Research Project

A Study of the Program for Temporary Mexican Workers

in Canadian Agriculture

The North-South InstituteOttawa

Gustavo Verduzco and María Isabel Lozano

El Colegio de México

2003

CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Recommendations from the Research Project

BACKGROUND AND INITIAL STAGES OF THE PROGRAM.....................................................5

Organization of the Program in Mexico................................................................................................6The migrant workers recruiting process...............................................................................................8Organization of the Program in Canada.............................................................................................10Number of participating workers.........................................................................................................10Participation of women..........................................................................................................................14

SECTION I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ABOUT THE SURVEY.........................................16Survey Methodology............................................................................................................................. 16

The places of origin of workers in our sample....................................................................................19Educational Profile...............................................................................................................................20Occupational profile.............................................................................................................................21Wages: A general profile.....................................................................................................................22

SECTION II. THE MACROECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND CMAWP..................................................................................................................................................25

A vision of agricultural policies and their effects................................................................................29Economic crisis: Adjustment and stabilization policies......................................................................30Background..........................................................................................................................................32The 1980s.............................................................................................................................................33President Salinas’ plans and the 1990s................................................................................................34

SECTION III. GENERAL DATA ABOUT THE WORKERS AND THEIR FAMILIES............41

Age of the workers.................................................................................................................................41Education................................................................................................................................................42Workers’ occupations in Mexico..........................................................................................................44

SECTION IV. WORKERS’ EMPLOYMENT HISTORY...............................................................48

Workers’ access to land.........................................................................................................................48Migration................................................................................................................................................49

SECTION V. TEMPORARY WORK IN CANADA.........................................................................52

Trips to Canada......................................................................................................................................52

2

SECTION VI. THE WORKERS’ RELATION TO THE PROGRAM...........................................57

Process of applying to enter the program............................................................................................57Orientation for a worker going to Canada..........................................................................................59Continuity in the program....................................................................................................................60The workers’ evaluation of the program.............................................................................................62Some costs of the Program....................................................................................................................63Support from the Consulate..................................................................................................................64

SECTION VII. LIVING AND WORKING CONDITIONS IN CANADA.....................................67

Size of farms and characteristics of workers’ housing.......................................................................67Working conditions................................................................................................................................69Transfer of workers...............................................................................................................................69Worker mistreatment............................................................................................................................71Fulfilling the contract............................................................................................................................72Training and skill development............................................................................................................74Application of pesticides........................................................................................................................77Workers’ work-related accidents and health problems.....................................................................78

SECTION VIII. WAGES AND DEDUCTIONS................................................................................85

Workers’ earnings.................................................................................................................................85Workday and overtime..........................................................................................................................86Wage deductions....................................................................................................................................88

Transportation expenses and fee for working visas.............................................................................88Unemployment insurance....................................................................................................................88Pension plan.........................................................................................................................................89Income Tax..........................................................................................................................................89Health insurance...................................................................................................................................90Other deductions..................................................................................................................................90

SECTION IX. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE WORKER AND THE COMMUNITY IN CANADA................................................................................................................................................91

SECTION X. SAVINGS AND REMITTANCES..............................................................................95

Impact of savings on the family economy............................................................................................97

SECTION XI. MODIFICATIONS TO HOUSING, UTILITIES, AND OTHER TYPES OF ACQUISITIONS..................................................................................................................................101

Other forms of savings or investment................................................................................................103

SECTION XII. IMPACT OF THE PROGRAM..............................................................................105

3

Individual and Family Impact of the Program................................................................................ 105Community Impact............................................................................................................................ 117

SECTION XIII . THE FUTURE OF THE PROGRAM FROM THE MEXICAN STANDPOINT…………………………………………………………….…………………………122

BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................………128

APPENDIX. DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMUNITIES WHERE THE INTERVIEWED WORKERS LIVE IN MEXICO.........................................................................................................130

Description of Santa María Jajalpa, State of Mexico.......................................................................130Description of San Matías Cuijingo, Municipality of Juchitepec, State of Mexico.......................134Description of the Municipality of Tepoztlán....................................................................................138Description of the Municipality of Miacatlán, State of Morelos.....................................................143Description of the Municipality of San Lucas Tecopilco, State of Tlaxcala...................................148

4

Background and Initial Stages of the Program

Since the middle of the twentieth century, the Canadian government has found it necessary to

promote the supply of available labor for agricultural tasks in accordance with the requirements of its

agricultural production system. Several programs were implemented to that effect: one of the first

consisted of inviting agricultural workers from other regions of Canada to work in the provinces where

they were needed. Later a program of temporary work in agricultural activities was created for students

during their vacation periods, and another similar one for European students. The year 1966 witnessed

the creation of a program for temporary agricultural workers between Canada and some Caribbean

countries. Several years later, an analysis was made, along with the Mexican government, of the

possibility of regulating the admission and hiring of Mexican agricultural workers. On June 17, 1974,

both governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the purpose of conducting a

program whereby it would be possible to document Mexican agricultural workers for temporary work

in Canadian agriculture. At first this Memorandum was ratified every five years and in 1995 both

governments decided for the automatic ratification of the agreement, unless one of the parties decided

something different.

By means of this agreement, as of 1974, every year the Mexican government sends workers to

participate in agricultural activities in Canada on a temporary basis. The work period may not exceed

eight months a year, but should not be fewer than 240 hours in six weeks.

For the operation of the Mexican Program, an Interministerial Commission composed of the

Chief Administrative Officers of the Ministries of the Interior, Foreign Affairs, Health and Welfare,

and Labor and Social Welfare was established. The overall aim of managing the Program in Mexico

consisted of: “recruiting, selecting, and promoting the sending of Mexican temporary migratory

agricultural workers to fulfill the commitments set by the governments of Mexico and Canada in their

Memorandum of Understanding.”

On the part of the Canadian government, the Program was put under the direction of a

governmental agency called Human Resource Development Canada (HRDC), which was the institution

5

that operated the agreement for temporary workers between Canada and some Caribbean countries. As

stated in the program’s policy document, the objectives of the program are as follows:

a) Meet qualifying horticulture growers’ seasonal demand for “low-skilled” agricultural labor

during the peak planting and harvesting season when there is a shortage of similarly-skilled

native Canadian workers.

b) Help maintain Canada’s economic prosperity and global agricultural trade competitiveness

through timely planting, harvesting, processing, and marketing of fruits, vegetables, and

other horticultural crops, and expand job opportunities for native Canadians dependent on

growth prospects of agriculture and agriculture-related industries.

c) Enhance and maintain Canada’s economic efficiency through allocation of local labor

resources.

d) Improve the economic welfare of the migrant workers and their families by providing the

workers with temporary full-time employment in labor-intensive commodity sectors of the

horticulture industry at wages relatively higher than they could obtain from similar or

alternate activities in their home countries.

e) Facilitate the voluntary return of the workers to their home countries at the end of their

temporary employment in Canada.

Organization of the Program in Mexico

The processes of recruiting, selecting, hiring, and documenting workers are the responsibility of the

Assistant Director’s Office for Employment, which belongs to the Liaison Division of the Vice

Ministry for Training, Productivity, and Employment of the Secretaría del Trabajo (Ministry of Labor

and Social Welfare). This office (the Program Office)1 is located in downtown Mexico City, and that is

where workers go to process their applications before each of their departures from the country.

1 To be practical, in this report, we will refer to this office as the Program Office.

6

At first, the workers had to go to the Program Office several times for the paperwork, and to each of

the agencies involved in the same. In 1990, this procedure was restructured and a “single window”

system was established to facilitate these procedures. Counters or modules representing the different

government agencies were set up at the Program Office so that the workers could process their

applications there. With the exception of the physical examination, all procedures that workers have to

conduct are carried out at the same office.

At present, the government agencies that participate in this program are as follows:

1. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is a module at the Program Office where passports for

the workers of the Program are issued. Besides that, the Ministry also participates through

Mexican consulates in Canada, in order to attend to the needs of the workers while they are in

Canada. Moreover, the Head Office for Protection and Consular Affairs acts as liaison with the

consulates to resolve legal procedures between workers and employers, such as pensions,

compensations for accidents, sickness, etc.

2. The Ministry of the Interior, through the Institute of Immigration, grants migratory forms for

the workers’ temporary departure from the country in a module at the Program Office.

3. Five Medical Centers of the Government of the Federal District have been authorized by the

Canadian Embassy in order to conduct the physical examinations of the workers.

4. The Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare, through its office in Mexico City as well as its

offices of State Employment Services in several cities of the interior.

Aside from the “single window” system, at the central office in Mexico City, other adjustments

have been made to expedite procedures and provide satisfactory attention to the growing group of

applicants in a shorter time span. Since 1993, some specific information on each of the workers has

been gathered in computerized form. At present, there is a database containing information on the

workers who have requested to go to Canada during any given year since 1993. In 2001, an electronic

7

system was created to store all the information on participating workers; it also includes their return

reports and their physical examination results.

The migrant workers recruiting process

The general requirements for candidates to apply are: a) to have working experience in agriculture;

b) to have attended school at least three years and 12 as a maximum; c) men must be between 22 and

45 years old and women between 23 and 40; d) men must be married or living in a common law

marriage; and women, independently of their marital status, must have children as economic

dependents. These requirements were determined with the aim of recruiting those workers who fulfill

the profile required by the employers, but it is important that workers have strong ties to their

communities in Mexico.

The steps for selecting and sending workers to Canada are as follows:

1. The offices of State Employment Services in the capitals and major cities of all the Mexican

states (139 offices throughout the country), are in charge of promoting, recruiting, and pre-

selecting workers. They are given advice as to the procedures to be conducted.

2. The Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare gives its support in this initial selection. If workers

are requested by the employer (called nominal workers), the office receives the request and

locates the worker so that he or she may go directly to Mexico City to carry out application

procedures for that season.

3. Those who apply for inclusion in the program fill out an application and attend an interview

with the Ministry of Labor’s officials. If they comply with the profile for participation, they are

given an appointment to go to one of the five health centers that have been certified by the

Canadian government, for their physical examination. The criteria for these examinations are

provided by the Canadian Embassy in Mexico City. When the health centers of the Federal

District started practicing the exam, they were free of charge, but as of 2001, workers have to

pay $70 pesos ($7 USD) per exam.

8

4. The records of the persons who pass the physical examination are sent to the Canadian Embassy

so that workers may be granted a temporary work permit. In general, these permits expire on

December 15 of the year in question, which is the time limit for the workers to return to

Mexico.

5. At the window of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the Program Office, workers file for their

passports; a three-year passport is issued for the workers at a special price of $165 pesos

($16.50 USD).

6. At the same Program Office, there is a module of the National Migratory Institute of the

Ministry of the Interior, where workers fill out a migratory form and another one to indicate a

beneficiary in case of the worker’s death. With this, the Ministry of the Interior grants each

worker his or her departure permit.

7. At the window of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Division of Protection and Consular

Affairs receives the flight manifest, which is the list of workers and their dates of departure.

Workers are requested to go to the airport at a particular time on a particular date to receive

their airline ticket and board the plane.

8. At the airport, officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs give advice to workers so that they

may follow the required procedures to leave the country. Once workers arrive in Canada,

representatives from the Mexican consulates receive the workers and report to the Mexican

Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare if there has been any modification. Since the work

agreement stipulates that Canadian employers must receive workers at the airport and take them

to the farms, during the last seasons, employers in Ontario have hired a travel agency to do this

job.

9. Then the workers return to Mexico, they must go to the Program Office to fill out a “return

report.” Their deadline to do so is January 31 of the year following that of their departure. If

9

they fail to complete this requirement, they will not be considered for participation in the

following season.

Organization of the Program in Canada

On the part of the Canadian government, Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) is

the governmental agency that determines policies for this program in keeping with agreements it has

established with the Mexican government. Since 1987, Canadian farmers who employ Mexican and

Caribbean workers are associated in a non-profit organization called Foreign Agricultural Resource

Management Services (FARMS). This agency is authorized by the HRDC as an administrative arm of

the Program for temporary agricultural workers from Mexico and the Caribbean. The farmers who

employ foreign workers pay FARMS a fee of $32 CAD (2001) for each worker. FARMS sends the

requests for workers to the Program Office at the Mexican Ministry of Labor.

Number of participating workers

When the program began in 1974, 203 Mexican workers participated. Since that time, the number

of Mexican participants in the program has increased 18% on the average per year (see Table 1).

During the first ten years of operation of the program, an average of 550 workers participated each

year. As of 1985, the number of participants grew noticeably; thus for 1989 the average figure had

increased eightfold over that of the previous period. From 1990 to 1995, the number of participating

workers stabilized at an average of 4,955 per year. As of 1996, the number of participants once again

increased, and has maintained an annual average growth rate of 12.5%. Through the 28 years of the

Program, a total of 101,498 jobs have been created.

10

Table 1. Workers sent to Canada 1974-2002

Number of workers  Number of women

workers

Percentage of women workers

Named workers

Percentage of named workers

1974 203    1975 402    1976 533    1977 495    1978 543    1979 553    1980 678    1981 655    1982 696    1983 615    1984 672    1985 834    1986 1007    1987 1538    1988 2626    1989 4414 37 0.8 2210 501990 5143 76 1.47 2480 48.21991 5148 77 1.49 2483 48.21992 4778 77 1.6 2880 60.31993 4866 72 1.47 2860 58.81994 4910 48 0.97 2906 59.21995 4886 56 1.14 2940 60.21996 5211 57 1 3314 63.61997 5647 67 1.2 3690 65.31998 6486 145 2.2 3529 54.41999 7574 165 2.2 4238 55.92000 9175  230 2.5 4620 50.352001 10529 369 3.5 4910 46.62002 10681 339 3.2 7297 68.3

SOURCE: STPS. Subsecretaría de Capacitación, Productividad y Empleo. Dirección General de Empleo. Evaluaciones de temporada del Programa de Trabajadores Agrícolas Migratorios Temporales Mexicanos con Canadá. 1989-1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

According to reports issued by the Program Office, in 1994 (the first year for which we have

information according to the worker’s state of residence) a total of 4,910 workers participated: one

quarter of these lived in the State of Guanajuato, 18.5% in the State of Tlaxcala, 13.6% in the State of

México, 8.9% in the State of Hidalgo, 7.9% in the State of Morelos, 5.6% in the State of Puebla, 5.4%

in the State of Oaxaca, and 4.7% in the Federal District. A few other workers went to Canada from the

states of Chiapas, Guerrero, Jalisco, Querétaro, Nuevo León, San Luis Potosí, Tabasco, Tamaulipas,

Veracruz, Yucatán, and Zacatecas.

11

Although the central states of the country afford the biggest share of workers, in recent years

workers from other states have also joined the program. This has taken place because the program

began to be promoted through the offices of the State Employment Services in most states of the

country (See Table 2).

12

Table 2. Workers sent to Canada according to the state of precedence in Mexico

  1994   1995   1996   1997   1998   1999   2000   2001 2002

  No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %No. %

Aguascalientes                     1   2   11 0 6 0.05

Baja California                     1         0 9 0.05

Campeche                         5   49 0 56 0.5

Coahuila                             29 0.7 75 0.7

Chiapas 54 1.1 54 1.1 35 0.6 33       47   46   88 0.8 95 0.9

Chihuahua     3   3   7       2   5   4 0 9 0.0

Distrito Federal 232 4.7 242 4.9 208 3.9 276       244   295   322 2.6 280 2.6

Durango                         3   16 0.9 103 0.96

Guanajuato 1301 26.5 1252 25.6 960 18.5 975 18.7 14.7   998  13.1 957  10.4 918 9.5 1,021 9.5

Guerrero 9 0.2 50 0.4 38 0.7 34       25   29   36 0 30 0.2

Hidalgo 439 8.9 439 8.9 544 10.5 600 10.6 632 9.7 686  9.0 696  7.6 717 6.1 655 6.1

Jalisco 5 0.1 21 0.4 10 0.2 9       12   133   253 3.2 341 3.2

México 670 13.6 650 13.3 913 17.5 1,057 18.7 1,345 21 1,703   2,033  22.1 2,390 22.5 2,402 22.5

Michoacán 325 6.6 321 6.5 247 4.7 253       342   390   385 4 431 4

Morelos 386 7.9 385 7.8 393 7.5 439 7.7 540 8.3 640  8.4 821   902 7 749 7

Nayarit     1   1           4   3   12 1.2 132 1.2

Nuevo León 2 0.1                           0 1 0

Oaxaca 267 5.4 271 5.5 184 3.5 225       288   420   456 5.1 546 5.1

Puebla 275 5.6 255 5.2 378 7.2 410 7.2 504 7.7 727  9.6 999  10.8 1,040 7.8 841 7.9

Querétaro 16 0.3 17 0.3 19 0.3 16       27   43   45 0 38 0.3

Quintana Roo                     1   3   0 0

San Luis P. 3 0.1 16 0.3 15 0.3 20       18   70   152 2.3 254 2.4

Sinaloa 0 12 0.1

Sonora 0 23 0.2

Tabasco 1   3   4 0.1 5       9   20   79 0.9 106 0.9

Tamaulipas 1   1       1       1   2   11 0 5 0

Tlaxcala 906 18.5 880 18 1,209 23.2 1,232 21.8 1,515 23 1,720  22.7 2,037  22.2 2,061 17.2 1,834 17.1

Veracruz 12 0.2 52 1 47 0.9 53       57   129   447 4.7 511 4.8

Yucatán 2 0.1 2   3   2       3   2   4 0 37 0.3

Zacatecas 4 0.1 1                   32   47 0.7 75 0.7

Total 4910 100     5,211 100 5,647   6,486    7,574   9,175   10,529 10,681

SOURCE: STPS. Subsecretaría de Capacitación, Productividad y Empleo. Dirección General de Empleo. Evaluaciones de temporada del Programa de Trabajadores Agrícolas Migratorios Temporales MexicanosCon Canadá. 1989-1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

13

Participation of women

The 1989 season was the first time that Canadian farmers requested women workers: that year,

37 women joined the program. The following year that number rose to 76 and remained pretty much

the same until 1998, when 145 women participated. In relative terms, the participation of women

workers was about 1.0% to 1.5% from 1990 to 1997, in 1998 it increased to 2.2% and for 2001 and

2002 the proportions have being above 3% (See Table 1).

Although these numbers are very low, it is evident that women’s participation in the Program

has more than doubled in a few short years. This is due, above all, to an increase in the demand among

Canadian employers, and not to the characteristics of the labor supply of women in Mexico since,

according to officials of the Program in Mexico, every season it has complied with the applications for

women workers made by Canadian farmers. Therefore, the women who have participated during all the

seasons are the ones who have been requested explicitly as women workers.

This large increase in women workers, even though the numbers are still low, is probably due to

the fact that Canadian farmers have come to discover a type of labor which, in productive terms, can be

very appealing for them. This is because even in Mexico, in certain activities there is a very clear

preference for women workers, especially in fruit and vegetable picking and packing. According to

statements made by some Mexican employers, women are usually more careful and lose less time than

men, so that in labor terms they turn out to be more productive.

In this sense, and in the event that the greater preference for women continues to grow, this may

be due so much to a situation involving equal opportunities and rights as to possible comparative

advantages in certain activities related to a possible more favorable productivity among female

workers.

If we examine the country’s overall situation with regard to the incorporation of women in

productive activities, we find that their presence has risen significantly as of 1980, and especially in the

1990s, when it reached nearly 30% of the population of women above the age of 12. And while the

economically active population devoted to primary activities declined from 23.5% to 16.5% from 1990

14

to 2000, the population of women occupied in this sector behaved differently: it went from 3% in 1990

to 4.5% in 2000.2

Recent research indicates two general trends concerning the incorporation of women in the

labor market. 1) As a result of greater emigration of men from the countryside to Mexican cities or to

the United States, women living in rural zones have taken up again, with greater intensity, paid or non-

paid agricultural activities, and 2) there has been an increase in the influx of women from rural areas

towards the cities and towards the United States in search of work..

2 INEGI. Population Census, 1990 and 2000, Mexico

15

Section I. Introductory remarks about the survey

In this section we are going to present first, the characteristics of the survey methodology and

then a general description of the main socioeconomic traits of the municipalities in which we gathered

our sample. This information will give the reader some sense of the type of places where workers going

to Canada reside. But besides that, the reader should be aware that at the end of this report in appendix

1, there is also a brief ethnographic portrait of five of the communities where our sample was gathered.

We believe that the reading of that section will be a good complement for what is presented here.

Survey Methodology

Since workers were dispersed in many different states throughout the country and scattered in

many communities in each one of them (see Table 2), first we searched for states with two

characteristics: a) those with a high number of participants since the beginning of the Program, and b)

states where we could find rural communities with a relatively high concentration of participants.

If we chose states recently incorporated into the program, we were missing the possibility of

including in our sample those workers with more years of exposure to the program. Since one of our

objectives was to explore possible impacts of the program on the workers’ lives, it was of paramount

importance to survey all kinds of workers according to their work experience in Canada. The second

criterion had to do with the general profile of the workers who are in a rural environment where the

possibility of having a job in the agricultural sector is higher.

We selected the states of México, Tlaxcala, and Morelos to apply the questionnaires. Mexico

and Tlaxcala are the two states that concentrated more participants during the last seasons; the

following ones were Guanajuato and Puebla, then Morelos. However, after analyzing the databases

provided by the Program Office, we found that the communities that concentrated most workers in

Puebla were located in the metropolitan area of the city of Puebla; the rest of the participants were

scattered in smaller numbers in many communities dispersed throughout the state which is very

mountainous. In the case of Guanajuato, almost half of the workers lived in communities of the

16

Municipality of Irapuato, a very urbanized one, and the rest of workers were scattered in communities

within the state.

For the above reasons we decided to not apply the questionnaires either in the State of Puebla or

in the State of Guanajuato since most workers in these places were either in urban metropolitan areas or

very much scattered throughout these two states.

Therefore, besides the states of México and Tlaxcala, we decided to work in the State of

Morelos which was fifth in importance for the program, and where we also found rural communities

with a relatively high concentration of workers.

Then we selected two municipalities in the State of México, two in the State of Morelos, and

three in the State of Tlaxcala, and decided to apply a similar number of questionnaires in each one. We

did this after analyzing the basic socioeconomic data for each of the municipalities as well as for each

of the communities. Even though each of the municipalities was different from the others, we

hypothesized that in these places we were going to find a common profile among workers going to

Canada. As will be seen, our results confirmed this.

Our source for identifying the workers’ households came from the general list that exists in the

Program Office. From the list of workers in each of the chosen municipalities, we selected our cases

randomly. The number of interviews originally planned in the project was 300; nevertheless, we were

able to conduct a little more, as many as 358. We held more interviews in the State of Tlaxcala (158)

due to several circumstances that facilitated our work.

17

Table 3. Distribution of interviews by state and community

States and communities Applied interviews

by state

Applied interviews by municipality

Total number of households in 2000 Census

Workers registered in the Program

% of workers’

households to communities

State of México 106 Cuijingo 51 991 100 10 Santa María Jajalpa 55 1035 185 17.7State of Morelos 100 Miacatlán 50 5199 291 5.6 Tepoztlán 50 7780 612 7.8State of Tlaxcala 152 Nanacamilpa 49 3272 188 5.7 San Lucas Tecopilco

51 594 104 17.5

Sanctorum 52 1518 207 13.6TOTAL 358 358

The Program Office in Mexico City has a file of workers of a little more than 23,000 cases

which includes information on almost all the workers who have gone to Canada from 1993 to date.

This file was the main source for obtaining our sample for data collection.

Our sample could not be representative of all workers going to Canada through the program.

Nonetheless we believe that it is possible to state that, though not statistically representative, our data

reveals a profile that is homogeneous for most workers since the majority of them reside in smaller-

sized communities which do not have contrasting characteristics among them. We believe that those

workers residing in urban places may show a different socioeconomic profile from workers who reside

in smaller-sized communities. At least we should say that subjects in our sample may not illustrate the

type of socioeconomic characteristics of those workers residing in urban places in Mexico but, on the

other hand, we could say that our sample “illustrates” and depicts a common profile existing among

most Mexican temporary workers going to Canada who in most cases reside in rural communities.

This, of course, is a statement not based on orthodoxy in statistics; however, as will be seen, it has

some good empirical support.

18

The results of the questionnaires are the main source of the research. Besides that, we

interviewed officials of the Program from the Ministry of Labor, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

and from the Mexican Consulate in Toronto. The database of the Return Report that workers filled out

after their stay in 2002, was an important source to complete our data in some cases as will be seen in

this report.

The places of origin of workers in our sample

Workers come from 21 communities in 7 municipalities in the states of México, Morelos, and

Tlaxcala. The reader may observe that in Table 3 data are concentrated in only 7 communities since

many of them are very close to the central community which may be any one in that table.

At the end there is appendix 1 where the reader will find a brief ethnographic description of 5 of

the central localities where workers come from.

The State of México is among 8 states (the total being 32), that are second in well-being

standards in the country according to some standardized indices formulated by INEGI (the equivalent

of Statistics Canada). The number one state according to this well-being index is the Federal District,

where Mexico City is located.

INEGI has classified states and municipalities with numbers from 1 to 7, according to the levels

of well-being. To measure the levels of well-being they consider the results of 36 socio-demographic

variables from the 2000 Population Census. Table 4 shows the levels of well-being of the three states

and the municipalities where the questionnaire was applied: the higher the number, the better the well-

being. However, it is important to take into account that each community in the municipalities may

have a different level of well-being, but INEGI does not have that information for the communities.

19

Table 4. Well-being indices

MUNICIPALITIES Index for the State Index for municipalityTenango del Valle 6 5Juchitepec 6 5Tepoztlán 4 6Miacatlán 4 4San Lucas Tecopilco 4 4Nanacamilpa 4 3Sanctórum 4 2

SOURCE: “Niveles de bienestar”, INEGI, 2001.

As observed in the table, the first three municipalities are relatively well-ranked (rank goes from

1 to 7), which would lead us to believe that their situation might be fairly good; however, in the case of

a country like Mexico, there are contrasting situations even in a smaller-sized area like a municipality.

We should note also that the municipal levels are given in comparison to the levels within each state.

We would rather interpret these good general indices as a reflection of the proximity of the first two

municipalities to Mexico City. On the other hand, according to these indices, the municipalities with an

intermediate situation are Miacatlán and San Lucas Tecopilco, the former in the State of Morelos and

the latter in the State of Tlaxcala. And the worst ranked are Nanacamilpa and Sanctórum, both in the

State of Tlaxcala.

In Appendix 1, we include a description of several of the municipalities and communities

considered for this study. This may give the reader a complementary view of this places.

Educational Profile

The educational data in Table 5 would rank the municipalities of Miacatlán at the lowest level,

and the municipality of Tepoztlán at the highest. On the other hand, the differences in the

municipalities of Miacatlán and Tepoztlán with respect to their principal towns (with the same name as

for the municipalities), should be interpreted as follows: those municipalities include communities

where the lack of educational services is impacting negatively on the level of education of the

municipal population as a whole; this is the reason why there are contrasting differences among the

localities in the same municipalities. Another extra comment is that the population in most of these

places have attended school less years than the national average; only the towns of Miacatlán and

20

Tepoztlán as well as the entire municipality of Tepoztlán have a higher or a similar average than the

national one, which is 7.6 years of schooling.

Table 5. Educational levels

MUNICIPALITY OR TOWN Total population

% of literate pop. 15 and older

% of pop. 15 and older with no schooling

Average of years of schooling. Pop. 15 years and older

Municipality Miacatlán 23984 82 19 5.7Town of Miacatlán 7639 89 12 7.15Municipality Tepoztlán 32921 94 7 8.36Town of Tepoztlán 14776 96 4.3 9Municipality Tenango del Valle 65119 88 12 6.64Town of Santa María Jajalpa 5402 88 12 6.24Municipality Juchitepec 18968 89 10 6.78Town of San Matías Cuijingo 4802 85 15 5.97Municipality San Lucas Tecopilco 2939 89 11 6.63Town of San Lucas Tecopilco 2447 90 9 6.84Municipality Sanctorum de L. Cárdenas

6937 89 10 6.51

Town of Sanctorum 4137 89 9 6.26Municipality Nanacamilpa 14605 89 11 6.52Town of Nanacamilpa 10768 89 11 6.59Source: Population Census, INEGI, 2000.

