The Concentration of Mexican Enterprises by Economic Strata and

International Journal of Research in Management &
Business Studies (IJRMBS 2015)
Vol. 2 Issue 2 Apr. - June 2015
ISSN : 2348-6503 (Online)
ISSN : 2348-893X (Print)
The Concentration of Mexican Enterprises by Economic Strata
and their Contribution Productivity Employment
Sergio Valdés Pasarón
Head of Dept. of Graduate Studies and Research, Autonomous University of Baja California,
Tijuana, México
Abstract
This paper analyzes the behavior of Mexican companies by size (Micro, Small, Medium and Large and concentration by states,
plus the contributions of these average productivity of employment will be analyzed specifically the correlation between average
productivity is studied employment and enterprise distribution by states.
Keywords
Concentration, Enterprise, Productivity, Employment, States of Mexico.
INEGI1, and CONAPO2 SIEM3. We worked with a sample of
128 observations for the period covered by the year 2014 using the
values statewide in all 32 states. Below is shown in the following
table symbology and the variables used.
I. Introduction.
The behavior of the Mexican economy in recent years has not
had the capacity to generate the necessary conditions for the
business structure of the country can grow in a dynamic and stable
manner. This is because the Micro, Small, Medium and Large
Enterprises face a number of difficulties that significantly hamper
their development, an example of this is the lack of funding that
has this structure in the country, coupled with high interest rates,
restrictions on banks, and lack of entrepreneurial vision of the
government towards this sector, employers have had to resort to
alternative sources of financing among those found, suppliers,
financial, home, personal loans and even credit cards to meet
these needs .
For decades, studies on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship
are focusing mainly on the characteristics of entrepreneurs and
their companies, their motivations, problems that affect them,
their contributions to the economy and the sectors that make this
among the authors who recently more have studied this type of
problem we mention (Dubini, 1989; Aghion and Howit, 1992;
Guzman, 1994; Guzmán and Santos, 2001; Ishida, Kantis and
Komori 2002; Acs and Audretsch, 2003;. Fayoll et al, 2005).
Located in these coordinates the fundamental objective of this work
is precisely inserted: analyze the behavior of Mexican companies
by size (Micro, Small, Medium, Large and concentration by
states, plus the contributions will be analyzed to GDP, exports,
employment, among others.
The article is divided into five sections. In the first, a brief
introduction, the second classification by economic strata of
Mexican companies is described. In a third section, is carried out
a study on. Then describes the database used and a description of
the variables used what would constitute the fourth section.
Finally, the econometric results are analyzed and give some brief
conclusions on the most important aspects of the analysis and
some research for future studies.
By Stata version 9.1 statistical software least squares estimates
were performed in two stages to test the relationship between GDP
and corporate structure states using the following equation:
(1) GDP/L it = C0 + C1 MicroCit + C2 SmallCit + C3 MediumCit
+ C4 GreatCit
A. Classification of Mexican Companies for layering
The criteria used to classify businesses for economic strata are
established by the Official Gazette of the day March 30, 1999.
To determine this classification are the number of employees
quantitative element working in the company and annual sales
range was used. The 1999 figures relating to this classification are
perfectly detailed in the summary results of the economic census
of that year of publication of the classification (1999) on page 118.
However, if we look at the overview of the economic census INEGI
in 2004, does not appear as punctuated this information.
Because of that mentioned above, and based on the data recorded
in the general summary of the economic censuses 2004, we are
forced to make another classification to work with the information
provided. That said, we take as a basis the classification issued by
the Ministry of Economy of the State of Baja California.
II. Methodology
This work is developed as a cross-sectional study in which
STATA 9.1 shows the main observations of the characteristics
of Entrepreneurship of Mexican SMEs without performing
manipulation of variables. The study focused on analyzing
the concentration of enterprises by economic strata and their
contribution to productivity Media Job by Federative entities in
order to evaluate them in context and make inferences from the
results.
The databases used were taken from various sources such as,
© 2014, IJRMBS All Rights Reserved
III. Results and Discussion
SMEs in Mexico have a tradition that goes back to the thirties
and forties, in these years sectors like steel, glass, food and
42
www.ijrmbs.com
ISSN : 2348-6503 (Online)
ISSN : 2348-893X (Print)
International Journal of Research in Management &
Business Studies (IJRMBS 2015)
Vol. 2 Issue 2 Apr. - June 2015
beverages, textiles emerged among others, these pioneers sectors
of SMEs only several have survived a few who currently remain
family businesses operated by third and even fourth generations
(Sánchez 2002), the characteristics of these companies were that
were managed by entrepreneurs with little education and even
illiterate
In the last decade of the twentieth century developed better
opportunities in finance (investment, treasury) and trade, which
led to several employers stop production of goods and services
to pursue this matter to be more profitable with less risk in that
period.
The Mexican economy was affected by exchange rate adjustments
in late 1994 caused that most entrepreneurs have to face huge
losses they cannot afford the new peso - dollar. Given this scenario
in December 1994 devaluation with the consequence that existing
Much of Mexican companies in that period could not meet their
commitments acquired in foreign currency debtors who had made
an average exchange rate of 3.30 pesos is given by dollar before
July 1994 and passing this parity in December of that year to 9.90
pesos per dollar representing this an over 100% increase. This
caused the mass closure of companies, suspension of payments to
banks and together produced a process of deindustrialization.
The economic census INEGI at that time threw for 1999 representing
a total of 99.7 percent. Of the total, micro enterprises in sectors
(industry, trade and services) averaged 95. 7 percent, meanwhile
small firms averaged 3.1 percent and midsize businesses accounted
for 0.3 percent. The total number of registered economic censuses
of 1999 companies was 2,844,308, occupying a total of 14,825,994
employees.
With the arrival of the government of Vicente Fox (2000-2006),
several measures to continue policies promoted by his predecessor
were taken, ample impetus was given to industrial development
in particular the promotion of micro, despite not having achieved
the results projected as significant fluctuations were observed in
some states of the republic.
In 2003 Mexico's GDP was 615 657 million, therefore, the
contribution of SMEs to GDP was 317 679 million.By the 2004's
SMEs by sector activity were distributed as follows: 49. 4 percent
was engaged in commercial activities, absorbing 25.6 percent of
employees, followed in importance by services with 37 percent,
receiving 45.6 percent of workers eventually involved industrial
activity with 11.2 percent and 19.6 of employees occupied, the
rest was devoted to other activities and employed 9 percent.
Another aspect is how you are contributing to regional development,
among the states with greater involvement of SMEs there are seven
states: State of Mexico (12.1%), Federal District (11.4%), Jalisco
(7.1%), Veracruz de Ignacio de la Key (6.1%), Puebla (5.5%),
Guanajuato (5.0%) and Michoacán de Ocampo (4.7%). In total
amounted to 52 percent.
By 2006 there were moderate decline in business in some states, for
example Baja California 12.704 companies had in 2001 reported in
2006 a total of 10541 businesses, Nuevo León of 26989 companies
in 2001 in 2006 reported 17364, this was not widespread because
there was some case where increase was reported for example
in Mexico City 2001 117 961 2006 124 443 achievement take
(Figure.1).
www.ijrmbs.com
43
Fig.1: Incomes by states.
Source: Based on data from the Mexican Business Information
System (SIEM)
From 2007 to assume the presidency Felipe Calderón Hinojosa,
a policy of support for SMEs was promoted managing unify the
federal government to support these businesses and investing in
job creation. Their policy measures for development were reflected
in the National Development Plan 2007 - 2012 (Government of
the United States of Mexico, 2007).
According to data from the Ministry of Economy micro enterprises
had the largest number of companies accounting for 93% of all
enterprises by federal entities of the country (Figure 2) followed
by the Middle (1%), small (5%) and large (1%) being the most
Micro company in the total composition of enterprises by stratum
in this year (Figure 4.2). This reveals that the micro company is
an important factor in the generation of public policies in order
to substantially increase economic growth area.
Fig. 2: Total business by states
Source: Based on data from the Mexican Business Information
System (SIEM)
Once all the regressions and analyzing thrown results can conclude
that despite the possible existence of problems with the data used
for estimates the empirical relationships are expected, there is a
positive relationship between corporate concentration by economic
stratum and average productivity of employment (A higher
concentration by type of major companies will be the average
productivity of employment although there is no significance
statistics. We can summarize that the concentration and greater
employment generation in micro businesses. We could attribute
this phenomenon to that large companies made reductions in their
number of employees in order to reduce fixed costs they generate
one you see that the worker is unemployed the fastest way to
survive is the generation of self-employment with the creation
of micro businesses.
© All Rights Reserved, IJRMBS 2014
International Journal of Research in Management &
Business Studies (IJRMBS 2015)
Vol. 2 Issue 2 Apr. - June 2015
Española.Revista de Economía, número 780, septiembre,
páginas 21-33, Madrid.
[10]. CAVES, R. E. (1971): «International Corporations: The
Industrial Economics of ForeignInvestment», Economica,
38 (febrero), páginas 1-27.
[11]. COURLET, C. y SOULAGE, B. (1995): «Dinámicas
industriales y territorio», en VÁZQUEZ BARQUERO,
A. y GAROFOLI, G. (eds.), Desarrollo Económico Local
en Europa, primera edición, Colegio de Economistas,
Madrid.
[12]. DAVIDSSON, P. (2005): «Methods Issues in the Study of
Venture Start-up Processes», en FAYOLL, A.; KYRÖ, P. y
ULIJN, J. (edited by) (2005): Entrepreneurship Research in
Europe. Outcomesand Perspectives, Edward Elgar, Reino
Unido y EE UU.
[13]. DESTINOBLES, A. G. (2006): El capital humano en las
teorías del crecimiento económico, edición electrónica,
eumet.net.
[14]. DUBINI, P. (1989): «The Influence of Motivation and
Enviroment on Business Stara-ups: Some Hints for Public
Policies », Journal of Business Venturing, volumen 4,
número 1, páginas 11-26.
[15]. DUNNING, J. H. (1995): «Revisión del paradigma
ecléctico en una época de capitalismo de alianzas»,
EconomíaIndustrial, 305, 15-32, Madrid.
[16]. DURÁN, J. J. (2000): «La inversión directa extranjera en el
Siglo XX. La persistente multinacionalización de la empresa
», Revista de Economía Mundial, 3, 121-148, Huelva.
[17]. FELDMAN, M. P. y AUDRETSCH, D. B. (1999):
«Innovationin Cities: Science-based Diversity, Specialization
and LocalizedMonopoly», European Economic Review, 43,
409-429.
[18]. GAROFOLI, G.:(1994): «Economic Development,
Organization of Production and Territory», en GAROFOLI,
G. yVÁZQUEZ BARQUERO, A. (ed.), Organization of
Productionand Territory: Local Models of Development,
Universitádeglistudi de Pavia, Pavia.
[19]. HIRCHSMAN, A. O. (1961): La estrategia del
desarrolloeconómico, Fondo de Cultura Económica,
México.
[20]. SCHULTZ, T. (1985): Invirtiendo en la gente: la
cualificaciónpersonal como motor económico, Ariel,
Barcelona.
[21]. SCHUMPETER, J. A. (1976): Teoría del
desenvolvimientoeconómico, Fondo de Cultura Económica,
México. Primeraedición en alemán de 1911: Theorie der
WirtschaftlichenEntwicklung, VerlagDunker and Humbolt,
Múnich.
[22]. SCHUMPETER, J. A. (1983): Capitalismo,
socialismoy democracia, Ediciones Orbis, Barcelona.
Primeraedicióneninglés: Capitalism, Socialism and
Democracy, Harper and Row, Nueva York.
[23]. SOETE, L. (1987): «The Impact of Technological
Innovationon International Trade Patterns: The Evidence
Reconsidered», Research Policy, volumen 16, números 2-4,
101-130.
[24]. SOLOW, R. M. (1957): «Technical Change and theAggregate
Production Function», Review of Economics andStatistics,
57.
[25]. STIGLITZ, J. E. y WEISS, A. (1987): «Credit Rationingwith
Many Borrowers», American Economic Review,77, 228-
Source: Results of the Econometric estimates in Stata 9.1.
Fig. 3: Concentration of Micro Employment and Productivity.
Source: Results of the Econometric estimates in Stata 9.1
References
[1]. ACS, Z. J. y AUDRETSCH, D. B. (2003): «Innovation and
Technological Change», en ACS, Z. J. y AUDRETSCH,
D. B. (ed.), Hand Book of Entrepreneurship Research,
primeraedición, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The
Netherlands, Dordrecht.
[2]. AGHION, P. y HOWIT, P. (1992): «A Model of Growth
Through Creative Destruction», Econometrica, 60, 323351.
[3]. ANG, J. (1991): «The Theory of Small Business
Uniqueness and Financial Mangement», Journal of Small
BusinessFinance, 1, 1-13.
[4]. AUDRETSCH, D. y THURIK, R. (2004): «A Model of
the Entrepreneurial Economy», International Journal of
EntrepreneurshipEducation, 2 (2), 143-166.
[5]. BIRCH, DL. (1979): The Job Generation Process, MIT
Program on Neighbourhood and Regional Change,
Cambridge (Mass).
[6]. CÁCERES, F. R. (2001): «Comercio Exterior y Estructuras
Productivas de los Países de la UE: Convergencia y
Asimetrías », Revista de Economía Mundial, 4, 207-225,
Huelva.
[7]. CÁCERES, F. R. y ROMERO, I. (2006): «Empresarios versus
propietarios de pequeños negocios: una aproximación basada
en el tamaño empresarial», Estudios de EconomíaAplicada,
24, 2, 545-566, Madrid.
[8]. CARRE, M. y THURIK, R. (2003): «The Impact of
Entrepreneurship on Economic Growth», en AUDRETSCH,
D. B. y ACS, Z. J. (eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship
Research,primeraedición, páginas 437-471, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston.
[9]. CARRERA, M. y MARTÍNEZ, A. R. (1999): «Comercio
intraindustrial y shocks simétricos: implicaciones para
la Unión Monetaria Europea», Información Comercial
© 2014, IJRMBS All Rights Reserved
ISSN : 2348-6503 (Online)
ISSN : 2348-893X (Print)
44
www.ijrmbs.com
ISSN : 2348-6503 (Online)
ISSN : 2348-893X (Print)
International Journal of Research in Management &
Business Studies (IJRMBS 2015)
Vol. 2 Issue 2 Apr. - June 2015
231.
[26]. VAN STEL, A.; CARRE, M. y THURIK, R. (2005): «TheEffect
of Entrepreneurial Activity on National EconomicGrowth»,
Discussion Paper on Entrepreneurship, Growth andPublic
Policy, Max Planck Institute For Economic Systems,Group
Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, Alemania.
[27]. VÁZQUEZ BARQUERO, A. (1999): Desarrollo, redes
einnovación. Lecciones sobre desarrollo endógeno,
Pirámide,Madrid.
[28]. VESPARGEN, B. (1992): «Endogenous Innovation
inNeo-Clasical Growth Models: A Survey», Journal of
Macroeconomics,14, 631-662.
[29]. VERNON, R. (1966): «International Trade and
InternationalInvestment in the Product Cycle», Quarterly
Journal ofEconomics, volumen 83, número 1, 190-207.
[30]. WENNEKERS, S. y THURIK, R. (1999): «Linking
Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth», Small Business
Economics, volumen 13, 1.
[31]. WILLIAMSON, O. E. (1975): Markets and Hierarchies:
Analysis and Antitrust Implications, The Free Press, Nueva
York.
[32]. WYNARCZYK, P. y WATSON, R. (2005): «FirmGrowth and
Supply Chain Partnerships: An Empirical Analysisof U.K.
SME Subcontractors»; Small Business Economics, volumen
24, número 1, enero, páginas 39-51.
[33]. WOMACK, J. y JONES, D. (1996): Lean Thinking:
BanishWaste and Create Wealth in Your Corporation,
SimonSchuster, NewYork.
[34]. http://www.bajacalifornia.gob.mx/sedeco
[35]. http://www.banxico.org.mx
[36]. http://www.INEGI.gob.mx
[37]. http://www.bajacalifornia.gob.mx/sedeco
www.ijrmbs.com
45
© All Rights Reserved, IJRMBS 2014