Political Participation, Public Investment, and Support for the System

Political participation, public investment, and support for the system: A comparative study of rural communities in Mexico. Carlos Salinas de Gortari. 1982. 51 pp.

Back cover

This book is an edited version of the doctoral dissertation Political Participation, Public Investment, and System Support: A Study of Three Communities in Central Mexico, originally submitted by the author in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Harvard University in 1978.

 

Quotes

Summary + Notes

1. Introduction.

Importance of the rural sector. In most underdeveloped countries, a majority of the population lives in the countryside. Since development strategies usually require the removal of surpluses from the rural sector to foment the process of industrialization, the countryside gives birth to strong political tensions and becomes the cradle of deep-rooted and persistent social inequalities (Like the EZLN 12 years later).

Given scarce resources, governments have typically placed higher priority on import substitution to promote urban industrial growth than on projects to encourage rural sector development. However, increased government investment in the countryside (irrigation, roads, and infrastructure) did not improve the rural distribution of income. Even worse, public-sector investment in rural areas began to decline in relative terms. This led many campesinos to leave their lands, accelerating the growth of cities and emigration to the United States. 

In an attempt to:

1. Reduce social tensions.
2. Lower the rates of migration to urban areas.
3. Increase the income of campesinos.

Mexican government introduced development programs for the countryside in the early 1970s. These projects emphasized the active participation of campesinos and sought to:

1. Increase agricultural productivity.
2. Provide inexpensive foodstuffs for urban areas. 
3. Awaken a sense of dependence upon and loyalty towards the State.

Prevalent knowledge: Proletarian zones have been unable to take an active part in political decisions due to: 

1. Culture of Poverty. Apathy.
2. Image of the limited good. Keep the status quo.
3. The encogido syndrome. Too diffident and humble.

Three trends of thought:

1. Latin Americans are becoming increasingly politically mobilized.
2. Political participation is minimal and restricted to socioeconomic elites.
3. Mass political participation is usually irrational and violent.

The concept of political participation. Different modes of participation. Any activity which attempts to effect a favorable distribution of goods, who gets what within the community, generated by the public sector and/or to obtain desired government services. These activities include contacting public officials to obtain desired goods or services and engaging in "problem-solving" activities within the community.

This work will try to answer the question: Does public expenditure in rural Mexican communities result in increased support for the political system? 

1.  It will examine the nature of political participation.
2. How it varies between and within communities.
3. What factors explain this variation. 
4. It will evaluate Mexico’s rural development strategy.

Two national programs were selected:

• Labor-intensive Roads Construction Program.
• The Puebla Project.

Three communities were selected:

1. Supported. Received abundant benefits from government spending without having endeavored to obtain them.
2. Independent. Had gained government benefits through effective pressure.
3. Inactive. Lack of interest in obtaining government benefits and government’s lack of interest in providing them. 
4. Active. Segment of residents autonomously mobilized with the guidance of external politicizing agents, to pressure for benefits.

Use of Wayne Cornelius questionnaire (1971). 227 interviews conducted. 

2. Rural Dwellers and Political Participation.

Approach: Cognitive and behavioral involvement.

• Compare rural political behavior with that of urban populations.
• Compare between and within rural communities.

Tables rural and urban:

1. Interest in what federal government is doing:
• 95% - Migrants
• 85% - Rural
• 30% - Urban
2. Interest in political campaigns:
• 95% - Migrants
• 85% - Rural
• 65% - Urban
3. Voted in elections:
• 95% - Urban migrants
• 85% - Rural dwellers
• 75% - Urban natives
4. Partisan membership:
• 33% - Migrants
• 25% - Rural
• 11% - Urban
5. Contacted public officials:
• 25% - Migrants
• 20% - Rural
• 08% - Urban
6. Problem-solving activities:
• 27% - Migrants
• 81% - Rural
• N/A - Urban

The migration experience may have affected their political awareness. Problem-solving activity is defined as collective participation in resolving community problems through self-help. Political participation of rural inhabitants in all accounts exceeds that of urban dwellers.

Tables between and within rural communities:

Involvement	Inactive	Support	Active	Indep
Interest in federal government	40	20	30	20
Interest in state government	50	25	45	30
Interest in local government	60	33	33	33
Interest in campaigns	30	35	15	10
Voted in elections	90	98	70	80
Partisan membership	40	25	15	30
Contact with public officials	25	20	30	15
Community problem-solving activities	70	80	85	70

3. Political Participation and Support for the System.

4. Summary and Conclusions.

5. Bibliography.