Occupational profile

During the last decades there has been a tendency in the country as a whole for a decrease of

population devoted to agriculture. From 1990 to the year 2000, this percentage dropped from 23.5% to

16.5% at the national level. As can be observed in Table 6, with the exception of Tepoztlán, in all other

cases the proportions of the population occupied in agriculture is higher than in the country as a whole.

Moreover, in several cases like in San Matías Cuijingo and in Santa María Jajalpa, these proportions

are very high. Places like San Lucas Tecopilco, Sanctorum, and Nanacamilpa (all of them in the State

of Tlaxcala), have significant percentages of people working in secondary activities (industry), but they

are usually commuters to Mexico City or to other industrial areas surrounding those places.

As regards tertiary activities, all places are below the national average which is 55%, although

Tepoztlán is again very close to it with 54%.

21

Table 6. Occupied population

MUNICIPALITY, TOWN OR COMM.

Occupied population

Primary sector Secondary sector Tertiary sector

abs % Abs. % Abs. % Abs. %Municipality Miacatlán

7241 30 2740 38 1680 23 2695 37

Town of Miacatlán 2442 32 708 29 524 21 1158 47Municipality Tepoztlán

11960 36 2113 18 3186 27 6409 54

Town of Tepoztlán 5889 40 5889 14 1509 26 3480 59%Municipality Tenango del Valle

19848 30 6245 31 4928 25 8227 41

Community Santa María Jajalpa

1502 28 693 46 187 12 578 38

MunicipalityJuchitepec 5998 32 2357 39 1528 25 1963 33Community San Matías Cuijingo

1274 27 973 76 83 7 207 16

Municipality San Lucas Tecopilco

637 22 246 39 211 33 173 27

Community San Lucas Tecopilco

511 21 190 37 168 33 147 29

Municipio Sanctorum de L. Cárdenas

2041 29 696 34 662 32 611 30

Community Sanctorum 1041 25 416 40 294 28 265 25Municipio Nanacamilpa

5154 35 1309 25 2169 42 1593 31

Community Nanacamilpa

3844 36 835 22 1700 44 1250 33

Source: Population Census, INEGI, 2000.

Wages: A general profile

As observed in Table 7, in all municipalities and communities, from one third to little more than

40% of the occupied population earn between 1 and 2 minimum wages per week, that is between USD

$34 to USD $ 68 per week. On the other hand, between 16% and 30% of the occupied population earn

a little more, from USD $ 68 to USD $165 (from 2 to 5 minimum wages). In general, with the

exception of Tepoztlán, all other places are far below this average which is about 30% for the same

category in the three states where we collected the sample. This gives us an idea of the large amount of

occupied population that earn a low income in these places.

22

Table 7. Wages of working population

MUNICIPALITY, TOWN OR COMMUNITY

Pop. That earn from one to two minimum wages

Pop. That earn from 2 to 5 minimum wages

Abs. % Abs. %Municipality Miacatlán 3169 44 1146 16Town of Miacatlán 1061 43 566 23Municipality Tepoztlán 3810 32 3603 30Municipality Tenango del Valle 7491 38 4913 25Community Santa María Jajalpa 688 46 246 16Municipality Juchitepec 2520 42 1432 24Community SM Cuijingo 549 43 259 20Municipality San Lucas Tecopilco 199 31 100 16Community San Lucas T. 157 31 87 17Municipality Sanctorum de L. Cárdenas 732 36 381 19Community Sanctorum 338 32 130 12Municipality Nanacamilpa 2304 45 917 18Community Nanacamilpa 1735 45 697 18Source: Population Census, INEGI, 2000.

Some other social indicators give us a better picture of the workers’ context. In the last section

of the report we describe the characteristics of the households of interviewed workers. Table 8 contains

some data related to the communities where they live.

The percentage of houses with one or two rooms in the communities varies from 25 to 44

percent of the total houses in the community or in the municipality. The highest percentage is in the

municipality of Miacatlán and the lowest in the town of San Lucas Tecopilco. Regarding the

percentage of houses that have sewerage and electricity, usually the places studied are in a worse

situation than the national rate. Again, the municipality of Miacatlán ranks in the worst place. In this

case, we should mention the difference of almost all of the indicators between the municipality of

Miacatlán and the town itself. The municipality comprises many isolated communities that lack

services.

23

Table 8. Some characteristics of housing and home composition

MUNICIPALITY, TOWN OR COMMUNITY

Total occupied houses

Average of persons living in a house

% of one- room houses

% of two- room houses

% of houses with sewerage and electricity

% of homes headed by women

National level 21513235 4.5 23 24.2 77.3Municipality Miacatlán

5226 4.49 17 27 63 21.5

Town of Miacatlán 1696 4.15 10 22 91 22.2Municipality Tepoztlán

7881 4.18 8 17 70 19

Municipality Tenango del Valle

12966 5.08 8 21 77 16.4

Community Santa María Jajalpa

1023 5.49 11 25 76 12.9

Municipality Juchitepec

3966 4.82 15 26 77 14.3

Community San Matías Cuijingo

998 4.84 15 29 76 10

Municipaltiy San Lucas Tecopilco

589 5.0 7 21 78 14.3

Community San Lucas Tecopilco

471 5.2 6 19 86 12.8

Municipality Sanctorum de L. Cárdenas

1472 4.72 10 25 90 13.9

Community Sanctorum

878 4.72 11 30 92 14

Municipality Nanacamilpa

3147 4.64 10 20 94 16.6

Community Nanacamilpa

2335 4.62 10 19 97 17.2

Source: Population Census, INEGI, 2000.

24

Section II. The Macroeconomic Environment, Rural Development, and CMAWP

In this section we are going to depict a general profile of the socioeconomic situation in the country

specially during the last two decades; we will pay more attention to agricultural changes so that the

reader can get that information that is essential to understand those facts affecting Mexico’s residents in

the countryside.

As of the 1980s, Mexico clearly entered a new development phase; although signs of this phase had

been arising as of the previous decade, it turned out to be very different from what had occurred in

prior years. Let us recall that between 1940 and the mid-1970s, the country had undergone an

unequalled development process that was called the “Mexican miracle” since, during those 30 or 35

years, it had been growing at very high rates with an annual GDP of 5.0% to 6.5%.

Table 9. Annual Average growth rate of the GDP in Mexico (In 1950 pesos)Years GDP Change1895-1910 4.01921-1935 3.4 -15%1936-1945 5.4 +59%1946-1956 6.1 +13%1957-1967 6.2 +1.6%Source: Solís, 1970.

During this time, an industrialization process mainly centered in the country’s three major cities

was also consolidated. Similarly, the urbanization process experienced some unexpected progress since

the country went from a primarily rural one to an urban one, as the population of cities increased from

20% to 49% and the employment level remained above the population growth rate (employment: 3.3%;

population: 2.73%).

In addition, although the agrarian reform had begun in fact with actions taken by President

Lázaro Cárdenas in the 1930s, it gained full strength during the 1940s. As a corollary to this, we also

find that between the 1930s and 1970s, the construction of irrigation infrastructure works made it

possible for the amount of land under irrigation to rise from 0.45 million to 3.5 million hectares, later

increasing to as much as 5.5 million hectares.

25

In the rural sector, it was not only possible to distribute land to many peasants and former day

laborers from the ex haciendas, but a large part of the ejidos found it possible to be productive for many

years. In fact, during the first two generations of ejidatarios,3 the productive scheme of the ejido served

as a mechanism for rising social mobility. Moreover, parallel to the ejidos there arose an enormous

structure of financial and technical support facilitating the maintenance of a productive scheme that

years later was transformed into a means for subsidizing the agricultural sector, which gradually

decreased in productivity.

Although economic inequality was pronounced in Mexico, data referring to one of the periods

of that era indicates that the gap was being closed: between 1963 and 1984, the Gini Index dropped

from 0.61 to 0.43.

On the other hand, despite the fact that marked population growth during that period became

even more pronounced with the widespread drop in mortality thanks to better health conditions, the

population’s per capita income did not decrease, but rather continually increased during the period, as

can be observed in the following data.

Table 10. Gross Domestic Product per capita in Mexico (In 1960 pesos)

Years Pesos Growth1895-1910 1,8461921-1929 2,388 +29%1930-1939 2,144 -10%1940-1949 2,721 +27%1950-1959 3,563 +31%1960-1969 4,336 +22%1970-1979 6,371 +47%Source: Cárdenas, 1989.

3 Ejidatarios are members of an ejido. An ejido is a productive unit whose owners had, until 1992, the full right to the use of their lands but were not allowed to sell or lease them. Ejidos were and still are organized according to a communal system with equal rights.

26

The overall effect of these transformations was that very wide sectors of the population began to

enjoy higher living standards with better health, employment, and income.

To understand the current catastrophic situation of the Mexican countryside, it is necessary to

remember what was taking place in that sector during the long period prior to the present, which has

been summarized in previous paragraphs. It is important to remember because there persists in the

collective imagination the notion that the Mexican countryside is a sector which unexplainably ceased

to be productive and which could be productive once again with a little bit of human ingenuity and

financial investments.

However, starting with the 1982 crisis, the country’s growth embarked on a very different path.

Despite the fact that demographic variables evidenced negative behavior in Mexico, with a sharp drop

in population growth rates (from 3.2% to 2% annually between 1980 and 1990), added to greater

growth of the urban population (from 51% to 57% of the total population), as well as a more regular

urban pattern in the country, the economic crisis had adverse consequences.

Table 11. Mexico: Total population, growth rate, rural and urban population

Year Total population (millions)

Annual growth rate

Rural population (%)

Urban Population(%)

1910 15.1 — 90 101921 14.3 0.51 85 151930 16.5 1.71 83 171940 19.6 1.76 80 201950 25.7 2.68 72 281960 34.9 3.08 63 371970 48.2 3.40 51 491980 66.8 3.20 49 511990 81.1 2.00 43 572000 97.0 1.8 19 81Note: Urban population, 15,000 or more inhabitants.Source: Unikel et al., 1976, and updating by the authors.

27

The GDP fell from a high value of 8.3 in 1980 to 3.7 in 1986; the number of new jobs created

dropped from 790,000 a year between 1970 and 1980 to only 150,000 between 1980 and 1990, and real

wages decreased to levels reached previously in 1971.

Table 12. GDP in Mexico from 1980 to 2003

Year GDP Year GDP Year GDP1980 8.3 1984 3.6 1988 1.41981 8.8 1985 2.5 1989 2.91982 -0.6 1986 -3.7 1990 3.91983 -4.2 1987 1.6 2002 0.74Source: Appendini, 1992 and INEGI for 2002.

Circumstances made the Mexican population enter into a work-intensive process, with families

taking advantage of informal employment strategies in different contexts: in Mexican cities, or in a

combination of rural and urban jobs in Mexico, or combining rural and urban jobs in Mexico with

temporary work in the United States. Others left the country for good.

Migratory flows to the United States changed drastically. The overall volume of migrants

increased considerably in relation to previous decades; women’s participation rose, although migration

continued to be predominantly male; migrants’ places of origin were diversified, new urban spaces

were added to a migratory flow that continued to be mostly rural; and the number of Mexican residents

in the United States increased considerably as compared to earlier years.

At present, in the 2000-2003 period, there are nearly 11 million Mexicans who were born in

Mexico and are now living in the United States, and it is estimated that nearly 4 million have left in just

the last decade alone. Those figures amount to almost 10% of the entire Mexican population and

approximately 20% of the country’s Economically Active Population (EAP). This is a mass exodus

only comparable to the one that took place in previous years between the countryside and cities.

28

A vision of agricultural policies and their effects

This section is aimed at offering, in the first place, a vision of the main changes that have taken

place in agricultural policies during the 1980s and 1990s so that, in this context, we may attempt to

evaluate the potential of the CMAWP.

As has been mentioned in the previous section, it is evident that the 1980s will be a decade hard

to forget for most Mexicans, not only because that decade brought with it one of the most severe

economic crises of the century, but mainly because during those years, we witnessed the rise of events

marking the onset of structural change whose consequences are still being felt.

In the economic sphere, unexpected situations arose which led the government to reorient its

sectoral policies along very different lines from those followed previously. But in particular, as we

shall see below, agricultural polices did a full turn, culminating in the amendment of Article 27 of the

Mexican Constitution which, at least in theory, implied leaving ejidos liable to commercial speculation

and, with that, their definitive demise.

Since demographic phenomena are closely linked to those involving the ownership, access to,

and control of agricultural land, it is believed that such drastic changes implied different pressures on

rural residents, which were translated into very varied responses. Among these, the search for part-time

or full-time jobs led many rural residents to go to different regional urban centers in Mexico and also

the United States.

Although it is very true that agriculture as the major activity was much more important from an

economic standpoint and even specifically from an employment standpoint thirty or more years ago

than now, it has continued to be an outstanding activity, not so much from an economic perspective,

29

but from a social one since it supports a means of subsistence for a fifth of the country’s total

population, whose adult members have not yet managed to find better-paid work in the cities.

Moreover, we should not overlook the fact that for many urban and semi-urban families, a rural home

continues to be a point of reference.

In view of the above, it is evident that changes in agricultural policies had significant

repercussions due, above all, to the enormous reduction in funds, which ceased to flow towards that

sector in the lapse of a few short years. Thus it is also likely that agriculture’s new situation in this

country is at least partially responsible for the paths taken by population distribution between 1980 and

2000, especially in certain regions of the country, as well as the enormous exodus towards the United

States, where currently 20% of the Mexican Economically Active Population (EAP) reside.

Economic crisis: Adjustment and stabilization policies

In August, 1982, the Mexican government declared a temporary moratorium on its foreign debt, which

was 87.6 billion dollars. Very similar problems were also being experienced by several Latin American

governments.

Thus began a period during which the majority of Mexicans underwent an acute economic crisis

from which, along with other financial and political problems, we have not yet emerged after more than

twenty years.

In the years prior to that initial crisis, the economy was based on the abundance of oil, which

had given way to marked indebtedness in part, for the purpose of confronting traditional development

problems. So, thanks to oil, enormous support was given to agriculture, efforts were continued to

sustain the protection of domestic industry, and the large bureaucracy grew even larger. All of this led,

in the final analysis, to greater indebtedness which made the country succumb to its most significant

economic crisis in the twentieth century.

The growth rate of the GDP went from 8.8% in 1981 to -0.6% at the end of 1982. The exchange

rate with the U.S. dollar went from $24.50 pesos per dollar in 1982 to $57.2 in 1983; and to $150.3 in

1984. Gross investment rates went from 14.7% in 1981 to -16.8% in 1982, and to -25.3% in 1983.

30

As is known by all, aside from the phenomena that had led to the crisis, it became worse due to

strong restrictions imposed by the International Monetary Fund as of the renegotiation of the agreement

for the payment of our debt, and also due to the effects of the drop in the international price of oil, the

flight of capital, and the difficulty to obtain fresh money from abroad. Years later came the so-called

“December error” in 1994, and the collapse of the financial system with a greater tax burden for all

Mexicans.

As part of the domestic measures for confronting problems during those years, a strict fiscal

policy was initiated, along with a reduction in government spending and a dramatic drop in real salaries

which, on the average, was a little more than 50% between 1982 and 1987. Nevertheless, despite these

adjustments, galloping inflation continued uncontrolled. That was how the government came to design

the stabilization program which in the end proved to be effective for this purpose; furthermore, this was

the only heterodox stabilization program that was successful in the major economies of Latin America.4

In addition, as of 1986 Mexico launched its commercial opening up by entering the GATT, later

culminating in NAFTA in January, 1994.

With the rise to power of President Carlos Salinas in 1989, not only were the previous policies

reaffirmed, but also a series of far-reaching structural reforms was begun, such as the privatization of

the vast state industry, a change in credit policies for agriculture, a greater opening up to foreign

products, etc. At the same time, various political measures were put in place to help reestablish

confidence in the government.

The country’s global economy gradually responded to the conditions of this new context. With

Mexico’s entrance into the GATT, mostly large transnational corporations were favored, as well as

domestic firms whose interests are directly and indirectly involved with the automobile industry and

maquiladoras for the U.S. market.5 That tendency was then heightened with NAFTA. It was also

evident that the most difficult years for the majority of Mexicans were boom years for financial

speculators and large businessmen, to the point that several came to be the richest men in the country.4 For a wider discussion of this debate on the restructuring of the Mexican economy, see the article by Kirsten Appendini “From crisis to restructuring: The debate on the Mexican economy during the 1980s” (see bibliography at the end of this report).5 Appendini, op. cit.

31

Within the framework of the economy’s more general changes, the agriculture sector and the

rural population were, without a doubt, some of the ones to receive the greatest impact over those

years.

Following is a summarized overview of the major transformations that took place in that sector.

Undoubtedly, what occurred in that sphere of Mexican society has had direct repercussions on

population distribution and, above all, on employment, although this is naturally not the only factor.

Background

Until the late 1960s, the Mexican economy as a whole had been growing at an annual rate of

6.9%, and the agricultural sector grew at a rate of 4.3%. The total harvested surface of the 16 main

crops increased during those years by 5.5% annually, due above all to an increase in rain-fed

agricultural areas. Corn production had been growing without interruption until 1966 at an annual

growth rate of 9%, due both to increases in the harvested surface and in productivity which had been

achieved especially in irrigated areas. The country thus attained self-sufficiency in food and it was even

feared that there would be a surplus of basic grains.

However, a few years later, due to price controls on basic grains, along with other factors, the

agribusiness sector abandoned the production of those crops in order to devote its efforts to more

profitable ones, whereas the peasant sector had reached a limit to the expansion of its production,

particularly because of financial and technical problems that hindered an increase in productivity at

minimally profitable levels.

Thus, for the following years (1966-1978), the agricultural sector grew at an annual rate of just

2.9%, compared to an increase in the total GDP of 5.7% per year. In contrast to the previous decade,

the major concern during that period was that there would be insufficient food production in the face of

a growing demand due to population increases.

32

The dilemma at that time was either to import foodstuffs, even though this would exert strong

pressure on the balance of payments, or to recover production by capitalist means, freeing the prices of

basic grains, a situation that would have diverse effects on other sectors of the economy.

However, it was decided to follow a different state management alternative in order to try to

refunctionalize peasant agriculture. In other words, the government’s presence in different spheres of

production was reinforced by means of support in terms of credit, technical and organizational support,

as well as through investments in infrastructure.

Between 1971 and 1976, public expenditures on the agriculture sector grew at an annual rate of

25%, and for the year 1978 they accounted for 11% of total public spending. During those years, public

investments rose at an annual rate of 13% and came to represent 30% of the agricultural GDP. For

subsequent years, until 1982, they followed a similar pattern.

Nevertheless, despite efforts in the area of sectoral expenditures, credit, and different

efforts made to support the production of staple crops on rain-fed land, the response in terms of

production was not very encouraging. In the end, the inertia prevailing in previous years continued to

be a factor due to which the best lands were devoted to more profitable crops and marginal lands were

left in the hands of peasants for the production of basic grains.

Among the most important staple crops, production on rain-fed land evidenced a negative rate

of -1.2% between 1965 and 1980, while on irrigated land production grew at a similar rate to that of the

best periods of other years (5.4%).

During those years as well, the surface of rain-fed land decreased by nearly 2% annually due to

the desertion of land, especially in minifundios, and also the incorporation of irrigated land (which

increased by 5%) and the increase in grazing land. Those changes severely affected the production

status of basic grain crops.

In 1981-1982, a total of 58% of the harvested surface for corn was on rain-fed land using

traditional cultivation systems, i.e., peasant agriculture. But those regions evolved differently from the

33

general trend for rain-fed areas: whereas peasant areas increased their share in corn production between

1965 and 1975, rain-fed areas of non-peasant agriculture decreased that type of production.

The 1980s

The agricultural sector declined, going from 9% of the GDP in the 1970s to 7% in the 1980s. It is

possible to identify two periods in the evolution of agriculture during the 1980s: in the first five-year

period, the production of staple crops was abundant, reaching a total of 21 million tons. This period

coincided with the first years during which the economic crisis became apparent and with an economic

policy which, although it restricted the funds flowing into this sector, favored it thanks to its

commercial and monetary policies.

From 1986 on, several bad years for agriculture ensued, and there was widespread

decapitalization, along with a negative price policy for the sector and adverse commercial and

monetary policies. In 1987-1989, the growth rate of the agricultural GDP was negative. The production

of the main food crops (beans, corn, rice, and wheat) dropped from 19.6 million tons in 1981 to 16

million tons in 1989. This negatively affected the availability of food for the population. For that

reason, food imports had to be increased. On an average, 24% of the total demand of staple food crops

was imported during those two years, but import requirements rose as of 1986.

It has been most evident that as of 1982, the country’s agricultural policies began to be of a

limited scope, being restricted by the dictates of macroeconomic policies in keeping with stabilization

and adjustment programs. There was a decrease in public funds allocated directly or indirectly to this

sector. In practical terms, various measures were taken: in the first place, steps were taken to

restructure the credit situation. On the other hand, although prices of agricultural products were

gradually freed to make them equal to international prices, an upper limit was maintained in the case of

corn and bean prices. Moreover, there was a series of erratic decisions causing bewilderment and

dismay among many producers. This was because while, on the one hand, the cultivation of a certain

product (for example, sorghum) was stimulated, on the other imports of that same grain were opened

up at the time it was being harvested, causing serious problems for selling it. The repercussions of

those measures have been reflected in various ways; for example, for the 1990 spring-summer season,

34

70% of the customers of the Banco de Crédito Rural found themselves with past-due accounts and

ceased to be eligible for credit within the new institutional context (described below).

President Salinas’ plans and the 1990s

With the arrival to power of President Carlos Salinas in 1988, a global strategy for developing

the agriculture sector, entitled “Integral Program for Modernizing Farms,” was proposed. The major

criterion of this program was to differentiate producers according to their income and productive

potential. To this end, the functions of different institutions in the rural financial sector were also

redefined. In addition, the different producers came to be classified as follows: 1) producers from

marginal zones; 2) producers with productive potential; and 3) producers who are devoted to

commercial agriculture.

The commercial banking system (reprivatized as of 1991), along with the FIRA (Fideicomisos

Instituidos en Relación con la Agricultura) and the Banco de Comercio Exterior were to provide

support for different types of high-income agricultural enterprises, while the Banco de Crédito Rural

(an agency with state representation) would orient its support to low-income producers who had

productive potential. These producers would have access to financing with preferential interest rates.

This group included the different types of peasants who, even under present circumstances, are able to

produce certain surpluses of basic grains, although not enough to be able to live off of that activity.

On the other hand, until 1993, the poorest peasants were attended to by the National Solidarity

Program (PRONASOL). That program gave two types of support: productive and social. Those

producers who had had past-due accounts with the Banco de Crédito Rural (the official government

institution for supporting agriculture) the year before could apply for credit for cultivating their crops.

Each producer could receive on a yearly basis practically the equivalent of a monthly minimum wage

per hectare (110 dollars) for corn or bean production. In addition, day laborers and in general the rural

proletariat received support through PRONASOL’s social program. In this case, the intention was to

promote small productive projects (support for micro industry), as well as to foster social welfare

(through nutritional, educational, and housing programs).

35

This brief summary allows us to clearly see the practical orientation that the Mexican

government gave to agriculture on the basis of criteria set for this by the international banking system

and the IMF. This was a strategy which, within the series of neoliberal economic plans, was thought

would be appropriate for helping to abandon the current crisis.

Although it is not possible to separate the problem of Mexican agriculture from the country’s

wider opening up in the international sphere, especially through NAFTA, the problem is not really

whether certain agricultural products can be acquired or exchanged with other countries, but mainly

what effects can be expected in the consolidation of processes that have been evolving for the country’s

different types of peasants. To this end, in the following paragraphs we will present some brief

reflections on this problem.

Generally speaking, available information indicates that the production of basic grains declined

markedly at the end of the 1980s until 1991.Yet although we have already mentioned some of the

factors involved, it is evident that until 1991, the new context of agricultural policies was very

unfavorable for peasants growing corn who were poorer, since they were accustomed to producing corn

mainly for self-subsistence. Although the corn was produced at high cost, it nevertheless contributed

rather significantly to the total supply of this grain. According to certain estimates, it is calculated that

those thousands of small producers accounted for 65% of the total supply of corn, and as much as 48%

of the supply sold.6 This decrease in production was probably due to a change in their strategy, since

they found themselves obliged to produce only a minimal amount to meet their self-sufficiency needs

and to devote greater efforts to other economic activities either in their own communities or in cities in

the different regions of the country or in the United States.

Nonetheless, in 1992 a decision was made to follow a contrary policy for supporting corn

production, with a guarantee price which was double the international one and which has meant grain

self-sufficiency for the country. This policy was more beneficial for commercial farmers but also

benefited the poorer peasants.

6 Appendini, op. cit.

36

But aside from this situation, which could be described as transitory in the face of NAFTA, this

type of peasantry mostly remained dependent on the support given by PRONASOL, i.e., with the

possibility of receiving a small subsidy for consumption, although this subsidy was given as if it were

supporting production. In reality, PRONASOL’s goal in this regard was not to promote production

among this type of peasant, but rather to support their possibilities for alleviating their poverty.

Moreover, among the thousands of small producers with surpluses (i.e., those who thanks to

specific circumstances were able to produce for sale on the market), there is evidence indicating that in

the different regions, many of them were able to shift partially to other non-staple crops. Overall, they

tended more towards crops such as sorghum and oilseed, as well as towards more animal husbandry,

although we must say that the experiences in this change in the different regions of the country were

many and varied. Yet that does not mean that this type of transformation has been reflected in a notable

increase in the production of other non-staple crops, and there are two reasons for this: a) because the

shift was towards a very numerous group of products, and the effect on total volume was thus

minimized, and b) because according to the rationale of these producers, the change was in keeping

with an effort to maintain the status quo rather than an impulse of an entrepreneurial nature seeking to

increase the productivity of their crops.

With regard to this same type of producer, there is, however, data indicating that their

productive capacity has decreased because they have had to abandon different types of technological

elements which had already been adapted in their particular contexts, such as the use of machinery or

fertilizers. We should recall that gradually there were cutbacks and changes in the conditions of loans,

and that the economic crisis made current money more scarce. Precisely for that reason, it was difficult

to maintain productive conditions prevailing in previous years.

This type of peasantry continued to have access to support from the Banco de Crédito Rural (the

government’s official institution) subject to fluctuations in political and economic decisions, in other

words, matters concerning price policies, the situation of customs duties involving imports and exports

of agricultural products, and the ups and downs of the marketing process. But although in recent years

these circumstances have acted against them, it is possible (at least in theory) that there may come to be

greater harmony among economic and political decisions and that these producers can come to

37

maintain production and productivity levels characterizing previous years, or at least to continue with

their customary share as in recent periods.

Producers who are in a better financial position (there are 56,000 of them, according to

government calculations) could continue to produce as agribusinesses as they had done so until 1994,

with support from commercial banks and the Banco de Comercio Exterior, and also with expectations

to be in a position to increase their scale of production by curbing the distribution of land and being

able to incorporate the production of thousands of ejidos to their own goals under a new scheme of

legal permissiveness. In this sense, it is worth pointing out that many of the above-mentioned small

producers with surpluses would come to share resources with the farmers who are better off, although

the latter would be the ones setting the conditions.

