DIRECCIÓN DE INFORMACIÓN Y COMUNICACIÓN SOCIAL

Transcripción

1 Press release No. 015 Distrito Federal, Mexico, December 2, CONEVAL PRESENTS 2010 POVERTY LEVELS FOR EACH MEXICAN MUNICIPALITY With the publication of the 2010 poverty estimates for Mexico s 2456 municipalities, CONEVAL abides by the mandate derived from the General Law of Social Development. Municipal level poverty estimates contribute to increased accountability and to more comprehensive policy planning. The following are the municipalities with the highest percentage of their population in poverty in 2010: San Juan Tepeuxila, Oaxaca (97.4); Aldama, Chiapas (97.3); San Juan Cancuc, Chiapas (97.3); Mixtla de Altamirano, Veracruz (97.0); Chalchihuitán, Chiapas (96.8); Santiago Textitlán, Oaxaca (96.6); San Andrés Duraznal, Chiapas (96.5); Santiago el Pinar, Chiapas (96.5); Sitalá, Chiapas (96.5), and San Simón Zahuatlán, Oaxaca (96.4). The following municipalities exhibit the lowest percentage of their population in poverty: Benito Juárez, Federal District (8.7); San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León (12.8); Guadalupe, Nuevo León (13.2); Miguel Hidalgo, Federal District (14.3); San Pedro Garza García, Nuevo León (15.2); San Sebastián Tutla, Oaxaca (16.7); San Pablo Etla, Oaxaca (17.3); Apodaca, Nuevo León (18.0); Corregidora, Querétaro (18.7), and San Juan de Sabinas, Coahuila (19.0). The municipalities with the largest absolute number of persons living in poverty are: Puebla, Puebla (732,154); Iztapalapa, Federal District (727,128); Ecatepec de Morelos, México (723,559); León, Guanajuato (600,145); Tijuana, Baja California (525,769); Juárez, Chihuahua (494,726); Nezahualcóyotl, México (462,405); Toluca, México (407,691); Acapulco de Juárez, Guerrero (405,499), and Gustavo A. Madero, Federal District (356,328). Mexico City.- The National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy (CONEVAL) announces municipal level poverty estimates for CONEVAL is the official Mexican agency in charge of poverty measurement 1 and the evaluation of social policy. In July, 2011, it released national and state level poverty estimates for 2008 and In Mexico, the official methodology for poverty measurement is multidimensional in nature. Poverty is measured in two basic spaces: income and social deprivation. Social deprivation includes six dimensions. Each dimension is defined as the deprivation of a social right. The threshold dividing deprivation from fulfillment is derived from each specialized body of Mexican law. 1 Link a la página de medición nacional y estatal 2008 y

2 Today, CONEVAL releases, for the first time, municipal poverty estimates that include the social and economic dimensions defined by law (LGDS): income, schooling, access to health services, access to social security, dwelling quality and space, basic services available to the dwelling, access to food and level of social cohesion. According to the law, CONEVAL must measure poverty at the state level every two years, and at the municipal level every five. To this end, it must make use of the information collected by the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI). Today s presentation fulfills the totality of these mandates. The municipal poverty estimates released today, together with those published this past July at the national and state levels, comprise a territorially comprehensive diagnosis of some of the country s main social development issues. The availability of these municipal level estimates strengthens accountability and is intended ti help improve planning of social development policy. POVERTY AND EXTREME POVERTY According to the methodology for poverty measurement, the population living in poverty is defined as that exhibiting at least one social deprivation and an income below the well being threshold. Municipalities with the largest percentage of persons living in poverty in 2010 were: San Juan Tepeuxila, Oaxaca (97.4); Aldama, Chiapas (97.3); San Juan Cancuc, Chiapas (97.3); Mixtla de Altamirano, Veracruz (97.0); Chalchihuitán, Chiapas (96.8); Santiago Textitlán, Oaxaca (96.6); San Andrés Duraznal, Chiapas (96.5); Santiago el Pinar, Chiapas (96.5); Sitalá, Chiapas (96.5), and San Simón Zahuatlán, Oaxaca (96.4) Of the above, in eight municipalities 70 percent or more of the population speaks an indigenous language, i.e., they are indigenous municipalities. In San Juan Tepeuxila the percentage of persons speaking an indigenous language is 57 percent, and in Santiago Textitlán it is 14 percent. The following municipalities show the lowest percentage of persons living in poverty: Benito Juárez, Federal District (8.7); San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León (12.8); Guadalupe, Nuevo León (13.2); Miguel Hidalgo, Federal District (14.3); San Pedro Garza García, Nuevo León (15.2); San Sebastián Tutla, Oaxaca (16.7); San Pablo Etla, Oaxaca (17.3); Apodaca, Nuevo León (18.0); Corregidora, Querétaro (18.7), and San Juan de Sabinas, Coahuila (19.0). In all of the above municipalities, the indigenous population accounts for less than 10 percent of the total. Municipalities with the greatest absolute number of persons in poverty are: Puebla, Puebla (732,154); Iztapalapa, Federal District (727,128); Ecatepec de Morelos, México (723,559); León, Guanajuato (600,145); Tijuana, Baja California (525,769); Juárez, Chihuahua (494,726); Nezahualcóyotl, México (462,405); Toluca, México (407,691); Acapulco de Juárez, Guerrero (405,499), and Gustavo A. Madero, Federal District (356,328).

