Economic Associations

The economic impact of large heritage sites on local communities has been explored ethnographically at other Mexican sites (Castañeda 1996). While the economic and socio-political circumstances of this study at Chichén Itzá are different, it must be highlighted that the impact that Chichén Itzá has on the local and national economy, with an estimated 1.4 million visitors every year, can in rough terms be amplified for a consideration of Teotihuacan – the most visited Mexican heritage site with nearly 4 million visitors a year. Such an analysis, focused strictly upon the economic impact of Teotihuacan, is itself deserving of exhaustive research. But the consideration of economics in this study forms but one of a multitude of important associations that are formed through Teotihuacan. And in terms of an economic association, the present discussion only adumbrates why it is of critical importance for local residents and Mexicans, and how, anecdotally, such an association affects individual livelihoods.

Figure 7.43: Local San Juan market (above) and Teotihuacan Walmart aisles (below)

As has already been noted, Teotihuacan plays an important part of the local economy of the Teotihuacan valley. Constructing the Walmart (discussed above in ‘heritage association’) mobilized opponents who felt, in specific regard to economics, that the superstore would irrevocable alter local economic traditions by supplanting the allure of cheap, globally produced goods for patronage of local markets (Figure 7.43). In fact, it must be noted that the vociferous leaders of the Civic Front are all proprietors of local businesses. So their opposition to the superstore may not be attributable to an altruistic concern for heritage.

Yet while these economic changes are important to the valley of Teotihuacan, the economic impact of Walmart upon the archaeological zone is negligible. This is because livelihoods dependent upon the zone are not directly impacted by the superstore. Instead, a look at the number of people who directly receive income through working at the site and the type of this employment does not overlap with the affected local markets (Figure 7.44). Tourism directly benefits only those who run business adjacent to the zone, and indirectly the employees of the zone through the necessity of managing the most touristed archaeological site in Mexico. Therefore, the local economic importance of the zone is primarily in terms of employment at the site and ‘unofficial’ remuneration received through operating restaurant stalls and selling crafts to visitors to the zone. As such, employment will be emphasized in the following study. But this statement as to why tourism to Teotihuacan has little impact – aside from employment at the zone - on the local pueblos (with the corollary that Walmart has had little economic impact upon Teotihaucan) requires some explanation.

The creation of jobs and tourist spending are the two primary facets of the local economic impact of the zone. But the local economic benefits of tourism to Teotihuacan are restricted to the archaeological zone and the immediately surrounding businesses and entrepreneurs. It is does not, for the most part, include the surrounding towns. Where tourism does benefit establishments in the local towns, it is restricted to the few (four) hotels in San Juan de Teotihuacan already mentioned. This is due to the particular location of the archaeological zone; specifically, its proximity to Mexico City, 45 km to the southwest. It is an hour-long bus ride from Mexico City’s terminal norte, which drops off and picks up passengers at gate 1 of the archaeological zone, bypassing the surrounding towns. Or if visitors drive to one of the parking lots at the gates, highway 132 likewise takes motorists directly to the perimeter road (circuito empedrado) that encircles the zone and accesses the five entrance gates. Most tourists, therefore, come for a single day. Those who don’t stay, primarily, at either the Club Med (Villas Arqueológicas) adjacent to the zone, or at the Quinto Sol, on the edge of San Juan de Teotihuacan (both also constructed within INAH’s protected perimeter and accompanied by controversy). As a Club Med employee states, “business is quite seasonal here. It is slow in the spring and fall. But summer is a good time when a lot of families (Mexican) come and enjoy the weekend, and the foreign archaeologists come and stay longer. . . the majority of guests, I think, are Mexican families, foreign archaeologists, or those who come with organized groups – women’s groups or groups who come with Miguel Ruiz (an internationally popular ‘Toltec Shaman’ and author who writes about Teotihuacan and organizes large group trips to the site for spiritual learning) or some other religious leader [sacerdote o líder espiritual]” (Club Med manager). So visitation to the archaeological zone, due to transportation infrastructure, is largely insulated from the surrounding towns. Exceptions would be to purchase petrol in San Juan by those driving, but even these few stations are located at the interchange of highway 132 and the archaeological zone, on the periphery of San Juan (along la calle Cruz de la Misión).

A focus restricted to employment for local economic impact also receives support in terms of the estimated percentage of individuals living in the valley who receive income through working in various capacities at the site. A conservative figure of places this at 6% (Delgado 2005). But, as this study suggests, the figure be much higher due to the ambiguity surrounding how to delimit employment benefit from the zone (discussed in ‘Teotihuacan as gathering’). In terms of previous research (Delgado 2005), pre-questionnaire interviews and the row over the construction of Walmart, I wanted to explore to what degree Teotihuacan was associated with economics on both a local and national scale. However, I did not beforehand distinguish between these two levels of economic influence in my analysis. What emerged in the analysis, however, was a definite distinction, on the part of respondents, to attitudes about the importance Teotihuacan on a local versus national scale. As might be expected, this distinction between ‘local’ and ‘national’ considerations overlaid the background makeup of all individuals; those whose who are employed in some capacity at the zone (‘workers’); and those (‘students’ and ‘visitors’) who do not. In terms of economic associations, this is a critically important determining factor. Such a distinction came about in the analysis of all responses to questions dealing with economics.

To get at the economic associations with Teotihuacan I devised a series of questions for the purpose of constructing a scale score as had been done with the other explanatory concepts (see Chapter 6 ‘explanatory concepts’). These questions targeted assessments of the site in terms local impact and national importance. An initial scale score was developed which did not differentiate between local and national associations. However, the reliability statistics for the total scale fell below the accepted measures (i.e. <0.6 for Cronbach’s alpha and <0.3 for unidimensionality; cf. De Vaus 2002:184). The subsequent factor analysis (Table A2.35) revealed that the questions loaded onto two distinct factors: one involving questions pertaining to nationally oriented questions; the other pertaining to questions of local employment. As a result, I divided the scale score into two. A general economic scale score and a personal scale score. That is, a scale measuring more ‘abstract’ attitudes to the significance of the zone for Mexico’s economy, and a scale to get at the rates and nature of employment on a concrete, ‘personal’ level. Subsequent scale reliability analyses (Tables A2.5-A2.6) resulted in much better values (i.e. values of >0.6 for Cronbach’s alpha, and >0.3 for unidimensionality; see Chapter 6, ‘unidimensionality and reliability’). The questions included on the personal economic scale score were as follows.

• ‘Member of respondent's family works at Teotihuacan’
• ‘Respondent works at Teotihuacan’
• ‘Reason for Visit-for work’

The scores were standardized to holds values between one and ten for comparative purposes (see Chapter 6 ‘factor analysis’ for standardization procedure). The resultant frequency distribution (Figure 7.44) had a mean of 3.40. The high standard deviation and the negative skewness indicate the distribution deviates somewhat from normal and the frequencies tend toward the higher end of the scale score. However, the Chi square analysis (Table A2.28) grants support that the frequency distribution was not due to sampling error.

Figure 7.44: Frequency distribution: personal economic scale score for workers

However, this scale, comprised of the responses by individuals who identified themselves as ‘workers’, does not indicate the ‘strength’ of the association. It only indicates, in another graphical medium, the same results of Figure 7.3, or the percentages of individuals who either receive employment through the zone or who have family members who do so. This is explained by the targeting of the questions towards those who work or have family who receive income from the site. Obviously, those who had no personal connection to the site as an income generator comprise the large frequencies at the low end of the scale in the overall frequency distribution in Figure A2.26. The scale does not, then, adequately account for their assessments of the local economic impact of the zone, except to indicate percentages of people for whom the site is obviously important on a personal (and familial) economic basis.

Thus, in itself, the distribution cannot be compared to other associations. Yet, combined with Figure 7.3, for those who do have a personal economic association with Teotihuacan, or 43.9% of all respondents or 207 individuals, we can get a sense of what factors contribute to this employment at Teotihuacan. Figure 7.45 shows the diversity of occupations, official or otherwise, which respondents reported as having. The ambiguity surrounding what constitutes ‘employment at Teotihuacan’ has already been discussed at length (‘Teotihuacan as gathering’). And, as noted, I should have developed more discriminating questions in order to determine ‘official’ (i.e. through INAH) and ‘unofficial’ occupations, as well as ‘primary’ or ‘full-time’ and ‘supplemental’ or ‘part-time’ employment. This, no doubt, is the principal reason why economic affiliation rates (43.9%) are so high for the sample. Putting a ‘face’ on these occupations does, though, grant a sense of the loose and widespread affiliation with the zone as a source of local income (Figures 7.46-7.51).

Figure 7.45: Pie chart: occupations at Teotihuacan by percentage

Figure 7.46: Wandering crafts vendor (vendedor ambulante)

“I can get a better price from tourists, and it is easier to sell to tourists here (on the site). . . so I come when I know it is busy, especially weekends. But I don’t make very much. Selling embroidered cloth [tela] is not enough to make a living [recursos suficientes para vivir]” (vendedor).

Figure 7.47: Security guard (completing questionnaire)

“It is a good job and it is stable [seguro]”. I am from the valley, and I had a cousin who worked as a guard, so I always knew that I could find employment [un puesto] here (at the site)” (security guard).

Figure 7.48: ‘Off-site’ obsidian workshop (taller de obsidiana) in San Sebastian, suppliers of obsidian objects to sell for vendedores and local crafts shops

“Most of what we make we sell to the craft shops [tiendas de artesanías] or to vendedores we know. . . We have been working here a long time, and it is an OK living” (obsidian worker at workshop near gate 5).

Figure 7.49: Maintenance at Teotihuacan: a janitor and the upkeep of 22 hectares of the zone

“I am Otomi (local indigenous group) and I don’t speak much Spanish. . . but I don’t have to, I keep the site clean. I enjoy what I do. I think it is important to have people who keep the place clean [gente quien mantiene la limpieza del lugar]” (janitor).

Figure 7.50: Restoration workers (seasonal) in the Ciudadela, part of the Temple of the Feathered Serpent restoration project

“I was in the United States, but immigration [la migra] made me leave. So I came back home to find work for a little while until I make money to hire a coyote (transporter of illegal aliens across the border) to go back. . . I heard from friends that INAH was hiring laborers [trabajadores] for a few months, maybe more. So I will work here until I earn enough to go back” (seasonal restoration worker).

Figure 7.51: Archaeologists and seasonal excavation laborers in the Ciudadela, part of the Temple of the Feathered Serpent restoration project

“There are only three permanent INAH archaeologists who work at the zone, and one of these works in the Center for Teotihuacan Studies [el Centro de Estudios Teotihuacanos], the future of which is uncertain [el futuro del que es incierto]. The remainder [lo demas] who work for INAH are seasonal [no permanentes] employees. For my projects, this is usually about six archaeologists and one physical anthropologist. But this is only from approximately June to October during the field season. So the total number depends upon how many projects are operating. Usually, only one or two in a field season, so perhaps 12-15 seasonal employees. Though with Saburo’s project (Pyramid of the Moon project co-directed by Saburo Sugiyama) there are three right (projects) now. There are also several seasonal employees who work in the ceramics lab [la ceramoteca]. For such a large and important archaeological zone, there are not many permanent researchers” (INAH archaeologist).

While a comparison of the strength of the personal economic association cannot be made with respect to the other associations, the sheer number (122) who actively work in some capacity through the zone, combined with the qualitative information pertaining to how even on a part-time basis or in an unofficial capacity the site forms a nexus of economic relations, overall conveys the importance of Teotihuacan on a ‘local level’. To get a sense of what factors contribute to receiving income from the archaeological zone, correlations were run. The variables that demonstrate significant linear relationships with the personal economic scale score, or working at the site, are listed in Table A2.37. To develop any intimation of causality, these significant relationships must be sorted out based upon their conceptual links. Where a respondent was born or lives held moderate to moderately significant inverse relationships to the personal economic scale score (correlations of -0.328 and -0.197 respectively). That is, the closer a respondent was born or currently lives in relation to Teotihuacan, the greater their personal economic association with the site. A pie chart (Figure 7.52) visually renders this role of proximity to employment. These variables function independently of the other significant variables in influencing the scale score. A respondent’s age, income level, education level and gender also exhibited statistically significant relationships to the scale score.

Figure 7.52: Where ‘workers’ reside (pueblos in the Valley of Teotihuacan are named)

Running partial correlations of the scale score by these variable while controlling for various sets of variables delineated the potential causal links (Table A2.29). Age and education level did not vary when controlling for other variables, and operate not as causal factors but as mirror, or ‘spurious’, relationships. That is, those who work or have family at the site (the basis for the scale score) tend to be older and less educated. The other variables, however, inter-varied and their causal relationships to the personal economic scale score are show below in Figure 7.53.

Figure 7.53: Indirect causal relationship: gender with personal economic scale score controlling for income; independent causal relationship of residency to personal economic scale score

More men either work at the site or have family members who do, which affects a slightly higher average income (intervening variable). These two factors combine to influence employment at Teotihuacan. And as has been argued, the importance of the archaeological zone for local economic considerations is primarily in terms of employment opportunities.

Beyond the local impact, Teotihuacan receives approximately four million visitors a year (Chong 2005). INAH charges $3.80 (as of April 2005) pesos per person for admittance. With the national average monthly income approximately $3,000 pesos/month (INEGI 2007), this is not an insubstantial amount of the average Mexican’s income. While Mexican nationals receive free admission on Sundays (the busiest day at the site), a conservative calculation would place revenue for tourism at several million pesos every year. Much to the chagrin of local residents, this revenue is apportioned in full for Teotihuacan, but is apportioned by INAH at the national level to all of its archaeological sites. The chief financial officer for Teotihuacan stated that, for 2004, “INAH allocated 5,366,863 pesos for the operation, security, maintenance and research at the zone.” But being the most visited site in Mexico, as already stated, many contend that the zone ought to receive at least a commensurable proportion of the amount of its entrance sales, if not more, considering the arguably greater amount of maintenance which is necessary for tourist access as well as research which is conducted at the site in comparison to other archaeological site in Mexico. So despite being the most visited archaeological zone, both Palenque and Tulum (Mayan site in the Yucatán) receive greater yearly distributions. This is a contentious issue, but as the former director of INAH described, “I don’t believe that there exists inequality, Teotihuacan is the most important and most visited zone in the country. The truth is that despite all of the research [ni con todos los estudios] that has taken place during almost 100 years are we able to know the half [mitad] of the human richness [riqueza humana] of the zone. . . in general, the budget [presupuesto] is not sufficient for the demand that we have. The state of Mexico possesses a great historical richness, with a registry [regístros (the national registry of historical places)] that exceeds two million examples [piezas]. Of course, if we’re talking of this volume, what is assigned is little”.

