Market Research Categories, Poverty and Public Opinion in Mexico

 

Behind each national survey of public opinion in Mexico there is a profile of the population.  The “opinion of the society” is the survey researchers’ best take on a representative sample of this complex population scattered over a large territory.  Different studies call for different samples, but there is a general base of reference among the various research firms based on the census (INEGI) data.  The following is a generalized overview (combining urban and rural categories).

 

A   Upper Class

 This group is about 3% of the population, a small sector but with income and consumer habits easily comparable to upper strata in more developed countries.  The key definition by income here is generally $200,000 MN per month and up in household earnings, making it technically difficult for anyone in public employment to be included.  There may be a handful of exception. 

 

B   Upper Middle Class

  The Upper Middle Class is a bit more than twice as big, about 7% of the population.  It is the most publicly “visible” group of “well off” families with perhaps somewhat less income but much more in the comforts of service and lifestyle than their counterparts in other countries.  With monthly household family income in the $55,000 MN to $200,000 range, this group includes high executives in both the public and private sectors.

 

C  Middle Class

   The broad middle class constitutes about a fifth of the population, but is a volatile group with the ambiguities of desire for upward mobility and fear at the prospects of downward mobility.  Monthly household family income ranges from $7,000 MN to $55,000.  This group includes the bulk of middle managers, small business operators, some university professors and other privileged unionized workers.

 

D  Working Class

   Constituting half the population, these various sectors of workers, farmers and small business operators are better described in the current context as the working poor.  Many are in the informal economy, or move back and forth between formal and informal economic roles.   Monthly household income ranges from $1,500 MN to $7,000.

 

E  Marginal Sectors

   The bottom 20% of the population is in extreme poverty, at the margins of or outside of the institutions of the society, along with the formal cash and credit economy.  They are found throughout the country in urban and rural areas, and include most of the indigenous population.  Monthly household income is less than $1,500 MN.

 

Estimates of Size for Social Sectors

 

	Our Reading of Census	Our Sample Sizes	Reason for over or under sampling
A   Upper Class	3%	1.5%	difficult access for in-person home interviews
B  Upper Middle Class	7%	6.5%	easier to find for in-person home interviews
C  Middle Class	20%	32%	most dynamic sector as consumers, voters
D  Working, Producer Sectors	50%	50%	most visible sector as consumers, voters
E  Marginal Sectors	20%	10%	difficult to locate, and expensive to interview in an Indigenous Language (for over a third of this group)

 

In plain language, our public opinion surveys and general population commercial surveys tend to slightly under-sample the number of the Upper Middle Class and significantly under-sample the Upper Classes because of limited access in face-to-face interviewing.  We also tend to over-sample the middle class since they play a disproportionate role in both the consumer economy and politics generally.  We generally under-sample the marginal sectors many of them are non-Spanish speakers and the costs of in person at home interviewing of this sector are usually beyond the interest of any client.  The working and producer sectors tend to be sampled at their actual size.  Of course, the polling data is generally weighted to have the opinion of each sampled sector correspond to the population; that is, we may sample the middle class as 32% of the survey, but in a national projection of opinion they will be given 20% of the weight.

 

 

Estimates of the scope of poverty in Mexico

 

Here is where the discussion of data becomes politically charged.  Poverty in historical terms has relative and subjective definitions.  However, in general terms world population data since the Second World War  is handled with some relatively useful indices, viz. you are poor if you do not have adequate shelter, clothing, food or health care.  To this can be added categories of education and employment.

 

There is a minimal consensus in Mexico that some 20% of the population is in extreme, extreme poverty, that is they do not have adequate shelter, clothing, diet or health care, and they are outside of both the formal educational and employment systems. 

 

The question gets more complicated when we move up to the vast 50% of the “working class.”  For most observers the working class is essentially synonymous with what in US sociology has been termed the “working poor.”  This is where someone like the leading demographer of the Colegio de México, Julio Boltvinik, goes when he notes 70% poverty in the nation.  His observations have become a critical reference point in relation to the INEGI, which is not an autonomous agency.

 

In an effort to secure credibility with the international research and service community, as well as with academics and others in Mexico, the INEGI has struggled over the past half dozen years with the definitions of poverty.    At the same time, they have mystified poverty a bit by indicating from five to ten “layers” or “circles” of poverty.  The end result is that a careful reading of INEGI shows from 40% to 50% of the population (i.e. from 40% to 60% of the working class) in poverty.

 

Thus, there is a new relatively broad statistical consensus of the dimensions of poverty in Mexico.  This statistical consensus matches the popular conception, which is that poverty is broad and impacts more than half the population.

 

The most recent report of the INEGI, their 2002 study of Household Income and Expenses, was recently released in a very political moment, using a dense series of observations to argue for a qualitative diminution of extreme poverty (defined as those who do not have enough to eat) in the past two years.  The problem with this argument is that it seems to be based on constructing household formulas out of macro-economic information, including the record amount of remittances that are coming into the country from family members working in the United States.  Further, the study itself finds that 20.8% of the households receive their income in kind.  Thus, the very projection of household income for this group is a mere statistical projection and not the result of careful survey work.  (Our own community case studies at MUND suggest the contrary:  that there are more pressures than ever on households; that the informal economy is more inelastic than at any time in the past two decades; and, that the increased volume of remittances is in fact a response to culturally uncharacteristic requests from pressed families in Mexico that more money be sent.)

 

Unlike the US Bureau of the Census, the INEGI has very limited autonomy.  It is a far improved agency compared to 15 years ago, but it is still an instance of institutional reform that cries out for development, at least so that the INEGI reaches the level of relative autonomy secured, for example, by the IFE in the recent period.

 

Dan Lund

President

MUND Américas

Copyright 2003 National Law Center for Inter-American Free Trade

E-mail