Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T14:22:58.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Importance of Policy Frames in Contentious Politics: Mexico's National Antihomophobia Campaign

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2022

Jordi Díez
Jordi Díez*
Affiliation:
University of Guelph
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Despite the fact that the election of Vicente Fox to the presidency of Mexico in 2000 saw the arrival of the most socially conservative administration in contemporary Mexican politics, his government launched the country's first nationwide antihomophobia campaign in early 2005. This article attempts to solve this seeming policy puzzle by presenting empirical research evidence that suggests that the formulation and implementation of this policy was largely a result of the ability of several advocates of sexual minority rights to pursue this policy initiative from within government. Because Fox's election also saw a significant opening of the policy process, several “policy entrepreneurs” gained access to the policy-making process. However, given the controversial nature of the policy they pursued, policy entrepreneurs relied on the deployment of two policy frames to implement their policy in the face of fierce opposition: a scientific frame and a legal frame. The research presented here reveals that the successful launch of the campaign was the result of the strategic use of these two frames by an alliance of policy entrepreneurs working from within the state across federal bureaucratic agencies. Given the advantage the two frames afforded their case when confronting arguments based on morality, they ultimately managed to overcome fierce opposition from state and nonstate actors to implement their policy.

Resumen

Resumen

A pesar de que la elección de Vicente Fox a la presidencia de México en 2000 produjo la llegada del gobierno más conservador en la política contemporánea de México, su gobierno lanzó la primera campaña nacional contra la homofobia en 2005. Este artículo intenta resolver esta aparente paradoja presentando los resultados de una investigación los cuales indican que la elaboración y la implementación de esta iniciativa se debió a la habilidad de un grupo de defensores de los derechos de minorías sexuales quienes prosiguieron esta política desde adentro del gobierno. Dado que la elección de Fox también produjo una apertura en el proceso de la hechura de políticas públicas, varios emprendedores de política pública se bastaron del despliegue de dos marcos de política pública en su implementación cuando encontraron una oposición fuerte a su iniciativa: un marco científico y un marco legal. La investigación que aquí se presenta sugiere que le exitoso lanzamiento de la campaña fue el resultado del uso estratégico de los dos marcos de política pública desde adentro del gobierno a través de varias agencias de burocráticas. Cuando enfrentaron una fuerte oposición proveniente de actores estatales y no estatales, los emprendedores lograron superarla para finalmente implementar su política pública dada la ventaja que estos dos marcos les brindaron cuando los confrontaron con argumentos morales.

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , 2010 , pp. 33 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by the Latin American Studies Association

