The evolution of employment in Mexico: 1895-1980

Employment figures from the Mexican national census are the basis for this analysis of employment changes in Mexico between 1895-1980. The work identifies longterm trends in the volume and composition of employment and distinguishes 3 main periods in the evolution of employment. The first period, from 1895-1930, marked the end of a stage of development lasting until about 1907 in which sufficient internal stability was achieved to support Mexico's entrance into the world market. Export of agricultural products and metals was the principal focus of economic growth. Construction of roads and railroads was a central element of progress. But economic and social problems manifested in regional disparities, concentration of wealth, conflicts between economic sectors, low pay for agricultural workers, and fierce social and political control characterized the period and culminated in the Mexican Revolution. After the first decade of the 20th century the ability of the economy to absorb new workers began to decline, and the falling of crude activity rates was not reversed until the 1940s. During the 1920s, total employment increased less than 6%, reflecting a net increase of 403,000 male workers and a decrease of 110,000 female workers. The second major period of employment from 1930-1970 saw the change from an economy based on export of primary products to one based on manufacturing for the internal market. There were 2 subperiods, a stage of transition from 1930-50, the economy registered marked fluctuations, but by the 1940s the consolidation of state power and important reforms permitting expansion of the internal market were factors in an accelerated growth of employment relative to the preceding intercensal period. Despite considerable increases in agricultural employment, the relative share of the agricultural sector in total employment was beginning a decline. Employment registered the highest growth rates of the century in the 1940s and exceeded population growth. The increased employment was explained by accelerated growth and accumulation in manufacturing along with increases in commerce, services, construction, and agriculture. From 1950-70, industrial development was consolidated, and there was a generalized expansion in employment in manufacturing as well as in the secondary and tertiary sectors. The economy was less able to absorb new labor, primarily because the agricultural sector had reached the limits of expansion in both the commercial and peasant sector by 1965, at just the time that population growth was most rapid. During the 1970s, manufacturing employment grew less rapidly because of modernization, almost exclusive orientation to the internal market which limited expansion, and scarcity of funds for importing capital goods. A new model of growth will be needed if Mexico is to escape its present stagnation, and a significant share of economic activity will need to be oriented to export. Until this process is consolidated, the national economy is unlikely to show signs of sustained recuperation.     

Order in the Steinhaus case

In April 1986, one-month-old Lance Tyler Steinhaus sustained serious injuries, attributed to abuse by his father, that left him comatose. His mother and his physicians agreed that he should not be treated aggressively. The Redwood County (Minnesota) Welfare Department obtained a temporary order restraining withdrawal of Lance's antibiotic therapy. Lance's mother and Dr. David Steinhorn, a pediatrician, appealed to the County Court to dissolve the temporary injunction. Judge George I. Harrelson in this decision denied their request on the grounds that both state and federal law establish that infants with life-threatening conditions have a right to medically-indicated treatment and that Lance Steinhaus had such a right because he was in a "vegetative state" rather than technically "comatose." [Editor's note: After conducting another hearing on Lance's neurological status, the court ruled on 18 October that Lance was irreversibly comatose and ordered only "comfort care."]     

Rogers v. Whitaker

The High Court of Australia affirmed the Supreme Court of New South Wales' determination that a doctor has a duty to warn a patient of any material risk involved in a proposed treatment. A risk is considered material if a reasonable person in similar circumstances would attach significance to the risk, or if the doctor is, or should be, cognizant that the particular patient would express concern about the risk. The trial court overruled the precept that a doctor could not be found negligent in warning a patient if the doctor acted within the purview of common practice, even though other practitioners may follow different procedures and regardless of the particular patient's concerns. In this case, Maree Whitaker became essentially blind after an unsucessful operation on her right eye caused sympathetic ophthalmia in her left eye. Although there was no question that the surgery had been performed with the requisite skill and care, Ms. Whitaker petitioned the court for relief due to the failure of the ophthalmologist, Dr. Christopher Rogers, to warn her of the possibility (approximately 1 in 14,000) that the sympathetic ophthalmia condition could develop. The trial court's award of damages was affirmed because, in spite of Ms. Whitaker's expressed specific concern that her "good eye" not be harmed, Dr. Rogers did not inform her of the potential risks associated with the surgery.