Beyond the Numbers

“What Makes Incomes Move, and

 

 

Beyond the Numbers

“What Makes Incomes Move, and
How Do Families Cope With Income Shocks?”

by Jose Ramon G. Albert, Ph.D.1                                              Filipino Version
(Posted: 13 December 2013)


Last December 9, 2013, the Philippine Statistical System, through the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) released the full year 2012 official poverty statistics, with back estimates for 1991, 2006 and 2009.   In this report, we pointed that one out of five Filipino families was estimated to be poor in 2012 (19.7 percent). The estimate for 2012 is slightly lower than the 2009 and 2006 poverty incidence figures, which were estimated at 20.5 and 21.0 percent, respectively, but these differences are not statistically significant. 

As far as individuals are concerned, about one out of four Pinoys (25.2%) was poor in 2012. The poverty incidence for the population is higher than the corresponding figure for families because the poor tend to have larger family sizes than the rest of the population. The percentage of Pinoys who were poor in 2012 is slightly lower than the estimates in 2009 and 2006, which are 26.3% and 26.6%, respectively, but the differences are also not statistically significant. In other words, there is no guarantee that the figures have changed across time. Sample surveys, which are the source of these statistics, are not 100% precise, i.e. each estimate has a margin of error, and we are confident about differences in figures, if they are beyond the margins of error.  

Some people wonder why the country has not yet managed to effect significant poverty reduction. In this article, we look into examining the dynamics in income distribution, particularly based on panel data2 collected by the National Statistics Office (NSO) from 2003 to 2008. While such data are clearly not recent, past data still carry information about the present, and examining the past might help us better map out our future.

We are aware that Filipino households are not homogenous. Within urban areas, for instance, we may be able to observe that the places where people dwell vary considerably: some families live in comfortable villages, others in condominiums, and still others may reside in dwellings with makeshift walls or roofs. The educational attainment of household heads also varies considerably, so with occupations. Consumption of households also varies. In addition, households may get affected by certain events, but the impact of these events may vary. Some of these events may put some non-poor households into poverty, or the poor into further poverty, such as job losses and lowering of wages of the main income earner in the households, price shocks, illness or death of a household member, unplanned pregnancies, and natural disasters. As the devastation brought about by super typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) last month is still fresh in our mind, we recognize that natural disasters, especially climate disasters, are becoming the rising threat to our welfare and development.  Even I myself was a victim of one of these climate disasters (Ondoy), when I lived in Provident Village, Marikina in September 2009. This happened to me at a time just when I was grieving the loss of my mom, who battled but lost out to pancreatic cancer.

In 2009, the Philippines was reported3 by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) to have had the most number of natural disasters4 among countries across the world with its experience of 25 disaster events.   An examination of CRED’s database would suggest that disaster events, especially intense5 climate-related disasters, are on the rise, and that some economies are more at-risk from these events (than others). The Philippines is one of them. While data from the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) suggests the number of cyclones is not increasing in the Philippines from 1971 to 2000, there is, however, evidence that these cyclones are having more precipitation in the recent years, and that their direction has shifted from the northern part of the Philippines to central and southern Philippines.  The recent climate disaster in Visayas has caused concern about its impact to welfare conditions in the country. 

While the differences in aggregate national poverty rates for 2012, 2009, and 2006 are found not to be significantly different, this does not mean there were no changes in poverty conditions in the country. The NSCB pointed out that some regions, particularly Caraga, Regions IX, II, V, and I posted significant reductions in poverty incidence between 2009 and 2012. In particular, poverty incidence among families, i.e. the proportion of families that are poor, in Caraga significantly declined from 46.0 percent in 2009 to 31.9 percent in 2012. Headcount poverty incidence, i.e. the percentage of poor Filipinos, in Cagara declined from 54.4 percent in 2009 to 40.3 percent in 2012.  On the other hand, this reduction in poverty rates was not seen in ARMM and Region XII in the same period.

The aggregate figures do not indicate to us whether any households exited poverty and if some non-poor households have gone into poverty. For such purposes, we will need to examine panel data, i.e. households that have been surveyed across time. Some of the households surveyed by the NSO for the 2003 Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) were subsequently also interviewed for the 2006 FIES as well during the 2004 Annual Poverty Indicator Survey (APIS), the 2007 APIS, and the 2008 APIS.  These panel data surveyed for the period 2003 to 20086 allow us to examine dynamics in welfare conditions experienced by Filipino households in the said period, especially in the wake of price shocks in rice and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis that resulted then.  Information from changes in the characteristics of the panel can suggest the costs of shocks and coping strategies of households to shocks.

2003 and 2006 FIES panel data show that poverty inflows nearly equal outflows

My examination of these panel data, particularly their per capita income data from the 2003 FIES and 2006 FIES, suggests that poverty inflows nearly equal outflows for the entire population: among the estimated 20.5 million poor persons in 2003, 6.5 million moved out of poverty, but 6.8 million moved into poverty in 2006 (Tables 1).  Overall, the poverty rate did not seem to change. The estimated number (13.3 million) of persons  that either moved into or out of poverty, which may be viewed as the relatively vulnerable population, are slightly fewer than the estimated number (14 million) of persons that were poor in both 2003 and 2006.  All these estimates are based on 6,701 panel households from FIES 2003, APIS 2004, FIES 2006, APIS 2007, APIS 2008 weighted appropriately to take account that some sample households drop out of the panel. 

