monitoring economic well- being: the sws approach

Monitoring Economic Well-Being

Copyright © 2018

Social Weather Stations

1

06 March 2018, 2:00-4:00 p.m.

SWS Knowledge Center Auditorium

Monitoring Economic Well-

Being: The SWS Approach

Mahar MangahasSocial Weather Stations

Monitoring Economic Well-Being06 MARCH 2018 | PES-SWS JOINT FORUM 2

The Philippine economy has been

growing very rapidly in the aggregate, but

its growth has not been inclusive, as

shown by a very stagnant real wage

(among other things).

This real wage trend is from government-

data that were only recently revealed.


Copyright © 2018


2


GROSS NATIONAL INCOME PER CAPITA (Constant 2000 pesos)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

Source: Philippine Statistics Authority


Usec Karl K. Chua: “Real labor productivity has been increasing,

yet real wages have been stagnant” (2/21/2018 @FEF)

Indices of real output per worker and real average wages (2001=100)

Real labor productivity

Real average wage


Copyright © 2018


3


THE REAL WAGE IS VERY MEANINGFUL,

AND IS COLLECTED QUARTERLY BY

THE GOVERNMENT, BUT IS REGULARLY

OMITTED FROM PUBLICATION


The objective of this Philippine Economic

Society-Social Weather Stations Forum is

to present the very wide scope of SWS

survey data on the economic well-being

of the Filipino people.


Copyright © 2018


4


“Statistics for Advocacy”

SWS’s mission is to put social issues on

the political agenda by supplying Survey

Data, through general media, for public

debate and analysis.

The SWS data aim to be:

* Meaningful; pertinent; relevant

* Communicable; understandable

* Credible; realistic; socially acceptable

* Timely; frequent; plentiful

* Sustainable


The quarterly Social Weather Surveys are

independent, non-partisan, national

surveys that track Quality of Life (QOL)

and general Well-Being.

National sample size = 1,200 per quarter,

i.e. 4,800 per year.

The SWS surveys are designed to be

statistically representative of the

population of adults and household heads

in four study areas of the nation.


Copyright © 2018


5


1. PSA Unemployment vs SWS Joblessness

2. Official (top-down) poverty

3. Self-rated (bottom-up) poverty

4. Hunger

5. Gainers/Losers and Optimists/Pessimists

6. Life-satisfaction and Happiness

Topics


1. PSA UNEMPLOYMENT vs

SWS JOBLESSNESS


Copyright © 2018


6


Official (Philippine Statistics Authority or

PSA) unemployment grossly understates

the problem of lack of jobs, because it

considers persons with a mere 1 hour of

paid work in the week before the interview

for the Labor Force Survey as already

“employed”.


On the other hand, SWS Joblessness

depends on respondents saying they have

no “job,” without any reference to time at

paid work. Joblessness is three times the

size of official unemployment.


Copyright © 2018


7


Official underemployment is more

relevant since it allows all workers,

including the “employed,” to state if they

are looking for more/better work.

Thus it is a bottom-up indicator. When

added (as a ratio of the labor force) to

unemployment, the total matches the

SWS bottom-up measure of Joblessness.


5

15

25

35

1993 1998 2001 2004 2010 2016

% of labor force

SWS ADULT JOBLESSNESS AND PSA UN- & UNDER-

EMPLOYMENT, PHILIPPINES, SEP 1993 TO DEC 2017

Source: Social Weather Surveys and Philippine Statistics Authority.

SWS jobless, 18y/o+

PSA un-& underemp,

15y/o+

PSA unemp. 15y/o+

PSA unemp. 15y/o+, new defn.

15.7%(Dec 2017)

20.1%

5.0%(Oct 2017)


Copyright © 2018


8


OFFICIAL “UNEMPLOYMENT” IS

DEFINED SO AS TO DIMINISH THE

APPEARANCE OF THE ECONOMIC

PROBLEM OF JOBLESSNESS


2. OFFICIAL (TOP-DOWN) POVERTY


Copyright © 2018


9


On Feb. 8, 2011, the NSCB (forerunner of PSA)

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).

