Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T23:33:02.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Varieties of Economic Vulnerability: Evidence on Social Policy Preferences and Labor Informality from Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2022

Melina Altamirano Open the ORCID record for Melina Altamirano [Opens in a new window] ,
Sarah Berens Open the ORCID record for Sarah Berens [Opens in a new window]  and
Franziska Deeg Open the ORCID record for Franziska Deeg [Opens in a new window]
Melina Altamirano
Affiliation:
Melina Altamirano is an assistant professor in the Center for International Studies at El Colegio de México, Mexico City, Mexico. maltamirano@colmex.mx.
Sarah Berens
Affiliation:
Sarah Berens is an assistant professor of political economy at the University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. sarah.berens@uibk.ac.at.
Franziska Deeg
Affiliation:
Franziska Deeg is a researcher at Oxera Consulting LLP, Berlin, Germany. fdeeg@uni-koeln.de.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In many Latin American countries, social policy preferences among economically vulnerable citizens seem largely unpolarized. However, current studies rarely confront citizens with realistic policy options and often lack the required detail to capture the heterogeneity of economic vulnerability. Drawing on the dualization debate, we expect individuals facing different degrees of vulnerability to show distinct social policy preferences. Using original survey data from Mexico and a conjoint experiment, our findings reveal a complex divide, where the most economically vulnerable are least supportive of public solutions. Sharing the home with a formal labor market participant does not seem to mitigate social policy skepticism among the vulnerable. In contrast, magnified vulnerability via household composition reduces support for welfare policy expansion. Social policy preferences become much less distinct when policy design alternatives are introduced, suggesting reduced expectations about the state’s role and a lack of clarity about the tangible benefits of social policy reform.

Keywords

Social policy preferencesinformal sectoreconomic vulnerabilitysurvey experimentconjoint analysisMexico
Type
Research Article
Information
Latin American Politics and Society , Volume 64 , Special Issue 2: The Politics of Informal Work , May 2022 , pp. 139 - 168
Copyright
© The Authors 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the University of Miami

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Conflict of interest: We, Melina Altamirano, Sarah Berens, and Franziska Deeg, declare none.

