Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52
CIEAP/UAEM
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:
regulations and socieconomic
characteristics
Gustavo Garza
El Colegio de México
Resumen
Abstract
El propósito del artículo es, en primer lugar,
analizar la evolución del sistema urbano de
México de 1980 a 2005, para evidenciar la
creciente concentración de población en las
metrópolis de más de 500 mil habitantes. En
segundo lugar, se examina la productividad de
las 56 metrópolis existentes, así como su
pobreza endémica, déficit habitacional,
subempleo estructural e índice de desarrollo
humano metropolitano, con el fin de determinar
la gravedad de su problemática económicosocial. Finalmente, se reflexiona sobre las
cuestiones de gobernabilidad y administración
de las ciudades, considerando que su buen
desempeño es indispensable para el correcto
funcionamiento de las empresas privadas y, por
ende, para que el país sea internacionalmente
competitivo.
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:
regulations and socieconomic characteristics
Palabras clave: urbanización, sistema urbano,
concentración demográfica, metrópolis,
México.
The objectives of this paper are, in the first
place, to analyze the evolution of the urban
system in Mexico from 1980 to 2005, in order
to demonstrate the increasing concentration of
population in the metropolises with more than
five hundred thousand inhabitants; secondly,
the productivity of the fifty-six existing
metropolises as well as their endemic poverty,
housing deficit, structural underemployment
and their indexes of metropolitan human
development are examined, all of this with the
aim of determining the seriousness of their
socio-economic problematic. Finally, some
reflections on the issues of governance and
administration of the cities are presented,
considering that their good performance is
indispensable for the correct operation of the
private companies and, therefore, for the
country’s international competitiveness.
Key words: urbanization, urban system,
demographical concentration, metropolises,
Mexico.
M
etropolises in Mexico are places where the concentration of the
primary and secondary socioeconomic activities takes place. In them,
we find a more diversified labor, the big universities and centers of
investigation that produce the main technological innovations, the governmental
apparatus and the groups of power. In other to make possible the metropolitan
concentration, multimillionaire investments in great building works of infrastructure,
equipment and efficient public services are required.This, in conjunction with the
66
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... / G. Garza
private capital and the labor, constitute the colossal factors of production whose
rhythm of accumulation, competitiveness and negotiation define the national
economic development.
The objective of this work is triple: i) to analyze the evolution of the urban
system in Mexico from 1980 to 2005, emphasizing the growing importance of its
most important metropolises; ii) to examine some socioeconomic variables in the
56 metropolitan zones of the country in 2000; this in order to determine the
seriousness of its social problematic. iii) to reflect on governability and cities’
management. With it, we try to contribute to the governmental goal of establishing
the fundamental premises in order to design a new juridical-normative
superstructure that overcomes the deficiencies of the old General Law of
Human Settlements (Ley General de Asentamientos Humanos) of 1976 even
after its major reformation in May 1993. This constitutes a necessary condition,
even if it is not enough, to help the Mexican cities to become internationally
competitive.
From the beginning we establish that the evolution of the national urban
system to unprecedented structuring of the cities into megalopolitan conglomerates,
as well as the great regions of polycentric type, constitute new spheres of
concentration in the economic activities and the population whose nature must
be recognized in urbanistic right.
The metropolitan character of the urbanization, 19802005
The urban system evolution of Mexico in the XX century is divided into three
periods: i) moderate-slow, 1900-1940; ii) accelerated-medium, 1940-1980; iii)
slow-accelerated, 1980-2005.1
In the 80’s the transit from a preeminent monocentric system to one
polycentric is started, for in 1980 the eight biggest cities of more than 500
thousand inhabitants had the 56% per cent of the total urban population. Despite
this, the central pole of this new concentration continued being Mexico City that
in 1980 represented a primacy index of two cities of 5.7, which is high enough
to continue cataloging the Mexican urban hierarchy as preeminent.2 Its character
1
These periods were determined considering the rate of urbanization and the absolute increase of the
urban population (Garza, 2005). This work is a revised, updated and corrected version of Garza, 2006.
2
The index of primacy of two cities is calculated dividing the population of the largest city by that
of the second (Mexico City with 13 million inhabitants in 1980 and Guadalajara with 2.3).
67
April/June 2007
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52
CIEAP/UAEM
of central place of first order in the urban system will be strengthened at the
beginning of its process of megalopolitan expansion.
The economic structure and the urban hierarchy present an organic bond, i.e.
they are two inseparable elements of the same body. Although they don’t
constitute a relationship of causality, they present spatial-temporal imbalances
that need to be explained analytically in order to understand its nature and
establish political and judicial normativities.
In the case of Mexico, one starts by considering that the two last decades of
the XX century present different characteristics: In the 80’s a serious economic
crisis occurs and in the 90’s a neoliberal policy is applied producing a relative and
unstable economic recovery whose final results are not very hopeful. The spatial
effects of the Mexican incorporation in a competitive manner in the world
economy and in the international market will be recognized only in the long term,
but it is of great interest to compare the urban evolution between both decades
and identify its differences.
Urban growth in the lost decade
From 1982 to 1988 the GDP of Mexico is reduced in -0.01 percent and the 80’s
are labeled as “the lost decade”. As in these years the neoliberal policies start,
it is necessary not to confuse the urban changes in the decade as attributable to
these policies and to the ones produced by the crisis itself.
The prolonged recession of the 80’s did not have a profound impact in the
demographic dynamics of the country. Between 1980 and 1990, the total
population and the urban increased in 14.4 and 14.8 millions, the most elevated
absolute growth in the whole XX century (the second increases more due to the
absolute reduction of 400 thousand rural inhabitants). Supposing that the
population of the rural and the urban areas grow at two percent as the total
population did, in the 80’s we would have a rural-urban migration of approximately
6.8 million.3 The urbanization degree (Ud) i.e., the percentage of urban
population with regard to the total increases from 55 to 63 percent between 1980
and 1990, consolidating the Mexican urban hegemony. The impact of the crisis
was not reflected in the general dynamics of the urban development, it was
reflected in the deterioration of the living conditions of the population and in the
increment of the informal employment.
3
30.1 million rural inhabitants should grow in 6.4 million, plus 400 thousand that were reduced, we
have then 6.8 million estimated in the internal migration (minus the balance of international migration,
in both cases, urban and rural).
68
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... / G. Garza
There are 81 cities that grow more than the rate of 3.5 percent in the urban
population between 1980 and 1990. The pattern of spatial distribution is
maintained in the urban population, but the population of Mexico City increases
only 1.6 percent, a very inferior figure compared to the urban average and its
previous rates. Nevertheless, this signifies an absolute increment in the population
of 2.2 million, whose requirements in terms of employment, housing services and
infrastructure must be satisfied.4
In a historical process of polynuclear concentration one observes, in first
place, the accelerated growth of the neighboring cities to Mexico City specialized
in manufacturing: Puebla (4.1 percent), Querétaro (10.5 percent), Pachuca (6.6
percent), Tlaxcala (6.6 percent) and 8.7 percent in San Juan del Río (Garza, 2003:
170-199).
Toluca, with a rate of 3.4 percent, which is slightly inferior to the average,
grows in 230 thousand inhabitants and its metropolitan expansion in the 80’s is
overlapped with the metropolitan zone of Mexico City, constituting technically a
megalopolis.
In second place, the dynamics of the cities of the north persists: Tijuana (5.7
percent), Ciudad Juárez (4 percent), Mexicali (6 percent), Matamoros (5
percent), Nogales (4.3 percent) and Piedras Negras (3.7 percent). The economic
base of its demographic expansion has been the growth in the assembly plants,
which between 1980 and 1990 increases its number from 620 to 1703 and the
number of workers from 119 thousand to 446 thousand (Bendesky et al., 2001:
134).5
In third place are the port and tourist cities, among which Cancun excels with
18.6 percent annual that allows it to increase its population from 33 thousand to
177 thousand people between 1980 and 1990 (Garza, 2003: table A-2 and A-3)
Acapulco is also remarkable by its growth of 7.2 percent; Puerto Vallarta, with
9.5 percent, and other turistic cities such as Oaxaca (6.2 percent), Guanajuato
(4.2 percent) and San Miguel de Allende (5.1 percent).
In fourth place we find the manufacturing provinces, such as Saltillo, that
grows 5.6 percent; Aguascalientes, 6.6 percent and San Luis Potosí, 3.5 percent.
