I once heard that it would be difficult for Mexico to have entrepreneurial profiles like those found in other nations, particularly developed ones, where the innovation of certain individuals changes the reality known until then, forever.
I asked why. The answer was that, to begin with, most of the national markets were already occupied by a certain number of players and that innovation or the entry of new competitors was not a priority, since it was convenient to move towards concentration; the rest, my interlocutor continued, explained himself.
This trend, not only national, but also global, responds to an economic and welfare participation model that we need to discuss. Don’t discuss it. Discuss it so that common places and conventional wisdom are below the real arguments about what the effort means, how to measure it, and what it represents to reduce inequality in the country.
I understand that there may be annoyance about how those who, with that effort, rise socially are judged, but it is a false debate because nobody is in the criticism of overcoming, rather it is against it happening from corruption, impunity, “quatism”, and lack of scruples.
We must remember that it was precisely this social model, which did so much damage to us, one of the engines by which we made the decision to carry out a change of era in peace, through elections with massive attendance, and social pressure to that the results were respected. We considered that it was sufficient and we chose to change course.
It can be understood that sectors of the population, much less numerous than the vast majority, felt and felt displaced, although this is not very well founded, because one of the factors that allowed an economic advance to be achieved were the brief periods of stability that existed in previous six-year terms, but that did not last long.
In 2000, for example, we made a first exercise of change before the painful administration that preceded and was marked by a financial crisis in 1994 that affected practically all Mexicans and infected the entire world, in one of the years of greatest seizure that can be remembered in our recent history.
The promised change did not come and we were soon disappointed. Even though there were seasons of stability, the country’s main challenges only got worse and the dominant interests got stronger. No room to innovate, compete or transform then.
Then, in 2006, the division fueled by those same powers caused the second chance for change to be tainted by the lack of legitimacy of the closest election to that date. In a political decision that had been used in the past, only without considering that it was not the same context, a strategy of frontal collision with crime was announced to obtain peace, something that did not work.
For the next opportunity, a mixture of the usual tricks, with the illusion that you could change the image of what we had already rejected, arrived with a promise between the old and the new. The situation worsened to limits that we did not imagine and everything we already knew convinced us that the following could be the last opportunity to go in a direction of peace, tranquility and prosperity.
Whenever one makes a measurement, it is necessary to have a reference of what it is being compared against. Inequality has been evaluated many times, but not explained in the context that it is a burden that prevents opportunities from reaching everyone and that it is not just a matter of effort and desire to improve that allows socioeconomic growth to take place.
The difference is that today we debate on the basis that we could grow in other ways and that “trading to move forward” would not be the only way. That is already progress wherever it is seen.