1.

International trends at the beginning of XXI century

Since the beginning of the XXI century has seen dramatic changes in the
international economy, most notably the advance of globalization, the
intensity of technological change and the emergence of strong new
competitors.
We are facing an increasingly interconnected and complex world, the most
outstanding features are the uncertainty and constant change. Never
before has the political power, social relations, culture and international
economic factors are so complex and variable
The world is witnessing rapid economic, political and social changes that
will affect international relations in the twenty-first century. This is the rise of
multipolarity and geo-economics in the economic field, increasing
competition and conflict in the political arena and the implications of major
social changes: aging, growing inequality and rise of the middle classes in
the emerging powers .












1. 1. Globalization

Overall, the globalized world that is playing live closer distances tend to
shorten time and standardize processes. However, some of the paradigms
of globalization have proved perverse, they lead to increased differences,
often deep among the winners and forgotten by her.
A difficult term to define but in any case, is determined by two variables:
One relates to the globalization of financial nature that has taken place in
the world the warmth of two phenomena: technological advances and the
opening of capital markets.
The Bank for International Settlements has estimated that global money
transactions (in different currency markets) amounts to about 1.9 billion
dollars (four times the Spanish GDP). These capital flows have enriched and
ruined many countries, because the solvency of their currencies is a
function of the input and output of capital. And that explains, in part,
financial crises in Mexico, Russia, and Southeast Asia. Hence the anti-
globalization movements have claimed the establishment of the so-called
Tobin tax, which is nothing but the creation of a tax on capital movements.
The other globalization, it is transactions of goods and services that are
performed worldwide.
In this case, poor countries are the largest producers of raw materials
(which often coincide) claiming the opening of borders, since both the
United States and the EU there is a strong protectionism. Many NGOs which
demonstrate against globalization want to develop trade, but not capital.

1. 2. Flow of capital, financial schemes and investments
MICRO LEVEL
The provision of financial services has experienced a deep transformation in
the last decades, happening from a system basically of local character to
another internationalized increasing. The increasing liquidity availability has
incited a strong expansion in the activity of the transnational banking,
which improved the diffusion of the shocks of the economies industrialized
towards the emergent ones.
In a context where the capitals flow freely and the financial sector it is
completely desregulado, the banks can transform (almost automatically)
liquid flows into financial debits, which increases the possibility of a
desfasaje of currencies and of maturation. The indebtedness in
currency(coin) foreigner bears the risk of observing a desfasaje of
unfavorable currencies for the companies placed in the local way, since its
assets are still nominated in domestic currency(coin). Also a desfasaje might
present himself in period if, for case, the banks are anchored(searched) in
the exterior to length but they place loans in the short-term local way.
Under these circumstances a devaluation provokes wide consequences on
the patrimony of the companies and the economic(economical) agents.
Everything previous speaks about the importance of regulating the financial
deals(transactions) with the exterior, for which they get ready of an options
sinnmero. Between others they might stand out the introduction of certain
requests of lace on these flows up to the smooth and flat prohibition of
certain deals(transactions). Another option would happen(pass) for
prohibiting the entry (or to minimize the presence) of the foreign banking or
that this one provides with services to certain sectors (example: exporters)
and/or agents (example: transnational companies operating in the
country). Although this type of politics seems perimidas, the
characterization(description) of financial repression is what more mo
adapts himself to the politics continued(followed) by the authorities.

INSTITUCIONAL LEVEL.
The agreement of Bretton Woods showed a broad consensus about the
ability of sovereign States to control capital flows, position embodied in the
fourth chapter of the IMF. That consensus collapses in 1971, which marks the
beginning of a new era of financial liberalization and deregulation in the
markets. From there, a small group of countries led by the us embark on the
institutionalization of such a policy, with the intention of forcing the major
emerging economies which open their economies, including their financial
sectors. The changes are going to happen, facilitated by the broad power
of negotiation that they exhibited both industrialised economies and strong
weakness that showed the world in development particularly Latin
America. Thus, the prohibition to include any type of control also advanced
institutionally. At the same time arose a series of regulations designed to
ensure the opening of the capital account as well as progress in the
deregulation of financial systems. The ban was first introduced in the
statutes of the IMF, to then observed in the various agreements signed
within the scope of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO was also
the selected channel to speed up the institutionalization of the process of
financial deregulation, this topic where greater emphasis put U.S.
negotiators at the time of the Uruguay Round. Such an effort is going to be
captured at the time of the signing of the General Agreement on trade in
services (GATS / GATS), agree that becomes a constituent part of the new
body.
Financial commitments will be included in the annexes to both as in the
second and fifth Protocol to the GATS (commonly known as "Commitments
in financial services" or FSA for its acronym in English), the supplementary
agreement on the above-mentioned commitments and, finally, in the
agreement signed by each country is committed where the level of
liberalization.
It should be noted that special commitments made by member countries
are supported by the terms of access to the market and national
treatment, which ends up determining the liberalizing impact of the
agreement.Certainly, the commitments made under the framework of
GATS improved conditions of entry to the market at the time that ensured
non-discriminatory treatment to foreign investors.

1. 3 Globalization of Capitalism

Capitalism
Capitalism, also known as the free-enterprise or free-market system, is the
economic structure that permits people to use their private property
however they see fit, with minimal interference from the government. Under
capitalism, people are free to work at jobs of their own choosing, to try to
sell their products or services at whatever prices they wish, and to select
from among various product- and service-providers for the best value.

It should be noted that "pure" capitalism, unencumbered in any way by
government, exists neither in the United States nor anywhere else in the
world. Moreover, the capitalist system of present-day America differs in
significant ways from other capitalist systems around the globe, just as it
differs from the capitalism that existed in the U.S. at the turn of the 20th
century. While private-property rights and certain amounts of economic
freedom have always been part of American life since that time, those
rights and freedoms have become increasingly weighted down by heavy
governmental regulation.

Critics of capitalism believe it is imprudent to allow an unregulated market
to run its course, and to permit private citizens to make their own economic
decisions based on self-interest. Asserting that such systems are inherently
chaotic and inefficient, these critics propose that government regulators
and bureaucrats -- "experts" presumably unencumbered by the greed or
the impulse for self-interest that motivates private citizens -- should be
empowered to "manage" economies authoritatively. In response to these
positions, the Ludwig von Mises Institute scholar Robert P. Murphy writes:
"This view is flawed in two major respects. First it is impossible for a central
authority to plan an economy. New technologies (if entrepreneurs have
freedom to create new technologies), changes in consumer taste (if
consumers have freedom to pursue their tastes), and innumerable variables
that can affect production, distribution, and consumption of everything
from newspapers to lawnmowers on national or international scale are
simply not 'manageable' in the way socialist planners like to think they are.
Second, the planning bias completely misunderstands the role of profit and
loss in a market economy. Far from being arbitrary, a company's 'bottom
line' indicates whether an entrepreneur is doing what makes sense: if his
product is one that people want and if he is using his resources in the best
possible way."
Perhaps the most common objection to capitalism is the Marxist claim that
it exploits the poor in order to serve the interests of the rich. History shows,
however, that this is precisely the antithesis of the truth. In pre-capitalist,
medieval Europe, for example, most people either toiled in the fields to
which they were bound or they worked at crafts that were heavily
regulated by various guilds. The aristocracy, meanwhile, acquired a virtual
monopoly on luxury goods.
The rise of modern capitalism changed all this. The fortunes of the big
businessmen who emerged under capitalism no longer depended upon
the patronage of a few wealthy clients. Rather, these entrepreneurs began
catering to the needs and desires of a newly empowered working class
consisting of millions of people. By meeting those needs and desires,
businessmen greatly increased their own wealth and influence. In the first
days of the Industrial Revolution, workers were abused. Yet they organized
into unions that protected their interests and changed capitalism itself,
pressuring it to evolve from its early exploitative model to a more humane
one. As a result, capitalism helped improve the lives of people in every
social stratum. For example, the transition into the capitalist era brought a
dramatic decrease in infant-mortality rates and a significant rise in life
expectancy. Moreover, the average blue-collar worker under capitalism
was far wealthier than the bosses of socialist economies.

After the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, communist true-believers expected
that their system would offer the average person a better standard of living
than capitalism ever could. But the working classes in the United States lived
far better under capitalism than their counterparts in the Soviet Union under
communism, most of whom were subjected to impotence and
immiseration. Wherever communism was tried, it resulted not only in
economic deprivation but also in political tyranny and oppression.
Moreover, it brought about an immense wealth disparity between the
common people on the one hand, and government authorities and their
bureaucratic operatives (the nomenklatura) on the other.
Notwithstanding this historical track record, modern-day Western
intellectual elites continue to despise capitalism, blaming it for virtually every
social ill that can be identified. Indeed, feminists blame capitalism for the
inequitable treatment to which women were historically subjected. Civil
rights leaders blame capitalism for having created the psychological
conditions and the economic incentives that made the slave trade and
racial discrimination possible. Environmentalists blame free-market industrial
pursuits for poisoning the air and water, and for triggering the "climate
change" that allegedly threatens the well-being of every form of life on
earth. Peace activists blame war on greedy capitalists and their insatiable
thirst for wealth and empire. Consumer-advocacy groups allege that
capitalism encourages business to put "profits over people," and thus to be
inattentive to the needs and the safety of consumers. And moralists decry
the commercialization associated with capitalism.

Globalization

Globalization refers to the worldwide phenomenon of increased
technological, economic, and cultural interconnectedness between
nations. It is essentially capitalism on a global, rather than a national, scale.
In a globalized economy, economic activity is unrestricted by time zones or
national boundaries. There is an international exchange of labor forces,
ideas, knowledge, products, and services. This trend has accelerated
dramatically since the 1980s, as technological advances (most notably the
rise of the Internet and advances in telecommunications infrastructure)
have made it easier for people to travel, communicate, and do business
internationally.

The expansion of international trade and foreign investment was sparked
not only by technological progress, but also by two major sociopolitical
developments of the 1980s. One of these was the collapse of global
communism. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent dissolution of the
Soviet empire freed some 400 million people from the shackles of closed,
centrally commanded economic systems. The second development was
the demise of the Third Worlds reliance upon import substitution -- a trade
and economic policy founded on the idea that a developing country can
increase its wealth by importing as few goods as possible and relying
instead on locally produced substitutes. When import substitution proved to
be a colossal failure, struggling countries all over the world -- starting with
Chile in the mid-1970s and China later that decade -- began opening their
markets and welcoming foreign investment.
Opponents of globalization characterize the phenomenon as a form of
Western expansionism and cultural imperialism, claiming that it will merely
increase the opportunities for wealthier nations (and their multinational
corporations) to take advantage of poorer ones. This happens, the critics
say, because multinational corporations can exploit the cheap labor and
lax regulations typical of developing countries where there are no labor
unions. Believing, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that a
planned economy ensures the greatest economic benefit to the poor, the
anti-globalization movement tends to favor socialism over capitalism. It also
warns that globalization could eradicate regional diversity and lead to a
homogenized world culture where native cultures are swallowed up by
Western traditions.
Supporters of globalization respond by pointing out that since the 1980s,
every nation that has experienced an increase in its manufacturing output
has also seen its per capita income rise; that nations open to trade tend to
be much more prosperous than nations with closed economies; and that
the increased wages spawned by globalization correlate with reduced
poverty and improved living conditions for all. The most impressive gains in
this regard have been realized in East Asia.
The two most prominent pro-globalization entities today are the World Trade
Organization and the World Economic Forum. The former, consisting of 144
members, was created to establish a set of rules to govern global trade
through the process of member consensus. The latter is a private foundation
that does not possess decision-making power but is a powerful networking
forum for many of the worlds business, government, and not-profit leaders.

1. 4. Regionalization
The study of the regionalization of the principle that is required to subdivide
or split the country into a set of smaller regions and system within the limits so
as to facilitate the exercise of administrative control, resource allocation
models, management policies.
Fractionation can be called sub regionalization, and is usually performed by
one of the following methods or a combination of some of them.
Regionalization is a process methodology or intervention to modify the
order into smaller territorial units. The regionalization involves dividing a
territory into smaller areas with common characteristics and represents a
basic methodological tool in environmental planning, allowing knowledge
of resources for proper handling.
In a globalized economy, regionalism has become the mechanism used by
governments to guide their economic integration, promoting their internal
development and inserted into the international system.
The "Open Regionalism", applied to the integration agreements signed by
Latin America in recent decades-from what the MERCOSUR is an example,
where regional trade liberalization represents only a first step towards a
general liberalization is has constituted a formula passive adaptation
"address the growing vulnerability of the area."
This regionalism "new generation" in conjunction with "structural adjustment
model" implemented by our countries, far from being an instrument of
development and protection of its members against the risks of all kinds
generated by globalization, maximizing their ability action globally
functional for market economies and sectors operating in transnationalized
her, deepening the divide between countries, regions and the most
vulnerable.
Their progress in international trade and the flow of foreign direct
investment, in practice, has not helped to solve the problems of internal
development and increasing external vulnerability of the region. Many of
them even have worsened with the passage of time.

1. 5. Trade Integration and financial reforms of 2010 in the USA.
The deep changes in the global context that occurred in the last quarter of
the twentieth century are summarized in two movements articulated
dialectically: the Third Industrial Revolution and economic globalization,
based on the applications of science and advanced technology, as well as
the hegemonic crisis in the United States, which began in 1980, then
followed the 2007 financial crisis, which spilled over the following years at
the global, regional and national levels. Analysts compared the latter with
capitalism that he suffered during the thirties in the process of consolidation;
Regarding the first, even today its consequences are not foreseen. The truth
is that these events have changed so resounding sense of international
relations. In the political and economic field new players have emerged
midrange against the great powers, such as Brazil, Russia, India and China,
the BRIC countries, for short. This has had a profound impact on current
international relations, particularly in Mexico and the United States have
filed and are the particular object of this work.
The beginning of this new stage of relations can be placed in the crisis of
1980, from which the view of the American Union on the country changed
gradually, heat closer informal integration between the two economies
and societies formalized with the signing of the Free Trade in North America
(NAFTA) in 1994 America thus, its many links, which in most cases have not
been free of conflict have changed over the last 16 years; also the
consequences that can be felt in the economic, political and cultural fields,
have not always been positive and usually deepen. This allows us to more
clearly otear your progress and make suggestions to Mexico to get the most
out of the relationship.
It should be emphasized that the apparent cultural and social fence
tended to protect both countries from a deeper, dangerous to safeguard
their national identities and their own economic and sociopolitical interests
assimilation has been breaking through the constant impact of American
way of life on the high-income population, whose consumption patterns are
similar to those of the northern neighbor. For its part, the nationalist right has
come to accept, not without reluctance, the significant contribution not
only bilateral trade but the hand of migrant Mexican labor, seeking new
horizons in that country.
No doubt that the glare of technological progress and material
improvement which it endeavors and working facilities, increase in income
and opportunities for improvement in the living standards of the American
world presents, are attractive to a wide range of media and Mexican
professional sectors that still struggle to get in the country better life
alternatives, given the limited growth that has occurred over the past 30
years due to the recurrent economic crises such as the 2007, a result of the
recession American economy, which makes 90 percent of its exports.
Thus, the large influx of Mexican immigrants crossing the border to survive or
to improve their situation has generated new cultural practices that
gradually have broken the barriers, expressed in pressure, abuse and
disregard of cheap labor that however, it is vital to expand the profitability
of American agriculture and services sectors.
On this basis of mutual interest informal support from the United States to
favor a policy of engagement, which led to a more formal and extensive
economic and cultural integration through NAFTA and has expanded
through other agreements explained, as the Alliance for security and
Prosperity Partnership of North America, Mexico tend to be involved directly
in security strategy that the American government wants to strengthen
exchange for economic aid and political support for their decisions in the
international arena , particularly in Latin America. That's why at government
level approaches, negotiations and mutual commitments not only been
designed to maintain peaceful coexistence between the two states, but to
seek closer collaboration, trying to complement both economies. Mend
fences was a difficult process for both governments: for example, politicians
and economists in the United States made harsh criticisms of the old
Mexican socio-economic institutions, seated on an economic statism
promoted by an authoritarian and undemocratic, reluctant to implement
fundamental reforms regime in both planes.
These actors perceived the gradual opening of the economy to global
competition and the ever-long political modernization played for
inefficiency and corruption, undermining not only the economy, but also
affected the social consensus, and cracked by the deteriorating of living
standards of the majority of the population or threatening to destabilize in
terms polticos8 that was not functional to the interests of both countries. This
made it easier to change perspective, but also influenced the decision of
the Mexican government to make radical adjustments in the structure of
the economy not only to overcome the crisis, but to adapt to a dynamic
insertion in the context of global competition .
In the relationship prevailed cordiality, friendship and dialogue almost since
November 1988, when the first meeting of the elected presidents of both
countries held in Houston until their last meeting in November 1990 in
Monterrey This resulted in a closer cooperation. The economic relief that
Mexico experienced going from the economic crisis of the eighties to the
debt crisis was due to the implementation of the Brady Plan, in which the
support of the United States was fundamental. The attempts at conflict by
invading the American Union Panama and the drug problem were handled
with skill by the Government of Mexico, in order not to disturb the favorable
climate of understanding to formalize economic negotiations and
accelerate the economic integration of Mexico to the United States.
In conclusion

Despite the opportunities created by globalization and the changes that it
entails for the "new global economy", most Third World countries have been
unable to take advantage effectively.
When actual progress was discussed in terms of sustained growth, poverty
reduction and external balances are clear weaknesses that developing
countries face.
This has been the result of both the characteristics assumed by the
globalization process and the adverse effects most Third World countries
derived from the way that they are integrated into the "new global
economy".