thus in 2003, the PPP was back in the limelight with a relaunch proposal promising to bring forth a more efficient plan with tangible results. Each member state was assigned one of the eight initiatives of the PPP (see Table 1.1) and was to designate a presidential commissioner to head that initiative and to coordinate with the other member states and internal departments. For example, Guatemala received the Mesoamerican electrical connectivity initiative, so the Guatemalan President appointed his commissioner from the National Electricity Institute (INDE). Also, each of the ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs) were encouraged to include the PPP as a critical aspect to foreign policy and to become active players in the projects. In practice, however, it was felt that several presidents appointed a commissioner out of political considerations and not necessarily according to who would be best suited for the position (Interview 27: 2006).

Table 1.1

The Mesoamerican initiatives

1. Sustainable development—to promote the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources and participating parties, particularly local communities, in environmental conservation. Country in Charge: Nicaragua The first initiative will work closely together with the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor (MBC), as it has little budget of its own. This initiative reiterates the nations’ commitment to the MBC and gives it and other environmental initiatives their full support. The PPP Nations also agree to coordinate environmental laws and to invest in research which will enable the profitable but sustainable use of national natural resources. The Mesoamerican Fund for sustainable development will be set up as part of this initiative, providing small projects with necessary funding

2. Human development—to reduce poverty, enable vulnerable elements of society access to basic social services and contribute to the full development of Mesoamerican peoples. Country in charge: Mexico The scope of the Human Development initiative is quite ample. Within this initiative fall projects for; worker training, education and literacy, local development projects, indigenous communities, environmental education for indigenous people and farmers, statistics on migration, health, and demography, as well as further statistical work to evaluate the conditions of the people in the region Worker training or retraining for the most part will occur within manufacturing, where the new investments will provide training for potential employees, however, each state should emphasise local education, particularly in rural areas where there is a higher illiteracy rate. Bilingual primary education will be an integral part of the Plan, where the indigenous populations will be taught in both Spanish and their native language to foment the richness of the indigenous languages while enabling students to continue into secondary education which is still mainly taught in Spanish. Health issues will be tackled both through local health providers, but also through cooperation over threats that transcend borders (tropical diseases, AIDS, etc.). Educational campaigns on health and hygiene are also part of this initiative The Human Development initiative will be funded through the local governments of each country, though the national governments may allocate further funding towards some projects, most of the initiative does not include separate funding

3. Disaster prevention and mitigation—to promote the prevention and mitigation of natural disasters and incorporate the consideration of the elements of risk in projects by all actors involved. Country in Charge: Panama This initiative is closely tied to the UNDP and CEPAL joint project to assist with disaster prevention and mitigation. In addition to a commitment...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Theoretical Framework
• 3. Debates and Issues
• 4. Regionalisms and Regional Governance in Mesoamerica
• 5. From National to Local: Government Structures in Mesoamerica
• 6. Non-governmental Actors, Horizontal Participation in Policy
• 7. Conclusion
• Back Matter