Mexico’s infrastructure projects have come under sharp scrutiny as experts warn that many initiated during former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s administration lack transparency, efficiency, and social utility. Specialists consulted by El Universal agree that the common denominator among these initiatives, spanning the past six years, has been the absence of accountability for confirmed overruns and their limited societal benefit. The concerns highlight a growing unease with how public resources are being allocated, particularly in light of repeated failures to ensure proper planning and oversight. The criticism centers around several high-profile projects, including the Mexico City International Airport (AICM) and the Dos Bocas hydroelectric dam. These projects, often labeled as part of the so-called “Fourth Transformation,” have faced accusations of corruption, environmental damage, and mismanagement. Eduardo Bohórquez, director of Transparency Mexico, recalls that similar large-scale infrastructure efforts in the past were halted due to perceptions of corruption and opacity. He argues that future major projects must be carried out with full public accountability, emphasizing that transparency is essential for long-term sustainability. Bohórquez stresses that strategic national infrastructure requires integrity, transparency, and sound financial planning, free from overpricing or abuse. He warns that unless these principles are upheld, such projects risk repeating historical patterns of failure. His comments align with broader concerns raised by other analysts, who point to the lack of effective institutional controls and the apparent inability of auditors to enforce compliance. Marco A. Fernández, professor at Tecnológico de Monterrey and researcher with México Evalúa, adds that the current wave of mega-projects has become synonymous with both inefficiency and corruption. He highlights documented cases of excessive costs, limited social usefulness, and environmental harm. Fernández criticizes the government for failing to address these issues through rigorous oversight, noting that even the Supreme Court’s retired justice, José Ramón Cossío, has argued that decrees declaring certain projects as matters of “national security” violate constitutional norms and undermine judicial transparency. Fernández further points out that legislative bodies, particularly opposition lawmakers, have not engaged in meaningful debate over the spending of these massive undertakings. He calls for greater openness, arguing that attempts to conceal project details under the guise of national security have failed to mask the underlying problems. For instance, he notes that the lack of passengers at the new airport, flooding at Dos Bocas, and the loss of life due to poor planning of the Interoceanic Highway remain undeniable realities. In addition to these direct criticisms, reports suggest that the government has weakened institutional checks by delegating tasks traditionally handled by civilian agencies to military forces. This shift, according to Cossío, has undermined bureaucratic structures and created opportunities for misuse of public funds. The pattern raises questions about whether the current approach to infrastructure development is sustainable or whether it risks deepening systemic weaknesses rather than addressing them. As the debate continues, the focus remains on ensuring that future projects meet strict standards of transparency, efficiency, and public benefit. With ongoing investigations into past missteps and growing pressure for reform, the challenge lies in balancing ambitious infrastructure goals with the need for accountability and ethical governance. The outcome will likely shape the trajectory of Mexico’s development strategy for years to come.
★
Mantengamos las noticias honestas.
ObjectiveNews se financia con los lectores y no tiene anuncios: te mostramos el sesgo en lugar de ocultarlo. Apoya el periodismo independiente por 4 €/mes.
Hazte suscriptor
MX