Footnotes

A previous version of this article was presented at the 2007 International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association in Montreal. I thank Susan Franceschet, Miriam Smith and the anonymous LARR reviewers for their invaluable comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. Any errors of analysis and interpretation are solely my own. Funding for this research from Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Anthony, Denise L., Heckathorn, Douglas D., and Maser, Steven M. 1994 “Rational Rhetoric in Politics: The Debate over Ratifying the U.S. Constitution.” Rationality Sociology 6 (4): 489–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvitzer, Leonardo 2002 Democracy and the Public Space in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, John 1988 Governing Mexico: Statecraft of Crisis Management. New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barth, Juan 2006 “Public Policy Councils in Brazil: How Far Does Institutionalized Participation Reach?” Public Administration and Development 26 (3): 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank, and Jones, Bryan D. 1993 Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Guy 1977 Bureaucracy and National Planning: A Sociological Case Study in Mexico. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Boesten, Jelke 2006 “Pushing Back the Boundaries: Social Policy, Domestic Violence and Women's Organizations in Peru.” Journal of Latin American Studies 38 (2): 355–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, Benedicte 2007 “Comparing Critical Junctures: The Democratic Inclusion of Social Movements in Norway and Latin America.” Forum for Development Studies (1): 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camp, Roderic Ai 2007 Politics in Mexico: The Democratic Consolidation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Camp, Roderic Ai 2008 “Exercising Political Influence: Religion, Democracy, and the Mexican 2006 Presidential Race.” Journal of Church and State 50 (1): 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, John L. 1998 “Institutional Analysis and the Role of Ideas.” Theory Sociology 27:377–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centeno, Miguel Ángel, and Silva, Patricio 1998 The Politics of Expertise in Latin America. New York: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choup, Anne Marie 2006. “Calculated Risks: Why Civic Leaders (Re)Turn to Politics.” International Political Science Review 27 (3): 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comisión Ciudadana de Estudios contra la Discriminación 2001 La discriminación en México: por una nueva cultura de igualdad. Informe General de la Comisión Ciudadana de Estudios contra la Discriminación. Mexico City: Comisión Ciudadana de Estudios contra la Discriminación.Google Scholar
Conaghaň, Catherine, and Malloy, James A. 1994 Unsettling Statecraft: Democracy and Neoliberalism in the Central Andes. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Díez, Jordi 2006 Political Change and Environmental Policymaking in Mexico. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Díez, Jordi 2008 “The Rise and Fall of Mexico's Green Movement.” European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 85 (October): 81–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Franck 2003 Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fligstein, Neil, and Iona, Mara-Drita 1996 “How to Make a Market: Reflections on the Attempt to Create a Single Market in the European Union.” American Journal of Sociology 102:1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamson, W. A. 1992 Talking Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garay, Candelaria 2007 “Social Policy and Collective Action: Unemployed Workers, Community Associations and Protest in Argentina” Politics and Society 35 (2): 301–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving 1974 Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Martin 1970 Bureaucracy and Development: A Mexican Case Study. Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Grindle, Merilee 1977 Bureaucrats, Politicians and Peasants in Mexico: A Case Study in Public Policy. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grindle, Merilee 1996 Challenging the State: Crisis and Innovation in Latin America and Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochsteler, Kathryn, and Keck, Margaret E. 2007 Greening Brazil: Environmental Activism in State and Society. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Joachin, Jutta 2003 “Framing Issues and Seizing Opportunities: The UN, NGOs and Women's Rights.” International Studies Quarterly 47:247–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John W. 2003 Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Maxfield, Sylvia 1990 Governing Capital: International Capital and Mexican Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintrom, Michael 1997 “Policy Entrepreneurs and the Diffusion of Innovation.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 738–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Rhiannon 2004 “Advancing Indigenous Rights at the United Nations: Strategic Framing and Its Impact on the Normative Development of International Law.” Social and Legal Studies 13 (4): 481–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molyneux, Maxine 2008 “The Neo-Liberal Turn and the New Social Policy in Latin America: How Neo-Liberal, How New?” Development and Change 39 (5): 775–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organización de Naciones Unidas 2003 Diagnóstico sobre la situación de derechos humanos en México. Mexico City: Oficina del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas.Google Scholar
Purcell Kaufman, Susan 1975 The Mexican Profit Sharing Decision. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, Donald A., and Rein, Martin 1994 Frame Reflection. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Secretaría de Salud and CONAPRED 2005 “Justificación a una campaña nacional contra la homofobia.” Mimeo. Mexico City: Secretaría de Salud y Consejo Nacional para Prevenir la Discriminación.Google Scholar
Secretaría de Gobernación 2001 Encuesta Nacional de Cultura Política y Prácticas Ciudadanas. Mexico City: Secretaría de Gobernación.Google Scholar
Smith, James 1991 The Idea Brokers. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Smulvotiz, Catalina, and Peruzotti, Enrique 2003 “Societal and Horizontal Controls: Two Cases of a Fruitful Relationship.” In Democratic Accountability in Latin America, edited by Mainwaring, Scott and Welna, Christopher, 309–327. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, David A., Rochford, Burke, Worden, Steven K., and Benford, Robert D. 1986 “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review 51:464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, David A., and Benford, Robert D. 1992 “Master Frames and Cycles of Protest.” In Frontiers in Social Movement Theory, edited by Morris, Aldon D. and McClurg-Mueller, Carol, 133–155. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Strang, David, and Bradburn, Ellen M. 2001 “Theorizing Legitimacy or Legitimating Theory? Neoliberal Discourse and HMO Policy.” In The Rise of Neoliberalism and Institutional Analysis, edited by Campbell, J. L. and Pedersen, O. K., 129–158. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Swidler, Ann 1986 “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies.” American Sociological Review 51:273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarrow, Sidney 1994 Power in Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Teichman, Judith 1988 Policymaking in Mexico: From Boom to Crisis. Boston: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Teichman, Judith 1995 Privatization and. Political Change in Mexico. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Teichman, Judith 2001 The Politics of Freeing Markets in Latin America: Argentina, Chile and Mexico. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Teichman, Judith 2009 “Competing Visions of Democracy and Development in the Era of Neo-Liberalism in Mexico and Chile.” International Political Science Review 30 (1): 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres Espinosa, Eduardo 1999 Bureaucracy and Politics in Mexico: The Case of the Secretariat of Programming and Budget. Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Torres-Ruíz, Antonio 2006 “An Elusive Quest for Democracy and Development in a Globalized World: The Political Economy of HIV/AIDS in Mexico.” Ph.D. diss., University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Waylen, Georgina 2008 “Enhancing the Substantive Representation of Women: Lessons from Transitions to Democracy.” Parliamentary Affairs 61 (3): 518–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Mark Eric 2001 Market Reforms in Mexico: Coalitions, Institutions and the Politics of Policy Change. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar