Apparently the old way was to build in unauthorized locations and then pay the fines as part of the operating budget. The new plan is to enforce the existing regulations and try to have them demolished.
When a story about laws actually being enforced is news, it’s a good reminder that the weight of the law holds very different meanings in different countries.
Nope. It's also "should/oughta" as well - even in developed Asian countries like South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan where bribery in development tenders is treated as the cost of doing business.
GAN Integrity [0] and the Yeun Yuen Ang's unbundled corruption matrix [1] is the best way to think about corruption and judicial compliance risk.
To quote the 2016 remake of The Tick:
"Goat: I'm going to speed-dial the police
Arthur: You pay organized crime weekly to protect your store and you say nothing
Goat: At least the organized crime is organized"
LatAm isn't that different from much of Asia or Eastern Europe - the only difference is the bulk of FDI that would have gone to LatAm shifted to Asia in the 1990s-2000s because of stronger linkages thanks to Japanese and Taiwanese financial partners. And European FDI in LatAm shifted to the CEE, Balkans, and Turkiye thanks to the EU expansion and the Eurozone crisis overimpacting Portugal, Spain, Italy, and France.
One of my acquaintances at the HKS who's the goto researcher on anti-corruption (eg. Worked directly with national governments in Asia, the UNODC, and the OECD on corruption and compliance standards) has themselves argued that LatAm (especially Brazil) got overly penalized following Lava Jato due to the lack of intermediaries. For example, American FDI into Asia is usually done in conjunction with Singaporean, Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese partners who take the legal and operational burden which acts as a firewall but American and European FDI into LatAm is direct, which increases liability and compliance risk.
> When a story about laws actually being enforced is news, it’s a good reminder that the weight of the law holds very different meanings in different countries.
I don't think the weight of the law holds very different meanings in different countries, so much as the weight of the law holds very different meanings for different capital levels.
In the USA like in Mexico, there's plenty of cases where companies will just count fines as operating costs.
> In a bold move that signals a major shift in Mexico’s approach to environmental protection, the Federal Attorney’s Office for Environmental Protection (Profepa) has launched an aggressive campaign against unauthorized real estate developments along the picturesque Yucatán coast.
I would take this story with a huge grain of salt. There's illegal development everywhere in Mexico. Here's a story (one of many, and from an actual newspaper) about illegal development in Tepoztlán: https://www.jornada.com.mx/noticia/2022/08/15/estados/edific.... This goes on in the open -- you can look towards the mountains from town and see fancy houses that are literally within the national park.
I picked Tepoztlán because it's very beautiful, very close to the capital, and is one of Mexico's most visited "Pueblos Mágicos" (the most visited so far in 2026). If the government isn't stopping obvious illegal development here then one would wager they aren't really stopping it anywhere. Insitutions are weak, so crackdowns are limited and temporary, and they're usually just aimed at developers that aren't properly "connected". "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law" and all that.
Actions speak louder than press releases. Let's see if they demolish something owned by someone with connections. If they do, it's a real shift. If not, it's just theater
<sarcasm>
Now that's just wasted effort. Why save the rich from themselves? Let them build on coasts and see their investments slowly drown over the coming years.
</sarcasm>
Seriously, it's refreshing to see an authority figuring out that fines are only a bar to make an activity exclusive to the wealthy.
Apparently the old way was to build in unauthorized locations and then pay the fines as part of the operating budget. The new plan is to enforce the existing regulations and try to have them demolished.
When a story about laws actually being enforced is news, it’s a good reminder that the weight of the law holds very different meanings in different countries.
- Most of Latin America is 'should/oughta' - North America is more like 'have to' - Europe is 'need to' - And majority of Asia is simply 'WILL'
(disclaimer: I'm from LatAm)
"need to": It is a moral imperative for me to do this
"WILL": Because of course this is the case
Nope. It's also "should/oughta" as well - even in developed Asian countries like South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan where bribery in development tenders is treated as the cost of doing business.
GAN Integrity [0] and the Yeun Yuen Ang's unbundled corruption matrix [1] is the best way to think about corruption and judicial compliance risk.
To quote the 2016 remake of The Tick:
"Goat: I'm going to speed-dial the police
Arthur: You pay organized crime weekly to protect your store and you say nothing
Goat: At least the organized crime is organized"
LatAm isn't that different from much of Asia or Eastern Europe - the only difference is the bulk of FDI that would have gone to LatAm shifted to Asia in the 1990s-2000s because of stronger linkages thanks to Japanese and Taiwanese financial partners. And European FDI in LatAm shifted to the CEE, Balkans, and Turkiye thanks to the EU expansion and the Eurozone crisis overimpacting Portugal, Spain, Italy, and France.
One of my acquaintances at the HKS who's the goto researcher on anti-corruption (eg. Worked directly with national governments in Asia, the UNODC, and the OECD on corruption and compliance standards) has themselves argued that LatAm (especially Brazil) got overly penalized following Lava Jato due to the lack of intermediaries. For example, American FDI into Asia is usually done in conjunction with Singaporean, Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese partners who take the legal and operational burden which acts as a firewall but American and European FDI into LatAm is direct, which increases liability and compliance risk.
[0] - https://www.ganintegrity.com/country-profiles/
[1] - https://oecd-development-matters.org/2020/06/25/unbundling-c...
I don't think the weight of the law holds very different meanings in different countries, so much as the weight of the law holds very different meanings for different capital levels.
In the USA like in Mexico, there's plenty of cases where companies will just count fines as operating costs.
I would take this story with a huge grain of salt. There's illegal development everywhere in Mexico. Here's a story (one of many, and from an actual newspaper) about illegal development in Tepoztlán: https://www.jornada.com.mx/noticia/2022/08/15/estados/edific.... This goes on in the open -- you can look towards the mountains from town and see fancy houses that are literally within the national park.
I picked Tepoztlán because it's very beautiful, very close to the capital, and is one of Mexico's most visited "Pueblos Mágicos" (the most visited so far in 2026). If the government isn't stopping obvious illegal development here then one would wager they aren't really stopping it anywhere. Insitutions are weak, so crackdowns are limited and temporary, and they're usually just aimed at developers that aren't properly "connected". "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law" and all that.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblos_M%C3%A1gicos
- https://www.infobae.com/mexico/2026/05/21/por-esta-razon-tep...
Seriously, it's refreshing to see an authority figuring out that fines are only a bar to make an activity exclusive to the wealthy.