Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-28T06:59:02.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Migration and Distributive Politics: The Political Economy of Mexico's 3×1 Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Covadonga Meseguer  and
Francisco Javier Aparicio
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mexico's 3 × 1 Program for Migrants is a matching grant scheme that seeks to direct the money sent by migrant organizations abroad to the provision of public and social infrastructure and to productive projects in migrants’ communities of origin. To this end, the municipal, state, and federal administrations match the amount sent by hometown associations by 3 to 1. This article explores the impact on the operation of the 3 × 1 of a particular facet of Mexican political life: its recent democratization and the increasing political fragmentation at the municipal level. The study finds a lower provision of public projects in jurisdictions where a high number of political parties compete. This finding casts doubt on the claim that policy interventions such as the 3 × 1 Program actually improve local public goods provision at the local level under increasing political competition.

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , Winter 2012 , pp. 147 - 178
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 2012

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

Adida, Claire L., and Girod, Desha M.. 2011. Do Migrants Improve Their Hometown? Remittances and Access to Public Services in Mexico, 1995–2000. Comparative Political Studies 44, 1: 3–27.Google Scholar
Alarcón, Rafael. 2006. Hacia la construcción de una política de emigración en México. In Relaciones estado-diáspora: aproximaciones desde cuatro continentes, ed. Gonzáles, Carlos. Mexico City : Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas/Miguel Angel Porrúa. 157–79.Google Scholar
Aparicio, Francisco Javier, and Meseguer, Covadonga. 2012. Collective Remittances and the State: the 3 × 1 Program in Mexican Municipalities. World Development 40, 1 (January): 206–22.Google Scholar
Aparicio, Francisco Javier, Maldonado, Claudia, and Beltrán, Brisna. 2007. Evaluación externa de consistencia y resultados 2007 del Programa 3 × 1 para Migrantes. Mexico City : SEDESOL.Google Scholar
Bravo, Jorge. 2007. Emigration and Political Engagement in Mexico. Unpublished ms. Nuffield College, Oxford University.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Smith, Alistair, Siverson, Randolph, and Morrow, James. 2003. The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge : MIT Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, Katrina. 2005. Filantropía de migrantes y gobernanza local [Migrant Philanthropy and Local Governance in Mexico]. In New Patterns for Mexico: Remittances, Philanthropic Giving, and Equitable Development, ed. Merz, Barbara. Cambridge : Harvard University Press. 125–55.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, and Murillo, María Victoria. 2004. Who Delivers? Partisan Clients in the Argentine Electoral Market. American Journal of Political Science 48, 4: 742–57.Google Scholar
Cano, Gustavo, and Délano, Alexandra. 2007. The Mexican Government and Organized Mexican Immigrants in the United Status: a Historical Analysis of Political Transnationalism (1848–2005). Journal of Ethic and Migration Studies 33, 5: 695–725.Google Scholar
Centro de Investigación para el Desarrollo (Cidac). n.d. Data on electoral vote shares. http://www.cidac.org.Google Scholar
Chhibber, Pradeep, and Nooruddin, Irfan. 2004. Do Party Systems Count? the Number of Parties and Government Performance in the Indian States. Comparative Political Studies 37, 2: 152–87.Google Scholar
Cleary, Matthew R. 2007. Electoral Competition, Participation, and Government Responsiveness in Mexico. American Journal of Political Science 51, 2: 283–99.Google Scholar
Consejo Nacional de Población (CONAPO). n.d. Measures of migration and poverty. http://www.conapo.gob.mx.Google Scholar
Córdova, Abby, and Hiskey, Jonathan. 2008. Migrant Networks and Democracy in Latin America. Unpublished ms., Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Matthew. 1986. Electoral Politics as a Redistributive Game. Journal of Politics 48: 370–89.Google Scholar
De Remes, Alain. 2005. Elecciones yuxtapuestas a nivel municipal: la cohabitación silenciosa. In Después de la alternancia. Elecciones y nueva competitividad, ed. Espinoza, V. A. and Rionda, L. M.. Tijuana : Colegio de la Frontera Norte. 195–207.Google Scholar
Díaz-Cayeros, Alberto, Estévez, Federico, and Magaloni, Beatriz. 2007. Strategies of Vote Buying: Social Transfers, Democracy, and Welfare in Mexico. Unpublished ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Dixit, Avinash, and Londregan, John. 1996. The Determinants of Success of Special Interests in Redistributive Politics. Journal of Politics 58, 4: 1132–55.Google Scholar
Durand, Jorge, Parrado, Emilio, and Massey, Douglas. 1996. Migradollars and Development: a Reconsideration of the Mexican Case. International Migration Review 30, 2: 423–44.Google Scholar
Fernández de Castro, Rafael, Zamora, Rodolfo García, and Freyer, Ana Vila, eds. 2006. El Programa 3 × 1 para Migrantes:¿primera política transnacional en México? Mexico City : ITAM/Miguel Angel Porrúa/UAZ.Google Scholar
Fox, Jonathan, and Bada, Xochitl. 2008. Migrant Organization and Hometown Impacts in Rural Mexico. Journal of Agrarian Change 8, 2–3: 435–61.Google Scholar
García Zamora, Rodolfo. 2006. El Programa 3 × 1 y los retos de los proyectos productivos en Zacatecas. In Fernández de Castro et al. 2006. 157–70.Google Scholar
García Zamora, Rodolfo. 2011. Economist. Author interview. Zacatecas, January 25.Google Scholar
