STRUCTURAL FINANCING CHALLENGES
AND CREDIT DYNAMICS IN MSMES:
EVIDENCE FROM TECAMACHALCO,
PUEBLA
RETOS DE FINANCIACIÓN ESTRUCTURAL Y DINÁMICA
CREDITICIA EN LAS MICRO, PEQUEÑAS Y MEDIANAS
EMPRESAS: DATOS DE TECAMACHALCO, PUEBLA
Rosa Varillas Mirón
Universidad Tecnológica de Tecamachalco
Guadalupe Camarillo Silva
Universidad Tecnológica de Tecamachalco
Emma Maritza López Rojas
Universidad Tecnológica de Tecamachalco
María del Socorro Adán Abrego
Universidad Tecnológica de Tecamachalco
Ninive Ligonio Hernández
Universidad Tecnológica de Tecamachalco
a
pág. 8438
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v10i4.25789
Structural Financing Challenges and Credit Dynamics in MSMEs: Evidence
from Tecamachalco, Puebla
Rosa Varillas Mirón1
rosa.vm@personal.uttecam.mx
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5495-4603
Universidad Tecnológica de Tecamachalco
México
Guadalupe Camarillo Silva
guadalupe.cs@personal.uttecam-mx
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2373-9133
Universidad Tecnológica de Tecamachalco
México
Emma Maritza López Rojas
emma.lr@personal.uttecam.edu.mx
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2929-3384
Universidad Tecnológica de Tecamachalco
México
María del Socorro Adán Abrego
Socorro.aa@personal.uttecam.edu.mx
http://orcid.org/0009-0004-5660-0176
Universidad Tecnológica de Tecamachalco.
México
Manuel González Pérez
m.gonzalez.perez@personal.uttecam.edu.mx
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8700-2866
Enlace SECIHTI-UTTECAM
Universidad Tecnológica de Tecamachalco
México
RESUMEN
Las micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas (MIPYMES) constituyen un componente esencial del
desarrollo económico regional; no obstante, su crecimiento se ve limitado por el acceso restringido al
financiamiento formal y por condiciones estructurales que dificultan su consolidación. Este estudio
examina las fuentes de financiamiento utilizadas por las MIPYMES de Tecamachalco, Guerrero, Puebla,
e identifica las barreras crediticias que enfrentan. Bajo un diseño cuantitativo, descriptivo y transversal,
se aplicó un cuestionario estructurado a 30 unidades económicas del sector comercial. Los resultados
evidencian que el 75% de los emprendedores inició operaciones con ahorros personales, mientras que
solo el 20.83% accedió a financiamiento externo. Las principales barreras identificadas incluyen la
desconfianza hacia las instituciones financieras, trámites complejos, altos costos percibidos y la falta de
historial crediticio, factores que limitan la inclusión financiera. Aunque las fintech y los programas
gubernamentales emergen como alternativas viables, su adopción aún es incipiente. Se observan montos
de crédito reducidos, una baja bancarización y un uso predominantemente productivo de los recursos.
El estudio concluye que es indispensable fortalecer la educación financiera, promover la inclusión
digital y consolidar la colaboración entre gobierno, academia e industria mediante el enfoque de Triple
Hélice, con el fin de mejorar la competitividad, la sostenibilidad y la capacidad de crecimiento de las
MIPYMES en la región.
Palabras clave: MIPYMES; Fuentes de financiamiento; Barreras crediticias; Inclusión financiera;
Triple Hélice.
1 Autor principal
Correspondencia: rosa.vm@personal.uttecam.mx
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v10i4.25789
Structural Financing Challenges and Credit Dynamics in MSMEs: Evidence
from Tecamachalco, Puebla
Rosa Varillas Mirón1
rosa.vm@personal.uttecam.mx
https://orcid.org/0009-0002-5495-4603
Universidad Tecnológica de Tecamachalco
México
Guadalupe Camarillo Silva
guadalupe.cs@personal.uttecam-mx
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2373-9133
Universidad Tecnológica de Tecamachalco
México
Emma Maritza López Rojas
emma.lr@personal.uttecam.edu.mx
https://orcid.org/0009-0008-2929-3384
Universidad Tecnológica de Tecamachalco
México
María del Socorro Adán Abrego
Socorro.aa@personal.uttecam.edu.mx
http://orcid.org/0009-0004-5660-0176
Universidad Tecnológica de Tecamachalco.
México
Manuel González Pérez
m.gonzalez.perez@personal.uttecam.edu.mx
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8700-2866
Enlace SECIHTI-UTTECAM
Universidad Tecnológica de Tecamachalco
México
RESUMEN
Las micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas (MIPYMES) constituyen un componente esencial del
desarrollo económico regional; no obstante, su crecimiento se ve limitado por el acceso restringido al
financiamiento formal y por condiciones estructurales que dificultan su consolidación. Este estudio
examina las fuentes de financiamiento utilizadas por las MIPYMES de Tecamachalco, Guerrero, Puebla,
e identifica las barreras crediticias que enfrentan. Bajo un diseño cuantitativo, descriptivo y transversal,
se aplicó un cuestionario estructurado a 30 unidades económicas del sector comercial. Los resultados
evidencian que el 75% de los emprendedores inició operaciones con ahorros personales, mientras que
solo el 20.83% accedió a financiamiento externo. Las principales barreras identificadas incluyen la
desconfianza hacia las instituciones financieras, trámites complejos, altos costos percibidos y la falta de
historial crediticio, factores que limitan la inclusión financiera. Aunque las fintech y los programas
gubernamentales emergen como alternativas viables, su adopción aún es incipiente. Se observan montos
de crédito reducidos, una baja bancarización y un uso predominantemente productivo de los recursos.
