LAST Tuesday’s report that 47 percent of families rated themselves Poor (mahirap) in the SWS national survey of February 2009 was the 85th in the time-series of this indicator, which goes as far back as 1983. This survey has been quarterly from 1992 to the present; in 1986-91 it was semi-annual.

In contrast, the official system of monitoring poverty, based on the triennial Family Income and Expenditure Surveys (FIES), has merely eight data points, namely 1985, 1988, 1991, 1994, 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2006. Count them; there are only eight points. This is a very weak base for studying poverty dynamics, for researchers, particularly those employed by the government, who are unable to go beyond looking at official figures.

Poverty tracked by the self-rating system is reported by SWS to the public with a lag of less than one quarter from the reference period. It is as up-to-date as the official estimation of the Gross National Product (GNP).

In contrast, the 2006 FIES was initially reported by the National Statistics Office (which does the survey) only in late 2007, and the official estimate of poverty was released by the National Statistical Coordination Board (which makes and applies the official poverty line) only in early 2008. The next FIES will refer to 2009; it requires surveying in mid-2009 about people’s income and expenditure during January to June, and then surveying them again six months later about the same things during July to December.

As officially estimated every three years, poverty fell from 44 percent in 1985 to 24 percent in 2003, but then rose to 27 percent in 2006. Therefore the real (meaning, corrected for inflation) growth in GNP per person during 2003 to 2006 did not benefit the poor. In other words, even official statistics show that the economic growth of 2003-06 was accompanied by maldistribution of the benefits.

There is no more time left for the Arroyo administration to officially determine if its anti-poverty programs are reversing the trend of 2003-06. Going by the performance of official statisticians with the 2006 FIES, an initial report of the 2009 FIES will probably be ready only in late 2010, and the official estimate of poverty only in early 2011, i.e., during the next administration.

From now until June 2010, the Arroyo administration can rely only on the quarterly SWS reports on self-rated poverty and hunger. This is the context from which to understand Press Secretary Cerge Remonde’s statement that the new SWS report shows that the President’s anti-poverty programs are “working and right on target,” as quoted in BusinessWorld.

Was the new 47 percent figure a “decline” in poverty attributable to the administration’s efforts? One can say YES, comparing it to the immediately prior 52 percent of December 2008, but one could also answer NO, by noting that self-rated poverty was already as low as at 46 percent both in June 2004 and in December 2007. In other words, the new 47 percent is a level already attained almost five years ago, but not constantly sustained.

The proper way of using the SWS statistics to evaluate current government efforts is to take the long view, across the entire data series, and not just a quarter-to-quarter view. The long view happens to be favorable regarding poverty. (It is unfavorable regarding hunger, which is a different matter.)

From the long view, one can see that poverty is much more volatile than the infrequent official measurement suggests. The self-rated poverty percentage has ranged from the mid-forties to the low-seventies. I would describe self-rated poverty as very bad when at 70 or more, bad when in the 60s, average when in the 50s, and relatively good when in the 40s – the situation of at least two out of five families feeling poor couldn’t be called absolutely good – subject to a very important qualification that the people’s standards of the meaning of the borderline of poverty have significantly fallen over time.

In the first three years (or 12 SWS surveys) of the GMA administration, the self-rated poverty percentage ranged between 53 and 64; three of the 12 were in the 50s, or average, whereas nine were in the 60s or bad.

However, in 21 SWS surveys from 2004 to the present, the self-rated poverty percentage was in the 40s six times, compared to only once in 52 SWS surveys from 1983 to 2000; this is an advance over the earlier years. In the other 15 surveys since 2004, it has been in the 50s. I see the worsening from 46 in June 2004 to 59 in June 2006 (known by 2006 Quarter III) as having predicted the official worsening from 2003 to 2006 (known only in late 2007, and officially confirmed only in early 2008).

Thus I would characterize the people’s sense of poverty in the Arroyo period as mostly bad and sometimes average in 2001-03. It improved to mostly average and sometimes relatively good since 2004, with the new 47 percent figure happening to be one of the relatively good points. The general trend since 2004 is basically flat, at the average of 52. The very recent drop from 59 percent in June 2008 is still too short to confidently extrapolate into the future.

Belt-tightening. Part of the SWS self-rating system includes tracking of the budget that poor families say they need for home expenses (i.e., excluding transportation fares and other work-related expenses) so as not to feel poor anymore.

Sadly, this has been stagnant in monetary terms, even though consumer prices rose by over 50 percent from 2000 to the present. In Metro Manila, P10,000 per month is still the poverty threshold of half of the poor families, even though it only buys what P6,500 bought nine years ago.

* * *

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