Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wp2c8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-19T19:51:56.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The 2006 Mexican Presidential Election: The Economy, Oil Revenues, and Ideology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2007

Alejandro Moreno
Affiliation:
Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México

Extract

Early analyses of the 2006 presidential election in Mexico have called our attention to the post-election process, to accusations of fraud, to the extent of partisan polarization, and to the prospects of democratic consolidation, but few have offered an explanation of why President Vicente Fox's National Action Party (PAN) was able to maintain control of the executive office, even by the slim margin of 0.56%. In this article, I argue that the first post-PRI-regime election split the anti-PRI vote into different ideological and policy-oriented camps. This made the 2006 race a choice between policy programs and priorities that reflected economic concerns, and voters' assessments of the economy were a central feature of candidate support. Economic growth in the second half of the Fox administration as well as unusually high oil prices played a crucial role in the election. They enabled the PAN candidate, Felipe Calderón, to appeal for stability and to attack his main contender, PRD candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador, as a danger to it. Had economic growth remained slow and oil prices at the expected rate, the PAN's chances to keep the presidency would have been slim, especially against a popular leftist candidate who had a lead in the polls, promised to help the poor at the expense of the rich, and voiced harsh criticism against the “neoliberal” policies of the PRI and PAN governments.

Type
SYMPOSIUM—THE 2006 MEXICAN ELECTION AND ITS AFTERMATH
Copyright
© 2007 The American Political Science Association

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

Barajas, Abel. 2006. “Dona PEMEX más en año electoral.” Reforma, October 11, A1, 18.Google Scholar
Klesner, Joseph L. 2007. “The 2006 Mexican Elections: Manifestation of a Divided Society?PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (January): 2732.Google Scholar
Langston, Joy. 2007. “The PRI's 2006 Electoral Debacle.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (January): 2125.Google Scholar
Moreno, Alejandro. 2006. “ The Coalition for Change: Voters and Parties in the 2000 Mexican Election.” In The Elections of 2000: Politics, Culture, and Economics in North America, eds. M. Kirtz, M. Kassoff, R. Farmer, and J. Green. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press.Google Scholar
Quintana, Enrique. 2006. “Coordenadas: El Mito de las Finanzas Sanas.” Reforma, October 16, Negocios, 8.Google Scholar
Sarabia, Ernesto. 2006. “Bañan excedentes a estados.” Reforma, October 9, Negocios, 4.Google Scholar
TRIFE. 2006. Dictamen relativo al cómputo final de la elección de Presidente de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, declaración de validez de la elección y de presidente electo. Mexico City: Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación, September 5, available at www.trife.org.mx/acuerdo/dictamen.pdf.Google Scholar
Vela, José Ángel. 2006. “Caen 5.5% ventas de crudo.” Reforma, October 20, Negocios, 1, 10.Google Scholar