International Consortium on Governmental Financial Management (ICGFM)

1. International Consortium on Governmental Financial Management (ICGFM) 20th Annual International Conference on New Developments in Governmental Financial Management Changing Organizations and Approaches: Examining Federal, State and Municipal Government Initiatives Governmental Coordination and Collaboration in Mexico May 8, 2006 - Miami, Florida - USA

2. INDEX • Initial thoughts • History of the mexican tax system • Organization of the National System of Fiscal Coordination (SNCF) • Acomplishments of the system • Recent breakthroughs

3. Introduction: • Since: • The taxing powers of subnational governments are different. • An unequal distribution of income and taxpayers is a fact. • A fiscal jungle (approximately 500 different taxes) creates inconvenients for every taxpayer, efficient collection, expenditure sufficiency and the income distribution between states.

4. It was necessary: • To centralize the tax administration of national taxes. • The administrative collaboration to take advantage of the efficiency of subnational governments in certain taxes. • The use of distribution formulas to transfer resources from the Federal government to the States (earmarked and non earmarked). • The introduction of redistributive and compensatory elements that reduce or eliminate the horizontal inequity and estimulate the fiscal efficiency in state revenue. • The establishment of fiscal rules of coordination and fiscal corresponsability.

5. The Fiscal Coordination in Mexico: • Is the backbone of the mexican federalism. • Is an armonic system, that is perfectible. • Its agenda includes income (tax policy and administration), expenditure (transfers, budget and accountability) and debt (public debt and pensions)

6. A Finance Secretary in a Subnational Government: • Is elected by the Governor. • Has a tenure of 6 years; can be reelected. • They are responsible for the management of the state public treasury, with functions as: • Definition of the state fiscal policy: income, expenditure and public debt. • Financial management. • Tax administration and intergubernamental coordination with the Federal government and the Municipalities. • Administrative collaboration due to the agreements signed with the Federal government in areas such as tax collection or fiscal supervision.

7. Basisof the National System of Fiscal Coordination (SNCF): • The Fiscal Coordination Law (LCF). • The Administrative Collaboration in Federal Fiscal Issues (CCAMFF) • The Permanent Commission of Fiscal Functionaries. • The Technical and Work Groups. • .The Monitoring Committees of the system • The transfers distribution system.

8. Transfers in Mexico • General Fund of “Participaciones” (FGP) • Municipal Promotion Fund (FFM) • Special taxes on products and services (IEPS): cigarrettes, alcholic beverages and beer. • Others • Economic Incentives: tax on the possession of vehicles (tenecia), tax on new automobiles (ISAN) and administrative collaboration Tax sharing agreement “Participaciones” Branch 28 of the Federal Budget (PEF) Non Earmarked • Basic Education Fund (FAEB) • Health Fund (FASA) • Social Infrastructure Fund (FAIS) • Fund for the strengthening of Municipalities and demarcations of the Federal District (FORTAMUN-DF) • Multiple Contributions Fund (FAM) • Technological and Adult Education Fund (FAETA) • Public Security Fund (FASP) Contributions Fund for State goverments Branch 33 PEF Earmarked Support program for the stregthening of the federal entities (PAFEF) Branch 39 PEF Descentralization Agreements Exceeding Oil Revenues(ARE-FIES) Stabilization Fund for the Income of State Entities (FEIEF )

9. Non earmarked transfers • “Participaciones”: • The larger amount of resources is the one established in the General Fund of “Participaciones” wich is made of the 20% of the RFP, to wich 1% is added due to the coordination in duties (Coordinación en Derechos). • The Municipal Promotion Fund is 1% of the RFP. • Import and export of goods: 0.136 of the RFP • Oil Expostation 3.17% of the RFP. • Other transfers that are linked with sepecifc tax collection: • Tax on Special Products and Services (IEPS) (beer and alcoholic beverages): 20% • Tax on Special Products and Services (IEPS) (cigarrettes): 8% • Economic Incentives: • Possession (Tenencia), Tax on New Automobiles (ISAN): 100% • REPECOS and Intermediates (Minor and medium taxpayers): 100% • Federal non fiscal fines: 98% • Zofemat: Duties and execution costs (90%) and fines (100%) • Other Economic Incentives (variable)

10. Earmarked transfers: • The grouping in a branch of the federal budget of the resources that are destined to education, health, fight against poverty, public securyty, etc. • The uilization of Descentralization agreements, imply the financial participation of local governments (pari-passus): hidrological infrastructure, technological education and agricultural development • Additional resources destines to investment have been recently added: • - PAFEF, destined to financial saneamiento and investment in infrastructure. • Trust Fund for the Infrastructure in the Sates (FIES), resources that come from the exceeding oil revenues (ARE). • Stabilization Fund for the Income of the Federal Entities, resources that come from the extraordinary rights on the oil exportation. • This resources are conditioned, distributed trough formulas that are concerted with the states and approved by Congress. • Controlled to Congress and the Federation. • Work with regulations decided between the states and the Federation.

