Nearshoring. Investment Does Not Arrive in Mexico, It Arrives in Municipalities with Infrastructure

Editorial
2 days ago
4 min read

Nearshoring: Investment doesn't reach Mexico, it reaches municipalities with infrastructure. InterMayors Magazine

Mexico can point to location, trade agreements and record investment. But relocation is decided in the municipality that can offer organized land, energy, water, permits and logistics without improvisation.

The conversation about nearshoring in Mexico has too often been told as a national story. It focuses on geography, the USMCA, competitive costs and record foreign direct investment. All of that matters. But in the real life of a company, the decision does not land in an abstract country. It lands on a plot of land, in a permit, at a substation, on an access road and before a municipal authority that can either solve or obstruct.

The thesis is uncomfortable: Mexico may win the global conversation on nearshoring, yet only prepared municipalities will win the investment. The rest will watch announcements, business visits and employment promises go by without turning them into plants, suppliers or formal wages.

“Nearshoring does not land where speeches are made; it lands where the municipality has already done the uncomfortable work.”

You can listen to this article here:

The record is not enough

Mexico’s Ministry of Economy reported that the country closed 2025 with 40.871 billion dollars in FDI, its highest annual figure and 10.8% above 2024. In the first quarter of 2026, IMCO recorded 23.591 billion dollars, a preliminary increase of 10.4% compared with the same period of 2025 using original figures.

The figure opens an opportunity, but it does not justify triumphalism. IMCO warns that FDI is positive, although insufficient on its own: new investments fell 26.6% compared with updated first-quarter 2025 figures, while reinvested earnings grew 14.35%. Mexico is retaining capital from companies already established in the country, but must still attract new plants, production lines and technological capacity.

That is where the territorial filter begins. A company does not decide only because Mexico is close to the United States. It decides based on certainty. It evaluates permits, energy, water, mobility, asset security and administrative capacity. Economic development is not about ribbon cuttings, but about reducing friction.

“Investment does not reward the most enthusiastic municipality; it rewards the most predictable one.”

interMayors Magazine Nearshoring Investment doesn't reach Mexico, it reaches municipalities with infrastructure

The municipality as the real filter

Plan México places relocation, development poles, domestic suppliers and red tape reduction at the center of the country’s strategy toward 2030. Its goals include keeping investment above 25% of GDP from 2026 onward, creating 1.5 million additional jobs in specialized manufacturing and reducing the total time required to complete an investment from 2.6 years to one year.

The question is who will make that promise possible. A national digital window can organize files, but it does not pave access roads, update cadastres, solve contradictory land-use rules, align civil protection with economic development or turn a saturated road into a logistics corridor. That part happens in municipalities.

The industrial map confirms the scale of the challenge. Colliers and AMPIP reported in 2026 a snapshot of 477 industrial parks, 85 million square meters and 103 new parks under development. That expansion does not demand only real estate capital; it demands local governments capable of organizing urban growth, housing, transportation, energy and public services before industrial pressure overwhelms them.

Energy is the clearest test. Mexico’s Ministry of Energy announced instruments to trigger nearly 740 billion pesos in electricity investment by 2030 and add 32 gigawatts. But that does not replace municipal planning. If an industrial city grows without land, transmission, water and labor mobility, energy investment will arrive late or arrive badly.

The opportunity lies in invisible infrastructure

A productive municipality is not merely the one that has an industrial park. It articulates land, permits, energy, water, mobility, security, talent and local suppliers. It understands that the most valuable infrastructure is not always visible: it is in an updated cadastre, response times, metropolitan coordination, regulatory certainty and the capacity to say no when an investment threatens to break the territory.

This is the municipal consequence. If a local government fails to organize its territory, nearshoring can raise rents, saturate roads, pressure public services, displace affordable housing and deepen inequality. If it does organize it, it can turn a plant into formal jobs, local suppliers, technical training, own-source revenue and better services. The difference is not only receiving investment; it is governing it.

“A municipality without infrastructure can attract a visit; a municipality with institutional capacity can close an investment.”

You can see this article here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1P6A7GJmmk

That sentence should be on the table of every mayor trying to join the nearshoring conversation. Because the real risk is not that Mexico loses attractiveness. The risk is that some territories are left out because of administrative slowness, urban disorder or lack of political coordination.

What remains unresolved

Mexico needs a municipal nearshoring agenda with comparable indicators: actual days required to open a plant, available energy, water stress, road and rail connectivity, regularized land, licensing times, logistics security, nearby housing and technical talent. Without those data, public policy will continue confusing promotion with competitiveness.

Revista interAlcaldes infografía Nearshoring La inversión no llega a México llega a municipios con infraestructura — You can download this infographic for free.

Mexico also lacks a tougher political decision: to stop selling a municipality as a “strategic location” when it does not have the minimum conditions to sustain investment. Location opens the conversation; infrastructure closes it. And in an environment where the United States, Canada, Europe and Asia are readjusting supply chains, capital will not wait for a city council to learn how to plan.

Relocation can give Mexico a decade of advantage. But that advantage will not be decided in a press conference or in a photograph with business leaders. It will be decided in municipalities that have water before promising industry, energy before selling land, permits before announcing parks and mobility before celebrating jobs. For mayors, the message is direct: nearshoring will not reward intentions; it will punish improvisation. Which municipalities are ready to receive investment without breaking their territory?