THE STRUCTUREOF RURALHOUSEHOLDINCOME AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON RURALPOVERTY IN BICOL,PHILIPPINES by EDNA STAFF
ANGELES-REYES
PAPER
SERIES
October
Philippine
Institute
NO,
87-05
1987
for Development
Studies
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS Page
I_
Introduction
II.
Data
III.
The Structure of Net Rural Household Income .................................
IV.
and
...........................
Regional
Conclusion
and
Profile
Policy
LIST
..............
Recommendations
OF
1
7
i0
....
23
TABLES
Page Table
1
:
Selected
EcOnomic
Table
2
:
Composition of Net Rural Household Income (.1978 and 1983) ..............
Table
3
:
Composition
of
Table
4
:
Crop
Table
5
:
Production of Bicol Region
Indicators
Net
Production,
Farm
Bicol
Income Region
...........
Inputs
......
12
........
14
..........
16
Other Food Crops, ......................... of
..
3
Table
6
:
Elasticities
..........
Table
7
:
Incidence of Poverty in Selected Agricultural Occupations and SubSectors (Bicol, 1971) .................
18 20
24
THE
STRUCTURE OF RURAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON RURAL POVERTY IN BICOL, PHILIPPINES by: EDNA
I_.
INTRODUCTION_
The
Philippines
country. percent in_
ANGELES-REYES*
The of
the
rural total
agricultural,
economic
growth
remained
a
Research 'The autho r assistance computational
today
Fellow,
remains
population population,
activities during country
the
a
predominantly
accounts
for
with
majority
(Table 1970s,
the
with
a
the i).
rural
more
than
engaged
Despite
Philippines relatively
60
rapid has
also high
PIDS.
would like .... provided work done
toacknowledge by Cynthia by Fe Lisondra.
the able Yuchang
research and the
!/ level
of
poverty.
number
of
percent.
in
the
early
of
the
decade
where
high
poor.
families 1971
in
to
areas,
the
2.8 the
periods
the
poor
incidence
nearly
indicates
areas
0.8
the
that
the
of
the the
the
number 2.5
middle
has
gone
in
the
1983,
has
rural
of
areas
country's of
poor
million
1980-83.
remained
beabout
found
as
from
period
million
are
the
declined
poverty
fact,
increased
during
of
of
poverty, In
to
t_wards
people
of
1975
slightly
three-fourths
coun_
recent
rural
rate
these
estimated
in
In
constant
urban
for
the
considered.
Another although
the
percent.
million
in
proportionhas
incidence
rural
figure
poverty
that
45.4
Actual
study
conditions
of
for
in
Bank
economic
the
at
account
total
the
suggest
areas,
still
this
Majority
remained
two
80s,
World
living
Although
again.
rural
recent
families
61
up
A
at
study
incomes which
by
NEDA
improved
over
real
incomes
also the per
reported
that
period
1975-1982,
family
grew
was_
!/ world in
Poverty,
Bank
(1984),
Employment
Ibid,
p.
i0.
Ibid,
p.
i0.
National (1984). Some Differential.
and
Economic
The
Philippines:
Recent
Trends
Wages.
and
Aspects
Development of
-2-
Authority
Rural-Urban
(NEDA) Welfare
TABLE ECONOMIC
SELECTED
i.
Population Rural Urban
48,098,460 30,154,563 17,943,897
GNP (1985) (Constant per capita GNP (_) per capita GDP (_)
3.
Labor
Force Total
1972
prices)(M_)
Participation Labor
Phil Urban Rural Persons
by
88,432 1,006 1,038
Force
(000)
Employed 19801 6960 12841
Industry
SOURCE:
Employed
National Economic 1986 Statistical
Unemployed
(92.9%) (88.2%) (95.6%)
1517 932 585
(7.1%) (11.8%) (4.4%)
9698 127 1921 71 691 2611
(48.9_) (0.6%) (9.7%) (0.3%) (3.5%) (13.2%)
931
(4.7_)
342
(1.7_)
3448
(17.4%)
19801
(100.0%)
(1985)
Agricultural, fishing & forestry Mining and quarrying Manufacturing Electricity, gas and water Construction Wholesale and retail trade Transportation, storage and co_mnunication Financing, insurance, real estate and business services Community, social and personal services Total
(62.7%) (37.3%)
(1985)
21318 7J892 13426
Employed
INDICATORS
(1980)
2.
4.
1
and Development Yearbook.
-3I
Authority,
relatively widened
low as
profit
at
percent.•
underemployment
margins
productivity
To
3.6
accruing
in
solve
in
the
rural to
agriculture
Urban-rural areas
"farmers
continuously
problem
of
a weak
disparity
became
widespread,
went
down,
and
declined.
agricultural
sector
and
f
the
resulting
thinking
poverty
focuses
stimulated
to
income.
