Poverty and hunger are different

Hunger and poverty are directly related to each other, yet are different forms of deprivation.  By “directly related,” I mean that, at any one point in time, the proportion suffering from hunger is always much higher among the poor than among the non-poor.  At any such time, there are still some, though proportionally less, among the non-poor who suffer from hunger.

Surveys show that, over any two successive points in time, the hunger-proportions are not steady, for either the poor or the non-poor.  They fluctuate, and thereby permit instances of a rise in the national hunger rate together with a fall in the national poverty rate, over the said time-points.

There is no inconsistency between the headline “Poverty count improves,” subheaded “Percentage of families claiming to be ‘mahirap’ near record low” (BusinessWorld, 1/20/12), and the headline “Hunger continues to rise,” subheaded “Poor fewer but more experienced having nothing to eat—SWS” (BusinessWorld, 1/30/12).  These headlines refer to changes in poverty and hunger from 2011 Q3 to 2011 Q4.

Last quarter’s slight rise in hunger. Among poor families, the hunger rate rose from 27.9 percent in the third quarter to 33.6 percent in the fourth quarter. On the other hand, among non-poor families, the hunger rate fell from 14.5 percent in the third quarter to 13.3 percent in the fourth quarter.

Thus hunger among the poor was about twice as prevalent (27.9/14.5) in the third quarter, and 2.5 times as prevalent (33.6/13.3) in the fourth quarter, as among the non-poor.  The above figures are in the full SWS survey report on its website.

Classifying families as either hungry or non-hungry, and as either poor or non-poor, implies four categories: (a) the hungry poor, (b) the hungry non-poor, (c) the non-hungry poor, and (d) the non-hungry non-poor.

Among all families nationwide, the third quarter hungry consisted of (a) 14.5 percent who also felt poor (“hungry poor”) and (b) 7.0 percent who did not feel poor (“hungry non-poor”); these add up to 21.5 percent.  The fourth quarter hungry consisted of (a) 15.1 percent hungry poor and (b) 7.3 percent hungry non-poor; these add up to the newly-reported hunger rate of 22.5 percent, correctly rounded.  Thus the national hunger rate rose by one point over the past two quarters.

Last quarter’s fall in poverty.  As reported a week ago, the national self-rated poverty fell by about seven points over the past two quarters.  Among all families nationwide, the third quarter poor consisted of the (a) 14.5 percent hungry poor, plus (c) 37.3 percent non-hungry poor, adding up to 51.8 percent poor.  The fourth quarter poor consisted of the (a) 15.1 percent hungry poor, plus (c) 29.9 percent non-hungry poor, adding up to 45.0 percent poor.

Of all families nationwide, the fourth category or cell (d), consisting of the non-hungry non-poor, included 41.2 percent in the third quarter, and 47.6 percent in the fourth quarter. Thus the proportion of those without either form of deprivation rose by 6.4 points in the last quarter.  This is a favorable development.

The percentages of families in categories (a) to (d) are based on special SWS tabulations, reported for the first time in this column.

Hunger trends by area. Area-wise, the one-point rise in the national hunger rate was the average of a 9.7-point rise in the Visayas, a 6.7-point rise in Mindanao, a 1.0-point fall in Metro Manila, and a 5.3-point fall in the Balance of Luzon.

In my last column “Poverty fell in 2011 Q4” (1/28/12), I said that “The seven-point decline [in poverty] in 2011 Q4 was due to a large 19-point drop in Mindanao, an 8-point fall in the Balance of Luzon, and a negligible 1-point fall in the Visayas, combined with an 8-point increase in Metro Manila.”

Thus the latest quarterly direction of change of hunger matched with that of poverty in Mindanao, but not elsewhere.  I leave it to regional experts to analyze this in relation to other area-based data.

Hunger and extreme dissatisfaction with life. Periodically, SWS probes into satisfaction with life, one of the standard items used in “happiness” surveys worldwide.  What is relevant to the study of hunger is not how many people are satisfied with their lives or “happy,” but how many are dissatisfied with it or “unhappy” (see my “Hunger and unhappiness,” Inquirer, 9/17/11).

Let me report here that the Dec. 3-7, 2011 SWS survey of adults found 4.6 percent feeling not at all satisfied (lubos na hindi nasisiyahan) with their lives.  Such extreme dissatisfaction was only 3.5 percent among adults from families not suffering from hunger.  But it was 6.0 percent among those in moderate hunger, and as high as 16.8 percent among those in severe hunger—showing the very clear connection between hunger and extreme dissatisfaction with life.

*  *  *

SWS statistics are not anecdotal.  In BusinessWorld’s Jan. 30 report, Secretary Herminio B. Coloma, Jr. of the Presidential Communications Operations Office is quoted as saying, “As these figures have been derived from impressionistic, anecdotal evidence, government should do more detailed hunger studies.”

The “anecdotal” bit is wrong, since SWS respondents are asked about their own family’s hunger, and not their impressions of the hunger of others. But to call for more government studies is right, since the last National Nutrition Survey was in 2008, and the next will be fielded only in 2013!

* * *

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