STATISTICAL WINDOW-DRESSING: HOW

NSCB “REDUCED” POVERTY IN 2011


HOW NSCB DOWNGRADED THE NCR DAILY MENU IN 2011

Meal time Viands

Breakfast Tomato omelette

Coffee for adults

Milk for children

Fried rice

Lunch a. Fried galunggong

b. Mongo guisado with

malunggay leaves and

small shrimps

Boiled rice

Banana latundan

Dinner Pork adobo

Pechay guisado

Boiled rice

Banana 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 Viands

Breakfast Scrambled egg

Coffee with milk

Boiled rice

Lunch a. Boiled mongo

with malunggay

leaves and

dried dilis

Boiled rice

Banana latundan

Dinner Fried tulingan

Boiled kangkong

Boiled rice

Snacks Pandesal

Old methodology “Refined” methodology


Copyright © 2018


10


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,

but merely allots it a fixed 31 centavos for every

69 centavos for food, thus automatically

downgrading the non-food threshold also.

THE NSCB “REFINED” METHODOLOGY TRULY

REDUCED THE OFFICIAL LIVING STANDARD


NSCB’S OLD AND “REFINED” THRESHOLDS

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

NSCB

compared

old to new,

rather than

new to old!


Copyright © 2018


11


OFFICIAL POVERTY:

IS MEASURED EVERY 3 YEARS ONLY

(USING THE FAMILY INCOME AND

EXPENDITURES SURVEYS);

AND USES A VERY STINGY POVERTY

LINE -- WHICH IS, MOREOVER,

PERIODICALLY MANIPULATED.


3. SELF-RATED (BOTTOM-UP) POVERTY


Copyright © 2018


12


The Self-Rated Poverty system has

no pre-defined poverty line.

Its Poverty Thresholds and Poverty

Gaps are from the responses of the

Self-Rated Poor themselves.


SWS Qs on Poverty (1/5)

Q4. Self-Rated Poverty: Saan po ninyo ilalagay ang inyong

pamilya sa kard na ito? (Where would you place your family

in this card?) (SHOWCARD – DO NOT READ)

(Positive showcard) (Negative showcard)

HINDI MAHIRAP

(Not poor)

___________________

MAHIRAP

(Poor)

MAHIRAP

(Poor)

___________________

HINDI MAHIRAP

(Not Poor)


Copyright © 2018


13



Q5. Self-Rated Poverty Threshold of the Poor: KUNG

MAHIRAP: Upang di na masabing mahirap kayo, magkano sa

palagay ninyo ang pinakamababang panggastos sa bahay sa

isang buwan na kailangan ng inyong pamilya?

(IF POOR: In your opinion, how much money would your

family need for home expenses each month in order not to

be called poor anymore?)



Q6. Self-Rated Poverty Gap: KUNG MAHIRAP: Sinabi po

ninyo na P(MENTION ANSWER IN Q5) ang pinakamababang

panggastos sa bahay sa isang buwan na kailangan ng

inyong pamilya upang di na masabing mahirap kayo.

Magkano pa po ba ang kulang ninyo sa ngayon?

(IF POOR: You said that P(MENTION ANSWER IN Q5) is the

amount of money that your family would need for home

expenses each month in order not to be called poor

anymore. How much more do you need now?)


Copyright © 2018


14



Q8. Self-Rated Poverty Threshold of the Not-Poor/Borderline:

KUNG HINDI MAHIRAP/SA LINYA: Halimbawa po sa

pamilyang kasing dami ninyo ngunit mahirap, magkano sa

palagay ninyo ang pinakamababang panggastos sa isang

buwan na kailangan nila upang hindi na masabing mahirap

sila?

(IF NOT POOR /ON THE LINE: For a family as large as yours

but poor, how much money do you think would it need to

spend each month for home expenses in order not to be

considered poor anymore?)



Q7/9. Transitioning Into and Out of Poverty: KUNG MAHIRAP:

Nangyari na po ba, kailanman sa mga nakaraang taon, na ang

pamilya ninyo ay HINDI MAHIRAP?

KUNG OO: Kailan po ang pinakamalapit na taon na nangyari ‘yan?

(IF POOR: Did it happen anytime in past years that your family was

NOT POOR?

IF YES: When was the most recent year that it happened?)

KUNG HINDI MAHIRAP/SA LINYA: Nangyari na po ba, kailanman

noong mga nakaraang taon, na ang pamilya ninyo ay MAHIRAP?

KUNG OO: Kailan po ang pinakamalapit na taon na nangyari ‘yan?

(IF NOT POOR/ON THE LINE: Did it happen anytime in past years that

your family was POOR?

IF YES: When was the most recent year that it happened?)


Copyright © 2018


15


The self-rating system has enabled

quarterly surveying of poverty (since

1992) and hunger (since 1998) in the

Philippines -- the most rapid survey-

based tracking system in the world.

The system has never changed since

first used in a national survey in 1983.


SELF-RATED POVERTY: FAMILIES “MAHIRAP”,

PHILIPPINES, 1983-2017

MARCOS C. AQUINO RAMOS ESTRADA ARROYO B. AQUINO DUTERTE

44%

18.8%

20.0%19.7%

16.5%

1983 1986 1992 1998 2001 2004 2010 2016

10

30

50

70

“Unrefined” pre-2011

“Refined” in 2011

“Refined” w/o Leyte and Batanes

PSA-NSCB:

% of families

Note: the official 2013-14 poverty figures were special efforts of NEDA DG Balisacan.


Copyright © 2018


16


The SWS survey series discovered the

non-inclusivity of economic growth

much earlier than the triennial FIES.

Note: the latest official poverty figure,

for reference year 2015, was released in

late 2016; so the next figure, referring to

2018, will probably come in late 2019.


SELF-RATED POVERTY, PHILIPPINES,

1983-2017, AVERAGE OF 4 QUARTERS

'85 '90 '95 '00 '05 '10 '15

20

40

6055

74

67

47

66

62

68 67 66 6568

63

59 5961 61

57

62 6360

5153 54

5053

49 48 4952 52

54

50

4446

% of families


Copyright © 2018


17


Poverty has trended downward, in

the past 3 decades; but the

changes have not been smooth.

Increasing the frequency of

measuring poverty, as with any

economic variable, inherently

enhances the discovery of its

volatility over time.


SELF-RATED POVERTY: FAMILIES “MAHIRAP,”

BY AREA, 1985-2017


NCR 28%

Visayas 53%

Mindanao 52%

Bal. Luzon 40%

1986 1992 1998 2001 2004 2010 2016

10

30

50

70

90 % of families


Copyright © 2018


18


Poverty incidences, poverty

thresholds, and poverty gaps that

are reported from the bottom-up

are inherently more realistic (i.e.

greater) than their orthodox, top-

down, counterparts.


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

2010 2016

MEDIAN SELF-RATED POVERTY THRESHOLDS AND

POVERTY GAPS, PHILIPPINES, 2010-2017

AQUINO

P15,000

P5,000

DUTERTE

Pesos per month

Self-Rated Poverty Gap

Self-Rated Poverty Threshold


Copyright © 2018


19


5000

10000

15000

20000

SELF-RATED POVERTY THRESHOLDS ARE

NON-LINEAR TO FAMILY SIZE, 2017Q1-4

1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9+members members members members members

Mean

Median

Pesos per month


SELF-RATED POVERTY BY FAMILY SIZE, 2017Q1-4


40

45

50

55

% of families

46%, 2017 ave., all family sizes


Copyright © 2018


20


The SWS surveys show the pervasive

importance of education in reducing

poverty, as well as in improving economic

well-being in general.


SELF-RATED POVERTY BY EDUCATION OF THE

HOUSEHOLD HEAD, 2014-17, ANNUAL AVERAGES

Coll grad

0

20

40

60

80

100

2014 2015 2016 2017

<Elem

Elem <HS

HS <Coll

% of families


Copyright © 2018


21


Self-Rated Food Poverty is

measurable by the same

approach as Self-Rated Poverty,

except that the reference is to the

quality of the family’s food.


SWS Qs on Food Poverty (1/4)

Q8. Self-Rated Food Poverty: Tungkol naman sa klase ng

pagkain ng pamilya ninyo, saan po ninyo ilalagay ang inyong

pamilya sa kard na ito? (Based on the type of food eaten by

your family, where would you place your family on this card?)

(SHOWCARD-DO NOT READ)

(Positive showcard) (Negative showcard)

HINDI MAHIRAP

(Not poor)

___________________

MAHIRAP

(Poor)

MAHIRAP

(Poor)

___________________

HINDI MAHIRAP

(Not Poor)


Copyright © 2018


22


SWS Qs on Food Poverty (2/4)

Q9. Self-Rated Food Poverty Threshold of the Poor: KUNG

MAHIRAP: Upang di na masabing mahirap kayo, batay sa

pagkain, magkano sa palagay ninyo ang pinakamababang

panggastos sa pagkain sa isang buwan na kailangan ng

inyong pamilya?

