Pepsi Land: US Economic Power in Mexico

[J Reed Brundage]

“Bienvenidos a Michoacán... Pepsi.” The large red, white and blue
sign, painted on a wall, greeted us as we rode from the airport
towards Morelia. It was the middle of August, 2008. My wife, Jane, and
I had just flown from the United States to Mexico to begin our new
life as "jubilados," retirees.

Arriving in Mexico, I felt very glad to have left behind all the
stresses of a life of work in the US. However, there was one glitch
that I wasn’t happy about. Jane had an unfinished project consulting
with Pepsi. It came to her as an opportunity in the spring. It was
supposed to begin in May and be finished by the end of August. By
early July the project had barely begun. The real work was not to
begin until September, after we had moved to Mexico. I was, as the
saying goes, not a happy camper. The pressured world of corporate
America had followed us to Mexico. Then there was the sign, greeting
us, "Bienvenidos a Michoacán… Pepsi."

After we had settled into our rented house, I began to look around.
Pepsi was everywhere. Its red, white and blue circular logo, was on
walls in the streets and on awnings, tables and chairs in family
restaurants. Pepsi was for sale in every convenience store and food
stall. It was present in every pueblo in the rural mountains and on
the islands in Lake Pátzcuaro. The Pepsi truck parked in front of our
house to make deliveries to the tiny convenience store across the
road. . It showed up on the backs of the shirts worn by the men
delivering Santorini bottled water to our house. It was impossible to
escape Pepsi.

This omnipresence of Pepsi in Mexico became emblematic for me of the
presence American corporate power in the country. This power pervades
Mexico. Some 18,000 American corporations do business here. Ninety
percent of Mexican exports go to the US. Fifty percent of Mexican
imports come from the US. Some of Mexico’s largest banks are owned by
US banks. The railroad that runs past our house from the Pacific port
of Lázaro Cárdenas to Mexico City is owned by the Southern Kansas
Railroad. Mexico’s biggest sources of income are from the sale of oil
to the US, tourism and remittances, the money sent home to families in
Mexico by fathers, brothers, husbands and sons working in the US.

Mexicans are very aware of their economic dependence on the United
States. Virtually everyone we meet has either worked in the States or
has relatives working there. The current international financial
crisis, which began in the United States, brings to their lips an old
saying, "When the US sneezes, Mexico gets pneumonia." Thus, the world
of Mexicans is not, in their perspective, separate from the United
States, nor in their point of view is the world of the United States
separate from the world of Mexico. The United States is referred to as
"el otro lado", the other side.

From this Mexican perspective, the border between the two countries is
not seen as a dividing line, a barrier separating two independent,
self-contained entities. Rather, the border is a threshold marking a
transition between two linguistically and culturally different worlds.
This threshold also connects two intimately intertwined, dynamically
interdependent economic and social systems. Mexicans may wish that
their country were independent from the United States, but in the
daily reality of their lives, it is impossible to separate Mexico from
the United States or the United States from Mexico. The two countries
are linked. Bienvenidos a Pepsi Land.

[jemcclain]

I agree with most of what was said. The economic interdependence
between
the US and Mexico is undeniable. As is the case everywhere between
the Global
North and South, the developed countries provide the technology and
capital,
while the developing countries provide the raw materials and cheap
labor. This has created a long
history of economic exploitation by those with economic power. Which
leads to my
next point. I don't believe it is so much the exploitation of rich
countries over poor ones,
as it is the exploitation of the wealthy classes over the lower
classes. Throughout the
history of CIA secret operations to replace socialist-leaning
dictators with dictators that
are friendly to free-enterprise has required the assistance of a
usually small minority of
the wealthy class that "sells-out" the best interests of the nation as
a whole.

In the case of NAFTA, rich Mexican businessmen knew that neo-liberal
policies
would destroy certain rural sectors of the economy, but there was so
much money
to be made, their love of money seems to trump their love of country.
Remember,
that after the US, Mexico has the most millionaires in the world.
Mexico is an
absurdly wealthy nation. It just is not distributed. Few taxes on
the rich. And very
little social welfare.

I understand that we can be concerned about the corporate takeover of
places that
we view as "pristine". And I do believe that these dialogues must
occur. But if you
tell Mexicans that you are going to take away their Pepsi or their
Soriana (Spanish-owned
Wal-Mart type of superstore), they will laugh and ask you who you are
to tell them what
they need. The complete infrastructure of Mexico is based on
technology developed in
the US and Europe. On one hand, they resent the presence of these
foreign investors,
but on the other hand, if not for foreign influence, all of Mexico
would be living below the
standard of the poorest pueblos in Chiapas. Which I'm not making any
value judgements
against, but I don't believe the majority of Mexicans would like to
live at that economic level.
This is a bigger question about education and research in Mexico.
When we look at the Pemex
debate, although I consider myself far on the left politically, I
realize that it must be privatized
simply because there isn't the engineering know-how in Mexico to tap
the receding oil reserves.
Brain drain pulled the most talented Mexican engineers northward,
while oil profits are a government cash
cow instead of being redirected into research and development.

These are indeed very difficult questions. I am against the corporate
takeover of both American
and Mexican life. Yet, this process is a joint effort of wealthy
investors of both countries, not
a US conspiracy to take over Mexico. Just look at the US-Japan
relationship. Instead of putting up barriers
and trying to keep Japanese investors out of the US, we welcomed their
competition and saavy, which in turn
raised the bar of US technology and development. It blows my mind to
see Americans and Mexicans
of the middle and lower classes clinging to their ethnocentrisms to
divide each other, when they really
have much more in common with each other, than they do with their
upper classes which guide government
policy and decision-making.

I imagine Coke and Pepsi are here to stay. Yet, I do believe that
Mexicans and Americans can educate
themselves about where they want to draw the line. I lived in a city
in the US that said no to Super-Wal-Mart
and other Big Box stores. Each municipality can make these decisions
for themselves -- it's just a question of
organizing locally and preparing to stand up to those who have
conflicting interests (which, often in
Mexico can cost you your life). Unfortunately I see so many factors
that divide people. The media creates an
us/them dichotomy in both countries. Envidia (envy) and celos
(jealousy) also inhibit some of the potencial
galvanizing of community members. I hope these dialogues continue
because I find it difficult for people to
look at these questions in an objective and informed context.

Btw, I disagree with the notion that the US is some pressure-cooker
of corporate influence and stress contamination. Certainly, because
the US is a relatively wealthy country, materialism and "rat-race"
contexts
are more prevalant. I find the upper-middle class in Morelia just as
stuck
in that mindset as I do the suburbanite American. If you live like
that in the
US, it is because you have chosen to. As an American living below the
poverty
level income, I have been able to live comfortably in the largest
cities and the
smallest towns, find a community of progressive citizens, and support
local
businesses. Granted, in Mexico, where the infrastructure is based
more on
the informal economy, it is much easier to do. But these are not
conscious
choices -- simply the result of trajectories of development. I see
more and more Michoacanos
working in the US not because they can't support their families, but
because
they want a second car or a larger house. Which is fine. But I do
think our
views of the Mexican/US relationship are outdated and I know
personally that all my
stereotypes and prejudices (positive and negative) are constantly
being disproven.
Just my two cents,
Jeremy McClain