Corruption as a threat to a state’s democracy and alliance reliability: the case of Mexico

Originally written as a paper for the Democracy and Foreign Policy class at Yonsei GSIS.

Corruption is a concern for all modern states, some deal with this problem more than others but without a doubt corruption is a widespread phenomenon in society. The issue of corruption becomes more complex when even its definition is a matter of dispute, and likewise, according to diverse authors, there is an amalgamation of causes of corruption that apply differently to each state, obscuring the understanding of corruption and its implications. Therefore, despite the importance of the topic, the reach and consequences of corruption are not determined in a way that allows countries to understand and confront the issue appropriately. 

Michael Johnston (2005, p.12) defines corruption as “the abuse of public roles or resources for private benefit, but emphasize that ‘‘abuse,’’ ‘‘public,’’ ‘‘private,’’ and even ‘‘benefit’’ are matters of contention in many societies and of varying degrees of ambiguity in most.” He stresses the idea that corruption is not a simple definition that fits all situations or all states, and similarly because of its complexity, the nature of a regime by itself does not ensure more or less corruption. Therefore, although many authors consider that the core elements of democracy, such as the electoral process, governmental institutions, and civil participation are more successful at restricting corruption (Drapalova et al, 2019, p. 3-4), other authors argue that democracy on its own does not guarantee less corruption.

In this sense, all democratic states can experience corruption and corruption can meaningfully affect democracy. Either by allowing abuse in decision-making spheres or by people with power over others, by undermining the legitimacy of law and institutions, by damaging the people’s trust in democratic institutions and processes, and many other circumstances.

Furthermore, corruption is not only a domestic issue that threatens a state’s democracy. It can have international implications in diverse areas such as a negative impact on economic growth and economic relations with other countries (Tanzi, 1998), but overall it can also create an issue of credibility and trust, which authors Gartzke and Gleditsch (2004) discuss when examining the perception of reliability of democracies as allies, by other states and by its own populations.

As a state deeply impacted by corruption, Mexico provides a valuable case study that allows us to investigate the effect of corruption on a democratic regime and its implications for foreign policy. Through a study on the perception of political corruption of the Mexican people Monsiváis (2020, p. 609-610) finds that due to corruption, citizens are unlikely to support democracy, and such lack of legitimacy towards the democratic regime only serves to weaken it. Similarly, other authors such as Morris (2009) analyze Mexican’s perception of their country's democracy in the context of the corruption they face and their prospects.

The research objectives of this paper are first, to investigate how corruption affects a state’s democracy and alliance reliability; and second, to apply this analysis to Mexico’s specific case in the period of 2000 to 2018. These objectives set the basis to address the research question: To what extent does corruption threaten a democratic regime, and how does this, in turn, impact their alliance reliability?

The first part of the paper will tackle the literary review and conceptual framework by examining the definitions of corruption, democracy, and alliance reliability. The next section will focus on analyzing the impact of corruption on democracy, the link between democracy and alliance reliability, and how these elements interact in a chain reaction where corruption weakens democracy and a weakened democracy affects the alliance reliability of democratic states. The third part will apply this notion to the case of Mexico during a specific period to better illustrate the results of the analysis. The paper will be finalized with a conclusion of the research that will include the key findings, limitations of the study, and possible future inquiry branches. 

Literary review and conceptual framework

The most commonly accepted definition of corruption is the “abuse of public power for private benefit” (Tanzi, 1998, p. 564), but over time other definitions and several scholars have added to the conceptual debate of what corruption entails or not, and how broad the concept should be to encompass all the areas that are affected by it. Vito Tanzi specifically, states that corruption can also occur in private activities and it is not always for private benefit, therefore, because it can present itself in many different ways “while it may be difficult to describe, corruption is generally not difficult to recognize when observed.” (Tanzi, 1998, p. 564).

Different authors emphasize other elements when defining corruption; Michael Johnston (2005) declares that a corrupt activity involves the abuse of trust, but questions the definition of abuse itself as well as the boundaries between public and private spheres, finally addressing corruption as a systemic problem instead of specific actions. By regarding corruption as systemic, Johnston approaches the issue more comprehensively and recognizes some syndromes of corruption, one of them being its effect on institutions in public and private domains that lead to weak states.

