A truck of the Mexican company Olympics bearing Mexican and U.S. flags approaches the border crossing into the U.S., in Laredo (Courtesy Reuters).

It is worth reading the Woodrow Wilson Center Mexico Institute’s new study by Christopher Wilson, entitled “Working Together: Economic Ties between the United States and Mexico.” The report is packed with examples and statistical evidence of the deepening integration between the United States and Mexico since 1993 (the signing of NAFTA), and concisely explains why this relationship is so important and beneficial for the United States.

In terms of trade, for nearly half of U.S. states, Mexico is the number one or number two export destination. For border states such as Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, up to a third of all exports head to our southern neighbor. But it isn’t just a border issue – export industries in states as far flung as New Hampshire, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Missouri all depend on Mexican industries and consumers. And these are some of the most dynamic trading relations we have. Twenty U.S. states increased exports to Mexico by more than 10 percent each year over the last fifteen years. Investment also flourished. Mexican FDI in the United States, though starting at a low base, increased tenfold over the past two decades.

The report shows that trade with Mexico is particularly beneficial to the United States because these goods incorporate many parts and products produced in the United States. In fact, even though fully counted as imports in official trade data, an estimated 40 percent of the value of Mexican products is actually “made in the USA.” Only Canada comes close to this ratio (25 percent). In stark contrast, only 4 percent of the value of Chinese imports is made on U.S. soil.  This means that products coming from Mexico support homegrown industry and labor. In fact, 6 million American jobs – or 1 out of every 24 – depend on Mexican trade. The study breaks down employment by state – showing for instance that some 200,000 Georgians, 120,000 Indianans, and 100,000 Coloradans owe their jobs to Mexico. Other studies show that export oriented jobs pay more than others, further benefiting U.S. workers. And what is good for Mexico is good for the United States — Mexico’s strong 2011 economic growth should create 150,000 new U.S. jobs.

The report interestingly points out how the United States is now competing with China and others to supply parts and materials used in Mexican production. Here, worryingly, the United States is falling behind – losing market share to its Asian rivals. Part of the problem is the border. Overwhelmed infrastructure, and long and unpredictable wait times at crossings limit competitiveness, costing taxpayers billions in lost revenue and jobs.

There are some signs that these issues are at least appreciated. In 2010 three new border crossings opened, easing congestion along the dense 2,000 mile border, and under its “21st Century Border” project, the Obama administration is working to make commercial and other crossings more efficient and secure. But a conceptual shift is still needed. U.S. politicians, business owners, workers, and the general public need to understand that the path to improving U.S. global competitiveness –defending American industry in the process – runs through, rather than around Mexico (and Canada). Regional integration is vital for U.S. economic recovery and growth going forward.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

A view of the San Alberto gas plant (David Mercado/Courtesy Reuters).

Last December, Argentina’s major oil and gas company YPF discovered some 4.5 trillion cubic feet of unconventional gas in the southwest province of Neuquén. The find has the potential to totally transform the country’s (and the region’s) energy future. It pushes Argentina’s shale gas reserves to 774 trillion cubic feet — making it the third largest provider of natural gas in the world, after the United States and China. If exploited it would easily cover domestic demand for gas for the foreseeable future and end the recurring and unpopular gas crises that force factories to shut down at times during the winter months.  Argentina would become energy self-sufficient for the first time in nearly a decade.

But there are challenges to get the gas out of the ground. First, Argentina’s shortage of water may stand in the way of accessing natural gas reserves. The process of drilling to extract shale gas uses up to 6 million gallons of water per day for every well drilled, and experts say it will take 38 billion gallons of water to capture natural gas trapped underneath the Vaca Muerta, or “Dead Cow” basin.

Another challenge is the government’s oil and gas pricing regime, which has been a major disincentive to investment in recent years. Heavy regulations hold prices down to $2.00-$2.50 per cubic foot of regulated gas — nowhere near the breakeven price needed to make development worthwhile. Argentina has set up a two-tier system under its “Gas Plus” program — allowing gas produced by new investment to be sold at much higher prices – in some cases more than double the rate in the domestic market. This has brought in more than a billion dollars from the likes of Exxon, AES and Apache. But these differential prices show how transitory Argentine rules can be. To attract the huge amounts of capital needed to truly develop these gas finds in the coming years, the Argentine government will have to convince investors that the rules won’t change with the political winds.

If this happens, it will transform regional gas markets. Bolivia will be the biggest loser. As the region’s current top energy provider, its economy today depends on fueling neighboring Argentina and Brazil. By developing its own gas reserves, Argentina takes away not just a vital customer but also potential foreign direct investment – leaving Bolivia’s economic development model in jeopardy.

Another — much more indirect — loser is Mexico. The fact that investors are more interested in Argentina — known for playing fast and loose with property rights and contracts — than in Mexico, which is ranked Latin America’s most business friendly economy, shows how hamstrung Mexico’s energy sector remains. Without further changes to the system to open up outside funding for exploration and production projects, Mexico risks becoming a spectator on the energy sidelines, with huge ramifications for its overall economy as a result.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Andean protesters shout slogans against the government in Lima (Enrique Castro-Mendivil/Courtesy Reuters).

Last month Peruvian President Ollanta Humala signed the popular consultation law, approved unanimously by Congress in August. This new law will require all public and private investors to consult local indigenous groups if and when their activities may affect their communities or ancestral lands. This is an important democratic step forward, reaching out to citizens who have for years been left out of the political process. In Latin America more broadly, incorporating indigenous communities into politics is a key challenge for consolidating democracy. But these types of laws also have their dangers, specifically potentially negative effects on investment and economic growth. Peru is only the latest of the Andean countries to take on the so-called “indigenous question” — trying to balance economic development with greater social inclusion.

Of its neighbors, Colombia has the longest history and the best track record. It incorporated indigenous consultation into the 1991 Constitution, and then created a Division of Indigenous Affairs in the Ministry of the Interior, as well as offices of indigenous affairs within each of its military commands. To be sure, things haven’t gone perfectly – for instance some indigenous groups accuse President Santos of ignoring their interests in the latest national development plan. But overall Colombia has been successful, enabling a greater voice for all of its citizens while also attracting billions in investment in oil production, coal mining, and other industries.

More cautionary tales come from Bolivia and Ecuador. Both nations have large indigenous populations which historically have been socially and politically marginalized, and excluded from the economic benefits of resource extraction — often by foreign companies — taking place on their land. As these groups have increasingly organized and mobilized, their distrust and animosity has led to conflicts, violence, and the fall of more than one democratically elected government.

Current Presidents Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Rafael Correa of Ecuador have both struggled to balance inclusion with economic development. Morales has perhaps gone the farthest in providing a voice for indigenous groups within the new Constitution, but in return has seen foreign investment plummet. Since Morales’s election in 2006 Bolivia’s natural gas output has stagnated, and proven reserves have shrunk by about a third. In Ecuador, Correa began with the backing of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), but is now at odds with the country’s largest indigenous organization, backing away from many of their demands regarding new mining projects.

While Peru’s indigenous communities have yet to organize politically, there is a growing discontent among these masses, which took a toll on the previous government’s popularity and led to several uprisings around natural resources extraction. The most violent of these – known as the “Baguazo” – occurred during the summer of 2009 in the Amazonian province of Bagua, where 22 indigenous protesters and 12 police officers died in clashes over mining projects in the area.

For Peru, it remains to be seen whether Humala can channel these pent up frustrations positively into the political process without scaring off investment. As the Ecuadorean and Bolivian examples show, more than just rhetoric — or leftist credentials — are needed. But if the new government can pull off this delicate balance, it will help support continued fast paced economic growth.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Container ship sails beneath Golden Gate Bridge en route to port in California (Robert Galbraith/Courtesy Reuters).

Today the Council on Foreign Relations is releasing its independent Task Force report, “U.S. Trade and Investment Policy.” Led by Andrew H. Card — former White House Chief of Staff under George W. Bush – and Thomas A. Daschle – former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader – and directed by my CFR colleagues Edward Alden and Matthew Slaughter, the 22 members took on the increasingly thorny issue of the future of  U.S. trade policy.

One of the most interesting discussions within the report is of multinational corporations. While representing less than 1 percent of all companies, they provide nearly a quarter of all private sector jobs, nearly 40 percent of all U.S. capital investment, and conduct the vast majority of research and development. These are the engines of today and tomorrow’s economy – and as such the United States needs to become much more competitive in attracting these corporations to its shores.

Another important discussion involves the increasing skepticism among the U.S. public toward trade’s benefits. The group rightly points out this has occurred not because of the general public’s lack of understanding or “ignorance”, but because of the experience of the average American worker. Over the last ten years –the time frame within which trade became a much harder sell — nearly all American workers saw their real earnings fall. U.S. based export oriented jobs – which in general pay more than domestically oriented ones – haven’t grown, even as the world economy exploded. Inequality too has grown during this time frame. And while the report rightly points out that trade was not the only, or perhaps even the deciding factor behind these shifts, it did play a role. As such, any new policy must take into account and work to enhance the widespread benefits of trade for America’s citizens.

Too often participants in policy debates come out as for or against trade, without defining for what end. Here, the Task Force usefully defines the main goals of U.S. trade and investment policies as “improving American living standards and advancing America’s broader interests.” To better meet this end it provides several concrete recommendations, including prioritizing service sector opening in ongoing trade negotiations, reforming the tax code and removing protectionist regulations on international mergers and acquisitions in order to encourage foreign investment in the United States, streamlining the WTO and creating stronger international trade enforcement mechanisms, and expanding adjustment assistance programs to provide a broader safety net for American workers.

As is often the case in trade oriented debates, Task Force members weren’t able to reach a unanimous consensus on what a better trade policy would look like, and how to get there. It is worth looking at the additional dissenting views section to get a sense of the varied perspectives on the report’s conclusions.  Still, everyone did agree to the Task Force’s basic takeaway – that the administration and Congress must revise America’s trade strategy or risk losing out on the enormous potential gains of deeper global engagement.  The report is well worth a read, offering insights on how the United States can emerge from the recession and financial crisis a stronger and more capable leader in the international economy.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann gestures beside Mitt Romney during the Republican presidential debate in Ames (Courtesy Reuters).

As primary election season gets underway, the Republican hopefuls have had little to say about Latin America. But there have been a few hints though from the leading candidates as to what they see when they look south – particularly with regard to Mexico.

Michele Bachmann is the most cut and dry so far. She opposes immigration and the legalization of undocumented migrants, and calls for the deployment of troops in south Texas. The Minnesota congresswoman wants to wall the border off completely, saying “As president of the United States, every mile, every yard, every foot, every inch will be covered on that southern border.” When Bachmann felt the need to strengthen her foreign policy chops last spring, she flew to Colombia and Mexico with the House Intelligence Committee – her first trip abroad to a country other than Israel (which she has visited multiple times courtesy of pro-Israel interest groups). Upon returning, she expressed strong support for the drug war.

Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have more nuanced takes – in part because they have more extensive experience in and with the region. Romney has a long history working in Latin America, as his firm Bain Capital invested extensively in Central and South America. On the campaign trail, he lauds those governments with business friendly policies, pointedly contrasting them to those with less open markets (e.g. Venezuela and Cuba).

During the 2008 electoral race Romney became increasingly tough on immigration , and even tougher on border enforcement, running ads attacking John McCain for his “soft” stances. His hardened views have caused somewhat of a family drama as many of his relatives (no, not from the Huntsman branch) live in northern Mexico and have openly criticized him, saying that “I don’t think Mitt understands the causes of illegal immigration.”

Rick Perry, the newest addition to the field and the now front-runner has little interest in Latin America, but does have a long history with Mexico. On immigration, the Texas governor is considerably more progressive than many of his peers.  Perry’s record suggests that he supports the DREAM act and similar reforms, given that he approved a law allowing undocumented high school graduates in Texas to pay state tuition. He has even thrown his weight behind a guest worker program for Texas.

But Perry is increasingly vocal and tough on border security. Among the most outspoken critics of Obama’s border policy, he has repeatedly raised alarm bells about violence spilling over from Mexico into the lone star state, and asked for the deployment of military troops and predator drone in response. Unlike Bachmann, Perry has remained firmly opposed to the border fence, calling the idea “ridiculous on its face.”

This early in the season, most candidates and campaigns are focused on domestic issues. Those foreign policy issues at the forefront – Afghanistan, Libya, or Syria – aren’t necessarily a club Latin American nations would want to join. But many do bemoan the lack of interest and understanding of the rest of the Western Hemisphere by these presidential hopefuls.

Latin America should  in fact matter more. The region is among the U.S. fastest growing trading partners, creating American jobs with each purchase. With over half a trillion dollars worth of goods going back and forth, Latin America is second only to Asia – and growing much faster – in terms of total trade with the United States. Its largest nations play important roles in multilateral organizations from the G20 to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), helping the United States and others resolve difficult global challenges. And finally, according to the latest census 50 million Americans – 1/6 of the population – are descendants of these nations, many still with close ties to their original homes. Ignoring Latin America or alienating Latin Americans only adds up to a missed opportunity, both for the Republican Party and for the country.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

A customs officer is handed a passport by a motorist at the San Ysidro border crossing (Fred Greaves/Courtesy Reuters).

The U.S. debates over Mexico’s drug war increasingly focus on spillover violence. Border state governors Rick Perry and Jan Brewer insist that Mexican cartels are hitting their states hard, portraying the border as a lawless “war zone” in which the drug cartels and illegal Mexicans incite “terror and mayhem” on a daily basis. In stark contrast, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Alan Bersin and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano contend that the border has never been safer.

The statistics bear out the latter position. A recent study based on FBI figures shows that violent crime in cities within 50 miles of the border is consistently lower than state and national averages. The robbery rate in the Texas border region, for example, remained at least 30 percent lower than the state average for every year in the past decade. The data also show that the number of kidnapping cases in border areas dropped by more than half since 2009.  This doesn’t mean that bad things don’t happen – they do. But they happen less frequently along the border, on average, than in other parts of the United States. Despite local politicians’ concerns and rhetoric, the border is more secure than in the past, and in fact safer than the rest of the country.

But the downward trend in border violence does not mean that the Mexican drug war hasn’t had spillover effects on the United States. Among the most troubling is corruption. Local newspapers recount the stories of public officials engaged in foul play; from the South Texas county Sheriff Conrado Cantú, who took bribes from drug traffickers, to Columbus, New Mexico Mayor Eddie Espinoza, charged with operating a gun smuggling ring in connection with Mexican cartels. Available data also show a rise in corruption within the ranks of the border patrol. Since the reopening of the Homeland Security Bureau’s internal affairs unit in 2003 – in and of itself a reflection of the increased risk of corruption within the agency – cases of corruption against law enforcement officials on the border have more than doubled. Tales of CBP agents turning a blind eye to, and sometimes actively aiding drug traffickers smuggling narcotics, arms and migrants across the border abound.

The increase in corruption reflects the lure of drug money and the CBP’s institutional weaknesses. Doubling the border patrol’s numbers in less than a decade made it more vulnerable to corruption, diluting the once highly disciplined force with less experienced and committed newcomers. The border patrol administers lie detector tests to only 10 percent of applicants, more than half of which fail — raising serious concerns about the capability, and even intentions, of many of its new hires.

Other spillover effects are positive for the United States – namely increasing economic activity. Seemingly every day new restaurants, stores, and private schools are opening in border towns, serving clients that once traveled further south. Many attribute Texas’ strong real estate market to the influx of Mexican citizens eager for greater peace and stability. In the spring of 2008, when foreclosures hit record highs across the United States, real estate agents in El Paso reported steady sales of houses and apartments worth more than $100,000. The President of the Greater El Paso Association of Realtors, Dan Olivas, attributed the stability of the El Paso market to “a substantial number of people from Juarez coming over to buy properties for security reasons, for fear of kidnappings, extortion, and cartel violence.” This El Paso trend has continued, and spread more broadly.

Not only do Mexicans buy homes, but many are bringing their businesses north. Immigration consultants say  inquiries from Mexicans for EB-5 investor visas – which cost $500,000, and require that applicants’ create at least 10 jobs in the U.S. within two years – have doubled in recent years.  Mexico has quickly risen the ranks to become one of the top recipients of these visas.

Mexico’s drug war is indeed affecting the United States – but mostly in ways that politicians overlook, misunderstand, or (more cynically) choose not to recognize. The current policy prescriptions – a higher and longer border wall, more boots on the ground and predator drones overhead – won’t slow seeping corruption, nor bolster the beneficial economic ties. Unfortunately, the wrong diagnosis means also the wrong policy prescriptions, hurting both countries in the process.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

It is becoming increasingly possible that 2011 will be the year that Mexico truly began opening its closed economy. Though political reform seems to have failed and efforts to centralize Mexico’s many police forces stalled, the political system has taken important steps in the last several months that could establish a more open and level economic playing field. What is most interesting, and perhaps hopeful, about these developments is that all three branches of government are throwing their weight behind freer markets.

First, in mid-April, the executive branch through the regulatory Federal Competition Commission, or CFC issued the largest fine for monopolistic behavior in Mexico’s history. As I discussed in an earlier post, Telcel was slapped with a $1 billion penalty for inordinately high interconnection fees. What’s more, the fine marked the second sanction against the telecommunication giant – one more strike, and the government is legally allowed to break up Telcel for good.

The legislature was the next to flex its muscles against domestic conglomerates. Following on the heels of the Telcel ruling, both houses of the senate unanimously approved a number of changes to anti-trust laws designed to foster competition. The reform put in place harsher punishments for those found guilty of monopolistic practices, who can now be fined up to 10 percent of their profits and in the most serious cases (price fixing falls under this umbrella) face 10 years in jail. They also awarded more power to the CFC, including the right to conduct unannounced raids of companies under investigation.

Now the judiciary is jumping into the fray. Pushed by business groups, the public prosecutor’s office launched last month a criminal investigation into Héctor Osuna, former vice-president of the telecom regulator COFETEL, and his colleagues. Investigators suspect that COFETEL executives engaged in back door legal maneuvering to grant Telmex (owned by Carlos Slim) access to the television market on unfair grounds. Specifically, they believe that Osuna intentionally delayed  ruling on Telmex’s request for a television concession past the specified deadline – despite his own admission that “for us there was never evidence that [Telmex] had complied with its requirements” — which technically counted as a tacit approval of the request. The result of the investigation is not just vital for Telmex, which would gain substantially by entering the television market, but also for the judicial branch, whose scorecard against national giants hangs in the balance (though the courts have defended more open markets before, notably in 2007 when the Supreme Court struck down a media law that stifled competition).

To be sure, these recent actions are mostly directed at the business interests of just one individual — Carlos Slim. On the other hand, if used more broadly, the new legislation and legal precedents could be real game changers for the Mexican economy. Either way, this is the first time we have seen such a serious full court press for more open markets and sectors in Mexico — and all three branches of government deserve credit for that.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

A worker at a luxury cowboy boot factory works on pairs of boots in the central city of Leon (Courtesy Reuters).

An IMF report published this week lauds the Mexican economy’s health, and credits robust  fundamentals and good policy choices for its success in weathering the storm of global economic crisis. With even more positive news, a recent study by the Mexican government shows that FDI is still pouring in despite violence, and is actually going to the most dangerous areas. But this doesn’t mean that violence is not having an effect on the economy. In this Americas Quarterly article, Dora Beszterczey and I argue that violence actually has the greatest economic impact on small and medium sized companies, not the multinationals and domestic conglomerates that receive FDI inflows. At this local level there are signs that heightened violence is taking its toll, increasingly forcing entrepreneurs to pack their bags in search of a safer business environment.

There are a number of interesting profiles of Peru’s new drug chief Ricardo Soberón in the news this week. As I talked about in the past, security issues related to drug trafficking and organized crime will be a huge challenge for Humala. While El Comercio harshly criticizes the choice, Soberón’s academic bonafides and more inclusive approach (he favors eradicating rural poverty before coca plantations, and wants to engage the coca growers movement in the national dialogue about drug policy) may enable the new Peruvian administration to balance their promises of social inclusion with a more comprehensive security policy. For those interested in a more sweeping view of drug policy in the history of U.S.-Peru relations, Paul Gootenberg’s book Andean Cocaine: the Making of a Global Drug is well worth a read.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Miner Gomez celebrates as he arrives on the surface as the ninth to be rescued in Chile (Ho New/Courtesy Reuters).

Today is the one year anniversary of the collapse that buried 33 Chilean miners deep underground for more than two months. Their rescue inspired a jolt of nationalistic pride in Chile, and not a little media fanfare, but now many of the survivors find themselves worse off than before the ordeal. Despite, and in some cases because of their fame (sure to increase with the production of a movie based on their tale), almost half of the 33 are unemployed, and some are back working underground to make ends meet.

Sebastián Piñera’s high hasn’t lasted either – recent polls show his ratings slipped to 31 percent last month, a far cry from his 63 percent approval rate in October 2010. Even the Economist is down on Piñera at this point, criticizing the billionaire for creating ties between government and the private sector that are often too close for comfort.

Dilma Rousseff recently unveiled the “Bigger Brazil Plan”, or “Plano Brasil Maior”, a program designed to make Brazil more competitive and stimulate investment in the face of an increasingly overvalued real and the influx of inexpensive goods from abroad. Some question whether the bill will have any positive effect in the long-run, arguing that the $16 billion in tax cuts for manufacturers will be offset by higher sales taxes, needed to finance recent government spending sprees.

For those that haven’t seen it, this Los Angeles Times four-part series on the Sinaloa cartel is an illuminating profile of the more average citizens involved, the way the business works, and one particular DEA attempt to take down a cartel.

Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.

]]> http://www.latintelligence.com/2011/08/05/reads-of-the-week-chiles-miners-brazils-industrial-policy-and-mexicos-sinaloa-cartel/feed/ 0