The Two Mexicos

The Economic Schism That Divides Mexico

In the town where I lived in California there were, of course, many Mexican immigrants. And many of the immigrants were (and are) undocumented. In speaking with some of these undocumented immigrants in those days, one thing always struck me: When I would ask "de dónde eres?" I would more often than not hear "soy de Oaxaca" in response. Why were there so many immigrants from Oaxaca? Oaxaca is the second most southerly state in Mexico; I would have expected the majority of immigrants to have said they were from a more northern state, someplace closer to the U.S.-Mexico border.

What I didn't realize back then was that there is a significant economic divide in Mexico; so significant, in fact, that there is this notion of "Two Mexicos" that one frequently hears about, especially in political and economic contexts. And so many of the immigrants I encountered were from this "second" Mexico, the poorer Mexico; the place where, understandably, so many people wanted to escape from.

The two Mexicos are delineated by geography: north and south. And the differences between the two - from an economic perspective - are startling. The southern Mexican states - as defined through the lens of the "Two Mexicos" are categorized as the South-3: the states of Guerrero, Oaxaca, and Chiapas; and the South-6: the South-3 states plus Michoacán, Puebla, and Veracruz.

The South-3 states are highlighted in yellow; the South-6 includes the South-3 plus the 3 states highlighted in green.

According to Mexico's Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social (National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy) or CONEVAL, a little over 70% of the population of the South-3 states live in poverty and about 26% live in extreme poverty, as compared to Mexico's overall national poverty rates of 44% and 7.6% (extreme poverty). Strikingly, these 3 states represent only a tenth of Mexico's population, yet nearly one third of Mexico's extremely poor population.

Looking at the South-6, this region represents 1/4 of Mexico's total population, but a full 40% and 60% of Mexico's poor and extreme poor, respectively.

Why is the South So Poor?

Of course, there are a variety of factors that contribute to the poverty of the South-6 states. These factors are geographical, historical and sociological - and they are complex and worthy of a more in-depth discussion. But from a 10,000-foot perspective, the primary contributing factors are:

• Geographic complexity: the South-6 states are generally quite mountainous, with deep valleys and high peaks. The transportation challenges in these states - together with their relative remoteness from central and northern Mexico - has resulted in a lack of industrial investment here. None of the top 100 Mexican companies has a foothold in the South-6 states.

• Indigenous heterogeneity: these states have larger and more varied indigenous populations than other states in Mexico. The indigenous groups in these states don't share a common language among each other (and in the South-3, over 20% of the population does not speak Spanish), which has resulted in less political organization and cooperation - and, in turn, more corrupt and inept politicians.

• Inattention: before the election of Mexico's current president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Mexico did not have a president from a southern state since Porfirio Díaz, who's tenure in office ended in 1911. Mexico's politicians in the national arena have largely ignored the south, empty campaign promises notwithstanding.

What about Yucatán, Quintana Roo, Campeche and Tabasco?

These states are also in the south of Mexico, but they don't suffer the same levels of poverty of the other 6. Why? For starters, the states on the Yucatan peninsula have a flatter geography, with a lot of jungle that is mostly un-populated. The peninsula is also home to Mexico's most well-known and visited beaches, therefore it has a massive influx of tourist dollars. And Tabasco is one of Mexico's richest oil-producing states. Additionally, the indigenous populations in these states are not as diverse as in the South-6 states, so these states do not have the same level of indigenous heterogeneity and multilingualism as do the South-6.

So what about Andrés Manuel López Obrador?

In my article about the challenges to democracy in Mexico, I noted that I might write more about Andrés Manuel López Obrador's rise to power. I'm not going to keep that promise here, but I will elaborate a bit: there are 2 things Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) had going for him when he ran for office: he wasn't a member of Mexico's Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) party, whose systemic and sustained corruption finally sent Mexican voters fleeing from that party. And he was from the south (Tabasco), and southern voters, in addition to being sick and tired of the PRI, were primed for, and unified behind, a presidential candidate from their historically neglected region. AMLO's southern roots played a huge role in propelling him to his current position as President of Mexico. AMLO proudly refers to himself as a sureño (southerner), and promised to do more for the south.

The distances between promises and actions are often vast. No exception here. To date, AMLO's big projects in the south - the Maya Train and new refineries in Tabasco - have only helped southern states that aren't part of the South-6, namely Tabasco and the tourist-rich states in the Yucatán, where the Maya Train is being built to shuttle tourists from one giant beach resort to the next.

So, the southern president doesn't appear to be helping reduce the crushing poverty and economic challenges of the south in any meaningful way; at least not in a way that people in the South-6 had hoped for and expected.

Economic Promise?

Although Mexico's overall economic health is on a relatively robust uptick, the phenomenon of "The Two Mexicos" persists. Unless Mexico figures out how to get business and industry interested in the south, there doesn't appear to be an obvious bridge across this economic divide. And this is a shame; there are so many cultural riches in Mexico’s south that have inhabited the land for thousands of years. Mexico as a whole would benefit by incorporating the economic wealth that permeates its other regions into these groups. Perhaps some upcoming administration will find the energy and political will to affect some positive changes for the South-6. We can hope.