This
agricultural problem
on
in
the
how
rural
bring
about
stems
from
rural
demonstrates
in
is
the
case
rice-producing
region,
rather
than
income
for
rising
the
share
real of
increased
from
accounts
this
income
non-farm 25
agriculture Likewise,
the
industrial strong,
infrastructure
in
in
adequately and
employment
1962
sol_e
for
example,•
specifically non-farm
communication
-4-
a
respon_sible
Ho
also
shows
income
in
(1979) total
to
43
to
TaiwanJ•s
between
percent
in
the had by
Taiwan
1975.
industry
He
and manner.
agricultural been
good
facilities.
that
decentmalized
rural
country
sustained
in sources, i
mutually-reinforcing
this
the
was
allowed a
and
increasing
to
(1979),
from
be
_arming,
the
increase
linkages
sectors and
in
which grow
in
can
that
Taiwan,
from
current
activities
sufficient
income
income
dramatic
to
of
levels.
percent
industrialization
not
the
in
Chinn
major
increased
non-farm
the • observation
poverty.
that
sectori
increases
productivitY
of
rural
found
•and
and to
be
widespread
_In Southern•Africa, effect_of
increasing
resulted
in
decline diverging _ttributed
.to
isfrastructure resulting
In
prospects.
the
Philippines,
penalized
1984).
Hence, shown
a
rice-producing showing the
area
of
for of
agricultural
expanslon,
non-farm
According
to
the
Which
increase
in. demand
•was
prompted•by
While
non-farm
and
not
shown
employment this f®r
percent
non-farm
the
activities
8.2
as
-5-
the
in
certain uncovered
a
and Gibb
rice-producing increase 7-8
period
as
basically
production_related,
the
agricultural
in
percent
1967-1971.
cqnsequence
commodities•_and
increase
a_e
growth,
In
between
resulted
al.,
activities.
tl_e
be
production
in
• for
to et
been
that
generated
•the
productivity
years.
agricultural
and
found
for
had
is
increasing
been
farm
non-farm
has
to
(David,
with
evidence
an
author,
had
potential
between
production in
t_e
some
Ecija,
This
and
area
due
a
suggest,
agricultural
the • recent
has
and
1981). to
_farming
high
rural-based,
increase
(Low,
policies
minimal
example,
NueVa
of
its
interaction
expansion
(1984),
out
over
incomes
seems
the
government
areas,
the
in
the has
technical/technological
despite
downtrend
that
opportunities
agriculture
by
observed
•of farm
study
of
transfers
heavily
showing
lack
job
had
non-farm
the
•improvements labor
was
•production
•as the
it
growth
agricultural result,
off-farm
•rural
a • res_ricte_
in
sector
however,
of
services income.
consumption-related in
the
case
of
farm
Lmplements 3uch
production
response,
_enerated
the
augurs
_imilarly, nodernization
well
[loilo.
has
also
his
_hange
in
agricultural
)ercent
and
i0
;he two
areas,
percent
study,
change
activity
_mpioyment-generating
the
employment in as
that
agricultural
a
percent
in
towns
and
9
That
were
in
percent in
a
establishments the
emerged.
whole.
non-farm
resulted
non-farm
activities
a
of
two 12
rural
agricultural
growth
Again,
mix
the
population
modernization
respectively.
the
of
shown
in in
production,
increase
rural
resulted
on
terms
the
employment
Based
:egarding
for
(1984)
has and
in
machinery
corresponding
Alburo
_ctivities
small-farm
especially
and
Lncome,
or
13 for
same
observation
is,
most
generally
of
the
producing
Q
_onsumption _ctual
goods
income
:hese
and
services.
changes
activities
was
outside
While
made, the
the
no
estimation
of
emergence
of
more
of
indicates
a
farms
surely
4-
_reater
opportunity
among
the
rural
folks
to
increase
their
Lncomes.
Against Look
at
this
the
_hilippines _tructure Lncome .mprove
tp which the
.nterest )pportunities
is
background,
structure
of
over
time,
allow
for
can
be
welfare the have
this rural and
a
of
the
household identify
clearer
influenced
stud'y will
picture by
rural
income changes of
the
policies poor.
extent
to
which
affected
the
structure
-6-
attempt
in
the this
aspects
of
intended
to
Of
non-farm of
in
to
particular e_ployment
rural
household
incomes.
Since
changes to
in
the
identify
which
main
concern
structure and
brought
A
the
of
analyze
about
typically
of
rural
the
income,
extensively
and
to
identify
attempt
is
specific
non-farm
depressed
is
no
the
thechangesin
poor
paper
made
factors
activities.
region
is
used
for
the
L
analysis. and
An
declining
object
of
rural
characterized
productivity,
massive
the
investments
Bicol
over
the
as
part
of
a
pages
will
describe
by
low
incomes
region
has
been
the
years,
basically
on
long-term
Bicol
River
Project.
The used,
succeeding
including
area
being rural
the
poverty
AND
The
data
detailed is
in
southern
barangays._
It
addresses
which
some
this
policy
study
basically regiQn_
_ This
Luz_n_a_d_s
one
of
113 the
and
the
data the
structure
two
the
based areas
of
is six
municipalities
poorest
-7-
survey
the
region
compqsed
of
by time
problems
recommendations.
is rural
kind
highlighted
section
?_ities,• iS
presented,
last
Bic_l
chartered
of
"The
PROFILE
Qf
analysis
during
REGIONAL
%ip
the
occurred
includes
the
on
have
and
on
also
the
may
residi_in
provinces
three
which
DATA
background
income
considered.
hou@eh_lds
the
brief A
household
rural
II.
a
analyzed.
changes
periods of
basically
infrastructure,
Basin
of
area
regions
are in
t_ree
located
in
provinces, and
in
from
the
3,142 country
With
its
percent
aggregate of
197•9.
