The basis behind the article’s argument is the Mexico itself is a weak state (Lomnitz,2014). Economically Mexico is far behind the US, its instability lead it to be easily taken over. Reason number 1 is the informal economy: “between one and two-thirds of Mexico’s population today relies on economic practices that are tolerated, but outside of the law” (Lomnitz, 2014). These generally involve minor infractions, but “informal economies can only be regulated with petty corruption — by police who get bribed to look the other way while controlling the overall volume and flow of operations” (Lomnitz, 2014). Reason number 2 is no accountability without taxation: Mexico’s tax base has relied disproportionately on the state-owned oil company, Pemex, for its revenue; “such a narrow tax base fosters low levels of accountability” (Lomnitz, 2014). Lastly reason number 3 is drug and gun control policies: this according to the article is the most “destructive factor that must be accounted for to complete the picture: Mexico’s quagmire of impunity has been deeply affected by American drug and gun control policies” (Lomnitz, 2014). The article ties the US’ need for drugs and guns and Mexico being able to provide it cheaply, this created the drug ring. The now reigning drug war brought by the cartels. The article states that “there is a deep history behind Mexico’s current …show more content…
I will focus on the political economy framework for drug violence. To understand the interaction between the drugs and states, you must first understand that it is more than just business and money. It is to create fear and establish authority. A case done by Angelica Duran-Martinez, To Kill and Tell? State Power, Criminal Competition, and Drug Violence, looks a precisely this. There is balance between state authority and the driving force that is the cartel. There is a need and a market to provide illicit drugs. Her logic is that “in illegal markets, criminals may use violence to solve disputes given the absence of legal mediation. Violence can also signal toughness: the more violent an organization, the less likely that competitors will try to overpower it or that members of the organization will cheat or defraud. The more visible violence is, the more likely that the toughness and power of the organization will be communicated to the public, which is to the criminals’ advantage. Yet, violence also has drawbacks, such as scaring away nonviolent partners and, especially, attracting police attention”, unless you have the majority of the police force either working for you or are bribed to look the other way (Duran-Martinez,