Sebastian Chaskel, MPA
On October 14th and 15th Princeton’s campus hosted Voz Latina 2011, the third annual symposium organized by the university’s Office of Academic Affairs and Diversity and the Latino Graduate Student Association in honor of Latino Heritage Month. This year’s topic: "Immigration in the 21st Century—the Costs of a Broken System."
The conference organizers could not have chosen a more opportune moment for a conversation on immigration. While the percentage of foreign-born residents in the United States has skyrocketed from 5% in the 1960s to 13% today, some state governments are implementing the strongest anti-immigrant policies the country has ever seen, reflecting a strong xenophobia in certain regions. The United States’ 11.2 million undocumented immigrants—half of them Mexican—now represent 5% of the US labor force. Yet they continue to work in the shadows, lacking the rights and protections that the rest of the population enjoys. As Princeton Professor Douglas Massey commented in his presentation, the structural conditions are being created for a semi-permanent underclass in the United States.
The symposium’s guests highlighted the elevated costs of a broken system. Enrique Morones, the founder of Border Angels, mentioned that about 10,000 people have died on the US-Mexico border attempting to cross it. His organization places water, blankets, and food on the border in an attempt to prevent further deaths, and records the stories of those that have perished in order to give a human face to the statistics. Professor Jorge Bustamante from Notre Dame University commented on his findings as UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants from 2005 to 2011. During this time, he witnessed constitutional violations executed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) agents who entered homes without warrants and seized occupants without legal bases. At the time the US government questioned Bustamante’s accusation, but a 2009 report by the Immigration Justice Clinic at Yeshiva University's Cardozo Law School, Constitution on Ice, seconded Bustamante’s findings, “reveal[ing] an established pattern of misconduct by ICE agents” in the region covered by the study.
Princeton Professor Patricia Fernandez-Kelly argued that undocumented immigrants are more likely than others to suffer from the country’s broken health system. Her research shows that those that choose to immigrate to the United States are healthier than the average person in their countries of origin, but health problems emerge once they enter the United States. As immigrants assimilate, they and their descendents pick up unhealthy smoking, drinking, and eating habits, along with the diseases that accompany them, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Their health is further impaired by limited access to health services due to state and local policies nationwide which limit immigrant access to basic medical care. New Jersey and Miami-Dade County stand out for the services they offer immigrant populations, while San Diego is notorious for its barriers to health access.
Professor Marta Tienda focused on Latino education trends, lamenting that although 16% of the American population is Hispanic, only 6% of college degree holders identify as such. She implored the Latino students present to do their part by encouraging and assisting other Hispanics in their college application processes. “Bring along two others, one in each hand,” Professor Tienda urged.
The national immigration correspondent for the New York Times, Julia Preston, explained that the harsh state anti-immigration laws being implemented across the country, such as Alabama’s HB56, and Arizona’s SB 1070, reflect the disagreements between states and the federal government over immigration reform. Professor Massey argued that these and other restrictive developments, such as greater border control, have not decreased illegal immigration, but have encouraged illegal immigrants to “hunker down” in the US, as the costs of traveling home and returning have increased. “Coyotes,” or smugglers, now charges $5,000-$7,000 per person brought to the country, compared to $1,000 or $2,000 just five years ago. Illegal migration has dropped in recent years, but this is due to decreased job openings in the United States, greater legal migration opportunities, and reduced fertility in Mexico. As a result, there is a net inflow of zero illegal immigrants to the U.S. now—fewer people are coming, but fewer people are also going back.
In terms of what should be done, both Professor Bustamante and Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) Professor Denise Dresser argued that the ideal policy response would be a bilateral agreement between Mexico and the United States on immigration. Legislative reform by nature is unilateral, Bustamante explained, and will therefore not be able to solve a bilateral problem. Such an agreement was on the table when Vicente Fox and George W. Bush led Mexico and the US, respectively, but the notion of a bilateral agreement disappeared on September 11, 2001. Immigration is now seen through a prism of security and thus such an agreement is no longer a viable option.
Professor Massey argued that the US is closer to passing comprehensive immigration reform than most think. The border is now secure and a system by which Mexicans and others can apply to work in the United States is already in place. The one outstanding issue is dealing with the 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants in the country, and Massey sees the only feasible and humane policy choice as 1) granting automatic legal status to everyone who was brought illegally to the US as a child, and 2) creating a system by which those that came as adults can gain citizenship.
