the official reduction of evidence on poverty

The Official Reduction of Evidence on Poverty

Mahar Mangahas

Presented during the 1st M&E Network Forum organized by NEDA and UNICEF,

November 7-8, 2011Crowne Plaza Manila Galleria, Quezon City

The Official Reduction of Evidence on Poverty1st M&E Network Forum, November 7, 2011

2

• On Feb. 8, 2011, NSCB announced a “refinement” of the average official poverty line for 2009, to Php 7,017 from Php 7,953 (by 11.8%), per month for a family of 5.

• This reduced officially-poor families to 20.9% from 26.3% (by 5.4 pts), or to 3.9M from 4.9M (by 1M families).

• This also reduced the officially-poor population to 26.5% from 32.6% (by 6.1 pts), or to 23.1M from 28.5M (by 5.4M people).

HOW NSCB “REDUCED” POVERTY


3

HOW NSCB DOWNGRADED THE NCR FOOD BUNDLE

Meal time ViandsBreakfast Tomato omelette

Coffee for adultsMilk for childrenFried rice

Lunch a. Fried galunggongb. Mongo guisado with malunggay leaves and small shrimpsBoiled riceBanana latundan

Dinner Pork adoboPechay guisadoBoiled riceBanana latundan

Snacks Pandesal with margarine

Source: “Refinements in Measuring Poverty” by Dr. Romulo Virola, NSCB. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2011/021411_rav_joe_bbb.asp

Meal time ViandsBreakfast Scrambled egg

Coffee with milk

Boiled riceLunch a. Boiled mongo with

malunggay leaves and dried dilis

Boiled riceBanana latundan

Dinner Fried tulinganBoiled kangkongBoiled rice

Snacks Pandesal

Old methodology “Refined” methodology


4

• It downgraded the quality of the diet of the borderline poor so as to cut the food threshold.

• By reducing the officially-seen evidence of poverty, it covered up the extent of the poverty problem.

• It has never worked on specific non-food needs, aside from allotting a fixed 31 centavos for every 69 centavos for food.

THE NSCB “REFINED” METHODOLOGY TRULY REDUCED THE OFFICIAL LIVING STANDARD


5

NSCB’S OLD AND “REFINED” THRESHOLDS

Source: 2009 Official Poverty Statistics. February 8, 2011 presentation of Dr. Romulo Virola (NSCB), p. 17.

NSCB compares old to new, rather than new to old!


6

MONTHLY FOOD POVERTY THRESHOLD FOR A FAMILY OF FIVE (OLD VS. NEW/REFINED), 2003, 2006, 2009

Old New O - N Old New O - N Old New

O - N PHILIPPINES 3,395 3,157 238 4,177 3,857 320 5,298 4,869

429NCR 4,156 4,073 82 4,920 4,798 122 6,221 5,763

458CAR 3,809 3,182 627 4,515 3,750 765 5,616 4,687

929Region I 3,708 3,445 262 4,420 4,173 247 5,593 5,162

430Region II 3,338 3,002 335 3,894 3,553 341 5,257 4,452

805Region III 3,895 3,709 185 4,540 4,466 74 5,817 5,545

272Region IV-A 3,843 3,558 285 4,492 4,125 367 5,753 5,116

637Region IV-B 3,470 3,029 441 4,075 3,696 380 5,155 4,574

580Region V 3,491 3,331 160 4,239 3,964 275 5,454 4,993

461Region VI 3,493 3,073 421 4,151 3,608 543 5,311 4,689

622Region VII 2,923 3,396 -473 3,959 4,195 -236 4,829 5,171

-342Region VIII 3,204 2,868 335 4,030 3,465 564 5,167 4,636

531Region IX 3,018 2,810 208 3,919 3,428 492 4,865 4,411

453Region X 3,331 3,047 285 4,065 3,783 282 5,139 4,810

329Region XI 3,273 3,122 151 4,285 3,913 371 5,408 4,950

458Region XII 3,253 2,981 272 4,043 3,649 394 5,005 4,589

416CARAGA 3,484 3,038 446 4,309 3,791 518 5,465 4,943

522ARMM 3,638 2,837 800 4,299 3,625 675 5,478 4,705

774

2003 2006 2009


7

MONTHLY POVERTY THRESHOLD FOR A FAMILY OF FIVE (OLD VS. NEW/REFINED), 2003, 2006, 2009

Old New O - N Old New O - N Old New

O - N PHILIPPINES 5,129 4,573 555 6,274 5,562 712 7,953 7,017

936NCR 6,974 5,832 1,142 8,569 6,870 1,700 10,544 8,251

2,293CAR 5,847 4,534 1,313 7,004 5,407 1,598 8,885 6,718

2,168Region I 5,534 4,913 621 6,648 5,979 669 8,182 7,403

778Region II 4,757 4,313 445 5,746 5,088 658 7,653 6,378

1,275Region III 5,991 5,321 670 7,208 6,406 802 8,976 7,909

1,068Region IV-A 6,133 5,164 969 7,400 5,952 1,449 9,071 7,408

1,663Region IV-B 5,168 4,333 835 6,167 5,254 913 7,621 6,570

1,051Region V 5,158 4,782 376 6,256 5,685 571 7,855 7,144

711Region VI 5,121 4,395 726 6,002 5,180 822 7,600 6,682

918Region VII 4,085 4,916 - 830 5,579 6,028 - 449 6,963 7,437

- 474Region VIII 4,502 4,104 398 5,823 4,952 870 7,338 6,629

709Region IX 4,336 4,018 319 5,508 4,921 587 6,845 6,317

528Region X 4,835 4,375 460 5,916 5,411 505 7,367 6,903

463Region XI 4,750 4,474 276 6,226 5,612 614 7,939 7,100

839Region XII 4,720 4,282 438 5,927 5,221 706 7,155 6,568

587CARAGA 4,998 4,315 684 6,354 5,390 964 7,993 7,024

969ARMM 5,322 4,027 1,295 6,472 5,149 1,323 8,037 6,806

1,231

2003 2006 2009


8

NSCB’S REDUCTION OF POVERTY (8 Feb 2011)


This would have made PH the worst in ASEAN!


9

NSCB’S REDUCTION OF POVERTY (14 Feb 2011)

Source: “Refinements in Measuring Poverty” by Dr. Romulo Virola, NSCB. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2011/021411_rav_joe_bbb.asp

This would have made PH second-worst in ASEAN!

NSCB in effect asserts that 45.3% - 33.1% = 12.2% of the people in 1991 were “not really” poor!


10

POVERTY % OF FAMILIES (OLD VS. NEW/REFINED), 2003, 2006, 2009

Old New O - N Old New O - N Old New O - N

PHILIPPINES 24.4 20.0 4.4 26.9 21.1 5.8 26.3 20.95.4NCR 4.8 2.1 2.7 7.1 3.4 3.7 7.8 2.65.2CAR 25.8 16.1 9.7 28.8 18.6 10.2 28.9 17.111.8Region I 24.4 17.8 6.6 26.2 20.4 5.8 23.1 17.85.3Region II 19.3 15.2 4.1 20.5 15.5 5.0 23.6 14.59.1Region III 13.4 9.4 4.0 16.8 12.0 4.8 16.3 12.04.3Region IV-A 14.5 9.2 5.3 16.7 9.4 7.3 17.2 10.36.9Region IV-B 39.9 29.8 10.1 43.7 34.3 9.4 37.2 27.69.6Region V 40.6 38.0 2.6 41.8 36.1 5.7 41.1 36.05.1Region VI 31.4 23.5 7.9 31.1 22.1 9.0 30.2 23.86.4Region VII 23.6 32.1 -8.5 30.3 33.5 -3.2 26.5 30.2 -3.7Region VIII 35.3 30.2 5.1 40.7 31.1 9.6 39.2 33.26.0Region IX 44.0 40.5 3.5 40.2 34.2 6.0 39.8 36.63.2Region X 37.7 32.4 5.3 36.1 32.7 3.4 35.8 32.83.0Region XI 28.5 25.4 3.1 30.6 26.2 4.4 31.0 25.65.4Region XII 32.1 27.2 4.9 33.8 27.1 6.7 33.0 28.14.9CARAGA 47.1 37.6 9.5 45.5 36.9 8.6 47.8 39.88.0ARMM 45.4 25.0 20.4 55.3 36.5 18.8 53.7 38.115.6

2003 2006 2009


11

POVERTY % OF POPULATION (OLD VS. NEW/REFINED), 2003, 2006, 2009

Old New O - N Old New O - N Old New O - N

PHILIPPINES 30.0 24.9 5.1 32.9 26.4 6.5 32.6 26.56.1NCR 6.9 3.2 3.7 10.4 5.4 5.0 11.2 4.07.2CAR 32.2 21.7 10.5 34.5 23.0 11.5 35.2 22.912.3Region I 30.2 22.8 7.4 32.7 26.6 6.1 29.4 23.36.1Region II 24.5 19.6 4.9 25.5 20.0 5.5 29.4 18.810.6Region III 17.5 12.4 5.1 20.7 15.2 5.5 20.1 15.34.8Region IV-A 18.4 12.1 6.3 20.9 12.3 8.6 21.9 13.98.0Region IV-B 48.1 37.5 10.6 52.7 42.2 10.5 45.8 35.010.8Region V 48.5 45.8 2.7 51.1 45.2 5.9 50.2 45.15.1Region VI 39.2 30.6 8.6 38.6 28.6 10.0 38.3 31.27.1Region VII 28.3 37.2 -8.9 35.4 38.8 -3.4 31.7 35.5 -3.8Region VIII 43.0 37.6 5.4 48.5 39.0 9.5 47.7 41.46.3Region IX 49.2 45.7 3.5 45.3 39.8 5.5 46.3 43.13.2Region X 44.0 38.8 5.2 43.1 39.7 3.4 42.2 39.62.6Region XI 34.7 31.0 3.7 36.6 31.7 4.9 37.3 31.36.0Region XII 38.4 33.1 5.3 40.8 33.1 7.7 40.9 35.75.2CARAGA 54.0 44.7 9.3 52.6 44.0 8.6 55.7 47.87.9ARMM 52.8 31.4 21.4 61.8 42.8 19.0 61.0 45.915.1

2003 2006 2009


12

ALL NSCB ACHIEVED WAS WINDOW-DRESSING


At the “old” estimates of 37.3% or 32.9%, PH would be either worst or 2nd-worst in ASEAN!


13

NSCB WENT ANTI-LABOR BY CLAIMING “A MINIMUM WAGE EARNER IN NCR CAN SUPPORT A FAMILY OF SIX.”



14

• It does nothing to deal with the problem of lack of annual poverty statistics.

• It fosters complacency about Philippine poverty, turning attention to comparison with other countries, instead of improvements over time.

• It works against the need of workers to maintain the real wage, let alone upgrade it.

• If adopted for program targeting (e.g. CCT), it will lower the number of qualified beneficiaries.

THE EFFECT OF NSCB’S POVERTY “REFINEMENT”


15

CONCLUSION: THE NSCB’S POVERTY “REFINEMENT”

SHOULD BE REJECTED, BECAUSE REDUCING THE EVIDENCE ABOUT

POVERTY IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY MAKING

the official reduction of evidence on poverty

Documents