The article looks at Master of Public Administration (MPA) programs in Mexico and identifies four basic themes that compose Mexican public administration. Public service, justice, transparency, and good governance are all found in MPA programs in Mexico. The paper begins with an examination of public administration in Mexico and suggests that Mexico is currently undergoing its own progressive era. It looks at the administrative reforms and corruption in Mexico and their impact on various functions of government. MPA program curricula in Mexico are assessed to examine course offerings as they contribute to the reform movement. We introduce our study by highlighting key issues in the country of Mexico and then proceed to discuss their absence in some MPA programs. Finally, our findings show the various course offerings and regional differences in MPA program curricula.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArchiboldC. R. (2013, February 18). Memo from Mexico City: Unabated violence poses challenges to Mexico’s new anticrime program. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/world/americas/mexico-anticrime-plan-challenged-by-unabated-violence.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
2.
Arellano-GaultD. (2000). Challenges for the New Public Management: Organizational culture and the administrative modernization program in Mexico City (1995–1997).American Review of Public Administration, 30(4), 400–413.
3.
Arellano-GaultD. (2012). The evaluation of performance in the Mexican federal government: A study of the monitoring agencies’ modernization process.Public Administration Review, 72(1), 135–142.
4.
BenavidesA. D. (2006). Transparency and public administration in Mexico: How the enactment of a law is changing culture.Journal of Public Affairs Education, 12(4), 461–477.
5.
BohorquezE. (2006). Indice Nacional de Corrupcion y Buen Gobierno [National Index of Corruption and Good Government]. Transparencia Mexicana. Retrieved from http://www.infodf.org.mx/iaipdf/extra/doctos/bohorquez.pdf
6.
CabreroE. (2005). Between New Public Management and New Public Governance: The case of Mexican municipalities.International Public Management Review, 6(1), 76–99.
7.
Cabrero-MendozaE. (1999). Mexican local governance in transition: Fleeting change or permanent transformation?American Review of Public Administration, 30(4), 374–388.
8.
CejudoM. G. (2003). Public management policy change in Mexico, 1982–2000. International Public Management Journal, 6(3), 309–325.
9.
CejudoM. G. (2008). Explaining change in the Mexican public sector: The limits of New Public Management.International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(1), 111–127.
10.
CiaramitaroF. (2008, July–December). El Virrey y su Gobierno en Nueva España y Sicilia. Analogías y Diferencias entre Periferias del Imperio Hispánico [The Viceroy and His Government in New Spain and Sicilia. Analogies and Differences Between Boundaries of the Hispanic Empire], Estudios de Historia Novohispana [History Studies of New Spain], 39, 117–154. ISSN 1870-9060. Retrieved from http://www.historicas.unam.mx/publicaciones/revistas/novohispana/pdf/novo39/novo39_prelim.pdf
11.
ClearyR. M. (2007). Electoral competition, participation, and government responsiveness in Mexico.American Journal of Political Science, 51(2), 283–299.
12.
Comisión Nacional del Agua [National Water Commission] (CONAGUA). (2011). Logors en el Sector Hidrico 2007–2010 [Achievements in the Hydraulic Sector 2007–2010]. MexicoD. F.: Author.
13.
EbensteinW. (1945). Public administration in Mexico.Public Administration Review, 5(2), 102–112.
14.
Figueroa EsquerR. (2012, Spring). El Tiempo Eje de México, 1855–1867 [The Key Time Period of Mexico, 1855–1867]. Departamento de Estudios Generales [Department of General Studies], ITAM Estudios 100, vol. x, 25–56. Retrieved from http://biblioteca.itam.mx/estudios/100-110/100/RaulFigueroaEsquerEltiempoejedemexico.pdf
15.
GrindleM. S. (2006). Modernising town hall: Capacity building with a political twist.Public Administration and Development, 26, 55–69.
16.
GrindleM. S. (2007). Going local: Decentralization, democratization, and the promise of good governance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
GuerreroJ.HofbauerH. (2003). Transparencia Presupuestaria en Cinco Paises de America Latina, Resultados en 2001 [Budgetary Transparency in Five Latin American Countries, Results in 2001]. México, M.A.: Porrúa y CIDE [Porrua Edition and Center for Investigation and Economic Teaching].