These producers who are better off usually have excellent technical conditions and produce

mostly on irrigated land. In some regions (the Bajío, Sinaloa, Sonora, Morelos, Michoacán, Colima,

Jalisco, Veracruz, and Chiapas), many of them are producing for export and supposedly are in a

position to enlarge their production thanks to NAFTA. But we would have to clarify that in this case,

these are not really peasants.

In October, 1993, President Salinas proposed a new program for supporting agricultural

production. This plan was called PROCAMPO, and was aimed at promoting the production of basic

grains and not only corn, as was the case in 1992. In addition, this program was intended to be

transnational in the face of the NAFTA agreements.

Under the PROCAMPO scheme, corn producers received a payment of $650 pesos ($203

dollars) per ton in 1994, which was still a little more than double the international price. Moreover,

those who cultivated corn, beans, wheat, sorghum, soybeans, rice or cotton would receive $330 pesos

($110 dollars) per cultivated hectare. For 1995, the guarantee prices dropped a bit further, and then

remained well below the laws of supply and demand although corn and beans were protected from

other countries in a limited way by customs duties for 15 years.

38

As the reader has been able to observe up to now, albeit in a very summarized fashion, the

situation of the Mexican agricultural sector has changed radically, above all in the early 1990s, because

at first Salinas’ policies heightened and made more evident the trend that had been in effect since the

1982 crisis, and then his successors, Presidents Zedillo and Fox, continued along almost the same lines

with PROCAMPO, on the one hand, and PROGRESA and OPORTUNIDADES as programs

substituting PRONASOL.

Without a doubt, the PROCAMPO scheme helped inject some money into poor peasants’

households, although it did not solve their income problems nor their situation as agricultural

producers.

Let us consider a typical, although ideal, example of a majority of producers: an ejidatario with

5 hectares of second-rate rain-fed land who produces, on an average, with good weather conditions,

1.0 ton of corn per hectare, i.e., 5 tons total. In 1994 he received from PROCAMPO $3,250 pesos for

his production, plus $1,650 pesos for his 5 hectares. This amounted to $4,900 pesos per year or $408

pesos ($127 dollars) per month. And that was if the entire process had taken place under the best

possible conditions.

In contrast, a technified and efficient producer who had capital and channel irrigation in El

Bajío or the Valle del Yaqui, could produce crops let’s say on 300 hectares with an average

productivity of 5.95 tons per hectare, or 1,785 tons which were paid at $650 pesos per ton, giving him a

total of $1,160,250 pesos. If we subtract from that figure his average production costs of $1,505 pesos

per hectare, he had a net profit of $708,750, to which we would also have to add the fiscal subsidy he

gets for 300 hectares, namely $9,900 pesos. Therefore, he gets a total of $807,750, equivalent to

$67,310 new pesos per month ($21,035 dollars) for twelve months. These are some of the marked

differences that still characterize Mexican agriculture.

The above-described exercise probably explains why we were able to achieve self-sufficiency in

corn between 1992 and 1993, until early 1995, continuing with our subsidy scheme and prices

guaranteed by PROCAMPO. This was self-sufficiency based on a price almost double that set

39

internationally. And this was a situation which, as we have indicated, was very beneficial for producers

who were better off, but had very little positive impact on peasants.

Then in 1995, the country suffered a terrible crisis like the one experienced by Argentina not

long ago. With this, the scheme of subsidies to guarantee prices collapsed completely and the situation

became very bad even for the most profitable agricultural producers.

But besides production problems we also have to consider employment on farms, although

before the 1982 crisis, it was very clear that hundreds of thousands of peasants were leaving certain

areas of the country to work temporarily in major Mexican cities and also in the United States for the

purpose of complementing their income. This situation not only continued, but was heightened during

this decade, as is eloquently shown by very solid data. For its part, PROCAMPO did not seem to be the

solution either for the income problem or for the problem of employment for rural dwellers. And on the

other hand, labor demand in the cities has not increased with the exception of those located on the

northern border between Mexico and the U.S. This is a serious situation that only compounds the

gravity of other critical problems in the country.

It is precisely due to the above-mentioned features that the CMAWP would appear to be a very

good alternative for Mexican workers, especially for those who live in rural areas where their main

employment option is in poorly-remunerated agricultural activities.

40

Section III. General data about the workers and their families

In this section and the following ones we are going to present all the results obtained through

the questionnaire applied to the workers in their places of residence.

In 95% of the cases the worker interviewed was the head of the household; 4.5% (16 workers)

are sons or daughters of the head of the household and only two of those interviewed had a different

family relationship to the head of the family. Of the nine women in the sample, seven are heads of

household and two are daughters of the head of the household. There were no cases in which the

participant was the wife of the head of the household.

The sample consists of 349 men and 9 women to whom the questionnaire was administered.

The proportion of women is very small as it occurs in general in the program. In 1989 some women

entered the program; in the 2001 season, 369 out of 10,529 participating workers were women (see

Table 1).

In the sample in total, 22 cases are not presently married. Some are separated or divorced, and a

few (3.5%) are single. The women interviewed who are single have children and some also provide

financial support for their parents. The single men do not have children as financial dependents but

they do provide financial support to either their mother or father or both. Previously there was some

flexibility with regard to the requirement of having dependents in selecting the workers, but since 2002

it is indispensable for their inclusion in the program.

By administering the questionnaire, we were not only seeking to gather information from the

worker himself regarding the program, but also information on the family, working, and migratory

history, as well as the current situation of the family as to occupation and income; it was important that

the worker and spouse should be present, and if the worker was the son or other member of the

household, we tried to see to it that the head of the family and/or spouse were present.

Age of the workers

To enter the program, men must be between 22 and 45 years old and the women between 23

and 40. The average age of the workers interviewed was 38; the youngest was 20 and the oldest 67.

41

The average age of the group of women interviewed was 41.8 and the range was from 31 to 54. This

does not mean that all of them were recently involved in the program since our sample included people

who had been engaged in the program at some previous time.

Table 13. Age of the workers by groups

Frequency Percent No answer 1 .3 20-24 years old 13 3.6 25-29 61 17.0 30-34 67 18.7 35-39 54 15.1 40-44 78 21.8 45-49 37 10.3 50-54 26 7.3 55-59 14 3.9 60-64 4 1.1 65 and older 3 .8 Total 358 100.0

As observed, almost two thirds of those interviewed were between 35 and 49 years old

depending on where we draw the line, but as mentioned the average age was 38.

Education

A requirement for entering the program is that candidates must have attended school for at least

three years and not more than 12 years. There were five workers who had not attended school at all and

two who had attended college. The workers’ educational attainment was on the average 7.7 years,

similar to the national one, which is 7.6 years.

42

Table 14. Education. Last year of school of workers interviewed

As has been found in most

research in Mexico, the average

schooling of the workers is higher in

comparison to the educational

attainment of their parents, whose

average schooling was around 2.4 years

according to our results. However, as

said before, these wide differences in

educational attainment between

the two generations are a common trend

in the country.

In comparison to the

educational level at the local scale, we found that the proportion of workers in the sample with 6 or

more years of schooling is much higher than the proportion of the population over 15 years of age who

have completed a similar number of years in most communities where the sample was gathered (see

Table 15). We should say that the level of educational attainment in the communities is very low, but

workers who are attracted by the Program have more years of studies than most of their peers in the

communities. We would say that this is a common trend also found even in cases of internal migration

in the country. In general, people who take risks outside of their communities tend to have higher levels

of education than those who do not.

Frequency Per Cent

No schooling 5 1.4

1st grade, elementary school 12 3.4

2nd grade, elementary school 10 2.8

3rd grade, elementary school 13 3.6

4th grade, elementary school 7 2.0

5th grade, elementary school 6 1.7

6th grade, elementary school 135 37.4

1st year, junior high 3 .8

2nd year, junior high 6 1.7

3rd year, junior high 147 40.8

1st year, senior high or preparatory 1 .3

3rd year, senior high or preparatory 13 3.6

1st year, college 1 .3

4th year, college 1 .3

Total interviewed 358 100.0

43

Table 15. Education. Level of schooling in the communities

COMMU-NITY

Pop. 15 years old and above

Pop. 15 years old and above that completed elementary school

Pop. 15 years old and above that completed 9 years of school

Total interviewed workers

Interviewed workers that completed elementary

Interviewed workers that completed 9 years of school

% % % % % %San Matías Cuijingo

2833 100 477 16.5 951 32.9 51 100 9 17.6 24 47

Santa María Jajalpa

3278 100 876 26.7 932 28.4 55 100 24 43.6 24 43.6

Tepoztlán 21158 100 3344 15.8 6061 28.6 50 100 20 40 23 46Miacatlán 14513 100 3178 21.9 3152 21.7 50 100 15 30 16 32Sanctorum 4388 100 1125 25.6 1306 29.7 52 100 20 38 22 42.3Nanacamilpa 9370 100 2436 26 2726 29 49 100 21 42.8 22 44.9San Lucas Tecopilco

1897 100 513 27 531 28 51 100 25 49 15 29

SOURCE. Interview results. INEGI. Population data by localities. 2000 Census, Compact Disc.

Workers’ occupations in Mexico

A requirement for entering the program is that the workers must have had experience in

agricultural work. The Mexican Government has been very careful to ensure that this requirement is

met. However, it is understood that after entering the program it is not imperative for the worker to

guarantee to continue performing agricultural work in Mexico, since he/she has had the experience

previously. Workers who responded that they do not have a job in Mexico also answered that they

work as peasants because when they go to Canada that is their principal activity. In our sample, 78.6%

of the subjects said that their principal occupation while in Mexico was agriculture, with the remainder

working as masons and, to a lesser degree, in service-related activities.

44

Table 16. Current occupations in Mexico

Frequency Percent

Farming day-laborer 62 17.6

Farming peasant 215 61

Construction-mason 39 11

Trades 13 3.7

Commerce and services 22 6.2

Retiree 2 .5

Total 352 98.3

No information 6 1.7

Total 358 100.0

In the questionnaire, we also included a complementary question in which workers were asked

to indicate their various working activities in order of importance following their report on their

incomes. The responses about their principal employment changed: the percentage of those who work

in agriculture dropped to 73%, while the percentage of those engaged in commerce and services rose.

Table 17. What is your principal employment when you are in Mexico?

Frequency Per cent

Farming day-laborer 138 44

Farming peasant 91 28.9

Construction 34 10.8

Trades 11 3.5

Commerce and services 35 11.1

Retiree 2 0.6

Total 314 87.7

No information 44 12.3

Total 358 100.0

We must note that these answers do not contradict the first one concerning the occupation of the

workers in Mexico since in this second question workers were asked to rank their type of job while in

45

Mexico, which is a different exercise. For example, in Table 16, 215 workers reported as being

farming-peasant and only 62 as being farming day-laborer, while in Table 17, the number of farming

day-laborers rose sharply and the number of farming peasants descended. This is because many of them

devote much more of their time to being farming day-laborers than what they do in their own plots

which, in general, are very small.

A little less than one-fourth of those interviewed (84 subjects) said that they had a second work

activity; 31 of them do masonry work; 26 reported agriculture as their second activity, 8 are merchants,

and the rest perform some service activity as a second occupation. Only four of the workers stated that

they have a third employment activity, three as masons and one as a plumber.

Of the group of nine women interviewed, eight work while they are in Mexico and two have a

second paid work activity. They are engaged principally in trade or in housework, while two of them

work in agriculture as a second activity.

The parents of the workers were engaged in farm work to a larger extent; of the 160 people

interviewed who responded regarding their father’s occupation, 152 stated that he was a peasant. This

great shift between generations is something that has been found to be common in rural areas in

Mexico, as has been reported in many studies.

The results regarding the occupation of all the members of the household show a low level of

participation in economic activities. This is obviously due to the demographic characteristics of the

households, where younger people prevail.

The information about all the members of the households indicates that of a total of 1,941

members, 320 are mostly small children and a few elderly; 504 are students and 485 said that they are

housewives who receive no financial remuneration. Those who perform paid work activities are 632

people. The majority of them, 67% (424), are either day-laborers or peasants; 7.9% (50) do masonry

work; 5.5% (35) are office workers; 3.8% (24) are merchants; 2.6% (17) professionals, and 1.5% (19)

are workers; the remainder (63) perform various service activities.

46

Only seven people from the workers’ households were reported as working in the U.S. On the

other hand, from observations during the fieldwork we got the impression that some occupations of the

members of the households were not recorded because it is common for people not to consider as an

employment if his wife or if one of his daughters works part-time in the family store or in some

informal remunerated commercial activity.

The above information reaffirms that the households of those workers going to Canada are

mostly peasants since most members other than the head of the household work within this type of

activity.

47

Section IV. Workers’ employment history

More than three-fourths of those interviewed (281) do not have access to land or if they work in

agriculture, they do not make decisions on the production process because they are not the owners of

the land. Of those relatively few who have access to land (21.5%), most have an ejido farm plot.

However, if we observe the situation of their predecessors, we find that 57.2% (205) of the

workers stated that their fathers either had or still have access to land: 19.3% as ejido farmers; 16.1%

unspecified; 10.3% as private owners; 7.85% lease their land; 2.2% use land lent to them and 1.4%

have access to communal lands.

Workers’ access to land

Looking at Table 18, we observe that access to land has changed dramatically from the worker’s

parents to them.

Table 18. Currently have access to lands for cultivation

Frequency Per Cent

Private property 17 4.7

Ejido farm plot 24 6.7

Leased land 16 4.5

Other type of access 16 4.5

Own land, but lease it to others 4 1.1

No access to land 281 78.5

Total 358 100.0

Of the total number of farmers with access to land, 68 have land for rain-fed agriculture, and 12

have irrigated land. The average area for those who have irrigated land is 1.1 hectares and 2.2 for those

that have rain-fed lands. Only 7.8% have a tractor. One conclusion from these results is that even those

who have access to land, have such small plots that they can not support a family as we will see a little

later.

48

The main crop is maize, which is grown by 76.6% of those with access to land. The other crops

they produce (although they never grow more than three) are sorghum, oats, vegetables, grass,

sugarcane, barley, and wheat. For most of the workers who have access to land, farming does not

represent an important source of income. According to our survey, during the last season in which they

planted, 32% indicated that their production was insufficient and 16% said that although they planted,

there was no harvest, 29% felt that production was sufficient for family consumption and only 13% had

some surplus to sell.

Table 19. How did things go for you in the last harvest?

Frequency Percent Of the total

The harvest was sufficient for family consumption 22 29.3 6.1

There was enough for family consumption, and in addition there was some to sell

10 13.3 2.8

There was not enough, but there was some harvest 24 32 6.7

There was no harvest, even though there was cultivation 12 16 3.4

That year, nothing was planted 5 6.6 1.4

Does not remember 2 2.6 .6

Total 75 100 20.9

Does not have access to land 283 79.1

Total interviewed 358 100.0

More than half (62% out of 75 cases) of those with access to land have a relative who takes care

of the plot while they are in Canada; 15 people do not cultivate the land when they go to Canada. Some

do sharecropping by halves or thirds, and only two of them said that they pay laborers to take care of

the crops while they are in Canada.

Migration

Internal migration for varied periods of time may be a common feature for some members in the

families of our sample. We should say that this is a common trend in most rural localities throughout

the country; besides this, according to the characteristics of each locality, we found while doing the

49

fieldwork, that there were either workers or their siblings who commute to work in nearby cities, every

day, every week, or every two weeks.

Table 20. Does any other member of the family work (or has worked) away from the town for more than one month?

In addition to going to Canada to work, 36% of the workers themselves (128) stated that they

have worked outside of their locality for more than one month and 28% (102) said that at least one

sibling had worked outside of their locality for more than one month; on the average, two members of

the family have done so. Notwithstanding, we should consider this information as illustrative only,

since the questionnaire was not designed to measure this type of migratory events.

With regard to trips to Canada, almost half of those interviewed (173) indicated that they had a

close relative who had gone to Canada under the program; they refer principally to their brothers (124

cases). Thirteen workers said that it was their father who was or is a worker under the program, and 11

subjects have mostly sons who participate in the program. To a good extent this shows that work in

Canada may be relatively linked to family ties rather than to community networks.

Uncertainty about income and the lack of employment are the principal motives for the worker

to decide to enter the program. In the case of the sample, 58.4% of the workers indicated that although

they had some form of income in Mexico, it was not sufficient or stable and 14.2% decided to enter the

program because they did not have a job.

In reply to the question as to whether they could recall any year in which they had no work for

two weeks or more, 37% recalled periods in which this was the case. For this group, the average

duration of the periods in which they could not find work was 11 weeks. Although incomplete, this

information gives a hint about the levels of unemployment experienced by some workers in Mexico.

Frequency PercentYes 102 28.5No 251 70.1

Does not apply 5 1.4Total 358 100.0

50

The income from work performed in Mexico by the workers interviewed is precarious.

Currently, workers earn an average of $544 pesos a week for work performed in Mexico (about $55 US

dollars). Only seven workers reported having earned more than $1,200 pesos per week (about $120 US

dollars). The average income for the group of women interviewed is less: $335 pesos per week ($33 US

dollars).

Regarding total family income, we have to clarify that responses to the question on

contributions from other members of the household to the family income were not accurate. However,

we have some indications that workers who participate in the program prefer to give the impression

that their income in Mexico continues to be precarious, out of fear of being taken out of the program

because of having a higher income than other candidates. Bearing this in mind, 81% of those

interviewed, responded that the only contribution to the family budget was their own income. Only 58

of those interviewed (16.2%) admitted that other members of the household contribute to the family

income, these being principally the children and wife. In these cases, the average family contribution is

$288 pesos per week ($28.8 USD) with variations that go from $20 pesos to $1,000 pesos. Nonetheless,

workers participating in the program are mostly poor people, although not as poor as their responses

tend to suggest.

51

Section V. Temporary work in Canada

Trips to Canada

For the following sections, we will continue reporting the results of the questionnaire as a

primary source of information. However, some results of the Return Report for the 2002 season (the

report that workers fill out at the Program Office every season) will be used to support our findings or,

as a second source, in cases where the interview results are not precise enough.

The sample included workers who have gone to Canada for one or more seasons from 1977 to

date. About 10% have been participating prior to 1990; 24 went for the first time in 2001 and 29 in

2002. Between 63% and 78% of the workers interviewed have participated during the last four seasons.

73% (262) worked in Canada during the 2002 season.

Table 21. Number of workers according to the seasons in which they participated

1 season in Canada 38 workers 10.6%2 seasons 37 10.33 seasons 49 13.6%4 seasons 40 11.15 seasons 38 10.56 seasons 11 3.07 seasons 17 4.78 seasons 14 3.99 seasons 10 2.810 seasons 13 3.611 seasons 13 3.612 seasons 7 1.913 seasons 24 6.714 seasons 22 6.115 seasons 10 2.816 seasons 3 .817 seasons 5 1.421 seasons 4 1.123 seasons 2 .525 seasons 1 .27

52

The Canadian provinces that receive Mexican workers are Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, and

Alberta. According to the Foreign Ministry office, in 2001 Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick

were incorporated and for the 2003 season the Province of Saskatchewan. The proportion of workers

going to each province has not varied much over the years. Considering the total number of seasons in

which the workers interviewed have gone, a little less than 80% worked on farms in the Province of

Ontario, 14.7% in Quebec, 2.6% in Manitoba, and 1.7% in Alberta. If we consider only the workers

that went during the last season, the percentages are very similar. These percentages also coincide with

the Program Office’s records for almost every season.

Table 22. Provinces of destination in Canada

  1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002Ontario 3,856 3,824 4,184 4,558 5,252 6,033 7,201 7,980 7,553Manitota 91 107 112 132 168 197 208 239 282Québec 832 834 797 817 920 1,180 1,584 2,112 2,626Alberta 131 121 118 140 146 164 182 198 220Total 4,910 4,886 5,211 5,647 6,486 7,574 9,175 10,529 10,681SOURCE: STPS. Subsecretaría de Capacitación, Productividad y Empleo. Dirección General de Empleo. Evaluaciones de temporada del Programa de Trabajadores Agrícolas Migratorios Temporales MexicanosCon Canadá. 1989-1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

Until 1994, the crop with the highest demand for foreign labor in Canadian agriculture was

tobacco (30%-35%), followed by vegetables and apple orchards (approximately 20% each) (Verduzco

1999). According to the report for the 2001 season issued by the Program Office in Mexico, that year

41.5% of the Mexican workers were on vegetable farms, 13.2% on tobacco farms, 17.9% in

greenhouses, 12.5% on fruit farms, 3.6% in tree and ornamental plant nurseries, 4.6% in apple

orchards, 2.6% in the ginseng crop, and 0.5% in beekeeping. This seems to confirm a possible trend in

the sense that more Mexicans are employed in vegetable production as well as in greenhouses, while

more Caribbean workers are in apples and tobacco farms.

53

Table 23. Type of farm where workers go according to the sample

Data from our interviews are not comparable with the program’s record because of the

differences in the classifications of the type of farm. The responses of produce, vegetables,

greenhouses, and packing may refer to the same type of farm, but the worker classified the farm based

on the activity they performed. Similarly, the responses on fruit farms include apple orchards, which

are differentiated in the other data. Nevertheless, the results of the interview show the distribution of

the workers in the sample.

The activity with the highest demand for Mexican labor in Canadian agriculture is in harvesting

the crops; 71.8% of those interviewed who went during the 2002 season worked in the harvest.

Considering all the trips by the workers, the percentage of those working in harvesting relative to other

activities performed by Mexicans on Canadian farms is 76.8%. Next in importance are cultivating and

planting crops, in which 10.4% of all the workers have been employed in every season.

Table 24. Principal activity performed by the workers on Canadian farms (including all the stays reported)

Type of farm Considering the total number of trips of the workers in the sample

2002 season

Vegetables 665 27.9 68 26Produce 274 11.5 22 8.4Greenhouse 408 17.1 66 25.2Fruit 279 11.7 29 11.1Tobacco 569 23.8 52 19.8Tree nurseries 50 2.1 11 4.2Ornamental plant nurseries 32 1.3 2 0.8Packing 44 1.8 5 1.9Beekeeping 16 0.7 1 0.4Ginseng 21 0.9 2 0.8Other 28 1.1 4 1.5Total 2386 100% 262 100%

54

Frequency PercentHarvesting 1,833 76.8Cultivation 73 3.1Planting 173 7.3Stacking 14 .6Day laborer 14 .6Foreman 10 .4Maintenance 10 .4Irrigation 5 .2Culling 24 1.0Fumigation 1 .0Packing 63 2.6Greenhouses 82 3.4Checking bees and collecting honey 16 .7Sales 1 .0Caretaking 11 .5Chemical assistant 3 .1Tractor operator 12 .5Total 2,345 98.3System 41 1.7Total 2,386 100.0

According to the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Mexican and Canadian

Governments, the workers’ contracts are for a minimum duration of 240 hours within a period of six

weeks or less and a maximum of eight months. The workers interviewed spent an average of 4.9

months in Canada each season. There were some cases of workers who in one season spent less than 6

weeks of work. In contrast, others worked for nine months. During the 2002 season, the average stay

was five months; the shortest stay was three weeks and the longest, eight months.

Table 25. Length of stay by workers on Canadian farms

55

Several of those interviewed expressed dissatisfaction over the difficulties in achieving an

agreement between the requirements of the Program Office regarding the duration of work in Canada

and the workers’ wishes or possibilities.

The employer has the possibility of requesting workers by name. In this case, the worker must

adjust to the needs of the company requesting him. In the case of workers not specified by name, the

dates for beginning and ending their stay are determined by the Program Office based on several

criteria. Among these are the candidate’s labor profile and physical condition, the date on which the

worker initiated the proceedings, the demand for labor by Canadian farmers, and the worker’s

possibilities.

Workers begin to travel to Canada in the month of January. In February the number of workers

departing usually rises. During the following months, the number of departures is stable, and in July it

increases again. Starting in August, there is a downward trend. In the 2002 season, there was still one

group of workers that departed for Canada in the month of October. By December 15, all workers

should have returned to Mexico, since their visas expire.

Frequency Percent1 month or less 34 1.5From 1 to 2 months 56 2.3From 2 to 3 months 386 16.2From 3 to 4 months 282 11.7From 4 to 5 months 326 13.7From 5 to 6 months 259 10.8From 6 to 7 months 381 16.0From 7 to 8 months 266 11.1From 8 to 9 months 3371 15.69 months 18 .8Total 2379 99.7System 7 .3

56

Section VI. The workers’ relation to the program

Process of applying to enter the program

During the early years of the program, no mechanisms for publicizing it were needed because

the demand for Mexican workers was low and promotion by the workers themselves was sufficient.

Most workers learned about the program from a friend or relative, or from another worker who had

already participated, i.e., through first-hand networks. Less than 5% obtained the information from a

program employee and 5.7% learned about it through some type of official promotion.

Table 26. How did you learn about the program?

From another worker, a friend, a neighbor 218 61.0 From some relative 90 25.1 From an employee of the Program 18 5.0 From radio or TV announcement 11 3.0 Posters or flyers 7 2.0 From the municipality office 2 .6 Other 10 2.7 Total 356 99.4 System 2 .6

358 100.0

Nevertheless, due to the program’s growth, it became necessary to introduce some control

mechanisms. At present, the program is promoted in the municipalities through 139 offices of the State

Employment Services (SES – Servicios Estatales de Empleo), which are agencies with personnel from

the state delegation of the Ministry of Labor and from state agencies related to employment programs.

These offices promote the program, provide orientation for interested candidates regarding the

procedures to be followed in order to enter, and in addition provide support to the Program Office in

contacting workers who have already participated and have been requested by their employers by

name. Workers are now familiar with these offices; 73% of those interviewed stated that they went to

the SES and were given adequate information for processing their applications.

The program’s officials are aware that it is necessary to decentralize the program’s operations,

particularly in attending to the workers. However, this process has been difficult. There are insufficient

funds to provide training for the SES’s employees: the staff of the central office is short-handed and it

57

has not been possible to appoint personnel specifically to perform this work. Furthermore, there are few

resources available to permit officials from the central offices to travel frequently to the different

regions in Mexico. Attempts have been made to take advantage of the employment meetings organized

by the State Employment Services in order to have sessions about the program included in their

agendas.

At present, the program’s centralization represents a high cost for the workers. They have to

travel an average of 6.8 times to Mexico City to process their applications before going to Canada. The

number of trips to Mexico City is usually higher in the case of workers applying for the first time.

Since May 2002, the Mexican Government has been giving financial support in the amount of

$3,000 pesos (about $300 US dollars) to first-time workers in order to finance their trips from their

points of origin to Mexico City to process their applications. According to the evaluation for the 2002

season made by the Program Office, 88.3% of all new workers received the grant that year. One worker

in our sample obtained this support from the program, while the rest had to cover the cost themselves.

In addition, before January 31 of the year following their return from Canada, workers must

report to the office. The workers must fill out a questionnaire called “Return Report” that has become

an important instrument because it records very useful information for following up on cases and

evaluating the program. If they do not comply with this requirement, they are not entitled to apply for

work for the next season.

In spite of the difficulties described, the SES offices participated more actively in selecting

workers for the 2003 season, reducing the number of trips to Mexico City. The offices of the State

Employment Services are now in a position to capture the Return Reports from all workers for the 2004

season.

In order to reduce the number of trips to Mexico City, the Mexican Government has requested

that the Canadian Government authorize medical centers in other regions of the country. In the middle

of the 2003 season there was a problem because the Canadian Government requested that all workers

have an HIV test, which contradicts the Mexican Labor Law in that this test can not be a requirement to

58

get a job. For this reason, the medical centers certified by the Canadian Government could not

administer that test, but then the workers themselves had to pay for it at around $175 pesos or $17.50

USD in private laboratories. Another requirement in regard to the medical exam, was that instead of

sending the 10% sample of medical exams that regularly were sent to Trinidad and Tobago, the

Mexican Government had to send the results of 100% of those exams. Those measures delayed the

departure of workers. After this, the Canadian Embassy decided to include three more medical centers

for that season: two in the State of México and one in the state of San Luis Potosí; these centers belong

to the Ministry of Health of the Federal Government.

