Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:47:52.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Political Economy of Social Spending by Local Government: A Study of the 3×1 Program in Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2022

Alberto Simpser ,
Lauren Duquette-Rury ,
José Antonio Hernández Company  and
Juan Fernando Ibarra
Alberto Simpser
Affiliation:
ITAM-CIE
Lauren Duquette-Rury
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
José Antonio Hernández Company
Affiliation:
Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM)
Juan Fernando Ibarra
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas
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.

Social spending by central governments in Latin America has, in recent decades, become increasingly insulated from political manipulation. Focusing on the 3×1 Program in Mexico in 2002-2007, we show that social spending by local government is, in contrast, highly politicized. The 3×1 Program funds municipal public works, with each level of government—municipal, state, and central—matching collective remittances. Our analysis shows that 3×1 municipal spending is shaped by political criteria. First, municipalities time disbursements according to the electoral cycle. Second, when matching collective remittances, municipalities protect salaries of personnel, instead adjusting budget items that are less visible to the public, such as debt. Third, municipalities spend more on 3×1 projects when their partisanship matches that of the state government. Beyond the 3×1 Program, our findings highlight the considerable influence that increasing political and economic decentralization can have on local government incentives and spending choices, in Mexico and beyond.

Resumo

Resumo

En décadas recientes, la manipulación política del gasto social gubernamental a nivel nacional en Latinoamérica ha mostrado una tendencia a la baja. Con base en el estudio del Programa 3×1 para Migrantes en México, este artículo demuestra que el gasto social a nivel local, en cambio, ha experimentado niveles sustanciales de manipulación política. El Programa 3×1 financia bienes públicos municipales, requiriendo que cada uno de los tres niveles de gobierno —municipal, estatal, y nacional— aproximadamente iguale el monto de remesas colectivas. Nuestro análisis muestra que el gasto de aquellos municipios que participan en el Programa 3×1 está influenciado por criterios políticos. Primero, el gasto municipal en 3×1 varía según el ciclo electoral. Segundo, al contribuir al Programa 3×1, los municipios protegen el gasto en salarios, y en cambio ajustan elementos presupuestales menos visibles al público, tales como el servicio de deuda. Tercero, los municipios gastan más en proyectos del 3×1 cuando su afiliación partidista es la misma que la del gobierno estatal. Más allá del contexto del Programa 3×1, nuestros hallazgos subrayan el efecto de la creciente descentralización política y económica sobre los incentivos y las decisiones de gasto de gobiernos locales, tanto en México como en otros países.

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , 2016 , pp. 62 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 by the Latin American Studies Association

Footnotes

Authors are listed alphabetically after Simpser. We thank Javier Aparicio, Xóchitl Bada, Katrina Burgess, Merilee Grindle, Covadonga Meseguer, Frederic Schaffer, Dan Slater, seminar participants at the Latin American Studies Association annual meeting, and anonymous referees for helpful suggestions.