18.
GuerreroO. (2010). La Administración Publica Durante La Lucha de Independencia y La Primera Republica (Federal) (1810–1836) [Public Administration During the Struggle for Independence and the First Federal Republic (1810–1836)]. Instituto Nacional de Administración Publica [National Institute of Public Administration], 30–39.
19.
HiskeyT. J.BowlerS. (2005). Local context and democratization in Mexico.American Journal of Political Science, 49(1), 57–71.
20.
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia (INEGI) [National Institute of Statistics and Geography]. (2012). Regiones Socieconómicas de México [Socioeconomic Regions of Mexico]. Retrieved from http://sc.inegi.gob.mx/niveles/index.jsp
21.
Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia (INEGI) [National Institute of Statistics and Geography]. (2011). Censo Nacional de Gobierno, Seguridad Pública y Sistema Penitenciario Estatales [National Government Census, Public Safety and the State Penitentiary System]. Retrieved from http://www.inegi.org.mx/lib/olap/consulta/general_ver4/MDXQueryDatos.asp?proy=cng2011_transantipee?s=est
22.
KlingnerE. D. (2000). South of the border: Progress and problems in implementing New Public Management reforms in Mexico today.American Review of Public Administration, 30(4), 365–373.
23.
Mexican Housing Authority. (2011, January 26). Sustainable housing: A solution for Mexico. Knowledge@ Wharton. Retrieved from http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2697
24.
MoralesP. C. (1999). El Proceso Administrativo Publico: La Planeación-Programación, la Organización y el Control de la Administración Pública [The Public Administrative Process: The Planning and Programming, the Organization and the Control of the Public Administration]. Editorial Purrúa, Mexico. Retrieved from http://www.worldcat.org/title/proceso-administrativo-publico-la-planeacionprogramacion-la-organizacion-y-el-control-de-la-administracion-publica/oclc/237329737
PerlmanB. J.GuadarramaJ. (2011). Rethinking a megalopolis: A metropolitan government proposal for the Mexico City metro area.State and Local Government Review, 42(2), 144–150.
29.
RodriguezV. E.WardP. M. (1991). Opposition politics, power and public administration in urban Mexico.Bulletin of Latin American Research, 10(1), 23–36.
30.
RosenbloomD. H. (1998). Public administration: Understanding management, politics, and the law in the public sector (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
31.
Saint-GermainM. A. (1995). Similarities and differences in perceptions of public service among public administrators on the U. S.–Mexican border.Public Administration Review, 55(6), 507–516.
32.
SánchezG. J. J. (2009). Origen y Desarrollo del Estudio de la Administración Publica en México [Origin and Development of the Study of Public Administration in Mexico].Convergencia, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México [Autonomous University of the State of Mexico], 16(49), 1–4. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S1405-14352009000100003&script=sci_arttext
33.
SullivanL. (2006). Governance in Mexico: A lack of experience at the local level.LBJ Journal of Public Affairs, 18(2), 38–46.
34.
VilloriaM. (2007). Informe Nacional: España. Global de la Corrupción 2007: Corrupción en Sistemas Judiciales [National Bulletin: Spain. Global Corruption Report, 2007: Corruption in Judicial Systems]. Buenos Aires: Editores del Puerto [Editors of the Harbor].
35.
VilloriaM.Van RyzinG. G.LavenaC. F. (2013). Social and political consequences of administrative corruption: A study of public perceptions in Spain.Public Administration Review, 73(1), 85–94.
36.
WaiteD.AllenD. (2003). Corruption and abuse of power in educational administration.Urban Review, 35(4), 281–296.
37.
WerlinH. H. (2003). Poor nations, rich nations: A theory of governance.Public Administration Review, 63(3), 329–342.
38.
WilsonW. (1887). The study of administration.Political Science Quarterly, 2(2), 197–222.
39.
Also in Jay M.ShafritzAlbertC. Hyde, Classics of Public Administration (7th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
