MEXICAN MIGRATION, ITS HISTORY AND EFFECTS

Fernando Lozano-Ascencio
Centro Regional de Investigaciones Multidisciplinarias of Mexico's Universidad
Nacional Autónoma.

Introduction

During the second half of the 20th century, the decline in mortality and fertility rates in Mexico, a process known as demographic transition, caused a radical change in the population dynamics, particularly the population growth rate and age structure. Between 1970 and 2000 the population growth rate decreased by half and the percentage of people below fifteen years of age fell from 46 to 36%. Nowadays, although Mexico's mortality and fertility rates remain low, Mexican migration to the United States is contributing to low population growth rates. Just from 1995 to 2000 an average of over 300,000 Mexicans emigrated annually to the U.S. Had this population remained in Mexico, the annual population growth rate would be 1.9 rather than the current rate of 1.6.

This substantial increase in the Mexican born population in the U.S. (8.8 million in 2000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau) has resulted in a significant surge in the amount of family remittances sent by Mexican emigrants. According to data from the Bank of Mexico, during the year 2001 approximately US$ 8,895 million entered Mexico from remittances from abroad. This amount is higher than the total amount of revenues derived from foreign tourism.

I.     Recent Evolution of Mexico's Demographic Dynamics

During the last three decades of the 20th century, Mexico's population practically doubled, from 48.2 million in 1970 to 97.5 million in the year 2000. Even though this represents a 100% increase, the average annual growth rates (AAGR) decreased gradually throughout those thirty years. Thus, while between 1960 and 1970 the AAGR was 3.4, between 1970 and 1990 it fell to 2. 6, between 1990 and 1995 it decreased further to 2.0 and in the period 1995-2000 it reached 1.6.

During the period 1995-2000 approximately 2.34 million children were born every year while the yearly death rate reached 440 thousand people. This means that the population increased annually by close to 1.9 million people. According to these data, between 1995 and 2000 the AAGR reached 1.9, a figure that reflects Mexico's natural population growth rate. Nevertheless, since approximately 310 thousand people left the country every year (according to estimates from the National Population Council) in the period 1995-2000 Mexico's real population growth rate, the so-called social growth rate, was 1.6 (Partida, 2001).

What are the implications of this massive emigration of Mexicans? What does Mexico gain and lose from it? Viewed from the perspective of governmental policies, particularly official population growth targets, a 1.6 growth rate is considered positive. However, we must keep in mind that the decrease in Mexico's population growth rate is due not only to lower fertility rates but also to the considerable increase in Mexicans' migration to the U.S. Below we shall review some of Mexico's demographic characteristics by examining mortality and fertility rates and international migration.

1. The Decline in Mexico's Mortality Rate

According to academic and governmental appraisals, Mexico's population is experiencing a full and accelerated stage of demographic transition (Partida, 2000). The decrease in the mortality rate began in the first half of the 20th century. Between 1930 and 1960 the number of deaths decreased from 27 to 12 per 1,000 people. In 1980 that rate (known as the gross mortality rate) decreased further to 7 deaths per 1,000 people, in 1990 to 5 and in the year 2000 to 4 (INEGI 2001).


This decrease in the mortality rate reflects lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy rates. While in 1930 for each 1,000 newborn children 156 died, in 1980 that number lowered to 53, in 1990 to 36 and in the year 2000 to 25. As for life expectancy rates, in 1930 men lived an average of 33 years and women 35 years. In 1970 life expectancy rates increased to 58 years for men and 61 for women and in the year 2000 they reached 73 and 77 years respectively.

This spectacular decrease in Mexico's mortality rate, which was in part the result of increased control and regulation of infectious and parasite diseases and of the general improvement in the country's medical and sanitary infrastructure, did not occur homogenously throughout the country. As an example let us examine the infant mortality rate for the year 2000. At the national level, for each 1,000 registered newborn child 25 died. However, in Chiapas that ratio was 30.7 to 1,000, in Oaxaca 30.5 to 1,000, in Guerrero 18.6 to 1,000, in the Federal District 19.8 to 1,000, in Nuevo León 20.9 to 1,000 and in Aguascalientes 21.9 to 1,000.

