MiCISAN

Garcia Niño, Arturo E.

Velasco Montante, Astrid

MiCISAN (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico)

¿Atípicas narrativas o expresiones inherentes al espíritu de los tiempos? (postales para un reacercamiento autocrítico a la narconarrativa)

Schiavon, Jorge A.

98
Voices of Mexico •  103
Mexican Sub-National Governments’ 
International Relations 
In North America
Jorge A. Schiavon*
IntroductIon
Traditionally, foreign policy has been controlled exclusively 
by nation-states, and its main objective has been to protect 
their sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. The 
bureaucracy in charge of international affairs is responsible 
for determining and carrying out this policy in order to max-
imize the national interest and reduce the costs and increase 
the benefits of the state’s participation in the international 
system. To attain this goal, national governments have to main-
tain a unified position vis-à-vis the exterior. As a result, the 
implementation of foreign policy has been a prerogative of 
the central government. As a matter of fact, the Vienna Con-
vention on the Law of Treaties establishes that heads of state 
or government and the ministers of foreign affairs are con-
sidered representatives of their states and, therefore, those 
who conduct foreign policy. In the case of Mexico, according 
to Article 89, Subsection X of the Constitution, foreign pol-
icy is an exclusive prerogative of the president, who coordi-
nates it through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (sre).
However, in the last two to three decades, the federal ex-
ecutive’s exclusive monopoly over international affairs has 
been increasingly challenged. In Mexico, the number of inter-
nal actors that participate in international issues has grown 
considerably, even though the president maintains the con-
stitutional power to direct foreign policy and conclude inter-
national treaties. In particular, sub-national governments 
(sngs), both at state and municipal levels, have challenged the 
federal government’s monopoly over external affairs by sig-
nificantly increasing their international relations. These ex-
ternal activities have dubbed the international relations of 
sub-national governments (Irsngs) sub-national diplomacy, 
local diplomacy, federative diplomacy, or paradiplomacy. As 
a result, Mexico and the sre face an important challenge: 
coordinating foreign policy and the Irsngs, in order to con-
duct a unified, coherent foreign policy vis-à-vis the world, but 
representative of the aggregation of the different interests of 
sub-national governments.
* Professor of international relations, Department of International 
Studies, Center for Economic Research and Teaching (cIde); 
jorge.schiavon@cide.edu.
D
an
ie
l B
ec
er
ril
 / 
Re
ut
er
s
99
special section
This article analyses Mexico’s Irsngs, with special em-
phasis on their relations with North America. It explains the 
causes of the increasing Irsngs in Mexico, how they are con-
ducted, the areas of international cooperation, and the exter-
nal counterparts.
Why are mexIcan sngs 
goIng InternatIonal?
Globalization can be defined as the multiplication of inter-
national interactions as a result of the growing flows of infor-
mation, goods, services, capital, and persons made possible 
by the reduction in the transaction costs of information, cur-
rency exchange, movement, and transportation. Its growth 
has significantly increased the costs of isolation for national 
governments in the international system. New actors with 
international influence have decreasing costs of participation 
in external affairs, generating incentives for sngs to participate 
more actively in international issues. Specifically for Mexico, 
the last three decades have witnessed a remarkable interna-
tionalization of the country. As a result of the incentives gen-
erated by globalization and interdependence, Mexico changed 
its economic model and development strategy from a closed 
economy with strong state intervention and an import-sub-
stitution industrialization model, into an open economy that 
promotes economic development through integration into 
the international market and the promotion of exports. From 
1993 to 2008, the sum of imports and exports increas ed 
from 30 percent to 65 percent of gdp. Economic liberalization 
generated incentives for greater competition among sngs in 
the global market to place their exports and attract foreign 
direct investment to boost local development.
The international system’s globalization and interdepen-
dence has been accompanied over the last 30 years by a wave 
of democratization and decentralization around the globe. The 
return to democracy in the developing world and the growing 
decentralization of power have provided the incentives for 
