Historia de la Revolución Mexicana, período 1934-1940

Chávez, Alicia Hernández; González, Luis González y

doi:10.2307/j.ctv233n95

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But Cárdenas made clear from the beginning that he had other plans. After rejecting the ex-president's critiques of his friendly approach to urban worker strikes, Cárdenas fired Calles's loyalists occupying government and military positions (Hernández Chávez 1979), and Calles himself was eventually accused of conspiracy and deported in April 1936 (Medin 1982).…”

Section: Building or Dissolving A Domestic Coalition: Key For Success?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By the end of his term in 1940, almost all organized workers belonged to one of those two big organizations, implying that, after 1938, they were automatically affiliated with the ruling party of the Mexican Revolution (Partido de la Revolución Mexicana). 17 Only a few relevant unions, such as those of railway workers and electricians, kept themselves independent (Hernández Chávez 1979), though not necessarily in opposition to the government.…”

Section: Building or Dissolving A Domestic Coalition: Key For Success?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…He controlled local militias and sought, without any documented success, the support from foreign oil companies (Gilly 2001;Meyer 1972;Wood 1967). The rebellion was defeated the next year and Cedillo himself was killed during the uprising (Hernández Chávez 1979). In Cárdenas's cabinet, there were also skeptical or critical voices regarding the expropriation, 18 but once the decision was announced, no opposition came from any of them.…”

Section: Building or Dissolving A Domestic Coalition: Key For Success?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Oil Nationalizations in Bolivia (1937) and Mexico (1938): A Comparative Study of Asymmetric Confrontations with the United States

Flores

Filho

2020

Lat. American Res. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the 1930s the Bolivian and Mexican governments decreed the nationalization of their respective oil industries, thus starting a juncture of tensions in their relationship with the United States government and companies. In both cases foreign companies quit the respective host countries, but Bolivia was less successful than Mexico in maintaining its initial stand in face of the external pressure. Following a most-similar-system design strategy to compare both cases of asymmetrical confrontation, which share a similar set of conditions regarding simultaneity, starting causes of the conflict, actors involved and international context, we contend that the difference in the confrontation’s resolution is mainly attributable to differing domestic variables. Controlling for the similarity in external conditions, we show that the building and maintenance of a strong internal support coalition was critical for the capacity of the weakest part to advance its interest in an asymmetrical atmosphere.

show abstract

Section: Building or Dissolving A Domestic Coalition: Key For Success?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Building or Dissolving A Domestic Coalition: Key For Success?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Building or Dissolving A Domestic Coalition: Key For Success?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Oil Nationalizations in Bolivia (1937) and Mexico (1938): A Comparative Study of Asymmetric Confrontations with the United States

Flores

Filho

2020

Lat. American Res. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Mexico,c.1930–46

Knight

1990

The Cambridge History of Latin America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Armed Branch of the State: Civil–Military Relations in Mexico

Serrano

1995

J. Lat. Am. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the relationship between civil-military relations and political change. Transitions to democracy in Latin America have led scholars to focus attention on the legacy of military rule and those efforts aimed at securing democratic control of the military. The article examines the foundations of civilian supremacy in Mexico, established within the context of a hegemonic party system. Changes brought about in the civil-military balance as a result of shifts in the division of labour between civilians and soldiers, as well as the impact of political liberalisation, are also analysed. Drawing on the experience of other transitions to democracy, the article discusses some of the issues raised by the dismantling of hegemonic rule for civil-military relations in Mexico.The debate about the magnitude and the rhythm of political change in Mexico over the past years has been reflected in an extensive literature. A great deal of this debate has focused, first, on the political implications of the economic crisis and the subsequent economic adjustment. Secondly, the role of political parties and civil society in the process of political change has also received considerable attention. Another theme which has been thoroughly analysed is that of the difficulties and dilemmas of a process of change taking place within a highly institutionalised dominant party system. 1 In contrast, the role of the armed forces has been little discussed. It was only with the uprising in Chiapas in January 1994 that the place of the armed forces in the liberalisation process entered the public debate. Since 1988 not only the debate and analysis of political change, but also the various proposals for political reform had practically ignored the question of the armed forces. This was to a great extent the consequence of a pattern of civil-military relations whose stability and 1 Although the 1994 presidential elections have been characterised as clean and transparent, in the aftermath of the elections evidence pointing to numerous irregularities increased. Despite this, and doubts about the fairness of competition, to the extent that free and transparent elections did not oust the PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institutional) Mexico could be placed into Sartori's category of 'fake dominant party system'. See M. Serrano, 'The end of hegemonic rule?', in N. Harvey and M. Serrano (eds.),

show abstract

Historia de la Revolución Mexicana, período 1934-1940

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

The Oil Nationalizations in Bolivia (1937) and Mexico (1938): A Comparative Study of Asymmetric Confrontations with the United States

The Oil Nationalizations in Bolivia (1937) and Mexico (1938): A Comparative Study of Asymmetric Confrontations with the United States

Mexico,c.1930–46

The Armed Branch of the State: Civil–Military Relations in Mexico

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About