Mexico
Capital
Mexico City
Territory
1,943,950km²
Population (2020)
128,932,753
GDP Total (2020)
1.076T USD
GDP Per Capita (2020)
8,347 USD
Icome Group
Upper middle income
Convention Implementation
Corruption Resilience
Convention Implementation
Score by thematic sections and measures
Anti-corruption conventions timeline
| 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
|---|
Conventions
- IACAC - Inter-American Convention Against Corruption
- UNCAC - United Nations Convention against Corruption
- OECD Anti-Bribery Convention
Key events
- Signed
- Ratifed / acceded
- Review rounds
Convention Implementation Analysis
Mexico signed the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption (IACAC) on March 29, 1996, and ratified it on May 27, 1997. It is a State Party to the Follow-Up Mechanism for the Implementation of the Inter-American Convention against Corruption (MESICIC) since June 4, 2001. The country also signed the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) on December 9, 2003, and subsequently ratified it on July 20, 2004. Mexico is also party to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention (OECD-ABC), having signed it on December 17, 1997, and deposited the instrument of ratification on May 27, 1999. Accordingly, Mexico has undergone six rounds of review under MESICIC (of which only the first five were considered here, as the final report for the sixth round was only adopted on September 16, 2021), two round of review under the UNCAC review mechanism (of which, for comparability purposes, only the first one was considered here), and four phases of evaluation by the OECD Working Group on Bribery.
Mexico’s record in implementing its commitments to IACAC, UNCAC, and OECD-ABC exhibits a number of successes and very few failures. With an overall score of 69.7, the measures adopted place the country at the upper middle point of compliance with international norms, surrounded by Cuba (69.3), Antigua and Barbuda (69.5), Brazil (69.8), and Chile (70.5). Despite achieving higher success in regard to international cooperation (as is the case throughout the region) all but one preventive measure is found to be in progress or implemented. Furthermore, contrary to the regional pattern, Mexico evidences higher performance in the implementation of measures pertaining to the prevention of corruption rather than criminalization and law enforcement. Mexico’s efforts are generally well distributed across all three sections.
The prevention of corruption is undergoing, classified as “in progress” by its average score and with only one measure found somewhat deficient—transparency in government contracting (43.0). Regarding this, among the problems identified by MESICIC during the second round and that remained largely unresolved in the fifth round, it was reported that “[although] applicants for a position in the House [of Deputies] must meet the necessary requirements and undergo the psychometric, knowledge, and skills tests required for the profile of the position in question, no kind of merit-based selection procedure is provided to fill the career staff vacancies.” A similar issue was found regarding the federal judicial branch: “there is no merit-based selection procedure for choosing persons [from the list of successful applicants] to fill vacancies”. On the other hand, prominent measures within this section are given a score above 60, including the standards of conduct and their enforcement, and the systems for registering asset and conflict of interests' declarations; and the state of oversight bodies receives a score of 59.4. Indeed, almost three quarters of all preventive measures are considered to be in progress; and the initiatives to encourage the participation of civil, as well as the study of preventive measures related to equitable compensation, are considered to be implemented. These results reflect the generally satisfactory distribution of progress.
In terms of criminalization and law enforcement, Mexico shows slightly lower results than those regarding prevention, although significant measures are found implemented. Among other measures, the country has taken satisfactory actions to criminalize active and passive bribery in the public sector, embezzlement in the public sector, and extended forms of involvement in the commission of corruption offenses such as participation and attempt. On the other hand, significant measures were found to be deficient or unimplemented: the criminalization of passive bribery of foreign officials, the criminalization of bribery in the private sector (21.9), the liability of legal persons (43.0) (all three of which are required by UNCAC), and the protection of those who report acts of corruption (i.e., whistleblower protection) (35.9). Other measures remain in progress.
