Optimism doesn’t need economic growth
THE SWS report issued last Dec. 1, “Net personal optimism rises to +30, net economic optimism up to +22,” had the survey data not only for the third quarter, but also for earlier quarters and years going back to to 1985.
The latest figure of +30 for September 2011, by comparing the 39 percent of adults expecting their personal quality of life to get better in the next 12 months, to the 9 percent of them expecting it to get worse, just qualifies for the SWS category of “very high” for net personal optimism of +30 and up. (“High” is for the range of +20 to +29.)
It follows +27 in June 2011, +24 in March 2011, +35 in November 2010, +32 in September 2010, and the all-time record +36 in June 2010. That very high +36 was still formally within the Arroyo period, but obviously looked forward to the imminent new administration of Noynoy Aquino.
Thus the relatively new Aquino period can already be credited with four instances of very high personal optimism in the last six quarters. (I am repeating the term “personal” to distinguish it from optimism about the economy.)
In contrast, net personal optimism in the Arroyo period ranged between -13 (“very low” is the term for -10 or worse) in March 2005 and +29 in November 2006. Out of 43 surveys over that period, it was +20 or more only nine times, of which four were in the final four quarters, i.e. when it was clear that GMA’s bid for a term extension had been thwarted.
Pessimism prevailed five times in the Arroyo period, and twice (out of 12 surveys) during the Estrada period. On the other hand, optimism always prevailed in the times of Cory Aquino (peaking at +35 in October 1987, out of 12 surveys) and Ramos (peaking at +33 in both September 1992 and June 1997, out of 26 surveys). After the restoration of democracy in 1986, optimism was consistently prevalent for over 14 years.
It is obvious to me that the return to dominance of personal optimism is due to the hope for good governance under P-Noy, and people’s seeing their hopes fulfilled, so far.
But what about the slow-down of GNP/GDP? The next day, the Inquirer in its editorial, taking note of the SWS optimism report, commented: “Economic statistics, however, indicate that both the average Filipino and the businessman may have little reason to feel better about their lives, much less to expect an even better year ahead. The year has been marked by a progressive deceleration in the rate of growth, with growth in gross domestic product slowing down to 4.9 percent in the first quarter, 3.4 percent in the second quarter and 3.2 percent in the third quarter, way lower than the 3.8 to 4.8 percent GDP growth forecast for the quarter of the National Economic and Development Authority.”
When rising personal optimism occurs at the same time as falling economic growth, does it mean that the optimism is bound to be disappointed? I don’t think that necessarily follows. Even if economic growth decelerates some more, in the coming year, it is quite possible for optimism to continue.
To me, the proper conclusion from the data is simple: as a matter of fact, the people’s optimism doesn’t depend on economic growth.
Social monitoring. SWS deliberately conducts its surveys of optimism, as well as of poverty and hunger, on a quarterly basis in order to provide grassroots-based counterpoints to the quarterly figures for gross national product (which, incidentally, is more meaningful than gross domestic product, since the latter excludes OFW remittances).
Social surveys, being people-based, can be analyzed across socioeconomic classes and other groups. For instance, in 98 SWS surveys from 1986 to 2011, pessimism dominated in the middle-to-upper ABC classes only seven times (twice under Estrada, five times under Arroyo), and in the masa or D class, only eight times (three under Estrada, five under Arroyo).
However, the very poor E class was mostly pessimistic 24 times (two under Cory, two under Ramos, seven under Erap, and 13 under Arroyo). Thus the people most worried about their future have been the ones in relatively bad shape.
Production monitoring. The GNP, on the other hand, is based on estimates of the value of production in the various sectors, namely agriculture, fishing, manufacturing, mining, construction, services, etc. It is constructed from surveys about things produced, rather than from surveys about people’s conditions; it is about “what”, not about “who”. Thus it perennially begs the question, “Who benefits from the GNP?”
The steady, though not super-fast, growth in GNP over the years has surely benefited mostly those in the upper socioeconomic tiers. The present population of 20 million families is so large that the uppermost 5 million are enough of a consumer market to support the skyscrapers, shopping malls and private cars that are the external signs of economic progress.
Now, since self-rated poverty has been flat at about 51 percent since 2004 (see my “Terraces of poverty,” Inquirer, 11/19/11), while hunger has also been flat at about 19 percent since 2009 (see my “A new hunger plateau,” Inquirer, 10/29/11), it follows that the economic growth of the past several years did not benefit the poor or the hungry.
I think the people can sense this, and that their personal optimism is not that the economy will grow any faster, but that perhaps, with the introduction of good governance, they may soon start getting a fairer share of the pie. Hindi ba, kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap?
* * *
Contact SWS: www.sws.org.ph or mahar.
