Headlines Statistically Speaking

POVERTY REDUCTION: SUCCESSFUL MUNICIPALITIES
by Dr. Romulo A. Virola1

Last week, we saw much damage caused by the southwest monsoon rains or hanging habagat. We realized once again that we had not really learned our lessons. Even after Ondoy! But we also witnessed the many  brave men and women who risked their lives to help our kababayans in distress. And we saw that despite everything, the spirit of bayanihan was very much alive in the hearts and minds of us Pinoys! Wasn’t it reassuring to watch Jose, Wally, and Paolo manning a phone booth and distributing goods to help the flood victims?   Mabuhay tayong lahat!

From the television footages, it was quite clear, however, that those who suffered the most were poor. This brings to the fore the importance of our poverty reduction efforts. Not that we did not know this before, but the losses we incurred last week make it imperative that we do everything and anything to make our 4Ps2 succeed. Which includes collaboration, cooperation, and cooperation among the different agencies of government. Which means that we should give all out support to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), to Sec. Dinky Soliman, and the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR). Instead of coveting the funds that are currently being channeled to the DSWD!

A critical factor towards the success of our poverty reduction program is the determination of local government unit (LGU) executives to implement innovative ideas where traditional approaches have failed for many years already. Next year, we will have another chance to choose our leaders in the 2013 elections. Let us try to vote right this time!

The implementation of the Local Government Code in 1991 raised hopes for good local governance and therefore, for inclusive development. Knowing that in 2009, 21 out of 100 Filipino families were still poor, obviously, those hopes have not materialized. Some LGUs definitely have developed; but others have not.    

And to be able to assess which LGUs are succeeding in their poverty reduction strategies and which LGUs are not, we, of course need statistics. Specifically, small area estimates (SAE) of poverty, e.g., poverty statistics at the municipal and city levels. These SAEs will be useful tools in local development planning and informed decisions at the LGU level can definitely help boost our chances of achieving the inclusive growth that has eluded us.

Over the years, the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) has been trying to generate relevant and timely statistics and indicators on poverty and governance. Statistically Speaking has devoted many articles on these topics3.  In fact, the NSCB has been invited to speak and present papers on poverty and governance in various fora. We are glad that public appreciation for statistics has increased; more importantly, we are inspired by the enhanced appreciation for and understanding of statistics by our political leaders, including LGU executives.4

The NSCB efforts to generate small area poverty statistics, specifically, to generate poverty statistics at the municipal and city levels,  have been enthusiastically supported by the World Bank. The NSCB partnership with the World Bank (WB) started in 2003 during the time of Dr. Chorching Goh, a brilliant  development officer in the Bank when we first had discussions on the possible technical assistance the Bank could extend to the Philippine Statistical System (PSS).  Specifically, we discussed how the country’s poverty statistics5 could be further improved through the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) trust fund and the Poverty Mapping Project of the Bank, which China, Indonesia, and Thailand were implementing then.  Our work on small area poverty statistics drew inspiring collaboration from Dr. Karl Kendrick Chua in 2004, when we undertook a WB-supported project on Poverty Mapping as well as the WB-ASEM supported projects on the Establishment of an Integrated Database on Poverty for the NSCB and the Improvement of Provincial Poverty Estimation Methodology thru the test of revealed preferences of provincial food bundles.

Thru Dr. Chua’s encouraging support, and the technical assistance of a number of consultants, the NSCB released the 2000 SAE estimates in 2005 and the 2003 SAE estimates in 2008. At present, we are working with the World Bank thru Ms. Rashiel Velarde and Ms. Shanna Rogan for the 2006 and 2009 SAE, with support from the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). In these efforts we benefited from the technical expertise of our consultants including Dr. Zita VJ. Albacea, Dr. Peter Lanjouw, Dr. Roy van der Weide, Dr. Stephen Haslett, Dr. Geoffrey Jones, Dr. Caridad Araujo, and Dr.  Marissa Isidro, and researcher Mr. Arturo Martinez. We are also currently being assisted by researchers Mr. Joseph Albert Niño Bulan and Ms. Lei Isabel Domingo.

The 2009 SAE was compiled using an all local team6 and we released the 2009 SAE during a dissemination forum last 30 July 2012.  The forum was attended by Dr. Arsenio Balisacan, Sec. Corazon Dinky Soliman, Ms. Shiel Velarde and Ms. Shanna Rogan of the World Bank, and Dr. Andrew Egan and Mr. Andrew Parker of AusAID.

We will now take a closer look at the SAE.  Due to severe manpower constraints faced by the NSCB, we have not been able to finish the 2006 estimates. The NSCB prioritized the 2009 SAE to help the DSWD with its NHTS-PR. Thus, as of today, the NSCB has compiled the 2000, 2003, and 2009 SAE. The 2006 estimates are expected to be finished in December 2012.  Some of the 2009 SAE results were presented during the dissemination forum; others will be presented during the Annual Conference of the Philippine Statistical Association to be held in Davao City this week.