3 Half of all the population living in poverty resides in 190 municipalities. Of these, 166 show scant indigenous presence; 16 moderate indigenous presence; and the remaining eight are predominantly indigenous. 2 All 257 indigenous municipalities possess poverty levels above 55 percent. In six of them, the percentage of persons living in poverty was above 70 percent. Secondly, the population living in extreme poverty is defined as that with three or more social deprivations and an income below the minimum well being threshold. Municipalities with the highest percentage of persons living in extreme poverty are: Cochoapa el Grande, Guerrero (82.6); San Simón Zahuatlán, Oaxaca (80.8); San Juan Cancuc, Chiapas (80.5); Mixtla de Altamirano, Veracruz (80.3); Chalchihuitán, Chiapas (79.8); Coicoyán de las Flores, Oaxaca (79.7); Aldama, Chiapas (78.8); Santos Reyes Yucuná, Oaxaca (77.4); San Juan Petlapa, Oaxaca (77.2), and Metlatónoc, Guerrero (77.0). In these municipalities, 70 percent or more of their population speaks an indigenous language, that is to say they are indigenous. In the following municipalities (or, in the case of the Federal District, delegations), the population living in extreme poverty is below one percent: Benito Juárez, Federal District; San Pedro Garza García, Nuevo León; San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León; Miguel Hidalgo, Federal District; Huépac, Sonora; Villa de Álvarez, Colima; Guadalupe, Nuevo León; Allende, Coahuila; Corregidora, Querétaro, and Azcapotzalco, Federal District. Municipalities with the largest absolute number of persons living in extreme poverty are: Ocosingo, Chiapas (144,088); Puebla, Puebla (110,012); Acapulco de Juárez, Guerrero (107,048); Ecatepec de Morelos, México (107,023); Chilón, Chiapas (87,519); Las Margaritas, Chiapas (75,339); Toluca, México (66,938); León, Guanajuato (66,687); Iztapalapa, Federal District (63,017), and Juárez, Chihuahua (62,822). Extreme poverty among indigenous municipalities was above 16 percent, and in 169 of them, extreme poverty levels are above 50 percent. Population without social deprivations and with income above the well being threshold Municipalities with the highest percentage of their population with an income above the well being threshold and without social deprivations (i.e., a population that is neither poor nor vulnerable) are as follows: Benito Juárez, Federal District (51.1); San Sebastián Tutla, Oaxaca (50.5); San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León (48.7); Zacatecas, Zacatecas (45.0); Apodaca, Nuevo León (44.0); Guadalupe, Nuevo León (43.9); Monclova, Coahuila (43.4); Miguel Hidalgo, Federal District (43.2); Santa María del Tule, Oaxaca (41.5), and San Juan de Sabinas, Coahuila (40.8). 2 Indigenous muncipality : 70% or more of its population aged 5 years old and above speaks an indigenous language (in Spanish, HLI). Predominantly indigenous municipality : At least 40% and less than 70% of its population speaks an indigenous language. Municipalities with moderate indigenous presence : Speakers of indigenous languages comprise from 10 to under 40% of the population. Municipiality with scant indigenous presence : Less than 10 percent of its population is HLI. 2