Robin Theobald examines corruption from diverse angles, providing and comparing definitions from the approach of public interest, public opinion, and legal prescriptions, and even questioning the Western bias of the definition. Finally, he recognizes the importance of identifying corruption in private spheres but focuses on the legal and public aspects of the concept and defines it as “the illegal use of public office or the process of selections to public office for private ends” (1990, p. 16).

As this paper aims to understand the link between corruption, democracy, and consequently alliance reliability of a state, the definition of corruption that will be applied is the one offered by Stephen Morris in which he declares that “corruption involves a rational act by a public official that deviates from the ideologically sanctioned promotion of the common interest (…) corresponds to discord or incongruence between two dimensions of a single state” (1991, p.5).

Similarly to corruption, democracy is a term that leads to much debate and interpretations, many of them focusing mostly on the electoral process which has led to ample criticisms about the simplicity of this definition and lack of comprehensive understanding of all the components necessary for a democracy. For example, Schimitter and Karl state that “modern political democracy is a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives” (1991, p. 76).

On the other hand, Wolfgang Merkel summarizes five components of democracy: democratic election, political participation rights, civil rights, horizontal accountability, and effective power to govern (2014, p. 14). For him, when these elements function in balance states can become embedded democracies, meaning stronger democracies, although they remain part of an external environment that can impact them as well as other conditions like civil society or socioeconomic context. Since this definition encompasses the broader aspects of democracy and recognizes how it can be affected by external elements, it will be the one considered when discussing democracy.

Traditionally alliance reliability is a concept that emerges during war or in terms of traditional security and military alliances. Leeds, Long, and Mitchell explain that states look to establish alliances that appear credible to successfully deter conflict and that when the situation arises states usually fulfill their commitment. They collect and analyze data on such situations and “find that when war occurs, 74.5% of alliances are reliable” (Leeds, Long, and Mitchell, 2000, p. 688).

However, Iain D. Henry explores deeper into what alliances mean to states and what type of allies states are looking for beyond support during wartime. He specifically defines reliability “as the degree to which allies agree on the relative value of particular interests and the manner in which the interests should be pursued (…) Further, my concept is not restricted to wartime or moments of security crisis, but extends to peacetime cases as well” (2020, p. 53). Additionally, states monitor their ally’s actions to ensure that their interests and capabilities continue to align in a way that their reliability can remain firm.

This is important because it highlights how alliance reliability is in constant assessment and therefore, certain conditions or elements can weaken or strengthen it. Furthermore, broadening the concept of alliance reliability to areas outside of military security gives space for a more comprehensive analysis of state relations and dynamics. While also allowing a better analysis of the link between corruption, democracy, and alliance reliability of various states that don’t have military security as a priority but do have concerns about alliances and cooperation.

The threat of corruption

With the definition of corruption established, it is also necessary to examine what causes it and its consequences in order to deal with the first objective and understand how corruption affects democracy and alliance reliability. 

There are several explanations for what causes corruption and authors can take on different approaches. Vito Tanzi (1998) divides the factors that contribute to corruption into direct and indirect; for the direct ones he links them to the activities and power of the state and lists the following elements: 

• Regulations and authorizations, which give a monopoly of power to the officials in charge of authorizing and monitoring and can lead to acts of corruption like bribery; 

• Taxation can lead to corruption if the laws that regulate it are unclear, the administrative process is inefficient and/or the people in charge can easily act illegally or have bigger financial needs; 

• Spending decisions are when the public expenditure is impacted by corrupt decision-making;

• Provision for Goods and Services at Below-Market Prices refers to the situation when an excess demand for public goods and services is managed by employees who can easily fall into bribery or other corrupt activities;

• Other discretionary decisions that give public officials positions of power over important decisions while establishing an environment ripe for corruption;

• Financing of parties, meaning the redirection of high amounts of money into electoral campaigns and political parties.

Regarding the indirect causes of corruption, Tanzi lists the following ones:

• Quality of the Bureaucracy, which directly affects the level of corruption;

• Level of Public Sector Wages may affect the likelihood of civil servants to act corrupt, but the literature on this topic shows varied results;

• Penalty systems should theoretically reduce corrupt acts, but the reality of implementing penalties is complex and the system itself could lend itself to more corruption;

• Institutional controls should help mitigate corruption, yet their effectiveness can be greatly affected by their dependence on other governmental institutions;

• Transparency of Rules, Laws, and Processes is difficult to create and implement.

