The 'error' of the 2010 census: La Matanza would have received $85,000 million more for the co-participation

According to a calculation by the Fiel economist, Isidro Guardarucci, La Matanza would have added

As the estimate considers the accumulated inflation throughout that period of high and growing rates, the $85 billion are expressed in what economists call constant values ​​and therefore comparable between one year and another.

In the last hours, in the social networks of economists, political scientists and statisticians, there was talk of

due to the economic and political consequences that this statistical entanglement would entail.

According to the data from that registry, the population of

This last figure, which turned out to be '

', distorted calculations and proportions that are inputs for making public policies.

An example of this is that the distribution mechanism of the co-participation of the province of Buenos Aires uses the size of the population of each municipality (it has an incidence of 35% according to the coefficient), which is subject to the logic of the simple rule of three that

.

Therefore La Matanza was benefited from 2010 according to this mechanism and on the basis of which Guardarucci elaborated his calculation.

But the 2022 census, which was released on Tuesday, showed that the population of La Matanza is less than expected -that is, the projected 2,374,149-.

Federico Tiberti, an Argentine political scientist who lives and studies in the US, and who had warned about the 2010 Census data for La Matanza, noted in a tweet that “Going by the last 3 censuses, the population of La Matanza would have grown at 3.9% per year between 2001 and 2010, to then grow only 0.2% per year between 2010 and 2022. If we skip 2010, it

.

In the province of Buenos Aires, Law 10,559 establishes a distribution mechanism made up of coefficients that respond to different variables that are updated over time.

The percentage received by each municipality is determined as follows: 35.9% by population;

13.34% proportionally to the inverse of the contributive capacity per capita weighted by the population;

8.7% in direct proportion to the area of ​​the municipality;

12.95% in relation to the available beds, level of complexity and level of occupancy;

9.25% in relation to the number of registered medical consultations with or without hospitalization;

3.7% in relation to the number of discharges of patients registered in establishments with hospitalization;

7.4% in relation to the number of patients per day in establishments with hospitalization;

3,

7% in relation to the number of hospital establishments without hospitalization;

5% is distributed among the municipalities that cover transferred services and functions.

All this formula suggests that the incentives of the municipalities are not only in favor of having a larger population but also, as Guardarucci maintains, ”the variables used do not focus on prevention, but instead reward care and cure policies.

The existence of 'sanitary poles' in the Conurbano and an extensive anecdote of municipalities maximizing medical consultations, are expected consequences of a co-participation law that provides incorrect incentives”.

The overestimation of the population of La Matanza was detected in 2022 by Tiberti himself and by the systems engineer Mauro Infantino.

Separately, both crossed rarities that they and other specialists were finding as a consequence of the overrepresented population of Matanzas.

In this way, the vaccination rate during the pandemic was lower in La Matanza than other territories, as was its school enrollment or mortality from Covid.

Last August Tiberti wrote an article titled "Is the population of La Matanza overrepresented?"

“It is taking shape,” Infantino said yesterday, after the 2022 Census came out.

The economist and expert in geographic data, Juan Ignacio Fulponi, pointed out yesterday that

.

"Although I would also make an alert for

which present no minor differences, although without a doubt the one that moves the balance is La Matanza."

The late Jorge Todesca, as director of the institute in 2016,

.

“A census is a basic instrument for generating public policies and accurately distributing budgets and works for its purpose.

If the censuses do not represent reality, public policies will not be adjusted and the benefits will not reach the population”, explains Fulponi.

For this, therefore, it is key, at least, to measure the population well.

Rejection of Together for Change

"Kirchnerism transformed the Census into a tool for its own benefit"

, started by saying a text from JxC signed yesterday by mayors, deputies and national senators, provincial senators and provincial leaders.

“We express our absolute rejection of this Kirchnerist maneuver with which they only seek to deepen their populism and provide charges to their militants.

.

For JxC "the scam amounts to 34,000 million pesos of funds illegitimately received by La Matanza between 2011 and 2022."

Consulted the Fiel economist, Isidro Guardarucci, who estimates a higher figure ($85,000 million between 2012 and 2023, see more separately), he replied that the calculation in the leaders' statement "is at 2022 values. Each peso of 2022, in 2023 they are double.

So the same thing, if you want to put it in terms of the 2023 budget, it is double.

Every day that passes, the claim needs to be updated and then, in addition to the problem of the bad measurement of the census, there is also the problem of the currency in this case”.