The Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), in its official estimated
poverty figures for the first half of 2013, reported that 24.9 percent of
Filipinos were poor in the first semester of 2013 based on the 2013 Annual
Poverty Indicator Survey (APIS).
Using these official poverty estimates, government
officials suggested that the welfare conditions in the country are improving,
and even attributed the reduction in poverty to the impact of the government’s
version of the conditional cash transfer program, Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino
Program. Even the World Bank, in its
August 2014 issue of the Philippine Economic Update, similarly described
improving poverty conditions.
However, in a policy note released by state think tank
Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), its authors argued that
while these descriptions of poverty are based on official statistics released
by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), the April 2014 press release of
the PSA did not actually report a “drop” in poverty incidence from 2012 to
2013.
“PSA mentioned that 24.9 percent of Filipinos were poor
in the first semester of 2013, and that in the same period in 2012, poverty
incidence among Filipinos based on the 2012 Family Income and Expenditure
Survey (FIES), was recorded at 27.9 percent,” explained PIDS Senior Research
Fellow Jose Ramon Albert and co-author Arturo Martinez in "Is poverty
really decreasing? And if not, Why not?"
But isn’t 24.9 percent a decline from 27.9 percent?
"Seemingly, yes, but in this case, no. To compare
statistics, their methodologies should be equivalent," Albert explained.
The PSA’s technical notes stated that the source of
poverty data on the first half of 2013 is the 2013 Annual Poverty Indicator
Survey (APIS), a nationwide sample survey designed to provide information on
the different indicators related to poverty and uses a different questionnaire
from that of the 2012 FIES.
Albert and Martinez explained that although the 2013 APIS
used more questions on income (than it used to) with its 19-page questionnaire,
the 2012 FIES income module used 24 pages of questions. And even if APIS 2013
made use of the 24-page income module of FIES 2012, this would still not make
poverty data from the APIS and FIES comparable since FIES also asks households
detailed information on their expenditures before income questions are asked
using a total of 78 pages of questions. The FIES interview could take an
average interview time of five hours.
The APIS 2013 questionnaire had six pages of questions on
expenditure, aside from 19 pages of income questions, and several pages of
other questions, which, overall, took three hours to accomplish.
“We therefore do not have clear evidence to suggest a
reduction in poverty from the first half of 2012 to the first semester of 2013.
To get definitive recent trends on income poverty, we have to await the results
of the 2014 APIS,” Albert and Martinez contended.
Historically, however, poverty rates have been unchanged.
Based on the latest available figures from FIES, the researchers observed three
clear trends on poverty conditions. First, poverty rates have been unchanged in
the first semester periods from 2006 to 2012, since minute differences in
estimates are within margins of error. Secondly, poverty rates also have been
unchanged in the full year periods from 2006 to 2012, and thirdly, estimates of
the proportion of Filipinos who are poor are lower in the full year, compared
with first-semester figures, on account of extra income received from
thirteenth month wages and bonuses, and other income received in the second
semester.
“Since poverty rates are unchanged, the number of poor
Filipinos is increasing on account of population growth,” the researchers
noted.
Furthermore, they pointed out a barely changing income
inequality, a pattern that could mean that the new opportunities created by
economic growth do not allow the income of the poor to catch up with the rest.
They also pointed out that although poor Filipinos were
more likely to experience higher income growth, some nonpoor also have been
vulnerable to slide into poverty. Thus, they noted that the government should
not only be concerned with the poor, but also with the nonpoor who are plagued
by economic risks, in designing the country’s social protection infrastructure.
“Policymakers should need to develop policies for risk
management such as adequate social insurance and social protection coverage. It
is also important to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of these programs
because if left unaddressed, income shocks may hamper the thrust for inclusive
growth and for sustained prospects of the country’s development,” they
concluded. (PIDS)
Comments
Post a Comment