Two out of every three persons in Chiapas lived under the poverty line in 2022, making it the federal entity with the largest share of poor population in Mexico. On average, about 36 percent of the Mexican population was living in poverty that year.

Politics and the Migrant Poor in Mexico City is a comparative study of male migrants and their city-born neighbors living in six relatively small, predominately low-income communities on the periphery of Mexico City. Based on 14 months of fieldwork in these communities during 1970, 1971, and 1972, this study dealt with a relatively small group of people in a limited number of localities at a particular point in time. The research addressed several broad theoretical and empirical problems such as the most important incentives and disincentives for political involvement, the effect a large group of people entering the political arena has on the functioning of the political system, how the individual citizen -- and especially the disadvantaged citizen -- can manipulate the political system to satisfy their needs, the process by which individuals form images of politics and the political system, the process by which individuals assume a role of participation or non-participation in political activity, what occurs at the "grass roots" of a nation's political system, and how political activity at that level affects system outputs. This study attempted to place the low-income migrant in a social and political context, and focused on the nature and frequency of interactions between the research communities and external actors, especially political and government officials. Demographic variables include age, race, socio-economic status, marital status, dwelling unit type, and religious preference.

In 2020, in the Mexican city of Guadalajara around 36.5 percent of the population were not vulnerable, which means that around 63.5 percent were vulnerable to poverty or living under poverty conditions. About three percent of the inhabitants of the city were under extreme poverty conditions.

Dataset and Stata code for the paper "Influence of poverty concerns on demand for healthier foods: A field experiment in Mexico City"

This dataset is available on the Oportunidades website at http://evaluacion.oportunidades.gob.mx:8010/en/index.php. Registration is required to access the data. For Registration, please visit http://evaluacion.oportunidades.gob.mx:8010/en/index.php and click Sign up on the right side of the page. You also may Email (evaluacion@oportunidades.g ob.mx) or Call (01-800-500-50-50) during regular business hours local (Mexico) time. NOTE: The 1999 quantitative evaluation of rural areas was done by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the results of that evaluation were published in 2000 at http://evaluacion.oportunidades.gob.mx:8010/en/docs/eval_docs_2000.php. The later evaluations were transferred to the National Institute of Public Health (INSP), Social Anthropology Research and Higher Studies Center (CI ESAS), and Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE). To view a particular evaluation document from 1999 and until 2007, select the year in the menu on the left at http://evaluacion.oportunidades.gob.mx:8010/en/index.php. The federal government of Mexico introduced the Programa de Educación, Salud y Alimentación (the Education, Health, and Nutrition Program), known by its Spanish acronym, PROGRESA to measure the impacts of the program on the covered population, using diverse methodological approaches. In 1999, IFPRI at the request of PROGRESA conducted a qualitative evalua tion of its major rural anti-poverty program. The experimental design used for the evaluation of PROGRESA takes advantage of the sequential expansion of the program in order to come up with a set of localities that serve the role of controls. Specifically, the sample consists of repeated observations (panel data) collected for 24,000 households from 506 localities in the seven states of Guerrero, Hidalgo, Michoacan, Puebla, Queretaro, San Luis Potosi and Veracruz. Of the 506 localities , 320 localities were assigned to the treatment group and 186 localities were assigned as controls. The 320 treatment localities were randomly selected using probabilities proportional to size from a universe of 4,546 localities that were covered by phase II of the program in the 7 states mentioned above. Using the same method, the 186 control localities were selected from a universe of 1,850 localities in these 7 states that were to be covered by PROGRESA in later phases. In November 1997 PROGRESA conducted a survey of the socio-economic conditions of rural Mexican households (Encuesta de Caracteristicas Socioeconomicas de los Hogares or ENCASEH) in the evaluation communities to determine which households would be eligible for benefits. Then based on PROGRESA’s beneficiary selection methods, households were classified as eligible and non-eligible for participation in the program in both treatment and control communities. The first evaluation survey (En cuesta Evaluation de los Hogares or ENCEL) took place in March 1998 before the initiation of benefits distribution in May 1998. In combination these two surveys provide the baseline observations available for all households before the initiation of the distribution of cash benefits in the treatment villages. The rest of the evaluation surveys were conducted after beneficiary households started receiving benefits from PROGRESA. One round of surveys took place in October/November 1998 (ENCEL98O), which was well after most households received some benefits as part of their participation in the program. The next two waves took place in June 1999 (ENCEL98M) and November 1999 (ENCEL99N). A number of core questions about the demographic composition of households and their socio-economic status w ere applied in each round of the survey. These core questions were accompanied by specific questionnaires, focused on collecting information critical to a thorough evaluation of the impact of the program. The topics of these modules included collecting information about family background, assets brought to marriage, schooling indicators, health status and utilization, parental attitudes and aspirations towards children’s schooling, consumption of food and non-food items, the allocation of time of household members in various activities, and self-employment activities. The preceding surveys were supplemented by school and clinic surveys, community questionnaires, data on student achievement test scores, and other school and clinic administrative data. The evaluation surveys (ENCEL) collected by PROGRESA did not allow for an evaluation of the nutritional component of the program. For the purposes of evaluating the nutritional component of PROGRESA separate surveys of the same families were carried out by the National Institute of Public Health (INSP) in Cuernavaca. These surveys included collection of data on anthropometric measures (weight and height) data of children, collection of blood samples for tests for anemia and other deficiencies.

