Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:17:16.547Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

State, Dependency, and Nationalism: Revolutionary Mexico, 1924–1928

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Richard Tardanico
Richard Tardanico
Affiliation:
Tulane University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The domestic and global forces that shaped Mexico's revolutionary struggle of 1910–17 continued to shape its state-building conflicts during the 1920s. Recent revisionist historiography underscores this point by emphasizing the bitter irony of the Mexican revolution. This literature contends that, despite the revolution's populist and nationalist aura, by the late 1920s it had done little more than subordinate the masses to an even more centralized state and deepen Mexico's dependence on United States governmental and capital interests. The revisionists argue, then, that the revolution had basically reinforced the country's old regime legacies and created a more institutionalized version of the Porfiriato's authoritarian state.

Type
State Making
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , July 1982 , pp. 400 - 423
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York, August 1980. The research was supported by a grant from the Doherty Foundation. I am grateful to Christopher Chase-Dunn, Walter Goldfrank, Richard Rubinson, and Sara Tardanico for their comments on earlier drafts.

1 The major revisionist works include Meyer, Jean, La Revolutión Mejicana, 1910–1940 (Barcelona: Dopesa, 1973)Google Scholar; Gilly, Adolfo, Córdova, Arnaldo, Bartra, Armando, Mora, Manuel Aguilar, and Semo, Enrique, Interpretaciones de la Revolución Mexicana, with a foreword by Camín, Hector Aguilar (Mexico City: Editorial Nueva Imagen, 1979)Google Scholar; Brading, D. A., ed., Caudillo and Peasant in the Mexican Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980).Google Scholar On this literature, see Bailey, David C., “Revisionism and the Recent Historiography of the Mexican Revolution,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 58:1 (1978), 62–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carr, Barry, “Recent Regional Studies of the Mexican Revolution,” Latin American Research Review, 15:1 (1980), 3–14Google Scholar; Tardanico, Richard, “Perspectives on Revolutionary Mexico: The Regimes of Obregon and Calles,” in Dynamics of World Development, Rubinson, Richard, ed. (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1981).Google Scholar

2 The Porfiriato was the period of Mexican history from 1876 to 1911, when the country was ruled by the dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz. This was an era of primarily export development based on the large-scale influx of foreign capital.

3 Skocpol, Theda, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also e.g., Eisenstadt, S. N., Revolution and the Transformation of Societies: A Comparative Study of Civilizations (New York: Free Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Trimberger, Ellen Kay, Revolution from Above: Military Bureaucrats and Development in Japan, Turkey, Egypt, and Peru (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1978)Google Scholar; Aya, Rod, “Theories of Revolution Reconsidered,” Theory and Society, 8:1 (1979), 39–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eckstein, Susan, “Distributive Consequences of Latin American Revolutions” (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York, August 1980)Google Scholar; Goldstone, Jack A., ‘Theories of Revolution: The Third Generation,” World Politics, 32:3 (1980), 425–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 See the following section on state building in the periphery. By “semiperiphery” I mean that stratum of countries in the world capitalist system whose economies either combine advanced industrial and labor-intensive production more or less equally or are based on intermediate forms of production. In some cases, moreover, such nations may exercise subimperialist domination over neighboring peripheral countries. From this perspective, the emergence of such nations as Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina as semi-industrialized countries by the 1940s or early 1950s was part of the expansion of this middle sector of the capitalist world economy. See, e.g., Hopkins, Terence K. and Wallerstein, Immanuel, “Patterns of Development of the World-System,” Review, 1:2 (1977), 111–45Google Scholar; Frank, Andre Gunder, “Unequal Accumulation: Intermediate, Semi-Peripheral, and Sub-Imperialist Economies,” Review, 2:3 (1979), 281–350.Google Scholar

5 See, e.g., Amin, Samir, Unequal Development (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1976)Google Scholar; Wallerstein, Immanuel, The Capitalist World-Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979)Google Scholar; Christopher Chase-Dunn, “A World-System Perspective on Cardoso and Faletto's Dependency and Development in Latin America, ” Latin American Research Review, in press.

