Statistical visibility of Indigenous People in Mexico*

1 Introduction

This analysis of the statistical visibility of Indigenous Peoples considers the effects of how Indigenous Peoples were counted in the census and of census methodologies over time. A new approach is proposed for official statistics concerning indigenous peoples (IP), which includes involving them directly in the process of elaboration, conduction and application of surveys delivered in their languages and with interpreters, and including in the question about self-identification (BIP) to which native group they belong to, because the indigenous group to which people belong is only identified in the ILS.

The indicators presented in this paper illustrate the extent to which Indigenous populations experience vulnerability exceeding that of the total population. This study draws upon data from the 2020 Census conducted by the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) and other official statistics, including those compiled by the National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy (CONEVAL). This analysis reveals significant disparities in access to goods and services among the total population, the population that identifies as Indigenous (BIP), and speakers of Indigenous languages (ILS) in Mexico, with the ILS and BIP being the most disadvantaged groups, thereby limiting their human rights.

National data from Mexico are presented, with specific analyses of characteristics from official statistics and census measures of identification, focusing on people who consider themselves Indigenous (BIP) and Indigenous language speakers (ILS), limited to the five states with the largest Indigenous Peoples who consider themselves as such. These States are Oaxaca, the State of Mexico, Veracruz, Puebla, and Chiapas. Disparities between States were found. To prevent confusion, the country is referred to as Mexico, and the State of Mexico within the country is named as such.

An analysis of the Expanded Questionnaire of the 2020 Population and Housing Census (EQ of PHC 2020) revealed that the total population in the five analysed Mexican states who identify as Indigenous (BIP) significantly exceeds the number of Indigenous language speakers (ILS). For example, the total population of the State of Mexico was 16,992,418. Of these, 2,553,486 identified themselves as Indigenous (BIP), while 417,603 individuals aged three years and older were Indigenous language speakers (ILS). Consequently, the population identifying as Indigenous was approximately six times greater than those who speak the language. ¹

The manifestations of poverty in Mexico are predominantly Indigenous. The data were analysed to ascertain whether indicators of disadvantage aligned with particular populations, regions, or languages. Both BIP and ILS populations were found to be significantly disadvantaged across multiple dimensions compared to the total population of the five Mexican states. Data for Indigenous populations reveal restricted access to health care and education, lower occupational income, food shortages or insecurity, limited access to water, and precarious housing conditions compared with the rest of the population, alongside minimal or absent social security and inadequate health care. Generally, Indigenous Peoples do not experience the same rights as the total population.

Regarding children, beyond experiencing restricted access to the rights mentioned above, educational patterns show that while they attend basic education in substantial numbers, the absence of schools in their communities and insufficient resources to pursue education elsewhere compel many to discontinue their studies, even when they wish to continue. These children also experience food insecurity, poverty, and in some cases, their labour contributions are required for subsistence agriculture and family duties.

It is essential to recognise that activities within Indigenous families involve all members based on age, gender, and other factors, with participation in various family and work responsibilities. It remains vital that knowledge, traditions, practices, and worldviews be transmitted across generations and that these customs and ways of living are preserved. For instance, in agriculture, children perform age-appropriate tasks that are essential for survival and for protecting their seeds, land, resources, and knowledge through community-based activities.

Nevertheless, it is essential to point out that indigenous children are more exposed to various forms of child labour throughout the country, and this is different from family work.

Women face considerable disadvantages. The gender wage gap is substantial across all groups, including the total population. While Indigenous language speakers generally earn lower wages, women who speak Indigenous languages experience this disparity to an even greater extent. Similarly, regarding food security, female heads of households are more likely than men to experience food shortages.

The data demonstrate that ILS constitute the most disadvantaged group across all indicators, followed by the BIP. Furthermore, statistical visibility is essential to guarantee their rights and to design inclusive public policies. To ensure the meaningful participation of Indigenous populations, it is necessary to refine census instruments to identify them better and involve them throughout the entire process.

2 Methodology

This study employed quantitative, descriptive, and comparative approaches, analysing the situation of Indigenous populations in the five Mexican states with the largest numbers of people who identify themselves as Indigenous (Oaxaca, State of Mexico, Veracruz, Puebla, and Chiapas) based on the 2020 INEGI Census, CONEVAL data, and other official statistics. The analysis incorporated perspectives on gender, human rights, and interculturality.

Comparisons were conducted among three groups: individuals who self-identify as Indigenous (BIP), Indigenous language speakers (ILS), and the total population. Indicators reported in this study include poverty, health, food security, education, housing access, social security, sexual and reproductive rights, and income.

The study aimed to identify existing disparities among the population that identifies as Indigenous, Indigenous language speakers, and the total population. Additionally, it reviewed progress in the statistical visibility of Indigenous Peoples. A review of census history in Mexico and the methods of counting and recognising Indigenous populations was also undertaken.

The following questions were addressed:

What is the significance of statistical visibility for Indigenous Peoples?

3 Statistical visibility

Statistical visibility represents one of the fundamental challenges for official statistical agencies in enumerating Indigenous populations during census-taking. Lack of visibility constitutes a critical factor that compromises the ability of any population to assert its rights, depending on the capacity of official statistical agencies to identify and count this population group.

This limitation may compromise the data necessary to document the application, implementation, and exercise of fundamental rights, including access to health services, food, education, housing, employment, and productive resources.

Statistics provide these groups with the visibility necessary to assess whether they have access to exercise their most basic rights, the extent of their representation, and their degree of visibility in official information systems. However, it is essential to acknowledge that official statistics on Indigenous Peoples may reflect the social norms, values, and racial hierarchy's dominant in the society where they are produced. These statistics may also emphasise deficits and attribute blame to victims; while overlooking the culture, interests, perspectives, and alternative narratives of the Indigenous Peoples they represent. ²

Furthermore, Indigenous Peoples have frequently been the involuntary subjects of political interventions and policies, with limited voice in the collection, use, and application of data concerning them, their lands, and their cultures. ³

Recognising these deficiencies, this paper aims to demonstrate the value of statistical visibility for Indigenous Peoples in several dimensions. Visibility assists official statisticians in designing inclusive and intercultural public policies, helps identify gaps, inequalities, and situations of vulnerability, facilitates the exercise of individual and collective rights, and promotes transparency and monitoring of both national and international commitments.

Statistical visibility constitutes a fundamental factor in guaranteeing the right to information and communication for Indigenous Peoples, as it promotes the availability of data that helps illuminate their living conditions. This information serves as both a technical and political instrument to encourage Indigenous Peoples’ involvement in government decision-making and the construction of their life projects. ⁴

At the international level, consensus exists that the most effective approach to collecting this information is through direct self-identification questions. This methodology reflects the sense of belonging among Indigenous Peoples. It encompasses other dimensions of Indigenous identity, including connection to ancestry, territory, preservation of cultural practices, and maintenance of social and political structures.

Although many countries continue to include language as a variable to describe Indigenous Peoples or develop indicators related to their rights, it is limited as a primary criterion for identification. Various factors, including Indigenous migration to urban areas and the historical prohibition of Indigenous languages in spaces such as schools, have contributed to language loss or displacement. Consequently, language as an indicator may contribute to underestimating the number of Indigenous people, offering a distorted representation of their socio-demographic characteristics. ⁵

According to the principles and recommendations of the United Nations (UN) for censuses, ⁶ ethnic classification should include the highest possible level of detail about self-identified groups. However, in Latin American countries, the measurement of ethnicity has not been conducted following these guidelines. Instead, questions aimed at the self-identification of Indigenous Peoples have been incorporated. To promote the involvement of Indigenous populations in census preparation and application, this paper explores the value of incorporating intercultural approaches and trust-building elements to facilitate information collection and enable Indigenous populations to identify themselves.

In addition, the UN points out that involving Indigenous Peoples in data development and collection processes provides an arena for capacity-building and helps ensure the data's relevance and accuracy. Using local Indigenous languages, employing local Indigenous people (for example, as interpreters), and training and building the capacity of local Indigenous people in data collection processes can facilitate the collection and dissemination of this information, ⁷ and help avoid people who are taking advantage of the laws for Indigenous people.

Since 2000, censuses in Latin American countries have demonstrated varying degrees of progress in increasing the statistical visibility of Indigenous Peoples by including ethnic self-identification and improving the processing, access, and dissemination of disaggregated data on these groups. However, due to the conceptual and methodological complexities involved in the ethnic approach and the failure to recognise the right of Indigenous Peoples to participate in the production, analysis, and dissemination of information, greater progress is needed from Latin American countries to strengthen and improve their census processes.^5,6

In Mexico, statistics on Indigenous Peoples are predominantly based on the number of Indigenous language speakers (ILS). This method excludes those who do not speak the language and, for various reasons, including discrimination and acculturation, were denied the opportunity to learn and speak their native tongue. However, these individuals still identify as Indigenous and are recognised as such. Additionally, undercounting occurs because some people distrust the census process. Jacques Soustelle ⁸ noted that “rancherías” and very remote towns were omitted, and Indigenous people themselves often avoided participating in the census.

Dolores Pla ⁹ documented the history of censuses in Mexico, noting issues including racial misclassification and difficulties in counting the Indigenous population. She identified the Indigenous language as the most frequently used variable from 1895 to 2000. Three censuses included additional variables. In 1921, people were asked: “To which race do you feel you belong: (a) white, (b) mestizo, (c) Indigenous?” The censuses of 1940 and 1950 considered food consumption and clothing as indicators. Pla observed that in the 1893 census, 38% of the population identified as Indigenous and 42% as mestizos; in 1921, the figures were 29% and 59% respectively, indicating that approximately 90% of Mexicans claimed Indigenous roots.

Pla notes that in five total population censuses (1921, 1940, 1950, 1960, and 1970), alternative measurement methods were employed. The first relied on individuals self-identifying as Indigenous, mixed, or white. Other censuses recorded cultural traits considered typical of the pre-Hispanic world. In 1940, questions covered footwear and clothing styles (whether shoes, sandals, or huaraches were worn or if people went barefoot, and whether Indigenous-style clothing was used), diet (whether they consumed wheat bread), and sleeping arrangements (whether sleeping on the floor, in a tapexco, hammock, cot, or bed). ¹⁰

In surveys from the 1950s and 1960s, questions about dietary patterns and footwear were repeated, and by the 1970 survey, only footwear was recorded. In all five cases, the number of people who should be considered Indigenous was significantly higher than the number of Indigenous language speakers (ILS). The imbalance between these two figures apparently caused distrust of the cultural variables, though it is also possible that they were rejected because they exposed an uncomfortable reality: Mexico was essentially an Indigenous country. After 1970, the total population censuses discontinued the controversial cultural variables. ¹⁰

Drawing a clear distinction between the Indigenous population and the so-called mestizo population is impossible, as both form a continuum. ¹⁰ Pla, citing Bonfil, notes that he rejects the concept that a mestizo or mixed society exists as a result of balanced fusion between Mesoamerican and Western civilisations. He argues that mestizaje is a biological phenomenon rather than a cultural one, and that it alone does not explain the processes of cultural contact under colonial domination.

Instead, Bonfil introduces the concept of de-Indianization, understood as a historical and ideological process whereby Indigenous Peoples are compelled to relinquish their distinctive cultural identities. This occurs not through racial mixing but through forces that dismantle the historical and cultural connections of Indigenous communities.

De-Indianization occurs when a population ceases to consider itself Indigenous, even if its culture and lineage retain Mesoamerican elements. Bonfil emphasises that this process began in the sixteenth century and continues today, as evidenced by nineteenth-century censuses where the “Indian” population appears to have decreased not due to biological loss but through declining self-identification and ethnic recognition.

This leads to self-discrimination and devaluation of identity in Mexican society, driven by social constructs and prejudices created by those in power regarding Indigenous populations.

Historically, people have been reluctant to identify as Indigenous due to discrimination and abuse, or simply because they do not recognise their own identity with the term “Indigenous.” They often identify themselves as part of specific groups, such as Kiliwa, Mazahua, Tlahuica, or other Indigenous communities by their own names. In some interviews, they describe themselves as the authentic Mexicans, stating in Spanish, “yo soy el mero mero Mexicano” (I am the true Mexican). Nevertheless, in Mexican society, it is common for people to acknowledge their Indigenous roots or those of their grandparents. In recent history, the prominence of Mexican traditions such as the Day of the Dead in James Bond and Disney's Coco films, along with improved international and national discourse on Indigenous Peoples, has increased recognition and appreciation for Indigenous culture.

It is important to recognise that populations still speaking Indigenous languages undoubtedly retain customs, traditions, practices, and worldviews of Indigenous Peoples, as do people who genuinely belong to these communities, even if they have lost their language. These populations often experience greater vulnerability and poverty. Therefore, given that in Mexico many Mexicans can self-identify as Indigenous, and some do so to access government benefits such as representation quotas and scholarships, it is crucial that the most vulnerable populations are protected and supported, and that there is genuine representation of Indigenous Peoples who preserve most of their traditions and practices at local and regional levels.

Despite existing norms and laws, they have not truly reached the populations they were intended to serve because Indigenous Peoples are often unaware of them. These laws depend on the dominant system that requires everything to be in writing, while oral tradition remains strong among Indigenous Peoples, leading to continued exploitation of Indigenous communities by external actors.

This explains why statistical visibility is essential for ensuring the application and exercise of the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Variables such as Indigenous language speakers and members of Indigenous groups are vital, as is involving these groups throughout the entire statistical process to ensure authentic representation.

Regarding classification efforts, the use of language speakers as the sole criterion continued until the 2000 census, when a question regarding Indigenous self-identification was added, resulting in increased numbers. However, this question requires only yes or no responses, omitting information about the specific Indigenous group to which people belong. Additionally, Indigenous populations were neither consulted nor informed during the development of census enumeration and application processes. Despite these limitations, the question of self-perception or self-identification offers broader information about the Indigenous population in Mexico.

It should be noted that in 2017, Mexico held a public consultation on the methodological and conceptual proposal for the census project, including meetings with representatives of Indigenous Peoples across various regions of the country. ⁴ However, this effort lacked input from local and community levels, resulting in the continued exclusion of Indigenous people from meaningful involvement.

4 Experience in other selected countries

Canada first included a specific question on Aboriginal identity in its census in 1986. Respondents were asked: Do you consider yourself an Aboriginal person or a native Indian of North America, that is, Inuit, North American Indian, or Métis? (See Guide.) The data was not officially published at the time, mainly because there were problems understanding the question.

Statistics Canada collects information about Aboriginal identity in keeping with the terminology of Aboriginal peoples as employed in the Constitution Act, 1982 including the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples. Over the years, the census has collected data on Aboriginal peoples using different questions. Presently, there are four questions used in the census to identify Aboriginal peoples:

Ethnic origin (including Aboriginal ancestries);

The primary Statistics Canada sources of data on Aboriginal peoples are the Census of Population, the Aboriginal Peoples Survey, and the Aboriginal Children's Survey. Other sources include the Labour Force Survey, the Canadian Community Health Survey, and administrative data, such as justice data. Information is available for North American Indians, Inuit, and Métis; Registered and non-Registered Indians; and members of an Indian Band or First Nation. Census counts of Aboriginal peoples can be affected by undercoverage and by incompletely enumerated reserves, where enumeration is not permitted or is interrupted before it can be completed. In addition, census counts of Aboriginal peoples do not include Aboriginal persons living in institutions (for example, hospitals, senior citizens’ homes, jails, shelters, etc.) or those living outside Canada on Census Day. ¹¹

In New Zealand, the first Māori general census was conducted in 1857 and 1858. Māori censuses were resumed in 1874 after the Land Wars. In 1951, Māori were included in the general census, and separate censuses of Māori stopped. ¹² Nevertheless, the census definition was biological or blood-based (racial): Māori was defined as someone with at least half Māori ancestry.

Until 1951, the census classified the population by “race.” Still, in that year, the terminology was replaced with “descent.” In 1986, following strong demands from Māori organisations, a new definition based on ethnic self-identification was adopted: “A person who identifies as Māori.” Since then, Māori identity has been measured by self-identification rather than blood quantum or language. In the early 1990s, this label was changed again to “ethnic group,” reinforcing a move away from biologically determined identity. Over this period, the census also began allowing respondents to report multiple origins and later to provide more than one ethnic response. In 1991, a separate question on Māori ancestry was incorporated. ¹²

Māori descent is based on whakapapa while affiliation to the Māori ethnic group is a self-determined cultural affiliation. However, the 2023 Census provides counts of Māori in two ways: Māori descent and Māori ethnicity. Also, the wording for the 2023 Census changed from “Are you descended from a Māori?” to “Are you descended from Māori?” as respondents found the original wording awkward and ungrammatical. ¹³

In Australia, in 1971, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were counted in the Census for the first time. Australia's 1901 Constitution treated First Nations peoples differently from other Australians. From 1901 to 1971 they were excluded from being counted as part of the national population. In 1967, Australians voted to change the Constitution.

Early Australian censuses classified the population by race, using rigid and often imposed categories that included assumptions about mixed ancestry and excluded many First Nations people from accurate counting, particularly those living in remote areas. Prior to 1967, enumeration relied heavily on estimates from state and territory authorities, and Torres Strait Islander peoples were classified separately from Aboriginal peoples. Following the 1967 referendum, the Australian government reformed census practices, adopting a definition based on self-identification. In the 1971 Census, about 116,000 Australians identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, an increase of 30,000 compared with the 1966 Census. This rise reflected improved enumeration and population growth, as well as the new definition that allowed people of First Nations descent to self-identify. The number increased further to around 160,000 by the 1976 Census. This was a symbolic moment in the long struggle for First Nations recognition and rights. In 1981, racial terminology was removed from the census question, and since 1986 respondents have been able to report Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin and nominate multiple ancestries. By 2016, official census counts and adjusted estimates showed substantial growth in the First Nations population, reflecting improved enumeration, demographic change, and greater recognition of Indigenous identity. ¹⁴

In the United States, American Indians and Alaska Natives were largely excluded from early U.S. censuses because the Constitution excluded “Indians not taxed,” meaning most Indigenous peoples living under tribal sovereignty were not counted in 1790. As U.S. territorial expansion progressed, interest in Indigenous population counts increased, leading to partial and inconsistent enumeration beginning in 1850 and limited inclusion of Native Americans living outside tribal communities by 1860. From the late nineteenth century onward, the Census Bureau made increasing efforts to count Indigenous populations through special schedules and separate censuses, including a comprehensive attempt in 1890 to enumerate all Native Americans both on and off reservations. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 established full citizenship for American Indians, resulting in their inclusion on standard census schedules starting in 1940, although a separate enumeration of reservation populations was conducted again in 1950. Since 1970, census practices have relied on self-identification for race and tribal affiliation, and the introduction of multiracial reporting in 2000 further expanded Indigenous visibility in census data, contributing to steady growth in the recorded American Indian and Alaska Native population. ¹⁵

In Latin America, during the 2000 census round, a significant number of countries incorporated questions on indigenous and/or Afro-descendant self-identification into their censuses; in the 2010 round, the inclusion of the ethnic approach was even broader, with participatory approaches and more robust methodologies that responded both to international recommendations and to demands from indigenous peoples themselves. ¹⁶

According to CEPAL, during the 2010s census rounds in Mexico and Argentina, the self-identification question was included in the expanded questionnaire rather than in the core questionnaire, which is not recommended as it could lead to bias and underreporting. ⁶

In the 2020 Mexican census, the question on Indigenous self-identification was included in the expanded questionnaire, along with the question about Indigenous language speakers, enabling comparisons. Colombia and Mexico also asked about the understanding of an Indigenous language.

Brazil, Colombia, and Peru each maintain their own Indigenous registries. Indigenous Peoples have their own administrative records and statistics.

In Bolivia, since 2001, a direct question has been included: “Do you belong to or consider yourself part of any Indigenous or rural nation or people?” with an additional question about the language spoken.

Although Indigenous Peoples are involved in one or more stages of the census process, the dominant form of participation is informational. That is, Indigenous Peoples can access data and provide opinions, but they do not have full decision-making power, as explained in the following chapter.

5 History of Indigenous Peoples in Mexico

The history of Mexico cannot be understood without recognising the profound influence of its Indigenous Peoples, who have inhabited the land for thousands of years and built complex civilisations before, during, and after European colonisation.

Originally, these peoples developed highly organised societies with advanced political, economic, and cultural systems. Notable among these cultures are the Olmecs, considered the “mother culture”; the Maya, with their contributions in astronomy, mathematics, and writing; the Zapotecs and Mixtecs, with their rich artistic and ritual traditions; and the Mexica, who formed one of the most powerful empires in the region. These societies were structured around agriculture (particularly corn), interregional trade, religious expression, and scientific knowledge, generating a legacy that persists to this day. Numerous other Indigenous groups have inhabited Mexico.

Mexico has the largest Indigenous population on the American continent. According to data from the National Institute of Indigenous Languages for 2024, 69 Indigenous Peoples live in Mexico, and their languages are organised into 11 linguistic families that include 364 dialectal variants. ¹⁷

The 2020 Census revealed that 23.2 million people aged three and older identified as Indigenous, representing 19.4% of the nation's total population. Of these, 51.4% (11.9 million) were women and 48.6% (11.3 million) were men. There were 7,364,645 Indigenous language speakers aged three and older, constituting 6.1% of the total population in that age group.

The states with the highest percentage of Indigenous language speakers were Oaxaca (31.2%), Chiapas (28.2%), Yucatán (23.7%), and Guerrero (15.5%). These four states represented 50.5% of the country's total Indigenous language speakers. In 2023, 5.9% (7.4 million) of people aged 3 and older spoke an Indigenous language. ¹⁸

Indigenous Peoples in Mexico face marginalisation, insecurity, poverty, limited access to basic services, and disparities in rights and opportunities. According to the poverty measurement conducted by the National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy (CONEVAL) in 2018, 69.5% (8.4 million) of the Indigenous population lived in poverty, compared to 39% of non-Indigenous people. Additionally, 27.9% of Indigenous individuals lived in extreme poverty, versus 5.3% of the total population. Similarly, 40% of the Indigenous population lived below the extreme poverty line, compared to 14.3% of non-Indigenous people. ¹⁹

In 2018, regarding food security, 31.5% of Indigenous people lacked sufficient food, compared to 19.2% of the total population. For social security, 78.2% of the Indigenous population lacked coverage, versus 55% of the overall population. Access to basic housing services was absent for 57.5% of Indigenous people, compared to 15.7% of non-Indigenous people. The Indigenous population shows higher percentages in five of the six indicators of social deprivation compared to the non-Indigenous population. The only exception is access to health services, which has a higher incidence in the non-Indigenous population at 16.3% compared to 15.4% in the Indigenous group, although the quality of medical health care is not equivalent for all.

Illiteracy rates among the Indigenous population were higher than those among the non-Indigenous population across all age groups; for example, 5% versus 1% among the 18–29 age group. ²⁰ The percentage of the Indigenous population with educational gaps (43.2%) was higher than that of the non-Indigenous population (16.7%). Similarly, municipalities with the highest levels of poverty and extreme poverty are those inhabited by Indigenous populations, with poverty affecting 99% of the population in some of them. ²¹

6 Analysis of the situation of Indigenous people in five states of Mexico

This paper presents an analysis of the 2020 Population and Housing Census. Five Mexican states were selected based on those with the highest number of people who identify as Indigenous, according to the INEGI 2020 census (Figure 1). These states also ranked within the top seven for the largest number of Indigenous language speakers, as shown in the Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Map of the five Mexican States. Source: Author's elaboration.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Population aged 3 years and over according to self-identification (BIP) and indigenous language speakers (ILS) by state, estimates, 2020.

	State	Considers itself as indigenous (BIP)	State	Indigenous language speaker (ILS)
	MEXICO	23,229,089	MEXICO	7,364,645
1	Oaxaca	2,702,749	Chiapas	1,459,648
2	State of México	2,553,429	Oaxaca	1,221,555
3	Veracruz	2,071,265	Veracruz	663,503
4	Puebla	2,067,247	Puebla	615,622
5	Chiapas	1,906,686	Yucatán	525,092
6	Yucatán	1,445,078	Guerrero	515,487
7	Guerrero	1,102,334	State of Mexico	417,603
8	Hidalgo	1,077,386	Hidalgo	362,629
9	Quintana Roo	586,723	San Luis Potosí	231,213
10	San Luis Potosí	545,491	Quintana Roo	204,949

Source: Author's elaboration with information from INPI. National Information and Statistics System on Indigenous and Afro-Mexican Peoples and Communities, based on: INEGI. 2020 Population and Housing Census. Census sample. Microdata.

6.2 Indigenous people in five states of Mexico

To obtain the information in this section, a quantitative analysis was performed, including both comparative and descriptive analyses of the microdata from the Expanded Questionnaire of the 2020 Census of Population and Housing (EQ of the 2020 CPH). This questionnaire is a key data collection instrument used in the 2020 Census enumeration, applied to a sample of the population. Most of the information was derived from this questionnaire because it includes data on population characteristics such as self-identification as Indigenous (BIP) and speakers of Indigenous languages (ILS). Additionally, data were obtained from official statistics and surveys.

Oaxaca. According to data from the Annual Reports on the Situation of Poverty and Social Backwardness 2025, Oaxaca has a population of 4,308,543, of which 2,702,852 identify as indigenous (65.7%), and 1,216,462 speak an indigenous language (28.2%). The state Gini coefficient is 0.446. Poverty affects 58.4% of the population, with moderate poverty at 38.2% and extreme poverty at 20.2%.

The state Constitution recognises 16 Indigenous Peoples: Amuzgos, Cuicatecs, Chatinos, Chinantecs, Chocholtecs, Chontales, Huaves, Ixcatecos, Mazatecos, Mixes, Mixtecs, Nahuas, Tacuates, Triquis, Zapotecs, and Zoques. This indicates that Oaxaca has a predominantly Indigenous or native population, as 69.18% of the population identifies as members of these communities, according to the 2020 INEGI Population and Housing Census.

State of Mexico. Data from the Population and Housing Census of the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) 2020 (PHC, 2020) indicated that the total population of the State of Mexico was 16,992,418 people. From this, the Indigenous population or those belonging to an Indigenous group was 2,553,486, according to the Expanded Questionnaire of the Population and Housing Census 2020 of INEGI (EQ of the 2020 CPH) and the Annual Report on the situation of poverty and social backwardness (DOF, 2024).

While the population of individuals aged 3 and older who speak an Indigenous language (ILS) was 417,603, the total Indigenous population was six times larger, comprising 197,472 men and 220,131 women, which accounts for 2.5% of the state's overall population. The State of Mexico ranks seventh in the country for the highest percentage of ILS speakers. However, when considering people who self-identify as Indigenous, this group constitutes 16.9% of the total population of the State of Mexico.

In 2020, the State of Mexico's ILS included 132,710 (32.8%) Mazahua speakers, 106,534 (26.5%) Otomi speakers, 71,338 (17.1%) Nahuatl speakers, 1076 (0.3%) Matlatzinca speakers, and 2178 (0.5%) Tlahuica speakers.

Due to increasing human mobility, migration, and displacement, the State has become a destination for Indigenous populations from other regions. An additional 103,767 speakers of Indigenous languages were counted, the most representative being: Mixtecos 28,725 (27.6%), Mazatecos 18,767 (18.0%), Zapotecs 12,934 (12.4%), Totonacs 12,368 (11.9%), Mixes 6970 (6.7%), Chinantecos 3636 (3.5%), Tlapanecos 2853 (2.7%), Tarascos 2081 (2.0%), Triquis 1489 (1.4%), Tzeltales 1429 (1.4%), and Mayans 1236 (1.2%) from the states of Guerrero, Oaxaca, Veracruz, Michoacán, Chiapas, and Yucatán, primarily. ²²

Veracruz. According to data from the Annual Reports on the Situation of Poverty and Social Backwardness 2025, the population of Veracruz is 8,127,727 people, of whom 2,071,265 self-identify as Indigenous (29.2%), and 664,558 speak an Indigenous language. The state Gini coefficient is 0.427. Poverty affects 51.7% of the population, with moderate poverty at 38.6% and extreme poverty at 13.1%.

The largest groups include the Chinantec, Huastec, Mazatec, Nahua, Olutec, Otomi, Sayulteco, Tepehua, Texistepeño, Totonac, and Zoque peoples.

Puebla. According to data from the Annual Reports on the Situation of Poverty and Social Backwardness 2025, the population of Puebla is 6,989,402 people, of whom 2,067,314 self-identify as Indigenous (35.2%) and 622,427 speak an Indigenous language. The state Gini coefficient is 0.401. Poverty affects 54% of the population, with moderate poverty at 42.6% and extreme poverty at 11.4%.

According to the 2020 census, out of a population of 6,238,582 people over the age of 3, there were 615,622 Indigenous Language Speakers (ILS), representing 9.86% of the population, with 289,873 men and 325,749 women. This figure indicates a decrease compared to the previous census, in which the ILS population represented 11.45% of the same group.

Of the total ILS population, 6.64% do not speak Spanish, meaning they speak only an Indigenous language. This equals 40,879 people, including 12,741 men and 28,138 women.

Five Indigenous languages predominate, with their respective percentages of speakers: Nahuatl 73.61%, Totonac 16.92%, Mazatec 2.95%, Popoloca 2.55%, and Mixtec 1.34%. The majority of the Indigenous population is concentrated in thirteen municipalities, each with more than 10,000 Indigenous residents: Puebla, Ajalpan, Cuetzalan del Progreso, Tehuacán, Huauchinango, Zacapoaxtla, Zoquitlán, Huehuetla, Coyomeapan, Eloxochitlán, Tlacotepec de Benito Juárez, Ahuacatlán, and Huitzilan de Serdán.

The ten municipalities with the highest proportion of Indigenous population are: Camocuautla, Coatepec, Ixtepec, Atlequizayan, Eloxochitlán, Olintla, Coyomeapan, San Sebastián Tlacotepec, Zongozotla, and Zoquitlán, with values ranging from 98.0% to 99.85% of the total population.

Chiapas. According to data from the Annual Reports on the Situation of Poverty and Social Backwardness 2025, the population of Chiapas is 6,028,154, of whom 1,906,700 self-identify as Indigenous (36.1%), and 1,566,575 speak an Indigenous language. The state's Gini coefficient is 0.467. Poverty affects 67.4% of the population, compared to the national average of 36.3%; moderate poverty is 39.2%, and extreme poverty is 28.2%.

In Chiapas, the population aged 3 years and older who speak an Indigenous language, according to the 2020 Population and Housing Census, is 1,459,648, with 714,600 men and 745,048 women. They constitute 28.2% of the total population. They mainly reside in the municipalities of Ocosingo, San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chilón, Chamula, Tila, Las Margaritas, Salto de Agua, Palenque, Oxchuc, Tenejaba, Zinacantan, Tumbalá, Chenalhó, Tuxtla Gutiérrez, and Yajalón.

The predominant Indigenous languages in the state are Tzotzil (36%), Tzeltal (34.4%), and Chol (17.4%). Additionally, 27.2% of the ILS population does not speak Spanish. The ethnic groups currently inhabiting Chiapas include the Lacandons, Tojolabals, Choles, Tzeltals, Tzotzils, Jacaltecos, Kanjobals, Mames, Mochos, Zoques, and Motocintlecos, many of whom are heirs to Mayan culture.

Chiapas has high levels of poverty and marginalisation, resulting in illiteracy and child malnutrition rates significantly above the national average.

6.2.1 Poverty

A person is in a situation of poverty when they experience one or more social deprivation indicators (such as educational lag, lack of access to health services, social security, quality and space of housing, basic services in housing, or access to food) and their income is insufficient to acquire the goods and services needed to satisfy both their food and non-food needs. ²³

Mexico. In 2020, nationwide, 55.7 million people lived in poverty, accounting for 43.9% of the population. This represented a 2.0 percentage point increase from 2018. Meanwhile, 8.5% of the population, or 10.8 million people, lived in extreme poverty. This figure rose by 1.5 percentage points compared to 2018.

Oaxaca. In 2020, 2,569,823 people in Oaxaca were living in poverty, representing 61.7% of the state's population. The proportion living in extreme poverty was 20.6%, amounting to 860,464 individuals.

The group with the highest percentage of people living in poverty in 2020 was the population speaking an Indigenous language, at 79.3%. The second and third places were occupied by the population under 18 years old, at 68.3%, and those living in rural areas, at 65.9%.

State of Mexico. In 2020, 8,342,500 people in the State of Mexico lived in poverty, accounting for 48.9% of the state's population. The proportion of the population in extreme poverty was 8.2%, or 1,401,911 people.

The group with the highest poverty rate in 2020 was the population speaking an Indigenous language, with 69.2%. In second and third place were the population under 18 years old and those living in rural areas, both at 59.3% (Figure 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Incidence of poverty among indigenous people by municipality 2020. Source: CONEVAL, measurement of municipal poverty by population groups.

Veracruz. In 2020, 4,749,645 people in Veracruz lived in poverty, representing 58.6% of the state's population. The percentage of the population living in extreme poverty was 13.9%, amounting to 1,129,752 people.

The group with the highest poverty rate in 2020 was the population speaking an Indigenous language, at 83.1%. The second highest was the population under 18 years old, at 68.0%, and rural areas had the third highest rate, at 66.5%.

Puebla. In 2020, 4,136,558 people were living in poverty in Puebla, accounting for 62.4% of the state's population.

In 2020, 12.7% of the population lived in extreme poverty. The group with the highest poverty rate in 2020 was people speaking an Indigenous language, at 82%. Following them were those living in rural areas, with 70.3%, and individuals under 18 years old, at 69.9%.

The municipalities with the highest proportion of self-identified Indigenous populations are experiencing high to very high levels of marginalisation and have a very high percentage of their population living in poverty.

Chiapas. In 2020, 4,218,026 people were living in poverty in Chiapas, which accounted for 75.5% of the state's population.

The group with the highest poverty rate in 2020 was the population speaking an Indigenous language, at 93.2%. In second and third place were the rural population, at 83.1%, and people under 18 years old, at 82.7%.

As shown on the map, by municipality, poverty levels among Indigenous populations often exceeded 90%, placing them at a clear disadvantage compared to the total population. In 2020, Ocosingo (199,762), Chilón (130,699), and Chamula (98,982) in Chiapas, and Puebla (97,956) in Puebla, recorded the highest number of Indigenous people living in poverty. ²⁴

Indigenous Peoples are among the groups with the highest rates of poverty and social deprivation. In 2020, 834 municipalities had 80% or more of their Indigenous population living in poverty, with most concentrated in Indigenous regions such as Tarahumara, Del Nayar, Huasteca, Mixteca, La Montaña, Zapoteca, Soconusco, Los Altos, and parts of the Yucatán Peninsula, among others. These municipalities housed the largest number of Indigenous people in this situation (5.9 million). The majority of these municipalities are located in Oaxaca, Puebla, Veracruz, Chiapas, and Guerrero.

The incidence of poverty among Indigenous people remains high in these states compared to the total population. In municipalities located in the northern regions of the country, mainly in Chihuahua, Sonora, Durango, Sinaloa, and Tamaulipas, over 60% of Indigenous people live in poverty. A significant area comprises municipalities in Sonora, Chihuahua, and Sinaloa, starting in the mountains and expanding toward the coast, where the percentages of Indigenous people living in poverty are particularly high.

According to INEGI 2020 data, in Oaxaca, the municipality of San Juan Petlapa had a poverty rate of 93.48%, and notably, 98.5% of the population are ILS; San Miguel Quetzaltepec presented a 95.85% poverty rate with 98.1% ILS; Mixistlán de la Reforma had an 89.29% poverty rate with 97.9% ILS; San Juan Yatzona had 97.6% ILS; Santa Catalina Quieri had 95.16% poverty with 97.5% ILS; and San Simón Zahuatlán had a 99.6% poverty rate with 96.7% ILS.

In the State of Mexico, Indigenous poverty in some municipalities exceeds 80%. For example, in San Felipe del Progreso, poverty reaches 81.91%, with 31.55% of ILS and 62% of BIP; in San José del Rincón, it is 74.78% with 9.76% ILS; in Ixtlahuaca, 80.11% with 16.27% ILS; in Donato Guerra, 83.26% with 21.72% ILS; Villa Victoria has 84.25% Indigenous poverty; Joquicingo, 81.26%; and Atizapán, 84.69%.

Veracruz has Indigenous communities in various regions. Municipalities such as Tehuipango, Soledad Atzompa, Chumatlán, Zongolica, Tequila, Mixtla de Altamirano, and Los Reyes have high proportions of Indigenous populations. For example: Chumatlán 65.72%, Zongolica 63.22%, Tequila 62.12%, Mixtla de Altamirano 61.02%, Los Reyes 60.92%. In Veracruz, Tehuipango and Soledad Atzompa reached more than 97% poverty, Uxpanapa has 84.81%, Las Choapas 81.18%, Jesús Carranza 82.06%, Sayula de Alemán 82.72%, San Juan Evangelista 84.89%, Isla 81.29%, San Andrés Tuxtla 80.17%, Comapa 83.08%, Tepatlaxco 80.04%, and Zentla 83.90%.

In Puebla, municipalities such as Camocuautla, San Miguel Ixitlán, San Sebastián Tlacotepec, Hueytlalpan, and San Antonio Cañada have high proportions of Indigenous populations. For example: Camocuautla 99.85%, San Miguel Ixitlán 98.85%, San Sebastián Tlacotepec 98.55%, Hueytlalpan 98.35%, and San Antonio Cañada 98.15%. Puebla reported that for the municipality of Tochimilco, 87.17% of Indigenous people live in poverty; Atlixco, 80.54%; Tlahuapan, 83.52%.

In Chiapas, San Juan Cancuc had a poverty rate of 99.3% and an ILS of 99.5%. Chanal reached 99.1% poverty and 99.8% ILS. Additionally, in Ocosingo, Indigenous poverty was as high as 94.99% with an ILS of 98.5%. La Trinitaria was at 95.92%, La Concordia at 91.22%, El Bosque at 96.64%, Larráinzar at 95.76%, and Las Margaritas at 97.21%.

These figures are some examples, and similar results can be found among Indigenous populations in numerous municipalities, seeing that this is a widespread situation among Indigenous people.

The Table 2 displays some municipalities with significant Indigenous populations and their poverty rates.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Incidence of poverty in municipalities with the largest indigenous population.

State	Municipality	Total population	Indigenous language speakers	Self-identified indigenous	Poverty (%)
Oaxaca	Oaxaca de Juárez	300,050	100,000	250,000	47.59
	San Juan Bautista Tuxtepec	100,000	60,000	80,000	74.35
	Santa Cruz Xoxocotlán	80,000	50,000	70,000	59.33
	San Sebastián Tutla	70,000	40,000	60,000	25.35
	Santa Lucía del Camino	60,000	30,000	50,000	38.17
State of México	San Felipe del Progreso	100,000	31,000	40,000	81.91
	San José del Rincón	100,000	9770	13,000	74.78
	Villa Guerrero	70,000	25,000	35,000	No data
	Amatepec	60,000	20,000	30,000	No data
	Otzolotepec	50,000	15,000	25,000	75.77
	San Cristóbal de las Casas	150,000	80,000	120,000	85.15
	Tapachula	100,000	60,000	90,000	56.72
	Comitán de Domínguez	90,000	50,000	80,000	85.02
	Palenque	80,000	40,000	70,000	80.61
Veracruz	Zongolica	43,275	28,000	32,000	89.46
	Tehuipango	25,000	21,000	23,500	97.15
	Soledad Atzompa	20,000	19,000	20,500	96.67
	Tequila	15,000	12,000	13,500	90.36
	Mixtla de Altamirano	13,000	9000	11,000	94.02
	Amozoc	80,000	40,000	70,000	70.70
Puebla	Puebla de Zaragoza	300,000	100,000	250,000	69.19
	Tehuacán	150,000	80,000	120,000	65.82
	Atlixco	100,000	60,000	90,000	80.54
	San Martín Texmelucan	90,000	50,000	80,000	75.69
	Amozoc	80,000	40,000	70,000	70.70
Chiapas	Tuxtla Gutiérrez	300,000	150,000	250,000	63.46
	San Cristóbal de las Casas	150,000	80,000	120,000	85.15
	Tapachula	100,000	60,000	90,000	56.72
	Comitán de Domínguez	90,000	50,000	80,000	85.02
	Palenque	80,000	40,000	70,000	80.61

Source: Author elaboration with data from EQ of PHC 2020.

6.2.2 Percentage of Indigenous population with income below the Income Poverty Line (IPL)

In 920 municipalities, 80% or more of the Indigenous population had incomes below the Income Poverty Line (IPL). These municipalities are spread across the Sierra Madre Occidental, Eastern Sierras, and part of the Yucatán Peninsula. However, most are located in the South Pacific region, in Oaxaca (361), Chiapas (88), and Guerrero (55). Among these, Ocosingo, Chilón, and Chamula in Chiapas had the highest number of Indigenous people in this situation (200,808, 130,824, and 99,635, respectively). ²³

In 653 municipalities, the percentage of Indigenous people with incomes below the poverty line ranged from 60% to less than 80%. They are located mainly in the central states of the country: Puebla (72), State of Mexico (71), Michoacán (27), Tlaxcala (27), and Hidalgo (26).

6.2.3 Health

Achieving the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being is a universal human right. In 1948, the UN established the right to health as a fundamental human right, considering it essential for a dignified life. However, realisation of this right is unequal among different people and social groups. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the right to health is inclusive. It covers a wide range of elements that contribute to a healthy life, including access to safe drinking water, adequate sanitation, safe food, and healthy working conditions.

In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the UN, and the World Health Organization (WHO) defined health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 25

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Indigenous populations in the five states face significant disparities in health care. The proportion of those without medical services is highest among the ILS population, followed by the BIP population, and then the total population. Additionally, it is essential to note that the types of medical services available vary considerably, as a large portion of the Indigenous population who are enrolled or have rights to medical services are enrolled in the Seguro Popular (Popular Insurance), which is free and provides only basic medical care for people without formal employment. Meanwhile, the IMSS (Mexican Social Security System) is for formal workers, offering contributions, labour and health rights, and comprehensive coverage.

Moreover, quality, availability, infrastructure, and medical personnel varied significantly across states. In rural, Indigenous, or highly marginalised areas, services were less accessible or of lower quality. Some studies indicate that although service usage increased, medical care was not always timely or consistently high-quality. Inequalities in quality, timeliness, and availability persisted across regions and levels of care, and many families continued to face costs for transportation, uncovered medications, specialised tests, and other expenses, or in some cases, people did not receive any medical attention. ²⁵

As shown in the Graph 1, most ILS are affiliated with Seguro Popular or similar medical services, followed by people in Indigenous communities, and lastly the total population. The latter is mostly affiliated with better medical services like the IMSS, which provide improved healthcare conditions and other benefits that the majority of the Indigenous population lacks.

6.2.4 Education

Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that everyone has the right to free, elementary, and fundamental education. Elementary instruction should be compulsory. Technical and professional instruction shall be widespread; access to higher education shall be equal for all, based on respective merits. Furthermore, education should aim at the full development of the human personality and the strengthening of respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms; it shall promote understanding, tolerance, and friendship among all nations and all ethnic or religious groups; and shall foster the activities of the United Nations for maintaining peace.

UN Declaration of Human Rights -Article 26

Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Literacy. Regarding literacy, as shown in the Graph 2, the most disadvantaged or illiterate groups in the five states are speakers of Indigenous languages (ILS), followed by those belonging to an Indigenous people (BIP), and finally the total population, which is in better condition.

Chiapas has the highest illiteracy rate among the states, followed by Veracruz, Oaxaca, Puebla, and the State of Mexico. Notably, Chiapas, Oaxaca, and Veracruz also have the largest Indigenous populations in the country, and there appears to be a strong correlation between southern location, larger Indigenous communities, and lower performance on various indicators.

By sex, among illiterate people, women have higher percentages in all groups, indicating a greater disadvantage for them. The most affected are those in the ILS group, where ILS women reached up to 75.7% in the State of Mexico, with other states exceeding 60%.

Furthermore, BIP women followed this group, with up to 59% illiteracy, and finally, the proportion of illiterate women in the total population is also higher than that of men (Graph 3). OPEN IN VIEWER

Graph 1.

Access to medical services. Source: Author elaboration with data from EQ of PHC 2020.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Graph 2.

Literacy. Source: Author elaboration with data from EQ of PHC 2020.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Graph 3.

Illiteracy by sex. Source: Author elaboration with data from EQ of PHC 2020.

School attendance. Regarding people attending school aged 5 years and older, those from ILS or an Indigenous community reported the lowest attendance, with the lowest attendance of ILS in the states of Mexico, Puebla, and Oaxaca (Graph 4). OPEN IN VIEWER

Graph 4.

People attending school aged 5 and over. Source: Author elaboration with data from the EQ of PHC 2020 INEGI.

People attending school aged 3 to 12 years old reported similar attendance rates, even in Indigenous communities (up to 90%), surpassing the percentage of the total population. This indicates a strong willingness to attend school (Graph 5). OPEN IN VIEWER

Graph 5.

People attending school from 3 to 12 years old. Source: Author elaboration with data from the EQ of PHC 2020 INEGI.

In the 13- to 18-year-old group, overall school attendance is higher compared to Indigenous children. However, school attendance for ILS children drops significantly in this age range, and many do not continue their education. As a result, their access to education is unequal, creating a substantial gap for the ILS.

Particularly in Chiapas, the decrease is significant, as shown in the Graph 6. Older children in the ILS group and those belonging to Indigenous communities reported lower attendance. This occurs partly because many help support their families through activities such as agriculture. Child labour is common in Chiapas, and it is essential to note that this paper only presents the statistics and does not address all the implications that poverty, subsistence farming, and other activities have for Indigenous families and children. ²⁶ OPEN IN VIEWER

Graph 6.

People attending school from 13 to 18 years old. Source: Author elaboration with data from the EQ of PHC 2020 INEGI.

In many Indigenous families, if children do not assist with household responsibilities, their access to food decreases. Moreover, it is crucial for them to learn these activities for their future survival and the community's well-being, since, as shown in the income section, incomes are very low for the Indigenous population of Chiapas.

Therefore, it is crucial for Indigenous communities to participate in the development of census questions and to have these activities clearly identified to ensure they receive an Indigenous or intercultural education that respects their culture, worldview, and needs. This education enables them to continue their vital work in agriculture and environmental preservation and ensures their knowledge is passed down through generations. Additionally, this approach allows for the identification of appropriate support for agriculture, which is primarily subsistence farming done entirely by hand without the aid of tractors or animals.

Similarly, for young people aged 19 to 24, ILS show the lowest school attendance rates, ranging from 5.78% in Chiapas to 14.1% in the State of Mexico. Indigenous people have attendance rates of 7.82% in Chiapas and 23.74% in the State of Mexico, while young people in the total population report the highest attendance at 31.76%.

Indigenous youth in Chiapas are the least likely to attend school in this age group, despite having similar percentages to those in other states within the 3 to 12 age range. This highlights a fundamental disparity not only between Indigenous populations and the total population but also among Indigenous groups across states, influenced by the proportion of ILS. Such disparities perpetuate discrimination and disadvantages for these groups (Graph 7). OPEN IN VIEWER

Graph 7.

People attending school from 19 to 24 years old. Source: Author elaboration with data from the EQ of PHC 2020 INEGI.

In the 25- to 35-year-old age group, ILS had the lowest rates of school attendance. Therefore, as this population ages and depending on the state where they live, whether they are further south or speak their native language, they have fewer opportunities to continue attending school, resulting in the greatest gap in this area for ILS (Graph 8). OPEN IN VIEWER

Graph 8.

People attending school from 25 to 35 years old. Source: Author elaboration with data from the EQ of PHC 2020 INEGI.

By gender, school attendance does not show significant differences between males and females, as shown in the Table 3. The lack of gender differences in school attendance is an important expression of Indigenous child resilience in the face of many disparities (Graphs 9 and 10). OPEN IN VIEWER

Graph 9.

Average number of children born alive by groups. Source: Author elaboration with data from the EQ of PHC 2020 INEGI.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Graph 10.

Average number of children born and died by groups. Source: Author elaboration with data from the EQ of PHC 2020 INEGI.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

People attending school in the 5 Mexican states by sex and age groups.

School attendance 3 to 12 years	Oaxaca	State of Mexico	Veracruz	Puebla	Chiapas
ILS men	50.24	49.89	49.67	49.84	50.15
ILS women	49.76	50.11	50.33	50.16	49.85
BIP men	50.70	50.71	50.09	50.52	50.34
BIP women	49.30	49.29	49.91	49.48	49.66
TP men	50.97	50.79	50.33	50.93	50.59
TP women	49.03	49.21	49.67	49.07	49.41
School attendance 13 to 18 years	Oaxaca	State of Mexico	Veracruz	Puebla	Chiapas
ILS men	50.25	43.09	47.78	49.62	54.79
ILS women	49.75	56.91	52.22	50.38	45.21
BIP men	49.47	49.05	50.36	48.27	53.70
BIP women	50.53	50.95	49.64	51.73	46.30
TP men	49.54	49.55	50.31	49.62	51.93
TP women	50.46	50.45	49.69	50.38	48.07
School attendance 19 to 24 years	Oaxaca	State of Mexico	Veracruz	Puebla	Chiapas
ILS men	51.51	44.78	47.60	48.32	55.40
ILS women	48.49	55.22	52.40	51.68	44.60
BIP men	47.90	47.85	49.02	49.98	55.54
BIP women	52.10	52.15	50.98	50.02	44.46
TP men	48.36	49.08	49.37	49.26	51.16
TP women	51.64	50.92	50.63	50.74	48.84

Source: Author elaboration with data from the EQ of PHC 2020 INEGI.

6.2.5 Income

Significant differences are observed in reported monthly income. The majority of people who work but do not receive income are classified as ILS, followed by those identified as BIP, and then the total population.

ILS are found at higher rates among the lowest salary levels, followed by those identifying as Indigenous people, compared to the total population.

The lowest monthly incomes are observed in the State of Chiapas, with Veracruz and Oaxaca following.

There is a significant wage gap by sex. Women earn less across all population groups, as shown in the Table 4, even when performing the same tasks as men, working the same or more hours, and having higher levels of education.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Income from monthly work in the states by population groups in Mexican pesos.

	Oaxaca	State of Mexico	Veracruz	Puebla	Chiapas
ILS average income	$3232.12	$5687.78	$2940.88	$4081.87	$1749.64
ILS AI women	$3039.72	$4473.44	$2759.82	$3946.31	$2017.78
ILS AI men	$3322.81	$6318.31	$3001.74	$4143.90	$1693.65
BIP average Income	$4276.20	$5982.07	$4352.89	$4960.87	$2085.7
BIP AI women	$4032.33	$5001.12	$4009.36	$4422.93	$2012.47
BIP AI men	$4411.14	$6555.90	$4515.36	$5248.61	$2390.58
TP average income	$4995.42	$7795.61	$5614.24	$7012.00	$4092.17
TP AI woman	$4596.10	$6745.04	$5140.63	$6082.23	$4300.77
TP AI men	$5228.99	$8434.71	$5864.48	$7557.14	$4006.18

Note: US dollar average, year 2020, $21.48 Mexican pesos for $1 US dollar (World Bank. Official exchange rate (LCU per US$, period average) – Mexico. Data from International Monetary Fund (IMF). Washington (DC): World Bank; 2020.

Source: Author elaboration with data from the EQ of PHC 2020 INEGI.

6.2.6 Sexual and reproductive rights

According to the UN, sexual and reproductive rights involve people's freedom to choose and openly express their sexuality. The World Health Organization (WHO) stresses that these rights safeguard everyone's capacity to satisfy and express their sexuality and to enjoy sexual health, with respect for others’ rights, within a framework of protection against discrimination.

They are based on recognising the fundamental right of all couples and individuals to freely and responsibly decide the number of children, birth spacing, and to access information and means to do so, as well as the right to attain the highest level of sexual and reproductive health. They include the right to make reproductive decisions without facing discrimination, coercion, or violence, in accordance with what is established in human rights documents.

Reported as live births, the ILS population has the highest average number of births but also high child mortality, indicating limited or no access to medical care, to antenatal care during pregnancy and paediatric medical care in some cases, along with issues like malnutrition and poverty. The group with the next highest percentage of deceased children is BIP.

It is important to note that any policy or programme implemented for Indigenous populations must recognise that life expectancy among Indigenous people is lower.

Therefore, efforts to reduce birth rates or delay the age at which Indigenous women have children could influence the population decline (interview with a Matlatzinca leader, 2024). This supports best practices where cultural issues, poverty, access to food, the right to participate and access information in programmes, worldview perspectives, traditions, and other relevant factors must also be taken into account.

All aspects of poverty, nutrition, healthcare, housing, and income, among others, must be improved so Indigenous women can freely exercise their sexual and reproductive rights in accordance with their culture.

6.2.7 Social security

Social security provides mechanisms designed to ensure the livelihoods of individuals, their families, and vulnerable populations during events like accidents, illnesses, or socially recognised circumstances such as old age and pregnancy. ¹⁹

Data from CONEVAL ¹⁹ show that the lack of access to social security is the most common form of social deprivation among the Indigenous population, at 78.2% in 2018. In rural areas, it increased to 88.2% of the Indigenous population that same year.

The second most common need among Indigenous people is the lack of access to basic housing services. In 2018, 57.5% of the Indigenous population lacked access to these services. In rural areas, only one in five Indigenous individuals had access to basic housing services. Conversely, 15.7% of the non-Indigenous population reported lacking basic housing in 2018.

In 2010 and 2020, in 821 municipalities, 80% or more of the Indigenous population lacked access to social security. Furthermore, among Indigenous settlements in the south and north of the country, this issue remains similar, with high levels of deprivation occurring at both points in time. However, municipalities with the highest percentages of Indigenous populations experiencing this deprivation are primarily in Oaxaca, Puebla, Veracruz, and Chiapas.

In 28 municipalities, in 2010, less than 60% of the indigenes lacked access to social security, and by 2020, that figure rose to over 80%, ranking third. Six municipalities stand out, all belonging to a metropolitan zone, with Texcoco (20,319) and Acolman (7512) in the State of Mexico reporting the highest number of indigenes in 2020.

7 Conclusions

Among the results of this work, it is worth noting that although the censuses already include the question of self-identification as Indigenous, there is still no information on which native people Indigenous responders (BIP) belong to, leaving a significant information gap. Information about Indigenous groups is only available for Indigenous language speakers (ILS).

Censuses continue to be conducted by official institutions without involving Indigenous people and organisations, so their participation is limited to answering questions. In Mexico, while one consultation was held in 2017 with Indigenous leaders, it did not reach the local communities.

For future censuses, it is recommended that Indigenous Peoples be involved in the preparation and conduct of censuses at the local and community levels, that censuses be carried out in their languages and/or with interpreters, and that local Indigenous people collect the data. Additionally, it is suggested that the self-identification question include another question asking which Indigenous Peoples they belong to, reflecting local and community preferences (for example, whether they belong to Tlahuica, Mazahua, or one of the other 69 Indigenous groups).

It is fundamental to ensure Indigenous involvement in censuses and statistics and to include more Indigenous workers in the census, especially at local and community levels, to help explain and identify the entire Indigenous population, reach all communities, build confidence in responding, and clarify the terms. This could also lead to other terms and concepts for the correct identification and naming of each Indigenous group. In Mexico, all projects directed to Indigenous Peoples must be carried out at the local level to avoid exploitation by people from outside, even if they are Mexicans who identify as Indigenous, and according to the needs and culture of each community.

In all the States analysed, poverty for ILS and BIP is much greater than in the total population, and there is a direct relationship between speaking an Indigenous language and poverty, along with the lack of rights, goods, and services. Also, in Mexico, a strong disadvantage between states with the most Indigenous people is observed, as they represent the States with the highest level of poverty. In addition, poverty for Indigenous people reaches up to 90% in some municipalities.

Regarding access to rights, goods, services, and equal opportunities, the most disadvantaged populations across the data analysed— covering poverty, health, education, income, food, water, housing, social security, and sexual and reproductive rights—were Indigenous language speakers (ILS), followed by those belonging to an Indigenous people (BIP).

Additionally, these groups face significant disadvantages in all aspects compared to the total population. The faces of poverty in Mexico are Indigenous. Indigenous populations have less access to health care and education, earn the lowest income at work, face the most severe shortage or lack of food, have the least access to water, live in more precarious housing than the rest of the population, and often lack social security or have minimal access. They also have inadequate access to or scarce health care and generally do not enjoy the same rights as the total population.

In the case of boys and girls, in addition to being heavily disadvantaged by the lack of access to the rights mentioned in the previous paragraph, while they predominantly attend basic education, the absence of schools in their communities and/or the lack of resources to study elsewhere causes many to discontinue their studies, even if they wish to continue.

Within these groups, women face the greatest setbacks, with the gender pay gap being significant in all groups, including the total population. If Indigenous language speakers are found in the lower salary scales, Indigenous language-speaking women suffer this condition to a greater extent. Similarly, in terms of food, female heads of household were more likely to experience food shortages than men.

Statistical visibility for Indigenous Peoples remains essential so that programmes, projects, and public policies can reach the communities that face the most disadvantaged scenarios, without damaging their own culture. Even if all people in Mexico can identify as Indigenous by blood or self-identification, it is essential to protect the children, people, and communities that still maintain all the ways of living, practices, traditions, and cosmovision's or worldviews of their ancestors, designing specific actions for the real exercise of their rights and not acculturation or assimilation.