Work and Wages (I/II)

A compilation of economic information, carried out by CIEPAC over the last few months, verifies the backward condition of Chiapas. It is interesting that the greatest part of the information confirming this disadvantage comes from official sources. But, as could be expected, all the information is not clear, convincing or precise. It is often just the opposite: confusing, tampered with, and ambiguous, as we shall see further on.

We shall begin with a few basic economic figures concerning the performance of the GNP. In 1997, Chiapas recorded a Gross Domestic Product of 52 billion pesos (versus 3.2 trillion pesos in the country), with a real growth of 4.2% from 1996 to 1997 (the national median was 7%), a per capita GDP of 15.5 million pesos (33.5 in Mexico), the equivalent of $1962 (compared with $4233 per capita nationally).

That is, Chiapas produced barely 1.6% of the GNP in 1997, and it had a growth rate that was 40% less than the national rate and less than half the per capita national GNP.

A de-industrialization of the economy can be observed in Chiapas, as well as nationally. The small contribution of the Chiapaneco manufacturing industry to the state GDP represented 6.6% in 1985, and it fell to 6.2% in 1993. The decline in the manufacturing sector was more marked at the national level: from 27% in 1988, it fell to 20.1% in 1993. These figures confirm that nationally, as well as in the state of Chiapas, the manufacturing sector has lost strength since the structural adjustment policies - also known as neo-liberal policies - began in 1982 (and with more momentum beginning in 1985). It should be remembered that manufacturers have been the foundation of every "leap forward" by all the countries that are now developed. No country that is now developed has ever, in the history of the world, been able to achieve modernization of their economy based on the primary sector (agricultural and mining) or on the tertiary sector (services). This is true of the countries that achieved the category of developed nations in the last century, as well as in this century, including the "Asian tigers," that is, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

Here we can clearly see one of the most serious structural problems in Mexico and in Chiapas, which have been repeated in many parts of the world. As traditional sectors, such as agriculture and mining, have been losing strength within the economy, and therefore their ability to generate jobs: where are people able to go in search of employment? It has traditionally been manufacturing. This is what occurred in the first country to benefit from the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century - England - and so it has been in all the countries that are now considered to be developed. The unemployed masses from the countryside and the mines could find refuge in the cities, thanks to the vitality of the manufacturing sector.

Now, however, history is not repeating itself. The importance of manufacturing within the GNP has been slowly declining (in Chiapas) or plummeting (in Mexico). This sector has not been creating enough jobs to employ young persons entering the labor force every year, nor for people displaced from agriculture and mining.

As demonstrated by the previous figures, it is the service sector that is occupying a more prominent place in the GNP. Unfortunately, however, this does not mean that they are generating the jobs needed in Chiapas and in the country. On the contrary, it has been demonstrated that the service sector is creating proportionately fewer jobs than other sectors, per dollar invested in them. In addition, the jobs that are being created are for persons with a relatively high level of education. For a country such as Mexico - with a surplus of relatively unskilled labor - and even more so in Chiapas - the numbers suggest only one thing: there will be more unemployment over the mid and long term.

Now, for those (few) persons who do find employment in the formal sector (that is, with a company, institution or established business), we see a tendency for a drop in salaries, nationally as well as at the state level, but even more markedly in Chiapas, as we see in the following table:

Several interesting figures emerge from this table. In 1995, at the national level, 60.5% of the population had an income of less then two minimum salaries. During the same year in Chiapas, the corresponding figure was almost 66%. The following year, in 1996, the corresponding figures are 66% nationally, and an incredible 83% in Chiapas, with the state leading in marginalization rates. Note in particular the increase in the percentage of persons in Chiapas who are supposedly "employed," but who do not receive any income: from 19.2% in 1995, to 30.0% in 1996, that is, a 50% increase in just one year.

The tendency is clear both nationally and in Chiapas. More and more people receiving less income. The minimum salaries in Mexico are currently: for Zone "A" (which includes Mexico City): 34.45 pesos per day (US$3.63), and for Zone "C" (which includes Chiapas): 29.50 pesos per day (US$3.13). This daily wage in Chiapas is equal to 4 liters of milk a day, to 1 kilo of cheese, to 2 kilos of eggs, to 2 liters of oil, to a kilo and a half of chicken, to 2 kilos of detergent, or to transportation from a town in Los Altos to San Cristóbal de Las Casas.

To put it in other terms, 17.5% of the population in Chiapas earn between US$3.13 and US$6.25. 35.7% earn less than US$3.13 per day, and 30% of the population earn nothing at all.

