Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T13:36:30.095Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Democratization, Education Reform, and the Mexican Teachers' Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2022

R. Douglas Hecock
R. Douglas Hecock*
Affiliation:
Bucknell University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study examines the effect of democratization on a key education reform across three Mexican states. Previous scholarship has found a positive effect of electoral competition on social spending, as leaders seek to improve their reelection prospects by delivering services to voters. However, the evidence presented here indicates that more money has not meant better educational outcomes in Mexico. Rather, new and vulnerable elected leaders are especially susceptible to the demands of powerful interest groups at the expense of accountability to constituents. In this case, the dominant teachers' union has used its leverage to exact greater control over the country's resource-rich merit pay program for teachers. It has exploited this control to increase salaries and decrease standards for advancement up the remuneration ladder. The evidence suggests that increased electoral competition has led to the empowerment of entrenched interests rather than voters, with an overall negative effect on education.

Resumen

Resumen

Este artículo examina los efectos de la democratización en una reforma importante de la educación básica en tres entidades mexicanas. Investigaciones previas han identificado un efecto positivo de la competencia electoral en el presupuesto educativo, un egreso que líderes políticos utilizan para mejorar su perfil electoral procurando servicios para votantes. Sin embargo, la evidencia presentada aquí indica que más recursos no necesariamente se convierten en mejores resultados educativos en México. Al contrario, nuevos líderes democráticos son muy vulnerables y son susceptibles a las demandas de intereses poderosos, resultando en un alto costo en cuanto a la rendición de cuentas. En este caso, el Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educación (SNTE) ha podido utilizar su influencia para aumentar su control sobre los grandes recursos del programa salarial llamado Carrera Magisterial. El SNTE ha explotado este control para aumentar los salarios de maestros y reducir los estándares para avanzar en el programa. La evidencia indica que los incrementos en competencia electoral han aumentado el poder de intereses especiales en lugar de los votantes, con un efecto bastante negativo en la educación.

Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , 2014 , pp. 62 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by the Latin American Studies Association

Footnotes

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation Award SES-0317942 and the Social Science Research Council. I thank Jeff Drope, Wendy Hunter, Matt Ingram, Eric Jepsen, Carlos Ornelas, Mark Peceny, Ken Roberts, Bill Stanley, and the LARR reviewers and editors.

References

Ansell, Ben W. 2008 “Traders, Teachers, and Tyrants: Democracy, Globalization, and Public Investment in Education.” International Organization 62 (Spring): 289–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnaut, Alberto 1999 “La federalización educativa y el Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educación.” In Federalización e innovación educativa en México, edited by María del, Carmen Pardo, 63–100. Mexico City: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Asman, David 1991 “Mexican Voters Stage Revolt against Their ‘Beltway’ Crowd.” Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), November 8.Google Scholar
Ballou, Dale 2001 “Pay for Performance in Public and Private Schools.” Economics of Education Review 20 (1): 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, David, and Hunter, Wendy 1999 “Democracy and Social Spending in Latin America, 1980–1992.” American Political Science Review 93 (4): 779–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, David, and Hunter, Wendy 2004 “Democracy and Human Capital Formation: Education Spending in Latin America, 1980–1997.” Comparative Political Studies 37 (7): 842–864.Google Scholar
Camacho Sandoval, Salvador 2004 Educación y alternancia política en México: Los casos de Guanajuato y Aguascalientes. Aguascalientes, Mexico: Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes.Google Scholar
CIDAC (Centro de Investigación para el Desarrollo, A.C.) 2010 Base de datos de elecciones locales 1980–2008. http://www.cidac.org. Mexico City: CIDAC.Google Scholar
Cleary, Matthew R. 2007 “Electoral Competition, Participation, and Government Responsiveness in Mexico.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (2): 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cleary, Matthew R. 2010 The Sources of Democratic Responsiveness in Mexico. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Collier, Ruth Berins 1992 The Contradictory Alliance: State-Labor Relations and Regime Change in Mexico. Research Series No. 83. Berkeley: International and Area Studies, University of California.Google Scholar
Cook, Maria 1996 Organizing Dissent: Unions, the State, and the Democratic Teachers' Movement in Mexico. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, Samuel T., and Cohn, Elchanan 1997 “Estimation of a Frontier Production Function for the South Carolina Educational Process.” Economics of Education Review 16 (3): 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrales, Javier 1999 “The Politics of Education Reform: Bolstering the Supply and the Demand; Overcoming Institutional Blocks.” World Bank Education Reform and Management Series 2 (1). Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Dee, Thomas S., and Keys, Benjamin J. 2004 “Does Merit Pay Reward Good Teachers? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 23 (3): 471–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fierro Evans, María Cecilia, and García, Guillermo Tapia 1999 “Descentralización educativa e innovación: Una mirada desde Guanajuato.” In Federalización e innovación educativa en México, edited by María del, Carmen Pardo, 137–242. Mexico City: El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Internacionales.Google Scholar
Foweraker, Joe 1992 Popular Mobilization in Mexico: The Teachers' Movement, 1977–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garrett, Geoffrey 2001 “Globalization and Government Spending around the World.” Studies in Comparative International Development 35 (4): 3–29.Google Scholar
Grindle, Merilee S. 2004a Despite the Odds: The Contentious Politics of Education Reform. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Grindle, Merilee S. 2004b “Interests, Institutions, and Reformers: The Politics of Education Decentralization in Mexico.” In Crucial Needs, Weak Incentives: Social Sector Reform, Democratization, and Globalization in Latin America, edited by Kaufman, Robert R. and Nelson, Joan M., 283–314. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.Google Scholar
Hecock, R. Douglas 2006 “Electoral Competition, Globalization, and Subnational Education Spending in Mexico, 1999–2004.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (4): 950–961.Google Scholar
INEE (Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación) 2004 La calidad de la educación básica en México, 2004. Mexico City: INEE.Google Scholar
INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática) 2005 Anuario de estadísticas por entidad federativa. Mexico City: INEGI.Google Scholar
Kaufman, Robert R., and Segura-Ubiergo, Alex 2001 “Globalization, Domestic Politics, and Social Spending in Latin America: A Time-Series Cross-Section Analysis, 1973–97.” World Politics 53 (4): 553–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagos, Marta 2008 “Latin America's Diversity of Views.” Journal of Democracy 19 (1): 111–125.Google Scholar
Lopez-Acevedo, Gladys 2004 “Professional Development and Incentives for Teacher Performance in Schools in Mexico.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3236. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loyo, Aurora 1997 “Las ironías de la modernización: El caso del SNTE.” In Los actores sociales y la educación: Los sentidos del cambio (1988–1994), edited by Loyo, Aurora, 23–62. Mexico City: Plaza y Valdés.Google Scholar
Madrid, Madrid Miguel de 2004 Cambio de rumbo: Testimonios de una presidencia, 1982–1988 (Vida y pensamiento de México). Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
McEwan, Patrick J., and Santibáñez, Lucrecia 2005 “Teacher and Principal Incentives in Mexico.” In Incentives to Improve Teaching: Lessons from Latin America, edited by Vegas, Emiliana, 213–253. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
McMahon, Walter W. 1999 Education and Development: Measuring the Social Benefits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Murillo, María Victoria 1999 “Recovering Political Dynamics: Teachers' Unions and the Decentralization of Education in Argentina and Mexico.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 41 (1): 31–57.Google Scholar
Murnane, Richard J., and Cohen, David K. 1986 “Merit Pay and the Evaluation Problem: Why Most Merit Pay Plans Fail and a Few Survive.” Harvard Educational Review 56 (1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ornelas, Carlos 2002 “Incentivos a los maestros: La paradoja mexicana.” In Valores, calidad y educación, edited by Ornelas, Carlos, 137–161. Mexico City: Santillana/Aula XXI.Google Scholar
Ornelas, Carlos 2004 “The Politics of Privatisation, Decentralisation and Education Reform in Mexico.” International Review of Education 50 (3–4): 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortiz Jiménez, Maximino B. 2003 “Carrera Magisterial: Un proyecto de desarrollo profesional.” Cuadernos de Discusión 12. Mexico City: Secretaría de Educación Pública.Google Scholar
Pardinas, Juan 2004 “Fighting Poverty in Mexico: Policy Challenges.” In Mexico under Fox, edited by Rubio, Luis and Purcell, Susan Kaufman, 65–86. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, and Teune, Henry 1982 The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. Malabar, FL: Krieger.Google Scholar
Santibañez, Lucrecia, Martinez, José Felipe, Datar, Ashlesha, McEwan, Patrick J., Setodji, Claude Messan, and Basurto-Dávila, Ricardo 2007 Breaking Ground: Analysis of the Assessment System and Impact of Mexico's Teacher Incentive Program “Carrera Magisterial.” Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Santizo Rodall, Claudia A 2002 Implementing Reform in the Education Sector in Mexico: The Role of Policy Networks. PhD diss., University of Birmingham, England.Google Scholar
Segura-Ubiergo, Alex 2007 The Political Economy of the Welfare State in Latin America: Globalization, Democracy, and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SEP (Secretaría de Educación Pública) 1998 Lincamientos generales de Carrera Magisterial. Comisión Nacional SEP-SNTE de Carrera Magisterial. Mexico City: Secretaría de Educación Pública.Google Scholar
SEP (Secretaría de Educación Pública) 2001 Carrera Magisterial: Antología. Subsecretaría de Planeación y Coordinación. Mexico City: Secretaría de Educación Pública.Google Scholar
Silva Méndez, Jorge Luis 2010 “An Overview of the Rules Governing the Performance of Public Middle School Teachers in Mexico City.” Mexican Law Review 3 (1): 151–185.Google Scholar
Stasavage, David 2005 “Democracy and Education Spending in Africa.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 343–358.Google Scholar
Street, Susan 1992 “El SNTE y la política educativa, 1970–1990.” Revista Mexicana de Sociología 54 (2): 45–72.Google Scholar