and batteries have gotten thinner, and screens and all that stuff. but partly it's because we have wi-fi, and we have cellular data now that moves at pretty fast rates. and this -- there are apps on here that are purely local, i don't know what apps you have on yours, but you could go download apps that store everything on here. could be a game, could be a reference app, like there's a great app about the periodic table if you're into science or you're a student or science that's all local on here, mostly local. not entirely. but a lot of apps on here, you know, which give you restaurant recommendations or travel stuff or whatever it is, wikipedia, whatever there are probably 25 wikipedia apps on here, those things run into the claude and get the data -- into the cloud

and get the data. so this thing does not have to have a huge hard disk in here. and i think the cloud it has issues, there's insecurities, there's multiple different cloud services, and you have to kind of figure out what you want to do, but that is an enormous, an enormous thing. >> host: and those, all these devices use spectrum. >> guest: well, everything uses spectrum, but i think that's a real washington way of looking at it. actually, the tech guys are beginning to think that they can figure out a way to slice the spectrum in a way that would actually open it up. i'm not saying the telecom companies have this point of view, but the tech guys are working very hard on ways they think to split it up. yeah, they all use spectrum. they all use spectrum. um, wi-fi, as you know, is an unregulated piece of spectrum, and you'll notice that

it has taken off phenomenally. but, yeah, to get to the internet you have to have a way to connect, you're absolutely right. >> host: do you see spectrum, difference in spectrum policy coming in the next couple of years? >> guest: spectrum policy -- >> host: again, a washington question. >> guest: yeah, it's a washington question. there's two things about spectrum policy that i would note. one is it's based on very old concepts. i mean, look, the physics are the physics. there's only so much spectrum, we get that. i'm not disputing that. but the way the government divvied it up stems from radio, stems from a very old thing. the notion that things, if the spectrum was too close to each other, it would interfere. there's just a million policies at the fcc that really have their roots in an era that bears

no resemblance to the era today. that's one thing. secondly, spectrum policy in washington is enormously, even more than some other policies, influenced by lobbying. the fcc universe is full of -- people leave the fcc, and they become telecommunications lawyers practicing before the fcc. presidents of both parties appoint people with -- i'm not saying any of this is illegal or corrupt, but it's just the truth. it's another one of these bubbles. there's a telecom bubble around the fcc. one of the reasons why some of the tradition alltel come interests -- traditional telecom interests aren't that high on the fcc chairman, julius genachowski, is he has much more of a tech outlook on the world, close to the president personally which is an advantage for him, and he's a very smart guy, and we've had him at our conference. he gets all of these tech data

device issues. but, um, the traditional, deep-rooted telecom interests here in this town, he's not tear favorite guy. he didn't come out of their world. so i think spectrum policy is, needs a tremendous overhaul, and it needs to be focused overwhelmingly on digital, wireless lifestyles that people are adopting. not on old broadcast lifestyles. >> host: and one final questions from eliza krugman, will at&t and verizon's dominance, is that going to slow down innovation in the tech space, and we'll lee it there -- we'll leave it there. >> guest: i think the answer to that is that it well could.

and this is not a particularly criticism of those two companies. i believe that one of the big game-changing differences that was kicked off by the iphone was that it was the first significant phone in the united states. there may be some other one that i don't know about, might have been the first period, where the carrier -- in that case it was at&t. it was actually cingular which changed it name to at&t around that time, did not have anything to say about the phone. and the same is true today whether it's verizon, sprint or at&t or any of the ones overseas. apple controls that phone. it's like a pc. it's like our mac. they basically -- let's say you have a dell in your house, and you decide to switch it for an hp. or let's say you're using chrome

browser, but you decide to switch to, you know, safari. you don't have -- the company from which you buy your internet connection whether it's comcast or whoever it is, finishing -- fios, you don't have to let them know anything about that. they didn't help design that computer, you didn't buy it from them, they don't get to say what browser's on it, none of that stuff. and apple's approach with the iphone was much more like the mac or a pc approach than the traditional phone approach which was the carriers decided which phones you could use on their network, carriers dictated to the phone makers how the phone should look, what the software should be on the phone, all of that stuff. carriers have had colossal power. and at&t and verizon -- and what we've had is a concentration of

wireless carriers as the questioner mentioned with at&t and verizon roughly the same size being so much bigger than sprint and t-mobile. and the thing that i worry a the most about when talking about innovation is that at&t and verizon are now, first of all, they're bringing out -- particularly verizon -- a wonderful thing which is called the lte which is the only real, quote, 4g. your viewers can ignore almost all the other 4g ads unless they say lte. at&t's also rolling it out. it's very fast. it's faster than most people's home wired internet connection. by orders of magnitude, it could be four times as fast as your home internet. but they're putting it into these buckets. they're charging you a lot of money if you go over a certain number of gigabytes or megabytes

a month. no one knows how to count megabytes and gigabytes. they're now providing apps when you get close to your limits, and they think that's the solution. but companies that are coming out with great think things for any of these devices are assuming and depending upon the fact that you can, if you choose, you can go and subscribe let's say netflix, you can subscribe to that, and you can watch movies all day on here. well, the new, metered pricing championed primarily by at&t and verizon, i think, is going to have a stifling effect on the kinds of things you can do on these devices and through the cloud and over the network. and i worry about that. i imagine one response might be that these devices, technologies are invented that somehow are much more efficient in the use of this. but i don't know.

>> host: walt mossberg, "wall street journal" personal technology columnist and co-executive editor of allthings j deny.com at "the wall street journal." thank you for being on "the communicators." >> guest: thank you for having me. >> just ahead, golf bobby jindal of louisiana and former minnesota governor tim pawlenty campaigning for republican presidential candidate mitt romney in pittsburgh. in about 20 minutes we'll be live at the woodrow wilson center with a review and analysis of last week's mexican elections and what the new government may mean for u.s. relations. and later the u.s. senate returns from its weeklong independence day recess. no roll call votes are expected. >> louisiana governor bobby jindal and former minnesota governor tim pawlenty took a bus tour through northern ohio and western pennsylvania last week to campaign for gop presidential

candidate mitt romney. the trip coincided with president obama's two-day campaign swing through those same battleground states. one of their stops was in pittsburgh where the golfs talked about -- governors talked about what they said are president obama's broken promises to the middle class. they spoke for about 25 minutes. [cheers and applause] >> thanks for coming out this morning. i'm delighted to be here with one of the great governors in the nation, governor jindal from louisiana. we've been traveling over ohio, pennsylvania. [applause] we're trying to bring a little balance to barack obama's message as he travels across ohio and pennsylvania. he's got a tour, a bus tour that you may have heard, he's dubbed it the betting on america tour. well, we should all bet on america, this tremendously blessed and beloved country. but we shouldn't double down on

barack obama. his presidency's a losing hand for america. [applause] >> and he's coming across the great state of pennsylvania, and he's talking about what he can do for the middle class. but don't be duped again. he made all these big promises last time in 2008 to the middle class and to america more broadly, and he's broken just about every one of them. now, let me go through a few examples with you. you know, when he was running last time, he said that he wasn't going to raise taxes on anybody under $200,000 of income. remember that promise? >> yeah! >> and amongst the other broken aspects of that, the united states supreme court just said his individual mandate on health insurance is a tax, and it goes right to the heart of the middle class and people with modest incomes. he broke his promise, didn't he? [applause]

and then he became president of the united states, within the first couple of months of his presidency he looked the american people in the eye, and he said i'll cut this gargantuan federal budget deficit in half during my first term. remember him saying that? the president broke his promise to america, didn't he? he didn't cut it in half, he's nearly tripled it. now, the other thing he said is, look, if you pass my stimulus bill, that junkie, smelly, porked up stimulus bill, he said and his administration predicted that unemployment could go down and would go down to 5.6%. well, they passed his stimulus bill, and unemployment went way up, way beyond 5.6%. he broke his promise, didn't he? >> yes! >> now, are you ready far better president? >> yes! [applause] >> barack obama has taken hope and change and turned it into bait and switch.

now, he has waffled back and forth on a lot of issues, but he said just yesterday, i believe in ohio, to a local media outlet that when you're president of the united states, your words matter. well, here's his words on obamacare. he first came out when he proposed it a little bit afterwards and said, oh, it's not a tax. it's not a tax on people. and then he got in legal trouble before the supreme court, and te court system, and he sent his lawyers into the court system once they found out they were in trouble on a legal argument and said, yeah, it is a tax. and then the supreme court said it is, indeed, a tax. and now the president and his people have come out and said, no, it's not a tax. is your head spinning yet? he shouldn't be going to places he's been on this tour, he should go to the waffle house, and they should have the barack obama special. [laughter] he's bounced around more than anything that you could imagine.

we should have waffle man or waffle woman follow him in a waffle suit. i mean, he's changed his position so many times -- [applause] this election just isn't about the failure of the barack obama presidency, it's also about the men and women of this great state, the men and women of bob bobby's state and my state and all of america. i grew up in a meat-packing town in the 1960s. home of some of the world's largest, america's largest meat-packing plants, these huge plants. my dad for a good chunk of his life was a truck driver. my mom for a good chunk of her life was a home homemaker. my mom died when i was in tenth grade, and my dad got laid off not too long after that. and when those big meat-packing

plants shut down, i saw the face of unemployment and the effects that has on moms and dads and neighborhood and community. i saw it at a real young age up close and real personal. so when we talk about barack obama, we talk about jobs, these aren't just statistics. they're not just 40 months of above 8% unemployment. they're not just 23 million people unemployed or underemployed or stopped looking for work. these are moms and dads and people whose hopes and dreams are tied up on whether they're going to have access to a job. because when you talk to them about what matters in pennsylvania, they talk first about faith and family, then they talk about their hopes and dreams for them or their children or their family. they talk about their hope to be able to get a house or pay their mortgage. they talk about the ability to get their kids to college and pay for it.

they talk about the ability to be able to afford health care and some other thicks. all of -- things. all of that for most people requires that we have a job and hopefully a good-paying job. and so this isn't about numbers, it's not about rhetoric, it's not about statistics. it's about whether we're providing the american dream and real hope and real opportunity to people through a growing economy in the private sector and good paying jobs for pennsylvania and good paying jobs for america. president obama's had his chance. he got his policies enacted. the stimulus bill didn't work, the health care bill, i think an impending economic disaster and drug on the economy -- and drag on the economy. he's had his economic policies approved in many ways. it's not working. it's not that his presidency has failed, he's failing america. and when he comes to pennsylvania today, and he tries to make the case that it's

working and you look the people in the eye who are unemployed, underemployed, you don't have to listen to barack obama or bobby jindal or tim pawlenty. go talk to the people who are on the job or want a job. there's six million businesses in this country, 5.9 million of 'em have 500 employees or tower. fewer. and if you go talk to the folks who are in those businesses or trying to start 'em or grow 'em, they all say it a little differently, but they all say the same thing. some say the taxes are too high, and we're taxing them out of business. others say the regulations are too expensive and too heavy, and they become too difficult to deal with. others talk about energy costs being too high and being too much of a burden on their business. others say these rising health care costs are killing them or dragging down their business as well, and they can't provide jobs, they can't grow their business because they say the burden from goth is too heavy -- from government is too hey, and

they're saying, please, get the government off my back! [cheers and applause] [applause] and i don't know, i don't know if he's not listening or he doesn't care or he doesn't understand, but we've had enough of his teleprompter speeches, we've had enough of him flapping his jaws. we've got too many more americao are hurting, too many americans who are unemployed, too many americans who are underemployed. and when moms and dads look at their young children and say if you work hard, if you try hard

in school, if you play by the rules, there's going to be hope for you, there's going to be opportunity for you. and now this president has got a country where half of the high school graduates, half of the college graduates are either unemployed or underemployed. it makes moms and dads feel like the stuff they're telling their children isn't true. and his hope and change words don't pay the mortgage. his teleprompter speeches don't pay the grocery bill. his big rhetoric and extension of his words don't go put gas in the tank of the car or truck. we can't live on his teleprompter speeches. [applause] so i hope when he comes here today, pennsylvania will look him in the eye and ask him those questions. i think we should thank him for his service, but tell the president you had your chance.

it's not working. it's time for a new president. now, mitt romney has got a -- [applause] mitt romney's got a tremendous vision for this country. the it's a vision not based it's a vision not based on a european-style of government, it's based on the american tradition of limited government. he's got proposals to lower taxes for businesses and individuals, proposals to lighten the regular ha story -- regulatory road to encourage business and job. he wants to get back to market and consumer-based health care, not government takeovers of health care. he wallets to get federal spending -- he wants to get federal spending under control. that's the kind of direction america needs. [applause] and he wants american energy.

he wants to build the keystone pipeline. he wants to take full advantage of shale oil and shale gas. [applause] somebody who understands all that is our next speaker. i've had a chance to get to know bobby gyp call the as a governor when -- jindal as a governor when we were governors together. he's a fabulous leader. and he's got a state that was challenged under many ways. under his leadership, it is moving in the right direction. he's one of the smartest, brightest voices of the conservative movement in our country. he's senately younger than me, but he's already been to the moon and back -- [laughter] and he's, you know, invented -- no, i'm just. seriously, he is a tremendous leader not just for louisiana, but for america. and it's a delight to have him with us this morning. i think you'll see in just a minute the energy and the power and the passion that he brings to the debate and what he can do for his state and the country.

please help me welcome a great governor, a great friend, bobby jindal from louisiana. >> thank y'all very much. thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you. thank y'all very much. thank y'all very much. let's give tim pawlenty another round of applause. what a great job governor pawlenty did. thank you, tim. you know, before i even start i just, we're in this museum, we celebrated our country's birthday this week. and we should remember july 4th is our country's birthday. and i've got young kids, a 10-year-old, 8-year-old, 5-year-old, they always remine me, you know, every christmas we have a birthday cake for jesus. if it's a birthday, you should have a birthday cake. [applause] july the 4th is a birthday. you think about the fireworks and the parade, it's a birthday

for our country, for the freest, greatest country in the history of the world. but standing in this museum i think we should give a great round of applause for the men and women in uniform who run towards danger, not away from it, so we can live in this country. [cheers and applause] now, you know, it's not politically correct to talk about american exceptionalism. it's not politically correct to say what i've just said, that thises, indeed, the greatest country in the history of the world. they asked president obama when he was campaigning. not when he was campaigning, when he was overseas, what did hi think about -- what did he think about american exceptionalism? you know, america is an exceptional country. and this is the most important election in our lifetimes. tim did a great job talking about all the broken promises that the president has made to the american people. but when you really boil down

this election, it comes down to one essential question; what is our vision for the future of this country? you see, we've got two candidates, and they couldn't be more different. these are probably two candidates more different in ideology, in resumés and practical experience than any two candidates we've seen in many, many election cycles. president obama, he represents what i call kind of the occupy wall street mentality. you know what i'm talking about. he gave a speech in ohio a few weeks ago, it was his big economic speech. spoke for about an hour. hope and change became divide and blame. it was all about dividing us, all about trying to pit one group against the other. you've heard the occupy wall street mentality. it's about demonizing those that have been successful, about dividing us apart from each other. that's not the america i grew up in. we've always believed you're not entitled to your neighbor's property, you don't have a right to your neighbor's car or house.

the reality is in america you're not promised equality of outcomes. that's not what makes america great. we're not like europe. we don't want a bigger, more expensive federal government redistributing the wealth, dividing a shrinking pie. that's not what america's about. we don't want a president to manage the slow decline of this great country. we know our best days are ahead of us. we're a young country at heart. [applause] part of what makes this such a great country is it doesn't matter what your last name is, doesn't matter the circumstances of your birth, your zip code, your race, your gender. what's so brilliant about america is that if you're willing to work hard, if you want to get a great education, you can do better than your parents. every generation of americans has left more opportunity for

our children than we inherited from our parents. we must not become the first generation that mortgages our children's and grandchildren's future. i bet you everyone here has got the exact same story in your family at some point, maybe it's you. maybe it's your parents, your grandparents, it really doesn't matter. for me it was my dad. one of nine kids, first and only one that got past the fifth grade. worked extremely hard so his kids could have a better quality of life than he's enjoyed. every one of us wants that for our children. that's what's at stake in this election. tim did a great job talking about all the promises this president's broken. he actually made a promise i'd like him to keep. remember four years ago he said, look, if we can't turn this economy around in three years, i'll be a one-term president. it'll be a one-term proposition. [cheers and applause]

i want to ask, i think every american voter should think about this. are we at a country, are we as vote, as families, are we better off than we were four years ago before he was elected? >> no! >> absolutely not. you heard the jobs report today. you heard the president say he was going to turn around this economy. 23 million unemployed, underemployed americans, median family income gone down $4,000 under his leadership, down $1 r 1400 in the state of pennsylvania. we simply can't afford be another four more years of president obama, yet he thinks the private success to have's doing -- sector's doing just fine. and what's his response to this? what's his response to this recession? he wants to borrow more money from the chinese to create more, new entitlement programs when we can't afford the government we've got to to today.

trillion dollar plus deficits every year since he's been president. $15 trillion of debt. my little girl brought a button home from school the other day. id said, please, don't tell the president what comes after a trillion. [laughter] and that's exactly right. look at this obamacare program. we can't afford the entitlement programs we've got, and he creates a brand new entitlement program. look at the broken promises there. if you like your doctor and your health care, you can keep snit as many as 20 million americans could lose their health care plans. promises he would protect medicare. ended up cutting over $500 million from medicare. promised he wouldn't raise our taxes, raised taxes over $500 billion in obamacare alone. over 2,000 pages. promises he would bend the cost curve down, we're going to spend more under this law than if it hadn't been passed. promised our premiums would go down $2500, they went up 3% --

9% last year. i think what the supreme court did was awful. i think this is going to be one of the largest tax increases on the middle class. but quite frankly, i don't care if you call it a tax increase, a penalty, a lien, a fine, we just need to repeal this bad law. it is bad policy, and it needs to come off the books. [cheers and applause] i don't know about you, i don't know about you, when i go to the doctor, the emergency room, when my child goes to the pediatrician, i don't want a government bureaucrat telling that doctor how to treat my child, my mom, how to treat me. i want my doctor bill to make those decisions without the government anywhere near them. [applause] and the final point is on

energy. my state has suffered through this administration's policies. you want to talk about ec porting jobs to other countries? we saw what his moratorium did. he said he wanted to bankrupt anybody that wanted to open a new coal facility in this country. instead of embracing clean coal, not only has he declared war on clean coal, he's declared war on shale, look at what the marcellus shale has done. lower natural gas, not only has that produced thousands of jobs in the exploration business, think about what that does for our steel industry, our fertilizer industries, our manufacturing base. if we have reliable, affordable energy, we can compete with anybody in the world. but if he continues to declare war on coal and these shale plays, we'll see even more jobs go to china and ore cubs. he was dub other countries. he was elected to create jobs in the united states, not china, russia or any ore country in the

world. [applause] i want to close, i want to close on this. the president can't run on his record, he can't run on his broken promises. you're going to hear him try to do everything he can by attacking mitt romney, distorting his record, going after what he did in high school, at bain, and by the way, i'm just glad that we're not talking about what i did in high school right now. [laughter] the reality is none of that -- first of all, those facts aren't true. you look at governor romney's record in massachusetts, they were losing jobs when he was elected, gaining jobs when he left. per capita income growth was growing faster than the national average, they were rammed one of the top ten turn around states in the country. i would rank that against the 500,000 jobs we have lost, i would compare that any day of the week. but this election is about the future of our country.

mitt romney understands we are not a intending to spend 2, 25% of our economy. mitt romney understands what is great about this economy is growing the private sector, not the public sector. so as i close, i want to remind you of this. this is, indeed, the most important election of our lifetimes. it is important for you and me. we like to say they are mortgaging our children's and our grandchildren's future. it's worse than that, they are destroying our present. we can't afford another four more years of president obama and those liberal, incompetent president since jimmy carter, never ran anything before we elected him president of the united states. let's add him to the 23 million unemployed americans. let's elect mitt romney president! [cheers and applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> house democratic whip steny hoyer will announce today new proposals to help manufacturing. he's speaking at the center for american progress in washington d.c. you can see congressman hoyer's comments live at noon eastern.

the house and senate both gavel in at 2 eastern with a weeklong fourth of july break. the house will consider a number of bills, but the major bills are later this week along with a vote on repealing the health care law. the senate will consider a judicial nomination and start debate on small business taxes. you can see the house on c-span, the senate here on c-span2. and this evening booktv.org will have live coverage as author robert merry talks about how presidents are ranked in the eyes of historians and the populace. see his comments live at 3 p.m. eastern. -- 7 p.m. eastern. >> i don't mean to sound like i want to go crazy and, quote, regulate the internet. on the other hand, i don't believe the internet should exist as a place outside the law. >> co-executive editor of the "wall street journal"'s online all things d, walt mossberg, on

the future of personal technology and the relationships between technology makers and the federal government, tonight at 8 each on "the communicators" -- 8 eastern on on the communicators on c-span2. >> wichita in june and this past weekend in jefferson city. watch for the continuing travels of c-span's local content vehicles every month on booktv and american history tv. and next month look for the history and literary culture of our next stop, louisville, kentucky, the weekend of august 4th and 5th on c-span2 and 3. >> the wilson center hosts a panel on the 2012 mexican presidential election results. in a final vote count friday, mention cose electoral authority confirmed enrique pena nieto as

the winner with just over 38% of the vote. he had two other challengers. experts will discuss mexico's future under his new leadership. we're expecting this program to get under way shortly. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning, ladies and gentlemen, my name is eric olson, and i'm the associate director at the mexico institute, and i want to give you a special welcome to the woodrow wilson center on this july 9th. i see that some of the fourth of july vacationers are slow to arrive this morning, so i'm sure we'll be joined by a number of other people, but we did want to get started. we want to welcome folks who are viewing this online through the wilson center web feed and also folks from c-span who have joined us this morning. give them a special welcome. as all of you know, mexico held a historic election on july the 1st, and historic in many ways that we will discuss this morning. but one of them was that it appears to have resulted in the

election ofmen' pena nieto as the president of election. his election has now been confirmed by the federal electoral institute, and while there still remains some controversy out there about the results and how those are going to be interpreted, we feel like this has been a very positive, good exercise of democracy in mexico, and we've assembled this morning an excellent panel to help us discuss the results. probably more important what they mean, what they tell us about the thinking that pervades in mexican, amongst the mexican electorate and what they may, what this may mean, in fact, for the future of mexico and to some extent u.s./mexican elections. our first panelist has been delayed, as i said. he will come at some point and probably end up with him rather

than begin with him, so i wanted to turn now to our colleagues and friends who have joined us this morning. i will briefly introduce them, then they will come and speak briefly, and we'll have some time for questions at the end of that. we're going to begin with jorge wendia, he's the executive director or ceo of one of the top public opinion and consulting firms in mexico, well known for their polling and public opinion in mexico. he was the lead pollster for the universal newspaper and also did some really interesting polling for the "dallas morning news" about public attitudes towards the issue of public security, the role of the mexican military and a number of things. we've asked him to dive into the

question of polling and public opinion and what these elections tell us. polling, as you may know in mexico has been itself a subject of great debate. questions about the reliability of it, the neutrality of it, and so what better opportunity than to hear from one of mexico's leading pollsters and public opinion surveyors. so thank you, jorge, for being with us. >> thank you. >> then we'll also hear from joy langston, professor at cite, one of the leading public universities in mexico, mexico city, the center for research and economic teaching in mexico and the wilson center and the mexican institute in particular has had a very close relationship with cide. joy is an expert on mexican politics and democracy and has

been working lately, most recently on the issue of the pri, the party of the institutional revolution that has now regained the presidency after a 12-year hiatus. so very appropriate research, very timely research for us to hear from joy on the meaning of this election. then we'll hear from a very good friend and colleague, francisco ensalas, assistant professor at johns hopkins university, a mexican who divides his time between washington, d.c. and mexico. we appeared together just last week on "the diane rehm show", and you will see that he's a very dynamic and insightful speaker. he spent a week or ten days in mexico around the time of the election, so has a lot to tell us firsthand and from his own

academic research. and then last but not least we have invited our new wilson center visiting scholar, mauricio merino who has been a longtime friend of the mexican institute, also a professor at cide in mexico city but on a yearlong sabbatical spending some of his time near washington, d.c. working on a book on accountability. which has been one of his main themes for academic research and professional work over the years. he's been traveling to many parts of the world to look at how governments and countries deal with the issue of accountability in government. so we're very welcome to have him -- excited to have him here, welcome. i should point out also that mauricio was a member, a citizen-counselor in the 2000 election, a member of the federal electoral institute.

that was a historic moment for mexico when they held their first presidential election under the guidelines of an independent federal electoral institute for the first time mauricio was a part of that historic group of people that oversaw that election and saw the pri, the long-running governing party lose the elections for the first time, and now 12 years later they're winning again. so we're delighted to have him as well. so with that introduction i'm going to invite jorge, who has a presentation, to come forward.

>> thanks, eric, for the introduction, and thanks for the invitation to attend this incredible conference. well, i'm going to start speaking of what has been a major probably scandal would be a good word to describe it about what went wrong with the polls in general. public opinion polls have overestimated pri and overestimated obrador, and this is something that -- [inaudible] most of the polls, and i will try to give you an explanation of what's really happening. i mean, we are at the earliest stages of research, but i think that at least i have found a hypothesis that it's more and more plausible that there's evidence to support it of what went wrong. the first thing is you can look at this graph probably not look

that well, but these were published during the campaign. these polls are adjusted by the actual result. you can see the overestimation before the poll, they gave the pri a share of the vote about five, four, five, six percentage points higher than it got on election day. and be notice the estimation of lopez obrador. but let me first point out that as you can see, pena nieto was in first place. there was not even a single published poll that had other outcome than this except the lopez obrador poll that had him two percentage points ahead of pena nieto, but no one knew who did this research. secondly, as you can see, all the polls show how lopez obrador

became -- got into second place. he started in third place, but consistently he began to improve, and by may it was very clear that he was in second place. so the polls reflected this pretty, pretty well. third, if you look at the, now there's been talk especially by the left or there was a conspiracy of the polls, especially by the media and pollsters. but if you look at two weeks before the election, there was not even a single public opinion poll that was consistently different from the others. [inaudible] for lopez obrador. the pollster or the traditional pollster, they were not publishing the results because, obviously, lopez obrador campaign didn't like it. but the results were also an advantage of pena nieto by 10,

11 percentage points. so two weeks before the election all major polls have more or less a good advantage for pena nieto. so there was a divergence at the end on the final measurement. so the question is what happened, what went wrong. and i think that just to put into context and the give you an idea of what i think is the most plausible explanation, this has to do with the new electoral law. and why this impacted the measurement of public opinion in mexico. basically, for the first time since 1988 all parties had to appear separately in the ballot even though they were nominating the same candidate. this meant there were only four

potential candidates, that there were seven partisan choices in the ballot. in 2006 the law allowed that all parties nominating the same candidate could appear under a single banner, a single logo. so, actually, the ballot in 2006, what they reflected was the strength of the candidates. why this was not so in 2012. and why i think this is important, because look at the actual results. it is a might their. nightmare. well, this is more or less, but look at the combinations. there was eight percentage points of electorate that -- [inaudible] both the pri --