References

REFERENCES

Altamirano, Melina. 2015. Democracy and Labor Market Outsiders: The Political Consequences of Economic Informality. Ph.D. diss., Duke University.Google Scholar
Altamirano, Melina. 2019. Economic Vulnerability and Partisanship in Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society 61, 3: 80–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Andy, and Ximena Velasco-Guachalla, Vania. 2018. Is the Informal Sector Politically Different? (Null) Answers from Latin America. World Development 102: 170–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Andy, Berens, Sarah, Feierherd, Germán, and Menéndez González, Irene. 2020. Labor Informality and Its Political Consequences in Latin America. Insights Series 144: 1–16.Google Scholar
Berens, Sarah. 2015a. Between Exclusion and Calculating Solidarity? Preferences for Private versus Public Welfare Provision and the Size of the Informal Sector. Socio-Economic Review 13, 4: 651–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berens, Sarah. 2015b. Preferences on Redistribution in Fragmented Labor Markets in Latin America and the Caribbean. Journal of Politics in Latin America 7, 3: 117–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berens, Sarah. 2020. Opting for Exit: Informalization, Social Policy Discontent, and Lack of Good Governance. Latin American Politics and Society 62, 2: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berens, Sarah, and von Schiller, Armin. 2017. Taxing Higher Incomes: What Makes the High-Income Earners Consent to More Progressive Taxation in Latin America? Political Behavior 39, 3: 703–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blofield, Merike, and Luna, Juan Pablo. 2011. Public Opinion on Income Inequalities in Latin America. In The Great Gap: Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution in Latin America, ed. Blofield, Merike. University Park: Penn State Press. 147–81.Google Scholar
Bogliaccini, Juan A., and Pablo Luna, Juan. 2019. Preferences for Redistribution and Tax Burdens in Latin America. In The Political Economy of Taxation in Latin America, ed. Flores-Macías, Gustavo. New York: Cambridge University Press. 219–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnes, Matthew E. 2014. Continuity Despite Change: The Politics of Labor Regulation in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Carnes, Matthew E., and Mares, Isabella. 2013. Measuring the Individual-Level Determinants of Social Insurance Preferences: Survey Evidence from the 2008 Argentine Pension Nationalization. Latin American Research Review 48, 3: 108–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnes, Matthew E. 2014. Coalitional Realignment and the Adoption of Non-Contributory Social Insurance Programs in Latin America. Socio-Economic Review 12, 4: 695–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnes, Matthew E. 2015. Explaining the “Return of the State” in Middle-Income Countries: Employment Vulnerability, Income, and Preferences for Social Protection in Latin America. Politics & Society 43, 4: 525–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnes, Matthew E. 2016. Redefining Who’s In and Who’s Out: Explaining Preferences for Redistribution in Bolivia. Journal of Development Studies 52, 11: 1647–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castañeda, Néstor, Doyle, David, and Schwartz, Casilde. 2020. Opting Out of the Social Contract: Tax Morale and Evasion. Comparative Political Studies 53, 7: 1175–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collier, Ruth Berins, and Collier, David. 2002. Shaping the Political Arena: Critical Junctures, the Labor Movement, and Regime Dynamics in Latin America. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Dion, Michelle L., and Birchfield, Vicki. 2010. Economic Development, Income Inequality, and Preferences for Redistribution. International Studies Quarterly 54, 2: 315–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duryea, Suzanne, Gustavo Márquez, Carmen Pages, Scarpetta, Stefano, and Reinhart, Carmen. 2006. For Better or for Worse? Job and Earnings Mobility in Nine Middle- and Low-Income Countries. In Brookings Trade Forum: Global Labor Markets? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.187–209.Google Scholar
Emmenegger, Patrick. 2009. Barriers to Entry: Insider/Outsider Politics and the Political Determinants of Job Security Regulations. Journal of European Social Policy 19, 2: 131–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emmenegger, Patrick. 2010. Gendering Insiders and Outsiders: Labour Market Status and Preferences for Job Security. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 5, 3: 90–130.Google Scholar
Fairfield, Tasha. 2013. Going Where the Money Is: Strategies for Taxing Economic Elites in Unequal Democracies. World Development 47: 42–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feierherd, Germán. 2021. Courting Informal Workers: Exclusion, Forbearance, and the Left. American Journal of Political Science, December 24. https://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12576Google Scholar
Flamand, Laura, and Moreno Jaimes, Carlos. 2014. Seguro popular y federalismo en México: un análisis de política pública. Mexico City: CIDE.Google Scholar
Flores-Macías, Gustavo A. 2014. Financing Security Through Elite Taxation: The Case of Colombia’s Democratic Security Taxes. Studies in Comparative International Development 49, 4: 477–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flores-Macías, Gustavo A. 2018. Building Support for Taxation in Developing Countries: Experimental Evidence from Mexico. World Development 105, 5: 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goñi, Edwin, Humberto López, J., and Servén, Luis. 2011. Fiscal Redistribution and Income Inequality in Latin America. World Development 39, 9: 1558–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillaud, Elvire, and Marx, Paul. 2014. Preferences for Employment Protection and the Insider-Outsider Divide: Evidence from France. West European Politics 37, 5: 1177–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J., and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2014. Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments. Political Analysis 22, 1: 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häusermann, Silja, Kurer, Thomas, and Schwander, Hanna. 2016. Sharing the Risk? Households, Labor Market Vulnerability and Social Policy Preferences in Western Europe. Journal of Politics 78, 4: 1045–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Alisha C. 2016. Forbearance. American Political Science Review 110, 2: 232–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Alisha C. 2018. Diminished Expectations: Redistributive Preferences in Truncated Welfare States. World Politics 70, 4: 555–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Alisha C., and Ross Schneider, Ben. 2017. Easy and Hard Redistribution: The Political Economy of Welfare States in Latin America. Perspectives on Politics 15, 4: 988–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindbeck, Assar, and Snower, Dennis J.. 1986. Wage Setting, Unemployment, and Insider-Outsider Relations. American Economic Review 76, 2: 235–39.Google Scholar
Lupu, Noam, and Michelitch, Kristin. 2018. Advances in Survey Methods for the Developing World. Annual Review of Political Science 21: 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maloney, William F. 2004. Informality Revisited. World Development 32, 7: 1159–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meltzer, Allan H., and Richard, Scott F.. 1981. A Rational Theory of the Size of Government. Journal of Political Economy 89, 5: 914–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Jana, and Kelly, Nathan J.. 2013. Market Inequality and Redistribution in Latin America and the Caribbean. Journal of Politics 75, 3: 672–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics (INEGI). 2018. Mexico in Figures. http://en.www.inegi.org.mx/app/areasgeograficas/?ag=01#tabMCcollapse-Indica-dores. Accessed August 21, 2018.Google Scholar
National Institute of Statistics, Geography and Informatics (INEGI). 2020. Comunicado de prensa número 660/20. Resultados de la encuesta nacional de ocupación y empleo (nueva edición) (ENOEN). Cifras oportunas de noviembre 2020. Accessed February 2021. https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/saladeprensa/boletines/2020/iooe/iooe2020_12.pdf Google Scholar
Perry, Guillermo E., Maloney, William F., Arias, Omar S., Fajnzylber, Pablo, Mason, Andrew D., and Saavedra-Chanduví, Jaime. 2007. Informality: Exit and Exclusion. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehm, Philipp. 2009. Risks and Redistribution: An Individual-Level Analysis. Comparative Political Studies 42, 7: 855–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehm, Philipp, Hacker, Jacob S., and Schlesinger, Mark. 2012. Insecure Alliances: Risk, Inequality, and Support for the Welfare State. American Political Science Review 106, 2: 386–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rueda, David. 2005. Insider-Outsider Politics in Industrialized Democracies: The Challenge to Social Democratic Parties. American Political Science Review 99, 1: 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rueda, David, Wibbels, Erik, and Altamirano, Melina. 2015. The Origins of Dualism. In The Politics of Advanced Capitalism, ed. Beramendi, Pablo, Häusermann, Silja, Kitschelt, Herbert , and Kriesi, Hanspeter. New York: Cambridge University Press. 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwander, Hanna. 2019. Labor Market Dualization and Insider-Outsider Divides: Why This New Conflict Matters. Political Studies Review 17, 1: 14–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwander, Hanna, and Häusermann, Silja. 2013. Who Is In and Who Is Out? A Risk-based Conceptualization of Insiders and Outsiders. Journal of European Social Policy 23, 3: 248–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Núñez, Vega, Patricia, Adriana. 2017. Analysis of Formal-Informal Transitions in the Ecuadorian Labour Market. CEPAL Review 123 (December): 78–95.Google Scholar
Walter, Stefanie. 2010. Globalization and the Welfare State: Testing the Microfoundations of the Compensation Hypothesis. International Studies Quarterly 54, 2: 403–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wibbels, Erik, and Arce, Moisés. 2003. Globalization, Taxation, and Burden-shifting in Latin America. International Organization 57, 1: 111–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaschine, Iliana. 2018. Progresa-Oportunidades-Prospera, veinte años de historia, In El Progresa-Oportunidades-Prospera, a 20 años de su creación, ed. Gonzalo Hernández Licona, Thania de la Garza, Janet Zamudio, and Iliana Yaschine. Mexico City: Coneval. 31–65.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Altamirano et al. supplementary material

Altamirano et al. supplementary material

Download Altamirano et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 756.7 KB