(IF POOR: In your opinion, how much money would your

family need for food expenses each month in order not to be

called poor anymore in terms of food ?) P________________


Qs on Food Poverty (3/4)

Q10. Self-Rated Food Poverty Gap: KUNG MAHIRAP: Sinabi

po ninyo na P(MENTION ANSWER IN Q9) ang

pinakamababang panggastos sa pagkain sa isang buwan na

kailangan ng inyong pamilya upang di na masabing mahirap

kayo batay sa pagkain. Magkano pa po ba ang kulang ninyo

sa ngayon?

(IF POOR: You said that P(MENTION ANSWER IN Q9) is the

amount of money that your family would need for food

expenses each month in order not to be called poor anymore

in terms of food. How much more do you need now?)


Copyright © 2018


23


Qs on Food Poverty (4/4)

Q11. Self-Rated Food Poverty Threshold of the Not-

Poor/Border Line: KUNG HINDI MAHIRAP /SA LINYA:

Halimbawa po sa isang pamilyang kasing dami ninyo ngunit

mahirap, magkano sa palagay ninyo ang pinakamababang

panggastos sa pagkain sa isang buwan na kailangan nila

upang hindi na masabing mahirap sila batay sa pagkain?

(IF NOT POOR / ON THE LINE: For a family as large as yours

but poor, how much money do you think would it need to

spend each month for food expenses in order not to be

considered poor anymore in terms of food?)


SELF-RATED FOOD POVERTY: FAMILIES WHOSE FOOD IS

“MAHIRAP”, PHILIPPINES, 1988-2017

C. AQUINO RAMOS ESTRADA ARROYO B. AQUINO DUTERTE

32%

8.1%

Self-Rated Food Poverty

Official (NSCB) Food

Poverty Incidence*, 2015

1988 1992 1998 2001 2004 2010 2016

10

30

50

70

% of families


Copyright © 2018


24


SELF-RATED FOOD-POVERTY

PHILIPPINES, 1988-2017 Q1-Q4 ave.

51 51

57 5759

50 4947

45

5356

53

43 42 42

38

4239

3638

4139

41

35

3133

'89 '94 '99 '02 '05 '08 '11 '14 '17

20

40

60

% of families


Visayas 32%Mindanao 36%

Bal. Luzon 32%

NCR 22%

SELF-RATED FOOD POVERTY: FAMILIES WHOSE

FOOD IS “MAHIRAP”, BY AREA, 1988-2017

C. AQUINO RAMOS ESTRADA ARROYO B. AQUINO DUTERTE

1988 1992 1998 2001 2004 2010 2016

10

30

50

70

90 % of families


Copyright © 2018


25


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2010 2016

MEDIAN SELF-RATED FOOD-POVERTY THRESHOLDS AND

FOOD-POVERTY GAPS, PHILIPPINES, 2010-2017

AQUINO

P6,000

P3,000

DUTERTE

Self-Rated Food Poverty Threshold

Self-Rated Food Poverty Gap

Pesos per month


The estimated effect of Super-

typhoon Yolanda was to raise

national Self-Reported Poverty by

3 points.


Copyright © 2018


26


SELF-RATED POVERTY AMONG VICTIMS AND NON-VICTIMS

OF TYPHOON YOLANDA: PHILIPPINES, DEC 2013

(Base: Total households)

Total PH(100%)

Victims of Yolanda

(13%)

Non-victims of Yolanda

(87%)

55

72

52

22

16

22

2412

25

20

40

60

80

Borderline

Poor

Not Poor

% of

families


The Self-Rated Poverty system

has allowed discovery of the

transitioning of households into

and out of poverty.


