The author is a Senior Research Fellow at the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS). She received her Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania. Aside from supervising two database projects at PIDS, she undertakes studies on econometric modeling. This paper was prepared for the PIDS Perspective Paper Symposium Series and presented on September 2002 as part of the Institute's celebration of its silver founding anniversary. The author wishes to acknowledge the excellent research assistance provided by her staff: Aubrey D. Tabuga, Marie Anne T. Cagas, Ronina D. Asis, and Ma. Blessila G. Datu.
The Poverty Fight: Has It MadeAn Impact?
CeliaM. Reyes
PERSPECTIVE PAPERSERIESNo.2
PHILIPPINE INSTITUTE FORDEVELOPMENT STUDIES Surian sa mga Pag-aaral Pangkaunlaran
ng Pllipinas
Copyright 2003 Philippine Institute for DevelopmentStudies Printed in the Philippines. All rights reserved. The views expressedin this paper are those of the author and do not necessarilyreflect the views of any individual or organization. Please do not quote without permissionfrom .the author nor PIDS.
Pleaseaddressall inquiries to: Philippine Institute for DevelopmentStudies NEDAsa Makati Building, 106Amorsolo Street LegaspiVillage, 1229Makati City, Philippines Tel: (63-2)893-5705/892-4059 Fax: (63-2)893-9589/816-1091 E-mail: publications@pidsnet.pids.gov.ph Website:http://www.pids.gov.ph
ISBN 971-564-065-6 RP 12-03-500
~ ..7
Table
29
Table
31 30
Number
and
Table
32 33
Characteristics Poverty
Table
34 35 36
Access Special administrations
Distribution Number by poverty
percent
of
of
families
status households of households(unweighted)
reduction
of
to povertyselected
by
poverty by
poverty targets
under by
alleviation programs
poverty
groups,
funds by
status,
status,
various
1999
1999
34
1999
quintile:
31 31 32
,...44,...45,...55,.
1998 1999
Figures
Figure Figure
2143
Functional Gini Elementary Poverty
concentration incidence
literacy school
of
ratios, rate participation families
by
1985-2000 region,
by
region, rate
1994
by
2000 region,
13
14 Figure
5
Secondary SY
2001-2002
Figure
6
Elementary SY
2001-2002
Secondary SY
2001-2002
Figure
7
Figure Figure
910 11 8
Figure
12
Figure
13 15 16 14
Child Infant SYMaternal Malnutrition 2001-2002
schools
participation
schools
cohort
schools
mortality mortality
Access 2001
to
Access Access Movements Probability 2000
prevalence rate rate
sanitary electricityofin
being and
toilet out
by
nonpoor by
17
rate,
region, region, by (International region,
water
16
rate,
survival
rate by by
potable
toto
survival
cohort
mortality
15
rate,
1995 1998
1995
17 18 19 19
Standards),
20
region,
of region, facilitypoverty
at
2000 by varying
region,
levels
2000
21 22 23
30 of
Figure
17
the Probability
varying
Figure
18 19
Institutions derived Self-rated
highest
level
household
of
of
levels
from
attained
(HHEDUC) nonpoor
of
poverty in
education
being head
proportion
agriculture poverty
incidence
by
36
at
of
alleviation
(AGGP)
and
income
36
47 official
poverty
incidence
54
Foreword The Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) celebrated its silver founding anniversary in 2002. In this connection, various activities were held to highlight the contribution and significance of policy research in governanceaswell asto commemoratemore than two decadesof providing competent research. One of theseactivitiesis the PerspectivePaperSymposiumSerieswhere the pros research fellows presented a perspective of the development and evolution of issuesand concerns over the past 25 years in their respective fields of s.pecializationsuch as infrastructure, banking and finance, science and technology, human resources development and labor markets, competition policy, povertyanalysisand housing development.The 11 papers covered most of the themes in the pros research agenda and presented reviewsof specific policy issuesfrom where policy debatescan proceed with greater focus. Such outputs, however,are best disseminated in book formats so asto widen the reachof the excellent observations,analysesand recommen-dations put forward by the Institute's inhouse pool of researchers.Thus, the Institute presents 11 commendable titles under the Perspective Paper Seriesas its contribution to Philippine policy research. It is with confident expectation that this Serieswillprovide the essential answersto the concerns and gaps in various policy issueswhich the Institute has been trying to addressin the last 25 years. The paper showsthat the Philippines has achieved modest successin the area of poverty reduction and human development. Life expectancyhas gone up, mortality rateshavegone down, malnutrition prevalencehasdeclined and school participation rates have improved. Povertyincidence has been reduced but the actual number of the poor has gone up due to the high growth in population. Moreover, spatial disparities remain large and some regions have lagged behind. The pace of improvement has also made it possible for other neighboring countries to overtake us basedon the human development index.
In, L (),.~.~ I~~",,'o MARIO B lAMBERTE, Ph.D. P esident, PIDS
Abstract The paper examines the performance of the Philippines in its fight againstpoverty. It reviews the trends in poverty using various human development indicators. It also examines the changes in the policy environment over the last 25 years. It identifies issues relating to programs, institutional arrangements,and povertymeasurement. Keywords: poverty, human developmentindicators, decomposition,chronic poverty, transient poverty, targeting schemes,social safetynets,poverty reduction programs, community-basedmonitoring system,minimum basic needs
1
Introduction
It is often said that developmentefforts in the 1950splaced undue emphasis on economic growth rather than poverty reduction. The "trickle down" effect was expectedto addressthe povertyproblem, but this was not the case.The 1970sand 1980switnesseda consciousshift in the orientation of developmenteffort toward poverty reduction and income equality in the 1970sand 1980s.The urgency to address macroeconomic stabilization and adjustment issues in the 1980s, however,has hindered poverty alleviation policies and programs. At present, however, the growing consensus is toward a comprehensive approach to poverty reduction. Rapid and sustained economic growth is needed to improve the quality of life of the population; at the sametime targetedinterventions aimed at reducing poverty are neededto reach the very poor and marginalized sectorsof the economy. The overarching goal of developmentefforts is to improve the quality of life of the people.The Philippines is no exception.It is one of 191nations that participated in the Millenium Summit in September 2000 and committed to achieve 48 targets, including eradication of poverty. In addition to international commitments,the Philippines has beenworking toward povertyreduction for decades.It hasevenincluded targets on human developmentand poverty reduction in its mediumterm developmentplans. This paper examinesthe performance of the Philippines in its fight against poverty. It reviews the trends in poverty using various human developmentindicators. It also examinesthe changesin the policy environment overthe last 25 years.It identifies issuesrelating to programs, institutional arrangementsand poverty measurement. Section2 presentsan assessmentof the poverty situation using the various indicators of poverty and human development.Section 3 looks at the decomposition of poverty. It decomposesthe change in povertyincidenceinto growth componentandredistributivecomponent. It also classifies poverty into chronic and transient poverty. Section 4 provides a brief description of the various poverty reduction policies
2 .The PovertyFight: Has It MadeAn Impact?
and strategies adopted by the various administrations. Section 5 identifies some of the issuesrelated to poverty reduction programs, institutional arrangementsand poverty measurementand monitoring. Finally, Section 6 provides a summary of the findings and some recommendations.
2
Statusandtrendsin poverty This section examines the trends and status in poverty using the conventional measures of poverty, including recently developed dimensions of poverty. The different indicators show that the country has been generally successful in improving the quality of life of its population. There have been improvements in different dimensions, some large and others modest. However, regional disparities are still large and have evenwidened basedon someindicators. Moreover; the population seemsto be vulnerableto shocks,the more recent of which have reversedsome of the positivetrends. Income-basedmeasure of poverty The official estimate of poverty incidence is based on a comparison of income with a poverty threshold defined by the National Statistical and Coordination Board. The poverty threshold is the income needed to meet basic food and nonfood needs. The food or subsistence threshold is the income needed to meet basic food needs. Poverty and food thresholds are computed every three years for the different regions using urban/rural classification. The poverty thresholds are presented in Table 1. The official source of income data is the Family Income and Expenditure Survey conducted by the National Statistics Office every three years. In 1985, 44.2 percent of the total number of families were considered poor. By 1997,poverty incidence has declined to 31.8percent. However, the Asian financial crisis, coupled with the EI Nino phenomenon in the period 1997-1998,reversed the downward trend and caused poverty incidence to increase to 33.7 percent in 2000 (Table 2). However, while the proportion of poor families declined between 1985 and 2000, the actual number of poor families went up from 4.36 million in 1985 to 5.14 million in 2000 due to increased population. Table 3 shows the population growth rate over the past 20years. While it has declined over time, th~ decline has been slow so that the
4 .The PovertyFight: Has It Made An Impact?
rate remains high. Moreover, there has been a reversal as revealed in the latest Census of Population in 2000, so that population growth accelerated during the 1995-2000period. Furthermore, the population growth rate in the Philippines is much higher than that in Thailand, which now stands at about 1 percent.
Table1.Annual per capitapovertythresholds(In Pesos),urban-ruralby region 1985-2000 Region
1985
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
4,527 4,643 4,538 4,555 4,403 3,676 4,302 3,854 3;952 4,248 4,201 4,217 4,120
6,576 5,460 6,263 6,516 5,829 5,625 4,682 4,279 4,246 4,680 5,713 5,667 6,117 6,514
9,286 8,449 9,030 9,177 8,956 7,978 6,886 5,954 5,883 7,701 7,256 7,528 8,322 8,154 8,468
11,230 10,326 9,457 10,607 10,082 8,679 8,432 7,148 7,327 8,449
14,299 12,768 11,654 12,926 13,127 11,072 10,588 9,345 9,991 11,299 11,259 11,704 12,468 13,521 12,603
17,713 15,421 15,698 16,437 16,405 14,630 12,696 11,446 12,011 12,643 12,906 13,737 14,589 17,207 15,690
3,499 3,265 3,402 3,435 3,372 3,428 3,033 3,091 3,380 3,328 3,342 3,571
4,769 4,286 4,360 4,318 3,756 4,212 3,428 3,681 3,600 4,120 4,445 3,785 4,696
7,799 6,370 6,791 7,141 5,695 6,099 5,285 4,815 5,648 5,745 5,678 6,725 8,412 7,137
9,822 7,942
11,603 9,402 10,467 11,710 10,120 10,543 8,222 8,250 9,055 9,869 9,762 10,573 12,554 10,711
14,429 11,430 12,477 13,725 12,196 12,543 10,736 10,287 10,247 11,632 11,513 11,271 14,616 13,371
Urban
NCR 1 -liocos 2 -Cagayan Valley 3 -Central Luzon 4 -Southern Tagalog 5 -Bicol 6 -Western Visayas 7 -Central Visayas 8 -Eastern Visayas 9 -Western Mindanao 10 -Northern Mindanao 11 -Southern Mindanao 12 -Central Mindanao
CAR ARMM
8,783
8,851 10,078 11,054 10,035
Rural NCR 1 -liocos 2 -Cagayan Valley 3 -Central Luzon 4 -Southern Tagalog 5 -Sicol 6 -Western Visayas 7 -Central Visayas 8 -Eastern Visayas 9 -Western Mindanao 10 -Northern Mindanao 11 -Southern Mindanao 12 -Central Mindanao
CAR ARMM
Source:TWGon IncomeandPovertyStatistics, NSCB
8,566 8.,948 8,165 8,053 5,826 6,083 6,360 7,253 7,644 8,364 10,766 8,537
The PovertySituation'5 Table2. Povertyincidenceof families1961-2000
1961 1965 1971 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000
59.0 52.0 52.0
44.2 40.2
0.4 0.4
39.9 35.5 31.8 33.7
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Sourceof datafor 1961-1971: 'A Strategyto FightPoverty, Philippines,'TheWorldBankCountry Operations Division,1996 Sourcesofbasicdatafor1985-2000: FamilyIncomeandExpenditures SurveysofNSO1895, 1988, 1991,1994,1997and2000)andNSCB
Table3. Annualpopulationgrowth rate,Philippines
Source:NationalStatisticsOffice
The poverty gap index shows the depth of poverty. It is the ratio of the poverty gap (poverty threshold less average income of the poor) divided by the poverty threshold. The bigger is the number, the greater is the depth of poverty. Table 4 shows that the depth of poverty has lessened over time, that is, the poor are getting less poor. From 14.7 percent in 1985, it has decreased to 10.7percent in 2000. The severity of poverty is measured by the poverty severityindex. Table 5 shows a decline in the incidence of poverty from 6.6 in 1985to 4.6 in 2000.
Regionalandprovincialdisparities Despite the decline in poverty incidence, poverty incidence remains very high in certain regions and provinces. In 2000, poverty incidence was highest in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao where almost 66 out of every 100 families were considered poor. The Bicol Region comes second, where 55 out of every roo families were found to be
6 .The Poverty Fight: Has It Made An Impact?
poor. In contrast, only nine out of every 100 families in the National Capital Region (NCR) could be considered poor. While ARMM has the highest poverty incidence, its contribution to total poverty is only 5.5 percent owing to its small population. The Bicol Region has the largest contribution at 11.8percent. The disparities are even more evident at the provincial level (Table Al). Sulu, which is covered by ARMM, has the highest poverty incidence at 72.7 percent. Masbate, a province in the Bicol Region comes next at 70.1 percent. Romblon in Southern Tagalog ranks third at 69.3 percent, even while Southern Tagalog Region has the third lowest poverty incidence at 25.3 percent. All of the cities in the NCR except for Caloocan, Navotas, Marikina, and Taguig/Pateros have less than 10 percent poverty incidence. The provinces of Batanes and Bulacan alsQ have less than 10percent. The gap between urban and rural areas has been increasing. While the poverty incidence in the urban areas has declined by 14 percentage points over a IS-year period, rural poverty incidence went down only 4 percentage points. Consequently, the incidence of rural poverty is now more than twice that of urban poverty. Urban and rural poverty incidences are presented in Table 7. Table 4. Poverty gap index, 1985-2000
Year 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000
Poverty Gap Index
14.7 12.8 13.0 11.3 10.0 10.7
Standard Errors
0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
Sourceof basicdata: 1985-2000 FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Survey,NSO
Table5. Povertyseverityindex,1985-2000 Year 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000
PovertySeverityIndex
StandardErrors
6.6
0.1
5.5
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
5.8 5.0 4.3 4.6
Sourceof basicdata:1985-2000 FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Survey,NSO
ThePovertySituation.7 Table6. Povertyincidenceof familiesbyregion, 1985.2000 Region
1985
Philippines
44.2
NCR
23.0
1 -liocos 2 -Cagayan Valley 3 -Central Luzon 4 -Southern Tagalog 5 -Bicol 6 -Western Visayas 7 -Central Visayas 8 -Eastern Visayas 9 -Western Mindanao 10 -Northern Mindanao 11 -Southern Mindanao 12 -Central Mindanao
37.5 37.8 27.7 40.3 60.5 59.9
CAR ARMM
57.4 59.0 54.3 53.1
43.9 51;7
PovertyIncidence 1988 1991 1994
1997
2000
40.2 21.6
39.9
31.8 6.4
33.7
44.9 40.4
48.4 43.3
29.3 41.1
31.1 37.9
54.5 49.4 46.8 48.9 38.7 46.1 43.1 36.1
55.0
41.9
13.2
45.3 41.7
40.1 49.7 53.0 46.2 57.0
35.5 8.0 47.9 35.5 25.2 29.7 55.1 43.'0
32.7 37.9 44.7 49.2 40.3
48.8
54.7 51.0
50.7
60.0
37.8 32.1 15.4 25.7 50.1 39.9
34.4 40.8 40.1 47.0 38.2 50.0 42.5 57.3
8.7 37.1
29.5 18.6
25.3 55.4 43.1 38.8 43..6
46.6 45.7 40.0
51.1 36.6 66.0
Note: Thereis noofficialpovertythresholdforCARAGA. Thus,the provincesof CARAGAare groupedwithRegion10(Agusandel Norte,AgusandelSur,andSurigaodel Norte)or 11 (SurigaodelSur). Sourceof basicdata: FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Surveys,1985-2000, NSO
Figure1. Povertyincidenceof familiesby region,2000
Table7. PovertyIncidenceof families,urban-rural,1985-2000 Urban-Rural Area Philippines Urban Rural
1985
1988
44.2
40.2 30.1 46.3
33.6 50.7
PovertyIncidence 1991 1994
39.9 31.1
24.0
48.6
47.0
35.5
1997
2000
31.8 17.9 44.4
33.7 19.9 46.9
Sourceof basicdata: FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Surveys,1985-2000, NSO
Occupationalgroupingsand poverty Table 8 shows the poverty incidence by occupation of the household head. Poverty incidence is highest among families whose heads are engaged in agriculture (55.5 percent). The proportion has declined by only 1.5 percentage points over a IS-year period. In contrast, poverty incidence is lowest among families headed by professional, technical and related workers (5.9 percent). Over time, the proportion of the poor in this group has been reduced by almost half. Table 9 shows that more than half of the farm households are poor. Moreover, the poverty incidence has not significantly declined over the is-year period. This is due to the low productivity in the agriculture sector. Table 8. Poverty incidence
of families by occupation
of the household
head, 1985-2000
Poverty Incidence Major Occupation Group
1985
TotalPoorFamilies 44.2 Notspecified 50.3 Professional, Technical and RelatedWorkers 9.6 Administrative, Executiveand Managerial Workers 6.0 ClericalandRelatedWorkers 18.4 SalesWorkers 31.4 ServiceWorkers 40.1 Agricultural, AnimalHusbandry and ForestryWorkers,Fishermen and Hunters 57.0 Production and RelatedWorkers, Transport, and Equipment Operators42.1 Nonclassifiable Occupations 59.7 ArmedForces 16.0 Nongainful Occupations Unemployed 28.0
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
40.2 29.0
39.9 35.5 46.7 48.6
31.8
33.7
14.7
11.8 10.6
6.7
5.9
4.1
14.8 23.8 32.9
7.4 6.4 5.3 12.0 8.2 8.0 24.0 18.1 15.5 32.8 19.2 18.7
10.8 9.4 17.0
53.9
55.8
55.9 50.0
55.5
37.4 17.2 5.9
32.9 26.8 23.9 14.5 8.2 9.4 7.4 17.2 3.8
33.8
34.6
41.8
44.3
29.2
26.1
25.0 20.6
17.6
19.4
Sourceof basicdata:FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Surveys,1985-2000, NSO
18.2
26.5 10.7
ThePovertySituation.9 Table9. Povertyincidenceof familiesamongfarmers, 1985-2000 Year
PovertyIncidence
1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000
56.7 55.5
57.3 55.4 52.3 55.8
Sourceof basicdata:FamilyIncome& Expenditures Survey,NSO
Educationalattainmentand poverty The proportion of poor families decreasesas the educational attainment of the household head increases (Table 10). Three out of every five families whose heads did not attend school are poor. On the other hand, only two out of every 100 families headed by a college graduate are poor. Over time, the poverty incidence has declined for this group (from 6.5 percent to 2.5 percent) while the incidence has increased for the first group (55.9 percent to 60.5 percent), indicating that it is more difficult for the uneducated to earn enough to cease being poor.
Familysize and poveriy Poverty incidence increases monotonically as the number of family membersincreases.The incidence is highest among families with at leastnine members (57.3percent). The proportion has declined by 2.6 percentagepoints from 1985to 2000. Povertyincidence is lowest for single-personhouseholds(9.8percent).The incidenceof poverty among individuals living alone remarkably declined by 9:2 percentagepoints from 19percent in 1985to 9.8 percentin 2000. Table10. Povertyincidenceby highesteducationalattainmentofthe householdhead PovertyIncidence HighestEducational Attainment of the Household Head 1985 PovertyIncidence NoGrade Elementary Undergraduate Elementary Graduate 1st-3rdYearHighSchool HighSchoolGraduate CollegeUndergraduate At leastCollegeGraduate
44.2
55.9 57.2 51.6 46.5 31.6 17.0 6.5
1988
1991
1994
1997 2000
40.2 47.3 54.1 49.6 40.5 29.3 17.9
39.9
35.5 55.2 50.7 43.6 35.3 23.6
31.8 52.5 48.6 39.8 33.2 21.0 10.9 2.4
4.4
55.8 53.2 48.7 43.1 29.6
16.2 4.0
11,7 4.0
Sourceof basicdata:FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Surveys,1985-2000, NSO
33.7 60.5 45.2 26.0 11.9
18.2 10.3
2.5
.-
10 .The PovertyFight: Has It MadeAn Impact? Table11.Povertyincidenceby family size FamilySize
1985
1988
PovertyIncidence 1991 1994 1997
2000
PovertyIncidence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 or more
44.2 19.0 20.0 26.6 36.4 42.9 48.8 55.3 59.8 59.9
40.2 12.8 18.4 23.2 31.6 38.9 45.9 54.0 57.2 59.0
39.9 12.7 21.8 22.9 30.1 38.3 46.3 52.3 59.2 60.0
33.7 9.8 15.7 18.6 23.8 31.1 40.5 48.7 54.9 57.3
35.5 14.9 19.0 20.7 25.3 31.8 40.8 47.1 55.3 56.6
31.8 9.8 14.3 17.8 23.7 30.4 38.2 45.3 50.0 52.6
Sourceof basicdata:FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Surveys,1985-2000, NSO
Poorpopulation An alternative way of presentingpoverty data by using the proportion of the population that is poor. The poverty incidence by individuals is larger than the poverty incidence by families, since poor families tend to have larger family sizes. In 2000, the averagefamily size of poor families was 6.0 and 4.67 for nonpoor families. The proportion of the poor population steadily declined from 49.2 percent in 1985to 36.9 percent in 1997(Table12).However,the crisis in 1997-1998 causedthe poverty incidence to go up to 39.5 percent in 2000, effectively wiping the gains in poverty reduction overthe last six years. Table12.Povertyincidenceof populationby region, 1985.2000 Region Philippines NCR 1 -ilocos 2 -CagayanValley 3 -CentralLuzon 4-SouthernTagalog 5-Bicol 6 -WesternVisayas 7 -CentralVisayas 8 -EasternVisayas 9 -WesternMindanao 10-NorthernMindanao 11 -SouthernMindanao 12-CentralMindanao CAR ARMM
1985
1988
49.2 27.1 43.4 42.7 32.0 45.7 67.5 66.4 61.9 65.1 59.9 56.6 49.6 56.3 -50.5 --56.0
45.4 25.1 51.7 44.7 33.7 46.6 61.3 56.5 52.1 54.7 43.8 50.1 48.8 40.9
PovertyIncidence 1991 1994 1997 45.2 16.6 55.1 48.9 35.5 43.1 61.2 52.8 46.7 47.1 54.2 57.4 51.5 63.0 55.5
40.6 10.4 53.5 41.9 29.2 35.0 60.8 49.8 37.4 44.6 50.5 54.2 45.4 58.5 56.5 65.5
36.9 8.5 44.2 38.0 18.6 30.0 57.0 45.9 39.0 48.5 45.5 52.7 44.3 55.8 50.1 62.5
Sourceof basicdata: 1985-2000 FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Survey,NSO
2000 39.5 11.5 43.6 35.0 23.0 31.0 61.9 51.1 43.8 51.1 53.0 52.2 45.1 58.1 43.8 71.3
The Poverty Situation' 11 Table 13. Magnitude of poor population, 1985-2000
Year
Magnitude of PoorPopulation
1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000
26,674,645 25,385,200 28,554,247 27.372,971 26.768,596 30,850,262
Sourceof basicdata: 1985-2000 FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Survey,NSO
Table14.Annualper capitafood thresholds(In Pesos),urban-ruralbyregion, 1985-2000 Region Urban NCR 1 -lIocos 2 -Cagayan Valley 3 -Central Luzon 4 -Southern Tagalog 5 -Bicol 6 -Western Visayas 7 -Central Visayas 8 -Eastern Visayas 9 -Western Mindanao 10 -Northern Mindanao 11 -Southern Mindanao 12 -Central Mindanao
CAR ARMM Rural NCR 1 -lIocos 2 -Cagayan Valley 3 -Central Luzon 4 -Southern Tagalog 5 -Bicol 6 -Western Visayas 7 -Central Visayas 8 -Eastern Visayas 9 -Western Mindanao 10 -Northern Mindanao 11 -Southern Mindanao 12 -Central Mindanao
CAR ARMM
1985 2,882 3,148 2,999 3,152 2,918 2,561 2,922 2,700 2,878 2,951 2,864 2,955 2,893
-
1988
1991
1994
1997
2000
4,038 3,648 3,907 4,148 4,042 3,805 3,148 2,955 3,042 3,265 3,750 3,940 4,046 3,896
5,757 5,585 6,169 5,939 5,939 5,377 4,655 4,177 4,265 5,134 4,998 5,228 5,281 5,584 5,603
6,975 6,807 6,555 7,019 6,679 5,924 5,698 5,067 5,399 5,851 5,913 6,245 6,734 7,044 6,869
8,934 8,584 7,998 8,755 8,664 7,763 7,329 6,607 7,270 7,230 7,639 7,956 8,438 8,602 8,700
10,802 10,349 9,755 10,484 10,422 9,923 8,730 7,883 8,617 8,514 8,657 9,116 9,572 10,047 10,605
3.236 2,944 2,937 3,024 2,696 2,969 2,539 2,794 2,689 2,937 3,181 2,747 3,185
5,129 4,363 4,666 4,874 4,024 4,283 3,834 3,732 4,227 4,071 4,159 4,650 5,581 4,925
6,541 5,443 5,742 6,037 5,764 5,680 4,421 4,702 4,655 5,264 5,519 5,782 7,026 5,921
7,978 6,712 7,332 7,902 7,355 7,303 6,056 6,326 6,223 6,968 7,059 7,234 8,540 7,548
9,645 8,004 8,248 9,306 8,759 8,744 7,694 7,632 7,278 8,102 7,909 7,876 9,707 9,113
-
2,444 2,411 2,455 2,441 2,360 2,393 2,295 2,411 2,473 2,371 2,437 2,535
-
Source:TWGon IncomeandPovertyStatistics, NSCB
12 .The PovertyFight: Has It Made An Impact?
More than half the population in seven out of 15 regions are poor. In terms of magnitude, the number of poor increased from 26.7 million in 1985 to 26.8 million in 1997. This went up further to 30.8 million in 2000.
Subsistenceincidence In addition to poverty incidence, subsistence incidence is also monitored to determine how many families and individuals do not have enough income to meet basic food needs. The food thresholds are shown in Table 14. The proportion of families that do not have income adequate to meet basic food needs declined from 24.4percent in 1985to 16.7percent in 2000 (Table 15). Again, ARMM and the Bicol Region registered the highest subsistence incidence at over 30 percent, indicating that one out of every three families in these regions does not have enough income to meet their basic food needs. NCR has the lowest subsistence incidence at 1.5 percent followed by Central Luzon at 4.6 percent.
Incomeinequality Income inequality has not improved over the last 15years. The share of the poorest quintile declined from 4.8 percent in 1985to 4.7 percent in 2000, while the share of the richest quintile increased from 52.1 percent to 54.8 percent over the same period. Table 15. Subsistence
incidence
of families by region, 1985-2000 Subsistence Incidence
Region Philippines
NCR 1 -lIocos 2 -Cagayan Valley 3 -Central Luzon 4 -Southern Tagalog 5 -8icol 6 -Western Visayas 7 -Central Visayas 8 -Eastern Visayas 9 -Western Mindanao 10 -Northern Mindanao 11 -Southern Mindanao 12 -Central Mindanao
CAR ARMM
1985
1988
1991
24.4 6.0
20.3
20.4
18.1
5.0
2.1
0.7
15.5 19.1 11.6
19.6 18.4 10.2 21.6 31.5 25.9 27.6
24.6
20.3 37.4
33.6 39.7 42.4 34.6 33.4 23.3 29.6
31.2 22.8 27.2 24.0 16.8 16.4
20.1 11.1 17.1 31.6 21.8 23.4 26.1 28.0 33.6 26.2 34.3 31.8 26.7
1994
23.5 16.8 9.4 13.3 32.9 22.2 17.2 23.4 25.9 30.1 21.2 32.6 27.8 25.3
1997
2000
16.2 0.8 17.8 13.5
16.7 1.5 15.9 12.4
4.7
4.6
10.5
10.1
30.2
34.1
19.5 19.8 25.8
22.1
20.6 26.8
26.7
21.7 30.6 24.9 27.7
20.0
Sourceof basicdata: 1985-2000 FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Survey,NSO
22.5 24.8
26.3
28.0 18.0
35.5
j~ ~
ThePovertySituation.13 Table16. Shareof incomeof bottom 20%to householdincomes Year
Shareof Bottom20%
1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000
4.79 4.64 4.49
4.50 4.58 4.67
Sourceof basicdata: 1985-2000 FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Survey,NSO
Moreover, the ratio of the average income of the richest decile to the average income. of the poorest decile has basically remained unchanged over the same period at 21. The Gini concentration ratio went up from 0.47 in 1985to 0.51 in 2000, indicating greater inequality. Table17. Deciledispersionratio, 1985-2000 Year
RatioofAverageIncomeof RichestDecileto PoorestDecile
1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000
21.1 22.2 22.5 22.8 21.9 21.2
Sourceof basicdata: 1985-2000 FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Survey,NSO Figure2. Gini concentrationratios,1985-2000
0.53 0.52
0.51 0.50
0.49 0.48 0.47
0.46 0.45 0.44 1985
1997
2000
14 .The PovertyFight: Has It MadeAn Impact?
Otherhumandevelopmentindicators Education There have been significant improvements in the educational status of the population. Simple literacy rate rose from 90 percent in 1989to 94 percent in 1994. Functional literacy rate also increased from 75 percent to 84 percent over the same period. Functional literacy rate was lowest in ARMM at 61.2 percent and highest in NCR at 92.3 percent. Table18. Simpleand functional literacyrates,Philippines,1989and 1994 Year
Simple
Functional
1989 1994
89.8 93.9
75.4 83.8
Source:NSOandDepEd
Figure 3. Functional literacy rate by region, 1994
The PovertySituation'15 School participation rates had been increasing over time. Elementary participation rate went up from 85 percent in schoolyear 1991-1992to 97 percent in schoolyear 2001-2002.It was highest in Region IV at 99.2 percent and lowest in Region IX at 90.9 percent. However, many of the children who enroll do not complete the schoolyear, as evidenced by the low cohort survival rate. The cohort survival rate declined from 68.4 percent to 67.1 percent over the same period. This means that only 67 out of every 100students who enrolled in Grade 1 were able to graduate from elementary. Table19. Participationrate SY1985-1986 to SY2000-2001 Level/School Year
SY 1991-1992
8Y 1995-1996
SY2001-2002
Elementary Secondary
85.1 55.42
92.7 62.25
97.02 73.44
Source:Department of Education
Figure4. Elementaryschoolsparticipationrate byregion, SY2001-2002
16. The PovertyFight:HasIt MadeAn Impact? Similarly, secondary participation rate went up considerably but remai:i1ed low at 73 percent. Again, regional disparities were very large. Secondary participation rate was high in Region I at 94 percent but very low in ARMM at 32 percent. Cohort survival rate was also low at 73 percent. This implies that for every 100student who entered first year high school, only 73 were able to graduate from high school. Studies show that for every 100 children who enter Grade I, only 67 will graduate from elementary. If all of these children then proceed to high school, only 49 will graduate from high school. In ARMM, for every 100children who enter Grade I, only 34 will graduate from elementary, and only 24will eventually graduate from high school. Figure5. Secondaryschoolsparticipationrate,SY2001-2002
ThePovertySituation'17 Figure6. Elementaryschoolscohort survival rate,SY2001-2002
Figure7. Secondaryschoolscohort survival rate,SY2001-2002
18. The PovertyFight:HasIt MadeAn Impact?
Health Improvements in the health status of the population were evident in the increase in the life expectancy,from 56.9 in 1975to 66.6 years in 2001 for males, and from 59.9 yearsin 1975to 71.9years in 2001 for females. Infant and child mortality rates declined significantly. Infant mortality rate (IMR) was reduced from 57 per 1000live births in 1990 to 35 in 1998. Mortality rate among children below five years old also decreased from 80 per 1000children aged less than 5 years old to 48 in 1998. However, disparities were very large with IMR in ARMM, more than double that in the NCR and Region VII. Maternal mortality rate (MMR), however, remains high despite the decline from 209 per 100,000 live births in 1993 to 172 in 1998. Furthermore, MMR in ARMM was very high at 320, almost triple that in NCR. Table20. Life expectancyat birth Gender Male Female
1975
56.9 59.9
1980
59.8 63.4
1985
61.3 64.9
1990
62.8 66.4
Source:PhilippineStatisticalYearbook, 1991and2001,NSO Figure8. Infant mortalityrate byregion, 1998
1995
64.8 70.1
2000
66.3 71.6
2001
66.6 71.9
The PovertySituation.19 Figure 9. Child mortality rate by region, 1995
Figure10. Maternalmortalityrate by region, 1995
20 .The PovertyFight: Has It MadeAn Impact?
The mortality data suggest that areas where access to primary health care may be limited by geography or political conflict, the risk of dying is double that in areas where health care is more available.
Nutrition The nutritional status of the population has improved, albeit modestly. Malnutrition prevalence among 0- to 5-year-old children has declined by 4 percentage points over an II-year period. Despite the improvement, three out of every 10 children are still underweight based on international standards. Table 21. Prevalence
Year 1987 1989-90 1992 1993 1996 1998 2001
of malnutrition
among 0-5 year-old children
Percentage of children who are underweight for their age Philippine Reference Standards International Reference Standards
9.98 9.88 10.28 8.48
34.5
8.8
30.8
9.2
32.0
.0-6 year-<Jldchildren Source: FNRI,DOST
Figure11.Malnutritionprevalence(InternationalStandards),2001
34.0
29.9 30.6
ThePovertySituation.21 Access to basic facilities Access to safe water went up steadily from 69.9 percent in 1985to 78.5 percent in 2000. However, despite this improvement, some areas continued to suffer from low access. Only three out of every 10 households in ARMM have access to potable water. Access to sanitation increased from 68.8 percent in 1985to 82.5 percent in 2000. Again, ARMM had the lowest access at 44.7 percent while NCR had the highest access at 95.6 percent. Table22.Accessto potablewater,1985-2000 1985
Proportion withAccessto PotableWater 1988 1991 1994 1997
69.9
71.9
Region
Philippines
73.7
77.4
76.9
Sourceof basicdata: 1985-2000 FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Survey,NSO Figure12. Accessto potablewater by Region,2000
11-83.6
2000
78.5
22 .The PovertyFight: Has It Made An Impact?
Table23. Accessto sanitarytoilet facility, 1985-2000 1985
Proportion withAccessSanitaryToiletFacility 1988 1991 1994 1997
68.8
69.1
Region
Philippines
71.6
74.9
77.2
2000
82.5
Sourceof basicdata: 1985-2000 FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Survey,NSO
Figure13.Accessto sanitary toilet facility by region,2000
1-'}2.1 ~
~
11-94.4
The proportion of householdswith accessto electricityincreasedfrom 57.0 percent to 75.4 percent over the same period. While NCR had 99 percent coverage, ARMM has only 37 percent coverage.
Comparisonwith othercountries Table 24shows selected social indicators for the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. The Philippines has the highest poverty incidence based on the US$1 per day criterion adopted by the World Bank for international comparison. Vietnam, which had a poverty incidence of 51 percent in 1990while the Philippines had 19 percent at that time, now has a lower poverty incidence.
ThePovertySituation'23 However, the Philippines performs better than Vietnam in the area of nutrition, literacy, health, and education. Thailand, which was often regarded as very similar to the Philippines 20 years ago, has been more successful in reducing poverty. The Philippines is the second best performer in education, as evidenced by the high elementary participation rate. Figure14.Accessto electricityby region, 2000
The Philippines, like the other countries, had experienced improvements in human development as measured by the human development index (HDI) developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). HDI is a composite index that puts together the following four indicators: life expectancy at birth; functional literacy and the combined elementary and high school enrollment ratio; and real income per capita. Table 25 shows that the five countries experienced improvements in the quality of life. Malaysia had the highest HDI, followed by Thailand. The Philippines used to be number 1 in 1980 only to slip to number 3. For the period 1985-2000, Vietnam had the largest increase (difference between end year HDI and beginning year HDI), closely followed by Indonesia. The Philippines posted the smallest. If trends continue, we might be overtaken by countries like Vietnam.
Decomposition of Poverty.27
reduction of 9.4 percentagepoints only over a 15-yearperiod, or an averagereduction of 0.6 percentagepoint annually. The dominanceof the growth componentoverthe redistribution componentis also evident during the subperiods1985-1991, 1991-1997, and 1997-2000. However,in the lastsubperiod,percapitaincome growth was negative, resulting in an increasein the poverty incidence due to the growth component. Moreover,the Gini coefficient declined during the sameperiod, resulting in a decline in povertyincidence due to the redistribution component.This tookplaceat the time the Asianfinancial crisis struck the region in 1997and the EI Nino in 1998,causing the economy to slow down. During the period, real GDP grew by 2.38 annually. With population growing at an annual rate of 2.36 percent, this translates to virtually stagnantper capita GDP.Moreover, Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIBS) data indicate a decline in per capita income. This explains why the growth component led to an increase in poverty incidence. On the other hand, the financial crisis affected the richer decilesmore than the poor sectorsof society. The 1998Annual Poverty Indicators Surveys (APIS) shows that while all income groups experienceddeclinesin averageincome, the percentage declineswere greater for the higher income groups. This resulted in a more equitable distribution of income. Table 27. Growth of real per capita income & change in Gini concentration
Year 1985-1991 1991-1997 1997-2000 1985-2000
RealPerCapitaIncomeGrowth
4.3327 3.6737 -0.5992
2.9418
ratios
Changein Gini 0.0214 0.0185 -0.0047
0.0352
Sourceof basicdata:NationalStatisticalCoordination BoardandNationalStatisticsOffice
Policyimplications The resultsindicate that the observedpoverty reductionwas due mainly to economicgrowth, not redistribution. Economicgrowth brought about an increase in per capita income, thereby reducing the incidence of poverty. However,the inequitable distribution of income preventedthe poor from benefiting fully from this growth. In fact, the results show that the unequal distribution evencontributed to an increasein poverty. It is clear from the results that the rate at which poverty incidence could be reduced is very much dependent on economic growth. Sustained high economic growth is therefore neededto bring down poverty incidence. The results also suggestthat the nature of economic growth is important in our fight against poverty. It is not enoughfor GNPto grow at a high rate, the poor must benefit from this growth.
28 .The Poverty Fight: Has It Made An Impact?
Anotherimplicatibn of the resultsis that giventhe kind of growth that we have had and assuming this pattem will not change, it is imperative that the country also has programs directed at the poor. Otherwise, even if we experiencegrowth, we may not make significant progress in our fight againstpoverty.
4 Chronic and Transient Poverty1
This sectionlooks at the movementsin and out of povertyto distinguish between chronic and transient poverty. This is the first time that we have panel households from the FIES that extendsfor more than one year. Consequently,this is the first time in the Philippines that a study on the movementsin and out of povertyis conductedusing a panel set of householdsfrom a nationwide surveyof the National StatisticsOffice (NSO). The recent experienceof the Philippines has shown that one major crisis is enoughto wipe out the gains in povertyreduction. This highlights the vulnerability not just of the poor but also of the nonpoor to macroeconomic crisesand natural calamities. To assesshow shocks such as the Asian financial crisis and abnormal weather phenomenon affect the poverty situation in the Philippines,one must distinguishbetweenchronic and transientpoverty. A panel data set of 17,897householdshas been made available by the NSO from the 1997FIES and the 1998and 1999APIS. Based on this panel data set, 31.4percent of the families were found poor in 1997.The official poverty thresholds in 1997were then adjusted for inflation to generateestimates of poverty thresholds in 1998and 1999.The National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) decided not to release official figures for poverty thresholds and incidence, since the APIS was not exactlycomparableto the FIES. The two major differences were the questionnairesused and the reference period. The FIES questionnaire was more detailed than the APIS questionnaire.The FIBS collectsdata for the first and secondsemesters of the reference year in tWo surveyrounds. The APIS collectsdata for the secondand third quarters of the referenceyear in one surveyround. For this study, the income for the two quarters from APIS is doubled to come up with the annual income. It would have been ideal to incorporate a seasonality adjustment factor but there is no information on the seasonalityof family income by quarter or by month. 1 This section draws from the paper 'Movements in and out of poverty" by Celia M. Reyes, MIMAP Philippine ResearchPaper, January 2002.
30 .The PovertyFight: Has It Made A~~mpact? Table28.Povertyincidenceof families,1997,1998and 1999(unweighted) 1997
1998
1999
Magnitude
5,612
7,251
7,287
Proportion (%)
31.4
40.5
40.7
Sourceof basicdata:RunfromthematchedPublicUseFilesofthe 1997FamilyIncomeand Expenditures Survey,andthe 1998and1999AnnualPovertyIndicators Survey.
