## Articulo

• Similares en SciELO

## versión impresa ISSN 0301-7036

### Prob. Des vol.52 no.205 Ciudad de México abr./jun. 2021  Epub 23-Ago-2021

#### https://doi.org/10.22201/iiec.20078951e.2021.205.69711

Articles

Social Accounting Matrix: an economic analysis of Mexico

aUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)-Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas (IIEc), Mexico. Email addresses: neria@unam.mx.

bPhD researcher in economics at UNAM-IIEc, Mexico. Email addresses: raliphat@hotmail.com.

Abstract

This article illustrates the construction and usefulness of a Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) for Mexico, 2013, presenting the methodology used for its elaboration, as well as its characteristics and qualities as an accounting tool for the evaluation of economic policy linked to the study of economic growth and development. The SAM includes 21 economic sectors, four types of import goods industries, and four institutional sectors subdivided into low-, middle -, and high-income households; financial and non-financial corporations (public and private), government, and the rest of the world. Via inter-institutional analysis, SAMs allow for the detailed observation of the productive structure and the institutional sectors of the Mexican economy.

Keywords: Social Accounting Matrix; economic development; household income-expenditure distribution; industrialization; economic policy

Resumen

El texto muestra la construcción y utilidad de una Matriz de Contabilidad Social (MCS) para México 2013; presenta la metodología para su elaboración, características y cualidades como herramienta contable para la evaluación de la política económica vinculada al estudio del crecimiento y desarrollo económico. La MCS incluye 21 sectores económicos, cuatro tipos de industrias de bienes de importación y cuatro sectores institucionales subdivididos en hogares de ingreso bajo, medio y alto; así como sociedades financieras y no financieras públicas y privadas, gobierno y resto del mundo. Con una MCS se puede observar a detalle la situación de la estructura productiva y de los sectores institucionales de la economía mexicana a través del análisis interinstitucional.

Palabras clave: Matriz de Contabilidad Social; desarrollo económico; distribución del ingreso-gasto de hogares; industrialización; política económica

Clasificación JEL: E16; O11; O15; E01; E02

1. INTRODUCTION

The Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) is a useful and powerful accounting tool for economic analysis, especially for evaluating economic growth and development. Taking Quesnay's (1894) tables as a reference, Leontief (1941)1developed the idea of economic circular flow, using what he called the Input-Output Matrix (IOM) to analyze economic transactions between an economy’s productive sectors. This matrix provides a detailed picture of the economic relationships of the productive sectors. Subsequently, Stone (1956)2incorporated the institutional sectors into the IOM, which resulted in the now widely-known SAM. In contrast to the analysis with IOM, the use of SAM allows for a specific analysis of the productive sector’s relationship with households, government, societies, and the rest of the world.

The primary objective of this article is to demonstrate the usefulness of a SAM for inter-institutional accounting analysis and its relationship with the development of the Mexican economy. Based on an analysis of the inter-institutional relationships between economic agents, a bridge is drawn between the analysis of income production and distribution, including transactions from the government, corporations, and the rest of the world to households. This article also provides a methodological approach for analyzing the relationship between the SAM and economic development, and combines the available data from the productive sectors and the institutional account system. The SAM-Mexico 2013 presented here includes 21 economic sectors: 4 types of import goods industries; 4 institutional sectors subdivided into households by income level (low, medium, and high); public and private financial and non-financial corporations; government; and rest of the world. A SAM with the aforementioned level of disaggregation has not yet been published. The SAM was compiled using data from the 2013 IOM and the institutional accounts system, as well as data from INEGI's National Household Income and Expenditure Survey (ENIGH) and the balance of payments published by the Bank of Mexico.

This article is structured in five sections, including an introduction. The second section briefly reviews the definition and characteristics of a SAM. The third section then describes the methodology followed to develop the SAM-Mexico 2013, concluding with a presentation of the model. The fourth section goes on to provide a descriptive analysis of the Mexican economy based on the results from the model, which serve as a basis for subsequent inter-institutional analyses, and the final section offers some conclusions.

The SAM-Mexico 2013 constitutes a useful methodological tool for the analysis of economic development in Mexico, due to its level of disaggregation and the data presented. The proposed model will allow for the elaboration and evaluation of public policies that are better focused on addressing not only economic growth, but also the distribution of this growth between the institutional sectors of the economy.

2. DEFINITION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAM-MEXICO 2013

The elaboration and presentation format of the SAM is based on the System of National Accounts (SNA) methodology (UN, 1993 and 2016) and has a similar structure to that of the SAMs published by the International Labor Organization (ILO], 2019) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (Breisinger et al., 2009). The SAM is an accounting representation of the transactions carried out between the productive and institutional sectors of the economy. Following the double-entry method, a square matrix is obtained in which each accounting record has a row (income) and column (expenditure); the total value of each row is equal to the value obtained in each column; and the total income of each sector is spent (including savings). On the production side, all the goods supplied are demanded by the institutional sectors and there are no inventories (Robinson et al., 2001).

Several SAMs have been developed in Mexico. Banegas and Blancas (2019) analyze the effects of public spending on economic growth and social welfare using an aggregated 2011 SAM; Núñez and Romero (2020), meanwhile, study the effect of increasing private savings and granting subsidies to the consumption of domestic inputs using a 2012 SAM; Casares et al. (2017), for their part, observe the effect of fiscal policy and government transfers on household income using a 2003 SAM that disaggregates the household account by deciles; while Blancas (2010) elaborates an SAM which disaggregates the savings/investment account by the institutional sectors of central, commercial, and development banking, thus allowing for analysis of the relationship between current and capital account flows through what he calls inter-institutional analysis. Meanwhile, Cardona et al. (2018) estimate an SAM to determine an economy’s key productive sectors. Finally, Chapa et al. (2019) use an SAM to evaluate the expected effectiveness of an elderly assistance program. However, these studies do not advance a methodology with which to elaborate an SAM for Mexico using the available data. Therefore, there is a vital need to formulate a coherent and standardized methodology to elaborate an SAM that serves as a tool to analyze the country’s economic development.

The objectives of the SAM-Mexico 2013 are as follows: to shed light on the relationship between the national productive sector and the type of imports; to include the relationship between the productive and institutional sectors; and to disaggregate household income-expenditure into low, medium, and high. The matrix is compiled based on data from the IOM32013 (INEGI, 2018a); the institutional relationships are calculated using the data published in the System of National Accounts-Institutional Sector Accounts (INEGI, 2013b); and the institutional sector of households is constructed using data from the 2014 National Survey of Household Incomes and Expenditures (Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares, ENIGH) (INEGI, 2014).4The aforementioned bases group an additional set of official information published by INEGI (2013b and 2014).

Table 1 shows the prototype SAM divided into three quadrants. The first integrates transactions for intermediate consumption, factor income, indirect taxes, and imported inputs; the second includes data on domestic and foreign demand for final goods and services; and the third includes data on inter-institutional transfers.

