This article illustrates the construction and usefulness of a Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) for Mexico, 2013, presenting the methodology used for its elaboration, as well as its characteristics and qualities as an accounting tool for the evaluation of economic policy linked to the study of economic growth and development. The SAM includes 21 economic sectors, four types of import goods industries, and four institutional sectors subdivided into low-, middle -, and high-income households; financial and non-financial corporations (public and private), government, and the rest of the world. Via inter-institutional analysis, SAMs allow for the detailed observation of the productive structure and the institutional sectors of the Mexican economy.

The Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) is a useful and powerful accounting tool for economic analysis, especially for evaluating economic growth and development. Taking Quesnay's (1894) tables as a reference, Leontief (1941)¹ developed the idea of economic circular flow, using what he called the Input-Output Matrix (IOM) to analyze economic transactions between an economy’s productive sectors. This matrix provides a detailed picture of the economic relationships of the productive sectors. Subsequently, Stone (1956)² incorporated the institutional sectors into the IOM, which resulted in the now widely-known SAM. In contrast to the analysis with IOM, the use of SAM allows for a specific analysis of the productive sector’s relationship with households, government, societies, and the rest of the world.

The primary objective of this article is to demonstrate the usefulness of a SAM for inter-institutional accounting analysis and its relationship with the development of the Mexican economy. Based on an analysis of the inter-institutional relationships between economic agents, a bridge is drawn between the analysis of income production and distribution, including transactions from the government, corporations, and the rest of the world to households. This article also provides a methodological approach for analyzing the relationship between the SAM and economic development, and combines the available data from the productive sectors and the institutional account system. The SAM-Mexico 2013 presented here includes 21 economic sectors: 4 types of import goods industries; 4 institutional sectors subdivided into households by income level (low, medium, and high); public and private financial and non-financial corporations; government; and rest of the world. A SAM with the aforementioned level of disaggregation has not yet been published. The SAM was compiled using data from the 2013 IOM and the institutional accounts system, as well as data from INEGI's National Household Income and Expenditure Survey (ENIGH) and the balance of payments published by the Bank of Mexico.

This article is structured in five sections, including an introduction. The second section briefly reviews the definition and characteristics of a SAM. The third section then describes the methodology followed to develop the SAM-Mexico 2013, concluding with a presentation of the model. The fourth section goes on to provide a descriptive analysis of the Mexican economy based on the results from the model, which serve as a basis for subsequent inter-institutional analyses, and the final section offers some conclusions.

The SAM-Mexico 2013 constitutes a useful methodological tool for the analysis of economic development in Mexico, due to its level of disaggregation and the data presented. The proposed model will allow for the elaboration and evaluation of public policies that are better focused on addressing not only economic growth, but also the distribution of this growth between the institutional sectors of the economy.

The elaboration and presentation format of the SAM is based on the System of National Accounts (SNA) methodology (UN, 1993 and 2016) and has a similar structure to that of the SAMs published by the International Labor Organization (ILO], 2019) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (Breisinger et al., 2009). The SAM is an accounting representation of the transactions carried out between the productive and institutional sectors of the economy. Following the double-entry method, a square matrix is obtained in which each accounting record has a row (income) and column (expenditure); the total value of each row is equal to the value obtained in each column; and the total income of each sector is spent (including savings). On the production side, all the goods supplied are demanded by the institutional sectors and there are no inventories (Robinson et al., 2001).

Several SAMs have been developed in Mexico. Banegas and Blancas (2019) analyze the effects of public spending on economic growth and social welfare using an aggregated 2011 SAM; Núñez and Romero (2020), meanwhile, study the effect of increasing private savings and granting subsidies to the consumption of domestic inputs using a 2012 SAM; Casares et al. (2017), for their part, observe the effect of fiscal policy and government transfers on household income using a 2003 SAM that disaggregates the household account by deciles; while Blancas (2010) elaborates an SAM which disaggregates the savings/investment account by the institutional sectors of central, commercial, and development banking, thus allowing for analysis of the relationship between current and capital account flows through what he calls inter-institutional analysis. Meanwhile, Cardona et al. (2018) estimate an SAM to determine an economy’s key productive sectors. Finally, Chapa et al. (2019) use an SAM to evaluate the expected effectiveness of an elderly assistance program. However, these studies do not advance a methodology with which to elaborate an SAM for Mexico using the available data. Therefore, there is a vital need to formulate a coherent and standardized methodology to elaborate an SAM that serves as a tool to analyze the country’s economic development.

The objectives of the SAM-Mexico 2013 are as follows: to shed light on the relationship between the national productive sector and the type of imports; to include the relationship between the productive and institutional sectors; and to disaggregate household income-expenditure into low, medium, and high. The matrix is compiled based on data from the IOM³ 2013 (INEGI, 2018a); the institutional relationships are calculated using the data published in the System of National Accounts-Institutional Sector Accounts (INEGI, 2013b); and the institutional sector of households is constructed using data from the 2014 National Survey of Household Incomes and Expenditures (Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares, ENIGH) (INEGI, 2014).⁴ The aforementioned bases group an additional set of official information published by INEGI (2013b and 2014).

Table 1 shows the prototype SAM divided into three quadrants. The first integrates transactions for intermediate consumption, factor income, indirect taxes, and imported inputs; the second includes data on domestic and foreign demand for final goods and services; and the third includes data on inter-institutional transfers.

The institutional sectors included in the SAM-Mexico 2013 are Households, Public and private financial and non-financial corporations, Government, and Rest of the world.⁵ Table 2 shows the exchanges (income-expenditure) made between the productive and institutional sectors. The difference between income and expenditure of the institutional sectors is considered as savings-investment.

The first step in elaborating the SAM consists of incorporating the data from the IOM in quadrant I, which represents the total supply of the economy (intermediate inputs, productive factors, total imports, and direct taxes).

The transactions of the productive sectors are based on IOM data that includes 79 productive subsectors, which are grouped into 21 industries within quadrant I of the SAM (see Table 3). Intermediate inputs in the IOM correspond to the intermediate demand of the productive sectors.

The factors of production are labor and capital available for the production of goods and services. The income/payment to the factors of production (FPI–lines 22 and 23) is divided into employee remuneration (W) and Gross Operating Surplus (EBO):

(1)

Data on imports is obtained from the IOM of imported goods and services by productive sector. The SAM-Mexico 2013 disaggregates imports from the rest of the world account. Blancas (2006) performs a similar procedure when he disaggregates the savings-financial account to analyze the relationship between the financial sector and the real economy.

The IOM disaggregated by imported requirements makes it possible to identify the demand for imports. Table 4 disaggregates imports into four categories: the first three account for more than 92% of total imports and, because of their high household demand, MD-Food and beverage industries is included.

Total imports are integrated into the SAM as the sum of imports by type of demand: imported intermediate goods (MInt), households (MCons), government (MGob), and investment or gross fixed capital formation (MFBKF).

(2)

The sum of the four types of imports equals the income in the rest of the world account. To comply with the double-entry income-expenditure accounting rule, the imports account balances with income from imports for the rest of the world (see Table 3, row 36, columns 25-28).

Taxes and subsidies on production and imports recorded in the IOM correspond to indirect taxes (INEGI, 2018a); in the SAM they are included as Net taxes on production (line 24).

The sum of intermediate transactions, factor income, input imports, and indirect taxes represents the total supply of the economy (see equation 3).

(3)

Quadrant II integrates the intermediate consumption of the productive sectors (inputs), household demand, government, exports, and gross fixed capital formation (GFCF). Stock changes are values that are not reported in the IOM⁶ and are included within the SAM as UFOS (line/column 38).

Adding intermediate demand with demand by institutional sectors and investment (FBKF) gives final demand by productive sector. The sum of final demand by productive sector represents the national aggregate demand.

