Rights or Privileges? The State and The Inequalities in Mexico

INTRODUCTION
The 2024 National Survey of Household Income and Expenditure (ENIGH), analyzed in the report ¿Derechos o privilegios? (Rights or Privileges?) prepared by Oxfam Mexico and the Institute for Studies on Inequality (Oxfam and Indesig, 2025), highlights that Mexico remains a fractured country. Progress in poverty reduction may lead one to think that the path toward equality is laid out. However, the data show that without a state that decisively takes on the role of guarantor of rights, the achievements made will be fragile and reversible.

The state is not just another actor in social life: it is the regulator of public policy, the referee of the market, and the guarantor of human rights. It is through rights —and not through assistance or market logic— that we can ensure that the economic and political systems converge in a single purpose: that all people living in a territory have a dignified life. No one should be excluded from education, health care, food, or decent work due to social origin, income, or status in a context like ours, as we live in a country of enormous wealth. However, wealth is concentrated and poorly distributed, and the state is weak in its capacity to collect revenue, regulate, and provide services. Without a strong state that acknowledges its purpose and has the tools to build collective goods, achievements in poverty reduction dissipate with each crisis, and inequality becomes normalized as an unavoidable fate.

Rights or privileges
Picture: OXFAM, 2024

The analysis of inequalities cannot be limited to socioeconomic differences measured in income or expenditure. It is essential to have an approach that also incorporates gender, ethnic background, age, and place of residence, among other dimensions. These categories allow us to understand the structural causes of gaps, which are not accidental but the result of historical systems of discrimination and exclusion. A public policy that aims for social justice must recognize that women, indigenous and Afro-descendant communities, people with disabilities, or those living in rural areas face additional obstacles to exercising their rights. Only a comprehensive diagnosis of these multiple inequalities can guide state strategies that are not merely palliative, but real transformations toward substantive equality.

WITHOUT A STRONG STATE THAT ACKNOWLEDGES ITS PURPOSE AND HAS THE TOOLS TO BUILD COLLECTIVE GOODS, ACHIEVEMENTS IN POVERTY REDUCTION DISSIPATE WITH EACH CRISIS, AND INEQUALITY BECOMES NORMALIZED AS AN UNAVOIDABLE FATE

This article reviews the findings of the Oxfam Mexico and Indesig (2025) report with the aim of showing that inequality cannot be addressed with temporary measures or palliative solutions, but rather through structural policies that include progressive tax reform, investment in universal public services, and a sustained commitment to evaluating public policies. Mexico is at a historic crossroads where it will be determined whether poverty reduction will be sustainable or, on the contrary, remain trapped in a cycle of temporary gains that soon fade away.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS ARE NOT REALITY FOR THE MAJORITY, BUT RATHER PRIVILEGES RESERVED FOR A FEW

INCOME AND DISPARITIES
The photograph provided by the 2024 ENIGH is striking: the average monthly per capita income amounts to 21,825 pesos, but behind that number lies a country split in two. Decile I barely survives on 2,168 pesos per month per person, while the richest one percent reaches 958,777 pesos. This gap is more than a statistic: it is the confirmation that economic and social rights are not reality for the majority, but rather privileges reserved for a few.

The report highlights that the richest one percent concentrates thirty-five percent of all income, while the poorest ten percent barely receive two percent of total income. In other words: the largest slice of the pie accumulates at the top, leaving the majority with crumbs. Piketty (2013) argues that in modern economies, capital accumulation grows faster than labor income. This generates a concentration of wealth that is perpetuated across generations. In Mexico, the data confirms this thesis: inheritance, businesses, and capital rents continue to be concentrated in high-income households, which fuels the persistence of privileges. These inequalities are not neutral: they erode trust in democracy, fracture the social fabric, and turn access to fundamental rights into a luxury. Inequality, as Stiglitz (2012) warns, is not only unfair; it is also inefficient: it undermines growth and fuels political instability.

MEXICO IS STILL FAR FROM ENSURING THAT THE MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE CAN CHOOSE THEIR OWN DESTINY WITHOUT BEING DETERMINED BY SCARCITY

Between 2018 and 2024, income grew by nineteen percent on average. For the poorest decile, the increase was twenty-nine percent, suggesting progressive improvement. The Gini coefficient went from 0.68 to 0.63, a reduction of five hundredths. However, this reduction should be interpreted with caution: the richest one percent also increased their income by twenty-nine percent. In absolute terms, while the poorest families earned 492 pesos more per month, the richest one percent added 213,709 pesos per month.

Here the paradox appears: can we talk about reducing inequality when the extremes grow simultaneously? Amartya Sen (1999) argues that development should be measured not only by the increase in income but also by the expansion of real freedoms. By this standard, Mexico is still far from ensuring that the most vulnerable people can choose their own destiny without being determined by scarcity. Poverty can be reduced temporarily, but if extreme inequality persists, it is not possible to consolidate a society in which everyone enjoys all rights.

The report highlights that the increase in income comes mainly from higher wages, driven by the minimum wage recovery policy and recent labor reforms [see pp. 162 in this issue]. Social transfers had a limited effect: on average, they accounted for only sixteen percent of the income increase for the poorest decile.

Picture: Monserrat García Silva

This opens up a broader discussion: what role should transfer play in a strategy to reduce inequalities? Oxfam International (Khalfan et al., 2017) warns that, without changes to the structural rules of the economy, transfers act as patches on a system that reproduces privileges. A solid redistribution policy requires not only transfers but also an inclusive labor market, strong unionization, and universal social protection.

GENDER, HOUSEHOLDS AND CAREGIVERS
The report devotes significant attention to gender inequality. Households headed by single women with children have an average income of 11,548 pesos per person, less than half of that of other households (24,070 pesos). Furthermore, in the top decile, even when women reach high-income positions, they earn much less than men in similar situations.

Unpaid care work represents a key, yet often invisible, dimension of gender inequalities. According to the 2022 National Survey for the Care System (ENASIC) by INEGI, women account for 75.1 percent of primary caregivers, compared to 24.9 percent for men. Within households, among those aged fifteen or older performing these tasks, 86.9 percent are women and only 13.1 percent are men. On average, women dedicate 38.9 hours per week to care, while men spend an average of 30.6 hours. Furthermore, the inequality in time becomes more pronounced depending on who is being cared for: in tasks aimed at children under six, support for people with disabilities or dependencies, or older adults, female participation is even more disproportionate. These figures clearly show that inequality is not just about how much income one has, but about who bears the daily burden of caregiving work, which limits other aspects associated with personal, economic, and social development.

This overload of caregiving prevents women’s economic autonomy. For many, taking on the role of primary caregiver means giving up job, educational, or social participation opportunities. The difference in hours spent on care between women and men is not only a matter of time inequality but a structural inequality that affects health, emotional well-being, and social mobility opportunities. Care work is indispensable, but it cannot fall almost entirely on women without the state, the market, and society assuming their share of responsibility. Without a national care system and public policies that recognize, reduce, and redistribute these tasks, achievements in reducing inequality will be superficial and unstable. For example, when mothers or daughters are primary caregivers—as is the case in 64.5 percent of situations involving care for people with disabilities, according to INEGI—many have the desire to work but lack the support to do so. In these contexts, the state must guarantee caregiving leave, accessible public care spaces, daytime care services, and social protection for both paid and unpaid caregivers. Only then will households headed by women without partners, who bear a double burden—low income and high caregiving responsibilities—be able to break out of the cycle of precariousness.

Nancy Fraser (2013) insists that feminism must go beyond formal equality and question how economic structures subordinate reproductive labor. In Mexico, the absence of a national care system perpetuates this inequality. Spending on care, although recognized in the ENIGH, is still mostly borne by households, which limits women’s economic and political autonomy.    

EXPENSES, PRIORITIES AND RIGHTS
The increase in average household spending (nine percent between 2022 and 2024) did not eliminate the gaps. The richest decile spends six times more than the poorest. Households with lower incomes allocate most of their resources to food, while the wealthiest can invest in education and transportation. This difference reflects inequality in access to rights: those who have more can access all rights, while those who have less barely survive. The Engel coefficient (the proportion of total spending allocated to food) shows that in 2018 and 2020, households in the lowest decile were in food poverty, but by 2024 their situation had improved. However, this improvement largely depends on labor income and not on public services. If the state does not provide quality education, health, and transportation, poor families will continue to be trapped in the dilemma of having to allocate their resources just to survive.

Unfortunately, despite undeniable achievements, structural change in the economy has not occurred: we live in an economy designed for the one percent, where rights depend on the ability to pay, not on being human. The report’s most important lesson is clear: without a strong and guiding state, progress in poverty reduction will be unsustainable. Mexico needs a progressive tax reform that redistributes wealth and funds universal public services.

That is precisely the purpose of the Alliance for Tax Justice, which was formally presented on March 19, 2024, composed of the Center for Economic and Budgetary Research (CIEP), the Center for Analysis and Research Fundar, México Evalúa, Oxfam México, the Institute for Studies on Inequality (Indesig), and the University Program for Development Studies (PUED) of UNAM (See Provencio p.178), with the intention of promoting a progressive, fair fiscal reform with a gender perspective (see https://alianzajusticiafiscal.mx/). At that time, the organizations announced a set of proposals that include strengthening subnational governments, efficient public spending, and changes to the income tax (ISR) for high-income individuals, as well as the reduction of tax benefits that favor those with greater resources. One of the key proposals of the Alliance for Tax Justice is to raise the effective income tax rate for those with high incomes, restrict preferential tax exemptions, reinstate the tax on multimillion-dollar inheritances, and create environmental taxes, such as levies on luxury vehicles or ownership of polluting cars. It also sets specific goals to strengthen public services: increase the health budget to six percent of GDP, establish a universal childcare system for children under six, and increase state funding for an effective judicial system.The challenge is not technical, it is political. It means deciding whether health, education, and care services will be universal rights or market goods. It means acknowledging that, without state investment, the achievements reached will evaporate in the face of the next crisis. As  Sen (1999) emphasizes, freedom requires material conditions: without them, rights are empty promises. The report from Oxfam Mexico and Indesig reminds us that inequality in Mexico is not just a matter of income, but of power. And power, when concentrated, turns rights into privileges. Breaking that cycle requires a present, redistributive state committed to social justice. Only then will we be able to build a country where rights do not depend on the cradle we are born in.

AS SEN (1999) EMPHASIZES, FREEDOM REQUIRES MATERIAL CONDITIONS: WITHOUT THEM, RIGHTS ARE EMPTY PROMISES

In the conclusion of the report and the analysis we have woven, a clear proposal emerges: to truly reduce inequalities, partial reforms are not enough; a structural transformation is required. This means approving, right now, a progressive tax reform that increases tax collection on high incomes, wealth, inheritances, and capital gains; eliminating regressive tax exemptions; and investing those resources in universal public services —health, education, transportation, care—of real quality, with guaranteed access, adequate budgets, and regulation that ensures efficiency and fairness. But this reform must be accompanied by mechanisms of transparency, accountability, and effective citizen participation, so that people can see that taxes serve their purpose: that those who have more, pay more; that these revenues are used so that everyone can exercise their rights, not to inflate privileges.

Democracy is not just a framework for political participation—voting, petitioning, protesting—but the most powerful tool for leveling if the state demonstrates that it fulfills its role of guaranteeing rights. For people to believe in the state, it is essential that democracy produces tangible results: that public services reach them, that social justice stops being a promise and becomes an everyday experience, that inequalities based on gender, ethnic background, housing, or health are visibly reduced. Creating the feeling that “it is worth participating, it is worth paying taxes, it is worth demanding rights” strengthens the social fabric and ensures that reforms are not snatched away by political setbacks. In this sense, state legitimacy is built through redistributive justice.

Alliance for tax justice
Picture: Mariana Campos (@mariana_c_v), 2024

---