Both the 2003 SAE and the 2009 SAE were generated using the World Bank-supported ELL (for Elbers, Lanjouw and Lanjouw) methodology but modified by the NSCB for intercensal years, which essentially models per capita household income based on variables compiled through surveys and censuses. For the 2009 SAE, data from the 2007 Census of Population (PopCen), the 2009 FIES, and the 2009 Labor Force Survey were used. For each household member in a municipality/city, the model-estimated household income is compared with the provincial poverty threshold estimated by the NSCB when the 2009 official provincial poverty statistics were compiled. For lack of more updated basis, the household composition and distribution in the municipality/city is assumed to follow that of the 2007 PopCen.  Poverty incidence is expressed as proportion of the population of the municipality.

The 2003 and 2009 models are of course different (different sets of independent variables) but the approaches used in their formulation are similar. The 2003 models (the models were different for each region) were used to generate the 2003 SAE at the municipal and city levels. Similarly, the 2009 regional models7  were used to generate the 2009 SAE.  Subject to these methodological features, we will look at the municipal and city SAE for 2003 and 2009 and assess which municipalities and cities may have achieved meaningful progress in poverty reduction.

Using the 2009 SAE, we grouped the 1,643 municipalities and cities8 into three clusters: Cluster 1, to comprise the poorest municipalities/cities, Cluster 2, the middle group, and Cluster 3, the least poor municipalities/cities.

POVERTY CLUSTERING OF MUNICIPALITIES/CITIES IN 2009

Of the 1,643 municipalities and cities, 473 or 29 percent belonged to Cluster 1, 621 or 38 percent belonged to Cluster 2, and  549 or 33 percent belonged to Cluster 3.

 Among  the municipalities, 31 percent belonged to Cluster 1, 39 percent to Cluster 2, and 30 percent to Cluster 3.

Among the cities, 3 percent (5 cities) belonged to Cluster 1, 32 percent to Cluster 2, and 65 percent to Cluster 3. (Table 1)

POOREST AND LEAST POOR MUNICIPALITIES/CITIES IN 2009, NATIONALLY

In 2009, the poorest municipality in the country was Siayan in the province of Zamboanga del Norte where 80 out of 100 individuals were poor compared to the national count of 26 to 27 out of 100 individuals, and which was also the poorest in 2003. Other municipalities among the ten poorest were Bucloc in Abra, Baliguian, Godod, and Gutalac in Zamboanga del Norte, Jose Abad Santos (Trinidad) and Sarangani in Davao del Sur, Pandag in Maguindanao, Tagoloan in Lanao del Norte, and Mabuhay in Zamboanga Sibugay. Jose Abad Santos and Godod were also among the ten poorest in 2003. (Table 2a)

The poorest city in 2009 was Gingoog City in Misamis Oriental where 49 out of 100 individuals were poor, and which was the 7th poorest city in 2003. Also among the poorest cities in 2009 were Bayugan in Agusan del Sur, Sipalay City and Kabankalan City in Negros Occidental, Guihulngan City and Bayawan City in Negros Oriental, Tangub City in Misamis Occidental, Ligao City in Albay, Surigao City in Surigao del Norte and Dapitan City in Zamboanga del Norte. The poorest city in 2003, Calbayog City in Western Samar, is now 12th poorest. (Table 2b)

In 2009, the least poor municipality was San Pedro, Laguna, where only 2 out of 100 individuals were poor. In 2003, San Pedro was also least poor in 2003. Other least poor municipalities were Cainta, San Mateo, Morong, and Angono in Rizal, Los Baños, Biñan, Cabuyao and Santa Cruz in Laguna and Imus in Cavite. All were also among the 10 least poor in 2003, except for Biñan, which was 11th and Santa Cruz, which was 35th least poor.  (Table 2a)

The least poor city/district in 2009 was Binondo, Manila where only 1 out of 100 individuals was poor, and retaining its position as least poor in 2003. Other least poor cities/district in 2009 were Sampaloc, San Miguel, Ermita, Santa Cruz, and Malate in the first district of NCR (Manila), Makati City and Pasay City in the 4th district of NCR, San Juan in the 2nd district of NCR and Santa Rosa City in Laguna. Sampaloc, Makati City, San Juan, Ermita, and Santa Rosa were also among the 10 least poor cities/districts in 2003. (Table 2b)