4
Mexico City resulted very affected after the crises of the 80’s and reduced its participation in the
national GDP of the industries, commerce and services from 42.3 to 35 percent between 1980 and
1988 (Sobrino, 2003: 350). Even though, it continued representing more than one third of the national
economy.
5
In 1990, Ciudad Juarez represented 27.3 per cent of the assembly employment, Tijuana, 13.4 percent
and Matamoros 8.6 percent. The three concentrated virtually the half of this variable (Ohem, 1998:
150 and 159).
69
April/June 2007
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52
CIEAP/UAEM
Likewise, there are some nodes in the zones of the modern agriculture, among
them Culiacán (5.9 percent), Hermosillo (5.2 percent), Celaya (8.4 percent),
Irapuato (8.1 percent), Los Mochis (9.7 percent) and Ciudad Obregón (6.7
percent).
The economic crises of the 80’s reduced the growth rate of the total urban
population and the dynamics of the four main metropolises of more than a million
inhabitants, which decrease thier participation in the urban population of 48.9
percent in 1980 to 43.6 in 1990 (Garza, 2005: table 1). This is also reflected in
the Index of Primacy of two cities that decreases from 5.7 to 5.1 when Mexico
City decreases its participation in the national urban population from 35.4 to 29.6
percent. Despite this, the group of big cities increases to 19 in 1990 and its
participation in the total urban to 63 percent as it has been seen. The medium and
small cities lose importance, and we visualize the emergence of a megalopolis
and a hegemonic group of metropolis that constitute a new concentration of
polycentric nature.
Metropolitan consolidation of the neoliberalism
At the beginning of the year 2000, Mexico obtained 97.5 million inhabitants
among which 65.6 were concentrated in a system of 349 cities.6 The Gu
increases to 67.3 percent, moving the country near to levels of urbanization that
exist in developed countries.7
In the last decade of the XX century the speed of urban expansion comes to
a halt. Between 1990 and 2000 the urbanization rate (Ur) is reduced to 0.7
percent, in spite of the fact that in absolute terms urban population grows 14.1
millions, a number slightly inferior to the one registered in 1980 (Table 1). This
difference is due, in part, to certain recuperation in the agricultural and livestock
fields (the agricultural GDP increases 2.2 percent annually in the 90’s) slowing
the emigration of the rural areas and allowing the increase in the rural population
from 29.8 to 31.8 million inhabitants. Supposing that it increased 1.85 percent
between 1990 and 2000 as the national population did, it should have grown to
35.7 million, therefore about four million people emigrated.
Nevertheless, the cities received a minor flow of people from the rural areas,
therefore the rest emigrated to the United States. Despite this minor pressure,
6
The census of 2000 was performed from 7th to 18th February.
The average of urban population in the developed countries in 2000 is 76 percent (United Nations,
2001: 7)
7
70
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... / G. Garza
during the 90’s the mexican cities had to provide employment, infrastructure,
public services and housing to 1.4 million people each year.
The cities with an increment superior to 2.5 percent annually between 1990
and 2000 – rate of national urban population in said decade – were 88 and their
geographical distribution continues with the consolidation of a polycentric
territorial organization. In this direction, even though the four main metropolises
observed rates minor to the average, in absolute terms they increased 4.3 million,
i.e. 30.4 percent of the growth in the national urban population.
The megalopolitan conglomerate around Mexico City continues moving
forward, being strengthened by the principal node of the new process of
concentration. All the cities that surround this major city keep a fast growth,
especially Toluca (5.5 percent), with which it already builds a megalopolis of 19.4
million people in 2000. Cuernavaca grows 3.2, Pachuca 3.6, Tlaxcala 4.7 and San
Juan del Río 4.9 percent.
Tijuana and Ciudad Juárez kept their historical dynamics and grew in 5.5 and
4.4 percent between 1990 and 2000 remaining as the main host of assembly
plants in Mexico. We aggregate Nogales (4 percent) and San Luis Río Colorado
(2.9 percent), but all of them are isolated from the rest of the country’s cities,
linked more with north American cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and
El Paso. Reynosa (7.1 percent), Matamoros (3.3 percent) and Nuevo Laredo
(3.6 percent) also have elevated rates, and they are more integrated to the
national hierarchy due to its interrelation with Monterrey.
Finally, there are industrial towns out of the immediate area of Mexico City,
as well as tourist and of transport. Hermosillo (3.1 percent) has become
industrialized from the establishment of a big assembly plant. Saltillo grows 2.8
percent and intensifies its integration to Monterrey, although it is located 80
kilometers away. Aguascalientes (2.9 percent) has a similar industrial production
to Tijuana and is linked to the urban region called “el Bajío” whose main nucleus
is Guadalajara. Among the port and turist cities we find again Cancun, with 91
percent of growth, Puerto Vallarta with 10.2 percent Zihuatanejo with 4.3
percent and Cozumel with 5.8 percent.
Mexico City increases its absolute population from 2.2 to 2.7 million between
1980 and 2000. The nine cities that follow it in size show differences in its
dynamics regarding the previous decade, which depends on the cycles of their
economic base. Monterrey, Toluca, León, Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez and San Luis
Potosí increase their growth in population in absolute terms, while Guadalajara,
Puebla and Torreón decrease (Garza, 2003: table A-3). The 10 biggest metropolises
71
April/June 2007
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52
CIEAP/UAEM
TABLE 1
MEXICO: DISTRIBUTION BY CITY SIZE, 1980-2005
Small
20 000
to 49 999
Subtotal
947
2.5
55
2 947
7.8
96
3 894
10.3
151
1 396
2.7
80
3 755
7.3
124
5 151
10.0
204
1 205
1.8
70
4 774
7.3
163
5 979
9.1
233
1 338
1.9
78
4 942
6.9
166
6 280
8.8
244
15 000
Total urban to 19 999
1980
Total population
Urban population
%
Cities
Urbanization degree
Urbanization rate
1990
Total population
Urban population
%
Cities
Urbanization degree
Urbanization rate
2000
Total population
Urban population
%
Cities
Urbanization degree
Urbanization rate
2005
Total population
Urban population
%
Cities
Urbanization Degree
Urbanization rate
66 847
36 739
100.0
227
55.0
1.5
81 250
51 491
100.0
304
63.4
1.5
97 483
65 617
100.0
349
67.3
0.7
103 263
71 499
100.0
367
69.2
0.5
P.T.O.
72
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... / G. Garza
TABLE 1
MEXICO: POPULATOIN DISTRIBUTION BY CITY SIZE, 1980-2005
(CONTINUATION)
1980
Total population
Urban population
%
Cities
Urbanization degree
Urbanization rate
1990
Total population
Urban population
%
Cities
Urbanization degree
Urbanization rate
2000
Total population
Urban population
%
Cities
Urbanization degree
Urbanization rate
2005
Total population
Urban population
%
Cities
50 000
to 99 999
Medium sized
100 000
to 499 999
Subtotal
1 633
4.3
24
10 275
27.3
44
11 908
31.7
68
2 800
5.4
39
10 990
21.3
42
13 790
26.8
81
3 259
5.0
46
10 815
16.5
42
14 074
21.4
88
3 268
4.6
47
10 977
15.4
45
14 245
19.9
92
P.T.O.
73
April/June 2007
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52
CIEAP/UAEM
TABLE 1
MEXICO: POPULATOIN DISTRIBUTION BY CITY SIZE, 1980-2005
(CONTINUATION)
1980
Total population
Urban population
%
Cities
Urbanization degree
Urbanization rate
1990
Total population
Urban population
%
Cities
Urbanization degree
Urbanization rate
2000
Total population
Urban population
%
Cities
Urbanization degree
Urbanization rate
2005
Total population
Urban population
%
Cities
500 000
to 999 999
Large
1000 000
and more
Subtotal
2 553
6.8
4
18 384
48.9
4
20 937
55.7
8
10 076
19.6
15
22 474
43.6
4
32 550
63.2
19
12 590
19.2
19
32 974
50.3
9
45 564
69.4
28
15 556
21.8
22
35 419
49.5
9
50 974
71.3
31
Total and urban population are in thousand of inhabitants; cities are those localities with 15000 and
more inhabitants, and those classified as metropolitan areas are included (56 in 2000); urbanization
degree is the percentage of urban population in respect to the total; urbanization rate is the average
annual increment of the urbanization degree, being the 1980’s rate referred to the 1970-80’s decade,
and successively. Source: Garza, Gustavo (2003: 30) and Garza, 2006a.
