Introduction
Mexico City has experienced a decline in fiscal transparency over the past year, dropping seven spots to rank 27th out of 32 entities in the 2025 Index of Transparency and Availability of Fiscal Information (ITDIF) compiled by ARegional. The capital city now falls under the red light category, with a deficient rating in transparency, indicating significant and systematic non-compliance with its obligations.
Background on the ITDIF and Mexico City’s Performance
The ITDIF evaluates state governments’ fiscal transparency across six areas: regulatory framework, programmatic-budgetary framework, operational costs, accountability, results evaluation, and fiscal statistics. Mexico City has failed to meet standards in five of these six areas, receiving a score of 48 out of 100 possible points.
Key Areas of Concern
- Public Debt: Mexico City does not fully disclose quarterly information or historical statistics on public debt for the past six years, placing it among 22 state governments that fell short in this aspect.
- Social Programs Beneficiaries: The capital fails to transparently report the beneficiary list of social programs, making it impossible to track the allocation of social assistance funds. Only six out of 32 entities have achieved transparency in this area.
- Lack of Purchase Records: Amidst large-scale projects for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, Mexico City omits publishing its Annual Acquisition Program, crucial for planning and overseeing governmental purchases. Additionally, there is no information on federalized spending from the R33 Contribution Fund.
- Inaccessible Supplier Database: The city lacks a publicly accessible supplier database, as its consultation system does not allow data download, restricting its utility for public scrutiny according to ARegional experts.
Root Causes of the Decline
Cutberto Anduaga, Director of ARegional, dismissed technical limitations or government transitions as reasons for the decline. He emphasized that “the root cause is the lack of political will.” Although Clara Brugada’s administration began late 2024, Jalisco, like Mexico City, is among the two states classified as transparent.
While acknowledging occasional technical errors, Anduaga stressed that “it is the government’s responsibility to ensure their information is up-to-date. The fact that the governor’s photo uploads perfectly while fiscal data remains outdated shows that the issue is not technical but one of prioritization.”
The causes are structural and deliberate, resulting from an ambiguous legal framework, insufficient political will, and institutional impunity. This combination created the ideal conditions for the most significant fiscal transparency decline in two decades.
National Trends and Political Influence
Transparency has decreased nationwide, with all six evaluated areas showing a decline in compliance percentages. There is no discernible political pattern of non-compliance given the current national political landscape, where Morena and its allies govern in 26 federal entities. The likelihood of non-compliance is higher under such a political dominance.
Although opacity affects all political factions, the current dominance of one color in the state governments map makes that group more frequently appear on the list of entities with insufficient transparency, according to Anduaga.
Key Questions and Answers
- What is the ITDIF? The Index of Transparency and Availability of Fiscal Information (ITDIF) is a tool developed by ARegional to assess the transparency of state governments’ fiscal information across six key areas.
- Why did Mexico City’s transparency decline? The primary reason is the lack of political will, combined with an ambiguous legal framework and institutional impunity.
- What are the main concerns regarding Mexico City’s fiscal transparency? Key issues include incomplete public debt reporting, lack of social program beneficiary transparency, absence of purchase records publication, and an inaccessible supplier database.
- Are there national trends in fiscal transparency? Yes, transparency has decreased nationwide, with no clear political pattern of non-compliance due to the current national political landscape.
