Volume 45 Number 179,
October - December 2014
Extractivism and Development:
Mineral Resources in Mexico
Aleida Azamar and José Ignacio Ponce *
Date received: January 21, 2014. Date accepted: June 5, 2014

Latin America is one of the regions with the greatest abundance of national resources and one of the principal destinations for multinational entities to privatize and commercialize goods with the consent of the state. This century has been marked by excessive mineral extraction carried out by export-oriented companies, which, far from strengthening local economies and improving the finances of the countries involved, such as Mexico, has left behind social and environmental problems, despite the profit generated. As such, the neoliberal economic policy in place in Mexico is actually detrimental to its natural resources, gradually weakening the country’s socioeconomic development.

Keywords: Mining, extractivism, profitability, foreign investment, private enterprises.

Everything, from the discovery until our times, has always been transmuted into
European – or later, United States – capital, and as such has accumulated
in distant centers of power.

Eduardo Galeano


The liberal policies espoused by international financial institutions to help Latin America emerge from its debt crisis brought these countries into the global economic fold. This was especially true for Mexico, where these policies paved the way to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) to a variety of sectors in the country, specifically to the mining sector in the mid-1990s, as a mechanism to drive national growth and development.

This article aims to demonstrate some of the weaknesses of a growth model based on the extraction of mineral resources by private (mainly foreign) enterprises whose only aim is to earn profits, which has caused severe repercussions for the country, such as: low fiscal revenue, loss of income derived from tax payments and a variety of social and environmental problems.

First, this work will describe the background of this type of extractivism and how it has evolved throughout history, from the colonial era to the industrial revolution and up through to the present, a process in which the role of the State is fundamental, as it currently is, to carrying out these actions.

Then it will discuss the role of extractivism in development policies. This section will also offer a description of the most representative types of extractivism and how they produce different problems in society. Some of the most common issues (the number of cases is growing) are social conflicts, largely in rural regions, and although this document does not intend to analyze these conflicts, it does briefly describe the current situation.

Then, this work will show how recent administrations have encouraged FDI for the mining sector by way of data on the number of concessions and hectares granted for exploitation, and the main companies working on new mining projects. It will also present estimates of federal revenue obtained from these mining exploitation rights for the principal gold producer in the country and compare this revenue with the income obtained from selling total gold production. Finally, this work offers some final considerations.


The modern world is the descendant of the industrial development that originated in seventeenth century Europe, when the material demands generated by rapid industrial growth significantly exceeded the amount of resources held by the owners of the means of production.

From the need to obtain natural resources for production, industry expanded to the expropriation of land. There were two key events. First, land expropriation became a means of production, eliminating the natural relationship between human beings and their place of birth and place to exist without infringing on the needs of their fellow humans. Second, it created a large group of “landless” human beings, principally defined by their lack of all possessions besides their own power, trapped in the need to link their only belonging to the service of a third party that could offer a benefit to ensure their existence (De Angelis, 2012: 18-20).

The establishment of private property has created a situation in which goods can be exploited to varying degrees. On the one hand, nature and all of its processes can be enclosed, transformed and sold without a self-sustaining relationship because capitalist production is based not on self-satisfaction but rather on continuous accumulation. On the other extreme, there are people without any way to generate their own means of survival, including food, shelter and clothing, who are contracted at production centers whose purpose is to generate the same products they will consume; in the end, their payment will always be lower than what they are capable of producing.

In summary, this is the identity of capitalism, which Marx called primitive accumulation. It responds to the need to establish a legally valid precedent to continue this process of allocating natural resources for exploitation and profit.

Parallel to the growth of industry, the demand for raw materials and the supply of goods has increased, meaning that local commerce is unable to meet this demand. Colonialism offered the chance to occupy lands and exploit resources, as well as create new markets. Even so, the Americas region, and in particular, Latin America, in places where original peoples were not exterminated, saw its local environments transformed into a Eurocentric vision that not only permitted usury and usurpation, but even promoted these actions among local residents, an unequivocal sign of the so-called process of civilization that began with discovery and the subsequent conquest of the territory. Whenever colonization begins, so too does the expropriation of lands useful to industry, mines and agrarian resources. However, the Spanish empire channeled this exploitation purely into accumulation. Starting in the eighteenth century, free exchange was permitted between the colonies and the rest of Europe. In that sense, the foundation for a key trade center that would drive development in the industrial revolution was laid, and the new territory became an exporter of raw materials. Extractivism predominated during the majority of colonization and allowed Europe to become the central axis of the new "world system" now defined with Europe and its capitalist economic system at the center (Garandilla, 2005: 18).

