Colonial domination has shaped economy
Instead of blaming culture for state’s economic issues, look at top-down imposition of rules
Winthrop Quigley’s recent UpFront column provides a couple of anecdotes that point to an alleged dysfunctional New Mexican culture. New Mexico’s culture, he argues, is the worst enemy of a thriving economy in our state.
Nuevo Mexicano culture is not the cause of our state’s poor economic performance. But even if it were, these shortcomings are not the result of being native New Mexicans; it is the result of multiple centuries of economic and political institutions being violently imposed onto us.
Many of us, especially those whose roots are embedded in the aquifers of the Rio Grande Valley, find Quigley’s analysis not only offensive but also incredibly shallow.
In addition to his analysis being historically incorrect, it also demonstrates the common misunderstanding between members of the dominant culture and native New Mexicans.
The culture hypothesis dates back, at least, to German sociologist Max Weber, who argued that a certain “Protestant ethic” was the key factor in facilitating the rise of modern industrial society. More recent advancements in the discipline of economics have de-prioritized Weber’s thesis.
In “Why Nations Fail,” economists Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson argue that any difference in culture is not “a cause of the difference of prosperity but, rather, a consequence.” In other words, cultural factors do not lead to better institutions; rather, inclusive institutions lead to a culture that is more conducive to economic well-being.
Acemoglu and Robinson emphasize the importance of economic and political institutions, both of which are shaped by history. Modern-day New Mexico is burdened with not one but two colonial legacies, first the Spanish, then the Americans. Each colonial power approached domination and rule differently, but each resulted in the supplanting of property norms of the native populations.
To identify why New Mexicans distrust outsiders, look no further than our state’s brutal history of colonization and “extractive institutions.”
By institutions, I’m referring to the rules of the game. Both formal and informal rules govern how members of society, everyone from small families to nationstates, interact with one another. These institutions have evolved and adapted over time and they emerged spontaneously.
Friedrich Hayek identified two types of order: “spontaneous order” emerges from the bottom up, without any planning by one individual or group of individuals. Contrastingly, “made orders” are artificially imposed from the top down. Since they are of a deliberate design, “they invariably do (or at least at one time did) serve a purpose of the maker” if Hayek is correct.
When these rules emerge from the bottom up they are more consistent with resource scarcity, existing technologies, incentives and customs. When bottom-up rules are replaced with top-down rules, you have conflicts over resources and a lack of trust. Top-down rules are often designed to favor special interests; in New Mexico’s case, select business interests, politicians, bureaucrats and settlers.
Coercive powers are implicit in top-down rules, and they invariably favor the parties in power.
This has been true since Oñate set foot in New Mexico to extract resources and expand Spanish territory. It was also true when the Santa Fe Ring conspired to exploit legal loopholes and steal land from New Mexicans, despite the alleged protections granted by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
The people of New Mexico have long been subject to top-down institutions imposed by outsiders.
As evidence for our culture being a problem, Quigley refers to New Mexican factory workers who would rather quit every hunting season, rather than “accumulate some extra cash.”
He fails to realize that, for many New Mexico families, hunting is part of our herencia, our heritage. We hunt because our ancestors taught us how; it was passed down to us and it is something we can pass down to our children. As a land-based people, being able to participate in such a tradition is a manifestation of freedom.
If freedom means anything, it means having the freedom to prioritize our own values. Freedom means not being forced to conform, or assimilate to the dominant culture.
Instead of rehashing the trite culture hypothesis, perhaps Quigley should consider the role that institutions play in establishing an equal playing field, incentivizing productivity and promoting human well-being.