In
million
with
or
the
country's
1980_
the
83
60.2
percentimpoverished, those
and
based
on
all
occupation
with
the
In
in
the
was
Bicol
launched
strategy
components rural _nd
of
of
the
irrigation
as
on
1978,
a
provide
baseline
_omponent
s
of
majority
asically
survey of o_
engaged
Bank
study,
are of
in • 3.47
Majority
are
incidence
Basin
in 48.8
considered
poverty
falling
a test
integrated
case
involved roads,
income,
government's
in
several
areas was
and
Bicol
the
to
the
poor
conducted_ long-term'
the
control
with
high
growth
accompanied
in
impact
impact
of
the
to
•
to
different with
of;b_enefits
region.
of and
conducted
projects,
primarily_
employment,
8-
the
by
education.
was
extent
basic
flood
development
given
Of
and
also
survey on
Major
construction
drainage
nutrition
the
the
Project
development.
the
health,
was
of
rural
This
of
Development
•
region.
the
cached
Valuation
•was
ar_aS.
World
3.3
• (GDP)
region
categories
information
attention
ollow-up
the
rural
1980
multi-purpose
,articular the
_
like
the
projects
In
L
facilities
in
;upport
a
River
project
infrastructure
,otential
product
population
greatest
•
overall
in
about
agriculture.
1973,
(BRBDP)
of
residing the
only
domestic
population
of
of
representing
gross
percent
percent
agriculture,
among
production
In
1983/
facilitate the
productivity.
• that a th_
projeCtS _The
effectiveness project
the
two
BMS78
surveys,
and
Camarines
Sur
provinces
of
69.3 household
and
on
level
the
the
wealth _n
each
(where
health
nutrition
In
and
the
are
_ur_eys. the the
health
analysis
that
and
surveys
were
the
follows,
'included 'Iriga
t_ota_ _ of _,631 and1983
pattern
the
role
of
conducted
information_
on
health and
status.
located
fromÂŁ_ei:_97S
status,
respondents),
househ_Ids
_
allocation,
were
Only
excluded.
production,
services,
household
Cities_Df_a_ga_
information
extension
ind_vldual
were
detailed
specific
about
the
nutrition
the
poblaeion_s
populated
comprised
and
covering
Albay,
major
time
other
practitioners
of
A
income,
investment
paper
comprises
agricultural
health
and
heavily
households
of
infrastructure
provinces the
very
and
this
population.
areas:
one
in
population
with
three
referred
are
1,903
and
structure
assessed.
three
total
BMS,
addition,
simultaneously, baranga_
the
combined
distribution
consumption,
be
These
following
change,
also
shall
covered
covering of
and
women.
which
Bicol's
demographÂąc
in
were
whose
survey
gathered
in
schemes
SorSogon.
Bicol
component
daÂŁa
organizational
BMS83,
percent_f
main
BRBDP's
implementation
The as
of
and
surveys,
m
9
_'
the
primary
records in the in
and
the
rural
were
households
"respectively.
from
barangays
sample.
Legaspi
1,575
taken
source
of both and
HousehOlds therefore were The
d_awn sample
sizes did
,for.the not
III.
two
allow
THE
70s.
household
income
subsistence
It 1984)
of
"
also
about
because
.(1972) in
productive
cash
been
to
_he
..of
to_al
more
these rural
interest
is
basi_a.lly
their
.exis,%e_ce is
(Albur0,
productivi£y
because
increased
to
until
more
activities
has
expressed
even
farming
technology,
back
,.off-
opportunities"
and
rice-pr0dUcing
a .... yital
of
1984}":_ibb, areas
in
in
agriculture
resu!te_i_in far_
income,_erived:
•explanation
response
where
established
increased
goes
look
and
income.
increased
the
,of
it. was.notedthat,,
modern
The
activities
grawing,
areas,
..and. the
(non-farm.
importance
from_these
not•only of
a_tivities
"alternative
closer
•which
INCOME
emergence
a
values•
all-households.
r_se.arches
selected"
by
incomes
Mellor
In
the
activities.
more
elicited
in
for
HOUSEHOLD
increasing
households.'
Philippines,
rural
RURAL
the.
derived
has
that
brought,
income
simply
production,
component
farm
or
their
income
missing
of. othe r activities:
researchers.
the
net
to
farm.produc.tion,
,However, •and.
also
on
due
mostagricultural
activities
and-
NET
residuals,,
.characterized
among
OF
treatment as
•vary
compute
emphasis,
resulting
late
to
STRUCTURE
The
farm)
us
periods
for
such
to
what,H!rschman
about
r_ral,
the
demands
agricultural•-sector. - i0 -
(1958)
industrial of.a
increased •income
from,,
an.increase
':_he
but
nonvfarm in_ and
•_nlater
,activities
modernizins
And
Table
2
gives
the
composition
of
net
rural
household
b
income
in
Bicol
farm
activities
for
rural
remaining
in
1983.
remained
large,
decreased
net
incQme,
total
in
increased latter
.to
net
early struggled
more
income.
Worth
_usiness
income,
fol_owing
the
the
an
increase
signify
an
1980s
were
with
the
very
farm it
years
sources,
in
in
years
adverse
the
percent is
share
of
slight have
should
the
employment.
business of
of total
should
non-farm
effects
Of
tO
the
income,
for
slightly
shares
the
normally
labor
has
ba_k.
other
also
changes
has
from
which
income.
income
in
increase bad
net
jumps
noting
non-farm
net
big
43
very for
significant
five
than
was
net
total
percent)
are
to
of
50
share
income
income
Total
of
its
income
opportunities
share
than
periods, of
net
wage few
shown
income
bringing
k indeed
economy
more
an_net
non-farm
decline
But
(i.e.,
income
1978,
time
source
total
percent
relative
significance
lebor
28
has
the
compared
remarkable net
however,
Although
to
activities. about
both
dOminant
shares In
In
relatively
0n!y
structure,
the
percent.
non-farm
comprised
periods.
wiÂŁh
,.suggestlngthe
income
in
50
time
remained
households
labor
Such
two
hay9
above
marginal, hired:
fQr
the
as
the
second
oil
h
5/ --The figure for 1978 is in component of total _replacement which in 1983, has been included income bigger 1983.
for each type decline in the
fact understated, as a large cost accrues to agriculture, in the estimations of net
of activity. share of net
- ii -
This clearly suggests farm inc ........ _
a _
COMPOSITION
OF
TABLE 2 NET RURAL HOUSEHOLD 1978 and 1983
(at
current
.................
INCOME
a_/
values)
1978
--
1983
= 163l') b/ Value N_t
Rural
Net Farm [_et Labor
Household
Inco_ae
Income Inco,ne
19,207,933
(w_ge)
Net _3usi,_ess Income Net Income from other Replacement Cost d/
c/ Sources
(N = 157s)b_/
Average 11,776.78
_
Value
100.0O
11,196,539
Average
%
7,108.91
i00.00
11,083,364 39,460
6,992.2 24.19
59.37 .21
6,351,595 751,376
4,032.7 477.06
56.73 6.71
4,266,103 1,004,870 2,493/127
2,615.63 616.11 -
22.21 5.23 12.98
2,120,437 1,973,131 -
1,346.30 1,252.78 -
18.94 17.62 -
!
a/ !
Individual
computed
income
values
were
those
prepared
by
Montes
(1978)
and
Navera
(1983). J
The sample sizes should ideally have been the same since the 19_3 survey was supposed to be a follow-up survey and should cover the same households. However, due to missing values in certain variables which consequently precluded the co_putation of net income in some observations, certain households had to be dropped from the sample in each period. This should not pose any serious prQblem for the purposes of this study since the actual values are not as crucial as the proportion of each component to total net income.
Other sources i,lc iude the following : rental buildings, bed spaces, interest on loans, dividends on pensions, retirement pay/workmen's compensation, gifts, income from gambling and lottery remittances.
income from non-agricultural insurance, stocks and bonds support, assistance/relief
,a/ Replacement
cost
for
1983
has
been
incorporated
in
each
of
the
activities.
land, received, received,
shock.
Hence,
big
leap
due
largely
from
net to
household
•Manila only in
in
and
should
increased laembers
even
the
areas
Luzon
Middie"East
•conducted
in
area
in
from
non-farm
Manila
1983
by
Camarines
"_
depend
cash
large
at
rice
on
This
in
sources
another
to
study
rice-producing
towns
incolae or
of
Metro
the
farm
with
basically
the
not
into
production,
and
not also
1984),
subsistence
off-farm
is
workers
consistent
are
to
but
contract
proportion is
support
jobs.
urban
farmers
are
and
migrated
Mandac,
in
been
workers
a rainfed
This
broad
during
the
five-year
thorough
look
have
that" farm
contributed
implications
on
undertaken
Table income
either
on
suggests
being
the
and
have
Region,
fact,
covering
extent
clearly
may
In
may
The
and
non-farm•activities
incomes.
look
more
Bicol
of
significant
but
more
the
surprise.
•gifts
paying
(Stanford
these
• farming a
most
incomes.
that
to
where
IRRI,
a
cash
observation commercial
in
employment
comprised
households
better
from.
S ur
a big
sources
and
areas
come
as
o_her
more
for
of
come
• relaittances, as
abroad
in
not
income•from
characteristic
many
for
this
and
3
to
the in
gives the
the
the
household
has
considered.
components
this
huge
net
productivity
period at
of
farm
There
infrastructure
fact
This
of
decline.
in
incoLae declined
requires income
may
investment
be
a
which serious •program
region.
a breakdown
relative
share
- 13 -
of
the
of
each
components to
total
of
farm
net
farm
TABLE COMPOSITION (at
3
OF•NET current
FARM INCOME values)
•1978 Value Net
Farm
Income
11,083,364
Food Crops. Rice Corn
11,041,081 91,421
Cash Crops Coconut Sugar Abaca
1983 % i I00.00
Value 6,••351,595
99.62 0.82
173,187 (2,316) (10,428)
% i00.00
1,669,624 36,559
1.56 (0.02) (0.09)
'
26.29 0.58
1,548 a/ 29,410
0.02 a/ 0.46 ,,
Other Crops Livestock & Poultry Fishing L_
In
the
was dropped observations.
r
inco,ne due
to
_/ (118,948) (.90732) r
_/• •(1.07) (0.82)
1,417,121 2,913,299 2•84,032
22.31 45.87 4 47
--
and
employment
very
Income from other measurement was specified disparity in the reported Quizon, 1979).
file
negligible
of
• values
BMS83, on
income
account
crops was not computed since for all the crops, causing prices of crops. (Montes,
-14
-
frola of
no
very
sugar few
unit of tremendous M. and A.
income.
Consistent
Region 99
is
still
percent
of
which
estimated
to
production
net
the
decline
whole
region
productio_
from
19
the
bulk
region
within
the
show
1982
the
have
of
have
tremendously
the
area.
minimal
amounts
particular income
In
due
negative
item to
of
total
had
its
data
and
to
be
income
income
sugar
and
have
been
total
crop
shown
a
Data
for
average
of
During
crop
about 'this
16 sa,_le
characterized like
su_gar
Philippines,
coraprise
low
of
prices
farmers'
_i,_d the t]_ese
incomes
and
. ,
droppe
a change from
the
BMS83
As d
in
in
crop
indicate
a consequence, the
mix very this
estimation
of
contribution.
activities
raising
values
rice
co,_a_erc[._l
crops
sugar.
non-crop
poultry
net
to
negligible
from
net
income
attributed
Income livestock
in
fro,a-
has
basically
affected
resulted
fact,
an
very
.
tha,%
period.
4).
was
the
The
subsequently
to
export
.-
may
1978,
of
(Table
case_of
exports.
in
of
Bicol
more
1980)
percent
197_
major
like
five-year
market
came
(USAID,
a decline
until
of
197_
crops
19
that
area,
in
studies
in
in
its
commodities
Cash
Bicoi
pri_es
which
of
_ of
international
depressed
• coconut,
income
percent
henceforth
period,
farm
about
also
observation
rice-producing
previous
comprise
in
significant
by
in
initial
a
Production
coconut,
percent
the
basically total
production.
the
with
in in
.
posted 1978 1983
15-
like big
to
increases
a high
for
fishing,
both
50.3
from percent
activities.
CROP
1976 All
i
Food
Cr_ps % Crops %
1977
TABLE PRODUCTION, (Metric
1978
4 BICOL Ton)
REGION
1979
1980
1981
1982
1,688,875 i00.00
•1,919,499 100.00
1,951,•765 i00.00
1,963,643 i00.00
1,969,343 i00.00
1,989,843 i00.00
1,860,035 i00.00
1,468,714 86-.96
1,578,017 82 21
1•,576,881 80 79
1,647,100 83 88
1,644,185 83 49
1,632,844 82 06
•1,566,655 84 23
220,161 13.04
341,482 17.79
374,884 19.21
316,543 16.12
356,999 17.94
293,380 15.77
I• Commercial %
Source:
Crops
BAECON
•
325,158 16...51
This
observation
activities
Which
becomes
less more
farmers
included
(planted
more
to
are
than
possible due
some
Specifically_
can
no
the
big
1978 jump
slight
a tO in
io n .
1982
at We
the were
1979
of
constrained
it_is
in for
given
whole
which
1978. the
of
net
if
we
region,
about
is
the
for
However
of
not period
computation
This
1.4
we
percent
highlighted made
up
the
farm
to
confirm
by
for
a
the
1982.
changes
households,
hypothesis
behavior
in
these
rural
and
5).
(most
comprised
crops
the
increase
Table
and
the
farm
crops
encountered
was
the
1978.
five-year
these
for
in
income,
possible.
data
analyze
among
not
among
crops)
the
measurement
average
1980
for
income
average
other
root
farm
hence
production in
net
from
was
that
of
farm
production
case
hectares
and
other
increase the
problems
of
(see
to
0.83
change
income
unit
slight
crop
0bservat_ons, looked
total
the
crops
:further
Structure
production
production
declines
To
t_e
produced,
these
observe
from
net
crops
consider
only
to crop
probably
was
of
when
considering
methodological of
from
is
shift
need
vegetables
ascertain
computation
income
from
to
the
study
crops)
20 percent
different
and
this
the
resort
Such
fruits,
to
to
in
income
which
indicate
farmers
pressing.
While of
to
profitable
becomes
area
seems
already specific to
- 17 -
use
in and
discussed inputs simply
incorae the
earlier,
in
rice
rice
we
productproduction
RODUCTION
Other
Food
Crops
TABI,R 5 OTHER FOOD CROPS,.BICOL (Metric Ton) 1978
1979
REGION
1976-
1977"'
729309
7955521
818221
145776
111546 13336
13712
15442
14387 605819
• 910605
1981-
1982
85_830
89541:4
842792,
122212
12826.4
77331.
& Nuts
110566
Citrus
Fruits
7722
11459
503353
51174i.
592758
653254
586099
39726
42282.
38821
38949
39593
.
Vegetables
120107..
1.980..
Fruit_
Rootcrops i
OF
.107.
41786._ iii
8714-638932 29817..
Onion.
124
III
I00
128
106
Ginger
1117
1217
1357
1578
340_
.3688
3354 r
446
458
419
417
328
,320
330
1199
_1218
_"944
1084
,975
184
197
20!
159.
!
Bean
& Peas
Coffee Cacao
802 _
, 24_7
Peanut All
Other
Crops
%:Change Source:
BAECON
883 206,
2122
1945
2330
63084
79474
_.08
202
2629
2019
2031
1968
56171
78416
89480..
9-7723
81106
2.85
11.29
-5.58
2.14
-5:.88
on
account
for
of
each
the
of
the
very
small
the • other
average
crops.
co_p_•i_ed
production
for
all
number
of
Besides,
•ia_o@tL_0
the
observations
areas
rice
percent
included
recorded
production
of
in
the
on
total
sample
farm
• as
of
1983.
To form and
do
was the
this,
fitted
•inputs
an to
used
equation
GRI
is
gross
the
general
Cobb-Douglas rice
the
householddata
on
for
both
This
,_ GRI
w_ere
of
periods.
=
A
gross
income
equation
wasz
I_
rice.!_come_
A
is_a
constant
term;
and
&
X
,
i
family and
= !,
...,
labor,
hired,
chemicals,•
elasticities taking the
represent, labor
and of
the
linear
6,
with
logarithms
of
WhiCh
input
cap_tg!,
land.
GRI
@_uation
the
The
variables;
irrigation, exponents,
respec
9 _o
each
both
sides
of
was
@stimated
namely, fertilizer
_i s
of
the
the
are
inputs,
equation
using
the and _'
•gives
ordinary
least
squares.
the
T_i.es_im_e
d
coefficients
lof_ a_i
significant
for
the
Except were 0.70
not to
experienced
significant 0.67.
e_!aS_"i,C_tieslaregiven
1978 cr for
ithel[%nputs data, area,
the
Considering
_a significant
except
such
1983.
decline
-•19-
in
was
_family not
rest'of
Likewise, that over
rice the
Table
the
6.
While
labor
are
case
for
the R 2 went
_ down
production five-year
ts
from •had
period,
TABLE ELASTICITIES
Dependent
Variable:
Log
6 OF
INPUTS'
GRI 1978
CONSTANT
1983
6. 6299
FLABOR
(X) 1
HLABOR
4. 0665
-0.0013
(-0.03)
(X) 2
0.20901
(X) 3
0.0944
IRRIG • •• • FERTCHEM
(X) 4 (X5)
0.06315
(4.46)
0.1752
(9.73)
CROPAR
(X) 6
0.2991
( 7.61)*
CAP
0.1652
(0.76)
* (• 9.9i)
-0.0755
(-0.55)
-0.0305
(-0.63)
-0.3549
_(-0.00)
* ( 5.05_ * • * •'
0.0033
(0.12)
0.6933
•( 2.96)*
2 R
••
Inph£
0.7040
notations:
GRr FLABOR HLABOR CAP IRRIG FERTCHEM CROPAR
Numbers i_,parentheses are sighif_cant at the
=• = = = = = =
0.6692
gross rice income (•_) family labor (man-days) hired labor (_) capital expenditure/cost (_) irrigation expenditure/cost (_) fertllizer& chemical Cost (_) crop area (area plan_A_ _n _ rice) (has.)
•are t-values 5% •level.
- 20-
and
those
with
asterisks _
(*)
the
results
course, of
of
we
family
would
of
related
have
and
perhaps
farmers
and
capital
from
1983
the
decline,
basic
non-f_rm
are
for
expected
to
and
markets
regression
labor
chemicals, shift
the
look
value
crop
we
can
the
of
on
production
coefficients and
account to
Assuming consider
Of
fertilizers
increase
actiVities.
competitive,
of
those
to
plausible.
of
other
farm-
that
the
the
factor
coefficients
as
ÂŁ/ imputed
factor
figures
indicate,
shares
Of
the
individual
we
can
not
say
inputs.
much
about
As
the
the
change
in
,
the
relative
shares
relative
share
period.
It
major
is
to
land
remains
have
total
changed
output point
to
be
rising
and
Mandac,
had
the
also
is
the
as
minimal
account
of
fertilizer 1984). at
some
and
fact, time
the
shift
in
to
crop
that
their
amount
of
which
may
its
share
to
other
inputs.
which in
their
supply some
five-year
Clearly,
the
of
the
significantly.
households
nature
imputed
inputs
a result, to
the
such
fertilizer,
prices In
of
basic
the
relative
among
over
result
declined
of
that
decreased
As
the
a
farmers,
input,
use
except
increased
that
m_jor
increased
fertilizer
inputs
tremendously
the
very
the
using
of
output
here
on
land
drastically.
has
in
the
possible
have
share
1983,
Of
activities
production
of
Camarines farm
in
the the
farmers
total A
been
case found
Sur
production
problems.
of
earlier
has
not
in and
(Stanford reported
past.
ÂŁ/ Chinn coefficients for Taiwan.
(1984.) made this assumption of inputs in a production
- 21-
in interpreting the function estimated
The •
results •
.of this • additional
exercise,
.
although
contradictory
to
what
•has been
hypothesized
earlier,
•.
should
...
be
viewedwith
some
caution..
.i .
nature of
fact,
The
exercise
"
and
most
very
the
an
much
variables
analysis
on
the
the
been
useful.
