Antecedentes de la investigación 15

Chiapas has a population of 4,293,459 (INEGI, 2010) of which 27% are considered indigenous (INEGI, 2012a: 38). It has the highest proportion of people still employed in the primary sector, with the 40.5% of the working population reporting agriculture as their main occupation (INEGI, 2012a: 55).⁴⁶ In 2010, 51.3% of the population resided in communities with less than 2,500 people (INEGI, 2012a: 30). This state has the largest number of communities in the country, estimated at 19,386 localities (Gobierno Del Estado, 2012b: 11). The widely dispersed population presents a challenge for the provision of basic services such as electricity, potable water, sewage, rural roads, as well as health and education (CONAPO, 2010: 22).

The lack of basic services was one a key impetus behind the EZLN uprising in Chiapas in January of 1994, which drew international attention, and pressured the federal government to direct more resources to the state’s poorest municipalities.

Following the uprising, Chiapas has received significant attention from international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), to the point that it has become the state with the highest concentration of international assistance projects in the country (Sánchez Gutiérrez, 2008: 301). In 2009, the state adopted the Chiapas-United Nations Agenda in its constitution, making it the first state in the world to mandate a Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) guided social policy.

In 2010 the state government prioritized poverty reduction, directing 76 cents of each peso from its discretionary budget to eradicate poverty in Chiapas; increasing to 79 cents in 2011 (Gobierno del Estado, 2012b: 24). Special attention was given to 28 municipalities in Chiapas with the lowest Human Development Index (Gobierno del

46 The remaining, 13.6% in the secondary or industrial sector 45.7% in the tertiary or services sector and 0.2% not specified (INEGI, 2012a: 55).

Estado, 2012b: 72). Although Chiapas is only one of 32 states of the country, it received more than 10% of national resources directed to social development in 2010 (INEGI, 2010). Chiapas is also one of the top five recipients of the Municipal Social Infrastructure Fund (FISM) (INEGI, 2012b). Finally, as the state with the third largest absolute number of beneficiaries of Progresa-Oportunidades cash transfers, Chiapas receives a significant injection of resources from this program.

Additional resources from the federal government and international organizations have led to notable advances in basic social indicators, as Table 5.1 shows. Until 2005, Chiapas occupied the lowest position in the ‘Indice de rezago social’ (Social Gap Index)⁴⁷ but by 2010 rose to 3^rd from the bottom (CONEVAL, 2012b: 30). This has allowed the state government to claim significant advances in the fight against poverty and MDGs (Gobierno del Estado, 2012b).

5-1. Improvements in basic indicators in Chiapas: 1990-2010

1990 2000 2010

Source: CONEVAL (Evolución de las dimensiones de la pobreza, según entidad federativa, México, 1990-2010).

These improvements are impressive at the state level, but many municipalities still face significant social deprivations (CONEVAL, 2012b). Despite improvements in

47 Social Gap Index is a deprivation estimator calculated for the state, municipal and local aggregation levels, which incorporates indicators for education, access to health services, access to basic household services, quality and spaces of the dwelling, and home assets.

school enrollment, Chiapas continues to be the state with the lowest levels of educational attainment in Mexico, with an average of 6.2 years of educational completion, compared to 8.4 of years at the national level (PNUD, 2011: 113-116). At the highest illiteracy rate in Mexico, 18.4% of Chiapanecans above the age of 15 were illiterate in 2010, with a national average at 7.6% (INEGI, 2010). Because of the wide dispersion of the population and a high proportion of indigenous people, much of the education in Chiapas is provided by CONAFE (National Council for the Promotion of Education) and by the DGEI (General Directorate of Indigenous Education), both of which are concentrated in small, remote, indigenous communities. In a highly segmented educational system in Mexico, students attending these two institutions generally receive the lowest scores from national evaluations in basic knowledge tests (UNDP, 2011; CONEVAL, 2012a).

The educational system has expanded in Chiapas during the last decades. In some areas, this expansion was led by bilingual teachers, through “albergues indigenistas” or indigenous boarding schools. Since decentralization of the national educational system in 1992, expansion has included CONAFE, telesecundarias and state high schools. In the early 1990s, few municipalities had a high school; but today, a high school is found in each municipality (Gobierno del Estado, 2012b). This expansion of high school education may be in part a response to the demand generated by Progresa-Oportunidades. Increased school enrollment is also linked to closing the gender gap in educational enrollment, and to declining fertility rates in the state, which has the highest birth rate in Mexico (INEGI, 2012a: 39). The expansion of the educational system in Chiapas appears to be one factor behind the increase in rural to urban migration within the state, and to other states of the country.

Migration is a relatively a recent phenomenon in Chiapas, compared to the traditional “expelling” states such as Guanajuato, Michoacán, Jalisco and Zacatecas (CONAPO, 2010). Since the mid-1990s Chiapas began to experience migration out of the state with a marked increased in the 2000’s (CONAPO, 2012: 18). There are several reasons behind recent migration within and outside of Chiapas, but impacts of

agricultural liberalization,⁴⁸ expansion of the educational system and lack of well remunerated employment opportunities within the state may be among the most important. Within the state, rural to urban migration has tended to flow to a few large urban centers such as Tuxtla Gutiérrez, San Cristóbal, Comitán and Tapachula. Tuxtla Gutiérrez, the state’s capital has grown significantly since the early 2000s, as it has the best non-farm employment opportunities, which has attracted those with higher education credentials. It is the center for government institutions, hosts the state’s main university, and has the highest concentration of manufacturing and services. The urban centers have been unable to absorb the constant flow of rural migrants even those with increased educational credentials, which adds to the pressure for national and international migration.⁴⁹

In sum, increased federal and international resources, expanded educational and other services, and growing remittances have led to notable improvements in basic human development indicators. Nonetheless, a large proportion of Chiapanecans continue to be excluded from access to basic services, and the quality of these services is far from adequate (CONEVAL, 2012b).

Poverty levels remain high in Chiapas. According to CONEVAL, Chiapas is the state with the highest percentage of its population living in multidimensional poverty and extreme poverty, as shown in figure 5.2.

48 According to Levy and Wijnbergen (1992a) Chiapas was one of the states that were expected to be among the most negatively affected by the elimination of generalized food subsidies and price controls and by agricultural liberalization due to the high predominance of agriculture and maize producers.

49 Chiapas has occupied the last place in foreign direct investment, from 1999 to 2012, of the 32 states in the country (INEGI, 2012a: 88).

5-2. Multidimensional Poverty in Chiapas: 2010.

Poverty Percentage Number of people

(000)

Population living in poverty 78.4 3,777.7

Population living in moderate

poverty 45.6 2,197.1

Population living in extreme

poverty 32.8 1,580.6

Population with at least one

social deprivation 91.5 4,410.8

Population with at least three

social deprivations 48.7 2,349

Source: CONEVAL, 2012b.

A high proportion of Chiapas municipalities are poor. According to CONEVAL, 117 of a total of 118 municipalities located in Chiapas are poor, with more than 50% of their population in poverty; and 100 of these have between 75 and 100% living in poverty (2012b: 13). Similarly, 111 municipalities in Chiapas are classified as Zonas de Atención Prioritaria (Priority Attention Zones) (CONEVAL 2012b: 27).

Chiapas is the state with the highest percentage of population receiving cash transfers from Progresa-Oportunidades. In 2010, 557,942 thousand households, or 69.4% of the total population, were receiving cash transfers from this program (Oportunidades, 2010a: 13). As almost all municipalities in Chiapas are poor, cash transfers represent a major influx of resources. The total amount of cash transfers has increased substantially as a result of the program expansion. Based on data from the program webpage, in 2002, Chiapas received $1,775,922,320 pesos (about $148 million USD) in cash transfers, and by 2012 this amount increased to $5,942,669,835 pesos (about $495 million USD). During this period, Progresa-Oportunidades has transferred to the poorest households and municipalities in Chiapas a total of $40,098,219,762 pesos (about $3.3 billion USD). (See Appendix B for detailed information).

Despite increased attention and resources directed to Chiapas, and particularly its poorest municipalities, income poverty levels have remained high during the period 1990-2010, as figure Table 5-3 shows.

5-3. Evolution of Income Poverty in Chiapas: 1990-2010

1990 2000 2010

Food Poverty 46.2 53.3 48.6

Capabilities Poverty 55.1 53.3 58.0

Patrimonial Poverty 75.1 79.1 78.1

Source: CONEVAL (Evolución de las dimensiones de la pobreza: 1990-2010).

Chiapas also continues to be the most unequal state in Mexico, despite slight reductions in the Gini coefficient between 1990 and 2010 (CONEVAL, 2012b: 25) as Table 5-4 shows. In Chiapas, the non-poor earn 40.8 times more than the poor population (CONEVAL, 2012b: 26).

5-4. Gini coefficient in Chiapas: 1990-2010

1990 2000 2010

0.543 0.542 0.515

Source: CONEVAL (Evolución de las dimensiones de la pobreza: 1990-2010) .