Search

Begin New Search Topic Economic Inequality Political Geography Mexico

1. Place-specific Determinants of Income Gaps: New Sub-National Evidence from Chiapas, Mexico

Author:
Ricardo Hausmann, Carlo Pietrobelli, and Miguel Angel Santos
Publication Date:
07-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
Abstract:
The literature on income gaps between Chiapas and the rest of Mexico revolves around individual factors, such as education and ethnicity. Yet, twenty years after the Zapatista rebellion, the schooling gap between Chiapas and the other Mexican entities has shrunk while the income gap has widened, and we find no evidence indicating that Chiapas indigenes are worse-off than their likes elsewhere in Mexico. We explore a different hypothesis. Based on census data, we calculate the economic complexity index, a measure of the knowledge agglomeration embedded in the economic activities at a municipal level in Mexico. Economic complexity explains a larger fraction of the income gap than any individual factor. Our results suggest that chiapanecos are not the problem, the problem is Chiapas. These results hold when we extend our analysis to Mexico’s thirty-one federal entities, suggesting that place-specific determinants that have been overlooked in both the literature and policy, have a key role in the determination of income gaps.
Topic:
Development, Economics, Migration, Political Economy, and Economic Inequality
Political Geography:
Central America, Mexico, and Chiapas

2. For Richer or Poorer: The capture of growth and politics in emerging economies

Author:
Alice Krozer
Publication Date:
09-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Oxfam Publishing
Abstract:
The emerging economies Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and Turkey - in short, the BRICSAMIT - have come to be considered the economic powerhouses of recent decades. Not only have these countries managed to reduce poverty; most have embarked on a steep economic growth path and play an increasingly influential role on the global scene. But today, all eight BRICSAMIT countries occupy the top ranks as some of the most unequal countries in the world. The price these countries - and millions of their citizens - pay for this is high. Excessive inequality hampers development prospects: negatively impacting growth potential, threatening poverty reduction, leading to mass migration flows and 'brain drain', and reducing opportunities for young people. This report, which was commissioned by civil society networks across the BRICSAMIT countries, aims to increase the urgency to tackle the structural causes of inequality by shedding light on the nature and scope of the issue in the BRICSAMIT, and the economic, political and social consequences these countries are now facing as a result.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Migration, Poverty, and Economic Inequality
Political Geography:
Africa, Russia, China, Europe, Indonesia, Turkey, Asia, South Africa, Brazil, South America, and Mexico

3. Why is Chiapas Poor?

Author:
Dan Levy, Ricardo Hausmann, Miguel Angel Santos, Luis Espinoza, and Miguel Flores
Publication Date:
07-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
Abstract:
No matter which way you look at it, Chiapas is the most backward of any state in Mexico. Its per capita income is the lowest of the 32 federal entities, at barely 40% of the national median (Figure 1). Its growth rate for the decade 2003-2013 was also the lowest (0.2%),1 causing the income gap separating Chiapas from the national average to increase from 53% to 60%. That is to say that today the average income for a worker in Mexico is two and a half times greater than the average in Chiapas. The two next poorest states, Oaxaca and Guerrero, are 25% and 30% above Chiapas.2 According to the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía de México (INEGI, National Institute of Statistics and Geography), Chiapas is also the state with the highest poverty rate (74.7%) as well as extreme poverty (46.7%).3 These major differences in income levels among Mexican federal entities are reproduced as in a fractal within Chiapas. In fact, while the wealthiest entity (Mexico City) is wealthier than the poorest (Chiapas) by a factor of six, the difference within Chiapas between the wealthiest municipality (Tuxtla Gutiérrez) and the poorest (Aldama and Mitontic) is by a factor greater than eight.4 As there are different "Mexicos" within Mexico,5 in Chiapas there are also different sorts of Chiapas (Figure 2). Income per capita in Tuxtla Gutiérrez, to the right of the distribution, is five standard deviations above the state average. Next comes a series of intermediate cities, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Comitán de Domínguez, Tapachula, and Reforma, between two and a half to four standard deviations above the average. The remaining municipalities of Chiapas follow (122 in all), clustered to the far left of the distribution. In addition, both the statistics available at the town level and our visits to various municipalities in Chiapas seem to indicate that significant differences also exist within these municipalities. From this vantage point, questions as to why Chiapas is poor, or what explains its significant backwardness compared to other areas of Mexico, become much more complex. Why do some regions in Chiapas have high income levels, while other regions remain stagnant, fully dependent on federal transfers and deprived from the benefits of modern life?
Topic:
Development, Poverty, Governance, and Economic Inequality
Political Geography:
Central America, Mexico, and Chiapas