2. The Decrease in Fertility Rates

The decrease in the mortality rate preceded the decrease in fertility rates. This explains why during the 1960s and 1970s Mexico registered very high, historically unprecedented, population growth rates. The fall in fertility rates began in the mid-1970s. According to data from the National Population Council, in 1960 the gross birth rate (births by each 1,000 inhabitants) was 45 while in 1970 it decreased to 41.7. However, it decreased more sharply during the period 1970-1980, when the number of births per each 1,000 inhabitants reached 35 in 1980. In the year 1990 that number fell to 28 and in the year 2000 to 23.4.

The decrease in fertility rates is undoubtedly the main reason for the decrease in population growth and the recent changes in the age structure of Mexico's population (Gómez de León, 1999). It is also the result of the greater use of contraceptive methods. In fact, in 1976 only 30% of married women or women with partners used some type of family planning. But by the end of the 1990s things had changed dramatically and in 1997, 68% of such women used some type of contraceptive method, while 15% had used it and only 17% did not use any.

As with mortality rates, the lower fertility rates are not similar throughout the country. Thus, while at the national level the fertility rate (children per woman of fertile age) for the year 2000 was 2,4 children, in states such as Puebla, Guerrero, Oaxaca and Chiapas that number was 3 to 1 and less than 2.1 to 1 in the Federal District, Baja California Sur and Nuevo León.

3. Changes in the Age Structure and the "Demographic Bonus"

The fall in the fertility rate caused a gradual change in the structure of the population pyramid: a narrowing of its base and a notable increase in the number of people between 15 and 64 years of age. Thus, even though between 1970 and 2000 the number of people below 15 years of age almost doubled (from 22 to 33 million), their percentage within the total population decreased from 46 to 34%. Similarly, the 15 to 64 years of age group grew by 2.5%, from 24 million people in 1970 to 59 million in the year 2000. The higher life expectancy rate also resulted in an increase in the number of people 65 years of age or older, both in absolute and relative terms: from 1.8 million people in 1970 to almost 5 million in the year 2000.

Government sources in Mexico believe that these changes in the country's population structure will promote "…an increasingly more advantageous relation between the dependent population (less than 15 and over 65 years of age) and the work- eligible population (between15 and 65 years of age). During the next three decades this will open a 'transitory window of opportunity' or 'demographic bonus' as the work- eligible population increases faster than the dependent population" (Federal Executive Power, 2001). The indicator that is used to show the relation between dependent and work-eligible population is known as the dependency index.¹ In the period 1970-2000 this index decreased from 99.7% to 64.3%.

There is no doubt that for the Mexican State the increase in the work-eligible population, or 'demographic bonus', is a very important factor for the country's development.² However, what concerns us here is the alleged advantages derived from an increase in the work-eligible population vis-à-vis Mexico's "loss" of 310 thousand (or possibly more) work-eligible individuals due to international migration. In this regard, the international emigration of Mexicans undermines the country's "transitory window of opportunity". Also, in so far as the Mexican population that migrates to the U.S. is comprised precisely of the most productive individuals, such migration benefits the United States' demographic bonus.

The logic of the transnational labour market between Mexico and the U.S. requires a more comprehensive and global examination of this problem. Both countries are linked by close labour - dependency ties. On the one hand, the demand for immigrants in the U.S. has reached historical levels, on the other, international emigration has lessened Mexico's demographic, economic and social pressures that otherwise would have rendered more difficult the development of its national project.

4. Mexicans' Migration to the U.S.

In this section two issues will be examined: On the one hand, the magnitude of Mexicans' emigration to the U.S. from 1960 to the year 2000, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Statistics, and on the other, the fact that the Mexican population that settles in the U.S. does so during its most productive years.

