celia m. reyes - pidswebs.pids.gov.ph · 17 proportion of children attending school, by single year...
TRANSCRIPT
Philippine Institute for Development StudiesSurian sa mga Pag-aaral Pangkaunlaran ng Pilipinas
CELIA M. REYESA P R I L 1 0 , 2 0 1 8
Outline Background
Objective
Methodology
Key Findings
Concluding Remarks
www.pids.gov.ph 2
Continuous economic growth since 2012 – above 6% GDP growth
www.pids.gov.ph 3
7.6
3.7
6.77.1
6.1 6.1
6.96.7
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Poverty rate has gone down but number of poor has not changed since 1991
www.pids.gov.ph SOURCE: PHILIPPINE STATISTIC AUTHORITY (PSA) 4
21.7
22.623.3
23.7
21.9
34.4
26.6 26.3 25.2
21.6
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
15.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
21.0
22.0
23.0
24.0
25.0
1991 2006 2009 2012 2015
In P
erc
en
t
In M
illio
n
Magnitude of poor population Poverty Incidence amoung population
Poverty Incidence and Magnitude of Poor Population: 1991, 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2015
Poverty Incidence is highest in ARMM, Caraga Eastern Visayas, SOCCSKSARGEN, Northern Mindanao, and Bicol Region
5
Poverty incidence is lowest in NCR ( 3.9 %) and highest in ARMM ( 53.7 %)
Proportion of population living below the national poverty line, by geographical location .
2009: 26.3 2012: 25.2 2015: 21.6
3.6 – 11.2
11.3 – 21.6
21.7 – 33.9
34.0 – 55.8
12.4 12.7 12.5 10.6
40.4 39.835.2
29.8
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
2006 2009 2012 2015
Urban Rural
The country has not made significant progress in reducing inequality
www.pids.gov.phSOURCE: FORTHCOMING PIDS DISCUSSION PAPER ENTITLE “ASSESSMENT OF POVERTY AND INEQUALITY: WHO
HAS ACCESS TO SOCIAL PROTECTION?”6
0.480
0.464
0.507 0.505
0.487 0.4840.474 0.471
0.4530.474
0.449
0.485 0.4780.451 0.450 0.446 0.448
0.429
0.3940.388
0.4190.426 0.429 0.430 0.428
0.447 0.429
0.35
0.37
0.39
0.41
0.43
0.45
0.47
0.49
0.51
0.53
0.55
1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
All Areas Urban Rural
Very slow increase in share of poorest 20 percent
www.pids.gov.phSOURCE: FORTHCOMING PIDS DISCUSSION PAPER ENTITLE “ASSESSMENT OF POVERTY AND INEQUALITY: WHO HAS
ACCESS TO SOCIAL PROTECTION?” 7
5.00 5.12
4.43 4.42 4.58 4.725.05 5.05
5.44
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
Ratio of richest decile to poorest decile decreased from 1991 to 2015
www.pids.gov.phSOURCE: FORTHCOMING PIDS DISCUSSION PAPER ENTITLE “ASSESSMENT OF POVERTY AND INEQUALITY: WHO HAS
ACCESS TO SOCIAL PROTECTION?” 8
19.0917.74
22.58
22.2520.89
19.618.07 17.97
15.98
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
Objectives To examine inequality of educational
opportunity among ethnic groups in thePhilippines
To provide insights on how to address suchinequalities
www.pids.gov.ph 9
Methodology
Data
• 2000 and 2010 Censuses of Population and Housing (CPH)
• 2000 – 10% sample, 2010 – 20% sample
Variables
• Outcome: Years of schooling (aged 25 & above); Literacy rate (aged 10 & above); Access to primary education (aged 6-11) and secondary education (aged 12-18)
• Grouping: ethnicity
Inequality measures
• Gini coefficient
• Theil’s index
• Human opportunity index (HOI)
www.pids.gov.ph 10
Ethnicity and ethnic groups Ethnicity – is the primary sense of belonging to an
ethnolinguistic group, which is blood-related in nature inthe sense that the ties are reckoned by blood and tracedthrough family tree (Philippine Statistics Authority)
Philippines: 182 ethnolinguistic groups;110 are indigenous people (IP) groups
Major ethnic groups (based on classification of theNational Commission on Indigenous Peoples or NCIP):1. Muslim ethnic group (IPs and non-IPs)