POOREST AND LEAST POOR MUNICIPALITIES/CITIES IN 2009, BY REGION

By region, the poorest municipalities/cities were Port Area, First District in NCR, Bucloc, Abra in CAR, Sugpon, Ilocos Sur in Region I, Amulung, Cagayan in Region II,  Talugtug, Nueva Ecija in Region III,  San Franciscio (Aurora), Quezon in Region IV-A, Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro in Region IV-B, Garchitorena, Camarines Sur in Region V, Madalag, Aklan in Region VI,  Pilar, Bohol in Region VII, Silvino Lobos, Northern Samar in Region VIII, Siayan, Zamboanga del Norte in Region IX, Tagoloan, Lanao del Norte in Region X, Jose Abad Santos (Trinidad), Davao del Sur in Region XI, Palimbang ,Sultan Kudarat  in Region XII, Pandag, Maguindano in ARMM, and La Paz, Agusan del Sur in Caraga. Port Area, San Francisco, Madalag, Siayan, and Jose Abad Santos were also the poorest municipalities/cities in their respective regions in 2003. (Table 3)

By region, the least poor municipalities/cities were Binondo, First District in NCR, Baguio City, Benguet in CAR, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte in Region I, Basco, Batanes in Region II,  Marilao, Bulacan in Region III, San Pedro, Laguna in Region IV-A,  Puerto Princesa City, Palawan in Region IV-B,  Daet, Camarines Norte in Region V, Iloilo City, Iloilo in Region VI, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental in Region VII,  Tacloban City, Leyte in Region VIII, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur  in Region IX,  Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental in Region X, Davao City, Davao del Sur  in Region XI,  Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat in Region XII, Marantao, Lanao del Sur in ARMM, and Cantilan, Surigao del Sur in Caraga. Binondo, Baguio City, San Pedro, Tacloban City, Cagayan de Oro City, and Davao City were also the least poor municipalities/cities in their respective regions in 2003. (Table 3)

It may be noted that not all least poor areas in the regions are cities;  six exceptions are Basco in Batanes,  Marilao in Bulacan, San Pedro in Laguna, Daet in Camarines Norte, Marantao in Lanao del Sur and Cantilan in Surigao del Sur.  Mayors should be encouraged to visit these places to learn best practices on governance.

Using the 2003/2009 SAE, we also looked at the 1,622 municipalities and cities9 to assess whether the poverty change from 2003 to 200910 had been a statistically significant reduction, or had been a statistically significant increase, or had not been statistically significant at all.

CHANGE IN MUNICIPAL/CITY LEVEL POVERTY FROM 2003 TO 2009

Between 2003 and 2009, there was no statistically significant change in the poverty situation of 994 or 61 percent of the municipalities/cities; there was a significant increase in the poverty incidence in 135 or 8 percent of the municipalities/cities; and there was a significant reduction in the poverty incidence of only 493 or 31 percent of the municipalities/cities.

Separately for the municipalities, there was no significant change for 60 percent of the municipalities, significant deterioration for 8 percent, and significant improvement for 32 percent of the municipalities.

For the cities, 70 percent have no significant change, 9 percent have significant deterioration and 21 percent have significant reduction in poverty. (Table 4)

MUNICIPALITIES/CITIES WITH THE HIGHEST   POVERTY REDUCTION
FROM 2003 TO 2009

Nationally, the municipality with the highest reduction in poverty from 2003 to 2009 was Linapacan in Palawan where the number of poor individuals per 100 was reduced by 58, compared with an increase of less than 1 per 100 individuals at the national level; others which succeeded the most in reducing poverty were the municipalities of Tanudan, Tinglayan and Pasil in Kalinga, Bagulin and Santol in La Union, Busuanga, San Vicente and Magsaysay in Palawan and Ambaguio in Nueva Vizcaya. (Table 5)

Among the cities, the highest reduction in poverty from 2003 to 2009 was achieved in Calbayog City in Samar with a reduction of 28 poor individuals per 100; other cities that achieved the highest reduction in poverty are Catbalogan also in Samar, Tayabas in Quezon, Passi City in Iloilo, Bayawan City in Negros Oriental, Tangub City in Misamis Occidental, Isabela City, Island Garden City of Samal in Davao del Norte, Masbate City in Masbate and Tabuk City in Kalinga. (Table 5)

 

TOP MUNICIPALITIES/CITIES IN POVERTY REDUCTION FROM 2003 TO 2009, BY REGION

By region, the municipalities with the biggest reduction in poverty from 2003 to 200911 were Tanudan, Kalinga in CAR, in Bagulin, La Union in Region I, Ambaguio, Nueva Vizcaya in Region II, Don Remedios Trinidad, Bulacan in Region III, Padre Burgos, Quezon in Region IV-A,  Linapacan, Palawan in Region IV-B,  Cawayan, Masbate in Region V,  Maasin, Iloilo in Region VI,  Santa Catalina, Negros Oriental in Region VII,  Santa Rita, Western Samar in Region VIII,  Midsalip, Zamboanga del Sur in Region IX,  Baliangao, Misamis Occidental in Region X,  Kapalong, Davao del Norte in Region XI,  Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat in Region XII, Pualas, Lanao del Sur in ARMM, and Lanuza, Surigao del Sur in Caraga.(Table 6)

