S O C I E T A L C L E A V A G E S
ECONOMIC:
Social Class
I N T R O D U C T I O N
One of the major societal cleavages in Mexico is, unsurprisingly, social class. In a country where the richest man in the world (Carlos Slim) and a poverty headcount ratio at poverty line is 51.3% coexist, there is bound to be a great wealth gap in the country. According to Worldbank.org, the poorest 10% of Mexico holds 2% of the average income share, while the richest 10% of Mexico holds 37.5% of the average income share. Mexico also sports a Gini index of 47.2, in a scale where 0 signifies total equality and 100 signifies total inequality in distribution of wealth. The graph below shows the amount of poverty Mexico has suffered from, and according to the chart below, the numbers have been increasing since 2006.
Most of the wealth gap in Mexico is divided by regional and ethnic roots, making social class a cross-cutting cleavage.
People in rural areas who have little to no access to productive land are among the poorest in the country, while people in urban areas have benefited from the rapid industrialization after the 1940's, making them a lot richer than most people in rural areas.
Also, the northern part of Mexico tends to be in better economic conditions due to its proximity to the United States and the existence of maquiladoras, or manufacturing and assembly plants. In contrast, the southern and central regions of Mexico have inconvenient transportation, infertile land, and bad weather, making it economically unstable.
There is also ethnic tension tied to social class, where Peninsulares, people who were originally Spanish officials that ruled Mexico, have the most power, while the Amerindians, the native descents of Mexico, have the least power.
This economic divide between the rich and poor results in higher infant mortality rates, lower levels of education, and shorter life expectancy among the poor.
People in rural areas who have little to no access to productive land are among the poorest in the country, while people in urban areas have benefited from the rapid industrialization after the 1940's, making them a lot richer than most people in rural areas.
Also, the northern part of Mexico tends to be in better economic conditions due to its proximity to the United States and the existence of maquiladoras, or manufacturing and assembly plants. In contrast, the southern and central regions of Mexico have inconvenient transportation, infertile land, and bad weather, making it economically unstable.
There is also ethnic tension tied to social class, where Peninsulares, people who were originally Spanish officials that ruled Mexico, have the most power, while the Amerindians, the native descents of Mexico, have the least power.
This economic divide between the rich and poor results in higher infant mortality rates, lower levels of education, and shorter life expectancy among the poor.
H I S T O R Y
The ethnic aspect that is tied to social class have roots dating back to when Mexico was controlled by Spain. Back then, the Spanish determined social class with the color of one's skin. Basically, they developed the system of "the whiter the better," a system that all self-indulgent European countries were inclined to follow. The Peninsulares, people who were originally Spanish officials that ruled Mexico, had the most power, while the Amerindians, the native descents of Mexico, naturally had the least power. The chart below shows the different levels of "white" people could be and their placement on the social class. The people under "others" were Afro-Mexicans and other mixed races.
Although social class in the 21st century is not completely determined by race, remnants of the "whiter is better" mentality still stays. Most of the Amerindians today are part of the working class and live in rural areas. The Mestizos, Mexicans mixed with European or Indian descendants, possess most of Mexico's wealth.
Another major contributing factor to the rising class disparity in Mexico is the liberalization of the economy in the 1990s after the signing of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Before NAFTA, Mexico had a protectionist trade policy, where there was import substitution, high restrictions on foreign investment, a controlled exchange rate, and a nationalized oil industry. However, due to the declining standard of living and debt crisis of 1982, Mexico started to privatize industries to spur economic development, increase exports, and create jobs.
NAFTA was signed by Carlos Salinas de Gortari, in 1990, with U.S. President George H.W. Bush. It was an attempt to promote Mexico's economy by opening up trade with the United States. Carlos Salinas de Gortari wanted to change the unevenly distributed wealth in the country by opening up more jobs after the increase of exports and privatized industries becomes a part of Mexico. Although NAFTA did manage to open up more jobs and industrialize Mexico more efficiently, the agricultural sector experienced high amounts of work displacement. The agricultural sector, mostly dominated by the rural lower class, was not faring well with the competition of cheap imports that came from the United States. Their businesses fell, and with that poverty increased. The upper class, however, was able to benefit from NAFTA with industrialization spurred from American influence, and a rising class of well-educated and affluent elite began to emerge. Thus a greater wealth gap appeared between the social classes of Mexico.