Copyright © 2018


27


25.1 16.8 14.1 6.0 6.4 31.1

56% SELF-RATED NON-POOR * 44% SELF-RATED POOR

TRANSITIONING INTO AND OUT OF POVERTY,

PHILIPPINES, % OF FAMILIES, DEC 2017

USUALLY

NON-

POOR

* Includes “Borderline”

Note: Always non-poor = Non-poor now and never been poor

Usually non-poor = Non-poor now but poor 5 or more years ago

Newly non-poor = Non-poor now but poor 1-4 years ago

Newly poor = Poor now but non-poor 1-4 years ago

Usually poor = Poor now but non-poor 5 or more years ago

Always poor = Poor now and never been non-poor

(0.4% NO ANSWER ABOUT THE PAST)

ALWAYS

NON-POOR

ALWAYS

POOR

(0.1% NO ANSWER ABOUT THE PAST)

NEW-

LY

POO

R

USU-

AL-

LY

POOR

NEWLY

NON-

POOR


TRANSITIONING INTO AND OUT OF POVERTY, PHILIPPINES

19.9

20.3

24.7

29.7

26.6

26.5

25.4

29.8

28.7

24.8

26.7

25.2

25.1

13.5

17.4

12.8

11.2

11.8

13.7

17.3

16.1

14.7

15.5

17.8

15.3

16.8

13.8

11.1

11.9

8.7

10.8

13.1

12.3

12.3

12.0

9.6

11.4

11.3

14.1

10.7

6.3

5.6

7.2

4.9

7.4

6.6

5.6

6.8

7.0

5.0

6.1

6.0

10.5

7.5

6.8

6.0

5.1

6.4

7.0

7.3

7.1

8.1

4.9

5.3

6.4

30.4

37.4

38.2

35.5

40.1

32.6

31.1

28.9

30.3

35.0

34.2

35.8

31.1

Dec 2014

Mar 2015

Jun 2015

Sep 2015

Dec 2015

Apr 2016

Jun 2016

Sep 2016

Dec 2016

Mar 2017

Jun 2017

Sep 2017

Dec 2017

ALWAYS

NON-POOR

USUALLY

NON-POOR

NEWLY

NON-POORALWAYS

POOR

USUALLY

POORNEWLY

POOR

SELF-RATED NON-POOR* SELF-RATED POOR

* Non-poor = Not Poor + Borderline; Gray bars are those with No Answer about the past

Note: Always non-poor = Non-poor now and never been poor before

Usually non-poor = Non-poor now but poor 5 or more years ago

Newly non-poor = Non-poor now but poor 1-4 years ago

Newly poor = Poor now but non-poor 1-4 years ago

Usually poor = Poor now but non-poor 5 or more years ago

Always poor = Poor now and never been non-poor before


Copyright © 2018


28


4. HUNGER


SWS Qs on Hunger

Hunger: Nitong nakaraang 3 buwan, nangyari po ba kahit

minsan na ang inyong pamilya ay nakaranas ng gutom at

wala kayong makain?

(In the last 3 months, did it happen even once that your

family experienced hunger and did not have anything to eat?

KUNG OO: Nangyari po ba ‘yan ng MINSAN LAMANG, MGA

ILANG BESES, MADALAS, o PALAGI?

(IF YES: Did it happen ONLY ONCE, A FEW TIMES, OFTEN or

ALWAYS?)

ONLY ONCE + A FEW TIMES = “MODERATE”

OFTEN + ALWAYS = “SEVERE”


Copyright © 2018


29


SWS has tracked hunger quarterly from

1998 to the present. Hunger steadily

increased during 2003-2010. As of now, it

seems to have gotten over the hump, but

has still not returned to its past record low.


Total

Severe

Moderate

5

10

15

20

TOTAL, MODERATE, AND SEVERE HUNGER,

PHILIPPINES: JUL 1998 - DEC 2017

15.9%

12.2%

3.7%

ESTRADA ARROYO AQUINO DUTERTE

1998 2001 2004 2010 2016

% of families


Copyright © 2018


30


7.0

5.8

6.2 7.3

7.6

5.5

8.711.0

12.614.414.615.115.816.115.615.9

14.8

11.2 11.2 9.9

4.12.6

4.6 4.22.5 1.5

3 3 4 3.4 4 4 3.3 3.7 4.3 3.6 3.52.2 2.1 2.4

'98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17

5

10

15

20

THE HUMP IN HUNGER IN 2006-14

(Average of 4 quarters)

11.0

8.3

10.811.4

10.1

7.0

11.8

14.3

16.7

17.9 18.5 19.1 19.119.9 19.9 19.5

18.3

13.4 13.312.3

% of families


HUNGER BY AREA, JUL 1998 - DEC 2017

Visayas: 13.3%

Mindanao: 15.3%

Bal. Luzon: 17.7%

NCR: 14.7%

ESTRADA ARROYO AQUINO DUTERTE

5

10

15

20

25

30

1998 2001 2004 2010 2016

% of families


Copyright © 2018


31


HUNGER BY EDUCATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD

HEAD, 2014-2017, ANNUAL AVERAGES

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2014 2015 2016 2017

<Elem

Elem <HS

HS <Coll

% of families

Coll grad


At any point in time, there are always

more hungry families among the

poor than among the non-poor.

