Seven of 32 dependencies advance in change of headquarters


Almost three years have passed since the physical relocation of 32 federal agencies and entities to the states was announced, to boost local economies, and so far only the National Fisheries Commission and Aquaculture (Conapesca) has achieved this goal; Six other agencies have done so partially.

The head of the Federal Ministry of Health (IN), Jorge Alcocer Varela said that since last October 3, about 100 workers from that agency moved to their new headquarters, in Acapulco, Guerrero, –between heads and personnel of the department, of the Undersecretariat of Prevention and Health Promotion, of the Unit of Economic Analysis, of the Unit of Administration and Finance and the Insabi-, while the relocation of the personnel of the other areas will be on a voluntary and progressive basis. He added that by January next year another 200 workers from SSA and Cofepris will be added, plus 120 from Insabi, to add 1,200 transferred workers at the end of the first half of 2022.

Other dependencies with advances in relocation are Later, a Villahermosa; Secretary of Culture, to Tlaxcala, as well as offices of Livestock, to Guadalajara; Mining, to Chihuahua, and from the With water, a Xalapa, as responded by the Presidency of the Republic in a request for information dated in August. Conapesca has already relocated to Mazatlán, Sinaloa.

According to the plan, Tourism would leave Chetumal, Quintana Roo; Environment to Mérida, Yucatán; PEMEX to Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche; CFE to Tuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas; Welfare to Oaxaca, Oaxaca; SEP to Puebla, Puebla; Banobras to Cuernavaca, Morelos, and INFONAVIT to Toluca, State of Mexico.

In addition, the IMSS to Morelia, Michoacán; ISSSTE to Colima, Colima; CONADE to Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes; Public Function to Querétaro, Querétaro; Secretary of Labor to León, Guanajuato; Agrarian Development in Pachuca, Hidalgo; Communications and Transportation to San Luis Potosí, SLP; Economy to Monterrey, Nuevo León; Nacional Financiera to Torreón, Coahuila; The Forestry Commission to Durango, Durango.

And Customs to Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas; Fonatur to Bahía de Banderas, Nayarit; the Secretary of Agriculture to Ciudad Obregón, Sonora; the Conacyt to La Paz, Baja California Sur; the SAT to Mexicali, Baja California, the Ministry of the Environment to Mérida, Yucatán, and Migration to Tijuana, Baja California. Of these, no changes have been reported.

No feasibility studies

For Fernando Nieto Morales, a researcher at El Colegio de México, the plan seems more symbolic or discursive rather than a measure anchored in evidence and in a prospective it would be to what extent this can benefit the communities.

He warned that until there are now no serious financial and organizational feasibility studies that reveal the benefits and costs of an effort of this magnitude.

“What is known is that it is a very expensive operation, the examples that we have had, have been very expensive (…) projects of many years and that cost a lot of money,” he said.

Nieto Morales also questioned the benefits since, he said, a policy is justified in cost-benefit terms to the extent that there are clear benefits.

“The risk that this will be much more expensive than planned is also there, in the absence of serious planning.”

Topics

Read also

Leave a Comment