Julia Preston predicted that policymakers will not touch immigration reform until after the 2012 presidential election due to the sensitivity of the subject to constituents. Professor Massey explained that the uneasiness many middle-age Americans feels about the increasing level of foreign-born residents in the US can be partly explained in that they came to age in the 1950s-60s, a time in which the foreign-born percentage of US residents was at an exceptional low of about 5%. The current 14% is closer to the country’s historical record, but it is nevertheless s a new reality for that generation. Professor Dresser emphasized that it is in both the United States’ and Mexico’s interest to find a sustainable solution and encouraged those interested in seeing reform, including the Mexican government, to pressure American legislators at a local level in order to create the incentives for reform.
A population of 11 million residing in the US without access to basic rights clashes with the values American society purports to uphold. While there was variance among the participants as to the best policy choice and the most efficient strategy to achieve reform, there was unanimous agreement in recognizing that the current situation is inhumane, dangerous, and unsustainable. Lest the United States become a country with permanent first- and second-class citizens, with different sets of rights and protections, immigration reform should be an urgent priority for the country’s decision makers.
Showing posts with label Latin America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Latin America. Show all posts
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
Latin Americans: A disproportionate share of the uninsured
Veronica Guerra, MPA
Healthcare in America is designed as a multi-payer or privatized system, meaning everyone is responsible for securing his or her own health services. Excluding the young and old who are covered under federal or state social welfare programs, the majority of Americans get healthcare either through private insurance or their employer. Yet, nearly 55.6 million Americans lack access to basic health services, and even those who do find costs prohibitive: nearly half of bankruptcies in America are related to medical care payments. These statistics become paradoxical when one considers ballooning national expenditures in the health services industry.
In 2005 almost 34% of Latinos were uninsured, constituting a disproportionate share of the nation’s uninsured population. (This high rate has also led to further exacerbation of existing health inequities and to more pronounced health disparities.) The likelihood of being uninsured is far higher among non-citizen Latinos who primarily speak Spanish. There are various factors that contribute to the increasingly uninsured status of the Latino population, including employment, employee benefits, household income, language, and citizenship status.
Immigration from Latin America to the United States has steadily risen over time. Latino citizens and non-citizens are less likely to have both public and private insurance coverage. Non-citizens do not qualify for various public programs including Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and legal immigrants often do not apply for public programs because of fear of jeopardizing their residency status or because they are ineligible during the first five years of gaining residency. When employed, they are less likely to receive employee health benefits, and low-wages prevent the purchase of private insurance. In general, minorities and immigrant families have lower average incomes than white citizen families. These income differences pose a challenge in obtaining health benefits because low incomes lead many families to make difficult decisions between health care coverage and other basic necessities due to the increasing costs of health coverage.
Language also has an implicit effect on uninsured status. Those who have limited English proficiency may have limited employment opportunities and may work in low-wage sectors that do not offer employee health benefits. Furthermore, language barriers both pose a challenge in completing insurance applications and may compromise the quality of health care when access is obtained.
One important recommendation that could decrease the number of uninsured is to restore public insurance eligibility for legal immigrants, either through federal legislation or at the state level through programs such as Medicaid and SCHIP. Resources should be concentrated in the Latino community to help reduce the number of uninsured and decrease medical expenses incurred through emergency care visits. Existing resources that provide care for the uninsured such as safety-net clinics should be improved and provided increased funding to meet the high demand for their services. Additionally, policies that improve the quality of jobs held by Latinos or that incentivize businesses to offer insurance to low-income workers could lead to increased offers in employer-based health insurance. Processes to apply for insurance—whether public or private—should be streamlined and accessible to those who require language assistance. It is important that government efforts be focused on decreasing health disparities, improving preventive efforts, and increasing access to health care coverage for adults and children. This is not simply beneficial to the Latino community, but to Americans nationwide.
Healthcare in America is designed as a multi-payer or privatized system, meaning everyone is responsible for securing his or her own health services. Excluding the young and old who are covered under federal or state social welfare programs, the majority of Americans get healthcare either through private insurance or their employer. Yet, nearly 55.6 million Americans lack access to basic health services, and even those who do find costs prohibitive: nearly half of bankruptcies in America are related to medical care payments. These statistics become paradoxical when one considers ballooning national expenditures in the health services industry.