74
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... / G. Garza
of the country absorb 46 percent of growth in the 349 cities in 2000, reinforcing
the importance of some metropolises in the national urban hierarchy.
This model of polycentric concentration is observed in the distribution of cities
by size. In 2000, the nine cities with more than a million inhabitants increased their
participation to 50.3 percent and the subset of the 28 biggest cities to 69.4
percent. On the other hand, médium and small cities decrease its importance
(Table 1).
The tendency to polycentric concentration in a small group of cities is not
exclusive of Mexico and underdeveloped countries, it is also a characteristic of
almost all developed nations. In Australia the conurbations of Melbourne,
Canberra, Sydney and in the southeast of Queensland (Brisbane, Ipswich and
Southport) increase their position inside the national urban system (Paris, 1994:
566). When analyzing the urban population distribution from 1920 to 1995 in the
United States, it has been concluded that “…there is a clear deviation in the
participation of the population to the principal metropolitan areas…” and that
“There is no evidence that the small and medium cities have become relatively
more attractive…” (Ehrlich and Gyourko, 2000: 1070). Something similar
happens in Europe: “The regular speed observed through the decentralization
seems to be steaming, and in the European northeast it has been stopped and even
reverted” (Cheshire, 1995:1058).
The evolution of the urban system at the beginning of the XXI
century
In the first five years of the new century, Mexico continues its urbanization
significantly and it will certainly become a highly urbanized nation in its first three
decades. It is remarkable that the total population of the country between 2000
and 2005 increased in 5.78 million, whereas the urban din in 5.88 (100 thousand
more). Therefore, we see that the absolute rural population decreases in this
amount, mainly because of the migration of more that 500 thousand Mexicans
annually that have gone beyond the U.S. border illegally in the last five years.
In 2005, there is a system of 367 cities, 18 more than in 2000. The level of
urbanization reaches 69.2 percent and in a five-year period appear 5.88 million
new urbanites, among which 5.41 (92 percent) correspond to the big cities that
increase their number to 31 and to 71.3 percent their participation in the urban
population (table 1). As corollary, the medium size cities, although increasing
their number, they decrease their total urban percentage to 19.9 percent, while
75
April/June 2007
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52
CIEAP/UAEM
the small ones do the same to 8.8 percent. Consequently, in the first five years
of the XXI century a super urban concentration is reached in a group of 31 cities,
where nine persist with more than a million inhabitants, which absorb 41.6
percent of the total increment in the urban population.
From 2000 to 2005 the growth rate in the urban population is of 1.52 percent
annually, slightly lower that the previous period thanks to the flow of emigrants
to the United States. From the 367 existent cities, 124 present rates of growth
superior to the nacional average and 223 less, in which 52 is negative.
Additionally, 20 are new localities and their growth was not calculated.
Inside the urban system of 2005 the tendency to polycentric concentration is
maintained, for, the big cities of more than 500 thousand inhabitants increase to
31, with the incorporation of Cancun, Durango and Xalapa, while the cities with
more than one million are maintained (Ciudad de México, Guadalajara, Monterrey,
Puebla, Toluca, León, Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez and Torreón). However, in the
previous decade, with the exception of Mexico City (0.8 percent), Toluca (1.12
percent) and Ciudad Juarez (1.33 percent), the other six millionaire cities have
growth rates and population superior to the national average of 1.52 percent.
Tijuana, 2.72 percent; León, 2.07 percent; Puebla, 2.04 percent; Monterrey, 1.85
percent; Guadalajara, 1.81 percent, and Torreón, 1.74 percent. It is important to
mention that these rates are significantly lower that the ones registered in 1990,
consequently, apart from the relative situation of the big cities, the dynamics of
their growth decelerates outstandingly. However, as a group, the nine main cities
increase their population in 2.4 million between 2000 and 2005, which represents
41.6 percent of the total urban population, almost the same as in the previous fiveyear period (2.5 million and 43.9 percent). In these nine metropolises occurs
more than 40 percent of the population growth of the urban system of the 349
cities in 2000. To this, we add San Luis Potosí, Mérida and Queretaro which have
more than 900 thousand inhabitants in 2005. Therefore, in 2010 they will certainly
become millionaire cities, reinforcing the polycentric concentration.
The evolution of the Mexican cities system in the last fourth of century is
adjusted to the tendency law, to the spatial concentration in one or some cities
in countries with market economies, although they may have differences of
magnitude depending on their geographical, social, demographic and political
peculiarities, which determine the territorial organization of the economical
activities.
76
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... / G. Garza
Metropolitan concentration of the megalopolitan node
The multiplication and intensified interaction of the big cities of many countries
in the last decades of the XX century has caused, in first place, the generalization
and denomination of the metropolitan zones as characteristic types of the
concentration of the population and the economic activities. Secondly, it has
contributed to the emergence of new and more complex spheres of territorial
organization: polynuclear regions, State-cities, metroplexes, nodal regions and
megalopolises (Barnes and Ledbur, 1998: 64; Peirce, 1993: 1).
In Mexico, the first technical delimitation of the concept of metropolitan zone
was realized in the 70’s, and 12 metropolitan zones were found: Mexico City,
Guadalajara, Monterrey, Puebla, Torreón, León, Tampico, San Luis Potosí,
Chihuahua, Orizaba, Veracruz and Mérida (Unikel, Ruiz, Garza, 1976: Using a
similar methodology, in 2000, 38 metropolitan zones were identified, being
Mexico City the biggest with 17.4 million inhabitants and the smallest Delicias
with 119 thousand (Sobrino, 2003: 192-193). In 2004, the Social Development
Department, the National Population Council and the INEGI published a piece
of work were they propose a delimitation of 55 metropolitan zones even though,
in the population and economic census have not made the standard tabulations
for this territorial spheres (Secretariat of Social Development et al, 2004).8
The generalized criterion for defining a metropolitan zone as a city whose
expansion of urban fabric exceeds the central municipality has been considered
incorrect in a recent book, for it excludes big cities located in a single
municipality.9 It was established that the group of metropolitan zones in Mexico
is constituted by 37 cities located in two or more municipalities, more than 19 are
found in one. In total they are 56 metropolitan zones in 2000 (Garza, 2003: tables
AM-2 and AM-3). Under that publication’s criterion one can add only one city
that between 2000 and 2005 exceeded 200 thousand inhabitants, and then we
would have a total of 57 metropolitan zones in the last year.
Urbanization in Mexico in the last decades presents a metropolitan character
which is important to quantify in order to deepen in the knowledge of the type of
8
Despite this, INEGI usually presents metropolitan statistics in special studies (INEGI, 2000).
So that, Delicias, Chihuahua is considered in 2000 as a metropolitan zone for it is extended through
a neighboring vicinity called Meoqui, having both less than 156 thousand inhabitants. On the contrary,
Ciudad Juarez, with 1.2 million inhabitants would not be metropolitan zone, for it is located only in
the municipality of Juarez. The Secretariat of Social Development et al. also rejects this criterion and
considers metropolitan the cities with more than a million inhabitants and some with less population
that are neighboring with one city in the United States.
9
77
April/June 2007
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52
CIEAP/UAEM
spatial structuring in the economic activities and in the population. In 1980 only
26 localities were classified as metropolis, they absorbed 68.8 percent of the total
urban population, these localities became 51 in 1990 with 81 percent of 51.5
million inhabitants in cities. In 2000, from 65.7 million Mexicans who lived in 349
cities, 83 percent were located in 56 metropolitan zones. Finally, in 2005, 57
metropolises were found and they maintain the concentration of 83 percent of
the total urban population (table 2).10
With the spread of metropolitan zones, in the middle of the XX century a
surprising type of territorial concentration emerged in the United States, England
and Japan. It was named megalopolis and it is constituted by the union or
overlapping of a series of metropolitan zones11
A similar concentration is seen in the urban subsystem in the center of the
country, which is constituted mainly by the metropolitan zones of: Mexico City,
Toluca, Puebla, Cuernavaca, Querétaro and Pachuca. In this polynuclear
region, the emergence of a megalopolis as such is started in the 80’s when the
metropolitan zones of Mexico City and that of Toluca overlapped.12 It is
considered that this happens when at least one municipality of two or more
metropolitan zones become borders, i.e. that the zones are in contact. In the 70’s,
the metropolitan zone of Mexico City included the municipality of Huixquilucan,
State of Mexico, while during the 80’s the metropolitan zone of Toluca included
Lerma. Both municipalities have similar limits, creating a great agglomeration
that can be called megalopolis of Mexico City.
