INTA 3203: Comparative Politics This work is mine, alone.

I have properly cited all sources and have not collaborated with anyone. Signature: ________________________________________________ Bethaney Wright April 13, 2012 An Analysis of Mexico and Indias Paths to Economic Development: The Delegitimization of the Political Culture Approach through a Comparison of Individual, State, and International Level Variables Throughout the relatively brief history of comparative politics, it has been dominated by one approach deemed most reflective of particular epochal interests. During the idealism of the 1960s, political culture dominated, whereas the practicality of the 1980s favored the more sober indigenous theories of change approach. The political culture approach, which posits that the basic ideas, values, and attitudes that people have pertaining to their political systems influences the course of development (either economic or political). (Wiarda, pg. 66)i Proponents of political culture believe that disparities in political culture can explain different developmental outcomes among countries. For example, many political culture theorists believe that countries possessing such cultural attributes as perseverance, frugality, and emphasis on hard work were more apt to embrace capitalism. Yet, political culture ignores some crucial variables. For one, the influence of international events, such as the political machinations of more powerful nations, on economic development is completely ignored. Additionally, political culture assumes that there is such a monolithic entity known as national culture characteristic of particular countries. This assumption tends to extenuate the role of individuals in the formation of economic development. Finally, there are some nations that do not adhere to this paradigm of economic development, such as Mexico and India. As nations develop, political culture has often been utilized as a post-facto justification for their success, when previously that very same political

1|Page

INTA 3203: Comparative Politics culture (i.e China and Confucianism) was blamed for a nations lack of economic development. (Wiarda, Pye, pg.77). Thus, political culture is not applicable to explaining the economic development of many nations, especially those in the developing world, because it disregards many variables that influence development. In Gabriel Almond and Sydney Verbas landmark study about political culture, Mexico was cited as having political culture in which citizens were less politically engaged than the United States.(Wiarda, pg. 71) As a result, Mexico (Mexican populace) was more likely to work within the status quo structures. Typically, Mexicos political culture has been characterized as authoritarian, paternalistic, hierarchical, corporatist, nationalist, and religious. This is mainly a result of Mexicos legacy of Spanish colonialism in which authority was highly bureaucratic and centralized.(Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.322) With all of these traits considered, one would believe that Mexico would a more statist, corporatist approach, yet for the latter part of the 19th century, Mexicos two major political parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, both had export-oriented policies. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 228)ii. Although exportoriented policies can exist within the parameters of a statist model, the Porfiriato showed that Mexico desired pro-growth policies irrespective of any ideology.(Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.328) During the Porfiriato (1876-1911), Mexicos economy grew tremendously, and this growth was mainly imputed to Mexicos political stability. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 329) On the international level, however, several events contributed to this tranquility. Unlike previous eras, Mexico did not fear intervention because the Monroe Doctrine protected it from the predatory desires of imperialist powers. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 329)Thus, it could focus on developing its economy without interruptions. Secondly, and perhaps related to the first point, U.S. and British investment increased as a result of Mexicos perceived stability. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 329) Third, industrial growth in Europe and the United States increased the demand for oil, which increased the governments revenue. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 329) It would be difficult to contemplate Mexicos economic growth if it were mired in conflict, subject 2|Page

INTA 3203: Comparative Politics to intervention, and lacking any market for its goods. Moreover, on a state level, Mexicos nationalism would have precluded investment from the U.S. and Britain. Instead, it would most likely have resorted to import substitution industrialization, yet by all accounts Mexico during this period was businessfriendly. On an individual level, Porfirio purchased his constituents fealty through the use of either patronage or coercion.(Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 329) Although corruption is often considered a hallmark of Mexicos political culture, this overlooks the fact that it was often elite who received positions in the bureaucracy (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.329). There were many who agitated for policies such as land reform and high wages. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 330) One would think that its political culture with its emphasis on obedience and paternalism, and the fact that Porfirio used patronage or coercion, would quell any dissent against his policies. After the Mexican Revolution, the Constitution of 1917 sought to institutionalize some of the demands of the lower class.(Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.331) For example, the Constitution provided unionization rights, land distribution, and promoted nationalization of the nations mineral wealth. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 331)Yet, on the international level, these reforms would not have been possible without a relatively strong global economy that allowed Mexico to increase in exports of raw materials and attract foreign investment. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 331) On the national level, it would seem that the revolution would actually be overturned because of a counterrevolution launched by the United States and the Catholic Church. Because Mexicos political culture is strongly religious, it would seem to that the populace would defer to the Catholic Church, yet the opposite (a countercounterrevolution) occurred. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 331) Throughout this period, corporatism became more firmly entrenched, with President Lazaro Cardenas establishing the Mexican Revolutionary Party (PRI). (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 332) Cardenas sought to steer Mexico into an independent direction, and sought to tame the ravaging effects of raw capitalism. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 3382) Nevertheless, this was not so much a manifestation of nationalism as much as an 3|Page

