Porfirian Era vs. Nowadays Mexico Essay Example

trade was also used to strengthen the border to ensure traders were safe. During the Porfirio era, Mexico was able to flourish from trade with U.S and other neighboring countries (Benjamin & Ocasio-Melendez, 2011).

This is almost the same as nowadays because Mexico continues to trade with U.S and other northern countries. Today, the best trade partner for Mexico is the United States. U.S still provides unlimited market for Mexican goods. For the last year, the Mexico traded around US$309.2 billion with U.S. 81.2% of total was Mexico exports to the U.S market (Hamilton, 2014). This clearly shows the role U.S has played in providing ready market for Mexican goods just like the Porfirian Era.

During the Diaz era, Mexico experienced massive infrastructural modernization. The Porfirio era is remembered for its huge contribution towards infrastructure development especially railroads and mining. Railroads were integral for the economic development of the country because they facilitated the transportation of goods to the market and raw materials to industries (Hamilton, 2014). With railroads, there was quick transportation of goods around the country. President Porfirio recognized the important role railroads could play in strengthening the Mexican economy and strongly embarked on an ambitious building campaign during his era. The Porfirian Era is almost similar to the nowadays regime because today Mexico government is working on agricultural stability and expanding the roads to reach all agricultural schemes for self-sustainability of the citizens (Hamilton, 2014). These agricultural products are transported through the infrastructure set up by President Porfirio. It has also boosted trade in the modern Mexican society.

With respect to mining, President Diaz revitalized and expanded the industry in a manner that exports of

minerals increased by 650%. Increase in m mineral export led to increase in capital and economic growth. The capital gained from mineral export was used to build new railroad system to facilitate transportation of ore to different parts of the country for processing. In addition, the ore was exported to the U.S for sale. During this era, the number of titles for mining operations was increased and mining laws were altered to encourage foreign investment in mining. As a result, silver production increased tremendously from1886 to 1900. Just like the Porfirio era, nowadays Mexico continues to invest in mining especially the production of silver (Overmyer-Velázquez, 2008). Today, Mexico is revitalizing and rebuilding towns as well as reopening mines that were closed for various reasons. The country has opened dozens of miners for the last few years. This has created well paying jobs to the Mexicans thus boosting the economy.

To stimulate economic growth, Diaz altered land titles and tenure by disposing of large tracks of land owned by the government to the people. Large pieces of land were put to the public domain for economic activities like farming. Despite being in previously uncultivated there were put under cultivation by farmers (Rubin, 2011). At least they started producing something rather than staying idle. In addition, Diaz abolished communal land ownership in favor of private ownership approach. His decision was criticized but there was steady growth in the number of private landowners. The number of private landowners doubled in between 1854 and 1900 (Rubin, 2011). Agricultural activities also increased boosting the economy. Nowadays era on land ownership is almost the same as the Porfirio era. Today, Mexico has

no communal ownership of land. Mexico has increased private land ownership. In addition, most of the land is used for economic activities like agriculture and mining just like in Porfirio era.

Welfare institutions and programs saw some improvement and significant growth during the Díaz era. Although it has already been established that social welfare was not a high priority for President Porfirio, he did assume direct administrative responsibility for public welfare and still instituted important reforms (Benjamin & Ocasio-Melendez, 2011). In Mexico City, President Porfirio engaged in an ambitious building campaign in which he moved the city’s largest reform schools, orphanages, prisons, and hospitals out of their previously neglected colonial period structures into modern, better equip facilities. The modern Mexico is also working on the welfare institutions through transforming Mexico City into an institution for sheltering homeless children and the vocational training of women and disabilities. The government has also licensed a lottery for the support of public hospitals and welfare institutions and emphasized on private charity donations.

Conclusion

President Porfirio established favorable economic and political conditions to attract foreign investors, including strong national control of the regional elites, political stability, state support for industry, and the establishment of a transportation infrastructure. The modern regime in Mexico has also tried to match up to President Porfirio but not to his level. Porfirian elites welcomed foreign investment as Mexico’s ticket out of retrogressive regime and into the club of developed nations. While certainly enticed by potential financial profits, modern Mexico’s political and business leaders have also sought international prestige. Through his development policies, Mexico became a self-sustaining nation, but the current scheme is straining to grow its economy. From

this explanation, it is clear that Porfirian era was almost the same as nowadays regime in terms of investment in infrastructure, land ownership policies, trade with neighboring countries.

References

• Babb, S. L., & Babb, S. (2009). Managing Mexico: Economists from nationalism to neoliberalism. Princeton University Press.
• Benjamin, T., & Ocasio-Melendez, M. (2011). Organizing the Memory of Modern Mexico: Porfirian Historiography in Perspective, 1880s-1980s. The Hispanic American Historical Review, 64(2), 323-364.
• Hamilton, N. (2014). The limits of state autonomy: post-revolutionary Mexico. Princeton University Press.
• Lear, J. (2010). Mexico City Space and Class in the Porfirian Capital, 1884-1910. Journal of Urban History, 22(4), 454-492.
• Overmyer-Velázquez, M. (2008). Visions of the Emerald City: Modernity, tradition, and the formation of Porfirian Oaxaca, Mexico. Duke University Press.
• Rubin, J. W. (2011). Decentering the regime: culture and regional politics in Mexico. Latin American Research Review, 31(3), 85-126.
• Tenorio-Trillo, M. (2009). Mexico at the world's fairs: crafting a modern nation (Vol. 35). Univ of California Press.