Quantcast

Social Climate

The dread of poverty statistics

By

One reason why many educated people avoid taking regular comprehensive physical examinations, even though they can afford it, is that they dread the discovery of a dire malady. They say they feel fine anyway.  They resent being nagged about it, and claim personal responsibility for their health. Their loved ones practically have to drag them to hospital for checkups, lest by the time illness exhibits itself, it has become so expensive, and perhaps impossible, to cure.

In like manner, though the government has proclaimed, since time immemorial, poverty elimination as a key objective, it has tried to avoid facing the facts about it.  It has dreaded to see its own poverty statistics.

In the 1950s, the Philippine Statistical Survey of Households (PSSH) had already started.  Done roughly every five years up to at least 1971, the PSSH was the forerunner of the current Family Income and Expenditure Surveys (FIES). The government used it to report on income inequality—the Gini ratio was found to be about .50, for example—but refrained from defining a poverty line and estimating the number of poor households.

It fell to academics from the UP School of Economics and the Development Academy of the Philippines to initiate research on poverty lines in the 1970s, apply their constructs to the PSSH data, and discover that poverty was worsening, in both absolute numbers and as a proportion of all households.  (See the book I edited, “Measuring Philippine Development,” published by DAP in 1976.)  Such academic work was appreciated by some bureaucrats, but not by the Marcos administration as a whole.

During the authoritarian period, the official stance on the poverty situation was that it consisted, at all times, of  the  bottom  30  percent  of  households  on  the  income  scale. Thus defined, the poverty proportion was officially fixed.  It could neither get worse nor get better. “The poor are always with us” was the story. (Except that, in pace with the population, the numbers of the poor grew.)

International development organizations were not encouraging, either.  For instance, the United Nations Statistical Office’s catalogue of recommendations stated that a frequency of once in five years would do for a national survey of income or expenditures.  The UNSO said it would suffice to estimate poverty only two times during a decade—in contrast to estimating annual gross national product 10 times over the period.  This would lay a foundation of data for constructing econometric models on economic growth that are silent about change in poverty—a perfect climate for propagating trickle-down economics.

Once, while I was working on the DAP research, an observing economist from the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund (I forget which) said it was wrong of us to design poverty lines at all, because we would thereby create expectations of income entitlements among the people, and cause public frustration.  Thus, poverty research was ipso facto a subversive activity.

Another time, the Philippine Institute for Development Studies turned down my application for funding of poverty research that I would do as a UP faculty member.  Later, a high PIDS official, sympathetic to the project, explained to me our bad luck that one board member, a minister close to Marcos, had attended the board meeting whereas usually he was absent. The minister had remarked, “Why should we support research that will only be used to criticize the administration?”

It was only in the time of President Cory Aquino that the government accepted the common sense that poverty cannot be studied without measuring it. The responsibility for measurement was assigned to the National Statistical Coordination Board.  The starting point of the first official poverty line was the minimum cost of purchasing food capable of providing the calories and nutrients deemed adequate by the Food and Nutrition Research Institute; this is the so-called food threshold.

However, the minimum budget for other necessities besides food was not separately researched.  It was set at that time, and up to now, as the average amount that households at the border of food poverty actually spend on other things besides food, even though there is no assurance that this amount can provide for shelter, clothing and other necessities of minimal nonpoor quality. When added to the food threshold, the result is the total threshold, which defines the general-poor.  There are more general-poor than food-poor.

The first official poverty lines were applied to the 1985 FIES. The FIES was fielded every three years from 1985 to 2012, but results for 2012 are not yet ready. Though poverty lines should be maintained over time, they have been revised at least twice: for the 1991 FIES and the 2009 FIES.  In both revisions, the lines became stingier, by delisting certain consumption items formerly deemed natural for escaping poverty, like tobacco and meat.  For 2009, the latest available FIES year, the estimated proportion of poor households became 21 percent, but would have been 26 percent if the lines had been maintained—cutting poverty by 5 points by mere redefinition.

Now, the current administration pledges to measure poverty annually, starting with reference year 2012, then 2013, and so forth.  This is a major move, and will lead to greater understanding of the dynamics of poverty.  If only the government had overcome its dread of poverty statistics two or more decades ago…

* * *

Contact SWS: or mahar.mangahas@sws.org.ph.


Follow Us


Follow us on Facebook Follow on Twitter Follow on Twitter


More from this Column:

Recent Stories:

Complete stories on our Digital Edition newsstand for tablets, netbooks and mobile phones; 14-issue free trial. About to step out? Get breaking alerts on your mobile.phone. Text ON INQ BREAKING to 4467, for Globe, Smart and Sun subscribers in the Philippines.

Short URL: http://opinion.inquirer.net/?p=46949

Tags: Mahar Mangahas , opinion , Poverty , Social Climate , statistics



Copyright © 2014, .
To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.
Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:
c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94
Advertisement
Advertisement

News

  • Afghan hospital guard kills 3 American doctors
  • Obama rejects notion that trade deal is in danger
  • [VIDEO] No assurances on Janet Lim-Napoles’ bid to become state witness
  • South Sudan president fires long-time army leader
  • Grenade explodes outside MPD Station 1
  • Sports

  • Pacquiao can dodge tax issues
  • F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone rejects bribery charges
  • Big Chill freezes Cafe France to arrest skid
  • Pacquiao has to go through PBA Rookie draft
  • Guiao summoned by PBA for name-calling incident
  • Lifestyle

  • Gongs and southern dances star in a workshop at San Francisco Bayanihan Center
  • This woman ate what?
  • Photos explore dynamics of youths’ sexual identity
  • 12th Philippine Food Expo set at the World Trade Center
  • No tourist draw, Malang the croc will remain wild
  • Entertainment

  • Smithsonian wants photos, videos for ‘Day in the Life of Asian Pacific Americans’
  • What Garcia Marquez left behind
  • Has Ai Ai fallen deeply with ‘sireno?’
  • Sony developing live-action Barbie comedy
  • California court won’t review Jackson doctor case
  • Business

  • Metro Pacific acquires stake in Victorias
  • How ‘one percent’ economic elite was uncovered
  • Facebook profits triple as mobile soars
  • Insular Honors Sales Performers at Testimonial Rites
  • Apple increases stock buyback, will split stock
  • Technology

  • Enrile in Masters of the Universe, Lord of the Rings?
  • Top Traits of Digital Marketers
  • No truth to viral no-visa ‘chronicles’
  • ‘Unlimited’ Internet promos not really limitless; lawmakers call for probe
  • Viber releases new design for iPhone, comes to Blackberry 10 for the first time
  • Opinion

  • Editorial cartoon, April 24, 2014
  • Talking to Janet
  • Respite
  • Bucket list
  • JPII in 1981: walking a tightrope
  • Global Nation

  • Obama to visit Filipino soldiers in Fort Bonifacio
  • Fil-Am youth conferences unite under one theme
  • Embassy advisory: Filipinos still need visas to enter US
  • No travel restriction to Mideast, DFA clarifies
  • PH-HK relations repaired, but families of victims still being courted
  • Marketplace