Hunger: The recovery continues
The recovery of hunger from its peak in 2012 has now continued for three consecutive quarters, according to last Monday’s report, “Hunger falls to 12.7% of families; moderate hunger 10.8%, severe hunger 1.9%,” based on the June 2015 Social Weather Stations survey. Moderate hunger means experiencing it only once or else a few times, whereas severe hunger means experiencing it often or always, in the three months before the survey.
Keep the big picture in mind. From July 1998 to the present, SWS has now done 74 national surveys of hunger. The high frequency of tracking has revealed just how volatile hunger can be. Now we know that the hungry proportion can rise, as well as fall, by as much as eight points over a single quarter.
The most important factor affecting hunger is the cost of living, especially the cost of food. Spikes in inflation are the great enemy of the hungry, as well as of the poor. Growth in the per capita gross domestic product cannot relieve hunger as readily as a fall in prices of food.
The average annual hunger rate started at 11.0 percent in 1998, fluctuated narrowly in the next few years, and reached a low point of 7.0 percent in 2003. Then the average climbed steadily until it reached its annual peak of 19.9 percent, or one in every five families, in 2012. (The all-time peak quarterly rate was in March 2012, at 23.8 percent.) After seeing the annual percentage fall to 19.5 in 2013 and to 18.3 in 2014, I wrote: “Is hunger getting over the hump?” (Opinion, 1/31/15).
The “hump” was due more to moderate than to severe hunger. The average annual percentage of moderate hunger was single digit from 1998 to 2004, with a low point of 5.5 in 2003. It went double digit in 2005 (at 11.0) and rose nonstop up to 15.9 in 2013, before slipping to 14.8 in 2014.
Severe hunger, on the other hand, has its lowest annual average in 2003, at 1.5 percent. The average percentage had been relatively low in 1999 (2.6) and in 2002 (2.5). In other years it went back and forth between 3+ (seven times) and 4+ (eight times, most recently at 4.3 in 2012). I think 2+ and below are endurable, while 4+ is very painful. In 2015 the average is still 2+ so far.
Recently there were three consecutive improvements. Three quarters ago, in September 2014, the total hunger percentage was again quite high, at 22.0. Then it fell three times, to 17.2 in December 2014, to 13.5 in March 2015, and to 12.7 last June. There were likewise three consecutive drops in the percentages of moderate hunger (from 17.6 to 13.2 to 11.1 to 10.8) and severe hunger (from 4.4 to 4.1 to 2.4 to 1.9).
Although these steady gains are encouraging, one should be cautious in extrapolating them. Keeping inflation under tight control, rather than accelerating economic growth, is what will work to lessen hunger further.
Hunger differs by area. Hunger varies very much across the country. As of June 2015, the National Capital Region has the worst percentage of total hunger (18.3), as well as moderate hunger (14.3) and severe hunger (4.0). The NCR’s combination of relatively high hunger with relatively low poverty (as shown in separate poverty reports) indicates a high degree of inequality among its own poor.
On the other hand, the Balance of Luzon, with the best percentage of total hunger (10.7), is second best in both moderate hunger (9.3) and severe hunger (1.3). The Visayas, which is second best overall (11.7), is best in moderate hunger (8.7) and second best in severe hunger (3.0). Mindanao is second worst overall (14.3) and in moderate hunger (13.3), and yet best in severe hunger (1.0).
Compared to September 2014, hunger in all four areas fell in the next two quarters, up to March 2015. From March to June 2015, however, it was the improvement in the Balance of Luzon (from 14.3 to 10.7) that carried the national trend, overcoming a worsening in the NCR (from 12.7 to 18.3). Meanwhile, hunger was relatively steady in the Visayas (moving merely from 11.0 to 11.7) and Mindanao (unchanged at 14.3).
Hunger affects dissatisfaction with life. About once or twice a year, SWS includes a question on personal satisfaction with life in its quarterly national survey. The most recent survey on this, done in March 2015, found 32.5 percent very satisfied, 51.8 percent fairly satisfied, 12.9 percent not very satisfied, and 2.8 percent not at all satisfied with their lives. The 15.7 percent with the latter two answers are the ones dissatisfied with life.
Since hunger of the family is permanently included in every SWS quarterly survey, it is possible to find out the personal dissatisfaction with life of respondents from families that had severe hunger, of those from families that had moderate hunger, and of those from families with no hunger at all.
In March 2015, only 15 percent of those from families without hunger expressed dissatisfaction with life. Those from families that suffered from some hunger, either severe or moderate, had 23 percent dissatisfied with life. Those from families in severe hunger had 25 percent dissatisfied with life. Every time such tabulations are done—some two dozen times since 2002—more dissatisfaction with life is found among the hungry than among the nonhungry.
No one deserves to go hungry (due to lack of food to eat, which is specified in the survey question). The difference in dissatisfaction with life of those not hungry over those hungry is a measure of undeserved suffering.
* * *
Contact [email protected]