However, rates of hunger are not

fixed, but are prone to change (either

upward or downward) over time.


Copyright © 2018


32


2.01.40.81.31.21.41.31.60.60.70.91.5 2.72.42.54.23.22.71.64.73.82.83.5

6.55.45.9

9.87.76.47.54.8

6.76.15.56.5

7.4

16.515.618.5

10.2

17.520.2

15.8

16.2

13.3

10.813.2

18.5

10.0

20.0

30.0

NOT POOR/BORDERLINE POOR

Moderate

Hunger

Severe

Hunger

TotalHunger


BY SELF-RATED POVERTY, % OF FAMILIES, MAR 2015 - DEC 2017

MarJun

SepDec

MarJun

SepDec

AprJun

SepDec

MarJun

SepDec

MarJun

SepDec

AprJun

SepDec

7.4 7.3

10.69.0

7.68.8

19.218.1

20.9

14.4

20.722.9

6.1

16.7

8.36.7

21.0

17.1

6.3

13.6

7.4

16.7

8.9

24.9

% of who experienced Hunger


1.10.81.00.70.80.80.61.50.10.81.41.84.54.02.9

7.05.24.63.5

5.86.13.43.8

7.66.66.310.0

7.26.87.95.8

6.87.15.1

6.68.1

19.318.621.812.5

22.325.2

17.1

19.114.6

13.716.0

21.2


BY SELF-RATED FOOD POVERTY, % OF FAMILIES,

MAR 2015 - DEC 2017

Moderate

Hunger

Severe

Hunger

TotalHunger

10.0

20.0

30.0

NOT FOOD POOR/BORDERLINE FOOD POOR

7.77.0

10.9

7.97.68.7

23.9

22.6

24.6

19.4

27.5

29.9

6.4

20.5

24.9

8.37.2

20.7

17.1

5.98.0

19.8

MarJun

SepDec

MarJun

SepDec

AprJun

SepDec

MarJun

SepDec

MarJun

SepDec

AprJun

SepDec

9.9

28.8

% of who experienced Hunger


Copyright © 2018


33


WHY RH POLICY MATTERS: HUNGER IS DIRECTLY

RELATED TO FAMILY SIZE, PHILIPPINES, 2017Q1-4

Family size

Moderate

Hunger

Severe

Hunger

TotalHunger

10.0

20.0

2.9 1.7 2.7 3.0 2.9

8.58.7

10.9 11.513.6

10.4

13.6 14.516.5

11.4

% of households



According to research led by Dean

Dennis Mapa of the UP School of

Statistics, the most important

determinant of poverty and hunger is

inflation in the cost of living;

underemployment is secondary; and

economic growth is weak.


Copyright © 2018


35


1983 1986 1992 1998 2001 2004 2010 2017

10

30

50

70


Gainers: “Mas mabuti ngayon kaysa noon” Losers: “Mas masama ngayon kaysa noon”

QOL TREND IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, 1983-2017

41%

18%

GAINERS

LOSERSGAINERS

LOSERS

% of adults


It has only been since 2015 that

Filipinos getting better off in Quality

of Life (QOL) have exceeded those

getting worse off.


Copyright © 2018


36


+11 Visayas

+29 Mindanao

+22 Bal. Luzon

NET GAINERS*, BY AREA, 1984-2017


* % GAINERS MINUS % LOSERSSources: Social Weather Stations (1986 –), DAP (1983-1984) and BBC (1985)

+30 NCR

1983 1986 1992 1998 2001 2004 2010 2017

+10

+30

-10

-30

-50


NET GAINERS* BY EDUCATION, 2014-17, Q1-Q4

Coll grad

<Elem grad

HS <Coll

grad

-25

-15

-5

5

15

25

35

2014 2015 2016 2017

% of adults

Elem <HS grad

* (% Better off now) – (% Worse off now)


Copyright © 2018


37


QOL TREND IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS, 1984-2017

MARCOS C. AQUINO RAMOS ESTRADA ARROYO B. AQUINO III DUTERTE

Optimists: “Bubuti”Pessimists: “Sasama”

49%

3%

OPTIMISTS

PESSIMISTS

1984 1986 1992 1998 2001 2004 2010 2017

10

30

50

70

% of adults


NET OPTIMISTS*, BY AREA, 1984-2017


+37 Mindanao

+42 Bal. Luzon

+36 Visayas

+46 NCR

* % OPTIMISTS MINUS % PESSIMISTSSources: Social Weather Stations (1986-, DAP (1984) and BBC (1985).