[inaudible] all three parties that nominated lopez obrador. and there were about 16 percentage points, 16 out of 100 voters that voted for different combinations of parties. i don't think that any preelectoral poll was able to measure this accurately. and this -- not preelectoral poll that i know of was able or was telling us that this could happen. i mean, this actually reflects a very complex voting pattern. we haven't seen it before. in 2009 the electoral law apply to, the same electoral law apply, but is it's a midterm election. but this was really, really important and, obviously, in measurement terms this affect us

very much. what does this mean in terms of measurement? that's probably what's more important in this election was to measure candidate strength. and not to use in a very orthodox way a simulated ballot that has the same structure that the official ballot. because we would not be able to capture this. because this is, obviously, due to the fact that the different parties nominated the same candidate. if you follow the mexican campaign, you could see pena nieto's tv ads asking for the vote for the green party. and you could see also the workers' party, the pt, asking the vote for lopez obrador, the same thing for the prd. so it was very, very clear that the same candidate was asking the vote for different parties. and this, obviously, found a

reflection on the ballot on election day. but this tells you about a very complex voting pattern that i think it only could have taken place on election day. in what sense, this requires a lot of attention to the ballot, which parties nominate the same candidate and all that stuff. and to give you an idea of the measurement issues, if you compare the official results with exit polls were highly accurate on election day, and i want to stress this, these are the actual results of our exit poll and the official results. if you look at the candidate, i mean, the difference between each candidate is less than one percentage point. well within the sapping error. but if you look at the exit poll

results disaggregated by party, i only have 8% report for -- [inaudible] i underestimate the vote. this is, and i want to throw this, this was a measurement taken a few seconds or minutes after the people casted their vote. it was the same, identical ballot, and it didn't measure accurately all day. multiple vote. thus, we were able to measure accurately candidate strength the. so to summarize what happened, i think that what has happened is that those poll that were able to better measure lopez obrador and pena nieto who were asking about candidates and not those

who use, like i did, the more orthodox approach which was to use an identical, simulated ballot. if you were a pollster, you would probably are done better if you were going to ask only for the candidates. among candidates whom you would vote, whom would you vote for and not handing in a simulated ballot. i think that many of the firms that deviated from the official results were using the simulated ballot. so, but this is a measurement problem, and i think that what we have to do in the industry in mexico is to get rid of the simulated ballot. because it's not actually measuring in a good way what is going on in terms of the strength of the candidates. and, indeed, in the u.s. this is -- [inaudible] because you use telephone polls. you don't try to actually

reflect the ballot as it takes place, or the same, identical ballot because here it is used machines and lek thereonic voting and all that kind of stuff. so probably we will have to change that in elections for president or for big guber that tore y'all elections, especially in a candidate-centered age. okay. this being said, i would show you some of the reasons behind the vote of the mexico -- in mexico and the pat be earns of voting -- pat be earns of voting. this is based on the exit poll that i just mentioned. first thing, regarding turnout, this is a comparison of the composition of the exit poll and the electoral register. as you can see, there are not big biases, or there is no big bias request in the turnout

rates or the expected participation of the different socioeconomic groups. so what we have here is that, and this is really surprising. because usually the younger people, they go to the polls but here we findmore or less the same propulse. so what this tell us is that unlike other elections, and this is a hypothesis that will have to wait for the official results, but unlike other elections younger voters did not stain as they had done in the past. they more or less voted at the same rate and the other groups. this is a profile of support for each of the major candidates, and there are very important patterns. first, even among female voters

lopez obrador leads a little bit better or as well as josefina vazquez mota. but the field of lead was nine percentage points for enrique pena nieto. male voters were the ones who were more lopez obrador than female voters, and this is a pattern we have registered for many, many years. male voters are more -- [inaudible] in mexico than female voters. female voters are more conservative, and they tend not to vote that much for the left as male voters. but look also at young people. it's almost a tie. and this is a very important result because people between the ages of 18-29, they represent more or less one-third of the electorate, 30% of the electorate. so the fact that lopez obrador

did quite well within this group and also the fact that this, this segment voted at a very good rate, it is very, very important to explain why the race was closer than expected. look at the other age groups. their advantage of pena nieto was higher, among 33-44 and nine percentage points among the 45-59 cohorts. in terms of education, what you can see that pena nieto did much better among people with primary and secondary education while he lost among those with high school or college education. this is also very important

pattern. another thing is that this group, college people and younger people tend to be the more volatile. they tend to be the more independent, and what this suggests is the dependent vote went for the lopez obrador candidacy. but to summarize, at the beginning when i was writing the title of this presentation, i was thinking about something like -- [inaudible] the mexican voter in 2012. this is the same pattern that the pri have when it was in power 30 years ago. the poorer people supported more the pri than the more urban and the more educated people. and we have gone back to this very old pattern of voting where

they, mexicans support the position to the pri while the people who are less well-to-do, less educated tend to support the pri. this is a very old pattern that is coming back with a vengeance. .. you can see that they were favored to capture all the votes. he was identified more in a

position candidate than peña nieto, and this also explains one of a very important dynamics of this campaign, how in a position candidate became a candidate of establishment. the mexican borders didn't perceive thank you as a position candidate. rather, some cases it seemed that he was -- if you're going to look at the tv, sometimes there was, there were a lot of criticism about peña nieto's record while in the state of mexico. everybody was talking about peña nieto's record and no one was talking about felipe calderón's record of mexico. it was one of the very strange things of this election, that enrique peña nieto became the candidate of establishment, sometimes looking like the candidate. this, didn't go to work for him

because others were able to gain support of the people who were more unsatisfied with presidential performance. and also if you look at the people who thought that the country was going in the wrong track, also as civilization of how mexico is going gets worse, get a worsens, increases, but peña nieto doesn't benefit that much, of that dissatisfaction within the status quo. so the fate of peña nieto presenting himself as a moral position candidate at the end didn't work out that well for him, although he won by almost 7%. we don't see in terms of priorities either economic growth of taxing security that there is an advantage for any of the candidates, more or less the

percentages don't change depending on the priority. the people, we don't see any evidence either of some strategic voting. in general, the percentage of votes for each of the candidates, depending on the recent it was a sincere vote for it was a vote about another candidate to win, there are no major difference. i'm going to close -- social networks. probably the most important thing that happened this election was involvement of young people and facebook and twitter. and as you can see, peña nieto lost among the users of social media, among facebook users, among twitter users.

and in general, among people that use more heavy is kind of instruments, the young people and the college educated people. thank you. [applause] >> okay. going to try to get joy's presentation of your. -- up here. okay. >> all right. hello, everyone. thanks for coming. i am currently finishing a book

that explains how the pri have been able to change, adapt to the new rallies of electoral competition. and so all of a sudden, 2000 when the pri law, lost the presidential magic of people start choking what i was no longer a political scientist and is going to have to be a historian. and i say just wait, just way. 12 years later as a turnout i can again be a political scientist. now, eric asked me to sort of present to you all something that explained why the pri won these elections. and i think there are two basic causes here. there are structural factors and are conjectural factor. of course, he just poker stronger very clearly about some of the congenital factors, some going to concentrate more on sort of the structure of power that the pri had from 2000-2012, to help explain was able to come back, really come back with a

bang. so why did the pri when? first of all its strong in all reasons. is not a regional party like the p.a.n. the p.a.n. is center-right national action party and the pri is centerleft part of the democratic revolution. those to as we're going to see with some numbers are regional party to a regional basis of power, electoral power. the pri on the thing is a national party. it is electoral power in all regions of the nation. second, there were no major interparty splits or decisions. they did not fracture over the selection of the candidate. as they almost did in 2006. third, it is as much of other conjuncture of doctor, every for a strong candidate. you can complain and you can make fun of peña nieto but he was an extraordinarily strong candidate. it wasn't just because he was handsome. there are other reasons that explain. the two people i have a. by the way, this is man well.

he will probably be the next pri leader in the lower house cookies extremely powerful politician to get he is not puzzling to peña nieto. will talk about that a little bit at the end. this is the head of, and i had a very good picture of her. i did not, i did not, i did not make fun of her. she was beheaded extremely powerful and very large national teachers union, the national teachers union. she was somewhat connected to the pri. she certainly is not an enemy of kenya. so most people expect her party to be able to be fairly easily convinced to support bills in congress. so let's talk about why the pri is so stronger personal as socially there are tremendous power of the pri governors.

the pri governors are one of the most important bases of the party today, and have been since the loss in 2000 as i will argue, even before 2000 the governors with the base of the party. why our government so powerful? governors win elections. second, pri uploaded fragmentation. it's actually important because in the 2006 presidential election, the northern governors basically said no to roberto, the pri 2006 presidential candidate they helped him lose by such a large margin. that didn't happen in 2012. and, finally, this is important. nobody has spoken about it, within the pri their are always going to be extremely ambitious people who want the president candidacy. so one way that you can avoid splits his have one candidate it was so popular and so, anyone has this idea that he's going to win, that it does not make sense for other ambitious pri leaders to split.

and this is again the case of man well, who's basically the case of the other contender for the internal nomination to the presidency. he was so far behind that the new he could never a, the pain you and the internal nomination process or perhaps not even when the presidency. so, therefore, it made no sense for him to split a. he stays within the party. is loyal and i is about to be reward with another excellent job, which is being head of the pri in the congress. now, here's the pri governorships, and the pri is in the dark red. and this is right before the elections. in the worst moments of the party, and this is roughly between 2000-2003, the pri steel hailed 17-18 governors, of the 32 governorships. here in 2011, they held roughly 25 and 21. and most of the reasons why the pre, and if you see her, it is a very important state because the

pri lost a for the time to why did the pri lives of? a split from the pri. here it is still red. it just lost in the 20 with election. why did the pri list of? a split within the pri. mostly one can say that except for certain states within the sort of traditional p.a.n. stronghold, the pri loses elections because of internal splits within the state level pri. so unless you have a split, the pri will probably continue to govern. and if it managed to overcome these internal divisions they many times he can retake the governorship which was certainly the case in many states, many years ago, et cetera. so what you have here is really powerful national support for the party. why do you care about having governors? why should the p.a.n. and the pri be so worried about not having more governors? governors help you win election.

of local elections and federal election. governors can use a wide sort of range of instruments, both legal our illegal, to help the co-partisans, other pri candidates, either the state or federal levels went election. this is extremely important when you're talking a federal deputy elections. why? because the money you get as a party depends on how many seats you win in the lower house. this is really important, not only that, that will help determine the kind of power you have in the legislature. so even if you don't have the executive come if you don't control the executive branch, if you like the pri almost always get, have a strong centrist caucus in the lower house, what does that mean? that means you can always make the executive negotiate with you. that's how they stayed sort of politically important during the years out of power from 2000-2012. and this is going to make the

pri obviously a central part of the legislative branch in the 2012-2018 period. why? because governors that don't help you win the presidency, they help you win both senate seats and federal deputy seats. all right. now, these numbers, this means -- this is basically a regional district. because remember, mexico has a mixed system. so you have 300 single-member districts as well as 200 proportional representation seats. these seats are one through five regional districts, and this is a really nice way of looking at, sorry. it says regional weaknesses. these are single-member districts by region. so these are the single-member districts one by the p.a.n., the prd and the pri party. so in the first circumstance can this is the northwest. so this is sonora.

p.a.n. managed when only 13 seats. this is a traditional stronghold, this is the 2012 election. the prd 10 seats in this area. in the entire region of the northwest, the prd did not win a single single number district. not one. this speaks to a terrible weakness in the north. then look at the pri. this is usually out of 60. we'll take it from 60. the pri 147 of the 60 single-member districts in the region. and he we go, this is her conscription to is the northeast. the p.a.n. does far better here. this is in the far northeast where, by the way, that set this have an extremely powerful. this is something really interesting that one sought in this vote count for the presidential election. the p.a.n. candidate did extremely well in the northeast.

however, the pri still did extremely well in this region. and again look at the prd, not a single single-member district and now we go to the southeast. the p.a.n. drops tremendously and wins only six of the 60, that's 10% of all those single-member district. the prd does far better, and the pri continues to do very well. and here again now you see the weaknesses of the p.a.n. the p.a.n. only wins five. the prd when 41. why? is is the federal district. this is mexico city. the prd does extraordinary well and has done historically in the 27 districts in mexico city. and here you see the pri doesn't do very well, but the pri's weakest showing is as strong as p.a.n.'s second highest showing. and then this is the state of

mexico, the pri and again comes roaring back. so the pri is a national party. the p.a.n., center-right national action party, and the centerleft prd are not national parties. it is no surprise then that the pri with a good candidate would be able to come back to power. okay. hear the electoral results for state and municipal elections. and which is here, they start in 1980, look at the pri. this is in terms of percentage of those. used to when almost 90%, what's called a hegemonic party. not a dominant party like an indy or japan. this is a hegemonic party. then it drops really dramatically, but only in 1995. in the support of t minus one governor level levels off at around 40, 42%. it does not drop after 2000. it does not go down.

it stays steady. why? the pri is an extremely popular party over the municipal and at the state level. all right, party id very quickly because i'm running out of time. here is the pri, and you would think in late 1980 they would still be a popular party, it is. this is how many percentage of the voting population that identifies with the party. it's over 30%. it's bikes and they goes down, still 30%. look at the p.a.n. this will be sort of the tragedy for the pan. is the 2000 p.a.n. number but it's going up. so, it catches the pri and starts going down again. what we will see in the next life is look at this. even after the pri debacle in 2006 election when he came in third place, the pri still had a higher percentage of the voting population that just identified with it. people like the pri. and here you see it, this is,

this is during called runs presidency to as we saw from jorge snubs, called vote was not a reviled president. people like tim. even during this presidency, the p.a.n. did not manage to communicate with voters, and the pri did. that, let me go back there, just sort of end up this talk is that the pri have enormous power because voters at municipal and state levels always like the pri to can never give up on the pri but they never such identify with either the p.a.n. or the prd. they have very good governors. the governors, which they getting office, tend to stay in office. the party does because remember there's no consecutive reelection in mexico at any level of government. this is the party knows how to govern, and thanks to these governors, it is able to win elections at the federal level.