6 Trimberger, Revolution from Above; Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions. On this perspective, as well as for competing views, see Hamilton, Nora, “State Autonomy and Dependent Capitalism in Latin America,” British Journal of Sociology, 23:3 (1981), 305–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Petras, James F. and Morley, Morris H., “The U.S. Impericai State,” Review, 4:2 (1980), 171–222.Google Scholar

7 Trimberger, Revolution from Above; Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions.

8 See, e.g., The Formation of National States in Western Europe, Tilly, Charles, ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Horowitz, Irving Louis and Trimberger, Ellen Kay, “State Power and Military Nationalism in Latin America,” Comparative Politics, 8:2 (1976), 223–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 E.g., Amin, , Unequal Development, chs. 4, 5.Google Scholar

10 See, e.g., Stepan, Alfred, The State and Society: Peru in Comparative Perspective (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Evans, Peter, Dependent Development: The Alliance of Multinational, State, and Local Capital in Brazil (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1979).Google Scholar

11 Wallerstein, Immanuel, “Dependence in an Interdependent World: The Limited Pos- sibilities of Transformation within the Capitalist World-Economy,” in his The Capitalist World-Economy, 76–83.Google Scholar

12 Ibid., 75–76.

13 See Leal, Juan Felipe, “El Estado y el Bloque en el Poder en Mexico: 1867–1914,” Latin American Perspectives, 2:2 (1975), 34–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldfrank, Walter, “World System, State Structure, and the Onset of the Mexican Revolution,” Politics and Society, 5:4 (1975), 417–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ian Jacobs, “Rancheros of Guerrero: The Figuero Brothers and the Revolution,” in Caudillo and Peasant, Brading, ed.

14 Córdova, Arnaldo, La Ideología de la Revolutión Mexicana: La Formatión del Nuevo Régimen (Mexico City: Ediciones Era, 1973). ch. 4.Google Scholar

15 On the nature and roots of the Sonorans’ political pragmatism, see Carr, Barry, “Las Peculiaridades del Norte Mexicano, 1880–1927: Ensayo de Interpretacidn,” Historia Mexicana, 22:3 (1973), 320–46Google Scholar; Camín, Héctor Aguilar, La Frontera Nomada: Sonora y la Revolution Mexicana (Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1977).Google Scholar For a comparative perspective on frontier politics, see Baretta, Silvio R. Duncan and Markoff, John, “Civilization and Barbarism: Cattle Frontiers in Latin America,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 20:4 (1978), 587–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 Hansen, Roger D., The Politics of Mexican Development (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), 13–28Google Scholar; Meyer, J., La Revolution, 96–99.Google Scholar

Pertinent to this review of the Porfirian economy is that the Porfirian state was organizationally weak and incapable of effectively challenging foreign capital and the Mexican upper classes. Indeed, the longevity of the Díaz regime was based on a combination of export prosperity, the absence of unified opposition, and Díaz's own remarkable political skills. On the Porfirian state, see Wolf, Eric R. and Hansen, Edward C., “Caudillo Politics: A Structural Analysis,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 9:2 (1967), 178–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Córdova, , La Ideología, ch. 1Google Scholar; Goldfrank, Walter L., “Theories of Revolution and Revolution without Theory: Mexico,” Theory and Society, 7:1–2 (1979), 135–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leal, “El Estado y el Bloque.”

17 See, e.g., Tobler, Hans Werner, “Las Paradojas del Ejercito Revolucionario: Su Papel Social en la Reforma Agraria Mexicana, 1920–1935,” Historia Mexicana, 21:1 (1971), 38–79Google Scholar; Pugna, Cristina, “La Confederación de Cámaras Industrials (1917–1924),” Trimestre Politico, 1:3 (1976), 103–31.Google Scholar

18 Córdova, , La Ideologia, ch. 4.Google Scholar See also Smith, Peter H., “The Making of the Mexican Constitution,” in The Dimensions of Parliamentary History, Aydelotte, William O., ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977).Google Scholar

19 See, e.g., Caudillo and Peasant, Brading, ed. The relationship of these local and regional factions to the nascent state is an issue in need of further study.

20 See the following essays, all in Caudillo and Peasant, Brading, ed.: Alan Knight, “Peasant and Caudillo in Revolutionary Mexico 1910–17”; Héctor Aguilar Camín, “The Relevant Tradition: Sonoran Leaders in the Revolution”; Linda B. Hall, “Alvaro Obregón and the Agrarian Movement 1912–20.”