In 2020, in the Mexican city of Monterrey the most common situation for population due to their degree of poverty was for the non-vulnerable with **** percent. Nevertheless, the other **** percent of the population either lives in poverty conditions or is on the verge of it.

[English description below] Estos son los datos para México de la Encuesta de Dinámicas Territoriales y Bienestar 2017-2018, parte del Programa Transformando Territorios de Rimisp, financiado por IDRC y realizado en colaboración, para su componente de investigación, con la Universidad Iberoamericana de México y la Universidad de los Andes de Colombia. La Encuesta de Dinámicas Territoriales y Bienestar (EDTB) es una encuesta de hogares aplicada en territorios rural-urbanos de Chile, Colombia y México durante el 2017 y 2018, en una muestra de cerca de 12 mil hogares entre los tres países. Es comparable entre los tres países. En el caso de Mexico, la encuesta es representativa de la población que vive en territorios funcionales rural-urbanos dentro de cada país, esto es, ciudades pequeñas y medianas (entre 15 mil y 350 mil habitantes) funcionalmente integradas con los municipios rurales colindantes. Estos territorios funcionales representan areas con una alta frecuencia de interacciones sociales y económicas, y con vínculos socio-espaciales complejos entre sus habitantes, organizaciones y firmas. El 38% de la población de México vive en estos territorios. La muestra total para el país es de 4.375 hogares, siendo una muestra representativa de los habitantes de territorios rural-urbanos. La EDTB incluye, además de los tradicionales módulos socioeconómicos y demográficos de las encuestas de estándares de vida, módulos innovadores sobre autoempleo, movilidad intergeneracional, aspiraciones, capital social, y relaciones con instituciones locales y nacionales. También incluye información detallada en la distribución espacial de las actividades de los hogares y sus medios de vida: dónde viven, dónde estudian sus hijos, adónde realizan su trabajo, venden sus productos y realizan sus compras, y en dónde acceden a bienes y servicios. La encuesta permite mapear flujos rural-urbanos recíprocos de personas, bienes y servicios, y analizar su correlación con características del hogar, características de su medio y trayectorias de crecimiento inclusivo. De manera importante, la información de la EDTB no incluye solo flujos de zonas rurales a urbanas, sino también de zonas urbanas a rurales. Este nivel de detalle permite también estudiar los resultados en bienestar en relación con la intensidad de los vínculos rural-urbanos y la participación de las personas en estos vínculos. Más aún, el uso de datos de hogares ofrece información sobre las heterogeneidades que existen entre diferences grupos de personas (como los hogares en distintos grupos socioeconómicos y miembros del hogar por género y edad), lo que permite un mejor entendimiento del impacto diferencial que las distintas intervenciones de política territoriales podrían tener para diferentes grupos de la población. La información contenida en la EDTB sobre movimientos relacionados con trabajos, educación , salud y alimentación, pueden guiar la planificación de la inversión y y la coordinacio´n entre unidades administrativas. Nuestros datos se encuentran registrados en 7 archivos diferentes, tanto en formato DTA (para uso con Stata 15) como en CSV: Base hogar ("b1_mexico_base_hogar"): Contiene todas las preguntas de los módulos básicos de la encuesta que consideran al hogar como unidad básica. Base individual ("b2_mexico_base_individual"): Contiene preguntas dirigidas a los distintos miembros del hogar como individuos, principalmente relacionadas con sus actividades laborales y sus características sociodemográficas. Base autoempleado no silvoagropecuario ("b3_mexico_base_autoempleado_no_silvoagropecuario"): Contiene información sobre las actividades autoempleadas de los miembros del hogar, en sectores distintos a la agricultura, ganadería y silvicultura. Base autoempleado silvoagropecuario ("b4_mexico_base_autoempleado_silvoagropecuario"): Contiene información sobre las actividades autoempleadas de los miembros del hogar en agricultura, ganadería y silvicultura. Módulo especial 1 ("e1_mexico_especiales_1"): Contiene información sobre los otros módulos especiales: movilidad intergeneracional, bienestar psicosocial, instituciones públicas y capital social, y percepción del entorno. 6. Módulo especial 2 ("e2_mexico_especiales_2"): Contiene información sobre los módulos de migración de miembros del hogar. Módulo otros migrantes ("e3_mexico_otros_migrantes"): Contiene información sobre antiguos miembros del hogar que han migrado recientemente. Se pueden encontrar, junto con estos datos, los documentos sobre metodología de muestreo, cuestionarios y diccionarios de variables, en formato PDF. Los diccionarios se encuentran divididos por diccionarios de módulos básicos (referentes a las 4 primeras bases) y módulos especiales (referentes a las 3 últimas bases), y siguen la estructura de los cuestionarios. ****************************************************** These are the datasets of the Territorial Dynamics and Wellbeing Household Survey 2017-2018 for Mexico, part of the...

