¹ James, Wilkie, The Mexican Revolution: Federal Expenditures and Social Change Since 1910 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1970, 2nd ed., revised).Google Scholar

² See, for example, Robert, Potash, American Historical Review, LXXIII, 5 (06 1968), 1689;Google ScholarPeter, Calvert, International Aflairs, 44, 3 (07 1968), 623;Google ScholarMichael, Meyer, Hispanic American Historical Review, XLVIII, 3 (08 1968), 509–11;Google ScholarThomas, Skidmore and Peter, Smith, Latin American Research Review, V, 1 (Spring 1970), with a rejoinder by Wilkie in the same issue, pp. 71–91. Frequent references will be made to this last review in the following pages.Google Scholar

³ El Día, 4 November 1970.

⁴ ibid. The same observations were made with much greater impact in 1968 by the Comisión de Presupuestos y Cuenta in their Dictamen Relativo a las Cuentas de la Hacienda Pública Federal y del Departamento del Distrito Federal por el ejercicio Fiscal de 1967. October 1968, especially pp. 7, 14, 15, 16 and 18–23.

⁵ In their review article, Skidrnore and Smith remind us that all budget figures are for direct federal government expenditures and therefore exclude the expenditures of organismos descentralizados and empresas de participacién estatalas well as other levels of government. These entities spend an amount equivalent to those expenditures analyzed by Wilkie, according to the data available since 1965 (Wilkie, , pp. 5–6). Wilkie responded to this criticism by painting Out that these expenditures are not subject to manipulation by the central government and, therefore, by implication were not of interest in the analysis. It seems to this reviewer that, although budgetary figures are often state secrets, the basic guidelines of policy formulation and project execution are subject to some control and, perhaps even more important, must be taken into consideration by the President in the design of his own investment program and budget.Google Scholar

⁶ Statement by PAN delegate Jorge, Garabito, 3 11 1970,Google ScholarEl Día, 4 11 1970.

⁷ This is further compounded by the difficulty of clearly differentiating types of expenditure categories as Wilkie presents them. See Skidmore, and Smith, , pp. 76–7.Google Scholar

⁸ Skidmore and Smith pointed Out that this law characterizes all of Wilkie's economic analysis. Thus, none of the categories separate out current expenditures from capital investments—it is difficult to determine the actual impact of the government budget on the society without such a breakdown. Although such data are not generally available elsewhere in Latin America, as Wilkie pointed out in reply, it is available for Mexico in a book which Wilkie made extensive use of during his investigation (México: Inversión púlblica federal 1925–63). Skidmore and Smith's criticisms of Wilkie's treatment of investment and current figures include a discussion of problems of measuring their impact in order to discuss the relationship between expenditures and social change.

⁹ It should be mentioned, however, that data on the federal debt in Mexico are particularly difficult to interpret clearly. Wilkie, discusses some of the problems involved with these data on pp. 106–115 and provides additional information in Appendix M. In Appendix F, however, the sources of federal revenue are misleading since they do not include any entry under ‘loans and financing’ for the years prior to 1958, although there were clear increases in public debt before then according to Appendix M.Google Scholar

¹⁰ In his own inimitable prose, Octavio Paz has questioned the validity of several of these indicators for the purposes to which Wilkie puts them. Cf. Posdata (México, Siglo xxi Editores, S.A., 1970), pp. 99–103. Skidmore and Smith add their own queries about the validity of the components and the meaning of the ‘basic deprivations of the masses’.

¹¹ Because of the limitation of the census data, he was able to use only three indicators for the years 1910–30 (nos 4–6). He points out, however, that ‘the three items from 1910 to 1930 are representative of the seven had they been recorded prior to 1940’ (p. 232). He does not seem to realize that the use of absolute levels later on is directly related to the number of items included. If Wilkie is right, then the three indicators would be sufficient-but since he readily admits differences then the multiple counting of certain groups (Indians, rural, poor, etc.) leads us to wonder whether he is aware of the implicit weighting system which gives these underprivileged more influence.

¹² Paul, Lamartine Yates, El dcsarrollo regional de México (México, Banco de México, 1961), p. 125.Google Scholar

¹³ Nor is he able to ‘overcome the problems of per capita analysis ’ (p. 245) as he claims, since all of his data are based on per capita average figures extracted from the census.

¹⁴ Albrechtsen, K., Domínguez, R., , D. Murayama, ‘Desarrollo desigual en México, 1900–1960’, Dcmoafí y Economía, v, 2 (07 1972).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Luis Unikel and Edmundo Victoria also constructed an index of socio-economic welfare of the states, but only for 1940–60. They used principal components analysis and there are substantial differences with the Wilkie approach. ‘ Medición de algunes aspectos del desarrollo socio-económico de las entidades federativas de México, 1940–1960’, Demografía y Economía, IV, 3 (December 1970).

¹⁶ For a fuller survey of Mexican regional development policies and a discussion of the role of the private sector in these programs see Barkin, D. and King, T., Regional Economic Development: The river basin approach in Mexico (Cambridge, at the University Press, 1970), chs 2–4.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Perhaps one of the most important contributions of the Skidmore and Smith/Wilkie forum is the light that they throw on the way in which the data are used for causal inferences about the effects of government expenditures on social change. Wilkie tells us that Cárdenas's ‘social revolution’ facilitated economic growth and that Aleman's ‘economic revolution’ did not slow social progress. The critics rightly suggest the difficulties with this part of the analysis and conclude that it ‘misled the reader’. In this part of the book, as in others, the conclusions drawn about the subjects being discussed often exceed the scope of the analysis—this permits sweeping generalizations of dubious intellectual content.

¹⁸ Ifigenia de Navarrete, M., ‘La distribución del ingreso en México ’, El perfil de México en 1980 (México, Siglo xxi, Editores, S.A., 1970).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Albrechtsen, , et al., op. cit.Google Scholar

²⁰ Unfortunately even this division of presidential regimes into different kinds of revolutions breaks down for lack of consideration of the time needed for the maturation of the different kinds of ‘revolutions’. Differential gestation periods for social infrastructure and directly productive investments, for example, are likely to make the identification of the impact of presidential expenditures difficult on anything but a project by project basis. He assumes that there is no lag between expenditure and results.

²¹ It is somewhat disheartening to note that in spite of the fact that Wilkie is clearly aware that the relative poverty of the regions has not changed and accepts Skidmore and Smith's statistical analysis which shows that ‘it has been the rich states, not the poor ones, which have been eliminating poverty at relatively faster rates’ (op. cit., p. 82), Wilkie can still state, without qualification, ‘that a period of “economic revolution” between 1940 and 1960 did not cause, as many have thought, stagnation in the decrease of the characteristics of poverty shared by a large sector of the population, which hitherto has been studied inadequately’ (ibid., p. 89).