In a more delimited way, Morris explains that “first corruption occurs because of an essential structural imbalance between the ability and capacity of the state and social organizations to influence political behavior (…) second, where the strength of social organizations overshadows that of the state, there is a tendency toward widespread bribery (…) finally, in the opposite case, where state organizations are more powerful than social organizations and hence better able to control mobility opportunities (…) there is a tendency toward widespread extortion” (1991, p. 13-14). This description highlights the element of the concept of corruption delimited before about the incongruence between two dimensions in the same state, and in turn, it helps explain some of the consequences of corruption.

Several costs of corruption will be described shortly, however, it is essential to understand that the discord or imbalance between the ability of the state and its political behavior sets a dynamic in which the government loses stability and trust by instituting a systemic problem that as stated before, weakens the state and has consequences which spill over into other areas like democracy and alliance reliability.

When listing the consequences of corruption, the economic effects stand out as an apparent and major issue. It decreases public revenues and upturns public spending; often it leads to income inequality, market and resource allocation distortion; it leads to lesser investment and consequently affects economic growth; amongst others (Tanzi, 1998). 

In the political and administrative area, corruption creates bureaucratic inefficiency, compromises the legitimacy of state institutions, and produces a culture of distrust towards public officials and the government as a whole (Morris, 1991, p. 17-19). Moreover, political processes are undermined to the point that citizens prefer to deal with their issues through alternative ways, sometimes illicit, further weakening the power and authority of the state (Johnston, 2005, p. 29). 

In sum, corruption is caused by a myriad of factors and in turn creates a variety of serious consequences for the states. Perhaps most important of all is how corruption breaks down the structure of the government in a way that almost seems invisible until the state is weakened in its organization and institutions to the point where its legitimacy in front of its citizens and even other states is damaged.

Continuing this line of thought, the next part will focus on analyzing in a more specific manner the impact of corruption on democracy. The argument that a weakened democracy can lead to citizens' distrust and therefore higher corruption can be made (Drapalova, 2019, p. 7), but the same applies in reverse. High corruption leads to citizens’ distrust and discontent and subsequently a weakened democracy. The reality is that a weak democracy and high corruption can be so tightly connected that their dynamic works in a cycle without an end and a start, simply reinforcing each other.

Nonetheless, several authors support the notion that democracy can contribute to tackling corruption due to the mechanisms that limit the power and control of political leaders; conditions that facilitate accountability and transparency; and a judicial structure that deters people from committing corrupt activities. However, the nature of democracy on its own is not enough to evade corruption, and studies show that “in young democracies, the level of corruption increases (…) to consequently fall as the democratic regime consolidates” (Dapralova, 2019, p. 5). Good governance and reduction of corruption are more likely as democracies grow older and their structure becomes stronger, but similarly to the cycle mentioned before, democracies can struggle to strengthen themselves and achieve good governance if corruption permeates their structure.

In other words, due to corruption democracy goes through a crisis in which there’s a lack of trust in the political leaders and the government as a whole causing the regime to weaken as the population perceives the capacities of the state negatively, and the state institutions themselves and legitimacy are unreliable. This last point is perhaps the most important element to consider when analyzing the effects of corruption on democracy because corruption damages the legitimacy of the regime, and weakens the people’s willingness to follow the political system as they have no faith in the institutions or processes (Monsiváis, 2020).

Johnston examines the role of people in democracy in more detail, stating that a strong democracy is possible when there’s participation in politics through legitimate and effective institutions (2005, p. 7). These elements allow for a regime where people are less likely to accept corruption and in turn, political leaders have fewer opportunities to engage in corrupt activities and are more likely to act in line with the laws and regulations. This leads to the diminished effects of corruption in the governmental system in a way that the state legitimacy is not damaged and the systemic issue of corruption can weaken enough to be resolved to some degree. 

In the political sphere and beyond the domestic aspect, the damaged legitimacy of the regime stated previously implies that a state is undermined in front of other nations, affecting the perception of regimes and leaders (Johnston, 2005, p. 29), furthermore, corruption is a considerable factor that affects the growth and development of countries (Kaufmann,1997; Theobald, 1990), impacting their standing in the international society. 