In 2005 almost 34% of Latinos were uninsured, constituting a disproportionate share of the nation’s uninsured population. (This high rate has also led to further exacerbation of existing health inequities and to more pronounced health disparities.) The likelihood of being uninsured is far higher among non-citizen Latinos who primarily speak Spanish. There are various factors that contribute to the increasingly uninsured status of the Latino population, including employment, employee benefits, household income, language, and citizenship status.
Immigration from Latin America to the United States has steadily risen over time. Latino citizens and non-citizens are less likely to have both public and private insurance coverage. Non-citizens do not qualify for various public programs including Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and legal immigrants often do not apply for public programs because of fear of jeopardizing their residency status or because they are ineligible during the first five years of gaining residency. When employed, they are less likely to receive employee health benefits, and low-wages prevent the purchase of private insurance. In general, minorities and immigrant families have lower average incomes than white citizen families. These income differences pose a challenge in obtaining health benefits because low incomes lead many families to make difficult decisions between health care coverage and other basic necessities due to the increasing costs of health coverage.
Language also has an implicit effect on uninsured status. Those who have limited English proficiency may have limited employment opportunities and may work in low-wage sectors that do not offer employee health benefits. Furthermore, language barriers both pose a challenge in completing insurance applications and may compromise the quality of health care when access is obtained.
One important recommendation that could decrease the number of uninsured is to restore public insurance eligibility for legal immigrants, either through federal legislation or at the state level through programs such as Medicaid and SCHIP. Resources should be concentrated in the Latino community to help reduce the number of uninsured and decrease medical expenses incurred through emergency care visits. Existing resources that provide care for the uninsured such as safety-net clinics should be improved and provided increased funding to meet the high demand for their services. Additionally, policies that improve the quality of jobs held by Latinos or that incentivize businesses to offer insurance to low-income workers could lead to increased offers in employer-based health insurance. Processes to apply for insurance—whether public or private—should be streamlined and accessible to those who require language assistance. It is important that government efforts be focused on decreasing health disparities, improving preventive efforts, and increasing access to health care coverage for adults and children. This is not simply beneficial to the Latino community, but to Americans nationwide.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Between North and South: Reorienting Mexico’s trade posture
Héber M. Delgado-Medrano, MPA
In recent years, perhaps for the first time in its history, Mexico saw itself and its northern neighbors in a weaker economic position than its South American counterparts. As the US sank deeper and deeper into a recession, Mexico was brought along for the ride, which culminated in a spectacular contraction of almost 7% of Mexico’s GDP in 2009. As a result, many Mexican intellectuals and policymakers have begun to ask themselves whether Mexico’s prospects in North America are still better than elsewhere. Some go so far as to suggest that Mexico should simply reorient its economy entirely towards the South. And yet others exhort Mexico not to turn its back on the NAFTA project just yet, claiming that further benefits from North American integration are still to come and that further unification with the North is the answer, not less.
Based on these arguments, Mexico faces a stark choice: look either towards the North or the South, but not both. But the sensible course of action, I believe, lies somewhere in between. Mexico can neither ignore the benefits of its privileged—though admittedly oftentimes troubled—relationship with the US, nor can it overlook the opportunities waiting for Mexico in South America, which are real and in many ways are already materializing. Instead of burning bridges to build others or cementing old relationships while disregarding new opportunities, Mexico should establish an explicit policy that seeks to convert it into a critical link connecting the diverse economies of all of the Americas.
In the past 15 years, mostly as a result of the implementation of NAFTA, Mexico has reached an extraordinary degree of economic integration with the US and—to a lesser degree—with Canada. Today, 80.5% of Mexico’s exports end up in the US, while the most dynamic and critical sectors in the Mexican economy—export-oriented manufactures and tourism—are highly dependent on foreign direct investment (FDI) and consumption from the US. NAFTA in many ways remains incomplete and many gaps remain to be filled, but as we saw just a few weeks ago when presidents Obama and Calderon (partially) settled a long-held dispute regarding the access of Mexican trucks into the US, there is still enough goodwill between both nations to continue along the slow but constant path towards further economic integration.
This is evident in both countries today. Visitors to Mexico City are amazed—perhaps disappointed—by the seemingly endless supply of Starbucks they encounter along Paseo de la Reforma. Northern cities like Chihuahua that have been invaded by American chains and are now crisscrossed by American-style superhighways are looking more and more like El Paso, Texas or Phoenix, Arizona. Wal-Mart, too, today is ubiquitous throughout Mexico, as one of the largest businesses and employers in the country. In the US, you also see a stronger, albeit more subtle, Mexican presence: has anyone else noticed that Mexican glass-bottled Coca-Cola is now offered in many convenience stores across the US?
