Poverty reduction: Successful Municipalities

Last week, we saw much damage caused by the southwest monsoon rains or hanging habagat. We realized once again that we had not really learned our lessons. Even after Ondoy! But we also witnessed the many brave men and women who risked their lives to help our kababayans in distress. And we saw that despite everything, the spirit of bayanihan was very much alive in the hearts and minds of us Pinoys! Wasn’t it reassuring to watch Jose, Wally, and Paolo manning a phone booth and distributing goods to help the flood victims? Mabuhay tayong lahat!

From the television footages, it was quite clear, however, that those who suffered the most were poor. This brings to the fore the importance of our poverty reduction efforts. Not that we did not know this before, but the losses we incurred last week make it imperative that we do everything and anything to make our 4Ps2 succeed. Which includes collaboration, cooperation, and cooperation among the different agencies of government. Which means that we should give all out support to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), to Sec. Dinky Soliman, and the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (NHTS-PR). Instead of coveting the funds that are currently being channeled to the DSWD!

A critical factor towards the success of our poverty reduction program is the determination of local government unit (LGU) executives to implement innovative ideas where traditional approaches have failed for many years already. Next year, we will have another chance to choose our leaders in the 2013 elections. Let us try to vote right this time!

The implementation of the Local Government Code in 1991 raised hopes for good local governance and therefore, for inclusive development. Knowing that in 2009, 21 out of 100 Filipino families were still poor, obviously, those hopes have not materialized. Some LGUs definitely have developed; but others have not.

And to be able to assess which LGUs are succeeding in their poverty reduction strategies and which LGUs are not, we, of course need statistics. Specifically, small area estimates (SAE) of poverty, e.g., poverty statistics at the municipal and city levels. These SAEs will be useful tools in local development planning and informed decisions at the LGU level can definitely help boost our chances of achieving the inclusive growth that has eluded us.

Over the years, the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) has been trying to generate relevant and timely statistics and indicators on poverty and governance. Statistically Speaking has devoted many articles on these topics3. In fact, the NSCB has been invited to speak and present papers on poverty and governance in various fora. We are glad that public appreciation for statistics has increased; more importantly, we are inspired by the enhanced appreciation for and understanding of statistics by our political leaders, including LGU executives.4

The NSCB efforts to generate small area poverty statistics, specifically, to generate poverty statistics at the municipal and city levels, have been enthusiastically supported by the World Bank. The NSCB partnership with the World Bank (WB) started in 2003 during the time of Dr. Chorching Goh, a brilliant development officer in the Bank when we first had discussions on the possible technical assistance the Bank could extend to the Philippine Statistical System (PSS). Specifically, we discussed how the country’s poverty statistics5 could be further improved through the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) trust fund and the Poverty Mapping Project of the Bank, which China, Indonesia, and Thailand were implementing then. Our work on small area poverty statistics drew inspiring collaboration from Dr. Karl Kendrick Chua in 2004, when we undertook a WB-supported project on Poverty Mapping as well as the WB-ASEM supported projects on the Establishment of an Integrated Database on Poverty for the NSCB and the Improvement of Provincial Poverty Estimation Methodology thru the test of revealed preferences of provincial food bundles.

Thru Dr. Chua’s encouraging support, and the technical assistance of a number of consultants, the NSCB released the 2000 SAE estimates in 2005 and the 2003 SAE estimates in 2008. At present, we are working with the World Bank thru Ms. Rashiel Velarde and Ms. Shanna Rogan for the 2006 and 2009 SAE, with support from the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). In these efforts we benefited from the technical expertise of our consultants including Dr. Zita VJ. Albacea, Dr. Peter Lanjouw, Dr. Roy van der Weide, Dr. Stephen Haslett, Dr. Geoffrey Jones, Dr. Caridad Araujo, and Dr. Marissa Isidro, and researcher Mr. Arturo Martinez. We are also currently being assisted by researchers Mr. Joseph Albert Niño Bulan and Ms. Lei Isabel Domingo.

The 2009 SAE was compiled using an all local team6 and we released the 2009 SAE during a dissemination forum last 30 July 2012. The forum was attended by Dr. Arsenio Balisacan, Sec. Corazon Dinky Soliman, Ms. Shiel Velarde and Ms. Shanna Rogan of the World Bank, and Dr. Andrew Egan and Mr. Andrew Parker of AusAID.

