Recent advances and trends
Mexico and Central America, in keeping with trends in the rest of Latin America, parts of Europe, and the United States, took a neo-liberal turn in the 1980s and 1990s. In contrast to some parts of Latin America (including some Central American countries), which have turned slightly away from neo-liberalism since the new millennium, Mexico has remained committed to it.
Critics of Mexican neo-liberalism have labeled it “neo-Porfirian,” disparaging the ideals of the current era by associating them with economic ideology in the age of Diaz. This comparison misses the mark, for current neo-liberalism is more individualist and has a stronger dose of social liberalism than its Porfirian counterpart. While no historical comparison entirely fits, the structure of the current brand of Mexican neo-liberal discourse is closer to the early nineteenthcentury variant articulated by Mora and other liberals in the sense that both promoted dismantling the existing system — for Mora, the colonial heritage; for neo-liberals today, Mexican state capitalism, which ballooned over the course of the twentieth century — and replacing it with a system that promoted economic freedom.Some scholars have located the roots of Mexican neo-liberalism in Friedrich von Hayek since he spent some time in Mexico around mid-century. The impact of the US, however, appears to have been far more influential, as many Mexican economists and politicians have studied business, public administration, and economics in the United States. The three successive Mexican presidents most instrumental in Mexico's shift to neo-liberalism in the 1980s∕1990s — Miguel de la Madrid, Carlos Salinas, and Ernesto Zedillo — all earned advanced degrees at either Harvard or Yale.
Despite the fact that Mexican neo-liberalism has been strongly influenced by the United States and adheres to economic principles, its articulation is strongly rooted in the national context. Consequently, in keeping with historical antecedents, there is a strong nationalist element in Mexican neo-liberal discourse.
In the realm of commerce, for example, Mexico's rejection of bilateralism and protectionism and embrace of multilateralism and free trade was couched in nationalist rhetoric that maintained that the demise of the Soviet Union demonstrated that sovereignty rested upon rapid market opening. In the post-Cold War globalized era, strengthening world ties via free trade enhanced sovereignty. Another major neo-liberal policy shift — the privatization of the ejidos — echoed Mexican nationalist and social liberal traditions. Salinas maintained that the ejido land tenure system stifled national development and repressed Mexicans since it made them dependent on government. Thus, privatization was associated with nationalism and strengthening Mexican citizenry.Salinas also invoked Revolutionary “Indianism” by associating ejido privatization with the tradition of Zapata, the leader of agrarian reform in Revolutionary Mexico. The irony is that for most Mexicans Zapata is a symbol of defense of the ejido system. Relying on the more conventional symbolism, Indians protesting neo-liberal reforms named themselves “Zapatistas.” There are other naysayers. Today, there is a national debate about reforming the energy sector by altering Article 27 of the Constitution to allow private interests to have a greater role in the oil industry. The leading opponent to reform is none other than Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, the son of the famous president who nationalized Mexican oil in the 1930s. His discourse, associating national control over resources with sovereignty, harks back to that of his father.