now what happens is what was so good for the pri in this case was it had an extremely good candidate. it ran a very good campaign, and they were no splits among the different pri forces, thanks to the enormous popularity of peña nieto. just and i will tell you a little stronger in 2007 i went to one of these big pri lunches that they have, and it was a pre-lunch that was hosted by the state of mexico. it was sort of brought into governor. used a government of the state of mexico at the time, and even then it was obvious to everyone he was going to be the pri's candidate and is going to win. they literally carried him aloft like a roman emperor, sort of through the streets. even then, so what that tells you was the pri had been planning this for years but they knew they had the candidate and he was able to maintain the split to a minimum. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you.

francisco? >> well, good morning, everyone. thank you to eric olson of the kind invitation. it's good to see everyone here this morning. i want to share with you a few reflections regarding the elections last week. and i divided them into three issues. first, some surprises, then realities, once the new political configuration in mexico will look like and what the dynamics might look like. and then some of the challenges. so regarding surprises, i think, you know, post back and it's easy to say things were meant to be all right, things were meant to be peaceful. in fact, up until a few days before, there was, you know, significant uncertainty throughout society regarding the

potential for violence during the election. many of you have seen not only increasing amounts and intensity of violence, we see it also not just targeted among drug traffickers, drug traffickers and state officials, state officials among themselves, you also see it in public places, schools. and this is where many of the polling stations were located. so that was a positive surprise. at first around, what was a, maybe 8:30, 19, after sunday, sunday the first after the president of the federal electoral institute declared after a short statistically significant simulation that peña nieto was ahead by iran 6.5, seven percentage points, i think many people agreed, reads a sigh

of relief. we're not back to 2006 when less than a quart of a million votes, .5 percentage of the total voting separated, from today's president, felipe calderón and on the right. so that was good. i think again uncertainty and, what, how could we called it? a wave of scrutiny which, in fact, had been taking place at least since january, february, and for both, particularly the prd but also the p.a.n. had been crying wolf time and time again. the pri is using more resources than it reports. the pri has strategic alliance. in fact, not the pri. governor peña nieto before he became governor, had a strategic alliance with the largest media

conglomerate in the country. it's been exposed with original documents. so if you've got the pri steamroller your no surprises there. that's the way they operate. they are very pragmatic party, as joy reminded us. if they see a strong person, they can, you know, rally around, they will act like a very effective hack, pragmatic impact of political animals. much more so than the p.a.n. and the purity. i think that many of us made the mistake after the president of the electoral institute came out, you know, and said don't worry, it's not as close as last time. immediately you get national television president of the republic congratulating peña nieto. and minutes later you get peña

nieto himself making but, you know, appearances basically an acceptance speech. all of these happen before the was president-elect in mexico. finally, pronounced itself as eric reminded us at the very beginning, just yesterday, a week after the election. and congratulations start pouring in, along chile, president obama, everyone congratulates peña. i understand probably that there was a strong conscience about the potential for conflict, even what had happened in 2006. i think these shows of enthusiasm were premature, and most of us were caught in the. i myself was writing a little blog for my students at johns hopkins, just real-time telling them what i saw.

and i said yeah, july the first, this is an election that yielded credibility and wide legitimacy. three days later i was fighting my talk, tongue, big mouth strikes again. i have spoken too soon. because i think even the pr i now, this was not an equal election. evidence of systemic vote buying is out there. it continues to rage in mexico. two or three main vehicles have been uncovered, one of the largest retail supermarkets. in some states where observers were asked not to go, given conditions on the ground with the war on drugs, places like valor cruise, other parts them there were no observers so we don't know what happened there. there might've been coercion, we don't know.

i retracted that same, great credibility and legitimacy. and retorted to what has become not the conventional wisdom just the elections were legal, because it is impossible one to start opening ballot boxes to distinguish bought from non-bot votes. sincere from nonsense here, you just can't do it. the point is it is out there. and legitimacy is an issue which, you know, like the polls, kerry. it's a matter of public opinion. today, probably one, one at have in every three or mexicans think these elections were not equal, think as a joy told us, as jorge beforehand told us, this was from the very beginning the candidate of the establishment. and i like that perspective,

jorge's perspective about peña nieto acting and being seen and scrutinized as an incumbent. someone, you know, going to be more referendum on him when, in fact, in theory he should've been the opposition. so that was the other surprise. legal but not legitimate. what does this mean? it probably means that the pri will have to cede some more in terms of negotiations but it means that because they cannot control a simple majority, either in the lower or the upper chamber, some of the usual suspects, 11 deputies will become pivotal to pass many reforms. and, therefore, this is someone who remains at the core of today's power blog, alongside the party. my sense is that a bit like in

the aftermath of the very question 1980 election, probably we could say those were neither legal nor legitimate. because there was never a vote count, remember a vote went up in flames. mysteriously in the basement of the chamber of deputies. that's a long story. but the key point is the pri and the p.a.n. struck a deal which allowed this agenda to start taking effect your you could very well see pri and parts of p.a.n. p.a.n. traditional very of party, party with strong east coast which is now suffering internal fractional is him, running two votes to save themselves. so the pri will be able to play with p.a.n., some of p.a.n. decadal survey be able to play with other parties. so from that perspective you've got an executive which i guess

is next three years will be probably the strongest in the last three presidencies. another surprise very quickly. i'm not going to go into it because jorge already gave his presentation, but certainly my sense is upholding industry suffered an existential crisis. the industry became a little suspect the industry of course depends on credibility. depends on people believing what they say. i think a majority of mexicans think that pollsters, a majority of posters, try to shape rather than to reflect reality. and that this was done in a consistent manner in favor of the candidate of the establishment. realities, inasmuch as the pri won, is this a return to the past? all the newspapers in here, spain, mexico itself have been raising this question.

there is no return to the past. there was no -- an entire power blog behind you. the opposition remains alive and kicking, as i said, without some of p.a.n. support, above the upper and lower chambers, peña nieto's reforms won't be able to be as ambitious as he might want them to be, particularly labor, energy, fiscal reform and something regarding social security. so no return to the past. the pri will have to keep wheeling and dealing, but this time from opposition of power. keep an eye on the questions, legitimacy's. keep an eye on the social networks where jorge showed a clear advantage, those who are members of the generation of social media, and given the

ripple effects that social media has on the ground, and on real-time. we will keep watching that, because this is a new factor in civil society. i'm not saying that they're going to save democracy from the hands of the cynics, but certainly i think there is, there is, you know, a point that can be made. today become absorbent of the particle system and end up like many social movements in the u.s., in europe, finally coming into one of the main tenets bucks or do they remain out there trying to advance accountability, not only of the government, also of the opposition. another issue regarding reality, the left i think strengthens its core power in the capital city. that was a 40 plus percentage

point victory by the prd. joy showed us those very important numbers as well and by far their largest voting in mexico city, with around 7 million votes. now, the problem for the left is that this is a great anomaly. they control they never object center of the country, and some parts of the south, but little else. and my prognosis, i wish there was a modern mexico, mexico from my perspective, badly needs a progressive agenda, an agenda that prioritizes social justice. mexico is now one of the four most unequal countries in latin america. just, you know, neck and neck with countries like brazil, colombia and some of the central american countries. mexico badly needs social

justice. but the left, my prognosis is -- i don't think the left into too much. it remains to fractured. many of them came from the pri and so they have the same habits. it's a vertical controls, nationalism, in reality it's pragmatic. and more often than not, much more often than not, self-serving. challenges, the candidates were trying to outbid one another. p.a.n. and pri had gone for a relatively conservative agenda regarding economic issues. as number started soaring in may, june, they had to adopt that and, therefore, they adopted the language of substance to electricity and gasoline and cheaper credit. so the loss of promises -- so

there's lots of promises out of. this will be a process of how to manage, frustrated expectations. and with 90% plus of the federal budget already earmarked, there's little room for maneuvering. so lots of promises but how are you going to do with that? that's one. two more things, two minutes and i finished. a second challenge is, the pri has been saying we will continue the fight against organized crime. at the same time that we bring down violence. wow. how do you square that circle? that's a big one. that i think could make or break the legacy of this president. they have come out with something which appears to be trying to bridge things, saying well, we are going to bait our new measure for mission success. we are going to change metrics. it's not going to be number of kingpins we catch and extradite

to the u.s. it's not going to be the amount of narcotics. it's going to be the number of citizens per 100,000 they get killed. okay. you can read many things into that. i like it. i like that. because i family, friends, a point is in mexico who have been terrified the last five years. who live terrified. middle-class people, professional people going about their lives, terrified. and the last one, of course is the need to inject the economy. you all know the story about the monopoly. and, of course, the great difficulty here is that the coalition that is enabled this concentrated economy to continue to thrive has been basically crafted by businessmen and pri and p.a.n. politicians. either of those were incumbents.

my sense is that it's good for this person too, you know, really do something the first 100 days of his term. lay down the rules of what will i be the strong or -- the pri is a pragmatic party. if his colleagues see him as an effective person, who the people like and who is gaining resources and gaining in popularity, they will fall behind it. the pri is fall or from ideological. it is very pragmatic. his first win of days i think will really allow us to see if, there's a great with any of these three important challenges that i pointed out. thank you so much. [applause] >> and then we're going to take advantage of the dr. ping at the wilson center for two months and

ask them to just give us a few comments, and a formal presentation, but welcome him as a former member. >> thank you, eric. and thank you very much to invite me here to get some comments. i have to begin saying that i agree with most was said before i really enjoyed the analysis. and i think that there speeches were very complemented in some sense. i mean, they spoke to us about the pragmatic issues of the pri, about the losing of way of the mexican government, which is in my opinion the first point to say that the government lose the

election, and among the struggle with pri, that the prd, we are forgetting that the government, the mexican government has lost election, and we have to see a little, a little far by the mexican government lost election. this is, in my opinion, the first point to say. there is a lot of things to say about it, perhaps the mexican government lost the election because the inequity, because perhaps the security, strategy, which is very close strategy as said before. it goes to 70,000 people killed, a cessna in the six years.

perhaps -- assassinated in the last six years. perhaps because of the conflict into the p.a.n. come into the governmental parity. there was a big conflict into the governmental party before the campaign and during the campaign. perhaps the government lost the election because they witnessed the candidates josefina vazquez mota come she was not strong candidate as peña nieto. she was a very weak candidate. and not only a weak candidate in terms of her proposals, her programs, but also, in my opinion, her most loyalty to the president called around -- called around. she was absolutely loyal to president calderón.

and all oppose went to her, went to the candidate of governmental party. but anyway, three or four things, the cost of the social inequity, for the fight, the crime, the organized crime, the cost of the weakest candidate for the loyalty to the actual politics, there is a combination, a mixture that ran to the government who lost this election. something important to say. a second comment is that the pri want election of course as joyce said before, the pri want election long before the 2012. i do agree with that analysis.

not only because the strong way to govern in the mexican politics, but because the prd abandoned negotiation. i think is important the prd after 2006 abandoned the institutions, abandoned institutions trying to go way opposite to build a new movement, a new social movement, so named marina, which was a kind of organization to keep -- [inaudible] and to give him the personal power to go against these new

elections. so the prd went to a new struggle inside the party. the prd left a very, very tough struggle between the movement and others. it is a name of the latest of the prd. their names are jesus, and jesus ortega. so they were trying to go with a party, with a real party into the institutions and into the association where the government of calderón, against the position, fighting against the government of felipe calderón. so it was a great division into the prd, and i think this is

another reason to see the prd losing these new election. i have to say as well that peña nieto was firmly supported ip television sns comes all is said before by the tough in networking and just i think as well, francisco said before, that we need another kind of explanation, jorge, about -- there was a big mistake in the resource. i think it is not enough to say that the reason is in the sign of the ballots. i think there is another kind of reason, technical or political reasons, and that we have to find it out. because people is thinking, half

of the people in mexico is thinking right now that the polls was working to making peña nieto win. and this is part of the problem that we have right now in mexico. is something to explain, that we need that explained about it. i believe that the last question to say, is there any chance after this election to abort the democratic process in mexico. this is important. if the transition of the consolidation of democracy mexico is going to be back to

the past, the consequence of the return of the authoritarian party to the party, and i, of course i have not an answer to this the question. but i have to think that there is a possibility to stop the democratic process, or to get into a big or a huge problem of the democratic process. because of three reasons. the problem of legitimacy, i insist that half of the population in mexico think that this was an unfair election. i think that there was a fraud in half of the population, and it is not easy to go on with this, with this lots of people thinking that there was a fraud.

i think there is a big risk with a democratic process, because the offensive of the prd, i have to say this against the electoral institutions. they don't believe on the electoral institutions. they don't believe it is enough rules to go with elections. and we can be sure that we're going to have another reform process in the next year, but we cannot be sure of out the costs of these new electoral reforms. because it is very linked with the political reform as a whole, and we probably, the reforms that we need in terms of not only economic growth, but in terms of social equity.

so in the next three years we will see we can issue, i think that we can be sure about it, a very huge negotiation trying to get everything in the same pot. it could be very difficult to deal with. the second is the weakness of the government of the actual government to leave with the political conflict right, there is a big political conflict that could be right in the end of the period. we have not to think only in the first 100 days of the new government, but in the last 100 days of this government. i think this, this is a challenge, a big political challenge. and i am afraid that there is the risk of criminal

organizations which could seek the transition to a new government as an opportunity to strengthen their actions. problem, a real problem with the organizations -- criminal organizations. yes, on the other hand we have a new and stronger civil society. we have a new and stronger public opinion. we have another political revolution of the free press, as we have seen of the people, and especially of the people in mexico with a new agenda, a new kind of agenda. not the agenda, the old agenda which was about -- but a new agenda with problems like human

rights, like public education, like social inequity, and the lack of accountability. this is not an electoral agenda. this is a new agenda with concern the way the government has to govern. and, of course, we have to go after the elections to get, to get this agenda the way that it works, i think works. this is my comments. thank you. >> thank you, mauricio. [applause] spent i want to do a couple of things since we had to reorder things a little bit. i want to give jorge a chance to respond, because there is a public perception that tv industry was biased in favor of peña nieto. there's a perception that the polling was biased in favor of peña nieto, or one of the other

candidates, someone to give you an opportunity. then we will take your three questions from the audience very briefly and then we'll call up pablo from the oas to wrap things up. okay? >> thank you. but, i think that the criticism against polling in mexico, i mean, we can debate between political reasons and technical reasons. addressing the political winds, -- the political ones, i think as i showed you, most of the polls are practically all the polls two weeks before the election were more or less on the same page. obviously we have to look into what happens. of course, the easy explanation is to say that electoral preference has changed. all the polls that were published were conducted when we

before the election. we know that one out of five voters when we before the election have doubts about whom they would, whom they could support on election day. secondly, as i showed you the groups were -- better where the young people and the college educated people. these are the more -- groups in mexico. even during the campaign if you look at the preferences of these groups, they show a lot of change. so probably there was something to it. but i want you to think about the political arguments. when i hear the argument, let's say, the public opinion shape behavior, i think that's a very

condescending of you on voters. what it means is that the thing that matters most for voters was, he was ahead in the race. it doesn't matter the economy, it doesn't matter the killing, it doesn't matter the poverty. as i showed you, there are a lot of reasons behind a person's vote, and the exit poll data show that voters reacted to that. those who are unsatisfied were more likely to vote for lopez obrador and also for peña. but i think we also have to put into perspective all these very, very large number of reasons behind the reason to vote. and certainly there will be some people that take into account who's ahead in the polls, but i can tell you that the people who are not clear about he was in

first place basically many people think that the candidate they're going to school is the can't do is going to win. if we ask one week before, and there were 51% of the mexican population that says that peña nieto was in first place, that the rest of the electorate's say that either lopez obrador or vazquez mota were in second place. it was clear who was in second place, even those who say that peña was in first place, they were split between federal electoral institute and vazquez mota in second place. so, i think that it is, the impact can have public opinion on old behavior and results of voting behavior, it's rather limited. it's been said, odyssey the

results of polls affect the strategic behavior of mexican elites, especially from raising one of the criticisms is that many candidates, peña nieto were not for lopez obrador were not able to raise more money because of their -- [inaudible] that might be true, and that's something, although the funny thing is that it is illegal for a person to give more than 10% outside of public financing. so 10%. if this happens, i mean, in the first place they were not allowed to do so, but this really can be the main impact of the results of polls. especially in the behavior of the elite's don't think on the

way people perceive or have to say their vote. went back to the political reasons, at least on my side i have ruled out sampling, sampling results were more or less of the electorate, or were more or less very close correspondence to the actual results. nonresponse was neither a factor, and so far the more plausible explanation that i found, the new ballot. i mean, it really, really, thinking that in a poll somebody would cross three different parties or two different parties or similar combinations, and especially asking voters with a valid that reflects that those partisan identities is not accurate as a question or

simulated about candidates. we have to focus more on candidates and less on parties. i think that's the way it is. >> okay, thank you. we will take three questions, and then we are going to invite pablo up from the oas. where the question you pick where the question here. and a guest writer, the young man. would you please identify yourselves, and then keep it short so we can get some answers. >> im dennis from hamilton college. my question is about vote buying. vote buying has a history in mexico. as i recall in 2000 there were outrageous vote buying. it didn't seem to have much effect. there's a secret ballot in mexico. i wonder if people don't just take the money or the card or the washing machine or whatever it is an vote for whoever they want to. doesn't really make a difference is my question. >> we have a question over here. right here.

>> eric. this question for joy. given the comments made to the challenges faced by mexico and peña nieto today, and her presentation, we have the old dinosaur repainted or do we have a young dinosaur with a new agenda? >> and we had a question from the young man right here in the middle. >> good morning. my name is philip. i'm from the foreign policy institute. my question also revotes to vote buying but from a slightly different angle. how is it possibly acceptable that mr. peña nieto can proceed to the presidency when such questions do remain on youtube videos of people saying that he pay them to vote for them -- him? >> made we can get feedback in a minute but let's go with these three questions now and then we will make the transition. joy, do you want to start a soft? >> first of all, i think that

this also relates back to the points about authoritarianism returning to mexico. i think something that everyone can be sort of happy about in terms of democracy or the ability of the old pri to return is the fact that the pri does not have a majority, either in house or in the senate, or the congress or the senate. especially the senate. this is are important because they think the last six years and because the senate access more of a stodgy blockage on the crazies in the chamber of deputies. however, in terms of what we saw about the old pri, there are these questions about vote buying and questions about the relationship with televisa. all sorts of questions about the ability and the willingness of the pri played by the new political institutions that have been growing since the late 90s and very strongly into the 2000s. whether the pri is going to circumvent them, we can then or learn to play as a somewhat divided party and deal with the

new political institutions that are supposed to keep mexican democracy stronger i'm thinking especially of the transparency institute, i'm thinking of the supreme court. there are many. but i think one thing that speaks well to all of these points is the fact that the pri does not have a majority in either house. even though it can buy or convinced, however you want to, whatever, either way, it can make majority. is to doubt about it. however, these are temporary majorities that are going to be based on each bill. and this makes a huge difference in terms of the ability of the pri rolled. all other sorts of political institutions around it. and i believe that there. >> thank you so much. on the issue of vote buying, this is important. one of the things throughout the electoral process, people are allowed to go into the polling booth with their cell phones,

photography, evidence. this was left to states, a state issue, in jurisdiction. and several states in fact banned people from going to polls, but majority of them didn't. that's a new very probable channel through which you could end up, in fact receiving what you were promised or not, given evidence. why is this person going to be president if youtube keeps showing all these people saying here's the card, subsidized gasoline. well, the law does not say that that is a crime. a crime is to burn ballots. a crime is to steal ballots, but the process through which the individual electoral goes through mentally, physically,

input and output, that remains very laxly regulated. so there is widespread evidence that the party at least tries to buy votes. .. >> i spoke with a few, not many, but with a few pri elder statesmen who think that pena and his team are very cohesive. there's distrust of people around him even within the pri,

many in the old guard feel left out. and this is someone who's been already working, you know, he hit the ground running. he's been governor for six years. so he's got a working team which is younger and, youzb

>> the point is that every new election gives new reasons to add new rules. so you have a very huge building, is a very complicated rules, and every three or six years you ask new rules, and you make these to avoid the fraud, the many ways to make fraud.

one of them was the changes on the penal code. and it is absolutely prohibited, it's a crime to give money, to give veribas -- i don't know how to say in english -- >> handouts. >> handouts. >> it sounds nice in english, but in spanish it's a little worse, no? [laughter] >> handouts. >> handout. that's better. that's better, handout. to buy votes. what's the problem in the problem is that that is not an issue for the institution that goes with the electoral organization. you know, the ife is responsible

for the electoral organization as a whole but not, it is not responsible about the panel issues. >> uh-uh huh. >> the penal issues, the responsible institution for that thing is the government. we have an attorney for electoral issues. this attorney is part of the mexican government. so we have a lot of demands right now to try to manage the buying of the votes, but we have to wait all the judicial process which is not an electoral

process, but a judicial process. because it is a crime. so there is no, any consequence between the criminal things and electoral things. i guess i'm trying to explain this complicated system. the other thing is the moral, the moral approach. and i do agree with you. the moral approach is a big thing in this electoral process. just one thing more to say. which is, i'm afraid to say that all the parties use the public money and use the power they have to go buy votes. how can we manage to know exactly the amount of votes that are buyed?

how can we manage to know exactly, as francisco said before, if there is some people who change the intention of the vote before and after they, they have money from the parties? how can the electoral institutions manage in terms of legal, legal terms to know exactly where is the border between the conscious and the sell, selling votes? it is a big, big problem, and we are knowing this problem. you are right, we have a very big moral problem around the political parties in mexico. >> okay. our two panelists want to say something, but i'm going to keep

you to very short because we want to give pablo gutierrez a chance as well. >> i just want to quickly defend the prd, something i almost never do, and say under the new leadership who basically already as we speak putting distance between themselves and lopez obrador, they are the modern left that has been needed for 20 some odd years now. they are very conscious that their party is seen as sort of old-fashioned and can non-economic and sort of nonmodern, and they are the ones who, you know, in the next couple of years will be sort of drilling the new message of the new prd into voters' minds. and so we should definitely wait to see a very strong showing in 2018. and on the electoral reform of 2008, what did you expect was going to happen when you stop making the parties pay for their media spots? where are they going to spend all that money? they spend the money buying votes. it's no big surprise.

you fix one thing, you fix one problem, and you cause another problem, so -- >> francisco, real quickly. >> very relieved to know that vote buying is a crime in my dun. [laughter] unrelieved to know that absolutely nothing happens whatever when this takes place. and as i was saying, this becomes a penal issue, so people can be punished, individuals, but no one knows what happens to the votes they were prosthelytizing about. the votes will remain there, and that's a problem. >> well, both buying i think mauricio says the order of magnitude of vote buying. with more than 50 million voters, i mean, how many votes can be bought? and i could be more concerned about -- [inaudible] practices rather than vote buying because of the programs

in mexico -- [speaking spanish] we see that governments are extending, are practicing legalistic arrangements. whether the p.a.n., the prd or the prd in mexico city. this is more extended than vote buying, i would assume. >> join me in thanking our panel. and we're going to transition right away. mr. ms. i'm -- [applause] i'm going to introduce pablo gutierrez, he's the director of the department of cooperation and monitoring at the organization of american states. they led an electoral observation mission to mexico for these elections that was led by former colombian president cesar gavida. obviously, pablo was very

instrumental in this process, and i have invited him to talk a little bit about their official observation of the election and what they saw and witnessed there. thank you, pablo. appreciate -- >> thank you, eric. may i start saying that when i listened, of course, to the presentations, i'm thinking we have a problem in america. because the same issues in mexico we see in el salvador, in honduras, in ecuador, in peru, so buying votes or the social programs or the first ladies or whatsoever, so we have a big issue in latin america in the electoral system. i want to start saying that i think there's a big difference between the 2006 and the last election in mexico that the results are not in question in mexico. there are problems in the electoral process, but the

results are not questioned in mexico, and that's our statement, our last statement in mexico in the, in our electoral mission. this is the first time that the oas had the opportunity to observe mexico because maybe you know we need the request of countries. today we don't have the possibility to observe countries like the u.s. i hope so. and let me say this, the electoral system in mexico is like a cathedral. but they have a very important rules about campaign financing and rules about the crimes in the penal code or something like that. we don't have, for example, in the whole caribbean any law about campaigns, financing campaigns. if i remember, i think there's a resolution of the supreme court here in the u.s. that is some

crazy things about there are no limits in the financing campaigns. so like i said, we have the same problems in the america. let me start saying that some background about this last election. mexico have a long story of suspicious elections. i think we all know that. until the year 2000, the pre-government in mexico -- [inaudible] power through election with certain irregularities. but democratic process will take back two key issues, i think. one is a series of electoral reform, the last in 2007. that reform start in the '96 when the reform create the federal electoral institute. the second issue is about the

2006 crisis. of course, this difference between calderon and obrador was left and 1% -- 4%. and if we look at the costs and the effects of this 2006 crisis, of course, we have these tied results. we have a very practical problem because there's an agreement between the political parties and if they stop the transmission of their results, although this, of course, agreement after we don't find any agreement. and, of course, the operating capacity was severely questioned

after this election. the third element in this background is the 2007 reform. in september the three major parties in the congress approve this bigger reform. i think it's the biggest reform in the last ten years in the america. argentina made the reform like a year, year and a half, and it's very similar to the mexican reform of the 2006 -- '7, sorry. this reform introduce many changes like, for example, the election of the new president. of course, the escalated re-election of the electoral federal institute is another institute. the political parties were not able to buy by themself time on television, and there's several controls about the media, the

newspapers, radio, etc. and, of course, the private financing was decreasing 85% to stay at 40 million pesos. i think it's very important to talk about some special issues of this election. like i said, this 2007 reform is a very important reform, and the main issue that is in the center of this reform is to create condition for electoral equity. for example, they have -- about gender, the 2007 reform increase the senate and the chamber of deputies from 30% to 40%. transparency, the parties regarding their financing as well as information on the process to elect their leaders

and propose candidates. in the issues like political and campaign financing, the amount of the money for public financing of party was reduced. parties could only use time and tv and radio as assigned by ife following 17% formula. and the vote recount is very important because the definite computation of result and final proclamation of result, this is one of the most important reforms after the 2006 crisis. what's the possibility of conducting a final count of the vote at the district level in certain cases like there's obvious mistakes or new votes, they're rated differently between the first and second voted candidates, etc., etc. and, first of all, the financing control. they create special unit for the fiscallization of political

finances that depends on ife. the second, second issue in this election is the student movement. i think we already talk about the 132 that creating the american university, and i think the movement was based around three main points. one is the democratization of the media. two, a call for an informant vote by all mexicans and, three, the right to be informed about -- sorry, to be informed without any manipulations. of course, if we look for achievement of this movement, i think it's very important to say that, for example, they get ticket to broadcast the second debate on their main channel, so i think it's very important. and second, the movement also

succeed in organic state after debate amongst the presidential candidates. first, like they said, this is an election in latin america. we have the same problems. let me say there's no strongest institution, electoral institution than ife in latin america, believe me. we have the possibility to observe 50 elections the last five years, and that's for real. second, yesterday we end the first phase of the election. now we have a space between today and september for all the problems in the election. i think we have a press conference yesterday saying that we want to today -- [inaudible] and all the problems of the

election that they have. of course, if they have proof because then i think youtube is not enough in many cases. so, and in the work, yes, we observe the postelectoral period. we remained in the country to observe the recount in some districts in mexico, and let me say this in general observation, of course. in the most of the vote recount was complete, contained and following procedures. so there's no procedures, no problem procedures in the recount in the district. second, in the three federal states that we observed, the preliminary results on election day with the recount on the district level on the three types of election. and, third, and the political parties follow the legal

procedures. they followed the legal procedures. so any concerns that they have not followed the political procedures, in many cases they said the three main parties that everything is correct. of course, i don't know if any have any -- [inaudible] but i think it's very interesting to see, for example, the prd claims about the election and the places that they won or that they lose. because it's very important, you know? i think because we talk about the moral issues. so this is very moral, i think. and it's very important to think that if we took the prep and the recount and the quick count, it's very similar. they have a point, maybe two points of difference in the main

candidacy. um, and just two final questions, two final issues. one, i think it's very important to moralizing the concept of electoral fraud. electoral fraud per se like in mix coe and the most countries -- mexico and the most countries understood that's an institutional operation. of course, the will of the electoral, manipulate the electoral system. today we have this, like, one of the panelists said electoral crimes committed by people, group of people. of course, outside the electoral institution i think this is very important because we always have this bad news about the election, but this is the good news. as an example, for example, vote buying, the electoral institution must like i think someone said for a preventive

standpoint reinforce the right to have a secret vote. and that's the role, the maybe role of the ife in the election. and just a last thing. the base of the system, the electoral system, rests on thousands of citizens that volunteer on election day to administer the election in the voting, in the voting tables. so the citizens are they who really conduct the election. so the only role of ife is to choose them, and in the last election they choose them by random. and progressively trains to do the best work in the election. i think this is, this is very important because it's like to, the system is like to if we have the possibility to sleep and to have -- we have the institution,

the ife and the citizens. all are around the mexico and all around mexico. so when we talk about, like i said, all these issues about buying votes or something, the first responsibility or the first responsible are the citizens of mexico. thank you. >> thank you, pablo. [applause] we have about ten minutes for questions here before we end. i just was going to go over real quickly the whole confusing voting process just for those of you who aren't completely steeped in this. because it is confusing. the night of the election there is what's called the quick count or the prep where the polling booths are reporting in their totals. that's not an official result. that's a preliminary result that you get that first night. then the following wednesday the ife oversees the counting of all

the totals at the district and local levels, and that confirms or changes those preliminary results. and then there are some challenges, and the parties have presented challenges, and the ife agreed to recount 60% of the polling places more or less, if i'm not mistaken. so they have recounted and verified. so now they have certified those results as of yesterday. the final results. and now the parties can challenge legally before the electoral tribunal whether they think there was fraud in any particular polling place or any particular district. so now we're in the third, third or fourth depending which way you count it, stage where there are legal challenges. and somebody's asked me what is different about the prd's response this time and in 2006,

and so far as far as i know -- and you might want to correct me -- they haven't called on civil, for civil disobedience or any of that. they're still proceeding through the legal challenges that's available to them in the federal electoral law. so that's where we are in a very confusing process for vote counting. and then the third issue is fraud on voting day and at the ballot booth. but the bigger question that's always in the back of minds of people in mexico is are governments and are parties trying to manipulate the process that leads up to the election before people actually cast the ballots either by using government resources inappropriately or by outright trying to purchase votes by promising money or different kinds of handouts. so that's kind of the complexity of the situation in terms of the election. so we have a few minutes, and

i'll take two more questions. we have one right here, and this young lady over here who had her hand up before. so go ahead, please. >> thank you. i'm with the mexican news agency, and i will use part of mauricio's analogy, and what are the chances when they add a new chapel to the cathedral in the form of a change, i don't know, either in the electoral law or in the constitution that allow for a second round of vote, especially considered in the last presidential election the margin between the first and second place was minimal? and in this case pena nieto's going to have a very low mandate given the fact that he has not reached even the 40% of the votes. >> yeah, it's a good question here. i don't know whether people could hear it, but whether new reforms might contemplate a

second round of votes, and since you have three candidates, pena nieto won with 38%, a healthy margin of six points more or less, but still far from a majority of mexicans supporting the new president. so good question. and this young lady here. >> hello. c.j. hernandez from the u.s. state department. now that we're getting through the elation of the election and what's to come with the pena nieto administration, mauricio pointed out that calderon still has the office for the next four-and-a-half months. do any of you see any further action from the current administration in the next session? if so, what could he accomplish or finish up on his way out the door including do you see criminal code going through or the military justice system reform, federal judicial reform, any of those that he's worked on or that's lying on the bottom of the senate floor? do you see them being revived and passed, or what will he do?

>> i'm going to a add to that question because my good friend joe dukert didn't get to ask his question, do we think there'll with progress on -- be progress on the energy reform as well that was a big part of the proposal from the pena nieto camp? so in addition to criminal justice reform, national security reform, is there a chance of action in that area as well? francisco, you want to take a shot at this? >> sure. second round would be a good idea, but the problem in mexico is you've got three blocs. they're not relative size, they're different. you could say, you know, pri's 40, prd20 something. the key issue is one of the three is going to lose a chair in the analogy of musical chairs. so no leadership would like to

adopt that second round because it's going to leave one of them out. the odds are it would leave usually the candidate of the left out and probably you would end up having pri ban given more commonalities regarding, you know, the basic policy basket. facing a left. currently, the system is, you know, the dice are loaded against the leadership of the parties deciding to go for the second round. what does calderon want to do? i think he wants the clock to tick as fast as it can. he wallets to be able to -- he wants to be able to leave. i give him credit for some of the legal justice reforms that you have talked about. one of the greatest graces of mexico is the absolute absence of a rule of law. justice being dispensed behind closed doors.

big effort since 2008, i commend it. i wish they were able to work on it to really revamp the criminal justice system of the country. can they do it in an extraordinary session? i think it's not the top of the agenda. top of the agenda, if anything, pri would like to reach out to the p.a.n. to try to work on labor and fiscal issues because if energy is going to come to the forefront, the new federal government first and foremost has to find new channels of revenue. and so regarding sequencing, you need lower labor costs and lower the costs that the government incurs on the labor and social security side at the same time that you find new sources of revenue. that's the only way that opening pimex to reinvest more of its

profit in the future than it does today because it just gives all its profits to the government will take place. >> i should have pointed out that there's this quirk in the calendar in mexico which is that the new congress that was just elected will take office in early september, three months before the new president takes office. so there's sort of a three month period there where you have a new congress, old president. and sometimes it's viewed as an opportunity to deal with unusually difficult political issues because you have a lame duck president and a new congress. so that's, that's really what's behind some of these questions. do you want to add anything here, joy, before we wrap this up? >> about the second round, if it was difficult before the pri won the presidency, it's impossible now. they would never allow it now because it's basically dead. i think it's even deader than re-election. and consecutive re-election, i think, is probably far more

important in the long run for the health of mexican democracy that the second round, and that is, that's on life support, and i think it's dying. i absolutely agree with francisco, i think what's on the table, the p.a.n. wants some victories. it's been clearly stated she wants something that goes through in this odd period of time between september and december when the new president takes office. i think it's not, it's not going to be criminal as much as what i've heard is it's fiscal, and, you know, tax reform that also goes into the, um, the federal labor situation which is so badly written in mexico. however, i really would not be very optimistic about that because you have the p.a.n. in the senate doesn't like the reform that the pri is cooking up regarding universal social security. so that remains to be seen.

>> just a very brief final word. >> i used to say a telegraph come, now we have to say a twitter. [laughter] not only do i agree with joy, i think that there is no possibility to have a second round in political terms. i do agree with that. and if there is any kind of reform, i think that the bad news now is going to the polls firms. i'm afraid about it, jorge, because i believe that the parties are very concerned about the problem with the polls and that they are going to try to

make new rules regulated. if i would -- >> the other rules to regulate. >> -- i would have to bet, my bet is on that side. >> well, every time we try to fix something, you make it worse. so let's be careful. [laughter] jorge, i know you have to get a word in here, then we're done. >> well, i think that courts in mexico are highly regulated. i don't think that -- in the end, i think that the regulation would probably pass through the media because if what it's been said or discussing in the media is that they would try to forbid the media to publish electoral polls. so i think that if that's true, then the regulation will basically affect the media rather than polling firms

because, obviously, the main clients of the public opinion firms are the political parties. so, and they will still use it, they will still have to, one, two firms working for them. is so probably these will effect more the media rather than the -- the media and information available to pollsters. so the polling firms are highly regulated and, indeed, i favor through regulation because then you can focus more on method logical issues, and then you can discriminate against firms that have lower quality standards. so it is a very highly regulated industry, and if anything changes, probably will happen or will go through the media and polls. >> okay. i want to thank everyone for their patience and their attention and thank our gees online and -- guests online and

on c-span for being with us this morning. thank you all. [applause] ..

>> i don't mean to sound like i want to go crazy and quote regulate the internet. on the other hand i don't believe the internet should exist as a place outside the law.

>> shreveport in march, april and medlock, wichita in june and this past weekend in jefferson city. next, a look at u.s. foreign aid. panel discusses the need at the university of colorado's annual world affairs conference in boulder in mid-april. you will hear from deputy director carrie hessler-radalet as well as officials from the national security network and inter-american development bank. this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> my name is clint talbott.

i'm the moderator which basically means i introduce the people, the smart people and let them talk. and i will do that now. we have to my left, immediate left is carrie hessler-radalet. she is perhaps best known right now for being deputy director of the peace corps, the capacity of which she has served since 2010. she has also worked in the field of public health for the past two decades specializing in hiv and aids and maternal and child health and a number of other philanthropic and altruistic endeavors. to her left is heather hurlburt, who is executive director of the national security network, nonprofit agency. her nonprofit organization. she has also served as speechwriter to former president clinton and former secretaries of state madeleine albright and christopher warren. to her left is judith morrison,

who is senior adviser in the gender diversity at enter developmental bank and works on developmental bank in latin america. she previously served as the regional director for south america and the caribbean at the inter-american foundation and she has worked at several think-tanks including the inter-american dialogue. so, what will happen now is each of the panelists will speak for about 10 minutes, starting with carrie, and then heather and ben judith, and then we will open it up to questions. c-span is here and so when you notice somebody with a big fishbowl with a microphone attached to it trying to get your questions, don't be a long. that is all part of the plan. without further ado, we will hear from carrie hessler-radalet. >> good morning everyone.

my apologies to the people in the balcony appear. is hard to see because of the bright lights so i'm going to mostly look out here but please know you are all included. as clint mentioned my background, and the deputy director of peace corps but i spent two and a half decades working in public health for an organization called johnson incorporated and it's an international public health information i implemented programs as well as funding from foundations and u.n. agencies of that is the perspective i'm going to offer today. i'm happy to answer questions about peace corps if people have been later on but my conversation today will really focus on the foreign assistance budget. so as a budget battle heats up in washington, which happens every single year mind you, once again foreign assistance is on the chopping block. most americans are completely surprised by the amount of foreign aid that we have. most vastly overestimate the amount of money we spend on

foreign assistance. those on the right typically want to cut foreign aid although not entirely and those on the left simply want to increase or maintain foreign assistance, and then we have ron paul who just wants to eliminate it entirely. but, at the center of the debate is really the whole issue of foreign aid effectiveness. just in terms of the facts, most of you probably know the facts, 1% of our federal budget goes to foreign assistance and this is humanitarian and development assistance not military aid. about 151% of our national income goes to foreign assistance. research shows in survey after survey that most americans think we spend between 15 to 20% of our federal budget on foreign aid. and when oust how much we should spend on foreign aid, about 5% of americans, i'm sorry. when people ask what we should spend most americans say we should spend about 5% of our federal budget on foreign assistance so you can see most americans think we should be

spending one and much more and they vastly underestimate how much we spend. and what is absolutely certain is that our budget, our foreign assistance budget is not a cure for our federal deficit at all. we spend a total of about $30 billion in foreign assistance out of a budget of $3.78 billion so it's a very tiny share of our federal budget. in terms of aid effectiveness, most research has shown that in general, foreign assistance, financial aid to developing countries, does help reduce poverty, does help increase quality in general. it has led to economic growth. it has built institutional capacity and it has helped to achieve some human development success. it's not uniform. there are huge variations and but in general the trend, the research shows the trends are

upward. foreign assistance has been largely effective. the most important question is whether or not we are using it as effectively as we possibly can and we have to look at the research to do that. we live today at the time of greatest development in the whole history of the world. the indicators of i have found most striking in terms of reduction of global poverty rates in the percentage of people who live under 1 dollar a day, who are in less less than 1 dollar a day since the beginning of history. that number as a share of our total population remains relatively steady until the industrial revolution as a share of the percentage of the population. it was relatively stable. after the industrial revolution, they share or the portion of people living in extreme poverty actually declined although with population growth the number of people living in extreme poverty actually increased until about 1980.