Unfortunately, the estimation provided in Table 1 may not be extended directly to data from the APIS since the survey instruments, i.e. questionnaires, are not fully comparable7. There is, however, still some value in looking at the dynamics of estimated aggregate annual per capita income, particularly if movements in income for the panel households are rather considerable, and may likely not be attributed to measurement errors.  About a fifth of the household population is poor in 2003. Thus movements in per capita income quintiles, especially into the bottom quintile, can proxy a household’s vulnerability to income poverty.8

From 2003 to 2008, a quarter of the bottom 20 percent of the total households moved out of poverty

Table 2 shows that among the estimated 16.5 million households in 2003, about three fourths of the bottom 20 percent of (per capita) income distribution, were in the bottom 20 percent throughout the period 2003 to 2008, and may thus be through of as persistently poor, while a quarter of the bottom 20 percent in 2003 moved out of poverty either permanently or temporarily.

23 percent of total households from 2003 to 2008 appear to be transient poor

Among the upper 80 percent of the per capita income distribution in 2003, one out of every five nonpoor have moved into poverty between 2004 and 2008 (either permanently or temporarily).  One can also note that the relatively vulnerable households that moved in and out of the bottom twenty percent of income distribution (comprising about 23% of all Filipino households) is larger than the number of households that were persistently poor from 2003 to 2008 (comprising about 15% of all Filipino households). Consequently, whether we use data from FIES alone or together with APIS, we find a considerably proportion of the population that can be considered transient poor. These persons have incomes that are very volatile, and even if they may be nonpoor today, any shocks (from disasters, price movements, income/employment losses) can put them into poverty, and this may be the reason why poverty reduction continues to be a challenge.

Poverty, whether transient or chronic, is a rural phenomenon

Of the 2.4 million households estimated persistently poor from 2003 to 2008, about 86 percent reside in the rural areas. Even among the 2.8 million non-poor households in 2003 that fell into poverty or moved in and out of poverty in the period 2004 to 2008, about two thirds (69%) of them live in the rural areas. Consequently, poverty, whether transient or chronic, is more of a rural phenomenon. 

Clearly, interventions for the “chronic poor” (i.e., those persistently poor) and transient poor (i.e., those who are sometimes poor) must be different. The chronic poor may need long term investments (such as the government’s Conditional Cash Transfer program) to help them exit from poverty, while the transient poor would need safety nets to mitigate the income volatility they face.

Persistently poor households have large family sizes

The persistently poor belong to households that have a very large family size (of about 6, with 3 dependent members), and these households have the least income among the groups identified in Table 2. The Reproductive Health Law, which up to now is still being contested in the Supreme Court, should allow poor households to better manage their family sizes. In contrast, the never poor belong to households that have smaller family sizes than the rest of households. Those belonging to families that were non-poor in 2003, but moved into poverty had about an average family size in 2003 of five, but by 2008 had one more dependent member. In contrast, those that were poor in 2003 but moved out of poverty had a family size of five in 2003, but by 2008, had one less dependent. (See Table 3)

In 2008, persistently poor families spent a third less than what they spent in the previous year

Persistently vulnerable households and those that experienced income shocks appear to have sold or pawned their cellphones as a coping mechanism in the midst of these income shocks. See Table 4. For these households, about ten percent that had a cellphone in 2007, had at least one less cellphone by 2008. Other assets, such as television sets and vehicles, albeit in a much more limited extent, seem to be also used by these households to smooth their consumption of other goods. 

Families that were persistently poor or vulnerable to income shocks in 2008 changed their consumption patterns  in the midst of these shocks, by spending (in real terms) about a third less than what they spent on the previous year (Tables 5a-5c). While total household spending went down for these vulnerable households from 2007 to 2008, the share of food expenses (to total household expenses) went up by an average of 3 percentage points, while the share of health medical expenses decreased from 5 percent to 2 percent. The decision by the current government to expand universal coverage of PhilHealth may be a viable instrument for reduce economic and social vulnerabilities of families.

… and some families with income shocks stopped sending their children to schools.

While a smaller proportion of families in 2008 had children between the ages of 5 to 15 years old that were out of school compared to 2007, even among the persistently poor, there is evidence to suggest that families that were non-poor in 2003 but with income shocks in 2008 were coping with such shocks by deciding not to send their children to school. The profile of families vulnerable to income poverty against those that did not experience income shocks in 2008 also suggests a clear difference as far as non-participation of children in school (Table 6). Such a coping strategy is clearly going to have its long term impact on the income prospects of families, and may only further exacerbate their future welfare conditions. Current efforts by government to provide conditional cash transfers to extremely poor families with the condition that they send their children to school may serve well in lessening the opportunity costs of sending children to school. Families will have to invest in the future of their children regardless of whether they experience income shocks and other shocks that put constraints on their welfare conditions.
 
The seeming lack of overall changes in poverty reduction in the country should not be an opportunity for fault finding, but point to volatilities in household income.  Households face circumstances, e.g. disasters and other shocks, that may lead some of them to worse welfare conditions, but others, when given support, may be given the means to rise in the income ladder. The reduction of poverty is never the responsibility of government alone.  Some interventions such as the government’s CCT should not be expected to have immediate effects in reduction of overall poverty. The late Nelson Mandela reminds us that “Poverty is not an accident. Like slavery and apartheid, it is man-made and can be removed by the actions of human beings.”     

Reactions and views are welcome thru email to the author at jrg.albert@nscb.gov.ph.

 

 

Filipino Version

 

"Ano ang Nagpapagalaw sa  Kita, at
Paano Nakakayanan ng mga Pamilya ang Income Shocks?"

by Jose Ramon G. Albert, Ph.D.1


Noong nakaraang Disyembre 9, 2013 , ang Philippine Statistical System, sa pamamagitan ng National Statistical Coordination Board ( NSCB ) ay nagpalabas ng buong taong 2012 official poverty statistics , na may mga pabalik na pagtataya para sa 2006 at 2009. Sa ulat na ito, pinupunto na isa sa kada limang pamilyang Pilipino ay tinatantyang mahirap para sa 2012 (19.7 bahagdan). Ang pagtantya para sa 2012 ay bahagyang mas mababa kaysa sa 2009 at 2006 poverty incidence figures , na kung saan ay tinatayang  20.5 at 21.0 bahagdan , ayon sa pagkakabanggit , ngunit ang mga pagkakaiba ay hindi statistically significant.

Samantalang sa ganang may kinalaman sa indibidwal, halos isa sa bawat apat na Pinoys (25.3 %) ay mahirap noong 2012. Ang saklaw ng kahirapan (poverty incidence) para sa populasyon ay mas mataas kaysa sa kaukulang figure para sa mga pamilya sa kadahilanang ang mahihirap ay may posibilidad na magkaroon ng mas malaking bilang ng pamilya kaysa sa natitirang bahagi ng populasyon. Ang bahagdan ng mga Pinoys na mahihirap para sa 2012 ay bahagyang mas mababa kaysa sa mga pagtantya para sa 2006 at 2009, na kung saan ay 26.3 % at 26.1 %, ayon sa pagkakabanggit , ngunit ang pagkakaiba ay hindi statistically significant. Sa madaling salita, walang kasiguruhan na ang mga numero ay nagbago sa ibayong panahon. Ang mga sample survey , na kung saan ay pinagmumulan ng mga estadistika , ay hindi 100% tumpak , ibig sabihin,ang bawat pagtatantya ay may puwang para sa pagkakamali (margin of error), at nakatitiyak tayo hinggil sa pagkakaiba ng mga figures , kung ang mga ito ay lampas na sa margin of error.

May ilang taong nagtataka kung bakit ang bansa ay hindi pa mapamahalaang maisagawa ang makabuluhang pagbawas ng kahirapan (poverty reduction). Sa artikulong ito, ating tingnan ang pagsusuri sa pagbabago (dynamics) ng income distribution, lalo na batay sa panel data na nakolekta sa pamamagitan ng National Statistics Office (NSO) mula 2003 hanggang 2008. Habang ang naturang datos ay malinaw na hindi bago, ang nakaraang datos pa rin ang nagtataglay ng impormasyon tungkol sa kasalukuyan, at ang pagsusuri sa nakalipas ay maaaring makatulong sa atin  sa mas mahusay na pagbabalangkas ng ating kinabukasan.

Batid natin na  ang kabahayang Pilipino ay hindi magkakatulad (homogenous) . Sa loob ng urban area , halimbawa , maaari nating magawang maobserbahan na ang mga lugar kung saan naninirahan ang mga tao ay lubhang magkakaiba : may ilang mga pamilya ang nakatira sa kumportableng villages , ang iba sa condominiums , at maaaring manirahan sa mga tirahang gawa lamang sa pansamantalang pader o bubungan. Ang pang-edukasyon kakayahan ng puno ng pamilya ay lubha ding nag-iiba , gayundin ang sa  hanapbuhay . Ang pagkonsumo ng pamilya ay nag-iiba rin. Bilang karagdagan, ang buong pamilya ay maaring maapektuhan sa pamamagitan ng ilang mga kaganapan, ngunit ang epekto ng mga kaganapang ito ay maaaring mag-iba. Maaaring ilan sa mga kaganapang ito ay maglagay sa  ilang di- mahihirap na pamilya sa kahirapan , o sa mahihirap sa higit pang kahirapan , tulad ng kawalan ng trabaho at pagbaba ng sahod ng pangunahing nagtatrabaho sa pamilya , kabiglaanan ng presyo , sakit o kamatayan ng isang miyembro ng pamilya , hindi planadong pagbubuntis , at natural na mga sakuna. Sa ganap na pagkasira na dala ng pambihirang bagyong Yolanda ( Haiyan ) noong nakaraang buwan na sariwa pa sa ating isipan , kinikilala natin na ang mga natural na sakuna, lalo na sa mga pangklimang sakuna, ang nagiging banta para sa ating kapakanan at pag-unlad . Kahit na ako ay  biktima rin ng isa sa mga pangklimang kalamidad ( Ondoy ) , nang naninirahan pa ako sa Provident Village , Marikina noong Setyembre 2009. Nangyari ito sa akin noong panahong ako ay nagdadalamhati sa pagkawala ng aking ina, na nakipaglaban subalit nagapi ng pancreatic cancer.

Noong 2009, ang Pilipinas ay naiulat ng Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) na nagkaroon ng pinakamaraming bilang ng mga natural na sakuna sa gitna ng mga bansa sa kabilang ibayo ng mundo na may mga karanasan ng 25 sakunang kaganapan. Isang pagsusuri ng database CRED na nagmumungkahing ang mga kaganapang pangsakuna (disaster events), lalo na ang matitinding kalamidad na may kaugnayan sa klima, ay pataas, at ang ilan sa mga ekonomiya ay higit pang nanganganib mula sa mga kaganapang ito (kaysa sa iba). Ang Pilipinas ay isa sa mga ito. Habang ang datos mula sa Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) ay nagpapahiwatig na ang bilang ng mga bagyo ay hindi tumataas sa Pilipinas mula 1971 hanggang 2000, mayroong, gayunpaman, na katibayan na ang mga bagyo ay nakakaranas ng higit pang pag-ulan sa mga nakaraang taon, at ang direksyon nito ay nagbago mula sa hilagang bahagi ng Pilipinas papunta sa gitna at dakong timog ng Pilipinas. Ang kamakailang pangklimang sakuna sa Visayas ay nagdulot ng mga alalahanin tungkol sa epekto nito sa kondisyon ng kagalingan ng bansa.

Samantalang ang mga pagkakaiba sa mga pinagsama-samang national poverty rate para sa 2012, 2009, at 2006 ay napag-alamang hindi statistically significant, ito ay hindi nangangahulugang walang mga pagbabago sa kundisyon ng kahirapan sa bansa. Ang NSCB nagpupunto na ang ilang mga rehiyon, lalo na ang Caraga, Rehiyon IX, II, V, at I ay nagtala ng makabuluhang pagbawas sa saklaw ng kahirapan (poverty incidence) sa pagitan ng 2009 at 2012. Lalo na, ang saklaw ng kahirapan (poverty incidence) sa gitna ng mga pamilya, halimbawa, ang proporsyon ng mga pamilya na mahihirap, sa Caraga ay makabuluhang bumaba mula sa 46.0 bahagdan para sa 2009 hanggang sa 31.9 bahagdan para sa 2012. Headcount poverty incidence, ibig sabihin, ang bahagdan ng mga mahihirap na Pilipino, sa Cagara ay bumaba mula sa 54.4 bahagdan para sa 2009 hanggang 40.3 bahagdan para sa 2012. Sa kabilang banda, ito pagbawas sa poverty rate ay hindi nakikita sa ARMM at Rehiyon XII sa parehong panahon.

Ang pinagsama-samang bilang ay hindi nagpapahiwatig sa atin kung ang ibang mga kabahayan ay nakaahon sa kahirapan at kung ang ilang mga di-mahirap na kabahayan ay dumanas ng kahirapan. Para sa naturang mga layunin, kinakailangan nating suriin ang panel data, ibig sabihin, ang mga kabahayang nasiyasat sa ibayong panahon. Ang ilan sa mga kabahayang nasiyasat sa pamamagitan ng NSO para sa 2003Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) pagkaraang kinapanayam din para sa 2006 FIES pati na rin sa panahon ng 2004Annual Poverty Indicator Survey (APIS), ng 2007 APIS, at ang APIS ng 2008. Ang mga data panel na siniyasat para sa panahong 2003 hanggang 2008 ang nagbigay daan  upang suriin ang dynamics sa kundisyon ng kagalingan na naranasan sa pagitan ng mga kabahayang Pilipino sa nasabing panahon, lalo na sa kalagayan ng price shocks sa bigas at ang naging resulta pagkatapos ng 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Ang impormasyon mula sa pagbabago sa mga katangian ng panel ay maaaring magmungkahi ang mga gastos ng shocks at coping strategies ng mga sambahayan sa shocks.

2003 at 2006 FIES panel data ay nagpapakita na ang poverty inflows ay halos katumbas ng outflows

Sa aking pagsusuri ng mga panel data na ito, lalo na ang per capita income data mula 2003 FIES at 2006 FIES, ay nagmumungkahi na ang poverty inflows ay halos katumbas ng outflows para sa buong populasyon: kabilang sa mga tinantyang 20.5 milyong mahihirap na tao para sa 2003, 6.5 milyon ang nakaalis sa kahirapan, ngunit ang 6.8 milyon ang napunta sa kahirapan para sa 2006 (Talaan 1). Sa pangkalahatan, ang poverty rate ay tila hindi nagbabago. Ang tinatayang bilang (13.3 milyon) ng mga tao alinman sa nakaalis o napunta sa kahirapan, na maaaring tingnan bilang relatively vulnerable na populasyon, ay bahagyang mas kakaunti kaysa sa tinantyang bilang (14 milyon) ng mga taong mahihirap sa parehong 2003 at 2006. Ang lahat ng mga pagtatantya ay batay sa 6,701 panel households mula sa FIES 2003, APIS 2004, FIES2006, APIS 2007, APIS 2008 tinimbang nang naaangkop upang maging makabuluhan ang ilang sample households na nawala sa panel.

Sa kasamaang palad, ang pagtatantya na nasa Talaan 1 ay maaring hindi mapalawig direkta sa datos mula sa APIS dahil ang mga survey instruments, ibig sabihin questionnaires, ay hindi ganap na maihahambing. Mayroon, gayunpaman, ilang mga kahalagan sa pagtingin sa dynamicsng tinatayang aggregate annual per capita, lalo na kung ang pagkilos ng kita para sa panel households ay maaaring malamang na hindi maiuugnay sa pagsukat ng mga error. Humigit kumulang sa ikalimang bahagi ng household population ay mahihirap noong 2003. Kaya ang mga paggalaw sa per capita income quintiles, lalo na ang nasa ilalim na quintile, maaaring maihalili para sa household’s vulnerability sa income poverty.

Mula 2003 hanggang 2008, isang-kapat ng ibabang 20 bahagdan ng kabuuang kabahayan nakaalis sa kahirapan

Ang Talaan 2 ay nagpapakita na kabilang sa mga tinantyang 16.5 milyong kabahayan noong 2003, mayroong three fourths ng ibabang 20 bahagdan ng (per capita) pamamahagi ng kita (income distribution), ay nasa ibabang 20 porsiyento sa buong panahon ng 2003 hanggang 2008, at maaaring patuloy na maging mahirap, habang ang isang-kapat ng nasa ilalim ng 20 bahagdan noong 2003 nakaalis sa kahirapan alinman sa permanente o pansamantala.

23 bahagdan ng kabuuang mga kabahayan mula 2003 hanggang 2008 ay lumalabas na pansamantalang mahihirap

Kabilang sa mga na itaas ng 80 bahagdan ng per capita income distribution noong 2003, isa sa ng bawat limang nonpoor ang lumipat sa kahirapan sa pagitan ng 2004 at 2008 (alinman sa permanente o pansamantala). Maari nating tandaan na ang relatively vulnerable households na kumikilos palabas at papasok ng nasa ibabang dalawampung bahagdan ng income distribution (na binubuo ng 23% ng lahat ng kabahayan Pilipino) ay mas malaki kaysa sa bilang ng mga kabahayan na nananatiling na mahirap mula 2003 hanggang 2008 (na binubuo ng halos 15% ng lahat ng kabahayang Filipino). Dahil dito, kung ginagamit namin ang datos mula sa FIES lamang o kasama ang APIS, makikita natin ang kapansin-pansing proporsyon ng populasyon na maaaring ituring na pansamantalang mahihirap. Ang mga taong ito na ang kinikita ay pabagu-bago, at kahit na maaaring sila ay nonpoor ngayon, ang anumang shocks (mula sa mga sakuna, mga paggalaw ng presyo, pagkawala ng kita / trabaho) ay maaaring maglagay  sa mga ito sa kahirapan, at maaaring ito ang dahilan kung bakit ang poverty reduction ay nagpapatuloy bilang isang hamon.

Kahirapan, maging pansamantala o pangmatagalan, ay isang rural phenomenon

Sa 2.4 milyong kabahayan tinantyang patuloy na mahihirap mula 2003 hanggang 2008, halos 86 bahagdan ang naninirahan sa rural na lugar. Kahit na kabilang sa 2.8 milyong non-poor na kabahayan noong 2003 na nalugmok sa kahirapan o nagpalipatlipat sa loob at labas ng kahirapan sa panahong 2004 hanggang 2008, halos two thirds (69%) sa mga ito ay naninirahan sa rural na lugar. Dahil dito, ang kahirapan, maging pansamantala o pangmatagalan, ay higit pa sa isang rural phenomenon.

Malinaw na, ang mga pamamagitan para sa "chronic poor" (ibig sabihin, mga patuloy na naghihirap) at pansamantalang mahihirap (ibig sabihin, mga taong minsan ay mahihirap) ay dapat na naiiba. Ang chronic poor ay nangangailangan ng pangmatagalang mga pamumuhunan (tulad ng programa ng pamahalaan na Conditional Cash Transfer) upang tulungan silang makaahon mula sa kahirapan, habang ang pansamantalang mahihirap ay kakailanganin ng safety nets upang mabawasan ang income volatility kanilang kinakaharap.

Persistently poor na kabahayan ay mayroong malalaking bilang ng pamilya

Nabibilang sa mga kabahayang may napakalaking bilang pamilya (halos 6, na may 3 dependent na  miyembro) ang persistently poor, at ang mga kabahayang ito ang may pinaka mababang kinikita sa mga kabilang na pangkat na nabanggit sa Talaan 2. Patuloy na pinagtatalunan sa Korte Suprema ang Reproductive Health Law magpahanggang sa ngayon, na magsasaalang alang sa mga mahihirap na sambahayan upang mas mahusay na pamahalaan ang laki ng pamilya. Sa kaibahan, nabibilang  ang never been poor sa mga pamilyang may maliliit na bilang ng pamilya kaysa sa natitirang bahagi ng kabahayan. Yaong kabilang sa mga pamilyang non-poor noong 2003, ngunit naging mahirap ay may average na laki ng pamilya na lima noong 2003, subalit noong 2008 nagkaroon ito ng isa o higit pang nakadependeng miyembro. Sa kaibahan, ang mga mahihirap noong 2003 ngunit nakaahon sa kahirapan ay nagkaroon ng bilang ng pamilya na lima noong 2003, ngunit ng 2008, nabawasan ito ng isang dependent. (Tingnan ang Talaan 3)

Noong 2008, ang persistently poor na mga pamilya ay gumugol ng ikatlong bahagi mas mababa kaysa sa kanilang paggugol sa nakaraang taon

Ang persistently vulnerable households at mga nakararanas ng income shocks ay lumalabas na nagbenta o nagsangla ng kanilang cellphones bilang isang coping mechanism sa gitna ng mga income shocks. Tingnan ang Talaan 4. Para sa mga kabahayang ito, halos sampung bahagdan ang nagkaroon ng cellphone noong 2007, nabawasan ito ng mas kaunti pa sa isang cellphone para sa 2008. Iba pang mga asset, tulad ng telebisyon sets at mga sasakyan, kahit na sa isang mas limitadong saklaw, tila ginagamit din ng mga kabahayan sa kanilang maayos na pagkonsumo ng iba pang mga kalakal.

