Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:05:48.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mandates, Geography, and Networks: Diffusion of Criminal Procedure Reform in Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Matthew C. Ingram
Matthew C. Ingram*
Affiliation:
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Why have some Mexican states proceeded faster than others in the revolutionary transformation of overhauling criminal procedure? Contributing an original index of criminal procedure reform across Mexico's 32 states from 2002 to 2011 and building on existing research on policy diffusion, this article seeks to answer this question. It finds that the 2008 constitutional reform at the federal level exerts a strong positive effect (federal mandate); being situated in a neighborhood of states that have reformed has a counterintuitive negative effect (spatial proximity); and having a governor from the same party as governors of other states that have reformed has a positive influence (network affinity). These findings yield a better understanding of the vertical, cross-level and horizontal, cross-unit diffusion of reform, with implications for understanding how to overcome challenges to criminal justice reform in Mexico, Latin America, and elsewhere.

Type
Research
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , Spring 2016 , pp. 121 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen, Christopher H. 2000. Why Lagged Dependent Variables Can Suppress the Explanatory Power of Other Independent Variables. Paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association, UCLA, July 20–22.Google Scholar
Amodio, Ennio. 2004. The Accusatorial System Lost and Regained: Reforming Criminal Procedure in Italy. American Journal of Comparative Law 52: 489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan. 1995. What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data. American Political Science Review 89: 634–47.Google Scholar
Beer, Caroline C. 2003. Electoral Competition and Institutional Change in Mexico. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Beer, Caroline C. 2006. Judicial Performance and the Rule of Law in the Mexican States. Latin American Politics and Society 48, 3 (Fall): 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beer, Caroline C., and Mitchell, Neil. 2004. Democracy and Human Rights in the Mexican States: Elections or Social Capital? International Studies Quarterly 48: 293–312.Google Scholar
Boyce, Daniel. 2005. Political Influences on Fiscal Performance in the Mexican States. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Brinks, Daniel, and Coppedge, Michael. 2006. Diffusion Is No Illusion: Neighbor Emulation in the Third Wave of Democracy. Comparative Political Studies 39, 4: 463–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruhn, Kathleen. 1999. PRD Local Governments in Michoacán: Implications for Mexico's Democratization Process. In Subnational Politics and Democratization in Mexico, ed. Cornelius, Wayne, Eisenstadt, Todd, and Hindley, Jane. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. 19–48.Google Scholar
Cleary, Matthew R. 2007. Electoral Competition, Participation, and Government Responsiveness in Mexico. American Journal of Political Science 51, 2: 283–99.Google Scholar
Coppedge, Michael. 1997. A Classification of Latin American Parties. Kellogg Institute Working Paper Series no. 244. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Epp, Charles. 1998. The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, Jodi S. Judicial Reform as Political Insurance: Argentina, Peru, and Mexico in the 1990s. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Flamand, Laura. 2006. The Allocation Game in a Federal System: the Influence of Vertically Divided Government on the Allocation of Federal Transfers to the Mexican States. Política y Gobierno 13, 2: 315–59.Google Scholar
Fuentes, Víctor. 2013. Apremia ministro la reforma penal. Reforma (Mexico City), February 18, Sección Nacional, 4.Google Scholar
Geddes, Barbara. 1996. Initiation of New Democratic Institutions in Eastern Europe and Latin America In Institutional Design in New Democracies: Eastern Europe and Latin America, ed. Lijphart, Arend J. and Waisman, Charles. Boulder: Westview Press. 15–41.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 2002. How Political Parties Can Use the Courts to Advance Their Agendas: Federal Courts in the United States, 1875–1891. American Political Science Review 96: 511–24.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 2008. Courts and the Politics of Partisan Coalitions. In The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics, ed. Whittington, Keith E., Daniel Kelemen, R., and Caldeira, Gregory A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 644–62.Google Scholar
Giraudy, Agustina. 2010. The Politics of Subnational Undemocratic Regime Reproduction in Argentina and Mexico. Journal of Politics in Latin America 2: 53–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grande, Elisabetta. 2000. Italian Criminal Procedure: Borrowing and Resistance. American Journal of Comparative Law 48: 227–60.Google Scholar
Harbers, Imke, and Ingram, Matthew C.. 2014. Politics in Space: Methodological Considerations for Taking Space Seriously in Subnational Comparative Research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 28–31.Google Scholar
Hecock, R. Douglas. 2006. Electoral Competition, Globalization, and Subnational Education Spending in Mexico, 1999–2004. American Journal of Political Science 50: 950–61.Google Scholar
Huber, Evelyne, and Stephens, John D.. 2001. Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Market. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Evelyne, Nielsen, François, Pribble, Jennifer, and Stephens, John D.. 2006. Politics and Inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean. American Sociological Review 71: 943–63.Google Scholar
Ingram, Matthew C. 2012. Crafting Courts in New Democracies: Ideology and Judicial Council Reforms in Three Mexican States. Comparative Politics 44, 4 (July): 439–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, Matthew C. 2013. Elections, Ideology, or Opposition? Assessing Competing Explanations of Judicial Spending in the Mexican States, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 29, 1: 178–209.Google Scholar
Ingram, Matthew C. 2016. Crafting Courts in New Democracies: The Politics of Subnational Judicial Reform in Brazil and Mexico. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, Matthew C., and Shirk, David A.. 2010. Judicial Reform in Mexico: Towards a New Criminal Justice System. Special Report. San Diego: Trans-Border Institute, University of San Diego.Google Scholar
Ingram, Matthew C., Rodríguez-Ferreira, Octavio, and Shirk, David A.. 2011. Justiciabarómetro: Survey of Judges, Prosecutors, and Public Defenders in Nine Mexican States. Final Report. May. San Diego: Justice in Mexico Project, Trans-Border Institute, University of San Diego.Google Scholar
Laakso, Murkuu, and Taagepera, Rein. 1979. “Effective” Number of Parties: a Measure with Application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies 12, 1: 3–27.Google Scholar
Langer, Máximo. 2007. Revolution in Latin American Criminal Procedure: Diffusion of Legal Ideas from the Periphery. American Journal of Comparative Law 55: 617–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, Kung-Yee, and Zeger, Scott L.. 1986. Longitudinal Data Analysis Using Generalized Linear Models. Biometrika 73: 13–22.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott, and Ervin, Laurie H.. 2000. Using Heteroskedasticity: Consistent Standard Errors in Linear Regression Model. American Statistician 54, 3: 217–24.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, and Scully, Timothy R.. 1995. Introduction: Party Systems in Latin America. In Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin America, ed. Mainwaring, and Scully, . Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1–34.Google Scholar
Messner, Steven F., Anselin, Luc, Baller, Robert D., Hawkins, Darnell F., Deane, Glenn, and Tolnay, Stewart E.. 1999. The Spatial Patterning of County Homicide Rates: an Application of Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 15, 4: 423–50.Google Scholar
Mizrahi, Yemile. 1999. Los determinantes del voto en Chihuahua: evaluación del gobierno, identidad partidista, y candidatos. CIDE Working Paper No. SDTDP-106. Mexico City.Google Scholar
Mizrahi, Yemile. 2003. From Martyrdom to Power: The Partido Acción Nacional in Mexico. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Molinar, Juan. 1991. Counting the Number of Parties: an Alternative Index. American Political Science Review 85: 1383–91.Google Scholar
Morton, F. L., and Knopf, Rainer. 2000. The Charter Revolution and the Court Party. Petersborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Negretto, Gabriel L. 2006. Choosing How to Choose Presidents: Parties, Military Rulers, and Presidential Elections in Latin America. Journal of Politics 68: 421–33.Google Scholar
Plümper, Thomas, Manow, Philip, and Troeger, Vera. 2005. Panel Data Analysis in Comparative Politics: Linking Method to Theory. European Journal of Political Research 44: 327–54.Google Scholar
Pozas-Loyo, Andrea, and Ríos-Figueroa, Julio. 2010. Enacting Constitutionalism: the Origins of Independent Judicial Institutions in Latin America. Comparative Politics 42, 3: 293–311.Google Scholar
Presidencia de la República. 2004. Reforma integral al sistema de justicia, anuncia el Presidente Vicente Fox. Press release. March 10. Mexico City: Presidencia. http://fox.presidencia.gob.mx/actividades/?contenido=7678 Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2015. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org Google Scholar
Reynoso, Diego. 2005. Competición electoral y deshegemonización en los estados mexicanos. In Después de la alternancia: elecciones y nueva competitividad, ed. Espinoza, Víctor and Miguel Rionda, Luis. Tijuana, Mexico: EL Colegio de la Frontera Norte/Sociedad Mexicana de Estudios Electorales. 165–95.Google Scholar
Ríos Espinosa, Carlos, and Cerdio, Jorge, eds. 2012. Las reformas de la reforma procesal penal en Chihuahua. Mexico City: Tirant lo blanch/ITAM.Google Scholar
Ríos-Figueroa, Julio. 2007. Fragmentation of Power and the Emergence of an Effective Judiciary in Mexico, 1994–2002. Latin American Politics and Society 49, 1 (Spring): 31–57.Google Scholar
Rogers, Everett M. 2003 [1962]. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Schedler, Andreas. 2005. Patterns of Interparty Competition in Electoral Autocracies. Documento de Trabajo SDTEP No. 173. Mexico City: División de Estudios Políticos, CIDE.Google Scholar
Shipan, Charles R., and Volden, Craig. 2008. The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion. American Journal of Political Science 52, 4: 840–57.Google Scholar
Shipan, Charles R., and Volden, Craig. 2012. Policy Diffusion: Seven Lessons for Scholars and Practitioners. Public Administration Review 72, 6: 788–96.Google Scholar
Shirk, David A. 2005. Mexico's New Politics: The PAN and Democratic Change. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Shirk, David A. 2010. Criminal Justice Reform in Mexico: an Overview. Mexican Law Review 3, 2: 189–228.Google Scholar
Shirk, David A., and Cázares, Alejandra Ríos. 2007. Introduction: Reforming the Administration of Justice in Mexico. In Reforming the Administration of Justice in Mexico, ed. Cornelius, Wayne A. and Shirk, . San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California. 1–49.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth A., and Elkins, Zachary. 2004. The Globalization of Liberalization: Policy Diffusion in the International Political Economy. American Political Science Review 98, 1: 171–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, Beth A., Dobbin, Frank, and Garrett, Geoffrey, eds. 2008. The Global Diffusion of Markets and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Solt, Frederick. 2004. Electoral Competition, Legislative Pluralism, and Institutional Development: Evidence from Mexico's States. Latin American Research Review 39: 155–67.Google Scholar
Staton, Jeffrey K. 2010. Judicial Power and Strategic Communication in Mexico. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tiede, Lydia Brashear. 2012. Chile's Criminal Law Reform: Enhancing Defendants' Rights and Citizen Security. Latin American Politics and Society 54, 3 (Fall): 65–93.Google Scholar
Tobler, Waldo. 1970. A Computer Movie Simulating Urban Growth in the Detroit Region. Economic Geography 46, 2: 234–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Vermeule, Adrian. 2001. Veils of Ignorance: Rules in Constitutional Law. Yale Law Journal 111, 2: 399–433.Google Scholar
Wasserman, Stanley, and Faust, Katherine. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weyland, Kurt. 2005. Theories of Policy Diffusion: Lessons from Latin American Pension Reform. World Politics 57, 2: 262–95.Google Scholar
Zorn, Christopher J.W. 2001. Generalized Estimating Equations for Correlated Data: a Review with Applications. American Journal of Political Science 45, 2: 470–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwier, Paul, and Barney, Alexander. 2012. Moving to an Oral Adversarial System in Mexico: Jurisprudential, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, and Trial Advocacy Implications. Emory International Law Review 26: 189–225.Google Scholar