Aside economic indiscretion of the Mexican government affecting heavily the societal cleavage of social class in Mexico, Mexican politics in the 20th century was dominated by the elite class and the PRIs (Partido Revolucionario Institucional), or the Institutional Revolutionary party. The PRI was made up of a confederation of political and military bosses with labor unions, peasant organizations, and regional political parties. Although they claimed to seek equality among the classes, the PRI has often been indicted with using the PRI as a stepping stone to personal enrichment. The PRI had connections with the elite, and they often used corruption and force to sway the election into the direction to the benefit of the elite class. Voter turnout was high in 1994, with a 78%, but in 2006, it declined to a 60%. The history of political participation being skewed by the existence of political parties or the elite has been prevalent in Mexico since the 20th century, and traces of it seeping into the 21st century.
Although social class in the 21st century is not completely determined by race, remnants of the "whiter is better" mentality still stays. Most of the Amerindians today are part of the working class and live in rural areas. The Mestizos, Mexicans mixed with European or Indian descendants, possess most of Mexico's wealth.
Another major contributing factor to the rising class disparity in Mexico is the liberalization of the economy in the 1990s after the signing of NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Before NAFTA, Mexico had a protectionist trade policy, where there was import substitution, high restrictions on foreign investment, a controlled exchange rate, and a nationalized oil industry. However, due to the declining standard of living and debt crisis of 1982, Mexico started to privatize industries to spur economic development, increase exports, and create jobs.
NAFTA was signed by Carlos Salinas de Gortari, in 1990, with U.S. President George H.W. Bush. It was an attempt to promote Mexico's economy by opening up trade with the United States. Carlos Salinas de Gortari wanted to change the unevenly distributed wealth in the country by opening up more jobs after the increase of exports and privatized industries becomes a part of Mexico. Although NAFTA did manage to open up more jobs and industrialize Mexico more efficiently, the agricultural sector experienced high amounts of work displacement. The agricultural sector, mostly dominated by the rural lower class, was not faring well with the competition of cheap imports that came from the United States. Their businesses fell, and with that poverty increased. The upper class, however, was able to benefit from NAFTA with industrialization spurred from American influence, and a rising class of well-educated and affluent elite began to emerge. Thus a greater wealth gap appeared between the social classes of Mexico.
Aside economic indiscretion of the Mexican government affecting heavily the societal cleavage of social class in Mexico, Mexican politics in the 20th century was dominated by the elite class and the PRIs (Partido Revolucionario Institucional), or the Institutional Revolutionary party. The PRI was made up of a confederation of political and military bosses with labor unions, peasant organizations, and regional political parties. Although they claimed to seek equality among the classes, the PRI has often been indicted with using the PRI as a stepping stone to personal enrichment. The PRI had connections with the elite, and they often used corruption and force to sway the election into the direction to the benefit of the elite class. Voter turnout was high in 1994, with a 78%, but in 2006, it declined to a 60%. The history of political participation being skewed by the existence of political parties or the elite has been prevalent in Mexico since the 20th century, and traces of it seeping into the 21st century.
E F F E C T S O N P O L I T I C A L P A R T I C I P A T I O N
The major form of political participation executed to counter the increasing problem of the wealth gap in Mexico is protesting. In 1996, a group of peasants carried machetes to the huge front gate of the La Quinta Piedra, a 20-acre mansion owned by a relative to the Mexican president at the time, Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The peasants banged on the front gate, disturbing the owner's brunch, protesting that the mansion belonged not to the Occellis occupying it but to the community as a result of the Mexican Revolution in 1910. The peasants managed to create so much commotion that the Occelli family escaped the mansion and opened their gates, allowing the peasants to rush in and take over. Protests such as this exists even today, in Mexico. On September 9th, 2013, 40,000 Mexicans rallied the streets in protest of the new tax plan initiated by President Enrique Pena Nieto, which would raise $27 million for the soon-to-be privatized Mexican oil company Pemex. The new tax would be placed on the middle class, and the 2% rise in taxation will cause many of the people currently residing in the comfortable middle class to plummet down a class. This change will possibly create a higher economic disparity in the country, and the yells of the protesters show that they are highly aware of the consequences that may come with these reforms.
H E L P F U L R E S O U R C E S
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/eco/summary/v012/12.1.esquivel.html
http://www.hierarchystructure.com/mexico-social-hierarchy/
http://www.mexicomapxl.com/society-and-culture/
http://countrystudies.us/mexico/84.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/20/world/income-gap-in-mexico-grows-and-so-do-protests.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://rt.com/business/mexico-tax-oil-reform-612/
http://www.hierarchystructure.com/mexico-social-hierarchy/
http://www.mexicomapxl.com/society-and-culture/
http://countrystudies.us/mexico/84.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/20/world/income-gap-in-mexico-grows-and-so-do-protests.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
http://rt.com/business/mexico-tax-oil-reform-612/