8 sources cited across the Mexico corpus — aggregated from all document Primary Sources Consulted blocks, deduplicated by title prefix.
This document is itself a synthesis of secondary-source bibliography rather than a primary-source-driven analytical anchor. The works enumerated in §§2–10 below constitute the canon. The document's analytical contribution is the organisation, the cross-author commentary on contested readings, and the identification of open questions that the canon collectively addresses or leaves unresolved.
The bibliographic frame is built from:
The cumulative bibliographies of the principal English-language Mexico-studies surveys — Krauze (1997), Camp (multiple editions through 2014), Aguilar Camín and Meyer (1989/1993) — checked against each other for canon convergence.
The *Latin American Research Review*, *Mexican Studies / Estudios Mexicanos*, *Foro Internacional* (El Colegio de México), and *Política y Gobierno* (CIDE) review essays from 2010–2025 for currency of the post-2010 canon evolution.
The catalogues of the principal Mexican academic presses — Fondo de Cultura Económica (FCE), El Colegio de México (Colmex), Era, Cal y Arena, Grijalbo, Random House Mondadori / Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial, and Planeta Mexicana — for the Spanish-language canon.
The Wilson Center's *Mexico Institute* publication archive, the Migration Policy Institute Mexico-related output, the Brookings Institution Latin America Initiative, and the Council on Foreign Relations Latin America Studies Program as principal English-language policy-analytical surfaces.
The investigative-journalism record published in *Proceso*, *Reforma*, *Milenio*, *El Universal*, *Animal Político*, *Quinto Elemento Lab*, *Aristegui Noticias*, and *MCCI (Mexicanos Contra la Corrupción y la Impunidad)*, supplemented by the *El País* Mexico bureau, *Financial Times*, *New York Times*, *Washington Post*, *Bloomberg*, *AP*, and *Reuters* English-language coverage.
Where this document quotes specific assessments of a work's canonical position, those assessments are attributed by name to the reviewer or surveyor concerned. Where a work's accuracy or sourcing has been publicly contested, the contestation is annotated factually without taking sides.