This conglomerate is found in an initial stage, for its complete development
will take decades or even centuries. It is estimated that in 2020 Cuernavaca and
Pachuca will incorporate to this megalopolis, around 2030, Puebla and Tlaxcala,
Queretaro and San Juan del Río in the next decade, so that a megalopolis of 37
million will be constituted in 2050 (Garza, 2000: 759).
10
They are constituted by the 56 metropolitan zones of 2000, plus the city of Campeche, that exceeded
200 thousand inhabitants between 2000 and 2005, reaching a population of 211 671 in 2005.
It was not possible, due to lack of time, to research if some other cities of less of that population exceed
through another municipality, constituting a metropolitan zone. Considering that only five years have
passed, this is very unlikely.
11
Jean Gottman coined the term to refer to the concentration with center in New York that is extended
to Washington, to the south, and to Boston in the north, also mentioning that “the supermetropolitan
character of this vast area, the biggest observed, requires a special name. We chose the word megalopolis
from Greek origin, defined in the dictionary as ‘a very large city’” (Gottman, 1959: 46; free translation).
12
The polynuclear term is used to refer to regional concentrations of several close cities; whereas
polycentric denotes the concentration in some cities inside the national urban system
78
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... / G. Garza
TABLE 2
MEXICO: METROPOLITAN AND NON-METROPOLITAN
URBAN POPULATION, 1970-2005 (IN THOUSANDS)
1980
Urbana population
Metropolitan
Non-metropolitan
Number of cities
Metropolitans
Non-metropolitans
36 740
25 272
11 468
227
26
201
%
1990
%
2000
%
2005
%
100.0 51 491 100.0 65 617 100.0 71 499 100.0
68.8 41 689 81.0 54 477 83.0 59 360 83.0
31.2 9 801 19.0 11 140 17.0 12 139 17.0
100.0
304 100.0
349 100.0
366 100.0
11.5
51 16.8
56 16.0
57 15.6
88.5
253 83.2
293 84.0
309 84.4
Source: calcualtions elaborated with information from Garza, 2003: Tables A-2 and A-3.
It is a priority to do research the economic, political, social and juridical
dimension of the metropolitan system of cities and, in special, of the monumental
megalopolitan concentration. The possibility of designing a spatial paradigm
within the system of cities that is functional for the integration of Mexico to the
international economy depends on research done and without it the companies
located in the country will not be competitive. In the next subsection it will be
exemplified through which subject matter such investigations can be oriented by
analyzing some metropolitan variations.
Socioeconomic characteristics of metropolises
Third world cities are frequently seen as a swarm of problems: Infrastructure,
equipment, housing and management shortfalls, undesirable levels of corruption
are among the most important problems that these cities have. The previous
status is a spatial reflection of the underdevelopment itself, due to the insufficient
income, educational levels, open unemployment and the high informality that
have as corollary broad sectors of poor people. This constitutes a structural
obstacle that hinders solving or reducing the previous urban pathology. In
general, the low income of the poor population makes unfeasible the provision of
services by public and private companies that aim to be profitable. In the next part
we will analyze some socioeconomic peculiarities of the 56 metropolitan zones
considered, which sum 54.5 million people in 2000 and constitute 83 and 56
percent of the urban and total national, respectively.
79
April/June 2007
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52
CIEAP/UAEM
Cities’ productivity
The productivity of the cities depends on a series of factors among which these
are remarkable: the structure of their economic activities, efficiency and
modernization of their companies, infrastructure quality, equipment and public
services, governmental administrative management, diversity and labor training,
the existence of research institutions and universities, public security and labor
stability, as well as, in general, all those economies of urbanization that are
essential for the companies to work properly. There are not rigorous studies in
the international sphere that add adequately all these factors for a significant
group of cities, although advances have been developed in the research on world
metropolises, incorporating the provision of some services to the producer,
among which the financial are remarkable (Hall, 1977; Sassen, 1991; Meyer,
1998; Beaverstock et al., 1999; Taylor and Walter, 2001; Poon, 2003).13 Other
research include different factors, although consistent results have not been
reached, results that would demonstrate which factors are more relevant, not to
mention the hierarchy relation among them (Calem and Carlino, 1991; Kim, 1997;
Lobo and Rantisi, 1999; Begg et al., 2002; Rugby and Essletzbichler, 2002).
In Mexico, according to the GDP per capita in manufacturing, commerce and
services (branches that constitute 78 percent of the total national GDP in 2000)
the most productive city is Saltillo, with 6 318 pesos in prices in 1993, while Poza
Rica has the lowest level with 9 431, i.e. the less efficient (table 3).
In general terms, considering that the national GDP per capita in the three
sectors is of 18 291, it can be observed in table 3 that 17 cities have lower values
of that number; 22 among that number and 31 380 (the average of 56
metropolises) and 17 have more that this last figure. Among the cities with low
productivity in the first group one finds Acapulco, with its modern tourist pole in
the middle of a sea of informality; Poza Rica, that has lost its oil peak of the 70’s.
Oaxaca, a traditionally poor state, despite its tourist attractive based on its
architectonic and cultural richness will see its poorness stressed due to its current
ungovernability. Zacatecas, an old mining city that does not achieve its insertion
into the circuits of the economic activities that rule nowadays. Among the 22
metropolises with medium productivity (GDP per capita values between 18 291
13
The research in Mexico on macroeconomics and productivity in the cities is really insufficient, we
have found only books of Garza and Rivera (1995), Sobrino (2003) and Arce, Cabrero and Ziccardi
(2005).
80
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... / G. Garza
and 31 380) one can mention Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez and Reynosa, whose
manufacturing sector provides a low aggregate value to the national manufacturing,
Culiacan, Los Mochis and Irapuato, with an economy base that depends on an
agricultural sector that is in decline. Tampico, Veracruz and Mazatlan have not
achieved the diversification of their economy partially because the product of the
transport sector is not included and Tehuacan and Cordoba, small metropolises,
which are separated from the big economic centers.
Finally, there are big cities with more productivity whose GDP’s per capita
are above 31 380 pesos. Saltillo, Querétaro and Monclova are among the first
three places, showing the first two – the third is a steel enclave – that despite
being intermediate cities (between 500 thousand and one million inhabitants)
they can be highly competitive and have at their disposal the localization factors
that are necessary to attract companies. These cities are in the area of immediate
influence of Monterrey and Mexico City, respectively. These two cities provide
services to the more modern producers. In second place we find the main
metropolises, among which the five biggest excel: Mexico City, Guadalajara,
Monterrey, Puebla and Toluca. It is important to mention in this group the cases
of Matamoros, Ciudad Obregón and Ensenada. These are cities with less than
500 thousand inhabitants, which again demonstrates the possibility of being
competitive without the existence of a great labor market.
The manufacturing and tertiary per capita GDP which was analyzed
measures the production per person of these sectors, it does not measure the
income of these people although it might be related. When one correlates it with
the percentage of poor the coefficient of regression (R2) is obtained (–0.44).
Since it is not very high, it indicates that the higher per capita GDP the less
percentage of poor.
Endemic urban poverty
The low level and unequal distribution of the income which characterize Mexico
are seen clearly in the urban landscape: proliferation of indigents, loafers, car
attendants (street sub-employment), windshield cleaners and a whole spectrum
of peddlers in the social sphere. One can also see extensive irregular zones with
insufficient infrastructure and equipment, as well as precarious and unfinished
housing in the urban sphere.