2. Non-Muslim IPs ethnic group
3. Non-Muslim, non-IPs ethnic group
www.pids.gov.ph 11
www.pids.gov.ph 12
(1) Muslim ethnic group (2) Non-Muslim IPs ethnic group
(3) Non-Muslim/non-IPsethnic group
Muslim IPs sub-groupMuslim Non-IPs sub-
group
1. Badjao 1. Maguindanao1. Abelling/Abellen/Aberling/ Aborlin
37. Bontok 106. Mangguangan 109. Manobo-Dulangan 1. Bikol/Bicol
2. Iranon/Iranun/Iraynon 2. Maranao 2. Adasen 38. Bugkalot/Ilongot 107. Manobo 110. Mansaka 2. Bisaya/Binisaya
3. Jama Mapun 3. Palawani 3. Aeta/Ayta 39. Buhid 108. Manobo-Blit111. Manubo-Ubo/ Manobo-Ubo
3. Boholano
4. Kalagan 4. Sangil 4. Agta 40. Buhid (Bangon) 73. Itawis 112. Masadiit 4. Capizeño
5. Kalibugan/Kolibugan 5. Tausug 5. Agta-Cimaron 41. Bukidnon 74. Itneg/Tingguian 113. Matigsalog/Matigsalug 5. Caviteño
6. Sama Badjao 6. Yakan 6. Agta-Agay 42. Cagayanen 75. Ivatan 114. Molbog 6. Caviteño-Chavacano
7. Sama Bangingi 7. Agta-Dumagat 43. Calinga 76. Iwak/Iowak/Owak/I-wak 115. Muyadan 7. Cebuano
8. Sama Laut 8. Agta-Tabangnon 44. Clata/Klata 77. Kabayukan116. Obu-Manuvu/ Ubo-Manobo
8. Chinese
9. Sama/Samal 9. Agta-Taboy 45. Cuyonon/Cuyonen 78. Kabihug 117. Pala’wan/Palawan-o 9. Cotabateño10. Agutaynen 46. Diangan 79. Kadaklan/Kachakran 118. Pan-ayanon 10. Cotabateño -Chavacano11. Akeanon 47. Dibabawon 80. Kailawan/Kaylawan 119. Panay-Bukidnon 11. Davao-Chavacano12. Alangan 48. Dibabeen Mulitaan 81. Kalanguya 120. Parananum 12. Davaweño13. Ambala 49. Dibaben 82. Kalanguya-Ikalahan 121. Pulangien/Pulangiyen 13. Hiligaynon/Ilonggo14. Applai 50. Direrayaan 83. Kalinga 122. Ratagnon 14. Ilocano15. Aromanen-Manobo 51. Dumagat 84. Kamiguin 123. Remontado 15. Kapampangan
16. Ata 52. Dumagat/Alta 85. Kankanaey124. Sibuyan Mangyan-Tagabukid
16. Masbateño/Masbatenon
17. Ata/Negrito53. Dumagat/Remontado
86. Karao125. Subanen/Subanon/ Subanun
17. Pangasinan/Panggalato
18. Ata-Manobo 54. Eskaya 87. Karulano 126. T’boli/Tboli 18. Tagalog19. Ati 55. Gaddang 88. Kaunana 127. Tadyawan 19. Waray
20. Ayangan 56. Gubang89. Ke’ney or Ken-ey/ Tau’t-Bato
128. Tagabawa
21. B’laan/Blaan 57. Gubatnon 90. Kirenteken 129. Tagakaulo22. Bago 58. Guiangan 91. Lahitanen 130. Tagbanua
23. Bagobo 59. Halawodnon 92. Lambangian 131. Tagbanua (Kalamianen)
24. Bagobo-Tagabawa 60. Hanunuo 93. Langilan 132. Tagbanua/Calamian25. Bajao/Bajau 61. Henanga 94. Livunganen 133. Talaandig26. Balangao 62. Higaonon 95. Mabaka 134. Talaingod27. Balatok 63. Ibaloi/Ibaloy 96. Maeng 135. Tau-buid28. Baliwon/Gaddang 64. Ibanag 97. Magahats 136. Teduray
29. Banao 65. Ibatan98. Mag-anti/Mag-Antsi/Mag-anchi
137. Tigwahanon
30. Bangon 66. Ifugao99. Magbekin/Magbukon/Magbukun
138. Tinananen
31. Bantoanon 67. Ilianen 100. Mag-indi 139. Tuwali32. Banwaon 68. Illaud 101. Magkunana 140. Yapayao33. Batak 69. Iraya 102. Majokayong 141. Yogad34. Batangan 70. Isinai 103. Malaueg 142. Zambal35. Belwang 71. Isneg/Isnag/Apayao 104. Mamanwa36. Binongan 72. Isoroken 105. Mandaya
Ethnic
groupings
by the NCIP
Key findings
www.pids.gov.ph 13
Majority of Filipinos are neither Muslims nor IPs; non-Muslim IPs – 9%; Muslims – 6%
Ethnic Group
2000 2010
NumberPercent
(%)Number
Percent
(%)
Philippines 69,168,155 100.0 91,012,285 100.0
Muslim 3,036,228 4.4 4,998,559 5.5
Non-Muslim IPs 5,641,657 8.2 7,792,792 8.6
Non-Muslim, non-IPs 60,490,270 87.5 78,220,933 86.0
www.pids.gov.phSOURCES OF BASIC DATA: 2000 AND 2010 CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY
14
Note: The figures in the table exclude population who did not state/report their ethnicity and/or
other variables used in the analysis. These samples account for around 10 percent and 2
percent of the total population of the country and of Mindanao, respectively.
Philippine population by major ethnic group, 2000 and 2010
Non-Muslim, non-IPs dominate the population in all regions, except ARMM & CAR; ARMM is home for most of Muslim; CAR is home for many Non-muslim IPs
www.pids.gov.phSOURCES OF BASIC DATA: 2000 AND 2010 CENSUS OF POPULATION AND
HOUSING, PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY 15
Philippine educational system
www.pids.gov.ph 16
K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum
School participation among younger children increased; decreased among older cohort
www.pids.gov.ph 17
Proportion of children attending school, by single year of age and by major ethnic group, 2000 & 2010
SOURCES OF BASIC DATA: 2000 AND 2010 CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
(in
pe
rce
nt)
SINGLE YEAR OF AGE
Non-Muslim IPs ethnic group, 2000 Non-Muslim IPs ethnic group, 2010
Non-Muslim non-IPs ethnic group, 2000 Non-Muslim non-IPs ethnic group, 2010
Muslim ethnic group, 2000 Muslim ethnic group, 2010
Muslim ethnic groups have the lowest school participation rate
www.pids.gov.ph SOURCE: CPH 18
72.9
79.1
60.3
72.3
81.584.6
63.5
78.7
66.5
72.8
63.8
67.7
79.983.5
63.3
77.5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
6 to 11 12 to 15 16 to 18 All age group
2000
86.482.3
55.1
78.4
93.089.4
61.1
84.8
77.575.0
51.6
71.9
91.287.8
60.0
83.3
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
6 to 11 12 to 15 16 to 18 All age group
2010
Proportion of children attending school, by Age group and by Major ethnic group
Total inequality for years of schooling and literacy went down from 2000 to 2010
Inequality componentYears of schooling Literacy
2000 2010 2000 2010
Theil's index
Within-group 0.1346 0.1101 0.0731 0.0240
Between-group 0.0036 0.0039 0.0014 0.0006
Total 0.1382 0.114 0.0745 0.0245
Gini coefficient
Within-group 0.2100 0.183 0.045 0.0100
Between-group 0.025 0.027 0.016 0.011
Overlap 0.039 0.035 0.011 0.003
Total 0.275 0.244 0.072 0.024
www.pids.gov.ph 19SOURCES OF BASIC DATA: 2000 AND 2010 CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY
Years of schooling and literacy rate of Filipinos had generally improved
www.pids.gov.ph 20
6.7
7.3
5.5
6.1
8.3
9.1
8.1
8.8
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
2000 2010
Average years of schooling ofpopulation aged 25 and over
Year
s
84.9
92.8
73.8
85.3
94.4
98.7
92.8
97.6
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
100.0
2000 2010
Literacy rate of population aged10 and over
Pe
rce
nt
SOURCES OF BASIC DATA: 2000 AND 2010 CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY
Within-group component had largely contributed to total inequality
Inequality componentYears of schooling Literacy
2000 2010 2000 2010
Theil's index
Within-group 0.1346 0.1101 0.0731 0.0240
Between-group 0.0036 0.0039 0.0014 0.0006
Total 0.1382 0.114 0.0745 0.0245
Gini coefficient
Within-group 0.210 0.183 0.045 0.010
Between-group 0.025 0.027 0.016 0.011
Overlap 0.039 0.035 0.011 0.003
Total 0.275 0.244 0.072 0.024
www.pids.gov.ph 21SOURCES OF BASIC DATA: 2000 AND 2010 CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY
Muslim ethnic group had been the worst-off group
www.pids.gov.ph 22
Year/Ethnic group
Gini Coefficient Theil's Index
Years of schooling
LiteracyYears of
schoolingLiteracy
2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010
Muslim 0.4791 0.431 0.262 0.147 0.451 0.362 0.304 0.159
Non-Muslim IPs 0.3559 0.337 0.151 0.072 0.238 0.212 0.164 0.075
Non-Muslim, non-IPs 0.2584 0.226 0.056 0.013 0.119 0.095 0.057 0.013
SOURCES OF BASIC DATA: 2000 AND 2010 CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY
IP groups like Sama Laut, Sama Badjao and Badjao had low educational outcomes; non-IP groups like Palawani and Maranao had high educational outcomes
www.pids.gov.ph 23
97.290.6 88.1 86.0 82.5 82.2
86.1
96.0
85.9 85.3 83.4 82.5 80.7
37.2 35.9
24.6
81.6
9.8
7.4
5.4 5.65.0
6.0 6.2
7.3
5.44.6
5.15.9 6.2
2.1 1.9 2.1
5.7
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Muslim non-IPs Muslim IPs
Year
s
Per
cen
t
Literacy rate of aged 10 and over Years of schooling aged 25 and over
SOURCES OF BASIC DATA: 2000 AND 2010 CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY
There had been equitable distribution of primary education services; a need for a more equitable distribution of secondary education services
Indicator /Major ethnic group
Human opportunity index (HOI)
Primary education (aged 6-11)
All groups 88.97
Muslim ethnic group 73.46
Non-Muslim IP ethnic group 82.12
Non-Muslim, non-IP ethnic group 91.68
Secondary education (aged 12-18)
All groups 72.16
Muslim ethnic group 60.56
Non-Muslim IP ethnic group 65.40
Non-Muslim, non-IP ethnic group 73.99
www.pids.gov.ph 24SOURCES OF BASIC DATA: 2010 CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING, PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY
Summary for inequality across ethnic groups
Disparities in terms of years of schooling and literacy appear to benarrowing between 2000 and 2010, as shown by various inequalitymeasures.
Higher within-group inequalities exist among Muslim ethnic groups whilethe non-Muslim, non-IPs are generally better-off in terms of years ofschooling and literacy.
Filipinos had higher access to and more equitable distribution of primaryeducation services, while lower and less equal access in terms of secondaryeducation services.
The Philippine government had been exerting efforts to improve access ofethnic groups to education (e.g., IP Education of the Department ofEducation; IP component of the Modified Conditional Cash Transfer, or CCT,program of the Department of Social Welfare and Development).
www.pids.gov.ph 25
Improving access to education
4Ps
Teachers in IP communities
Dormitories
www.pids.gov.ph 26
Top five ethnolinguistic groups with the most number of IP PantawidPamilya Households
www.pids.gov.ph 27
Ethnolinguistic Group
Number of IP HHsPercentage in Total IP
Pantawid HHs
2011 2017 2011 2017
Subanon/Subanen 37,505 54,503 8.33 9.82
Manobo 10,609 54,657 2.35 9.84
Sama 4,432 37,138 0.98 6.69
B'laan 4,171 28,390 0.92 5.11
Maguindanaon - 29,784 - 5.36
Top five ethnolinguistic groups with the most number of IP Pantawid Pamilya Households
SOURCE: DSWS
Source: CBMS Census, Kiangan, Ifugao, 2015-2016
Goal 1- No Poverty
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
42.445.9
84.5
66.7
95.8
75.070.2
73.9
96.3
63.167.1
57.1
42.6 42.6
Proportion of population living below the national poverty line, by barangay, Kianagan, Ifugao, 2015-2016
Source: CBMS Census, Kiangan, Ifugao, 2015-2016
Goal 1- No Poverty
49.6
2.70.2 0.8
17.5
0.55.9
42.5
7.1
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Year
s o
f Sc
ho
olin
g
At
leas
t o
ne
sch
oo
l-ag
e ch
ild (
7-
14
yea
rs o
ld)
no
t en
rolle
d in
sch
oo
l
Po
pu
lati
on
dep
rive
d in
ch
ildm
ort
alit
y
Po
pu
lati
on
dep
rive
d in
mal
nu
trit
ion
Po
pu
lati
on
dep
rive
d in
san
itat
ion
Po
pu
lati
on
dep
rive
d in
no
n-
mak
esh
ift
ho
usi
ng
Po
pu
lati
on
dep
rive
d in
ass
ets
Po
pu
lati
on
dep
rive
d in
saf
ew
ater
Po
pu
lati
on
dep
rive
d in
elec
tric
ity
Education Health Living Standards
Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) Trends
Source: CBMS Census, Panabo City, 2015-2016
80.0
82.0
84.0
86.0
88.0
90.0
92.0
94.0
96.0
98.0
100.0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Total Male Female
School participation of children 6-15 years old, by age, by sex, Panabo City, 2015-2016
Source: CBMS Census, Panabo City, 2015-2016
86.0
88.0
90.0
92.0
94.0
96.0
98.0
100.0
School participation of children 6-15 years old, by barangay, Panabo City, 2015-2016
94.5
95.0
95.5
96.0
96.5
97.0
97.5
98.0
98.5
Bottom 2nd 3rd 4th Top
95.9
96.3
97.297.3
98.5
Source: CBMS Census, Panabo City, 2015-2016
School attendance, by income quintile, Panabo City, 2015-2016
Source: CBMS Census, Panabo City, 2015-2016
80.082.084.086.088.090.092.094.096.098.0
100.0
School attendance, by ethnicity, Panabo City, 2015-2016
Implications at the local level Need for more disaggregated data – By collecting data on all the households in the locality, CBMS can provide
data that reveals disparities across barangays, gender, age groups, incomeclasses, ethnic groups and other socio-economic characteristics.
The disaggregated information allows for more targeted programs toaddress these disparities, ensuring no one is left behind.
Greater capacity buiding for local governemtns
More research to understand better the linkages of the factors affectingoutcomes
Need for innovative designs of appropriate interventions
Enhanced monitoring of these interventions and their impacts
www.pids.gov.ph 34
Thank you!
www.pids.gov.ph 35
www.pids.gov.ph 36
The Gini coefficient1 is the most commonly used inequality measure. Its values range from 0 to 1, indicating perfect equality and perfect inequality, respectively. This measure can be computed using the following equation:
iyiN
NyNG 1
211
2
, where persons are ranked in ascending order of iy . This
measure cannot usually be written as the sum of a term summarizing within-group inequality and a term summarizing between-group inequality.
Consider a population of persons (or households), i = 1, 2, …, n, with outcome variable iy and
iw. Let N
wf i
i , where iwN
. [In what follows all sums are over all values of whatever is subscripted.] Arithmetic mean income is y . Suppose there us an exhaustive partition of the
population into mutually-exclusive subgroups k = 1, 2, …, K.
1 Formulas for Gini coefficient and Theil’s index were mainly sourced from Stata’s help desk on ineqdeco.
www.pids.gov.ph 37
The Theil’s index belongs to the Generalized Entropy class of inequality indices, which is given by
the following formula:
y
y
y
yfGE ii
i log)1(
. This index, which ranges from 0 to log n, can
be additively decomposed as follows: )1()1()1( BW GEGEGE , where: )1(WGE is the ‘within-
group’ inequality while )1(BGE is the ‘between-group’ inequality. Furthermore,
)1(
)1(
)1( k
a
k
a
kW GEsvGE , where N
Nv k
k is the number of persons in subgroup k divided by
the total number of persons (subgroup population share), and ks is the share of total income
held by k’s members (subgroup income share). (Strictly speaking, kv is the sum of the weights in
subgroup k divided by the sum of the weights for the full estimation sample.)
)1(kGE , which is the inequality for subgroup k, is calculated as if the subgroup were a separate
population, and )1(BGE is derived assuming every person (or household) within a given subgroup
k received k’s mean income, ky .
Top five ethnolinguistic groups with the most number of IP Pantawid Pamilya Households
Ethnolinguistic GroupNumber of IP HHs in 2017
Percentage in Total IP Pantawid HHs
Subanon/Subanen 54,503 9.82
Manobo 54,657 9.84
Sama 37,138 6.69
B'laan 28,390 5.11
Maguindanaon 29,784 5.36
www.pids.gov.ph SOURCE: DSWS 38
Top five ethnolinguistic groups with the most number of IP Pantawid Pamilya Households
www.pids.gov.ph 39
The human opportunity index (HOI)1, developed by the World Bank, measures the contribution of inequality of opportunities by the circumstance variables2 such as socioeconomic and demographic attributes of individuals. The estimation of this measure is discussed below. First, the following logit model is estimated using the maximum likelihood estimation:
k
j
ijj
k
j
ijj
x
x
ii
e
ezP
1
1
1
)(
where: i = )( izP is the probability that the ith individual has access to a given opportunity;
iz
takes the value of 1 if the ith individual has access to an opportunity and 0 otherwise
ij
x is the jth circumstance variable for ith individual
j is the regression coefficient for the jth circumstance variable
k is the total number of circumstance variables
1 Information on this, including the technical ones, were drawn from Son (2013). 2 i.e., individuals have no control over these factors