In this, my last contribution to Tijuana EDC, I extend my gratitude to its outgoing president, its director, and its council. To my friend Cristina Hermosillo, thank you for your patience and support; I commend you for your performance and prudent leadership. To David Moreno, for his follow-up and direction. To the Board of Directors of DEITAC, where ideas and strategies are developed to keep this prestigious organization at the forefront of investment promotion and protection, I wish you the best of success.
Techno-Nationalism and Its Challenges for the Global Economy
The end of 2024 and the beginning of 2025 have been filled with both identities and adversities, perhaps more of the latter than the former. At this point, the announcement of the resignation of Canada’s leader, tariffs in Mexico, China approving a $1T economic package to attract fresh investments, and Vietnam’s push for productivity… all signal a series of variables showing that globalization has given way to regionalization. However, regionalization failed to understand the need for legislation. This represents one of the greatest lost opportunities of recent decades.
Very few regions in Europe and Asia understood that when globalization gave way, they needed to adjust their legislation, and they did. In other regions, including ours, we failed to do so and continue using general standards to manage specific zones.
Techno-nationalism is “protectionism of key industries.” We see it applied by the governments of the U.S., China, Europe, and several Asian countries. In the case of the U.S., a series of benefits are being implemented to foster the country’s manufacturing activity, including tax exemptions, soft loans, and investment incentives. This directly benefits investors, coupled with controls over other countries to ensure that American investors feel protected by the benefits provided to them, thus creating more business opportunities.
The major problem imposed by techno-nationalism is that it is not an economic doctrine; it is a constant, month-by-month effort to monitor market reactions, country responses, and the adjustments that need to be prepared. Techno-nationalism bets on “clusters,” not on “countries.”
Nearshoring, Innovation, and Mexico’s Future

Consider that the U.S. Tax Bill requires approval of $2.3 trillion; therefore, tariffs must soon be approved by President Trump’s administration. Economically, Mexico could contribute a significant percentage of that revenue due to its lagging negotiations under the USMCA. This affects energy, access to new investments within Mexico, and intellectual property protection. Additionally, the new U.S. administration proposes declaring an economic emergency, turning tariffs from speculation into reality.
What happens if tariffs are imposed on Mexico? Within our country and also in the U.S., stagflation will occur—a combination of sharp price increases and economic stagnation. The way to address this will no longer be through regulation, as time will not suffice, but by evaluating how productive we will be and whether we can sustain the social programs in place.
If we integrate the above, we realize that innovation is being compromised. This is because innovation involves, among other things, strategic planning, flexible migration, intellectual property protection, and research and development—elements currently on the agenda of the three aforementioned countries. Financially, we expect to hear the term “Assets-Based Lending” (ABL) more frequently. Simply put, U.S. banks will more deeply analyze loans to companies based on where their assets are located. One asset already being transferred is inventory. If inventory is in Mexico, even if the parent company owns it, it does not count as a basis for the loan. This is already happening and is an indicator affecting demand for industrial spaces in Mexico.
According to Statista, the global manufacturing level is expected to grow by 4.2% in sales and 5.2% in capital investment. For Mexico, those percentages are 1.32% in sales, with no data available for capital. These figures are as of December 2024.
Remember that 83% of U.S. executives doing business in China are no longer as optimistic as they were in 2020, according to the U.S.-China Business Council. Regardless of techno-nationalism, Mexico must promote what it currently manufactures within the country, rather than exporting it, to make the value chain—and not just manufacturing—attractive. It must demonstrate productive advantages and how its current capacity can supply larger value chains.
Let us not forget that we are already part of the financial equation for companies as suppliers. If we can maintain that position by minimizing risks and anticipating problems, it will be easier to convince them to maintain their investment. Moreover, adapting to slower growth will prove more viable than continuing to seek nearshoring opportunities where we have little to offer.
Thank you.
Luis Manuel Hernandez, PhD, Coordinator of the Nearshoring and USMCA Compliance Dialogue Table
LI. https://www.linkedin.com/in/lmhg/
X. @LuisMHernandezG