These perceptions of a weakened or underdeveloped democratic state then affect how other nations interact with it as a potential ally. As states are concerned with their security and development, they are less likely to create a formal alliance with countries that cannot provide any benefit or represent a risk. This is not to say that more developed nations don’t align themselves with developing countries, but often the most relevant alliances states establish are with others of similar characteristics or when there is a specific benefit to obtain from the alliance.

Iain declares that when states assess the alliance reliability based on national interests it creates interdependence, as opposed to evaluating their ally based on their character (2020, p. 55) and concludes that this is more likely (p.80). However, it could be argued that national interests alone cannot ensure the reliability of an alliance, and often the national character of the ally can influence the way interests are shaped or aligned by a country. For example, it may be of national interest for a state to have a presence in a region away from its own, and for this, it would look for possible allies in that region but it would not take on any alliance. It is more likely that the state would look for an ally that could share its interest, but also could produce a sense of reliability based on the strength of its statehood and national character.

Nonetheless, it is necessary to recognize that there are a variety of factors that come into play when discussing alliances and cooperation between states. Similarly, alliance reliability as a concept beyond the scope of security themes also entails a variety of elements, making states consider various aspects when determining their allies. This research does not oppose this idea, but simply aims to examine the impact of corruption on democracy and its link to alliance reliability. To further assess this research statement, the next part of the paper will delve into the case study of Mexico, providing specific data on corruption and democracy indicators and analyzing how they relate to specific cases of corruption and alliance reliability issues.

Mexico: a democracy riddled with corruption

The history of corruption in Mexico has a strong and deep-rooted legacy, according to Morris it “stems from a structural imbalance of state and social forces that effectively grants the Mexican state and its representatives a virtual monopoly over opportunities for wealth and mobility” (1991, p.42). This notion reflects the concept of corruption as a discordance between two dimensions of the same state presented previously in the conceptual framework. In the case of Mexico, such structure was historically preserved by the authority of a single political party, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), which occupied the presidency uninterrupted for 70 years.

In addition to the PRI dominance, Morris maintains that “the informal, meta-constitutional powers of the president, the ban on reelection, the weak and submissive legislative and judicial branches, the ineffective workings of federalism, and the government’s extensive corporatist and clientelist,” (2009, p.1-2) contributed to the deep penetration of corruption into the whole structure of the state in way that the rule of law were damaged and the society was unable to hold the government accountable.  

Eventually, the PRI single-party dominance began to weaken due to the increasing discontent with the party, several failed reforms and economic crises, and the liberalization of electoral barriers that caused the dissatisfied population to support the National Action Party (PAN) and Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) (Ardigo, 2019, p. 2-3). Such support culminated in the 2000 elections, when PAN won and obtained the presidency with Vicente Fox, marking a democratic transition for the country.

Internally, the presidential alternation represented optimism for change in many spheres, specifically for corruption there were several processes of creation and institution reforms to fight corruption (Monsiváis, 2019, p.594). Externally, the new administration modified the foreign policy to include human rights and democracy as part of the central values of the country in an effort to meet the “external expectations regarding legitimacy and, (…) the possibility of playing an improved role within the international community” (Loera, 2021, p.207). 

Overall, the democratic transition embodied a key moment in Mexico’s history that marked a series of changes and new challenges for the country in a variety of matters, but it especially highlighted a winning point for democracy in the country for many. Nonetheless, “for others, the nation still had a long way to go to achieve true democracy, including the battling of entrenched corruption.” (Morris, 2009, p.2). Taking into consideration the importance of the party alternation for the democracy and battle against corruption, the analysis will cover from 2000, when PAN won its first election, to 2018 which marks the end of the last finished presidency term and the return of PRI to the executive power.