According to U.S. census data, in 1960 a little over half a million (576 thousand) Mexicans lived in the U.S. and by 1970 that number had increased to 760 thousand.³ This slight increase between 1960 and 1970 indicates that international emigration to the U.S. was, basically, of a temporary character, that is, Mexicans entered the U.S. to work for a time in the fields and factories and later returned home. However, beginning in 1970, and more clearly since 1980, Mexican emigration becomes more permanent. Thus, in 1980, 2.2 million Mexicans lived in the U.S., three times more than in 1970. Since 1980 Mexican migration to the U.S. enters a rapidly growing phase: in 1980 the number of Mexicans residing (legally or illegally) in the U.S. reached the historical level of 4.3 million and 8.8 million in the year 2000.

Between 1990 and 2000 the difference in the Mexican population living in the U.S. was approximately 4.5 million people, which means that every year approximately 450 thousand Mexicans migrated definitively to that country during that period. This is a higher number than that calculated by Mexico's National Population Council, which estimates that between 1995 and 2000, 310 thousand Mexican emigrants settled annually in the U.S. At any rate, in the year 2000 this accumulated number of 8.8 million Mexicans in the U.S. represented close to 9% of Mexico's population and would constitute the 33rd most populous state, after the State of Mexico and the Federal District.

Since Mexican emigration to the U.S. is work -motivated (even though this is not the only reason for this historical migration flow), it can be assumed that most of these emigrants -especially the most recent ones- are between 15 and 45 years of age. One way to examine this phenomenon is by comparing the age structure of population estimates with that of the actual population as calculated by the census.

Mexico's National Population Council estimated that in the year 2000 Mexico's population would total 99 million, taking into account a net negative migration rate of approximately 300 thousand people per year. Nevertheless, the 2000 census revealed a total population of 97.5 million, that is 1.5 million less than estimated. Chart 4 shows an age pyramid for the estimated and actual population in the year 2000 (Partida, 2001). The major discrepancy between the estimated and actual population occurs precisely in the group of males between 12 and 40 years of age. In the case of the female population this discrepancy is lower. These 'gaps' in the population pyramid could be a result of the loss of population due to international migration.



What have been the historical consequences of Mexicans' migration to the U.S.? Evidently, the position of the Mexican State on this issue has varied throughout the different economic and political situations experienced during the 20th century. At times, as during the Cardenismo (1934-1940), international emigration was viewed as "a loss of the country's most important resource", i.e. its labour force. During that period, international emigration run counter to Mexico's development needs, which focused on colonizing the country through an intense process of agrarian reforms. However, this anti-emigration policy was reversed radically with the launching of the "bracero programme" (1942-1965), a policy that coincided with the end of the land redistribution program whereby land pressures were replaced by heavy migration flows to the U.S. (García, 1981).

With the end of the "bracero" programme, Mexico entered a stage known as the "era of undocumented work", characterized by the absence of explicit migration policies, even though the advantages of emigration to the U.S. were implicitly acknowledged, especially as regards the economic revenues generated by Mexican migrants. During the 1980's and 1990's the Mexican government paid closer attention to this phenomenon by increasing consular protection in the U.S., organizing the Dirección de Atención a Comunidades Mexicanas en el Exterior (Bureau of Attention to Mexican Communities Abroad), establishing policies such as the Paisano Programme and developing bi-national commissions (academic and governmental) for the study of the migration phenomenon, among several other initiatives. President Vicente Fox's Administration has spearheaded the need to establish a Migration Agreement with the Bush Administration so as to regulate temporary migration and promote an "amnesty" for millions of undocumented Mexicans residing in the U.S.

The Fox Administration acknowledges the strategic role Mexican migrants play in Mexico's economy and society. One way to evaluate the economic importance of this emigration is by examining the flow of foreign currency resources generated by the emigrant population.

II. International Migration and Remittances

The significant surge in Mexican migration to the U.S. has brought about a considerable increase in the amount of money migrants send to their families back home. According to data from the Bank of Mexico, between 1990 and 2001 these resources grew by 3.5, from U.S.$ 2,492 million to U.S.$ 8,895 million. As Chart 5 indicates, this increase was particularly significant between 2000 and 2001, when the amount of remittances grew by U.S.$ 2,615 million. Migrants' remittances represent a fundamental foreign currency income for Mexico's economy as a whole, but especially for some of the country's regions.

