Introduction

The Mexican population according to the ^{INEGI (2013)} was 117.4 million, of which 24.6 million correspond to the rural population. According to the index of marginalization at the locality level (UNDAF, 2007), three out of four rural localities have high degrees of marginalization and very high, and in which 61% of the population resides. According to the Ministry of Social Development (2002) is considered that 54% of Mexicans live in poverty heritage, indicating that lives on less than $4 a day, while 32% do less than $2.5, and 24% with less than two dollars. In this perspective, among the states with the highest poverty in the country they are Guerrero, Chiapas and Oaxaca.

The poverty is directly related to the ability to generate income and employment sources, based on the availability of resources, human capacities given by levels of education, organization, technology and access to information and the availability of professional, technical and researchers to help develop means for creating marketable products and value-added services and miscellaneous infrastructure to economic relate to the agricultural sector and labor to other sectors (^{Andrade and Luna, 2013}). In Mexico, the unequal distribution of wealth has concentrated income in certain sectors which are specifically dedicated to the export of goods and services, neglecting others like the agricultural sector that relies heavily on the economic development of the country. The marginalization suffered at least half of mexicans forced to think about strategies that directly reverse the neglect of the agricultural sector in its broadest conception.

Given the high levels of poverty in the state of Oaxaca previously documented by ^{Ruiz and Campechano (2006)}; ^{Rodríguez et al. (2013)}, they identified the factors that determine the competitiveness of poor rural families in two communities in the Southern Sierra of Oaxaca, San Jacinto Tlacotepec and Santo Domingo Teojomulco; They indicate that the low competitiveness of rural families, is due to multifactorial aspects, highlighting the following factors as determinants: the lack of organization for production from a business view, i.e. closely to market demand; poor production technology, limited land surface and the low educational level of the producers.

Given the statement that competitiveness as a measure of economic efficiency is not a method applicable study units of rural production as indicated by some advocates of peasant economy, arguing that the term competitiveness is a purely capitalist concept, in the past two decades , experts have agreed that the competitive advantages no longer rely primarily on obtaining low costs of labor, the availability of natural resources or favorable differential in interest rates or exchange rates, these material factors comparative advantages are being gradually replaced by other factors that have more dynamic advantages (^{Albuquerque, 1996}).

One aspect that could contribute to the introduction of technological and organizational innovations with business vision in poor areas, supported by the incorporation of information and knowledge, refers to the capacity building of human resources to meet specific demands market capabilities, which currently represent the main determinant of productivity growth and competitiveness in enterprises. This situation also allows better use of own factors of production such as land, labor and capital to foster greater market share and profit such as money income and employment, contributing to solve the problem of poverty.

In this regard, ^{Chayanov (1965)}, ^{Marx (1956)} and recently ^{Feijóo (2009)} obviating the differences that might arise in their conceptions of the peasantry, agree that peasant production units are linked to some degree the market. Marx is more explicit in pointing out that the rural economy by definition is a market economy, in which the process occurs:

M- D-M’

Where: M is the peasant agricultural products destined for the market so become commodities; D is money the farmer receives in exchange for M and M 'are goods that the farmer acquires on the market that does not produce in its unity and partly serve to cover certain needs. This process is called the process simple movement of goods, the farmer sells to buy. The farmer allocates part of its production (accept that is the surplus that remains after covering consumption) market, acquired in exchange for money, which used to buy goods not produced in their plot to meet your needs or at least part of them. From this perspective M is different from M' represents the first agricultural products become commodities when placing on the market and the second represents products from other sectors of the formal economy. Here the key is to define to what extent the farmer covers their consumption needs, this question is related to the concept of rural poverty.

Marx emphasizes that because most of the peasant production is consumed by the family (consumption), the process of movement is limited, hence the peasant logic is to ensure their food survival first, but not always achieved in terms of minimum consumption. However, due to increased market share and therefore, greater participation in the process of movement of goods, enables farmers to increase D; that is, their income and acquire more goods that meet their growing needs, this process is important and we must not ignore that because it is the surplus which goes to market, this process is unimportant, rather should be noted that this is the only means by which the farmer can diversify their consumption and meet their expectations, but this must participate more aggressively in the market by placing more M, here, the global market currently offers new encouraging prospects for the farmer to identify agribusiness even in their situation marginalization, new consumer niches offer a vast range of opportunities based on local forces such as organic products linked to the territory (appellations of origin) such as coffee, honey, mezcal, vanilla, natural products, handicrafts, f lowers, etc. which contribute to the competitiveness of families.

In the present era, ^{Porter (1990)}; ^{Porter (2008)} defines competitiveness as increased capacity market share, i.e., there is more competition in the greater ability of market share; then then there is a direct relationship between competitiveness and the level of participation in the movement of goods, so that profitability and earnings increase, greater value is generated and therefore welfare standards also improve (Slater, 1996; ^{González, 2009}).

The empirical data effectively come to confirm what raises Marx, weak peasant participation in the process of movement of goods causes dissatisfaction of needs and that is called poverty of needs, hence the concern of those who think it is necessary to reposition the peasant in the market arises as a process of strengthening the M-D-M’process through greater ability to maintain and even strengthen their participation in the exchange process through greater competitiveness. If we consider that a weak market share is related directly to greater poverty and marginalization, so why not give ideas, methods, models and strategies for the farmer strengthen its participation in the process of movement of goods.

There may be several ways, one is through increased productivity of family labor, which aims to increase their surpluses, this can be achieved through training and technology; about, Chayanov mentions that while there are many factors that determine the productivity of peasant economic unit (holistic view) technology may be one of the most important, at this point we enter the discussion of developmental and structuralists the f irst point is possible with their own strengths that poor farmers (with weak M-D-M) can be positioned better, identifying the specific factors that limit competitiveness and developing agribusiness based on better technology, training, organization. The second point that only by changing the economic structures can improve the position of farmers, i.e., changing the current economic model.

The aim of this study was to determine the level of competitiveness of production units locations in the states of Oaxaca, Chiapas and Guerrero and identify the main factors that influence it.

Materials and methods

Location of the study area. The three states objects of this study are located in southern Mexico (Figure 1). The state of Oaxaca is located in the parallel 16° 53' 53' north latitude and meridians 96° 24' 51' west longitude, has a land area of 93 757 km², total population by the year 2010 according to INEGI it was of 3 801 962, with 1 819 008 men and 1 982 954 women. The state of Chiapas is located in the following geographical coordinates; 16° 24' 36' north latitude and 92° 24' 31' west longitude, has a total area of 73 311 km² and a population of 4 796 580, of which 2 352 807 are men and 2 443 773 are women. Guerrero is located in the parallel 17° 36' 47' north latitude and meridians 99° 57' 00' west longitude, has a land area of 63 596 km² and has a total population of 3 388 768; 1 645 561 men and 1 743 207 women.

Figure 1. Location of Oaxaca, Guerrero and Chiapas. 

The communities representing the three states were selected and socioeconomic information was collected through questionnaires as the main source of data, which was complemented by workshops and informal talks. To prepare the questionnaire was necessary to have the largest collection of information available directly related to research, previously conducting a pilot test directly in the field to a sample of participating families.

Two regions were selected by state and each at least one municipality with several locations. In the Table 1 localities by municipality and region considered in the study are listed, which belong mostly to areas of high and very high marginalization and fall within the national crusade against hunger.

Table 1. Municipalities and localities considered in the study of competitiveness. 

The sample size was defined using the formula proposed by ^{Rendon and González (1999)} for determining a representative sample size studies with many variables, such as the questionnaires.

Where: n= number of players to be surveyed; N= total number of players of the population in a list; d= precision: 10%= 0.1; Z= reliability of 95%=1.64; p= proportion of the population=0.5; q= differential p: (1-p)= 0.5.

The questionnaire was composed of two sections, the first history of the family unit, divided this section into four sections, the first, the use of the land where both the surface and the value of it was obtained were explored; the second, the livestock inventory, which collected the number of animals held by the farmer and the value of each; the third, labor, where it is important to know the time they give to their activities in both the farmer and his family wages and hiring both time and wages; and finally the capital of the family unit that yielded information of value of their land, such as equipment, tools, vehicles, supplies and savings and loans or loans that you have.

The second section contains the current operations of the family unit and is divided into four sections, the first earned sales of agricultural and livestock production; the second the consumption of the same products but are intended for the family; third are operating costs that addresses issues such as income tractor, purchased inputs (fertilizers, seeds, agrochemicals, food, services, etc.), which allowed to obtain all expenses derived from production; the last section are other expenses, which gives a precise approach of the family expenses.

Regarding poverty measure meant indicator of competitiveness, which is a concept that has a number of keys to achieving market positions, such factors used: productivity, costs, prices and optimal use of resources (^{Perez-Infante, 1994}), while showing the competitiveness of families.

The competitiveness is measured by the methodology ^{Sheafer-Kenhnert (1981)} and ^{Rodríguez et al. (2013)}, the information obtained in the questionnaires were codified subsequently were structured data arrays in Excel and indicators of net value added and competitive relationship were calculated. For this activity a database in Excel which had eight tabs was built, the first containing the history of the family unit, the second current operations, the third is support for capital recovery, the fourth that it is where indicators of net value added and competitive relationship are obtained. The mathematical expressions of value added and competitive relationship shown below:

Where: VA= value added; X_i= quantity produced per unit area (usually tons); Y_J= number of tradable inputs applied per unit area (usually a hectare); P_i= price of the product in the domestic market and P_j= price of tradable inputs in the domestic market.

Where: RCP= ratio of private cost; CFI= cost of internal factors; and VA= value added.

Results and discussion

General characteristics of the production units

As regards the general characteristics can be seen in Table 2 that the units of rural production of Guerrero and Oaxaca have an average of 2.9 hectares for planting maize and beans mainly while in Cintalapa, Chiapas have 8 and Tonala with 27.9; at these sites it was observed that in addition to agricultural activity also engaged in livestock especially the last region with considerable areas with native or induced fodder. The reduced availability of land was observed in Ejutla and Apoala 2.23 and 2.41 hectares respectively, where there are producers with less than one hectare of land, which determines a limiting factor for growing crops, especially low yields presented.

Table 2. General characteristics of rural production units in regions of the states of Oaxaca, Guerrero and Chiapas. 

As for the availability of livestock, the total estimated per unit of production average was 32 heads, being the region of Tonala, Chiapas which had higher availability with 73 heads, mainly cattle, this vocation of the land and the reduced availability Apoala in the state of Oaxaca with 18 heads per unit of production, mainly poultry and small livestock sheep and goats.

Regarding the availability of labor for production, a total average for the area of study of 15 months available labor per unit of production, usually the head of the family and in some cases children and wife it was obtained. According to this feature, it could be argued that the labor resource is the less scarce. The highest average availability was found in Tonala in Chiapas with 28 months available, this labor is devoted to animal care and also to the cultivation of fodder so even require hiring staff for different activities, while the lower availability was presented in Ejutla in the Valles Centrales of Oaxaca with 10 months where it was observed that most respondents only producer works and is minimal hiring workers as they are supported with neighbors in activities without any compensation, rather than the commitment that later will also support it with their field activities (tequio).

Preliminary economic indicators

In Table 3, the first economic indicators of production units, in the case of sales as a measure of market linkage and component production value, the region of Tonala are presented, Chiapas stood with a sales level $220 000.00 per year; production units in the region of the Mixteca and Valles Centrales only reached a level of $5 600.00 and $5 563.89 respectively, this disparity in levels of market linkage is because in Tonala production units are eminently livestock, while in Oaxaca are smallholder subsistence farmers with yields of three one ton per hectare respectively, together with the producers they said that this year the pest damaged the crop, prompting who had no corn in more than half the year , so it was necessary to buy to ensure the maintenance of the family diet.

Table 3. Economic indicators of rural production units in the states of Oaxaca, Guerrero and Chiapas. 

Regarding the consumption as part of the value generated in the production unit, a total average of $11 619.27 per year, with Olinalá, Guerrero with $21 855.86 which had higher levels and the lower level was estimated were the families of Apoala in the estate the Oaxaca $5 764.80, as its production is not enough for their support all year, low consumption is also observed in Tonala, which is because most of the production is intended for sale and the resource obtained cover their basic needs and can access a better and more varied diet.

As for operating expenses to make the land produce a total annual average of $26 593.49 was observed, emphasizing the production units of Tonala, Chiapas with operating expenses of $77 860.92, charges relating to the production mostly livestock, while production units Ejutla, Oaxaca had the lowest operating costs $8 218.99, due to the small surface reported.

Regarding other expenses not necessarily related to primary production, it is noted that the production units of Tonala in Chiapas have higher expenses, while families of Apoala in the Mixteca of Oaxaca had the lowest overhead, as there are differences in access to basic services such as electricity, gas, telephone communication and food mainly.

Competitiveness indicators

In the Table 4 shows the indicators of competitiveness of production units are presented. The value of production had an average total of $71 587.64 per year, with the families of Tonala, Chiapas which generated the greatest production value with $224 106.85, while the relatives of Apoala units, Mixteca had the lowest levels value produced with $11 364.80. The added value is one of the basic indicators of competitiveness, because it means the contribution of the production unit to the gross domestic product (PIB), in this case the region of Apoala is generated only $3 635.00 which means which are units of extremely poor production that generate very low value, you can only explain their survival by the existence of external income from the production unit as remittances from migrant or income programs of Prospera, 60 and more and Procampo. Tonala Chiapas is the region where the production units generate more wealth with an average value added $184 794.27/year as a contribution to national PIB, this is due to the nature of the principal activities such as livestock.

Table 4. Indicators of income analysis of rural production units in the states of Oaxaca, Guerrero and Chiapas. 

As for the ratio of average competitiveness for each region, as shown in the same Table 4, it had a variable behavior according to the region in particular and to the federal entity. Except for Tonala and Cintalapa in the remaining sites RCP was higher than the unit, which means that the production units are in the process of competitiveness, highlighting Apoala with RCP of 5.11. This situation indicates that the value added produced by households is not enough to cover the cost of internal factors, mainly labor and land, so the producer does not obtain net profit. This situation is related to the lack of market linkages through the value of sales was limited. On the contrary, Cintalapa and Tonala presented an index of less than unity competitiveness, which means that the value added produced enough to cover the cost of labor and land internal factors and is the producer net profit, this situation it is favored for its closer links with the market, since in both cases have livestock activities enabling to obtain higher income from sales.

Ranges competitiveness

In Table 5, the classification of production units interviewed according to the rank of RCP who presented according to their current socioeconomic situation is observed. Of the 145 families interviewed in total, 18 (12%) were located in the layer of negative condition; i.e. RCP presented a negative sign, this means that they are extremely poor families and their production processes are inefficient sum because the operating costs exceed income, value added is negative, do not produce sufficiently value and therefore do not contribute to PIB so that their needs are not covered by revenues from their own resources such as land; it is common for these families receive remittances from migrants and their income is earned outside the production unit. The general characteristics of these families that have an average of 3.4 hectares, 17 animals in your backyard and labor available is 11.8 months, especially family labor.

Table 5. Distribution of rural production units according to the competitive relationship. 

Of all the families interviewed 47 of them (32%) are found in the layer of positive competitiveness with RCP between zero and one, these production units work with positive earnings and enough added value to cover the costs of internal factors. Its contribution to PIB is important throughout the value added. These families are mostly linked to the market because their turnover is significant; have an average of 17 hectares, 50 animals including birds, pigs, sheep, etc., and labor as well as being familiar also is contracted with approximately 20 months.

Of the 145 production units studied, 80 (55%) were in the stratum whose competitiveness was greater than unity. These units are in the process of competitiveness because they operate with positive net earnings but the added value produced is not even enough to cover the costs of internal factors such as labor; its contribution to national PIB is limited. Production units classified here although incipiently begin to develop a vision market but their productivity is not enough to allocate more market surpluses. The features in area of 4.7 hectares are on average 27 animals in their care and 14 months labor available especially familiar.

By states, Oaxaca had the highest percentage of households with negative competitiveness with 44% and Chiapas had the lowest proportion of households with negative competitiveness since no production unit presented this situation. In summary it can be said that most of the families involved in this study is in the category in the process of competitiveness and this situation is brought about by insufficient market linkages mainly due to low production yields.

Conclusions

The 32% of the production units studied are competitive; i.e., they operate with positive earnings and provide added value to the economy and are linked to the market through its sales. The 55% of the object of study households were in the process of competitiveness, which means operating with limited gains, generate added value but is insufficient to cover the costs of internal factors such as labor, i.e. income earned from sales of their products considering the consumption enough to cover your operating expenses but not the costs that generates labor, even if it is familiar; these families begin to be linked to the market through sales. The 12% of the production units showed negative competitiveness, generate value and rely on income outside the production unit as remittances, their link to the market is not significant.

The land is a limited resource, especially for regions Apoala Mixteca and Ejutla Central Valleys in the state of Oaxaca, where maize yields did not exceed a tons per hectare, while in other regions this situation is not so marked and corn yields were higher than three tons per hectare. Labor is a non-limited resource, as there is availability of family labor which is incorporated into productive work.