For purposes of this paper, chronic poor are defined as those who were poor in 1997,1998and 1999(PPP).While three years may be too short to define them as chronically poor, data constraints do not permit an alternative definition. Similarly, transient poor are thosewho were nonpoor in 1997and poor in 1999(NPN, NPN). It would also be instructive to find out who recovers easily from a shock (NPN, nonpoor in 1997,poor in 1998,and non poor in 1999),and those who take longer to recover from a shock (NPP or nonpoor in 1997, poor in 1998 and 1999). Another group worth tracking consists of those who are able to take advantage of the situation (PNN or poor in 1997,nonpoor in 1998and 1999)and those who are able to protect themselves from shocks (NNN, or the nonpoor in 1997, 1998and 1999). Figure 15. Movements in and out of poverty
ChronicandTransient Poverty.31 Table 29 shows the number and proportion of families belonging to the abovementioned eight categories, depending on their poverty status in each of the three years. Seemingly unaffected by shocks are 46.4 percent who have remained nonpoor all throughout the three years. On the other hand, 21.7 percent have remained poor all throughout the period. Table 30 shows the distribution of the poor and nonpoor by region. In addition, the poor are disaggregated into chronic poor (PPP) and transient poor (those who belong to the NPP, NNP and PNP groups). Similarly, the nonpoor are disaggregated into the never poor (NNN) and the previously poor (PPN. PNN, and NPN). Table 29. Number and percent of families by poverty status (Unweighted)
PovertyStatus
1997
1998
1999
PPP PPN PNP PNN NPP NPN NNP NNN
Poor Poor Poor Poor Nonpoor Nonpoor Nonpoor Nonpoor
Poor Poor Nonpoor Nonpoor Poor Poor Nonpoor Nonpoor
Poor Nonpoor Poor Nonpoor Poor Nonpoor Poor Nonpoor
Total
Numberof Families Percent 3,881 665 578 488 1,551 1,154 1,277 8,303
21.7 3.7 3.2 2.7 8.7 6.4 7.1 46,.4
17,897
100
Sources of basic data: Run from the matchedPublic Use Files of the 1997 Family Incomeand ExpendituresSurvey, and the 1998 and 1999Annual Poverty IndicatorsSurveys
Table30.Numberof householdsby povertystatus,1999
Region Philippines
PoorHouseholds NonpoorHouseholds Total Chronic TransientTotalPoor PreviouslyNeverpoor Total poor poor poor Nonpoor 3881
Ilocos Region 207 Cagayan Valley 138 Central Luzon 148 SouthernTagalog 482 Bicol Region 335 WesternVisayas 343 Central Visayas 239 EasternVisayas 236 Western Mindanao 176 Northern Mindanao 444 Southern Mindanao 251 Central Mindanao 275 NCR 60 CAR 206 ARMM 341
3406
7287
2307
8302
10609
17896
180 141 354 466 206 250 196 244 181 275 194 158 223 121 217
387 279 502 948 541 593 435 480 357 719 445 433 283 327 558
141 103 244 311 113 183 116 145 109 200 155 76 158 101 152
361 346 1009 1561 314 600 498 380 285 537 445 233 1230 315 188
502 449 1253 1872 427 783 614 525 394 737 600 309 1388 416 340
889 728 1755 2820 968 1376 1049 1005 751 1456 1045 742 1671 743 898
Sourcesof basicdata: Run from the matchedPublic Use Files of the 1997 Family Incomeand ExpendituresSurvey, and the 1998 and 1999Annual Poverty IndicatorsSurveys
32 .The PovertyFight: Has It MadeAn Impact?
Across regions, the chronic poor are concentrated in Southern Tagalog, Northern Mindanao, Western Visayas, ARMM, and the Bicol Region (Table 30). In terms of percentage to total number of sample households, the incidence of chronic poverty is highest in ARMM, Central Mindanao, Bicol, and Northern Mindanao (Table 31). Table 31 shows that of the 40.7 percent who are classified as poor in 1999, only 21.7 percent are chronic poor. The other half can be classified as transient poor, or those who were previously nonpoor. On the other hand, of the 59.3 percent who are nonpoorin 1999,12.9 percent were previously poor. A total of 31.9 percent, or about a third of the sample, have been moving in and out of the poverty cycle within this three-year period. Table31.Distributionof householdsby povertystatus,1999 PoorHouseholds Region
NonpoorHouseholds
Total Chronic TransientTotalPoor PreviouslyNeverpoor Total poor poor poor Nonpoor
21.7
19.0
40.7
12.9
46.4
59.3
100
IlocosRegion 23.3 CagayanValley 18.9 CentralLuzon 8.4 SouthernTagalog 17.1 BicolRegion 34.6 WesternVisayas 24.9 CentralVisayas 22.8 EasternVisayas 23.5 WesternMindanao23.4 NorthernMindanao30.5 SouthernMindanao 24.0 CentralMindanao37.1 NCR 3.6 CAR 27.8 ARMM 38.0
20.3 19.4 20.2 16.5 21.3 18.2 18.7 24.3 24.1 18.9 18.6 21.3 13.4 16.3 24.2
43.5 38.3 28.6 33.6 55.9 43.1 41.5 47.8 47.5 49.4 42.6 58.4 16.9
15.9 14.2
40.6 47.5 57.5 55.4 32.4 43.6 47.5 37.8
56.5
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Philippines
13.9 11.0 11.7 13.3 11.1 14.4 14.5
13.7 14.8 10.2 9.5
44.0
13.6
62.1
16.9
38.0
36.9 42.6 31.4 73.6 42.4 21.0
61.7
71.4 66.4 44.1
56.9 58.5 52.2
52.5 50.6 57.4 41.6 83.1 56.0 37.9
Sources of basicdata: Run from the matchedPublic Use Files of the 1997 Family Incomeand Expenditures Survey,and the 1998 and 1999Annual.Poverty IndicatorsSurveys.
Policyimplications The results also suggestthat we should not treat the poor as given by the official poverty incidence as a homogeneousgroup. Usually, we tend to regard the 40 percentwho are poor as one group. The findings indicate that there are actually severaldistinct groups.The poor can be classified into (1) chronic poor and (2) transient poor. In turn, the transient poor consists of (a) NPP (vulnerable to shock and cannot
ChronicandTransient Poverty.33 recover), (b) NNP (not as vulnerable), and (c) PNP (able to take advantage of the shock but only temporarily). Similarly, the nonpoor can be classified into (3) never poor, and (4) previously poor. The latter consists of (a) PNN (able to take advantage of the shock immediately), (b) PPN (able to take advantage of the shock), and (c) NPN (not that vulnerable and easily recovers from a shock). The distinction between chronic and transient poverty has important policy implications because some of the interventions needed by the chronic poor may be different from those needed by the transient poor. Different policies and programs are called for in addressing these two types of poverty. Longer-term investments in the poor, such as increasing their human and physical assets or returns to those assets, are likely to be more appropriate for chronic poverty. On the other hand, insurance and income stabilization schemes, which protect households against manmade or natural shocks, would appear to be more useful when responding to transient poverty. Moreover, some programs are locked to certain criteria. Consequently, it is possible that the transient poor may not be able to avail themselves of some of these programs when they need assistance. For example, if there is a food assistance program designed for the poor, and the beneficiaries have been identified previously, then the transient poor may not be able to take advantage of this program. It is important to have programs to respond to shocks, even transitory ones. Transitory shocks can have long-term consequences for the poor. For example, some households who were affected by the 1997-1998 crisis had to sell their land and/or carabaos to meet consumption needs. Older children also dropped out of school to reduce expensesand to find work to augment household incomes. These coping mechanisms could have long-term implications on the productive capacity of the household. This has also budget implications for targeted interventions. Programs intended to address the needs of the chronic poor need not be provided for the transient poor. Similarly, programs that are intended to help those who have succumbed to poverty as a result of transitory shocks may need assistance for only a short period of time. For example, children of chronic poor families need assistance to go to school, including free tuition and out-of-pocket expenses. The transient poor may transfer their children from private schools to public schools. They may also need assistance with out-of-pocket expenses but for a shorter period of time-or until they can get out of poverty. Thus, the implied budgetary requirements are lower. This is important particularly today when we are experiencing budget deficits. This makes the fight. against poverty less daunting.
Characteristi~~f thepoor This section presents the characteristics of the chronic poor, the transient poor and the neverpoor.
34 .The Poverty Fight: Has It Made An Impact?
Educationalattainment The educational attainment of the household head is measured in terms of the number of years of schooling. Table 32 shows that the average educational attainment of the chronic poor is the lowest at 7.27 years. On the other hand, the educational attainment of the never poor is the highest at 13.04years. The results support the findings of other studies that education is highly correlated with poverty status. Therefore, improving access to education by the poor is an important policy instrument in the fight to eradicate poverty.
Familysize Table 32 shows the averagefamily size for each of the eight groups. It indicates that thosewho are chronically poor tend to have larger family sizeswhile thosewho are nonpoor tend to havesmall family sizes.The results, together with similar findings of other studies,suggestthat the country's population managementpolicy playsa critical role in the fight againstpoverty. Table 32. Characteristics
of the poverty groups,
1999
Poverty
Mean Level
Mean Family
Percentage of
Mean Percentage
Group
of Attained
Size
Households Engaged in
of Income Derived
Agriculture
from Agriculture
Education
PPP PPN PNP NPP PNN NNP NPN NNN
8.45
6.1 5.1 5.4 5.4
8.78
4.8
9.52
5.1
7.27 7.97 8.03
9.69
4.6
13.04
4.6
56.4 45.6 47.8 40.9 32.8 28.7 30.1 15.2
42.52186 31.13012 33.37448 29.68691 21.47095 20.56498
19.99991 8.915485
Dependence on agriculture More than half of the families who are chronically poor havehousehold heads that are engagedin agriculture (Table33). On the other hand, only 15 percent of those who are nonpoor are engagedin agriculture. More than 40 percent of the income of the chronic poor are derived from agricultural sources.On the other hand, 9 percent of the income of the nonpoor is derivedfrom non-agriculturalsources.This highlights the effects of low productivity in the agriculture sector. Considering that more than half of the poor are in the rural areas,the importance of
ChronicandTransient Poverty.35
increasing productivity in the agriculture sector is vital in reducing
poverty. Factorsaffectingpovertystatus To determine which factors affect poverty status (whether poor or nonpoor), logit models are estimated.This would help identify policy variables that need to be consideredin the formulation of strategiesto reduce poverty. The model is givenis basedon the following formula: 7t(nonpoor) =
exp (a +13(x1+ 132x2+ 133X3) 1 + exp (a +13,x. + 132x2+ 133X3)
where: 7t(nonpoor) = "success"probability when Xi takes value Xiholding all other variables constant; 7t(nonpoor) increases or decreases as an S-shaped function of the x's; the rate of change increases as 's increase Xi = independent variable (i = 1,2,3) J3= detemlines the rate of increase or decrease of the S-shaped
curve sign of [3 = indicates whether the curve ascends or descends
Six modelswere estimatedfor the different rounds of the PIES. Factorsincluded in all models to determine the probability of being nonpoor are (a) highesteducational attainment of the householdhead (HHEDUC), (b) family size (FSIZE), (c) and proportion of income derived from agriculture (AGGRP).and figures shown below are based on the FIES 2000data.The samepattern is observedfor the other PIES years, 1985,1988,1991,1994,and 1997. Figure 16 shows the probability of being nonpoor for those householdswith income derived from non-agricultural sources.Seven lines are shownto representthe sevenlevelsof educationalattainment. The graphs indicate that the probability of being nonpoor increases with higher educationalattainment. Moreover,the probability of being nonpoor for the same educational attainment decreaseswith family size. Thus, for families whose householdheadshave the same level of educational attainment, larger families tend to be poorer than smaller ones. Figure 17shows the probability of being nonpoor for those families whose heads have had some elementary schooling but have not graduated from elementary. Dependence on agriculture is representedby the share of income derived from agricultural sources to total income. Five lines are shown to representthe five groups of
36 .The PovertyFight: Has It MadeAn Impact?
income shares from agriculture. The results indicate that probability of being nonpoor decreasesas the share of agricultural income increases. Again, the probability of being nonpoor decreases as family size increases. The results suggest the importance of providing access to education to the poor, adopting a stronger population management and increasing productivity in the agriculture sector. Figure16. Probabilityof beingnonpoor at varyinglevelsof highestlevelof educationattainedby the householdhead(HHEDUC)
Figure 17. Probability of being non poor atvarying levels of proportion of income derived from agriculture (AGGRP)
5 Changes in Policy and Institutional Environment
This section documents changes in policy and institutional environment. It discusses the different approaches to poverty reduction adopted by the different administrations.
Approachesto PovertyReduction It is often said that development efforts in the 1950s overemphasized economic growth rather than the reduction of poverty. The "trickle down" effect was expected to address the poverty problem, but this was not the case. In the 1970sand 1980s,there was a conscious shift in the orientation of development effort toward poverty reduction and income equality in the 1970sand 1980s. The urgency to address macroeconomic stabilization and adjustment issues in the 1980s,however, has hindered poverty alleviation policies and programs. At present, however, the growing consensus is toward a comprehensive approach to poverty reduction. Rapid and sustained economic growth is needed to improve the quality of life of the population; at the same time targeted interventions aimed at reducing poverty are needed to reach the very poor and marginalized sectors of the economy. The following sections cover a brief description of the poverty alleviation/reduction strategy, as presented in the medium-term development plans of the Philippines. Marcos administration Four-year Development Plan, 1971-1974 This plan shows that the Marcos administration's priorities included maximum economic growth and stability, equitable distribution of income and wealth, and decreased unemployment. It did not, however, mention any major anti-poverty strategy. Yet, it tackled important components of a poverty reduction strategy. It included sections on population and family planning, employment promotion, land reform, access to water, education, housing and health.
38 .The Poverty Fight: Has It MadeAn Impact?
Four-yearDevelopmentPlan,1974-1977 The Marcos administration had set for this plan the general development goal of improving the standards of living of the greater mass of the population. The government also planned to promote employment, economic growth, equitable distribution of income, regional development, industrialization, social development and price and BOP stability. Like the previous development plan, this one did not mention any specific target for poverty reduction. However, to achieve the goal of social development and equitable distribution of income, the government called for the intensification of social welfare and community development programs. The government wanted to ensure that these programs were directed toward enabling the poor to become productive members of society. Other important programs mentioned in this plan included the integrated regional projects, land reform program, cooperative development, food production program, infrastructure development, family planning program, housing, tourism development, health programs, rural electrification, and education and manpower development.
PhilippineDevelopmentPlan,1978-1982 The Marcos regime's main focus was toward the attainment of a better quality of life for the Filipinos. Thus its emphasis on the promotion of social development and social justice. The government's planned activities included the creation of jobs, reduction of income disparities, and improvement of the living standards of the poor. The plan, however, did not mention an overall strategy for poverty reduction. To attain its priorities, the Marcos government aimed for sustained economic growth, self-sufficiency in food, self-reliance in energy, price stability, upliftment of less developed regions, environmental management and internal security.
PhilippineDevelopmentPlan,1983-1987 The country's major national goals were the attainment of sustained economic growth, equitable distribution of the fruits of development, and total human development. To sustain economic growth, the government formulated policies toward a) balanced growth among sectors and regions; b) self-sufficiency in food and development of natural resources; c) industrial restructuring and export development; d) greater self-reliance in energy and infrastructure support; e) private sector orientation; f) supportive public sector role; g) resource mobilization and usage; h) tourism development; i) promotion and development of science and technology; and j) international economic cooperation. To equitably distribute the fruits of development, the government adopted the following strategies: a) expanding opportunities for productive employment; b) regional and human settlements development; c) agrarian reform, agricultural and natural resources
development; d) increased access to development facilities and resources; and e) improved provision of social services. To achieve human development, the government also adopted the following policies and strategies: a) improvement of population and social services; b) education and manpower development; c) enhancing of health and nutrition services; d) and better housing. Aquino administration
PhilippineDevelopmentPlan,1987-1992 The country's development efforts were principally directed toward the achievement of the following goals: (a) poverty alleviation; (b) generation of more productive employment; (c) promotion of equity and social justice; and (d) achievement of sustainable economic growth. For the first time, the government has set a target for poverty reduction (Table 33) and activities for this objective formed part of the plan. To address the goals of poverty alleviation and equitable distribution of benefits, the Aquino administration implemented an employment-oriented, rural-based development strategy. In the medium term, a rural-based strategy was necessary since about two-thirds of the population at the time lived in the rural areas and was largely dependent on agriculture for their employment. Thus, the direction of the country was toward the attainment of agricultural development and employment generating industries. On the other hand, the short-term strategy was to stimulate recovery by inducing demand through increased i,ncomes. For this purpose, the government launched the Community Employment and Development Program (CEDP)to generate an additional one million jobs during the 18-month period beginning July 1986. The program's focus was on the rural areas and part of the planned activities was the construction of small-scale, labor-intensive infrastructure projects.
PhilippineDevelopmentPlan Updates,1990-1992 The Plan's main objective was the total development of the human being. For this, the government continued to address a) economic development; b) productivity and growth; c) equitable distribution of opportunities, income, wealth, and the means of production; d) and poverty alleviation. The centerpiece of the development strategy was employment-oriented, rural-based, and maximized the complementarities between agriculture and industry. The main strategy for alleviating poverty was the upliftment of the rural poor. To attain rural development and equity objectives, the government set out to undertake infrastructure development, enhancement of social service delivery, agrarian reform, and decentralization. The areas of policy emphasis were economic stabilization, countryside agro-industrial development, market liberalization, human resource development, institutional reforms, and decentralization.
40 .The PovertyFight: Has It MadeAn Impact?
Ramosadministration: Medium-TermPhilippine Development Plan
(MTPDP),1993-1998 All economic development efforts were geared toward human developmentand improvementof the quality of life. The main strategies for these were people empowerment, acceleration of global competitiveness,and reinforcementof the mutual relationshipbetween the two. Tobe able to achievesustaineddevelopment,the government implemented policies of decentralization,reliance on nongovernment initiative and democraticconsultation, full-cost recovery, socialequity, and macroeconomic stability. The Ramos administration realized the urgency of industrialization and rapid growth in average incomes to alleviate poverty and attain human development.Peopleempowermentwas the key strategy. The idea was that the government should not anchor developmenton its own actions. Rather developmentshould proceed primarily from the economic initiatives of communities, households, firms, cooperatives,and NGOs,as seen in well-functioning markets. The policies under people empowermentincluded decentralization, deregulation, reliance on the private sector,cooperativedevelopment, and the removal of bureaucratic hindrances and penalties to small enterprises.International competitivenesswas the other strategy for attaining human development. The Ramos administration launchedthe Social ReformAgenda (SRA) in 1994as its integrated national action agendaon anti-poverty. An assessmentof the SRA can be found in Reyesand Del Valle (1999). Estradaadministration:Medium-Term Philippine DevelopmentPlan,1999-2004 The priorities of the Estrada administration included acceleration of rural development, delivery of basic social development services, strengthening competitiveness, sustained development of infrastructure, ensuring macroeconomic stability and reforming governance. The Estrada administration formulated policies that sought to promote community- and center-based, gender-sensitive social welfare interventions for the poor, vulnerable, and disadvantaged, including children, youth, women, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, informal sector workers, victims of disasters and human rights violations, older persons, dysfunctional families, and depressed communities using the Total Family Approach. Another policy of the government was to enable LGUs to empower communities, especially in the fifth- and sixth-class municipalities and urban poor communities through the comprehensive and integrated delivery of social services to address their minimum basic needs. The government also focused on enabling LGUs, NGOs, pas, and cooperatives to deliver social welfare and community development services. In addition, the government focused on improving
Changes in PolicyandInstitutional Environment. 41 the implementation of laws to promote the welfare of the poor and vulnerable groups. Aside from these, there was also the strengthening of the database for monitoring poverty. The Estrada administration also concentrated on expanding the Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (CIDSS) to the fifth- and sixth-class municipalities and urban poor areas. Moreover, providing capability building for LGUs, NGOs, pas and cooperatives on the delivery of welfare services and complementing resources through partnership, augmentation, joint venture, among others. were also in the government's medium-term plan. The government adopted the Lingap Para sa Mahihirap as its centerpiece program for poverty reduction.
Arroyoadministration:Medium-Term PhilippineDevelopment Plan,2001.2004 The Arroyo govemment's national priorities include macroeconomic stability with equitable growth based on free enterprise, agriculture and fisheries modernization with social equity, comprehensive human development and protecting the vulnerable, good govemance and the rule of law. One of the govemment's main strategies for poverty reduction is convergence. In this regard, the activities to be undertaken include: (a) developing and implementing the govemment's banner program for poverty reduction, the Kapit- Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan (or KALAHI), a comprehensive and integrated convergence strategy to improve delivery of services for the poorest municipalities and provinces in the country; (b) assisting LG Us in preparing local poverty action programs that will assess the poverty situation in their respective localities and identify services needed to alleviate poverty in their area; (c) improving the efficiency of the use of public funds in targeting the poorest groups in society by reviewing affirmative action programs for vulnerable groups; and (d) developing mechanisms to involve the private sector actively in the provision of services and other forms of assistance to the poverty areas. Other activities worth mentioning are assistance to vulnerable groups, microfinance, poverty statistics generation, and cross-sectoral endeavors. To complement the regular antipoverty programs, the government is also committed to implementing temporary but results-oriented measures that seek to bring the poor and vulnerable back to the mainstream development process. These interventions come in the form of social assistance and welfare, social security, and social safety nets.
Socialsecurity Activities to attain social security that the government plans to undertake include the following: (a) improving accessof low-income informal sector workers to social security; (b) designingioperationalizirig provident fund
42 .The PovertyFight: Has It Made An Impact?
schemes for overseas Filipino worke.rs, or OFWs,that will ensure their protection upon retirement, disability, loss of job, among others; (c) activating and strengthening community participation in implementing a national health insurance program to reduce health and nutrition risks of the poor; (d) adopting an integrated approach in the implementation of the National Health Insurance Program's Indigent Program otherwise known as the "Medicare para sa Masa"; (e) tapping the private sector and other sources to support the LGU counterpart for premium payment; and (f) improving Philippine health systems and procedures.
Socialsafetynets To secure the welfare of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in society, the government set up some social safety nets. The steps undertaken included: (a) developing the capacity to institutionalize an early warning indicator system aimed at detecting the onset of socioeconomic disruptions which will provide sound basis in designing and implementing social safety net programs; (b) improving access of the poorest households to subsidized rice, especially in the rural areas and Mindanao; (c) improving the efficiency of rice subsidy programs; (d) strengthening the impact of targeted nutrition programs; (e) encouraging the private sector to provide emergency cost-of-living allowance to workers in times of economic crisis; (f) ensuring the accessibility of displaced workers to public employment facilitation and marketing services, especially for those in the formal sector; (g) improving design, targeting and implementation of labor-based infrastructure programs to generate more employment; and (h) strengthening the capacity of LGUs, NGOs, and the community to improve preventive, emergency and rehabilitative assistance/servicesto victims of disasters/ calamities.
6 Some Issues in Poverty Reduction
This sectionfocuseson some of the issuesaffecting poverty reduction. It specifically revolves around three major areas: measurement of poverty, programs, and institutional arrangements.Issues related to the changesin the measurementof povertyand the emergingdemands for information are discussedbelow. Programs The various development plans seem to have paid attention to the problem of poverty, although in varying degrees. The inclusion of poverty reduction strategiesand targets seemsto be an indication of the government's commitment. Poverty reduction targets were incorporated for the first time in the 1987-1992development plan. Subsequentplans included poverty incidence targets. The 1999-2004 MTPDPalso included regional targets. However, the current plan for 2001-2004does not include poverty reduction targets. There was also an obvious shift in the terminologyused. While earlierplanstalked of "alleviating"poverty,more recentpronouncements talk about "reducing" or "eradicating"poverty. Perhapsthis reflects the new thrust of not just alleviating or "makingit easierto endure" poverty but really reducing, or "bringing down,," and even eradicating or "removing absolutely"poverty. Programs directed toward eradicating poverty tend to figure prominently in, if not serve as the centerpieceof, an administration1s program. Consequently,programs tend to be identified with a specific administration and therefore tend to coterminous with the administration that initiated it. This practice of discontinuingprograms associatedwith previous administrations has been disadvantageousto the poor. The SRA of the Ramos Administration is a case in point. It consistedof 10flagship projects,namely, (a) agricultural development, (b) fisheriesand aquatic resourcesmanagement,(c) ancestraldomains, (d) socialized housing, (e) comprehensiveand integrated delivery of social services, (f) worker's welfare and protection, (g) livelihood, (h) credit, and (i) institution building and effective participation in
44 .The PovertyFight: Has It Made An Impact?
governance.Unfortunately, it was dropped after the term of the Ramos administration. Many of the reforms undertaken were institutional changesand therefore would take sometime before their impact could be felt (Reyesand del Valle 1999. Table33. Povertyreductiontargetsundervariousadministrations Plan
PovertyTargets
Four-Year Development Plan, 1971-1974 (Marcos Administration)
Nospecifictargetfor povertyreduction wasmentioned in thePlan.
1978-1982 Five-Year PhilippineDevelopment Plan (Including theTen-Year Development Plan,1978-1987) (MarcosAdministration)
Theplandid notmentionanypovertytarget.Butit did mentionthatovercoming poverty, underemployment, andunemployment wasoneofthenationalgoalsand policies.Theplanalsotargetedto coverin an outreach programofthe Department ofSocialServicesand Development approximately 15millionindividuals (31.2 percent of the1980population) belonging to thebottom 30 percentoftheincomeclassesby1982.Thetarget groupsincludeddisadvantaged groups(familyheads, preschoolers, youth,disabled,anddistressed), cultural minorities, industrial andagricultural workers,andsocial security workers.Communities suchasdistressed barangays, municipalities, andcitieswerealsoincluded as targetareas.
Five-Year Philippine Development Plan,1978-1982 (Updated for 1981and1982) (MarcosAdministration)
Theplandid notmentionpovertyitselfbutsocial development astarget.It aimedfor lowerpopulation growth,improved healthandnutritionstatus,higher educational performance, betterhousing,andother socialservicesandcommunity development.
Five-Year Philippine Development Plan,19831987(Marcos Administration)
Theplandid notmentionspecificpovertyreduction targetsbutstatedthathumandevelopment wasa major nationalgoal,andtherefore oneoftheprioritieswasto setprograms thatwoulddirectlyattackpoverty.Theplan didmentionits targetforthedeliveryofsocialservices.It wasexpectedthatthesocialsectorwouldhavereached outto 9.6millionneedyindividuals (or 13.3percentofthe population) by1987.Theself-employment assistance program wasdesigned to benefiteconomically and sociallyneedyindividuals in theworkingagegroup.
PhilippineDevelopment Plan, 1987-1992 (Aquino Administration)
Thepovertyincidence wastargetedto fallfrom59 percent in 1985to 45.4percentin 1992.Geographically, povertyincidence in theruralsectorwastargetedto declinefrom63 percent in 1985to 48 percentin 1992. NCR'spovertywasalsoprojected to fallfrom44 percent to 40 percent withinthesameperiodwhilethatofthe urbanareasoutsideNCRwasexpected to declinefrom 56to 49percent.
SomeIssuesin PovertyReduction'45 Table33. (cont'd.) Plan
PovertyTargets
Updatesof the Philippine DevelopmentPlan, 19901992 (AquinoAdministration)
From a povertyincidenceof 58.9 in 1985. the govemment'stargetfor 1992rangedfrom 46.1 to 49.3 percent.
Medium-TermPhilippine DevelopmentPlan, 1993-
Povertyshall be reducedfrom 39.2 percentin 1991to about30 percentby 1998.
1998(Ramosltl.dministration) Medium-TermPhilippine DevelopmentPlan, 1999-2004 (EstradaAdministration)
Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan,2001-2004 (ArroyoAdministration)
Povertyincidenceshall be reducedfrom 32 percentin 1997to 25-28 percentby 2004. Regionaltargetswere alsoincluded. In the 'Healing the Nation: The First 100 Days of the Macapagal-Arroyo Administration,'the MTPDP incorporatedthe goal of reducingpovertyincidenceto 28 percentby 2004. However,the final version of the 20012004MTPDPfailed to mentionany targetfor reducing povertyincidence.
Sources: Four-YearDevelopmentPlan 1971-1974,Five-YearPhilippineDevelopmentPlan 19781982; Five-YearPhilippine DevelopmentPlan1983-1987;PhilippineDevelopmentPlan 1987-1992; Updatesof the Philippine DevelopmentPlan 1990-1992;Medium-TermPhilippineDevelopment Plan 1993-1998;Medium-TermPhilippineDevelopmentPlan 1999-2004;Medium-TermPhilippine DevelopmentPlan 2001-2004;and Healingthe Nation;The First 100 Days of the MacapagalArroyoAdministration
Table34. Specialpoverty alleviationfunds Nameof Fund PovertyAlleviation Fund-1 (1996) Local GovernmentEmpowermentFund (1996) 1stComponent PovertyAlleviation Fund -2 (1997) Poverty Alleviation Fund -3 (1998) Lingap Para sa MahirapFund (2000)
KALAHI
Amount(In MillionPesos) 4,000 100 2,000 2,500 2,500
Source:GAA;MTPDP2001-2004 andNAPC
Aside from the "SRA-enrolled" regular agency budgets, three special funds totaling P6.1 billion were created to augment the regular resources to attain the objectives of the SRA. These are the 1996Poverty Alleviation Fund (PAF-l), the 1996Local Government Empowerment Fund (LGEF) and the 1997 Poverty Alleviation Fund (PAF-2), and the 1998 Poverty Alleviation Fund (PAF-3).
46 .The PovertyFight: Has It MadeAn Impact?
In 1998, the Estrada Administration launched the Lingap Para sa Mahihirap (Caring for the Poor) Program. This program was granted a P2.5 billion allocation from the national budget to deliver medical assistance, livelihood, socialized housing, potable water supply, food subsidy and protective programs or services to the 100 poorest families in every city and province nationwide. Due to the absence of data at the household level, it took a long time to identify and validate the poorest families. The lists provided by the LGUs when subjected to validation showed the absence of uniform criteria across LGUs. Before the Program could be fully implemented, political events caused a change in administration. The Lingap Program had several major weaknesses: (a) lack of program ownership by the LGUs, which were not given adequate time to identify the 100 poorest families in their areas; (b) low targeting effectiveness and welfare impact which may be expected from a nationwide program that is spread over a wide area and to nonpoor beneficiaries; (c) lack of beneficiary consultation and monitoring; and (d) politicized process of beneficiary selection (MTPDP 2001-2004). In 2000, the Arroyo Administration launched its banner program for poverty reduction, the Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan (KALAHI), a comprehensive and integrated convergence strategy to improve the delivery of services to the poorest municipalities and provinces in the country. KALAHI has five strategies: (1) asset reform; (2) human development services; (3) employment and livelihood; (4) participation in governance of basic sectors; and (5) social protection and security against violence. KALAHI subscribes to the "convergence" approach propagated by the SRA while recognizing the need for "joint programming, implementation, and monitoring among national and local agencies, civil society sectors and people's organizations in the poor communities." While a special fund has not yet been established for KALAHI, some amount has been set aside to pilot-test the KALAHI approach in urban and rural barangays. In the KALAHI areas, a project is funded to address the most pressing need of the community. The short lifespan of the different poverty reduction programs has made it difficult to realize the full impact of these programs. Even before a program is fully implemented, it is scrapped and replaced with a new one, only to suffer the same fate a few years hence.
Institutionalarrangements The lack of continuity in the programs may be pardy due to institutional arrangements. Before the advent of the SRA, the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) coordinated poverty alleviation efforts.
SomeIssuesin PovertyReduction'47 Figure 18. Institutions in poverty alleviation
Evenbefore its reorganizationin 1987,NEDAhasbeenprimarily responsible for formulating continuing, coordinated, and fully integratedsocialand economicpolicies,plans,and programs.TheNEDA Board is composed of the following: the Presidentas chair; directorgeneral of the NEDA secretariat as vice-chair; and the following as members:ExecutiveSecretary,Secretaryof Finance,Secretaryof Trade and Industry, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretaryof Environment and Natural Resources,Secretaryof Public Worksand Highways, Secretary of Budgetand Management,Secretaryof Labor and Employment, and Secretary of Local Government. On April 10,1986,a significant number of urban poor marched to Malacaftang asking for a moratorium on demolition. This became instrumental in the creation of the Presidential Arm on Urban Poor Affairs. Subsequently,this was changedto Presidential Committee for the Urban Pooras a result of a National ConsultationWorkshopby two major urban poor alliances on May 30-June2,1986.Later, the name Presidential Council for the Urban Poor was adopted in lieu of the Presidential Committee for the Urban Poor. Then on December 8, 1986, Pres. Corazon Aquino signed Executive Order No. 82, creating the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP)to serve as direct link of the urban poor to the government in policy formulation and program implementation addressedto their needs. Its main functions are as follows: (a) to coordinate the speedy implementation of government policies and programs for the urban poor; and (b) to setup a consultativemechanism which shall provide a forum of continuing dialogue between the governmentand the urban poor on the proper planning and evaluation of programs and project affecting them. The Presidential Council for Countryside Development(PCCD) was established in 1992by virtue of EO No.6 to identify and address
7.
48 .The PovertyFight: Has It Made An Impact?
the socioeconomicproblems of regions,provincesand areas that have lagged behind terms of economic growth. The Council assists in identifying opportunities for growth and development,and motivates regionsand provincesto concentrateon developmentefforts that would acceleratethe growth process.The PCCDalso assistsin the development of infrastructure by mobilizing resourcesfor this purpose. In 1992,the Presidential Commissionto Fight Poverty (PCFP) wascreatedto administerall governmentactivitieson povertyalleviation to ensure propoor bias, focus on the poorest of the poor and critical services,and fast implementationof programsand projects.The PCFP's functions were to:
2. 3. 4. 5.
6.
8
Prepare a blue print of action that shall embody the Administration's poverty alleviation framework and translate this into short, medium and long-term targets which shall reflect the priority action areas of the government; Monitor the implementation and impact of government poverty alleviation programs, projects and activities; Coordinate and integrate government poverty alleviation efforts; Review and evaluate the level of performance of concerned agencies and activities; Facilitate the implementation of poverty alleviation activities; Communicate to the public government's poverty alleviation activities and their impact; Provide the support and assistance needed by local government units to ensure that they deliver the basic services to their respective constituencies; and Ensure that all government pro-poor programs build the capability of our people to be empowered and to be selfreliant.
In 1994, the Social Reform Council (SRC) was established to be the policymaking body behind the SRA. The SRC, chaired by the President, was tasked to oversee and coordinate parallel networks at the national, regional, and local levels, with a basic sector counterpart structure matching each level of the bureaucracy. The Council is referred to as an "expanded Cabinet," since 13 sectoral representatives sit in the SRC as counterparts to the Cabinet members designated as flagship champions. The Council is supported by a national technical working group and the SRC secretariat. The National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAP C) was created by the Office of the President through Republic Act No. 8425, which was passed to support the Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Program of the Ramos administration. It was created to serve as the coordinating
SomeIssuesin PovertyReduction'49 and advisory body for the implementation of the SRA. Republic Act No. 8425 abolished the PCFP, the SRC, and the PCCD. The NAPC took over the functions of the three abolished commissions and councils. It is not clear, however, why the PCUP was not included in this
reorganization.
The NAPC is composed of the chairperson (the President of the Republic); lead convenor as head of the NAPC secretariat (appointed by the President of the Republic); vice-chairperson of each of the government and basic sectors; and members composed of the heads of the departments and agencies involved (e.g., DAR, DA, DOLE, DBM, DSWD, DOH, DECS, DILG, DENR, DOF, NEDA, PCFC and PCUP), president of the leagues of local government units and representatives from each of the basic sectors (e.g, farmers and landless rural workers, artisanal fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, workers in the informal sector, women, youth and students, persons with disabilities, victims of disasters and calamities, senior citizens, NGOs, children, and cooperatives). This was the first time that the participation of the basic sectors in national policymaking and coordination was institutionalized. The NAPC's primary functions are to (a) coordinate with different national and local government agencies and private sector to ensure the full implementation of all social reform and poverty alleviation programs, as well as with local government units in the formulation of social reform and poverty alleviation programs for their respective areas in conformity with the national Poverty Action Agenda; (b) recommend policies and other measures to ensure the effective implementation of the commitments under the SRA; (c) ensure meaningful representation and active participation of the basic sectors; and (d) oversee, monitor, and recommend measures to ensure the effective formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policies, programs, and resource allocation and management of social reform and poverty alleviation programs. It took more than a year to constitute the NAPC because of the process of selecting the basic sector representatives. Thus the NAPC became operational only in 1999. Unfortunately, while the NAPC was "created to serve as the coordinating and advisory body for the implementation of the Social Reform Agenda," the SRA was dropped by the Estrada administration to replace it with the Lingap program. With the change in administration in 2000, the NAPC also changed its personnel. Moreover, the first set of basic sector representatives ended their term in 2002 (they have three-year terms) and a new set of representatives was selected in May 2002. In addition, a new program was adopted. All these changes affected the pace at which NAPC could develop and implement programs aimed at reducing
povertv.
50 .The PovertyFight: Has It MadeAn Impact?
At present, the NAPC coordinates the poverty reduction programs while NEDA coordinates all economic and social policies and programs. PCUP continues to perform its mandate of coordinating policies and programs for the urban poor. The heads of NEDA and PCUP are members of the NAPC. The challenge for these three agenciesis to put in place a poverty reduction program that will outlast any administration. Programs in general last only as long as their originators. Some have managed to stay but partly because the agency responsible for their creation made them politically relevant by changing their names. One example is the Kadiwa stores of the National Food Authority (NFA). This has survived various administrations by changing its name, initially, to NFA rolling stores, then to ERAP (Enhanced Retail Access for the Poor), and then to GMA (Greater Market Access) stores. One program that has managed to continue despite changes in administration is the Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (CIDSS) program, mainly because it is a regular program of the Department of Social Welfare and Development. This will be continued in the present administration with some modifications and will be called KALAHI-CIDSS. LGUs could playa critical role in poverty reduction. While policies and programs may be formulated at the national level, implementation of many of these programs depends on the machinery of the LGUs. With devolution resulting from the Local Government Code of 1991,LGUs are in a better position to prioritize the needs of the localities and identify the eligible program beneficiaries. The importance of local level participation has been further strengthened with the issuance of Memorandum Circular No. 2001-105 by the Department of Interior and Local Governments (DILG) on August 13,2002. It calls for the identification of Local Poverty Reduction Action (LPRAOs) in all municipalities, cities and provinces. The LPRAOs are tasked to oversee the poverty reduction efforts in their localities. In addition, DILG issued Memorandum Circular No. 2001-109 on August 21,2001 to enjoin all local chief executives to undertake local programs on poverty reduction and local economic transformation. It also reiterated the need to designate LPRAOs and to formulate the Local Poverty Reduction Action Agenda. Furthermore, it provided for an inventory of the poorest families, and identification of local needs in the areas of food, shelter, employment and education as well as external and internal sources of assistance to implement the action agenda. Given that the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) received by LGUs represents about 17 percent of the total national budget, it is a potentially large amount that can be used to address poverty at the local level. The challenge is to build the capacity of LPRAOs to carry out their tasks effectively.
SomeIssuesin PovertyReduction'51
Changesin povertymeasurement The definition of povertyhasundergonesignificant changesovertime. The official measureis basedon income. Thus, a personis considered poor if his income falls below the poverty threshold. The poverty threshold, determined by the NSCB,is the level of income necessaryto meetbasicfood and nonfood needsof eachhousehold.The first official poverty threshold was releasedin 1986for the year 1985and pavedthe way for the estimation of the first official povertyincidence.Thereafter, povertyincidence data havebeengeneratedeverythree years from the triennial FIES. Abrera (1976)Although nfitional surveys of family income and expenditures were done by official statistical agenciesin the Philippines at leastas earlyas 1957,for a long time their main use was for determining consumer basket weights to be used in monthly consumerprice indexing. It was not until the mid-1970sthat academicresearchersbegan to construct poverty lines, and then apply them to the distributions of income or expenditures from the existing surveys in order to estimate, unofficially, the incidence of
poverty. Consumptionas a welfaremeasure Somehave advocatedthe use of expenditurerather than income as the basis for computing the poverty measures.The use of consumption as a means to measure poverty first evolved in 1975,when the Social Indicators Project (SIP)by the DevelopmentAcademyof the Philippines used both income and expenditureto estimate poverty incidence. The poverty incidence generatedby the FIES expenditure data was lower than that of the income data. The expendituredata have generated70 percent povertyincidence for 1991while that of the income data was 78 percent. This was becausethe FIES figures indicated large degree of dissavingwhere income figures were grosslyunderstated (Mangahas 1979). Balisacan (1998) says that the use of current income as an indicator of well-being might yield misleading estimates as it may overestimate or underestimate current well-being. He says that even if the current income is correctly measured, if the person can borrow or use his savings, he is not constrained by current income. Current consumption is thus a better indicator of welfare level than current income, because of the capability of a person to buffer his welfare from temporary sources of income such as borrowings, savings or community-based risk sharing. Current consumption, Balisacan adds, is a good approximation of the so-called "life-cycle" or "permanent" income and thus a better measure not only of current welfare but also of long-term average well-being compared to current income, even if consumption changes over time. Moreover, households may also understate their income for tax purposes and to avoid the risk of being
52 .The PovertyFight: Has It MadeAn Impact?
kidnapped ,since kidnap-for-ransom activities are rampant nowadays. Also, measurement errors tend to be greater for income than for consumption due to "shortcuts" in the survey instruments used by statistical agencies in estimating "net income." (Balisacan and Fujisaki
1998). Minimumbasic needsapproach In the 1990sincome alone was not an adequate measure of the welfare of the population. In 1992,the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), through one of its projects, the Micro Impacts of Macroeconomic Adjustment Policies (MIMAP) Project funded by the International Development Research Center, released a study by Florentino and Pedro, which identified 12 key indicators of the basic needs of the
population.
In 1993, PIDS was commissioned by the United Nations Consultative Group on Policy to prepare a strategy paper for the Presidential Commission to Fight Poverty. In this paper, the authors identified 21 minimum basic needs (MBN) indicators (survival, security and enabling) as measures of welfare. Subsequent consultations with government agencies and international donors have led to an increase in the number of indicators. The official set of indicators, now totaling 33, includes the original 21 indicators plus several input and programspecific indicators. The PCFP spearheaded the data gathering of the MBN indicators with PlODmillion funding from the government. The data were supposed to have been compiled by the PCFPand put online on the Poverty Watch Website. However, before this could be done, the PCFP was abolished and the funding was discontinued. Fortunately, some LGUs continue to use the MBN instrument. Furthermore, the CIDSS program has adopted the MBN instrument. CIDSS areas collect data on the MBN indicators either once or twice a year. The results, however, have been used mainly by CIDSS program implementers. Data have neither been compiled across barangays and municipalities nor mainstreamed into development planning. The experience after more than five years of using the 33 MBN indicators shows that there are just too many of them, some of which are not even very useful. In response, an inter-agency committee is reviewing the indicators. The author has proposed a core set of 12 indicators that could be adopted by LGUs to diagnose poverty at the local level. These indicators are basically a subset of the 18 indicators that have been proposed by the MIMAP for the community-based monitoring system (Reyes and Alba 1994). The level of disaggregation of poverty data is no longer adequate in the context of devolution. The Philippine Statistical System, led by the NSCB, is trying to respond by developing provincial poverty~
SomeIssuesin PovertyReduction.53 thresholds to facilitate the generation of provincial poverr;y estimates from the FIES. The inter-agency technical working group is still validating the methodology and estimates. Nevertheless, the FIES cannot provide data for municipalities and barangays. The author has proposed for the institutionalization of a community-based monitoring system to address this need. The data are intended to be used by barangays, municipalities and provinces in the preparation of their annual plans. The data will also be used to identify unmet needs of the community, to track performance over time and to monitor the impact of projects. In addition, the data, when compiled by a national agency like DILG or NAPC, could be used by national agencies in identifying eligible province, municipal, barangay or household beneficiaries for national projects. This is the kind of monitoring system that would have facilitated the implementation of the Lingap program. While the statistical community has been busy developing and measuring the different dimensions of poverty using the abovementioned MBN indicators, the Social Weather Stations (SWS) headed by Dr. Mahar Mangahas have been collecting data on self-rated poverr;y.
Self-ratedpoverty The self-rating approach to poverty (SRP) measurement was designed in 1974as part of the Social Indicators Project (SIP), which Mangahas directed at the Development Academy of the Philippines. The SRP system defines poverty as whatever the people themselves associate with the word "mahirap." When first used at the national level in April 1983, the SRP was 55 percent. In the March 2002 SWS, 58 percent of households in the Philippines consider themselv~mahirap" or poor, and that 11.1 percent of them experienced involuntary hunger at least once in the previous three months. The SWS surveys involve asking household heads to point to where they belong using a card with the words MAillRAP or POOR on one side, DI-MAHIRAP or NOT POOR on the opposite side, and a line in-between. SRP has been regularly obtained in the SWS surveys, every semester starting in 1986,and every quarter since 1992. Figure 19shows the self-rated poverty incidence with the official poverty incidence. It is apparent that the proportion of families who perceived themselves to be poor is much higher than the proportion estimated by the NSCB, based on the official poverty threshold. There seems to be a slight trend decline in self-rated poverty, which, however, is much less than the official measure. In addition, self-rated poverty does not always move in conjunction with the official measure.
54 .The PovertyFight: Has It MadeAn Impact?
Sources:Development Academyofthe Philippines (1983);Bishops-Businessmen's Conference (1985);NSCBOfficialPovertyIncidencebasedon FamilyIncomeandExpenditure Surveys (1985-2000); SocialWeatherStationsSurveys(1986-)
The SWSsurveysalso looked at chronic and seasonalpoverty. The ordinary poverty self-rating refers to the moment when the respondent is answering the survey question. The aspect of chronic poverty can be brought out by asking the self-rated poor how many times during the last five years they have felt this way. The aspectof seasonalpoverty can be brought out by askingthe self-rated poor for how many of the past 12 months they felt this way. In Apri11997,the last time this was surveyed by SWS, four out of five poor Philippine householdswere found to be chronically poor, as well as nonseasonally poor.
Given the magnitude of the poverty situation, significant resources are needed to address the problem. In light of our budget deficit, it becomes imperative to use targeted programs to assist the poor. Yet, available data show that some of our programs are not well targeted. Table 35 shows that where scholarships and housing programs are concerned, the poorer quintiles of the families are able to benefit less than the richer quintiles. In the case of scholarships at the tertiary level, only 7.8 percent of the beneficiaries belong to the poorest quintile, while the 36.9 percent belong to the richest quintile. The regressive nature of the subsidies is also evident in the housing financing program. Only 8.9 percent of the beneficiaries belong to the poorest quintile, while 44.9 percent belong to the richest quintile.
Tertiaryscholarship Program
26,335 7.8
43,365
Housingandfinancing Program
55,071
8.9
69.678 79,071 138,932 278;955 621,707
12.8 11.2
63,860 80,809 125,234 18.8 23.8 36.9
12..7
22.3
44.9
339,604 100.0
100.0
In 1999,the samepattern is evident. Richerquintiles are ableto benefitmore from the governmentprogramson housingand education. Omy2 percent of the beneficiariesof the tertiary scholarshipprogram belong to the poorest quintile while more than 40 percent of the beneficiariesare in the richest quintile. For governmentscholarships,a smaller percentagecan be found amongth~ poorest quintile compare to private scholarships.
56 .The PovertyFight: Has It Made An Impact?
When it comes to housing subsidies, the rich tend to benefit more than the poor. Only 7.5 percent of the poorest quintile is able to take advantage of the housing program while 48 percent of the richest quintile is able to access the program. Table36.Accessto selectedprogramsbyquintile: 1999 Programs
Tertiaryscholarship Program Government
Private
Housingandfinancing Program
Quintile 3
TOTAL 4
5
1
2
5,281
23,901 9.2
47,229 74,701 108,592
2.0 1,820
14,355
24,370 35,777 50,760
1 A.
11.3
3,462
9,546
2.6
7.2
45,438
68,352 11.3
7.5
18.2 19.2
28.8 28.2
41.8 39.9
22,859 38,923 57,832 17.2 29.3 43.6
259,704 100.0 127,082 100.0 132,623
100.0
80,771118.352289,580 602,493 13.4 19.6 48.1 100.0
Source:1999AnnualPovertyIndicatorSurvey(APIS)
The problem of targeting is one of the major challengesfaced by governmentagenciestaskedwith reducingpoverty,more particularly the NAPC. Often, it is the precision (or imprecision) of targeting that determinesthe success(or failure) of any poverty reduction program. Leakagesare brought about by the high costsof information necessary to distinguish the poor from the nonpoor. The government'sSRAused geographicaltargetingin allocatingfunds to finance poverty alleviation programs. Unfortunately, this type of targeting, which has the virtue of simplicity, is susceptibleto exclusionas well asleakages.A casein point is the 20 priority provinces that the governmentinitially identified for the implementation of the SRA. Only 11 percent of the poor were in theseareas. The government then moved to focusing on fifth- and sixthclass municipalities, which are determined not only by the income of the residents but also by the income of the municipality. The latter is derived from the real estatetax and other revenuescollected by the municipality. For the Lingap program, the targets for assistancewere poor families in each of the 78 provinces and 83 cities. The process of identifying the 100poorestfamilies in eachlocality was droppedbefore it was even completed. The current government has modified this schemeby considering other factors in choosingpriority areas. For its KALAill program, the governmentseeksto identify pilot municipalities and barangays.The criteria for identifying priority areas include the following:
TargetingSchemes of Poverty~ction Programs and~al
SafetyNets. 57
a) High poverty incidence b) Presence of a crisis or armed conflict c) Presence of asset reform problem or large gap in asset reform program d) Presence of vulnerable poor sectors e) Non-inclusion in major financial assistance projects Since the official poverty statistics coming from the NSO are available only at the provincial level and not at the municipal and barangay levels, the NAPC has to rely on local government units to provide the necessary information. The importance of having a poverty monitoring system at the barangay level cannot be overemphasized in the efforts to carry out this program. Only with a CBMS can targeted programs be carried out successfully. Local statistics are vital to national agencies in identifying priority areas and allocating resources and to LGUs and program implementers in identifying beneficiaries. To address the issue of cost, the poverty monitoring system can be integrated as part of the planning system of the LGU. Data collection and analysis can be done by the LGU in support of the preparation of their annual investment plan. This has received a boost with recent developments.
The paper shows that the Philippines has achieved modest success in the area of poverty reduction and human development. Life expectancy has gone up, mortality rates have gone down, malnutrition prevalence has declined and school participation rates have improved. Poverty incidence has been reduced but the actual number of the poor has gone up due to the high growth in population. Moreover, spatial disparities remain large and some regions have lagged behind. The pace of improvement has als(j made it possible for other neighboring countries to overtake us based on the human development index. The recent Asian financial crisis and the EI Nino episode in 1997 and 1998 have highlighted the vulnerability of the Filipinos to manmade or natural disasters. Some p(jverty trends have been reversed (poverty incidence went up in 2000). This suggests the need to put in place social safety nets to avert adverse long-term impacts on the population due to coping mechanisms adopted in response to the crisis. Economic growth was more dominant than the redistribution component in accounting for the decline in poverty incidence during the period 1985-2000. This highlights two things: (a) economic growth has not been high during the period and that accounts for the modest decline in poverty incidence (0.6 percentage point annually; and (b) the nature of economic growth matters. A growth that benefits the poor and therefore has a large redistribution component can lead to a greater decline in poverty incidence than was observed. While we have tended to regard the poor as one group, recent data have allowed us to distinguish between chronic and transient poor. Estimates done by the author suggest that only half of those who are classified as poor are chronically poor, while the other half are transient poor (meaning nonpoor before but poor now). The distinction between chronic and transient poverty has important policy implications because some of the interventions needed by the chronic poor may be different from those needed by the transient poor. Different policies and programs are called for in addressing these two types of poverty. Longerterm investments in the poor, such as increasing their human and physical assetsor returns to those assetsare likely to be more appropriate
7.
Summary and Recommendations' 59 --for chronic poverty. On the other hand, insurance and income stabilization schemes which protect households against man-made or natural shocks would be likely to be more useful when responding to transient poverty. Several issues are identified in relation to three major areas: a) , programs, b) institutional c) arrangements and poverty measurement and monitoring. Some recommendations are in order:
2.
3.
4
s.
6.
8,
There is lack of continuity in the programs. Poverty reduction action plans tend to be coterminous with the administration that developed it. Programs are changed even before they are fully implemented. The challengeis for the NAPC to undertake a poverty reduction program that will survive changes in administration. Programs are not well targeted. One reason is that designs of targeted programs are not implemented. For example, targeted programs are seldomcarried out in accordance with the design because the data needed to operationalize the criteria identified for selecting the eligible beneficiaries are not available. There is no monitoring and evaluation (M&E) component built into the programs. Thus, someprograms and projects continue to be implemented for a long time without the benefit of an assessmentof their net effectiveness. The results of the M&E could be used to fine-tune the design of programs. On the other hand, some programs are dropped without knowing their impact on the poor. We should already have a menu of social safety nets so we could readily respond to shocks. It is important to identify programs that will address chronic to transient poverty. The slow decline in poverty incidence can be traced to the boom-bust cycle that the Philippine economy has experienced over the last 25 years. Sustained economic growth is what is needed to attain faster reduction in poverty. Improving access of the poor to education is important. Schemes have to be devised to keep the students who enroll. Well-designed and well-targeted scholarships for the poor are likewise needed. Despite the decline in poverty incidence, the magnitude of the poor continues to increase. Larger families tend to be poorer. A stronger population management policy is an important component of a poverty reduction program. The poor are largely dependent on agriculture. Increasing productivity in agriculture is therefore key to reducing poverty in the rural areas.
2. 3.
60 .The Poverty Fight: Has It Made An Impact?
Institutional arrangements 1. There have been significant institutional reforms. It takes time to set up new offices and to establish their relationships with other existing agencies. 2. Changes in personnel have also accompanied changes in administration. This, together with the first item, could affect the pace at which the new agencies/personnelcould carry out its mandate. 3. The experience of the SRAis that convergenceis quite difficult to operationalize. Asking the different government agencies to reorient their programs toward the national anti-poverty action agenda may be easier said than done. 4. With devolution, LGUs have assumed an important role in the fight against poverty. There is a need to build the capacity of the LPRAOsto overseepoverty reduction efforts in the local levels. Training modules on poverty diagnosis, local level planning, project monitoring and impact assessmentshould be provided to officials of LGUs, particularly the LPRAOs. Poverty measurement and monitoring
1. The available data from national surveys are not adequate to meet the information needs of both national and local policymakers and program implementers. A community-based monitoring systemhas to be institutionalized. This will provide the LGUs, particularly the PLPRAOS,with the needed tool to formulate, implement and monitor poverty reduction programs and projects. This will also provide national agencies like the NAPC the information base for choosing eligible barangays or households for programs like KALAHI. This paper has demonstrated that it is possible to analyze chronic and transient poverty using the panel data from the 1997FIES and the 1998and 1999APIS. There should be efforts to continue the collection of panel data to allow continued analysis of chronic and transient poverty. The author advocates the conduct of panel surveys to provide data on chronic and transient poverty. It is unfortunate that the sample of the 2000 FIES did not include the panel set of households in the 1997FIES, 1998APIS and 1999APIS. The NSO might want to consider including in the sample for the 2003 FIES the panel set of households. The APIS should be redesigned to make it more comparable to the FIBS. This will allow the estimation of poverty incidence during non-FIBS years to maximize the use of the APIS. While it is useful to monitor the accessto safe water and sanitation facilities annually using the APIS, it is more important to
Summary and Recommendations' 61 monitor changes in income. Income responds readily to shocks. Thus, it is more likely to see fluctuations in income yearly. It is less likely that the family will lose its access to safe water this year since it experienced a shock the same
4.
year. Provincial poverty thresholds will provide better estimates of provincial poverty incidence. At present, researchers use regional poverty thresholds to generate provincial data. An inter-agency committee led by the NSCB has been working on this and it would be useful if the thresholds were released soon.
62 .The PovertyFight: Has It Made An Impact? Table1.1 Povertyincidence,byprovince,1994-2000 PROVINCE
1994
1997
1998
2000
ABRA AGUSANDELNORTE AGUSANDELSUR AKLAN ALBAY ANTIQUE APAYAO AURORA BASILAN BATAAN BATANES BATANGAS BENGUET BILIRAN BOHOL BUKIDNON BULACAN CAGAYAN CALOOCAN CITY CAMARINES NORTE CAMARINES SUR CAMIGUIN CAPIZ CATANDUANES CAVITE CEBU COTABATO CITY DAVAO DELNORTE DAVAO DELSUR DAVAO ORIENTAL EASTERN SAMAR GUIMARAS IFUGAO ILOCOSNORTE ILOCOSSUR ILOILO ISABELA KALiNGA LAUNION LAGUNA LANAODELNORTE LANAODELSUR
76.0 49.8 62.2
66.5
49.8
69.1 60.7 63.7
52.4 46.6 56.2 38.0 43.1 42.3 46.4 42.1 47.3 18.3 5.0 18.8 16.9 38.8 55.6 46.8 9.8 28.3 15.6 58.1 50.0 54.2 52.7 47.9 12.8 32.1 35.0 45.1 30.2 42.2 53.2 32.7 67.1 24.6 35.7 31.9 32.6 51.0 41.5 15.0
56.9 49.1
54.5 35.7 47.2 48.2 43.3 37.6
37.6
23.8
31.6
11.6
39.7
44.5 58.3
8.7
7.2
22.3 26.1
19.2 23.6 35.7 48.8 49.7
45..4 56.8 13.3 42.4 12.8 48.6 51.0 63.2 55.9 34.5
8.7 26.1 14.5 44.0 34.3 61.5 27.5
9.0 32.9 9.1 49.1 47.5 40.5 38.3 43.6 7.6 26.8
31.5 42.8 26.9 50.7
58.5 38.1
81.4 40.6 49.2 40.1 32.0 56.9 46.4 18.0 60.4 47.4
61.0 28.0 33.0 36.7 34.1
50.5 40.8 15.1
48.7 57.8
44.1 52.5 53.2 50.1 43.9 48.6 27.9 9.7 23.2 30.2 39.7 59.2 59.4 19.1 41.1 15.2 53.7 52.5 51.5 50.2 52.2 16.1 34.6 36.6 51.3 39.1 60.1 56.4 46.3 67.7 29.6 43.2 45.3 38.1 57.4 50.0 21.2 58.9 57.6
Sourceof basicdata: FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Surveys,1985-2000,NSO
51.5 57.1
Appendices.63 Table1.2Povertyincidence,by province,1994-2000 PROVINCE LASPINASCITY LEYTE MAGUINDANAO MAKATI CITY MALABON MANDALUYONG CITY MANILACITY MARAWI CITY MARIKINA CITY MARINDUQUE MASBATE MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL MISAMIS ORIENTAL MOUNTAIN PROVINCE MUNTINLUPA CITY NAVOTAS NEGROS OCCIDENTAL NEGROS ORIENTAL NORTHCOTABATO NORTHERN SAMAR NUEVAECIJA NUEVAVIZCAYA OCCIDENTAL MINDORO ORIENTAL MINDORO PALAWAN PAMPANGA PANGASINAN PARANAQUE CITY PASAY CITY PASIGCITY PATEROS QUEZON QUEZON CITY QUIRINO RIZAL ROMBLON SAMAR SANJUAN SARANGANI SIQUIJOR SORSOGON
1994 9.4 37.4 65.7 5.4 9.4 9.4 7.1 33.3 6.8 53.1
81.3
1997
1998
2000
9.8
11.2 44 66.2 9.7 16.8 12.9 14.7
2.1 41.3 67.8 2.8 17.6 4.9
34.8
41.6
14.6 23.9 54.9
50.8 10.2 54.6 70.1 55.9 33.4 46.7 12.4 26 50.1
39.8
52.1
42.2
56
63.8 53.3 42
49.6 49.4 21.8 19.6 55.4 42.2 40.1 15 39.3 5.4 4.6 4 10.5 41.1 6.1 37.5 10.2 69.3 47.5 4.1 54.5 41.1 49.9
34.5 57.1 2.1
5.9 5 7.9 51.7 9.5 49.1
64.9 51.5
45.9 37.5 67.1
36.1
9.4 9.4 39.5
13.5
37.5 58.6 47.7 32.5 21.2 33.2 42 60.2 14.3 49.9
5.7 7.1 5.8 9.4 43.6 6.4 59.9 14.4 83.6 40.2 9.4 0 42.2 59.8
54.3 7.1
52.2 22.8 21.9 47.2 36.1
45.9 9.1 40.8
4.9 5.3 4.8 4.8 40
5.4 36.9
9.8 68.5 40.3
5.4 49.8 50.7 45.6
20.2 61.3 74.7 58.2 44.3
55.5
30.3 55.6 45.8 57.3
19 52.4 11.3 14.1 13
9.9 46 12.3 51.1 19.4 73 45 7 66.4 61.3 55.6
Sourceofbasicdata:FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Surveys,1985-2000, NSO
8.2
64 .The PovertyFight: Has It Made An Impact? Table1.3 Povertyincidence,by province,1994-2000 PROVINCE SOUTHCOTABATO SOUTHERN LEYTE SULTAN KUDARAT SULU SURIGAO DELNORTE SURIGAO DELSUR TAGUIG TARLAC TAWI-TAWI VALENZUELA CITY ZAMBALES ZAMBOANGA DELNORTE ZAMBOANGA DELSUR
1994
1997
35.9 34.7 51.6 71.5 50.8 43.4 9.4 40.8 46.6 13.9 37.8 59.7 38.7
37.1 34.6 45.1 69.2 50.7 49.8 4.8 25.7 36.8 2.9 19.3 51.3 37.5
1998
2000
48.8
40.3 31.8 57 72.7 46.5 48.2 10.5 30.6 65.3 9.8 29
46.3 59.7
72.3 63.3 52.5 9.9
33.9 50.7
14.3 27.3 59.7 53.6
Sourceof basicdata:FamilyIncomeandExpenditures Surveys,1985-2000, NSO.
51.7 44.3
c
II)
0
<n
Q)
c
= >.~
00. t:: 0
a
<-C; ~
roo
-00 roN
-=cb 000')
~
WO')
00U)m om E""";roN
~
OCm m
--
Q)
"O>
-~
u
C
C)
-Q
Q)
0.
C :5
E
Q)
Q)"'-Q)
E
"'EEC)~ 0-
~
5
C) ~ "0 c.!2Q).cQ):=C
~
~~£"U
Q)
~ "--
~
~
Q)
,
'"
'
",0>£ CO~Q)O 0" ~ '"
()"O
() Q)
C 0
Q)
0
.-o~o~~CT"'ou.c"E '"
.-'"
c
.!.
"O~
cO
C-",
-Q)
,,-2;. "'-
§~~ C
..~~.C 0 Q) "'~--
~ '"
~
Q;
~ e
C
W
o.D ---to
",~.c
'8 0 C
~
~-~-u; '" t --Q)
0.'"
Q)
C.c
~
Q)WC' '"
0
0. .Q
<
"'.-:. Q)
() ~
E
Q) Q) Q)
O)"E
~<
Q)() .c
°ooo~
-:g
'5~ "'=() C Q) C '" < " () Q) C -0
0-8
"E
"'--
>
-::';.9lmi§~ Q) -~Z
0)-'"
0»
Q) Q) ".-.2~
.~o.Q)f-cW._Q)< 2:-B '" Q) Q)D -_Ww.eW
Q).c --'"
Q) Q) C ooc~>-g' coo .-10 .-'" W D ~ 10 ~
Q) >
",C) .Q) Q) > Q) 0 .c.
' Q)e!.-
U
~ "-0
"O~:C~~OC -=Q)
-§:.}i;:-ci~
~
~ o)c O)C~-
"'00
E.o~o
~Q)Q)
Q)~ >~O
"-.Qc
Q)
-,U.cC"'-"O U
<.)
~
~ ~
E<C
.c.~ 1-"0.--
o..c
:c
Q) "' w.~
.-0~",~f-",0)
0.Q)
> Q)
t: 8
Q).c.c
00'" >
00:0:0 .'#. Q) '"
Q) wB 0)00.c,Q) 00 C t.S C Q).c
O)C,gJ
.cG)~"",c", f>
Q)-0 W mcC'OQ)CQ)EW"'.-C ~,,"'-U; E ~"
G)G)0 C E.c _0.",
~=", E -=
-'"
rae~Effiu-tOcc'BQ) G) 0.0 0.; -~ 0 '" -C 0.~
.UO-WQ)WQ)Q)W' G) Q) -C "'.c C-~.c Q) Q)-",,--
Q) "'"Cic.-E
O=Q)
~-g.!9~~zQ)"Effic~o..2:-"'~ """c.Q»Q)
'6"'=~e!<c~
-.!!! X'O;';n-""" C~Q) .0 "- -"0 ~ 'RQ)OC~<C._~(!)'" .,"-C",--C) ~ '" 0
.Q.!!!EQ)o_cU_Q)Q)~o
c=.-t:-()UO~~
.!. _0
N
O
.S!
00>
cO> ._~ ~ ,
ca e
"'-C)o
.-0.
.=
~co.
-.:
~c",~~u 0 ~"'o.",oo.-~ C)ca~ """",0. C~E;!;o.9"OQ)mS ca ~ ": "0 0: -'"
Q)'>"'" ~'C' ", E -Q)--a;Q) .c~c~§"O""iO>u C) E~ "iij '0 Q)
0 8
...
ca ~
0>
o-CO
~a)
w
CJ)OO
00> u~
~
0>
ffiu'> ~<D
", ca ", ~-"'
"'cO
~ 'c
.e
"C
f!
C
~
:c
~ :t:
:5
0
E
II)
ca
c, 0
5c .S! Q) >.~~"'ucoo"O0:.-
caC-.r:°o.c
1-.c~:;:;~Q»"'0
~
"co
c:
It
8'
~
E
'"
.r:ca~o.r:UQ)
~
cn
E ro 0, Cl-
e
f!
"C
0
~ >
~ a.
>~ ~
~ ><
:c c ~ a. a.
0:(
0
(1)
cn
(1)
'E >-~ oc. :=: 0
a
<CO ~
roN
roO -cO 000)
.I:ocb ~
UJO)
a5"
",0) 00)
0)
..-
E"";-
roN ~O)
--N
g~
"3 '";" C-CD
«a:I ~
CD'
",00 u~
00>
~
roLh ~<D0>
U)
'"
E 0,
g.
"'~o' ~~",jg
~O~oE.~
om"'"
O",g'
o:mo:2'
~~oc..om="",Q)~c..m=C)mE
Q)--OQ» .c: Q) 0: 0
°8~
.sQ) gjE"u;-
0 :g ~ 0" '!;: ~ 05 E ~ o'i a,; ~ ~ 02::0: ::; o:c 0 C) ~coO.c:Q)°-~ E Q)~'-°roo"O ~a>~ u ~o '" ~ '" ra.~ ~O E o.mR~c..:E ~ ~-.=.Q~ COO oW Q) 0: g~.5 C)~ m Q) Q)O= 0 ~c..~=,g°50"O_5 EiU.? E~ ~ );- u Q) -m C-w Q).c: ~"OW E-ou ~o.c:~o._« oUU Q)"OQ)"'->00: 0: ~ Q) 0 0: '" ~-- E Q) o.c '"
_
66 .The PovertyFight: Has It MadeAn Impact?
"C
c 0
e
C-
~ ><
c( m
:c c 0. 0.
<
"D ... c 0
.!:!.)(
ci GO
:cc aa-
ct
Q) (/)
c 0 ~
~"'t= 0
<-c; &
roO
-00 roC'-' , ~
"'0)
-CXI
~
Wo>
00cnO) 00)
0
N
0) ~
E'"";" """,
0:0)
00)
cO)
C-CO
'" ~CO 0)
.-
<0'
"'co om
C)
m
u~ ~ 0 CULt)
~<D
U)
E
~ e tl-
~
'"
c
0
=
0:
E
""'~~"C"'-cc
E
o. "C
~
u -c
.,
u~E~"C""""",
E "C
~
~
.9.
"C
=
., =
-.,
--'" > -c;;
.,
'"
C 8
~
-C ~.
0
_S
!3 .-0
8 =e",~~~o ~o."""'U.cM
c ~
c
.,.,0 "" 0) 0 ., E -0).~ "C
., 0.
~
0
c ='" 0 ","-"'E '" 00"; "'" E .,E '" :5=., !S-"'.9?:S""'u~"C_o;: --0 _0 '" '" ., .,"C C 0 .c E '" ,.. = ~ '" ~., E --
E >0-., ~-"C >c.'" ","C c ., ., "C ., "C O 'R E --'" E u "" .-~
0)
~
:50~~o~3"~"'u~ --~.!9. -
2
.~ <n "'. 0 ~ c. c- ~ 0).-0. --0 <0.<.2 ., .9. (,) ., ., E~ ., '" > >0" ""
",
"C"->=E.,oE~ --
IV
c
'" E
c.,OI"C., ~ 0 ~ c -IV --'"
--o->~ ~'--
~
o~<n (,) '" -'" .,
="c"""'~"~ecO)c ~EE~E<£~o."""'"
"C :;.. c 0
U) Q)
cQ) >-~
0
oc.
C>
t: 0 <CO
~
",c; "CO ",N =00 "'0) ~
UJO)
(UN
E""";"
00",m am
~mm ~
N 00> cO>
.-
:oJ .
0-(0
<000>
~
$' "'co 00> u~ 10""
~co0>
U)
E ro
c, e
C-
!:?-
« ~
><
:c c 0. 0.
ct
"C
~
c-
< w~
0
0
-0)
::" 0) -"'" ~.~:g.:
-I "'-~Oo,""o=~'.
~
~
E.~O)
8'0) ~ ~
0
E
0) ~w >-.c
c. "',
'"
O) Q) g. "C
E'
UO) "".-
0)0 O)o=~.
8 .~
°m_.~.ue Q)~"'~0)c. = "t= 0) "C O)
0-"'-"'._=~.~=O)J!J oO=_o=co",u"'~.-c.Q)cou
a
.£: O) E CO 0) ~ .-~E~",~' wO).ac.E~"'
>u::; ~
.£:._>~.~~-
~~c,O)eO)c.~§~E~$~ 2 ~ c..(ij~.u;.c
I-w<ca.=.~
..E > E
cn"'o c c '.."a.
.-C)
~E>Eo."'U) oEEw
,->-C)~ 0...2..a.
(.)w~~
"CO) .c
.2:- ",';;: mEe~
wEO)t:.~eOO= > "'0)"'0)-'"
'"
",mc "C "'.:: .-- '0 "'8'S~&:'" o~-~ 0 c.'g c.~ .£: ~ ._~"C~
"C
-' E ~U"""0) ~ C °:ce'Q)= 8~~.!9 E ~
::; ~ 8.:;:.c ~e I-a.
0>0 -5.
"C
>-,.:
c.
.r:;Q)Q)2Ecou '0'
E u-,;
.S -!9 Q) J!J. :g -c: "C UJU>Q)C:CO t-~Eo~c: .;c.o"i5.~co >"C~ Q)
CO :c
--c:
--~ Q)
0"C
--0 u U
oQ)c:e!-uUJ ~ > CO -->< c.=~"CQ)_CO Q)
"C~.r:;Q)""Ec:m = 0>
0
UJ
.~
.-'"
-.a~ ra '"
~
-~
Q) 0
.~
-'" CD .S
m
0
c
c .-0
-.f! ~
"0
-'" -0
,gQ)Q)cE.; E-o"""-o
-0
~
.Q)
Q) a.
~Q)C '" ~ "'
.~
8Q)
~
",.-01'0
~ .s,
U)
'"'~
U)
Q)~
8'~ c Q).:;:;~mQ. Q).., Q) m-.(:; c Q).e- ~'c >- 0:: e Q)'~ U) "" 0. E .!.2 ~ ..,c.., C
m
E
c .-'"
Q) ~.f!'E-g > o~ E
Q) Q) -.-'"
Q)'"
c.co Q)
UI_Q)CX)~ ~UI.cm
-=
-0 (.)
raUl
.E~~.S-o£"E: ---0c ~ Q) OQ»-o=~E""c
.&,~a.:,-"""O""Q)~.!!!,", ~~",~Q)"'m"'~~-o=
Q)
mO)
.2
~m .c-U)""c~"'=~ Com U Q) c.s.=Q)U) E :c.cQ)c>-~ m ~-oQ)~o.u~=o.~ cE ~ JB 0 >8' u .., 0).9}. ~ .Q) Q) $. o. E
.,
muc~«~o
U)~..,~a~c
U)
.--e.;;;.a"'Q)~og,Q) m c a. Q) J9 a. >
0)
.,>O)o.5"U)~
ca E B -., c ~ .2 1n c
~~~o~~-u;8~~~8~~~~
U)
E
0 ~
0)
~ c Q) E -.:. -u; U) Q)Q.
c
"C :;...
0
~
«>< QJ
c
'5 0. 0.
«
U)
Q)
cQ) 0 0
>-~ 00.
t:
<CO &
roO
"CO roN .:::0"" "'0-, ~
$"
Wo-,
00)
<nO)
E~ CON
N
~O) 0)
00)
~
cO) --~ ::J , o-<D ~OO 0)
c:ii
",ro 00)
u~
ffiuJ, ~tD 0)
U)
E ro 0,
e
~
ro
Q) ~
~C) E
Q)
Q)
Q)::
"'.c
~-g'" Q)
~!ijc:i c.O
<.~~8' ~ cn
w cn
Q; "0
co '"0: Q) E
~
o
Co$;
E~ ~ 8' . Q)~o
..!!! <'"
~~C/)
.c WC)Q)
w2!£
.,~ >-"'ci: ° Co)
W
~c:ruin E-;n-
m
U)
.°
:!:::
~'" <C -= ~ -: >- U) C/)",
"'0-0 ~ZC'"
1n~"""~CQ)-oQ)"'cQ)OI-c-oEc.Q)
In 0
m --c.
c-o 01'"
c:
E:iQ m> >0, e '" ",
°
-
'"
0U).c--§gl-"'~C: U) '" .'"
",£e °0::'" "E
m";
~
m
"'.,>. 2c."C ~
.,
., .,
:i?:o.c
.,
-!2--E -I!!'u
--~
0
~~
Q) Q) "'.'" ",.5: Q).5: '"
= =
.Q U) ~
'"
C
-o
~
~ ~ ~ ~ .19 "(ij OJ..-
Q)
~
~~
ffi
->-
0.9~ C""
.~'"
E
Q) ~ Q) ;s
c.~ 0 ~~
~ 0
",,50;:0
--0-'
c.
"C o
"'.I:: g O.!!J£
o",sffi'5 ~ ~ '"
~~-;;;-O'"
01-
° .c I-
0
Q).;!;-O.Q C 0 ",.c
'"
c:" ",-.r!I '" -"" "0 E =.c
-M~m",oO~~'" ",~~U)",C:c: m ~ O~ m", -",O""""""'" ..m-g =.c~"'~C:U)OJ.!.~;:§u:mm "'", :c c:
o::'Em _2.,"C-g "CO)_!!J E
E~~
.",," ~ -'"
.gJ0::> --""°0::0).,.1:: ~ ~ 5. °
!Ii m 2?
",->~
., ~
~"C
W .in c: ", E ~ --g U) = '" ~ ~ o 16 .19 ~U)~.2!~ C:a5"'._~o---",c:oc:",._U)~ -a; <C .!2 ~ .2 "'U ~ E 0 -g = .ffi ~ .!!! ~.c !2 In -c: OJ '" '" 0> ", '" U).5 Co).Q .?::-", '" c: '" ..> .~ t -0> '" U).-o ". .-'" .c"ru-..e.l9~C/)u",~",~~EU)o"'~e~Co) IE~.EcQ. U).EO.5 ~ m= o 3JS'6
m£m !!J -~.c m.!!2"C,f:"
0"'=0::",00::.""
c.
c~ 0) ~ "C .,"C E~->go:: >.Clo c.oo~~"'oa:
E O»"'E--~o.,o::£=mu W u~ m ~o::v'"C-mo::-o=~"'","
I-
gj 0:: e-
U '" 0:: "C ..: "C ~ '" m ., 0:: T ° > m E --.", 0:9 c=-u; '" c.c"C"~ -C ~ c. -~ m .!!J.- 8 -~ ~ -in ., ;2 E m .,
~ o-g-e.l::
0) co 0 ° In.!!!-° 0).1:: ., '" £ =
.I:: "'-
-c~o
d,l!l
.:g£
~~"8
E~Q)m5 .-.c: ~ 8e-.c:>-.c:~0I0"'~0
0.- Cc..9~o~~~~~.90~-o.c: OI-o. E -0 "'.Q)
a.~o < _.c:
I- <I: 0 = ---'"
-w'-=
E
C~~~~ ~ U-c..-
E
.Ec "'-'-Q)cQ) .c:""0c.~~-"Q;._Q)~ -o-E~o;:o",caUQ)_"'...OI"'>CX ~~>-ca 0 -u; ~ .~ :g '" ~ ~ ~ ';..f £ 01 e -u; ..Q1 :s "Q..01 -.Q Q, Q) Q) ~ -0 n 0 C 01 ~ .c .> Q)
I-W<a.
.c:
0 >-~ 00.
c Q)
Q)
'"
t: 0 «-
0
a
~
roN
roO -cO
-=.x. 000> ~
Wo>
0)-u C)c-t;:c"'o'" '5 1;; 0."C ::I U)
E ,s --C)
--9 o
°
E 8 C)
-U) O)J!!u 0) -0'
'5 --0. ()
~
-, "C U) O)c",U) ,g ~ u
Q)
Q) t) >
0)
°
0)0) c 0) U
~ --~ E '"
"""O)O)C~ -0 1;; >. o -0:
~"'c""",=,U)--"C-c
Q)
.,
.., C
o.E"C~-O.c '" ° e
c .0
o_-"""E"""'m i?:.c C 0) C
Q) E
C
.-"-
E
u_",U)O)uuUU)U)U)C)
C
~<Q)o~ W .0:
.., -co
~
=cnt)~~-, cn -.-C
.., Q) 0--
0 C~~CO_O E~c.:5:.:ocno
..,
Q) t) C) U> Q) co ~~~.o:g'~~g. Q) U> ~ ~ .0: .-
"Q; .-""6
-.0: >-.o:t)Q)_U>~Q) C) .0:
"'c 0..c"C '" ~
,...
=--0.0)0) ::I gJ .0 '"
00",0) 00)
E"";" =U.cO)U=::I",-N .0 ---U
0) ~
N '
~mO)U)--~cU)EO)O)""
CON ~O)
0'" C'"
._~ ::J
~
0
co-
~~'"
~
U"-
",a:I om
m
..-
roLl) ~<D
ro
(l.
e
c,
"C ... c '" 0 E
.!:.. )(
ci Q)
:cc c. c.
d
'" ~
(/)
.E..o:
Co Q)
"""0>_0.0
Q)
8 "'.I!J~ 0 .-8' .« -0. '" ~"I: >-
..!. .
0 .!. -o .!!l Q) -'" ",>.cSE c: u ,~ c: 0
~
§?~Q)a.c:~ = 0. .E
0 ~ ~'" ~.«
.c l-Q)Eo.C:Q» "to 0. Q) .c
0
c>~Ko..(/) .Q C Q) 0
"'Q;oQ)o~
-to. .!!! ,-",c",< '"
.-U)
E
U) O-
-
1:)
_0
-0) -: 0)
u
~
-
U)
2 -'" .o:U)
C
°
E
~ Ot"C~
~O).c oU»u --c'" c
0.
0.
~ ~ ,s "" 2' -
"" '" ~-mO::cc ..Q > 0)
=0
<:) -U)
1:)-;0 8 ",Q)Q)= E-"'= m~ E ~-Q)~> -U) U) 'c = -Q) Q)1:) '" .cUJ Q)EQ)c~Q)Q) .o:1:)U)Q)
1-"""01
'" =0)
E ~>'"t:
-~~'"
'"~ ~ E -'" ~< o ~ "a; (/) ~ca.oo
-"C ca
--_0.0)"'-'"
o~~
._c::lO)O)~.-8e U 0) E> (/)
a >-~ 00. t:
c Q)
Q)
U>
a
<C;
a
~
roO
-00 ION
-=00
«nO) WO) ~
00cnO) 00)
E"'-;
roN tt:0) 0) ~
N
'" '
00> cO> ._~
0-<0
~
«CO 0>
(i5" cnCX)
8~ ffiu'>
~(O 0)
U)
E
E.
"'0
c,-a; 0>=
~.. noC c
0
= ","C
E~
.m2~~ 0 -1n..Q -~.._"'. Q).'~' s::.9}..S Q)t::"C~
~ ~ ~"C O
In
C
~ C
~,
Q);3.E
,s S _U"C
Q)
5
:= .!9.
'::
",~Q)n.-~
Q)
,s :=
~5c
u (/) 0
m
O)Q).
e!
Q)
-' 0.
"in
.?;'"\.. """
~ "C >
.C .~
CO.!!1 Q).,Q -c>=_coE
0 'C 0:;;.9l. c9'~mQ)o§.E.g
E
~
..:Q)O~",~>-Q)Q)~ := Q) Q) -'U; '" -~=.cocQ)-oQ)
"Cc"';:Q)-uQ):goCE"C Q)Q) 0 ":_":>'"
~~"C cm.§c
8'§~ffifS8,s8~ffi
ca.~"C,gE1O~-u"C
:=Q)<,,-co.o.c02
-"6 00) mom
c.c:"C ,g::c
0) 0) r..: ~ .5
.!!I
.2 c. -W~
~
u
~~:o(/)~~O)~ E U- "5 .c ~ -= :2-O).c:o"'-
.9! ~
o~
"C5
Co 0) .t= ~ -g '" "C E E .c: 9'.~ '" C "C --_U-~~:o~
c
0
~=
~j(;"'m..Q.~ Q,:§ ~~ Q) .~-Inm N"'=._~~. --C CCQ C.C'S~ Q) O~ ~ ",c,uQ)E.->-g~~"Q.~~~.9}.§~ mo-"'CQ)
Q) > 8 E 5I'.S C 0 -.-~
In ~ ~ >- Q)::I
~ B.g.~ -Q)~-
..~,... ~ ~ m 0
~.§.m
~.c"C~"C u -C -C
Q)~~~= e! ~ ~ Q) Q) o.g s:: ~~~ E 0)
.muoo"'~"'~c~
= Q):?!.QI~:; O)u;
~~
<~<~..Q~~~28
~Q)~"c"C ~.~-~ ..:~ 0.:;:
co
~lnuouu"CIn.9}.E
",.9}. In ~
u In c,~ «..,m OCcEQ)t::EOOQ)'"
co .2
"5 "0
..>
0: .. ..
t3
=lnm-O~"'Q)"C~-~~c-
wo~~.mQ)~~=£
.e-~"C ~=Q)Q)'"
Q)
72 .The Poverty Fight: Has It MadeAn Impact?
"C
c
~ 0>
0
~ D-
e
><
ci ~
:c c c. c.
<
"C :0.. C 0
.!:.-
~><
QJ
:c c 0. 0.
<
0 >-~ 00-
t::
cQ) Q)
'"
0
«C; a
~
roO
"CO roN
~
=.0 "'m Wm
coU)O>
00>
E'7
N
~
CON 0::0>0>
00)
.~~
I
C
co">
m
"0
'"
~
m
tnQ)
tn.c:
Otn ~
~<~
U).-=~ ~ 0)00
0)
Q)
O)~ 0.~--"'U~U)"C~._~ co.~-""C
0
~
c"'
-co."' o.c:"C u~
'CC
~",.,g -c .~
~-;;,cQ)U)E 0).'" '"
M
,,>
"cQ)u"'Q)o ,~'c --",
E
~
U)U)"'~ .-C Q)
-~
,Q88~~~~
Q)~Q)
'"
tn
Q)
.,.,-
££0
c","O 0 0r-- "0
0"0., C -"'~ s'" E
00;::
c~U> .,-.,
.9!.~.,
-"CE-'" '"
'"
~
~ .-
0 co."C
U)
0 co.
°
U> ~ --0
Q)u-g'0)
.-.c
Q)
:i!:o .-
0
8-
In
co c .~ c EQ) Q)
0
-
Appendices.73
,
';::""0
'w
E
1nQ) ~c
"0 '" Q)Q) E
Q)~
Q)
.~" Q)O .cln
~e~ ~a.~
..mln
~~~
cn E
"t)o>
..~
00>
~o
cnQ.coQ.~..9Q.
<C) ~ e -g -cc"O e co.-e
COC"uC)Q)u -In ~ < Q) co b '"
ii:E"~Q)"',E;
ow
In C U 5!' 0 -.e
In
.~.- ~ "0 '" .cU- c~
u- -"'E,sa.~
1;)a.Q)~0)
.b
U '" E
°u..-o. 1::Q)a. .Q C/) C/) m "..u-", -" -L-~O) I:: Q) .I::_~ Q) E 0)
-5
a.~.c:(X)
ELLU>'" -«i:i:~
U
E.9
u; E
8 =>
Q)
,0"", .!."'"
8E u 0"
'"
c 0- "' c 0 U) U)oQ=
U)
'i=
"'::I"COtn,""Q) C "-u .c: J9 co Q) U > c..c: COU -"0 "'tnQ).c:"'c
tn_::I 0-
ctn",tn -tn.'"
"0
o~-g..9
~",o.c:'{'"E.x ~ u;"C -", E '" co.E~
~O)oc""'c
-;;; m '" "C .c:°E>~"'O) .S:!a.m.c U"C C"C
.c: ~"O)°_-",
8
Q) tn°_C coO"" E .c: Q) ~ 02 c -'C Q) co c.U 'i='t 0
Q)
.-2 C tn Q) co- Q) "" -"O '"~ C e or;; >~-., -"'c.co~
CC .c .a .-co'"
(!)cas,a.~tn~Q)8.E
2' 00 <
Q)~oEu"C-g~c.EaiE~ .c: ~ 8 "'c~ ::I I- ~ a. c. '" c. E tn
"'
.-,5 c>. <-'" -"C~."' cu~ '" 0 .i3 U) c"Ci..!.<
"' .c:-" f-
.--cO) Co
.EQ:"-g Q) C "U)
-.~
E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 u; o~[) g z. .9?
E
ca a;
= > '"' .-U) U) -Q) C!) -Q)U)E fo;oCt;: C '" U)_a.~U) 0.'£ U " Q) E "iij-~ 8 ~c~ 8" (6 U -C .,Q.c-. ,,~-.-"
.-C
-g~-Q).§:0)~~U)-cc, E o~ E Q)~ .1=:
~"tl ~U-'
I-,",E
'" '" IU C; IU C)
IU
II) IU
~
.g c 0
~
~ oct ><
=s c
c. c.
41
~
0
Q) (/)
zc >-~ OC-
t::
0
«-0 &
",C; ",N
-00
~
Wo>
-=cb "'0>
00 U)O>
E"";"
00> roN
,
N
~
ocO> 0>
~
00> cO> .-~
~
c-CO <CX)
G'
",00
8~ ;0'"
~
~tD0)
E
'" e
~ 0> ~
--.gJ ~ 0 Q)-~O -oe!:?.a.~C
0
-~
U).c
>
-0
Q) -CO '"
'"
-.C Q) ~
0 Q)
0
0
C
E 'i='
-,
~
C
U)
8 Q1~-.U)(C;'
~Ec,,-o~'i9 ~ .c ~~g::o~ ~ -0 :0
Q)
C
~5 o~goE _.owU)-U
E u",-'i='~--~oQ)-U) U)-~U)~~Q)E"Q;O>o~-~ ~~:O~~0>80.~-c= U) ~ a --'"
~"""~.c0.-C~Q)~"'0.
Cc ,gO
c --u
o-~-g.o
C
~
"'~c: _CU'i=' '" 'E ~"'~ 00.0:
U)
---
~ ~
E Q)
Q)
~-.c E
-~~
g:0-;;Q.
41-0 a._CQ)
o.4I~c
0
E
'"
C
0
C --0 ouo --Q)-4I -~ -~ .=
E
--oS.o .c ~5
oJ! u.
t:
0
U) 41-
~Q.~~~-=
C
~ U) ~ O>Q.~-c .0>0 ~OU-Cu4l~ ~ ~ 41 C
0
a.
U) :0 0 C 0> --
C .c
Q.
"C
~
C 0
~ ><
c( 41 Co
:c c
«Co
>-~
a
~
"E Q)
oc. t:: a
a
0
<t:~
~
"'0 -00 ",N ~«, <nO) WO)
6"
cnO) 00)
0) ~
E"";-
roN ~O)
~
N om cm "5 '"";" COCO
«co
co-
<no:!
8~
~
ffi.h ~<D0)
cn
E ro
c, e
C-
E
~ 1;; ~ e""cc-
0)
~
m
.-m
.~
-'"
.2 m "E
.c: --
.!!!
m
m 0
:I!
-c ' c 5j _m.c: 0)-'" Ca.eO) EUc.E z 0)0)8e ~:5m:g C)-ccm.,; o~ooa. >-~C)--
<Cco"Cim I--
~8~0)~ m
m
.--a;
C)~ 0 0; .-c _ucoO)O) c .13 ~ 0)
o E
O)oC)m:2c..c::amo -cmc.c-C a. >- ~
occo~m a. m
~
0) a.
c.
~.s
Q:
I=c 2 ~ .C).91 .:EmO) E . ~ O)c2'cc..91<C
c
.c:0)~0)0c.~ I-E c.:5 EJO)'m .c:.c:E~
C)-oo .--c U
z
~C-O) mmmC)C .-I'.91",2-c c.",m..: 0) O~
a.o 0) cQ: m~:5oU ~<CZ o~o ~
e.-
-m
ca.cgm 0) -.2 .-.91
.2'~ -c_mmo c u -<cuE
0
c
"'-
-c
.2
Q)
-'"
.~ -'O.c: Q) -01
-0" '" .-0
-!;; .-0
"CQ)~~.c:
O .c:
. 01
Q) N
Q) 0 .-'" U ~ '" .c: .-Q) -0 ='
.E -C~OC='C Q. m C -"'Q.",.c: Oc"'O"C"C ~O"' ~ '" 01
Q) G
Q)
=' =0 ='
'"
~ '"
.
0 '"
.u
<~.-cEQ)= '" 'u; 0 '" '" .c:0000 I--.c:.c.c:
-
Q) ~ .~ '"'" "C£g. Q) .c:~"C,f; Q) '" C .c:
E ~
Q)
E .--'" U
~
.-0 5!' '"
~
"'£8'~
"Cc~", ~0Q.Q.
Q)~~OIOI
Q) .-
~o
Q)o
~
'0
..,"Cg'Q.~ W Q) .-'"
.c:~0.5~ 1-~.c:-JQ.
E
",01 ~COI;gM
m.-c>-
o"'.u;~",Q)
~='='Q.Q)E Q.oo :cQ.:I::I:..9.2g "C "C '"
OlE
E
",Q)Q)E£'" ~ -2:;'"m ~'" ~'" .(5 0u. E -c .n uu"""='~ cn o ~ Q) '" 0 8 Q)
«0
~c.1;.~o.1;.'" cno_Q..c:_Q)
Appendices.75
C
:c 0
~ <i >< :c c
Co Co
QI
oct
c Q)
0 ~ >.~ 00.
t=
0
<-c; 0
~
roo
"CO roN 000) WO)
~
~OO
ro
.nO> 00> E""-;roN
N
~
ocO> 0>
00> cO>
~
.-~ ~ ' C-CD «000>
;:0-
cna:>
8~ ro.o
~<D 0)
cn
E ro 0,
e
~
E "Cc:
~ca
o'-_oE-.-
Clo) 0
0)
c:
.-0)
"'c:
=-~= -'"
~
. ()
C
Q)"C
~E8
U)
Co 0)
'-J!-U)'-j3:i!;Q. -.c: "C ° .-.~ .9-~ " 0).- '" t) .c:
O)ClO)'E"I::" .A g c: 0)
w,
W'
caO)O=.S:;:OO)
CI;..c:O)-cn-
In
.c: -~.;> ""--U)~~""" U)Ot)U)O),-~"Q.
<t:~:?~"'.9""" ~c:e:gO~~O cnOQ."'~U)-~
O<§Q)-
U)"CofQ
a."~
Q) .c:
~C~'
Q) ~ °
'"
=
cn ,~
cn
Q) "C ..U)
..:"
Q)U)
.,Q c c.!9
-C"C~~
E
'" -
a.
0 e
"
a.
0 e
""'m,,, E
E
o "C --c
"C
0-
U
--~,
a.
U)Q)cn
'" -
Q) g
~ ,.. "C "- '" ~Q)2:o>"".ou=
>
"C u ""')(cn
"",c
.ft
° E U) --c
:5Q»Q)co~"'.!2Q) "0 U)"S;
~ Q)
o c "- a. ~ .c: c>""(";;oQ)co.o--., ~ -c U) E
~ o
m~U).."C~Q)~ ~~ o O.c:'" 0
o a:-
~
Q)
:s: cn
'"E -. 0:'0 0,.5 e.~ c.c=o
rn"'Q)
.9- 8 '" .0:",£
Q)
Q)
.s=
0)
.S
~
=-c
0)-
e
"' cn '"
~"'"C u-~c
<cnE
a:O~ cn(3rn .o:cc. 1-0
c.
"'
.-cn
.s=cn
c c~ '"0) -.-Q) j:i:O~-c c""c -'" 0 c ~ 0»
~E8Eci cn~",~> Q) 0)", .s=e",ecn f-c.~c.C
E Q)
0) -c 'Uj
ca "" ~-u
'-OQ)'" 'u .c-
Q.",.cc",~ Q)
~
c.
'"
.Q1 = E 0
'"
.P.
'"
Q)
-c
c.
Q)
'" -'" E o. ~ c'" .s= "'-2:0 -'" '" Q) ",,>-"'~Q)Q» .--Q).-"" .-
~
'"
--cQ)uQ):=-="Qj
._-Q)Q)C"'U
Q)~.c
Q).(3
N-'" O):g",-c~E =Q) ~'" >- '" '" :g .P. .c m
"'-cm"Uj
-c
"'Q)"'-c""8uo",""",,, ~ E .Q1 Q).c
~
8
c.~.s"'-co~~c~:;,s-:c-c
"'0),uu-"'=m'~Q)8'-'-",u.-
.--c .s= -c
«~~
C-Q)",c.> 0.2 e ~
cacnu-.s=.ccE,s j:i:U)",u;u"'",EQ)o.S"'
-"';-; ~cuQ)c.Q).!!!cc",80eEo cno.!2""",s-c""".c"'~c.""",
0
U)
u.
QI iii
QI.O' ua-
~;~~
~
cQ)£
.0
'-
Q)
u;
Appendices.77 Q)
0"0 c "'" I ~:3~_0'- 0.-~ 0.-
Q)
0
0
S E Q) E
g
"'2~C)
E ~ E "OC)"'~ 0 Q.'"
.c:Q):3-'
Q);§E<
'<~"O=a: DI
I-~..!Q~ Q)
.s E a. E Q) '= '" 'C)mQ.'" Q.~a.
'",-C)C)C) 2 c 2 "0
Q)=Q),f:
§,"oQ)Q. W .c: -::: .= U)g.c:'"
"0Q) C
0.g
'"cc .~
-."'" .~",,_E :3
'-ou 0 o._ocU)E!':3
-8
C)°Q.Q. U)oEQ.Q)..Q .!!:500
-~Q)~
<n ° £.~ ~cQ)Q)=Q.=
U) .~
91 E E
.U).~a;"Q;"O8Q)c Q) 0 .->0 >ocE'" < ..J "0 ;§ Q; .Q
c"O
Q.1-.a"OmE E
I! "0Q) C)gj
c e o
.c:Q)"O.c:I-~§~
.-C
0
~
QI C u:o-mu
U).><"='-c .-QIQIQI U)~-c-",,~ -c --=
a-
~ '"
>.
-« C
QIE
.
-c
-
.c
-
'"
u
C)
E c
o'C ~
~
~
c"iij 0 G -C .c~",u. C):o.5~
C a.
.!P.8~5~.
U
.0 ~ ~ Q) 0 '"
-E
QI.2J
QI
mO"'-~U~ ~ m E
e
0 U)
u c."'U) ~
in:O onO
~u=
.c:"OQ)O"',-
u
g' ~ .~ OQl 0-
.
E
U)
-0 ...c
~ -g
m
.12
C)
.5 -J
~.,. (;...5 « 8 a..~~C» QI.~
~m
-'" QI .-'" uu cCU)QI '" .~ ",..
o~U)QI-c",c,
-,~ I; .!!1 -U)z-c
~
'-
.!!1 c c .2 orou. ""NU
~=a-~a.~ -S_CQI U).- 0 '" ~-QI~ .-> .5 ~ C..§ -QI '" On -
E
QI -:0
-cQl""C:C:'" ",.c "'.~ QI= U) o~cEU) >. o Ql~ o a. 'C
~ 0
-'"
QI U)
'"-C
g
-'-.QI .-~ -cz~ ~ e U) C) ~ -c 2 a.g ~ g g ~ QI QI '0, > "" U Ql .O' .cQlO'" ~
C
"E Q) In Q)
0
0
« t:C)o.cU)° CQI-Ql~ ,-~oOC)QI
QI"'g-c-c5-c=
.c~ccoco f-~"""U)"'>.
=u. >.
.2J ""
0
0 _.ft~Ea.=2~QI
C E.~""~c o",-C~""",Qlc"iije~ ~.5'c.-c
~
QI
U) '" ~-"" I U) QI
8
.-=""u"'Qlc ~ '" ~ U) N .5 ~~,od'c: ~ QI -c Ql ~.9.
-c
~.~.C:c.!!1
QI .2J -= -c
cc -c --.c QI 0 .12 ~ u §,~c g.2
(!J .in
=
0 >-~ 00. t:
«-C; a
~ ~QI
.c. .'"
QI-=E
-C"'a.
.--"" ~=
QIQI
e-~
QI .c
:0
-a.
o :OU)..!. C ~-c-cc -c -C QI "".- c'- C 8 -QI QI C E . -"'m-'-uU) '" U) -cQI
roO
QI
.c-c u.cc
.cQl"'C)QlC f.c QI
.in
-00
cU .-a-
'"
U) ~ '" ",QI-U)
0
0.." ~cE ~u."'='O°-c"'"iijcU)QI.- u
.~ QI -C "'~._Qlc-U)
"'0-,
roN
C .-QI
U) QI -QI
f-u.a-u.~-""CQI=a.>
QI .c
E
0
,ft Z E .~=-c 0 IG ~ m I'oCX)~
c:ca:B.~.E
u
o~~-cca.QI"""QluoB=f-~uc~a-
~.-zQlQlOCCCIO:~C:.
;:::
.2"U ~ ~ u ~ U) ~o
V'Q.~-c""O~'VQl~CU)QI ~,~ m-"'U)I3",-N5;"""QI",U)QI:g.co~
~~""-cg'
IG too
0
~oEUU~I=~a-O.5«Ix:u.1x:
..~ -U) ~ «Uc-ceIx: C
~-c_"""C)
on I C) ~.~.c"g=
o-a.-a. -=--1x:0~U) ...Qa.U) ~EoQlUQlU)~~«~ o'~ O Q..QI Uu. a;"iij=« QI c"gm e-~ a.U)aSu ~:O U)1x:= m "':o > QI~ --'" ~ QI.5~U)',va-~-ccu. 0QI-~ .c OI-cC QI
I!. C)
E
.:::.<:0 Wo-,
~
(E"
~
QI .->
>.>.8 ~.c°.c~:O .-C -a..-
'"
C 0
~eUo"""~>c,,,._QI "iija-U)u~-cU)~~-cU)g> 5 ~-QI ~u~E Ix:c-c'" a. '" u. W
co-
000>
00> (ON
E"7 0::0> 0> ~
N 00"> cO)
"5 '"; c,-CD
<000)
00)
u~
",00
16';'
~(D 0)
U>
E 0, a
E
0
"C ... c
c(
~ >< ct :c c CI CCoCt
Q)
"E 0 ~ >o~ OC-
t: 0 ~-
&
c;
"'C; -00 ",N ::'00
~m m ~
00",0) 00)
E""";" ION ~O) 0) ~
N"
g~ :oJ , c-CO
<~ ~
f:O" ",CX)
8~ ffiJ,
~
~CD0>
'" 0)
E
c
"C
~
ci
0
.E..
Co
GO
e >< a. :c c
«Co
E C) c:
IGC) ..0
e:2.-C)
~" o.m > .-0
'"
'" c:
w
u
"6",.9~
'" 0
..:.-
,
c: ---
u
c:
C)--c:
5 -c:
:oco-c~coc:
.A c: -~ Q) 0.co .c=~E-cQ) .c
..c:
..Q) u .c
c:o~C:oC).!9 '" (.) co C) c:
co-:;t;--=C:-C:JQ)~co,vlGQ)
:E c: '" 0 C)'-
-
c: C:J co E.
,Q)-'o._-
u.~==.g.c: aZ~.c C/)OIGQ
«-ogt:>:r.=>'Eo.c a: c: c: co -~
~
"0>U) E '"
Q) c
c.oc :J-oB ~
m
U)
U) --U)
-Uo --Q) -= ~ ~
5:
Q)-~ ft.
o. ~
_ "c-'c Oft ..~
'" a.
_5
0 c
Q)
0
~ CJo
U)
E
'" ---Q)
~
8'~_5 a.u)"OoU)Eo
U)""".c:J ". (ijC/)~uQ).oa. > z« ~..Q
5~~U).c"".!9. .-Q. 0 :J -0
Q)
1---,s,sl---uB,s
CJ
cO ~
0
:J
E N '"
CJ"5 ffi
:JU);:-u
,2."0
Q).-cU)~U)Q)'" ->-
.c"O
~~ffi~~
5:
C.ca. .cQ)Q)Q)Q)"'-Q) .c.c
"s ~"O C
-E'E
C
-Q) .~:J
Q)
-.-~'-= c-
..
0.;:
CJ'u
C C
C)~.~
o~c>
~~~~._~o
'"
E~5:::Jom.c
~~~cQ)
~.
~>
a. E
U)
Q)
>
Q)
-a--Ia-Q)c.cc '" 8 & U) Q):r! ,s 'C .2 -= "'Q).czE~>-c.co ~~ .o -I~Q) Q)"'c
"O "OU)C/)~ m--
~~-C;E:X:E"O5:-""E
,!j~g~-g~gj.E~E .co
I---~ZQ.::JG-~~:e.CJ ~ .~ ~.-
m"""cQ):X:N~ _0 ,s "0 ~
cnE~.o--"Oc
0
S-g
.!!J
(.)
c_~--m_o Q)-
Q) E
a.
'"
a.
u
'"
-c a.
~
.-«I
~-c~;:;; c E:x:,s g> Q)wo-0: !/! -g-a.~c ~ -~ .9. '-' 0
«
Q) 2.",
w
0 a.
.c -0 -Q)-U) .-ut'R:;:Q) >cO~c-
Q) E
","O.c
U)
E-5
cCJu)c "O._",c", ~Q)C)00
m .-~ ~
C) a.
Z
~
-Q) ",«I
U)I'-
-= ~ e.s
Q) U) 0
cC:J -=
"E.r;;
E
-g
..Q
_.9."0
>:J
go-
-.2
CJ.c
-a. .c
Q)e.c"t)EQ)w~u(Y) .c :J:J -c --m 1---Q.U)wma.a.,-,
..E
.2
E ..~~E:li'..g~~ffi:;c-Q)
00
C/)Q.Q).c -C/) 5:-
& '" Q) OC "0 .c~~Q)ffi"i5>7.c~
_f!! '" '"
~ ~
~5:m GI
GI U) .c Z
~fi:_~~
C/) ~
:J
a."O
~EcOO Q..-
0
-c;Effi.cE"'.cC)Q)c 0 .5 ~ c ..E 5: E 0 ~ ~ .-u ~ .-CJ.g}.Q)Q)U) c~= Z
-..
c
"C 0
~ ><
<I:
:c c OJ 0. 0.
ct
,,; ~
0. ~
.,s g, .c
OJ cn
g, '"
0
cn -g .~ '" .-cn
'" ~
U- .~ -0 ~
~~5cn£~ .!!J.OJ.c::)~
~-og,--,-ocn cng,=O::J~ c:-"'--o'"
-C:N~C:'"
OJ
. OJ
"0
g>.g!o= --"""0
c~"3~-
'Q.
.c P -'" .u .-c: e
OJ =
o.2!.uEg,Q.E-0.'" """'0 _cnl-o
c:
::J~cn~j9",~ ."'=' '" g, "t) o. g,
"0 Q) .5
Q)
Q)g> "'-~§
","0.
-g N
~
-Iffi"Ci)
Q)m~"'(/)-e:I:~C)-
c75~~~Z=>"O.,Q",-5
~ d!; '" 19 a.: '" 0 E 'S ~
-'-"0 '"
"'-,wE=moo g> Z Q) .-~
U- ~
Co.§ OCCCQ)
I-
COtOtOo
-e
CCX)U
'01'-'"" Q)m~
E ~a.
0
~ >-
.5
'R ffi
§ -.,Q
~ .!!!
~ ~
~z
8'
~~
8""
~
g
0(.)
~
0
c.Ir)a.
2'
~
0
-IQ) (.) g ~ '"
(.) a.
CEC," t:o.!!!co
OCX)
to
-'
0
-' tcx) Om
-
0
"'to
.-C~~
Q)
-c"C C
0
u-
Co ~ 0 ~
'O(.)Q)Q)""ffiffi:g:g:2 ~~O U Q) = = § "E ~ oq- ~ '0 -iij ~ !:::!iO"' l-oC 0 o~ Q)~m c-c Q) => '" C
~ ~C) go.c -c;
'"
.5c~:gg~-asE"'-~Co",c c_5 e oCQ)~ "o"'~>",Q»",~
"'Q)
O..-'~"c .~.2:-Q)
2'
"C~E mECX)~CX).?;-fi:: C 0 to 0 ~ I CX) c. CX) 0 CX).-~ to.ccI=>",momIm§(.) ~ :.?!"u;"c ~ a. ~ , ~-""iij ~- E ~ c.§E~E"'E>E.-EEE .Q E ~'c
~ E a=> Q)oe.~.~.~.e.~
"CUc.~a.Na.Ma
:I:
0.< "'~
"':So
~~ :CQ) ~>-~ "'oCto", 0.
