P I DEVELOPMENT D S RESEARCH NEWS · 2011-02-24 · Editor's Notes Vol. XXVIII No.5 September - October 2010 ISSN 0115-9097 PHILIPP I NE INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Surian sa

Editor's Notes

Vol. XXVIII No.5 September - October 2010 ISSN 0115-9097

P H I L I P P I N E

I N S T I T U T E F O R

D E V E L O P M E N T

S T U D I E S

Surian sa mga Pag-aaral Pangkaunlaran ng Pi l ip inas

DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENTRESEARCH NEWSRESEARCH NEWSRESEARCH NEWSRESEARCH NEWSRESEARCH NEWS

Research plays a major role in the crafting andimplementation of government’s poverty reduc-tion programs. As such, this year’s celebra-tion of the Development Policy Research Month(DPRM) highlights the role of research in solv-ing poverty with the theme “Pananaliksik atTalakayan tungo sa Pag-ahon mula saKahirapan.”

Eradicating, or at the least, reducing poverty,faces many challenges including institutionaldifficulties. In a similar vein, the Philippine In-stitute for Development Studies (PIDS), beingat the forefront of policy research on povertyand other development issues, likewise facesvarious institutional challenges in the perfor-mance of its mandate. In this regard, we thinkthat it is apt and timely to feature a very insight-ful, thought-provoking, and challenging piecedelivered by one of the country's top social sci-entists on the need to have a strategic think-ing and research-based policy interventionsfor the country and reflecting on how PIDS fitsin in this vision.

The inside features in this issue also tacklepoverty reduction and what are needed to pushprograms that would lift Filipino people, espe-cially the poor children, out of the quagmirethat is poverty.

It is an honor to share my thoughts with colleagues in the PhilippineInstitute for Development Studies (PIDS), many of whose works I be-came aware of and read long before I connected their faces to their

names.

When PIDS President Dr. Josef Yap asked me to give an inspirational talk toclose the celebration of the 8th Development Policy Research Month in lieuof Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Chair Patricia “Tatie”Licuanan and National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA)Director-General Cayetano “Dondon” Paderanga, my blink reaction was—Iam in no position to inspire Fellows whose very act of deepening our under-standing of key development issues, whether through their PIDS researchor their consultancies, is admirable, inspiring, and enviable from the van-tage point of a university-based researcher who is pulled by multiple dutiesin different directions. I immediately offered to convince Chair Tatie to givethe inspirational talk in the event her schedule for today had changed. Butshe remains unavailable.

Instead of inspiring you, let me develop within the next fifteen minutes theview that PIDS is in an excellent position at this time to perform four criticalfunctions:

Reflections on PIDSand its institutionalchallenges at thishistorical juncture

Maria Cynthia Rose Bautista1

1 Speech delivered during the Thanksgiving and Loyalty Awarding Ceremony in celebration of PIDS' 33rd Anniversary held onSeptember 30, 2010 at the NEDA sa Makati Building, Makati City. Dr. Bautista is a member of the PIDS Board of Trustees andProfessor of Sociology and former Dean of the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy at the University of the Philippines (UP).Except for minor edits, this writeup basically remains faithful to her speech.

7 Filipino children suffer from multipledimensions of poverty

12 8th DPRM tackles poverty reduction

18 Research-based programs needed to achieveMDG goal on poverty reduction

19 PIDS launches "A review of build-operate-transfer for infrastructure development" book

What's Inside

DRN

DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH NEWS September - October 20102

• help the country think strategicallyin areas where it has a strong trackrecord and where it is the only insti-tution capable of delivering the rel-evant analyses;

• lead in fleshing out a development-oriented research agenda in otherstrategic areas of policymaking—that it has no in-house expertise inor will not develop expertise in—byserving as a working hub of a net-work of university-based develop-ment- or policy-oriented research in-stitutions and private think tanks;

• participate in regional policy discus-sions through its involvement innetworks of Asian think tanks; and

• clarify and evaluate policy optionsby convening public hearings onpolicy questions involving variousstakeholders.

With the exception of the conduct of publichearings, these functions are not entirelynew to PIDS, although some of them go be-yond the current operationalization of theInstitute’s mandate.

For instance, PIDS is already contributingmuch-needed policy analysis in specific ar-eas, mostly economic, and, for several yearsnow, has laid the groundwork for establish-ing a network of development and policyresearch institutions that convene each year

to celebrate the Development Policy Re-search Month (DPRM). Many of these insti-tutions are part of the Philippine APECStudy Center Network (PASCN) that PIDSoversees.

The Institute has also begun discussions onhow to more systematically tap into the intel-lectual resources of its partners as well asenhance their capacity for data analysis andpolicy research, paving the way for futurecollaborative research. In addition, it is partof the interagency secretariat of the SpecialCommittee to Review the Philippine Statis-tical System. PIDS is also the secretariat ofboth the Human Development Network andthe East Asia Development Network and isactive in the Network of East Asian ThinkTanks.

My reflections are organized into two parts;the first expounds on why, to my mind, thecalling, or if you must, the onus of responsi-bility to help the country think strategicallyin its areas of expertise as well as in otherpriority areas of development work andpolicymaking, falls squarely on PIDS at thisjuncture. The second part shares initialthoughts on some of the challenges associ-ated with this responsibility.