As Assadourian (1989) wrote, the base of capitalism lies in colonialism and modernity, and its methods are dispossession of resources and trade relations in which value is transferred in a single direction, situating colonized nations as satellite entities with few differences between them.

This system of trade between colonized states and the European metropolises made Latin American economies dependent from the outset, where their only purpose was to provide resources and labor to improve productive processes.

This dependence has only been exacerbated over time because the result of historical appropriation within a capitalist system is that productive powers become concentrated in the exploitation of natural resources, which generates structural unproductivity, which underlies the current paradox of abundance (Gudynas, 2009: 188-189).

This is because colonization does not consider the individual features of the places it occupies. Regional development constitutes usury from the very beginning and the outcome is local poverty and a growth strategy that fails to make use of the competitive advantages of each region.

As the capitalist system developed, Africa, Asia and Latin America were cruelly and rapaciously looted. Even in its early stages, capitalism grew through an expansionist strategy, in which the search for new and unlimited trade markets warped the mentality and values of the conquerors. There was greed for natural resources and even when the interests that motivated the conquerors had more than been fulfilled, they then moved on to turning all living beings into a sort of commodity. It could be said, therefore, that this expansion is a circumstance resulting from the development of the capitalist economic model, and the outcome is economic activity based on extractivism, or more specifically, the appropriation of land and its inhabitants.


The economic-social paradigm in Mexico is one of dispossession: first, by the colonizers, later, by the hacendados, large landholders, and finally, by the owners of various industries. This plundering formed the base of widespread capital accumulation and reproduction and as it gained force, it was used to mitigate systemic crises (Composto, 2012: 325-327).

The current configuration of trade relations revolves around profits in metropolitan nuclei frequently located in the North. Following the logic of Gunder and his thesis of the dual society, Western colonizing nations never went through the stage of underdevelopment. Even though they began as undeveloped countries, they went directly to constant development and, in some cases, followed the lines of underdevelopment (Gunder, 1978: 67).

Extraction in the neoliberal model has generated a wealth accumulation mechanism in central zones dedicated to transformation, while the periphery of the system is dependent on the requirements of the metropolis (Wallerstein, 2010: 48).1

The intensification of the extractivist model on the global scale led, first, to Eurocentrism on the international stage, achieved through the discovery, conquest and colonization of the American continent and, second, the implementation of a capitalist economic system at its nucleus. This has engendered a trade system that does not stop growing or needing.

However, the current trade configuration has been questioned, in part by those who have rejected this continuous exploitation. There is awareness among people that refuse to accept subordination. The conqueror benefits tremendously from appropriation through extraction, but this has led the subjugated to challenge this situation (Composto, 2012: 330).

Another reason is that as political figures dilute their campaign promises with actions entirely contrary to what they proposed, capital gains the reputation as the instigator of appropriation, now from within and with the blessing of the system itself, and usurpation for individual profit. The structure of the state is then modified and new interests act on behalf of business needs, that is, satellite states are created (Harvey, 2004: 115).

This usurpation is once again a model of colonial control, but in this case, countries allow this transfer to companies and private investment. Power is present in the fact that policies are subjugated to the benefit of capital. This is an economic model whose purpose is the extraction of resources through control.

The international division of labor is an example of this structure, because while the nations in the North create human capital with high added value for the production process, nations in the South procure cheap labor (Svampa, 2011).

Currently, some strategic industries and natural resources are in foreign hands, meaning the State can no longer make decisions regarding investment, price setting, production levels and future growth, because these companies make all the choices (looking to maximize economic profitability). In this way, some entire sectors and even national policies are oriented towards these companies and their labor costs, taxes, infrastructure, etc. (Petras and Veltmeyer, 2007).

Private capital is, in some cases, the savior of a weakened State, as it can assume responsibilities and offer promises of recovery. However, private capital also takes ownership of natural resources, turns the benefits of exploitation into the backbone of its own profits and encourages tax exemptions and benefits to mitigate its losses and increase profitability.