By region, the cities/districts with the biggest reduction in poverty from 2003 to 200911 were Tondo in the City of Manila in NCR, Tabuk City, Kalinga in CAR, Batac, Ilocos Norte in Region I, Cauayan City, Isabela in Region II, Palayan City, Nueva Ecija in Region III, Tayabas, Quezon in Region IV-A,  Puerto Princesa City, Palawan in Region IV-B,  Masbate City, Masbate in Region V,  Passi City, Iloilo in Region VI,  Bayawan City, Negros Oriental in Region VII,  Calbayog City, Western Samar in Region VIII,  Isabela City, Isabela City in Region IX,  Tangub City, Misamis Occidental in Region X,  Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte in Region XI,  and Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte in Caraga.(Table 6)

The above municipalities and cities are places that mayors should likewise be encouraged to visit on top of their tours to Boracay, the Chocolate Hills in Bohol, and the Puerto Princesa Underground River.  Maybe, our Department of Tourism should target and promote these places as fun places for tourists! Governance tourism, Why not?

POVERTY CHALLENGE

Surely, there have been positive changes somewhere. But clearly, the overall change in the poverty situation of the municipalities and cities in the country over a span of six years is not something we can be happy about. In fact, between 2006 and 2009, while the pace of progress in achieving our Millennium Development Goal (MDG) to halve poverty by 2015 has remained at Medium, it went down from 0.65 in 2006 to 0.53 in 2009!12 Is this the result of possibly our distorted priorities and aspirations, or of failure of governance? Whatever, it urgently calls for innovative ideas from our municipal and city mayors. The Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) program of the national government certainly is a move in this direction but the LGU executives, individually and in the collective,  must do their share.

Does it pay to be a city? We had wanted to assess whether the cities were doing better than the municipalities in terms of poverty reduction; unfortunately, we did not finish the computations for this article.

The NSCB is an institution that is dying to produce relevant and sexy statistics needed to achieve better development outcomes. But it needs resources, especially manpower resources. And while appreciation for statistics has increased over time, this has not been matched by a corresponding increase in the political will of government to invest in statistics. We thus reiterate our call to walk our talk if we want to empower our municipalities and cities to make them participate in  and benefit from inclusive and sustainable growth. We seem to be given another chance to live up to the world expectation on the emergence after BRIC of TIP and the N11 that Prof. Solita “Mareng Winnie”  Monsod13 had written about.  Let us not squander once again this opportunity.

Speaking of municipalities, did you read about local governments in Russia draining the water from their municipal fountains to keep drunken paratroopers from drowning in them during their Paratrooper Day (last Aug 2)? To celebrate the occasion, soldiers consume large quantities of vodka then plunge into fountains! They may have not drowned but they could have broken their skull! Hmmph!

The past two weeks, we watched the Summer Olympics unfold in London. As may have not been unexpected, our athletes did not break our medal drought since 1996  when   Mansueto “Onyok” Velasco, Jr. got a silver medal  in boxing.  But surely, our athletes did their best and they deserve our continuing support. One man stood out tall, tan, and handsome during those two weeks! Michael Fred Phelps II, the American swimmer who was declared by the swimming body Federation Internationale de Natation (FINA) as the most successful Olympian of all time. Michael has won 22 Olympic medals, 18 of which are gold14. Congratulations Michael, and thank you for inspiring many of our young men and women to dream and to pursue their dreams. 

 

Reactions and views are welcome thru email to the author at ravirola@yahoo.com

________________________________

1 Invited author and former Secretary General of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB). He holds a Ph. D. in Statistics from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, U.S.A. and taught mathematics and statistics at the University of the Philippines. He is also a past president of the Philippine Statistical Association. This article was co-written by Ms. Jessamyn O. Encarnacion and Ms. Mechelle M. Viernes, Director and Statistical Coordination Officer III, respectively, of the NSCB. The authors thank Mildred B. Addawe, Anna Jean Casañas, Lei Isabel S. Domingo, Joseph Albert Niño M. Bulan, Noel S. Nepomuceno, Candido J. Astrologo, Jr., Albert A. Garcia, Gerald A. Virola, Edwin U. Aragon, Sonny U. Gutierez and Simonette A. Nisperos, for the assistance in the preparation of the article. The views expressed in the article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NSCB

2 Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program.  The Program provides cash grants to qualified beneficiaries provided that they comply with the set of conditions required by the program. (Source: http://pantawid.dswd.gov.ph/index.php/home)