in 1980, that is when the dramatic changes really happened. between 1980 and 1995, there was a huge reduction and poverty rates from 1.5 billion to 800 million. that was a decline of nearly half in 27 years. that is incredible. its incredible process to think about that. the decline in the total number of people in extreme poverty from 1.5 billion to 800 million, just a period of 27 years after it increased in history. that can't all be attributed to foreign assistance for sure, but it does coincide with a period and time in developing countries receive foreign assistance from donor countries like the united states. other health statistics such as the infant mortality rate declined by 45% and also as an example between 1960 and 1995, there were an average of about dirty countries that had greater

than two than 2.2% global economic growth rate. the 2.2% is a global economic average. it is also the economic growth rate for the united states, france and germany so it is considered an indicator of economic growth. so between 1950 and 1995 there were 30 low income countries that achieved 2.2% economic growth rate. between 1995 and now, the number has doubled to 73, 73 countries having 2.2% growth rate. so again we have seen some very significant progress in economic development in the west especially since 1995, the last 13 years. so, the biggest question though is, is our foreign assistance apportioned most widely and are we using it to the greatest effect and are we investing in those countries where we should be investing?

i think we have learned from history that aid to grab states where there are dictators, where there are not leadership that cares about their people or invest in their people, that aid to those countries has not been successful in general. we have also seen that investment in those countries that are committed to the people that do invest in their people who have strong and accountable leaders has been more successful. so in my opinion, one of the greatest indicators of foreign aid effectiveness is in fact the places where we invest in the leadership in which we invest. there has been global changing context in terms of some of the factors at play in the world around us. there has been a dramatic increase in foreign investment. we are all very familiar with globalization and there has been increased private investment in developing countries over the last 15 or 16 years. we have seen also a huge increase in the number of democracies with governments there are accountable to their people. there have been some incredible

advancements in technologies, especially cell phone technology. i've done a lot of work in recent years and i have to tell you i get that her cell phone coverage there than i do in washington d.c.. so the whole issue of technology, not only internet technology or cell phone technology but also other kinds of technology have really catapulted to subdeveloping countries from the modern world very quickly. in liberia as i mention they don't have any landlines and they have no faxes and almost everybody has a cell phone. there is a whole plethora of new donors, including china and some of the britain countries, brazil, russia, india and china. china in particular has been investing all of their world especially in africa. we have seen dramatically increased funding in health and education, especially health around hiv and malaria and it has led to some very important health outcomes. there are new challenges.

of course there is a growing population, growing migration and concerns about resource used. and of course climate change is very important and a new consideration to us now. in terms of what we have learned, what are the lessons that we have learned over the years? i think first and foremost in terms of likely success in predicting outcomes for foreign assistance as i said earlier, the most important factor is the leadership in the countries where we were. are those leaders and are there citizens committed to their own development? i want to say something about the paris decoration at 2005. it's an international group of nations that met together to really look seriously at the factors associated with aid effectiveness. they mentioned by principles that are anything fairly well regarded and adhered to by most major donors but maybe the panelists will have something else to say about the paris declaration but i think it's very important in terms of this debate. the first one is improving country ownership which is

having countries, the countries themselves define their own development goals and objectives creating their own strategies and taking leadership in their own development agenda. associated with that is increasing donor alignment with those donors or with the countries plans so the degree to which donors adhere to their country strategies and around the countries and leadership in our development. then we have harmonization and better coordination between donors and for simplification of the donor processes. they can be incredibly onerous frankly especially some of the multilateral institutions, the development banks although perhaps judith will have something to say about that. simplifying the process is then harmonizing donor assistance among the different donors regencies in a particular country, making sure that there are not gaps, or overlap. another it is a real focus on results. there are some common indicators

now that virtually all donors in host countries adhere to which enables us to better measure and monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of foreign aid. and then the last is mutual accountability which is a commitment by both donors and developing countries alike to be accountable to their people and to the world at large through development. i wanted to throw out a few rather provocative ideas that have been raised, particularly related to the u.s. government and our federal budget. these were most recently articulated why the center for american progress. they are not new ideas particularly and many people have mentioned them over the years, but they are some that i thought were particularly interesting and i wanted to just mention a few of them today. they estimate they could save $2 billion a year from our foreign resources if we did the following things which are related to eliminating

ridiculous regulations and laws and the changing laws that don't support foreign assistance programs. the first would be ending cargo preferences to u.s. foreign aid or food aid in particular, so demanding that u.s. flag vessels or ships registered and make united states argues for shipping of foreign food bound for foreign countries. the second eliminating monetized food aid, which is a program that the united states gives rights or wait, american agricultural projects to private voluntary organizations who then sell it either on the market or to nearby countries, and then take the money that they have earned from the sale of those commodities and use it to find development programs are or offset the cost of distributing food aid. the third is cutting u.s. agricultural which largely

really favors large producers, such as monsanto or other large agricultural producers in our country. the fourth is removing limitations on local and regional procurement of food aid, so the food aid, american products, produced here and shipped overseas so instead of being able to buy locally or in the region we have to always send their own commodities overseas. in the fifth is eliminating earmarks on foreign aid programs, which really does limit flexibility and makes it very difficult for our foreign aid decision-makers to be flexible and make decisions that are important to make in a time of crisis or changing conditions so those are some issues that could dramatically help the effectiveness of our aid if we only have the political will and i would be curious to hear what our other panelists think about these. i just want to and with a story.

i like to tell stories at the end because especially when we are talking about foreign aid. it's easy to forget that their human faces attached while this so i want to tell you the story about a elizabeth who was a story -- a person i met in zambia. this was before the era of hiv into africa and certainly achievement was limited in africa only available to those who were the most wealthy. it was very readily available here in the united states and for point of comparison my brother-in-law's hiv-positive since 1986, and since 1989 his been on antiretroviral and is very healthy to this day. he would not have if he would have lived in africa and had been affected at the time. elizabeth was a young mother, i wife to a man whose she knew was unfaithful to her. she was not able to leave him because she was economically, completely dependent on him and divorce was frowned upon in her

community. she did know about hiv and she was fearful that she may be exposed to the virus and she became pregnant so she wanted to find out whether or not she was hiv-positive and wanted to find out whether or not -- she had heard of prevention of mother-to-child transmission. it was relatively new in those days in the late 1990s but she had heard about it. she boarded a us, to bus is actually to get from her home in, just outside of lusaka inside the clinic. when she got there she found out that they were stopped out of the rapid test, the tests that were available so she was told to return. she had to take her two buses back to her community. two weeks later she did the same thing even though it's very expensive to go out of her own income to be able to get to the clinic. when she got there she found out that all the health workers worked on that day because they were off testing the military. so again she wasted her time the whole day and her scarce

resources to get there. she was pregnant and frankly she didn't go back anymore because she had had such a poor result. a couple of months later she delivered a beautiful baby girl, who was very sick. right away from the beginning of her life. five months later she died and as she held her dying baby in her arms at the hospital, central hospital in the soccer she found out her baby died of aids and she herself was hiv-positive. she was devastated. she could not tell her husband because she was afraid he would beat her even though she knew it was his fault. she could not tell her family or friends because there was so much stigma and they was -- so she lived with us there terrible secret all by yourself or two years until she became pregnant again. this time she was determined that she would not let this happen and she had some doubts from her time at that hospital before, that they did have a prevention of mother-to-child transmission program. it's actually quite easy to prevent mother-to-child transmission so she became

enrolled in that program in nine months later she delivered a beautiful baby boy. in the meantime her husband died of aids, three months before her baby was born but her baby, her new baby boy with hiv free and she would -- was put onto it treatment program. it was an incredible advocate for hiv counseling, testing, prevention. she does a lot of programs with communities to reduce the stigma against hiv. she supports family members and families who are affected by hiv and she is an incredible passionate story of health and her community. the difference in her life from the time when there was no foreign assistance and no u.s. dollars or global dollars available for hiv and despite this prospect of her living and what she's doing now in her community, because those dollars are at work there in her community are tremendous. there are 5.5 million people approximately in the world from

low and middle income countries that received hiv treatment anti-retrovirals because of foreign assistance programs funded by the united states and by other donor countries especially the global fund. so when we asked the question, getting back to the title of our panel, to aid or are not today do i think we should aid? yes, i think we have to aid. is in the best interest of the country and i think that it is our pride in our responsibility as one of the world's global leaders. could it be more effective? absolutely. should refund more? we fund more? i think so. at right now, we are living in a time in history when the world has changed more than ever before in terms of development gains and get millions and millions of people still live in extreme poverty. we know that extreme poverty and social and economic injustice lead to conditions that breed fear, helplessness and terror frankly. we spend billions of dollars in foreign assistance while military aid, trying to fight

violence and quell -- wouldn't it be better to invest in programs that improve, they reduce poverty and improve the equality between people and really bring hope to the rest of the world? that is what i would like to leave you with today. [applause] >> thank>> thank you very much . heather said for. >> thanks. i'm like carrie and judith i don't work for a governmental and indeed i'm a little more free to say provocative things and make blonde points so i figure it's my role on the panel to take sole advantage of that. the first thing i'm going to say is that i'm here for the same reason that i'm guessing many of you are here, that we are all pretty sure the answer to the question in the title of the panel is yes, of course we should aid. in my view one of the biggest problems that the aids community

and its supporters have had over the last couple of decades is that we are always so intent on the righteousness of the idea that we should aid and of defending that fundamental idea against frankly the very many vocal and often quite -- critiques of it that we have missed opportunity after opportunity to reform along the lines of some of the principles that carrie laid out, so that impact our aid would be more effective and more easily defensible both in the u.s. political context but also frankly in the international context in the context of the folks who are on the receiving end of the age. so i'm going to walk through some of the common critiques and where i think we are still failing to respond to them and where we are succeeding, how we as people who all support the idea of foreign aid need to change our thinking and need to be more honest about what we are up against in the world, the world of views but i come into that very much from the perspective that carrie's story

suggest. i want to start saying that we say there is a three pronged critique in my view of u.s. foreign aid as it exists now. and the first one is the one you hear that i will sort of call that conservative critique. aid doesn't work. it's money down the quote rathole unquote for people who are undeserving. is a poor investment of u.s. resources and we should look out for ourselves or with we have problems the ball -- abroad we should -- until the kid grows up kind of thing. and the truth is, some of our aid is pretty darned ineffective. some of it has been counterproductive. some of it is cathartic and some of it is promised to the american public that it will do one thing and it does something else. so that is not -- sometimes aid -- we promise that aid is a solution to a political problem,

which it isn't so that critique although it is repugnant to me personally is framed in repugnant terms, it very often i'm afraid has elements of presidents attached to it but it is not entirely wrong. you can't just wish it away and say that isn't true. second, there's the cheek from the left, both the american left in and the global left, that says, aid is actually in its form and delivery, it is as oppressive as the conditions it seeks to remedy. it disempowers local government. it restores local economies. it perpetuates post-colonial control over the societies to which aid is given, and this critique would say, it's too tied to u.s. foreign-policy goals. the third critique, which has emerged sort of, and i will call it the post-9/11 critique, says actually us-born assistant isn't tied enough to u.s.

foreign-policy goals and the paramount u.s. foreign-policy goal is a post-9/11 era in keeping ourselves safe from terrorism and violent extremism and therefore all money that was spent and all the programs we need to have need to be looked at through the lens of how are they helping produce societies around the world that are less likely to produce -- terrorist threats. at each one of those critiques as i say has some elements of truth to it, and i think the aids community and the people who love but have spent too much time wishing each of those critiques away, frankly, even though each of them is i believe fundamentally wrong. but they suggest also some real confusion about what aid actually is. what it is, what it isn't, what it does, what is supposed to do and what we are promising the american people and what we are promising the recipients it will do. carrie has already laid this out and i will put a little bit more of an edge on it because that is

the joy of not being in government that we ourselves are very trafficking ms.-- mixed messages and we need to understand that. so i had to navigate have for years used the same that carried used about 1% of our budget being spent on foreign aid in the public safety should be somewhere closer to 10% but that it is closer to 25%. that is really mystifying and many people here that and they just come away from it with a really poor opinion of the american public. that is actually not right because as far as we can tell from doing more research the thought processes something like this. foreign aid is everything that helps other people. well these programs that carrie was talking about, sends her military to get rid of terrorists, it's costing us money and costing us american lives and we always say we are doing it to help the next generation of afghans or iranians or iraqis or whomever,

so that is foreign aid and then as carrie reference there is now a post-9/11 era an enormous amount of money that flows through the pentagon into what used to be called humanitarian post-conflict assistance that development aircraft, people who have long experienced that don't control but for the purpose of making things easier and safer for our soldiers to be on the ground and do the jobs that they are there to do, but if you are you are a person sitting in colorado or virginia or wherever it is sure sounds like foreign aid to you. you hear that your cousin in the marines is building wells in afghanistan. that sure sounds like foreign assistance even though it doesn't meet the strategic targeted directive community buy-in that carrie laid out so that is where the public is getting this idea that because whenever you turn on the tv you see an american soldier off someplace digging a well, helping a kid. so that is all mashed and is foreign aid, and again, not

entirely incomprehensibly. if you don't have a clear sense of what is foreign aid for, and we have actually a pretty core debate still i think about how much do we do foreign aid because it's the right thing to do? which is certainly what the story that carrie told would suggest is what many of us who come to, come to this field from a faith-based perspective. certainly those of us grounded in the judeo-christian tradition grew up with the idea that those who have, those who have much, much is demanded. but, that is, that has never been and it certainly is not now in a post-9/11 era the rationale behind u.s. foreign assistance, and there was a very interesting debate about this at the beginning of the obama administration which we can get into in the queue and they have people are interested but basically coming down to the decision that was made that the

u.s. isn't foreign aid because it's in our enlightened self-interest. because it's in our enlightened self-interest to have healthy countries and healthy economies that we can trade with an healthy populations that don't breed disease and pass them onto us and to have countries with the level of social stability, dignity and hope such the day don't read violence, extremism terrorism that also comes back to bite us and those are all perfectly good strategic principles for a country to engage in. and carrie can speak more to this or judith as well, there's a fair amount of research that suggest that actually aids works better when the recipients don't think they are part of your grand plan. but actually aids -- aid works better when the recipient thinks it's more about you than it is about them which makes more sense when you think about it. so i would argue, and i have the luxury of not being in these administrations, we haven't quite yet hit the sweet spot of being able to explain to our