We will now take a closer look at the SAE. Due to severe manpower constraints faced by the NSCB, we have not been able to finish the 2006 estimates. The NSCB prioritized the 2009 SAE to help the DSWD with its NHTS-PR. Thus, as of today, the NSCB has compiled the 2000, 2003, and 2009 SAE. The 2006 estimates are expected to be finished in December 2012. Some of the 2009 SAE results were presented during the dissemination forum; others will be presented during the Annual Conference of the Philippine Statistical Association to be held in Davao City this week.

Both the 2003 SAE and the 2009 SAE were generated using the World Bank-supported ELL (for Elbers, Lanjouw and Lanjouw) methodology but modified by the NSCB for intercensal years, which essentially models per capita household income based on variables compiled through surveys and censuses. For the 2009 SAE, data from the 2007 Census of Population (PopCen), the 2009 FIES, and the 2009 Labor Force Survey were used. For each household member in a municipality/city, the model-estimated household income is compared with the provincial poverty threshold estimated by the NSCB when the 2009 official provincial poverty statistics were compiled. For lack of more updated basis, the household composition and distribution in the municipality/city is assumed to follow that of the 2007 PopCen. Poverty incidence is expressed as proportion of the population of the municipality.

The 2003 and 2009 models are of course different (different sets of independent variables) but the approaches used in their formulation are similar. The 2003 models (the models were different for each region) were used to generate the 2003 SAE at the municipal and city levels. Similarly, the 2009 regional models7 were used to generate the 2009 SAE. Subject to these methodological features, we will look at the municipal and city SAE for 2003 and 2009 and assess which municipalities and cities may have achieved meaningful progress in poverty reduction.

Using the 2009 SAE, we grouped the 1,643 municipalities and cities8 into three clusters: Cluster 1, to comprise the poorest municipalities/cities, Cluster 2, the middle group, and Cluster 3, the least poor municipalities/cities.

POVERTY CLUSTERING OF MUNICIPALITIES/CITIES IN 2009

Of the 1,643 municipalities and cities, 473 or 29 percent belonged to Cluster 1, 621 or 38 percent belonged to Cluster 2, and 549 or 33 percent belonged to Cluster 3.

Among the municipalities, 31 percent belonged to Cluster 1, 39 percent to Cluster 2, and 30 percent to Cluster 3.

Among the cities, 3 percent (5 cities) belonged to Cluster 1, 32 percent to Cluster 2, and 65 percent to Cluster 3. (Table 1)

POOREST AND LEAST POOR MUNICIPALITIES/CITIES IN 2009, NATIONALLY

In 2009, the poorest municipality in the country was Siayan in the province of Zamboanga del Norte where 80 out of 100 individuals were poor compared to the national count of 26 to 27 out of 100 individuals, and which was also the poorest in 2003. Other municipalities among the ten poorest were Bucloc in Abra, Baliguian, Godod, and Gutalac in Zamboanga del Norte, Jose Abad Santos (Trinidad) and Sarangani in Davao del Sur, Pandag in Maguindanao, Tagoloan in Lanao del Norte, and Mabuhay in Zamboanga Sibugay. Jose Abad Santos and Godod were also among the ten poorest in 2003. (Table 2a)

The poorest city in 2009 was Gingoog City in Misamis Oriental where 49 out of 100 individuals were poor, and which was the 7th poorest city in 2003. Also among the poorest cities in 2009 were Bayugan in Agusan del Sur, Sipalay City and Kabankalan City in Negros Occidental, Guihulngan City and Bayawan City in Negros Oriental, Tangub City in Misamis Occidental, Ligao City in Albay, Surigao City in Surigao del Norte and Dapitan City in Zamboanga del Norte. The poorest city in 2003, Calbayog City in Western Samar, is now 12th poorest. (Table 2b)

In 2009, the least poor municipality was San Pedro, Laguna, where only 2 out of 100 individuals were poor. In 2003, San Pedro was also least poor in 2003. Other least poor municipalities were Cainta, San Mateo, Morong, and Angono in Rizal, Los Baños, Biñan, Cabuyao and Santa Cruz in Laguna and Imus in Cavite. All were also among the 10 least poor in 2003, except for Biñan, which was 11th and Santa Cruz, which was 35th least poor. (Table 2a)

The least poor city/district in 2009 was Binondo, Manila where only 1 out of 100 individuals was poor, and retaining its position as least poor in 2003. Other least poor cities/district in 2009 were Sampaloc, San Miguel, Ermita, Santa Cruz, and Malate in the first district of NCR (Manila), Makati City and Pasay City in the 4th district of NCR, San Juan in the 2nd district of NCR and Santa Rosa City in Laguna. Sampaloc, Makati City, San Juan, Ermita, and Santa Rosa were also among the 10 least poor cities/districts in 2003. (Table 2b)