Orientation for a worker going to Canada

The SES offices provide information about the program to the workers selected. Usually, an

introductory talk is held in which workers are informed about working conditions, their labor rights, the

arrangements and procedures still pending, etc. This talk may be given either to a group or to an

individual. Besides that, when workers are ready to take the airplane, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’

staff at the airport give them information about how to reach the Mexican Consulate if they need

support; they also answer any doubt workers might have.

More than three-fourths of the workers in our sample stated that they were provided with

information prior to each trip to Canada. Responses about the information they received referred

principally to the type of work they would be doing in Canada, the rules for behavior on the farms, and

the rights of the workers. Although 144 of the subjects mentioned that they were given information on

various topics, only nine referred specifically to labor rights and 99 answered that they were informed

principally about the type of work they would be doing in Canada.

According to the results of the interview, workers do not know clearly enough what their rights

are as temporary workers in Canada. When asked to mention labor rights, 113 workers (31%)

responded that they did not know what they are or did not remember them.

Of the total number of workers interviewed that talked about their rights, 234 could recall only

one, 177 mentioned two, 92 workers mentioned three, 34 workers mentioned four rights, and only 13

59

remembered more than five different rights. Since each worker could mention the number of rights he

could recall, the total number of answers does not coincide with the total number of subjects

interviewed.

The topic mentioned most frequently was health insurance (158); in the second place, they

referred to the employer’s obligation to provide housing for the worker (133 times). Next in

importance, although far below the above: that the employer should provide facilities for preparing

meals or provide them with meals (42), a pension (27), the right to have eight hours’ work (26), and

transportation (24).

Continuity in the program

Employers have the possibility of requesting by name workers they already know and with

whom they were satisfied. For its part, the Program Office requires that the workers go at least twice to

the same employer; after that, they may change if they wish. From 1989 to 2000 the proportion of

Mexican workers specified by name out of the total number of workers sent was between 48% and

65%. In 2002, 68.3% of the workers were requested by name by their employer (See Table 1). Thus, a

guarantee that the worker will continue in the program is that the employer is satisfied with his

performance.

About 80% of those interviewed continued to participate because their employer asked for

them.

Table 27. Why were you able to continue in the program after the first year?

Frequency Percent Was requested by name by the employer 286 79.9 The worker applied again and was accepted 29 8.1 Does not apply (only went once to CA) 30 8.4 Did not answer 13 3.6 Total 358 100.0

Workers who are requested are not always able to go to Canada; 61% of those interviewed have

been able to go every season since they were accepted and 31% of the workers stopped going for one

or more seasons. The main reason why they were not able to go in a season was because of health

60

problems of the worker himself or of a member of the family. One-fifth of the workers did not go in a

season because they did not wish to do so. Very few do not go because they are rejected, punished, or

because their employer does not request them.

The Program Office doe not have specific regulations that support criteria for a temporary or

definitive suspension of workers from the Program. However, everyday operation has generated some

non-written rules about the cases in which workers might be suspended. Participants can be suspended

if they return to Mexico before the work or the contract is finished, without notifying or justifying this

to the employer. If workers do not go to the Office to fill out the return report, they are not allowed to

participate the following season. If a worker does not participate for three seasons in a row, they are

suspended.

We found that for some workers this system seems unjust, and adds some pressure. Also

Program officials are questioning the efficiency of this system for the same reasons. However, in some

cases, it can not be changed; for instance, when workers return to Mexico before the contract is

finished, without notifying the employer, it can be reported as work abandonment, so that the Canadian

Government will deny the visa the next time. Those cases can be reduced if the workers know what to

do when they need to return to Mexico before the stipulated date.

Out of the total number of workers interviewed, 26 no longer go to work in Canada; and five of

them have retired or are in the process of retiring. Eight workers went for several years but their

employer no longer requested them. Some know clearly that it is because they are older and “do not

work as well,” and a few of them do not know why they are no longer requested. Four workers were

injured while working in Canada so they can not keep on working (two receive compensation). Four

more indicated that they had health problems not related to work, and the rest had problems in fulfilling

their contracts or some other problem, so they are no longer allowed to participate.

61

The workers’ evaluation of the program

The questionnaire included three open questions for the purpose of having the worker provide

his general evaluation of the program. The responses were as follows:

Regarding the aspects of the program they like best, 36.6% of the workers said “everything”;

28.2% replied that what they like best is that it provides them with a job; 7.5% referred to the earnings

and the benefits as the biggest advantage of the program; for 5.9%, the personal and work experience

that they get from participating in the program is important; 5% said that what is best in the program is

the way it operates; and 4.2% were most pleased by the treatment the employer gives to the worker.

However, eight workers (2.2% of the total) do not find any advantage in the program.

The question about what they like least about the program was answered by only 183 workers.

The rest either feel that it has no disadvantages or they did not specify. Almost half of those who

responded (87) referred to problems related to the way the program operates, such as the trips to

Mexico City to make arrangements, the medical examination, or some incidents that occurred because

of organizational deficiencies. Another 26 workers (14% of those who answered the question) also

replied to this effect, pointing out that the most negative aspect of the program is poor attention at the

offices and in the Mexican consulate. For 11% (21 cases), the environment is the disagreeable aspect of

the program. By this they are referring to aspects such as being far away from their families, the

difficulties of living on the farms, the climate, etc. For 9.8% (18 workers), the biggest disadvantage of

the program is that the employers treat the workers badly. There was a smaller proportion of workers

who made negative comments about the work in general, about the working conditions, about the low

wages, or about amounts deducted from the workers’ wages.

The workers’ suggestions for improving the program had to do with the disadvantages

mentioned. 38% of those interviewed who answered this question had no suggestions because they felt

that everything is working well. Almost half of them (44.5%), made recommendations about the

program’s operations, the functioning of the office in Mexico and the consulate’s, amongst others.

Some aspects to which they referred are expediting and decentralizing the arrangements, improving

service, and that the consulate should really defend the workers. The remainder of the replies referred

to improvements in wages and in working conditions.

62

Some costs of the Program

The research project did not seek to make a cost-benefit evaluation of the Program; however, it

gave us some elements to put on the table for the operators. It seems that through the years, the

Mexican government has accepted some conditions that have meant a heavier load of work, as well as a

higher economic cost, for both government and workers.

One example refers to the modifications to the MOU. The first MOU said that HDRC must

request workers 45 days before the date they were needed in Canada. This period has been reduced to

20 days according to the last MOU. In addition to the reduction of time, often requests are arriving to

the Program Office only 10 days in advance.

In regard to confirmations and/or cancellations, the first memorandum asked for the HDRC to

send the manifest 15 days before the date of the departure of workers. Besides, it only allowed to

reduce by 20% the number of workers requested the first time. The last MOU said: “Canada....promises

to notify to Mexico with reasonable anticipation the cancellation of any request before the workers

leave Mexico,”, and it does not specify what percentage of cancellations are permitted. It is common

for Canada to cancel or ask for a delay of the trip of workers with only 7 days in advance, or even 24

hours before the time of departure. Last-minute changes in workers’ departures disorient workers and

mean loss of time and money to the government and to workers.

In addition, at the beginning of the Program, the Mexican Government had to prepare a 100-

worker reserve in order to be able to respond to any sudden demand. Now, this reserve must be 10% of

the total request, which means that the Mexican Government needs to prepare 1,000 workers more

every season. According to the 2002 evaluation of the Program, 10,681 workers went to Canada;

however, 11,659 procedures were conducted, including the medical exam.

Another example of the work and economic costs that Mexico has assumed is the medical

exam. In earlier years, workers were examined at the Canadian Embassy. Later, governmental medical

centers subsidized the exams, and since 2001, the government charges $70 pesos ($7 USD) per exam to

63

workers. In addition, since the 2003 season, workers had to take an HIV test, and pay around $175

pesos ($17.5 USD).

At present, it is not easy to determine the exact cost of the Program for the Mexican

Government. The Federal Government Budget for 2002 is the first one that shows the amount of

resources for the Program Office. In the section for the Ministry of Labor, the entry called “Program of

Mexican Migrant Temporary Farm Workers to Canada” indicates $ 23,396,454 pesos ($ 2,339,645

USD). It would mean that in the 2002 season, that office alone spent around $2,190 pesos ($219 USD)

per worker that went to Canada to work. This budget does not include the $3,000 pesos ($300 USD)

economic support that new participants are receiving. According to the Evaluation of the 2003 season,

2,341 workers received that support, which means $7,023,000 pesos (around $ 702,300 USD).

Support from the Consulate

The workers need various kinds of support from the Mexican Government while they are in

Canada. About 77% of those interviewed know that it is a duty of the Mexican consulates in Canada to

support them. About 85% answered that they know how to contact the consulate staff. The Ministry of

Foreign Affairs has an office at the airport in Mexico City, where they assist workers before their

departure and provide them with all information about Consulates in Canada.

To the question about whether at some time they have had need of support from the consulate,

less than 30% answered affirmatively. Although this proportion is low, not all of them request

assistance from the consulate. Of the 98 workers who said that at some time they needed support from

the consulate to report an accident or health problem, only 59 got in contact with it. And out of 80

workers that found it necessary to conduct some transaction while in Canada, only 61 requested support

from the consulate. The main reason they gave for contacting the consulate were labor problems, in the

second place, health problems or accidents, and in the third place, for a procedure such as recovering

taxes withheld, requesting permission to return to Mexico before the end of their contract, support in

locating a lost money remittance, etc.

64

Less than one-fourth of those interviewed consider the attention and representation given by the

consulate to be adequate; 44.4% feel that they are not represented “as they should be”; 20.9% preferred

not to give an opinion because they had never needed the consulate’s services, and the rest did not

specify.

Table 28. Do you feel that the Mexican consulate…?

Frequency Percent

Represents workers as it should 89 24.9

Does not represent workers should 159 44.4

Worker does not know because has not required its services or does not have any reference 75 20.9

It depends on the situation 4 1.1

Sometimes 5 1.4

Did not answer 3 .8

Total 335 93.6

Missing 23 6.4

Total 358 100.0

According to the experience of the workers who appealed to the consulate for assistance with

some procedure, only 23% received a quick solution, whereas a little less than half indicated that it had

not been possible to conduct the transaction through the consulate. Of the 65 workers who said that

they had appealed to the consulate to solve a labor problem, 29 stated that they were not attended to.

Mexico has three consulates in the provinces that participate in the Program. The consulate in

Toronto attends to the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba, with five officials dedicated to these tasks.

The consulate in Montreal, with two officials, attends to Quebec farms. And the consulate in

Vancouver has now opened a liaison office in Calgary to better attend to workers in the farms of

Alberta. One official is in charge in Vancouver and one in Calgary. On rare occasions, staff from the

Mexican Embassy in Ottawa may support this type of work. The province of Ontario receives between

70% and 80% of all Mexican workers and in the peak months, the Consulate gets some support from

voluntary groups. The Consulate is analyzing if it would be feasible to create an Administrative Fund

for the Program, similar to the one existing in the Program for the Caribbean workers which is

managed by deducting 5% of the workers’ incomes. In the case of the Mexican workers, the Consulate

65

recommends that this fund might work only if workers’ wages were increased since otherwise it would

become an extra burden for them.

Perhaps because workers do not feel that they are well enough represented, 60% believe that it

would be advisable to have a union organization for Mexican temporary workers in Canada that would

represent and defend them. A similar group (14%) would agree with this under certain conditions and

21.2% were in disagreement.

Table 29. Do you believe that temporary workers like yourself could organize as a union, or in some way?

Frequency Percent Worker agrees 218 60.9 Worker disagrees 76 21.2 It depends 50 14.0 Worker does not know 2 .6 Total 346 96.6 Missing 12 3.4 Total 358 100.0

66

Section VII. Living and working conditions in Canada

Size of farms and characteristics of workers’ housing

According to the Program Office’s records, most of the farms to which the Mexican workers go

have between 5 and 15 workers; a few farms have more than 50 workers. In the sample, workers stated

that they work most often on farms with about 20 workers, although the average number of workers per

farm was 45.

We found ten workers going to farms with more than 200 employees and a few that work on

farms with a thousand workers. Regarding workers of Canadian origin, there were only eight cases of

workers going to farms where 50 or more workers were Canadians.

Half of those interviewed indicated that on the farms where they had worked there were only

Mexican and Canadian workers. 12% responded that in addition to the Mexican and Canadian workers,

there were people working on the farms from some country in Central America; 10.7% said that there

were also workers from countries in the Caribbean, 5% go to farms where there are also workers from

South American countries, and a small proportion referred to workers from other regions.

Almost half of the workers are lodged by their employers in the old farm house; 30% live in

hostels built by the employer specifically for them; 21% are lodged in trailers and three workers stayed

in the farm garage during their last season in Canada.

67

Table 30. What was the place like where you were lodged in Canada during the last season?

The housing in which the workers were lodged has an average of five rooms. On average, 12

workers were lodged in each housing unit, although what is most frequent is to share housing with six

other workers, regardless of the number of rooms.

In general, a little less than half of the workers felt that the housing and the services provided to

them by their employers in Canada are of better quality than what they have in their communities in

Mexico. For 18% of those interviewed, their housing in Mexico is of better quality and for 27% of

them, the quality of both lodgings is similar.

The housing provided by the farmers usually has the necessary utilities. Of the total of workers,

99.2% indicated that the housing where they were lodged had electricity, 97% had water piped into the

house, 96.9% had an inside bath and shower, 98.6% had hot water, 98% had a kitchen in the lodging

itself, 98.3% also had tables and chairs, 95% had kitchen utensils and in a few cases the worker has had

to buy them or they were deducted from their wages. Heating is the utility that is least common in the

workers’ housing; 11.5% of the workers did not have this utility. But this is relative because for

employers that hire workers for the peak period of harvest, from May to September, it is not

compulsory to provide heating in the workers’ houses.

Frequency PercentThe old farmhouse 165 46.1Trailer 76 21.2Hostel 91 25.4House in the town 1 .3House 19 5.3Apartment 1 .3Garage 3 .8Room 1 .3Employer’s house 1 .3Total 358 100.0

68

Working conditions

On most of the farms (41.3% of the sample), the workers are supervised by the owner himself

or by a relative. A smaller proportion (35.5%) of them indicated that a foreman or manager is the farm

supervisor and the rest said that no one supervises. The results show that in many cases, although the

farmer has a supervisor or foreman, he also does supervisory work. About 68% of the workers

interviewed indicated that they were supervised by the owner or by a relative.

One-fifth of those interviewed (76 workers) felt that occasionally they had been asked to work

too much. About one-fourth of the workers felt that the work they do in Canada is harder than the farm

work done in Mexico; one third said that work in Canada is just as hard as in Mexico.

Table 31. How do you feel about the farm work that you do in Canada in comparison with farm work in Mexico?

Frequency Percent Harder 43 12.0 Just as hard 119 33.3 Easier 148 41.3 Heavier 43 12.0 It is different 3 .8 Total 356 99.4 Did not answer 2 .6

358 100.0

The work pace is one of the principal reasons why they feel that the agricultural work they do in

Canada is harder or heavier. They mentioned also that the working days are long; the rest periods are

short and few, and sometimes there are none. The work becomes routine and in certain activities, the

worker has to maintain an uncomfortable position during the whole working day (squatting or

kneeling). Sometimes it is hard for the worker to work in extreme climatic conditions, etc. Another

difficulty they mentioned was not speaking the language of their employers or supervisors.

Transfer of workers

The employer has the possibility of transferring workers to another farm in several cases, but

only with the worker’s authorization. In case of a transfer, the employer must notify the farmers’

administrative organization, the Foreign Agricultural Resource Management Services (FARMS), the

69

office of Human Resource Development Canada (HRDC), which is the government authority in charge

of the program in Canada, and the Mexican Consulate so that the necessary formalities can be carried

out.

According to FARMS, the total number of transfers of Mexican workers in 1999 represented

12% and in 2000 it was 15%. In the case of Caribbean workers, the transfer rates were 8% and 10% for

those same years (FARMS 2001). The transfer rates in the case of Mexican workers were higher than

those analyzed earlier in another study, 4% and 7% for the period 1991-1994 (Verduzco 1999).

Of the total number of workers interviewed in our research, 22% had been transferred to another

farm on one occasion; this proportion is higher because it is not an annual rate, with all the seasons in

which the subjects have gone included.

The transfer may be favorable for the employer for several reasons, such as when the employer

has a group of workers and weather conditions prevent doing agricultural work or the harvest was not

what was expected so he can not assign eight hours of work to all the workers. What sometimes

happens also is that the employer did not calculate correctly the number of workers he would need, or

mistakes were made in the requisition or in sending the workers, either by FARMS or by the Program

Office in Mexico.

In many cases, the worker also wants to be transferred. The transfer is also used as a mechanism

for extending the worker’s contract, which they often want. When workers are transferred between

farmers, the worker’s travel expenses are shared, and if the worker agrees to remain in Canada, he also

benefits by having the opportunity to extend his contract. Of the 79 cases that had been transferred on

some occasion, 53 responded that they made the transfer because their contract was about to terminate

and another farmer needed workers. Sometimes transfers may be made to find a solution for the

employer’s dissatisfaction with the worker, or vice versa.

In most cases of transfers, the workers mentioned that the proper procedures were followed.

However, it appears that there are not enough controls for transfers to take place properly. The Mexican

Consulate in Toronto stated in its report for the 2002 season that in that year “a new mechanism was

70

implemented for transfers to avoid problems of locating workers that had arisen in other seasons.

FARMS reported the transfers to the consulate, in order to give timely notice to the insurance

company.” According to the information in the Return Report submitted by the workers for the 2002

season, the average rate of transfers was 6.3%.

Worker mistreatment

One fourth of the workers (91) had felt on occasion that they were treated badly on the farm.

The mistreatment they referred to was principally in words, shouting, insults, threats, etc., although

four subjects said they had suffered physical mistreatment; three of them said that they were thrown

about by the employer. In addition to words, the workers explained that there are mistreatment

attitudes, such as ignoring them when they have a health problem, or “overloading them with work.”

Although in most cases they stated that the mistreatment came from the owner or a relative of the

owner and to a lesser degree from the supervisor, they also referred to fellow workers, and there was

even one case that mentioned the consulate employees. As in other cases of nonconformity, the

workers said that they prefer not to express their complaints: less than half of those interviewed that felt

they had been mistreated had complained directly to the consulate.

Table 32. Who mistreated you on the farm?

Frequency Percent The farm owner 59 16.5 Some relative of the owner 10 2.8 The manager or the overseer 13 3.6 Another worker 9 2.5 Consulate 1 .3 Subtotal 92 25.6Does not apply 266 74.4 Total 358 100.0

The Return Report records responses from the worker regarding the treatment received from the

employer. The results in 9,088 reports recorded for the 2002 season are shown in the following table:

71

Table 33. Treatment received from employer

Frequency Percent No answer 14 .2 Excellent 1667 18.3 Good 5659 62.3 Regular 1470 16.2 Bad 278 3.1 Total 9088 100.0

Although we did not collect a representative sample, we should pay attention to the general

differences in the two tables. In the Return Report few workers answered negatively while in our

sample a higher proportion did. But it was reported to our interviewers that workers are afraid to speak

negatively about the program since they feel that this may jeopardize their selection to the program.

However, a different view on this information is that in the Return Report as many as 19%

answered that they were treated either “regular” or “bad” but mostly “regular.” It may be that this

answer is in fact concealing some sort of a bad treatment which workers are fearful to make plainly

explicit. If this was the case then the two sources tend to coincide.

Fulfilling the contract

The contract signed by the worker and the employer prior to the first trip to Canada specifies the

starting and ending dates for the farm work. However, 17.8% of those interviewed (64 workers)

indicated that on occasion they had been asked to perform activities different from agriculture. Mainly,

they were asked to do domestic work in the farmhouse, or maintenance work on the facilities.

72

Table 34. Were you ever asked to perform a work activity different from what is stated in your contract?

Frequency PercentYes, domestic work in the farmhouse 32 8.9Yes, another type of work 17 4.7Farm maintenance 15 4.2Does not apply 292 81.5Total 356 99.4System 2 .6

358 100.0

During the fieldwork, mention was made of some cases in which there was not enough work on

the farm, and workers were required to work less than 8 hours daily or less than 6 days a week. We

found cases in which the worker was “lent” to another farm for a few hours, or that the worker himself

was able to get incorporated into the activities of another farm to occupy the full day.

The dates indicated in the contract for beginning and ending the activities are specified

tentatively by the employer. The time periods are subject to agricultural production and the dates can

be changed if the employer requires it. In the following table information is given from the Return

Report for the 2002 season. 35% of the workers returned to Mexico when their contracts expired; 60%

returned before that because the work ended, which does not mean a breach of the contract by either of

the two parties. The remaining 5% had to break their contracts for various reasons.

73

Table 35. Why did you stop working?

Frequency PercentDid not answer 20 .2The contract was terminated 3176 34.9There was no more work 5431 59.8Had health problems 85 .9Had problems with the employer 50 .6Had problems with the foreman 19 .2Did not pass the test period 1 .0Had problems with fellow workers 16 .2Was given permission by the employer 27 .3Abandoned the farm 7 .1Had personal problems 44 .5Had family problems 156 1.7It was a double arrival 33 .4 Was fired by the employer 23 .3Total 9088 100.0

Training and skill development

Only 45% of those interviewed responded that they had received training to perform their work

in Canada. However, almost all of them referred to information they received in the field while they

were working, either from their supervisor or their fellow workers. Only six workers answered that

they had received broader training.

One of the hypotheses assumed about the program is the potential for the participating workers

to develop skills, with the idea that in the future they could apply these skills in their places of origin.

On this point, 241 workers (67% of the total) indicated that they had learned something new about

agricultural work during their stays in Canada, and 31.8% felt that they had not learned anything new.

Of those who answered affirmatively, 66% said that they learned to manage a crop with which they

were not familiar and 24% had learned to operate some type of agricultural equipment. However, only

26 workers (10% of those who gave positive answers) had attempted to apply this knowledge in

Mexico; seven had tried out a different crop and ten had tried out a technique. The principal limiting

factor for the workers to apply the agricultural knowledge acquired in Canada is the inaccessibility of

lands for cultivation.

74

Less than 30% of those interviewed believe that some day they will be able to apply the

knowledge and skills they acquired working in Canada. Regardless of whether they have acquired new

skills, 40% of those interviewed (144 workers) stated that they want to learn something; 53 of them are

interested in learning about a specific crop, 23 would like to learn to operate a piece of equipment, 22

are interested in learning more about greenhouses, 11 are interested in beekeeping, and 16 would like to

know how to make the best mixtures of agrochemicals and learn to fumigate.

Regarding the program’s potential for the participants to acquire skills other than those used in

agriculture, only 16.8% of the subjects felt that they had acquired another type of skill. In addition to

agricultural work, the principal knowledge acquired is the language and, to a lesser degree, they

referred to the personal development obtained from the experience of working in another country and

mingling with their fellow workers.

Regarding what workers would like to learn by participating in the program, 114 said that they

wanted to learn English or French. Another skill they would like to acquire is house construction.

Learning the language by just working is “for survival.” During the fieldwork, the workers

frequently made side comments to the questions regarding the language handicap. They expressed the

anxiety of feeling uncertain of understanding the indications about the work on the farm or of

expressing themselves in their employer’s language. They also stated that sometimes they were given

documents in French or in English to read or sign, or that the notices, warnings, etc. that are found on

the farms in most cases are not in Spanish. Likewise, in the comments and suggestions, they referred to

some initiatives by groups of students who during the summers work as volunteers teaching English to

the workers on the farms. Some felt that this was very useful and others regretted not having had time

to attend the sessions. They also suggested that during their stay in Mexico, the workers could learn

English or French.

In addition to this data, information obtained through interviews with officials of the Program

Office led us to the conclusion that the conditions do not exist for the workers to apply in Mexico some

of the skills acquired in Canada. None of the officials interviewed had heard of any effort by a

government agency to channel the workers’ learning or financial resources into production or social

75

development projects. Likewise, the workers did not know of any attempts, either individual or

collective, to carry out an initiative of this type.

Of the 358 workers that we interviewed, only two had heard about any investment initiative in a

production project in their community by the workers who go to Canada, but they did not specify what

type of project nor how much was invested.

We should note however, that possible benefits to agriculture in Mexico are not necessarily

dependent on the workers’ experience or income from working in Canada but due also to other

circumstances of the context in Mexico which are out of the hands of the workers and even out of the

reach of the government itself.

A study done in the early 1990s in the town of San Lucas Tecopilco, Tlaxcala, mentions various

initiatives by producers who, in a type of self-management, carried out production projects by investing

the resources obtained in Canada. In every case, there was also participation by people who do not go

to Canada. It mentions that in 1984, ten communal farmers (five of whom were program workers)

obtained support from the government and set up a hog farm, but in 1994 it was no longer in operation.

Another group of 20 people (9 workers from the program) opened a poultry farm with their own

resources; by 1994, several of the partners had withdrawn. It also mentions an initiative to grow

chrysanthemums, but it did not become a reality (Caloca Rivas 1999).

In an interview, the Mayor of San Lucas Tecopilco, who had participated in the program for

several years, responded that he did not know about any production project as a result of an initiative

by the temporary workers who go to Canada. Now that he is the head of the municipality, he is seeking

support from the federal and state governments to build a greenhouse in San Lucas to take advantage of

the experience of many inhabitants of the town who go to Canada to work. But we wonder to what

extent the arrival to power of this person as mayor will be an indirect effect of his experience as a

worker who went to Canada. Mateo Morales told us that part of the financing of his political campaign

was supplied by his income from work done in Canada. As was his case, it is likely that the life of these

workers has had other positive effects that are not related to productive projects.

76

Application of pesticides

According to Canadian legislation, if an agricultural worker has a problem or concern regarding

the application of pesticides he can call a labor inspector. Of all workers, only 56 know about this

benefit and 13 said that they had expressed their concern to the consulate or some other organization,

but an inspector was not called in any of the cases.

Of the workers interviewed, 23.7% (85) had been asked on at least one occasion to apply

agrochemicals. On the other hand, 123 subjects answered that they had had to go into a field recently

sprayed with agrochemicals. In this case, only 12 wore special clothing and a mask. Several of those

interviewed commented that although they had not been asked to apply agrochemicals, other workers

had applied chemicals in the fields while they were working at the site.

Only four workers recalled the name of the chemicals used. The ones mentioned were Seven,

Furadan, Bravo, Gramocson, Capitan, Azufre, Wata, Principe, Caltrac, Basuadin, Paiko, Maxum,

Cobre, Maestro, Esteron, Boltrac, and Folydor. (The spelling may be wrong.)

Protection and training of workers who are required to apply pesticides are guaranteed by

Canadian legislation. Besides that, the agreement of workers of the Program specified that employers

must “make sure that workers who are assigned to handle chemical substances or pesticides have

protective clothing, without any cost to the worker, that workers have received adequate training,

formal or informal, and that they perform the work under supervision, in the cases that are required by

law.”

On average, the subjects who were asked to apply agrochemicals did so twice a week. Of the

group of workers who had applied agrochemicals at some time, 37 (43%) said that they used special

protective clothing; 40 (57%) wore a mask; and 48 (56%) received some type of training. The training

consisted principally of receiving instructions on how to do the work. Only 18 stated that they were

told about precautions in the use of the chemical or were given an explanation as to how to use the

protective equipment.

77

Only 17 workers said that performing this activity caused them a problem; and of these, eight

reported the problem. One reported it to the employer and four refused to apply agrochemicals. In two

cases in which the workers refused, there were no consequences, but in the other two there were

reprisals.