INTA 3203: Comparative Politics acknowledgement of Mexicos vulnerable position in the global market. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 332) As a result of the ravages wrought by the Great Depression, Mexico began to turn inward, using import substitution industrialization (ISI) to compensate for declining demand. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 332) Corporatism in Mexico only served to consolidate ISI, with Cardenas PRI incorporating all four major sectors of society: the urban workers, the peasantry, white-collar professionals, and small entrepreneurs. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 333) Under Cardenas, Mexico achieved rapid industrialization and an era of unprecedented growth known as the Mexican Miracle. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 335) Thus, individuals such as Porfirio Diaz and Cardenas played a prominent role in Mexicos economic development. Even so, the international climate proved to be the decisive factor in its development: high demand for oil generated the income necessary to industrialize. However, the unraveling of Mexicos economic development occurred as a result of declining oil revenues and increased interest rates on loans. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 340)This led to Mexico formally defaulting on its debt in 1982, initiating the debt crisis that soon spread to other developing nations. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 340) Mexico soon found itself forced to undergo privatization and implement austerity measures such as decreasing salaries. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 341)Thus, Mexicos path to privatization was not a result of political culture, but rather occurred as a result of the exigencies of the international climate. On the individual level, two Mexican presidents, Carlos Salinas and Ernesto Zedillo, expedited the pace of privatization. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 343)The former is most famous for his drafting of NAFTA, which proved a crucial step in integrating Mexico into the world economy.(Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.343) Nonetheless, there were powerful interests at the national level that sought to impede liberalization. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.343 The Zapatistas, many of whom were indigenous, launched a revolt on the day of the signing of NAFTA to protest its implementation. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.319)Even some upper-income groups were dissatisfied with some of the reforms because it threatened their economic hegemony. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 343)Yet political 4|Page

INTA 3203: Comparative Politics culture cannot explain these developments because it does not adequately factor in the interests of various societal groups. Presently, for many Mexicans, NAFTA has failed to fulfill the promise of greater prosperity offered, being eclipsed by Chinas cheaper labor market. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 354) It has also been fraught by increasing violence related to its drug war, which has contributed to its rampant corruption. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.354)Corruption has been cited as one of the reasons Mexico has not reached its full economic potential (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.354). Many observers have indicated Mexicos system of corporatism and patronage as entrenching corruption, yet what may have triggered corruption could have been the presence of oil as a resource, which permitted easy access to money, but rising unemployment as a result of liberalizing reforms and declining oil revenues. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.354) Another nation that seems to delegitimize political culture as the cause of economic development is India. Like Mexico, it has a hierarchical culture, although much more so with the presence of the caste system and nationalist.(Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.367-369) Indian political culture has also been described as assimilationist, which is partially attributable to its history of being the center of many great empires.(Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 367-369) However, the groundwork for Indias economic development was similar to that of Mexicos. After India gained its independence from Britain, it sought to fashion an approach in which it could rapidly industrialize (a la the USSR). (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 378)Thus, India pursued a statist path to development that was more so influenced by the international climate of the time. On an individual level, Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minster of India, was instrumental in steering Indias economy into a mercantilist path. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 378) As such, there was no precedent of development in India. With this system came with corruption, which many felt was endemic to Indian political culture. However, many nations practicing ISI suffered

5|Page

INTA 3203: Comparative Politics from corruption, which is partially attributable to a system that rewards solely production rather than competence. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.390) During this period, India also suffered from food scarcity.(Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.389) On a national level, part of this was a result of Indias growing population, which dampened economic growth and prevented India from making great strides in reducing poverty. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 389-391). After the demise of the USSR, India realized that communism as a model for economic development would no longer be conducive to economic growth. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.402) Thus, an international event triggered Indias transition from a centrally planned economy to a more liberal economy. Another international event that spearheaded reform was the 1980s debt crisis.(Kopstein and Lichbach,pg. 402) In response to the debt crisis, Rajiv Gandhi, the Indian prime minister, initiated a gradual erosion of the complex licensing system that became characteristic of Indias inefficient statist model. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 402) Another prime minister, V.P. Singh, continued these liberalizing reforms by encouraging foreign investment. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 403) Even when India was dominated by different parties, such as the Janata Party and the BJP, an ardent Hindu nationalist policy, liberalization was the objective. This is especially intriguing considering that the BJP was a party that sought to restore what it perceived as Indias distinct Hindu identity, yet it followed the same path as the Congress and Janata parties who were more inclusive of minorities.(Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 403) Thus, political culture was not a determining factor in Indias pursuit of economic development. Furthermore, the BJPs nationalism did not prevent it from seeking foreign investment, which one would think would be the logical outcome of a country perceived as nationalistic, or from cooperating with international financial institutions. However, a major problem occurring as India develops is increasing inequality. Much of this inequality ensues from the genetically modified seeds offered by multinational corporations, which can