POOREST AND LEAST POOR MUNICIPALITIES/CITIES IN 2009, BY REGION

By region, the poorest municipalities/cities were Port Area, First District in NCR, Bucloc, Abra in CAR, Sugpon, Ilocos Sur in Region I, Amulung, Cagayan in Region II, Talugtug, Nueva Ecija in Region III, San Franciscio (Aurora), Quezon in Region IV-A, Bulalacao, Oriental Mindoro in Region IV-B, Garchitorena, Camarines Sur in Region V, Madalag, Aklan in Region VI, Pilar, Bohol in Region VII, Silvino Lobos, Northern Samar in Region VIII, Siayan, Zamboanga del Norte in Region IX, Tagoloan, Lanao del Norte in Region X, Jose Abad Santos (Trinidad), Davao del Sur in Region XI, Palimbang ,Sultan Kudarat in Region XII, Pandag, Maguindano in ARMM, and La Paz, Agusan del Sur in Caraga. Port Area, San Francisco, Madalag, Siayan, and Jose Abad Santos were also the poorest municipalities/cities in their respective regions in 2003. (Table 3)

By region, the least poor municipalities/cities were Binondo, First District in NCR, Baguio City, Benguet in CAR, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte in Region I, Basco, Batanes in Region II, Marilao, Bulacan in Region III, San Pedro, Laguna in Region IV-A, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan in Region IV-B, Daet, Camarines Norte in Region V, Iloilo City, Iloilo in Region VI, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental in Region VII, Tacloban City, Leyte in Region VIII, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur in Region IX, Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental in Region X, Davao City, Davao del Sur in Region XI, Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat in Region XII, Marantao, Lanao del Sur in ARMM, and Cantilan, Surigao del Sur in Caraga. Binondo, Baguio City, San Pedro, Tacloban City, Cagayan de Oro City, and Davao City were also the least poor municipalities/cities in their respective regions in 2003. (Table 3)

It may be noted that not all least poor areas in the regions are cities; six exceptions are Basco in Batanes, Marilao in Bulacan, San Pedro in Laguna, Daet in Camarines Norte, Marantao in Lanao del Sur and Cantilan in Surigao del Sur. Mayors should be encouraged to visit these places to learn best practices on governance.

Using the 2003/2009 SAE, we also looked at the 1,622 municipalities and cities9 to assess whether the poverty change from 2003 to 200910 had been a statistically significant reduction, or had been a statistically significant increase, or had not been statistically significant at all.

CHANGE IN MUNICIPAL/CITY LEVEL POVERTY FROM 2003 TO 2009

Between 2003 and 2009, there was no statistically significant change in the poverty situation of 994 or 61 percent of the municipalities/cities; there was a significant increase in the poverty incidence in 135 or 8 percent of the municipalities/cities; and there was a significant reduction in the poverty incidence of only 493 or 31 percent of the municipalities/cities.

Separately for the municipalities, there was no significant change for 60 percent of the municipalities, significant deterioration for 8 percent, and significant improvement for 32 percent of the municipalities.

For the cities, 70 percent have no significant change, 9 percent have significant deterioration and 21 percent have significant reduction in poverty. (Table 4)

MUNICIPALITIES/CITIES WITH THE HIGHEST POVERTY REDUCTION
FROM 2003 TO 2009

Nationally, the municipality with the highest reduction in poverty from 2003 to 2009 was Linapacan in Palawan where the number of poor individuals per 100 was reduced by 58, compared with an increase of less than 1 per 100 individuals at the national level; others which succeeded the most in reducing poverty were the municipalities of Tanudan, Tinglayan and Pasil in Kalinga, Bagulin and Santol in La Union, Busuanga, San Vicente and Magsaysay in Palawan and Ambaguio in Nueva Vizcaya. (Table 5)

Among the cities, the highest reduction in poverty from 2003 to 2009 was achieved in Calbayog City in Samar with a reduction of 28 poor individuals per 100; other cities that achieved the highest reduction in poverty are Catbalogan also in Samar, Tayabas in Quezon, Passi City in Iloilo, Bayawan City in Negros Oriental, Tangub City in Misamis Occidental, Isabela City, Island Garden City of Samal in Davao del Norte, Masbate City in Masbate and Tabuk City in Kalinga. (Table 5)