The absurdity of not only the reality of the majority of Chiapanecos - but also of the official figures - does not end here. According to the National Institute of Geographic and Computer Statistics (INEGI), in "Women in Chiapas, 1995," in Chiapas - where 26% of the population above the age of 15 is illiterate, according to official sources, and where there is a high rate of malnutrition, poverty, marginalization and disadvantage - women have income equal to, or greater than, the men:

This apparent contradiction can be explained by looking at the figures of the most recent census at the municipal level in Chiapas (1990). There, in a state mostly rural and disadvantaged, the majority of the women state that they are "not economically active" (or it is stated for them, because many times their spouses answer the surveys for them). That is, a man who works in the fields declares himself to be economically active, while a woman who does that - and other domestic work - due to the way in which her role in generating income has been traditionally conceived - is characterized as being "inactive."

And so the universe of "economically active" women is drastically reduced in a state such as Chiapas, in comparison with the universe of men in the same category. And, for obvious reasons, those that are there would be women from the cities, who have a much higher level of education than do women in the country, with jobs that could, in effect, pay one, two or three minimum salaries. And so the percentage of women earning more than the minimum salary would be greater than that of men: the universe of the men polled is larger, and it includes more men in the rural areas, where income is relatively lower.

In the International Pact of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (PIDESC), the member states of the Pact, such as Mexico, committed themselves to presenting periodic reports to the Economic and Social Council - the primary coordinating body for economic and social work of the United Nations and of those specialized bodies and institutions that make up the "United Nations System." Among the responsibilities of those bodies is examining international economic and social problems of a world-wide or interdisciplinary nature; formulating economic, social, cultural, educational, public health and related recommendations; and holding consultations with non-governmental organizations that are concerned with those issues heard by the council.

In Article 6 of the PIDESC, the Right to Work, it states: "1. - The States Party to the present Pact recognize the right to work, which includes the right of all persons to have the opportunity to earn a living through work that is freely chosen and accepted, and they will take adequate steps to guarantee this right." It adds: "2. - Among the measures that each one of the States Party to this Pact will have to adopt in order to achieve the complete effectiveness of this right, should be: professional technical guidance and training, the preparation of programs, regulations and techniques designed to achieve a continual economic, social and cultural development and the full and productive occupation - under conditions that guarantee fundamental political and economic freedom - of the human person."

Meanwhile, Article 7 of the PIDESC, on the Right to equitable working conditions, states that: "The States Party to the present Pact recognize the right of all persons to enjoy equitable and satisfactory working conditions that especially ensure: a) Remuneration that minimally provides all workers with: i) An equitable salary, equal to work of equal value, without any kind of distinction; in particular, it should ensure women working conditions no less than those of men, with equal wages for equal work; ii) Dignified conditions of existence for them and for their families, in accordance with the regulations of the present Pact; b) Security and hygiene in the workplace; c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted, within their work, to the higher category that corresponds to them, with no considerations other than the factors of length of service and ability; d) Breaks, the enjoyment of free time, a reasonable limitation of working hours and regular paid vacations, as well as remuneration for holidays."

And thus official figures have to make do as best they can, because the accounts are tallied from the heights of a country which wishes to be baptized as "first world," by NAFTA or by the Organization for Economic Development Cooperation (OCDE). Only 29 countries belong to the latter, the exclusive club of the world's wealthiest.

Chiapas could not be further away from all that. And, if we continue to dig around in the official figures, we will find more surprises. According to the Chiapas Government Report 1996-1998 -as regards authorized public expenditures - in the municipality and capital of the state, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, current spending reached 76.56%, and direct investment was only 23.43%; while direct investment was 46.5% in San Cristóbal de Las Casas. The results in the poorest municipalities, however, were different: 3.4% of current expenditures in Amatenango del Valle, 5.5% in Chenalhó, 3% in San Andrés, 7.7% in La Trinitaria, 5.2% in Salto de Agua and, to draw your attention, 21% of current spending in Tila, a municipality equally poor, but overrun with police forces, soldiers and alleged paramilitaries, accused of receiving public monies, such as those in which the former head of the VII Military Region, General Renán Castillo, acted as honor witness.

Note: Some of the figures mentioned here come from a research project carried out by CIEPAC and supported by the Convergence of Civil Organizations for Democracy, under their program for Indicators of Economic, Social and Cultural Development project.

Note: If you wish to be placed on a list to receive this English version of the Bulletin, or the Spanish, or both, please direct a request to: ciepac@laneta.apc.org and indicate whether you wish to receive the bulletin in plain text or as a Word 7 for Windows 95 attachment.

Note: If you use this information, cite the source and our email address. We are grateful to the persons and institutions who have given us their comments on these Bulletins. CIEPAC, A.C. is a non-government and non-profit organization, and your support is necessary for us to be able to continue offering you this news and analysis service. If you would like to contribute, in any amount, we would infinitely appreciate your remittance to the bank account in the name of:

CIEPAC, A.C.
Bank: Banamex
Account number: 7049672 Sucursal 386
San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, México.
You will also need to use an ABA number:
BNMXMXMM

Thank you! CIEPAC

Telephone:
in México: 01 967 674 5168
from outside Mexico:: +52 967 674 5168