Rural poverty in Mexico: prevalence and challenges Expert Group - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

www.coneval.org.mx Lo que se mide se puede mejorar

Rural poverty in Mexico: prevalence and challenges

Expert Group Meeting on Eradicating Rural Poverty to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 27 February – 1 March 2019 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

2

Around 80% percent of the population of Mexico (120 million) lives in urban areas. Urban: 2,500+ habs. Rural: < 2,500 habs.

• 74 metropolitan areas concentrate over 60% of the national population.
• Slightly more than 97% of the 192,000 localities are inhabited by fewer than 2,500 people.
• More than nine out of ten are inhabited with a population of fewer than 500 people.

General Law for Social Development Article 36

Income Educatio nal lag Access to social security Access to food Housing and quality space Access to basic housing services Degree

• f social

cohesion Degree of accesibility to paved roads Access to health services

Economic wellbeing

Social Rights

Territorial context

• Mexico was the first country to introduce an official multidimensional poverty

measure in 2009.

• Poverty is measured at national and state level every two years and every five years

the municipal level, with information generated by the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI, Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía).

• The methodology identifies people living in poverty as well as other vulnerable groups.
• Multidimensional poverty measurement and its features are relevant indicators for

social policy evaluation.

MULTIDIMENSIONAL

POVERTY MEASUREMENT

• Degree of social cohesion
• Degree of accessibility to paved

roads

Territorial

What are the main features of the methodology?

Social Rights

Social Deprivation Index (SDI)

Mexican Population Wellbeing

Income Current per capita income

3 2 1 4 5 6

Educational lag Access to health services Access to social security Access to food Housing and quality space Access to basic housing services

Social Rights

Deprivations

Main features Income poverty line

Population with social deprivations Income poverty line

Without

D e p r i v a t i

• n

s

3 5 2 4 1 6 POOR

Vulnerable people by social deprivations Vulnerable people by income

Not poor and not vulnerable

Dimensional decomposability

1

Population decomposability

2

Comparability across time

3

Identification of disadvantaged groups

• Gender
• Children and adolescents
• Ethnic minorities
• Elderly population
• Young adults
• People with disabilities
• National
• Rural / urban
• State
• Municipality

Regions Population

Properties of the multidimensional poverty measurement

6

7

• HALF OF THE MEXICAN POPULATION LACKS ECONOMIC RESOURCES FOR SATISFYING BASIC NEEDS.
• FOUR OUT OF TEN PEOPLE LIVE IN POVERTY AND ONE OUT OF 13 LIVE IN EXTREME POVERTY.
• ONLY ONE OUT OF FIVE DOES NOT PRESENT ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL DEPRIVATIONS.

Social Rights / Social deprivations

Economic wellbeing

6 5 4 3 2 1 Income poverty line [50.6%, 62M] Extreme income poverty line [17.5%, 21.4M]

Vulnerability by social deprivations [26.8%, 32.9M] Moderate poverty [35.9%, 44.0M] Extreme poverty [7.6%, 9.4M]

No poverty nor vulnerability [22.6%, 27.8M] Vulnera- bility by income [7.0%, 8.6M]

POVERTY

[43.6%, 53.4M]

Urban: 161.3 Rural: 104.9 (USD) Urban: 81.5 Rural: 58.2 (USD)

2016

Graph 1. Percentage of population by condition of poverty or vulnerability, according to size of locality, 2010-2016

35.4 32.7 38.5 33.7 40.1 34.3 40.5 35.4 40.8 34.4 27.1 6.2 26.5 6.7 21.5 6.3 20.6 6.2 17.4 4.7 33.0 32.0 28.9 27.8 31.9 27.6 31.7 24.6 33.3 24.8 3.8 23.2 5.2 24.4 5.3 24.2 6.0 24.9 7.0 27.3 0.7 5.9 1.0 7.4 1.3 7.6 1.2 8.8 1.5 8.7

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Population in moderate poverty Population in extreme poverty Population vulnerable by social deprivations Population vulnerable by income Population not poor nor vulnerable

39.2 62.5 64.9 40.4 61.6 40.6 61.1 41.7 58.2 38.9

Source: CONEVAL based on MCS-ENIGH 2010-2014 and MEC-MCS-ENIGH, 2016.

Graph 2. Population (percentage and millions) with social deprivation and insufficient income, according to size of locality, 2016

13.1 15.3 46.5 8.7 8.6 17.6 45.1 13.1 8.3 3.8 21.9 6.1 15.1 7.0 16.9 8.3 29.1 13.2 77.1 21.4 53.1 24.7 59.7 29.2 13.9 16.2 49.4 9.2 9.1 18.7 47.8 13.9

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

Educational lag Lack of access to health services Lack of access to social security Lack of housing quality and space Lack of access to basic housing services Lack of access to food Population with income below income poverty line Poulation with income below income extreme poverty line

Rural Percentage Urban Percentage Rural Millions Urban Millions

Percentage

Millions

Source: CONEVAL based on MEC-MCS-ENIGH, 2016.

Graph 3. Inequality of opportunities and outcomes for different population groups: Poverty gap amongst selected populations, México, 2016

40.1 33.2 47.3 41.5 49.2 33.9 40.1 36.0 45.0 4.0 31.1 6.4 31.3 3.9 16.4 4.6 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Mujeres indígenas en zonas rurales Hombres no indígenas en zonas urbanas Menores indígenas Menores no indígenas Adultos mayores indígenas en zonas rurales Menores de 65 años no indígenas en zonas urbanas Jóvenes (12-29) en zonas rurales Jóvenes (12-29) en zonas urbanas

Percentage Población en situación de pobreza moderada Población en situación de pobreza extrema

85.1 37.3 78.5 47.8 80.5 37.8 56.5 40.6

Source: CONEVAL based on MEC-MCS-ENIGH 2016.

Rural indigenous women Urban non indigenous men Indigenous women Non indigenous women Elderly indigenous rural population Young rural population Young urban population Non elderly non indigenous urban population

Extreme poverty Moderate poverty

11

77.6 34.8 43.2 13.3 79.9 33.0 64.6 31.5 49.3 78.8 41.0 5.8 16.7 15.5 54.0 10.4 16.3 19.3 15.2 48.3 5.4 2.4 3.0 0.9 5.6 2.3 4.5 2.2 3.4 5.5 45.1 6.4 18.3 17.0 59.3 11.4 17.9 21.2 16.7 53.1 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0

Population living in poverty Population living in extreme poverty Educational lag Lack of access to health services Lack of access to social security Lack of housing quality and space Lack of access to basic housing services Lack of access to food Income below extreme poverty income line Income below poverty income line POVERTY SOCIAL DEPRIVATIONS ECONOMIC WELL-BEING

HLI % NHLI % HLI Million NHLI Million

Source: CONEVAL based on MEC-ENIGH 2016.

Percentage Million

Graph 4. Indigenous population (percentage and millions) living in poverty, with social deprivations or income insufficiency, 2016

12

Population concentration Population dispersion

To improve conditions of growth and equality in the most developed territories To generate conditions for development where infrastructure and

• pportunities

need to be distributed 5 urban municipalities concentrate the same amount of people living in poverty (3.2 million) than 450 smaller, rural municipalities The dual nature of poverty

13

Social and economical Ethnic/gender/age Territorial

Durable inequalities in rural spaces

Poverty programs: OPORTUNIDADES (1997-2018)

• Investment in human capital:

education, health, food.

• Conditional cash transfers.
• Focus on families and

individuals (much less on context). Given the lack of economic growth, the possibility to movilize these new resources has been limited.

Challenges for poverty measurement at local level: sources of information Income and Expenditure National Survey (every 2 years) Population census or inter-censal surveys (every 5 years) It is representative at the state and national level, but not municipal. Complete information for identifying if a person is in a situation of poverty. Representative at the municipal level. Information to build four indicatord. It is not possible to directly estimate income, access to food and access to social security Small area-estimation methods for indirectly calculating the rest of the indicators CONEVAL is currently developing a conceptual and methodological agenda for estimating poverty at smaller areas, rural and urban. Qualitative research agenda: CONEVAL and local governments Qualitative methodologies assess for social processes, changes and factors invoved in poverty evolution.

www.coneval.org.mx Thank you! Paloma Villagómez Ornelas Deputy General Manager of Guidelines for Poverty and Social Development Measurement CONEVAL pvillagomez@coneval.org.mx