Foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico rose 14.5% year-on-year through the third quarter of 2025, reaching $40.9 billion, according to the Economy Ministry. Yet the distribution of this capital remains highly uneven. Just five entities—Mexico City, Nuevo León, the State of Mexico, Baja California, and Coahuila—accounted for the majority of inflows, with Mexico City alone capturing 55% of the national total.
Coahuila stood out as one of only eight states to register FDI growth during the period. Its continued appeal to foreign investors reflects structural advantages long entrenched in northern Mexico: proximity to the United States, established export infrastructure, and a mature maquiladora (assembly-for-export) ecosystem. These factors have helped Coahuila maintain its position among the top recipients of foreign capital despite broader national efforts to diversify investment.
Analysts note that such geographic concentration is not new. The pattern predates both the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and its predecessor, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). While trade liberalization was expected to spur development across Mexico, in practice it has reinforced existing regional divides. Northern states with export-oriented industries have reaped most of the benefits, while much of central and southern Mexico remains on the margins of FDI-driven growth.
This confirms that structural advantages continue to outweigh policy intentions.
The latest figures underscore this imbalance. Alongside Coahuila and other northern states, only Guerrero, Tlaxcala, Tamaulipas, Baja California Sur, and Mexico City reported increases in FDI. The limited number of beneficiaries suggests that treaty-based integration alone has not been sufficient to broaden economic participation across regions.
Some observers argue that investor preferences for established supply chains and logistical hubs explain much of this concentration. However, others point to a lack of coordinated national policy aimed at attracting investment beyond traditional industrial corridors. Without targeted infrastructure development and workforce strategies tailored to underrepresented regions, they warn that current disparities are likely to persist.
“The increases are occurring in a handful of states that have historically dominated,” said one analyst. “This confirms that structural advantages continue to outweigh policy intentions.”
Still, modest gains in states like Guerrero and Tlaxcala suggest that broader dispersion is possible under the right conditions. Proponents of USMCA maintain that its long-term potential remains intact—if paired with deliberate efforts to build capacity in less developed areas.
For now, Coahuila’s performance illustrates both the strengths and limitations of Mexico’s current investment landscape. Its success highlights how regional ecosystems can thrive under favorable conditions. But it also serves as a reminder that without a more inclusive strategy, economic integration will continue to benefit only a narrow segment of the country.
