A recent Economist article that attempts a side-by-side comparison of Marcelo Ebrard/Mexico City and Enrique Peña Nieto/Mexico State fails badly when it comes to informing its reader, stumbling as it does into social science territory with what may be an agenda of its own, namely to varnish the highly dubious crime-fighting credentials of the Mexico State governor.
In its attempt to outline the different crime strategies and successes of Ebrard and Peña Nieto, the article neglects to mention, to cite but two examples, the explosive rise in femicidios in Mexico State, and the very poor handling of the Paulette case, but instead seems to suggest that Mexico State has been equally or even more successful than its Mexico City neighbor in reducing crime. I have never read any serious study that corroborates this - quite the opposite.
After making no mention of the unique social programs in Mexico City created by Andrés Manuel López Obrador and much developed by Ebrard, the article claims that "If Mr Ebrard has a slight edge in keeping a lid on violence, that is mainly because he has a big, unified police force."
Is it really? What is the evidence for this grandiose claim? What about counter claims that Mexico City has been remarkably successful in staving off violence through the use of other mechanisms such as innovative social programs for youth and young adults?
Readers of The Economist should keep well in mind the old adage: That which is postulated without any evidence may also be completely dismissed without any evidence.
Hi there. I'm The Economist's correspondent, and an occasional reader of your blog.
ReplyDeleteDelighted that you are a reader of the magazine, but I confess I'm puzzled by your interpretation of this story. You say that it attempts to "varnish" the reputation of EPN, and that it claims he has been equally or more successful than Ebrard in reducing crime.
In fact, it points out that narco-related murders are three times more common in Edomex than in DF, and concludes, as you acknowledge, that Ebrard has the overall edge. Even the accompanying cartoon contrasts a well-protected DF with a bullet-ridden Edomex.
On a different note, re the feminicidios, which do you think is the most reliable source for a historical state-by-state per-capita comparison?
Thanks again for reading, and all the best.
Tom Wainwright
Dear Mr. Wainwright,
ReplyDeleteVery happy to hear from you. I am indeed a long-time reader of The Economist, and specifically of the Mexico-related material, which I have found to be generally very informative and accurate. This was my reason for addressing what to me seems like simplification in the Ebrard-Peña Nieto comparison. Note that I wrote "may be an agenda on its own" when it comes to varnishing, with which I meant that I feel it goes to soft on Peña Nieto, and too hard on Ebrard. This critique may even be applied to the cartoon - yes, Mexico State is bullet ridden and has more crime, but that is simply because it has less police. Given that the crime rate in Mexico City has dropped drastically under the PRD´s governance, I am convinced other factors should be addressed, though it is certainly a very fair and important point that the police in DF is more unified (though other unique factors such as its federal status, with tension city police-federal police, may also pull in the opposite direction).
Regarding murder rates - upon re-reading the article, I am still left with the impression that it seems to suggest that murder rates have been reduced in Mexico State under Peña Nieto, while they have increased under Ebrard in DF. Again: From every available statistic I have seen, murder rates in Mexico have skyrocket in Mexico State, and it seems to me that the article rather emphasizes Peña Nieto's apparent success in curtailing it.
Yet the gist of the matter: If I am wrong in suggesting that The Economist may deliberately be going soft on Peña Nieto, I am all the happier - and will gladly apologize to you.
Re: Femicidios - the problem for comparison is that many states operate with different categorizations, or have even changed these over time (and the very concept lends itself well to this, as it regards deliberate targeting of women because they are women-how to prove this?), but a good place to start for information that may well be more accurate than official figure: Observatorio Ciudadano Nacional del Feminicidio (OCNF), which is headed by María de la Luz Estrada.
With warm regards, and thanks for reading.
Thanks for your reply. Just briefly, on homicide figures, my source is the SNSP (http://www.secretariadoejecutivosnsp.gob.mx/es/SecretariadoEjecutivo/Incidencia_Delictiva_Nacional_fuero_comun), which shows that in the DF the number of "homicidios dolosos" (ie murders) in 2010 was 25% higher than in 2006. Ebrard's people point out that so far this year has been lower, and they add that 2006 was a relatively low year with which to compare. (I chose it because that was when he took office.)
ReplyDeleteIn Edomex, following the extraordinary drop between 2006 and 2007 (due to a statistical change, as I said), the number of homicides rose a little in 2008 and again in 2009, before dipping in 2010 to roughly the same level as in 2007. Overall the homicide rate there is a little lower than in DF.
Of course, these numbers are open to some doubt, as I said in the story. But for what it's worth, there they are.
All the best
Tom