There are many ways to evaluate the impact of such resources on the economies of migrant workers' countries of origin. Family remittances are registered in each country's finances within the balance of payment's export revenues section (which coldly indicates that these are revenues derived from the export of labour). In the case of Mexico, in the year 2001 such remittances represented 5.6% of the total value of exports. During the same year, the value of family remittances was slightly lower than the revenues from oil exports (U.S.$ 11,594 million), considerably higher than revenues from foreign tourism (U.S.$ 6,538 million) and much higher than the value of agricultural and animal exports (U.S.$ 4,015 million).



1. Regional Distribution of International Migration and Remittances

The economic impact of remittances must be examined at the regional level and especially at the level of family economies. This is crucial, particularly in view of the fact that these resources may be viewed as a lever for regional development (Tuirán, 2000). In this regard, it must be acknowledged that the economic impact of remittances will tend to be greater in those regions that produce the larger number of international emigrants, both in absolute and relative terms (Lozano, 1993 and 1998).

As regards the regional distribution of international emigration, Table 1 indicates that during the period 1995-2000, and in absolute terms, one third of Mexico's emigrants to the U.S. were from just three areas (Jalisco, Michoacán and Guanajuato), all of them in the country's central-western region, a region that has historically produced the largest number of emigrants to the U.S. (Durand, Massey and Zenteno, 2001). However, other areas such as the neighbouring state of Morelos are now producing large numbers of migrants to the U.S., not so much in absolute terms but as regards the percentage such people represent within the resident population, Table 1 indicates that in the year 2000 migrants from Morelos represent almost 3% of the resident population, a percentage that is second only to that of people from Zacatecas, Michoacán, Guanajuato and Durango.

Table 1. Emigrants to the U.S. between 1995 and 2000 and their % participation in the resident population during 2000, according to federal residency

SOURCE.  Census 2000

Table 2 reveals a similar pattern in the regional distribution of remittances. In the year 2001 the same three areas (Jalisco, Guanajuato and Michoacán) received one third of all the remittances forwarded to Mexico, according to the author's estimates, based on information supplied by the Mexican Population Census of the year 2000 and the Bank of
Mexico (see Table 2).

TABLE 2.   Estimates of remittances from the U.S. according to receiving federal entiity,  2001

Source:  Muestra Censal 2000 aand Bank of Mexico
*Average exchange rate for the year 2001: 9.3342 pesos per dollar (BANXICO).

During the last two decades, international migration affected practically all of Mexico's regions. The area that had traditionally produced the largest migration flows to the U.S., Mexico's central-western region, was joined by other areas in which remittances play a key role in insuring the survival of thousand of families (Marcelli and Cornelius, 2001). Below we shall examine the social and economic characteristics of the families that receive remittances from the U.S. in a region that has recently joined migration flows to the U.S. (Morelos) and in another with a long tradition of migration (Zacatecas). The differences and similarities between the families that receive international remittances in both regions are due not just to the time of migration to the U.S. but also, and above all, to the characteristics of those states' economic development. Within this context, the comparative analysis of the dynamics and nature of remittances within different contexts, as well as the selection of the family, and not the individual, as the main unit of analysis represent a methodological strategy aimed at "rethinking" the role of family remittances as promoters of development.

2. Remittances and the Family Economy

In this section we shall examine the social and economic characteristics of the families that receive remittances from the U.S. by determining the degree of their economic dependency on remittances and comparing the characteristics of such families considering the area they live in (rural or urban), whether they are nuclear or extended families, the number of families headed by women and their structure according to age and gender.

The information source used here is Mexico's population and dwelling census of the year 2000, particularly the data derived from the "expanded questionnaire". This form was answered by 10% of the country's families and included, among others, questions on the income of each member of the family above 12 years of age. One of the questions asked whether each member of the family received money from family members abroad. If the answer was yes, then the following question was how much. Based on this information and using the family as unit of analysis, the author presents below a review of the characteristics of families that receive remittances compared to those that do not. The states of residence selected are Morelos and Zacatecas.

Table 3. Families, population and income according to family with or without remittances from the U.S.  Morelos and Zacatecas, 2000

Source:  The author´s own estimates based on the archives of the 2000 Census.