As Petras and Veltmeyer (2007) wrote, the privatization of natural resources reduces State revenue, because although FDI produces an initial inflow of capital into the country and state income through duties, permits, etc., it leads to net expenditures in the long term, because the profits derived from the sale of these resources (and this is even more true for precious metals in the mining industry) go back to the headquarters in the country of origin, which decapitalizes the economy and causes future deficits in the balance of payments.

Extractivism has generated a series of differentiated political schools of thought regarding the neoliberalism that predominates in the region. According to Seaoane (2011), these are: a) Communitarian socialism, drawing on coordinated social policies based on the nationalization of natural resources, social distribution of profits resulting from the exploitation of natural resources and greater control over policies through public consultation. The main idea is to find a process that will reduce the impact of extractivist activities on the environment. This idea is often lost on Mexico, where policies divide up natural land rights and allow for uncontrolled exploitation. b) The second policy, infuriating to the Latin American political paradigm, is armed neoliberalism, characterized by the continuous political and military interventions of the global powers, especially the United States, in the region. It is often protected under the pretext of superfluous objectives, such as narcotics control or the dogma of defending freedom. Countries subjugated to this model have signed all sorts of international agreements recommended by the World Trade Organization (WTO) or the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Violence is the backbone of this ideology and human rights are constantly violated (Ceceña, 2004: 35-37). Mexico has experienced backlash against this type of policy, such as the Aguas Blancas massacre, which was an unequivocal and violent reaction demanding protection for natural resources and better living conditions. Another example was the Mulato community, located in the state of Sonora, where the Alamos Gold mining company invaded and has dispossessed the residents of their land since 2002 with kidnapping and extortion to, in the best of cases, buy their property at extremely low prices. Bodies of water in Cocula (state of Guerrero) have also been seriously polluted since 2007, following arsenic leaks by the mining company Media Luna and landslides brought on by mining excavation and explosions.2 c) The third political ideology is neodevelopmentalism, which proposes returning all forms of national representation to state control. In this case, the State would control all forms of policy and citizen participation would be restricted to expressing opinions only where the State allows. The political agendas of usurpation and profits for private capital would be hidden because the continuity of the current attitude of the government would take priority in the interest of politics (Svampa, 2010: 15-17).

The specific objectives of these three schools of thought are focused on using and exploiting natural resources to the benefit of various political agendas.


The neodevelopmentalist model dictates that exploitation begins with public regulation and is linked to the appropriation of the extraordinary income derived therein. The armed neoliberal model advocates for the profits of private capital and more or less follows the provisions of international organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank (WB), even when these policies are completely incompatible with a region’s type of population and economy. Finally, communitarian socialism proposes a series of public policies that would generate far more equitable income distribution and universal social benefits.

In these three political perspectives, extractivism has become an option that hides behind the struggle against poverty and the fight against hunger to exploit natural resources and then appropriate income or profits to ensure the continuity of the government project.

Besides these three political ideologies, there are three types of extractivism (Gudynas, 2009):

Predatory Extractivism

This is the most aggressive form of extractivism, which uses lands until they are eroded or exhausted, and takes place in short time periods that immediately produce negative externalities for local economies and the environment.

Although it does offer economic benefits in the form of income and creates a small labor market, generally impoverishing its laborers, the main objective is to export back to foreign headquarters.

The development model for this activity takes place in zones far away from important population centers and is generally protected by partial state control in collaboration with private enterprises that use temporary exploitation contracts.

This type of extractivism, accepted by the government, favors the exportation of raw materials, giving companies high profit rates.

Predatory extractivism is an essential component of maintaining current development styles, in the sense that there is a strong dependence on exports to achieve economic growth goals, whether in conventional expressions or novel ways under progressive governments (Gudynas, 2012: 199).

Prudent Extractivism

This type of extractivism favors social and environmental benefits over political or monetary requirements, through new technologies, which increase production costs, procedures that ameliorate environmental impacts and better security conditions for workers in the zone.

The procedures used to extract and exploit natural resources must undergo rigorous processes to receive governmental approval and validation to prevent the exploitation of protected areas or regions critical to producing food for humans, and to ensure the conservation of ecological zones, and create healthy and humane working conditions.

Greater state control should encourage the creation of a national market to take advantage of the benefits of extraction and prevent these profits from going abroad.

Essential Extractivism

This type of extractivism is generally conducted by locals who do not seek any extraordinary profit from exports or imports, because their role is limited to distributing resources to meet basic food needs and satisfy the population.