6|Page

INTA 3203: Comparative Politics lead to decreased crop yields. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.405 71) Another aspect of this increased inequality is the truncated subsidies offered to farmers who experience a shortfall in farm yields. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 404) Although this increased inequality among the peasantry may correspond with the lower caste groups in the caste system, this fails to acknowledge the role that the Indian government, contrary to what many would think it would do considering the prominent role the caste system plays in Indian society, has played in seeking to redress the inequalities of the caste system through the reservations policy. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg. 379) Although Mexico and Indias paths to economic development may not have followed the path to development predicted by political culture theorists, is there not some merit to the political culture approach? Indeed, there could be reasons why capitalism may flourish in some nations rather than others. For example, many believe that nations that are more communalistic and/or authoritarian are more likely to have statist models of development. Both Mexico and India are more communal and have more top-down, hierarchical political cultures, yet what really spearheaded the development of both of these nations was the influence of international events. Both nations sought to use ISI as a means to develop quickly, with Mexico using ISI to supplant declining international demand, and India using ISI to reduce poverty and industrialize, using the USSR as a model. Even so, favorable international market conditions, especially the worlds demand for oil, were crucial to Mexicos path to development, not political culture. In this case, Mexicos political culture would have retained a model similar to that of Russia or China in which the state was heavily involved in the economy. Yet, key international events and individuals, such as Salinas, contributed to Mexicos gradual liberalization. On the other hand, India lacked a natural resource and suffered under ISI. Like Mexico, international events, such as the debt crisis and the demise of the USSR, contributed to Indias transition to a market economy and its subsequent economic development.

7|Page

INTA 3203: Comparative Politics Moreover, there are nations with similar cultures that have disparate economic outcomes. For example, India and Pakistan were one nation before their partition in 1947. It would stand to reason that Pakistan, although majority Muslim, would have a similar culture, and according to the political culture argument, similar economic outcomes. Yet, India averages an annual 7% growth rateiii, whereas Pakistan averages a growth rate well below half this amountiv. (CIA World Factbook) Similarly, Mexico is in much better shape economically than other nations with similar political cultures and backgrounds, such as Ecuador. A proponent of political culture could also remark that nations in the West that have more democratic, less hierarchical cultures contributed to its present economic development, yet this disregards the fact that the West has had centuries of time to achieve its present level of economic development. Indias economic development only began after its independence from Britain, less than seven decades ago. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.379) On the other hand, Mexico has been independent for almost as long as the United States, yet its development was greatly impeded by the numerous interventions made by the United States and European powers. (Kopstein and Lichbach, pg.327) Even so, one could argue that historical events influence political culture, and this influence is factored into the political culture approach. Nevertheless, it has been demonstrated that much of the economic development of countries can be explained by historical phenomena, international events, and individuals who helped their nations adjust to these events. Unfortunately, political culture can often serve to perpetuate stereotypes and too often, the idea that a countrys dysfunctional political culture (i.e. authoritarianism) contributes to a countrys lack of development only serves to justify the status quo without offering any meaningful blueprint for change. In conclusion, the cases of Mexico and India have provided an analysis of the obsolescence of the political culture approach. Their political cultures are very similar in that they are both hierarchical

8|Page

INTA 3203: Comparative Politics and nationalistic, with a strong religious presence. In Mexico, Catholicism had a major impact on its political culture, whereas as Indias political culture was a mosaic of different religions coexisting, although Hinduism was predominant. Moreover, it would seem that these cultures would be more inclined to maintain their current economic structures rather than liberalize their economies. Instead, their political development can be explained by international events, national dynamics, and prominent individuals rather than their respective political cultures. Furthermore, there are several weaknesses of the political culture approach: in addition to oversimplifying the process of economic development, it ignores the role of time in economic development and also does not consider the disparate outcomes that occur between nations with similar political cultures. All of these factors have thus served to contribute to the delegitimization of the political culture approach, and perhaps its deficiencies can be utilized to fashion a more explanatory approach in comparative politics.

Wiarda, Howard J. Comparative Politics: Approaches and Issues. Estover Road: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ,2007. Print ii Kopstein, Jeffrey, and Mark Lichbach. Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in a Changing rd Global Order (3 Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Print iii :South Asia: India. CIA World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. 11 Apr. 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. < https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html iv South Asia: Pakistan. CIA World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. 5 Apr. 2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. < https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html>

9|Page