Nagbago ng consumption patterns sa gitna ng mga shocks  ang mga pamilyang patuloy na naghihirap o mahina laban sa income shocks noong 2008, sa pamamagitan ng paggastos ( sa tunay na tuntunin) ng halos ikatlong mas mababa kaysa sa kung ano ang kanilang ginugol sa nakaraang taon ( Talaan 5a - 5c ) . Habang ang kabuuang household spending ay bumaba para sa mga vulnerable households mula  2007 hanggang 2008 , ang bahagi ng mga gastos sa pagkain ( sa kabuuang gastos ng sambahayan ) ay tumaas sa pamamagitan ng katampatang 3 puntos ng bahagdan, habang ang bahagi ng health medical expenses ay bumaba mula 5 porsiyento sa 2 porsiyento . Ang desisyon ng kasalukuyang pamahalaan upang palawakin ang pangkalahatang coverage ng PhilHealth ay maaaring maging isang praktikal na instrumento upang mabawasan ang pang-ekonomiya at panlipunang vulnerabilities ng mga pamilya.

... At ilang mga pamilyang may income shocks ay huminto sa pagpapasok ng kanilang mga anak sa paaralan.

Samantalang mas maliit ang proporsyon ng mga pamilya noong 2008 na mayroong mga batang nasa pagitan ng edad na 5-15 taong gulang ang wala sa paaralan kumpara noong 2007, kahit na ang kabilang sa persistently poor, mayroong katibayan na nagmumungkahi na ang mga pamilya non-poor noong 2003 subalit may income shocks noong 2008 ay kinakaya ang shocks sa pamamagitan ng pagpapasyang hindi papasukin ang kanilang mga anak sa paaralan. Ang profile ng mga pamilyang vulnerable sa income poverty laban sa mga hindi nakaranas ng income shocks noong 2008 ang nagmumungkahi ng isang malinaw na pagkakaiba tulad ng bilang di-pakikilahok ng mga bata sa paaralan (Talaan 6).Malinaw na ang nasabing coping strategy ay mayroong pangmatagalang epekto sa mga inaasahang kita ng pamilya, at maaaring dumagdag sa pagpapalala ng kanilang welfare conditions sa hinaharap. Kasalukuyang mga pagsisikap sa pamamagitan ng gobyerno ang pagbibigay ng conditional cash transfers sa mga lubos na mahihirap na pamilya na may mga kondisyong papasukin nila ang kanilang mga anak sa paaralan na maaaring magsilbing pagbawas sa opportunity costs ng pagpapadala ng mga bata sa paaralan . Kinakailangang mamuhunan ng mga pamilya para sa hinaharap ng kanilang mga anak kahit na di alintana kung nakakaranas ng income shocks at iba pang shocks na magiging hadlang sa kanilang welfare conditions.

Sa tila kakulangan ng pangkalahatang pagbabago sa pagbawas ng kahirapan ng bansa hindi ito dapat maging maging daan sa pagtuturuan ng kung sino ang may kasalanan, datapwa’t tutukan ang para sa volatilities ng kita ng kabahayan. Kinakaharap ng sambahayan ang mga kalagayang , halimbawa, kalamidad at iba pang shocks , na maaaring maghantong sa kanila sa mas masahol pang welfare conditions , subalit ang iba, kapag nabigyan ng suporta, ay maaaring mabigyan ng mga pagkakataon upang tumaas sa income ladder . Ang pagbabawas ng kahirapan ay hindi kailanman responsibilidad lamang ng gobyerno. Ang ilang mga interventions gaya ng CCT ng pamahalaan ay hindi dapat asahang magkakaroon ng agarang epekto sa pagbawas ng pangkalahatang kahirapan. Ang yumaong Nelson Mandela ay nagpapaalala sa atin na ang “Kahirapan ay hindi isang aksidente. Tulad ng pang-aalipin at aparteid, ito ay ginawa ng tao at maaaring maalis sa pamamagitan ng mga pagkilos ng mga tao. "

Kung kayo ay may reaksyon o ibang pananaw ukol sa artikulong ito, mangyari lamang na sumulat sa may akda sa email address na: jrg.albert@nscb.gov.ph.

________________________________

1 Secretary General of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB). The NSCB, a statistical agency functionally attached to the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), is the highest policy making and coordinating body on statistical matters in the Philippines. Immediately prior to his appointment at NSCB, Dr. Albert was a Senior Research Fellow at the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, a policy think tank attached to NEDA. Dr. Albert finished summa cum laude  with a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Mathematics from the De La Salle University in 1988. He completed a Master of Science in Statistics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1989 and a Ph.D. in Statistics from the same university in 1993. He is a Professorial Lecturer at the Decision Sciences and Innovation Department of Ramon V. Del Rosario College of Business, De La Salle University.  He is also a past President of the Philippine Statistical Association, a Fellow of the Social Weather Stations, and an Elected Regular Member of the National Research Council of the Philippines. 

This article was translated in Filipino by Ms. Virginia Bathan of NSCB. The author thanks Director Candido Astrologo for comments in the preparation of the article. The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the NSCB and its Technical Staff.

2 Sample households for the July 2003 Labor Force Survey (LFS) round were  interviewed for the 2003 Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) and the January 2004 LFS. Likewise, the July 2006 LFS sample was interviewed for the 2006 APIS and the January 2007 LFS. The fourth replicate of the July 2003 round of the LFS covering about 12,000 households was interviewed not only for the July 2003 LFS, 2003 FIES, and January 2004 LFS, but also for the 2006 FIES and 2009 FIES,  as well as across the APIS waves in 2004, 2007, and 2008, thus forming panel data that were examined in this article. 

3 See 2009 Annual Disaster Statistical Review compiled by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (available at http://www.preventionweb.net/files/ 14382_ADSR2009.pdf )

4 CRED defines disaster as “a situation or event which overwhelms local capacity, necessitating a request to a national or international level for external assistance; an unforeseen and often sudden event that causes great damage, destruction and human suffering.” The CRED monitors global disasters in its Emergency Events Database (EMDAT), and categorizes them into natural and technological groups. The natural disasters are further divided into five subgroups: (a) geophysical events; (b) meteorological events; (c) hydrological events; (d) climatological events;  and, (e) biological disasters.

5 Intense disasters are disasters which killed 100 or more people, or affected 1,000 or more persons.

6 Intense disasters are disasters which killed 100 or more people, or affected 1,000 or more persons.

7 The FIES and APIS have varying questionnaire lengths for obtaining income and expenditure data, and there are differences in reference periods for these surveys (with APIS only referring to half year data), so that poverty comparisons cannot strictly be done.

8 However, to account for possible measurement error issues from FIES to APIS, we only consider movements out of the bottom quintile by at least two income quintiles as proxy for movements out of poverty. Changes in per capita income quintile across FIES and APIS may be a result of measurement error from differences in FIES and APIS instruments, but drastic changes are viewed and assumed to be the result of actual income dynamics.

 

 


Table 1. Poverty Transition Matrix
(in Percent of Total Population in 2003): 2003 – 2006

Poverty
Status 2003
Poverty Status 2006

Non-poor Poor Total
Non-poor 66.88 8.28 75.15
Poor 7.90 16.95 24.85
Total 74.77 25.23 100.00

Note: Author’s calculations from the FIES 2003-APIS 2004
-FIES 2006-APIS 2007-APIS 2008 panel

 

 

Table 2. Distribution of Filipino Households in 2003 by Urban-Rural Location (in 2003), and by Movements in and out of Poverty from 2003 to 2008

Vulnerability Status (2003 to 2008) Urban Rural Total
Persistently Poor

2.06 12.56 14.62
Poor in 2003, but exited poverty permanently 0.92 2.78 3.7
Poor in 2003, but exited poverty temporarily 0.32 1.37 1.69
Always Non-poor 40.85 21.86 62.72
Non-poor in 2003, but entered poverty permanently 3.42 8.26 11.68
Non-poor in 2003, but entered poverty temporarily 2 3.59 5.59
Total 49.56 50.44 100

Note: Author’s calculations from the FIES 2003-APIS 2004-FIES 2006-APIS 2007-APIS 2008 panel

 

 

Table 3. Average Family Size of Panel Households, by Movements in and out of Poverty from 2003 to 2008

Vulnerability Status (2003 to 2008) 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008
Persistently Poor 6.1 6.0 6.1 6.1 6.0
Poor in 2003, but exited poverty permanently 5.3 5.2 4.7 4.7 4.3
Poor in 2003, but exited poverty temporarily 5.2 5.1 4.9 5.1 5.1
Always Non-poor 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.4
Non-poor in 2003, but entered poverty permanently 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.2 5.4
Non-poor in 2003, but entered poverty temporarily 5.0 5.0 5.2 5.2 5
Total 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9

Note: Author’s calculations from the FIES 2003-APIS 2004-FIES 2006-APIS 2007-APIS 2008 panel


Table 4. Number of Households that had fewer assets in 2008 by Experience of Income Shocks in 2008 and by Movements in and out of Poverty
from 2003 to 2008

Vulnerability Status (2003 to 2008) karaoke dvd tv phone cellphone Radio
Always Non-Poor 0 2845 11628 0 19584 0
(23974) (58611) (116334) (12641) (156150) (47590)
Non-poor in 2003, but moving in and out of poverty 0 4120 3740 0 20777 1546
(32421) (106817) (160679) (9308) (193199) (108475)
Poor in 2003, but moving in and out of poverty 0 2656 0 0 18466 0
(37303) (69727) (142480) (4904) (159450) (102382)
Non-poor in 2003, became poor at some point, and stayed poor 0 0 0 0 8737 655
(23137) (70013) (121359) (9697) (145890) (68464)
Persistently poor 0 3858 9914 0 49512 2738
(123495) (295674) (686057) (9507) (590262) (907429)
Total 0 13479 25282 0 117076 4939
(240330) (600842) (1226910) (46056) (1244951) (1234340)

Note: Estimated number of households owning asset in 2007 in parentheses; Author’s calculations from the FIES 2003-APIS 2004-FIES 2006-APIS 2007-APIS 2008 panel

