Podecobis: economic federalism in action

In the debate on how to boost economic growth more equitably in Mexico, the Economic Development Hubs for Well-being offer a pragmatic and flexible alternative. This isn't about rehashing formulas from the past or promoting special zones as magic bullets. Rather, it's a bottom-up industrial policy built from the bottom up, with a technical foundation, a federalist spirit, and a democratic vocation.

The Hubs are part of a national strategy that recognizes a fundamental fact: economic growth doesn't happen on its own. It requires direction, coordination, and public-private commitment. Like any industrial policy, the Hubs are a commitment. But not a blind commitment. It's an informed commitment, built on evidence and supported by technical evaluations by five federal government agencies within their respective jurisdictions. Furthermore, it's a strategy that responds, on the one hand, to the definition of strategic sectors, and, on the other, to the local knowledge of the states. It's not a centralist imposition, but rather a policy defined territorially based on proposals submitted by the states. Rather than imposing a single vision from the center, it opens spaces for productive development to emerge from below, with strategic direction and territorial flexibility.

The Hubs combine infrastructure, administrative facilitation, incentives, and territorial planning to attract investment and generate development with social justice, aligning with Plan Mexico and the current government's welfare policy. Unlike other models, the Hubs focus on promoting productive investment, generating employment, and reducing regional inequalities, linking economic development with social well-being. While they are distributed in areas with high productive potential—close to logistics corridors, ports, airports, or industrial centers—they also contribute to the development of historically underserved regions, which favors more equitable territorial inclusion.

A central element of the design is the identification of strategic sectors by region. However, this is not about imposing sectors from the center or limiting private initiative. The defined sectors are indicative guidelines, not mandatory restrictions. They serve to guide public and private investment decisions, increase the likelihood of success, and avoid the dispersion of efforts. Each state, each developer, and each company has room to propose viable alternatives within the overall framework. The selection of sectors is based on analyses that consider regional comparative advantages, value chains with integration potential, global market requirements, and talent development capabilities. This approach recognizes the country's diversity and allows for the construction of strategic investments tailored to each territory.

Unlike past experiences marked by centralism, these Hubs are based on the principle of local leadership. State governments propose locations, provide land, promote coordination agreements, and lead engagement with local economic stakeholders. The federal government supports, coordinates, and provides tools: tax incentives, regulatory simplification, educational and technical outreach, and promotional platforms. No single logic is imposed, but rather effective coordination between levels of government is facilitated, with the flexibility to adapt the instruments to each situation. The design allows for immediate corrections, incorporating new demands, and adjusting support to changing conditions. This is not a straitjacket, but an adaptable platform.

Furthermore, under clear coordination frameworks and legal certainty, private sector participation strengthens any proposal and improves the effectiveness of the results. The Hubs were designed so that, through private investment and state support, strategic areas of the country can achieve economic development that promotes territorial justice.

The design of the Poles has also drawn on international lessons, without seeking to copy foreign models. Cases like Shenzhen demonstrate the transformative potential of a well-implemented industrial policy, but also illustrate its limits. Shenzhen's success was exceptional, preceded by multiple failed attempts, even within China. To think that every special zone automatically generates an economic miracle is to fall into a selection bias that overvalues successes and overlooks the specific conditions that made them possible.

Furthermore, the capabilities of the Mexican state are not comparable—nor even desirably comparable—with those of the Chinese state. Our approach is based on what we do have: a democratic institutional framework, consolidated technical capabilities in key sectors, committed state governments, accumulated experience in public-private coordination, and available fiscal and administrative tools. From there, we can pragmatically design an industrial policy on our scale. Examples such as the industrial hubs of Franco's Spanish regime can enrich academic discussions about the 20th century, but they contribute little to evaluating contemporary policies in the current Latin American context. Today, the challenge is not to distribute manufacturing from a centralized state, but to build productive capacities in diverse territories, in a dynamic global environment and with a democratic and participatory logic.

Of course, no tax incentive, on its own, can compensate for structural deficiencies. Therefore, the Hubs are not limited to offering incentives. They are accompanied by investments in connectivity, regulatory simplification processes, strengthening of technical training, and links with local innovation systems. Each Hub is established after a technical evaluation that considers multiple dimensions: connectivity, sustainability, social feasibility, population density, services, talent, and more.

We start from reality: regional asymmetries have been accentuated by the lack of state leadership and by decades of believing that the market would solve everything. This proposal is based on a serious analysis, understanding the country's reality. The Hubs are linked to logistics corridors, priority infrastructure projects, and regional vocations with potential. The goal is to create conditions for the market to invest in territories that, with state support, can become new productive platforms. Continuous improvement mechanisms have been incorporated to allow for adjustments as implementation progresses.

Industrial policy doesn't guarantee immediate results, but it does offer direction. Faced with a changing global economy, where geopolitics is reshaping supply chains and opening up opportunities for Mexico, failure to act would be the real risk. That's why the country has decided to opt for a solution: not a fixed formula, but rather a strategic platform that combines state leadership with business dynamism, seizing the moment but always planting for the long term.

In a global environment as uncertain as the current one, acting decisively, but also with humility, is a virtue. Development doesn't happen on its own. And while there are no magic formulas, there are responsible strategies that pave the way. That's the challenge.