Market and Society during the Porfirian Export Boom from the
Perspective of Intellectual History
Richard Weiner, Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne
Segundo Congreso Latinoamericano de Historia Económica, 3-5 February 2010, Mexico City
INTRODUCTION
There are numerous ways in which modern scholars evaluate 19th century Latin
American export economies. One method that has become more common in recent scholarship
has been to assess the social consequences of the export economies. But what did contemporaries
have to say about this? To what extent did they assess and critique export economies from a
social perspective? To respond to this question, this essay makes distinctions between social,
economic, and political critiques of primary product export economies. The essay examines the
specific case of the Porfiriato (1876-1910), a period of Mexican history when primary goods
exports ballooned (increasing ten-fold). The study examines three loosely knit groups of
Mexican intellectuals’ writings on the export economy, one group at a time. First, it examines
intellectuals with ties to the Díaz government, or Porfiristas. Next, it turns to the writings of
liberal opponents to the Porfirian government, especially the Partido Liberal Mexicano (PLM).
Finally, it analyzes social Catholics’ writings on the subject. In terms of sources written by these
groups, the essay examines the press (semi-official, liberal opposition, and Catholic), official
publications, pamphlets, and essays.
The following analysis will show that Porfiristas did not articulate a social critique, but
the PLM and social Catholics did. It will also demonstrate that while there were differences
between the social critiques articulated by these two groups, there was an overarching similarity:
their social critiques of the export economy lacked depth and specificity. Their critiques were
frequently broadly focused on the social problems associated with capitalism, not specifically
targeted at the dilemmas associated with raw material export economies.
A brief word about the period and context will be helpful. The essay focuses on the last
decade of the Porfiriato (1900-1910), a time of increased protest against the Díaz regime. Much
of this protest was political. Particularly at election time there were complaints about Díaz’s
1
perpetual rule, as the demands for “no re-election” reveal. This political critique was
unsurprising since Porfirio Díaz first came to power in 1876. But there were also broader social
critiques against the Porfirian government, especially by the Liberal opposition that emerged at
the turn of the century and social Catholics (who had been reinvigorated by Pope Leo XIII and
his 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum1). Conditions and events provided ammunition for social
critiques of the Porfirian government. Starting in 1906 the “labor problem” became a prominent
theme in public discourse in part due to the government’s strike breaking tactics. And in 1907
the “social problem” also became more prominent in national discussions owing to the onset of a
recession. Some social critiques explicitly sought to contest the Díaz regime’s claim that it had
ushered in an age of material progress. Repeatedly, the liberal opposition and social Catholics
contested the idea of Porfirian material progress by stressing the regime’s failures in the social
realm: the vast majority of Mexicans, these critics pointed out, lived in impoverished conditions.2
Since this broad social critique of Porfirian progress did not specifically target the export
economy as the source of social ills this essay will not examine it. Rather, the essay will focus on
writings explicitly about the export economy. In addition to a prominent discourse about the
“social problem,” a noteworthy nationalist discourse also emerged in the late Porfiriato. Even
though critics of the regime charged that Díaz favored foreigners, this nationalism was actually
more of an official discourse than a discourse of opposition. This nationalist discourse, which
deflected focus away from social issues, will also be reviewed below.
PORFIRISTAS
Some members of the Porfirian intelligentsia critiqued Mexico’s raw material export
economy from the perspective of international status and power, not social issues. A Porfirian
discourse, loosely informed by evolutionary ideas about the economic realm, termed
manufacturing nations more advanced and powerful than agrarian countries.3 Porfiristas’ high
regard for manufacturing nations was expressed in numerous ways. One was simply the foreign
nations that Porfiristas put on a pedestal. Porfiristas’ writings tended to heap great praise on
1
See Ceballos Ramírez, Catlolicismo social.
2
See Weiner, “Challenges to Porfirian Visions of Progress.”
3
Weiner, “Blurred Boundaries.”
2
industrial nations, especially Great Britain and the United States. Porfiristas also engaged in an
extensive discussion of natural resources endowments that revealed their preference for
manufacturing. Justo Sierra and other leading Porfirian ideologues critiqued the historic notion
of Mexico’s great natural abundance, which had been popularized by Alexander von Humboldt’s
famed independence-era work Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain.4 This critique of
Mexico’s famed natural wealth, in part, was informed by the high esteem that Sierra and others
placed on manufacturing. Industrial natural resources, coal above all else, were especially
coveted. Industrial minerals, not precious metals, made a nation wealthy. From the yardstick of
industrial resources Mexico did not measure up.5 Sierra and others lamented the fact that
Mexico’s coal reserves were limited and inconveniently located. Since Mexico had limited coal
reserves (what Sierra termed “back gold),” its natural wealth was inadequate. Nations with
industrial minerals such as Great Britain and the USA were deemed naturally rich.6
Natural resource endowment and economy had implications for the global distribution of
power. Manufacturing nations dominated in the international arena. Hence Mexico, a raw
material exporter, had limited international power.7 Francisco Bulnes, a leading Porfirian
intellectual, forcefully made this argument in his 1899 work (which was partly inspired by the
Spanish-American War) El porvenir de las naciones lationamericanas ante las reciente
conquistas de Europa y Norteamerica. Bulnes created an international hierarchy of nations based
on coal consumption. The countries that consumed the most coal were on the top of the pyramid
and exercised dominance in global relations. The Latin American tropical export economies did
not fare well in Bulnes’ hierarchy (though he claimed that the future of Mexico and Chile did not
look as bleak as the prospects for the rest of the region). Bulnes’ assessment was not a call to
abandon the export economy and to become primarily a manufacturing country. Rather, it was
On Humboldt see Weiner, “Redefining Mexico’s Riches.” On the Porfirian critiques of Humboldt see Weiner “El
declive económico de México en el siglo XIX.”
4
For a fine example of this attitude see Porfirian economist Carlos Carlos Diaz Dufoo’s work, “La evolución
industrial.”
5
Sierra’s most extensive critique of Mexico’s natural wealth was in his 1889 essay México social y politico. For an
analysis of Sierra’s critique see Weiner “Trinidad Sánchez Santos y Justo Sierra.” Díaz Dufoo later dedicated an
entire book, México y los capitales extranjeros, to attacking the idea of Mexico’s immense natural wealth. For an
analysis of México y los capitales extranjeros see Weiner, “Economic Thought.”
6
7
See Weiner, “Battle for Survival.”
3
simply a statement about Mexico’s limited international power. (However, it would be wrong to
jump to the other extreme, assuming that Porfirian elites embraced comparative advantage and
the international division of labor, which would relegate Mexico to focus solely on raw material
exports. The government had an ambitious program to promote national industry.8)
This claim that manufacturing nations dominated the international arena reveals that the
Porfirian elite stressed the issue of national sovereignty. Mexico’s sovereignty was not only
threatened by the global clout of manufacturing nations. It was also placed in jeopardy by foreign
capital in Mexico, which threatened to take control over Mexico’s export regime. While this
concern did not result in a rejection of an export regime, it did inspire some modifications. A
nationalist movement sought to wrestle power away from foreigners during the first decade of
the 20th century. The showcase of this movement was the Mexican government’s nationalization
of the U.S.-owned railroad industry in Mexico. The government’s rationale for nationalization
was clearly articulated by José Limantour, the Minister of Treasury. His explanation for
nationalization focused on Mexico’s export economy. He maintained that US railroad trusts,
which had built two major lines in Mexico, wielded such extensive power that they could shape
future construction and placement of lines. Control over railroad construction would dictate and
shape Mexican development since it would determine which geographic regions would be
exploited economically. But, Limantour warned, allowing foreigners to control railroad
development was not in the national interest since they sought profits, not Mexican economic
development. Hence, in the name of economic sovereignty and the developments of a rational
railroad plan that would enable Mexico to exploit new geographic regions, foreign railroads
needed to be nationalized. By the end of the Porfiriato, the Mexican government nationalized
the foreign railroads. Olegario Molina, the Minister of Development, justified increased
government control over the mining industry based on the same grounds. Silver was Mexico’s
leading export. Molina maintained that foreign control over the mining sector placed sovereignty
in jeopardy. Foreign economic power resulted in extensive political influence. Molina’s attempt
at restricting foreigners’ control over the industry failed (party due to protests by American
mining interests in Mexico). 9
8
Beatty, Institutions and Investment.
9
On the discourses about the nationalization of Mexican railroads and mines see Weiner, Race, Nation, and Market,
chap. 3.
4
Porfirian elites, then, did not critique the export economy from a social perspective, but
rather from a national sovereignty outlook. Further evidence of their lack of a social critique was
evident in their overriding concern with increased production. Issues like labor conditions did not
preoccupy them, but worker productivity did. Porfirian elites endlessly complained about low
productivity. A prominent villain in their discourse about limited production was the population,
particularly Indians and hacendados.10 Porfiristas’ discourse about Indians, especially, revealed
their inattention to social issues. Porfirstas articulated a variation of the “lazy native” discourse.
Production was low since Indians preferred being idle to working. Consequently, Indians had to
be coerced to work. One strategy promoted was forced consumption, which, proponents
maintained, would increase Indians level of debt. Indians would be forced to work to pay off
debts. Vagrancy laws also revealed Porfiristas’ assumption that Indians had to be compelled to
work. Furthermore, the regime’s silence on coercive labor tactics such as enganche and debt
peonage further show their overriding concern with production, not social issues associated with
the export economy. 11
Porfiristas’ discourse about hacendados also revealed their focus on productivity.
Porfirian intellectuals contended that hacendados embraced tradition, which made them resistant
to technological advances that increased production. Another charge was that hacendados had a
feudal mindset, which made them value land for prestige, not production. Some members of the
Porfirian elite advocated a stiff tax on uncultivated lands to force hacendados to either produce
or sell.12 Some Porfirian ideologues, holding the US out as an example, hoped that a yeoman
agrarian class would grow and eclipse the hacendados. Smallholders were promoted from an
economic as opposed to a social perspective: yeomen would be more productive.13
Porfirian intellectuals, then, did not critique the export regime from a social perspective.
But they did praise it. This was not a discourse of social advance or liberation, but rather social
stability. Mexico, Porfiristas argued, avoided the capital-labor strife and worker radicalism that
For an extended discussion of Porfirstas’ critique of hacendados and Indians see Weiner, Race, Nation, and
Market, chap. 2.
10
11
True, Sierra did write about labor conditions in his early career (See Silva Herzog, Neuve estudios). But the major
issue Porfiristas focused on was how to turn Indians into a productive workforce.
12
On the debate over the tax see Weiner, Race, Nation, and Market, chap. 2.
13
Bulnes, Porvenir.
5
plagued Europe precisely because it was agrarian. Modern manufacturing nations were
beleaguered with capital-labor conflict. In contrast, agrarian nations like Mexico experienced
less conflict. Furthermore, Mexicans did not have sufficient earnings to sustain a prolonged
strike.14 Claims that raw material exporting nations were more socially stable than their
manufacturing counterparts were perhaps simply a contrast between Mexico and advanced
nations. But the contention that agrarian nations were harmonious also served as a defense
against the claim that there was a “labor problem” in Mexico.
THE LIBERAL OPPOSITION TO THE PORFIRIAN GOVERNMENT
There were divisions in the Liberal opposition. In the following analysis I will note some
separations, but will nevertheless make some generalizations that perhaps overlook rifts and
complexities.15 Let me begin with some general observations. It could be argued that the liberal
opposition was less thoughtful about the specific consequences of the primary material export
economy than Porfiristas. True, liberal opponents pointed out problems in the export regime. But
they also noted problems in manufacturing regions of Mexico. This lack of differentiation was
perhaps partly a consequence of liberal opponents’ class analysis, which highlighted capital and
labor, which existed in both rural areas and cities. Consequently, the Liberal opposition’s
analysis privileged capitalism as opposed to agrarian capitalism. (However, it would be an
overstatement to claim that class was the only form of analysis.) Consequently, their social
critique did not really emphasize and theorize problems associated specifically with agrarian
capitalism, even if it commented upon them.
Before turning to the liberal opposition’s social critique it should be acknowledged that it
also engaged in a nationalist critique that echoed Porfiristas’ nationalism. Nationalism was not a
prominent theme in the liberal opposition’s discourse. Nevertheless, the group advertised the
threat of a “peaceful conquest.” That is, a foreign economic conquest as opposed to a military
occupation. The liberal opposition periodical El Paladín, for example, repeatedly warned about
the possibility of the United States conquering Mexico economically. Reflecting this nationalist
14
The semi-official daily El Imparcial, for example, made this argument.
15
My analysis of the liberal opposition is based partly on an examination of some of their periodical literature,
including El Colmillo Público, El Hijo de Ahizote, El Paladín, and Regeneración. For more in-depth discussions of
some issues raised in this section on the liberal opposition see Weiner, Race, Nation, and Market, chap. 5.
6
sentiment, liberal opponents actually supported the government’s nationalizations of foreign
railroads. But the Liberal opposition’s nationalism tended to be more general than Porfirstas’.
Liberal opponents generally did not link Mexico’s subordinate status specifically to its export
economy. Foreign economic power in Mexico, whether it was in the export sector or in Mexican
manufacturing, posed a threat. Furthermore, the nationalism articulated by some elements in the
Liberal opposition veered almost entirely away from the economic sphere: harking back to the
French example, the PLM repeatedly contended that the foreign loans that the Mexican
government contracted would result in a replay of the French military intervention by some
foreign power (most likely the U.S.).
The two main social problems that liberal opponents associated with the export economy
had to do with labor and land. Let me start with labor. Liberal opponents highlighted the issue of
labor exploitation and coercion. In terms of export regions, they commented upon agrarian areas
and mining. Regarding the latter, the PLM and others condemned the strikebreaking tactics
employed by the government in Cananea, Sonora, thereby highlighting repression of labors’
freedom to organize collectively in the mining sector. In the agrarian sector a major critique
centered on labor recruitment and retention. The PLM and other liberal critics condemned the
practice of enganche, depicting it as akin to kidnapping. (This portrayal contrasted with some
Porfiriatas’ characterization. El Economista Mexicano, the financial weekly, for example,
maintained that owing to the lack of transportation in Mexico labor lacked mobility hence labor
contractors were necessary.) This depiction of labor as enslaved and coerced was even more
prominent in the PLM’s discussions of debt peonage. Maintaining that debts were passed on
from father to son, the PLM portrayed peonage as a form of neo-slavery. The PLM especially
focused on the problem of peonage in Yucatán by writing about the neo-enslavement of Maya
laborers on henequen plantations. Perhaps the PLM and other liberal opponents highlighted
Yucatán in part because labor conditions there were so harsh.16 Additionally, stressing the
failures in Yucatán discredited the Porfirian regime, which held up the region as a great success
story for the Porfirian export boom.
The main problems that the PLM and other liberal critics pointed out in regards to land
was that it was concentrated in too few hands. There was a critique of foreign ownership and
16
See Joseph and Wells, Summer of Discontent.
7
control, but much of the attack was on Mexican hacendados. The biggest casualty in land
concentration was Indians, who lost their lands to large landowners. Was the export economy the
cause of land concentration and Indians’ plight? Liberal opponents’ analysis did not solely blame
economic forces. Some critiques depicted land concentration as driven by political forces more
than economic ones. In these analyses Díaz gave out political favors in the form of land. Further,
in some analyses it was not clear if the land was utilized for production. But in other critiques the
PLM clearly depicted land concentration and the expropriation of Indians as consequences of the
expansion of export agriculture.
How did the PLM and other liberal critics propose to solve social problems in the export
sector? Solutions varied. Some were reformist, others structural (in the sense that they would
undermine the export economy completely). These differences were a consequence of divisions
in the liberal opposition and also the evolution of the PLM, for the party became more radical
over time. The structural solutions tended to be more generic than the reformist ones. Structural
solutions addressed problems generated by capitalism in general, not dilemmas unique to the
export sector.
Let us first turn to reform. Regarding labor conditions a number of solutions were
promoted, including outlawing debt peonage and labor contractors, increasing wages, and
protecting workers’ rights to organize and strike. Reformist land proposals focused on breaking
up large holdings so land could be distributed more equally. Proposals to limit foreign ownership
and tax uncultivated lands were strategies to realize this end. Interestingly, the tax proposal had
been put forth by some Porfiristas too. But Porfiristas’ rationale was economic (undermine
feudalism in the name of increased production). Liberal opponents seemed more concerned with
social equality via the creation of a nation of small landowners. Liberal opponents tended not to
focus on what small farmers would produce, and who they would sell to. But a nation of small
farmers was not incompatible with export agriculture (as some Porfiristas stressed). The case of
Indians’ lands was perhaps distinct. The return of those lands, presumably, would limit lands
utilized for exports, but this action surely would not undermine export agriculture.
Within the liberal camp, structural solutions were primarily put forth by the PLM. These
solutions were generally not explained in great depth. Nevertheless, a number of ideas were put
forth. The PLM called for the destruction of private property and the strengthening and
expansion of communal property. While, as noted, some liberals did call for returning lands to
8
Indians, this radical analysis was not an “Indianist” discourse. Stressing the ties between
evolution and collectivism (as humans evolved they became less materialist), this was a proposal
for a modern form of collectivism. Since land would be owned collectively capital and labor
would cease to exist. Production would be dictated for use, not profit. While this did not rule out
production for export, the implication was that production would be geared towards local need,
not international exchange. Hence, it was incompatible with the Porfirian export economy.