11. ¿What is the Fiscal Coordination in Mexico?: • It is an agreement between the sub-national and the Federal governments that establishes the Fedral government is responsible for the administration of the most important taxes, such as the value added tax (IVA), the tax on personal and corportae income (ISR) and the special tax on products and services (IEPS). • In exchange they receive “participaciones” a percentage of the sharable federal revenue (RFP). • Through theagreement of administrative collaboration, the sates take part in the collection and fiscal supervision of federal taxes. • This collaboration is done thrugh shared work programs, and the incentive the states have to participate is that they keep the 100 percent of what they collect.

12. Group 2. Durango, Chihuahua, Coahuila y Zacatecas Group 1. Sinaloa, Baja California, Baja California Sur y Sonora Group 3. Tlaxcala, Hidalgo, Nuevo León y Tamaulipas Group 8. Quintana Roo, Campeche, Tabasco yYucatán Group 4. Colim,, Aguascalientes, Jalisco, Nayarit Group 5. Guanajuato, Michoacán, Querétaro, y San Luis Potosí Group 7. Veracruz, Chiapas, Puebla y Oaxaca Group 6. Guerrero, Distrito Federal, Estado de México y Morelos In the SNCF the 32 Federal Entities are grouped in 8 zones Population Population Surface Municipalities GDP Occupied Participaciones Zone Density 2005 (%) 2005 a/ b/ c/ % Population % Habs / Km2 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 53 100 100 100 Mexico: Socioeconomic indicators 1 8.1 19.6 4.1 22 8.8 8.2 9.2 2 8.3 30.3 8.2 14 9.8 8.1 7.9 3 10.3 8.6 9.7 63 12.6 10.5 10.8 4 8.9 6.0 6.8 79 8.6 9.5 9.2 5 12.5 8.4 9.6 78 9.3 11.5 10.3 6 26.7 4.7 10.1 297 34.4 28.1 27.8 7 19.6 13.9 45.6 74 10.9 18.6 16.2 8 5.5 8.4 5.8 35 5.5 5.4 8.7 a/ The preliminary total result of the 2005 Population Count was 103,088,021 people. b/ It was considered the Km2 of the country and of the Federal entities. The national total is 1,959,248 Km2 c/ The total number of municipalities in the year 2000 was 2,443.

13. INDEX • Initial thoughts • History of the mexican tax system • Organization of the National System of Fiscal Coordination (SNCF) • Acomplishments of the system • Recent breakthroughs

14. ¿How does the National System of Fiscal Coordination appear? • Its origins were three National Fiscal Conventions (1925, 1933 and 1947) that made breakthroughs in: • The identification of fiscal problems, such as the multiplicity and concurrence of federal, state and municipal taxes. • The constitution of the Permanent Comission of the Second National Convention. • The Fiscal Coordination Law (LCF) of 1953 united some states with an agreement, that eliminated local contributions in exchange for a tax sharing arrangement with the Federation. • Since 1973 all states were coordinated by a reform to the Federal Law of Taxation on mercantile income,with a unique general rate of 4% aplicable in all the Republic; instead of a federal rate of 1.8% and a state rate of 1.2%

15. Antecedents of the actual National System of Fiscal Coordination • In 1978, the 1953 LCF is repealed and a new Law of Fiscal Coordination is approved. This law begins its application in 1980; it constitues the legal basis of the National System of Fiscal coordination (SNCF). • In 1980 the value added tax (IVA) is introduced and the SNCF begins to operate, instead of a tax sharing arrengement for each particular tax, it creates a global sharing arrengement based on the sharable federal revenue (RFP). • Before 1980, the particular tax sharing arrengements created problems in the administration and efficient distribution of resources. • To solve this, the concept of sharable tax revenue is created. • In 2001 the federal window of coordination with the federal entities is strengthened with the establishment of the Unit of Coordination with Ferderal Entities (UCEF) and by giving it complete fiscal coordination powers: Income, Expenditure and Debt

16. MINUS • Income (ISR) • Asstes (IA) • Value Added (IVA) • Special Products and Services (IEPS) • Imports • Exports • New Automobiles (ISAN) • Possession (Tenenecia) • Actualizations and surcharges • Others • Compensations and • Devolutions • Possession (Tenencia) • New Automobiles • 20% on Alcoholic Beverages • 20% on Beer • 8% on Cigarrettes • 6% on Lotterys, Raffles and • Draws. • Extraordinary on oil • extraction • Additional on oil extraction • Economic Incentives GROSS RFP Tax Revenue NET RFP NOT INCLUDED • Duties: • Ordinary on oil extraction. • Extraordinary on oil extraction. • Additional on oil extraction • On Mining Non Tax Revenue Sharable Tax Revenue (RFP) Source: UCEF-SHCP

17. The work of the fiscal functionaries along almost 30 years has contributed to: • Create a tax sharing arrengement that is efficient, compensatory and equitative. • Strengthen the consensus as the work mechanism. • Review the actions of each level of government with the objective of fortifying the public treasuries. • Share responsabilities. • Give more taxing and fiscal supervision powers to the states. • Reduce the politic cost implied in the tax collection and the execution of public expenditure without discretionality and with efficiency. • Make a more efficient distribution of competencies and taxing powers. • Setrengthen fiscally all the levels of government without hurting anyother. • More transparency and accountability at all levels of government.

18. INDEX • Initial thoughts • History of the mexican tax system • Organization of the National System of Fiscal Coordination (SNCF) • Acomplishments of the system • Recent breakthroughs

19. Organisation of the National Fiscal Coordination System • Permanent Comission of Fiscal Functionaries (CCPFF) • National Reunion of Fiscal Functionaries (RNFF) • Institute for the Technichal Development of the Public • States (INDETEC) • Fiscal Coordination Board • Technichal Groups • Work Groups

20. Formed by: Meetings: Powers highlights: Acts on Permanent Comission of Fiscal Functionaries (CPFF) Is an institutional mechanism of coordination of fiscal policy regulated by the Fiscal Coordination Law (LCF). • Ministry of Finance and Public Credit (SHCP). • Eaight Federal Entities (one for each zone). Its representation is rotative, it lasts two years and is renewed anually by half. • Every month by mutual agreement. • The suprevision of the creation and increment of the funds established in the LCF, their distribution and liquidation by the SHCP. • The suprevision of the determination, distribution and liquidation of the “participaciones” to the municipalities by the SHCP and the Federal Entities. • The conclussions of the Work and Technichal Groups.

21. Formed by : Meetings: Powers highlights: National Reunion of Fiscal Functionaries (RNFF) • Ministry of Finance and Public Credit (SHCP). • The Secretary of Finance or Equivalent of each Sate. • At least once a year. The President of the Republic assists. • Approve the regulations of the National Reunion, the Permanent Commission, the INDETEC and the Fiscal Coordination Board. • Propose the reforms to update or improve the system of fiscal coordination, as a result of the work of the Permanent Comissión.

22. Institute for the Technichal Development of the Public States (INDETEC) Financed (50/50) by the Ministry of Finance (SHCP) and the States • Functions Highlights: • Make studies relative to the SNCF. • Suggest actions towards the coordination of federal and local fiscal policies. • Particpate as Technichal Secretary of the National Reunion (RNFF) and the reunions of the Permanet Comission (CPFF). • Promote the technichal development of the public states. • Give training for the development of fiscal functionaries

23. Fiscal Coordination Board Is the body where the controversies of particulars over the application of the Fiscal Coordination Law by the States are solved.

24. The duties of the CPFF are developed through Groups: Technichal:Coordinated by the SHCP Work:Coordinated by the Sates • Supervisison Committee of the “particiapciones” system • Supervisison Committee on federal contributions • Coordinated revenue, Local Revenue and Taxing Powers • Study of the “participaciones” system. • Study of the operation of the porperty and water Institutions • Study of the Federal Reserve Zones (ZOFEMAT) • Harmonization of budgeting and accountability principles. • Tax Collection • Federal Fiscal Audit • Budget and Federalized Exopenditure • Legal • International Commerce • Public Debt and Pension systems • Strategic Group of the Tibutary Administration Service (SAT) • Updated annually

25. The UCEF SHCP Fiscal Attorney SSI Income NATIONAL SYSTEM OF PERMANENT States Municipalities SSE Expenditure UCEF SSH Debt COMISSION FISCAL COORDINATION TESOFE Treasury

26. Income Expenditure Debt Transparency Functions of the UCEF Calculate and distribute the amounts of “participaciones” and economic incentives that correspond to the States and the Municipalities accordingly to the Fiscal Coordination Law and the Administrative Collaboration Agreements in Federal Fiscal Issues. Keep track of the transfer of resources of Branch 33 of the Federal Budget and other trasnfers to Sates and Municipalities. Help in the definition of politics and coordination of the various branches of the Federal Budget that assign resources to the States. Establish the politics and registration of public debt of Sates and Municipalities. Partcipate in the definition of regulations that help the Sates and Municipalities in order to get access to the internal money and capital markets. Coordinate the Supervision Committees. Apply and define in States and Municipalities transparency and accountability principles.

27. INDEX • Initial thoughts • History of the mexican tax system • Organization of the National System of Fiscal Coordination (SNCF) • Acomplishments of the system • Recent breakthroughs

28. The SNCF has had as principal accomplishments: A. An increase in the amount of resources transfered to the States and Municipalities from 12.5% to 58.4% of the sharable federal revenue (RFP) between 1979 and 2005 160 Total Transfers to States and Municipalities 1979-2005 (Thousands of millions of pesos of 1993) 58.4% of the RFP 140 ARE-FIES PAFEF 55.8 % of the RFP Descentralization Agreements 120 56.5 % of the RFP 100 Contributions 80 29.0 % of the RFP 60 21.0 % of the RFP 17.5 % of the RFP 40 12.5 % of the RFP 20 Participaciones 0 1979 1980 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 President Vicente Fox

29. Between 2000 and 2005 the transfers increased from 55.8 to 58.4 of the RFP Federal Transfers vs Sharable Taxable Income (RFP), 2000-2005 % 70 58.4 55.8 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2000 2005 Source: SHCP-UCEF -

30. B.There was an important advance in the search of equalization of the distribution of the “Participaciones” (since the 1990 reforms): • The per capita wedge between the States that received more and the ones that received less was reduced from 6.4 to 3.8 times. • In the FFM were included incentives to increase the local fiscal effort in the collection of property and water contributions. 4,000 7 “Participaciones” and economic incentives 1990-2004. Relation between the maximum and the minimun per capita assignation (1993 Pesos) 6.4 3,500 6 Number of times of the mayor assignation against the minor one. 3,000 4.9 5 4.3 2,500 4 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.4 2,000 3.3 3.3 3 State with the mayor 1,500 per capita assignation 2 State with the minor 1,000 per capit assignation National Media 1 500 0 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: SHCP-UCEF

31. Debt Balance by State, 1994 vs 2004 (Millions of pesos of 1993) 3,000 2,500 1994 2004 2,071 1994 2004 National 26,68629,274 2,000 Federal District 1,361 9,475 State of Mexico 4,473 6,716 1,500 1,396 1,214 1,000 790 722 685 708 581 541 609 448 349 344 500 307 301 238 332 139 191 285 461 128 124 164 61 0 110 98 61 83 2,597 2,909 416 2,169 476 231 1,185 476 319 240 206 322 375 281 177 144 133 851 510 479 126 114 946 336 340 282 807 923 5 21 0 Nayarit Oaxaca Puebla Jalisco Sonora Colima Sinaloa Yucatán Morelos Tlaxcala Hidalgo Veracruz Tabasco Chiapas Durango Guerrero San Luis Coahuila Querétaro Zacatecas Michoacán Campeche Chihuahua Guanajuato Nuevo León Tamaulipas Quintana Roo Baja California Baja California Aguascalientes C. The increase in the federal transfers has contributed to the fact that the consolidated debt of States and Municipalities has not grown in real terms betwen 1994 and 2004. Source: SHCP-UCEF, with data from the Public Accounts of the States.

32. 9.0 9.0 8.0 6.7 7.0 1994 Sept. 2005 6.0 5.0 4.5 4.3 4.2 3.6 4.0 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.0 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.5 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.5 0.6 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.0 Nayarit Sonora Hidalgo Puebla Tabasco Colima México Jalisco Durango Oaxaca Guerrero Sinaloa Yucatán Morelos Chiapas Tlaxcala Coahuila Verucruz National Chihuahua Querétaro Zacatecas Campeche Michoacán Guanajuato Tamaulipas Nuevo León Baja California Quintana Roo Aguascalientes San Lus Potosí Distrito Federal Baja California Sur 26 States diminished their debts between 1994 and 2005, as a relation to their GDP. Debt Balance by State, 1994 vs Sept. 2005 (Percentages) Source: SHCP-UCEF, with data from the Public Accounts of the States.

33. “Participaciones” vs Debt Balance by State between 1994 and 2005 250 250 1994 215 2005 200 150 135 125 126 Porcentajes 118 114 114 101 94 89 100 83 82 81 75 77 66 67 62 64 61 53 53 48 48 51 47 45 48 51 45 50 35 34 34 34 32 29 27 29 29 26 22 21 24 23 23 22 16 15 13 38 11 18 9 8 14 7 10 23 20 5 5 2 3 0 Chiapas Yucatán Colima Jalisco México Puebla Coahuila Sonora National Hidalgo Morelos Oaxaca Sinaloa Tlaxcala 0 Nayarit Tabasco Veracruz Guerrero Michoacán Durango Zacatecas Querétaro Tamaulipas Campeche Chihuahua Guanajuato Nuevo León Quintana Roo Baja California Aguascalientes San Luis Potosí Distrito Federal Baja California Sur Fuente: SHCP-UCEF, con datos de las Cuentas Públicas de las Entidades Federativas 27 States diminished their debt balance in relation to the “Participaciones” they receive between 1994 and 2005

34. D. National Convention of the Public States (CNH) An important moment for the fiscal coordination was the National Convention of the Public States , in which the CPFF acted as Technichal Secretary. Some of the results were: The reception of 452 Proposals from the participants and the society. The establishment of 7 General Objectives and 42 change strategies The generation of 341 Proposals in 7 Tables of Analysis The generation of 323 agreements (taken by consensus) that were traduced in specific actions. Of the proposals some have to be presented and voted in Congress and others have to do with administrtive collaboration and fiscal coordination between the Federation and the States.

35. INDEX • Initial thoughts • History of the mexican tax system • Organization of the National System of Fiscal Coordination (SNCF) • Acomplishments of the system • Recent breakthroughs

36. In the CPFF and as a result of the CNH there have been advances that involve compromise by all levels of government: • The “participaciones” to the States and Municpalities are guaranteed. • It defines rules for the distribution of the Fund for Stabilization of Oil Revenue. New Fiscal Regime for PEMEX • REPECOS (Minor taxpayers) • International commerce, • Sports fishing, • Tax surcharge on some personal income: wages and fees, selling and rent of real estate, profesional servics, (deductibles from the federal income tax). New taxing powers for States in

37. Gives more powers and incentives to States. • The opinion of the Sates is considered in the operatyive regulation, planning, programing and evaluation of the fiscal supervision. • A Code of Conduct that uniforms tha acting of state authorites as federal fiscal authorities is introduced. New Agreement on Administrative Collaboration • Property Tax. • Revision of the fiscal potential of the subnational governments. • Use of territorial reserves as collateral. Programs to strengthen the revenues of th sub-national govrnments • Creation of a local sales tax. • Integral administration of personal taxes (IVA, ISR) • Consolidation of the REPECOS (minor tax payers). Studies to give more taxing powers to the States

38. Presentation of medium term plans and scenarios (5 years). • Zero deficit as a temporary measure. • Creation of a Fund for the Stabilization of the State’s Revnues. • Advances in a proyect of budgeting by results. Federal Law of Buget and Fiscal Responsability • The SHCP gives information to the Supervision Committees of the CPFF • Annual ellaboration of an integral diagnosis of the actual situatuion of the subnational governments public treasuries (UCEF). Transparency commitments • Includes: • Transparency; • Armonization of gubernamental accounts; • Review of the state’s debt laws and pensions systems; • Fiscal Civil Service, • Information sharing, • Manual on Good Practices in Debt Management Agreement to acomplish some of the proposals of the CNH

