Albert Hirschman Lecture — Leonardo Lomelí Vanegas

To illustrate this, Lomelí Vanegas turned to a striking historical comparison: Mexico and South Korea.

In 1950, Mexico had better economic indicators than South Korea by virtually every measure, higher GDP per capita, more public investment in education, stronger infrastructure. South Korea was recovering from the devastation of the Korean War. Yet by the mid-1980s, South Korea had overtaken Mexico. Today, the gap continues to widen.

The difference, Lomelí Vanegas argues, was not simply the amount spent on education, but the strategic logic behind it. South Korea systematically linked its investment in universities and research to industrial policy, training engineers, scientists, and technicians to fuel specific sectors of its growing economy. By the 1990s, public and private spending on education and research combined reached between 6 and 8% of GDP, closely tied to global technology firms and national industrial conglomerates.

Mexico, by contrast, expanded its education system primarily in response to social and political pressures, broadening coverage in primary schools, then opening universities in part to contain student unrest after the repression of 1968. Spending on research and development remained weak. The links between universities and productive sectors were fragile and occasional.

The result: South Korea built a highly skilled workforce woven into its most dynamic industries. Mexico produced large numbers of graduates who struggled to find work that matched their qualifications, fueling frustration, inequality, and a persistent "middle-income trap" that its economy has never fully escaped.