New SPSA deadline for January meeting in Atlanta
Following up on Chris’s updates about the January SPSA meetings, I just wanted to mention that the Association is accepting additional proposals through October 15.
So come visit me in Atlanta!
Year: 2005
Salinas confirms meeting in his home
In a national TV interview, Salinas confirmed that a meeting PRIistas occurred in his home to discuss fiscal reform.
Independence of the Mexican Congress, redux
Recently, I suggested that legislative independence in Mexico is weakened by the branch’s lack of access to information and the technical expertise necessary to independently formulate policy and/or propose alternatives to the executive’s proposals.
Matthew Shugart has taken up the theme and insists that the legislative branch is able to act independently. As you might expect, Matthew points to the institutional incentives that legislators face, including several that I mentioned in my original post and comment thread. While I continue to agree that the institutional arrangements continue to make legislators highly responsive to the party, I think my main point is a different one.
(And, if I recall Joy Langston’s paper presented at the UCSD conference, which I discussed at length with her privately, it’s not always so clear who are the legislators’ principals–sometimes it’s the central party, but other times it may be the governors….and even then, there’s not a perfect fit, but I digress.)
My claim is that the ability to independently evaluate or formulate policy in the legislature is hindered by two information problems: 1. access to information collected by the bureaucracy of the executive branch and 2. technical expertise to evaluate or process information. The first issue was mentioned in the newspaper article that led to my initial post; legislators could not get raw data from the executive about petroleum receipts and expenditures. The second issue is something I have witnessed first hand in the area of pensions, but it is related to the first issue.
Without information and the expertise to process it, legislators cannot formulate viable alterantives to executive proposals. Instead, their opposition must be based upon ideological stances without data or analysis to back them up. [Let me finish….] Yes, they do “oppose” policy, but often not effectively if they can’t debate the information (because they can’t get the raw data or don’t have experts available to process the data) nor formulate an adequate alternative.
Let’s use an example from a policy area that I know well: pensions. Pensions are data intensive and highly technical. To evaluate existing policy and propose new policies requires a lot of data. You need data on demographic factors including future projections, the implicit pension debt, and general models of economic growth, to name just a few types of data. Technical expertise (actuarial) is needed to calculate the life tables, risk premiums, and estimate the costs of current policy and proposed reforms. [As an aside, such expertise is scarce in Mexico.]
The administration has access to all of this data and the expertise necessary to formulate a proposal. The administration may, however, have an ideological preference for a certain type of reform. For instance, according to the technical data, a parametric reform may be cheaper than a privatizing reform, but since the administration prefers privatization on ideological grounds, the administration may choose to ignore that data and present data in support of privatization. [In an interview, a Mexican bureaucrat actually told me this happened with a particular reform.]
If opposition parties hope to prevent the privatization (even for ideological grounds), they need the data necessary to independently evaluate the claims of the administration, and they need the expertise to analyze the data to expose methodological problems or formulate alternative solutions. If they do not have the data or the expertise, they cannot effectively counter the claims of the administration.
Thus far, democracy is creating more access to the types of information and data that are necessary for policy-making in Mexico. There is now an equivalent to the Freedom of Information Act. However, as the article I originally cited makes clear, legislators still don’t feel that they have access to all the information that they need. My point is that more transparency is still needed.
My other point is about expertise. Yes, the Commission for Social Security in the Chamber of Deputies has ONE actuary. That one actuary must advise the commission on pension privatization plans for at least two current pension debates: the ISSSTE and the IMSS workers’ union. That one actuary is nothing compared to the teams of actuaries that work at ISSSTE and the Secretary of the Treasury that formulated the ISSSTE reform proposal, with additional technical assistance from the World Bank. That one actuary is nothing compared to the teams of actuaries at IMSS working on the workers’ union pension plan analysis.