The features of the urban fabric reflects accurately the prevailing social
structure. There are zones for the high strata equivalent to the elite in the cities
81
April/June 2007
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Mexico City
Guadalajara
Monterrey
Puebla
Toluca
León
Tijuana
Ciudad Juárez
Torreón
San Luis Potosí
Mérida
Querétaro
Mexicali
Culiacán
Aguascalientes
Acapulco
Chihuahua
Cuernavaca
Tampico
Saltillo
Morelia
Coatzacoalcos-Minatitlán
Hermosillo
Veracruz
Reynosa
Tuxtla Gutiérrez
Villahermosa
Celaya
Metropolitan zonesa
17 968 895
3 677 531
3 243 466
1 892 674
1 410 870
1 279 859
1 274 240
1 218 817
1 007 291
850 828
842 188
787 341
764 602
745 537
727 582
722 499
677 117
659 762
655 760
637 273
620 532
617 008
609 829
593 181
524 692
523 482
520 308
510 438
Population
33.9
31.2
23.0
39.1
44.0
34.5
24.7
27.3
31.3
31.2
37.0
31.3
22.7
33.2
31.9
49.2
21.7
38.0
32.7
27.7
34.7
45.7
27.9
33.3
32.5
46.1
37.8
38.8
Poor (%)b
34 123
35 262
45 414
34 455
47 284
25 735
28 576
26 390
36 474
37 984
25 050
51 709
36 098
23 199
31 271
16 345
42 615
29 771
22 093
61 318
15 441
29 339
47 227
28 543
27 767
15 396
28 619
31 688
Per capita
IGP c
1998
15.6
8.2
11.9
20.9
9.9
9.2
5.8
7.3
5.7
12.1
16.3
12.1
9.7
8.2
20.2
16.4
6.6
8.7
8.1
18.6
12.8
20.8
8.8
18.6
n.a.
n.d.
30.2
20.0
8.9
Structural
unemployment
(%)d
47.5
46.4
37.4
53.7
48.4
51.0
39.0
32.1
38.9
44.1
44.6
44.5
35.8
46.0
40.2
63.7
31.8
59.8
43.4
28.9
57.3
49.7
43.0
47.5
n.d.
57.5
44.1
55.5
Occupied
without
perks
558 784
88 555
72 348
61 392
42 792
34 781
47 493
46 194
28 596
17 299
28 029
24 425
26 193
25 595
17 083
45 102
15 784
24 272
24 626
16 025
18 938
32 344
21 171
23 461
19 605
25 932
19 331
16 448
Total
3.1
2.4
2.2
3.2
3.0
2.7
3.7
3.8
2.8
2.0
3.3
3.1
3.4
3.4
2.3
6.2
2.3
3.7
3.8
2.5
3.1
5.2
3.5
4.0
3.7
5.0
3.7
3.2
82
P.T.O.
0.813
0.805
0.837
0.776
0.775
0.794
0.805
0.841
0.811
0.826
0.797
0.811
0.842
0.803
0.808
0.806
0.823
0.799
0.813
0.820
0.818
0.755
0.839
0.844
0.794
0.733
0.826
0.760
Human
Per 100 development
index
inhab.
Housing delay (2001)
TABLE 3
MEXICO: SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS BY METROPOLITAN ZONES, 2000
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52
CIEAP/UAEM
83
Pachuca
Uruapan
Ciudad Victoria
45
46
47
Monclova
Ciudad Obregón
39
44
Los Mochis
38
Nuevo Laredo
Ensenada
37
Cuautla
Mazatlán
36
43
Matamoros
35
42
Oaxaca
34
Tepic
Cancún
33
Orizaba
Irapuato
32
41
Poza Rica
31
40
Durango
Xalapa
29
30
Metropolitan zonesa
263 063
265 699
287 431
302 899
310 915
321 823
322 530
342 840
356 290
359 146
370 730
380 509
418 141
419 770
419 815
440 134
443 419
491 436
480 559
Population
33.7
46.1
30.8
28.2
31.1
47.8
45.9
32.8
30.8
33.9
30.9
33.1
31.8
39.6
33.6
41.4
54.1
36.5
37.0
Poor (%)b
10 541
13 372
14 736
48 270
16 052
14 392
25 648
16 469
33 466
27 572
32 483
21 766
40 122
12 178
29 959
18 823
9 431
15 301
12 188
per capita
IGP c
1998
n.a.
n.a.
19.6
11.5
11.1
n.a.
15.9
12.9
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
9.9
29.0
n.a.
8.6
n.a.
11.3
n.a.
Structural
unemployment
(%)d
n.a.
n.a.
48.4
41.6
46.0
n.a.
57.5
52.0
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
37.7
59.9
44.2
52.6
n.a.
44.9
n.a.
Occupied
without perks
9 440
12 064
7 437
7 627
11 744
14 572
15 953
8 982
11 884
12 111
14 638
11 672
18 024
16 190
22 661
14 529
28 858
13 286
19 004
Total
3.6
4.5
2.6
2.5
3.8
4.5
4.9
2.6
3.3
3.4
3.9
3.1
4.3
3.9
5.4
3.3
6.5
2.7
4.0
Per 100
inhab.
Housing delay (2001)
TABLE 3
MEXICO: SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS BY METROPOLITAN ZONES, 2000
(CONTINUATION)
P.T.O.
0.818
0.771
0.839
0.822
0.815
0.782
0.754
0.798
0.834
0.798
0.778
0.815
0.821
0.813
0.849
0.769
0.755
0.828
0.794
Human
development
index
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... / G. Garza
April/June 2007
84
Guaymas
Delicias
55
56
156 444
180 316
210 766
216 048
223 341
225 149
226 258
232 965
244 536
Population
29.8
34.4
29.2
40.5
46.1
41.6
44.9
31.9
33.9
Poor (%)b
23 559
17 990
12 117
21 620
29 483
16 760
23 071
14 216
26 263
n.a.
n.a.
14.5
n.a.
n.a.
16.7
n.a.
21.8
n.a.
Structural
employment
(%)d
n.a.
n.a.
51.3
n.a.
n.a.
62.7
n.a.
43.4
n.a.
Occupied
without perks
4 507
7 797
5 754
6 624
10 206
7 730
10 442
5 420
10 554
Total
2.9
4.3
2.7
3.1
4.6
3.4
4.6
2.3
4.3
Per 100
inhab.
Housing delay(2001)
0.804
0.803
0.842
0.763
0.794
0.788
0.806
0.830
0.802
Human
development
index
Source; Population data, Garza 2003: table AM-3; per capital GDP; Sobrino: table A20; employment data (www.inegi.gob.mx); index of human
development. Information at municipal level, so the municipalites in each metropolitan area were averaged. The index is calculated with values
between 0 and 1, considering an adequate level from 0.8; housing data, SEDESOL (undated) and 2003; poor percentage from Damian, 2006:
table A-2.
a
Metropolitan zones are conformed according to Garza 2003: table AM-3.
b
Percentage of “equivalent poverty”, this is, the number of total poor multiplied by “poverty intensity” (magnitude in which poor deviate from
the established rule) ( Damián, 2006: table A-2 and text).
c
Data from 1998 in million of MXP (in 1993) for the industry, commerce and services.
d
Addition of open employment and workers under minimum wage. Information from 2000, except for Reynosa, 2001.
Zamora
Colima
54
Córdoba
52
53
Tehuacán
Tlaxcala
51
49
50
Puerto Vallarta
Zacatecas
48
Metropolitan zonesa
per capita
IGP c
1998
TABLE 3
MEXICO: SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS BY METROPOLITAN ZONES, 2000
(CONTINUATION)
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52
CIEAP/UAEM
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... / G. Garza
of the developed countries and there also are zones for the middles classes in a
relative good situation. The extension of the underdeveloped part of the urban
fabric will depend on the number of poor that in Mexican cities present
considerable differences.
The magnitude of poor in the 56 metropolises varies from 22 per cent in
Chihuahua to 54 per cent in Poza Rica (Table 3).14 The former belongs to the
seventh position according to the GDP analyzed, while the latter in the last. This
shows an inverse tendency between the two variables and an obvious policy: the
best action to eradicate poverty is not the welfare programs, that mitigate but do
not solve the situation, but the generation of productive activities and well paid
employment.
One can find three groups of cities in Mexico according to the magnitude of
their poverty: i) 22 metropolises with low level, lower than 32.6 per cent that
corresponds to the national average (Damián, 2006: table 1); ii) 21 cities with a
middle level, with percentages between 32.7 and 39.7 (the average plus a
standard deviation); iii) 13 cities with high levels of poor, superior to 39.8 per cent.
The cities with less poor, relatively prosperous, are located mainly in the north
of the country: Chihuahua, Monterrey, Mexicali, Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, Saltillo,
Hermosillo, Delicias, Ciudad Obregón, Torreón, Matamoros and Reynosa (table
3). We add to these localities those of the Bajio region such as Guadalajara,
Aguascalientes and Queretaro. The Metropolitan Zone of Mexico City as a
group is found in the localities with a middle level of poverty, but if we divide it
between the Federal District and the municipalities of the State of Mexico we
have percentages of poor between 26.9 and 40.2 (Damián, 2006: 27). According
to this, the first entity remains in the group of cities with low poverty and the
mexiquense part remains in the group with high poverty.
The group of cities with middle level of poverty, with values between 32.7 and
39.7 per cent, can be divided into two groups: the cities of the Central Altiplano
(Oaxaca, Puebla, Celaya, Morelia, Leon and Cuernavaca) and some ports and
turistic localities (Cancun, Puerto Vallarta, Veracruz, Mazatlan, Tampico and
Guaymas).
14
There are different statistical techniques to quantify the levels of poverty, one can name the design
of line of poverty (generally defined by the cost of a normative amount of food) or the method of
integrated measurement of the poverty. For the present work we used the estimate of «equivalent
poverty» according to the explanation in the note b of table 3 (for an analytic explanation of the
technical differences, see Damián, 2006).
85
April/June 2007
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52
CIEAP/UAEM
Finally, in the cities with high levels of poverty, approximately the half of their
inhabitants and urban fabric are in a situation of great scarcity. In the first group
we find some cities of around 250 thousand inhabitants of the altiplano (Zamora,
Tlaxcala, Tehuacan and Uruapan) in the second the oil cities such as Poza Rica
and Coatzacoalcos-Minatitlan; suprisingly, Toluca appears in this group.
It has a four level in GDP per capita, which can only be explained by its
accelerated expansion through the municipalities of Metepec, Mexicaltzingo,
San Mateo Atenco, Zinacantepec, Almoloya de Juarez and Otzolotepec, where
popular settlements are located before its incorporation to its metropolitan zone.
Almost certainly, the percentage of poor in Toluca will have values that are
equivalent to the values of the relative richer cities.
In short, the urbanistic shortages and the social problematic of the cities,
ceteris paribus, is related to their economic development achieved and to the
corresponding number of poor.
Housing deficit
In the 56 metropolises which were analyzed there exists a delay of 1.8 million of
houses due to physical deterioration, inadequate materials and overcrowding of
its inhabitants. Additionally, in the next 10 years it will be necessary to build 758
thousand new houses annually (Sedesol, undated). In Mexico, all the public
housing organizations (Infonavit, Fovissste, Fonhapo, etc.) including the bank
funds for state-subsidized apartment (private banking, Fovi and Banobras)
produced 40 per cent of the 591 thousand new houses built between 1990 and
2000 (García, 2004: table 4, statistical appendix). If the governmental effort is
maintained constant, the real state promoters would have to produce 303
thousand houses for the public organizations in the 56 metropolises, while the
popular sector would autobuild that 455 thousand that remain to be built. Before
this possibility, the backwarness of 1.8 million would be maintained constant. It
is evident that the housing problem of the main cities of the country is insoluble
under the current confitions, despite the considerable efforts of the housing
organizations of the State.
Considering the déficit of housing for 100 inhabitants in the 56 cities, one
observes that San Luis Potosi has two, the lowest number, while with 6.2 Poza
Rica observes the highest (table 3). There are 15 cities with a delay of more than
four houses per 100 inhabitants (Poza Rica, Acapulco, Cancun, CoatzacoalcosMinatitlan, Tuxtla Gutierrez, Orizaba, Tehuacan, Cordoba, Uruapan, Cuautla,
86
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... / G. Garza
Guaymas, Puerto Vallarta, Matamoros, Veracruz and Xalapa). 26 metropolises
have between three and 3.9 houses of delay (from Morelia, with 3.1 and
Ensenada, with 3.9) and 15 with less than three, among which one finds Delicias
with 2.9, and San Luis Potosi, with two (table 3).
The correlation coefficient of 0.67 between the delay of housing for each 100
inhabitants and the percentage of poor shows a significant association between
poverty and the lack of housing. This makes evident that as long as there are high
levels of poverty, the urbanistic problematic of the cities of Mexico will not be
adequately solved.
Structural urban sub-employment
With the introduction of the neoliberal model in the 90’s, the rate of participation
of the workers in the main cities increased considerably.15 For example, in
Mexico City it increased from 53 percent in 1990 to 56 percent in 1998, from 52
to 64 percent in Guadalajara and from 53 to 58 percent in Monterrey (García,
1999: 103). Despite this, it was not necessarily a product of an increase in the
number of formal well paid jobs, for before its inadequacy, people in age to work
self-employ themselves in commercial activities and services that are not very
productive and work without remuneration in familiar microbusiness. This
applies for the increase of occupied without benefits, which reach a number of
64 percent in Acapulco and 29 percent in Saltillo (table 3). Underemployment and
the lack of benefits is demonstrated, therefore, as an endemic situation in the
cities of the Third World.
The rate of open unemployment in 2000 of the 56 cities has as low value 0.8
percent in Acapulco and 3.3 as maximum in Monclova. This fact is paradoxical
in part considering that this last has a rate of three in GDP per capita, and
Acapulco 43. It is evident that, since there is not unemployment benefit in
Mexico, the information in that respect has only some sense to measure the
cycles of formal employment, but it does not reflect the magnitude of the
insufficient demand of workers. In order to have a more realistic idea, in table
3 we present the amount of open unemployment added to the workers who win
less than a minimum wage, that could be denominated as structural unemployment.
15
The rate of participation of the working population is the percentage of the population economically
active divided by that of 12 years or more.
87
April/June 2007
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52
CIEAP/UAEM
The structural unemployment has a minimum percentage of 5.7 per cent in
Torreón, Coahuila and a maximum of 30.2 in Tuxtla Gutierrez, Chiapas (table
3).16 The 39 cities with information can be grouped in 15, that have percentages
from 15 to 30.2 and 24 with less than 14.9. Mexico City is the best situated in the
first group, with an unemployment of 15.6 per cent and Tuxtla Gutierrez as last.
Among them one finds Acapulco, with 16.4 per cent, Saltillo, with 18.6 per cent,
while Villahermosa, Aguascalientes, Coatzacoalcos-Minatitlan, Puebla, Zacatecas
and Oaxaca have a structural unemployment superior to 20 percent (table 3). In
the second group, Torreon has the lowest percentage and 10 northern cities with
less than 10 percent are remarkable (Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, Mexicali, Chihuahua
and Matamoros), from the region of the Bajio (Guadalajara, Leon, Celaya and
Irapuato) and the megalopolis of Mexico City (Toluca and Cuernavaca).
Undoubtedly, the high level of structural urban unemployment is linked to
poverty, although not in a linear way. Its combined existence constitutes one of
the main obstacles to solve or moderate the serious socioeconomic and urbanistic
problems that the Mexican metropolises present.
Metropolitan index of human development
The Consejo Nacional de Poblacion (Conapo) calculated the Index of human
development (IHD) for Mexican municipalities with the same variables used for
that purpose by the Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo
(PNUD): life expectancy at the moment of being born, educational level (basic
literacy and combined registration in the three levels of study) and real per capita
GDP (Conapo, 2000). This last indicator is not calculated in the national
calculations by municipalities, therefore, it was calculated in a very imprecise
way and the results should be taken with caution.17 The index is standardized with
16
The national survey of urban employment (eneu) provides only information for 39 of the 56
metropolises analyzed in this work.
Conapo estimated the municipal GDP based on the values of national accounts by federal entity,
which have weaknesses. The amount of each entity was calculated by municipality according to the
income of the houses by work and other concepts captured by the census of population in 2000, adjusted
with the National Survey of Income and Expenses of the Houses, 2000. The familiar income was also
presented by strata of minimum wages that only allow approximations to their magnitudes, the income
by rentals, profits and interests are barely captured. Due to all this, in the best of the cases the municipal
income corresponds basically to the labor factor. In the national GDP for 2000, the part that
corresponds to the salary is of 31.3 per cent, due to this, the census data collection of the income in
the houses is very partial. With this adjustment it is tended to subvaluate the GDP of the municipalities
with greater economic advanced capitalist activity. In relation with the life expectancy, since we do
not have this information by municipalities, it was substituted with the infant mortality rate. In any
case, the effort of Conapo is the first and useful estimation of the IHD by municipalities.
17
88
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... / G. Garza
numbers between zero and one, this allowed to obtain a HDI average for each
of the 56 metropolitan zones considered, according to the municipalities that
constitute them.18
Given the relative homogeneity of the infant mortality rate and schooling in
the metropolises, the index acquires high numbers. The lowest registered belongs
to Tuxtla Gutierrez of 0.733 and the highest of 0.849 to Cancun, i.e. the extreme
values have only a difference of 0.116. With the aforementioned, one could make
four groups of cities according to IHD: i) nine metropolises with high human
development, superior to 0.831 (the average plus a standard deviation); ii) 22 with
medium development, numbers of more than 0.804 (the average) up to 0.831; iii)
15 of low, between 0.778 (the average minus a standard deviation) and 0.804;
and iv) 10 cities with very low development, with indexes lower than 0.778 (table
3).
The nine cities with high IHD are: Cancún, Veracruz, Mexicali, Colima,
Ciudad Juárez, Hermosillo, Pachuca, Ciudad Obregón and Monterrey. Since
these cities have percentages of poor with values of 23 for Monterrey and 33.6
in Cancún, one can infer that the index reflects very basic and generalized
conditions of human development, for it has high levels in cities with around one
third of the population in a poverty status.
The 22 metropolises with medium development cover from Guadalajara
(0.805) to Zacatecas (0.830). In this group we find Mexico City with 0.813,
Saltillo with 0.820, Oaxaca with 0.813 and Tijuana with 0.805 (table 3). The
previous limitation is maintained again and for example, Oaxaca has 39.6 per cent
of the poor and in the place 53 in GDP per capita, nevertheless; it has a medium
human development.
Finally, we have the 15 and 10 metropolises with human development low and
very low, with Delicias having the highest value (0.804). In this group we find
mainly cities from the center and the Bajio (In parenthesis we add their
percentage of poor): Tlaxcala (41.6), Cuautla (47.8), Puebla (39.1), Toluca
(44.0), Irapuato (41.4), Uruapan (46.1), Celaya (38.8) and Zamora (40.5). We
add the oil cities of Coatzacoalcos-Minatitlan (45.7) and Poza Rica (54.1) where
more that the half of the population is poor. We infer that a IHD of 0.755 in Poza
Rica indicates a situation of high poverty. The coefficient of correlation between
the IHD and the percentage of poor is –0.22, i.e. it is not very significant, although
18
The municipalities that constitute the 56 metropolitan areas can be seen in Garza, 2003: table AM-
3
89
April/June 2007
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52
CIEAP/UAEM
the negative sign indicates that the higher the human development, the lower the
poverty.
The problematic of the 56 metropolises analyzed in this subsection makes
evident the importance of deepening the studies of its economic, social and
juridical structures. For such purpose it will be necessary to design a statistical
base with new variables that reflect more accurately the complexity of its nature.
This would allow overcoming the traditional metropolitan regulatory plans and
start a new generation of multidimensional plans and omnicomprehensive legal
frames.
Metropolitan governability
Cities are not only a group of social, economic and urbanistic pathologies, they
also constitute the most modern productive devices, whose good development is
essential for the good working of the private companies. In Mexico, for example,
in 2003, the 10 main cities concentrated 61.1 percent of the national industrial,
commercial and services GDP. These three sectors constitute 90.4 percent of
the total national GDP.
The possibility of breaking the evil circle among poverty, unemployment and
the problematic of the Mexican cities is to increase their infrastructural, services,
administrative management and legal efficiency, which rule their functioning in
order to become innovating social and productive forces. It is necessary to build
the framework of the necessary factors of localization so that the companies
have the capacity to compete in the global economy. To a great extent, on the
kind of intervention and efficiency in the governability and the establishment of
the normative superstructure of the metropolises analyzed, either in the federal
government or in the state and municipal will depend the future integration of
Mexico in the world market.
The decentralization of the functions of the government in the urban sphere
of the federal government through the state and municipal ones that was started
since 1980 had that goal, but has had unsatisfactory results, very far from what
was expected. This experience must be revised and design a hierarchy of
infrastructural lines, of equipment and of services, whose realization must be
calculated among the three levels of government according to its technical
pecularities and of economies of scale, urbanistic, of financing and if they are
oriented to the population or to the productive apparatus. It is important to
consider subnational authorities that solve the complex problems of the coordination
90
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... / G. Garza
between the different jurisdictions in the metropolitan zones of the country, such
as the environmental issues, water and drainage supply, highways and transport,
of economic promotion, of planning, of legal frame adaptation, for mentioning
some.
Regardless of the distribution of governmental powers among the three levels
of government, it is unavoidable that the federal government promotes the
introduction of modern mechanisms of urban management and directs the issuing
of norms that regulate their activities. In this direction, there exist four foundations
that must be considered for the design of the adequate frame of governability:
1. System of governmental relations that define the responsibilities and
resources for each level of government.
2. The ones that define the level of participation of the community in the
decisions.
3. The ones related to the institutional capacity of the local governments to
develop their functions.
4. The ones related to the financial mechanisms and the investment of the
local governments (Rojas, 2005: 47-48).
Following these guidelines, it would be adequate to study the viability of
establishing a coherent “national system of metropolitan coordination” that
would avoid the waste of financial resources, as well as the dysfunction of the
swarm of juridical norms that govern the development of the cities and establish
the bases for the governability of all of them. On this subject, apart from
establishing an authentic democratic regime, it must be constituted the
representative collegial bodies, institutions of the community and regulative and
transparent diagrams that make obligatory to inform. These authorities have
been established formally in many entities of Mexico, but in practice its
functioning is distorted and they usually represent groups of private interests or
groups that belong to political parties. It is necessary to continue moving forward
in this direction to improve the participation of the citizens.
The coordination of the metropolitan governability must establish a system of
employees that promotes their specialization and professional development. A
professional body with postgraduate studies in urban issues is necessary. This
body would prepare adequately the metropolitan planning and the local finances
and it will have the preparation for designing innovative actions in the urban
governability. The mayors elected in the metropolitan municipalities usually lack
the necessary studies for said position. Therefore, the possibility of the creation
of urban managers that would be hired and supervised by the town council or the
state Chamber of Deputies should be analyzed.
91
April/June 2007
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52
CIEAP/UAEM
The type of metropolitan management more suitable for the Mexican cities
can be determined following the guidelines of three conceptual diagrams:
1. Centralized public model (Singapore, Shanghai, Peking, London, Caracas,
Quito).
2. Fragmentized or sectorized public model (Madrid, Milan, Bologna, Portland,
Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires).
3. Collaborative public-private model (San Francisco, Detroit, Miami, Santiago
de Chile) (Cuadrado et al., 2005: 110-114)
The model chosen in the metropolises of the country will depend on the
peculiarities of each, but in order to achieve success in promoting an urban
development that is capable of creating cities that are internationally competitive
it is necessary to: produce a rigorous diagnosis of the economy, social structure
and legal framework of the metropolises, as well as adopting a feasible strategy
and determine the real capacities of the local governments.
It is not an easy task, for in general it is believed that the metropolitan areas
of Latin America, with the exception of Quito and Caracas, and including all of
Mexico “…lack of a mature structure that is consolidated for the metropolitan
governability, that can confront the challenge of creating urban competitiveness,
environmental sustainability and better quality of life” (Klink, 2005: 176). This
author adds that one cannot create supramunicipal structures of governability by
decree without an incrementalist practice of adding gradually in horizontal and
vertical nets the different agents that take part in the metropolitan development
(Klink, 2005: 178)
The rigorous knowledge of the social, economic and juridical characteristics
of the cities is essential to give a technical support to the governmental decisions
and the design of the legal superstructure, so that they facilitate the different
actions of the agents that take part in the production of the metropolitan space.
Unfortunately, in the beginning of the XXI century the normativity of the
Mexican metropolises shows a group of problems, incongruities and contradictions
that are present in the wide variety of laws, decrees, regulations, plans, edicts and
other juridical instruments that regulate them. This situation is derived, to a great
extent, from the next circumstances: i) the legislation and urban national plans do
not include adequately the characteristics and determining factors of the
expansion of cities ; ii) there is a great incoherence between the normativity and
the planning, with the specific actions of the popular and real-estate sectors;
iii) the municipal governments, in general terms, have not had the technical,
financial and political capacities to confront reasonably the urban functions that
were given in the reform of the constitutional article 115 since 1983.
92
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... / G. Garza
Despite this, it cannot be denied that since then a great number of state and
municipal governments have developed important efforts to adequate their
governability and urbanistic right to the new demands of the international
environment. Nevertheless, in the metropolitan zones, significant intermunicipal
differences are maintained in all the instruments, so that the cities present clear
differences, weaknesses and contradictions in their operativity.
Considering the concurrent character of the three levels of government in
terms of regulation of the urban development it would be desirable to study the
possibility of designing an unified urban code that applies to all the metropolitan
municipalities of Mexico, just as it is already established in some cities. One could
exclude the requirements derivate of the regime of constitutional competences,
putting the matter to consideration to the different town councils who would
approve it.
