Scientific Information System Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal

Gustavo Garza Metropolitan urbanization in : regulations and socieconomic characteristics Papeles de Población, vol. 13, núm. 52, abril-junio, 2007, pp. 77-108, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México México

Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=11205204

Papeles de Población, ISSN (Printed Version): 1405-7425 [email protected] Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México México

How to cite Complete issue More information about this article Journal's homepage

www.redalyc.org Non-Profit Academic Project, developed under the Open Acces Initiative 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, Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico: analizar la evolución del sistema urbano de regulations and socieconomic characteristics México de 1980 a 2005, para evidenciar la creciente concentración de población en las The objectives of this paper are, in the first metrópolis de más de 500 mil habitantes. En place, to analyze the evolution of the urban segundo lugar, se examina la productividad de system in Mexico from 1980 to 2005, in order las 56 metrópolis existentes, así como su to demonstrate the increasing concentration of pobreza endémica, déficit habitacional, population in the metropolises with more than subempleo estructural e índice de desarrollo five hundred thousand inhabitants; secondly, humano metropolitano, con el fin de determinar the productivity of the fifty-six existing la gravedad de su problemática económico- metropolises as well as their endemic poverty, social. Finalmente, se reflexiona sobre las housing deficit, structural underemployment cuestiones de gobernabilidad y administración and their indexes of metropolitan human de las ciudades, considerando que su buen development are examined, all of this with the desempeño es indispensable para el correcto aim of determining the seriousness of their funcionamiento de las empresas privadas y, por socio-economic problematic. Finally, some ende, para que el país sea internacionalmente reflections on the issues of governance and competitivo. administration of the are presented, considering that their good performance is Palabras clave: urbanización, sistema urbano, indispensable for the correct operation of the concentración demográfica, metrópolis, private companies and, therefore, for the México. country’s international competitiveness.

Key words: urbanization, urban system, demographical concentration, metropolises, Mexico.

etropolises in Mexico are places where the concentration of the primary and secondary socioeconomic activities takes place. In them, Mwe 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 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 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, 1980- 2005

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 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 ( with 13 million inhabitants in 1980 and 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: (4.1 percent), Querétaro (10.5 percent), Pachuca (6.6 percent), (6.6 percent) and 8.7 percent in San Juan del Río (Garza, 2003: 170-199). , 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), (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 (6.2 percent), (4.2 percent) and (5.1 percent). In fourth place we find the manufacturing , such as , that grows 5.6 percent; , 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), (8.4 percent), (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 6 among which 65.6 were concentrated in a system of 349 cities. 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 . Despite this minor pressure,

6 The census of 2000 was performed from 7th to 18th February. 7 The average of urban population in the developed countries in 2000 is 76 percent (United Nations, 2001: 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. (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 . 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 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 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 15 000 20 000 Total urban to 19 999 to 49 999 Subtotal

1980 Total population 66 847 Urban population 36 739 947 2 947 3 894 % 100.0 2.5 7.8 10.3 Cities 227 55 96 151 Urbanization degree 55.0 Urbanization rate 1.5 1990 Total population 81 250 Urban population 51 491 1 396 3 755 5 151 % 100.0 2.7 7.3 10.0 Cities 304 80 124 204 Urbanization degree 63.4 Urbanization rate 1.5 2000 Total population 97 483 Urban population 65 617 1 205 4 774 5 979 % 100.0 1.8 7.3 9.1 Cities 349 70 163 233 Urbanization degree 67.3 Urbanization rate 0.7 2005 Total population 103 263 Urban population 71 499 1 338 4 942 6 280 % 100.0 1.9 6.9 8.8 Cities 367 78 166 244 Urbanization Degree 69.2 Urbanization rate 0.5

P.T.O.

72 Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... /G. Garza

TABLE 1 MEXICO: POPULATOIN DISTRIBUTION BY CITY SIZE, 1980-2005 (CONTINUATION)

Medium sized 50 000 100 000 to 99 999 to 499 999 Subtotal

1980 Total population Urban population 1 633 10 275 11 908 % 4.3 27.3 31.7 Cities 24 44 68 Urbanization degree Urbanization rate 1990 Total population Urban population 2 800 10 990 13 790 % 5.4 21.3 26.8 Cities 39 42 81 Urbanization degree Urbanization rate 2000 Total population Urban population 3 259 10 815 14 074 % 5.0 16.5 21.4 Cities 46 42 88 Urbanization degree Urbanization rate 2005 Total population Urban population 3 268 10 977 14 245 % 4.6 15.4 19.9 Cities 47 45 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) Large 500 000 1000 000 to 999 999 and more Subtotal

1980 Total population Urban population 2 553 18 384 20 937 % 6.8 48.9 55.7 Cities 4 4 8 Urbanization degree Urbanization rate 1990 Total population Urban population 10 076 22 474 32 550 % 19.6 43.6 63.2 Cities 15 4 19 Urbanization degree Urbanization rate 2000 Total population Urban population 12 590 32 974 45 564 % 19.2 50.3 69.4 Cities 19 9 28 Urbanization degree Urbanization rate 2005 Total population Urban population 15 556 35 419 50 974 % 21.8 49.5 71.3 Cities 22 9 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 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, and , 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 five- year 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, , , 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 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 , 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). 9 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.