Yes, opposition parties can take an ideological/rhetorical stance against pension privatization, but they cannot fight claims about the costs of current policy or privatization options made by the administration in the press without the necessary data or expertise. This might mean that parties begin to devote more of their own resources to investigate policy options (by hiring their own actuaries, as some unions have begun to do), but if the administration keeps a monopoly on information, then having the technical expertise will be of no help. Clearly, legislators are also beginning to demand more data and transparency from the executive, which reflects not only a certain degree of current independence but will also increase future independence.
Based upon these observations, I still hypothesize that degree of legislative independence will vary across policy or issue areas, and that legislative independence will be weaker in highly technical or data intensive policy areas within the same institutional context. And, that last bit about institutional context is important, so I thank Matthew for pushing me on this point. Yes, the Congress is more independent now than it has ever been since the Revolution. On the other hand, I still think there is probably a lot of variation in that independence across issue areas.
In the future, I suspect that legislators will use their growing independence to demand more information and resources for policy making in the future, and this unevenness across policy areas will work itself out. The size of the independent policy office in Congress will probably expand. There is probably some analogous process (increasing need for data and expertise to formulate policy) that led to the creation of the GAO in the U.S., though that’s not my area of research.
Another casualty of urban growth
First, Les Amis, now Putt-Putt. Old putt-putt closes in Austin.
Makes me smile
Gotta love this charming man.
I’m not so sure….
| You are a Social Liberal (81% permissive) and an… Economic Liberal (18% permissive) You are best described as a: |
Via.
AIDS discrimination in Mexico
A child in Chihuahua is being prevented from attending school because his mother is HIV+. If he can provide proof of a negative test, his teacher says he can attend class, otherwise he is not welcome.
There will be a hearing with government human rights representatives next week.
[Insert disbelief or rant here.]
Mexican press still obsessed with helicopter crash
Most stories still about who, what, where, when, and why.
Anticipating shortages or price gouging
The Georgia Governor is suggesting that Georgia public schools take early snow days on Monday and Tuesday to conserve fuel in anticipation of disruptions of supply due to Hurricane Rita. In response to last month’s price gouging the Governor issued an executive order against gouging and is considering extending the order beyond the end of September.
Venezuela’s Chavez
Today’s Latino USA program has a segment on Hugo Chavez and his visit to New York.
Recordings of pre-Katrina conference calls
From NPR’s Morning Edition.
PAN-Gordillo alliance?
At least one PANista thinks it’s a good idea.
Separation of powers
During many of my interviews with business, labor, and party leaders in Mexico last year, interviewees stressed the importance of Congress for policy-making. Several leaders stressed that policy is now made in the Congress, and that’s why the composition of party lists and getting representation of their interests in Congress is becoming even more important.
The fragmentation of power in the legislature among the three main parties was also an important theme and explanation for why Fox has had difficulty with his reform agenda. With three parties, building a coalition in support of reform is more difficult, even with relatively strong party discipline. (Mexican parties control campaign funding and PR lists are closed.)
At the same time, the Congress in Mexico will continue to have a hard time demonstrating its independence from the Executive as long as the Congress lacks the resources and staff to research or develop policy positions. Most members of the Chamber of Deputies and Senate have small staffs, usually one receptionist and a personal secretary.
The Commissions (analogous to U.S. Committees) have more staff and support, but not necessarily all the resources to develop policy papers and information. There is a small research area analogous to the GAO, and it does contract some external, non-partisan studies of policy. But these resources are not enough for technically complicated or complex policies, like pension or energy sector reform.
In contrast, the Executive has entire ministries filled with specialists in various areas. When the Executive presents a reform proposal, the Executive ministry that elaborated the proposal often has a monopoly on the information necessary to evaluate the impacts of reform. This means that Congressional leaders are often unable to effectively evaluate a proposal because they have no independent or impartial sources of data and no staff with the skills to evaluate the Executive’s position. The Congress cannot effectively “check” or “balance” the power of the Executive.
I have observed the effects of this asymmetrical information in the area of pension reform, but it was this article about petroleum revenue and reform that made me think about it again today. The Senate has asked the Treasury for the data and information about the methodology used to estimate petroleum revenue. According to one (PANista) Senator:
“Aunado a ello, el Ejecutivo federal argumentó que las observaciones realizadas obedecen en su totalidad a que los ingresos públicos federales se verán mermados, lo que va en detrimento de los recursos que pertenecen a los estados y municipios. Por ello, esta comisión considera necesario e impostergable contar con la información completa y detallada, a fin de valorarla, y, en su caso, realizar las adecuaciones a que haya lugar.”
