More than a year into her presidency, Claudia Sheinbaum has yet to launch any major anti-corruption prosecutions. This has prompted debate in Mexico about whether the government is doing enough to tackle a problem that has long eroded public trust. But rather than pursuing headline-grabbing arrests, Sheinbaum’s administration is advancing a quieter strategy: structural reform aimed at reducing the incentives and opportunities for corruption.
The shift marks a departure from the approach of past administrations, which often relied on selective prosecutions that critics viewed as politically motivated and ultimately ineffective. Instead, Sheinbaum’s government is focusing on modernizing public administration through digitalization, simplification of procedures, and limiting discretionary power among officials. The Agencia de Transformación Digital (Digital Transformation Agency) is leading these efforts, with the goal of making government services more transparent and less vulnerable to abuse.
Examples of this strategy are already visible. Passport processing, once notorious for long lines and opaque requirements that encouraged bribery, has been streamlined through online appointments and document submission. Similarly, direct transfers of social benefits to recipients’ bank accounts have reduced the role of intermediaries who previously acted as gatekeepers—often extracting political or financial favors in return for access to aid.
The best strategy is not one that focuses on chasing culprits, but one that reduces and complicates the possibilities of wrongdoing.
This approach reflects a broader philosophy: that corruption is best addressed not by punishing individuals after the fact, but by redesigning systems to make corrupt behavior more difficult in the first place. As one observer noted, it is akin to treating the root causes of an illness rather than merely alleviating its symptoms.
“The best strategy is not one that focuses on chasing culprits, but one that reduces and complicates the possibilities of wrongdoing,” said one commentator.
Still, critics argue that structural reforms alone may not be enough. The absence of visible enforcement actions risks creating a perception of complacency or even complicity. Some analysts suggest that symbolic prosecutions could help reinforce public confidence and demonstrate political will—particularly given lingering concerns about corruption in areas such as military-led infrastructure projects, where oversight remains limited.
Indeed, the military’s expanded role in public works has drawn scrutiny from transparency advocates. Projects such as the Tren Maya have been fast-tracked with limited bidding processes and environmental oversight, raising questions about accountability. While Sheinbaum’s administration has not reversed this trend, it has emphasized institutional change as a longer-term solution.
The debate over Mexico’s anti-corruption strategy highlights a broader shift in governance discourse—from reactive enforcement toward preventive reform. It also underscores the challenge of balancing immediate public expectations with gradual systemic change. For now, Sheinbaum appears committed to the latter path, betting that modernizing state institutions will yield more durable results than prosecuting individual wrongdoers.
Whether this approach will satisfy a public eager for signs of accountability remains uncertain. But if successful, it could mark a turning point in how Mexico addresses one of its most persistent governance challenges.
