This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I agree with the 'untitled' comment below. There are other widely accepted points of view about Mexico's economic policies from WWII through the 1980s. Possible remedies: some description of the positive impacts of import substitution, a sentence about the "Mexican Miracle," some mention of the relative failure of export oriented industrialization, and maybe just a pinch of that gigantic list that composes the negative effects of neoliberal market reform on Mexican society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
This page is clearly not neutral, in that it defends Madrid whilst outlining the policies he implemented, and unnecessarily attacks the former President and entirely blames Mexico's protectionist economic policy for the downturn in the country. I know there is some truth in the comments, however it needs to be balanced out by someone who is knowledgable about the subject, with a wider range of comments about his policies and the legacy of 'desarollismo' in Mexico. Gracias, Hauser 12:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The attack against the protectionist policies is misleading and obviously so even in the piece. If they had been developed since the 1930s, how come they weren't a problem before? the Mexican Miracle of the early 1960s would have occured under these protectionists policies.
More important would be to discuss the gross mismanagement and inept policies of the prior administrations in the 1970s, which do have a lot more to do with the situation in the 1980s.
The piece also implies that the free-market policies were a fully positive thing. While Mexico had to reform its economy and shake down the excesses of the 1970s, free market policies have not brought Mexico their promised affluence.
"Unnecesarily attacks the former President"?... I am sorry, but setting a context for De La Madrid's Presidency is necessary. The Former President created the debt situation that bankrupted Mexico and made it necessary to nationalize the banking system, causing hyperinflation, currency crisis, lack of liquidity, and the worst economic downfall in the history of Mexico up to that point. Indeed, the whole era of Miguel de la Madrid was marred by the economic crisis (indeed, even the Next President campaigned to end said crisis.)
The protectionist policies of the 1970s where not the same as those developed in the 1930s, and where much of a cause for this crisis. Additionally, "gross mismanagement and inept policies" where in line with the protectionist policies of the Presidents from the 70s (Echeverría and Lopez Portillo).
Finally, Mr. Hugo Estrada, I don't think that the piece can imply that "free-market policies" where fully a positive thing, specially considering that the Mexican Market has only until recently allowed some REAL amount of freedom (and even now, it is incredibly limited by State-condoned monopolies, particularly in the telecommunications and energy sectors). Saying that "free market policies have not brought Mexico their promised affluence" is a falacy in many respects. First, because only in near insignificant measures have free market policies been enforced, secondly, because policies do not promise affluence, only politicians do, and finally, because when Mexico started reform, its GDP, income per capita, and general sanity of the economy has been steadily improving. Of course, the improvement has not yet met the necessities of the country, but then again, the market is far from free yet.
In any case, this should not be a discussion of Free Market vs. Protectionism. It should be a documentation of Mr. De La Madrid. He inherited the worst economic crisis in the history of the nation, product of irresponsible Presidents who brought forward irresponsible economic policies, most of which limited the country's economic freedom at the same time that increased risky debt. Whatever De La Madrid did, it certainly did not work, and no free-market advocate in their right mind would endorse any of said policies either.