21 Caudillo and Peasant, Brading, ed.; Tobler, “Las Paradojas del Ejercito Revolucionario.”

22 Womack, John Jr., Zapata and the Mexican Revolution (New York: Vintage Books, 1968)Google Scholar; Waterbury, Ronald, “Non-Revolutionary Peasants: Oaxaca Compared to Morelos in the Mexican Revolution,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 17:4 (1975), 410–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Katz, Friedrich, “Villa: Reform Governor of Chihauhua, ”in Essays on the Mexican Revolution: Revisionist Views of the Leaders, Wolfskill, George and Richmond, Douglas W., eds., with a foreword by Meyer, Michael C. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979)Google Scholar; Knight, “Peasant and Caudillo.”

23 Meyer, J., La Revolucion, 17–18Google Scholar; Carr, Barry, “Labour and Politics in Mexico, 1910–1929” (Ph.D. diss., Oxford University, 1974), 18–19, 47, 71–79.Google Scholar

24 Meyer, J., La Revolución, 86–91Google Scholar; Carr, , “Labour and Politics,” 49, 91–92Google Scholar; Ruiz, Ramón Eduardo, Labor and the Ambivalent Revolutionaries: Mexico, 1911–1923 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976), 50–51.Google Scholar

25 E.G., Córdova, , La Ideología, 264–66Google Scholar; Tardanico, Richard, “Revolutionary Nationalism and State Building in Mexico, 1917–1924,” Politics and Society, 10:1 (1980), 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Smith, Robert Freeman, The United States and Revolutionary Nationalism in Mexico, 1916–1932 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), ch. 8Google Scholar; Tardanico, , “Revolutionary Nationalism,” 77–85.Google Scholar

27 Córdova, , La Ideología, chs. 5, 6Google Scholar; Bennett, Douglas and Sharpe, Kenneth, “The State as Banker and Entrepreneur: the Last Resort Character of the Mexican State's Economic Intervention, 1917–1976,” Comparative Politics, 12:2 (1980), 168–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tardanico, , “Revolutionary Nationalism,” 77–85.Google Scholar

28 Pani, Alberto J., La Politico Hacendaria y la Revolucion (Mexico City: Editorial Cultura, 1926), 35–46, 163–79Google Scholar; Sterrett, Joseph E. and Davis, Joseph S., The Fiscal and Economic Condition of Mexico (Report submitted to the International Committee of Bankers on Mexico, New York, 1929), 44.Google Scholar

In 1922 petroleum taxes accounted for about 31 percent of federal revenue. From 1921 to 1924, oil and mining taxes represented about 27 percent of federal revenue. According to my estimate, federal income was roughly 6.3 percent of GNP in 1924. These percentages are based on data presented in Mexico, Dirección General de Estadistica, , Anuario Estadistico, 1939 (Mexico City: Talleres Graficos de la Nacion, 1941), 665Google Scholar; Meyer, Lorenzo, Los Grupos de Presión Extranjeros en el México Revolucionario (Mexico City: Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores, 1973), 99Google Scholar; López, Enrique Pérez, “The National Product of Mexico: 1895 to 1964,” in Mexico's Recent Economic Growth: The Mexican View, essays by López, Enrique Pérez et al. , Urquidi, Marjory, trans., with a foreword by Davis, Tom E. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1967), 29–30Google Scholar; Wilkie, James W., The Mexican Revolution: Federal Expenditure and Social Change since 1910, 2d ed. rev. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970), 22.Google Scholar

In 1924 military spending was approximately 43 percent of the federal budget, while only about 28 percent was allocated to economic infrastructural development. See Wilkie, , Mexican Revolution, 102, 130, 144, 151, 160. In contrast to Wilkie's classification, I have included educational expenditures under “infrastructural development.”Google Scholar

Federal spending represented an estimated 5.4 percent of GNP from 1921 to 1924. See Skidmore, Thomas E. and Smith, Peter H., “Notes on Quantitative History: Federal Expenditure and Social Change in Mexico since 1910,” Latin American Research Review, 5:1 (1970), 74.Google Scholar On the methodological problems in dealing with Mexican fiscal data, see ibid., 74–75, and Wilkie, , Mexican Revolution, 6–10.Google Scholar

29 See, e.g., Smith, , United States, ch. 6Google Scholar; Tulchin, Joseph S., The Aftermath of War: World War I and U.S. Policy toward Latin America (New York: New York University Press, 1971)Google Scholar; Munro, Dana G., The United States and the Caribbean Republics 1921–1933 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

30 See note 29 and Meyer, L., Los Grupos de Presion Extranjeros.Google Scholar

31 Casanova, Pablo González, Democracy in Mexico (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), 199.Google Scholar

32 Bernstein, Marvin D., The Mexican Mining Industry, 1890–1950 (Albany: State University of New York, 1965), chs. 10–13Google Scholar; Meyer, Lorenzo, México y los Estados Unidos en el Conflicto Petrolero (1917–1942), 2d ed. rev. (Mexico City: El Colegio de México, 1972), table 2.Google Scholar

33 Mexico, , Anuario Estadístico, 1939, 665Google Scholar; Bernstein, , Mexican Mining, ch. 11Google Scholar; Meyer, L., México y los Estados Unidos, 25–27Google Scholar; idem, Los Grupos de Presion Extranjeros, 99.

34 Calculated from Lewis, Cleona, America's Stake in International Investments (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1938), 606.Google Scholar See also United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, “The Growth of Foreign Investments in Latin America,” in Foreign Investment in Latin America, Bernstein, Marvin D., ed. (New York: Knopf, 1966), 41–48.Google Scholar

Pertinent to this issue is the changing global distribution of direct foreign investments by the United States after World War I, as shown in the following chart. These figures were calculated from Lewis, , America's Stake in International Investments, 606, table II.Google Scholar

35 Turlington, Edgar, Mexico and Her Foreign Creditors (New York: Columbia University Press, 1930), 276–78.Google Scholar

36 See Córdova, , La Ideología, 385–87Google Scholar; Calles, Plutarco Elias, Declaraciones y Discursos Politicos (Mexico City: Ediciones del Centro de Documentation Politica, A.C., 1979), 46, 54, 63, 85–86.Google Scholar

37 Smith, , United States, 230–31.Google Scholar

38 Sterrett, and Davis, , Fiscal and Economic Condition, 208, 210–11.Google Scholar

39 Meyer, L., México y los Estados Unidos, 223–33Google Scholar; Smith, , United States, 231.Google Scholar

40 Bernstein, , Mexican Mining, 152–54Google Scholar; Wionczek, Miguel S., “Electric Power: The Uneasy Partnership,” in Public Policy and Private Enterprise in Mexico, Vernon, Raymond, ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964), 41–42.Google Scholar

41 Meyer, L., México y los Estados Unidos, 225–39, 247–49Google Scholar; Smith, , United States, 232–37Google Scholar; Wood, Bryce, The Making of the Good Neighbor Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), 14–16, 18–23.Google Scholar

42 Pani, , La Política Hacendaría, 93–94, 103–10Google Scholar; Turlington, , Mexico and Her Foreign Creditors, 306–8.Google Scholar

Among the Calles government's efforts to secure foreign backing was the alliance it made with the American Federation of Labor through Mexico's most important labor organization, the Confederación Regional Obrera Mexicana (CROM). See Levenstein, Harvey A., Labor Organizations in the United States and Mexico: A History of Their Relations (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing Co., 1971), ch. 9.Google Scholar

43 Meyer, L., México y los Estados Unidos, 242–49Google Scholar; Smith, , United States, 237–41.Google Scholar

44 See Pani, , La Político Hacendaría, 9–10, 21–22, 35–41.Google Scholar

45 Bernstein, , Mexican Mining, 149, 166.Google Scholar

46 Pani, , La Politico Hacendaria, 40–63, 184–85Google Scholar; idem, Memoria de la Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público Correspondiente a los Años Fiscales de 1923, 1924, 1925, 2 vols. (Mexico City: Talleres de la Editorial Culture, 1926), II, 458–86.