Finally, Mexico is found only partially compliant with its commitments to establish jurisdiction over the offenses covered by the conventions. The UNCAC review mechanism reports that “Mexico has not established its jurisdiction over offenses committed by a stateless person who has his or her habitual residence in Mexico or over crimes against the State.” Furthermore, “it does not establish jurisdiction in cases where Mexico does not extradite a person”. That being said, the overall level of the country’s commitments regarding international cooperation shows a favorable result, with an average section score of 65.7 and over two thirds of all measures within this section found implemented.
Corruption Resilience
Score by indicator
Corruption Resilience score over the time
Analysis
Mexico’s social context indicator score for 2020 declined by a marginal 0.03 points from the previous year, resulting in a score of 54.41, which fails to meet the region average of 64.89 by 10.48 points. The country’s indicator score falls within the bottom percentile and ranks among the lowest scores of the Western Hemisphere and Central American regions. Throughout the decade, Mexico’s indicator score has fluctuated, where it achieved the highest score in 2010 with 59.41 and its lowest score of 51.21 in 2012. The country’s decade range is 8.20 points. Mexico’s social context indicator for 2020 is mainly influenced by limited civil liberties and political rights within the country. When journalists report on organized crime, drug trafficking, and corruption concerning press freedom, the media faces threats and violence. According to Reporters Without Borders, the collusion between organized crime and government officials has posed a serious challenge for the media. It has further increased the threat and violence they face within the country.
With regard to the quality of governance and institutions, the country’s indicator has increased by a marginal 0.03 from the previous year. Despite the marginal increase in the country’s indicator score, Mexico’s indicator has been consistently within the 40 and 50 range. Mexico’s indicator score falls within the 25th percentile for the Western Hemisphere countries. The indicator average for the Western Hemisphere in 2020 was 50.63, and Mexico falls below the average by 2.79 points. Throughout the decade, Mexico’s indicator score has varied, where its highest score was 56.24 in 2010, and its lowest score was 47.81 in 2019. Mexico’s indicator score is primarily influenced by widespread corruption, a lack of impartial administration, and weak checks on government power within the country.
Mexico’s rule of law indicator declined by a marginal 0.02 points from the previous year, resulting in a score of 41.30 for 2020. Over the last ten years, Mexico’s rule of law score has steadily declined by approximately 2-3 points annually. The country’s score is grouped within the 25th percentile for the Western Hemisphere countries and falls 9.85 points below the regional average for the rule of law indicator. During the decade, the minimum and maximum scores for Mexico were 40.88 (2013) and 45.59 (2010), with a range of 4.71 points. Mexico’s indicator score is mainly attributed to the country’s serious deficit in the rule of law. The 2008 constitutional reforms have only resulted in minor improvement within the judicial system, and inefficiencies, delays, and corruption plague the judicial system in Mexico.
In terms of the country’s business stability, Mexico’s score declined in 2020 by 0.81 points from the previous year. Unlike previous indicators, Mexico’s business stability indicator surpasses the Western Hemisphere average of 50.53 by 7.57 points. Despite exceeding the regional average, Mexico’s score has declined since 2010. Over the last ten years, the minimum and maximum scores for Mexico were 52.10 (2020) and 64.57 (2011), with a range of 12.47 points. The country’s business stability score for 2020 is primarily attributed to corruption, and a lack of efficiency and transparency in regulations.
Mexico’s violence and security indicator for 2020 increased by 0.32 points from the previous year, resulting in a score of 30.75. Despite this marginal increase in score, Mexico still suffers from serious challenges concerning violence and security. Mexico’s score is substantially below the Western Hemisphere average of 55.04 and fails to meet the threshold by 24.29 points. The country’s score has varied throughout the decade but has consistently remained low compared to its regional counterparts. During the decade, the minimum and maximum scores for Mexico were 18.80 (2014) and 36.57 (2011), with a range of 17.77 points. The country’s violence and security indicator score for 2020 is primarily impacted by the serious challenges the country faces from organized crime and drug trafficking.