Response to Mexico’s Other Border

According to the article Mexico's Other Border: Security, Migration, and the Humanitarian Crisis at the Line with Central America, the border between Guatemala and Mexico offers a porous spot that is taken advantage of by drug traffickers and people crossing the border illegally from Guatemala into Mexico. In essence, the article concludes that given that "most of these Central American migrants begin their journey in the Mexico-Guatemala border zone, where they cross into Mexican territory for a long journey to the U.S. border," the importance of the border to the United States of America cannot be overstated (Isacson, Meyer and Morales 5).Overall, the article analyzes the security, migration and humanitarian implications of the porousness of the Mexican border to Mexico and the U.S.

The Mexico- Guatemala border provides a threat to the stability of the anti-immigration policies which were put in place in the U.S. to minimize the entry of illegal entrants into the country. Whereas in the past, most of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. came from Mexico, recent times have seen a shift. For instance, “In 2013, for the first time, more than a third of migrants whom the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended were not Mexican” (Isacson, Meyer and Morales 3). Essentially, over 150,000 of the arrested migrants from the Central American region were of El Savador, Honduras and Guatemala citizenship. The statistic indicates the prevalence of illegal immigration as a result of the porousness of the southern Mexico border.

The authors determine that the geography and the economy of the border region is responsible for the porosity that is observed in the Mexico-Guatemala border. The Mexican States in the Southern region, next to the border account for only 5% of the total States in the country while Guatemala has only 20% of its States located in the northern region and next to the border (Isacson, Meyer and Morales 6). Consequently, the resources that are extended towards the verification and control of human population across the border are limited and inadequate. Similarly, the presence of only a “just a straight line over land that is often uninhabited and covered by dense vegetation” (Isacson, Meyer and Morales 6). impedes the efforts that are extended towards the mitigation of illegal migration into Mexico and ultimately the U.S. Indeed, most of the regions that are often uninhabited receive only a paltry share of the state revenue. It is most likely that the share of the budget that is allocated to the region may not be enough to counter the continued migration into Mexico by the immigrants from Central American countries.

America’s interest in the region is a culmination of its drug trafficking monitoring initiatives. According to the authors, the unsecured southern border provides the route that is engaged by drug traffickers from Central America to transport drugs to Mexico which ultimately make their way into the United States of America. The wariness that is extended towards the southern border is further a result of the desire to stem terrorism in America. Nonetheless, the article overlooks the fact that there is no link that has been established between the terrorist activities in the US and the Mexico-Guatemala border region. Human rights violation in the southern region further provides an incentive for the interest that is assumed by the US with regards to the Mexico-Guatemala border. Migrants from Guatemala, seeking employment, are often subjected to all forms of abuse in Mexico. These cases go unreported given the fear of deportation that is widespread among the immigrant workers. Similarly, prevalence of human trafficking across the border leads to the abuse of several women.

Lastly, the article offers insights into the strategies that can be engaged by the involved stakeholders to stem the inflow of immigrants from Guatemala into the US. It captures the aid programs that have been initiated in the Guatemala region and the influences that the initiative has had on the army patrols in the northern region of Chiapas. The author offers that he US Defense Department should use its budget to offer foreign aid to the Guatemala security forces to support anti-drug activities (Isacson, Meyer and Morales 29). It further advocates for a new security approach which does not involve an increase in the presence of federal security agents in the border region. As a basis of justification, the authors dictate that the presence of the many agents in the region has so far done little to mitigate the drug trafficking problem.

Conclusively, in my opinion the article lacks in clarity and organization. There is not a clear dissection of the points that are going to be covered by the authors which makes its comprehension challenging. Furthermore, the article does not consider the efforts that have been extended by the US in the past to counter drug-trafficking in other countries that border it. It is not likely that the US would be willing to finance a project which should be undertaken by two countries that border each other. The duty to protect the border solely lies with Mexico and Guatemala. Therefore, the two administrations should work together to determine ways through which they can stem the challenge.

Response to Brazil’s Liberal Neo-Developmentalism

The article Brazil’s liberal neo-developmentalism: New Paradigm or edited orthodoxy? by Cornel Ban analyzes the authenticity of Brazil’s new economic policy regime. Ban claims that “Brazil’s current socioeconomic policy regime is neither a replica of the Washington Consensus, nor a revolutionary departure from it” (2). As an alternative, the Brazil administration engages an economic policy that is a hybrid of the economically liberal policy objectives which are associated with Washington Consensus and the elements of developmentalism. The author terms the hybrid “liberal neo-developmentalism”.

To begin with, the article aims to establish the elements of the economic model that is assumed by the Brazilian administration by assuming a systematic exploration of the evidences that are available to support the supposition. Essentially, the author assumes an argumentative framework in attempting to explore on whether the prevailing economic framework leans towards liberal neo-developmentalism or towards the Washington Consensus. Washington Consensus refers to a “a body of thought that draws on the liberal tradition in economics” while neo-developmentalism refers to “a national capitalist development program meant to guide the transition of developing countries away from the Washington Consensus” (Ban 3). Whereas the latter is concerned with the liberation of the economic elements for economic development, the latter policy’s main agenda involves the attainment of full employment with regards to financial stability.

The article succeeds in succinctly addressing the similarities and differences that exist between the present and neo-developmentalist principles. This analysis provides the reader with the background information which pertains to the overall theme. For instance, all neo-developmentalist activism aligns itself to the notion that the world economy is made up of states and nation that compete each other by using the firms that are available within their borders. Alternatively, both converge around the indispensability of structuralism in economic development. Essentially, the structural processes include “the mobilization of all available labor resources, increasing productivity in each industry and the steady transfer of finance to high wage and high value added sectors” (Ban 4). Differences between the two developmentalist frameworks are to be found in the stances taken with regards to protectionism and inflation aversion. Whereas the old neo-developmentalist principle advocated for increased protectionism, new-age neo-developmentalist principle negates the role of protectionism in the economic market. Alternatively, old neo-developmentalism project a complacency with regards to inflation while new neo-developmentalist think that every initiative should be channeled towards the mitigation of inflation albeit with sustained interest rates which do not fluctuate with inflation.

In my opinion, the article’s strength lies mainly in its organization and employ of literary evidences to justify its claim with regards to the economic policy that is engaged in Brazil currently. For instance, in determining the shift from the old neo-developmentalist framework, the Ban suggests that the “growth acceleration program”, assumed after the election of the Lula administration saw an increase in investments across the country and thus enhanced GDP. This is a reflection of the influences of the new neo-developmentalist principle. Similarly, the shift towards the new principle is further reinforced by the “aggressive promotion of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements in the Americas and beyond” (Ban 11). This factor allowed the Lula administration to practice an open market system which is reflective of the principle which is predicated upon by the current economy in Brazil.

Organization provides for the next strength of the article. Ban appropriately segments his analysis which makes it easy for the reader to understand the elements of the text. With regards to the organization of the article, Ban determines that “the first section compares neo-developmentalism with ‘old’ developmentalism and the Washington Consensus. Next, by drawing on the literature on policy diffusion, the study proposes two competing hypotheses about Brazil’s relationship with this policy framework.” (2). Such distinction prepares the reader for the elements of the paper and further allows one to derive background information which is need to understand the basics of the entire article. The authors further offer a conclusion which is not only reflective of the analysis engaged in the text but based on the evidences provided. Consequently, Ban concludes that “while this country has more than an ‘eroded’ Washington Consensus, it nevertheless did not adopt a full-blown neo-developmentalist paradigm” (23).

Conclusively, the article succeeds in clarifying on the elements of the hybrid system of national economy that is practiced currently in Brazil. By first analyzing the similarities between the old and the new neo-developmentalist frameworks, the author gracefully introduces the reader to the basics of the article. Similarly, assuming an argumentative framework allowed the author to explore both the supporting and negating arguments which influence the outcomes of the argument on whether neo-developmentalism is a new framework or an edited orthodoxy. Creating subtitles further give flow to the article which eases the analysis process. Nonetheless, the article should have indicated directions and recommendations for future research given the constantly changing global economic environment. The initiative could provide a critical element for an individual who wishes to engage the article. Overall, the article exemplarily oversaw its purpose.



Response to Partisan Politics, Transnational Alliances, and Labor Rights in Latin America

The article Partisan Politics, Transnational Alliances, and Labor Rights in Latin America seeks to establish the relationship that exists between the trade unions in Latin America, the labor-backed parties and the labor rights activists who operate overseas. Essentially, Murillo determines that the three different elements complement each other. The article further explores the role of human rights activists and trade unions in the United States of America in furthering the course of the trade unions in America.

To begin with, the article suggests that parties that are labor-backed have remained loyal to their bases by promoting the courses of trade unions in the government. To achieve this goal, the involved parties have increasingly adopted laws and policies which are labor-friendly in a volatile political environment. The article starts by analyzing the labor rights and economic reforms that took place in the late 20th century in Latin America. She determines that the “free market reforms undertaken by Latin American governments have arguably enervated organized labor” (974). Subsequently, unions were forced to contend with reduced political influence which threatened the very existence of the bodies. Nonetheless the article establishes that despite the reforms, labor laws continue to favor organized unions in Latin America.

To validate the current situation of the labor unions, Murillo explores the labor-mobilization legacies and labor reform strategies that were engaged by Latin America States in the 90s. The US trade unions and human rights activists played an integral role in enhancing the freedom and power that was extended to labor unions in the US. For instance, “the U.S. Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 forces recipients of “most favored nation” access to the U.S. marketto take steps toward the defense of core labor standards” (Murillo 977). Still, currently the true influences of the US on the reforms remains unclear as the initiative was received differently by administrative bodies in Latin America. For instance, labor relations institutions were the subject of warm reception in the Brazilian and Argentinian administrations but the same cannot be said of countries such as Honduras. Lastly, the article attempts to establish the reason behind the continued solicitation of the support of labor unions by labor-backed parties despite the reforms. The reforms stripped the unions of some of their authorities and thus it is not readily conceivable that the labor-backed parties should continue seeking votes through the institutions. Murillo predicates that “collective labor reforms offer labor-backed parties a relatively low cost, high-return means to lock in the support of their traditional constituencies in a time of growing electoral uncertainty” (979). It is this factor that inspires the continued support of the labor unions by the labor-backed parties.

The article further accurately uses models of analysis which succinctly address the need for the determination of the relationship between the labor unions and the labor-backed parties. It uses Argentina and the Dominican Republic as the case studies. These countries were picked based on their administrative responses towards the labor reforms of the late 20th century. Both countries projected a positive response to the introduction of the labor reforms in their countries. Likewise, “they feature radically different industrial relations and party systems and it is therefore unlikely that their reform processes would reflect identical developmental trajectories” (Murillo 988).

From the analysis, the article offers two major contributions to political-economic studies. The first contribution entails the exposure of the union-friendly features of the reforms to collective labor law that occurred in the late 20th century. The second contribution entails the determination of the trajectory of the union-friendly reforms both internally and externally that unfold within the conditions created by the two different historical legacies of labor mobilization. Whereas, the former contribution is descriptive, the latter contribution is analytical. Conclusively, Murillo succeeds in showing that, in the market – oriented era, the majority of the Latin American countries adopted union-friendly reforms to their labor policing initiatives.

Lastly, I feel that the structure which is assumed by the article is effective. I was appealed by the fact that the author began by determining the basics of the paper, indicating how they would go about the analysis and using literary evidences to further the analysis. The author further offers analytical models which further enhance the validity of the findings determined in the article. By using case studies, the article creates a link between the theoretical and practical aspects of the topic. I was further impressed by the recommendations offered by the author for future research. The suggestions serve to streamline future interests into the topic and further creates a sense of continuation which is essential given that it inspires curiosity in the reader. Nonetheless, the deep analysis assumed by the article is time consuming and demanding energy-wise. The author should have employed the minimum possible given the technicality of the subject.



Works Cited

Ban, Cornel. "Brazil’s liberal neo-developmentalism: New Paradigm or edited orthodoxy? ." Review of International Political Economy (2012 ): 1-34.

Isacson, Adam, Maureen Meyer and Gabriela Morales. "Mexico's Other Border: Security, Migration, and the Humanitarian Crisis at the Line with Central America." WOLA (2014): 1-44.

Murillo, M. Victoria. "Partisan Politics. Transnational Alliances, and Labor Rights in Latin America." Comparative Political Studies 38.8 (2005): 971-999.