47 Mexico, , Anuario Estadistico, 1939, 665.Google Scholar According to my estimate, federal revenue in 1928 remained at about 6.3 percent of GNP (see note 28). According to Skidmore, and Smith, , “Notes on Quantitative History,” 74, federal spending increased from roughly 5.4 percent of GNP in 1921–24 to 6.2 percent in 1925–29.Google Scholar

48 E.g., Meyer, L., Los Grupos de Presión Extranjeros, 99Google Scholar; Sterrett, and Davis, , Fiscal and Economic Condition.Google Scholar

49 Pani, , La Politico Hacendaria, 14, 16.Google Scholar

50 Pani, Ibid., 25–28; Córdova, , La Ideología, 357–58. The relationship of the civil bureaucracy's middle and lower levels to the state's leadership is another area in need of research.Google Scholar

51 Hansis, Randall, “The Political Strategy of Military Reform: Alvaro Obregdn and Revolutionary Mexico, 1920–1924,” The Americas, 36:2 (1979), 232–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52 Lieuwen, Edwin, Mexican Militarism: The Political Rise and Fall of the Revolutionary Army 1910–1940 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1968), 85–95.Google Scholar

53 Córdova, , La Ideohgía, 315–20.Google Scholar

54 Carr, , “Labour and Politics,” 205–23.Google Scholar

55 Carr, Ibid., 227–61.

56 Clark, Marjorie Ruth, Organized Labor in Mexico (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1934), 111–13, 177Google Scholar; Carr, , “Labour and Politics,” 255–57.Google Scholar

57 Wilkie, , Mexican Revolution, 188.Google Scholar

58 Meyer, J., La Revolutión, 218–19Google Scholar; Warman, Arturo, Y Venimos a Contradecir: Los Campesinos de Morelos y el Estado National (Mexico City: Ediciones de la Casa Chata, 1976), 158–64Google Scholar; Krauze, Enrique, Historia de la Revolutión Mexicana, Período 1924–1928: La Reconstructión Ecónomica, with the collaboration of Meyer, Jean and Reyes, Cayetano (Mexico City: El Colegiode Mexico, 1977), 23, 156–57, 162–65.Google Scholar

59 See, e.g., Gruening, Ernest, Mexico and Its Heritage (New York: The Century Co., 1928), 481–93Google Scholar; Meyer, Jean, Historia de la Revolutión Mexicana, Período 1924–1928: Estado y Sociedad con Calles, with the collaboration of Krauze, Enrique and Reyes, Cayetano (Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico, 1977), 179–86Google Scholar; idem. The Cristero Rebellion: The Mexican People between Church and State 1926–1929, Southern, Richard, trans. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 17–18, 207–9Google Scholar; Salamini, Heather Fowler, “Revolutionary Caudillos in the 1920sGoogle Scholar: Múgica, Francisco and Tejeda, Adalberto,” in Caudillo and Peasant, Brading, ed.Google Scholar

60 E.g., Smith, , United States, chs. 8, 9.Google Scholar

61 A major exception, however, was the Cristero revolt of 1926–29, a counterrevolutionary uprising of the rural poor based in west-central Mexico. See Meyer, J., Cristero Rebellion.Google Scholar

62 Wilkie, , Mexican Revolution, 102.Google Scholar

63 Pani, , La Político Hacendaria, 10, 75–81Google Scholar; Sheltion, David H., “The Banking System: Money and the Goal of Growth,” in Public Policy and Private Enterprise in Mexico, Vernon, ed., 134–38Google Scholar; Wilkie, , Mexican Revolution, 147–48.Google Scholar

64 Dulles, John W. F., Yesterday in Mexico: A Chronicle of the Revolution, 1919–1936 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961), 290–92Google Scholar; Wilkie, , Mexican Revolution, 130, 144, 160Google Scholar; Krauze, , Historia: La Reconstrucción Económica, chs. 3–5.Google Scholar

65 Pani, , La Político Hacendaría, 29–30.Google Scholar

66 Calles, Plutarco Elías, “Informe Presidential Ante el Congreso (1927),” in La Hacienda Pública de México a traves de los Informes Presidenciales a partir de la Independencia hasta 1950 (Mexico City: Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público, 1951)Google Scholar; Wilkie, , Mexican Revolution, 27–28.Google Scholar