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, , 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 , 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 % 1990 % 2000 % 2005 %

Urbana population 36 740 100.0 51 491 100.0 65 617 100.0 71 499 100.0 Metropolitan 25 272 68.8 41 689 81.0 54 477 83.0 59 360 83.0 Non-metropolitan 11 468 31.2 9 801 19.0 11 140 17.0 12 139 17.0 Number of cities 227 100.0 304 100.0 349 100.0 366 100.0 Metropolitans 26 11.5 51 16.8 56 16.0 57 15.6 Non-metropolitans 201 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 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. , 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 Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52 CIEAP/UAEM index index Human P.T.O. development development inhab. Per 100 100 Per perks Total Total perks without without Occupied Occupied

d (%) n.a. Structural unemployment unemployment

c 1998 IGP TABLE 3 Per capita Per

b 659 762 38.0 617 008 609 829 29771 45.7 27.9 29339 47227 8.7 20.8 59.8 8.8 24 272 49.7 3.7 43.0 32 344 21 171 0.799 5.2 3.5 0.755 0.839 Population Poor (%) Poor Population a MEXICO: SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS BY METROPOLITAN ZONES, 2000 Metropolitanzones (2001) delay Housing 1 2 Mexico City 3 Guadalajara 4 Monterrey 5 Puebla 6 Toluca 7 León 8 Tijuana 17 968 895 9 Juárez Ciudad 10 531 677 3 Torreón San11 Luis Potosí 466 243 3 12 Mérida 33.9 Querétaro13 31.2 Mexicali14 674 892 1 34123 870 15410 Culiacán 1 817 23.0 218 1 262 35 Aguascalientes16 859 279 1 240 274 1 Acapulco17 850 828 414 45 39.1 18 Cuernavaca Chihuahua 291 007 1 44.0 19 27.3 15.6 455 34 Tampico20 34.5 24.7 284 47 31.2 21 Saltillo 842 188 787 341 390 26 8.2 22 -Minatitlán 735 25 11.9 31.3 727 582 576 28 764 602 984 37 23 Hermosillo 47.5 745 537 24 558 784 474 36 20.9 37.0 46.4 31.3 25 Veracruz 722 499 677 117 37.4 9.9 Reynosa26 555 31.9 88 22.7 7.3 25050 51709 27 Tuxtla Gutiérrez 348 33.2 72 3.1 9.2 5.8 12.1 Villahermosa28 53.7 31271 36098 655 760 Celaya 49.2 2.4 23199 392 61 48.4 5.7 21.7 32.1 637 273 0.813 2.2 620 532 792 42 16345 51.0 39.0 194 46 44.1 42615 16.3 12.1 0.805 32.7 781 34 3.2 493 47 523 482 17 299 20.2 38.9 0.837 593 181 9.7 27.7 3.0 22093 3.8 596 524 28 692 34.7 8.2 520 308 44.6 44.5 0.776 2.7 3.7 61318 16.4 2.0 15441 46.1 40.2 28 029 24 425 0.775 6.6 33.3 35.8 0.841 2.8 510 438 17 083 46.0 32.5 0.794 26 193 0.805 37.8 15396 0.826 28543 63.7 8.1 25 595 3.3 3.1 27767 0.811 31.8 28619 18.6 45 102 2.3 12.8 3.4 38.8 15 784 3.4 0.797 0.811 43.4 30.2 31688 18.6 6.2 0.808 28.9 24 626 0.842 2.3 57.3 n.d. 20.0 0.803 16 025 18 938 0.806 57.5 47.5 3.8 0.823 25 932 2.5 23 461 8.9 44.1 n.d. 3.1 19 331 0.813 19 605 5.0 0.820 4.0 0.818 55.5 3.7 3.7 16 448 0.733 0.844 0.826 0.794 3.2 0.760

82 Metropolitan urbanization in Mexico:... /G. Garza index P.T.O. Human development inhab. Per 100 Per Total Occupied without perks perks without

d (%) Structural unemployment unemployment c 1998 IGP IGP TABLE 3 per capita per (CONTINUATION) b Population (%) Poor a MEXICO: SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS BY METROPOLITAN ZONES, 2000 Metropolitan zones (2001) delay Housing 29 Durango 30 Xalapa 31 Rica Poza 32 Irapuato 33 Cancún 34 Oaxaca 35 Matamoros 436 491 36 Mazatlán 37 559 480 419 443 Ensenada 38 36.5 Mochis Los 134 440 39 Obregón 37.0 Ciudad 815 419 54.140 301 15 Tepic 770 419 141 41 418 188 12 41.4 Orizaba 431 9 42 509 380 33.6 Cuautla 823 18 43 730 370 39.6 31.8 Laredo 11.3 Nuevo 290 356 146 359 44 959 29 Monclova 45 n.a. 178 12 33.1122 40 n.a. Pachuca 46 30.9 30.8 44.9 33.9 766 Uruapan 21 8.6 47 286 13 840 342 483 32 Victoria Ciudad 530 322 n.a. 466 33 n.a. 572 27 915 310 n.a. 29.0004 19 823 321 9.9 858 28 2.7 52.6 32.8 899 302 529 14 n.a. 45.9 44.2 31.1 4.0661 22 n.a. 59.9 47.8 469 16 n.a. 6.5 431 287 n.a. 37.7 063 263 648 25 190 16 0.828 052 16 699 265 024 18 3.3 28.2392 14 n.a. 0.794 5.4672 11 30.8 0.755 n.a. 270 48 33.7 3.9 n.a. n.a. 4.3638 14 12.9 46.1 884 0.769 11 111 12 15.9 736 14 11.1 541 10 0.849 3.1372 13 n.a. 0.813 3.9 0.821 3.3 52.0 3.4 11.5 57.5 46.0 982 8 953 15 0.815 19.6 744 11 n.a. n.a. 0.778 n.a. 0.834 572 14 0.798 41.6 2.6 4.9627 7 3.8 48.4 n.a. 4.5437 7 n.a. 440 9 0.798 064 12 0.754 2.5 0.815 0.782 2.6 3.6 4.5 0.822 0.839 0.818 0.771

83 April/June 2007 Papeles de POBLACIÓN No. 52 CIEAP/UAEM index index 2006: Human of human development development ted with values or deviate from inhab. inhab. Per 100 100 Per Total Occupied without perks without d (%) Structural employment employment

c 1998 IGP IGP TABLE 3 per capitaper (CONTINUATION)

b Population (%) Poor a MEXICO: SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS BY METROPOLITAN ZONES, 2000 Data from 1998 in million of MXP (in 1993) for the industry, commerce and services. Percentage of “equivalent poverty”, this is, the number total poor multiplied by “poverty intensity” (magnitude in which po Addition of open employment and workers under minimum wage. Information from 2000, except for Reynosa, 2001. Metropolitan zones are conformed according to Garza 2003: table AM-3. zones Metropolitan delay(2001) Housing 48 Vallarta Puerto 49 Zacatecas 50 Tehuacán 51 Tlaxcala 52 Córdoba 53 536 244 Zamora 54 55 965 232 Guaymas 33.9 56 258 226 Delicias 263 26 149 225 31.9 341 223 44.9 216 14 048 216 41.6 071 23 n.a. 766 210 46.1 316 180 760 16 40.5 444 483 156 29 21.8 29.2 n.a.620 21 n.a. 34.4 554 10 117 12 16.7 29.8 990 17 43.4 n.a. 559 23 420 5 4.3 n.a. n.a. 442 10 62.7 14.5 n.a. 730 7 2.3 n.a. 0.802 n.a.206 10 4.6 n.a. 51.3 3.4 624 6 0.830 n.a. 754 5 4.6 0.806 797 7 n.a. 0.788 3.1 507 4 2.7 0.794 4.3 0.763 2.9 0.842 0.803 0.804 the established rule) ( Damián, 2006: table A-2 and text). table A-2. between 0 and 1, considering an adequate level from 0.8; housing data, SEDESOL (undated) 2003; poor percentage Damian, Source; Population data, Garza 2003: table AM-3; per capital GDP; Sobrino: A20; employment data (www.inegi.gob.mx); index development. Information at municipal level, so the municipalites in each metropolitan area were averaged. The index is calcula a b c d

84 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 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 , Mexicaltzingo, , Zinacantepec, Almoloya de Juarez and , 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, Coatzacoalcos- Minatitlan, 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, and a maximum of 30.2 in Tuxtla Gutierrez, (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 , 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 (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. 17 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.

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 , 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 (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 Diputados- LIX 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