39. ANNEX

40. Marginal. Population Marginal. Population Population Surface Municip. Population Surface Municip. Index Density Index Density 2005 a/ b/ c/ 2005 a/ b/ c/ in 2000 Habs / Km2 in 2000 Habs / Km2 NATIONAL TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 54 8.2 19.6 4.1 23 12.3 8.4 9.6 79 ZONA 1 ZONA 5 Baja California 3.0 3.6 0.2 44 Guanajuato 4.7 1.6 1.9 160 Very Low High Baja California Sur 0.5 3.8 0.2 7 Michoacán 3.9 3.0 4.6 70 Low High Sinaloa 2.5 3.0 0.7 45 Querétaro 1.5 0.6 0.7 134 Medium Medium Sonora 2.2 9.2 2.9 13 San Luis Potosí 2.3 3.3 2.4 38 Low High 8.2 30.3 8.2 15 27.3 4.7 10.1 312 ZONA 2 ZONA 6 Coahuila 2.3 7.7 1.6 16 Distrito Federal 8.2 0.1 0.7 5,680 Very Low Very Low Chihuahua 3.2 12.6 2.7 14 México 14.4 1.1 5.0 713 Low Low Durango 1.4 6.3 1.6 12 Guerrero 3.1 3.3 3.1 50 Medium Very High Zacatecas 1.3 3.8 2.3 18 Morelos 1.6 0.3 1.4 346 High Medium 10.1 8.6 9.7 63 19.7 13.9 45.6 76 ZONA 3 ZONA 7 Hidalgo 2.2 1.1 3.4 115 Chiapas 4.1 3.8 4.8 59 Very High Very High Nuevo León 4.0 3.3 2.1 65 Oaxaca 3.5 4.8 23.3 40 Very Low Very High Tamaulipas 2.9 4.1 1.8 38 Puebla 5.4 1.7 8.9 168 Low High Tlaxcala 1.0 0.2 2.5 262 Veracruz 6.6 3.7 8.6 98 Medium Very High 8.8 6.0 6.8 80 5.4 8.4 5.8 35 ZONA 4 ZONA 8 Aguascalientes 1.0 0.3 0.5 199 Campeche 0.7 2.9 0.5 13 Low High Colima 0.6 0.3 0.4 115 Quintana Roo 1.1 2.0 0.3 30 Low Medium Jalisco 6.3 4.0 5.1 85 Tabasco 2.0 1.3 0.7 84 Low Hgh Nayarit 0.9 1.4 0.8 35 Yucatán 1.7 2.2 4.3 41 High High Sociodemographic Indicators of the 8 zones a/ The preliminary total result of the 2005 Population Count was 103,088,021 people. b/ It was considered the Km2 of the country and of the Federal entities. The national total is 1,959,248 Km2 c/ The total number of municipalities in the year 2000 was 2,443.

41. Occupied Ocuppied GDP GDP Population% Population% % % National total 100.0 100.0 ZONE 1 ZONE 5 8.8 8.2 9.3 11.5 Baja California 3.5 2.7 Guanajuato 3.6 4.3 Baja California Sur 0.6 0.5 Michoacán 2.2 3.6 Sinaloa 2.0 2.6 Querétaro 1.7 1.4 Sonora 2.7 2.4 San Luis Potosí 1.8 2.1 ZONE 2 ZONE 6 9.8 8.1 34.4 28.1 Coahuila 3.4 2.4 Distrito Federal 21.8 10.6 Chihuahua 4.3 3.3 México 9.5 13.2 Durango 1.3 1.3 Guerrero 1.7 2.6 Zacatecas 0.8 1.0 Morelos 1.4 1.6 ZONE 3 ZONE 7 12.6 10.5 10.9 18.6 Hidalgo 1.3 2.2 Chiapas 1.7 3.6 Nuevo León 7.4 4.4 Oaxaca 1.5 3.2 Tamaulipas 3.3 3.0 Puebla 3.6 4.9 Tlaxcala 0.6 1.0 Veracruz 4.2 7.0 ZONE 4 ZONE 8 8.6 9.5 5.5 5.4 Aguascalientes 1.2 1.0 Campeche 1.2 0.7 Colima 0.5 0.6 Quintana Roo 1.6 1.0 Jalisco 6.3 7.0 Tabasco 1.2 1.8 Nayarit 0.5 0.9 Yucatán 1.4 1.8 Sociodemographic Indicators of the 8 zones