URPE (stat request)

[Mikalac Norman S NSSC <MikalacNS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

thanks much, colin, for your source which i'll check out.

the quote you asked about was from an article cited earlier by louis proyect
stating that, in mexico, wages are lower since the advent of NAFTA.  i'll
check out the source of study cited by that article in addition to yours.

since the maquiladoras have now spread farther south, i shouldn't associate
them any more with the mexican states bordering the US.  that's an old habit
of mine formed when i used to visit them in those states long ago.

agreed, it's almost impossible to sort out the specific causes and effects
with so many events happening at once, but i want to cut through ideologies
and opinions to find some FACTS that tend to support the positive or
negative effects of MDC and supra investment on LDC per capita incomes of
their respective poorest income groups.

it would be ideal to have state/provincial data because not all regions
benefit equally from investment.  however, national stats are better than
none.

one simple measure is to correlate investment with lowest quintile per
capita income change over time.  one academic study cited either at PEN or
LBO that i tracked down showed a scatter diagram of IMF investment vs. per
capita GDP change for lowest quintiles in many UN LDCs.  looking at the dot
spread, i would say there was a low positive correlation - not enough to
persuade me decisively one way or the other on the effectiveness of the IMF
in elevating the incomes of the poor.

oh, well, i keep trying!

norm


-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Danby [mailto:danbyc@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 3:04 PM
To: p2; pen-l
>Subject: [PEN-L:1828] Re: RE: URPE (stat request)


> ... i would like sources that show
> stats for yearly per capita income by quintile/decile for mexico
and/or the
> maquiladora mexican states since the advent of NAFTA.

INEGI's website will give you GDP and population by state for 93-98.

http://www.inegi.gob.mx/

I'm not sure what's meant by "maquiladora states," as I think NAFTA
ended that kind of distinction between zones where you could and
couldn't set up duty-free plants.

Data on income distribution are harder to come by, plus it's hard to
find surveys that give you multiple snapshots over time using consistent
methods.  But there may be useful stuff in the 2000 census that could be
compared to earlier censuses.

It's also going to be difficult, if I interpret your request properly,
to strip out the effects of starting NAFTA in January 1994 from the
effects of the abrupt devaluation and financial crisis that started in
December 1994.  In any case most of the relevant trade openings had
occurred well before NAFTA went into effect.  From Mexico's point of
view NAFTA was mainly an investment pact.

You don't say what these quotes are from, but FWIW the broad argument
that neoliberalism has not delivered the goods is sound, as you'll
quickly see if you plot a series of GDP/capita since the 1970s.  But the
contention that Mexico submitted to U.S. "domination" starting in 1982
is a bit forced.  The neoliberal reforms starting under de la Madrid
were a Mexican elite project; involving a rather complex interplay
between the PRI and segments of the Mexican private sector.

Best, Colin