(4)

Additionally, it is demonstrated that total supply equals total demand accounting identity or equilibrium condition:

(5)

To determine the values of quadrant III, the monetary transfers made between institutional sectors are disaggregated using the Institutional Sectors Account (ISA) database.

The first step consists of transforming the total payment of productive factors into the income of the institutional sectors (line/columns 22 and 23). Remuneration payments (W) are obtained from the ISA as D.1- Employee remuneration and includes sub-accounts D.11-Wages and salaries and D.12-Employers' social contributions; the data is recorded in the SAM as household income (lines 29-31).

(6)

The payment to subaccounts B.2b-Gross operating surplus (EBO) and B.3b-Gross mixed-income is distributed among all institutional sectors and depreciation (see information in Table 5). The sum of EBO and salaries reported in the ISA is equal to the value reported in the IOM.

The Net taxes on the production account (line 24) includes indirect taxes paid by households such as Value Added Tax (VAT) and taxes on exports and investment; the total value is transferred to the government as revenue (line 35/column 24).

The gross value added generated in the economy is transferred to the institutional sectors as remuneration payments, net taxes on production, and gross operating surplus (columns 22-24). Similarly, the depreciation payment is subtracted from the EBO and transferred to the savings account (line 33).

The next step in the construction of the SAM is to transfer the payment for imports of intermediate, capital, and consumption inputs from the productive sector, households, government, and investment (lines 24-27) to the rest of the world account (line 38/columns 24-27).

Registering import payments by residents to the rest of the world concludes the exchanges between the productive sector and the institutional sectors; additionally, the data from the IOM was incorporated into the SAM via the ICS. The structuring of the data ensures that the SAM is squared and that the sum of the grand total of the columns and rows is equal.

Finally, the Institutional Transfers Matrix (ITM) is contained in quadrant III. This matrix is constructed by aggregating the inter-institutional exchanges reported in section II-Income Distribution and Utilization Account and subsection II.1.2-Primary Income Allocation Account of the ISA. Exchanges are also recorded for D.4-Property income, D.5-Current taxes on income, wealth, etc., and D.7-Other current transfers.

The method used to estimate payments between institutional sectors consists of identifying their transactions with the rest of the sectors. To determine each transaction, the ICS is disaggregated at the institutional subsector level and the subaccounts at the highest level of disaggregation. As an example of how each transfer from the ICS is recorded, Table 6 shows the transfers from sub-account D.5-Current taxes on income, wealth, etc., and shows that the institutional sectors transfer resources to sector S.13-General government for current taxes.

The exchanges of account D.5 are presented in a matrix form in Table 7. This submatrix is an example of the set of sub-matrices that make up the ITM.

The ITM is concluded by summing the information from each submatrix (see Table 8), which contains the information required in quadrant III of the SAM.

According to Cortés (2018) and Nava and Brown (2018), income distribution problems persist in Mexico, so considering only one type of household would imply an understanding of households as homogeneous. Following the methodology of Blancas (2006 and 2010) and Casares et al. (2017), this article disaggregates the institutional sector of households into the following three groups: low-income (deciles I-IV), middle-income (V-VIII), and high-income (IX-X). To disaggregate the household account, the composition of income/expenditure by decile from the ENIGH 2014 (INEGI, 2014) is taken as a reference. This article then goes on to adopt a classification technique similar to the one presented by Leyva (2004, p. 30).

Disaggregating the household account is crucial to understanding the distribution of household income-expenditure and its relationship with economic development. Various current studies address the problem of homogenization and the use of data on income distribution. One such study is Bustos and Leyva (2017), which illustrates the discrepancies in the measurement of income distribution on the national accounts side with respect to the ENIGH, even pointing to a possible problem of underestimation for some data. The authors decided to take the ENIGH data as a reference because the estimation of household income on the national accounts side focuses on the construction of macroeconomic aggregates, while the survey has a marked use for recognizing the distribution of income among households (Villatoro, 2015, p. 11). For this reason, data by household income decile from the ENIGH-2014 is used to form three groups of households (low, middle, and high) by grouping the survey deciles by household type (see Table 9). It is important to note that "low-income" households have a negative balance of their current income-expenditure, so the SAM-Mexico 2013 reflects negative savings in this group.

The disaggregation by low-, middle- and high-income household in the SAM is resolved by multiplying the income/expenditure values of the household account by the percentage of income/expenditure reported in the ENIGH; the percentage composition of household expenditure is taken and integrated with the absolute value of the income/expenditure of the SAM household account.

With the 2014 ENIGH tabulations, the data on income by household type is integrated with the resource transfers received by households from the rest of the institutional sectors (see Table 10); proxies are constructed from the values reported in the ENIGH that are included within the SAM. For example, the payment of remunerations recorded in the SAM-Mexico 2013 corresponds in the ENIGH to household income from Remunerations from subordinate work, Income from self-employment, and Income from other work. Therefore, the proportion of this income concentrated in deciles I to IV (11.23%) is a proxy for the proportion of income from Remuneration Payments of Low-income Households (row 25/column 22). Leyva (2004, p. 30) performs a similar estimation to adjust the national accounts data with the ENIGH.

The estimation of expenditures by type of household follows the same breakdown as for income (see Table 11). Four groups are considered: Expenditure on domestic final consumption goods, Imports of final consumption goods, Payment of indirect taxes, and Transfers to the rest of the institutional sectors that represent proxies of the expenditure of the household account of the SAM.

Tables 10 and 11 complete the information necessary to conclude the SAM-Mexico 2013 (see Table 12).

The robustness of the matrix’s findings becomes clear when the economic aggregates from the SAM-Mexico 2013 are compared against data from the National Accounts (see Table 13).

In the SAM-Mexico 2013, a total value of MXN$ 83,712,129 million was obtained on the expenditure side (column 39 T-Income), similar to that obtained on the expenditure side (line 39 T-Expenditure); however, there is a discrepancy of MXN$152 billion, equivalent to 0.18% of the total value of income and expenditure in the matrix, as recorded in the UFOS column. This is due to the fact that in some cases, the values of the line items do not have an exact match with their respective column.

Resolving the discrepancy between total income and expenditures requires examining in greater detail at least three account transactions that report inconsistencies of origin: total imports reported in the IOM concerning the value of imports in the ISA; the payment of remunerations from the rest of the world to households (distinct from the value reported for remittances); this value is reported in the ISA, but not in the IOM; and the transfers made between inter-agency sectors in sub-account D.759- Other miscellaneous current transfers. Other miscellaneous current transfers; this ISA account is the only one that does not comply with the double-entry principle (Total debits=Total credits).

The findings from the SAM-Mexico 2013 (see Table 13) reflect the state of the Mexican economy’s productive structure and institutional sectors. In addition to production, the matrix includes the distribution of income and expenditure of the sectors, thus completing the bridge of analysis that forms a methodological tool for the study of economic development from an inter-institutional perspective of the Mexican productive structure.

A brief accounting analysis of the Mexican economy illustrates the usefulness of the SAM-Mexico 2013. Here, it should be noted that the current characteristics of the productive structure and income distribution are the result of neoliberal policies that, since the 1980s, have skewed the economy outward, thus promoting a strong dependence on international markets, imported inputs, and foreign direct investment, causing an outflow of economic surplus through trade balance deficits, profit remittances from foreign companies, and capital flight (Puyana, 2020; Romero, 2020; Blancas, 2015). This translates into low economic growth rates with high-income concentration, along with higher levels of poverty and social exclusion of sectors of the population with lower levels of income and social opportunities⁷ (Blancas and Aliphat, 2020).

Quadrant I of the SAM shows that intermediate consumption represents 29% of total supply, while imports account for 14%; a ratio of almost 2 to 1 between local and imported inputs. Additionally, 48% of total imports consist of electrical, electronic, and transportation goods, with subsector G-Manufacture of electrical, electronic, and transportation goods concentrating 75% of the demand for these imported goods.

Table 14 shows the export trend of the primary and secondary sectors; more than 25% of their demand corresponds to exports. This is characteristic of the so-called global economies (List, 1997), which, unlike national economies, do not privilege the development of national productive forces. Within a national economy, the objective is to ensure that production supplies the domestic market and not global production chains. On the production side, the main problem is imports from the secondary sector, as this sector, instead of functioning as an axis of integration between the primary and tertiary sectors within the national economy, serves as an articulator in the global economy at the expense of the national production system (Romero and Aliphat, 2019; Vázquez, 2020).

In terms of institutional sectors (see Table 15), the breakdown of productive sectors and intermediate imports (15A) shows that 64% of imports correspond to intermediate goods and services destined for the secondary sector. Under the conditions of the SAM-Mexico 2013, greater demand from the secondary sector could increase imports, and an economic policy focused on promoting a greater demand for secondary goods would result in trade deficit balances with little effect on the national economy.

In terms of households (see Table 15B), 11% of total imports correspond to consumer goods, and there is a direct relationship between household income and the demand for imported consumer goods. Encouraging households to reduce their consumption of imported goods would strengthen the national economy. Furthermore, government transfers would strengthen the national productive structure through greater household demand, thus leading to greater economic growth, in addition to having a positive effect on income distribution and poverty reduction.

Table 15C shows that 10% of total imports correspond to investment assets, of which electrical, electronic, and transportation goods are the most demanded, with a 9 to 10 ratio. This indicates that there is a potential market for the production of capital goods in Mexico, equivalent to MXN$ 464 billion, a value higher than the national consumption of goods in the primary sector, according to data from the SAM.

The way in which added value is distributed among institutional sectors, as a result of the productive structure, is one of the central aspects that the SAM-Mexico 2013 makes visible. Table 16 indicates that 54% of remuneration payments and 39% of EBO correspond to high-income households, with 3.7% of remunerations going to low-income households. This shows that an economic policy strategy focused solely on economic growth will result in greater income concentration, accompanied by the inevitable effects on poverty growth (Expósito et al., 2017).

Of the added value distributed between companies, 27% (corresponding to EBO), goes to private non-financial corporations with national or foreign control, while only 3.4% goes to financial corporations, and 6.8% to public non-financial corporations; findings indicate that private non-financial corporations lead the concentration of EBO (19% of total value-added). Capital replacement (depreciation) accounts for 23% of total value-added.

The total income of the institutional sectors is made up of payments for productive factors and inter-institutional transfers. When institutional sector income is disaggregated, it can be seen that low-income households receive 17% of their income from government transfers and 7% from transfers from the rest of the world (remittances) (see Table 17). Income generated by financial corporations has a high ratio with the government (11% of their income). Additionally, the rest of the world is closely related to non-financial corporations, which means that about 9% of their income corresponds to the payment of profits or transfers made by domestic financial corporations in the hands of non-residents.

Analyzing the way in which the institutional sectors spend their resources is essential for understanding the flow of money in the economy, and also allows for the formulation of government transfer strategies with a greater effect on the development of the domestic market. Table 18 presents spending by institutional sectors; households spend 4.7% of their income on the rest of the world, mainly on imports of consumer goods, with high-income households spending the largest amount of resources on the rest of the world (16%), a figure that is even higher than the proportion spent on government (14%). Low-income households allocate a greater proportion of their income to consumption, so their spending has a greater effect on the development of the domestic market. Private non-financial corporations allocate 10% of their income to transfers from abroad; the data suggest a structural flight of capital in the Mexican economy. Government spending is concentrated in consumption (33%) and transfers to households (22%). Finally, the rest of the world concentrates 92% of its income in consumption (exports from the national economy), 6% in transfers to households, and only 2% in transfers to companies, a figure that contrasts with the income it obtains from corporations.

Finally, Table 19 analyzes the composition of investment (FBKF) in the economy. It can be seen that 66% of investment is concentrated in the secondary sector; however, 54% is directed to construction. As can be seen in the SAM, investment in Mexico is mainly in buildings and not in machinery; 7.5% of investment spending in the services sector is concentrated in the I-Shopping, food, beverages, ice, and tobacco sector, and only 0.2% goes to the K-Telecommunications sector. Seventy times more is spent on FBKF for final primary consumer goods stores than on Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).

Regarding imports of investment assets, the Mexican economy is supplied with capital goods mainly from abroad; the percentage of imports related to electrical, electronic, and transportation goods is equivalent to the total expenditure per FBKF of the secondary sector (with the exception of construction spending). The data presented in Table 19 indicates that for every 100 pesos allocated to investment in Mexico in 2013, 54 were spent on construction activities, 15 on importing capital goods, and only 11 on domestic machinery and equipment.

The accounting analysis derived from the elaboration of the SAM-Mexico 2013 allows us to delve deeper into the intra- and inter-institutional relations of a systemic economy, finding a productive structure that is highly linked to the exterior and in which severe income distribution problems persist. The information provided by the SAM suggests that government transfers to households represent an increase in imports of intermediate goods, which is a crucial to the study of effective demand and economic growth.

In terms of economic development, the accounting analysis of the SAM-Mexico 2013 shows that low-income households are highly dependent on government transfers and resources from outside the economy (remittances); therefore, this category of households must increase their income obtained from the productive sphere, either through higher wages or through EBO, if possible. One proposal that could be derived from this analysis is to consolidate cooperatives that distribute the EBO generated among workers.

As a result of the accounting analysis, this article will allow for future economic development studies that consider the use of the SAM-Mexico 2013 and deepen the inter-institutional analysis through accounting multipliers and/or computable general equilibrium models.

Banegas, R. and Blancas, A. (2019). The foreign saving moderating effect on public spending in Mexico. Revista Nicolaita de Estudios Económicos, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.33110/rnee.v14i1.285

Blancas, A. (2006). Interinstitutional linkage analysis: a social accounting matrix multiplier approach for the Mexican economy. Economic Systems Research, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/09535310500440548

_____ (2010). La fragilidad financiera en México. UNAM.

_____ (2015). Fuga de capitales en México: análisis y propuesta de medición. Problemas del Desarrollo. Revista Latinoamericana de Economía, 46(181). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpd.2015.01.001

Blancas, A. and Aliphat, R. (2020). Empleo decente digno y salario justo en el crecimiento de la productividad laboral en México. In A. Sánchez, I. Nava and N. Cruz (coords.), Bienestar y políticas públicas (pp. 281-310). UNAM- IIEc.

Breisinger, C., Thomas, M. and Thurlow, J. (2009). Social accounting matrices and multiplier analysis: An introduction with exercises, vol. 5. IFPRI.

Bustos, A. and Leyva, G. (2017). Towards a more realistic estimate of the income distribution in Mexico. Latin American Policy, 8(1). https://doi. org/10.1111/lamp.12114

Cardona, G., Cardenete, M. and Martínez, C. (2018). Estructura económica mexicana: sectores claves, estratégicos, impulsores e independientes 2012. Revista de Economía, 35(90). https://doi.org/10.33937/reveco.2018.90

Casares, E., García, M. and Sobarzo, H. (2017). Las matrices de contabilidad social como base de datos y soporte de modelos multisectoriales. Econo- Quantum, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.18381/eq.v14i1.6544

Chapa, C., Mosqueda, M. and Rangel, E. (2019). Matrices de contabilidad social para las regiones de México (documentos de trabajo 2019-20). Banco de México. https://www.banxico.org.mx/viewers2/JSP/docsInvestigacio- nAnio_es.jsp?static=y

Cortés, F. (2018). Desigualdad en el ingreso en México, 1963 a 2014. In A. Puyana and M. Puchet (coords.), América Latina en la larga historia de la desigualdad. Una revisión de causas, efectos y políticas (pp.119-146). FLACSO.

Expósito, A., Fernández, J. and Velasco, F. (2017). Crecimiento económico, pobreza y desigualdad: un análisis de e ciencia para América Latina en el siglo XXI. Revista de Economía Mundial, 47(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.33776/ rem.v0i47.3869

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI) (2013a). Sistema de Clasificación Industrial de América del Norte, México (SCIAN 2013). INEGI. http://www.inegi.org.mx

______ (2013b). Sistema de cuentas institucionales 2013. INEGI. http://www. inegi.org.mx

______ (2014). Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 2014 (ENIGH) [website]. Mexico, INEGI. http://www.inegi.org.mx

______ (2018a). Matriz Insumo-Producto 2013. INEGI. http://www.inegi.org. mx

______ (2018b). Sistema de Cuentas Nacionales de México: fuentes y metodologías: año base 2013. INEGI. http://www.inegi.org.mx

______ (2018c). Sistema de Cuentas Nacionales de México 2013. INEGI. http://www.inegi.org.mx

Leontief, W. (1941). The structure of American economy, 1919-1939. Oxford. Leyva, G. (2004). El ajuste del ingreso de la ENIGH con la contabilidad nacional y la medición de la pobreza en México. (Serie documentos de investigación 19). SEDESOL. https://portalsocial.guanajuato.gob.mx/sites/ default/files/documentos/2004_SEDESOL_El%20ajuste%20del%20 ingreso%20de%20la%20Enigh.PDF

List, F. (1997). Sistema nacional de economía política: con el anexo esbozos de economía política americana. FCE. (Original publication in 1841).

Nava, I. and Brown, F. (2018). Determinantes del ahorro de los hogares en Mexico: un análisis de regresión cuantílica. Economía: teoría y práctica, 49. https://doi.org/10.24275/ETYPUAM/NE/492018/Nava

Núñez, G. and Romero, J. (2020). Nacionalismo y desarrollo: una alternativa para México. Revista CEPAL. 131(1). https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/45961-nacionalismo-desarrollo-alternativa-mexico

Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) (1993). Sistema de Cuentas Nacionales 1993. ONU.

______ (2016). Sistema de Cuentas Nacionales 2008. ONU.

Organización Internacional del Trabajo (OIT) (2019). Manual de uso de modelos de equilibrio general computable compactos, (Strengthen working paper), OIT. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/documents/publication/wcms_741481.pdf

Puyana, A. (2020). Del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte al Acuerdo México-Estados Unidos-Canadá. ¿Nuevo capítulo de la integración México-Estados Unidos? El Trimestre Económico, 87(347). https:// doi.org/10.20430/ete.v87i347.1086

Quesnay, F. (1894). Tableau économique. MacMillan&Company. (Original publication in 1758).

Robinson, S., Cattaneo, A. and El-Said, M. (2001). Updating and estimating a social accounting matrix using cross entropy methods. Economic Systems Research, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/09535310120026247

Romero, J. (2020). La herencia del experimento neoliberal. El Trimestre Económico, 87(345). https://doi.org/10.20430/ete.v87i345.1029

Romero, J. and Aliphat, R. (2019). Import demand for intermediate goods in Mexico: 1993-2018. Atlantic Review of Economics, 3(3). http://www.aroec. org/ojs/index.php/ARoEc/article/view/93

Stone, R. (1956). Input-output and the social accounts. University of Cambridge.

Vázquez, R. (2020). Efectos de las reformas del Consenso de Washington sobre la estructura industrial: los casos de México e India. América Latina en la Historia Económica, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.18232/alhe.1069

Villatoro, P. (2015). Ajuste de los ingresos de las encuestas a las Cuentas Nacionales: una revisión de la literatura. (Serie estudios estadísticos 91). CEPAL. https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/37957