 

 

 

Table 5a. Average Household Expenditure for all items, and Average Food, Dwelling/rent, Clothing, Education, Medical Expenditures (in 2003 prices) among Households that experienced income shocks in 2008
(i.e., decrease by at least two income quintile ranks from 2007 to 2008)

Poverty Dynamics Class (2003 to 2008) Total expenditure Food expenditure Dwelling rent Clothing expenditure Education expenditure Medical Expenditure
2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007
Always non-poor 90872 194082 43858 85869 12551 21463 1419 4219 7468 13517 994 24642
Non-poor in 2003, in and out of poverty 71871 116996 41777 65370 7764 10862 960 1716 1306 5272 1328 2324
Poor in 2003, in and out of poverty 54940 88778 34527 52400 5075 7884 890 1814 1155 2792 508 3225
Non-poor in 2003, moved into poverty 59701 92114 33534 53196 7209 11045 642 1174 803 1220 3570 1527
TOTAL 65683 112371 37589 60892 7337 11338 933 2005 2047 4682 1450 5771

Note: Author’s calculations from the FIES 2003-APIS 2004-FIES 2006-APIS 2007-APIS 2008 panel


 

Table 5b. Average Household Expenditure for all items, and Average Food, Dwelling/rent, Clothing, Education, Medical Expenditures of Households (in 2003 prices) that experienced improved income quintile status by at least two ranks

Poverty Dynamics Class (2003 to 2008)

Total expenditure

Food expenditure

Dwelling rent

Clothing expenditure

Education expenditure

Medical Expenditure

2008

2007

2008

2007

2008

2007

2008

2007

2008

2007

2008

2007

Always non-poor 182865 110642 73160 55494 25084 16295 2982 1399 19171 7161 8036 2883
Poor in 2003, became non-poor at some point and stayed poor 92020 51817 49202 32886 6892 4338 1827 705 3973 1625 2328 599
Non-poor in 2003, in and out of poverty after 124398 76954 62363 46788 14101 9527 2212 1134 7081 3091 3356 1155
Poor in 2003, in and out of poverty after 82359 49435 47518 33391 6247 4647 1524 588 3289 1302 2459 541
TOTAL 117684 71070 57932 42261 12662 8503 2093 956 7668 3074 3772 1200

Note: Author’s calculations from the FIES 2003-APIS 2004-FIES 2006-APIS 2007-APIS 2008 panel


 

Table 5c. Average Household Expenditure for all items, and Average Food, Dwelling/rent, Clothing, Education, Medical Expenditures of Households (in 2003 prices) that experienced hardly any movements in income quintile from 2007 to 2008

Poverty Dynamics Class (2003 to 2008)

Total expenditure

Food expenditure

Dwelling rent

Clothing expenditure

Education expenditure

Medical Expenditure

2008

2007

2008

2007

2008

2007

2008

2007

2008

2007

2008

2007

Always Non-Poor 195723 190340 75912 75010 26502 29973 3275 3252 11665 12525 7675 5652
Poor in 2003, became non-poor at some point, and stayed non-poor 113682 105847 56908 55088 9069 9864 1975 1923 7044 5687 4667 2932
Non-poor in 2003, but moving in and out of poverty 88129 82756 50077 48971 9010 9305 1455 1430 2409 2820 1950 1482
Poor in 2003, and moving in and out of poverty 75782 74126 44983 45759 6767 6437 1364 1229 2514 2520 1387 1717
Non-poor in 2003, became poor at some point, and stayed poor 63181 66286 39896 41407 6431 7146 695 850 1112 1319 793 732
Persistently poor 57304 52106 38685 36090 3979 3879 918 828 1474 1341 806 1084
Total 124183 119496 57540 56676 14787 16212 2085 2009 6122 6452 3911 3171

Note: Author’s calculations from the FIES 2003-APIS 2004-FIES 2006-APIS 2007-APIS 2008 panel

 

Table 6 Proportion of Households in 2007 and 2008 with Out-of-School Children, by Experience of Income Shocks in 2008 and by Movements
in and out of Poverty from 2003 to 2008

Vulnerability Status (2003 to 2008) Families persistently poor or experienced income shocks in 2008 Families with no income shocks in 2008
2007

2008

2007

2008

Always Non-Poor 4.4%

5.5%

Poor in 2003, but exited poverty permanently 13.1%

11.5%

Non Poor in 2003, but entered poverty temporarily 11.1%

17.6%

15.0%

12.8%

Poor in 2003, but exited poverty temporarily 22.3%

19.0%

20.3%

18.3%

Non Poor in 2003, but entered poverty permanently 6.9%

15.4%

19.7%

15.4%

Persistently poor 38.2%

32.5%

Total 34.0%

29.3%

10.8%

10.2%

Note: Author’s calculations from the FIES 2003-APIS 2004-FIES 2006-APIS 2007-APIS 2008 panel

 


comments powered by Disqus

 

 


 

The PSA Office
PSA CVEA Building,
East Avenue, Quezon City
Tel. No. (632) 462-6600; Fax No. (632) 462-6600
URL: http://psa.gov.ph
E-mail: info@psa.gov.ph

 

About Us | News | Statistics | Events || Terms of Use

Back to top


Updated 28 January 2016

Ver. 7.2014.234-11.04

1997-2015, Philippine Statistics Authority, East Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines