Poverty trap in Mexico, 1992-2016

Abstract

<jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title> <jats:p>The paper aims to prove that between 1992 and 2016, people in poverty as a proportion of the total population has not been reduced. In particular, food poverty (FP) represented an average of 22%, despite the fact that gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and GDP, social development expenditure and food programme expenditure (both as GDP proportion) grew by 0.96%, 1.9%, 2.7% and −17.4% on an annual average, respectively.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title> <jats:p>There are non-linear relationships between economic growth and food poverty expenditure to reduce poverty. Three econometric models were estimated as follows: a linear model [ordinary least squares (OLS)] that addresses the capability of the economic growth to reduce FP (which detects a structural change in 2007) and three models of regime change (Markov–Switching Regression) that prove the existence of two different regimes.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title> <jats:p>The author proved that economic growth has lost the capability to reduce poverty and that there are decreasing effects of expenditure in addressing poverty since 2007. These results point out that Mexico is in a poverty trap and suggests that for the economy as for life and even more in the case of social (public) policies, more is not necessarily better than less. Therefore, the author suggests that the resources allocated in response to poverty may well have generated perverse incentives that yielded the opposite results.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title> <jats:p>There is no official measure of the public expenditure for poverty. Therefore, an accurate series was built to estimate the government effort and do the econometrics that proves the main hypothesis. This is another contribution.</jats:p> </jats:sec>

Identificando clubes de convergencia en Ecuador a nivel cantonal

“…Sin duda, México es el país con más contribuciones en este tema (aunque no son exhaustivas), tanto en trabajos que utilizan métodos paramétricos (Chiquiar, 2005;Carrillo, 2009;Rodríguez, Mendoza, y Venegas, 2015;Mendoza, German, Monfort, y Ordóñez, 2020) como en aquellos que usan herramientas no paramétricas (Aroca, Bosch, y Maloney, 2005;García R. , 2005;Borrayo y Castañeda, 2011;Loría, 2020). En todos ellos, hay diferentes resultados en términos de convergencia, dependiendo del período de análisis.…”

Efficiency Comparison of Pro-Growth Poverty Reduction Spending before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Study of Regional Governments in Indonesia

“…The relationship between economic growth and poverty reduction is still debated. A few prior studies have found that economic growth influences poverty (Ebunoluwa and Yusuf 2018;Kouadio and Gakpa 2021), while other studies have found that economic growth cannot reduce poverty (Loría 2020;Škare and Družeta 2016).…”

A comparative analysis of urban development, economic level, and COVID-19 cases in Mexico City

“…The distribution of the population is around of 67 % living in cities, as a consequence the rural areas have very high poverty levels. Almost 46 % of Mexico population lives below the poverty line, making Mexico rank first in income inequality among the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries ( Iniguez, 2014 ; Iniguez and Kurosaki, 2018 ; Loría, 2020 ; Keeley, 2015 ).…”

“…During 2019, Mexico’s deaths were due to illnesses and health-related problems (88.4 % ), while 11.6 % were due to external causes, such as accidents, homicides, suicides, and others. It should be noted that Mexico‘s deaths due to health problems have three similar causes (both men and women): heart disease (20.7 % ), diabetes mellitus (14 % ), and malignant tumors (11.9 % ) ( Loría, 2020 ).…”