Introduction
On the previous day, President Claudia Sheinbaum openly dismissed the forecast by the International Monetary Fund (FMI), which predicts a 0.3% contraction for Mexico’s economy in 2025. She firmly stated, “We don’t know what they base their predictions on; we do not agree.”
Defending the Domestic Perspective
Instead, Sheinbaum defended the Secretaría de Hacienda’s (SHCP) projection, which anticipates a growth between 1.5% and 2.3%, driven by her “Plan México.” This plan aims to boost public investment, infrastructure development, and strengthen national production.
Her response was not superficial; she defended her economic model with clear foundations and a vision of sovereign development amid external pessimism.
A History of Accuracies and Errors
The discrepancy between the two scenarios cannot be overlooked. Reviewing the past decade shows that neither the FMI nor SHCP have been immune to errors. Both overestimated Mexico’s economy in 2019 due to internal political decisions and failed to anticipate the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.
Both institutions have also had occasional successes: the FMI accurately predicted growth in stable years like 2015, 2016, 2023, and 2024. Meanwhile, Hacienda better captured internal dynamics in 2021 and 2022.
Quantitative analysis confirms this: SHCP’s average absolute error was 1.70%, while FMI’s was 1.62%. This indicates that the FMI was marginally more accurate due to timely revisions and better performance during stable years.
Strengths of Both Models
Despite their differences, it’s crucial to acknowledge the strengths of both models. The FMI model effectively incorporates global trends, trade flows, and systemic risks. Meanwhile, the SHCP model better considers local variables such as remittances, informal employment, domestic consumption, and public investment.
Each model serves a distinct purpose. The current disagreement reflects two different perspectives on Mexico’s economic trajectory.
President Sheinbaum’s Stance
By defending her government’s model, Sheinbaum supports an economic program she considers viable.
Her skepticism towards the FMI is not new or unjustified. For decades, multilateral organizations have underestimated the potential of emerging economies and imposed conservative readings of their capabilities. It’s legitimate and healthy for her to question these views from a technical standpoint, unlike former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador who dismissed the FMI as neoliberal.
However, the current context demands caution. In 2024, Hacienda projected a growth of up to 3.5%, but the actual result was 1.5%. This margin of error cannot be ignored.
Looking Ahead
Facing 2025, marked by tariffs, global deceleration, and political tensions, no scenario can be assumed. Neither the FMI nor Hacienda holds all the truth.
The ideal outcome isn’t choosing one forecast and discarding the other; instead, it’s understanding that both highlight different risks. The challenge for Claudia Sheinbaum is not to prove the FMI wrong, but to ensure her strategy works and delivers results that validate her approach.
Key Questions and Answers
- Q: Who are the FMI and SHCP, and why is their forecast comparison relevant? A: The FMI is an international organization that provides financial and technical assistance to member countries. SHCP, or the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit in Mexico, is responsible for formulating and executing the country’s fiscal policy. Their contrasting forecasts reflect different perspectives on Mexico’s economic future.
- Q: How accurate have the FMI and SHCP been in their past forecasts? A: Both have made errors, with the FMI being marginally more accurate due to timely revisions and better performance during stable years. The average absolute error for SHCP was 1.70%, while FMI’s was 1.62% over the past decade.
- Q: What are the strengths of each model? A: The FMI model effectively incorporates global trends, trade flows, and systemic risks. The SHCP model better considers local variables such as remittances, informal employment, domestic consumption, and public investment.
- Q: Why is President Sheinbaum’s skepticism towards the FMI justified? A: Multilateral organizations have historically underestimated the potential of emerging economies and imposed conservative readings. Sheinbaum’s technical stance is legitimate and healthy.
- Q: What should be the focus moving forward? A: Rather than choosing one forecast, it’s essential to understand the different risks each highlight. The challenge for Sheinbaum is ensuring her strategy works and delivers results that validate her approach.