4 Additionally, the municipalities with the largest absolute number of persons in the above category are: Guadalajara, Jalisco (504,391); Iztapalapa, Federal District (461,717); Zapopan, Jalisco (431,153); Puebla, Puebla (427,448); Monterrey, Nuevo León (421,640); León, Guanajuato (376,204); Guadalupe, Nuevo León (364,167); Gustavo A. Madero, Federal District (356,807); Ecatepec de Morelos, México (346,958), and Tijuana, Baja California (337,818). DIMENSIONS OF MUNICIPAL POVERTY, 2010 Deprivations Access to social security Out of the 2,456 municipalities, in 2,294, or 93.4% more than 50% of the population lacks access to social security. The municipalities with the highest percentage of their population lacking access to social security are: San Pedro Quiatoni, Oaxaca (99.3); Santa Lucía Miahuatlán, Oaxaca (98.9); Santiago el Pinar, Chiapas (98.8); San Simón Zahuatlán, Oaxaca (98.7); San Dionisio Ocotepec, Oaxaca (98.6); San Francisco Logueche, Oaxaca (98.6); San Andrés Paxtlán, Oaxaca (98.6); Santiago Yaitepec, Oaxaca (98.5); Mixtla de Altamirano, Veracruz (98.4), and Aldama, Chiapas (98.4). The municipalities with the lowest percentage of their population without access to social security are: Nacozari de García, Sonora (24.2); Nava, Coahuila (25.2); Apodaca, Nuevo León (26.7); Monclova, Coahuila (26.8) San Juan de Sabinas, Coahuila (26.9); Sierra Mojada, Coahuila (27.1); Frontera, Coahuila (28.0); Acuña, Coahuila (28.0); Gral. Zuazua, Nuevo León (28.9), and Piedras Negras, Coahuila (29.0). Access to health services Of the 2,456 municipalities, in 420, or 17.1%, at least 50% of the population lacks access to health services. The municipalities with the highest percentage of their population lacking access to health are: San Juan Yatzona, Oaxaca (98.4); Abejones, Oaxaca (98.1); San Juan Teita, Oaxaca (98.0); Santiago Nundiche, Oaxaca (97.6); San Andrés Yaá, Oaxaca (96.9); San Bartolomé Yucuañe, Oaxaca (96.8); Santa Ana Yareni, Oaxaca (96.0); San Felipe Tepatlán, Puebla (95.8); Santa María Zoquitlán, Oaxaca (95.6), and Santo Domingo Tlatayápam, Oaxaca (95.5). The municipalities with the lowest percentage of their population without access to health services are: Santo Domingo Albarradas, Oaxaca (1.4); San Mateo Tlapiltepec, Oaxaca (2.4); Tecoh, Yucatán (2.6); San Sebastián Nicananduta, Oaxaca (2.8); Bokobá, Yucatán (4.2); San Francisco Cahuacuá, Oaxaca (4.3); Jaumave, Tamaulipas (4.4); Xochihuehuetlán, Guerrero (4.7); San Mateo Yucutindó, Oaxaca (4.7), and San Antonino Monte Verde, Oaxaca (4.7). Access to food In four percent of all municipalities, 50% of the population or more suffers from food deprivation. The following ten municipalities showed the highest levels of this deprivation: San Bartolomé Ayautla, Oaxaca (78.4); San Cristóbal Amatlán, Oaxaca (76.5); San Martín Itunyoso, Oaxaca (74.2); San Miguel Chicahua, Oaxaca (69.5); Yaxe, Oaxaca (68.6); Chanal, Chiapas (68.0); Huautepec, Oaxaca (66.9); San Pedro Coxcaltepec Cántaros, Oaxaca (66.6); Santa Cruz Acatepec, Oaxaca (66.6), y San Miguel Huautla, Oaxaca (66.5).

5 4 The municipalities with the lowest percentage of their population with food deprivation are: Ciénega de Zimatlán, Oaxaca (4.2); San Juan Evangelista Analco, Oaxaca (4.2), Dr. Belisario Domínguez, Chihuahua (4.5); Parás, Nuevo León (4.7); San Miguel Tulancingo, Oaxaca (4.8); Dr. Coss, Nuevo León (4.9); Los Aldamas, Nuevo León (4.9); San Juan Achiutla, Oaxaca (5.7); San Francisco de Borja, Chihuahua (5.7), and Benito Juárez, Federal District (6.5). Provision of basic services to the dwelling: Of the 2,456 municipalities, in 1,179, or 48%, 50% or more of the population lacks access to basic services to the dwelling. The municipalities with the highest percentage of their population lacking access to basic services are: Magdalena Mixtepec, San Andrés Nuxiño, San Cristóbal Amoltepec, San Francisco Logueche, San Juan Lachigalla, San Juan Petlapa, San Juan Teita, San Lorenzo Cuaunecuiltitla, San Lucas Camotlán, San Martín Itunyoso, San Pedro Mártir, San Pedro Mártir Quiechapa, Santa Catalina Quierí, Santa Catarina Quioquitani, Santa Cruz Tacahua, Santa María Yosoyúa, Santiago Nundiche, Santo Domingo Nuxaá. In this municipalities, the entire population suffered deprivation in The municipalities with the lowest percentage of their population without access to basic housing services are: San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León (0.1); Benito Juárez, Federal District (0.1); Miguel Hidalgo, Federal District (0.1); San Pedro Garza García, Nuevo León (0.2); Coacalco de Berriozábal, México (0.2); Venustiano Carranza, Federal District (0.3); Guadalajara, Jalisco (0.4); Iztacalco, Federal District (0.5); Apodaca, Nuevo León (0.6), and Azcapotzalco, Federal District (0.6). Schooling Of the 2,456 muncipalities, in 87, or 3.5%, 50% of the population exhibited insufficient levels of schooling. The municipalities with the highest percentages of deprivation in schooling are: San Miguel Santa Flor, Oaxaca (67.7); Magdalena Teitipac, Oaxaca (65.1); San Miguel Ahuehuetitlán, Oaxaca (64.8); Ixpantepec Nieves, Oaxaca (64.3); San Mateo Nejápam, Oaxaca (62.5); Yogana, Oaxaca (61.7); Zapotitlán Lagunas, Oaxaca (61.5); Santiago Texcalcingo, Oaxaca (61.5); Santiago Yaitepec, Oaxaca (61.3), and Asunción Ocotlán, Oaxaca (61.1). The municipalities with the lowest percentage of their population without sufficient schooling are: Benito Juárez, Federal District (3.7); San Sebastian Tutla, Oaxaca (4.8); Guelatao de Juárez, Oaxaca (5.4); Miguel Hidalgo, Federal District (6.0); Corregidora, Querétaro (6.3); Coyoacán, Federal District (7.5); Tlaxcala, Tlaxcala (7.8); Azcapotzalco, Federal District (8.0); Venustiano Carranza, Federal District (8.1), and Cuauhtémoc, Federal District (8.2). Housing quality and space Of the 2,456 municipalities, in 225, or 9.2%, 50% or more of the population is socially deprived due to the poor quality of construction, or the lack of space in their house. 5 Municipalities with the highest percentage of their population with this deprivation are: San Miguel Piedras, Oaxaca (88.1); San Pedro Mártir, Oaxaca (85.8); San Mateo del Mar, Oaxaca (84.5); San José Tenango, Oaxaca (81.8); Tanlajás, San Luis Potosí (81.3); San Bartolomé Ayautla, Oaxaca (79.9); Cochoapa el Grande, Guerrero (79.1); San Miguel Coatlán, Oaxaca (77.5); San Martín Itunyoso, Oaxaca (77.4), and Chalchihuitán, Chiapas (77.2).

6 The municipalities with the lowest percentage of their population socially deprived in terms of housing are: Santa Magdalena Jicotlán, Oaxaca sin población con esta carencia; Atil, Sonora (0.8); Santa Isabel, Chihuahua (1.1); San Julián, Jalisco (1.2); Valle de Guadalupe, Jalisco (1.5); Cusihuiriachi, Chihuahua (1.7); Ignacio Zaragoza, Chihuahua (1.7); Corregidora, Querétaro (1.8); Mier, Tamaulipas (1.8), and Abasolo, Coahuila (1.8). Income The methodology includes two income cut-off points: The well being line, defined as the sum of the cost of a basket comprising food and non-food items, and the minimum well being line, equal to the cost of a food basket. The Mexican food basket was re-defined by CONEVAL to include proteins, calories and micronutrients. These thresholds allow estimations of the percentage and number of individuals / households with less than sufficient income to purchase these two baskets. In August, 2010, that is to say when the Census was in the field, the value of the well being line was $2,114 pesos per month per person in urban areas, and $1,329 pesos per month in rural areas. The corresponding valued for the minimum well being line were $978 pesos per month per person in urban areas and $684 pesos in rural areas. The municipalities with the highest percentage of their population with an income below the well being line are the following: San Juan Tepeuxila, Oaxaca (97.5); Aldama, Chiapas (97.3); San Juan Cancuc, Chiapas (97.3); Mixtla de Altamirano, Veracruz (97.0); Chalchihuitán, Chiapas (96.8); Santa María Quiegolani, Oaxaca (96.7); Santiago Textitlán, Oaxaca (96.6); San Andrés Duraznal, Chiapas (96.6); Santiago el Pinar, Chiapas (96.5), and Sitalá, Chiapas (96.5). The municipalities with the highest percentage of their population with an income below the minimum well being line are: Aldama, Chiapas (85.8); Mixtla de Altamirano, Veracruz (85.0); Santa María Quiegolani, Oaxaca (84.7); Sitalá, Chiapas (84.3); Chalchihuitán, Chiapas (83.9); San Juan Cancuc, Chiapas (83.8); San Juan Tepeuxila, Oaxaca (83.7); San Simón Zahuatlán, Oaxaca (83.6); Santiago el Pinar, Chiapas (83.2), and Cochoapa el Grande (83.0). Social cohesion In this methodology, one of the indicators of social cohesion is the Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality. This indicator is estimated on the basis of the current total per capita income of the households, and ranges from zero to one: the greater the coefficient, the greater the level of income inequality. The municipalities with the highest values in this index (and greatest income inequality) are: Armería, Colima (0.591); General Plutarco Elías Calles, Sonora (0.567); Zongolica, Veracruz (0.558); Constancia del Rosario, Oaxaca (0.554); Yajalón, Chiapas (0.551); Carbó, Sonora (0.550); Atlatlahucan, Morelos (0.550); Guachochi, Chihuahua (0.549); Altamirano, Chiapas (0.548), and San Juan Yucuita, Oaxaca (0.547). The municipalities that, on the contrary showed the least income inequality, and therefore the lowest levels of income concentration, were: Santiago Tepetlapa, Oaxaca (0.286); San Juan Yatzona, Oaxaca (0.307); Santo Domingo Tonaltepec (0.309); Santo Domingo Tlatayápam, Oaxaca (0.310); Santa Magdalena Jicotlán, Oaxaca (0.311); San Antonio Acutla, Oaxaca (0.311); San Juan Evangelista Analco, Oaxaca (0.314); San Mateo Tlapiltepec, Oaxaca (0.315); San Juan Achiutla, Oaxaca (0.317), and Telchac Puerto, Yucatán (0.324).

7 oo00oo ABOUT CONEVAL CONEVAL is an agency enjoying technical and management autonomy, the regulates and coordinates the evaluation of national social development policy and of the specific policies, programs and actions carried out by public agencies. It is also in charge of defining, identifying and measuring poverty at the state and municipal levels. At all times, it must guarantee the accountability, rigor and objectivity of its activities. All the information produced regarding policy evaluation and poverty measurement is available at ( Contacto: Julieta Castro Toral Mario Pichardo Berriozabal Directora de Información y Comunicación Social Subdirector de Estrategias de Información y Difusión 01 (55) (55) jcastro@coneval.gob.mx mpichardo@coneval.gob.mx conevalvideo 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 Fuente: estimaciones del CONEVAL con base en el MCS-ENIGH 2010 y la muestra del Censo de Población y Vivienda

13 Fuente: estimaciones del CONEVAL con base en el MCS-ENIGH 2010 y la muestra del Censo de Población y Vivienda