A
for
direct
crop
production,
trend
_n
decline,
"
exploratory "
in
an
increase
the
.
initial
types
of
the•
farm
file.
periods.
-.
, ,
example,
•in expenditures
for
family
labor
not
breakdown
have
confirmed
,
-,"
farmers
away
.
,
feasible of
would
cos't , .
•
that
,
in
expenseswould
expenditure,
: i,
activities .-
however,
consistent
.
'_ of
production
specifically
capital
observation
'.
was,
in i, •
. ,.
values
•
,
in
....
computed
already•available
of
.
is .._'•
dependelt
have
and
not
[.
the
indeed
from .
since
crop .
:....
it
was
production
shifted
to
other
production.
'This .'
difficult costs
to for
. •
get
a
"both
IV.
CONCLUSION
AND
The
region
Bicol
the
country
in
an
estimated
POLICY
terms
RECOMMENDATIONS
ranks of
242,000
fourth
among
poverty
households
the
12
incidence. • receiving
regions
in
Moreover,
of
income
below
the
!i poverty By
line
type
in
of
landless,
have
fishermen
and
been
confirmed declined
the
this
situation, 1978
to
for
be
1978
The
countryside.
and
sector, farm
the
tenants
impoverished
in than
7).
in
have
data
as
the
more
(Table
of
the
placed
presented
average
Bicol
net
reglon
is
most
farmers
earlier
further
household
inco_ae
1983.
declined by
crops
situation
as
line.
income
accounted
to
in
agricultural
other'
poverty
incomes
are
the
found
poverty
from
Farm
in
owner-cultivators
Farm the
percent
cultivating
Obviously, acute.
95
occupatiod
those
general,
below
1971,
the
significantly
decline
in
crop
and
this
income,
was
well
especially
_s/ income
frora rice
production.
Interestingly,
incoi_e
from
7/ --USAID/Philippines (1981). Poverty line was _6873 per annum. This proposes that households receiving this amount would have the means to spend for the minimum nutritionally adequate diet for a household of six costed at 1978 prices.
part
The of
decline may have beenpartly 1983 was included in the
1983 was a bad widespread drought net farm income is in
productivity
may
due to measurement
year for crop production in the country. However, of such big magnitude that have
actually - 23-
occurred.
the
fact that of income.
as there was the decline in a real decline
TABLE INCIDENCE '
Selected
7
OF POVERTY IN SELECTED AGRICULTURAL OCCUPATIONS AND SUB-SECTORS (Bicol, 1971)
Agricultural
POor (Percent)
Occupatio_n
Farmer owner Farmer Part-owner Farmer tenant Farmer not specified tuber gatherers Farm laborer Fishermen
59.5 57.8 66.1 73.9
and
80.0 55.6
Sector Rice& Corn Farming Coconut Farming Other Crops Fishing
SOURCE:
USAID, (Region
60.8 70.3 76.6 55.6
Household V). p.6.
- 24
Poverty
-
Profile
Bicol
Reqion
fishing,
livestock
implications
Of
and these
,,
poultry
decline
What
•are
the
changes?
,
The
increased.
..
in
farm
income,
despite,
the
massive
/
agrieul_ural
infrastructure
disturbing..
This
proportion
• of
indicates
of
non-far_n
income
productivity,
from in
case to
changes
of
the by
income
r_%atched
transfers
unfavorable
and
workers
was
in
matched
Unlike•
the
labor
by
income
•movement activities.
that
decline,
.wage
non-farm
projects
activities
increasing
Philippines
non-farm
activities
in
productivity.
farm
increasing
where
the
is
other.sources,
farm
Taiwan,
by
an
from
basic
•region,
to
increasing agricultural
seems
to
were
suggest
accompanied In
•Taiwan,
.... farm
sizes
as
early
as
•
1952
were
small
,
but
this
.j ,
hinder
productivity
modern and
farm small
farmer
growth.
inputs •• farm
like
these
inputs
by
•.This • is show,
fin
average
this of
There
improved
machinery,
associations
where
not
was
intensive
use
of
seed
varieties,
the
extensive
a more
fertilizer network
universallaccess
of to
farmers.
•the philippine
study, 0.83
as
facilitated the
did
.
has.
average in
crop
1978),
situation area but
is
diverges. also
small
smaller
than
only
1.26
As (i.e.,
what
the
9_/ (Chinn,
Average 1979).
farm
size
•in 1952
- 25 -
was
hectares
'_aiwanese
farmers
household
size
severe,
For on
Since
in
about
in
difficult.
not.
of
and
dependent
had
1962.
6 members,
addition,
most
credit
the
the
on
for
farmer
farmers,
an
pressure
accessibility
example,
whether
Conslaerlng
can
many
of
to
up
whom
land
inputs
production put
average was was
purposes
a
is
collateral
are
or
tenants,
work
10/ on
small
collaterals
farm
lands,
precludes
any
also
probably
one
of
the
the
farmers
in
this
their form
of
major
area
inability
formal
reasons
do
not
borrowing. why
use
to
a good
put
up
This
is
number
fertilizers
in
of their
ll/ farms.