According to initial results, 6.5% of all families (24,295) in the State of Morelos receive remittances from the U.S., while in Zacatecas 13% of all families (39,994) do. 5 A comparison of the total amount of remittances with the total family income reveals Zacatecas' families' greater dependency on remittances from abroad. Thus, while for the families from Morales remittances represent 32% of their total income, for families from Zacatecas they amount to 41% of total income. In spite of Zacatecas' families' greater dependency on remittances, the average remittance per family in the state of Morelos is slightly higher: 1,892 pesos per month compared with 1,815 pesos per month for families in Zacatecas.

It is interesting to point out that in both states the total income of families that receive remittances is on average higher than the income of families that do not receive remittances. In the case of Morelos the difference is considerably greater: 4,548 pesos per month for families without remittances versus 5,506 pesos per month for families with remittances. Similarly, in Morelos the number of families that receive remittances from the U.S. is higher than the number of families that do so in Zacatecas: 14% versus 6.4 % respectively. This could indicate not only Zacatecas State' greater specialization in international migration but also a greater interrelation between internal and international migration in the State of Morelos (Lozano, Roberts and Bean, 1997).

Table 4 points to other social and economic indicators. In the State of Morelos, approximately 17% of families that receive remittances live in towns with less than 2,500 inhabitants, while in the State of Zacatecas this percentage is 60%. Zacatecas' rural characteristic has more to do with that state's economic development than with the nature of international migration and remittances.

Table 4. Social and demographic indicators of families with and without remittances from the U.S. Morelos and Zacatecas, 2000.

Source: The author's own estimates based on the archives of the 2000 Census.


Regarding families' composition (nuclear, extended or one person families 6), a comparison of families with and without remittances indicates that in both states they tend to re-group when receiving such remittances from the U.S. Thus, when remittances are a factor the number of nuclear families tends to decrease and the number of extended families to increase in both states. This is particularly true in Morelos where the number of extended families that receive remittances is almost double (43%) that of families that do not (21.4%).

Also, in Morelos more families are headed by women than in Zacatecas. This could be due to the fact that families in Zacatecas tend to be rural and that in Mexico women enjoy more power and autonomy in urban areas (Casique, 2001). Finally, in Zacatecas the families that receive remittances tend to comprise a larger number of older people.
This brief analysis of the social and economic characteristics of families receiving remittances aimed at contributing to a twofold evaluation of the issue of remittances: by considering families as the unit of analysis and by examining the similarities and differences between families receiving remittances within different economic and social contexts.

III. Concluding Remarks

Until the end of the 1970s Mexico's population growth rates were high. Only between 1960 and 1970 the average annual population growth rate was 3.4%. However, in 1970 those rates began to decline and in the period 1995-2000 the average annual population growth rate fell to 1.6%.

This decrease was due not only to the decrease in the number of children per woman but also to heavy emigration flows to the U.S., particularly during the last two decades of the 20th century. The presence of over 8 million Mexicans in the U.S. reveals the existence of a transnational labour market that is fuelled, among other factors, by the most productive labour force in the country, something some people in the U.S. will not acknowledge.

Thus, the need arises for the U.S. and Mexico to negotiate a migration agreement that includes not only economic considerations (job and migration security), but also social ones (for example, the assured and low cost transference of remittances between both countries). There is no doubt that Mexico's society and government are in great debt to their migrants.

This paper has demonstrated that Mexicans' migration to the U.S. now affects practically all of the country's regions. It has underlined that the resources generated by migrants -which in the year 2001 reached the record number of 9 thousand million U.S. dollars- are a pillar of Mexico's economy and support especially those regions that produce the largest number of migrants.

Nevertheless, the best way to evaluate the economic impact of remittances is through the family unit. Thus, the evaluation of the social and demographic characteristics of families receiving remittances is a fundamental tool for the definition and launching of public and non-governmental policies regarding the impact of migration and the economic development of those regions that produce international migrants.


Bibliography

Casique, Irene. 2001. Power, Autonomy and Division of Labor in Mexican Dual-Earner Families. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America

Corona Vázquez, Rodolfo and Jorge Santibáñez Romellón. 2000. Migraciones y remesas en México. Presentation delivered at the VI Meeting on Demographic Research in Mexico, México City.

Durand, Jorge, Douglas S. Massey and René M. Zenteno. 2001. Mexican Immigration to the United States: Continuities and Change. Latin American Research Review. Vol. 36, No. 1:107-127

García, Antonio. 1981. Reforma agraria y desarrollo capitalista en América Latina: De los asentamientos coloniales al capitalismo dependiente. UNAM, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas, UNAM, México.

Gómez de León, José. 1999. La política de población en México: Desafíos hacia el siglo XXI. En Raúl Benítez Zenteno and René Jiménez Ornelas (coordinators), Hacia la demografía de siglo XXI (V Reunión de Investigación Sociodemográfica en México) Volumen 3, SOMEDE e IIS-UNAM, México. Pp. 3-18

Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática, INEGI. 2000. XXI Censo de Población y Vivienda 2000. Tabulados Básicos Nacionales y por Entidad Federativa. Base de Datos y Tabulados de la Muestra Censal. Disco Compacto.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática, INEGI. 2001. Indicadores Sociodemográficos de México (1930-2000). Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, Mexico.

Lozano Ascencio, Fernando. 1993. Bringing It Back Home. Remittances to Mexico from Migrant Workers in the United States. Center for US-Mexican Studies, University of California San Diego, Monograph Series Nº 37.

1998. Las remesas de los migrantes mexicanos en Estados Unidos: Estimaciones para 1995. In Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs and U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform Migration Between Mexico and United States. Binational Study, Vol. 3. Pp. 1189-1214.

Lozano Ascencio, Fernando, Bryan Roberts and Frank D. Bean. 1997. The interconnectedness of internal and international migration: the case of the United States and Mexico, Sozial Welt, Sonderband 12, pp. 163-178.

Marcellli, Enrico A. and Wayne A. Cornelius. 2001. The Changing Profile of Mexican Migrants to the United States: New Evidence from California and Mexico. Latin American Research Review. Vol. 36, Nº 3:105-131.

Partida Bush, Virgilio 2000. Situación demográfica Nacional. In Consejo Nacional de Población, La Situación Demográfica de México 2000. Consejo Nacional de Población, Mexico, D.F.

2001. Dinámica de la Población de México en el año 2000. Presentation delivered at the Seminar "Mexico's Population and Demographic Challenges", organized by the Sociedad Mexicana de Demografía and the Consejo Nacional de Población, July 18, 2001. http://www.somede.org/seminario/mesa1/Virgilio%20 Partida.ppt. Poder Ejecutivo Federal

2001. Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2001-2006, Mexico.

Tuirán, Rodolfo (coordinator). 2000. Migración México-Estados Unidos. Opciones de Política. Secretaría de Gobernación, Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores and Consejo Nacional de Población, Mexico.

.                                        Population below 15 years of age + population 65 years and above
¹ Dependency Index = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x 100
                                        Population between 15 and 64 years of age

² According to the National Development Plan 2001-2006, "during the next decade the demographic bonus could become an important factor for the country's development if we succeed in creating jobs, by stimulating families' savings capacity and more efficient strategies regarding the training and use of available human resources, as well as the accumulation and mobilization of assets.

Nevertheless, the window of opportunities will begin to close as pressure mounts to meet the demands of the aging population. The effective utilization of this window of opportunities will contribute to promote a virtuous circle of more jobs, more savings and more investment".

³ I am referring here to the population born in Mexico that later migrated to the U.S., presumably forever. Often in the literature on Mexicans' migration to the U.S., and especially in both countries' official statements, there is a tendency to confuse the population born in Mexico with the Mexican origin population. The Mexican origin population includes people born in Mexico and their descendants.

Previous-Next
Top

http://www.sela.org
sela@sela.org
   SELA,  Permanent Secretariat
Torre Europa, Fourth floor, Urb. Campo Alegre, Av Francisco de Miranda,
Caracas 1060- Venezuela
Tlf: (58) (212) 955.71.11 Fax: (58) (212) 951.52.92