TOP MUNICIPALITIES/CITIES IN POVERTY REDUCTION FROM 2003 TO 2009, BY REGION

By region, the municipalities with the biggest reduction in poverty from 2003 to 200911 were Tanudan, Kalinga in CAR, in Bagulin, La Union in Region I, Ambaguio, Nueva Vizcaya in Region II, Don Remedios Trinidad, Bulacan in Region III, Padre Burgos, Quezon in Region IV-A, Linapacan, Palawan in Region IV-B, Cawayan, Masbate in Region V, Maasin, Iloilo in Region VI, Santa Catalina, Negros Oriental in Region VII, Santa Rita, Western Samar in Region VIII, Midsalip, Zamboanga del Sur in Region IX, Baliangao, Misamis Occidental in Region X, Kapalong, Davao del Norte in Region XI, Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat in Region XII, Pualas, Lanao del Sur in ARMM, and Lanuza, Surigao del Sur in Caraga.(Table 6)

By region, the cities/districts with the biggest reduction in poverty from 2003 to 200911 were Tondo in the City of Manila in NCR, Tabuk City, Kalinga in CAR, Batac, Ilocos Norte in Region I, Cauayan City, Isabela in Region II, Palayan City, Nueva Ecija in Region III, Tayabas, Quezon in Region IV-A, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan in Region IV-B, Masbate City, Masbate in Region V, Passi City, Iloilo in Region VI, Bayawan City, Negros Oriental in Region VII, Calbayog City, Western Samar in Region VIII, Isabela City, Isabela City in Region IX, Tangub City, Misamis Occidental in Region X, Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte in Region XI, and Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte in Caraga.(Table 6)

The above municipalities and cities are places that mayors should likewise be encouraged to visit on top of their tours to Boracay, the Chocolate Hills in Bohol, and the Puerto Princesa Underground River. Maybe, our Department of Tourism should target and promote these places as fun places for tourists! Governance tourism, Why not?

POVERTY CHALLENGE

Surely, there have been positive changes somewhere. But clearly, the overall change in the poverty situation of the municipalities and cities in the country over a span of six years is not something we can be happy about. In fact, between 2006 and 2009, while the pace of progress in achieving our Millennium Development Goal (MDG) to halve poverty by 2015 has remained at Medium, it went down from 0.65 in 2006 to 0.53 in 2009!12 Is this the result of possibly our distorted priorities and aspirations, or of failure of governance? Whatever, it urgently calls for innovative ideas from our municipal and city mayors. The Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) program of the national government certainly is a move in this direction but the LGU executives, individually and in the collective, must do their share.

Does it pay to be a city? We had wanted to assess whether the cities were doing better than the municipalities in terms of poverty reduction; unfortunately, we did not finish the computations for this article.

The NSCB is an institution that is dying to produce relevant and sexy statistics needed to achieve better development outcomes. But it needs resources, especially manpower resources. And while appreciation for statistics has increased over time, this has not been matched by a corresponding increase in the political will of government to invest in statistics. We thus reiterate our call to walk our talk if we want to empower our municipalities and cities to make them participate in and benefit from inclusive and sustainable growth. We seem to be given another chance to live up to the world expectation on the emergence after BRIC of TIP and the N11 that Prof. Solita “Mareng Winnie” Monsod13 had written about. Let us not squander once again this opportunity.

Speaking of municipalities, did you read about local governments in Russia draining the water from their municipal fountains to keep drunken paratroopers from drowning in them during their Paratrooper Day (last Aug 2)? To celebrate the occasion, soldiers consume large quantities of vodka then plunge into fountains! They may have not drowned but they could have broken their skull! Hmmph!

The past two weeks, we watched the Summer Olympics unfold in London. As may have not been unexpected, our athletes did not break our medal drought since 1996 when Mansueto “Onyok” Velasco, Jr. got a silver medal in boxing. But surely, our athletes did their best and they deserve our continuing support. One man stood out tall, tan, and handsome during those two weeks! Michael Fred Phelps II, the American swimmer who was declared by the swimming body Federation Internationale de Natation (FINA) as the most successful Olympian of all time. Michael has won 22 Olympic medals, 18 of which are gold14. Congratulations Michael, and thank you for inspiring many of our young men and women to dream and to pursue their dreams. –Dr. Romulo A. Virola,http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2012/081312_rav_sae.asp

Reactions and views are welcome thru email to the author at ravirola@yahoo.com