2001年-世界发展银行全球_Philippines___Poverty_Assessment_Volume_2_Methodology_128页_11mb

Philippines Poverty Assessment: Methodology Summary

Core Content

This document presents the methodology and findings of the Philippines Poverty Assessment, focusing on the measurement of poverty, its determinants, and the impact of policies and economic crises on the poor. It also outlines the data sources and analytical approaches used to evaluate poverty trends, regional disparities, and the effectiveness of social services and targeted policies.

Main Points

Poverty Measurement

• Poverty Line Construction: Poverty lines are based on the cost of basic needs, including a food bundle adjusted to meet minimum nutritional requirements and non-food expenditures of poor households.
• Income vs. Consumption: The report uses consumption as a measure of welfare, as it better reflects actual living standards and is easier to measure accurately.
• Self-rated Poverty: This is based on household responses to a card with "not poor," "on the line," and "poor" categories, indicating higher poverty incidence than income or consumption-based measures.
• Poverty Indices: The headcount index (prevalence), poverty gap index (depth), and squared poverty gap index (severity) are used to measure poverty. These indices are expressed as percentages.

Poverty Trends

• In 1997, 25.1% of the population was poor, with 36.9% in rural areas and 11.9% in urban areas.
• The national poverty gap index was 6.4%, implying that the poor consumed about 75% of the poverty line.
• Projections for 1998 and 1999 show a rise in poverty incidence to 27.8% due to the economic crisis, followed by a partial recovery to 26.3% in 1999.

Regional Disparities

• Urban-Rural Differentials: Self-rated poverty thresholds are significantly higher in urban areas compared to rural ones, reflecting higher aspirations and living standards in cities.
• Regional Variations: Poverty incidence varies widely across regions, with Bicol having the highest number of poor and ARMM the highest incidence.
• Income Inequality: Urban areas have higher Gini indices for per capita consumption (about 30% higher than rural areas), indicating greater inequality.

Sectoral Poverty

• Agriculture: The largest contributor to poverty, accounting for 67.8% of the poor population.
• Self-employed: Show higher poverty incidence and severity than wage earners.
• Non-agricultural sectors: Contribute a smaller share to poverty compared to agriculture.

Poverty and Social Indicators

• Education: Educational attainment and access to education are strongly correlated with poverty levels.
• Health: Poor households have lower access to health services and worse health outcomes.
• Social Services: Public services, especially education and health, have a significant impact on reducing poverty, though disparities persist.

Policy and Economic Impact

• Land Reform: Programs like the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and Operation Land Transfer (OLT) have had mixed results, with land redistribution not always leading to improved living standards.
• Agricultural Protection: Policies like the Rice Policy and NFA domestic market operations aim to support poor households, though their effectiveness is debated.
• Economic Crisis: The crisis in 1998 led to a 2.7% decline in per capita GDP, increasing poverty incidence, while 1999 saw a slight recovery.

Key Information

• Data Sources: The Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES), Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS), and Social Weather Stations (SWS) provide the primary data for poverty analysis.
• Methodology: The report uses a capabilities-based approach to poverty measurement, incorporating self-rated poverty indices and social indicators.
• Government Response: The National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) and other institutions play a role in poverty alleviation through targeted policies and social services.
• Economic Sectors: Agriculture is the most affected sector in terms of poverty, while the service sector has shown the highest growth rate.
• Poverty Projections: Based on national accounts data and sectoral growth rates, poverty incidence for 1998 and 1999 is projected to be 27.8% and 26.3%, respectively.

Structure

1. Poverty Measurement

• Definition of Poverty: Based on consumption and income thresholds, with a focus on the cost of basic needs.
• Methodological Approach: Uses household surveys and a cost-of-basic-needs method to construct poverty lines.
• Self-rated Poverty: Reflects subjective perceptions of poverty and is often higher than objective measures.

2. Poverty Trends and Determinants

• Urban-Rural Divide: Rural areas have higher poverty incidence than urban areas.
• Sectoral Contributions: Agriculture contributes the most to poverty, followed by self-employed and non-agricultural sectors.
• Economic Crisis Impact: The crisis led to a decline in GDP and increased poverty, with partial recovery in 1999.

3. Social Indicators and Poverty

• Education: Poor households have lower educational attainment and higher costs for education.
• Health: Poor households have worse health outcomes and less access to health services.
• Social Services: Public spending on education and health benefits the poor, but disparities remain.

4. Targeted Policies and Poverty

• Land Reform: Programs like CARP and OLT have had mixed success in improving living standards.
• Agricultural Protection: Policies aim to support poor farmers but face challenges in implementation.
• Intergovernmental Transfers: These are important for poverty alleviation but are not always well-targeted.

5. Economic Crisis and Poverty

• Impact of Crisis: The crisis significantly affected poverty levels, with the poorest households suffering the most.
• Government and Household Responses: Include adjustments in consumption, employment, and access to public services.
• Recovery: The 1999 recovery helped reduce poverty incidence, though it remained higher than pre-crisis levels.

Summary Tables

• Table 1.1: Poverty in the Philippines (1997 and projections for 1998 and 1999).
• Table 1.2: Distribution of the poor by region and household characteristics.
• Table 1.3: Poverty by class of worker.
• Table 1.4: Poverty by sector of employment.
• Table 2.1: Average living standards, poverty, and inequality (1985-1997).
• Table 5.1: Change in cumulative distribution function due to the crisis.
• Table 5.3: Impact of the crisis on consumption poverty and inequality.

Summary Figures

• Figure 1.1: Poverty and household size in the Philippines.
• Figure 2.1: Annual rate of decline in poverty incidence in East Asia.
• Figure 2.5: Evolution of growth, inequality, and poverty in the Philippines.
• Figure 5.1: Change in the cumulative distribution function due to the crisis.
• Figure 5.3: Relative magnitudes of income and consumption shocks.

Conclusion

The report emphasizes the importance of using consumption-based and self-rated poverty measures to capture the true extent of poverty. It highlights the role of agriculture and rural areas in poverty and the need for targeted policies to address structural inequalities. The economic crisis had a significant impact on poverty levels, but the recovery in 1999 showed some improvement, though not complete. The methodology provides a comprehensive framework for understanding poverty dynamics in the Philippines, focusing on both economic and social dimensions.