top of page
Action for Economic Reforms

ONCE AGAIN ON POVERTY STATISTICS OR THE POVERTY OF STATISTICS

Mr. Raya is a member of the management collective of Action for Economic Reforms, a research and policy advocacy NGO involved in economic and governance issues. This article was published in the Yellow Pad column of BusinessWorld, March 7, 2005 edition, p. 21.


{mosimage}It’s final, says the National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB),

after it released the technical notes on the latest poverty statistics,

confirming that poverty among Filipino families had indeed gone down

from 27.5 percent in 2000 to 24.7 percent in 2003. Early on, various

questions were raised concerning the validity of the 2003 poverty

estimates due to observed inconsistencies with trends in real income

and economic growth over the same period.


My own confusion about this issue was somehow clarified a few weeks

back when I bumped into Dr. Celia Reyes, who heads the NSCB Technical

Committee on Poverty Statistics. I requested Celia, a friend and

schoolmate from not so long ago, to explain to me in layperson’s terms,

the seeming contradiction between income and poverty trends. The

explanation was simple and straightforward. Celia clarified that the

deflator used for computing real income is different from the basket of

goods used in establishing the poverty threshold. She pointed out

further that since poverty is based on the income of the poorest

families, then this may not always go the same way as the average

family income. Well, I guess that for as long as we have the likes of

Dr. Celia Reyes in the NSCB, then we can be assured of competent and

professional handling of official data and statistics.


But my problems with statistics did not end there. Keeping track of

social progress has really become a tedious and sometimes frustrating

exercise. We in Action for Economic Reforms, along with Social Watch

Philippines, have been regularly monitoring the poverty situation and

development trends at both national and local levels. We have long

waited for the official poverty statistics which were originally due

for release in August of last year. Apart from the delay, another

weakness of the 2003 poverty figures is the absence of provincial

breakdowns, which could provide deeper insights into how local areas

are performing. This is important, especially in the case of the

Philippines, which manifests a highly skewed income distribution and

wide disparities in income levels across provinces. The reality is that

there is very little information on the poverty situation on the level

of provinces, districts and municipalities.


Apart from statistics on poverty, there is a huge and widening

information gap in key social development concerns. The availability,

accuracy and timeliness of data are perennial problems of the

government’s statistical system. These hamper planning and effective

monitoring of development initiatives. In particular, the lack of

updated and disaggregated statistics on nutrition, infant mortality,

maternal health, water access and morbidity makes it difficult to

thoroughly and accurately assess the country’s progress in achieving

the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).


One factor that can perhaps explain the widening information deficit is

the lack of and diminishing resources invested in improving the

country’s statistical system. Because of budgetary constraints, the

government will no longer pursue the census that is planned and

scheduled for this year. The lack of financial resources has been

affecting the consistent generation of health statistics from the

national level down to the barangays. Statistics on child nutrition are

also under threat of becoming stunted, again due to consistent

financial constraints. Observers note that health statistics are

definitely unhealthy and suffering from funding deficiency. With the

fiscal crisis still very much with us, we should expect further

cutbacks in government expenditures, especially those considered low

priority or “unnecessary expenses.” And certainly, data collection is

among the first to fall by the wayside. I just hope this is not a case

of “what you don’t know won’t harm you!”


It now seems that there is not only poverty in Filipino households.

There is poverty in statistics as well. Such poverty is manifested not

only in financial terms, but also in the poor attitude and indifference

of many government units and officials towards statistics.


In most cases, statistics have either been misused or not used at all

in governance. Often, planning proceeds without the benefit of data and

situation analysis, while reports are generated and published merely as

promotional materials or to fulfill a requirement. There is no real

demand for information and, thus, no investments are poured into such

program. Statistics usually come after the fact if only to justify and

rationalize policies and programs that are already in place. Of course,

this is not the case for all. There are shining examples in good

governance worth emulating and which are actually being replicated in

many areas.


Going back to the latest poverty statistics, the technical notes issued

by the NSCB to explain the seeming conflict in the poverty and income

trends may be mathematically and technically consistent. But they may

not be necessarily sound. Actually, such discrepancy exposes a soft

belly in the current methodology in generating poverty estimates. This

may be a good time to review and evaluate the effectiveness of the

current methodology, particularly in terms of ensuring consistency and

timeliness, and compatibility with self-rated perception.


The latest poverty statistics tell us that growth has been pro-poor-so

says the NSCB. Based on current definitions, this assertion may be

technically consistent. But we may need to do a little more convincing

to tell the poor and hungry that indeed they have been lifted out of

poverty.

bottom of page