Workers’ work-related accidents and health problems

According to the results of the questionnaire in the Return Report for the 2002 season, 11.3% of

the workers received medical attention while they were in Canada. The reasons for this are shown in

the following table:

Table 36. If you received medical attention while you were in Canada, what was the reason for this?

Frequency Percent Does not apply 8058 88.7 Illness 44 .5 Illness as a result of the work 225 2.5 Accident 483 5.3 Work related accident 278 3.1 Total 9088 100.0

The research interview contains questions about the workers’ perception of the risks of the work

they perform.

Table 37. Have you used machinery, equipment or implements for agricultural work?

Frequency Percent Yes 143 39.9 No 208 58.1 No answer 7 2.0 Total 358 100.0

A little less than 40% of the subjects interviewed had used machinery, equipment or agricultural

implements while working on Canadian farms. Only ten subjects said that they were shown how to use

them; the others were given an explanation or learned how to use them by watching how other workers

did it.

78

Furthermore, 13.9% (50) of those interviewed felt that some equipment, machinery or

implements used on the farms can be hazardous for the worker. Among those they mentioned as

representing the biggest risk were tractors and pesticides. They also mentioned knives, scissors,

tobacco ovens, ladders, blowtorches, trailers, and power saws, among others. Fourteen of the subjects

said that on occasion they had refused to use an instrument. In six cases there were no consequences,

but the others stated that there were negative consequences for the worker. The fact that workers

consider the use of such equipment or materials as risky, might suggest lack of information and

confidence to use them.

According to the results of the Return Report, the percentage of workers involved in accidents

during the 2002 season was 8.4%, although only 3.1% were related to the work they were performing.

The information obtained during the fieldwork gives us another set of data, since these were cases of

accidents in all the seasons in which the workers had participated.

According to the results of the interviews, 16.8% (60 workers) said that they had had a work-

related accident on one or more occasions. The next two tables show the types of accidents:

79

Table 38. What did you injure in a work-related Table 39. How did the accident occur?accident?

Frequency Percent Head 2 .6 Ribs 2 .6 Back 5 1.4 Foot 5 1.4 Coccyx 2 .6 Hip 2 .6 Hand 5 1.4 Legs 4 1.1 Arm 5 1.4 Fingers 5 1.4 Rheumatism 1 .3 Waist 5 1.4 Shoulder 1 .3 Knee 2 .6 Backbone 2 .6 Eye 1 .3 Ear 1 .3 Toe nail 1 .3Total 51 14.2 Total 358 100.0

Of the workers that had an accident on some occasion, 86.6% (52) were given medical

attention; 31 were taken by somebody from the farm to the hospital or doctor’s office, four were seen

by a doctor on the farm, and four did not need medical attention and were given first aid by the owner,

by the supervisor or another worker.

The Return Report shows that 3% of the workers who went to Canada to work during the 2002

season became ill to the degree that they required medical attention: 2.5% because of the work they

were performing. Remembering that the results of the interviews conducted for this research provide

us with information about the illnesses of workers during their stays in Canada, we turn to the

following table:

Frequency PercentCarrying heavy loads 13 3.6Using some machinery or equipment 14 3.9The bus turned over 1 .3

Worker fell down 6 1.7Worker slid 3 .8Worker cut himself 6 1.7

Transportation accident 3 .8Bee sting 2 .6When worker stooped down 1 .3

Biking accident 1 .3Putting coal down from the oven 1 .3Nailing a tube 1 .3

Because of lack of hygiene 1 .3Got struck with the platform 1 .3With machinery 1 .3

Does not know 1 .3Total 56 15.6Does not apply 302 84.4

Total 358 100.0

80

Table 40. Did you ever get sick during the working season in Canada?

Frequency Percent Yes 111 31.0 No 244 68.2 No answer 3 .8 Total 358 100.0

The principal diseases reported are those of the respiratory tract, followed in importance by

gastritis, ulcers, and other stomach diseases, skin diseases, allergies, back problems and/or muscular

pains.

81

Table 41. What illnesses did you have during the working season?

Frequency PercentRespiratory diseases 48 13.4Gastritis, ulcers or similar diseases 8 2.2Others (not specified) 1 .6Stomach infection 7 1.7Sweating on skin 1 .3Sight 4 1.1Dehydration 1 .3Intoxication 4 1.1Allergies 5 1.4Ears 3 .8Knee 1 .3Flu 1 .3Uterus removed 1 .3Skin irritation or infection 6 1.7Tongue infection 1 .3Herpes 1 .3Rheumatism 1 .3Prostate 1 .3Depression 1 .3Internal hemorrhoids 1 .3Waist 2 .6Leg pain 1 .3Fungus 1 .3Chest pain 1 .3Kidneys 2 .6Vertebrae 2 .6Sting 1 .3Hypertension 1 .3Mouth twisted sideways from the cold 1 .3Facial paralysis 1 .3Muscular 1 .3Total 111 31.0Does not apply 247 69.0Total 358 100.0

82

Of the 111 workers who indicated that they had become ill on at least one occasion, 70% felt

that the illness was related to the work they were performing or to the environmental conditions. The

cause mentioned most frequently were the sudden changes in temperature. These conditions can be

normal in the region’s climate, but in some farm activities the workers are exposed to sudden

temperature changes. For example, they mentioned work in the greenhouses and in the tobacco ovens.

Table 42. Do you think that your illness was a consequence of the work that you performed? If so, why?

Frequency PercentCarrying heavy loads 4 1.1Too much work 3 .8Sudden changes in temperature 30 8.4He was affected by some agrochemical 18 5.0The work caused him a lot of stress 2 .6Some food did not agree with him 7 2.0Excessive heat while working 2 .6Plant disease 1 .3Humidity 1 .3Virus in onions 1 .3Tobacco 3 .8Water 1 .3Change in diet 1 .3Climate 1 .3No answer 283 79.1Total 358 100.0

Of the total number of cases of workers who became ill, 33 were taken either to the hospital or

to a doctor’s office, in six cases the doctor went to the farm to see them, 13 workers were treated by the

supervisor or their fellow workers, and 40 treated themselves. On 79 occasions the worker notified the

employer or supervisor. Some said that they had not reported it because it was a cold or temporary

stomach discomfort, but others did not do so out of fear of not receiving their wages if they needed rest

in order to get well. Of the 11 who indicated that they did take time off, four said that they received

their wage for that time.

Usually workers are treated in Canada in case of accidents or illness, but in cases in which

recovery will take longer, once workers are able to travel, they return to Mexico to continue the

treatment. In those cases, the Mexican government offers the workers a public hospital close to their

family home.

83

The effects of the work on the workers’ health do not always manifest themselves during their

stay in Canada. 67 of those interviewed stated that after returning to Mexico a disease or some health

problem related to their stay in Canada had developed. The diseases reported in these cases were

similar to the others, including those related to stress, such as mental exhaustion, migraine,

hypertension, or mental disorder. Similarly, some disorders of vertebrae and knees occurred due to the

fact that for certain activities the worker must maintain positions that are harmful to his health.

As indicated above, while the workers in the program are in Mexico, many do not have a job;

others are agricultural day laborers or free-lance service providers, so they do not have health insurance

or medical care. Of 67 workers who said they had become ill after returning to Mexico as a

consequence of their work in Canada, 48 had to spend an average of $1,000 pesos (about $100 US

dollars) for treatment. The amounts spent ranged from 50 pesos ($5 US dollars) to 30 thousand pesos

($3000 US dollars), depending on the case.

84

Section VIII. Wages and deductions

Workers’ earnings

The results of the interview regarding the income earned by the subjects during the last season

they were in Canada do not give us an amount close to the average income per worker in each season.

We should remember that the last time several of our workers went to Canada to work was several

years ago, so their earnings were lower because the wages were lower then.

The only source of information about workers’ earnings that is available at the Program Office

is the Return Report database. However, we realized that for these data, as well as in our questionnaire,

there are some inadequacies in capturing information. Besides, workers usually do not remember the

exact amounts, or register the amounts in pesos; these problems might alter the average. In order to use

cleaner information, we eliminated in both databases records of earnings below $1,000 CAD or higher

than $20,000.

According to the information obtained during the fieldwork (which records all seasons), and

processed as we just mentioned, the difference between gross and net earnings is 19.7%. The average

income before taxes is $9,100 CAD per season and the average net income $7,308 CAD. Following the

same analysis of the return report (which refers only to the 2002 season), deductions from wages would

be around 12.7%: the average of workers’ earnings before taxes was $9,825, and the average net

income was $8,573 CAD.

The officials of the Program Office know that the information available to evaluate earnings is

insufficient. According to the agreement to hire workers, employers must send the records of workers’

attendance and payrolls to the governmental agent every season, but the Program Office has never

obtained that information.

What this data confirmed is that earnings are the most important incentive to join the Program,

especially if we compare them to the earnings of workers for the activities they do in Mexico analyzed

earlier.

85

In comparison to the national minimum wage for 2002 in Mexico7, workers would earn less

than $900 CAD for the average season. The following exercise helps to see that. The daily minimum

wage for 2002 in Mexico was $5.93 CAD ($39.74 pesos divided by 6.7). Considering a 6-day work

week, for five months, which is the average period of the stay of the interviewed workers, their

earnings in Mexico would be $711.6 CAD. Considering a 7-day work week, for the same period of

time, they will earn $830 CAD per season. Even if they would have the opportunity to work 12 months

per year, their income would only be $2,065 CAD.

Workday and overtime

As mentioned earlier, one-fifth of those interviewed felt that occasionally they had been asked

to work too much: besides the accelerated pace of work, they refer to the long working days. Although

workers get exhausted, for many of them the long working day is not a problem, since “that is what

they are there for” and “the more they work, the more they earn.” Only 26 workers had presented a

complaint about this, either to the consulate or to the owner or supervisor, or to the Program Office.

Others, although they disagreed, did not complain out of fear that some amount might be deducted

from their wages or that they would be listed as a problem worker and not be requested for the next

season. Only eight workers of those who expressed their complaints responded that some measures

were taken to solve the problem although in general they were negative for the worker.

Under Canadian legislation, the workday varies according to different agriculture activities, but

what is commonest is an eight-hour workday and six days worked for one day of rest per week. There

is always the possibility that an employer will ask for overtime work, although agricultural workers are

not covered in all activities. For example, workers in tree nurseries are not covered by law regarding

working hours and overtime. In packing plants, employers must pay workers for overtime after 50

hours per week and the payment must be made at a rate of one time or time-and-a-half the hourly wage

(FARMS 2001).

Workers consider they are making more compromises than employers. Workers are willing to

work overtime if the farmer needs it; first because the agreement establishes it, but more important to

7 According to information provided by interviewed workers, they are paid more than the minimum wage for agricultural work; however, the work is scarce

86

them, because their job is temporary and they need to earn as much money as they can. On the

contrary, the agreement does not obligate employers to offer at least eight hours work per day and, as

was mentioned previously, this happens in some cases.

On the other hand, some of those interviewed said that during the last season they spent in

Canada they worked days of up to 17 hours each, seven days a week. According to the results of the

interview, the average number of hours worked per day for the whole year was 9.3. For those who

worked in January, it was 8.5 hours per day, in February and March they worked an average of 9 hours,

10 in April, 7 in May, in the months of June to October the average remained at 10 hours per day and in

November and December at 9 hours. With the exception of the month of January, on average they

worked seven days a week.

Of the total interviewed, 95% received a wage per hour worked. The remainder was paid on the

basis of piecework, a method that is most common in tobacco and the strawberry harvest. The average

hourly payment for the 2002 season, according to the data in the Return Report, was $7.25 CAD. The

interview findings indicated otherwise. Although we asked about the last season that the subject spent

in Canada, many workers had not gone for several years. Two workers said that their wage during their

last season was $3.10 and $3.60 CAD per hour. The rest were in a range of 5.25 to 9.50. Only eight

workers received a wage of eight or more dollars per hour.

All workers interviewed had worked overtime. 307 said that they were given overtime pay and

20 said they were not (the remainder did not respond). In almost all cases, employers pay the same rate

per hour of overtime (anything over eight hours). Only 12 workers answered that hourly overtime pay

is different; it could be a few cents higher or lower. In the case of those receiving payment for

piecework, the overtime is paid to them according to the normal hourly wage established for that

activity. In the results of the interviews, the average hourly wage was $7.13 CAD and in the case of the

wage for overtime, it was $7.36 CAD. Several of those interviewed who had worked during a season in

the United States, or who know people who have done so, feel that the hourly pay in Canada is low

compared with the U.S.

87

Wage deductions

Most of those interviewed feel that the proportion of wage deductions is too high. The

information that workers have about what is lawful in this respect is very vague; but they perceive that

some deductions are unfair, and some others should not apply to foreign temporary workers since they

or their families do not enjoy many of the benefits. One third of the subjects (118) did not answer this

section because they did not know or were not clear about the amounts and items deducted from their

wages. A large proportion gave an approximate amount for the gross deductions, without identifying

the various items.

Transportation expenses and fee for working visas

For the worker to travel to Canada, the employer pays through FARMS and the Canadian

Embassy in Mexico for an airline ticket and $150 for the visa for each worker. The employer may

recover these expenses by deducting $150 dollars from the worker’s first month’s pay (divided by the

number of pay periods in the month). After the second month, 4% of the total pay for the period is

calculated. The total deduction may not be more than $425, including the initial $150. Of the workers

who answered this section, 80% identified this deduction. Some identified the amount of this deduction

on a weekly basis. Of this group, some said that the deduction was an amount equal to 4% of their

wage; the rest gave amounts deducted ranging from 4.25 to 75 dollars a week. Four workers said that

the deduction for the cost of the plane fare was more than $425, up to $450. The deduction for the cost

of the visa was identified by 175 persons of those interviewed.

Unemployment insurance

Starting in 1993, foreigners working in Canada, even temporarily, have a percentage of their

wage withheld for unemployment insurance. Three-fourths of the workers are opposed to this

deduction. In the interviews, they reported deductions of between 3 and 52 dollars per week for this

item, and in some cases the deduction was 300 dollars per season.

88

Pension plan

Also starting in 1993, the worker has a percentage of his wage withheld for the pension plan.

More than half of those interviewed that answered the questions about deductions identified this

deduction. Although this tax is applied to workers who earn more than $3,300 a year, the employer

must deduct it in all cases and at the end of the year workers earning less than this amount should claim

reimbursement.

Canadian legislation does not include a pension for temporary workers, since 120 months’ work

are required to have this benefit. An exception has been made so that workers in the program can

obtain this benefit when they are 65 years old. Since the quota is determined on the basis of the number

of weeks worked throughout their lifetime, the amount of the pension for workers in the program is

very low; besides that, 15% is deducted by the Canadian Government as taxes. Only one of the two

workers who have now retired receives a pension and the monthly amount is $67 dollars (17 dollars a

week). The worker can request an early pension at 60 years of age and receive 80% of the

corresponding monthly amount.

The Head Office for Protection and Consular Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the

agency in charge of conducting the procedures for the workers to claim those benefits. According to the

files of this office, through the 28 years of the Program, 357 workers have claimed their pension. Since

the Canadian Government analyzes the documents in order to evaluate the amount of money for the

pensions, and then contacts workers directly, the office does not have information about the number of

workers receiving a pension. The Mexican consulate in Toronto is organizing a database with

information about pensioned workers.

Income Tax

The employer must withhold part of the wage as income tax deduction, but depending on the

annual earnings and the number of dependents, workers may claim reimbursement. For the 2002

season, legislation allows workers who earn less than 14 thousand CAD a year to apply for

reimbursement; 77.5% of the workers in our research had applied for reimbursement of income tax.

89

Usually, the application for tax reimbursement was made through the consulate, but this procedure

meant an extra burden to it, particularly because this office is not specialized in tax processes. For the

2002 season, the Consulate referred workers to an accounting office to prepare the tax statements. For

that season, it was possible to reduce the time for recovering taxes, arrange for pardons of interest and

fines, partial payments, recover taxes from previous fiscal years, and effect some payment agreements

in order to avoid liens on wages. Workers were charged about $35 CAD by the firm to complete the

procedures.

Health insurance

The Workplace Safety & Insurance Board covers workers in the event of work-related

accidents. Since 1995, if there is no non-occupational health coverage in the province, employers

withhold a part of the worker’s wage in order to pay for a health insurance premium. Now, in order to

guarantee that all workers are covered, the Mexican Consulates contract the private insurer for medical

expenses and disabilities due to accidents or non-occupational diseases; employers withhold $3.22

CAD weekly from every worker’s wage to pay the insurance company.

In the event of the death of a worker, FARMS gives the farmer $1,500 as support so that the

employer can pay for burial or repatriation.

Other deductions

The employer must provide food for his workers, or all the facilities (kitchen, utensils, fuel, etc.)

so they can prepare their own meals, in addition to allotting 30 minutes rest time during the working

day for each meal. If he provides food, the employer may deduct from the worker’s wage a maximum

amount of $6.50 per meal per day. As to employers who choose the second alternative, only two

workers responded that meals were provided for them on the farm; the rest bought food and prepared

their meals. It was reported that on average they spent 60 dollars a week.

90

Section IX. Relations between the worker and the community in Canada

Several studies on Mexican workers in Canada refer to their difficulties of integrating into the

local dynamics of Canadian communities. In our research, 12 of those interviewed said that the farm

where they used to go is in a town; 96.6% (346) of the workers work on farms remote from the towns;

most frequently the farms are located at a distance of 20 km, and the average distance of the farm to the

closest town is 7 kilometers, although some are located at a distance of 150 km from any town. The

workers who live on farms close to a town usually go into the town either walking or on a bicycle. On

farms located in areas where there is public transportation, the workers can move around easily.

However, more than 70% of the subjects interviewed go into town because they are taken there by the

employer or someone from the farm.

Table 43. How did you travel to and from the town?

Frequency Percent Walking 25 7.0 Biking 41 11.5 Employer takes them 258 72.1 Public transportation 9 2.5 Another 24 6.7 Total 357 99.7 System 1 .3

358 100.0

This situation prevents the worker from feeling independent and together with other conditions

foments a paternalistic relationship between the employer or foreman and the worker. Of the total

number of subjects, 35.8% stated that they had to ask permission if they wanted to leave the farm

outside of working hours. 34.3% did not customarily leave the farm without notifying the employer or

supervisor, even outside of working hours. Three workers mentioned that on occasion the employer had

reprimanded or reported them for leaving the farm without notice during their free time.

Most of the workers went to the town once a week. Usually they spent between two and three

hours shopping in the supermarket or making arrangements to send money to their families in Mexico.

Among their other activities in the town, 34 were accustomed to going to church, 31 mentioned some

type of recreation such as eating in a restaurant, going to a bar, practicing a sport, or simply walking

around and talking with other Mexican workers.

91

Table 44. How often did you go to town?

Frequency Percent Three times or more per week 14 3.9 Twice a week 16 4.5 Once a week 312 87.2 Once every two weeks 14 3.9 Never 1 .3 Total 357 99.7 System 1 .3

358 100.0

The subjects dating back the longest stated that they used to call their families in Mexico on the

farm’s private telephone. At present, 44% of those interviewed make their calls from a pay telephone

installed on the farm; 42% make their calls from a pay telephone off the farm, the average distance

from the farms to the telephone booth being 23 km. This also shows one of the limitations for workers

to contact the Consulate.

According to our experience from the fieldwork, Mexican workers feel very limited during their

work activity by not knowing the English or French language. In addition, the language is an obstacle

to integrating the worker into the dynamics of Canadian communities. For example, 240 of those

interviewed said that they had no help in transacting their banking operations, and 330 had no help in

doing their shopping. However, this does not concern them as much as not being able to perform well

in the workplace; only 103 subjects mentioned that they had a problem in being understood off the

farm.

One-tenth of the 116 workers that had help in transacting their business received support from

their employer. 2% received help from somebody else from the farm (supervisor or foreman), 10.3%

had support from a Mexican friend or fellow worker more skilled in another language, and 8.1% were

assisted by a bank employee or a customer.

The weekly or fortnightly trips are the only times when the workers mingle with their fellows

off the farm, which is not sufficient time for them to make friends other than with Mexican workers.

The general response when asked if they made friends during their stay in Canada was that they formed

friendships with other Mexican workers, almost always with their fellow workers from the farm. 10%

92

of those interviewed actually felt that they had not made friends while they were in Canada, since

mingling with their fellow workers was not considered to be friendship and they did not mingle with

anyone else.

Some farmers have made efforts to provide recreational activities on the farm for the workers.

One-fifth of the subjects stated that there were some recreational facilities on the farm; 67% of them

referred to athletic fields or spaces for playing soccer, basketball or baseball and 31% referred to

television, a videocassette player or table games. Although there are only a few farms with facilities,

the workers look for means of recreation, as 30% of the subjects stated that they had engaged in this

type of activity on the farm during their free time, practicing a sport, table games, or watching

television or films.

Some workers engage in recreational activities off the farm. What are most common are soccer

tournaments. 15.9% of the workers engaged in some recreational activity off the farm, either organized

by the employer or on their own. Only 22% of those interviewed indicated that the employer organized

some recreational activity for the workers off the farm. They referred principally to some get-together,

meal or picnic; only a few mentioned excursions organized by the employer.

Of the total number of workers, 55 (15%) indicated that they knew of an organization or group

that conducts activities in support of the temporary workers in Canada, although almost no one

identified these groups by name. In the response to the question about what type of groups they are,

there was more identification of religious groups, and to a lesser degree groups of volunteers or non-

governmental organizations that defend the rights of temporary foreign workers. In the answer to the

question about the activities conducted by these groups, most often they referred to defense of labor

rights, and to a lesser extent to religious activities. According to the workers’ comments, some of these

groups provide support to workers in procedures such as the process for tax reimbursement.

Canada receives almost 20 thousand temporary foreign agricultural workers, of whom 80% go

to farms in Ontario. The presence of foreign workers during the agricultural seasons has had an impact

on the life of some communities in that province. Foreign workers have become important consumers

for the local economy, both through their weekly purchases of food and of articles to bring back to

93

Mexico. They are also important customers for banks and agencies that make money remittances

(Bauder et al. no date).

94

Section X. Savings and remittances

Mexicans who work in Canada try to spend as little as possible and to send most of their money

to their families in Mexico. A little less than 90% of the workers sent money to their families during the

last season they spent in Canada; only 18 workers did not do so. Since most of them are married men,

87% responded that they sent money to their wife, 3.6% sent it to their father or mother. What is most

frequent is to send one remittance each month; they usually send eight remittances each season, but

several send more remittances per season.

According to the conversations with the workers interviewed, “what most interests the newly-

arrived worker in Canada is sending money for his family’s expenses; after one or two remittances they

can begin keeping it” (Mateo Morales, Mayor of San Lucas Tecopilco and a program worker). The

worker knows that probably when he returns to Mexico he will not have work, so he tries to have a

savings fund.

The workers send an average of $4,835 dollars per season. The cost of sending the remittance is

high; they pay an average of 23.25 dollars per remittance. On average, it costs each worker $198

dollars to send money to Mexico each season (considering all the remittances they make).

The next table shows the means used by the subjects to send money during the last season they

were in Canada. 67% used bank transfers, 12.8% an exchange house, and 8.9% sent their money by

Western Union. Postal and telegraph services are no longer used; those mentioning these were workers

who stopped going several years ago. Western Union appears to be the most expensive system; the

average cost per remittance by the subjects who used it was 46.7 dollars, whereas those using another

exchange house paid an average of 21 dollars per remittance, and those that made bank transfers had a

cost of 23.5 dollars for each remittance.

95

Table 45. Means of sending money

Frequency Percent Western Union 32 8.9 Another similar or exchange office 46 12.8 Bank transfer 242 67.6 By mail 5 1.4 Telegraph 3 .8 Other 1 .3 Does not apply 1 .3 Total 330 92.2 System 28 7.8

358 100.0

The Program Office, as well as the Consulates in Canada, have implemented several

mechanisms for the purpose of helping workers send money to their families, by a little lower cost than

other options. Since the 2000 season, the Mexican Consulate promoted among the employers a pay

system through deposit in a bank account: workers may open an account in Canada, then receive two

debit cards, one is to send to their relatives, so they can retrieve money in Mexico, the cost of this

transfer would be $3 dollars. It seems that several employers will adopt this system. Besides that, some

Mexican banks have installed modules in the Office and offer the worker a savings account with cards

that allow him to deposit money in Canada so that a designated person can collect it in Mexico. The

last attempt, during 2002 season, was unsuccessful, only 500 accounts were opened.

According to the results of the research, 12% of those interviewed said they have used the

service offered in the modules in the Program Office, and 40% of the subjects indicated that they did

not know about the service. Workers are becoming more familiar with banking operations, but still

distrust those institutions. A critical factor in the decision as to the method for sending money is if there

is a branch close to the worker’s locality in Mexico. In the interviews, the workers mentioned that they

did not use this service because the bank branch in question was far away from the family residence.

The workers interviewed spend an average of $1,500 dollars while they are in Canada. They all

spend on food for preparing their meals, and very few make any other type of expenditure, such as

going to a restaurant or bar. Some are accustomed to bringing gifts for the family; 67% of those

interviewed had done so on occasion. The average expenditure on buying clothing, shoes, or toys to

96

bring to their families was $475 dollars. Only a few reported that on some occasion they had bought

working tools (carpentry, masonry, etc.)

The workers prefer to send their money to Mexico and to keep a little for their return to Mexico.

What is most frequent is that the worker returns to Mexico with $1,000 dollars.

Impact of savings on the family economy

In general, the workers feel that their participation in the program has allowed them to improve

their well-being and that of their families. This was expressed by 90.2% of the 347 workers who

answered this question. Only 24 workers (6.7% of the total number of subjects) stated that their

participation in the program had not provided greater well-being.

Table 46. How do you feel that your well-being and that of your family has improved with your trips to Canada?

Frequency PercentOverall economic well-being 170 47.5Survival 43 12.0Housing 56 15.6Investments 11 3.1Children’s education 26 7.3Doesn’t know or not applicable 4 1.1Total 310 86.6System 48 13.4

Almost half of those who gave a positive response explained that the change could be seen in

overall economic well-being; they expressed this with phrases such as “now they live better,” “they are

better off in everything,” “they have a better quality of life.” For 15.6% of the subjects, the main reason

why they felt that their well-being had improved was that with the income obtained they had been able

to build their own house or separate rooms for their family in their parents’ home. For 12% of the

subjects, the improvement in well-being was because the earnings from the work performed in Canada

had allowed them to meet the family’s basic needs; their first answers were phrases such as: “there is

enough food,” “can buy clothing for their children,” “supporting the family.” For 7.3%, what was most

important was that it had allowed their children to continue their education. 3.1% put in first place the

97

possibility their participation in the program had given them to make investments (pay off debts, buy

land for cultivation, set up a business, etc.)

The money that workers sent to their families in most cases was the basis for supporting the

household. 85.5% of those interviewed responded that first of all, the money sent to the family was

used for food expenses.

In second place, it was used for expenses related to the children’s education and health expenses

(doctors and medicine). Although all the communities where the subjects live have an elementary

school with free education, because of their income levels the expenses of materials, transportation, and

others represent an important part of the family budget. When the locality does not have a junior or

senior high school, the family’s expenses increase because of the cost of transportation. The

expenditure on education has become a priority for the temporary workers. Several commented that

their children have been able to continue their high school or university studies thanks to the income

earned by the worker while in Canada.

After these expenses are met, if there is some money left over it is usually used to build,

improve or enlarge their housing. In addition, investment in homes only becomes possible after two or

more seasons of working in Canada.

Of the total of interviewed, 65% stated that they had invested the funds obtained from working

in Canada in building, enlarging or improving family housing; in purchasing land or agricultural

machinery and implements or in a commercial or service business.

Table 47. With the money that you brought back from Canada on one or several occasions, have you made any investments in your housing, in land or machinery or in a business?

