E-Government and Big Data in Mexico: Information-Collection Methods in State Governments and Their Variability Across States

Authors

Keywords:

interoperability, open data, digital maturity, public policy, comparative analysis.

Abstract

This article compares the ability of Mexican state governments to collect, manage, and exploit public information as evidence for decision-making. Grounded in the theories of data-driven government and institutional agility, the research adopts a comparative documentary design that combines micro-data from the National Census of State Governments (2020-2024), fifty-four legal and strategic documents, and OECD digital-government standards. These inputs were synthesized into a State Digital Maturity Index (IMDE) that weights administrative digitalization, legal–technical interoperability, per-capita ICT investment, and household connectivity.

Findings reveal three performance clusters: high maturity (IMDE > 0.70)—Mexico City, Jalisco, Nuevo León, Querétaro; medium maturity (0.40-0.69)—ten states; and low maturity (IMDE < 0.40)—Chiapas, Guerrero, Oaxaca. Multiple regression indicates that state GDP per capita and open-data decrees explain 67 % of IMDE variance, while the age of innovation units raises the adjusted R² to 0.75. Exemplary initiatives—Radar Jalisco, SIG-Mexico City, and SIIG-Nuevo León—demonstrate how predictive analytics and interoperable portals enhance administrative efficiency and citizen engagement.

The study concludes that formalizing a Chief Data Officer position at the state level—supported by mandatory interoperability standards and progressive federal funding—could narrow regional gaps and bolster public trust in ethical data use.

Author Biography

Pedro Alfonso Pacheco Garcia, Universidad de la Sierra Sur, México

Estudiante de la Maestría en Gobierno Electrónico en la Universidad de la Sierra Sur (UNSIS). Correo electrónico: sniperwlf@gmail.com. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9207-7513

References

Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2012). Defining e-Governance – A Citizen Centric Perspective. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 10(1), 1–12. Recuperado de https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejeg/article/view/1061

Beeck Center for Social Impact + Innovation. (2024). The Evolving Role of the State Chief Data Officer: A Framework for Today. Georgetown University. https://beeckcenter.georgetown.edu/report/the-evolving-role-of-the-state-chief-data-officer-a-framework-for-today/

Chang, W. (2021). The NIST Big Data Interoperability Framework. SIAM NEWS. (online). Disponible en https://www.siam.org/publications/siam-news/articles/the-nist-big-data-interoperability-framework/

CONEVAL. (2022). Evaluación de Políticas Sociales Estatales. Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social. Recuperado de https://www.coneval.org.mx/Evaluacion/Paginas/Politicas-Sociales-Estatales.aspx

Gil-García, J. R. (2020). Enabling Government Transformation through Digital Tools: Lessons from Mexico. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101409

Gobierno de la Ciudad de México. (2023). Datos Abiertos y Plataforma Geoespacial de la Ciudad de México. Recuperado de https://datos.cdmx.gob.mx/

INEGI. (2023). Diagnóstico del Estado de la Infraestructura Estadística de los Gobiernos Estatales. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Recuperado de https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/productos/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/nueva_estruc/889463921325.pdf

INEGI. (2024). Censo Nacional de Gobiernos Estatales 2024: Resultados. Administración pública. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. Recuperado de https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/cnge/2024/doc/cnge_2024_resultados_adm_pub.pdf

Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101385

Mergel, I. (2016). Agile innovation management in government: A research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 516–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.07.004

México. (2015). Ley General de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Recuperado de https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5391143&fecha=04/05/2015

OECD. (2023). Government at a Glance 2023. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/3d5c5d31-en

OECD (2024), “2023 OECD Digital Government Index: Results and key findingsâ€, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 44, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1a89ed5e-en.

OECD/IDB (2024), “2023 OECD/IDB Digital Government Index of Latin America and the Caribbean: Results and key findingsâ€, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 64, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/10b82c83-en.

United Nations. (2022). United Nations E-Government Survey 2022: The Future of Digital Government. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Recuperado de https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2022

Wasistiono, S. and Anggraini, W. (2019). Three paradigms in government (good governance, dynamic governance, and agile governance). International Journal of Kybernology, 4(2), pp. 79-91. Disponible en https://ejournal.ipdn.ac.id/IJOK/article/view/889

Wegner, P. (1996). Interoperability. ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 28, No. 1, March 1996, pp. 285-287. Disponible en https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/234313.234424

Published

2026-08-28