Despite the initial hopes for change and improvement, the reality that plagued the democratic transition was the continuation of corrupt practices and the undermined rule of law and accountability mechanisms despite the reforms and commitments made by the new administration. Felipe Curco Cobos, after analyzing the relation between democracy and corruption in Mexico, arrives to the conclusion that the democratic transition did not manage to introduce regulatory controls, but maintained the clientelist and corporatist structure of corruption while strengthening its corruption scheme by adding its own corporative and union clients (2019, p. 57-58). On the other hand, Alejandro Mosiváis-Carillo recognizes that the effects of the democratic transition on dealing with corruption were not as effective as expected given the institutional innovation in matters of transparency and public legality, because corruption remained entrenched in all structures of public power. However, he emphasized that corruption had an upturn from 2012 forward with the return of PRI to the presidency with Enrique Peña Nieto (2020, p. 595).

As detailed before, the democratic transition on its own did not bring a resolution to the problem of corruption and vice versa, because the structure of corruption remained engrained in the state, the democracy legitimacy continued to be negatively affected by the corruption that the Mexican population assumed as intrinsically part of the country’s democracy. Additionally, after the year 2000, the external expectations for Mexico as a democracy grew, calling for the nation to be more involved in the promotion of liberal values and to “avoid being marginalized from regional and international politics” (Loera, 2021, p. 229).

For example, after Vicente Fox’s win in 2000, the European Commission issued good wishes to the new government highlighting the consolidation and maturity of democracy in the country. President Bush similarly congratulated the democratic commitment of Mexico during President Vicente Fox’s visit to the United States (Loera, 2021, p. 208). Such instances demonstrate how the perception of Mexico as a stronger democracy gave other nations and actors more reason to recognize the Mexican state as a more profitable alliance that could represent more benefits and fewer risks than in the past, in other words, improving Mexico’s alliance reliability.

In contrast, during the return of the PRI presidency in 2012 and with the previously mentioned spike in corruption came certain discontent from the international society that observed various corruption scandals and expressed their disapproval. This response exhibited the damage to Mexico’s image and government legitimacy, effectively reducing its standing as a beneficial ally. 

Hereafter, a series of indexes on corruption, governance, and democracy from 2000 to 2018 will be presented and examined with the goal of analyzing in more detail the relation explained previously. The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is the leading global indicator of public sector corruption that ranks and scores countries with the maximum score being 100 and the minimum zero. The following graph shows the scores Mexico obtained in the Corruption Perceptions Index from 2000 to 2018, with the highest being 37 out of 100 in 2001 and the lowest being 28 out of 100 in 2018. However, the scores are overall low showing that corruption is a major issue in Mexico, but there is also a very clear downward trend from 2014 on. This aligns with the previously mentioned spike in corruption during the PRI administration with president Peña Nieto, after two terms with the PAN on the executive chair. 

Figure 1

Corruption Perceptions Index – Mexico Scores

Note. Own elaboration based on data collected from the annual Corruption Perceptions Index Reports (2000-2018) from the Transparency International Website.

The second graph refers to the Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI), which “provide the most comprehensive survey of sustainable governance in OECD and EU countries” (Stiftung, n.d.). Specifically, it displays the Corruption Prevention scores and the Quality of Democracy scores with 10 as the highest achievable mark. These indicators are newer and started publishing annual information until 2014, therefore the information does not completely cover the period of democratic transition, but it does exhibit again a downward trend in the last years of the PRI presidency in the Quality of Democracy scores. Furthermore, the Prevention of Corruption scores are generally quite low, which is consistent with the statement of how corruption remained embedded in Mexico’s structure even after the democratic transition, and despite the institutional reforms an innovation created to fight corruption.

Figure 2

Sustainable Governance Indicators - Mexico

Note. Own elaboration based on data collected from the annual Sustainable Governance Indicators, Mexico Country Reports in the Bertelsmann Stiftung website.

The final graph refers to the Global Democracy Index published by The Economist Intelligence Unit, which works on a 0 to 10 scale and includes almost all states in the world. This index “combines information on the extent to which citizens can choose their political leaders in free and fair elections, enjoy civil liberties, prefer democracy over other political systems, can and do participate in politics, and have a functioning government that acts on their behalf” (Economist Intelligence Unit, n.d.). Alike to the SGI, this index does not have data covering the start of Mexico’s democratic transition, but it does provide annual scores from 2006 onwards. Similar to the previous two graphs, the overall scores are not high but what stands out is the downward trend from 2013 into the rest of the Peña Nieto presidency.

Figure 3

Global Democracy Index - Mexico Scores

Note. Own elaboration based on data collected from the annual Democracy index scores in the Our World in Data website.

