L'effet malinchismo existe-t-il vraiment chez le consommateur mexicain? (document en anglais)

“DOES THE MALINCHISMO EFFECT REALLY EXIST

IN THE MEXICAN CONSUMER?”

“DOES THE MALINCHISMO EFFECT REALLY EXIST

IN THE MEXICAN CONSUMER?”

by

Margarita Heredia Soto

Doctoral Research Proposal

Doctorate Study in Social Sciences, Economics and Business

Johannes Kepler Universität, Linz, O.Ö

October, 2008

margarita.heredia@udlap.mx

+52 (222) 229 20 00 Ext. 4272

ABSTRACT

Globalization has brought numerous changes in the marketing of consumer’s goods (Ahmed & D’Astous, 1993). Nowadays, consumers in worldwide markets are exposed to and are selecting from a wider range of foreign brands more than ever before. (Klein, Ettenson & Morris, 1998) For this reason, businessmen have enhanced the urgency of research on the impact of Country of Origin Image in cross-national consumer behavior (Pisharodi & Parameswaran, 1992).

Despite the numerous articles that have been published since the mid 60’s about Country of Origin Effect (COO), (Nagashima, 1970, 1977; Erickson, 1984; Papadopoulos, Heslop, Graby & Avlonitis, 1987; Ettenson, Wagner & Gaeth, 1988; Johanson, Heimbach & McLachlan, 1989; Chao & Rajendran, 1993; Ahmed & D’Astous, 1993; Han, 1998; Darling & Puetz, 2002) there are only a few which have measured the consumers’ buying preferences for local products. Furthermore, the vast majority of these investigations have been focused on developed countries (Nagashima, 1970; Bannister & Saunders, 1977; Ettenson et al, 1988; Levin, Jasper, Mittelstaedt & Gaeth 1993; Han, 1994; Olson & Graeff, 1994; Lantz & Loeb, 1996), and those that have studied this preference in developing countries do not include Latin America in their studies. (Gaedeke, 1973; Ulgado, Lean, Mitchel & Liu, 1994; Zhang, 1996; Bhuian, 1997; Zain & Yasin, 1997; Kaynak & Kara, 2002)

The aim of this study is to contribute in filling this literature gap addressing a new approach, the “malinchismo effect”, which is defined by Gerson (2004, p.35) as “To dislike one’s own and preferring the other – giving one self to the foreigner and abandoning and betraying one’s own“. This effect concerns to the country of origin topic since the malinchismo is the inverse meaning of consumer ethnocentricity. According to Kucukemiroglu (1999, p. 471) “consumer ethnocentrism represents the beliefs held by consumers about the appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made products. Ethnocentrism may be interpreted as that purchasing imports is wrong, not only because it is unpatriotic, but also because it is detrimental to the economy and results in the loss of jobs in industries threatened by imports”.

Whether the objective of determining if the malinchismo effect exists or not in the Mexican consumer, this research pretends to measure Mexicans consumption preferences through an experimental design, where Mexican consumers have the option to choose between local and foreign products of Latin American origin. It is important to mention that in this region there are different levels of underdevelopment and because of this, is probable that the intensity of the malinchismo effect could vary. This is, greater underdevelopment provokes lower malinchismo.

This research will be useful to the science community because it will contribute to determine some of the elements that cause “malinchismo” consumer behavior. The results of this investigation could also be helpful to local producers because they may use the data to improve marketing of their products, trying to satisfy local consumer preferences. That is, if Mexican consumers are malinchistas, local producers could minimize the “made in” label or vice versa. In order to achieve objective, a branding strategy could be developed to position Mexican products in a positive place in local consumers’ mind.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

From the 50's to the beginning of the 70's, Mexico experienced an era of economic protectionism, also known as Stabilization Development Period, which was characterized by a protection of local industries from competition by foreign companies, isolating them and closing borders to imported products (El Colegio de México, 1996). Producing for a captive market, the national industries benefited from the protectionism by the state as they did not have to be concerned to invest in technologies that could have improved their Mexican products; resulting in low quality goods at high prices. (Galeón Hispanista, 2004) When the borders were opened, the country experienced an increase in exports and in foreign direct investment. Creation of new companies, greater availability of goods and services, better prices and transfer of modern technologies with efficient production processes were the benefits of this commercial opening. (Rodal, et al., 2005)

Globalization is part of the capitalist interdependence evolution, in which an accelerated growth of international economic activity is observed - commerce, finances, investments, even over the production - that trespasses regional borders and nations politically defined. The globalization is expressed in a movement increase of goods and services. (Bolivar, 2003) According to the World Bank (2002), globalization has three stages. The first one embraces from 1870 to 1914 and was characterized by great migratory movements. The second one goes from 1950 to 1980 and it was focused in the commercial integration of the United States of America, Europe and Japan. The third stage from 1980 until now is distinguished by the decision of some developing countries to improve its investment environments and to be open to foreign trade.

During the first half of the 90’s the global commerce expansion created great expectations about economic development, prosperity and democracy, because it was considered as the process that could take those benefits indifferently

...