3 Virola, Romulo A., Clarino, Gerald Junne L., and Villanueva, Priscille C.  Top Cities: The Bias Towards Metro Manila Persists.  Statistically Speaking.  National Statistical Coordination Board.  14 May 2012.  (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2012/051412_rav_topcities2.asp)
Virola, Romulo A., Clarino, Gerald Junne L., and Villanueva, Priscille C.  Top Provinces.  Statistically Speaking.  National Statistical Coordination Board.  12 March 2012.  (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2012/031212_rav_gc_pv.asp)
Virola Romulo A., Encarnacion, Jessamyn O., and Viernes, Mechelle M. MDGs.. Mga Dapat Gawin Natin!  Statistically Speaking.  National Statistical Coordination Board.  14 November 2011.  (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2011/111411_rav_joe_mv.asp)
Virola, Romulo A. and Balamban, Bernadette B. Refinements in Measuring Poverty. Statistically Speaking.  National Statistical Coordination Board.  14 February 2011.  
(http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2011/021411_rav_joe_bbb.asp) For a more complete listing of Statistically Speaking articles, this is available at: http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/default.asp

4 In April 2007, we were invited to speak in the Forum of the Mayors Development Center, Inc.  held in Ortigas Center, Pasig City.  Our talk was entitled, “2007 Elections: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in the Local Government – “Towards Informed Decisions of Voters During Elections: Measuring Governance of Local Officials.”

5 In 2003, the official poverty estimation methodology had its 2nd refinement, as approved by the NSCB Executive Board through NSCB Resolution No. 1, Series of 2003.

6The lead author of this article currently serves as Project Technical Adviser in the generation of the 2006 and 2009 SAE of poverty.

7 The 2000 SAE for municipal and city level poverty incidence used a national model.

8 As of December 2009, there were 1,494 municipalities and 149 cities/sub-districts. As of June 30, 2012, there were 1,494 municipalities and 153 cities/sub-districts, per the Philippine Standard Geographic Code being compiled by the NSCB.

9 For the 2009 SAE we had 1,643 cities and municipalities; for comparison with the 2003 SAE, we used the number of municipalities and cities for 2003, which was 1,622.

10 The 2003 SAE and 2009 SAE exercises used the latest official provincial thresholds available at the time when the study was being undertaken by the NSCB Technical Staff, i.e., 2003 thresholds based on the old methodology and the 2009 thresholds based on the refined methodology, respectively. However, due to time and manpower constraints, the 2003 estimates were maintained for purposes of this article. As a result, the observed trends between 2003 and 2009 may be overestimated (i.e., in cases of poverty reduction) or underestimated (i.e., in cases of increase in poverty).

11 The list does not cover all 17 regions of the country as there are some regions with no municipality/city that exhibited statistically significant poverty reduction/increase between 2003 and 2009.

12 http://www.nscb.gov.ph/stats/mdg

13 See Business World article of Prof. Solita Collas-Monsod entitled, “Panglossian,” published on 08 August 2012.  TIP stands for Turkey, Indonesia and the Philippines. N11 (the Next Eleven ) includes  Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Turkey, South Korea, and Vietnam. The BRIC countries  are Brazil, Russia, India, and China.

14 http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3058:swimming-day-8-usa-on-a-high-note-phelps-retires-with-22-medals&catid=348:swimming-news&Itemid=1285

 

 

Table 1. Poverty Clustering of Municipalities/Cities: 2009

Group Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Total
No. % No. % No. % No. %
All municipalities/ cities 473 28.8 621 37.8 549 33.4 1,643 100.0
All cities 5 3.4 47 31.5 97 65.1 149 100.0
All municipalities 468 31.3 574 38.4 452 30.3 1,494 100.0

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board, with funding support from the World Bank and the AusAID.
Cluster 1 - poorest ( poverty incidence among population from 43.1 to 79.9)
Cluster 2 - middle ( poverty incidenceamong population from 24.1 to 43.0)
Cluster 3 - least poor ( poverty incidence among population from 1.0 to 24.0)

 