But the weaknesses of this economic marriage (made nowhere near heaven) were crudely exposed during the last recession: when the US faltered, the effects were greatly amplified in Mexico. Mexico was by far the hardest hit Latin American country during the 2009 recession. Given that states like Brazil, Chile, and Colombia fared much better, it begs the question: is Mexico now facing the consequences of putting all its eggs in one basket? Should Mexico therefore rethink its commercial orientation?
North Americanistas like NYU professor and former Mexican secretary of foreign affairs Jorge Castañeda begin by highlighting the incontrovertible benefits that have accrued to Mexico as a result of NAFTA and point out Mexico’s solid economic recovery as the US lifts itself out of the recession: 5.5% growth in 2010 and projected 4.0-5.0% growth for 2011. Further, Castañeda and others who share his view claim that in order to prosper Mexico needs to tighten the gap between itself and its North American neighbors by pushing for deeper economic, political and social integration with the North. From this point of view what Mexico needs to do is not turn its back on the US but to pursue a tighter relationship with the North that eliminates the loopholes and imperfections still plaguing NAFTA. Castañeda thus calls for a liberalization of the labor markets between the three countries, further and more serious cooperation on security issues, and even a North American economic union in the long run.
The Latin Americanistas on the other hand, which to my knowledge are not unified under the aegis of any particular individual, begin by questioning whether the United States will ever once again become the economic dynamo it was during the 20th century and whether Mexico has greater prospects for growth by integrating with the rapidly-growing economies of South America. They remind us that Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia have large consumer markets with increasing purchasing power and that Mexico is already well-positioned to enter and even dominate many industries within these markets. Mexican firms in telecommunications, mining, services, food processing and distribution, cement, and other key sectors are oftentimes larger and more productive than their Latin American counterparts. Already, Mexican business magnate Carlos Slim has extended his tentacles to every corner of Latin America with his telecom giant Telmex (known as Claro in some countries), which is now the leading player in countries as wide-ranging as the Dominican Republic, Colombia, and Chile. Other companies like Cemex, Bimbo (the largest bakery in the world), and even FEMSAS’s Oxxo convenience stores are also rapidly growing in South America. Moreover, many economic analysts are asking themselves why Mexico can’t export to Brazil and other countries the high-tech goods and consumer durables it exports to the US that are not produced elsewhere in Latin America: smartphones, plasma televisions, refrigerators, etc. Finally, economic integration between Mexico and the rest of Latin America is already on the table: just last week, Peruvian president Alan García announced in Bogotá that Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and Chile are planning to form an economic bloc to strengthen integration between the four countries and promote a common cross-continental trade agenda.
Certainly both of these views have their advantages, but they each flatly ignore the drawbacks of their own recommendations. Further economic, political, and social integration with North America will be anything but easy. Immigration policy in the US is becoming tighter, not laxer, and the political climate in the US may resist further liberalization in the labor markets for some time. Similarly, simply mentioning the prospect of a North American economic union in the US elicits passionate and—more often than not—negative responses, particularly as the world continues to witness how the European Union struggles to keep Greece and Portugal afloat. And perhaps more importantly, we cannot ignore the fact that Mexico needs to hedge its risks. Having a globalization and trade strategy that is contingent on the economic fates of only two countries is simply irresponsible.
On the other hand, despite appearances Latin America is not all fun and games. The spectacular growth of countries like Peru, Brazil and Argentina in the past few years has relied to a large extent on their exports of raw materials and commodities to China and other countries around the world. It is unlikely that these high rates of growth will continue forever, particularly if further economic reforms are not pursued in these countries. It is therefore not clear whether these economies will continue to mature at the same high rate or whether and how fast they will grow into the large and wealthy consumer markets they are expected to become. More importantly, South American economies are becoming increasingly competitive as well and they may be able to service their own markets before Mexico or other large players in the region may arrive to satisfy the needs of local consumers.
The prudent course of action is therefore not one that chooses one region over the other, but rather one that (1) explicitly recognizes the risks of concentrating all of Mexico’s commerce in one region, and (2) seeks to establish and strengthen its ties with both North and South America by (3) promoting further integration with the North and (4) fostering trade with the Caribbean and Central and South America. Specifically, as Mexico continues to promote its integrationist agenda with North America—particularly with regards to labor migration, security issues, and correcting the deficiencies of NAFTA—it should assist competitive Mexican businesses in accessing southern markets by negotiating lower barriers to trade and more actively promoting their entry into those markets. Additionally, Mexico should establish policies that continue to attract FDI from the US and Canada, but also from strong South American economies like Brazil and Chile and even Colombia and Peru. Finally, Mexico should create incentives for foreign investors to export from Mexico to Latin American countries in addition to exporting to the US and Canada.
All of these things are easier said than done, but they are feasible and in some respect already happening. The Mexican government now needs to define a unified North-plus-South trade policy explicitly and work with the private sector in defining goals and strategies to support them on ventures between Mexico and its neighbors on both poles of the hemisphere. If it plays its cards right, rather than having to gamble on one camp or the other and risk losing it all, Mexico could become the pivotal player that holds together the economies of the Americas, North as well as South.
In recent years, perhaps for the first time in its history, Mexico saw itself and its northern neighbors in a weaker economic position than its South American counterparts. As the US sank deeper and deeper into a recession, Mexico was brought along for the ride, which culminated in a spectacular contraction of almost 7% of Mexico’s GDP in 2009. As a result, many Mexican intellectuals and policymakers have begun to ask themselves whether Mexico’s prospects in North America are still better than elsewhere. Some go so far as to suggest that Mexico should simply reorient its economy entirely towards the South. And yet others exhort Mexico not to turn its back on the NAFTA project just yet, claiming that further benefits from North American integration are still to come and that further unification with the North is the answer, not less.
Based on these arguments, Mexico faces a stark choice: look either towards the North or the South, but not both. But the sensible course of action, I believe, lies somewhere in between. Mexico can neither ignore the benefits of its privileged—though admittedly oftentimes troubled—relationship with the US, nor can it overlook the opportunities waiting for Mexico in South America, which are real and in many ways are already materializing. Instead of burning bridges to build others or cementing old relationships while disregarding new opportunities, Mexico should establish an explicit policy that seeks to convert it into a critical link connecting the diverse economies of all of the Americas.
In the past 15 years, mostly as a result of the implementation of NAFTA, Mexico has reached an extraordinary degree of economic integration with the US and—to a lesser degree—with Canada. Today, 80.5% of Mexico’s exports end up in the US, while the most dynamic and critical sectors in the Mexican economy—export-oriented manufactures and tourism—are highly dependent on foreign direct investment (FDI) and consumption from the US. NAFTA in many ways remains incomplete and many gaps remain to be filled, but as we saw just a few weeks ago when presidents Obama and Calderon (partially) settled a long-held dispute regarding the access of Mexican trucks into the US, there is still enough goodwill between both nations to continue along the slow but constant path towards further economic integration.
This is evident in both countries today. Visitors to Mexico City are amazed—perhaps disappointed—by the seemingly endless supply of Starbucks they encounter along Paseo de la Reforma. Northern cities like Chihuahua that have been invaded by American chains and are now crisscrossed by American-style superhighways are looking more and more like El Paso, Texas or Phoenix, Arizona. Wal-Mart, too, today is ubiquitous throughout Mexico, as one of the largest businesses and employers in the country. In the US, you also see a stronger, albeit more subtle, Mexican presence: has anyone else noticed that Mexican glass-bottled Coca-Cola is now offered in many convenience stores across the US?
But the weaknesses of this economic marriage (made nowhere near heaven) were crudely exposed during the last recession: when the US faltered, the effects were greatly amplified in Mexico. Mexico was by far the hardest hit Latin American country during the 2009 recession. Given that states like Brazil, Chile, and Colombia fared much better, it begs the question: is Mexico now facing the consequences of putting all its eggs in one basket? Should Mexico therefore rethink its commercial orientation?
North Americanistas like NYU professor and former Mexican secretary of foreign affairs Jorge Castañeda begin by highlighting the incontrovertible benefits that have accrued to Mexico as a result of NAFTA and point out Mexico’s solid economic recovery as the US lifts itself out of the recession: 5.5% growth in 2010 and projected 4.0-5.0% growth for 2011. Further, Castañeda and others who share his view claim that in order to prosper Mexico needs to tighten the gap between itself and its North American neighbors by pushing for deeper economic, political and social integration with the North. From this point of view what Mexico needs to do is not turn its back on the US but to pursue a tighter relationship with the North that eliminates the loopholes and imperfections still plaguing NAFTA. Castañeda thus calls for a liberalization of the labor markets between the three countries, further and more serious cooperation on security issues, and even a North American economic union in the long run.