sngs to participate in areas formerly monopolized by the cen-
tral government, including international affairs. The demo-
cratic transition in Mexico in 2000 —and since 1989 at the 
state level when the National Action Party (pan) won the Baja 
California governorship— opened up political space for a broad-
er and more diverse representation of sngs, while administra-
tive decentralization gave these actors powers and resources 
to implement public policies closer to their preferences.
In sum, the increasing participation of the Mexican sngs 
in the international arena corresponds to a combination of 
domestic (democratization, decentralization, and liberalization) 
and international (globalization and interdependence) vari-
ables. The democratization of the system, together with eco-
nomic liberalization and decentralization, created the spaces 
and incentives for the sngs to actively participate in interna-
tional affairs, with the objective of advancing their particular 
interests and strengthening their local development. Con-
sidering this, it can be argued that, in the face of an open, 
competitive global market, with the existence of a more plu-
ral economic and political system in Mexico, Mexican sngs’ 
international activities will pursue three main objectives: 
1) finding markets for their exports; 2) attracting foreign 
direct investment and cooperation for productive activities 
within their territory; and 3) strengthening ties with their 
emigrant populations to promote their protection and to en-
courage the flow of remittances and the productive invest-
ment of part of them.
hoW much InternatIonalIzatIon 
of mexIcan sngs?
Based on the institutionalization and the economic and poli-
tical activities of Mexican sngs, a Mexican Index (mI-Irsngs) 
can be constructed to measure the changes over time of the 
country’s Irsngs.
Table 1 clearly shows that the Irsngs in Mexico have in-
creased considerably during the last decade. From 2004 to 
2009, they rose by over 40 percent; and between 2009 and 
2014, they grew almost 33 percent more, for an accumu-
lated growth (using 2004 as the base year) in the decade 
from 2004 to 2014 of over 85 percent. By 2014, the major-
ity of the states were at the high level of Irsngs, while five 
had reached the maximum level of very high (Chiapas, Mex-
ico City’s Federal District, the State of Mexico, Jalisco, and 
Querétaro), carrying out every possible international activity 
Sub-national governments,   
both at state and municipal levels, have challenged  
the federal government’s monopoly  
over external affairs by significantly increasing  
their international relations.
100
Voices of Mexico •  103
table 1
mexIcan Index of sub-natIonal governments’ InternatIonal relatIons
Federal entities
Total 
2004 2004 irsngs
Total 
2009 2009 irsngs
Total 
2014 2014 irsngs
Aguascalientes 0.90 Low-High 1.10 Medium-Low 2.40 High-Average
Baja California 2.00 High-Low 2.40 High-Average 2.60 High-Average
Baja California Sur 1.30 Medium-Low 1.80 Medium-High 1.80 Medium-High
Campeche 1.50 Medium-Average 1.70 Medium-High 2.30 High-Low
Coahuila 1.90 Medium-High 2.60 High-Average 2.60 High-Average
Colima 1.10 Medium-Low 1.10 Medium-Low 1.10 Medium-Low
Chiapas 2.00 High-Low 3.00 Very High 3.00 Very High
Chihuahua 1.50 Medium-Average 1.90 Medium-High 2.30 High-Low
Durango 0.90 Low-High 1.80 Medium-High 2.40 High-Average
Guanajuato 1.70 Medium-High 2.10 High-Low 2.80 High-High
Guerrero 0.90 Low-High 1.10 Medium-Low 1.80 Medium-High
Hidalgo 1.30 Medium-Low 1.90 Medium-High 2.80 High-High
Jalisco 2.60 High-Average 3.00 Very High 3.00 Very High
Mexico City 0.90 Low-High 3.00 Very High 3.00 Very High
Michoacán 1.30 Medium-Low 2.20 High-Low 2.60 High-Average
Morelos 1.10 Medium-Low 1.70 Medium-High 2.10 High-Low
Nayarit 1.10 Medium-Low 1.50 Medium-Average 1.50 Medium-Average
Nuevo León 1.90 Medium-High 2.80 High-High 2.80 High-High
Oaxaca 1.10 Medium-Low 1.30 Medium-Low 2.40 High-Low
Puebla 1.70 Medium-High 1.90 Medium-High 2.80 High-High
Querétaro 0.90 Low-High 1.30 Medium-Low 3.00 Very High
Quintana Roo 1.30 Medium-Low 1.90 Medium-High 2.60 High-Average
San Luis Potosí 0.90 Low-High 1.50 Medium-Average 2.30 High-Low
Sinaloa 1.10 Medium-Low 1.10 Medium-Low 1.90 Medium-High
Sonora 1.70 Medium-High 1.70 Medium-High 2.40 High-Average
State of Mexico 1.90 Medium-High 3.00 Very High 3.00 Very High
Tabasco 1.50 Medium-Average 1.70 Medium-High 2.60 High-Average
Tamaulipas 1.50 Medium-Average 1.70 Medium-High 2.10 High-Low
Tlaxcala 1.10 Medium-Low 1.50 Medium-Average 1.50 Medium-Average
Veracruz 1.50 Medium-Average 2.20 High-Low 2.80 High-High
Yucatán 1.10 Medium-Low 2.00 High-Low 2.60 High-Average
Zacatecas 1.10 Medium-Low 1.70 Medium-High 2.50 High-Average
Average 1.38 Medium-Average 1.91 Medium-High 2.42 High-Average
 