As observed from the figures above, corruption kept representing a large issue for Mexico even after the democratic transition in 2000, and the return of the once-dominating party in 2012 marked another point of increased corruption accompanied by an undermined and damaged democracy that is also visible in the data presented. In this way, we can discern the link between corruption scores and democracy scores, however, it is important to recognize how this, in turn, affected Mexico’s alliance reliability. Especially during President Peña Nieto’s administration, when the effects of corruption on democracy are more evident.

To better analyze such impact, it would be beneficial to examine the two main corruption scandals that affected his presidency and the response from the international community, as well as any consequences it might have had on its alliances.

On September 26th, 2014 43 students from the Ayotzinapa Rural Teachers' School disappeared in the town of Iguala, Guerrero. Their disappearance was attributed to several actors, from organized crime to the police and even the Mexican army, but the lack of accountability and the poor handling of the case amongst rising allegations that the disappearance was orchestrated by the government exhibited great levels of corruption and impunity in Mexico.

The domestic response was immediate, but the international community joined the condemnation and demand for action and accountability. For example, the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts (GIEI) was appointed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to investigate the disappearances (Copeland, 2023); Amnesty International and Amnesty International Mexico demanded the authorities to act with transparency and accountability (Amnesty International, 2023); and even two years after the case, the European Union issued a joint letter calling for concrete outcomes on the efforts to locate the students (OMCT, 2016).

In addition, this case showcased the degree of violence in the country that lead to the Internal Security Law in 2017 as “the government’s primary security initiative (…) intended to regulate the deployment of the military to fight crime” (Kukutschka Martinez, 2018, p.19). It was however criticized by various national and international human rights observers, such as the UN and Organization of American States (OAS), who claimed it could lead to potential human rights abuses due to the lack of safeguards.

Another infamous situation was the Odebrecht scandal in 2016 which originated in Brazil with the construction company Odebrecht and its petrochemical subsidiary, Braskem. The company admitted to paying bribes in several Latin American countries, including Mexico. However, the problem became bigger when “the former director of Odebrecht Mexico, Luis de Meneses, directly implicated Emilio Lozoya, the former director of Pemex” (Kukutschka Martinez, 2018, p.13), the Mexican national oil company which had previous accusations of corruption due to the monopoly it held over all oil-related activities. Despite the proof of bribery and corruption, the Mexican government did not press any charges against Odebrecht and any investigation against Lozoya fell through
(Ardigo, 2019, p.7) until 2020 when he was arrested in Spain and extradited to Mexico (Dilge, 2023). The slow course of action from the government in both addressing the company’s actions and the role of high-level officials like Lozoya once again showed the impunity and lack of accountability in Mexico.

Because this was a transnational case that affected several countries, Mexico was not the only state that received criticisms for its involvement. Rather it was the response, or lack thereof that displayed a democracy weakened by corruption, and highlighted the risks of establishing an alliance with Mexico and investing in the country when concerns over Pemex’s corruption became more prominent (Gan Integrity, 2020).

Despite these negative reactions and low indicators, Mexico does positively stand out in some areas as a beneficial ally, at least in economic matters. For example, “the country ranks ahead of most other Latin American countries and emerging economies in terms of ease of doing business, as measured by the World Bank, and competitiveness according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2018.” (Kukutschka Martinez, 2018 p.23). It was also placed in 2019 as the Latin American country with the least administrative burden by the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Index, obtaining 72 points out of 100 and positioning itself close to some European Union economies (p.21). In addition, regarding the definition and implementation of open government data, Mexico ranked among the top five OECD countries, and performed well concerning budget transparency according to the Open Budget Index, with 79 points out of 100 (Ardigo, 2019, p.16). 

All of the above illustrates the relation between corruption, democracy, and alliance reliability in Mexico. Overall, there is a link in how corruption has negatively impacted Mexican democracy and consequently its alliances, but there’s also missing data from the analyzed period that could give us the full picture of this connection. Moreover, not all data is negative or shows an adverse outcome, which leaves room for further analysis and data interpretation.