67 See notes 28 and 47.

68 Calles, , “Informe Presidential (1927)”Google Scholar; Turlington, , Mexico and Her Foreign Creditors, 313Google Scholar; Lieuwen, , Mexican Militarism, 97–99Google Scholar; Meyer, J., Cristero Rebellion, 159–65Google Scholar; Wilkie, , Mexican Revolution, 102, 108.Google Scholar

69 See, e.g., Dulles, , Yesterday in Mexico, 292Google Scholar; Krauze, , Historia: La Reconstrucción, 47–56, 104–6, 145, 156.Google Scholar

70 Wionczek, , “Electric Power: The Uneasy Partnership,” 40–65.Google Scholar

71 Ibid., 45–55; Michaels, Albert L., “The Crisis of Cardenismo,” Journal of Latin American Studies, 2:1 (1970), 70–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72 See, e.g., Salamini, Heather Fowler, Agrarian Radicalism in Veracruz, 1920–38 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Medín, Tvzi, Ideologíay Praxis Politico de Lázaro Cárdenas, 5th ed. (Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1977)Google Scholar; Gil, Emilio Portes, Quince Años de Político Mexicana, 3d ed. (Mexico City: Ediciones Botas, 1954)Google Scholar; Wilkie, James W. and de Wilkie, Edna Monzón, México Visto en el Siglo XX (Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Economicas, 1969), ch. 6.Google Scholar

73 See, e.g., Córdova, , La Ideología, 30, 376–79.Google Scholar

74 Meyer, J., Cristero Rebellion, chs. 1, 2.Google Scholar

75 Dulles, , Yesterday in Mexico, chs. 38–41Google Scholar; Lieuwen, , Mexican Militarism, 95–99Google Scholar; Carr, , “Labour and Politics,” 358–59Google Scholar; Diaz, Rafael Loyola, La Crisis Obregón-Calles y el Estado Mexicano (Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Editores, 1980).Google Scholar

76 Calculated from Mexico, , Anuario Estadístico, 1939, 665.Google Scholar See also Calles, , “Informe Presidencial (1928),” in La Hacienda PúblicaGoogle Scholar; Sterrett, and Davis, , Fiscal and Economic Condition, 104–8Google Scholar; Turlington, , Mexico and Her Foreign Creditors, 312–15.Google Scholar

77 Meyer, L., México y los Estados Unidos, 257–63.Google Scholar

78 Dulles, , Yesterday in Mexico, 328–31Google Scholar; Meyer, L., México y los Estados Unidos, 269–79Google Scholar; Smith, , United States, 255–57, 259–60.Google Scholar

79 See, e.g., Cornelius, Wayne A., “Nation Building, Participation, and Distribution: The Politics of Social Reform Under Cárdenas,” in Crisis, Choice, and Change: Historical Studies in Political Development, Almond, Gabriel A., Flanagan, Scott C., and Mundt, Robert J., eds. (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1973), 401–2, 417–18Google Scholar; Córdova, Arnaldo, La Formación del Poder Politico en Mexico, 5th ed. (Mexico City: Serie Popular Era, 1977), 38–40.Google Scholar

80 The major exception to this conservative shift was the wave of agrarian reform under interim president Emilio Portes Gil in 1928–29. On the years 1928–34, see, e.g., Díaz, Loyola, La Crísis Obregón-Calles, chs. 2, 3Google Scholar; Meyer, L., México y los Estados Unidos ch. 7Google Scholar; Cornelius, , “Nation Building,” 395–436Google Scholar; Carr, , “Labour and Politics,” 394–99Google Scholar; Falcón, Romana, “El Surgimiento de Agrarismo Cardenista-Una Revisión de la Tésis Populista,” Historia Mexicana, 27:3 (1978), 363–84.Google Scholar

81 See, e.g., Córdova, Arnaldo, La Politico de Masas del Cardenismo, 2d ed. (Mexico City: Serie Popular Era, 1976).Google Scholar

82 See, e.g., Michaels, “Crisis of Cardenismo”; Leal, Juan Felipe, “The Mexican State: 1915–1973 An Historical Interpretation,” Latin American Perspectives, 2:2 (1975), 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar