Mexico City is attracting foreign capital. A new study says investors may still be waiting too long to act. México Evalúa argues that permit delays, regulatory gaps, and infrastructure limitations are creating costly friction for companies engaged in nearshoring. That warning comes as Mexico tries to capture more regional investment. It also arrives just as the 2026 T-MEC review puts competitiveness under a brighter spotlight. The bigger question is whether strong investment interest can turn into real projects fast enough.
Mexico City is drawing large amounts of foreign capital, but a new warning says money alone will not secure the next phase of nearshoring. A study presented on March 10 argues that regulatory barriers are slowing companies that want to open, expand, or relocate operations in the capital. That matters well beyond the city. Mexico City remains a major corporate, financial, and logistics center. It also sits at the heart of one of Mexico’s biggest economic themes. Nearshoring has been sold as a long-term opportunity for the country. Companies want production closer to the United States, and Mexico has been a leading candidate. But demand is not the same as readiness. The new findings suggest that interest in the capital is running into friction on the ground. For readers following Mexico’s economy, that distinction matters. Big investment numbers can create the impression that projects are moving smoothly. This report argues otherwise. It says delays, overlapping rules, and bottlenecks may keep investment from turning into faster growth, more jobs, and wider local benefits.
What the report found
The report’s most concrete finding is the cost of waiting. México Evalúa identified 23 procedures across 19 economic branches tied to nearshoring. It then estimated how much value a business can lose while permits are pending. Using the legal maximum response times, the lost opportunity runs from 125,000 pesos to 3.78 million pesos per company. The group said that it is money businesses cannot use to produce, hire, or expand while they wait. The study also found that 60 percent of procedures linked to nearshoring are concentrated in the business-opening stage. In other words, the heaviest burden appears before operations even begin. Another red flag is a 43.48 percent gap between procedures in regulation and those in the city’s official registry. That gap can create uncertainty for investors and leave room for discretion. The report’s argument is not that regulation should disappear. It is that the current system can be hard to navigate and slow enough to push projects elsewhere.
Why Mexico City still matters
That warning carries weight because the capital is not a minor player. By the third quarter of 2025, Mexico City had received 22.381 billion dollars in foreign direct investment. That was 54.8 percent of the national total. The sectors with the strongest inflows included manufacturing, financial services, and transport and storage. In 2024, 79.4 percent of the city’s exports went to the United States. That makes it an important link in North American supply chains as companies look for shorter, more reliable routes. Still, the report says the capital faces a basic contradiction. It attracts investment, but it struggles to expand its industrial base. México Evalúa points to limited industrial land, fragmented rules, administrative costs, and the lack of freight rail service. It also notes that the city has 2,322 industrial corridors tied to the sectors studied. The point is not that Mexico City lacks scale or relevance. It is that its advantages may be harder to convert into working projects if the operating environment remains complex.
What happens next
The broader policy question is whether Mexico can capture more of the nearshoring wave before external conditions shift. That question looks more urgent in 2026. Mexico and the United States are already moving toward the T-MEC review scheduled for July 1. The first bilateral discussions are set to begin on March 16. In that setting, local execution matters as much as national messaging. Companies may like Mexico’s position, labor base, and access to the United States market. They still need permits, land, infrastructure, and predictable timelines. México Evalúa says the way forward is not mysterious. It points to simpler procedures, better alignment across rules, less discretion in key approvals, and more digital processes. None of those changes would solve every constraint facing the capital. They would, however, address the kind of friction that can quietly derail investment decisions. For readers, this is the real takeaway. Nearshoring in Mexico is still a live story, but the next phase may depend less on announcements and more on execution.
With information from El Economista, México Evalúa, United States Trade Representative