To the problem of management one can add the lack of government
organizations with capacity to develop executive actions in the metropolitan
sphere, since the metropolitan committees that exist in Mexico City, for example,
perform only functions of coordination between the authorities of the Mexico
City and the State of Mexico. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the possibility
of creating Executive Committees in certain priority sectors, or even the viability
of a metropolitan government. Likewise, it will be required to have a functional
urbanistic normativity in order to operate efficiently the polynuclear urban
regions, such as the metropolis of the center of the country, that have as nucleus
Mexico City, the one in the Bajio, with center in Guadalajara or the one in the
northeast with Monterrey as main node.
To sum up, if there is not a model of governability for the efficient
management of the metropolises and if there is not a legal framework according
to the economic, social and urbanistic development it will not be possible to reach
the capacity to achieve the competitiveness and efficiency that the insertion of
Mexico to the economy of global scale requires.
93
April/June 2007
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52
CIEAP/UAEM
Bibliography
Arce Macías, Carlos, Enrique Cabrero Mendoza and Alicia Ziccardi Contigiani, 2005,
Ciudades del siglo XXI: ¿competitividad o cooperación?, CIDE/Miguel Ángel Porrúa,
Mexico.
BARNES, William and Larry Ledebur, 1998, The new regional economies, Thousand
Oaks/Sage Publications, London.
BEAVERSTOCK, J. B., P. J. Taylor and R. G. Smith, 1999, “A roster of world cities”, in
Cities, 16 (6).
BEGG, Moore, undated, “Altunbas, Long run trends in the competitiveness of British
cities”, in Lain Begg (ed.), Urban competitiveness. Policies for dynamic cities, The Policy
Press, London.
BENDESKY, León, Víctor Godínez and Miguel Ángel Mendoza, 2001, “La industria
maquiladora, una visión regional”, in Trayectorias, 4 (7/8).
CALEM, Paul and Gerald Carlino, 1991, “Urban agglomeration economies in the presence
of technical change”, in Journal of Urban Economics, 29 (1).
CHESHIRE, Paul, 1995, “A new phase of urban development in western Europe? The
evidence for the 1980s”, in Urban Studies, 32 (7).
CONAPO, 2000, Índices de desarrollo humano, 2000.
CUADRADO Roura, Juan and José Miguel Fernández Güel, 2005, “Las áreas
metropolitanas frente al desafío de la competitividad”, in Eduardo Rojas, Juan R.
Cuadrado Roura and José Miguel Fernández (eds.), Gobernar las metrópolis, Banco
Interamericano de Desarrollo/Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Washington.
DAMIÁN, Araceli, 2006, “Evolución de la pobreza urbana en México”, in José Luis
Lezama and José Morelos (coords.), Población, ciudad y medio ambiente en el México
contemporáneo, El Colegio de México, Mexico.
EHRLICH, Steven and Joseph Gyourko, 2000, “Change in the scale and size distribution
of US metropolitan areas during the twentieth century”, in Urban Studies, 37 (7).
GARCÍA, Brígida, 1999, “Evolución de la población económicamente activa en las
principales ciudades”, 1990-1998, in Gustavo Garza (coord.), Atlas demográfico de
México, Conapo/Progresa, Mexico.
GARCÍA Peralta, Beatriz, 2004, Vivienda en México: sector público e industria de la
construcción, 1930-2000, Facultad de Economía, UNAM, draft of Doctorate thesis.
GARZA, Gustavo, 1999, “El sistema de ciudades”, in Gustavo Garza (coord.), Atlas
demográfico de México, Conapo/Progresa, Mexico.
GARZA, Gustavo, 2000, “La megalópolis de la Ciudad de México según escenario
tendencial, 2020”, in Gustavo Garza (coord.), La Ciudad de México en el fin del segundo
milenio, Gobierno del Distrito Federal/El Colegio de México, Mexico.
GARZA, Gustavo, 2003, La urbanización de México en el siglo xx, El Colegio de México,
Mexico.
94
Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... / G. Garza
GARZA, Gustavo, 2004, “La transformación del sistema urbano de México, 1900-2000”,
in Conapo, Delimitación de zonas metropolitanas, 2003, Conapo/Sedesol/INEGI/
Instituto de Geografía-UNAM, Mexico.
GARZA, Gustavo, 2005, “Características socioespaciales del sistema de ciudades en
México”, in Banamex, 25 años de desarrollo social en México, Mexico.
GARZA, Gustavo, 2006, “Características socioeconómicas y gestión de las metrópolis
en México”, in Centro de Estudios Sociales y de Opinión Pública, Importancia social,
económica y territorial de los nuevos fenómenos metropolitanos, Cámara de DiputadosLIX legislatura, Mexico.
GARZA, Gustavo and Salvador Rivera, 1995, Dinámica macroeconómica de las ciudades
en México, INEGI/IIS-UNAM/El Colegio de México, Mexico.
GOTTMAN, Jean, 1959, “Megalopolis, or the urbanization of the Northeastern Seaboard”,
in Meyer and Kohn, Reading in Urban Geography, The University of Chicago Press.
HALL, Peter, 1977, The world cities, Weindelfeldand Nicholson, London.
INEGI, 2000, Cuaderno estadístico de la Zona Metropolitana de la Ciudad de México,
INEGI, Gobierno del Distrito Federal/Gobierno del Estado de Mexico, Mexico.
INEGI, undated, xii Censo General de Población y Vivienda, INEGI, Mexico.
KIM Sung, Jong, 1997, Productivity of cities, Ashgate/Aldershot, London.
KLINK, Jeroen, 2005, “Perspectivas recientes sobre la organización metropolitana.
Funciones y gobernabilidad”, in Eduardo Rojas, Juan R. Cuadrado Roura and José
Miguel Fernández (eds.), Gobernar las metrópolis, Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo/
Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Washington.
LOBO, José and Norma Rantisi, 1999, “Investment in infrastructure as determinant of
metropolitan productivity”, in Growth and Change, 30 (1).
MEYER, David, 1998, “World cities as financial centers”, in Fu-Chen Lo y Yue-Man
Yeung (eds), Globalization and the world of large cities, United Nations University
Press, New York.
OHEM, Ana María, 1998, Tendencias de localización de la industria maquiladora en
México, Tesis de Maestría en Desarrollo Urbano, El Colegio de México.
PARIS, Chris, 1994, “New patterns of urban and regional development in Australia:
demographic restructuring and economic change”, in International Journal of Urban
and Regional Research, 4 (18).
PEIRCE, Neal, 1993, Citistates. How urban America can prosper in a competitive world,
Seven Locks Press, Washington.
POON, Jessie, 2003, “Hierarchical tendencies of capital markets among international
financial centers”, in Growth and Change, 34 (2).
RIGBY, D. L. and J. Essletzbichler, 2002, “Agglomeration economies and productivity
differences in US cities”, in Journal of Economic Geography, 2 (4).
ROJAS, Eduardo, Juan Cuadrado Roura and José Miguel Fernández, 2005, Las regiones
metropolitanas de América Latina. Problemas de gobierno y desarrollo.
95
April/June 2007
Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52
CIEAP/UAEM
SASSEN, Saskia, 1991, The global city. New York, London Tokyo, Princeton University
Press, New Jersey.
SECRETARÍA DE PROGRAMACIÓN Y PRESUPUESTO, 1983, x Censo general de
población y vivienda, Mexico.
SEDESOL, 2003, Rezago habitacional, Comisión Nacional de Fomento a la Vivienda,
Mexico.
SEDESOL, 2003, Rezago habitacional, Comisión Nacional de Fomento a la Vivienda,
Mexico.
SEDESOL, CONAPO and INEGI, 2004, Delimitación de las zonas metropolitanas de
México, Mexico.
SOBRINO, Jaime, 2003, Competitividad de las ciudades en México, El Colegio de México,
Mexico.
TAYLOR, Peter and D. Walker, 2001, “World cities: a first multivariate analysis of their
services complexes”, in Urban Studies, 38 (1).
UNIKEL, Luis, Crescencio Ruiz, Gustavo Garza, 1976, El desarrollo urbano de México,
Mexico, El Colegio de México.
UNITED NATIONS, 2001, World urbanization prospects. The 1999 revision, Department
of Economic and Social Affairs, New York.
WHETTEN, Nathan, 1948, Rural Mexico, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
96