Frequency Percent Yes 233 65.1 No 77 21.5

Does not apply 1 .3 Total 311 86.9

98

It is difficult to calculate the amount of the investment, especially because most of the workers

have done so over the years. Only seven subjects responded as to how much they had invested; the

average was $126,800 pesos (or about $12,600 USD).

The savings they are able to make after several seasons of working in Canada are channeled

principally into the construction or improvement of family housing; very few of those interviewed had

made another type of investment.

Of the 173 workers that had remodeled their housing, 93% (162) had done so with the savings

from their work in Canada. Only 10 subjects used resources from some other source to remodel their

house (from money saved working at some other place). The amounts in the following table are

cumulative, since some subjects made reference to various forms of investment in housing.

Nevertheless, it is possible to appreciate the importance of the resources obtained in Canada to build or

improve family housing.

Table 48. Investment in housing

Investment in housing Number of workersTo buy a plot for the house 77To build the house 32To enlarge the plot 20To enlarge the number of rooms 177To improve the construction materials 100To install services 41Other kind of investment in housing 12

The amounts of the investment in housing were not sufficiently reported. Of the 20 workers

who said they had added land to their house, only two said they had spent 50 and 60 thousand pesos ($

4,700 and 5,700 USD). Of the 41 who had invested in installing utilities in the house, only six said how

99

much: between 5 and 20 thousand pesos ($476 and $1,900 USD) and an average of $13,800 pesos

($1,314 USD).

The next table reveals that the workers almost never used their savings for agricultural

investments. The amount of these resources was also only partially reported. The average investment in

land was $52 thousand pesos ($4,950 USD), the expenditure on fertilizers was an average of $4,100

($390 USD), an average of $32,500 pesos ($3090 USD) was invested in machinery, and in land

improvements it was 10 thousand pesos ($952 USD).

Table 49. Agricultural investment

Farm investment Number of workersTo buy land 5To buy chemicals 3To buy machinery or equipment 2To improve land 2Another kind of investment: To buy animals, seeds, to pay farm workers or to rent tractor 5

Although the number of workers who invested their savings in non-agricultural production

activities was slightly larger, it was not very significant. According to the observations during the

fieldwork, the investment in their own businesses was not fully reported. We found several workers

who had made adaptations to their housing to install a “little store,” a tortilla outlet, etc. Others invested

their earnings from work in Canada in buying vegetables to sell or other merchandise that they offered

as peddlers. In Cuijingo, for example, two subjects used their money to buy corn husks for resale. The

amount indicated for acquiring their own business fluctuated between two and $15 thousand pesos

($1440 USD).

Table 50. Investment in non-agricultural production

Number of workersOwn commercial business 12Workshop for production or similar 5Service workshop or similar 0

The average investment in a workshop for production was $23,500 pesos ($2,240 USD).

100

Section XI. Modifications to housing, utilities, and other types of acquisitions

As shown by the findings of the interview, the biggest impact of the program on the well-being

of the worker’s family was the acquisition or improvement of the family’s housing. 64.8% of the

subjects currently live in their own house, 17.6% live with their parents or parents-in-law, 10.1% live in

a house lent to them, and 3.4% rent their housing. As we stated previously, 65% of the workers used

the resources earned in Canada to purchase, enlarge, or improve the family’s housing.

Table 51. The house in which you are now living is…?

Frequency Per cent Own 232 64.8 Leased 12 3.4 Lent 36 10.1 Their parents’ 58 16.2 Their parents-in-law’s 5 1.4 Total 343 95.8 System 15 4.2

358 100.0

It is important to consider that of the 63 subjects interviewed who were living in a house

belonging to their parents or parents-in-law, 49 felt that the house was like their own house. This

explains why they have made enlargements to the paternal house so that they can have separate areas

from those of their parents or parents-in-law, especially the kitchen.

The houses in which the workers interviewed were living with their families have an average of

4 rooms (including all the roofed-over spaces), although there were 25 workers who were living with

their families in housing consisting of a single room.

101

Table 52. Number of rooms in the house

Number of rooms Frequency Percent 1 25 7.0 2 56 15.6 3 56 15.6 4 64 17.9 5 49 13.7 6 52 14.5 7 20 5.6 8 16 4.5 9 8 2.2 10 2 .6 11 1 .3 12 2 .6

Total 351 98.0 System 7 2.0 358 100.0

The workers’ houses have usually been built by themselves. A little less than 97% of the houses

are built with brick or cement block walls or some other firm material. The roofs are usually made out

of firm materials, 84% of the interviewed have roofs made of slabs or metal strips or cement. However,

there are also houses with flimsy roofing materials; 52 subjects have roofs of asbestos sheeting on their

houses, two subjects have houses with sheet metal walls, and one house had a cardboard roof. The floor

is usually made of cement or surfacing (73.5% of the subjects), 10.9% have an earthen floor and 14.5

have tiles.

In Table 53 we show some of the changes that the workers have made in their homes’ building

materials as of the year in which they were married or began to live on their own. For over half of those

interviewed, the first homes they lived in had dirt floors, and this proportion decreased to 10% in the

homes they live in at present. Currently 88% of those interviewed have cement or stone floors in their

homes. With regard to roofing materials, 55.7% of the workers’ first homes had roofs made of not very

durable materials such as asbestos, cardboard, or palm leaves; of the total number of homes in which

they live currently, only 14.5% have roofs made of such materials.

102

Table 53. Changes in the building materials of the house lived in by the subjects in Mexico

Present house Five years ago First houseNo.

Interviewed% No. Intr. % No. Intr. %

Floor material Dirt 39 10 23 15.6 83 56.4Cement or simple surfacing 263 73.5 114 77.5 62 42.1Floor tiles 52 14.5 9 6.1 2 1.3Roof material Slabs, metal strips, bricks, roof tiles or other firm materials

301 84 123 83.6 65 44.2

Asbestos or metal sheeting 51 14.2 24 16.3 73 49.64Cardboard 1 0.3 4 2.7Palm leaves 5 3.4Wall material Brick, cement block or other firm materials

349 97 146 99.6 140 95

Metal sheeting 2 0.6 4 2.2Wood 2 0.6 1 0.3

Regarding utilities in the workers’ houses in Mexico, currently 60% of the workers have water

piped into the house. 36.6% have a water faucet on their plot but not inside the house, and 5.3% bring

water from a public faucet outside the house.

Other forms of savings or investment

The purchase of backyard animals is a common form of savings in rural regions. According to

the findings of the interview, the program workers are not accustomed to this type of savings or

investment. 80% of the workers do not have animals nor did they have them five years ago. Only 68

people indicated that they had purchased animals in the last five years; 40 bought them with savings

from their work in Canada and 19 used savings from other earnings.

103

Table 54. Number of interviewed workers that have or had animals five years ago

Have HadCows 9 9Lambs 9 17Chickens 21 15Goats 2 2Pigs 15 17Rabbits 4 1Horses 12 13Donkeys or mules 5 5Oxen 3 3

The funds from the work of the workers do not appear to be sufficient to acquire other goods.

170 of those interviewed do not have any means of transportation. Only 30 subjects reported that they

had a pickup or cargo truck; 17 had an automobile, two had a motorcycle, 123 had bicycles, and 9 had

a wagon.

Table 55. Year in which the workers purchased other goods

Frequency Percent 1980 1 .3 1984 1 .3 1993 2 .6 1997 2 .6 1998 2 .6 1999 6 1.7 2000 4 1.1 2001 1 .3 2002 3 .8 2003 1 .3 Total 23 6.4 No tienen 335 93.6 Total 358 100

104

Section XII. Impact of the Program

1. Individual and family impact of the Program

In previous sections, we mentioned that the workers interviewed had gone to work in Canada

for 1 to 25 seasons, and that the average number of trips per worker is 6.6 seasons (see Table 21).

Of the 358 workers in our sample, 6% (22 workers) joined the Program in the 1977-1987

period; 37.4% (134 workers) from 1987-1996; and 56.4% (202 workers) went to work in Canada for

the first time in the 1997-2002 period. Almost three-quarters of the workers (73%) continued to be

active in the Program and went to Canada for the 2002 season. This data indicates a high degree of

continuity of the workers in this Program, a situation that can be taken not only as an indication of their

satisfaction but also as an overall expression of the stability of the Program itself.

Table 56. Date of entry into the Program

Period of entry into the Program No. of workers in the sample Proportion with regard to total number of workers interviewed

Before 1987 22 6Between 1987 and 1996 134 37.4Between 1997 and 2002 202 56.4Total interviewed 358 100

The Program provides workers with the opportunity of working in Canada every year. The

frequency and number of trips they make are, without a doubt, factors that have a bearing on their

families’ well-being.

Let us recall that one of the goals implicit in the Program is for workers to be able to improve

their own well-being and that of their families. That is why it is important to evaluate the impact of this

Program in that regard.

So as to begin to analyze said impact, we classified the data on workers into three categories

according to the number of seasons in which they have participated.

105

Table 57. Classification of those interviewed by number of trips

Classification of workers interviewed by number of trips to work in Canada Number of workers %

Group A. From 1 to 4 trips 165 46.1Group B. From 5 to 8 trips 85 22.6Group C. 9 or more trips 112 31.3Total no. of workers 358 100

Group A is composed of workers who have gone to work in Canada from 1 to 4 seasons. It

includes 165 workers (46.1% of the total of workers interviewed) and 3 are women. Departures of the

members of this group were recorded as of 1986, and in the 2002 season 23 workers joined the

Program.

Group B is comprised of 85 workers (22.6%), and three are women. They have gone to Canada

through this Program at least 5 times and no more than 8. The majority of the persons in this group

went to Canada for the first time between 1989 and 1999.

The persons interviewed who belong to Group C have participated in the Program for 9

seasons or more, and represent 31.3% of the total number of persons interviewed (3 are women). They

joined the Program as of 1977, and the last to join did so in 1994.

106

Table 58. Date of first trip according to number of stays in Canada

Group A Group B Group C Frequency Per Cent Frequency Per Cent Frequency Per Cent

1977 1 .9 1978 1 .9 1979 1 .9 1980 3 2.7 1981 4 3.6 1982 2 1.8 1983 1 .9 1984 1 .9 1985 1 .6 1 1.2 2 1.8 1986 4 3.6 1987 1 1.2 9 8.0 1988 4 4.9 13 11.6 1989 3 1.8 31 27.7 1990 1 .6 2 2.5 13 11.6 1991 6 5.4 1992 11 9.8 1993 4 4.9 7 6.3 1994 3 1.8 5 6.2 2 1.8 1995 10 12.31996 9 11.11997 3 1.8 5 6.21998 7 4.2 39 48.11999 41 24.8 1 1.22000 53 32.12001 29 17.62002 24 14.5

Total 165 100.0 81 100.0 112 100.0

We have classified the workers in this way because we are hypothesizing that the greater the

number of trips per worker, the more likely it is that they will have an opportunity to plan a strategy for

work, income, investment, and savings allowing them to make different kinds of material

improvements to their home and ensure a better education for their children or launch some business of

their own.

In the analysis of several indicators according to the category of trips per worker, we will also

include a grouping by age since we have found that the older the head of the household, there is usually

progress in the life cycle of the household. For that reason alone, this situation makes it possible for the

workers to make household or home improvements in general in the aspects mentioned above. Aside

107

from the factor “number to trips to Canada,” the “age” factor would also have a bearing on the current

situation of possible improvement; that is why it is important to take into account these two factors.

Table 59. Age of workers by category of number of trips to Canada

Group A Group B Group CAge Groups Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent From 20 a 25 26 15.8 2 2.5 From 26 to 30 45 27.3 14 17.3 1 .9 From 31 to 35 41 24.8 20 24.7 6 5.4 From 36 to 40 22 13.3 15 18.5 20 17.9 From 41 to 45 23 13.9 16 19.8 35 31.3 From 46 to 50 5 3.0 7 8.6 21 18.8 From 51 to 55 2 1.2 3 3.7 15 13.4 From 56 to 60 1 .6 3 3.7 10 8.9 60 and over 4 3.6Total 165 100.0 80 98.8 112 100.0

Average age

Most of the workers in Group A are young, with an average age of 33. The majority of them

entered the Program in recent years, although there are also some older workers who joined the

Program several years ago and then stopped participating. With regard to Group B, 63% are between

31 and 45 years old, with an average age of 37. The average age of the workers with the most

experience in the Program is 46; in this last group (C) 26% are over 50 years old.

Schooling of workers and their families

There is no direct relationship between the workers’ level of schooling and the number of

seasons in which they have participated in the Program. The higher level of schooling of workers in

Group A can be explained because these are younger workers who had available a greater number of

educational services in their communities, and also because school attendance on the national level has

improved. More than half of the workers in Group A attended school for over 7 years and for over 10

years. On the other hand, in Group C we find a greater proportion of workers who did not go to school,

and more than half the workers who have only three years of schooling belong to this group. As we

stated before, this has to do with the different levels of progress of the country’s educational system

throughout the years.

108

We should note that overall, the average level of schooling of the workers in our sample is the

same as for the country’s general population, according to the 2000 Census.

Table 60. Schooling of workers according to category of trips to Canada

Schooling Group A Group B Group C Total

Average schooling 7.8 7.3 6.2 7.7No schooling 1 1 3 5 % in the group .6% 1.2% 2.7% 1.4% % of total .3% .3% .8% 1.4%From 1 to 3 years 7 8 20 35 % in the group 4.2% 9.9% 17.9% 9.8% % of total 2.0% 2.2% 5.6% 9.8%From 4 to 6 years 57 31 59 147 % in the group 34.5% 38.3% 52.7% 41.1% % of total 15.9% 8.7% 16.5% 41.1%From 7 to 9 years 91 37 27 155 % in the group 55.2% 45.7% 24.1% 43.3% % of total 25.4% 10.3% 7.5% 43.3%From 10 to 12 years 7 4 3 14 % in the group 4.2% 4.9% 2.7% 3.9% % of total 2.0% 1.1% .8% 3.9%Over 12 years 2 2 % in the group 1.2% .6% % of total .6% .6%TOTAL 165 81 112 358

Moreover, the level of schooling of the children of workers does appear to have been positively

affected as a result of their parents’ participation in the Program (see Table 61).

In order to analyze this data, we have selected only children of workers who stopped attending

school and the majority of whom are now working (200 cases). As can be observed, the findings

confirm the verbal statements made by the workers: thanks to their participation in the Program, their

children have been able to continue their education. The average schooling of their children is 9.8

years, i.e., 2.1 years more than their parents (since the average schooling of those interviewed is 7.7

years).

109

It is certain that the higher level of schooling of the children is related to a growing trend in

schooling shown by national statistics. However, when analyzing the findings according to workers’

years of participation in the Program, very clear differences arise indicating the Program’s influence on

the children’s level of schooling. Of the total number of children of workers belonging to Group C,

42.6% attended school for 10 years or more. That percentage is 28% for Group B, and only 15% for

Group A. In other words, 85% of the children of workers with fewer years of participation in the

Program (Group A) have fewer years of schooling: 72% of the children of workers from Group B have

fewer years of schooling and 57.4% of the workers from Group C are in that situation.

Table 61. Schooling of children of workers interviewed who no longer attend school

Schooling Group A Group B Group C Total

Average schooling 8.7 9.9 10.5 9.8From 1 to 3 years 2 2 % in the group 3.0% 1.0% % of total 1.0% 1.0%From 4 to 6 years 16 1 21 38 % in the group 23.9% 4.0% 19.4% 19.0% % of total 8.0% .5% 10.5% 19.0%From 7 to 9 years 39 17 41 97 % in the group 58.2% 68.0% 38.0% 48.5% % of total 19.5% 8.5% 20.5% 48.5%From 10 to 12 years 7 6 29 42 % in the group 10.4% 24.0% 26.9% 21.0% % of total 3.5% 3.0% 14.5% 21.0%Over 12 years 3 1 17 21 % in the group 4.5% 4.0% 15.7% 10.5% % of total 1.5% .5% 8.5% 10.5%TOTAL 67 25 108 200

33.5% 12.5% 54.0% 100.0%

However, seeing as how the status of the family cycle may influence differences in schooling

among workers’ children, we have conducted the same exercise but now selecting only workers in

similar age groups with the same number of years of exposure to the Program. This is a way of

observing the two possible effects, that of the well-being which may result from a simple progression

of the family cycle measured by the indicator “age of the worker,” and the effect that may come about

because of a longer period of exposure to the Program. We have classified the workers in two groups,

those from 20 to 35 years of age, and those from 36 to 50, since each of these groups expresses

different periods in the family cycle. In addition, we have ordered the schooling of the workers’

110

children according to categories considering the number of trips we have been dealing with, for the

purpose of making comparisons as indicated above.

Table 62. Schooling of children who have finished their education according to age and category of the worker

In

the first place, we observe that in terms of the average schooling of children of the two age groups of

workers, there is a large difference ranging from 8 to 9.9, i.e., almost 2 years more. On the other hand,

while among the workers in the lower age group 62% of their children achieved 7 years of schooling or

more, in the higher age group this occurred in the case of 87% of their children. This is another way of

Schooling and category of trips

Children of workers between 20 and 35 year old

Children of workers between 36 and 50 years old

Number of children 37 100% 86 100% Group A Group B Group C

3700

100% 261446

Average schooling Group A Group B Group C

88--

9.99.710.49.9

From 1 to 3 years Group A Group B Group C

2200

5.4%5.4%

0000

From 4 to 6 years Group A Group B Group C

121200

32.4%32.4%

11308

12.8%11.5%

017.4%

From 7 to 9 years Group A Group B Group C

202000

54%54%

4817922

55.8%65.4%64.3%47.8%

From 10 to 12 years Group A Group B Group C

2200

5.4%5.4%

204412

23.2%15.4%28.6%26%

More than 12 years Group A Group B Group C

1100

2.7%2.7%

7214

8.1%7.7%14.3%8.7%

111

observing the two types of effects, allowing us to note how both factors interact. We can also note that

among the younger workers, their children have achieved the highest degree of schooling, i.e., 10 years

or more, in 8.1% of the cases, whereas for the older workers, 31% of their children have reached said

level of schooling.

Occupation of the workers and of the members of their families

The time that workers have participated in the Program is also reflected in the occupation of the

children of those interviewed who are of working age. As can be observed in Table 63, 13 of the 15

people who work as professionals belong to families of workers in Group C. The seven people who

work in the United States also belong to families in Group C, a situation that may be indicating that

probably in some cases, the workers’ longer exposure to the Program has been useful and that they

have channeled some surplus money to investments that have enabled their children to go to work in

the United States. Moreover, we must repeat that there are very few cases like these, and for this reason

we can not attribute the departures of those children to the United States as an effect of the Canadian

program. In addition, the table reveals that a greater proportion of the children over the age of 18 of

workers from Group C are continuing their education. Similarly, there is a greater proportion of people

from Group C devoted to the trades or employed in commerce and services. And there is a much lower

rate of dedication of children to agricultural activities in the group with greater exposure to the

Program, as compared to the group with less exposure.

Table 63. Occupation of children over the age of 18 according to category of worker

Group A Group B Group C TotalThe home 27 29 52 108 % of group 30% 43.9% 27% 31%Student 6 13 42 61 % of group 6.6% 19.7% 21.8% 17.5%

112

Work in U. S. 7 7 % of group 1.6% 2%Commerce and services 13 6 30 49 % of group 14.4% 9% 27% 14%Trades 2 0 3 5 % of group 2.2% 1.5% 1.4%Blue-collar workers 3 3 1 7 % of group 3.3% 4.5% 0.5% 2%Professional 2 0 13 15 % of group 2.2% 6.7% 4.3%Construction-mason 6 1 4 11 % of group 6.6% 1.5% 3.1%Agriculture 31 13 36 80 % of group 34.4% 19.7% 18.7% 22.9%No information 4 4Total 90 66 192 348

In view of the information given above, we can also observe that, with certain limits, workers’

greater time of exposure to the Program makes it possible for their children not only to achieve a higher

level of schooling, but also to devote themselves to a greater extent to a non-agricultural activity. And

to some degree, given the deficient conditions of agriculture in Mexico, this situation may be implying

certain rising social mobility for some of the children of workers who go to Canada.

Family well-being

First we should recall that 93.1% of those interviewed stated in the interview that their well-

being and that of their families had improved as a consequence of their participation in the Program.

However, in the case of workers from Group C (those who have made more trips to Canada), all of

those who answered this question did so in the affirmative. The percentage of workers in Group B who

said yes was 96.2%, while for Group A it was 86.8%. In other words, of the 24 workers who feel that

their level of well-being has not improved, 21 are from Group A and 3 from Group B, probably

because they have not yet had a long period of experience in the Program or due to other causes that

were not explored in the questionnaire.

Nearly three-quarters of the workers interviewed stated that they had used the income obtained

in Canada to invest in their home, in land or machinery, or in some business or service shop. In Group

C, 91.8% responded in this fashion; in Group B the rate was 86.2%, and in Group A, 59.1%.

113

As we pointed out in the previous section, during their first seasons of work in Canada, the

workers allocated their income to family consumption, especially for subsistence or to pay off pending

debts. Only after several years of working temporarily in Canada were they able to have sufficient

surplus income to make other types of expenditures: that is when they were able to acquire or enlarge

their home and to provide it with all the necessary services.

There are practically no investments in cropland or in some kind of business. As we have noted

earlier, the land surface available to the workers is very small and rain-fed agricultural productivity is

very low. For this reason, it wouldn’t be very wise for them to make this type of investment. Actually,

there is a rationale clearly expressed by the behavior of the workers, since only 9 have acquired

cropland; 10 invested their savings in setting up some type of commercial business (4 from Group C, 3

from Group B, and 3 from Group A); and 5 set up a service shop (2 from Group C, 2 from Group B,

and 1 from Group A). Nonetheless, we should be somewhat cautious about this data, because the

fieldwork indicated that there are more investments than those that are reported, especially in

businesses and service shops. In many cases, the workers denied the existence of such investments,

probably because they were afraid that this could affect their possibility of continuing to be candidates

for the Program.

However, let us recall that as the data has indicated up to now, investments in their children’s

education seem to be most important for the workers, and this is one of the greatest positive effects of

their participation in the Program.

Characteristics of the housing by category of workers

According to field observations and the features of the communities studied, ownership of the

family home is a significant indicator of the workers’ saving capacity. In this section, we will analyze

the findings of the questionnaire with regard to the characteristics of workers’ housing, according to the

length of time the workers have participated in the Program, starting with ownership of the home.

Of the workers who have participated for the longest time in the Program (Group C), 94.5%

have their own home; in Group B that figure is 70.1%, and for Group A, less than half. In contrast,

52.4% of the workers with fewer years of participation in the Program live with their parents or in-

114

laws, or in a rented or loaned house. In Group B, 29.9% of the workers live in a house that is not their

own; and only 5.4% of the workers from Group C do so. This is a general, but clear and direct way of

showing another of the positive effects of greater exposure to the Program, since there is a tremendous

difference between the workers in Groups A and C.

Table 64. Form of ownership of the home, according to workers’ categories

Form of ownership of the home Group A Group B Group C Total Own home 74 54 104 232 % in the category 47.4% 70.1% 94.5% 67.6% Rented or loaned 32 13 3 48 % in the category 20.5% 16.8% 2.7% 14% Live with parents or in-laws 50 10 3 63 % in the category 33% 13% 2.7% 16.9% Total 156 77 110 343 45.5% 22.4% 32.1% 100.0%

When analyzing the form of ownership of the homes of workers in a similar age group but in

the different categories of participation in the Program, we find tendencies similar to those shown in

the previous table, where those interviewed are only classified according to the seasons in which they

have participated. The information in the following table confirms that, regardless of the worker’s age,

the length of time in the Program has an impact on the form of ownership of the family home. Thus, the

data reveals that the workers’ age as information indicating their status in the life cycle has a marked

effect which is later combined in a different way when including the variable of the number of trips,

which is expressed in the categories A, B, and C.

We can observe the following: 1) in Group A, the differences between the older and younger

workers are very pronounced as regards home ownership; 2) however, these differences disappear in

Group B, where the experience of working in Canada has been for at least 5 seasons, and this indicates

that investments in the purchase of their own home is one of the workers’ first priorities.

Table 65. Form of ownership of the home, according to workers’ category of trips and age

Form of ownership of the home and ageOwn Home W. 20-35 years old W. 36-50 years old

684028

45.638.462.2

452223

67.264.769.7

72667

91.110091.8

18668118

100%47.278.1

115

With regard to the features of the home, we found that 25 workers in our sample are living in

homes with a single room, 23 from Group A and 2 from Group B. In contrast, as can be seen in the

following table, the homes with the greatest number of rooms are inhabited by families of workers who

have been participating in the Program for a longer time.

Table 66. Number of rooms in the home, by worker’s category

Numbers of rooms in the home Group A Group B Group C Total

Total no. Of homes recorded 163 100% 80 100% 108 100% 351 100%

Homes with 4 rooms or less 117 71.7% 48 60% 36 33.3% 201 57.3%

Homes with 5 rooms or more 46 28.2% 32 40% 72 66.6% 150 42.7%

As we pointed out in the previous section, 60% of those interviewed have running water within

the home. If we compare this figure for each category, the proportion of homes of workers in Group C

who have this service is the greatest (79.4%), followed by the workers from Group B; the workers who

have participated for fewer years in the Program have this service to an even lesser extent. In the case

of homes with a bathroom with plumbing, 87.2% of the total of those interviewed have this service,

whereas the trend by category of worker is similar to the previous trends for running water within the

home, although it is less pronounced. A greater proportion of homes (97.2% of the total) have

electricity.

Table 67. Homes with the three services

Group A Group B Group C TotalRunning water in home

79 47.8% 48 56.5% 89 79.4% 216 100%

Bathroom with plumbing

139 84.2% 74 87% 99 88.4% 312 100%

116

Electricity 159 96.3% 80 94.1% 109 97.3% 348 100%

The number of workers who have the three basic services in their home, i.e., running water

inside, bathroom with plumbing, and electricity, drops to 199, or 55.6% of the total of those

interviewed. In this case as well, while a greater proportion of the workers with more years of

participation in the Program have these three services (72.3%), the proportion of workers who have

participated in the Program for fewer years and who have these three services is 44.2%.

Table 68. Homes with running water inside, bathroom with plumbing, and electricity, according to the category of worker (includes all workers who provided information)

Total interviewed Workers with the three services in their home

% of workers with these services/ total no. Of workers in each group

Group A 165 73 44.2 Group B 85 45 53 Group C 112 81 72.3 Total 358 199 55.6

Considering the workers whose homes have the three services, now by categories of number of

trips to Canada but also taking into account age groups, the findings reveal the same trend. In effect,

the older workers have more services, but the differences by category of number of trips show the

impact the Program has had on the existence of basic services in the home.

We should also note that there are very large differences among the younger workers, and that

those differences are smaller among the older ones. This indicates that one of the workers’ investment

priorities is to install services in their homes, as can be observed in the following table.

Table 69. Homes with the three services, by age group and category of workers

Workers 20-35 years old with the three

services

% of total workers in the group

Workers 36-50 years old with the three services

% of total workers in the group

117

Grupo A 42 38.5 29 50.8 Grupo B 15 42.8 24 61.5 Grupo C 7 100 50 66.6 Total 64 42.4 103 60.2

As mentioned in the previous section, the income obtained by the workers in Canada does not

appear to be sufficient for them to acquire many other goods aside from what is involved in acquiring

and improving their homes and ensuring their children’s education. Yet the data gathered in this regard

indicates that the workers with more years of participation in the Program are in a better position to

acquire other goods. For example, of the 30 workers interviewed who stated that they had purchased a

van or truck, 17 belong to Group C, 8 to Group B, and 5 to Group A. Similarly, of the 17 workers

interviewed who had bought an automobile, 10 are from Group C, 4 from Group B, and 3 from Group

A.

Table 70. Other types of purchases

Purchases Group A Group B Group C TotalAutomobile 3 4 10 17 % on an automobile 17.6% 23.5% 58.8% 100% % in category 1.8% 4.7% 8.9% 4.7%Van or truck 5 8 17 30 % on van or truck 16.7% 26.7% 56.7% 100% % in category 3% 9.4% 15.2% 8.4%

2. Community impact

a) Derived from the workers’ income

In a direct way, the Program is having an impact on the workers’ communities by means of the

influx of money and an enhancement of the workers’ families’ purchasing power.

These effects have been pointed out in studies on migration conducted in communities with

significant numbers of their inhabitants working abroad. But in the case of workers going to Canada,

we should bear in mind that there is not a very strong or massive concentration in almost any of the

communities of origin. For that reason, it is hard to have a clear view of the impact there. Without a

doubt, in the interviews conducted with the mayors of the municipalities, as well as with other leaders

118

of the communities where the workers live, they stated that there had been a greater flow of funds

towards the community thanks to the income earned by the workers. But it was difficult to obtain hard

data in this regard, probably due to one of the above-mentioned reasons.

Nonetheless, although in relative terms we found that few workers in our sample manage to

make other kinds of investments, especially in small businesses (a tortilla shop, a grocery store, etc.),

these investments can have important multiplying effects on their communities.

Housing construction, although it is mostly self-construction, has an impact on the community

which was not measured by this research project because to do so would have required a different

orientation from the one planned, and also different instruments. Yet we should note that in order to

enlarge and improve their homes, the workers buy different kinds of materials, with which the demand

for those materials in their areas of residence increases and, with that, the possibility is enhanced for

improving other homes.

This research project shows that the saving capacity of the workers who participated in the

Program is limited, and that the possibility of making other kinds of investments is remote, not only

because the income from work done in Canada is not very substantial (although it is much higher than

what the workers would be earning locally), but also due to the shortcomings of the areas in which the

workers live in Mexico.

b) Derived from the experience of the participating workers

In other sections, we have indicated some reasons explaining why the program has not

influenced agricultural development in our country. The main reason is the limited access of the

participants to cropland, as well as the small size of the plots. Another important aspect is that small-

scale agriculture has had serious problems in Mexico; even with a greater amount of investment, it

would still be precarious. On the other hand, the Mexican Government has not implemented programs

(for credit, consultancy, etc.) aimed at supporting initiatives for agricultural and animal husbandry

119

development of the workers in this Program, probably due to the uncertain nature of this sector’s

recovery, especially after Mexico’s entry into NAFTA.

But this issue is more complex. Although the interview was not designed to delve deeply into it,

it provides us with certain elements that facilitate our analysis. The Program’s objectives and features,

which we described in the first section, limit the possibility of Mexican workers' developing skills in

agricultural work that would enable them to undertake similar initiatives in their areas of residence.

Several findings of this research, mentioned throughout this report, strengthen that interpretation.

Taking into account all the seasons in which the interviewed workers have participated, we find

that in 80% of the cases they carry out activities related to the harvesting of crops. Other activities

conducted often include loading, filling boxes, weeding, pruning trees, etc. Few workers have had the

opportunity to conduct agricultural activities allowing them to gain real experience in other productive

processes, such as supervision work (2 workers) and help in the area of chemicals (1 worker). But they

have only managed to do so after several seasons (seven to eleven) of working on the harvest.

Those interviewed also stated that the work they do in Canada does not allow them to become

familiar with the different phases of the cultivation process, and work even becomes routine. For many

of those interviewed, the work they do on Canadian farms is the same as or simpler than the

agricultural work they do in Mexico.

Moreover, we believe that regardless of the poor quality of the work experience they have in

Canada, the very fact of working in a foreign country probably serves as a lesson for their lives, for this

opens other horizons for them that are sometimes hard to evaluate.

However, we should like to insist that the Program’s benefits and impact for the workers and

their families are varied and most significant, as we have shown earlier in this document. In addition,

we should recall that the Program itself is oriented towards recruiting non-skilled temporary workers.

Therefore, the Program, per se, can not be a panacea compensating for all the shortcomings that this

type of worker usually experiences.

120

Section XIII. The future of the Program from the Mexican standpoint

There are at least two factors to be considered in proposals regarding the Program’s future. The first

one has to do directly with the situation that has prevailed during recent years in Mexican agriculture,

while the second one, related to the first, involves the circumstances of the country’s more general

socioeconomic context.

In the respective chapter of the report (The Macroeconomic Environment, Rural Development,

and the CMAWP), we summarized several of the most important points. In terms of the development

of Mexican agriculture, the situation is rather discouraging mainly due to an excessive fragmentation of

rural property which, although this has been understandable from an historical viewpoint and due to

demographic and social reasons, constitutes a factor that has hindered capitalization and, hence, an

efficient economic reorientation as well.

It is true that in 1992, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari attempted to set the bases for

undertaking a reversal of this problem. He promoted a modification of the Mexican Constitution that

opened up the possibility of including ejidal land in the general land market. However, reality has

shown us that it has not been possible to perceive agriculture as an economically attractive activity, and

therefore at present there is only a very limited economic interest in this activity. Moreover, the

ownership of ejidal lands is framed within an organizational system which, in practice, has also served

to provide ejidatarios with organizational protection of a certain degree of political and social

importance. This has not favored the dissolution of ejidos nor the commercialization of that land.

However, we should point out that there are certain indications that this process is already underway,

albeit very slowly, and thus it will be many, many years before this process can be reversed.

121

On the other hand, as was stated in the above-mentioned chapter of the report, small producers

who have rain-fed land and who produce grains, mainly corn, have the least possible chances of being

successful. The survey conducted with workers who go to Canada reveals that the few of them who

have land are mostly ejidatarios with extremely small rain-fed plots. And due to this, as is evidenced by

their behavior, they do not feel that they have any incentive to invest in their land, not even to buy a

few more hectares. In addition, we should recall that when they are in Mexico, the majority of these

people work mainly as agricultural wage workers, and this is one of the least well-paid occupations in

our country. We have also observed that, aside from investments made in their homes for the purpose

of improving and enlarging them, the workers have invested their earnings obtained in Canada in

providing their children with a better education. This is a very important and realistic impact for the

workers, since they know very well that a better education will afford their children a higher economic

and social standard of living. Let us recall, in this regard, that the sociological literature on peasants and

rural farmers in general usually indicates that, although they are poor and illiterate, peasants have a

great sense of economic pragmatism. This is also confirmed in the case of Mexican workers who go to

Canada to work on a temporary basis.

Yet in the last analysis, it is evident that participation in this Program has been very important

for them in terms of their own development and that of their families in the country’s actual context of

development. Another factor proving the above is that approximately 20% of the workers have moved

throughout the years of the Program from their rural and semirural communities to Mexico City and the

city of Puebla. Undoubtedly, they have done so because they have realized that they can enhance their

earnings and gain experiences in activities allowing them to achieve economic and social improvement.

Unfortunately, this very concrete aspect could not be investigated in the project due to external factors,

and we had to focus our efforts for the moment only on rural localities.

122

Nevertheless, the overview we have given above makes it clear that, despite certain difficulties

and frictions, the Program has had undeniable personal, family, and community benefits. In this sense,

an extension of the Program to support other sectors of Canadian agriculture or even other sectors with

similar demands for labor would be most welcomed by Mexican workers whose socioeconomic profile

is like that of the workers who have been going to Canada. And the problems identified in this project

would be easily corrected with few additional resources and a certain degree of strategic planning

geared to overcoming these circumstances.

As a complement to the above, it would be worthwhile to stress that meeting the demand for

agricultural workers posed by Canada has not been hindered or limited in all these years that the

Program has been operating, even though there has been a very large demand by the U.S. for the same

type of Mexican worker. Let us recall two situations in this regard: one, that as of the 1970s to date, the

U.S. demand for low-skilled workers increased as never before. In just 15 years an annual average of

some 250,000 people have been going to reside in the United States, not to mention a volume of nearly

800,000 workers who come and go there every year. Of all these workers, the majority are illegal. The

second circumstance, related to the first, is that in almost all the communities where the workers who

go to Canada live, there are workers who have been traveling to the United States, where higher wages

are paid for the same type of activities carried out by workers going to Canada. But why do some of

them decide to go to the U.S., while others choose Canada? We believe that a possible hypothesis could

be that the Canadian program has been offering a legal framework and job security which the workers

appreciate more than the possibility of obtaining potentially higher wages under situations that are

relatively more hazardous. We feel that this feature of the Program has been fundamental for its

stability, and that it should be considered as an especially significant feature of it.

In view of the above, it would seem advisable for a possible new program to have a similar

scheme to the PTAT (Programa de Trabajadores Agrícolas Temporales, or Program of Temporary

123

Agricultural Workers), with the participation of the Mexican Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare, the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by means of binational agreements with similar administrative controls,

with the guarantees enjoyed by Mexican workers participating in the PTAT, attempting to see to it that

this is not a burden for the Mexican Government nor for the workers themselves.

In another section of the report, we mentioned that the expenses made by the governments of

Canada and Mexico to support the CMAWP constitute a subsidy by these two governments for the

agricultural sector, specifically for the Canadian producers who receive workers. So looking ahead to

the Program’s future and, above all, to its possible enlargement, we believe it is important to think

about the key points that could support the Program without having to resort to greater subsidies by

these governments. Due to the lack of governmental resources, this could become a very significant

limitation.

In keeping with the points expressed throughout the report, we feel that the current costs of the

Program and also the possible additional costs of this or future programs, should not fall to the workers,

who are already making major efforts and, although they are receiving significant earnings, they are

subjected to strong pressures of having to leave their families for relatively long periods and live in a

cultural environment that is strange to them.

Another important characteristic of the current program that should be highlighted is that

throughout the 29 years that the agreement with Mexico has been in existence, it seems that there have

not been migratory flows of Mexicans who have remained in Canada to live there due to this Program.

At least this seems not to have occurred more than on a very limited basis. This is also a very special

feature that is undoubtedly appreciated by the Canadian Government in its decisions about the policies

defined there. This is another important aspect of the current program because it implies a safeguard for

national security, which should be protected by the Canadian authorities.

124

Moreover, considering another dimension of the Program, in a shorter term, there are two points

to be taken into account:

1) Research has pointed to a growing participation of women in the Program. It appears that

Canadian farmers are beginning to discover this kind of labor and, due to the country’s

experience in the vegetable-producing sector, it is possible that the demand for women workers

will increase even further.

2) In the near future, it is important for Program operators, Human Development Research

Canada, and FARMS, for Canada, and the Ministries of Labor and Social Welfare and Foreign

Affairs for Mexico, to be prepared to respond to a significant increase in requests for pensions.

The Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs has calculated that to date, 357 workers have

requested their pension, although it does not have information on the requests that have been

answered nor on the number of workers who are now receiving their monthly pension.

In order to arrive at an approximate estimate of the future growth of pension requests, we have

utilized information on the date of birth of the workers registered in the Program Office’s files. The

database for records on workers contains information on 23,900 workers: those who were active in the

year 1993 and those who have been joining the Program as of that year and are still active, i.e., it does

not include workers who entered the Program prior to 1993 and who by that year had left it.

The average age recorded for the workers is 37.6 years, similar to the mean age of workers in our

research sample, which was 38. The following table shows the total number of workers registered in

the Program by age groups: 367 are over the age of 60, 711 are between 55 and 59, and 1,234 are

between 50 and 54. This data allows us to observe that the demand for pensions will increase more than

threefold in the coming years. For that reason, it would be advisable to implement the necessary

measures now in order to expedite the bureaucratic processes that will be necessary in the near future.

125

Table 71. Age groups of all the workers registered in the Program Office Age groups Frequency Percentage 40 years or under 14716 61.5 From 41 to 44 years 4415 18.5 From 45 to 49 years 2457 10.3 From 50 to 54 years 1234 5.2 From 55 to 59 years 711 3.0 Over 60 years 367 1.5 Total 23900 100 SOURCE: Database of workers registered in the Program, Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare, 2002.

126

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Appendini, Kirsten. “From crisis to restructuring: The debate on the Mexican economy during the

1980s”. Center for Development Research. CDR Project Paper 92.2, 1992.

Bauder, Harald, Kerry Preibish, Siobhan Sutherland, and Kerry Nash. n.d. “Impacts of foreign farm

workers on an Ontario community,” in Sustainable Rural Communities Program, OMAFRA.

Caloca Rivas, Rigoberto.1999. “Migración y desarrollo autogestivo en San Lucas Tecopilco, Tlaxcala,”

Thesis for the Universidad Iberoamericana.

Cárdenas, Enrique. Historia Económica de México, Fondo de Cultura Económica, México 1989

FARMS. 2001. Employer Information Package.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. n.d. Population Data by Localities. 2000

Census, Compact Disc.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. Population Census. 1990 and 2000.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. Niveles de Bienestar. 2001.

Ramos, Armando. n.d.“The temporary agricultural workers’ program Canada-Mexico. Background,

present and future.” Working document.

Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores. Consulado General de México en Toronto, Canadá.n.d. Report on

the 2002 Season of the Temporary Agricultural Workers Program Mexico-Canada.

Secretaría de Trabajo y Previsión Social. n.d. Report for the Season. Temporary Migratory Workers

Program in Canada. 1994-2002.

127

Solís, Leopoldo. La realidad económica mexicana: retrovisión y perspectivas. Siglo XXI, México,

1970.

Unikel, Luis, et al. El desarrollo Urbano en Mexico. Diágnostico e Implicaciones Futuras. El Colegio

de México. México, 1976.

Verduzco, Gustavo. 1999. “El Programa de trabajadores agrícolas mexicanos con Canadá: Un contraste

frente a la experiencia con Estados Unidos”, in Estudios Demográficos y Urbanos, Vol. 14, No. 1.

January-April. El Colegio de México.

128

APPENDIX 1. Description of the communities where the interviewed workers live in Mexico

Description of Santa María Jajalpa, State of Mexico

Santa María Jajalpa belongs to the municipality of Tenango del Valle, in the lacustrian zone of

the Upper Lerma River in the State of México. It is located at 2,580 meters above sea level (masl), at a

distance of 35 km from the city of Toluca, the state capital, and is connected to the capital by a paved

highway. It is connected to Mexico City by the free highway between Tenango and La Marquesa,

which in turn is connected to the highways connecting Toluca with Mexico City.

There are 65,119 inhabitants in the municipality of Tenango del Valle (2000 Census); nearly a

third of the population of this municipality lives in the city of Tenango de Arista, which is the

municipal seat. According to the 2000 Census, there are a little more than 40 towns and villages in the

municipality: twelve have more than 2,500 inhabitants, among which we find Santa María Jajalpa, with

5,402. Demographic growth in the municipality has not been very dynamic. From 1950 to date, its

growth rate was lower than 2.0, much lower than that of the State of México.

According to information from the Program Office, from 1993 to date a total of 639 workers

from the municipality of Tenango del Valle have participated: approximately 194 from the town of San

Pedro Zictepec and 185 from Santa María Jajalpa. In the 2002 season, within the Program, 315 workers

from this municipality went to Canada, 105 of which reside in Santa María Jajalpa

Agriculture is the main economic activity of Santa María Jajalpa. In addition, a significant

proportion of the population which does not work in the agricultural sector is devoted to buying and

selling the region’s agricultural products. The features of this lacustrian zone have made it possible for

it to favor horticulture. As of the early twentieth century, vegetables are grown on the low slopes and

on the shores of the lagoon. As of the 1940s, when the lagoon dried up, horticulture was intensified.

Corn cultivation continues to be important, and this crop is grown on the slopes.

According to the president of the ejido of Santa María Jajalpa, Mr. Merced Pavón, access to the

ejido is limited. There is a surface of 280 hectares for 410 ejidatarios, i.e., a little over half a hectare

129

each. The lower zones of the ejido are on half irrigation by means of 5-meter-deep chain pump wells or

surface wells. The zones on the hill are rain-fed, but it is considered that in this region the rain is not

good, for there are frequent hailstorms and downpours which damage the crops. In the irrigation zones,

vegetables are cultivated, while in the rain-fed areas, some vegetables, including corn, are grown. The

production of this ejido is very diversified. Among others, the following crops are cultivated: spinach,

lettuce, cabbage, beets, chard, coriander, radishes, peas, carrots, cauliflower, onions, and green lima

beans. Here corn has yields above the national average, and so it is possible to obtain as much as 4 tons

per hectare, although on occasion productivity is only one ton per hectare. Private property is also very

limited, and is to be found on the slopes. The community’s land surface is 642 hectares, of which 290

are covered by forests, 330 are agricultural, and 22 are covered by the urban area.

For several decades now, Jajalpa’s agricultural producers have established trade relations with

merchants in Toluca and Mexico City; they sell their crops mostly in the Main Supply Markets of those

cities.

Crops are short-cycle and in some cases as many as three harvests are obtained per year; the

demand for labor is high between May and November. Mr. Pavón feels that “all those people who

leave are needed here.” Besides for the harvests, day laborers are needed to weed the fields, and for this

reason there are periods of great demand. Sometimes day laborers from Ixtlahuaca even go to Jajalpa to

work.8

One of the serious problems affecting Santa María Jajalpa is the limited supply of water, both

for agricultural irrigation and for domestic use. The water from the chain pump wells, aimed at

agriculture, suffers from a high degree of salinity which is reflected in decreases in crop production;

moreover, water supply declines annually. The ejidatarios lack the funds needed for constructing

artesian wells, and only two or three producers have invested in drip irrigation. There is an artesian

well for extracting water for domestic use, but it is now insufficient, and water has to be rationed. One

day part of the village is supplied with water and on the next day, the other part is serviced. In this zone

there are more than 300 wells, but this water is channeled to Mexico City.9

8 Interview with Mr. Merced Pavón.9 Ibid.

130

The president of the ejido is very concerned because he feels that the village’s agricultural

producers require technical advice and support in order to optimize the area’s resources, such as water

and land. The work done in the United States and Canada is an important source of income for many

Jajalpan families. These workers are mostly children of ejidatarios and comuneros (joint owners).

Aside from going abroad to work, the inhabitants of Jajalpa usually go temporarily or permanently to

Mexico City and Toluca to work in the vegetable trade. We also find workers who go temporarily to

Celaya in the State of Guanajuato. A rather insignificant number of people work daily in industries in

neighboring towns and villages; a small group of more or less 20 workers go to work in the flower

harvests of Tenancingo, Vicente Guerrero.10

The economically active population of Santa María Jajalpa is 1,542 people, and of these 1,502

are registered in the Census as Población Ocupada (PO) (Employed or Occupied Population). A total of

46.1% of this population is dedicated to primary activities, 12.4% to secondary activities, and 38.5% to

tertiary activities. Belonging to the latter sector are merchants of agricultural products, as well as other

types of established or ambulatory traders and providers of local services, especially transportation.

Unlike other towns and villages in this region, where there is a tradition of weaving, in Jajalpa

this is not an important activity. The economically active population devoted to secondary activities is

low as compared to the rest of the region, for there are neighboring towns where home maquiladora

industries have been set up. In nearby towns, there are also some major industries such as Mercedes

Benz and BMW. Nevertheless, it is not common for the inhabitants of Jajalpa to work in the region’s

industries.

The Mexican National Institute of Statistics, Geography, and Informatics (INEGI) lists the

municipality as having a well-being level of 5, both at the state and national levels. In comparison with

other towns where this research was conducted, here the percentage of occupied population that earns

one or two minimum wages (from $5 to $10 dollars) per day is very high: 55% of the occupied

population earns one minimum wage and 45.8% earns double the minimum wage.11

10 Ibid.11 INEGI, Censo de Población y Vivienda, 2000.

131

According to the 2000 Census, there are 1,023 homes in Santa María Jajalpa; of these, 79%

have sanitary services; 78% have running water; 76% have drainage; and 90% have electricity.

There is a health center in Santa María Jajalpa, and 12 such centers in the municipality, but all

are only for primary health care, i.e., vaccines and first aid.

In this town there are two preschools, two elementary schools, one junior high school, and one

televised junior high school.

Sources

Interviews with the president of the ejido of Santa María Jajalpa, Mr. Merced Pavón.

INEGI, Censo de Población y Vivienda, 2000.

CONAPO (National Population Council).

Preibisch, Kerry, Gladis Rivera, and Georgina Rodríguez. Modos de vida en Santa María Jajalpa,

Centro de Investigación en Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México and

Department of Agricultural and Food Economics of the University of Reading, England.

132

Description of San Matías Cuijingo, Municipality of Juchitepec, State of Mexico

San Matías Cuijingo belongs to the municipality of Juchitepec in the State of México. The

municipality of Juchitepec is located at an altitude of 2,560 meters above sea level in the southeastern

part of the State of México and covers 149.6 square kilometers. The name “Juchitepec” is derived from

a Nahuatl word that means “hill of flowers.” “Cuijingo” also comes from the Nahuatl, and means

“sparrow hawk.”

There are no water bodies in this municipality, only several conduits for rain water. These

temporary conduits, also called barrancas, were the main source of water for the population and for

some farm land until a few decades ago. When the water proved to be insufficient, the population

resorted to a well in Tenango del Aire, and a few years ago built a well closer to Juchitepec. There are

some ameyales or small springs that are used as watering places for livestock.12

According to the 2000 Census, the municipality has approximately 24 towns and villages but,

with the exception of San Matías Cuijingo and Juchitepec, which is the municipal seat, all have

populations of less than 200. The municipality has a population of 18,968 inhabitants; 13,360 live in

the municipal seat, while 4,802 live in Cuijingo.

The municipality has maintained a population growth rate much lower than the average rate for

the State of México. In fact, in the past decade the population went from 14,270 inhabitants registered

in the 1990 Census to 13,360 in the Census for 2000. The main emigration routes of the population of

working age are to the United States and Canada, in both cases with contracts and for temporary work.

However, there is also illegal emigration to the United States. Moreover, some inhabitants from this

municipality go to work on a temporary basis in the states of Morelos, Puebla, and Hidalgo, as well as

other towns and villages in the State of México, to “husk corn.” The greatest demand for labor in the

municipality is during the corn harvest, in the autumn and winter, to the extent that during those

months even laborers from the states of Oaxaca and Hidalgo go to the municipality to work.

12 Molina Quiroz, Felipe Antonio. Juchitepec. Monografía Municipal. Government of the State of México, 1999.

133

According to the Program Office’s records, over 509 inhabitants of the municipality and 425

from San Matías Cuijingo have participated from 1993 to date. In the 2002 season, 138 inhabitants

from San Matías Cuijingo went to work in Canada through this Program.

Approximately 10,000 hectares of land are devoted to agriculture in this municipality. The main

part of this area is considered good rain-fed land. Some 7,800 hectares belong to ejidos and 2,700 are

privately owned. According to the monograph prepared in 1999, there were 1,820 ejidatarios in the

municipality and, of these, 410 belonged to the Cuijingo ejido. The municipal secretary and ejidal

commissary of Cuijingo stated that at present, there are 1,500 ejidatarios in the municipality and 380 in

Cuijingo.

The major agricultural products of this municipality are: corn, wheat, oats, barley, potatoes,

carrots, evo, lima beans, chamomile, lettuce, and cabbage. According to the monograph, 55% of this

municipality’s agricultural production is comprised of grains (annual average of 11,000 tons): 30% of

grasses (annual average of 6,000 tons); 2.5% of legumes (annual average of 500 tons); and 12.5% of

vegetables (2.5 tons of carrots, lettuce, cabbage, and tomato). The production and sale of forage (evo,

barley, oats, and corn) are important, and there are several outlets for these products in the municipal

seat.

As regards livestock, there are three ranches for fattening cattle for meat and milk, and 48 sheep

farmers.13

The 2000 Population Census records an economically active population in Cuijingo of 1,339

people, and 95% are considered to be occupied. Nearly three-quarters of the economically active

population is devoted to agricultural activities, either as a farmer or day laborer, in the town and in

neighboring villages. Migration to the United States and Canada is an important source of income for

many of Cuijingo’s inhabitants. Some 10% of the economically active population of the area goes to

work annually in Canada through this Program. Some inhabitants of Cuijingo work in construction in

other places in the region, or in activities in the tertiary sector, mainly in Mexico City or in Cuautla. In

2000, 13.6% of the occupied population had an income equivalent to one minimum salary, and 43%

13 Molina Quiroz, Felipe Antonio, op. cit.

134

had two minimum salaries. That is to say, 56.6% of occupied workers earned two minimum salaries or

less.

The Mexican National Institute of Statistics, Geography, and Informatics (INEGI) considers

that this municipality has a level of well-being of 6, both in the state stratification and in the national

one.

In San Matías Cuijingo there are 998 households; 84.4% have sanitary services. The main

shortcoming of this town is running water service, for only 16.2% of the households have it. A total of

76.2% have drainage, while 95% have electricity.14 And 50% of the households have access to

telephone service.15

In this municipality there are two “health centers for scattered rural populations.” One is in

Juchitepec, while the other is in Cuijingo. In the neighboring municipality of Tenango del Aire, there is

a hospital at that same level, and in Amecameca and in Tepetixla there are hospitals for primary care.

The monograph mentions that in all, the municipality has 12 general physicians and 4 dentists.16

There are 8 elementary schools, 5 in Juchitepec and 3 in Cuijingo. There are seven preschools, 5

in Juchitepec and 2 in Cuijingo. And there are three junior high schools, two in Juchitepec and one in

Cuijingo. In addition, there is a senior high school in the municipal seat which was founded in 1986.17

The government donated municipal lands from the former Mayorazgo Hacienda, where the Centro

Interdisciplinario de Ciencias de la Salud (CICITEC) (Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences) of

the National Polytechnic Institute was set up. The agreement signed requested that preference be given

to students from the municipality, but the students come from other places and there are very few

inhabitants from the municipality at this school.18

The main means of communication are paved highways. The main one is the Chalco-Juchitepec

highway (with a length of 20 km); in addition, 8 km from the municipal seat there is an interchange

14 INEGI, Censo de Población y Vivenda 2000.15Interview with Constanza Martínez, Secretary of the Municipal President’s Office. 16 Ibid.17 Ibid.18 Ibid.

135

with the Xochimilco-Cuautla highway, and both localities are also connected by paved highway with

Amecameca and Tenango del Aire.

Public transportation is very important for the municipality’s inhabitants: close to 2,000 people

commute daily to Mexico City or to nearby cities. In general, transportation services stop at 9 or 10

p.m., but there is the possibility of hiring night public service in the event of an emergency.

The feast of the patron saint of San Matías Cuijingo is celebrated on two different dates: on

February 24, because on that day Saint Matías came to the village, and on March 14, which is Saint

Matías’ day. “The saint was just passing through, but he liked the village and decided to stay.”

Sources

Molina Quiroz, Felipe Antonio. Juchitepec. Monografía Municipal. Government of the State of

México, 1999.

Interview with Miss Constanza Martínez Calvo, Secretary of the Municipal President’s Office.

Interview with the Ejidal Commissary of Cuijingo.

INEGI. Censo de Población y Vivienda 2000.

CONAPO (Mexican National Population Council).

136

Description of the Municipality of Tepoztlán

The municipality of Tepoztlán is located in the northern part of the State of Morelos, in the

region of Ajusco-Chichinautzin, or Sierra of Tepoztlán. The municipality is located at an altitude of

1,701 meters above sea level and covers a land surface of 279 square kilometers. It is bounded on the

north by the Milpa Alta delegation of the Federal District (Mexico City), to the south by the

municipalities of Yautepec and Jiutepec, to the east by the municipalities of Tlayacapan and

Tlalnepantla, and to the west by the municipalities of Huitzilac and Cuernavaca, all in the State of

Morelos.

The name “Tepoztlán” is a Nahuatl word which has two meanings: “place of the broken stones”

or “place of copper.” Hence, it is symbolized by a copper axe with the handle incrusted in a mountain.