Communitarian socialism, neodevelopmentalism and predatory and prudent extractivism defend the profits obtained by leasing and using land. As such, policies that fight for social rights and policies that defend private capital find in the exploitation of natural resources extraordinary profits that can finance both public and private objectives (Composto, 2012: 335).

Because extracting and exploiting natural resources increases the amount of private foreign capital, these processes should, at the very least, also be used to improve living conditions through the trickle down effect of welfare, pursuant to the logic of the benefits of extractivism (Gudynas, 2012). In opposition to this need, however, the extractive mining industry in Latin America is highly risky, because it is not properly regulated, leading to a conflict between profits and security. These practices affect not only workers, but also the zones hosting them.

Because these practices frequently take place in zones far away from any urban center, as Petras and Veltmeyer (2007: 226) say, “Foreign capital tends to create ‘business enclaves’ that import technology (for which royalties are charged) and are linked to foreign production and distribution networks, minimally impacting local economies." Towns nearby or bordering the extractive project view these companies as a way to increase their income (although this will only be temporary, as long as the project lasts). Meanwhile, the position these companies achieve in the region allow them to exploit the labor of their workers without fear of being reported to authorities due to the social conditions, poverty and ignorance that tend to persist in these regions.

Once the mining exploitation ends, usually when the land is depleted, the towns and their inhabitants are abandoned, and there are no collective agreements or contracts to benefit the societies left behind. They end up worse off than they started. Zones affected by mining extractivism often end up deserted.

Capital looks for new resources to obtain profits with no concern for social, local and national welfare. As extraction advances, the resources and profits go to the foreign headquarters, while the country that allowed the exploitation in the first place receives income far below the profits earned on exploiting these natural resources.

The current benefits of extractive activities are rather short-term. States proffer laws that favor these activities, giving up their role as overarching regulators of export-import activities (De Sousa Santos, 2007).

These extractivist activities create cheap labor without stimulating domestic growth. Private investment policies seem to be the only way to make industries more dynamic, but they are aggressive against social movements struggling for the social rights of those working in these industries, as well as movements focusing on defending the land and original residents of these locations.

Primitive accumulation also reveals a second crucial contradiction of expansionist capitalism, because the constant increase in productive capacity affects the reproductive cycles of natural resources, as they are unable to meet the demands of the eternal accumulation required for expanded reproductive cycles (O’Connor, 2001).

Capital accumulation, based on extractive mechanisms, has preyed on the disadvantages of the underdeveloped state of Latin American nations, because when these countries became dependent on the needs of central nations that demand raw materials, Latin American countries failed to develop their own technological capacities.

In this way, primitive accumulation affects both people and entire nations, dispossessing them of their natural resources and turning them into mere laborers whose natural ecosystem becomes the means of production.

The majority of Latin American countries, rather than laying the foundation for industrial and technological development, have implemented policies to exploit natural resources, which, in principle, would produce tremendous profits (earnings), but actually end up negatively impacting development, causing growth to regress. The net profits derived by foreign capital imply an absolute loss for the region and its wage workers. The more that companies become economically efficient, the less socially efficient they are on the national scale (Petras and Veltmeyer, 2007: 226).

In the end, during this process of granting the rights to exploit natural resources, industries interested in obtaining profits run up against the resistance of marginalized peoples or those who depend on what this land has to offer and have learned from the experiences (of dispossession) in other towns. This opposition is based on the overarching indigenous idea of "good living," which revolves around a balance between what is obtained and what is granted (Svampa, 2010: 15-17).

These struggles have put production mechanisms and the development model in conflict, making it extremely important to build a new development model.

The ways in which the rights granted to use natural resources are utilized vary widely. In some cases, these land rights will bring about the expropriation and usurpation of lands, turning them into a simple commodity appropriated by companies or obtained through a concession for exploitation, because capital reinforces accumulation power. On the other end of the spectrum, for original peoples, these rights mean the right to live in their places of birth, take care of their own land, and eat food from their own resources. Even so, these same inhabitants must struggle against this dispossession and abuse through social movements (Composto, 2012: 340-341).

Table 1 below offers a few examples of social movements against mining projects in various states throughout the country. This is meant to give readers an idea of a few cases in which movements were able to pressure companies into calling off operations, stopping expansion of already existing operations or withdrawing from a concession. However, in the majority of cases, foreign capital has triumphed.