The period,
result the
there
poor
in
Low
analysis of
increased. is the
activities. efforts
the
importance
significantly that
of
indeed
This
areas"
However, to
(1981)
improve
farming
drastically
due
Average coconut) was
74
by
that
farm
policy in the
rate for in 1978
and
Mandac
(1984).
- 26 -
income to
welfare
growth be
of
farms. of
shortages
has
suggest of
the
non-farm
accompanied In labor
production
labor
!!/ Stanford
transfer
five-year
seems
should the
a
of
the
encouraging
infrastructural
tenancy percent
over
sources
improving
affected
to
that
observation
productivity
traditional
and
for
this
suggested
technological
non-farm
room
rural
shows
and
developments.
_nain crop farmers (USAID, 1981).
Africa, out
and
by
of
income limited This
(excluding
is
not,
however,
the
case
infrastructure
.•projects
enough
for
• labor
indicated
by
is
higher
even
have
both
a high
in
farm
the
Bicol
been
introduced
and
population
than
the
national
underemployment
rate
averaging
about
of
Specific
program
Likewise,
bead's
in
needs
of
only
fact,
be
this the
This
case)
of
may
not
paper,
For
are
the
allow
for
while
it needs real
p.
therefore,
in
direction.
right the
is•most
provide on
household
for
likely
the
farming
a rural
poverty
as
basic the
household's line.
In
survival".
gives
useful
further issue
employment
12/ USAID(1981)
the
the
reliance reduces
in
•employment
(which to
also
non-farm
occupation
greatly
example,
in
is,
because
inadequate
the
reform
1981).
system
widespread
beyond
of
tenurial
create
Thus,
still aspects
included.
is
income
move
observations, important
main
household.
to "it
is
his
the
areas
high,
should
land
to
rural
poverty
from
source
chances
the
rural
income
farming
efforts
in
is,
on
is
by
This
current
km..
accessibility
helpful. in
160/sq.
(USAID,
prove
improvements
as
employed
should by
is
km.,. which
region
credit
The
it
the
to•increase
opportunities As
all
of
aimed
accompanied
order.
percent
average in
there
activities, 197/sq.
programs
farmers
farms.
46
of
Massive
and
non-farm
density
Moreover,
region.
41.
- 27 -
insights
expansion
of
poverty
figures
and
as have
not
especially
other been for
the
non-farm
further objective be
used
confirm farm
activities
analysis
through
is, encouraged. to
generate
the
activities
in
ideally
an
expanded
Data
more
general
should
for
specific
hypothesZs
alleviating
be
f
included.
study
other
with
areas
observations regarding
poverty.
- 28 -
the
Hence, a
similar
can
likewise
to
further
role
of
non-
References
Alburo,
F. (1980). iz_tion and Paper 8012, of Economics.
Chinn,
Dennis. (1979). of Farm Household Evidence from and
David,
C _.
Cultural et
al.
Philippine •hilippine P Gibb,
"Rural :Poverty and the Structure Income in Developing Countries: Taiwan," in Economic Development
Chan@e,
27 ',
(1984).
2
(Jan.):
Economic
Agriculture. Institute for
283,
301.
Policies
and
Working Paper No. 83-02_ Development S_Sudies.
Arthur Jr. (1984), "TertiaryUrbanization:The Agricultural _ Market :Center as a Consumptionrelated phenomenon," in Regional Development Dialogue on Cities, Market Town and Agricultural Development: Rondinelli
Hirshman,
Ho,
Comparative Agricultural ModernNon-Farm Employment. •Discussion University of thePhilippines School
S.
A.O. ment, Press.
A (ed.).
Regional
(1958). The New Haven,
(1979).
"Decentralized
Stratesy of Connecticut:
A.R,C. on
(1981-). "The Farm Incomes
Contracted Development 721-747.
from Cultural
Effect and
Dennis
Economic DevelopYale University
Industrialization
Development: Evidence Economic Development and No. i. pp. 36-96. Low,
Perspective,
and
Rural
Taiwan," Change. Vol.
of Off-Farm Production:
in 28
Employment Taiwan
with Southern Africa," in Economic and Cultural Chan_e 29 ', 4 (July)':
Mellor,
J. & Uwa J. Lele. (1972). "Growth Linkages of the New Foodgrain Technologies." Occasional Paper No. 50. USAID-Employment and Income Distribution Project. Department of Agricultural Economics. Cornell University.
Montes,
M.
and
A.
Quizon.
Computing Net Household Multipurpose Survey.
- 29 -
(1979). Income
On for
the the
Method 1978
of
Bicol
Navera,
NEDA
Stanford,
E. (1984). of Household the Bicol (Mimeographed).
"Formulas Used in the Computation Income from BMS '83. Prepared for Program Impact Evaluation."
(1984). Some Differential. L. & Non-Farm
Aspects
A. M. Income
of
Rural-Urban
Mandac. (1984). in Rainfed Rice
Camarines Sur," Paper prepared Review Selected Research Production in the Bicol River San Jose, Pili Camarines Sur. USAID,
Philippines. Bicol Region
(1981). (Region
World
Bank, (1985). The Poverty, Employment
for to Basin
Welfare
"Off-Farm Production
and in
the Workshop to Increase Rice Area, BRBDPO,
Household Poverty Profile V). Mimeographed Report. Philippine and Wages.
- 30 -
RÂŁcent
Trends
in