>I think it was Barkley who wrote:
>>>Mine,
>>> I do not disagree that the wages suck. But, are
>>>they better than what those workers got on the ejidos?
>
>now Brad writes:
>>The voting-with-the-feet pattern suggests an answer...
>
>As Michael suggests, we should look for push factors rather than
>blithely assuming that only the "pull" factors of the maquilas and
>the urban blight.
>
>When I was in Mexico a few years ago (about 3 years ago), people
>were talking about the PRI agriculture minister's plan to liquidate
>the ejido sector, because of its alleged inefficiency (from the
>point of view of the PRI elite, I would guess), which would have
>encouraged a massive move of population to the cites and to the
>maquilas. I haven't kept track, but I would guess that a more
>moderate version of this plan was implemented. Does anyone know
>what's happening with respect to that idea?
>
>In any event, as I understand it, the ejidos were not extremely
>successful, because the Mexican government (unlike, say, the
>Taiwanese government after WW2) because they didn't provide
>agricultural credit and the like. Though the ejidos allowed Mexican
>peasants to survive with a certain amount of self-sufficiency, they
>were pockets of poverty. I would like to be corrected if my
>impression is wrong on this issue. Like Michael, I wish David Barkin
>were on the list. Of course, he dropped out because there were many
>too many missives on pen-l (and as he said last time I saw him, a
>big chunk of the blame is mine to bear, though I got the impression
>he liked the content of my overproduction).
>
>Jim Devine
I don't see the distinction between being pushed out of ejidos by
poverty and being pulled into maquiladoras by higher wages. It's
never push *or* pull, it's always both...