To understand why the share of foreign capital in the Mexican mining sector has increased, we must look to the changes made to the Mexican Constitution. First, Article 27 of the Constitution, which lays the groundwork for mining laws and allows the government to act through the Ministry of Economy, has been amended. It also authorizes the government to grant concessions to private parties and original residents of territories to explore and exploit national lands, as well as commercialize these activities. However, the modifications made in 1996 allow mixed capital (foreign and national) companies to gain access to mining projects, in addition to 100% foreign capital companies incorporated in the country.

From that moment forward, the government has instituted more lax policies in granting mining concessions. Petras and Veltmeyer (2007) ascertain that foreign companies frequently receive long-term tax benefits and make the State invest considerable sums in infrastructure before they will invest in the country. Moreover, within-company resource transfers mean that these companies do not pay taxes on the sale of the natural resources they extract, and the taxes they do pay to the State are usually not enough to recover the expenditures made to attract the FDI in the first place.

Figure 1 shows the surface area in hectares that the federal government licensed for mining during the previous administration (2006-2012). Notably, it appears that the number of concessions granted during this six-year period fell, but in reality, the average number of hectares per concession has been increasing since 2009. By way of example, in 2012,3 the average number of hectares per concession was 2,999, as compared to 2,100 and 2,127 in the two years prior.

The total number of hectares (ha) granted in this period was over 36,710,000 (around 18% of the national territory). Figure 2 shows data for the period 2000-2012, where the number of hectares granted was nearly 62 million (30.3% of the national territory). If we compare the total number of hectares granted in the two periods, there was a 45% jump during the administration of former president Felipe Calderón.


Figure 1. Number of Mining Concessions and Hectares Granted per Year

Source: Prepared by the author based on data from the Ministry of Economy and SIAM.



Figure 2. Total Hectares Granted

Source: Prepared by the author based on data from the Ministry of Economy and SIAM.


The majority of new mining projects are from foreign companies, mainly Canadian and Australian firms (see Table 2). These projects produce immense profits for these companies but prey on natural resources, offer only short-term jobs, pollute the environment, plunder some communities, damage the landscape and leave towns deserted. We must therefore ask ourselves – what is the social benefit and why do we continue to allow these types of extractivist projects if the communities are not benefitting? It is clear that companies make tremendous profits and the government allows this to happen with weak legislation. The Mexican economic model attracts FDI under the pretext that it will promote economic growth, but this does not necessarily translated into local or national socioeconomic development.

Below are the top ten companies by number of mining projects in 2011.

Table 2 shows that even though an Australian company had the most new projects in 2011 (25 in total), Canada, overall, had the most companies and projects, with eight enterprises working on 104 permits.4


At the end of 2011, data from the National Statistics and Geography Institute (INEGI), the Mexican Geological Service (SGM) and the Ministry of Economy (SE) revealed that 56 million hectares of land were under concession for mining use in the country.

Tetreault Darcy (2012b) ascertains that because global economic growth is oriented towards maximizing company profits, this drives investment in activities such as mining exploration (where profit margins are big). Globally, 11.5 billion dollars were invested in mining in 2010, 27% of which ended up in Latin America. Furthermore, Mexico is the top destination in the region for exploratory mining FDI.

In addition, the duties stipulated in Articles 262 to 264 of the Federal Duties Act (LFD) range from 5.70 Mexican pesos per hectare in the first two years of the concession to up to 124.74 starting in the eleventh year. Mexico could have obtained a total of 4,377,520,000 pesos in this area, which, converted into dollars with that year’s average exchange rate (12.43 pesos per dollar), produces total collection of 352,173,773 dollars.

However, in Mexico, mining companies do not have to pay royalties on the sale of resources extracted from the land, and the current tax regime, designed to attract investment in the mining sector, allows companies to deduct up to 77% of their income tax (ISR),5 so the real amount obtained is much lower.

It should be noted that total refined gold production in 20116 was 84.1 tons (2,966,543 ounces), which, when multiplied by the average annual price, at 1,571 dollars per ounce, produces total market sales of approximately 4,661,330,982 dollars. That is a ratio of 26 to 1 in favor of mining companies. Table 3 shows calculations for total production value of the overall mining industry, where the ratio in favor of mining companies increases to 47.5 to 1 (Camimex, 2012: 18-20, González, 2011: 12-14; Ley Federal de Derechos, 2011; Ley Minera, 2013; Sistema Geológico Mexicano, 2012).