References

Adida, Claire, and Girod, Desha 2011 “Do Migrants Improve Their Hometowns? Remittances and Access to Public Services in Mexico, 1995-2000.” Comparative Political Studies 44 (1): 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alderman, Harold 2002 “Do Local Officials Know Something We Don't? Decentralization of Targeted Transfers in Albania.” Journal of Public Economics 83 (3): 374–404.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): 206–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardhan, Pranab, and Mookherjee, Dilip 2006 Decentralization and Local Governance in Developing Countries. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Beauchemin, Chris, and Schoumaker, Bruno 2009 “Are Migrant Associations Actors in Local Development? A National Event-History Analysis in Rural Burkina Faso.” World Development 37 (12): 1897–1913.Google Scholar
Brender, Adi, and Drazen, Allan 2008 “How Do Budget Deficits and Economic Growth Affect Reelection Prospects? Evidence from a Large Panel of Countries.” American Economic Review 98 (5): 2203–2220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, Katrina 2005 “Migrant Philanthropy and Local Governance in Mexico.” In New Patterns for Mexico: Observations on Remittances, Philanthropic Giving, and Equitable Development, edited by Merz, Barbara J., 125–156. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, Katrina 2012 “Collective Remittances and Migrant-State Collaboration in Mexico and El Salvador.” Latin American Politics and Society 54 (4): 119–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelius, Wayne 1999 “Subnational Politics and Democratization: Tensions between Center and Periphery in the Mexican Political System.” In Subnational Politics and Democratization in Mexico, edited by Cornelius, Wayne, Eisenstadt, Todd A., and Hindley, Jane, 3–18. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D. 1986 “Electoral Politics as a Redistributive Game.” Journal of Politics 48 (2): 370–389.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, Matz, and Johansson, Eva 2002 “On the Vote-Purchasing Behavior of Incumbent Governments.” American Political Science Review 96 (1): 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De la O, Ana 2013 “Do Conditional Cash Transfers Affect Electoral Behavior? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Mexico.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixit, Avinash, and Londregan, John 1996 “The Determinants of Success of Special Interests in Redistributive Politics.” Journal of Politics 58 (4): 1132–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dresser, Denise 1991 “Neopopulist Solutions to Neoliberal Problems: Mexico's National Solidarity Program.” Current Issue Brief 3, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Duquette, Lauren 2011 “Making Democracy Work from Abroad: Remittances, Hometown Associations and Migrant-State Coproduction of Public Goods in Mexico.” PhD diss., University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Duquette-Rury, Lauren 2014 “Collective Remittances and Transnational Coproduction: The 3×1 Program for Migrants and Household Access to Public Goods in Mexico.” Studies in Comparative International Development 49 (1): 112–139.Google Scholar
Falleti, Tulia 2005 “A Sequential Theory of Decentralization: Latin American Cases in Comparative Perspective.” American Political Science Review 99 (3): 327–346.Google Scholar
Farrington, John, and Slater, Rachel 2006 “Introduction: Cash Transfers: Panacea for Poverty Reduction or Money Down the Drain.” Development Policy Review 24 (5): 499–511.Google Scholar
Finan, Frederico 2004 “Political Patronage and Local Development: A Brazilian Case Study.” Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Galasso, Emanuela, and Ravallion, Martin 2005 “Decentralized Targeting of an Anti-Poverty Program.” Journal of Public Economics 89 (4): 705–727.Google Scholar
Galatowitsch, Diane 2009 “Co-development in Mali: A Case Study of a Development Phenomenon Exploited by Immigration Policy.” Paper No. 737, ISP Collection, SIT Graduate Institute. http://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/737.Google Scholar
Gammage, Sarah 2006 “Exporting People and Recruiting Remittances: A Development Strategy for El Salvador?” Latin American Perspectives, no. 151, vol. 33 (6): 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García Zamora, Rodolfo 2005 “Collective Remittances and the 3×1 Program as a Transnational Learning Social Process.” Background paper for seminar Mexican Migrant Social and Civic Participation in the United States, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, translated by Patricia Rosas.Google Scholar
García Zamora, Rodolfo 2007 “El Programa Tres por Uno de remesas colectivas en México: Lecciones y desafíos.” Migraciones Internacionales 4 (1): 165–172.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward 2013 Boundary Control: Subnational Authoritarianism in Federal Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Gene, and Helpman, Elhanan 1996 “Electoral Competition and Special Interest Politics.” Review of Economic Studies 63 (2): 265–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Anthony 2006 “From Fome Zero to Bolsa Família: Social Policies and Poverty Alleviation under Lula.” Journal of Latin American Studies 38 (4): 689–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handa, Sudhanshu, and Davis, Benjamin 2006 “The Experience of Conditional Cash Transfers in Latin America and the Caribbean.” Development Policy Review 24 (5): 513–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iskander, Natasha 2010 Creative State: Forty Years of Migration and Development Policy in Morocco and Mexico. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press / ILR Press.Google Scholar
Khoudour-Castéras, David 2007 “International Migration and Development: The Socioeconomic Impact of Remittances in Colombia.” CEPAL Review 92:143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyle, Chris, and Yaworsky, William 2008 “Mexican Justice: Codified Law, Patronage, and the Regulation of Social Affairs in Guerrero, Mexico.” Journal of Anthropological Research 64 (1): 67–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Santiago 2006 Progress against Poverty: Sustaining Mexico's Progresa-Oportunidades Program. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Lindbeck, Assar, and Weibull, Jörgen W. 1987 “Balanced-Budget Redistribution as the Outcome of Political Competition.” Public Choice 52 (3): 273–297.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, Steenbergen, Marco, and Brau, Shawn 1995 “The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 89 (2): 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merino, Mauricio 2006 “La profesionalización municipal en México.” CIDE Working Paper no. 182, June. Mexico City: Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económica.Google Scholar
Meseguer, Covadonga, and Aparicio, Javier 2012 “Supply or Demand? Migration and Political Manipulation in Mexico.” Studies in Comparative International Development 47 (4): 411–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molinar, Juan, and Weldon, Jeffrey 1994 “Electoral Determinants and Consequences of National Solidarity.” In Transforming State-Society Relations in Mexico, edited by Cornelius, Wayne, Craig, Ann, and Fox, Jonathan, 123–141. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Mouriuen, Poul Erik 1989 “The Local Political Business Cycle.” Scandinavian Political Studies 12 (1): 37–55.Google Scholar
O'Neill, Kathleen 2005 Decentralizing the State: Elections, Parties, and Local Power in the Andes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxhorn, Philip 2005 “Unraveling the Puzzle of Decentralization.” In Decentralization, Democratic Governance, and Civil Society in Comparative Perspective: Africa, Asia, and Latin America, edited by Oxhorn, Philip, Tulchin, Joseph S., and Seele, Andrew D., 3–32. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Panizzon, Marion 2011 “France's Codevelopment Program: Financial and Fiscal Incentives to Promote Diaspora Entrepreneurship and Transfers.” In Diaspora for Development in Africa, edited by Plaza, Sonia and Ratha, Dilip, chapter 7. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Portes, Alejandro, Escobar, Cristina, and Radford, Alexandria Walton 2007 “Immigrant Transnational Organizations and Development: A Comparative Study.” International Migration Review 41 (1): 242–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pritchett, Lant 2005 “A Lecture on the Political Economy of Targeted Safety Nets.” Social Protection Discussion Paper no. 0501, January. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Ravallion, Martin 2003 “Targeted Transfers in Poor Countries: Revisiting the Trade-Offs and Policy Options.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper no. 3048, May. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Rawlings, Laura B., and Rubio, Gloria M. 2005 “Evaluating the Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Programs.” World Bank Research Observer 20:29–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocha Menocal, Alina 2001 “Do Old Habits Die Hard? A Statistical Exploration of the Politicisation of Progresa, Mexico's Latest Federal Poverty-Alleviation Programme, under the Zedillo Administration.” Journal of Latin American Studies 33 (3): 513–538.Google Scholar
Rocha Menocal, Alina 2005 “Less Political and More Pro-Poor? The Evolution of Social Welfare Spending in Mexico in a Context of Democratisation and Decentralization.” Nord-Süd Aktuell 3/4.Google Scholar
Rocha Menocal, Alina 2007 “Programa 3×1 para migrantes.” Report prepared for EuroSocial, Social Cohesion Practical Experiences and Initiatives.Google Scholar
Rodden, Jonathan A. 2006 Hamilton's Paradox: The Promise and Peril of Fiscal Federalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rodríguez, Victoria 1997 Decentralization in Mexico: From Reforma Municipal to Solidaridad to Nuevo Federalismo. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Schady, Norbert 2000 “The Political Economy of Expenditures by the Peruvian Social Fund (FONCODES), 1991-95.” American Political Science Review 94 (2): 289–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SEDESOL (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social) 2006 Encuesta Nacional de Gobiernos Municipales. Distributed by BIIACS (Banco de Información para la Investigación Aplicada en Ciencias Sociales: Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas). http://hdl.handle.net/10089/16333.Google Scholar
SEDESOL (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social) 2008a “Acuerdo por el que se modifican las Reglas de Operación del Programa 3×1 para Migrantes, para el Ejercicio Fiscal 2009.” Diario Oficial de la Federación, Tuesday, December 23.Google Scholar
SEDESOL (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social) 2008b “Programa 3×1 para migrantes.” http://www.microrregiones.gob.mx/doctos/3×1/SEDESOL3×1.pdf.Google Scholar
SEDESOL (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social) 2010 “Acuerdo por el que se emiten las Reglas de Operación del Programa de Desarrollo Humano Oportunidades.” Diario Oficial de la Federación, Tuesday, December 29.Google Scholar
Snyder, Richard 2001 Politics after Neoliberalism: Reregulation in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Treisman, Daniel 2007 The Architecture of Government: Rethinking Political Decentralization. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, Jennifer 2010 “Are Mexico's Conditional Cash Transfers Missing the Target?” PolicyMatters 7 (2): 4–9.Google Scholar
Veiga, Linda Gonçalves, and Veiga, Francisco José 2007 “Political Business Cycles at the Municipal Level.” Public Choice 131 (1-2): 45–64.Google Scholar
Villareal, Andrés 2002 “Political Competition and Violence in Mexico: Hierarchical Social Control in Local Patronage Structures.” American Sociological Review 67 (4): 477–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallis, John Joseph, Fishback, Price V., and Cantor, Shawn 2006 “Politics, Relief, and Reform: Roosevelt's Effort to Control Corruption and Political Manipulation during the New Deal.” In Corruption and Reform: Lessons from America's Economic History, edited by Glaeser, Edward L. and Goldin, Claudia, 343–372. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank Group 2011 “Migration and Remittances Factbook 2011.” Remittances Data, Development Prospects Group. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Xicoténcatl, Fabiola 2013 “Andrés Granier presume lujos y derroche; exhiben a ex-gobernador de Tabasco.” Excélsior, May 14. http://www.excelsior.com.mx.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992 The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar