Poverty Measurement Methodology December, 2009

Measuring poverty by mandate of the law Social Development Law Dimensions for poverty measurement Current income per capita Average educational backwardness at household Access to health services Access to social security Quality of living spaces Housing access to basic services Access to food Degree of social cohesion

Methodological approach Poverty Measurement Social Rights Welfare Constitutional guarantees Poverty associated with social deprivation Economic policy and income have impact on social development

Degree of social cohesion Territorial What are the main features of the new methodology? Social Rights Deprivations Population Wellbeing Income Current income per capita Education Health Social Security Housing Basic services Feeding Education Health Social Security Housing Basic services Feeding

Social Rights Deprivations Poverty Identification EWL With deprivations EXTREME Multidimensional Poverty 0 3 Moderate Multidimensional Poverty Vulnerable people by social deprivations Vulnerable people by income Ideal Situation MWL $1,921.7 U $1,202.8 R $874.6 U $613.8 R Without DeprivationsDeprivations MULTIDIMENSIONALLY POOR Economic wellbeing line Minimum wellbeing line

Advantages of the methodology Insert poverty within the broad objectives of social policy Visualize the progress of social policy not only on income but on multiple deprivations Distinguish action areas of economic policy and social policy on social development

MODERATE POVERTY 33.7% 36.0 millions 2.3 Deprivation Social Rights Deprivations Wellbeing Income Vulnerable people by income Vulnerable people by social deprivations Total Population % 19.5 millions 33.0% 35.2 millions 2.0 Deprivation average EXTREME POVERTY average 10.5% 11.2 millions 3.9 Deprivation 4.5% 4.8 millions

MODERATE POVERTY 32.5 % 2.3 millions 2.3 Deprivation Social Rights Deprivations Wellbeing Income Vulnerable people by income Vulnerable people by social deprivations Senior population % 0.3 millions 34.0 % 2.4 millions 2.0 Deprivation average EXTREME POVERTY average 12.0 % 0.8 millions 3.9 Deprivation 17.2% 1.2 millions

MODERATE POVERTY 36.5 % 2.5 millions 3.1 Deprivation Social Rights Deprivations Wellbeing Income Vulnerable people by income Vulnerable people by social deprivations Indigenous population %.1 millions 20.0 % 1.4 millions 2.8 Deprivation average EXTREME POVERTY average 39.2 % 2.7 millions 4.2 Deprivation 3.1% 0.21 millions

MODERATE POVERTY 33.5 % 33.5 millions 2.3 Deprivation Social Rights Deprivations Wellbeing Income Vulnerable people by income Vulnerable people by social deprivations Non Indigenous population % 4.7 millions 33.9 % 33.8 millions 2.0 Deprivation average EXTREME POVERTY average 8.5 % 8.5 millions 3.7 Deprivation 19.4% 18.0 millions

Multidimensional poverty incidence Source: CONEVAL estimations with information from MCS-ENIGH, 2008 [60% - 80%]4 Ranks Total of States [20% - 40%)14 [40% - 60%)14

EXTREME 4.2% POVERTY 0.1 millions 3.7 Deprivation MODERATE POVERTY 22.5% 0.6 millions 2.2 Deprivation Social Rights Deprivations Wellbeing Income Vulnerable people by income Vulnerable people by social deprivations 4.0% 0.1 millions 39.3 % 1.0 millions 1.8 Deprivation SONORA 2008 average 30.0% 0.74 millions

EXTREME 35.4% POVERTY 1.6 millions 3.9 Deprivation MODERATE POVERTY 41.3% 1.8 millions 2.5 Deprivation Social Rights Deprivations Wellbeing Income Vulnerable people by income Vulnerable people by social deprivations 1.5% 0.07 millions 16.2% 0.7 millions 2.1 Deprivation CHIAPAS 2008 average 5.5% 0.24 millions

Percentage of population with social deprivations Mexico, 2008 Social deprivationPercentage Access to social security 64.7 Access to health services 40.7 Educational backwardness 21.7 Access to food 21.6 Housing access to basic services 18.9 Quality of living spaces 17.5 Source: CONEVAL estimations with information from MCS-ENIGH, 2008