Conclusion

The paper presents a comprehensive examination of the impact of corruption on the democracy of a state and its alliance reliability, utilizing Mexico as a case study. It delves into the definitions of corruption, democracy, and alliance reliability, and examines the complex interaction between these elements. The study highlights the cyclical relationship between corruption and democracy, where each contributes to the other's weakening. It likewise emphasizes the multifaceted nature of corruption and its extensive implications for alliance dependability.

The analysis of Mexico's case from 2000 to 2018 demonstrates the detrimental effects of corruption on democracy and governance, leading to a decline in alliance reliability. The study also acknowledges that while corruption is a significant factor in alliance dependability, it is not the sole determinant. 

It is crucial to understand that perceptions of alliance dependability are complex and impacted by multiple factors. While corruption is one such factor, it is not the only determining factor. Other aspects like geopolitical alignment, security cooperation, and shared values also significantly contribute to shaping perceptions of alliance reliability.

Despite the findings of this paper, there are several limitations on the research. The main one arises because of the specific data and indicators related to corruption, democracy, and alliance reliability in the context of Mexico, as they may limit the findings to other geopolitical contexts. Furthermore, the analysis is constrained by the availability and reliability of data sources, as well as potential biases in the interpretation of the data. It is also essential to consider the limitations of the conceptual framework, specifically on the definition of alliance reliability as a concept applied to spheres beyond traditional security alliances. 

Further research topics related to this paper could delve into the specific mechanisms through which corruption impacts democracy and alliance reliability. Furthermore, exploring specific areas of alliance reliability could provide better insights into how states perceive corrupt democracies and the impact of corruption in different spheres. Finally, comparative studies across different countries and regions to assess the varying impact of corruption on democracy and alliance reliability would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of this complex issue.

Bibliography

Amnesty International. (2023, October 2). Mexican authorities’ actions impede truth and Justice for Ayotzinapa. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/mexico-authorities-impede-truth-justice-ayotzinapa/ 

Ardigo, I. A. (2019). (rep.). Mexico: Overview of corruption and anti-corruption efforts. U4 Helpdesk Answer. Retrieved November 2, 2023, from https://www.u4.no/publications/overview-of-corruption-and-anti-corruption-efforts-in-mexico.pdf. 

Bardhan, P. (1997). Corruption and Development: A Review of Issues. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(3), 1320–1346. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2729979

Cobos, F. C. (2019). Un análisis crítico en torno a la relación entre democracia y corrupción: el caso México *. [A critical analysis on the relation between democracy and corruption: the case of Mexico] Estudios De Derecho, 76(167), 41-64. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.esde.v76n167a02

Copeland, C. (2023, July 25). International Experts Issue Final Report on Ayotzinapa Investigation. Courthouse News Service. https://www.courthousenews.com/international-experts-issue-final-report-on-ayotzinapa-investigation/ 

Dilge, K. (2023, March 14). Former Pemex CEO Lozoya will face trial for Odebrecht scandal. Mexico Business. https://mexicobusiness.news/oilandgas/news/former-pemex-ceo-lozoya-will-face-trial-odebrecht-scandal 

Drapalova, E., Mungiu-Pippidi, A., Palifka, B. J., & Vrushi, J. (2019). Corruption and the crisis of democracy: The link between corruption and the weakening of democratic institutions. Transparency International. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep20482

Economist Intelligence Unit. (n.d.). Democracy index. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/democracy-index-eiu?tab=table&time=earliest..2022 

Faust, J., Harbers, I., & Razu, Z. (2017). (rep.). (M. Thunert, Ed.)Mexico Report Sustainable Governance Indicators 2017. Bertelsmann Stiftung. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://www.sgi-network.org/docs/2017/country/SGI2017_Mexico.pdf

Faust, J., Harbers, I., & Razu, Z. (2018). (rep.). (M. Thunert, Ed.)Mexico Report Sustainable Governance Indicators 2018. Bertelsmann Stiftung. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://www.sgi-network.org/docs/2018/country/SGI2018_Mexico.pdf. 

Gan Integrity. (2020, September 30). Mexico Country Risk Report. GAN Integrity. https://www.ganintegrity.com/country-profiles/mexico/ 

Gartzke, E., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2004). Why Democracies May Actually Be Less Reliable Allies. American Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 775–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519933

Gónzalez Loera, O. A. (2021). Making sense of Mexico’s place in the world: A role theoretical analysis of Mexico’s foreign policy (thesis). Retrieved November 20, 2023, from https://hdl.handle.net/1842/38487. 

Iain D. H. (2020). What Allies Want: Reconsidering Loyalty, Reliability, and Alliance Interdependence. International Security 44 (4): 45–83. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00375

Johnston, M. (2005). Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490965

Kaufmann, D. (1997). Corruption: The Facts. Foreign Policy, 107, 114–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/1149337

Kuhn, A., Novy, L., & Schraad-Tischler , D. (2016). (rep.). Mexico Report Sustainable Governance Indicators 2009. Bertelsmann Stiftung. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://www.sgi-network.org/docs/2009/country/SGI09_Mexico.pdf. 

Kukutschka Martinez, R. B. (2018). (rep.). Integrity risks for international businesses in Mexico. U4 Helpdesk Answer. Retrieved November 2, 2023, from https://www.u4.no/publications/integrity-risks-for-international-businesses-in-mexico.pdf

Leeds, B. A., Long, A. G., & Mitchell, S. M. (2000). Reevaluating Alliance Reliability: Specific Threats, Specific Promises. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 44(5), 686–699. http://www.jstor.org/stable/174649

Merkel, W. (2014). Is There a Crisis of Democracy?. Democratic Theory, 1. 11-25. doi:10.3167/dt.2014.010202.

Monsiváis, C. (2020). Corrupción y legitimidad democrática en México [Corruption and democratic legitimacy in Mexico]. Revista mexicana de sociología, 82(3), 587-618. https://doi.org/10.22201/iis.01882503p.2020.3.58503

Morris, S. D. (1991). Corruption & politics in contemporary Mexico. University of Alabama Press.

Morris, S. D. (2009). Political Corruption in Mexico: The Impact of Democratization. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

OMCT. (2016, September 21). Joint letter calling on the European Union to take action in response... https://www.omct.org/en/resources/statements/joint-letter-calling-on-the-european-union-to-take-action-in-response-to-the-lack-of-concrete-outcomes-in-locating-the-43-students-of-ayotzinapa-two-years-after-their-disappearance 

Philip, G., & Faust, J. (2011). (rep.). (M. Thunert, Ed.)Mexico Report Sustainable Governance Indicators 2011. Bertelsmann Stiftung. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://www.sgi-network.org/docs/2011/country/SGI11_Mexico.pdf

Philip, G., & Faust, J. (2014). (rep.). (M. Thunert, Ed.)Mexico Report Sustainable Governance Indicators 2014. Bertelsmann Stiftung. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://www.sgi-network.org/docs/2014/country/SGI2014_Mexico.pdf

Philip, G., & Faust, J. (2015). (rep.). (M. Thunert, Ed.)Mexico Report Sustainable Governance Indicators 2015. Bertelsmann Stiftung. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://www.sgi-network.org/docs/2015/country/SGI2015_Mexico.pdf

Philip, G., & Faust, J. (2016). (rep.). (M. Thunert, Ed.)Mexico Report Sustainable Governance Indicators 2016. Bertelsmann Stiftung. Retrieved December 6, 2023, from https://www.sgi-network.org/docs/2016/country/SGI2016_Mexico.pdf. 

Schmitter, Philippe C., and Terry Lynn Karl. 1991. “What Democracy Is. . . and Is Not.” Journal of Democracy 2 (3): 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1991.0033.

Stiftung, B. (n.d.). SGI 2022: Sustainable governance indicators. SGI 2022 | Sustainable Governance Indicators. https://www.sgi-network.org/2022/ 

Tanzi, V. (1998). Corruption Around the World: Causes, Consequences, Scope, and Cures. Staff Papers (International Monetary Fund), 45(4), 559–594. https://doi.org/10.2307/3867585

Theobald, R. (1990). Corruption, development, and underdevelopment. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire : Macmillan

Transparency International. (n.d.). 2022 corruption perceptions index - explore Mexico’s results. Transparency.org. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022/index/mex

Feel free to reach out with any thoughts or comments. I'd love to hear what you think!

The information shared in this post is for educational and informational purposes. If you choose to use or reference any part of the content, please ensure proper citation and give appropriate credit to the sources mentioned. Unauthorized use of the material without proper acknowledgment is discouraged.