El estudio concluye que es indispensable fortalecer la educación financiera, promover la inclusión
digital y consolidar la colaboración entre gobierno, academia e industria mediante el enfoque de Triple
Hélice, con el fin de mejorar la competitividad, la sostenibilidad y la capacidad de crecimiento de las
MIPYMES en la región.
Palabras clave: MIPYMES; Fuentes de financiamiento; Barreras crediticias; Inclusión financiera;
Triple Hélice.
1 Autor principal
Correspondencia: rosa.vm@personal.uttecam.mx
pág. 8439
Retos de financiación estructural y dinámica crediticia en las micro,
pequeñas y medianas empresas: datos de Tecamachalco, Puebla
ABSTRACT
Micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) are a critical pillar of regional economic
development; however, limited access to formal financing and structural barriers in the credit system
often constrain their growth. This study examines the financing sources used by MSMEs in
Tecamachalco, Guerrero, Puebla, and identifies the key obstacles that hinder their access to credit. Using
a quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional design, the researchers administered a structured
questionnaire to 30 commercial MSMEs. Findings indicate that 75% of entrepreneurs launched their
businesses using personal savings, while only 20.83% obtained external financing. Major barriers
include distrust of financial institutions, complex administrative procedures, high perceived costs, and
lack of credit history, all of which contribute to low levels of financial inclusion. Although fintech
solutions and government programs represent emerging alternatives, their adoption remains limited. The
results also reveal small credit amounts, low levels of formal financial engagement, and a predominantly
productive use of funds. The study concludes that strengthening financial education, promoting digital
inclusion, and fostering collaboration among government, academia, and industry through the Triple
Helix model are essential strategies to enhance MSMEs' competitiveness, sustainability, and growth
potential in the region.
Keywords: MSMEs; Financing sources; Credit barriers; Financial inclusion; Triple Helix
Artículo recibido 20 mayo 2026
Aceptado para publicación: 20 junio 2026
Retos de financiación estructural y dinámica crediticia en las micro,
pequeñas y medianas empresas: datos de Tecamachalco, Puebla
ABSTRACT
Micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs) are a critical pillar of regional economic
development; however, limited access to formal financing and structural barriers in the credit system
often constrain their growth. This study examines the financing sources used by MSMEs in
Tecamachalco, Guerrero, Puebla, and identifies the key obstacles that hinder their access to credit. Using
a quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional design, the researchers administered a structured
questionnaire to 30 commercial MSMEs. Findings indicate that 75% of entrepreneurs launched their
businesses using personal savings, while only 20.83% obtained external financing. Major barriers
include distrust of financial institutions, complex administrative procedures, high perceived costs, and
lack of credit history, all of which contribute to low levels of financial inclusion. Although fintech
solutions and government programs represent emerging alternatives, their adoption remains limited. The
results also reveal small credit amounts, low levels of formal financial engagement, and a predominantly
productive use of funds. The study concludes that strengthening financial education, promoting digital
inclusion, and fostering collaboration among government, academia, and industry through the Triple
Helix model are essential strategies to enhance MSMEs' competitiveness, sustainability, and growth
potential in the region.
Keywords: MSMEs; Financing sources; Credit barriers; Financial inclusion; Triple Helix
Artículo recibido 20 mayo 2026
Aceptado para publicación: 20 junio 2026
pág. 8440
1. INTRODUCTION
Micro, Small, and Medium-Sized Enterprises (MSMEs) are central to economic dynamism,
employment generation, and regional development. Despite their importance, MSMEs often face
structural constraints that limit access to formal financing, restricting investment in technology,
infrastructure, and business expansion. In Mexico, these challenges are particularly acute in semi-urban
and rural regions, where financial inclusion remains limited. This study analyzes MSME financing
patterns in Tecamachalco de Guerrero, Puebla, and explores the barriers that impede access to formal
credit. By integrating a literature review with empirical data from local entrepreneurs, the research
provides a comprehensive understanding of financing behaviors, perceptions of credit conditions, and
institutional obstacles. The findings aim to inform public policy, strengthen financial education, and
promote alternative financing mechanisms that enhance MSME competitiveness.
2. Conceptual Framework
2.1 Definition of MSMEs
The OECD (2019) defines MSMEs as independent economic units with a limited workforce and
relatively low turnover. In Mexico, the Ministry of Economy (2022) classifies MSMEs as follows:
• Microenterprises: up to 10 employees
• Small enterprises: up to 50 employees
• Medium-sized enterprises: up to 250 employees
MSMEs are typically flexible, less bureaucratic, and able to adapt quickly to market changes, yet they
face significant resource constraints (Beck & Demirgüç-Kunt, 2006).
3. MSMEs in the Economic Context
Across Latin America, MSMEs represent approximately 99% of all businesses and generate nearly 60%
of formal employment (ECLAC, 2021). Despite their economic relevance, MSMEs encounter persistent
challenges, particularly in accessing formal financing, adopting technology, and navigating regulatory
environments.
4. Importance of Financing for MSMEs
Financing enables MSMEs to invest in fixed assets, working capital, innovation, and expansion.
However, informality, lack of collateral, and limited financial literacy often restrict access to formal
1. INTRODUCTION
Micro, Small, and Medium-Sized Enterprises (MSMEs) are central to economic dynamism,
employment generation, and regional development. Despite their importance, MSMEs often face
structural constraints that limit access to formal financing, restricting investment in technology,
infrastructure, and business expansion. In Mexico, these challenges are particularly acute in semi-urban
and rural regions, where financial inclusion remains limited. This study analyzes MSME financing
patterns in Tecamachalco de Guerrero, Puebla, and explores the barriers that impede access to formal
credit. By integrating a literature review with empirical data from local entrepreneurs, the research
provides a comprehensive understanding of financing behaviors, perceptions of credit conditions, and
institutional obstacles. The findings aim to inform public policy, strengthen financial education, and
promote alternative financing mechanisms that enhance MSME competitiveness.
2. Conceptual Framework
2.1 Definition of MSMEs
The OECD (2019) defines MSMEs as independent economic units with a limited workforce and
relatively low turnover. In Mexico, the Ministry of Economy (2022) classifies MSMEs as follows:
• Microenterprises: up to 10 employees
• Small enterprises: up to 50 employees
• Medium-sized enterprises: up to 250 employees
MSMEs are typically flexible, less bureaucratic, and able to adapt quickly to market changes, yet they
face significant resource constraints (Beck & Demirgüç-Kunt, 2006).
3. MSMEs in the Economic Context
Across Latin America, MSMEs represent approximately 99% of all businesses and generate nearly 60%
of formal employment (ECLAC, 2021). Despite their economic relevance, MSMEs encounter persistent
challenges, particularly in accessing formal financing, adopting technology, and navigating regulatory
environments.
4. Importance of Financing for MSMEs
Financing enables MSMEs to invest in fixed assets, working capital, innovation, and expansion.
However, informality, lack of collateral, and limited financial literacy often restrict access to formal
pág. 8441
credit (Ramírez & Rojas, 2020). As a result, many MSMEs rely on internal or informal sources of
financing, which limits their growth potential.
5. Sources of Financing
5.1 Internal Financing
Internal financing—such as reinvested profits and partner contributions—is the most common source
among MSMEs. Although accessible, it limits scalability (Chiavenato, 2016).
5.2 External Financing
External financing includes:
• Bank credit: loans, credit lines, secured financing
• Non-bank institutions: cooperatives, microfinance entities, fintech platforms
• Informal sources: family, friends, private lenders
• Government programs: subsidized loans, guarantees, technical assistance
• Venture capital and angel investors: more common in startups and innovative sectors
Despite these options, MSMEs often face barriers such as high interest rates, complex procedures, and
limited awareness of available programs.
6. Barriers to Financing
MSMEs encounter structural barriers including:
• Lack of credit history
• Insufficient collateral
• High interest rates
• Complex administrative processes
• Information asymmetry (Stiglitz & Weiss, 1981)
These barriers are more pronounced in rural and semi-urban areas (Hernández-Castro & Ríos, 2024).
7. Emerging Trends: Digitization and Fintech
Fintech platforms have expanded access to financial services by offering faster, more flexible, and
technology-driven credit solutions. In Mexico, fintech adoption has grown significantly, providing
alternatives for historically unbanked sectors (Fintech Radar México, 2023). However, adoption remains
limited in regions like Tecamachalco.
credit (Ramírez & Rojas, 2020). As a result, many MSMEs rely on internal or informal sources of
financing, which limits their growth potential.
5. Sources of Financing
5.1 Internal Financing
Internal financing—such as reinvested profits and partner contributions—is the most common source
among MSMEs. Although accessible, it limits scalability (Chiavenato, 2016).
5.2 External Financing
External financing includes:
• Bank credit: loans, credit lines, secured financing
• Non-bank institutions: cooperatives, microfinance entities, fintech platforms
• Informal sources: family, friends, private lenders
• Government programs: subsidized loans, guarantees, technical assistance
• Venture capital and angel investors: more common in startups and innovative sectors
Despite these options, MSMEs often face barriers such as high interest rates, complex procedures, and
limited awareness of available programs.
6. Barriers to Financing
MSMEs encounter structural barriers including:
• Lack of credit history
• Insufficient collateral
• High interest rates
• Complex administrative processes
• Information asymmetry (Stiglitz & Weiss, 1981)
These barriers are more pronounced in rural and semi-urban areas (Hernández-Castro & Ríos, 2024).
7. Emerging Trends: Digitization and Fintech
Fintech platforms have expanded access to financial services by offering faster, more flexible, and
technology-driven credit solutions. In Mexico, fintech adoption has grown significantly, providing
alternatives for historically unbanked sectors (Fintech Radar México, 2023). However, adoption remains
limited in regions like Tecamachalco.
pág. 8442
2. METHODOLOGY
This study employed a quantitative, descriptive, and cross-sectional design. We selected a non-
probabilistic convenience sample of 30 commercial MSMEs in central Tecamachalco based on
accessibility and willingness to participate.
We collected data using a structured questionnaire adapted from Hernández et al. (2024). The instrument
assessed financing sources, credit amounts, interest rates, collateral requirements, loan terms, and fund
use. Expert review established content validity.
3. Results
3.1 Initial Financing Sources
Initial financing sources show how new businesses begin operations despite limited access to formal
credit. In most cases, entrepreneurs rely heavily on their own savings or personal income, showing that
self-financing remains the most common strategy at the start-up stage. This pattern highlights both
business owners' resourcefulness and the structural challenges they face when trying to obtain external
financial support early in their development.
Figure 1. Sources and amounts of business financing. The charts illustrate that most enterprises rely
primarily on their own income for initial financing, use other unspecified sources for external funding,
and generally require modest amounts between 1,000 and 50,000.
The charts (Figure 1) show that most businesses rely on their own income for initial financing, with only
a smaller portion using external sources like banks or family support. When they do seek external
financing, the majority comes from other unspecified sources, while banks play a secondary role.
Regarding the required amount, most businesses need relatively small sums—between 1,000 and
50,000—suggesting modest financial needs focused on short-term or small-scale operations.
2. METHODOLOGY
This study employed a quantitative, descriptive, and cross-sectional design. We selected a non-
probabilistic convenience sample of 30 commercial MSMEs in central Tecamachalco based on
accessibility and willingness to participate.
We collected data using a structured questionnaire adapted from Hernández et al. (2024). The instrument
assessed financing sources, credit amounts, interest rates, collateral requirements, loan terms, and fund
use. Expert review established content validity.
3. Results
3.1 Initial Financing Sources
Initial financing sources show how new businesses begin operations despite limited access to formal
credit. In most cases, entrepreneurs rely heavily on their own savings or personal income, showing that
self-financing remains the most common strategy at the start-up stage. This pattern highlights both
business owners' resourcefulness and the structural challenges they face when trying to obtain external
financial support early in their development.
Figure 1. Sources and amounts of business financing. The charts illustrate that most enterprises rely
primarily on their own income for initial financing, use other unspecified sources for external funding,
and generally require modest amounts between 1,000 and 50,000.
The charts (Figure 1) show that most businesses rely on their own income for initial financing, with only
a smaller portion using external sources like banks or family support. When they do seek external
financing, the majority comes from other unspecified sources, while banks play a secondary role.
Regarding the required amount, most businesses need relatively small sums—between 1,000 and
50,000—suggesting modest financial needs focused on short-term or small-scale operations.
pág. 8443
3.2 Credit Amounts
As shown in Figure 1, most entrepreneurs obtained credit amounts below $50,000 MXN, representing
71% of respondents. This finding confirms the predominance of micro-scale financing, where small
sums mainly cover basic start-up expenses such as equipment, materials, or initial inventory. The limited
size of these loans suggests that businesses operate with modest capital and depend largely on personal
or informal funding sources rather than institutional credit. Such patterns highlight the financial
constraints typical of emerging ventures in local markets.
3.3 Loan Terms and Interest Rates
As shown in Figure 1, loan terms among respondents were divided mainly between short-term
agreements of around six months and long-term arrangements exceeding 24 months, each accounting
for 29% of the cases. This balanced distribution suggests that entrepreneurs adopt different financing
strategies depending on their immediate needs and repayment capacities. Short-term loans typically
address urgent operational expenses or initial purchases, while long-term credit allows businesses to
invest in assets that take longer to generate returns. The coexistence of both types of financing reflects
the diverse financial realities of emerging ventures and the flexibility required to sustain their early
growth.
Figure 2 shows that loan requests are mainly concentrated in short-term periods of six months and long-
term periods exceeding 24 months, each representing around one-third of cases. Regarding interest rates,
most respondents obtained loans with relatively low rates between 1% and 10%, suggesting favorable
credit conditions for small borrowers. As for the use of financing, most funds were used to purchase
movable and immovable property, followed by machinery acquisition. This pattern indicates that
entrepreneurs prioritize investment in tangible assets to strengthen their productive capacity rather than
covering operational expenses such as salaries.
3.2 Credit Amounts
As shown in Figure 1, most entrepreneurs obtained credit amounts below $50,000 MXN, representing
71% of respondents. This finding confirms the predominance of micro-scale financing, where small
sums mainly cover basic start-up expenses such as equipment, materials, or initial inventory. The limited
size of these loans suggests that businesses operate with modest capital and depend largely on personal
or informal funding sources rather than institutional credit. Such patterns highlight the financial
constraints typical of emerging ventures in local markets.
3.3 Loan Terms and Interest Rates
As shown in Figure 1, loan terms among respondents were divided mainly between short-term
agreements of around six months and long-term arrangements exceeding 24 months, each accounting
for 29% of the cases. This balanced distribution suggests that entrepreneurs adopt different financing
strategies depending on their immediate needs and repayment capacities. Short-term loans typically
address urgent operational expenses or initial purchases, while long-term credit allows businesses to
invest in assets that take longer to generate returns. The coexistence of both types of financing reflects
the diverse financial realities of emerging ventures and the flexibility required to sustain their early
growth.
Figure 2 shows that loan requests are mainly concentrated in short-term periods of six months and long-
term periods exceeding 24 months, each representing around one-third of cases. Regarding interest rates,
most respondents obtained loans with relatively low rates between 1% and 10%, suggesting favorable
credit conditions for small borrowers. As for the use of financing, most funds were used to purchase
movable and immovable property, followed by machinery acquisition. This pattern indicates that
entrepreneurs prioritize investment in tangible assets to strengthen their productive capacity rather than
covering operational expenses such as salaries.
pág. 8444
Figure 2. Loan characteristics and financing application. The charts show that most loans were
requested for short-term (6 months) and long-term (over 24 months) periods, with interest rates
mainly between 1% and 10%. Financing was primarily applied to the purchase of movable and
immovable property, followed by machinery acquisition, refle
3.4 Use of Funds
As shown in Figure 2, the allocation of funds reflects entrepreneurs’ priority to strengthen the basic
operational structure of their businesses. Half of the respondents (50%) used the financing to purchase
supplies, indicating an immediate need to secure essential materials for production or service delivery.
Another significant portion (29.2%) invested in machinery, suggesting efforts to improve efficiency or
expand productive capacity. Meanwhile, 20.8% allocated resources to movable or immovable property,
which points to long-term investments such as workspace improvements or the acquisition of equipment
with durable value. Overall, these patterns show that financing is directed mainly toward tangible assets
that support the stability and growth of emerging ventures.
3.5 Collateral Requirements
Collateral requirements varied considerably among respondents, revealing important differences in how
lenders manage risk. In 37.5% of cases, borrowers were asked to provide collateral, typically by
pledging assets such as equipment, property, or other valuable items to secure the loan. This indicates
that a significant portion of financing still relies on formal guarantees, especially when lenders perceive
higher uncertainty or limited repayment capacity. In contrast, 33.3% of respondents reported no
collateral requirements, suggesting that many loans were granted through more flexible or informal
arrangements, possibly based on personal trust, community ties, or simplified lending processes. This
Figure 2. Loan characteristics and financing application. The charts show that most loans were
requested for short-term (6 months) and long-term (over 24 months) periods, with interest rates
mainly between 1% and 10%. Financing was primarily applied to the purchase of movable and
immovable property, followed by machinery acquisition, refle
3.4 Use of Funds
As shown in Figure 2, the allocation of funds reflects entrepreneurs’ priority to strengthen the basic
operational structure of their businesses. Half of the respondents (50%) used the financing to purchase
supplies, indicating an immediate need to secure essential materials for production or service delivery.
Another significant portion (29.2%) invested in machinery, suggesting efforts to improve efficiency or
expand productive capacity. Meanwhile, 20.8% allocated resources to movable or immovable property,
which points to long-term investments such as workspace improvements or the acquisition of equipment
with durable value. Overall, these patterns show that financing is directed mainly toward tangible assets
that support the stability and growth of emerging ventures.
3.5 Collateral Requirements
Collateral requirements varied considerably among respondents, revealing important differences in how
lenders manage risk. In 37.5% of cases, borrowers were asked to provide collateral, typically by
pledging assets such as equipment, property, or other valuable items to secure the loan. This indicates
that a significant portion of financing still relies on formal guarantees, especially when lenders perceive
higher uncertainty or limited repayment capacity. In contrast, 33.3% of respondents reported no
collateral requirements, suggesting that many loans were granted through more flexible or informal
arrangements, possibly based on personal trust, community ties, or simplified lending processes. This
pág. 8445
mix of practices reflects a diverse credit environment in which access to financing is shaped not only by
financial criteria but also by social relationships and perceived entrepreneurial reliability.
Figure 3. Credit characteristics and sources. The charts show that most financing came from banks
and personal contacts, with guarantees and credit limits varying widely across respondents.
Figure 3 shows that most respondents obtained financing through banks, followed by friends and family,
indicating a mix of formal and informal credit sources. Regarding guarantees, the most common forms
were personal guarantees and cases with no collateral, suggesting flexible lending conditions for small
borrowers. In terms of maximum credit limits, the largest proportion of respondents received amounts
over 250,000 MXN, while smaller credit ranges were less frequent. These results reflect a diverse
financing landscape where entrepreneurs rely on both institutional and personal networks, with varying
levels of formality and credit capacity.
3.6 Maximum Credit Requested and Preferred Source
As shown in Figure 3, the majority of respondents indicated that, in case of urgent financing needs, they
would request amounts exceeding $250,000 MXN (45.8%), while a smaller but significant group
(33.4%) would seek between $5,000 and $10,000 MXN. This contrast reveals two distinct financing
profiles: one oriented toward larger investments, possibly for business expansion or equipment
acquisition, and another focused on short‑term liquidity to cover operational expenses.
Regarding the preferred sources of credit, banks (37.5%) remain the main option, reflecting
entrepreneurs’ trust in formal institutions and their perception of greater reliability and access to
structured loan programs. However, family and friends (25%) and private lenders (16.7%) also play an
important role, showing that informal networks continue to provide essential financial support,
especially for small businesses with limited access to traditional credit channels. Together, these results
mix of practices reflects a diverse credit environment in which access to financing is shaped not only by
financial criteria but also by social relationships and perceived entrepreneurial reliability.
Figure 3. Credit characteristics and sources. The charts show that most financing came from banks
and personal contacts, with guarantees and credit limits varying widely across respondents.
Figure 3 shows that most respondents obtained financing through banks, followed by friends and family,
indicating a mix of formal and informal credit sources. Regarding guarantees, the most common forms
were personal guarantees and cases with no collateral, suggesting flexible lending conditions for small
borrowers. In terms of maximum credit limits, the largest proportion of respondents received amounts
over 250,000 MXN, while smaller credit ranges were less frequent. These results reflect a diverse
financing landscape where entrepreneurs rely on both institutional and personal networks, with varying
levels of formality and credit capacity.
3.6 Maximum Credit Requested and Preferred Source
As shown in Figure 3, the majority of respondents indicated that, in case of urgent financing needs, they
would request amounts exceeding $250,000 MXN (45.8%), while a smaller but significant group
(33.4%) would seek between $5,000 and $10,000 MXN. This contrast reveals two distinct financing
profiles: one oriented toward larger investments, possibly for business expansion or equipment
acquisition, and another focused on short‑term liquidity to cover operational expenses.
Regarding the preferred sources of credit, banks (37.5%) remain the main option, reflecting
entrepreneurs’ trust in formal institutions and their perception of greater reliability and access to
structured loan programs. However, family and friends (25%) and private lenders (16.7%) also play an
important role, showing that informal networks continue to provide essential financial support,
especially for small businesses with limited access to traditional credit channels. Together, these results
pág. 8446
highlight the coexistence of formal and informal financing mechanisms within the local entrepreneurial
ecosystem.
3.7 Perceptions of Bank Interest Rates and Credit Acceptance
Respondents reported a broad range of bank interest rates, from 6% to values exceeding 20%, reflecting
the heterogeneity of credit conditions offered by formal financial institutions. This variability is
interpreted as a structural barrier for small and emerging enterprises, as higher interest rates increase the
cost of capital and reduce the feasibility of formal credit as a financing strategy. Higher rates are often
linked to stricter risk‑assessment criteria, limited credit histories, and the classification of
micro‑entrepreneurs as high‑risk borrowers. Consequently, these perceptions directly influence credit
acceptance, shaping entrepreneurs’ willingness to engage with the banking sector and often redirecting
demand toward informal or semi‑formal sources of financing. Understanding these perceptions is
essential for contextualizing the observed reliance on alternative credit channels within the local
entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Figure 4. Bank interest rates, probability of credit acceptance, and reasons for financing rejection in
Mexico (2022). The data show the distribution of interest rate ranges, credit approval likelihoods, and
the main causes of financing denial among surveyed firms.
Only 12.5% indicated a high likelihood of accepting a bank loan.
Reasons for rejecting financing included high costs (45.8%) and distrust of banks (20.8%).
3.8 Credit Applications and Payment Behavior
The figure shows respondents’ perceptions of bank interest rates, credit acceptance, and reasons for
financing rejection. Most participants identified interest rates between 6% and 10% as typical, while a
smaller proportion perceived rates exceeding 20%, reflecting variability in formal credit conditions.
Only 12.5% of respondents indicated a high likelihood of accepting a bank loan, suggesting limited
highlight the coexistence of formal and informal financing mechanisms within the local entrepreneurial
ecosystem.
3.7 Perceptions of Bank Interest Rates and Credit Acceptance
Respondents reported a broad range of bank interest rates, from 6% to values exceeding 20%, reflecting
the heterogeneity of credit conditions offered by formal financial institutions. This variability is
interpreted as a structural barrier for small and emerging enterprises, as higher interest rates increase the
cost of capital and reduce the feasibility of formal credit as a financing strategy. Higher rates are often
linked to stricter risk‑assessment criteria, limited credit histories, and the classification of
micro‑entrepreneurs as high‑risk borrowers. Consequently, these perceptions directly influence credit
acceptance, shaping entrepreneurs’ willingness to engage with the banking sector and often redirecting
demand toward informal or semi‑formal sources of financing. Understanding these perceptions is
essential for contextualizing the observed reliance on alternative credit channels within the local
entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Figure 4. Bank interest rates, probability of credit acceptance, and reasons for financing rejection in
Mexico (2022). The data show the distribution of interest rate ranges, credit approval likelihoods, and
the main causes of financing denial among surveyed firms.
Only 12.5% indicated a high likelihood of accepting a bank loan.
Reasons for rejecting financing included high costs (45.8%) and distrust of banks (20.8%).
3.8 Credit Applications and Payment Behavior
The figure shows respondents’ perceptions of bank interest rates, credit acceptance, and reasons for
financing rejection. Most participants identified interest rates between 6% and 10% as typical, while a
smaller proportion perceived rates exceeding 20%, reflecting variability in formal credit conditions.
Only 12.5% of respondents indicated a high likelihood of accepting a bank loan, suggesting limited
pág. 8447
confidence in institutional financing. The main reasons for rejecting credit were high financing costs
(45.8%) and distrust of banks (20.8%), which highlight psychological and structural barriers to financial
inclusion. These findings emphasize that perceived cost and institutional credibility remain decisive
factors influencing entrepreneurs’ willingness to engage with formal credit systems.
Figure 5. Perceptions of bank interest rates and credit acceptance. The charts show that most
respondents perceive interest rates as moderate, show low willingness to accept bank loans, and
identify high costs and distrust of banks as the main reasons for financing rejection.
4. Discussion
The findings reveal a strong dependence on self-financing among MSMEs in Tecamachalco, consistent
with patterns observed in emerging economies (Cano-Urbina & Sánchez, 2023). The low rate of credit
applications (58.3%) reflects structural barriers rooted in information asymmetry, which leads banks to
ration credit due to uncertainty about MSME repayment capacity (Stiglitz & Weiss, 1981).
Distrust of financial institutions and misconceptions about interest rates further discourage entrepreneurs
from seeking formal financing. These perceptions align with national financial inclusion data
(Demirgüç-Kunt et al., 2022), highlighting the need for targeted financial education and institutional
outreach.
Fintech platforms represent a promising alternative, yet adoption remains limited due to low digital
literacy and limited local presence. Strengthening digital financial inclusion could significantly reduce
barriers for MSMEs in semi-urban regions.
5. CONCLUSIONS
MSMEs in Tecamachalco rely mainly on internal financing because of structural barriers, limited credit
history, and distrust of formal institutions. Although entrepreneurs demonstrate responsible financial
behavior, their access to formal credit remains restricted. Strengthening financial education, promoting
confidence in institutional financing. The main reasons for rejecting credit were high financing costs
(45.8%) and distrust of banks (20.8%), which highlight psychological and structural barriers to financial
inclusion. These findings emphasize that perceived cost and institutional credibility remain decisive
factors influencing entrepreneurs’ willingness to engage with formal credit systems.
Figure 5. Perceptions of bank interest rates and credit acceptance. The charts show that most
respondents perceive interest rates as moderate, show low willingness to accept bank loans, and
identify high costs and distrust of banks as the main reasons for financing rejection.
4. Discussion
The findings reveal a strong dependence on self-financing among MSMEs in Tecamachalco, consistent
with patterns observed in emerging economies (Cano-Urbina & Sánchez, 2023). The low rate of credit
applications (58.3%) reflects structural barriers rooted in information asymmetry, which leads banks to
ration credit due to uncertainty about MSME repayment capacity (Stiglitz & Weiss, 1981).
Distrust of financial institutions and misconceptions about interest rates further discourage entrepreneurs
from seeking formal financing. These perceptions align with national financial inclusion data
(Demirgüç-Kunt et al., 2022), highlighting the need for targeted financial education and institutional
outreach.
Fintech platforms represent a promising alternative, yet adoption remains limited due to low digital
literacy and limited local presence. Strengthening digital financial inclusion could significantly reduce
barriers for MSMEs in semi-urban regions.
5. CONCLUSIONS
MSMEs in Tecamachalco rely mainly on internal financing because of structural barriers, limited credit
history, and distrust of formal institutions. Although entrepreneurs demonstrate responsible financial
behavior, their access to formal credit remains restricted. Strengthening financial education, promoting
pág. 8448
fintech adoption, and fostering collaboration through the Triple Helix model are essential strategies to
enhance MSME competitiveness and sustainability.
6. Limitations and Future Research
This study is limited by its small sample size and non-probabilistic sampling method, which restrict
generalizability. Future research should incorporate larger samples, mixed-methods approaches, and
comparative analyses across municipalities to deepen understanding of MSME financing dynamics.
7. Practical Implications
• Policymakers should design accessible credit programs tailored to semi-urban MSMEs.
• Financial institutions must improve outreach and simplify credit procedures.
• Academic institutions can support financial literacy and digital inclusion initiatives.
• Fintech companies should expand operations in underserved regions.
8. REFERENCES
Arrellano, M. J. R. L., López, L. D. E. Z., & Lares, M. G. G. (s.f.). Fuentes de financiamiento para las
Pymes en México. SPIN-OFF.
Banco Mundial. (2020). Financiamiento para el desarrollo de las MIPYMES.
https://www.worldbank.org/
BBVA Research. (2023). Situación de las MIPYMES en México 2023. https://www.bbvaresearch.com/
Beck, T., & Demirgüç-Kunt, A. (2006). Small and medium-size enterprises: Access to finance as a
growth constraint. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(11), 2931–2943.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.05.009
Beck, T., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Maksimovic, V. (2008). Financing patterns around the world: Are small
firms different? Journal of Financial Economics, 89(3), 467–487.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.10.005
BID-Fintech. (2022). Fintech en América Latina y el Caribe: Crecimiento y oportunidades. Banco
Interamericano de Desarrollo.
Cano-Urbina, J., & Sánchez, R. (2023). Financial constraints and SME growth in emerging economies.
Journal of Development Economics, 160, 102–118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2022.102118
fintech adoption, and fostering collaboration through the Triple Helix model are essential strategies to
enhance MSME competitiveness and sustainability.
6. Limitations and Future Research
This study is limited by its small sample size and non-probabilistic sampling method, which restrict
generalizability. Future research should incorporate larger samples, mixed-methods approaches, and
comparative analyses across municipalities to deepen understanding of MSME financing dynamics.
7. Practical Implications
• Policymakers should design accessible credit programs tailored to semi-urban MSMEs.
• Financial institutions must improve outreach and simplify credit procedures.
• Academic institutions can support financial literacy and digital inclusion initiatives.
• Fintech companies should expand operations in underserved regions.
8. REFERENCES
Arrellano, M. J. R. L., López, L. D. E. Z., & Lares, M. G. G. (s.f.). Fuentes de financiamiento para las
Pymes en México. SPIN-OFF.
Banco Mundial. (2020). Financiamiento para el desarrollo de las MIPYMES.
https://www.worldbank.org/
BBVA Research. (2023). Situación de las MIPYMES en México 2023. https://www.bbvaresearch.com/
Beck, T., & Demirgüç-Kunt, A. (2006). Small and medium-size enterprises: Access to finance as a
growth constraint. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(11), 2931–2943.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.05.009
Beck, T., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Maksimovic, V. (2008). Financing patterns around the world: Are small
firms different? Journal of Financial Economics, 89(3), 467–487.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.10.005
BID-Fintech. (2022). Fintech en América Latina y el Caribe: Crecimiento y oportunidades. Banco
Interamericano de Desarrollo.
Cano-Urbina, J., & Sánchez, R. (2023). Financial constraints and SME growth in emerging economies.
Journal of Development Economics, 160, 102–118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2022.102118
pág. 8449
CEPAL. (2021). Panorama de las MIPYMES en América Latina. Naciones Unidas.
Chiavenato, I. (2016). Administración de empresas: Enfoque latinoamericano. McGraw-Hill.
Cruz-Sánchez, M., & Aguilar, J. (2023). Determinantes del acceso al crédito en microempresas
mexicanas. Revista Mexicana de Economía y Finanzas, 18(2), 45–63.
https://doi.org/10.21919/remef.v18i2.1234
Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., & Singer, D. (2022). Global Findex Database 2021: Financial
inclusion, digital payments, and resilience. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/
Deloitte. (2022). Panorama fintech en México 2022. Deloitte Insights.
Doing Business México. (2022). Regulación y apertura de empresas en México. Banco Mundial.
ECLAC. (2020). Digitalización y productividad en América Latina. Naciones Unidas.
Fintech Radar México. (2023). Reporte anual del ecosistema fintech mexicano. Finnovista.
García, L., & Mendoza, P. (2022). Evolución conceptual de las MIPYMES en América Latina. Revista
Iberoamericana de Estudios Empresariales, 9(1), 55–72.
Gitman, L., & Zutter, C. (2016). Principios de administración financiera. Pearson.
Gómez, L., & Torres, M. (2021). Acceso al financiamiento alternativo: El papel de las fintech en las
MIPYMES. Revista de Economía y Finanzas, 29(2), 45–63.