Goldring, Luin. 2002. The Mexican State and Transmigrant Organizations: Negotiating the Boundaries of Membership and Participation. Latin American Research Review 37, 3: 55–99.Google Scholar
Goodman, Gary L., and Hiskey, Jonathan. 2008. Exit without Leaving: Political Disengagement in High Migration Municipalities in Mexico. Comparative Politics 40, 2 (January): 169–88.Google Scholar
Imaz, Cecilia. 2004. Poder político de las organizaciones transnacionales de migrante mexicanos en sus comunidades de origen. Estudio comparativo de clubes sociales de migrantes in Nayarit-California y Puebla–Nueva York. In Clubes de migrantes oriundos mexicanos en los Estados Unidos, ed. Lanly, Guillaume and Valenzuela, M. Basilia. Guadalajara : Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara. 375–422.Google Scholar
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). n.d. Measures of migration and poverty. http://www.inegi.org.mx.Google Scholar
Iskander, Natasha. 2010. Creative State: Forty Years of Migration and Development Policy in Morocco and Mexico. Ithaca : Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Jiménez, Alejandra. 2008. Remittances and Votes: the Rise of the Migrants as a New Actor in Mexican Politics. Paper prepared for the 66th Midwest Political Science Association Annual National Conference, Chicago, April 3–6.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert, and Wilkinson, Steven. 2007. Patrons, Clients, and Policies: Patterns of Democratic Accountability and Political Competition. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laakso, Markku, and Taagepera, Rein. 1979. Effective Number of Parties: a Measure with Application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12, 3–27.Google Scholar
Leite, Paula, and Acevedo, Luis. 2006. Migración internacional en México: balance y retos políticos. Mexico City : CONAPO.Google Scholar
Levitt, Peggy. 1998. Social Remittances: Migration Driven Local-Level Forms of Cultural Diffusion. International Migration Review 32, 4: 926–48.Google Scholar
Londregan, John. 2006. Political Income Redistribution. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Economy, ed. Weingast, Barry and Wittman, Donald. New York : Oxford University Press. 84–101.Google Scholar
Magaloni, Beatriz. 2006. Voting for Autocracy: Hegemonic Party Survivial and Its Demise in Mexico. New York : Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ministry of Social Development (SEDESOL). 2010. Reglas de operación del Programa 3 × 1 para Migrantes. http://www.sedesol.gob.mx.Google Scholar
Moctezuma, Miguel, and Pérez, Oscar. 2006. Remesas colectivas, estado y formas organizativas de los mexicanos en Estados Unidos. In Fernández de Castro et al. 2006. 119–38.Google Scholar
Moreno-Jaimes, Carlos. 2007. Do Competitive Elections Produce Better-Quality Government? Evidence from Mexican Municipalities, 1990–2000. Latin American Research Review 42, 2: 138–53.Google Scholar
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2007. Policy Coherence for Development: Migration and Developing Countries. París : OECD Development Center.Google Scholar
Orozco, Manuel. 2003. Hometown Associations and Their Present and Future Partnerships: New Development Opportunities? Washington, DC : U.S. Agency for International Development.Google Scholar
Orozco, Manuel, and Katherine, Welle. 2005. Clubes de migrantes y desarrollo: pertenencia, concordancia, sustentabilidad y replicabilidad. Chap. 5 in New Patterns for Mexico: Observations on Remittances, Philanthropic Giving, and Equitable Development, ed. Merz, Barbara J.. Cambridge : Harvard University Press. 181–209.Google Scholar
Pérez-Armendáriz, Clarisa, and Crow, David. 2010. Do Migrants Remit Democracy? International Migration, Political Beliefs, and Behavior in Mexico. Comparative Political Studies 43, 1: 119–48.Google Scholar
Persson, Torsten, and Tabellini, Guido. 2003. The Economic Effects of Constitutions. Cambridge : MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pfutze, Tobias. 2007. Do Remittances Promote Democratization? How International Migration Helps to Overcome Political Clientelism. Unpublished mss., New York University.Google Scholar
Soto, Sergio, and Velázquez, Marco Antonio. 2006. El proceso de institucionalización del Programa 3 × 1 para Migrantes. In Fernández de Castro et al. 2006. 11–44.Google Scholar
Spector, A. Regine, and de Graauw, Els. 2006. Capitalizing on Remittances: a Cross-National Comparison of Remittance Actors and Policies. Paper presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, August 31–September 3.Google Scholar
Stokes, Susan. 2005. Perverse Accountability: a Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina. American Political Science Review 99, 3: 315–25.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, M. Basilia. 2004. Retos y perspectivas de la sociedad civil en los Estados Unidos: entre la participación política y la quimera del desarrollo local. In Clubes de migrantes oriundos mexicanos en los Estados Unidos, ed. Lanly, Guillaume and Valenzuela, . Guadalajara : Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara. 455–88.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, M. Basilia. 2006. La instauración del 3 × 1 en Jalisco. El acomodo de los gobiernos locales a una política adoptada por el gobierno del estado. In Fernández de Castro et al. 2006. 139–56.Google Scholar
World Bank. 2005. Global Economic Prospects 2006: Economic Implications of Remittances and Migration. Washington, DC : World Bank.Google Scholar
Zárate, Germán. 2005. The Development Impact of Migrant Remittances in Mexico. Chap. 7 in Beyond Small Change: Making Migrant Remittances Count. Washington, DC : Inter-American Development Bank. 159–91.Google Scholar