Table 2a. Poorest and Least Poor Municipalities, Nationally: 2009

Region Province City Poverty Incidence Standard Error Rank 1/
2009 2003
overall among municipalities
(n=1494)
overall among municipalities
(n=1473)
Poorest Municipalities
Region IX Zamboanga del Norte Siayan 79.9 4.5 1 1 1 1
CAR Abra Bucloc 77.2 10.1 2 2 161 160
Region IX Zamboanga del Norte Baliguian 75.3 4.9 3 3 72 72
Region XI Davao del Sur Jose Abad Santos (Trinidad) 72.3 4.1 4 4 8 8
Region XI Davao del Sur Sarangani 72.1 5.0 5 5 19 19
Region IX Zamboanga del Norte Godod 71.1 6.8 6 6 9 9
Region IX Zamboanga del Norte Gutalac 70.4 4.6 7 7 48 48
ARMM Maguindanao Pandag 2/ 70.1 8.6 8 8    
Region X Lanao del Norte Tagoloan 69.4 5.8 9 9 24 24
Region IX Zamboanga Sibugay Mabuhay 68.9 5.7 10 10 27 27
Least Poor Municipalities
Region IV-A Laguna San Pedro 1.4 0.6 1639 1494 1621 1473
Region IV-A Rizal Cainta 1.4 0.8 1638 1493 1618 1471
Region IV-A Laguna Los Baños 1.6 0.8 1634 1492 1603 1465
Region IV-A Laguna Biñan 1.7 0.7 1631 1490 1597 1463
Region IV-A Laguna Cabuyao 1.7 0.7 1631 1490 1600 1464
Region IV-A Rizal San Mateo 2.2 0.8 1622 1489 1612 1469
Region IV-A Rizal Morong 2.2 1.1 1619 1488 1608 1467
Region IV-A Laguna Santa Cruz 2.3 0.8 1618 1487 1547 1439
Region IV-A Cavite Imus 2.3 0.4 1616 1486 1616 1470
Region IV-A Rizal Angono 2.4 1.2 1614 1485 1620 1472

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board, with funding support from the World Bank and the AusAID.

Note:
1/ Rank 1 = Poorest municipalities/cities
2/ Pandag, Maguindanao is a new municipality created in December 2006.

 

Table 2b. Poorest and Least Poor Cities, Nationally: 2009

Region Province City Poverty Incidence Standard Error Rank 1/
2009 2003
overall among cities
(n=149)
overall among cities
(n=149)
Poorest Cities
Region X Misamis Oriental Gingoog City 48.7 2.4 290 1 487 7
Caraga Agusan del Sur Bayugan 48.4 3.1 297 2 310 5
Region VI Negros Occidental Sipalay City 45.9 5.0 381 3 596 9
Region VII Negros Oriental Guihulngan 45.0 3.2 414 4 295 4
Region X Misamis Occidental Tangub City 43.1 2.5 470 5 255 3
Region VII Negros Oriental Bayawan City 42.6 3.3 488 6 231 2
Region VI Negros Occidental Kabankalan City 40.9 3.2 551 7 615 10
Region V Albay Ligao City 40.5 2.2 567 8 1504 97
Caraga Surigao del Norte Surigao City 40.1 3.0 581 9 811 21
Region IX Zamboanga del Norte Dapitan City 40.0 4.5 582 10 806 20
Region VIII Samar (Western) Calbayog City 38.7 1.9 639 12 108 1
Least Poor Cities
NCR 1st district Binondo 1.0 0.7 1643 149 1622 149
NCR 1st district Sampaloc 1.3 0.3 1642 148 1615 146
NCR 4th district Makati  City 1.4 0.6 1641 147 1617 147
NCR 1st district San Miguel 1.4 0.9 1640 146 1580 123
NCR 2nd district San Juan 1.5 0.6 1637 145 1619 148
NCR 1st district Ermita 1.5 1.0 1635 143 1611 143
Region IV-A Laguna Santa Rosa City 1.5 0.6 1635 143 1614 145
NCR 1st district Santa Cruz 1.7 0.5 1633 142 1599 136
NCR 4th district Pasay City 1.7 0.5 1630 141 1591 132
NCR 1st district Malate 1.8 0.5 1629 140 1587 128

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board, with funding support from the World Bank and the AusAID.

Note:
1/ Rank 1 = Poorest municipalities/cities

 

 

