>From what I understand, the oil was seen as cash cow of sorts, since the
confidence of borrowing from the international market was based on
potenial oil revenues. Certainly there was an attempt to integrate
backard industrially, as the structure of Mexico's industrial sector would
indicate and in general Mexico's technological capability relatively to
other Latin American economies. Profiligacy was also rampant, more so in
the case of Venezuela and Nigeria. My Peruvian friend always pointed out
that any Venezuelan who could make a thumb impression came to the US to
study:) But demand constraint in Mexico and the subsequent fall
in oil prices and interest rate hikes caught them napping, if you will.
The usual distortions resulting from import-substitution strategy were
also present.
Anthony P. D'Costa
Associate Professor
Comparative International Development
University of Washington
1103 A Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA
Ph: (206) 552-4462
FAX: (206) 552-4414
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Can anyone advise me or direct me on how to be advised on how Mexico has
> used its oil over the decades? Did they historically view it mainly as a
> cash cow, or did they try to develop domestic spinoff industries? Did debt
> come to claim so large a share of oil revenues that the decision was made
> for them?
>
> Doug
>
> --
>
> Doug Henwood
> Left Business Observer
> 250 W 85 St
> New York NY 10024-3217
> USA
> +1-212-874-4020 voice
> +1-212-874-3137 fax
> email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
>
>
>
