Introduction
At a recent dinner, I overheard someone say, “Mexico’s Plan is a PowerPoint,” and it was an accurate observation. Today, President Claudia Sheinbaum’s industrial policy exists mainly as a narrative—a well-organized list of good intentions, coherent and carefully packaged. The issue isn’t a lack of ideas but the gap between design and reality.
Effective Discourse
Despite this, Mexico’s Plan functions as an effective discourse, especially abroad. The World Economic Forum in Davos is a prime example. Although President Sheinbaum did not attend, Alicia Bárcen, the Environment Secretary and a seasoned multilateralist, and Altagracia Gómez, an influential businesswoman connecting the executive to the private sector, represented Mexico.
I have previously advocated for President Sheinbaum’s international travels, urging the country to regain its global presence. However, in this instance, I believe her absence from Davos—a forum unattended by any Mexican president since 2016—was a wise decision.
- Firstly, Mexico currently lacks the political margin and foresight to deliver a speech like Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s, recognized for his realism and historical awareness.
- Secondly, her absence prevented an unpredictable encounter with Donald Trump.
Altagracia’s panel, “How to Break Latin America’s Growth Ceiling?”, alongside representatives from Brazil, Colombia, and Peru, was insightful. She articulately listed the 13 goals of Mexico’s Plan in flawless English, projecting a clear, long-term, technically sound vision to an international audience unfamiliar with Mexico’s political nuances.
Disparity Between Discourse and Execution
However, this contrast is crucial. Those of us living in Mexico know that the Plan remains a well-presented slideshow rather than an actionable plan. Over a year into her presidency, Sheinbaum’s promises have not translated to improved growth prospects or increased investment certainty.
Similarly, the businesswoman’s initial prominence has faded. Not due to a lack of capability or recognition—the business sector values her role—but because decision-making power lies elsewhere. Presentations circulate, announcements repeat, yet structural decisions fail to materialize. The Plan lacks grounding, not necessarily a future, but an anchor.
This discrepancy between rhetoric and execution is particularly problematic given the current context. Mexico enters T-MEC review without a clear internal assurance of stability. The trade agreement is the country’s primary economic stabilizer, yet the baseline scenario remains defensive.
Here, Canada serves as a reference. Ottawa seems to be in a different position. While preserving the T-MEC is important for Canada, they are unwilling to cross certain lines or compromise protected areas. In contrast, Mexico’s discussion remains driven by urgency rather than strategy.
