Population, territory and sustainable development

47
Table IV.10
MEXICO: NUMBER OF RURAL SETTLEMENTS AND THEIR POPULATION,
BY SIZE OF RURAL SETTLEMENT, 2010 CENSUS
Size of settlement Number of settlements Population
Countrywide total 192 245 112 336 538
1- 249 inhabitants 159 820 5 743 745
250 - 499 inhabitants 13 589 4 821 711
500 - 999 inhabitants 9 264 6 506 784
1 000 - 2 499 inhabitants 5 921 8 976 888
Source: Latin American and Caribbean Demographic Centre (CELADE) - Population Division of ECLAC on the basis of results
of the population and housing census of Mexico, 2010 [online] http://www3.inegi.org.mx/sistemas/TabuladosBasicos/
Default.aspx?c=27302&s=est.
Although these data are incomplete (since they do not cover settlements with fewer than
500 inhabitants for all the countries of the region), they nonetheless provide us with some idea of just how
many small towns and villages are scattered over the rural areas of the region. This disperse settlement
pattern in rural areas has a negative impact when it is coupled with insufficient transportation routes,
modes of transport and communications networks (Rodríguez, 2002). The implications of this situation
for these settlements’ prospects for sustainable development are quite serious, given the distances
separating them from the cities and their infrastructure shortages, particularly in the more remote zones.
Rural settlements are separated from the urban centres of gravity by an “economic distance”, since the
greater the geographic distance between them, the smaller the scale of production. This economic distance
is a function not only of the physical distances that exist but also of the transaction costs involved in
labour, capital, product and input markets, which have an impact on the development prospects of local
activities. Yet another factor to consider is cultural distance (Primi, 2002), or, in other words, differences
in concepts, logic, ideas, beliefs, values and language that can contribute to rural communities’ social
isolation from the closest urban centre and to the isolation of one local settlement or even household from
another, given the widely scattered distribution of the rural population in various areas of Latin America.
Towns closer to urban areas may therefore be part of a more diversified sphere of economic
activity, whereas more remote towns which interact less in territorial, economic and social terms, may be
linked to more extensive activities, if any, and exhibit a lower degree of local economic development,
since distance and low population densities are at times insurmountable obstacles for rural areas that are
seeking to attract factors of production and promote capacity-building (ECLAC, 2005a).
The scattered distribution and unconnectedness of the rural population also are factors in the
failure to meet the population’s basic needs since, from a cost-benefit perspective, the delivery and
administration of essential services (health care, education, drinking water, sewerage and electricity) are
very complex and financially unattractive for supplier firms (Rodríguez, 2002). As we will see later on,
the gap between urban and rural areas’ access to basic services remains a reality. That gap has narrowed,
but urban centres continue to enjoy much greater service coverage. A similar situation exists in terms of
education: a large percentage of the school-age population has to go to a city or to a larger town in order
to attend secondary school, since most small towns have primary schools only. There is also a differential
in terms of access to health care. For example, prenatal and postnatal care in rural areas falls far short of
the services provided in urban areas because primary care units are often far away or difficult to access.