Table 3. Poorest and Least Poor Municipalities/Cities, by Region: 2009

Region Province Municipality/City Poverty Incidence Standard Error Rank in the Region
(2003 SAE)
Poorest Municipalities/Cities1/
NCR 1st district Port Area 11.87 6.83 1
CAR Abra Bucloc 77.18 10.05 9
Region I Ilocos Sur Sugpon 35.4 7.4 3
Region II Cagayan Amulung 27.85 2.1 6
Region III Nueva Ecija Talugtug 36.03 2.99 3
Region IV-A Quezon San Francisco (Aurora) 41.37 3.28 1
Region IV-B Oriental Mindoro Bulalacao 51.48 6.34 2
Region V Camarines Sur Garchitorena 58.97 3.2 17
Region VI Aklan Madalag 63.34 4.18 1
Region VII Bohol Pilar 67.08 3.86 29
Region VIII Northern Samar Silvino Lobos 64.78 3.83 29
Region IX Zamboanga del Norte Siayan 79.86 4.53 1
Region X Lanao del Norte Tagoloan 69.38 5.76 3
Region XI Davao del Sur Jose Abad Santos (Trinidad) 72.32 4.06 1
Region XII Sultan Kudarat Palimbang 63.68 3.95 6
ARMM Maguindanao Pandag3/ 70.1 8.6  
Caraga Agusan del Sur La Paz 66.71 3.94 2
Least Poor Municipalities/Cities 2/
NCR 1st district Binondo 1.03 0.7 1
CAR Benguet Baguio City 2.43 0.76 1
Region I Ilocos Norte Laoag City 9.91 0.81 18
Region II Batanes Basco 5.14 1.89 2
Region III Bulacan Marilao 3.37 1.25 3
Region IV-A Laguna San Pedro 1.41 0.58 1
Region IV-B Palawan Puerto Princesa City 15.48 2.2 4
Region V Camarines Norte Daet 20.97 2.08 24
Region VI Iloilo Iloilo City 7.57 1.01 2
Region VII Negros Oriental Dumaguete City 7.42 1.38 5
Region VIII Leyte Tacloban City 20.45 1.46 1
Region IX Zamboanga del Sur Zamboanga City 19.87 2.03 2
Region X Misamis Oriental Cagayan De Oro City 22.75 2.24 1
Region XI Davao del Sur Davao City 13.24 1.25 1
Region XII Sultan Kudarat Tacurong City 18.47 2.52 4
ARMM Lanao del Sur Marantao 19.56 4.03 18
Caraga Surigao del Sur Cantilan 25.71 2.8 9

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board, with funding support from the World Bank and the AusAID.

Note:
1/ Rank 1 = Poorest Municipalities/Cities
2/ Rank 1 = Least Poor Municipalities/Cities
3/ Pandag, Maguindanao is a new municipality created in December 2006.

 

Table 4. Number of Municipalities and Cities
with Highest Significant Poverty Reduction
from 2003 to 2009

Change in Poverty Incidence Number Percent
All Cities and Municipalities
Not Significant 994 61.28
Significant Increase 135 8.32
Significant Decrease 493 30.39
Total 1/ 1622 100.00
Municipalities
Not Significant 889 60.35
Significant Increase 122 8.28
Significant Decrease 462 31.36
Total 1/ 1473 100.00
Cities
Not Significant 105 70.47
Significant Increase 13 8.72
Significant Decrease 31 20.81
Total 1/ 149 100.00

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board, with funding support from
the World Bank and the AusAID.

Note: 1/ Total number of cities and municipalities is based on the number of cities
and municipalities available in 2003 SAE.

 

 

Table 5. Municipalities and Cities with Highest Significant Poverty Reduction
from 2003 to 2009

Region Province Municipality 2009 2003 Difference in Poverty Incidence
Poverty Incidence Standard Error Rank 1/ Poverty Incidence Standard Error Rank 1/ 2009-2003
Municipalities
Region IV-B Palawan Linapacan 18.1 5.3 1267 76.4 5.2 31 58.3
CAR Kalinga Tanudan 30.7 6.1 902 88.1 4.2 2 57.4
Region I La Union Bagulin 35.1 3.6 779 85.5 9.6 6 50.4
CAR Kalinga Tinglayan 34.1 5.3 804 82.1 5.8 12 48.1
CAR Kalinga Pasil 26.5 4.5 1016 70.0 5.8 76 43.5
Region I La Union Santol 32.7 3.2 843 73.1 9.5 51 40.4
Region IV-B Palawan Busuanga 26.5 4.8 1018 66.7 4.3 104 40.2
Region IV-B Palawan San Vicente 25.6 4.7 1050 64.2 4.3 134 38.6
Region IV-B Palawan Magsaysay 17.6 3.6 1284 54.0 4.5 315 36.3
Region II Nueva Vizcaya Ambaguio 15.5 3.9 1364 51.0 9.1 376 35.5
Cities
Region VIII Samar (Western) Calbayog City 38.7 1.9 639 66.5 1.8 108 27.8
Region VIII Samar (Western) Catbalogan City 33.6 2.6 817 51.7 2.8 363 18.1
Region IV-A Quezon Tayabas City 10.5 1.4 1487 27.3 2.9 1128 16.8
Region VI Iloilo Passi City 24.5 2.9 1079 41.1 2.5 684 16.6
Region VII Negros Oriental Bayawan City 42.6 3.3 488 58.3 3.8 231 15.6
Region X Misamis Occidental Tangub City 43.1 2.5 470 57.2 3.3 255 14.1
Region IX Isabela City Isabela City 23.0 2.9 1118 37.0 3.4 822 14.0
Region XI Davao del Norte Island Garden City of Samal 32.8 2.8 840 44.5 3.6 571 11.7
Region V Masbate Masbate City 28.9 2.3 944 40.1 1.9 712 11.2
CAR Kalinga Tabuk City 17.3 2.8 1298 28.1 3.8 1105 10.8

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board, with funding support from the World Bank and the AusAID.