Table 1 Prototype Social Accounting Matrix

 Intermediate transactions MCS 2013 A 211 B C D E F G H I J K 521 5221 5222 5223 541 611 L M N 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 UFOS T-Income A - Agricultural and nonagricultural primary sector Quadrant I Quadrant II 211 - Oil and Gas Extraction B - Mining C - Construction and related services D - Food and beverage indutry E - Petroleum products, Chemicals, and plastics F - Mineral and non-metallic industries G - Electrical, electronic, and transportation H - Other insdustries I - Groceries, food, beverages, ice, and tobacco trade J - Transportation and warehousing services Intermediate transactions (intermediate consumption) Final consumption Govermment consumption Exports Investment Total demand K - Telecomunications 521 - Central Banking 522 - Multiple Banking 5222 - Economic Development Financial Institutions 5223 - Credit Unions and Savings Institutions 541 - Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 611 - Educational services L - Medical services and social assistance M - Public sector N - Other services 22 D.1 - Compensation of employers Factor income Quadrant III Factor income 23 Grass operating surplus 24 Net taxes on production Indirect taxes Indirect taxes Indirect taxes 25 MD - Food and beverages industry Imported inputs M Final consumption Govermment imports Imports of investment goods Total imports 26 ME - Petroleum products, chemicals, and plastics 27 MG - Manufacture of electrical, electronic, and transport goods 28 M0 - Other imports 29 Households_1 (low income) Quadrant I IPF* Interinstitutional transfers Institutions 30 Households_2 (middle income) 31 Households_3 (high income) 32 Public nonfinancial corporations IPF* 33 Private nonfinancial corporations 34 Financial corporations 35 Govermment IPF* 36 Rest of the World 37 Savings Depreciation Import income Savings Savings U UFOS Total expenditure Total supply Factors Total imports Institutions Investment

Nota: * Factor payment income.

Source: compiled by the authors based on studies by Blancas (2006 y 2010), Núñez and Romero (2020), Casares et al. (2017) and Cardona et al. (2018).

The institutional sectors included in the SAM-Mexico 2013 are Households, Public and private financial and non-financial corporations, Government, and Rest of the world.5 Table 2 shows the exchanges (income-expenditure) made between the productive and institutional sectors. The difference between income and expenditure of the institutional sectors is considered as savings-investment.

Table 2 Income and expenditure of institutional sectors

 Expenditure Revenues Production sectors Households Government Companies Rest of the world Productive sectors Intermediate consumption Consumption of goods and services Government consumption X Exports Households Payment of remunerations and capital services Transfers between households Social transfers Income from dividend payments Payment of services of the factors of production abroad and transfers Government Taxes on production Payment of taxes, profits, and duties Transfers between government entities Taxes on income and profits Tariffs on imports and transfers Corporations Gross operating surplus Adquisition of assets Capitalization of public companies and transfers to private companies Intercompany transfers (assets and liabilities) Purchase of assets or liabilities and reinvestment of earnings in non-residents ' holdings Rest of the world Imports Payments or transfers Transfers and payments for services (humanitarian aid, foreign consultancy) Payment of dividends and decapitalization of companies to non-residents X

Source: compiled by the authors.

3. SAM-MEXICO 2013

IOM data in the SAM

The first step in elaborating the SAM consists of incorporating the data from the IOM in quadrant I, which represents the total supply of the economy (intermediate inputs, productive factors, total imports, and direct taxes).

The transactions of the productive sectors are based on IOM data that includes 79 productive subsectors, which are grouped into 21 industries within quadrant I of the SAM (see Table 3). Intermediate inputs in the IOM correspond to the intermediate demand of the productive sectors.

Table 3 Productive sectors included in the SAM

 Sector Production sector (sub-sectors-NAICS) NAICS code Production(% GDP) Primary A-Agricultural and non-agricultural primary sector 111-115 3.1 211-Oil and gas extraction 211 5.5 B-Mining 212-213 1.6 Secundario C-Construction and related services 221-222 y 236-238 8.9 D-Food and beverage industry 311-312 4.6 E-Petroleum products, chemicals, and plastics 324-326 2.6 F-Mineral and non-metalic industries 327, 331-332 2.0 G-Electrical, electronic, and transportation goods manufacturing 333-336 4.9 H-Other industries 31 3-31 6, 321-323, 337 y 339 1.8 Tertiary (services) I-Grocery, food, beverages, ice, and tobacco trade 431 y 461 16.8 J-Transportation and warehousing services 481-488 y 491-493 6.1 K-Telecomunications 511-512, 515 y 517-519 2.0 541-Professional, scientific, and technical services 541 1.9 611-Educational services 611 4.1 L-Medical services and social assistance 621-624 2.4 M-Public sector 813 y 931 4.6 N-Other services 5224-5225, 523-524, 531- 533, 551, 561-562, 71 1-713, 721-722, 81 1-81 2 y 814 20.9 Tertiary (financial) 521-Central banking 521 0.1 5221-Multiple banks 5221 1.8 5222-Economic development financial institutions 5222 0.3 5223-Credit Unions and Savings Institutions 5223 0.2

Source: Compiled by the authors using data from SCIAN (INEGI, 2013a) and MIP (INEGI, 2018a).

The factors of production are labor and capital available for the production of goods and services. The income/payment to the factors of production (FPI-lines 22 and 23) is divided into employee remuneration (W) and Gross Operating Surplus (EBO):

FPI = W + EBO (1)

Data on imports is obtained from the IOM of imported goods and services by productive sector. The SAM-Mexico 2013 disaggregates imports from the rest of the world account. Blancas (2006) performs a similar procedure when he disaggregates the savings-financial account to analyze the relationship between the financial sector and the real economy.

The IOM disaggregated by imported requirements makes it possible to identify the demand for imports. Table 4 disaggregates imports into four categories: the first three account for more than 92% of total imports and, because of their high household demand, MD-Food and beverage industries is included.

Table 4 Imports by productive sectors included in the SAM

 Industries NAICS Imports (% total) MD-Food and beverage industry 311 and 312 4.34 ME-Petroleum products, chemicals, and plastics 324, 325 and 326 21.85 MG-Manufacturing of electrical, electronic, and transportation goods 333, 334, 335 and 336 66.44 M0-Other imports NA 7.37

Source: compiled by the authors using data from INEGI (2013a).

Total imports are integrated into the SAM as the sum of imports by type of demand: imported intermediate goods (MInt), households (MCons), government (MGob), and investment or gross fixed capital formation (MFBKF).

M = Mlnt + MCons + MGob + MFBKF (2)

The sum of the four types of imports equals the income in the rest of the world account. To comply with the double-entry income-expenditure accounting rule, the imports account balances with income from imports for the rest of the world (see Table 3, row 36, columns 25-28).

Taxes and subsidies on production and imports recorded in the IOM correspond to indirect taxes (INEGI, 2018a); in the SAM they are included as Net taxes on production (line 24).

The sum of intermediate transactions, factor income, input imports, and indirect taxes represents the total supply of the economy (see equation 3).

Total supply = Inputs + Factor income + Mlntermediates + Tindirect (3)

Quadrant II integrates the intermediate consumption of the productive sectors (inputs), household demand, government, exports, and gross fixed capital formation (GFCF). Stock changes are values that are not reported in the IOM6and are included within the SAM as UFOS (line/column 38).

Adding intermediate demand with demand by institutional sectors and investment (FBKF) gives final demand by productive sector. The sum of final demand by productive sector represents the national aggregate demand.

Total Demand  = Inputs + C + G + Χ + FBKF (4)

Additionally, it is demonstrated that total supply equals total demand accounting identity or equilibrium condition:

Total supply = Total Demand (5)

Data from the Institutional Accounts System in the Sam

To determine the values of quadrant III, the monetary transfers made between institutional sectors are disaggregated using the Institutional Sectors Account (ISA) database.

The first step consists of transforming the total payment of productive factors into the income of the institutional sectors (line/columns 22 and 23). Remuneration payments (W) are obtained from the ISA as D.1- Employee remuneration and includes sub-accounts D.11-Wages and salaries and D.12-Employers' social contributions; the data is recorded in the SAM as household income (lines 29-31).

W = Employee remuneration  Households (6)

The payment to subaccounts B.2b-Gross operating surplus (EBO) and B.3b-Gross mixed-income is distributed among all institutional sectors and depreciation (see information in Table 5). The sum of EBO and salaries reported in the ISA is equal to the value reported in the IOM.

Table 5 Distribution of EBO by institutional sector (millions of pesos at 2013 prices)

 Institutional sector B.2b-Gross operating surplus P.51c1-Consumption of fixed capital over gross operating surplus B.2n-Net operating surplus S.11001-Public Non-Financial Corporations 1 222276 477211 745 065 S.1 1002,03-Private non-financial corporationsa 4 416 063 1 388378 3 027 685 S.12-Financial corporations 397751 22 402 375 349 S.13-General Government 8 657 8 657 0 S.14-Householdsb c 4 967 600 670 582 4 297 018 S.2-Rest of the World NA NA NA

Notes: a S.1 1002 and S.1 1003-Domestic and foreign-controlled private non-financial coporations; b Includes B.3b-Gross mixed-income, P.51c2-Fixed capital consumption over gross mixed-income and B.3n-Net mixed-income; c Includes S.15-Non-profit institutions serving households (NPISHs); NA: Not Applicable. Source: compiled by the authors using data from INEGI, 2013b.

The Net taxes on the production account (line 24) includes indirect taxes paid by households such as Value Added Tax (VAT) and taxes on exports and investment; the total value is transferred to the government as revenue (line 35/column 24).

The gross value added generated in the economy is transferred to the institutional sectors as remuneration payments, net taxes on production, and gross operating surplus (columns 22-24). Similarly, the depreciation payment is subtracted from the EBO and transferred to the savings account (line 33).

The next step in the construction of the SAM is to transfer the payment for imports of intermediate, capital, and consumption inputs from the productive sector, households, government, and investment (lines 24-27) to the rest of the world account (line 38/columns 24-27).

Registering import payments by residents to the rest of the world concludes the exchanges between the productive sector and the institutional sectors; additionally, the data from the IOM was incorporated into the SAM via the ICS. The structuring of the data ensures that the SAM is squared and that the sum of the grand total of the columns and rows is equal.

Institutional transfers matrix

Finally, the Institutional Transfers Matrix (ITM) is contained in quadrant III. This matrix is constructed by aggregating the inter-institutional exchanges reported in section II-Income Distribution and Utilization Account and subsection II.1.2-Primary Income Allocation Account of the ISA. Exchanges are also recorded for D.4-Property income, D.5-Current taxes on income, wealth, etc., and D.7-Other current transfers.

The method used to estimate payments between institutional sectors consists of identifying their transactions with the rest of the sectors. To determine each transaction, the ICS is disaggregated at the institutional subsector level and the subaccounts at the highest level of disaggregation. As an example of how each transfer from the ICS is recorded, Table 6 shows the transfers from sub-account D.5-Current taxes on income, wealth, etc., and shows that the institutional sectors transfer resources to sector S.13-General government for current taxes.

Table 6 Inter-institutional transfers from sub-account D.5-Current taxes on income, wealth, etc. (millions of pesos at 2013 prices)

 Institucional sector U-Uses R-Resources S.11001-Public Non-Financial Corporations 10 642 S.1 1002,03-Private non-financial corporationsa 466 955 S.12- Financial corporations 28 342 S.13- General Government 1 062 905 S.14- Householdsb 556 966 S.2-Rest of the World NA NA Total 1 062 905 1 062 905

Notes: a S.1 1002 and S.1 1003-Domestic and foreign-controlled private nonfinancial corporations; b Includes a las S.1-Nonprofit institutions serving households (NPISHs); NA: Not Applicable. Rounded figures. Source: compiled by the authors using data from INEGI, 2013b.

The exchanges of account D.5 are presented in a matrix form in Table 7. This submatrix is an example of the set of sub-matrices that make up the ITM.

Table 7 Sub-matrix of inter-institutional transfers from account D.5-Current taxes on income, wealth, etc. (millions of pesos at 2013 prices)

 S.11001 S.11002,03 S.12 S.13 S.14 S.2 Total S.11001-Public Non-Financial Corporations S.11002,03-Private non-financial corporations S.12- Financial corporations S.13- General government 10 642 466 955 28 342 556 966 1 062 905 5.14- Households S.2-Rest of the World Total 10 642 466 955 28 342 556 966 1 062 905

Note: Figures rounded.

Source: compiled by the authors using data from Tabla 6.

The ITM is concluded by summing the information from each submatrix (see Table 8), which contains the information required in quadrant III of the SAM.

Table 8 Institutional transfers matrix (millions of pesos at 2013 prices)

 Sector institucional S.11001 S.11002,03 S.12 S.13 S.14 S.2 Total S.11001-Public Non-Financial Corporations 836 9 988 6 633 8 015 4 159 563 30 195 S.11002,03-Private non-financial corporations 6 971 83 284 98 562 40 586 114176 55 775 399 353 S.12-Financial corporations 25 630 292 938 180 930 162 800 386 054 43 159 1 091 511 S.13-General government* 886 549 653 499 68 012 2 244 131 972 079 1 698 4825 968 S.14-Households 14 786 2 672 026 318 587 1 357046 31 919 344 070 4 738 433 S.2-Rest of the World 24 320 412 414 66 469 143 225 12 841 0 659 269 Total 959 092 4 124 148 739 192 3 955 804 1 521 228 445 264 11 744 729

Notes: S.1 1002 and S.1 1003-Domestic and foreign-controlled private nonfinancial corporations; Includes S.15-Nonprofit institutions serving households (NPISHs). Rounded figures. *In the general government account (income) a value outside the matrix of 3 974. This data is reported by INEGI in sub-account D.7-Other current transfers.

Source: compiled by the authors using data from INEGI (2013b) and Banco de México (2013).

Disaggregation of the household account

According to Cortés (2018) and Nava and Brown (2018), income distribution problems persist in Mexico, so considering only one type of household would imply an understanding of households as homogeneous. Following the methodology of Blancas (2006 and 2010) and Casares et al. (2017), this article disaggregates the institutional sector of households into the following three groups: low-income (deciles I-IV), middle-income (V-VIII), and high-income (IX-X). To disaggregate the household account, the composition of income/expenditure by decile from the ENIGH 2014 (INEGI, 2014) is taken as a reference. This article then goes on to adopt a classification technique similar to the one presented by Leyva (2004, p. 30).

Disaggregating the household account is crucial to understanding the distribution of household income-expenditure and its relationship with economic development. Various current studies address the problem of homogenization and the use of data on income distribution. One such study is Bustos and Leyva (2017), which illustrates the discrepancies in the measurement of income distribution on the national accounts side with respect to the ENIGH, even pointing to a possible problem of underestimation for some data. The authors decided to take the ENIGH data as a reference because the estimation of household income on the national accounts side focuses on the construction of macroeconomic aggregates, while the survey has a marked use for recognizing the distribution of income among households (Villatoro, 2015, p. 11). For this reason, data by household income decile from the ENIGH-2014 is used to form three groups of households (low, middle, and high) by grouping the survey deciles by household type (see Table 9). It is important to note that "low-income" households have a negative balance of their current income-expenditure, so the SAM-Mexico 2013 reflects negative savings in this group.

Table 9 Aggregation of households by income decile, ENIGH 2014 (quartely expenditure thousands of pesos at 2014 values)

 Deciles % of households Total current income Total current expenditure Balance I to IV 19.2 183 027 209831 -26 804 V to VIII 36.1 432 166 394 935 37 230 IX to X 44.8 642 752 490 520 152 232

Source: compiled by the authors using data from ENIGH, 2014.

The disaggregation by low-, middle- and high-income household in the SAM is resolved by multiplying the income/expenditure values of the household account by the percentage of income/expenditure reported in the ENIGH; the percentage composition of household expenditure is taken and integrated with the absolute value of the income/expenditure of the SAM household account.

With the 2014 ENIGH tabulations, the data on income by household type is integrated with the resource transfers received by households from the rest of the institutional sectors (see Table 10); proxies are constructed from the values reported in the ENIGH that are included within the SAM. For example, the payment of remunerations recorded in the SAM-Mexico 2013 corresponds in the ENIGH to household income from Remunerations from subordinate work, Income from self-employment, and Income from other work. Therefore, the proportion of this income concentrated in deciles I to IV (11.23%) is a proxy for the proportion of income from Remuneration Payments of Low-income Households (row 25/column 22). Leyva (2004, p. 30) performs a similar estimation to adjust the national accounts data with the ENIGH.

Table 10 Prototype SAM institutional transfers and household income items (ENIGH)

 Institutional transfers Proxy ENIGH % of income by household group Low Medium High Total (%) Remuneration payments Compesation for subordinate employmenta 11.23 34.53 54.24 100 Income from self-employmenta Income from other workb Gross operating surplus Income from cooperatives, partnerships, and companies operating as partnershipsc 1.73 6.77 91.50 100 Transfers from companies Income from property 18.38 29.39 52.23 100 Donations in money from institutions and other households Other current income Transfers in kind from institutions Transfers from government Retirements, pensions, and indemnities for work-related accidents, dismissal, and voluntary retirement 18.91 29.51 51.57 100 Scholarships from government and institutions Benefits from government programs Transfers in kind from intitutions Transfers from the rest of the world Income from other countries 31.10 39.53 29.36 100 Household transfers Donations in money from institutions and other households 22.33 36.82 40.86 100 Current income from self-consumption In-kind transfers from others households Estimated housing rent

Notes: aIncludes only income from main and secondary work; b Includes income from jobs 3 to 7 and income obtained in the reference period from other work performed outside the period; c Includes earnings and profits from incorporated companies, cooperatives, and quasi-corporations. Source: compiled by the authors using data from ENIGH, 2014.

The estimation of expenditures by type of household follows the same breakdown as for income (see Table 11). Four groups are considered: Expenditure on domestic final consumption goods, Imports of final consumption goods, Payment of indirect taxes, and Transfers to the rest of the institutional sectors that represent proxies of the expenditure of the household account of the SAM.

Table 11 Institutional transfers and household spending

 Final consumption ENIGH Proxy % of expenditure by type of household Low Medium High Total (%) A-Agricultural and non-agricultural primary sector Food, beverages, and tobacco (ABT) 25.20 40.47 34.33 100 211-Oil and gas extraction NA NA NA NA NA B-Mining Total household expenditures on consumer goods (GTHBC) 18.41 35.23 46.37 100 C-Construction and related services Services and materials for repair, maintenance, and/or expansion of housing 14.37 26.00 59.63 100 D-Food and beverage industry ABT 25.20 40.47 34.33 100 E-Petroleum products, chemicals, and plastics Housing, maintenance services, electric power, and fuels. Items and services for cleaning, care of the house, household goods and furniture, glassware, household utensils, and white goods 21.23 37.53 41.24 100 F-Mineral and non-metallic industries GTHBC 18.41 35.23 46.37 100 G-Manufacture of electrical, electronic, and transport goods Transportation; vehicle procurement, maintenance, accesories, and services; communications (TAMASVC) 13.82 36.60 49.58 100 H-Other industries GTHBC 18.41 35.23 46.37 100 I-Grocery, food, beverages, ice, and tobacco trade ABT 25.20 40.47 34.33 100 J-Transportation and warehousing services TAMASVC 13.82 36.60 49.58 100 K-Telecommunications GTHBC 18.41 35.23 46.37 100 521-Central Banking NA NA 5221-Multiple Banking Payment by credit card to the bank or commercial house 2.12 14.21 83.67 100 5222-Economic development financial institutions Deposit in savings account, savings accounts, savings banks, etc. 8.55 18.21 73.24 100 5223-Credit unions and financial institutions Deposit in savings accounts, savings, savings bank, etc. 8.55 18.21 73.24 100 541-Professional, scientific and technical services GTHBC 18.41 35.23 46.37 100 611-Educational services Education services, educational items, recreational items, and other recreational expenses 11.27 28.28 60.45 100 L-Medical services and social assistance Health care 17.12 27.94 54.95 100 M-Public sector GTHBC 18.41 35.23 46.37 100 N-Other services GTHBC 18.41 35.23 46.37 100 Imports of final consumer goods Type of imported goods ENIGH Proxy Low Medium High Total MD-Food and beverage industry ABT 25.20 40.47 34.33 100 ME-Petroleum products, chemicals, and plastics Housing, utilities, electric power, and fuels 21.23 37.53 41.24 100 MG-Manufacturing of electrical, electronic, and transportation goods TAMASVC 13.82 36.60 49.58 100 M0-Other imports GTHBC 18.41 35.23 46.37 100 Excise taxes Payment of taxes GTHBC 18.41 35.23 46.37 100 Inter-institutional transfers Institutional transfers Expense transfers 8.42 28.57 63.01 100

Nota: NA: Not Applicable.

Source: compiled by the authors using data from ENIGH, 2014.

Tables 10 and 11 complete the information necessary to conclude the SAM-Mexico 2013 (see Table 12).

Table 12 Social Accounting Matrix Mexico 2013

 Productive sectors SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 SP6 SP7 SP8 SP9 SP10 SP11 SP12 SP13 A - Agricultural and non-agricultural primary sector 64 377 0.52 0.34 302 393 558 7 062 103 2.04 19 349 1.72 2.18 1.95 211 - Oil and gas extraction 82 494 197 B - Mining 784 351 6 670 36 292 2 278 7 140 162572 714 239 188 182 162 C - Construction and related services 13 476 3 437 24 921 165 761 33 108 23 602 45 833 35 555 25 170 45 338 13 106 4 405 75 D - Food and beverage industry 67 660 25 19 235 174 159 1 629 185 222 5 506 2 481 100 98 13 E - Petroleum products, chemicals, and plastics 38 152 28 639 41 350 152574 57 056 220 559 27 492 65 066 45 274 61 292 248 270 2 927 5 F - Mineral and non-metallic industries 1 897 3 199 7 078 189 411 23 046 11 336 171 842 200 190 11 630 7 645 1 386 2 094 6 G - Electrical, electronic and transportation manufacturing 2 046 770 3 885 28 588 2 254 2 314 4 523 189257 3 414 8 218 15 380 9 028 4 H - Other industries 2 262 939 3 531 21 505 14 851 12 842 9 471 32 683 123 517 32 166 2 010 755 1 274 I - Grocery, food, beverages, ice, and tobacco trade 44 348 11 465 15 058 137 531 173 396 122685 101 334 268 345 76 152 37 102 47 726 14 770 528 J - Transportation and warehousing services 6 188 5 170 2 914 29 591 29 105 47 382 18 809 54 908 11 822 51 426 62 549 8 126 102 K - Telecomunications 363 1 398 1 013 24 382 10 820 6 138 6 548 24 038 5 514 22 971 11 629 24 732 12 521 - Central Banking 522 - Multiple banking 1 398 10 1 064 14 532 3 427 2 374 2 782 2 528 1 430 14 722 1 189 1 630 57 5222 - Economic Development financial institutions 31 106 214 2 354 40 129 130 199 11 345 33 1.47 5223 - Credit Unions and Savings Institutions 61 16 27 71 19 86 12 16 304 23 0.55 541 - Professional, scientific, and technical services 605 18 655 10 002 25 367 15 890 19 767 9 740 28 739 7 090 20 334 9 277 14 046 204 611 - Educational services 1.23 5 1.97 14 63 78 9 336 16 101 18 21 0.37 L - Medical services and social assistance 5 12 11 23 36 27 21 61 172 65 106 30 0.04 M - Public sector 20 13 58 988 390 266 215 345 599 1 076 810 848 N - Other services 4 030 28 499 27 570 60 552 60 278 84 342 44 314 114106 40 564 254 425 116894 76 512 101 W D.1 - Remuneration of employers 87 476 34 803 37 008 444 846 96 261 107 588 69 974 277 769 127324 417 291 304 755 55 149 2 044 K Gross operating surplus 423 414 857 768 222 962 1 002 718 637 071 301 015 257 929 508 935 160 621 2 309 816 708 515 268 289 13 834 TY Net taxes on production -4 148 -609 -2 323 -4 156 11 492 7 081 2 980 13 567 2 945 13 068 -24 913 1 345 58 M1 MD - Food and beverage industry 9 228 130 90 24 57 572 7 206 74 167 1 742 562 6 0.96 0.00 M2 ME - Petroleum products, chemicals, and plastics 26 547 26 590 6 899 23 258 32 517 571 835 22 912 121 879 49 751 20 340 73 019 1 531 0.14 M3 MG - Manufacture of electrical, electronic, and transport goods 2 543 7 334 14 502 80 041 11 686 19 802 32 168 1 306 158 48 293 31 870 78 627 57 892 0.23 M4 M0 - Other imports 17 945 4 252 12 125 113 718 99 921 27 926 136452 294 153 154886 32 318 23 588 6 185 55 H1 Households_1 (low income) H2 Households_2 (middle income) H3 Households_3 (high income) S1 Public non-financial corporations S2 Private non-financial corporations S3 Financial corporations G Government RM R.M Rest of the world S Savings UFOS Total expenditure 810 711 1 032 962 436 639 2 550 560 1 940 345 2106340 1 128497 3 539 933 923 046 3 385 466 1 694 287 550 578 18 371 SP14 SP15 SP16 SP17 SP18 SP19 SP20 SP21 W K TY M1 M2 Productive sectors A - Agricultural and non-agricultural primary sector 0.75 421 64 18 4 671 211 - Oil and gas extraction B - Mining 65 21 62 51 544 C - Construction and related services 1 332 185 802 7 218 1 5 240 12 843 22 161 47 588 D - Food and beverage industry 47 23 3 170 1 153 2 026 7 369 38 378 E - Petroleum products, chemicals, and plastics 226 67 846 7 503 2 627 49 801 20 209 51 825 F - Mineral and non metallic industries 62 18 5 619 176 147 722 12 560 G - Electrical, electronic, and transportation manufacturing 70 13 4 530 231 610 727 19 405 H - Other industries 4 486 245 94 4 229 3 116 11 009 9 250 26 498 I - Grocery, food, beverages, ice, and tobacco trade 2 527 195 186 6 621 5 234 29 264 13 579 61 316 J - Transportation and warehousing services 1 996 1 178 41 5 583 3 974 5 706 10 508 24 347 K - Telecomunications 3 708 729 899 11 363 6 627 5 266 27 281 32 203 521 - Central banking 10 726 3 579 522 - Multiple banking 1 002 115 1 109 647 573 11 572 1 9 020 5222 - Economic Development financial institutions 414 39 9 33 3 307 1 429 5223 - Credit Unions and Savings Institutions 0.85 0.04 0.01 2.30 541 - Professional, scientific, and technical services 10 722 3 701 2 880 8 609 6 589 10 986 44 587 92 424 611 - Educational services 34 41 2.08 123 1 413 188 3 064 291 L - Medical services and social assistance 12 0.89 0.61 25 9 5 368 39 106 M - Public sector 984 135 0 1 214 0.77 0.18 6 2 531 N - Other services 68 397 2 694 1 025 50 322 17 927 30 778 59 719 262 589 W D.1 - Remuneration of employers 88 526 10 458 3 225 96 235 593 349 297 733 674 744 71 6 295 K Gross operating surplus 199 071 42 023 34 118 214 985 69 403 75 139 30 804 2 673 915 TY Net taxes on production 10 721 568 -55 943 6 227 13 413 39 855 8 819 M1 MD - Food and beverages industry 0.06 0.08 0.09 6 90 771 2 069 7 034 M2 ME - Petroleum products, chemicals, and plastics 35 14 33 1 072 1 869 16 185 6 681 23 039 M3 MG - Manufacture of electrical, electronic, and transport goods 245 14 49 7 592 3 614 2 915 7 052 39 295 M4 M0 - Other imports 1 615 743 683 4 629 8 963 13 190 14 734 66 337 H1 Households_1 (low income) 511 565 74 265 H2 Households_2 (middle income) 1 572 433 290 782 H3 Households_3 (high income) 2 470 172 3 931 971 S1 Public non-financial corporations 745 065 S2 Private non-financial corporations 3 027 685 S3 Financial corporations 375 349 G Government 721 986 RM RM Rest of the world 224 188 1 123 794 S S Savings 2 567 230 UFOS Total expenditure 405 957 67 665 44 963 430 799 748 921 584 039 1 010 109 4 232 463 4 554 170 11 012 348 721 986 224 188 1 123 794 M3 M4 H1 H2 H3 S1 S2 S3 G RM I UFOS TI Productive sectors A - Agricultural and non-agricultural primary sector 34 552 55 485 47 067 110 404 49 224 24 045 810 711 211 - Oil and gas extraction 539 826 -1 143 1 032 962 B - Mining 939 1 797 2 365 44 129 166 771 2 323 436 639 C - Construction and related services 16 694 30 196 69 262 9 268 4 662 1 879 322 0 2 550 560 D - Food and beverage industry 370 724 595 320 505 006 148 335 2 089 1 7 368 1 940 345 E - Petroleum products, chemicals, and plastics 126355 220 823 320 491 293 354 1 962 21 598 2 106 340 F - Mineral and non-metallic industries 14 510 27 768 36 552 348 481 53 971 2 148 1 128 497 G - Electrical, electronic, and transportation manufacturing 101 219 268 009 363 006 2 538 103 302 942 -324 617 3 539 933 H - Other industries 61 073 116 881 153853 2 796 249 400 26 683 -4 373 923 046 I - Grocery, food, beverages, ice, and tobacco trade 375 627 603 193 511 685 468 493 256 911 197 3 385 466 J - Transportation and warehousing services 148 209 392 430 531 529 129509 111 184 1 694 287 K - Telecomunications 57 501 110044 144854 622 2 549 7 375 550 578 521 - Central Banking 4 066 18 371 522 - Multiple banking 6 849 45 929 270 399 1 602 405 957 5222 - Economic Development financial institutions 5 031 10 715 43 094 67 665 5223 - Credit Unions and Savings Institutions 3 790 8 072 32 463 44 963 541 - Professional, scientific, and technical services 8 506 16 279 21 429 20 303 1 241 2 827 430 799 611 - Educational services 18 404 46 163 98 692 579 469 371 748 921 L - Medical services and social assistance 27 779 45 337 89 171 413 987 1 634 584 039 M - Public sector 9 858 18 866 24 834 945 847 205 1 010 109 N - Other services 508 531 973 219 1 281 073 9 696 35 789 18 517 4 232 463 W D.1 - Remuneration of employers 11 316 4 554 1 70 K Gross operating surplus 11 012 348 TY Net taxes on production 111 992 214 328 282 126 0.57 1 6 662 721 986 M1 MD - Food and beverage industry 34 613 55 583 47 151 68 224188 M2 ME - Petroleum products, chemicals, and plastics 19 235 33 996 37 357 7 202 1 123794 M3 MG - Manufacture of electrical, electronic, and transport goods 33 170 87 828 118959 464 062 2 455 708 M4 M0 - Other imports 22 912 43 848 57 718 66 431 219 762 1 445089 H1 Households_1 (low income) 600 2 036 4 491 2 717 491 070 58 550 256 670 107 019 1 508 983 H2 Households_2 (middle income) 989 3 358 7 405 4 346 785 380 93 641 400 494 136 016 3 294 843 H3 Households_3 (high income) 1 098 3 726 8 218 7 722 1 395575 166395 699 882 101 035 8 785 795 S1 Public non-financial corporations 350 1 188 2 621 836 9 988 6 633 8 015 563 775 260 S2 Private non-financial corporations 9 610 32 622 71 944 6 971 83 284 98 562 40 586 55 775 3427038 S3 Financial corporations 32 492 110303 243 259 25 630 292 938 180 930 162800 43 159 1 466860 G G Government 81 814 277 741 612 524 886 549 653 499 68 012 2 244 131 1 698 3 974 5 551 928 RM RM Rest of the world 2 455 708 1 445089 1 081 3 669 8 091 24 320 412 414 66 469 143 225 5 908 049 S S Savings -2 377 676 289 346 3 595 612 -184 209 -696 733 469 526 -388 291 386 484 3 661 290 UFOS -1 639 152 152 152 152 Total expenditure 2 455 708 1 445 089 -131 571 4 746 099 9 644 299 774 883 3 427 416 1 208 719 5 551 928 5 911 094 3 436 410 -37 079

Source: compiled by the authors using data from INEGI, based on Blancas (2006 y 2010), Núñez y Romero (2020), Casares et al. (2017) y Cardona et al. (2018).

The robustness of the matrix’s findings becomes clear when the economic aggregates from the SAM-Mexico 2013 are compared against data from the National Accounts (see Table 13).

Table 13 Comparison of macroeconomic aggregates between the SAM-Mexico 2013 and the SNA of Mexico 2013 (millions of pesos at 2013 prices).

 Variable MCS-Mexico 2013 National Accounts-INEGI GDP 16288503 16 277 187 Intermediate consumption" 8091 685 8 091 685 Exports 4915878 5 068 030 Imports 5248780 5 251 825 Aggregate supply 27 642 648 27 642 648 Savings 3436410 3 661 290 FBKF 3 661 290 3 661 290

Note: aIntermediate imports not included.

Source: compiled by the authors using data from the SAM-Mexico 2013 INEGI (2018c).

In the SAM-Mexico 2013, a total value of MXN$83,712,129 million was obtained on the expenditure side (column 39 T-Income), similar to that obtained on the expenditure side (line 39 T-Expenditure); however, there is a discrepancy of MXN$152 billion, equivalent to 0.18% of the total value of income and expenditure in the matrix, as recorded in the UFOS column. This is due to the fact that in some cases, the values of the line items do not have an exact match with their respective column.

Resolving the discrepancy between total income and expenditures requires examining in greater detail at least three account transactions that report inconsistencies of origin: total imports reported in the IOM concerning the value of imports in the ISA; the payment of remunerations from the rest of the world to households (distinct from the value reported for remittances); this value is reported in the ISA, but not in the IOM; and the transfers made between inter-agency sectors in sub-account D.759- Other miscellaneous current transfers. Other miscellaneous current transfers; this ISA account is the only one that does not comply with the double-entry principle (Total debits=Total credits).

4. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

The findings from the SAM-Mexico 2013 (see Table 13) reflect the state of the Mexican economy’s productive structure and institutional sectors. In addition to production, the matrix includes the distribution of income and expenditure of the sectors, thus completing the bridge of analysis that forms a methodological tool for the study of economic development from an inter-institutional perspective of the Mexican productive structure.

A brief accounting analysis of the Mexican economy illustrates the usefulness of the SAM-Mexico 2013. Here, it should be noted that the current characteristics of the productive structure and income distribution are the result of neoliberal policies that, since the 1980s, have skewed the economy outward, thus promoting a strong dependence on international markets, imported inputs, and foreign direct investment, causing an outflow of economic surplus through trade balance deficits, profit remittances from foreign companies, and capital flight (Puyana, 2020; Romero, 2020; Blancas, 2015). This translates into low economic growth rates with high-income concentration, along with higher levels of poverty and social exclusion of sectors of the population with lower levels of income and social opportunities7(Blancas and Aliphat, 2020).

Quadrant I of the SAM shows that intermediate consumption represents 29% of total supply, while imports account for 14%; a ratio of almost 2 to 1 between local and imported inputs. Additionally, 48% of total imports consist of electrical, electronic, and transportation goods, with subsector G-Manufacture of electrical, electronic, and transportation goods concentrating 75% of the demand for these imported goods.

Table 14 shows the export trend of the primary and secondary sectors; more than 25% of their demand corresponds to exports. This is characteristic of the so-called global economies (List, 1997), which, unlike national economies, do not privilege the development of national productive forces. Within a national economy, the objective is to ensure that production supplies the domestic market and not global production chains. On the production side, the main problem is imports from the secondary sector, as this sector, instead of functioning as an axis of integration between the primary and tertiary sectors within the national economy, serves as an articulator in the global economy at the expense of the national production system (Romero and Aliphat, 2019; Vázquez, 2020).

Table 14 Composition of total demand and supply by economic sector in 2013 (percentage of the total by sector of economic activity)

 Economic sector Total demand Total supply Domestic Exports Total demand (%) Domesticproduction Foreign (imports) Total supply(%) Inputs Final consumption Primary sector 59 15 27 100 94 6 100 Secondary sector 26 44 29 100 74 26 100 Tertiary sector 28 67 5 100 96 4 100

Source: compiled by the authors based on SAM-Mexico 2013.

In terms of institutional sectors (see Table 15), the breakdown of productive sectors and intermediate imports (15A) shows that 64% of imports correspond to intermediate goods and services destined for the secondary sector. Under the conditions of the SAM-Mexico 2013, greater demand from the secondary sector could increase imports, and an economic policy focused on promoting a greater demand for secondary goods would result in trade deficit balances with little effect on the national economy.

Table 15 Destination of imports by productive sector, type of household, and type of investment asset 2013 (percentage of total imports).

 Import destination Intermediate Consumption Investment 15A Productive sectors Primary sector 2.55 Secondary sector 63.91 Tertiary sector 11.07 Subtotal 77.53% 15B Homes Low income 2.19 Medium-income 4.40 High-income 5.19 Subtotal 11.78% 15C Investment by type of asset MD - Food and beverage industry 0.001 ME - Petroleum, chemical, and plastics products 0.14 MG - Electrical, electronic, and transportation goods 9.23 M0 - Other imports 1.32 Subtotal 10.69°% Total imports 100%

Source: compiled by the authors based on SAM-Mexico 2013.

In terms of households (see Table 15B), 11% of total imports correspond to consumer goods, and there is a direct relationship between household income and the demand for imported consumer goods. Encouraging households to reduce their consumption of imported goods would strengthen the national economy. Furthermore, government transfers would strengthen the national productive structure through greater household demand, thus leading to greater economic growth, in addition to having a positive effect on income distribution and poverty reduction.

Table 15C shows that 10% of total imports correspond to investment assets, of which electrical, electronic, and transportation goods are the most demanded, with a 9 to 10 ratio. This indicates that there is a potential market for the production of capital goods in Mexico, equivalent to MXN\$ 464 billion, a value higher than the national consumption of goods in the primary sector, according to data from the SAM.

The way in which added value is distributed among institutional sectors, as a result of the productive structure, is one of the central aspects that the SAM-Mexico 2013 makes visible. Table 16 indicates that 54% of remuneration payments and 39% of EBO correspond to high-income households, with 3.7% of remunerations going to low-income households. This shows that an economic policy strategy focused solely on economic growth will result in greater income concentration, accompanied by the inevitable effects on poverty growth (Expósito et al., 2017).

Table 16 Distribution of added value by institutional sector in 2013 (billions of pesos at constant 2013 values)

 Household type Remunerations % EBO % Low income 511 11 74 0.6 Medium-income 1 572 34 291 2.6 High-income 2 470 54 3 932 35.0 Households subtotal 4 554 100 4 297 39.0 Type of corporation EBO % Public non-financial corporations 745 6.7 Private non-financial corporations 3 028 27.4 Financial corporations 375 3.4 Corporation subtotal 4 148 38 Depreciation 2 567 23.4 Total value-added 4 554 100 8 445 100.0

Source: compiled by the authors based on SAM-Mexico 2013.

Of the added value distributed between companies, 27% (corresponding to EBO), goes to private non-financial corporations with national or foreign control, while only 3.4% goes to financial corporations, and 6.8% to public non-financial corporations; findings indicate that private non-financial corporations lead the concentration of EBO (19% of total value-added). Capital replacement (depreciation) accounts for 23% of total value-added.

The total income of the institutional sectors is made up of payments for productive factors and inter-institutional transfers. When institutional sector income is disaggregated, it can be seen that low-income households receive 17% of their income from government transfers and 7% from transfers from the rest of the world (remittances) (see Table 17). Income generated by financial corporations has a high ratio with the government (11% of their income). Additionally, the rest of the world is closely related to non-financial corporations, which means that about 9% of their income corresponds to the payment of profits or transfers made by domestic financial corporations in the hands of non-residents.

Table 17 Proportion of income earned by institutional sector in 2013 (percentage of total income by institutional sector).

 Institutional sector Factor income Households Corporations Government Rest of the world Total income (%) Households (average) 65 0.2 22 10 3 100 Low income 39 0.5 37 17 7 100 Medium income 57 0.4 27 12 4 100 High income 73 0.1 18 8 1.1 100 Corporations (average) 73 8.9 12 4 2 100 Public non-financial corporations 96 0.5 2 1.0 0.07 100 Private non-financial corporations 88 3.3 6 1.2 2 100 Financial corporations 26 26 34 11 3 100 Government 13 18 29 40 0.03 100 Rest of the world 89* 0.2 9 2 NA 100

Notes: * The rest of the world receives income from the domestic economy, which are recorded in the factor payment table; NA: Not Applicable.

Source: compiled by the authors based on SAM-Mexico 2013.

Analyzing the way in which the institutional sectors spend their resources is essential for understanding the flow of money in the economy, and also allows for the formulation of government transfer strategies with a greater effect on the development of the domestic market. Table 18 presents spending by institutional sectors; households spend 4.7% of their income on the rest of the world, mainly on imports of consumer goods, with high-income households spending the largest amount of resources on the rest of the world (16%), a figure that is even higher than the proportion spent on government (14%). Low-income households allocate a greater proportion of their income to consumption, so their spending has a greater effect on the development of the domestic market. Private non-financial corporations allocate 10% of their income to transfers from abroad; the data suggest a structural flight of capital in the Mexican economy. Government spending is concentrated in consumption (33%) and transfers to households (22%). Finally, the rest of the world concentrates 92% of its income in consumption (exports from the national economy), 6% in transfers to households, and only 2% in transfers to companies, a figure that contrasts with the income it obtains from corporations.

Table 18 Spending by institutional sector in 2013 (percentage of total income of each institutional sector)

 Institutional sector Households Corporations Total Government Restof theworld Low Medium High Total Public non-financial Private non-financial Financial Consumption 84 80 75 79 33 92 Direct taxes 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.8 NA 0.0 Imports 4.9 5.0 4.3 4.6 NA NA Transfers 6 10 16 12 100 100 100 100 67 8 Households 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.25 2 65 43 52 23 6 Low-income 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.3 12 8 9 4 2 Middle-income 0.04 0.1 0.12 0.09 0.5 19 13 15 7 3 High-income 0.05 0.1 0.14 0.10 0.8 34 23 27 12 2 Corporations 1.9 3.2 5.3 4.0 3.5 9 39 12 4 2 Government 3.6 6.2 10 7.6 92 16 9 28 38 0.03 Rest of the world 0.0 0.08 0.13 0.10 3 10 9 9 2 NA Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

NA: No Applicable.

Source: Compiled by the authors based on SAM-Mexico 2013.

Finally, Table 19 analyzes the composition of investment (FBKF) in the economy. It can be seen that 66% of investment is concentrated in the secondary sector; however, 54% is directed to construction. As can be seen in the SAM, investment in Mexico is mainly in buildings and not in machinery; 7.5% of investment spending in the services sector is concentrated in the I-Shopping, food, beverages, ice, and tobacco sector, and only 0.2% goes to the K-Telecommunications sector. Seventy times more is spent on FBKF for final primary consumer goods stores than on Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).

Table 19 Investment Destination (FBKF) (billions of pesos at 2013 prices)

 Investment Value % Primary sector 215 994 6.3 Secondary sector 2 266 968 66.0 C-Construction and related services 1 879 322 54.7 D-Food and beverage industry 2 089 0.1 E-Petroleum products, chemicals, and plastics 1 962 0.1 F-Mineral and non-metal industries 53 971 1.6 G-Manufacturing of electrical, electronic, and transporatition goods 302 942 8.8 H-Other industries 26 683 0.8 Tertiary sector 399 023 11.6 I-Grocery, food, beverages, ice, and tobacco trade 256 911 7.5 K-Telecomunications 7 375 0.2 Imports 537 763 15.6 MD-Food and beverage industry 68 0.0 ME-Petroleum products, chemicals, and plastics 7 202 0.2 MG-Manufacturing of electrical, electronic, and trasportation goods 464 062 13.5 MO-Other imports 66 431 1.9 Indirect taxes 16 662 0.5 Total 3 436 410 100.0

Source: compiled by the authors based on SAM-Mexico 2013.

Regarding imports of investment assets, the Mexican economy is supplied with capital goods mainly from abroad; the percentage of imports related to electrical, electronic, and transportation goods is equivalent to the total expenditure per FBKF of the secondary sector (with the exception of construction spending). The data presented in Table 19 indicates that for every 100 pesos allocated to investment in Mexico in 2013, 54 were spent on construction activities, 15 on importing capital goods, and only 11 on domestic machinery and equipment.

5. CONCLUSIONS

The accounting analysis derived from the elaboration of the SAM-Mexico 2013 allows us to delve deeper into the intra- and inter-institutional relations of a systemic economy, finding a productive structure that is highly linked to the exterior and in which severe income distribution problems persist. The information provided by the SAM suggests that government transfers to households represent an increase in imports of intermediate goods, which is a crucial to the study of effective demand and economic growth.

In terms of economic development, the accounting analysis of the SAM-Mexico 2013 shows that low-income households are highly dependent on government transfers and resources from outside the economy (remittances); therefore, this category of households must increase their income obtained from the productive sphere, either through higher wages or through EBO, if possible. One proposal that could be derived from this analysis is to consolidate cooperatives that distribute the EBO generated among workers.

As a result of the accounting analysis, this article will allow for future economic development studies that consider the use of the SAM-Mexico 2013 and deepen the inter-institutional analysis through accounting multipliers and/or computable general equilibrium models.

REFERENCES

Banegas, R. y Blancas, A. (2019). The foreign saving moderating effect on public spending in Mexico. Revista Nicolaita de Estudios Económicos, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.33110/rnee.v14i1.285. [ Links ]

Blancas, A. (2006). Interinstitutional linkage analysis: a social accounting matrix multiplier approach for the Mexican economy. Economic Systems Research, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/09535310500440548. [ Links ]

______(2015). Fuga de capitales en México: análisis y propuesta de medición. Problemas del Desarrollo. Revista Latinoamericana de Economía, 46(181). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpd.2015.01.001. [ Links ]

Blancas, A. y Aliphat, R. (2020). Empleo decente digno y salario justo en el crecimiento de la productividad laboral en México. En A. Sánchez, I. Nava y N. Cruz (coords.), Bienestar y políticas públicas (pp. 281-310). UNAM-IIEC. [ Links ]

Breisinger, C., Thomas, M. y Thurlow, J. (2009). Social accounting matrices and multiplier analysis: An introduction with exercises, vol. 5. IFPRI. [ Links ]

Bustos, A. y Leyva, G. (2017). Towards a more realistic estimate of the income distribution in Mexico. Latin American Policy, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/lamp.12114. [ Links ]

Cardona, G., Cardenete, M. y Martínez, C. (2018). Estructura económica mexicana: sectores claves, estratégicos, impulsores e independientes 2012. Revista de Economía, 35(90 ). https://doi.org/10.33937/reveco.2018.90. [ Links ]

Casares, E., García, M. y Sobarzo, H. (2017). Las matrices de contabilidad social como base de datos y soporte de modelos multisectoriales. Econo-Quantum, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.18381/eq.v14i1.6544. [ Links ]

Chapa, C., Mosqueda, M. y Rangel, E. (2019). Matrices de contabilidad social para las regiones de México (documentos de trabajo 2019-20). Banco de México. https://www.banxico.org.mx/viewers2/JSP/docsInvestigacionAnio_es.jsp?static=yLinks ]

Cortés, F. (2018). Desigualdad en el ingreso en México, 1963 a 2014. En A. Puyana y M. Puchet (coords.), América Latina en la larga historia de la desigualdad. Una revisión de causas, efectos y políticas (pp.119-146). FLACSO. [ Links ]

Expósito, A., Fernández, J. y Velasco, F. (2017). Crecimiento económico, pobreza y desigualdad: un análisis de eficiencia para América Latina en el siglo XXI. Revista de Economía Mundial, 47(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.33776/rem.v0i47.3869. [ Links ]

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) (2013a). Sistema de Clasificación Industrial de América del Norte, México (SCIAN 2013). INEGI. http://www.inegi.org.mx. [ Links ]

______(2013b). Sistema de cuentas institucionales 2013. INEGI. http://www.inegi.org.mx. [ Links ]

______(2014). Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2014 (ENIGH) [sitio de internet]. México, INEGI. http://www.inegi.org.mx. [ Links ]

______(2018a). Matriz Insumo-Producto 2013. INEGI. http://www.inegi.org.mx. [ Links ]

______(2018b). Sistema de Cuentas Nacionales de México: fuentes y metodologías: año base 2013. INEGI. http://www.inegi.org.mx. [ Links ]

______(2018c). Sistema de Cuentas Nacionales de México 2013. INEGI. http://www.INEGI.org.mx. [ Links ]

Leontief, W. (1941). The structure of American economy, 1919-1939. Oxford. [ Links ]

Leyva, G. (2004). El ajuste del ingreso de la ENIGH con la contabilidad nacional y la medición de la pobreza en México. (Serie documentos de investigación 19). SEDESOL. https://portalsocial.guanajuato.gob.mx/sites/default/files/documentos/2004_SEDESOL_El%20ajuste%20del%20ingreso%20de%20la%20ENIGH.PDF. [ Links ]

List, F. (1997). Sistema nacional de economía política: con el anexo esbozos de economía política americana. FCE. (Original publicado en 1841). [ Links ]

Nava, I. y Brown, F. (2018). Determinantes del ahorro de los hogares en México: un análisis de regresión cuantílica. Economía: teoría y práctica, 49. https://doi.org/10.24275/ETYPUAAM/NE/492018/Nava. [ Links ]

Núñez, G. y Romero, J. (2020). Nacionalismo y desarrollo: una alternativa para México. Revista CEPAL. 131(1).https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/45961-nacionalismo-desarrollo-alternativa-mexico. [ Links ]

Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) (1993). Sistema de Cuentas Nacionales 1993. ONU. [ Links ]

______(2016). Sistema de Cuentas Nacionales 2008. ONU. [ Links ]

Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT) (2019). Manual de uso de modelos de equilibrio general computable compactos, (Strengthen working paper), OIT. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/documents/publication/wcms_741481.pdf. [ Links ]

Puyana, A. (2020). Del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte al Acuerdo México-Estados Unidos-Canadá. ¿Nuevo capítulo de la inte gración México-Estados Unidos? El Trimestre Económico, 87(347 ). https://doi.org/10.20430/ete.v87i347.1086 [ Links ]

Quesnay, F. (1894). Tableau économique. MacMillan&Company. (Original publicado en 1758). [ Links ]

Robinson, S., Cattaneo, A. y El-Said, M. (2001). Updating and estimating a social accounting matrix using cross entropy methods. Economic Systems Research , 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/09535310120026247. [ Links ]

Romero, J. (2020). La herencia del experimento neoliberal. El Trimestre Económico , 87(345 ). https://doi.org/10.20430/ete.v87i345.1029. [ Links ]

Romero, J. y Aliphat, R. (2019). Import demand for intermediate goods in Mexico: 1993-2018. Atlantic Review of Economics, 3(3).http://www.aroec.org/ojs/index.php/ARoEc/article/view/93Links ]

Stone, R. (1956). Input-output and the social accounts. University of Cambridge. [ Links ]

Vázquez, R. (2020). Efectos de las reformas del Consenso de Washington sobre la estructura industrial: los casos de México e India. América Latina en la Historia Económica, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.18232/alhe.1069 [ Links ]

Villatoro, P. (2015). Ajuste de los ingresos de las encuestas a las Cuentas Nacionales: una revisión de la literatura. (Serie estudios estadísticos 91). CEPAL. https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/37957. [ Links ]

1In 1973 Leontief was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his theoretical and empirical contributions on the Input-Output Model.

2In 1984 Stone was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his contributions to the system of national accounts, including his approaches to the SAM, which were adopted by the United Nations (UN).

3According to the UN (1993), as no standardized method exists, data from the IOM or supply and use tables can be used.

4In the case of the 2014 ENIGH, only the percentage structure of income/expenditure by household decile is taken, and not the absolute values, and it is assumed that the composition for 2014 is the same as that of 2013.

5INEGI's glossary of national accounts (2018b) defines the characteristics of each institutional sector.

6The data in the IOM does not allow for the determination of the demand for goods and services for previous or future periods.

7Between 1994 and 2013, the annual GDP growth rate was 2.4% and the exports growth rate was 6.4%. In this same period, the Human Development Index barely went from 0.647 (1992) to 0.756 (2013); according to CONEVAL data, by 2014, 46% of the population was in poverty and 58% lacked social security.

Received: September 24, 2020; Accepted: February 24, 2021

Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons