Re-Imagining the U.S.-Mexico Border: Policies toward a More Competitive and Sustainable Transborder Region
The U.S.-Mexico border region has two important but often overlooked characteristics. First, it is the physical place of most of the integration between the United States and Mexico, including market driven integration such as trade flows, migration, and investment as well as policy driven integration such as security cooperation, infrastructure development, and emergency response. Second, the border region has a growing transnational population that lives, works, goes to school, and participates in family and social networks on both sides of the border. Recent U.S. policy has hardened the border in response to concerns about terrorism, drug and human trafficking, undocumented migration, and arms smuggling. The consequences of these policies include disruption of the on-going economic integration, large external costs imposed on the growing transnational population, and barriers to progress on a number of issues of national importance, including dispute resolution, migration, and environmental management, among others. The paper identifies and discusses the advantages of the three different definitions of the border in current usage: counties and municipios that touch the border; the 100 kilometer boundary first set by the La Paz Agreement and later amended to 300 kilometers in Mexico and 100 in the U.S.; and the ten states that are along the border. The hardening of the border is partly the result of a lack of border institutions and the inability of border residents to speak in a common voice when they talk to their capitals. This is changing, however, as new institutions such as the Border Governors Conference take on a more active role in promoting the interests of border states and border regions. An examination of a recent Delphi survey of border decision-makers shows a high degree of cross border agreement on the goals and needs of the region in key areas such as competitiveness, security, and sustainability.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 10 (2011)
Issue (Month): 4 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.degruyter.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/gej|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:glecon:v:10:y:2011:i:4:n:5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.