Source:  Jorge A. Schiavon, “Una década de acción internacional de los gobiernos locales mexicanos (2005-2015),” Revista Mexicana de Política 
Exterior no. 104 (May-August 2015), pp. 103-127. The mI-Irsngs vary between 0 and 3; if Total = 3, then very high; if 2 ≤ Total < 3, then 
high; if 1 ≤ Total < 2, then medium; and if Total < 1, then low. Each category can be subdivided into three sub-categories; for example, if 
1.67 ≤ Total < 2, then medium-high; if 1.33 ≤ Total < 1.67, then medium-average; and if 1 ≤ Total < 1.33, then medium-low.
101
special section
table 2
Inter-InstItutIonal agreements (IIa) by federal entIty, 
level of government, and type of agreement
Level of Government Type of Agreement
Federal Entity iia % of Total State % Total Municipal % of Total Sisterhood % of Total Other % of Total
Aguascalientes 7 1.05 3 42.86 4 57.14 4 57.14 3 42.86
Baja California 14 2.10 6 42.86 8 57.14 4 28.57 10 71.43
Baja California Sur 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Campeche 9 1.35 3 33.33 6 66.67 5 55.56 4 44.44
Chihuahua 28 4.19 22 78.57 6 21.43 4 14.29 24 85.71
Chiapas 74 11.08 62 83.78 12 16.22 7 9.46 67 90.54
Coahuila 9 1.35 2 22.22 7 77.78 7 77.78 2 22.22
Colima 1 0.15 1 100.00 0 0.00 1 100.00 0 0.00
Durango 15 2.25 13 86.67 2 13.33 2 13.33 13 86.67
Guanajuato 20 2.99 8 40.00 12 60.00 11 55.00 9 45.00
Guerrero 6 0.90 2 33.33 4 66.67 2 33.33 4 66.67
Hidalgo 17 2.54 10 58.82 7 41.18 7 41.18 10 58.82
Jalisco 139 20.81 90 64.75 49 35.25 43 30.94 96 69.06
Mexico City 38 5.69 38 100.00 0 0.00 15 39.47 23 60.53
Michoacán 37 5.54 11 29.73 26 70.27 25 67.57 12 32.43
Morelos 7 1.05 1 14.29 6 85.71 6 85.71 1 14.29
Nayarit 6 0.90 4 66.67 2 33.33 1 16.67 5 83.33
Nuevo León 39 5.84 7 17.95 32 82.05 28 71.79 11 28.21
Oaxaca 16 2.40 14 87.50 2 12.50 1 6.25 15 93.75
Puebla 21 3.14 8 38.10 13 61.90 12 57.14 9 42.86
Querétaro 15 2.25 6 40.00 9 60.00 5 33.33 10 66.67
Quintana Roo 23 3.44 6 26.09 17 73.91 16 69.57 7 30.43
San Luis Potosí 14 2.10 1 7.14 13 92.86 12 85.71 2 14.29
Sinaloa 2 0.30 1 50.00 1 50.00 0 0.00 2 100.00
Sonora 14 2.10 13 92.86 1 7.14 1 7.14 13 92.86
State of Mexico 49 7.34 17 34.69 32 65.31 33 67.35 16 32.65
Tabasco 6 0.90 5 83.33 1 16.67 0 0.00 6 100.00
Tamaulipas 6 0.90 0 0.00 6 100.00 6 100.00 0 0.00
Tlaxcala 2 0.30 2 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 100.00
Veracruz 15 2.25 1 6.67 14 93.33 13 86.67 2 13.33
Yucatán 11 1.65 7 63.64 4 36.36 2 18.18 9 81.82
Zacatecas 8 1.20 2 25.00 6 75.00 4 50.00 4 50.00
Total 668 100.00 366 54.79 302 45.21 277 41.47 391 58.53
 