In contrast to the personal economic scale score, the resulting frequency distribution was much more normal and skewed negatively towards the higher values of the scale (Table 7.54). With a standard deviation (s) of 1.67, these values clustered around the mean of 7.93, with the majority falling between 6.67 and 10.0. A Chi square test (Table A2.36) lends credence to the frequency distribution as not due to random sampling error.

Figure 7.54: Frequency distribution: general economic scale score

Except for the heritage scale scores, this generalized economic association with Teotihuacan held, on average, the greatest strength. Breaking the frequencies down by subgroup did not reveal any major deviations from this overall distributional pattern. ‘Students’ and ‘visitors’ similarly exhibited a high general economic scale score, with means of 7.96 and 7.84 respectively. Only ‘workers’ showed a minor variation (Figure 7.55) with a slightly higher mean of 8.24. In light of their personal investment in the economics of the zone, it is not surprising that they, overall, associated Teotihuacan even more strongly with a more general economic significance.

Figure 7.55: Frequency distribution: general economic scale score for 'workers'

Looking to which variables accounted for this strong association, however, no non-linear relationships were detected and only three held weak linear relationships (Table A2.41). Respondents’ residency in the valley (correlation of -0.128), as well respondents’ ages (older respondents, correlation of 0.113), were both related to a slightly higher scale score. Additionally, in keeping with their slightly higher scale score, a weak relationship was detected between whether a respondent works at the zone and an overall, increase in the scale score (Eta correlation of .186, Table A2.40).

Moreover, running correlations by subgroup likewise did not reveal any stronger relationships. Indeed, ‘students’ exhibit no appreciable co-variation between background factors and their scale score. The correlations for the remainder are listed below.

• ‘Workers’: age (0.295); education (-0.281)
• ‘Visitors’: where respondent lives (-0.184)

As with other associations, workers tended to be older and less educated and these factors linearly co-varied with the general economic scale score. Those ‘workers’ who are older and less educated tended to have think that Teotihuacan was more important as an economic generator on local and national levels. But as these characteristics for ‘workers’ are nearly universal, it does not provide any insight into why they may have more strongly associated the zone with economic issues. Except to suppose that they lacked familiarity with the intricacies of the zone’s budgetary issues. ‘Visitors’ who tended to live closer to the zone showed a increase in their estimation of Teotihuacan’s importance, but his is only a weak to moderate relationship. Again, similar to workers, those visitors who live near Teotihuacan, are likely to have greater exposure to its role as an income generator from personal experience. But little more can be specified.

These weak inter-relationships are displayed graphically in Figure 7.56. However, running partial correlations to determine the causal relationship lowered the correlations below a significant level, indicating that the influence of the variables on the scale score is more likely to be spurious rather than direct or indirect. As a double check on these results, a linear regression analysis (Table A2.32) for all potential significant variables and the general economic scale score (dependent variable) was performed and likewise suggests, with universally low Beta statistics for the variables, that similar to the heritage scale analysis, no discreet variables tapped by the survey account for significant change in the scale score.

Figure 7.56: Spurious relationships of co-variation between general economic scale score, works at Teotihuacan, where respondent lives and age

Overall, the lack of background or motivational factors exhibiting co-variation with the economic scale score is disappointing. The conclusion is twofold. The survey may not have adequately identified other possible variables which could account more reliably for a general economic association at Teotihuacan. Yet, with an across the board strong association of general economics to the archaeological zone (mean of 7.9 with a skewness towards the higher values), it appears that similarly to the heritage association, Teotihuacan is indelibly associated with economic considerations at the national scale. With archaeo-tourism a long-standing and increasingly important revenue for the Mexican economy (particularly with INAH’s new ‘cultural tourism’ program), I would tentatively conclude that the economic scale did not load onto any discreet variables of the survey because it is a more homogenous association in general with sites of the Mexican archaeological imaginary.

Forward to Spiritual Associations

Containments

Return to Diversion Associations