Note: 1/ Rank 1 = Poorest municipalities/cities

 

Table 6. Municipalities and Cities with Highest Significant Poverty Reduction
from 2003 to 2009, by Region

Region Province Municipality 2009 2003 Difference 
Poverty Incidence Standard Error Rank
1/
Poverty Incidence Standard Error Rank
1/
2009-2003
Municipalities
NCR 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/
CAR Kalinga Tanudan 30.7 6.1 902 88.06 4.23 2 -57.41
Region I La Union Bagulin 35.1 3.6 779 85.50 9.61 6 -50.43
Region II Nueva Vizcaya Ambaguio 15.5 3.9 1364 50.95 9.05 376 -35.45
Region III Bulacan Dona Remedios Trinidad 35.2 5.4 769 51.58 6.36 365 -16.40
Region IV-A Quezon Padre Burgos 17.2 2.4 1305 50.61 5.12 385 -33.42
Region IV-B Palawan Linapacan 18.1 5.3 1267 76.37 5.23 31 -58.27
Region V Masbate Cawayan 47.6 3.2 320 72.46 2.91 55 -24.88
Region VI Iloilo Maasin 22.6 2.7 1136 45.23 3.34 550 -22.67
Region VII Negros Oriental Santa Catalina 39.5 3.6 599 61.41 4.39 176 -21.89
Region VIII Samar (Western) Santa Rita 41.3 3.2 537 76.49 2.46 30 -35.24
Region IX Zamboanga del Sur Midsalip 52.7 6.4 183 86.32 3.12 5 -33.67
Region X Misamis Occidental Baliangao 37.7 4.0 666 60.51 5.55 190 -22.83
Region XI Davao del Norte Kapalong 21.5 4.0 1163 51.23 5.00 370 -29.77
Region XII Sultan Kudarat Esperanza 33.2 3.5 828 53.78 6.61 319 -20.57
ARMM Lanao del Sur Pualas 25.7 4.9 1046 58.68 6.79 226 -32.94
Caraga Surigao del Sur Lanuza 35.1 4.4 778 63.45 3.96 145 -28.37
Cities
NCR 1st district Tondo 2.9 0.8 1603 6.73 1.09 1557 -3.82
CAR Kalinga Tabuk City 17.3 2.8 1298 28.11 3.77 1105 -10.79
Region I Ilocos Norte Batac 16.8 1.6 1315 24.63 2.70 1189 -7.81
Region II Isabela Cauayan City 15.9 1.5 1350 23.17 2.38 1223 -7.25
Region III Nueva Ecija Palayan City 16.0 2.1 1348 23.22 2.77 1222 -7.22
Region IV-A Quezon Tayabas 10.5 1.4 1487 27.27 2.91 1128 -16.79
Region IV-B Palawan Puerto Princesa City 15.5 2.2 1365 23.51 2.49 1216 -8.03
Region V Masbate Masbate City 28.9 2.3 944 40.08 1.93 712 -11.20
Region VI Iloilo Passi City 24.5 2.9 1079 41.07 2.46 684 -16.62
Region VII Negros Oriental Bayawan City 42.6 3.3 488 58.25 3.78 231 -15.62
Region VIII Samar (Western) Calbayog City 38.7 1.9 639 66.48 1.77 108 -27.75
Region IX Isabela City Isabela City 23.0 2.9 1118 36.99 3.44 822 -14.01
Region X Misamis Occidental Tangub City 43.1 2.5 470 57.15 3.33 255 -14.07
Region XI Davao del Norte Island Garden City of Samal 32.8 2.8 840 44.48 3.62 571 -11.65
Region XII 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/
ARMM 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/
Caraga Agusan del Norte Cabadbaran 28.4 2.7 957 38.94 3.05 756 -10.56

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board, with funding support from the World Bank and the AusAID.

Note:
1/ Rank 1 = Poorest municipalities/cities
2/ - No municipality/city with statistically significant poverty reduction between 2003 and 2009.

 

Posted: 13 August 2012

Statistically Speaking
Press Releases
Announcements
Beyond the Numbers
Sexy Statistics
StatFocus
 
For the Record
Media Services
Events
 
E-Newsletter
 
jobs@nscb.gov.ph
Bids, Quotations & Canvasses
Share |
             
  Email the Webmaster E-mail the webmaster Terms of Use Home • Top of Page  
 

PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY
PSA CVEA Bldg., East Avenue Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines
Telephone no. 462-6600 loc. 839; E-mail: info@psa.gov.ph