The Rise of Neoliberalism in Mexico: from a Developmental to a Competition State
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most predominant features of globalization, namely, the increasing mobility and power of global capital flows, has acted to constrain the scope of state intervention over the past two and a half decades, particularly in the area of economic policy formation. As we saw in the first part of this volume, within the context of the advanced industrialized countries (AICs), globalization has acted as the underlying impetus of the shift from various expressions of Keynesian demand management/welfare state to neoliberal forms of government intervention. The latter has been aptly captured by the term ‘national competition states’ (Cerny, 1993b, 1999; Hirsch, 1995). One of the main characteristics of competition states is that traditional policies aimed at achieving social justice through economic redistribution have been challenged and profoundly undermined by the marketization of the state’s economic activities and its focus on attracting and retaining capital flows (Cerny 1999: 3). This situation raises at least two interrelated questions. First, is it correct to assume these neoliberal forms of political regulation hold true for ‘Third world’ developmental states? And, second, if the states of emerging market economies have adopted the characteristics of a competition state, then to what degree, and with which political, social and economic consequences? In what follows I aim to provide answers to these questions by exploring key changes in the area of economic policy formation in Mexico from the 1982 debt crisis to the peso debacle in 1994/95.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".