The mountainous formations that characterize the region of Tepoztlán originated in the torrential flow

of the rivers of the Ajusco Sierra. This phenomenon caused soil erosion, producing deep ravines and

peaks comprising a picturesque landscape. The municipal seat is located in the valley, at the foot of the

Tepozteco Hill. On this hill are preserved the ruins of the Temple that ancient settlers built to worship

the god Ometochtli. In addition, the city of Tepoztlán, municipal seat that was founded in the early

sixteenth century, conserves the urban architecture of the era, including the Convent and the Church.

In the 1930s, the Tepozteco National Park was founded and in the 1980s, a large expanse of the

municipality was declared a protected area, as part of the Ajusco-Chichinautzin ecological corridor.

As is the case of the State of Morelos, the municipality of Tepoztlán maintained a population

growth rate of approximately 4% in the 1960-1990 period. This rate decreased during the following

decade: the number of inhabitants of the municipality went from 27,646 in 1990 to 32,921 in 2000. Out

of the total municipal population, 14,776 live in the city of Tepoztlán and the rest in rural areas. The

records of the Program Office for Mexico-Canada temporary workers indicates that from 1993 to date,

1,674 workers from the State of Morelos have participated in this Program; of these, 612 live in the

municipality of Tepoztlán, either in the city or in other areas. In the 2002 season, approximately 233

workers from this municipality went to work in Canada through this Program.

137

In this municipality, the population over the age of 5 who speak indigenous languages is 1,580,

or 5.7% of the population over that age. The main languages are Nahuatl and Mixtec.19

The city of Tepoztlán is divided into eight neighborhoods or quarters: San Miguel, San Pedro,

San Sebastián, Santa Cruz, La Santísima, Santo Domingo, San José, and Los Reyes. Aside from the

municipal seat, the 2000 Census registered nearly 60 towns and villages in this municipality. Among

the most highly populated, we find Santiago Tepetlapa, with 789 inhabitants; San Juan Tlacotenco,

with 1,723; San Salvador Ixcatepec, a village that has now been incorporated into the urban zone of the

municipal seat; Santo Domingo Ocotitlán, with 1,317 inhabitants; Amatlán de Quetzalcóatl, with a

population of 867; San Andrés de la Cal, with a current population of 1,226 inhabitants; Santa Catarina

Zacatepatl, with 4,144 inhabitants; and the neighborhoods named Tierra Blanca, Huilotepec, Ángel

Bocanegra, and Obrera.20

In Tepoztlán, the structure of the occupied population by sectors is similar to the region’s

occupational structure, with a concentration in the services sector. The total employed or occupied

population in the municipality of Tepoztlán is 11,960 people, or 98.7% of the economically active

population. A total of 2,113 people, or 17.6% of the total occupied population are devoted to primary

activities; 26.6% (3,186 persons) to secondary activities; and 53.6% (6,409 people) work in the services

sector.21

The agricultural activities carried out in this municipality are of a low level of productivity,

most of the plots are rain-fed and devoted to traditional crops to be consumed by the producers’

families. A small portion of farm land is dedicated to commercial crops such as flowers and tomatoes.

Some villages tend to specialize: for example, in San Juan Tlacotenco prickly pear is grown, as well

agapanthus flowers; in San Salvador Ixcatepec, gladiolas are cultivated; in San Andrés de la Cal and in

Santa Catarina, corn and tomatoes are grown and beekeeping is carried out to a large extent.

The secondary sector employs a little more than a fourth of the population in this municipality.

Over half of the occupied population in this sector works in activities related to construction. A great

19 INEGI, Censo de Población y Vivienda 2000.20 Ibid.21 Ibid.

138

number of workers interviewed in this research project work as masons or in related services such as

plumbing, blacksmithing, etc. Manufacturing employs 41.96% of the population occupied in the

secondary sector. Handicrafts are not common in this municipality, and the main work done is

woodcarving, teponaztles (musical instruments), basket weaving, articles made of papier-mâché and

cutout paper, miniature fireworks, and miniature chinelos (costumed characters at Carnival).

Mining occupies a very small portion, less than 5% of the occupied population of the secondary

sector. In the ejido of Tepoztlán there is a tezontle (volcanic rock) mine which is worked and

administered by ejido officials.

The tertiary sector is particularly important in terms of economic activities for the inhabitants of

this municipality. Here we find more than half the working population of the municipality. Due to its

tourist attractions and its proximity to Mexico City, Tepoztlán has become an important vacation spot.

On weekends, the influx of tourists to the municipality is, on average, 4 or 5 thousand people, that is to

say, there are some 30 thousand tourists a month. In this sector, the main economic activity is trade, to

which nearly a fourth of the population occupied in the tertiary sector is devoted; restaurant and hotel

services account for 9.8% of this population, while other nongovernmental services account for 22.4%.

As is the case in the country as a whole, the unequal distribution of income has gotten worse in

recent decades. Around 42% of the municipal occupied population earns two minimum salaries or less,

while 13.7% of the population is employed as a day laborer or peon.22

The Mexican National Institute of Statistics, Geography, and Informatics (INEGI) considers

that this municipality is at a well-being level of 6 both in terms of the state’s stratification and that of

the nation as a whole.

The municipal seat is located at a distance of 74 kilometers from Mexico City and 17 kilometers

from the city of Cuernavaca, and is connected to these by double-lane paved highways. It is connected

to the Federal District by the Mexico-Cuernavaca highway on the road towards Cuautla, and by federal

highway from Milpa Alta to Cuautla on the road to Oaxtepec and Oacalco.

22 Plan de Desarrollo Municipal 2000-2003.

139

For passengers traveling to Tepoztlán, the Main Bus Station in Taxqueña (Mexico City) has

departures every 30 minutes on the Pullman de Morelos line. From the city of Cuernavaca there is

direct service every 15 minutes. The main villages are located around the city of Tepoztlán at an

average distance of 5 to 10 km; almost all are connected by paved roads and there is an extensive

network of vans and busses running from the municipal seat to the villages and neighborhoods. In

addition, there are five taxi stands.

The municipality has both a post office and a telegraph office. A total of 75% of the homes have

telephone service and there are several pay phones available.

The public health care system in the municipality of Tepoztlán has 8 rural clinics, all considered

as for primary health care, i.e., they only offer consultations with general physicians. In this system

there are 15 general physicians and 10 nurses; this is insufficient if we take into account that the

population with a right to health services (be it through the Institute of Social Security or the Institute

for State Workers) in this municipality is 10,388 people. Another limitation affecting the public health

system is that specialists in all the categories are not available. All specialized medical services are

private, which hinders access for a large part of the population. Aside from the low income earned by a

high percentage of the population, 30% of the occupied population does not have reported income,

25% are self-employed, and 9.9% have a family business. These latter two population groups usually

do not have access to social benefits including health services.23

There are municipal and private garbage collection services that transport waste to a dump 5

kilometers away from the municipal seat on the Tepoztlán-Yautepec highway. This deposit is used as a

sanitary landfill and is managed by ejido officials.

The 2000 Census lists 7,881 households in the entire municipality and 3,652 in the city of

Tepoztlán. Of the total number of households, 81.9% have sanitation services. There is no drainage

infrastructure in this municipality, and only 70.6% of the households have septic tanks or toilets. In

Santo Domingo Ocotitlán a different system called “dry toilets” is used. Of the total number of

23 Ibid.

140

households, 61.1% have running water and 94% have electricity; street lighting covers 70% of the

urban zones.

One of the municipality’s urgent needs is to widen basic service coverage for the population.

According to the 2000-2003 Municipal Development Plan, 10.5%, i.e., 780 households in this

municipality get their water from water trucks. Even in the San Miguel neighborhood, in the urban

zone of the city of Tepotzlán, there is still no service for drinking water. The greatest problems

involving water supply can be found in San Juan Tlacotenco, Amatlán, Santa Catarina, and Santo

Domingo Ocotitlán; in the latter, there is no network for drinking water, some households have

constructed tanks to collect rain water, and the municipality built infrastructure for collecting rain water

for community use.

Sources

INEGI, Censo de Población y Vivenda 2000.

Municipio of Tepoztlan. Plan Municipal de Desarrollo 2000-2003.

Interview with Ms. Nuvia Valderrama Nava, General Coordinator of COPLADE-MUN.

Interview with engineer José S. Labastida Silva, Municipal Coordinator of the Ministry of Agricultural

and Animal Husbandry Development of the Government of the State of Morelos.

Interview with Mr. Óscar Terán Sandoval, Coordinator of Municipal Tourism in Tepoztlán.

Information of the communities of the municipio of Tepoztlán, gathered by Arabela Sánchez Zavala.

141

Description of the Municipality of Miacatlán, State of Morelos

The name “Miacatlán” derives from the Nahuatl and means “place where there are many canes

for arrows.” The Municipality of Miacatlán is located in the western part of the State of Morelos, at an

altitude of 1,020 meters above sea level, and covers a land surface of 219.8 square kilometers. It is

bounded to the north by the State of México and by the municipality of Cuernavaca, also in the State of

Morelos, to the south by the municipality of Puente de Ixtla, also in that state, to the east by

Xochitepec, also in that state, and to the west by Coatlán del Río and Mazatepec.

The climate in this municipality is subtropical humid, its average annual temperature is 22.5°C,

and average annual precipitation is 1,112 mm. The surface of the municipality is mountainous; 8% of

the terrain are rugged zones and include several peaks between 1,700 and 2,000 meters in altitude. The

main bodies of water are as follows: El Rodeo and Coatetelco Lagoons, the Tembembe River, whose

source is in the ravines of Cuntepec and Tetlama, and three important springs in Palo Grande, Tlajotla,

and El Rincón. In addition, there are 32 deep wells.

The municipal seat and the town of El Rodeo have the best roads, and are located at 24

kilometers, by paved highway, from the Cuernavaca-Acapulco highway. Coatetelco also has access, by

paved highway, to the municipal seat, which is 4 kilometers away. In the northern part of the

municipality, there is only a paved highway that goes to Palpan and Palo Grande, and from there, dirt

roads go to the towns and villages of Paredón, Tlajotla, Rancho Viejo, El Rincón, and others24.

Population

According to the 2000 Census, in the municipality of Miacatlán there are 23,984 inhabitants, of

which 7,639 live in the city of Miacatlán, the municipal seat, while the rest live in other towns and

villages. Coatetelco is the most populated town, with 8,796 inhabitants. Of the other towns and

villages, only Xochicalco, El Rodeo, and El Mirador have more than a thousand inhabitants. Palpan has

848, and the rest of the villages have less than 500 inhabitants.

24 Interview with staff from the Public Works Office of the municipality of Miacatlán.

142

Economic activities

The economically active population of this municipality is 7,357 inhabitants and, of these, 7,241

are considered to be the occupied population.25 Whereas in 1990, nearly half of the economically active

population (EAP) was devoted to primary activities, in 2000 this proportion had gone down to 37.8%.

The economically active population dedicated to the secondary sector rose 6 percentage points, going

from 17% to 23.2% in that same decade. The EAP devoted to tertiary activities increased significantly

during this same period (15 percentage points), going from 22% to 37%.

According to the statistical yearbook of the Mexican National Institute of Statistics, Geography,

and Informatics (INEGI), in 1992 there were 12,186 ejidal hectares in the municipality’s five ejidos,

and 2,878 communal hectares. That same year, the sown surface was 4,519 hectares: a total of 2,032 of

irrigated land, and 2,487 of rain-fed land. Of that surface, 67% was sown with corn, 17% with peanuts,

6.5% with sugarcane, 3.9% with tomatoes, 2.8% with mangos, and 2.3% with squash.

Corn continues to be the municipality’s principal agricultural crop, and average yields of 2 tons

per hectare are obtained. In the villages of Tlajotla, Palpan, and Palo Grande only corn and peanuts are

grown. In several parts of this municipality, sorghum has substituted corn to a certain extent.

Due to the abundance of bodies of water, the region produced rice, but as of several decades ago

it stopped doing so, mainly due to a decrease in water levels in the lagoons.

Despite the fact that the proportion of land devoted to the cultivation of sugarcane is small, the

towns of Miacatlán and Coatetelco were important sugarcane producers. Nevertheless, due to the

decrease in water levels of the Coatetelco Lagoon some twenty years ago, this crop was discontinued

there. At present, sugarcane is only produced in Miacatlán and El Rodeo, although this crop has also

suffered from the effects of a decrease in water levels in the El Rodeo Lagoon. Of the Miacatlán ejido’s

1,500 hectares, only 100 are irrigated. But currently there are only six irrigations per farmer during

each productive cycle. Sugarcane producers are under contract with the Zacatepec sugar mill; the

producer is in charge of sowing and cultivation tasks, and the sugar mill is responsible for harvesting

and transporting the product to the mill (and deducts these costs off of the producers’ pay). After

25 INEGI, Censo de Población y Vivienda 2000.

143

several problems that arose in previous years, the price of sugarcane has gone up ($265 pesos per ton of

raw sugarcane). Last year, sugarcane producers managed to get economic support from the government

totaling $800 pesos per hectare. However, sugarcane production has ceased to be attractive, and the

producers continue growing it only to comply with the period set down in the contract with the sugar

mill, so that the mill will give them their pension.26

Agriculture continues to be an important economic activity, although not as a source of jobs,

since farmers only hire workers for sowing sugarcane and for harvesting corn. Sugarcane cutters are

hired by the sugar mill, and are generally workers from the states of Guerrero and Oaxaca who come to

this zone specifically to cut the cane.

The plots are not distributed evenly among the ejidatarios. The ejido of Miacatlán is composed

of 500 ejidatarios, who may have between 1 and 5 hectares each, and some as many as 12 hectares.

Usually the people who emigrate to the United States or Canada to work are sons and daughters of

ejidatarios or comuneros (farmers of communal land) or heads of household who do not have any land.

Some have been able to save up and purchase plots from the larger ejidatarios who can no longer farm

them. A thousand square meters, or tarea de ejido, costs between 10,000 and 12,000 Mexican pesos,

and a hectare costs about 100,000 pesos.27

Animal husbandry for fattening cattle is important to some extent; there are small livestock

owners with herds of 5 to 10 head, and other with 100 or more animals. The stubble of local crops such

as corn, sugarcane, and sorghum are utilized for feeding the cattle. It is commonplace to find farmers

who combine farming with cattle-raising.

There are several tourist attractions in this municipality: lagoons, the archaeological zone at

Coatetelco, and the pyramid of Xochicalco, as well as some haciendas. However, as an economic

activity, tourism is not significant, and there are very few establishments for tourist services. The

growth of the EAP occupied in the services sector mostly consists of the opening up of small

businesses or trades such as masonry, blacksmithing, plumbing, etc., practiced by the inhabitants of

Miacatlán, be this in the municipality itself or in Cuernavaca or Mexico City. Many workers who

26 Interview with engineer Claro García Martínez.27 Interview with engineer Claro García Martínez.

144

participate in this Program pursue these activities when they are in Mexico. These trades can be the

worker’s sole activity, or they may, in addition, work as day laborers when this is possible. The Nissan

automobile factory located in Cuernavaca hires various people from Miacatlán; “three busses come

daily to take some 150 workers, at different times.”28

According to the Program Office’s records, from 1993 to date a total of 291 workers from

various parts of the municipality of Miacatlán participated in the Program. In the 2001 season, 63

inhabitants of this municipality went to work in Canada through this Program.

For many years now, the number of Miacatlán inhabitants that go to work under contract in the

United States has been significant. They work in domestic service in Miacatlán and Mazatepec, and

usually go to Virginia to be tobacco cutters. The contract period is more fixed than the period worked

through the Program to Canada, for agricultural work for the tobacco crop in Virginia is between April

and October. Virginian farmers offer the workers accommodations, and at the plantations all temporary

workers are Mexican. But, unlike the Program with Canada, those workers who go to the United States

are not entitled to a pension nor do they have social security for disablement or death during their

contract. The workers travel by bus, and the trip from the U.S.-Mexico border to Virginia is

approximately 36 hours long. On one occasion, the bus overturned, and several workers from

Miacatlán, Tepoztlán, and other places in the region died. The families were not given any kind of

compensation, not even for funeral expenses. The major appeal of that program is the value of the U.S.

dollar. Some workers have stopped going because they started to feel the harmful effects of tobacco

resin when it evaporates due to the heat or in the ovens, or the harmful effects of agrochemicals.29

According to INEGI’s classification, the municipality has a level of well-being of 4 at the state

level, and 3 at the national level. A total of 62.3% of the municipality’s occupied population earns one

or two minimum salaries: 18.6%, one minimum salary, and 43.7%, two minimum salaries.

Sources

INEA. Delegación Morelos. Compendio Municipal Miacatlán, 1994.

28 Interview with engineer Claro García Martínez.29 Interview with engineer Claro García Martínez.

145

Interview with Mr. Claro García Martínez, Office for Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, and Civil

Protection of the Municipality of Miacatlán.

Interview with staff of the Public Works Office of the Municipality of Miacatlán.

INEGI-Government of the State of Morelos. Anuario Estadístico 1992.

INEGI. Censo de Población y Vivienda 2000.

146

Description of the Municipality of San Lucas Tecopilco, State of Tlaxcala

The municipality of San Lucas Tecopilco was created in 1995. Prior to that, San Lucas was in

the municipality of Xaltocan. San Lucas is located in the central part of the State of Tlaxcala, at an

altitude of 2,939 meters above sea level, and covers a land surface of 41.6 square kilometers. The

climate is subhumid temperate, the average annual temperature is 22.9°C, and average annual

precipitation is 954.7 mm. The word “Tecopilco” comes from the Nahuatl and means “place of white

stone.”

Seventy-five percent of the surface of this municipality is semi-flat. The Zahuapan River, whose

source is at the Atlangatepec Dam, crosses the municipality, but it has a very limited flow. Most of the

non-cultivated land surface of the municipality is covered with secondary vegetation, and there are

small areas of pine and oak forest.

In 1990, San Lucas Tecopilco had 2,231 inhabitants.30 By the year 2000, the population of the

municipality was 2,939, and the municipality was composed of twelve towns and villages: eleven with

less than 100 inhabitants, one with 340 inhabitants, and the municipal seat, with 2,447 inhabitants.31

This municipality’s economically active population is 651 persons, 97.8% of which (637)

comprise the occupied population. The sector with the most people is the primary sector, with 38.6%,

while 33% of the occupied population is devoted to secondary activities and 27.1% to services.

San Lucas Tecopilco was part of the pulque-producing zone of Tlaxcala, and the municipality

came to produce significant amounts of this drink. At present, it is no longer made because the maguey

plants were depleted due to the excessive extraction of mexiote (the skin of the fleshy leaf of this

cactus) used for the preparation of barbacoa (roasted goat meat).32 The ejidatarios would like to be in a

position to cultivate maguey plants again, for in Calpulalpan and Nanacamilpa some people are

producing pulque for export.

30 Government of the State of Tlaxcala. Monograph on San Lucas Tecopilco.31 INEGI. Censo de Población y Vivienda 2000.32 Interview with Mr. Nereo Hernández, Comité de Vigilancia del Ejido

147

The sown surface is 2,834 hectares; of this, only 103 hectares are irrigated. The ejido covers

approximately 800 hectares, and is farmed by 248 ejidatarios, each of whom has between three and

eight hectares.33 A total of 58% of the land surface is cultivated with corn, and production is aimed

mainly at local consumption; 39% of the land is for wheat, and the rest is for barley. These last two

crops have decreased due to a drop in market prices.

The average yield of corn is 2.1 tons per hectare, less than the average yield for the state.

Several ejidatarios who went to work in Canada implemented a technique for increasing yields which

they had observed on Canadian farms: Tecopilco corn producers traditionally cleared the corn field

after harvesting, now they spread corn stubble over the land during the entire fallow period (December-

April). The corn stubble decomposes and when the first rains come, it is filtered into the land,

nourishing it, and yields have been better.34 However, due to the municipality’s altitude, San Lucas’

crops are exposed to frosts; during the past season, corn was totally frozen before it could be harvested,

and during 2003 it was necessary to purchase corn for local consumption.35

One of the main problems of agriculture has been the poor condition of roads, which hinders the

marketing of produce and makes it expensive.36 The ejido has other needs and the ejidatarios lack

money to make investments. For example, for some time now it has been necessary to do rotation

work, as well as ditch-digging, ridging, and reforestation.37 For an analysis of the region’s agricultural

situation, we should consider other studies, for example, Rigoberto Caloca indicates that Tecopilcan

farmers have abandoned erosion-control practices such as bancales (terraces on slopes), which also

allowed for the creation of jagueyes (large pools or basins) for storing rain water and cultivating fish.38

The ejido has seven irrigation wells, but not all of these are operating. Recently it was possible

to activate some of them by getting a credit of $100,000 pesos to buy a transformer. Thanks to this, in

2002 the cultivation of several vegetables was introduced on the ejido’s irrigated areas. That year they

33 Ibid34 Ibid35 Ibid36 Interview with Mr. Nereo Hernández.37 Nereo Hernández mentioned that the few trees that exist have plagues that are difficult to eradicate.38 Caloca Rivas, Rigoberto. “Migración y desarrollo autogestivo en San Lucas Tecopilco, Tlaxcala”. Thesis for the Universidad Iberoamericana, 1999.

148

had a harvest of lettuce, beets, broccoli, and carrots. The first harvest of vegetables was sold at the

Main Supply Market in Mexico City. The farmers learned that selling in the market is difficult because

buyers are looking for the most select product with even quality. The Municipal President is taking the

necessary steps with state and federal agencies to obtain support for Tecopilco’s farmers, in order to

make horticulture more dynamic. The intention is to take advantage of the experience of workers who

have gone to Canada, and to install a vegetable greenhouse.

Despite the fact that agriculture is the economic activity which provides employment to a major

proportion of the economically active population, the residents of San Lucas have found it necessary to

resort to other sources of income outside their town. At the beginning of the twentieth century, several

heads of household were employed at the National Railroads. Later, residents resorted to emigration

mainly to Mexico City, the city of Tlaxcala, Ciudad Sahagún, the United States, and Canada. At the

time, the participation of various people in the Bracero Program with the U.S. was important for that

community. Later, many heads of household went to work in companies in Ciudad Sahagún, an hour

and a half away. In the early 1980s, in DINA alone there were nearly 200 workers from Tecopilco,

while there were a few in other companies in Ciudad Sahagún.39 This company’s bankruptcy had a

strong impact on the municipality’s economy; from 1983 to 1988, many heads of household were left

unemployed in Tecopilco. Although it was hard for them, because they lacked experience in

agriculture, some were able to join the Canadian temporary workers’ program, others went to the

United States, and still others got temporary work in the Federal District as painters, bricklayers,

plumbers, etc. In the 1990s, certain industrial dynamism in the Apizaco-Tlaxcala area enabled young

people to have alternatives for working near their community. But in past years the crisis experienced

by the maquiladora industry has led to a lack of employment opportunities.40 Some people produce

handicrafts such as masks for Carnival, carved stone products, and mortars and pestles.

From 1993 to date, a total of 3,854 workers from the State of Tlaxcala have participated in the

Program of Temporary Workers to Canada, around 150 of whom are from the municipality of San

Lucas Tecopilco. However, in the 2002 season only 20 workers from San Lucas went to work in

Canada through this Program.

39 Interview with the Municipal President, José Mateos Morales.40 José Mateo Morales.

149

At present, migration to the United States continues to be important in Tecopilco. Some

workers go under contract, completing the necessary procedures at a firm in San Pablo Patitlan, La

Huanaja, near the city of Tlaxcala; they can be hired for agricultural or construction work. Part of the

procedure consists of going to Monterrey to pick up the visa, and the procedure can cost between

15,000 and 20,000 pesos.41 However, the number of illegal emigrants to the U.S. is greater.

Rigoberto Caloca’s study analyzes the changes that have taken place in San Lucas as a result of

international emigration. He feels that national emigration has served mainly for the subsistence of

these families, and that as of the 1970s, changes began to be noted in the families and in the community

thanks to the money obtained through greater international emigration. He points out that these changes

have been undertaken at their own initiative, i.e., they do not depend on government policies. In his

research conducted in early 1990, he found various activities where the economic participation of the

migrants has been most significant: work involving water collection and irrigation for the ejido, the

introduction of drinking water, telephone service, electrification, road paving, and the construction of a

sports center and health center. He even notes that a group of these workers began a project for

growing chrysanthemums, applying what they had learned in Canada. Nevertheless, all the people we

interviewed stated that they are unaware of any social or productive project that has received the

economic support of the workers who emigrate. What we did observe is that most of the families have

at least one member who works in the United States or Canada, and that due to this many homes in the

town have been improved and enlarged.

We also noted that the Church (from the seventeenth century) has been remodeled, the main

streets of the town have new, good-quality pavement, and the town square and the buildings housing

the municipal offices are new and have been preserved quite well. It was not possible to ascertain

whether the migrants had provided economic support for this work. The Municipal President pointed

out that there have not been any productive projects organized and financed specifically by the

migrants. Experiences have not been very positive: a group of 33 associates (not migrants), supported

by government credits, set up a pig farm on a group basis which operated for some 10 years, but the

experience was negative and this discouraged other initiatives.

41Interview with a worker from the Program.

150

According to the Mexican National Institute of Statistics, Geography, and Informatics (INEGI),

the municipality’s level of well-being is 4, both in the state classification and in the national one. A

total of 17.1% of the workers in this municipality earn one minimum wage, whereas 31.2% earn two

minimum wages; in other words, nearly half the population receives two minimum wages or less.42

In San Lucas there are 589 households, with 471 in the municipal seat. Of the total number of

households in the municipality, 78% have sanitary services, 93.7% have running water, 79.4% have

drainage, and 95% have electricity. Electrical service was installed in 1973. In 1969, National

Railroads donated one of its deep wells, which still is the source of water for domestic use.

The municipal seat is located approximately 30 kilometers from the state capital, and at the

same distance from the city of Apizaco by double-lane paved highway. To reach San Lucas, it is

necessary to turn off onto a more narrow, paved road and drive for less than 5 kilometers.

In comparison with the State, San Lucas’ mortality rate is high, 5.2 for the municipality and 4.9

for the state. Similarly, the municipal child mortality rate is 38, while the state rate is 29.2.43 In 1995 in

this municipality there was a medical unit for outpatients, a physician and a paramedic, a physician’s

office, and a delivery room.44

There are also lags in educational indicators as compared to the state level. While 89.6% of the

state population can read and write, in this municipality the proportion is 85.3%. In the state, 8.7% of

the population over the age of 15 is illiterate, while that percentage is 13.3% in the municipality.45 All

the educational institutions of the municipality are located in the municipal seat: a kindergarten, an

elementary school with two shifts, a technical junior high school, and a senior high school. The latter

was founded a year ago, and its code of incorporation to the Ministry of Public Education is still being

processed, but the school is operating with the support of voluntary teachers from the organization

called Bases Magisteriales. There is also a municipal public library.

42 INEGI, Censo de Población y Vivienda 2000.43 Government of the State of Tlaxcala.44 Government of the State of Tlaxcala.45 Government of the State of Tlaxcala.

151

Sources

Interview with Mr. Nereo Hernández Vázquez. Comité de Vigilancia of the Comissiariat of the Ejido

of San Lucas Tecopilco.

Interview with Mr. José Mateo Morales, Municipal President of San Lucas Tecopilco.

Government of the State of Tlaxcala. Monograph on San Lucas Tecopilco. (Monografía de San Lucas

Tecopilco. Los municipios de Tlaxcala, no. 55, 1998).

INEGI. Censo de Población y Vivienda 2000.

Caloca Rivas, Rigoberto. “Migración y desarrollo autogestivo en San Lucas Tecopilco, Tlaxcala,”

thesis for the Universidad Iberoamericana, 1999.

152