Democracy in Mexico has had a significant impact on Congress. It has become a more important player in decision-making due to divided government, and it has also become an important place of contestation among the main political parties. But, its ability to effectively check presidential power and increase its independence from the Executive in the future will require that it have the resources and access to information necessary to develop alternative reform proposals.
Nuevo Laredo getting safer
In the last three months, executions have been reduced by 97% in Nuevo Laredo, as the feud between drug cartels has played itself out. Well, the military takes some credit, too.
In another story, the Mexican government estimates that about 10% of the local, state, and national police have criminal records.
Turning up the heat
The Director of the public sector workers’ social security system is making the rounds to create pressure to privatize ISSSTE pensions. It’s an explicit political strategy designed to massage public opinion to increase public support for privatization. By prominently discussing the problem in the media, reformers hope to create the sensation that privatization is necessary and the only viable reform. Then, when the privatization proposal is submitted in Congress, the administration can use public support to pressure unions to accept a more extreme reform. [Sound like a familiar strategy? In Mexico, however, the need for reform is more pressing, though actuarial studies suggest that a parametric reform would be less costly than the privatization proposed by the administration.]
Unions, on the other hand, are waiting until the full proposal is presented in Congress to present their alternatives and attack the administration’s plan.
Yet another Harvard blog
This time on political behavior.
The Privilege of Ruling
The AJC ran a story yesterday about a political satire show (a la SNL) called the Privilege of Ruling in Mexico. To hear this version would make it seem that the show is the next SNL or Daily Show. Not likely.
According to a Mexican journalist, the show is banal, uncritical of government, uninspired, and has poor actors. The acting is so bad (or Mexicans are so unaware of what politicians look like) that the show has to include the names of the characters at the bottom of the screen. Or, maybe the network just does that because technology makes it easy and possible.
Fox embracing AMLO
I never watched the show while in Mexico, even though the show debued in January. As you can see, the actors use elaborate make-up to resemble the politicians they portray. You can watch various videos on the show’s site, including this snippet about Bush and Fox post-Katrina.
I’ve watched a handful of the online skits. It seems the writing is pretty good, but the acting is over the top. And so some lines that are funny are played poorly.
On the other hand, I can see why the show is popular because it is consistent with a lot of Mexican variety shows. (You know, grown men dressed as bees and school boys.) Don’t forget that one of the most popular morning news programs was hosted by a clown; he interviewed the First Lady about whether she would run for President in 2006.
Social security reform news
Looks like I may need to revise this paper under review for publication. The Fox administration will try, with the support of the PRI, to push its pension privatization proposal for government employees through the legislature in its last session before the 2006 elections. I still think the new independent federation of government workers’ unions will put up a fight, so it should make for an interesting process.
From left to right: The Director of the government workers’ social security institute (ISSSTE); the Chair of the Social Security Commission in the Chamber of Deputies, a leader in the teachers’ union, and PRDista who is strongly opposed to the reform; another Deputy I don’t recognize; and finally, the leader of the social security workers’ union (SNTSS), who has his Deputy seat thanks to the PRI.
The workers (SNTSS) of the other social security institute (IMSS) have left talks with the administration of the IMSS. Their negotiations are also about the union’s pension scheme. The SNTSS Secretary for the Exterior, who is quoted in the article, is suggesting that a strike in October is likely.
Helicopter crash in Mexico
The Secretary of Public Security, a member of the Human Rights Commission, several other functionaries, and the pilots of a helicopter all died when their helicopter crashed yesterday. Preliminary reports suggest it was an accident. Not surprisingly, the leftist press is pointing out that some of those killed in the crash had been threatened by drug lords, and one was threatened within the last month. There are several stories about the crash and those involved at La Jornada and El Universal .