Source:  Jorge A. Schiavon, “Una década de acción internacional de los gobiernos locales mexicanos (2005-2015),” Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior 
no. 104 (May-August 2015), pp. 103-127.
102
Voices of Mexico •  103
measured by the mI-Irsngs. Also, all the federal entities 
increased their international relations in these ten years, and 
none of them reversed in internationalization (the interna-
tional actions carried out were institutionalized and main-
tained or increased over the decade).
InternatIonal actIvItIes of mexIcan sngs
Mexico’s legal framework gives ample powers to Mexican 
sngs to conduct international relations in those areas in which 
they have legal jurisdiction, through inter-institutional agree-
ments (IIas). These are the legal instruments through which 
sngs conduct international relations with foreign govern-
mental agencies, international organizations, and other pri-
vate and public actors. The areas of cooperation they cover are 
to be strictly circumscribed within the faculties of the state 
or municipal actors. sngs have to keep the sre inform ed of 
their negotiation and conclusion, and if the latter determines 
that the agreements are legal, they are registered in the official 
record, the Registry of Inter-Institutional Agreements (rIIa), 
publicly available on the sre web page.1
When we analyze the 668 IIas signed by Mexican sngs 
included in the registry,2 we can understand their interna-
tional activities and who their international partners are. First, 
the number of agreements signed by Mexican states and 
their municipalities vary considerably; the vast majority are 
signed by states with high or very high levels of Irsngs (Jalis-
co, Chiapas, the State of Mexico, Nuevo León, and Mexico 
City). Second, there appears to be a balance in the IIas signed 
by state and municipal governments, each signing approxi-
mately half. Third, due to Mexico’s geographical location, it 
is not surprising that cooperation is centered in the Americas 
(North America, Latin America, and the Caribbean), which 
accounts for almost 60 percent of all IIas. The states that 
share a physical border with the United States or Central 
America have significantly higher levels of cooperation than 
the rest of the Mexican sngs with these regions. Fourth, in 
terms of countries, the highest degree of cooperation is with 
the United States (116 out of 668 IIas), approximately one-
fourth of all IIas nationwide, but increasing considerably 
in the case of Mexican states that share a border with this 
country (over 50 percent in Baja California, Coahuila, Nuevo 
León, Sonora, and Tamaulipas). The degree of cooperation 
through IIas is particularly intense with the U.S. state of Texas, 
which concentrates almost 10 percent of all IIas; if it were 
a country, it would be third in cooperation, trailing only the 
United States and Spain.
Fifth, international cooperation is concentrated in areas 
in which the sngs have legal powers (among the most im-
portant: education, culture, tourism, trade, science and tech-
nology, human resources training, and investment). Finally, 
sixth, Mexican sngs concentrate their international activities 
in areas that promote local development and welfare, by 
strengthening human capital or generating well-being.
conclusIons
Mexican sngs increasingly participate in international affairs 
as a result of a combination of domestic (democratization, 
decentralization, and liberalization) and international (glo-
balization and interdependence) variables. With important 
variations between states, Irsngs in Mexico have increased 
table 3
Inter-InstItutIonal agreements 
by area of cooperatIon
Rank Area % of total
1 Education 59.79%
2 Culture 56.63%
3 Tourism 38.55%
4 Trade 33.28%
5 Science and Technology 29.82%
6 Human Resources 23.04%
7 Investment 22.89%
8 Environment 20.03%
9 Urban Development 18.41%
10 Security 8.68%
Source:  Jorge A. Schiavon, “Una década de acción internacional 
de los gobiernos locales mexicanos (2005-2015),” Revista 
mexi ca na de política exterior no. 104 (May-August 2015), 
pp. 103-127. 
Increasing participation of Mexican sngs  
in the international arena corresponds  
to a combination of domestic (democratization, 
decentralization, and liberalization) and international 
(globalization and interdependence) variables. 
103
special section
over 85 percent in the last decade. During this period, all 
sngs have bolstered their international relations, and none 
of them has reversed its internationalization.
International cooperation agreements are concentrated 
in sngs with high or very high levels of Irsngs. Almost 60 
percent of international partners are located in the Americas 
and the highest level of cooperation takes place with the 
United States (with approximately one-fourth of all agree-
ments); and Mexican states that share a border with the U.S. 
have higher degrees of cooperation with it. Irsngs are con-
centrated in areas in which the sngs have legal juristiction, 
like education, culture, tourism, trade, science and technology, 
human resources training, and investment, and they conduct 
these international activities to promote local development 
and well-being. 
notes
1 The web page is http://www.sre.gob.mx/gobiernoslocales.
2 As of January 1, 2015.


English

Special Section

Hradecky, Sara

Embajadora Sara Hradecky (6/oct./2011-31/mar./2015)

Santín Peña, Oliver

Politics

Pacheco Bribiesca, Ricardo Claudio

The Splendor of Mexico

Camacho Reyes, Patricia

Capitán de Fragata Patricia Camacho Reyes, Armada de México

José, Tania

Art and Culture

Burgos, Mylai

Primera parte. Confiando en los derechos humanos: un uso político con objetivos de transformación social

Joysmith, Claire

Pérz Palacios, Diana Paulina

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Not a member yet

¿Atípicas narrativas o expresiones inherentes al espíritu de los tiempos? (postales para un reacercamiento autocrítico a la narconarrativa)

Special Section

Embajadora Sara Hradecky (6/oct./2011-31/mar./2015)

Politics

The Splendor of Mexico

Capitán de Fragata Patricia Camacho Reyes, Armada de México

Art and Culture

Primera parte. Confiando en los derechos humanos: un uso político con objetivos de transformación social

Special Section

Art and Culture

2,826

6,911