The Latin Americanistas on the other hand, which to my knowledge are not unified under the aegis of any particular individual, begin by questioning whether the United States will ever once again become the economic dynamo it was during the 20th century and whether Mexico has greater prospects for growth by integrating with the rapidly-growing economies of South America. They remind us that Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia have large consumer markets with increasing purchasing power and that Mexico is already well-positioned to enter and even dominate many industries within these markets. Mexican firms in telecommunications, mining, services, food processing and distribution, cement, and other key sectors are oftentimes larger and more productive than their Latin American counterparts. Already, Mexican business magnate Carlos Slim has extended his tentacles to every corner of Latin America with his telecom giant Telmex (known as Claro in some countries), which is now the leading player in countries as wide-ranging as the Dominican Republic, Colombia, and Chile. Other companies like Cemex, Bimbo (the largest bakery in the world), and even FEMSAS’s Oxxo convenience stores are also rapidly growing in South America. Moreover, many economic analysts are asking themselves why Mexico can’t export to Brazil and other countries the high-tech goods and consumer durables it exports to the US that are not produced elsewhere in Latin America: smartphones, plasma televisions, refrigerators, etc. Finally, economic integration between Mexico and the rest of Latin America is already on the table: just last week, Peruvian president Alan García announced in Bogotá that Mexico, Colombia, Peru, and Chile are planning to form an economic bloc to strengthen integration between the four countries and promote a common cross-continental trade agenda.
Certainly both of these views have their advantages, but they each flatly ignore the drawbacks of their own recommendations. Further economic, political, and social integration with North America will be anything but easy. Immigration policy in the US is becoming tighter, not laxer, and the political climate in the US may resist further liberalization in the labor markets for some time. Similarly, simply mentioning the prospect of a North American economic union in the US elicits passionate and—more often than not—negative responses, particularly as the world continues to witness how the European Union struggles to keep Greece and Portugal afloat. And perhaps more importantly, we cannot ignore the fact that Mexico needs to hedge its risks. Having a globalization and trade strategy that is contingent on the economic fates of only two countries is simply irresponsible.
On the other hand, despite appearances Latin America is not all fun and games. The spectacular growth of countries like Peru, Brazil and Argentina in the past few years has relied to a large extent on their exports of raw materials and commodities to China and other countries around the world. It is unlikely that these high rates of growth will continue forever, particularly if further economic reforms are not pursued in these countries. It is therefore not clear whether these economies will continue to mature at the same high rate or whether and how fast they will grow into the large and wealthy consumer markets they are expected to become. More importantly, South American economies are becoming increasingly competitive as well and they may be able to service their own markets before Mexico or other large players in the region may arrive to satisfy the needs of local consumers.
The prudent course of action is therefore not one that chooses one region over the other, but rather one that (1) explicitly recognizes the risks of concentrating all of Mexico’s commerce in one region, and (2) seeks to establish and strengthen its ties with both North and South America by (3) promoting further integration with the North and (4) fostering trade with the Caribbean and Central and South America. Specifically, as Mexico continues to promote its integrationist agenda with North America—particularly with regards to labor migration, security issues, and correcting the deficiencies of NAFTA—it should assist competitive Mexican businesses in accessing southern markets by negotiating lower barriers to trade and more actively promoting their entry into those markets. Additionally, Mexico should establish policies that continue to attract FDI from the US and Canada, but also from strong South American economies like Brazil and Chile and even Colombia and Peru. Finally, Mexico should create incentives for foreign investors to export from Mexico to Latin American countries in addition to exporting to the US and Canada.
All of these things are easier said than done, but they are feasible and in some respect already happening. The Mexican government now needs to define a unified North-plus-South trade policy explicitly and work with the private sector in defining goals and strategies to support them on ventures between Mexico and its neighbors on both poles of the hemisphere. If it plays its cards right, rather than having to gamble on one camp or the other and risk losing it all, Mexico could become the pivotal player that holds together the economies of the Americas, North as well as South.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)