fellow citizens that it's not neatly throwing money out the windows down rat holes etc. etc. that it is in our self-interest but part of our self-interest is all tourism, that our self-interest is in being altruistic and doing what is good for other people. this ties back into a much larger debate that i think we have seen play out in the presidential election about how the u.s. should act in in the 21st century world overall and whether that kind of power that we have now requires that when we work with others, we consider their views and preferences in ways that can sometimes be painful or unpleasant or whether we still have so much power we can work with others and tell them what they want. and that, great many of the debates, we are not having a big debate over foreign assistance in this election even though we have six months ago but the foreign-policy debates we are

having iran, israel and how to do with democracy, how to deal with china, are really all about should the u.n. continue to exist? should we follow john bolton and lop a couple of stories off of that? when you want to work with other people do you have to take their views into account, and this is where we have the intent to do that and you have heard carrie talk about crystals and reform but we are not there yet for a couple of reasons and one is, and this is where i say the really obnoxious i am not in government thing. we also have an aid in industrial complex and there's a whole lot of groups and this is not even a bad thing necessarily because you want to have experience and you want to have institutional memory over time, but we have a whole lot of groups both in government and out of government that are very invested in the things going on the way they have always gone

on. as i said it's hard to go to that committee and say look we know you were constantly terrified about senator x slashing your budget by 25% but you've also got to change in these fundamental ways and we have missed those opportunities time and again and we have to be honest with ourselves. at the same time, and carrie reference this quite specifically, again, the folks in congress who have to face their voters every two or six years, the focus on elizabeth doesn't get a vote and the people who get a vote are the people who are employed when they are rice is sold and in countries that are to produce rice or are sold when we pay a 20% premium to ship supplies on a u.s. airline, or our employees spend 40, 80 to 90% of an aid eight contract in afghanistan ghost to washington-based contractors and if that sounds like the pentagon to pentagon to

you it showed. and this is interesting as increased pressure on the pentagon budget many of the contractors you know and love from 1000-dollar toilet seats are moving into the development realm so we are going to see more of this rather than less in the future i am afraid. so those are two really big sets of problems but we all have to be honest about it. when we get into this aid, don't aid conversation it's easy to get mad about conservatives are racist and they hate africans and you know whatever, but we have and aid structure in the u.s. that was developed in the 1950's and 60's for a cold war world and a world where the gap between the people giving they aid and the people receiving it was enormous. as carrie said when it comes to cell phones now, you encounter better technology in some places in the developing world than you do here. as you will hear from judith there are now all kinds of major centers of aid giving that are

not connected to the u.s. government both public entities but also bill gates gives more money to africa every year than quite a few wealthy countries do. a -- when we were working on actually getting anti-retrovirals to africa i was working for the one campaign which was the nonprofit the bono started and he had this wonderful line that he liked to say, if coca-cola can deliver chilled drinks all over africa don't tell me we can't deliver chilled vaccines all over africa. again you may have a certain idea about the role of government in aid and end state provisions but of the most powerful actor you have in the region is coca-cola or gm or an oil company, this is already happening on the ground and again some of it's not very get what is happening on the ground that our thinking about aid and are talking about it has to take that into account. so, i promised that mine would

be the explicit and bomb throwing segment of the panel, and i will now turn it over to judith to talk about the -- respective. [applause] >> thank you very much, heather. judith. >> thank you so much for the opportunity to talk with you this afternoon. it's always a privilege to be at the conference on world affairs and i will be addressing you in this conference and my personal capacity as a u.s. citizen so i thought actually i'd start off making some remarks in response to the discussion that of the carrie and heather mentioned in the earlier remarks and by the way it's absolutely wonderful we have three women on the panel. [applause] i think it also demonstrates this is an area where certainly for those of you who are students in the audience considering career paths, we talked about there are many many women who have taken strong leadership positions in the field and i would encourage you to follow in their footsteps.

when we look at aids and we look at aids in the u.s., carrie mentioned very briefly the conundrum of the u.s. contracting of u.s. carriers, of u.s. sourcing for aid raw materials and whether it's intruding and how it's delivered. heather mentioned a little bit about the eight industrial complex which is what we called the beltway -- these are basically usaid contractors that actually implement programs on the ground and in many cases they are extremely large and important in providing foreign assistance. when we talk about aid effectiveness, we have to also be really honest about the fact that usaid is transparent in the sense that most of the foreign assistant budget is actually going to u.s. contractors, and i think that is kind of a little secret because it's a way that

you can kind of promote and support u.s. business interests. is also a way that some other countries, whether through the peace corps, to get young people exposed to different career possibilities or prospects. i think that is the part that maybe isn't discussed but it's very much part of the discussion and it should need front and center. the other thing i wanted to mention very explicitly and i've want to focus most of my remarks in latin america which is the reason i -- region i've worked primarily in my career. when we think about something like southcom, for example southcom southern military command which works in latin america is much more involved in providing humanitarian assistance particularly in the areas of health. this is something that has been promoted for several years now that the role of the military and the role of contractors in providing aid cannot really be delinked. i think it's one of the challenges we face when we think about aid only from the public sector perspective. i've worked many many years and

grassroots approaches. i was trained at looking at grassroots approaches in the northeast of brazil and works closely with a mentor that followed albert hirschman who many of you may remember in the audience, kind of took a real innovative approach to looking at how to empower local people and local communities. i also worked for over 10 years in a foundation that specialized in grassroots development but i suggest you -- minute in the audience are involved in grassroots initiative efforts. many of you go to developing countries and many of you involved with nonprofit work, faith-based work or have your own institutions that you are leading or running. and i think one of the challenges that we face is how to take some of those initiatives and those grassroots approaches and really scale them up. i think there's an urgency to do that scaling up for a number of reasons. we know that governments often have a hard time with an equity,

equity questions. i work on looking at african descendent communities and gender in the region of latin america, and these are precisely the areas that are often the most difficult to target so when you have -- [no audio] are not able to deliver the same way we are. i think one of the goal should always be to try to support opportunities to get to scale precisely because the needs of the countries where we work are so great. so that is one of the things i've been struggling with in my career as i've made a transition from grassroots approaches to looking at more international approaches and looking at approaches also that can be taken on by government and really taken to scale. there's a reason why this is so important in latin america because latin america is doing

very well right now. as many of you know, latin america's one of the few regions that is actually growing that is whether the economic storm, that has created innovative policy models and i just want to give you one example and that is brazil. of the bricks, real rush -- and brazil russia india and china, brazil has increased inequality over the past five years. many of you may be familiar with the brazil conditional cash transfer program. in brazil this started out as a program that is now growing significantly. they have actually launched a very new component that is called -- and the idea behind this program is to target the poorest of the poor of countries. so the previous conditional train -- cash transfer programs to people who were lower, lower income and many have moved many

of them into the middle-class. when we think about development outcomes, many of these middle-class, these newly middle-class brazilians, their first investment, their first and education for their children and second investing in personal computers for educational use for their children so it shows you when you're giving people an opportunity to access financial resources, they know how to prioritize and they have prioritize for future generations hensarling a place like brazil that is the tremendous economic boom as a result of the world cup in the atlantic games and tremendous need for professionals. many individuals are making investments in human capital. these were some of the first investments that people may. the additional cash transfer program and there is also one of mexico, it's actually been modeled in some communities here in the united states at one point chicago was looking at modeling conditional cash transfers in new york as well. essentially of students participated in schools families

would receive a small subsidy is a kind of reward of that good behavior. we also see it in panama and other places. it derives cash transfer to lower -- what is exciting is it is looking at the absolute poorest of the ports of the people who don't normally access services, people he may not even be registered for government services is providing a end incentive for the government to go out and identify those individuals and to identify them in creative ways that perhaps go beyond the traditional mechanisms for traditional cash transfer which includes health care are going to go to the doctor on a regular basis and if your children go to school, you may receive some food subsidies and there has been some discussion even particularly with indigenous communities, traditional communities as to how do you treat that basket of goods to make sure it's culturally appropriate so you are buying more local food products so that you are looking

at -- you are not changing communities diets or their principles. one of the main areas -- so that is an example of public aid. and public aid for the u.s. and latin america has traditionally been driven by goals of good neighbor policies. good neighbor policies combined with citizen security policy and i would argue that right now, the u.s., speaking of the u.s. citizen, our foreign policy with latin america has been really driven primarily by citizen security in the area of narco-trafficking, and the reason i say that is that if you look at the discussions around eight, again we will talk briefly about southcom but if you are also kind of thinking about foreign aid and you are thinking about how the u.s. engages latin american countries, it's often through the military. vis-à-vis the military and looking at immigration and looking in looking at how you control orders, looking at how you control drug trafficking.

one of the real challenges and the missed opportunities and that is that ultimately a lot of that discussion is based around a market and demand for a product here in the united states and is really kind of inefficient to deal with that demand only by engaging latin america and we see that kind of trafficking problem has gone from the south and is now getting closer and closer to the north. the more military aid and assistance, you kind of push the bubble and go somewhere else. again i would encourage more to teach it engagement in other areas. there is another area of eight that i think is very very new but it's a strategic hardship through technical assistance. again i look at brazil as a wonderful example of that. i would love to hear a conversation here and again a about how to illuminate poverty in our country. i think these are very bold plans and very bold models. again i don't see the dichotomy between doing something bold like that, like eliminating poverty on a wide scale and valuing and recognizing local

principles and practices. at the visas to things that have to go together in effect when i started working in international development, my father is a social worker in my family has been involved in community activities here in the united states. my family said the maguire you working overseas? there are so many problems here in the united states. i said precisely the fact that i understand the situation and the problems of the grassroots perspective here and again a that i can use that lens to analyze international development problems and i can use that land's end to kind look at national decisions and look at international policy decisions and understand kind of more or less intuitively whether they are going to work or not. there are ways you can create unity buy-in and ways you can create community participation within a large bowl policymaking and international development. again we don't have to see these as being mutually exclusive. ashley wanted to end my remarks very briefly with a story. this is a story of a movement that comes out of latin america

that doesn't get a lot of attention but it's a story that i think is very related to our debates and discussion on climate change and global warming in and latin america and throughout latin america specifically places like colombia and brazil. these are people who are -- and in argentina you have a large group of first cyclers who are people who started out going into trash dumps to recycle materials. i don't like calling them trash pickers and there a lot of researchers that call them trash pickers but what they are picking is not trash. they are valuable resources that can be reused and many of the new one of the wealthiest women in china deals in recycled aluminum so these are very important, even commodity level products that individuals are able to take from the trash. many of these movements and the movements that are the strongest at this moment in time are in latin america. they have been able to convene and work with local recyclers in

places like india and places like china and places throughout all of africa to really get value to the type of work they are doing. one of the things that they have been able to push our policies because the interesting thing about recycling, there's a huge policy dimension to it. how do cities and local police -- municipalities decide to manage waste and if they manage waste through local, corporative recyclers, they are actually getting a service. they are providing a source of income for individuals who may have been seen as a social problem if they were not involved and they are also providing a service that generally they are not getting paid for so instead of going with a large major international firm you can go with very local firm and create tremendous benefits for your own community and reuse those materials. so when you think about kind of this idea of public/private partnership, of grassroots interacting with government, i encourage you to look at what's happening with the recyclers

movement began particularly in places like brazil where you have legislation now that supports recyclers and this dialogue but also looks at how do you create consciousness among communities so they themselves can begin to sort them produce higher-quality recycled material that then leads to higher income come even higher incomes for low income people. when we are talking about higher incomes we are talking about people that can earn up to two or three minimal wages living off of recycled material so these are not low-paying jobs. these are jobs that are somewhat messy but often what happens is they are opportunities for their children to scale up and to look at professional opportunities in the professional guild as well. in this is one of the many examples i encourage us to look at from the developing world as a whole. i seagate is being a two-way street and i think we have an awful lot to learn from our neighbors to the south. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you, judith. so now we come to the point of the program where we invite the audience to ask questions of the panelists. and we have about 30 minutes, because this panel and add 11:50 and i understand we are in courage to leave the premises at about that time. so, questions? yes, sir. >> do i have to wait for the microphone? >> it's right above you. >> oh, there it is. [laughter] the previous panel is on global warming, and so i want to know if there is a way to avoid this being a zero-sum game? in another ward to talk about development and i'm very a the aware of the fact that pakistan for example the asian development bank is thinking

about maybe putting in a huge dam, which inevitably might raise carbon dioxide levels, so is there a way around this, to make it that we can have development, and not contribute to the problem that the previous panel spent a great deal of time on, global warming? is it a zero-sum game and if so is there a way to get around that? >> did everybody here the question? so the question is, it had to do with global warming. is it a zero-sum game? is there a way to sustain economic growth and not contribute to the problem of global warming? is that right? okay. >> i just had a conversation with an environmentalist about a week ago and the fascinating new model to look at pine resins and in other parts of america as a sustainable source of revenue for communities.

one of the things that he said that i thought was actually very wise and i think i've heard it actually from other individuals is that between feeding your family and a tree, the tree often loses. i think that one of the things that we have to really create our opportunities that are sustainable, where communities have adequate information to make good decisions. i think that understanding and really giving a financial value to biodiversity and to the natural resources of the countries is extraordinarily -- necessary. is becoming popular but it's necessary and it's needed. you have some of the richest biodiversity in the world and to a great extent certainly indigenous communities are very aware of that. they have done an excellent job and land resource management and they understand the notion of seven generations out and how you need to protect these ur