Facts and theories

THAT Vice President Jejomar Binay’s public satisfaction rating rose from March to June this year, while at the same time he lost his customary lead in the people’s citations of deserving successors to President Noynoy Aquino, are two separate facts discovered by the last two Social Weather Stations surveys. I am neither pleased nor disturbed by these facts, since I have no preconceptions of how the people’s opinions should change over time, as a matter of professional habit. I simply accept whatever the survey findings are.

The discomfiture of some pundits with what they think is “inconsistency” between opposite movements in a job performance rating and an electability rating indicates that their theory of how the two ratings should interact is inadequate to explain the most recent facts. What they should do is adjust their theory, rather than question the facts.

Facts cannot be manipulated to fit theories. Rather, theories should be expanded to fit the facts. The proper way to appraise survey findings is by comparing them with those of independent surveys.

Examine the survey questions carefully. The question on satisfaction with Mr. Binay’s performance pertains specifically to his position as vice president. Survey respondents who do not know that he is the VP are not asked what they think of his performance. To find out whether his work with respect to housing and overseas employment affected his VP rating, one needs to know if respondents were also aware of his other roles in the government. But that is not standard practice in surveys of government performance. In the time of President Joseph Estrada, for instance, SWS never asked survey respondents if they knew that Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was also the social welfare secretary.

The SWS question on the best leaders to succeed Mr. Aquino as president in 2016 has always been open-ended and unprompted. It asks for up to three names, without specifying the order of preference. It does not ask who the respondents expect the actual candidates to be, though it is fair to conclude that the respondents hope that those they cite will be among them.

Given the difference of subject matter of the two survey questions, there is no logical inconsistency if the people raise their satisfaction with Mr. Binay’s performance as VP, and at the same time lower his ranking in citations among best leaders to succeed to the presidency, between March and June of 2015. In the SWS survey library one can find many cases of Cabinet members, in past administrations, with high ratings of performance in their portfolios, and yet with little popular appeal as prospective candidates for the Senate.

In any case, rankings are not engraved in stone. In 2009, it was not until September that the name of Noynoy Aquino emerged out of nowhere in the SWS surveys. I say “out of nowhere,” because he had never gotten even one-half of a percentage point before then.

There have also been instances of poverty and hunger moving in opposite directions. In the last two quarters of 2011, it so happened that the proportion of poor families rose, and at the same time the proportion of families who went hungry fell. The explanation for that seemingly inconsistent fact is in “Poverty and hunger are different,” Opinion, 2/4/12. In the last two quarters of 2012, the opposite happened: Poverty fell while hunger rose. The explanation is in “Poverty and hunger are dynamic,” Opinion, 1/19/13.

Both cases reveal that the relationship of hunger and poverty is flexible over time. There have been movements in the proportions of hunger among the poor, as well as the nonpoor. Nevertheless, it is always the case that the poor suffer from hunger more than the nonpoor do, at a moment in time.

In other words, the two types of deprivation are correlated across the people; but they are not always correlated over time. There is no cause to question the survey facts about opposite movements in self-ratings of economic deprivation in the final two quarters of 2011 and 2012, when there is a simple reasoning or theory that accommodates them. To clarify such movements, SWS now regularly includes tabulations of hunger against poverty in its quarterly reports.

Why do pundits disparage opinion polls whenever an election approaches? On its own account, SWS conducts and publishes surveys about the people’s attitudes on an impending election as a public service. Whenever some material that SWS publishes was privately commissioned, the sponsor is identified. A confidential sponsor who leaks a survey to the media cannot remain anonymous and expect SWS to confirm the finding.

As a matter of empirical fact, the great majority of voters, when aware of election-race surveys, disregard them when deciding for whom to vote. Hardly anyone feels that voting for a prospective loser is a wasted effort. Not only is the so-called bandwagon effect rather small, but there also exists an “underdog effect” that offsets it to some extent. SWS has surveyed both effects in several elections; the raw data are open to the public in the SWS archives.

The ones really influenced by election surveys are not voters but prospective candidates and supporters. Many potential candidates are thankful to know if it is an opportune time to run for office. Potential financiers and campaign workers are naturally interested in knowing the electoral chances of the candidates. Pundits who disparage surveys are trying to get into the act.

* * *

Contact mahar.mangahas@sws.org.ph