Specifically, Goldcorp Inc. has maintained its spot as the top gold producer in Mexico, with a total of 691,100 ounces (21.5 tons), equivalent to 25.25% of the total produced in the country, with a total combined extension of 54,212 hectares at its three mining sites. These activities have only generated 170,464 dollars in State revenue,7 despite the fact that the market price for this volume was 1,086,077,472 dollars, not including the silver, zinc and copper produced at these same mines (Camimex, 2012: 25; González, 2011: 12-14).


Primitive accumulation and extractivism are inseparable from the capitalist economic environment, because the appropriation of territories and people is the means, rather than the end itself. Both must be transformed. In Latin America, extractivism first appeared with the conquest and through violence, excluding the majority of original inhabitants from the means of production. From there, natural resources were overwhelmingly exploited and plundered. In the current environment, this accumulation and neo-extraction are protected by governments that, aiming to attract investment to their countries, have permitted the quasi-free exploitation of their resources by foreign companies, which contribute little to development in the country, due to limited taxes and royalties (which are not even charged in some cases), and leave behind considerable social, economic and environmental repercussions.

In Mexico, extractivism has historically stimulated economic development, despite the fact that the benefits from these activities are limited. At the heart of national development is the conflict between private interests and the survival of a diversity of indigenous cultures living in zones that are of interest to extractivist activities, which generate confrontation and appropriation. Specifically, Mexico has a demonstrated propensity to underregulate these processes. Mining extractivism has been used as a magnet for foreign investment in recent years, and the State income earned through tax payments and/or duties and royalties is minimal compared to the profits that mining companies earn. This, in addition to governmental programs to promote investment, has led to the surging demand for concession permits that encompass ever-greater quantities of land and are increasingly being requested by foreign companies. Consequently, in 2011, the top ten mining companies by number of projects did not include a single national firm.

In addition, social groups are increasingly discontent with the behavior of these mining companies, and are now demanding better labor conditions and respect for their basic rights and traditions. Although some cases have failed and mining projects continue to operate, others have managed to put the brakes on and even cancel projects altogether, and have also brought to light corruption and poor management on the national and international level.

There are two questions underlying this debate. First, why are these activities still actively conducted in our country despite their consequences? Second, how many national capital companies participate in major extractive sectors? It is clear that the mining sector is facing a gradual, "new conquest," but this time around, it is companies protected by the governments themselves that are engaging in this exploitation (neo-extractivism).


Assandourian Sempat, Carlos (1989), Modos de producción en América Latina, Siglo XXI, Mexico.

Cámara Minera de México (Camimex) (2012), Situación actual de la minería mexicana en 2011.

Ceceña, Ana Esther (2004), “Militarización y resistencia”, revista OSAL, no. 15, Buenos Aires, September-December, pp. 35-37.

Composto, Claudia (2012), “Acumulación por despojo y neoextractivismo en América Latina. Una reflexión crítica acerca del Estado y los movimientos socio-ambientales en el nuevo siglo”, revista Astrolabio, no. 8, Argentina, pp. 330-341.

De Angelis, Massimo (2012), “Marx y la acumulación primitiva: el carácter continuo de los cercamientos capitalistas”, Red Internacional de Estudios sobre Sociedad, Naturaleza y Desarrollo, revista Theomai, no. 26, Buenos Aires, Argentina, July-December, pp. 16-36.

De Sousa Santos, Boaventura (2007), “Más allá de la gobernanza neoliberal: el Foro Social Mundial como legalidad y política cosmopolitas subalter¬nas”, in Boaventura de Sousa Santos and César Rodríguez Garavito (eds.), El derecho y la globalización desde abajo. Hacia una legalidad cosmopolita, Anthropos, Barcelona.

Gandarilla Salgado, José (2005), América Latina en la conformación de la eco¬nomía-mundo capitalista, UNAM, Mexico, pp. 18-20.

González, José (2011), Minería en México: referencias generales, régimen fiscal, concesiones y propuestas legislativas, Centro de Estudios Sociales y de Opi¬nión Pública, Mexico, working document no. 121.

Gudynas, Eduardo (2009), “Diez tesis urgentes sobre el nuevo extractivismo. Contextos y demandas bajo el progresismo sudamericano actual”, VVAA Extractivismo, política y sociedad, Quito, CAAP/CLAES, pp. 188-189.

______ (2012), “Desarrollo, extractivismo y postextractivismo”, in memoirs “Seminario Andino”. Transiciones, post extractivismo y alternativas al extractivismo en los países andinos, May 16-16, Peru, pp. 199.

Gunder, André Frank (1978), Acumulación dependiente y subdesarrollo, Edi-ciones Era, Universidad de Texas, pp. 67-70.

Harvey, David (2004), El nuevo imperialismo, Editorial AKAL, Madrid, Spain, pp. 115.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) (1980-2012), Banco de Información Económica. http://www.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/bie/

Ley Federal de Derechos, Diario Oficial de la Federación, December 3, 1981, last reform 30/12/11.

Ley Minera, Diario Oficial de la Federación, June 16, 1992, last reform 26/06/2006.

O’ Connor, James (2001), Causas naturales. Ensayos de marxismo ecológico, Siglo XXI, Mexico.

Petras, J., and H.Veltmeyer (2007), Juicio a las multinacionales: inversión extran¬jera e imperialismo, Editorial Popular, Mexico, pp. 271.

Seoane, José; Emilio Taddei, and Clara Algranati (2011), “Tras una década de luchas. Realidades y desafíos de los proyectos de cambio en Nuestra Amé¬rica”, journal Herramienta, no. 46, Argentina.

Sistema de Administración Minera. http://www.siam.economia.gob.mx/es/ siam/p_Estadistic

Sistema de Información para la Gestión Comunitaria de Conflictos Socio-ambientales Mineros en Latinoamérica. http://basedatos.conflictosmine¬ros.net/ocmal_db/

Svampa, Maristella (2010), “Movimientos sociales, matrices socio-políticas y nuevos contextos en América Latina”, Revista Paraguaya de Sociología, special issue, 50th Anniversary, July, Paraguay, pp. 15-17.

______ (2011), “Minería y neoextractivismo latinoamericano”, diario Vive, Argentina.

Tetreault Darcy (2012a), “Conflicto socioambiental en torno a la minería a cielo abierto en Manantlán”, Observatorio del Desarrollo, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 20-22.

______ (2012b), “La minería mexicana en el contexto internacional”, Obser¬vatorio del Desarrollo, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 18-20.

Wallerstein, Immanuel (2010), El capitalismo histórico, Siglo XXI, Mexico, pp. 48-52.

*Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Xochimilco Unit, Mexico. aazamar@correo.xoc.uam.mx, ponce.ignacio@hotmail.com, respectively.

1 There is an intrinsic relationship between capitalist appropriation and the development of extractivism in underdeveloped regions, because the purpose of industrial development is production and the purpose of the capitalist system is accumulation. These conditions can only be met to the detriment of natural resources, that is, through extractive activities.

2 Similarly, Tetreault (2012a) mentions other examples, including the Sierra de Manantlán case.

3 Data was only available for the month of May.

4 The companies in the table are listed individually and not through their partnerships (whether with their own country or other countries).

5 There was no information available on the tax amounts paid (income tax, flat-rate corporate tax, value added tax) by these mining companies.

6 Mexico was ranked the ninth producer of this metal in the world.

7 Only one of its mines is over 10 years old.

Licencia de Creative Commons  Problemas del Desarrollo. Revista Latinoamericana de Economía by Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

Published in Mexico, 2012-2018 © D.R. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).
PROBLEMAS DEL DESARROLLO. REVISTA LATINOAMERICANA DE ECONOMÍA, Volume 49, Number 194 July-September 2018 is a quarterly publication by the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán, CP 04510, México, D.F. by Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas, Circuito Mario de la Cueva, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán,
CP 04510, México, D.F. Tel (52 55) 56 23 01 05 and (52 55) 56 24 23 39, fax (52 55) 56 23 00 97, www.probdes.iiec.unam.mx, revprode@unam.mx. Journal Editor: Moritz Cruz. Reservation of rights to exclusive use of the title: 04-2012-070613560300-203, ISSN: pending. Person responsible for the latest update of this issue: Minerva García, Circuito Maestro Mario de la Cueva s/n, Ciudad Universitaria, Coyoacán, CP 04510, México D.F., latest update: August 29th, 2018.
The opinions expressed by authors do not necessarily reflect those of the editor of the publication.
Permission to reproduce all or part of the published texts is granted provided the source is cited in full including the web address.
Credits | Contact

The online journal Problemas del Desarrollo. Revista Latinoamericana de Economía corresponds to the printed edition of the same title with ISSN 0301-7036