With the recent approval of Mexico's energy reform and the current enthusiasm of South American governments to attract foreign investment in oil, one might be tempted to conclude that the tide of resource nationalism is receding in the region. Nevertheless, the cycles of investment and expropriation that have characterized the oil sector in Latin America are unlikely to go away.
On May 23, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto signed a series of bills to implement constitutional changes to the country’s political and electoral processes. The reforms bring some of the most dynamic shifts to Mexican politics since the 1990s, including replacing the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) with the National Electoral Institute (INE). The new INE and the measures behind it now strive to replicate the IFE’s success in the country's states and municipalities.
Under proposed legislation to implement Mexico’s energy reforms, Pemex will remain a privileged state operator supporting exploration and production in most of the country's proven onshore and shallow water fields. It is not known if energy reform will effectively turn Pemex into a firm able to compete without policy bias against private investors.
Energy regulation under Mexico's energy-sector reforms are of great interest to investors, since autonomous regulators—protected from political pressures and able to make and sustain technical decisions—can guarantee greater legal consistency than government authorities exposed to political pressures. The difficulty was finding an alternative model that ensured the institutional strengthening of the agencies without relinquishing too much control of the executive branch.
Mexico's organized crime groups have expanded into areas that include the theft of crude oil, gas and gasoline. The impact of organized crime on the energy sector is a real threat to the intended effects of Mexico's energy reforms.
Mexico’s 2013–2014 energy reform promises to bring the country’s economic drivers and regulatory institutions in line with the global practices of free market democracies. If successful, this development would be a 180-degree turn. The accomplishment of such realignment is hardly assured, however.
In 2012, the Drug Policy Program at Rice University’s Baker Institute and the South Texas College of Law (STCL) established a unique agreement to work together on model legislation for the decriminalization and regulation of marijuana in Texas. The collaboration was initiated by students and supported by the administrations and faculties of both educational institutions. South Texas College of Law students produced 19 separate statutes for their public law course in the spring 2013 semester. They were asked to write model legislation regarding some aspect of marijuana policy and provide well-reasoned commentary for their statutes. Experts from the Baker Institute’s Drug Policy Program gave guest lectures on drug policy issues and worked with STCL professor Drury Stevenson to provide a general direction for the course.
The goal of the collaboration between the STCL and the Baker Institute was to create a variety of statutes that legislators and government officials can consult and learn from as marijuana policy is increasingly debated over the next decade. Neither the Baker Institute nor the South Texas College of Law endorses any particular policy. The model legislation has not undergone editorial review by the Baker Institute.