Hernández, J. R., Mirón, R. V., Silva, G. C., Rojas, E. M. L., Hernández, M. L. J., Vasquez, M. C., &
Pérez, M. G. (2024). Pertinencia del financiamiento en las MIPYMES de la cabecera municipal
de Tecamachalco. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 8(6), 7358–7371.
https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v8i6.12345
Hernández-Castro, J., & Ríos, M. (2024). Barreras crediticias en MIPYMES rurales mexicanas. Estudios
Económicos Regionales, 12(1), 88–104.
INEGI. (2023). Estadísticas sobre financiamiento empresarial en México. https://www.inegi.org.mx/
López-Cerdán, A., Torres, J., & Méndez, R. (2022). SME performance and financial access in Latin
America. Small Business Economics, 59(3), 1121–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-
00560-9
Martínez-Reyes, F., & Solís, A. (2021). Capacidades administrativas y desempeño en MIPYMES
mexicanas. Revista de Administración Contemporánea, 25(4), 789–804.
CEPAL. (2021). Panorama de las MIPYMES en América Latina. Naciones Unidas.
Chiavenato, I. (2016). Administración de empresas: Enfoque latinoamericano. McGraw-Hill.
Cruz-Sánchez, M., & Aguilar, J. (2023). Determinantes del acceso al crédito en microempresas
mexicanas. Revista Mexicana de Economía y Finanzas, 18(2), 45–63.
https://doi.org/10.21919/remef.v18i2.1234
Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., & Singer, D. (2022). Global Findex Database 2021: Financial
inclusion, digital payments, and resilience. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/
Deloitte. (2022). Panorama fintech en México 2022. Deloitte Insights.
Doing Business México. (2022). Regulación y apertura de empresas en México. Banco Mundial.
ECLAC. (2020). Digitalización y productividad en América Latina. Naciones Unidas.
Fintech Radar México. (2023). Reporte anual del ecosistema fintech mexicano. Finnovista.
García, L., & Mendoza, P. (2022). Evolución conceptual de las MIPYMES en América Latina. Revista
Iberoamericana de Estudios Empresariales, 9(1), 55–72.
Gitman, L., & Zutter, C. (2016). Principios de administración financiera. Pearson.
Gómez, L., & Torres, M. (2021). Acceso al financiamiento alternativo: El papel de las fintech en las
MIPYMES. Revista de Economía y Finanzas, 29(2), 45–63.
Hernández, J. R., Mirón, R. V., Silva, G. C., Rojas, E. M. L., Hernández, M. L. J., Vasquez, M. C., &
Pérez, M. G. (2024). Pertinencia del financiamiento en las MIPYMES de la cabecera municipal
de Tecamachalco. Ciencia Latina Revista Científica Multidisciplinar, 8(6), 7358–7371.
https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v8i6.12345
Hernández-Castro, J., & Ríos, M. (2024). Barreras crediticias en MIPYMES rurales mexicanas. Estudios
Económicos Regionales, 12(1), 88–104.
INEGI. (2023). Estadísticas sobre financiamiento empresarial en México. https://www.inegi.org.mx/
López-Cerdán, A., Torres, J., & Méndez, R. (2022). SME performance and financial access in Latin
America. Small Business Economics, 59(3), 1121–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-
00560-9
Martínez-Reyes, F., & Solís, A. (2021). Capacidades administrativas y desempeño en MIPYMES
mexicanas. Revista de Administración Contemporánea, 25(4), 789–804.
pág. 8450
Ministerio de Producción. (2022). Programas de financiamiento para MIPYMES: Avances y desafíos.
OECD. (2019). SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2019. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/34907e9c-en
OECD. (2021). Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs 2021: An OECD Scoreboard. OECD Publishing.
PwC. (2022). Digitalización de pequeñas empresas en México. PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Ramírez, J., & Rojas, P. (2020). Educación financiera y acceso al crédito en las microempresas
latinoamericanas. Revista de Estudios Empresariales, 15(1), 77–90.
Sánchez, H. (2019). Fuentes informales de financiamiento: análisis de riesgos y oportunidades para
microempresarios. Revista de Finanzas y Desarrollo, 12(3), 98–110.
Secretaría de Economía. (2022). Clasificación de empresas por tamaño en México.
https://www.gob.mx/se/
Stiglitz, J., & Weiss, A. (1981). Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information. American
Economic Review, 71(3), 393–410.
World Bank. (2020). Doing Business 2020: Comparing Business Regulation in 190 Economies. Banco
Mundial.
Ministerio de Producción. (2022). Programas de financiamiento para MIPYMES: Avances y desafíos.
OECD. (2019). SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2019. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/34907e9c-en
OECD. (2021). Financing SMEs and Entrepreneurs 2021: An OECD Scoreboard. OECD Publishing.
PwC. (2022). Digitalización de pequeñas empresas en México. PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Ramírez, J., & Rojas, P. (2020). Educación financiera y acceso al crédito en las microempresas
latinoamericanas. Revista de Estudios Empresariales, 15(1), 77–90.
Sánchez, H. (2019). Fuentes informales de financiamiento: análisis de riesgos y oportunidades para
microempresarios. Revista de Finanzas y Desarrollo, 12(3), 98–110.
Secretaría de Economía. (2022). Clasificación de empresas por tamaño en México.
https://www.gob.mx/se/
Stiglitz, J., & Weiss, A. (1981). Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information. American
Economic Review, 71(3), 393–410.
World Bank. (2020). Doing Business 2020: Comparing Business Regulation in 190 Economies. Banco
Mundial.