Ironically, this critique really did not focus on the Porfirian export regime. Rather, it was more of
a generic critique of capitalism, not an attack on the Latin American export economies.
SOCIAL CATHOLICS
In keeping with the liberal opposition, there were some nationalist elements in social
Catholics’ criticisms, and their critique was primarily social. In terms of the nature of the
analysis, there were more parallels between the liberal opposition and social Catholics in regards
to the nationalist critique than the social one. For social Catholics, too, a nationalist critique was
much less pronounced than a social critique. Furthermore, the nationalist critique had similar
features. Like elements in the Liberal opposition, El Tiempo, the Catholic daily, warned about
the potential of an American “peaceful conquest” of Mexico. Social Catholics, again in concert
with the liberal opposition, praised the government’s Mexicanization of the railroads and
attempts to exert greater control over the foreign mining industry.17 Finally, and also in keeping
with liberal opponents, social Catholics’ nationalist discourse was more of a general critique of
foreign economic domination than a specific argument about the way that the export economy
placed Mexico in a subordinate position. In one article El Tiempo referred to Mexico’s agrarian
status (claiming that the US coveted “tropical Mexico”), but this type of specificity was
uncommon.
Social Catholics’ social critique veered from liberals’ in some ways. First, social
Catholics’ critique was less generic. True, social Catholics can be charged with making a
nonspecific critique of rural labor conditions since it did not differentiate between workers who
produced for national and international markets. Nevertheless, social Catholics, at least on
El Tiempo was not the only social Catholic periodical to express nationalist rhetoric. Nevertheless, the papser’s
nationalism was a bit more pronounced than the other two Catholic periodicals I examined, El País and La Voz de
México.
17
9
occasion, were more specific than the Liberal opposition since they made distinctions between
the social consequences of agrarian and industrial societies. It would be an overstatement to say
that social Catholics developed these distinctions in great depth. Nevertheless, differences were
noted. Some social Catholics, in keeping with Porfiristas, associated capital-labor strife and
radicalism with an industrial working class. Agrarian societies, in contrast, were less troubled by
conflict. Consequently, some social Catholics actually rejected industrialization and championed
agrarian society on the grounds of social stability.
This is not to say that there were no negative social consequences of Mexico’s agrarian
economy in social Catholics’ discourse. There were. This brings me to another distinction
between the Liberal opposition and social Catholics. The types of problems each group
highlighted differed. Social Catholics’ social critique focused on the family. 18 This was a generic
family, for there were not strong distinctions made between the problems that Indians and nonIndians confronted. Social Catholics asserted that the family unit was being undermined in rural
Mexico. The root cause of this disintegration was that rural laborers were paid insufficient wages
to raise a family. Insufficient wages weakened the family in numerous ways. El País, the
Catholic daily, especially discussed this problem. The periodical maintained that some young
men decided not to marry because they could not afford to raise a family. Others abandoned
Mexico altogether, migrating to the US since wages were not sufficient to make basic needs in
their country of origin. Those who did remain in Mexico and raise families experienced
problems since all family members—husbands, wives, and children—were forced to work owing
to low wages. Consequently, the ideal family order (according to Catholic ideals) broke down.
Mothers/wives were forced to abandon their domestic and civilizing role and consequently the
family suffered. Children suffered not only because they lacked the guidance provided by their
mothers, but also because they could not attend school since they had to work. If the social
problems caused by the export economy differed in the cases of social Catholics and liberal
opponents of Díaz, both critiques were nevertheless similar in that their analyses were somewhat
generic. Problems of inadequate wages were not unique to the export sector in social Catholic
discourse: greedy capitalists universally paid workers insufficient wages.
For a more in-depth analysis of social Catholics’ discourse on the family see Weiner “Trinidad Sánchez Santos:
Voice of the Catholic Opposition in Porfirian Mexico.”
18
10
Unlike liberal opponents who championed some structural solutions, social Catholics’
proposals to ameliorate social ills were all reformist in nature.19 Another contrast was that some
of the reformist solutions that the two groups advocated differed. Nowhere in social Catholics’
proposals was there a call for land redistribution in order to create a yeoman class, or a plea to
return land to Indians. Hence, social Catholics did not advocate the division of the haciendas.
Rather, the main reform thrust was to give workers a “family wage.” This increase would enable
the father/husband to earn enough to support the entire family and thereby make the family
flourish. How could this be achieved? A number of suggestions were offered. One solution
championed was that wages should be determined by family need, not the market. Another
strategy was investment in the agrarian sector to raise productivity, which would result in higher
wages. Forms of worker cooperatives, including unions, were also championed.
CONCLUSIONS
This essay has argued that social critiques of the Porfirian export boom were quite
limited. True, the Liberal opposition to Díaz and social Catholics wrote somewhat extensively
about the “social problem” in Mexico. Each group focused on distinct social dilemmas and
proposed different solutions. But an overarching similarity was that their critiques tended to
target capitalism in general, as opposed to detailing specific problems associated with the
Porfirian export boom. Consequently, theorizing, analyzing, and discussing social problems
associated specifically with Mexico’s raw material export regime were very limited. Ironically,
Porfiristas, the group that largely overlooked social issues, carried out the most in-depth and
thoughtful analysis of Mexico’s raw material export economy. Porfiristas’ detailed analysis
focused on the economic, political, and national consequences of Mexico’s reliance on the export
of primary products.
19
On these proposals see Weiner “Trinidad Sánchez Santos y Justo Sierra.”
11
WORKS CITED
BEATTY, Edward. Institutions and Investment: the Political Basis of Industrialization in Mexico
before 1911. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 2001.
BULNES, Francisco. El porvenir de las naciones latinoamericanas ante las recientes conquistas
de Europa y Norteamerica. Mexico City: Mariano Nava, 1899.
CEBALLOS RAMÍREZ, Manuel. El catolicismo social: un tercero en discordia, rerum
novarum, la 'cuestión social' y la movilazación de los católicos mexicanos (1891-1911). Mexico
City: El Colegio de México, 1991.
DÍAZ DUFOO, Carlos. “la evolución industial.” In México, su evolución social, vol. II, ed.
Justo Sierra, 99-158. Mexico City: J. Ballescá y compañía, 1901.
______. México y los capitales extranjeros. Mexico City and Paris: Bouret, 1918.
HUMBOLDT, Alejandro de. Ensayo político sobre el reino de la Nueva España. 1822. 6th ed.,
Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa, 2002.
JOSEPH, Gilbert and Allen Wells. Summer of Discontent, Seasons of Upheaval: Elite Politic
and Rural Insurgency in Yucatán, 1876-1915. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1996.
SIERRA, Justo. México social y político. 1889. Reprint, Mexico City: DGPMBP, 1960.
SILVA HERZOG, Jesús. Nueve Estudios Mexicanos. Mexico City: Imprenta Universitaria,
1953.
WEINER, Richard. “Challenges to Porfirian Visions of Progress," IX Conference of Mexican
and North American Historians, Mexico City, October, 1994.
______. “Battle for Survival: Porfirian Views of the International
Latin American Studies 32:2(2000):645-70.
Marketplace.” Journal of
______.“Trinidad Sánchez Santos: Voice of the Catholic Opposition in Porfirian Mexico.”
Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos 17: 2. (2001): 321-348.
______.Race, Nation, and Market: Economic Culture in Porfirian Mexico. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press, 2004.
______. “El declive económico de México en el siglo XIX: una perspectiva cultural.” Signos
Históricos 12 (July-December 2004): 68-93.
12
______.“Blurred Boundaries: Porfirian Mexico and the International Division of Labor.” In
Explorations in Subjectivity, Borders, and Demarcations: A Fine Line, edited by Raúl
Galoppe and Richard Weiner, pp. 69-87. Lanham, MD: University Press of America,
2005.
______.“Economic thought and culture in revolutionary Mexico: Carlos Díaz Dufoo’s Critique
of the Humboldtian idea of Mexico’s legendary wealth.” História e Economia 2: 1 (2nd Semestre,
2006): 13-31.
______.“Redefining Mexico’s Riches: Representations of Wealth in Alexander von Humboldt’s
Political Essay on the Kingdom of New Spain.” In Humboldt y otros viajeros científicos en
América Latina, edited by Lourdes de Ita Rubio and Sánchez Díaz, pp. 157-170. Morelia:
Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, 2006.
______. “Trinidad Sánchez Santos y Justo Sierra: dos criticos de economía política.” In El
Catolicismo social en México: Los intelectuales, tomo III, edited by Manuel Ceballos.
Guadalajara: IMDOSOC (forthcoming).
13