1986 1992 1998 2001 2004 2010 2017

+10

+30

+50

-10

-30


Copyright © 2018


38


NET OPTIMISTS* BY EDUCATION, 2014-17, Q1-Q4

10

20

30

40

50

60

2014 2015 2016 2017

% of adults

* (% Will get Better off) – (% Will get Worse off)

Coll grad

HS <Coll grad

Elem <HS

grad<Elem grad


6. SATISFACTION WITH LIFE

AND HAPPINESS


Copyright © 2018


39


SATISFACTION WITH LIFE: PHILIPPINES, 2002-17

Fairly satisfied

Very satisfied

Not very satisfied

Not at all satisfied

Note: Blank spaces are Don’t Know and Refused responsesQuestion. On the whole, are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied or not at all satisfied with the life you lead? Would you say you are ..?

ARROYO B. AQUINO DUTERTE%

of

ad

ult

s4 3 2 2 1

2216 19

34

20 1927 28 25

1524

1924

37

26

40 4131 33

39

27 27 2937 33

41

3035

4741

4839

56

4145

47

42

4642

4249

49

51

4447

44

48

51

4145

4548

43

49 4950

48 52

47

5551

4346

4149

3728 32 26

19

2631

24

1920

24 22 2223

1218

1510

1814 12

17 1617

12 13 1011 11

89 8 9

69 7 8 5 8 9 65 6 10 9 12 9

6 5 5 7 5 5 8 9 4 3 3 3 4 2 3

10

30

50

70

90

May02 Sep02

Nov02 Jun03

Sep03 Nov03

Feb04 Jun04

Aug04May05

Aug05Mar06

Dec08Sep10

Nov10Jun11

Dec11Mar12

Dec12Dec13

Mar14Jun14

Sep14Dec14

Mar15Sep15

Apr16Jun16

Sep16Dec16

Jun17Sep17

Dec17


HAPPINESS: PHILIPPINES, 1991 - 2017

Note: Blank spaces are Don’t Know and Refused responses.

Question. If you were to consider your life in general these days, how happy or unhappy would you say you are on the

whole? Are you..?

Jul91

Jun96

Nov98

Mar01

Jul01

Sep01

Nov01

Mar02

Jun03

Jun04

May05

Aug05

Sep06

Nov06

Dec07

Mar08

Sep08

Dec08

Sep10

Nov10

Jun11

Dec12

Dec13

Sep14

Dec14

Mar15

Sep15

Apr16

Jun16

Dec16

ARROYO B. AQUINO

C. AQUINO ESTRADARAMOS

% o

f a

du

lts

Not at all happy

Not very happy

Fairly happy

Very happy

DUTERTE2 22

24

40

26 28

3830

35 33 3528

1926

37 3932 34 32 29

37 3442

3543

3036 37 39

3135

4640

57

60

52

55 51

49

5350 51 46

51

5750

46 45

48 46 4748

4949

4248

43

50

4953 49

5654

4550

37

13

7

15 16

1212

12 13 16 1819 18

14 1416 16 17 19

1214 13 13

1317

139 10 11 9 7 9

52 1 4 51

4 3 3 3 3 5 53 3

3 4 4 4 2 3 3 3 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 1

10

30

50

70

90

Sep17

Dec17


Copyright © 2018


40


It is socially more important to try to

decrease the numbers of people who

are discontented (dissatisfied with

life, or unhappy) than to try to

increase the numbers contented.

Generally, the trends in discontent

are downward; but they are not at all

smooth.


% OF ADULTS UNHAPPY, PHILIPPINES, 1991-2017

Q. If you were to consider your life in general these days, how happy or unhappy would you say you are on the whole?

Are you… (Very happy, Fairly happy, Not very happy, Not at all happy)?

Not At All

Happy;

Median 2.9%

Not Very/Not

At All Happy;

Median 16.6%

0

10

20

'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 ‘17

23.9%

5.8%5.4% 5.4%

0.6%


Copyright © 2018


41


% OF ADULTS DISSATISFIED WITH LIFE,

PHILIPPINES, 2002-17

Q. On the whole, are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied or not at all satisfied with the life you lead?

Would you say you are…(SHOWCARD)?

0

10

20

30

40

Not At All

Satisfied

Median 5.2%

Not Very/Not

At All Satisfied

Median 23.5%

'02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17

7.8%

39.4%

11.8%

1.2%


Why economic deprivation matters:

poverty and hunger are directly related to

dissatisfaction with life and unhappiness.

Those neither poor nor hungry still report

some subjective discontentment (e.g., due

to recent death in the family); reducing the

excess over the natural minimum in the

suffering of the deprived is what inclusive

economic development can aim to do.


Copyright © 2018


42


% ADULTS DISSATISFIED WITH LIFE, BY DEGREE OF

HUNGER, PHILIPPINES, 2002-2017



SEVERE HUNGER

Median

Dissatisfied

38.9%

SOME HUNGER

Median

Dissatisfied

32.2%

NO HUNGER

Median

Dissatisfied

19.5%

'02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17

10

20

30

40

50

60

70




% ADULTS DISSATISFIED WITH LIFE, BY SELF-RATED

POVERTY, PHILIPPINES, 2002-2017

SR-Poor

Median

Dissatisfied

26.9%

NOT SR-Poor

Median

Dissatisfied

14.8%

'02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17

10

20

30

40


Copyright © 2018


43


The way to get an aggregate picture of

subjective well-being is not by computing

“averages,” but by netting out the numbers

of people in favorable and unfavorable

conditions.


“NET WELL-BEING”

Net Gainers: (% Better off now) – (% Worse off now)

Net Optimists: (% Will get Better off)

– (% Will get Worse off)

Net Satisfied with Life: (% Very Satisfied with life)

– (% Not Satisfied with life)

Net Happy: (% Very Happy) – (% Not Happy)


Copyright © 2018


44


SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING BY AREA, 2017Q1-Q4

BAL. LUZON 2017

Net Gainers: +18

Net Optimists: +40

Net Sat. with life: +33

Net Happy: +34

VISAYAS 2017

Net Gainers: +13

Net Optimists: +37


Net Happy: +44

MINDANAO 2017

Net Gainers: +24

Net Optimists: +41


Net Happy: +49

NCR 2017

Net Gainers: +22

Net Optimists: +48


Net Happy: +27


The SWS surveys show by how much

subjective well-being is reduced by social

discrimination and economic deprivation.


Copyright © 2018


45


MUSLIMS CHRISTIANS

Net Gainers +7 +19

Net Optimists +30 +41

Net Sat. with Life +25 +36

Net Happy +15 +39

Jobless (% of adults) 15.8 20.1

SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING OF MUSLIMS VS.

CHRISTIANS, 2017Q1-Q4


POOR NON-POOR

Net Gainers +7 +29

Net Optimists +36 +45

Net Sat. with Life +27 +43

Net Happy +30 +45

Jobless (% of adults) 21.1 18.7

SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING OF THE

SELF-RATED POOR, 2017Q1-Q4


Copyright © 2018


46


“OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE

DIMENSIONS OF WELL-BEING

ARE BOTH IMPORTANT”

-- Report by the Commission on the

Measurement of Economic

Performance and Social Progress

(Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi), 2009


THE USE OF SUBJECTIVE INDICATORS

IS A VERY PRACTICAL, COST-

EFFECTIVE APPROACH FOR

SCIENTIFICALLY MONITORING

ECONOMIC WELL-BEING, AND

PROMOTING RESEARCH ON IT.


Copyright © 2018


47


THE MAIN REQUIREMENT OF THIS

APPROACH IS THE WILLINGNESS TO

TRUST THAT FILIPINOS ARE TRUTHFUL.


IT PROVIDES A HISTORICAL RECORD

OF ECONOMIC WELL-BEING FROM THE

BOTTOM-UP – AS REPORTED BY THE

FILIPINO PEOPLE THEMSELVES.

monitoring economic well- being: the sws approach

Documents