Vol. 18 No. 37 (2022)

Artículos

La desigualdad del ingreso en el mercado laboral informal en México

Published 2022-07-04

  • David Robles Ortiz
    • ,
  • Juan Marroquín Arreola

David Robles Ortiz


Juan Marroquín Arreola


PANORAMA ECONÓMICO

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to analyze income inequality in the formal and informal markets and determine in which of the two there is greater inequality. For which the theoretical foundations are established, a descriptive analysis of the behavior of the variables is made and estimates are made of the Gini, Theil and Palma indices, commonly used to determine income inequality in a population. The results show that, although there are competitive incomes in informality, the distribution of income in this market is more unequal than its formal counterpart.

Keywords

income inequality, informality, inequality indices

PDF (Spanish)

References

  1. Atkinson, A. and F. Bourguignon (2015). Handbook of Income Distribution, First edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  2. Bellú, L.G, and P. Liberati (2006). Policy impacts on Inequality: Welfare Based Mea-sure of Inequality – The Atkinson Index. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
  3. Blanchard, Olivier, and Augustin Landier (2002). The Perverse Effects of Partial La-bour Market Reform: Fixed-Term Contracts in France. Economic Journal, 112(480),pp. 214-244.
  4. Cobham, A. and A. Sumner (2013b). Is It All About the Tails? The Palma Measure of Income Inequality. CGD Working Paper. Washington DC: CGD.
  5. Bonnet, Florence, Joann Vanek and Martha Chen (2019). Women and Men in the Informal Economy-A Statistical Picture. Manchester, UK: WIEGO.
  6. Brandt, N. (2011). Informality in Mexico”. OECD. Economics Department Working Papers, No. 896, OECD Publishing.
  7. Castells, M. (1989). The informational city: Information technology, economic restructuring, and the urban-regional process (p. 24). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  8. Cunningham, W. (2001). Breadwinner versus caregiver: labor force participation and sectoral choice over the Mexican business cycle. The economics of gender in Mexico: Work, family, state, and market, pp. 85-132.
  9. CONEVAL (2018). Metodología para la medición multidimensional de la pobreza en México (tercera edición). Ciudad de México: CONEVAL.
  10. Escamilla, I. (2006). Terciarización y segregación ocupacional en la periferia expandida de la Ciudad de México. Las grandes aglomeraciones y su periferia regional, México, Instituto de Geografía, UNAM/Miguel Ángel Porrúa, pp. 235-271.
  11. Galindo M., R. V. (2015). Desigualdad. Serie de Estudios Económicos, pp. 1-12.
  12. Gong, X.; A. Van Soest & E. Villagomez (2004). Mobility in the urban labor market: a panel data analysis for Mexico. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 53(1), pp. 1-36.
  13. Gutiérrez-Romero, Roxana (2007). The Effects of Inequality on the Dynamics of the Informal Economy. http://www.iza.org/conference_files/worldb2007/gutierrez%20romero_r3380.pdf.
  14. Harris, J. R., & M. P. Todaro (1970). Migration, unemployment and development: a two-sector analysis. The American economic review, pp. 126-142.
  15. ILO (2018). Women and Men in the Informal Economy: A Statistical Picture. 3rd ed Geneva, Switzerland: International Labour Organization.
  16. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) (2010). Delimitación de las zonas metropolitanas de México 2010.
  17. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) (2017a). Encuesta origen destino. México.
  18. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) (2017b). Módulo de Condiciones Socioeconómicas. Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2014. Descripción de la base de datos. México.
  19. Levy, S. (2008). Good Intentions, Bad outcomes, Social Policy, Informality, and Economic Growth in Mexico, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
  20. Levy, Santiago, & Székely, Miguel. (2016). ¿Más escolaridad, menos informalidad?
  21. Un análisis de cohortes para México y América Latina. El trimestre económico,83(332), pp. 499-548.
  22. Medina, F. (2001). Consideraciones sobre el índice de Gini para medir la concentración del ingreso. Santiago de Chile: CEPAL.
  23. Mishra, Ajit, and Ranjan Ray (2010). Informality, Corruption, and Inequality. BathEconomics Research Paper 13/10.
  24. Palma, J. (2011). Homogeneous Middles vs. Heterogeneous Tails, and the ‘End of the Inverted-U’: It’s All About the Shares of the Rich. Development and Change.
  25. Perry, G.; W. Maloney; O. Arias; P. Fajnzylber; A. Mason y J. Saavedra-Chanduvi(2007). Informality. Exit and Exclusion, Banco Mundial, Washington D. C.
  26. Poder Ejecutivo Federal (PEF) (2013). Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2013-2018. Gobierno de la República, México.
  27. Rani, Uma (2008). Impact of Changing Work Patterns on Income Inequality. International Institute for Labour Studies Discussion Paper 193/2008.
  28. Robles O., D. (2015). Escape y exclusión: algunos determinantes de la informalidad en México. Análisis Económico, 30(73).
  29. Theil, H. (1967). “Economics and Information Theory”. Amsterdam: North Holland.
  30. Van Ginneken, W. (1975). Análisis de descomposición del índice de Theil aplicado a la distribución del ingreso familiar en México. Demografía y Economía, pp. 93-112.

Most read articles by the same author(s)