'"
~ .5
.-
-
"""<0 "'Q)-= ~ U 0 ~ """ E
g- ~
G--
0.
C)"'C)E c:",e.., :::i~G-'" ~ :c
c:
C)
:c '" ~ '"'" ~ '" G'"o.
:::i
0 >-~ 00.
t::
«-
-c= Q)
gJ 0
c; 0 ~
",C; "CO ",N ~
"'0)
':='00
WO)
00",0) 00)
E"";"
'
N
~
CON ~O) 0)
00)
cO)
::. 0-(0
.-
«CO 0)
(0"' cnCX) 00)
u~ 0 ~ CUIr>
~co0)
(/)
E
rn ~
e
a..
.. '"
0
2?r:
c 0
'"
.:-:.
a:
~.-.E
C)
~
°[t.2
a. "CC( '"
~U
~
o-n o ~Q) ~ E u
0
'"
J!!E~ Q)~z~ c.
"'c: "'~
~"'C:""'8'f-C) =
C '" >'0
to) to -"C-O
o~~5~~e E
c(
-'-
c:
E
a.
~
°c
'"
C
0-
'" cE
E
a~o5o~
g~o
c
'"
~ ,e ",~Q)",
,-o~.c:"'~om~"" 0 a: to
Q)~~~"'o",z.c .~~~ £~~
'" ~1U<"'~
a:EQ)I:::",Q)"CtO.!!1 ~C)~~"""-"CQ) 0 e~~ ~ ,~Q.u-f-a:
~a:o Q)
a:wc(
ca.'" =c(9I oa:tS
0
.9...
Q) =to'u .m -'"~~
-~,.. toc
'"~ ~a. C Q)
",- C Q)O
to
C
"C"C
g-g
8C ::! Q)
-~f-tOo '" ~~rt
to Q)
"'-:1.
.c "'~""
E 0 ~ ",-:2'
'" to.r:~'"
oct:
£to>. _0,0
~~E
'u >. c"C£ 00
Q)
~~c( o~"'~c~Q)Q)°E~ o~ .g"C
~",c"" 2?"C "'~~ o-oc(",c.E~E~
"C
8'
!!!.-5n
-0", ~~c
.cu..Q
Q)tO.r: ~.r:Oc~
~'a; .--0-
",to
'"
toc mc. ~
-U;w.,Q C) ~ '"
~ g c.
.9.,Q~Z oc..Q ~m ~ Q)°EQ)C)2'C) '" :a~"C ~ e to e Oc._tO"Cc.I-"a.Uc(to~a.
",cto
""",c.
C >."C~to "CQ)tOE om '" a. to .cc ~ "C g'rt 0 8 0-
-Q)
'"
Q) C ~ 8'.,Q .5
0-
to
c.~ '" os;
'" 2' "0
--= E .r: -£!J}.:1.~i;' ~ .r: .c °CO .-C)
o"'-'c.o.~~ -tOQ)tOOQ) "'~.r:o=--"C'"
z~gtOtO-u;;gc Q)8'o~""C!B~ .r:~~tOto
c ~g'Q)~ to=.r:Q».Q) "C~o.:::~go~ Q)C)~O>'Q)U oE ~ E 1:: ~
f-c.£",~tU"'.c
~
"C ~
"""~~C~~""
0"" '" to to -Q) '" "'CtO~c. - E Q) .c'" 8 .-0 C)C)-E0 to Q) E
.r:
c._"C",~",c. 0
O~.c:", 0 -.-
8'
'"c:
.c:"Q) I-"'~
~~= Q).o~
~UQ) .~ Q) (.) UNO) '" .-c:
'" 9' . '" c: ~ ~o~c: c: '"
'" .~
o~.r:oQ)~>' o -o-~c.-'" ~ E .r:~~~cQ) ",~C).c"'.$P.°'8
u.;o~",oC)Q)~ Z ~
~C)5E~"'"Cc.
"0 Q}o
>-~c:
.2'"5
"0.CO .--'" '" c: CO 0 .-c: .c 8 '" """m.c
"OtOQ}E u-E.c:"OE
",eoc:e
~
zOo_mOo
~o"'~ uce~co~ c: --c: oC
'" ~ ",
>-Q)-C -CoCQ) --~
cntl9
E
Q) ",
.D-C= ::!Q).D 0
-cl9'" 0 ",
';,~~ -OJ
.1e.1~ zO-z~ E CO
c, 0
a:
>.., cn
::!
-in .D
u.
0
.., 0
~n-
80 .The PovertyFight: Has It MadeAn Impact?
"C :;... c 0
E.oct ><
:c c
c. c.
~
<
C
:c 0
~ c( ><
:c c
G> Co. Co.
<
cQ) a ~ >-~ 00-
C; C)
t: a <x:-
~
roO
-00 roN
Wmm
",00
.:::.. ~
a;-
",0) 00)
~
'
N
0) ~
E"7
roN Q:O)
00)
::J
cO) --~
0-(0
CD"
~OO0)
00) (.)~
ffi';'
"'co ~<D 0)
CJ)
E
~ 0>
e
a.
I I
.>>-
0
Q)
~ ~-
:5
-
.""iij
.c:-c
.-c:
Q)-co~"'u
::)
o~co~
c:
c.
co
c.
Q) .-
"Cio -.- > E oo,,=,~~og:!:. c:o"gQ)=aj E~.'E.=C)c: Q) 8' u >-c: ~.-
~E-c:C:.!J! Q) CO 0 .-.2 -~",o[t::5 co c...!. ::) -0
c:C:.!.~-c'" c: Q) E ::) 0
«
m
mmo .,
W
""c--o cu
a-- Q; o"C.c
.,--"., '" C .,'c-" ~
c '"
.-
moo
E
0.>
_,,O
.,.c--'" ~ ~,.- E ~.. ," c -> .,~-g.!9.cm
"C .,00 00--"'m.cN~OOU
,~~. to.,= "E >
-~o-" _00 EriC-!:"~.!9 ~"I-C)c$C_(.)OOOO..gg!.,s ~mo~+""oo 8'~N"""EOOE~Uu5C"C ~ c c c.o-0..co ., 00:=
-;A .." C .0
.,E-- o
~
0
-0
-.c
--.A o.c~O>"C O>~.'
cr-
~.~ D
0
f/)
-
-
.c= -c-
o ~-"'-
0."
.,
~:~~1(j~
'A
"C-
-- N
roE~roo 0>
0.0.0>-0
~ro-""o.-S~C:
~o>~_ro
.c
0>
E
~-
o>"C
.c
0::
0>
0>
I
-
ro~--ro
0.0>
U
.
E ro E ~ 0> ~ E .-
--
",.,c",o.cuc,=" .c_"""c~ ---"
~~
.9. C -(3 > o.Oc"~""
~ ., .cco m _0 E -00 C) .-to .-.c _mLC) ..: ~ to.9. ., -" ~"C>-C).o ..,o::>.cEooo.~
--cO>"""
0>
E~
EU~"Ccm>-tO""C)OO>U
a>
COO)
«~~.(ij~-g
E E CQCX)co>"C
~
ro
Q.~_5~_5~,..::
00)~-=0>.c0>
>-
-~ C..Q O>
-0
w-O>o.c~a>"CroO)~o>ou.c ",,-ro E~"CUf/)-CX)Bf/)~O>"C~f/)~ ~.. c~
O>~CX)
E
~ ~ = ~«
.~E~~5:Qo>ro-o:Q.c:~.5e-o:
>w
4Ico.
-~
~Q.AQ.=f/)~~O>~O>O"CQ.o>~
E0 E
UC__OU~U--f/) 04lU~C:Oa>WEO>~~"C~EO)
E E co >-~
CGO om
ED. w-
"c.e
o~w EGOC
E -D. o~
'c ~c ~c.~
uc!d.
Coo
~ <t: (.) -0 Q)
'"
0
C
.s
(.)
a-
«
D::
u
.~
~
Q)
.., u
c0 "C
C)"'C)
m"C.~"C c o~ (J"C"'~CC'" U-"'o=
_m~C""'-~
-~
.c:
cx;
'"
~
(J-
"c""""
-g~",=0
c
0
'"
::::: m
E "'c cm ~=..~ t::"C.c ~ mE-J~C)=c 11-"'«.,Qcou«~-50m"""~ .--~ "C 11- «
_n
VJ
m
o~occ"(ijm "C """,2c.c: m N <D.;ij C).O ~",c~cEc .~ '" 0 C).-"C ~
o«~m~"'C)
c:oo"",«~"CE 0
co".2 ",0011-"'"'O>~.~~ ~~«Q.~_mJ?-g _.~o=~
0-
C).-
'"
-0
'"
",
"'~"'~-'"r- ~ J? "C.g '" -g 0 'Q; ~.-.c: ~co->.2"';!;o.!9
<D.!!!-mC).P.~"'.c: «-cm ~ <DoC)~"'"CQ.~-
"'.c:
m
'"
=
-'&j cC) ",cC
.c:
.!9 013 C) Eo-'" ~u-
w""" c
-~ o;::om
E
0E ._c'" E .. '" Q. E
~"C"'(J.cm"C m -,m= ~~0"(ij"C ~ ",.c -5 Q. '" E .;:: .;a « '" .!9 .-"C "C E ~ (J
"C
c "C c'-C .!!! mo
'" "C C
oco
'"
"C c
O""".c:ccocc Q.m~"'.!!!(J2~
"C
.-'"
m~C)"'" c
"'-mQ."Cc
"'c
C)~C)~ o_>.cm
~~'co...:-"Cmc
,.._"C_-"'c ",o","C""""J!J~mcn r-.c
mc """m ",;::-m-o D>~:'JccE~~C)
11-88.p.~8~~~£
..
E .E
0: c
:;
.~
c, <I:
0)
.!!. -~o
E
00-
.c
~ m '" < ~._~
o~ ~QJ Ea;"1nffiuogJ
c:
E
U:3QJO>""'Ja "'5=<'c= .c .~ QJ ="'uO>:3QJ
:30>-"",
a.",g-"'E", =-"'" QJC5u~8£ .9
"c'"
m~
~ .~ ~ Q) c:
Q)
Q)'" ~c: c: 0
>-", "'.c:
Zu
c:
c:
.-a. >- m -u;- . ~OC~OC(.)~ c: < -c: OC .~
.-(.) '" C:
82 .The PovertyFight: Has It
Q)
c 0 ~ >-~ 00.
a
~ 0 «0
~
roN
roO
-00
co-
<nO) WO)
~«>
",m am
N
~
m
E'";(UN o::m
0-(0
::0 .
00> cO> --~
~
<000>
,
cc--
(/)00 00) U'~
COLl)
~<D .-
'"
0
~
"C
.. ~
E
~ 0) <i e >< a. :c
~
QJ
0.
«0.
r-
0) 0)
'"
.., ~ "'E
"8.
'"
]
0
000
.,~~~ .5..0
..9-
-., ",".5
~~.,
'O)
~
~
~
"-= ,."
-w
-.~
.CD-
~.
~
0 ~
..
8 u
:~ ~ 0 C
u .-., E
a; 0)
~ ..
.,
c .0. .-0. =
.c
0 u
=:I
.
~ ~
>-
.5
W
.'=:
.0
"C.D~ ~
;;
'"0 ~ .,
E'c
CI) 0
= u
15
CI) CI) C
w
tV
g'
00" --E D-D-.,
c"C
5
c
-'
=-.0
u ~
~
.,
...,.-
g
0
"C"
'r; c '"
..'"
U E 0 15
"" ~ 00'" '-'c Oo~'" .2 ~ .,
.,
.5 ., t .,
'(ij x._" .U
c c ..'"
0.0
0
O"O""C WWC "C"C '"
0
8J b
0) 0) ~ c
-' C -..CI)
,,-
'"E
~ c
"""E cc"
E E eeui D-D-" >->-~ "",'=:",
"..
0)0 ~'"
-~ 0
'S; D-
~ D-
tV tV e
tt
C .,E
'"
8.8. .,.,
ci.-o;
<
OCOC uu EE,,;,o.
E
'";-.S>~~gr-"-o»a..~-ciD-D-~ a)c~oo"
~c.c«" 0)"'0.>-
'" E
a)"
0
~o..
-~
.c
0.0.
~~
~-g~:g
. E --D--> cc 0" ., .-"C"C~-'"
0.0)
'OCO.Q.~O)O ouuO).,
~
OO~"O)O)~= ..-OC~~D-~.c
c.,
gJ!.J!.
.~ ~ 00D-D---~ "'.-
.-
~u.> ~~ --"C"'oo~
~ 'a.O)~ ~~,,~-
o.uww.E.2."."0
="C"C"C
'" c .~..,..,
E
~.:?;:
>
~~o
~,
gg..,o 00
-
OW
.,>
E o '"o--~or-oo~~ .,.,
:::,c.5;;~~StCl)CI)cb'S
"",w' O)OC 0)-" N"
5
u.Q
0'-
:.[cU~UU .,._.,CI)""
0)
~"~mmO -.;-<J{j0)0)-
= .c D-
",CI)
., c
.,.,.. ==c
.0
0.
0 U '," W'S; Z(ij .'r;
-ci .,
u
.2
0
'in .-u ~
5 ~
.,.'"
a:
~o.",
"-
.
W
"""
~
~ 8'
>-
.
~..
O)a.O"C
0000)0
CI)
.-.'U
c(ij~
-sm"'","","J!.o..~-,CI)8Jgg
co~ua)~ o...,ua.D-
E
:gg~
>.
O.,.","CO)-
""'.;.Q
..0..
-.,
E o. ~
-->-
>.,
"UCD...,D-D-Do.~~U~~OOO-o."C 1ij.9--"-,,O'c ciD-D-D-
,
~.S ~o..c g"~ -~
a) 0) 0) 0) ~~~ «< WWW
lijzzz ~... c8.8.8. ~ttt
>
"""" EOCOCOC
0
Occc
>
-0;""" >EEE~..o..",~., "o.o.o.C~~N.c.C O.Q.Q.Q c.,.,.,.,CDZtV$ > '-.,.,.,c"..~ ~OOO",§
~.,.,., .cccc
~'-'-'-o""'-.o=ur-O)~CI)" _0.0.0.~ o.o.o.":r:.o'-,
8jO):C~~o.S.. u'";-D-~~ ~~","O)~
5r-a)a)0)'in:E 0.0.=:1 ",= e:E.sQ CI)~~~~<D-:E:E:r:~~~~~OD-D-D-OCOCOCCl)'-'-=:I=:I
o
~
,
References Asian Development Bank Website. 1999. Fighting Povertyin Asia and thePacific: The poverty reduction strategy,Policy Papers [online]. Available from the World Wide Web: (http://www.adb.org/Documents/Policies/ Poverty_Reduction/ default.asp?p=poverty). .1999. Reducingpoverty:Major findings and implications. (A Report Based on Consultations in Selected Developing Member Countries of the Asian Development Bank Publication. Available from the World Wide Web: (http:/ /www.adb.org/Documents/Brochures/ Reducing_Poverty / reducing_poverty. pdf). Balisacan, A.M. 2001. Povertycomparisonin thePhilippines: Is what weknow about the poor robust? Paper delivered at the Asia and Pacific Forum on Poverty: Reforming Policies and Institutions for Poverty Reduction, 5-9 February, Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines [online]. Available from the World Wide Web: (http://www.adb.org/ scripts/ rwisapi.dll). Balisacan, A.M. and S. Fujisaki, ed. 1998. Crowtll, poverty and incomeinequality in the PhiliPPines.Tokyo: Institute of Development Economics. Bautista, V.A. 2001. A critique of the KALAHI program. A Paper Prepared for the National Anti-Poverty Commission. UP National College of Public Administration and Governance, Diliman, Quezon City. Department of Social Welfare and Development Official Website. 2002. Programs/Projects [online]. Available atfrom the World Wide Web: hup:/ / www.dswd.gov.ph). Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council. 2002. Housing Projects [online]. Available from the World Wide Web: (http:/ / www.hudcc.gov.ph). Llanto, G.M. 1997. Using microfinance institutions in poverty alleviation: A case of the blind leading the blind? PillS Policy Notes No. 9709. Makati City, Philippines: Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Mangahas, M. 1999. Monitoring Philippine poverty by operational social indicators [online]. Social Weather Stations [cited August 2002]. Available from the World Wide Web: (http://www.sws.org.ph/prem.htm). .1979. On How To Measure Poverty. UPSE Discussion Paper 7905. University of the Philippines School of Economics. University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. .The Latest trend in PllVerty[online]. Social Climate. (cited August 2, 1999) Social Weather Stations. Available from the World Wide Web: (http://www.sws.org.ph). Milo, M. 2001. Social safety net programs in the Philippines. In Economics Crisis Once More edited by M. Lamberte. Makati City: Philippine Institute for Develonment Studies.
84 .The PovertyFight: Has It MadeAn Impact? National Anti-Poverty Commission, National Economic and Development Authority, and Presidential Management Staff. 2001. Healing the nation: Thefirst 100 days oftheMacapagal-Arroyoadministration. (A Report of the Macapagal-Arroyo Administration.). April 30, 2001. Manila, Philippines. .2001. Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan (KAlAHI) Primer. Quezon City, Philippines: National Anti-Poverty Commission. National Economic and Development Authority. Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan 1993-1998. Manila, Philippines. .Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan 1999-2004. Manila City, Philippines. .Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan 2001-2004. November 2001. Manila, Philippines. .Five-Year Philippine Development Plan 1978-1982. 1977. Manila, Philippines. .Four-Year Development Plan 1971-1974. Manila, Philippines. .Four-Year Development Plan 1974-1977. Manila, Philippines. .Philippine Development Plan, 1987-1992. Manila, Philippines. .Updates of the Philippine Development Plan, 1990-1992. Manila, Philippines. .Socioeconomic Report 2001. Manila, Philippines. National Statistics and Coordinating Board [online]. NSCB TechnicalNotes: Human DevelopmentIndex (cited August 2002). Available from the World Wide Web: (http:/ /www.nscb.gov.ph/technotes/ hdi_tech_human.htm) . Orbeta, A. and M. Sanchez. 1996. Micro interventions for poverty alleviation: The Philippine Case. PIDS Discussion Paper Series No. 96-13. Makati City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Orbeta, A.C. 1996. Structural adjustment and poverty alleviation in the Philippines. PIDS Discussion Paper Series No. 96-04. Makati City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Pascual, C. 1987. Measuring the intensity of poverty in Metro Manila 19801985. Undergraduate Thesis. University of the Philippines, Diliman. Pineda,V. 2001. Impact of the East Asian fmancial crisis on social services financing and delivery. IIi Economic Crisis Once More. edited by M. Lamberte. Makati City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Reyes, C. and E. del Valle, 1999. Poverty alleviation and equity promotion. PIDS Discussion Paper Series 1996-08. Makati City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Rola, D. A. 1981. Integrated Rural Development:Problemsand Issues,Management Education Council. Quezon City: University of the Philippines. Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act (Republic Act No. 8425). 1997. Manila, Philippines. Social Weather Stations [online]. Survey Indicators. Available from the World Wide Web: (http://www.sws.org.ph).
Appendices.85 United Nations Development Programme [online]. UNDP poverty related publications: Povertyconcepts and poverty lines.Available from the World Wide Web: (http://www.undp.org). [online]. 2002. Human Development Report: HDR frequently asked questions. Available from the World Wide Web: (http:// hdr. undp.org/statistics/faq.cfm# 1). [online]. PovertyReport2000: Overcominghuman poverty[cited August 2002]. Available from the World Wide Web: (http://www.undp.org). United States of America Embassy [online]. PhiliPPinesEconomic wrap-up [cited July 21-27,2002]. Available from the World Wide Web: http:/ /usembassy .state.gov/posts/rpl /wwwf5083.pdf. Vanzi, S. J. [online] Philippine Headline News Online. Available from the World Wide Web: (http://www.newsflash.org/2002/03/pe/ peO02221.htm). Warr, P. G. n.d. Povertyreduction and sectoralgrowth: Evidencefrom SoutheastAsia. Canberra: Australian National University. World Bank [online]. Understandingpoverty. World Bank Poverty Net. Available from the World Wide Web: http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/ mission/upl.htm.
List of Titles under the Perspective Paper Series 1
A Perspective on Macroeconomic and Economy-wide Quantitative Models of the Philippines: 1990-2002 (Josef T. Yap) 2 The Poverty Fight: Has It Made an Impact? (Celia M. Reyes) 3 The Philippines in the Global Trading Environment (Myrna S. Austria) 4 Philippine Competition Policy in Perspective (Erlinda M. Medalla) 5 Central Banking in the Philippines: Then, Now and the Future (Mario B. Lamberte) 6 Financial Services Integration and Consolidated Supervision: Some Issues to Consider for the Philippines (Melanie R.S. Milo) 7 Infrastructure Development: Experience and Policy Options for the Future (Gilberto M. Llanto) 8 The Quest for a Better Environment: Past Experiences and Future Challenges (Danilo C. Israel) 9 Education, Labor Market and Development: A Review of the Trends and Issues in the Philippines for the Past 25 Years (Aniceto C. Orbeta Jr.) 10 Research and Development and Technology in the Philippines (Caesar B. Cororaton) 11 Rethinking Institutional Reforms in the Philippine Housing Sector (Marife M. Ballesteros)