Chiapas, the state with the highest share of population living in poverty, had the highest wealth inequality in the country based on the Gini coefficient as well. This index measures the deviation of the income distribution situation in a given country from a perfectly equal distribution. A value of 0 represents an ideal situation of equality, whereas 1 would be the highest possible degree of inequality. As of 2022, Mexico City, the country's capital, had a Gini coefficient of 0.46, second highest recorded figure.

Introduction In January 2014, Mexico introduced an excise tax of $1.00 Mexican peso/liter on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) and an 8% tax on non-essential energy dense food (NEDF) with at least 275 kilocalories/100 grams. Fiscal policies could be regressive when taxes generate a greater financial burden for low-income households compared to higher-income households. The objective of this study was to analyze whether SSB and NEDF taxes in Mexico were regressive using a nationally representative survey. Materials and methods Information from the National Household Income and Expenditure Survey in Mexico in its 2014, 2016 and 2018 waves were used to estimate changes in expenditures on SSB and NEDF over total expenditures by income quintile and place of residence using own price elasticities, changes in prices after tax implementation and tax pass-through prices. We derived uncompensated own price elasticities using the Linear Approximation of the Almost Ideal Demand System. Results Price elasticities -in absolute values- were higher in urban areas than in rural settings for SSB in 2014 and 2016, while the opposite was observed for NEDF. For SSB, price elasticities -in absolute values- among households in the highest income quintiles were lower than those in the lowest income quintiles. The tax paid for SSB and NEDF over total expenditures was higher among low-income households. However, the reduction in SSB expenditures over total expenditures in low-income households was higher compared to the highest income quintile. For NEDF, weekly expenditures in rural areas were lower than in urban areas for the lowest quintile, while for the highest quintile the reduction was similar. Conclusions Low-income households in urban and rural areas reduced the proportion spent on SSB and NEDF more compared to higher-income residents, counteracting the regressive burden of the taxes.

The minimum wage per day guaranteed by law in Mexico was decreed to increase by approximately 12 percent between 2024 and 2025, reaching 278.8 Mexican pesos in 2025. The Northern Free Zone located near the northern border was the exception, where the minimum daily wage increased to 419.88 Mexican pesos. Education and income disparity The income distribution is entirely a new story than minimum wages, in fact, there are many factors that influence the level of salaries for Mexican workers. One of the main differences is by the number of schooling years, someone with more than 18 years of study earns on average double than employees with seven to nine years. Moreover, the area of study, while statistics and finance mean salaries, the highest wages by degree, are above 30,000 Mexican pesos per month, others such as performing arts and theology rank as the lowest paying degrees in Mexico.
Poverty still among the main problems
Despite one of the main reasons for minimum wage increases being moving people out from poverty conditions, poverty continues to be one of the main problems Mexican society faces. The number of people living under poverty conditions has decreased by 8.54 million inhabitants from 2014 to 2022, nonetheless, the figure is still higher than 46.5 million. The poverty rate varies among states, with Chiapas leading the ranking with 67.4 percent of the population under such conditions, while both Baja California and Baja California Sur recorded less than 14 percent.