The value of PIDS as a research institutionfor public policy is bolstered by the global-ization-induced changes in universitiesworldwide that have set limits on thecountry’s university-based development- orpolicy-oriented research institutions. Thefact that very few private think tanks exist inthe Philippines today further reinforces thesignificance of PIDS. Let me explain what Imean.

Once upon a time, the presidents of theUniversity of the Philippines (UP), startingwith Senator Edgardo Angara, dreamt of asystem-wide policy research unit that couldmobilize the multidisciplinary expertise ofthe university in addressing issues of nationalsignificance.

Operationally, this meant: (1) organizingmultidisciplinary communities of scholarsfor research on areas of national and localpolicy concern and nurturing their sus-tained commitment to build the necessary

"The fact that very few private think tanks exist in the Philippines todayfurther reinforces the significance of PIDS." (Photo: Mario C. Feranil)

DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH NEWS 3 September - October 2010

expertise in their areas of specialization,much like the way the PIDS Fellows havedeveloped their expertise; (2) developingthink tanks enlightened by different per-spectives on the issues at hand in areaswhere the University has a cutting edge; and3) ensuring the dissemination of researchfindings through publications and theirtranslation into policy.

Laying the groundwork to achieve the long-term mission of the University’s policy cen-ter entailed a three-pronged strategy:2

• setting a track record that wouldenhance its reputation and make itvisible to experts within and outsidethe University;

• convene core fellows to develop re-search agenda and programs in stra-tegic policy areas; and

• establish linkages with policymakersand other sectors through collabora-tive research, forums, meetings, etc.

On hindsight, the Center aspired to be ahybrid policy research institution, aiming tocombine key features of several known insti-tutions, including PIDS, and the Ateneo deManila’s Institute of Philippine Culture(IPC). From the Marcos-created PhilippineCenter for Advanced Studies (PCAS), theCenter learned the importance of strategicthinking especially in key program areassuch as archipelagic studies and educationresearch.

In the case of the Marine Affairs Programthat morphed into Archipelagic Studies, forinstance, the Center had hoped to facilitatewith partners in academe, government, andthe private sector, a wide range of activitiesof strategic value that include drawing upthe country’s baseline map in anticipationof the implementation of the Law of the Seas;responding to burning issues such as theconflict over the Spratlys; developing trans-portation policies that are water- rather thanland-based; and conserving marine re-sources.

The Education Research Program, on theother hand, addressed itself strategically tothe issues confronting the country’s educa-tional system, advocating alternative learning,decentralization, and school-based manage-ment in the early 1990s even before theseconcepts were in vogue.

What the Center wanted to preserve whichPCAS did not seem to enjoy was indepen-dence from power wielders. It wanted to berelevant and therefore linked to key politi-cal players but independent enough to with-stand demands that would detract it from itskey mission.

From PIDS and IPC, the Center learned twothings. One, the importance of differentkinds of publications—policy papers, jour-nals, books—and various forums which madetheir work accessible to the public; and two,the need for a system of core fellows, whodevote much of their time developing theirexpertise.

We envied the full-time research fellows ofthese institutions because we felt that a coreof such fellows—whether directly employedby the Center or seconded by their units fora period of time—was the way to go. Interest-ingly, Center programs with full-time academ-ics moved faster toward more strategic re-search, some of them in consultation or part-nership with stakeholders.

Where we thought the Center differed fromPIDS was in the wider range of programs andperspectives in terms of (1) geographic focus,i.e., from international studies (globalization,European studies, etc.) to local regional stud-ies (Cordillera studies, Manila studies,Mindanao studies); (2) thematic focus, i.e.,from urban concerns to agricultural modern-ization, biodiversity conservation to industrystudies; and (3) theoretical/methodologicalperspectives from neoclassical economics tostructuralist and poststructuralist developmenttheories, including participatory models.

From Singapore’s Institute of SoutheastAsian Studies (ISEAS), we picked up theidea of providing space for a few individualfellows to pursue research, a precursor of aneminent fellows program that is now a majorthrust of the Center, thanks to Sen. Angara’s

2 The discussion of the University’s policy research center,the UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies, isdrawn from a report by the same author published in the UPPresident’s End-of-Term Report, 1993–1999. Volume on Re-search, Publications, and Creative Work, pp. 3–158.


funding support that enables it to give a grantof P500,000 for senior fellows to pursue stra-tegic policy research.

The original idea we picked up from ISEASwas open as well to housing fellows without abig grant although as far as I can recall, theonly ones the Center ever housed were jour-nalists Amando Doronila and Marites Vitugwhen they were writing their respectivebooks. It did not have the benefit of havingsomeone like PIDS’ Jess Dumagan with “ma-jor major aha moments” in solving seeminglyunsolvable mathematical problems while af-filiated with the Institute.

Program- and agenda-driven, the Centernevertheless opened spaces for individualprojects by UP faculty selected on the basisof an open call for proposals. This was meantto check inbreeding among the core fellowsand to cast the net wide for superior or out-of-the-box ideas that they may not havethought of.

The continuing evolution of the Center to-ward a full-fledged policy research unit, withprograms in strategic areas that can be con-strued as “think tanks,” has been con-strained, however, by external developments.These developments have also affected otheruniversity-based research programs/centerswith an excellent track record of combiningpurely academic research with developmentor policy-oriented studies.

So palpable are the changes in the life ofvarious social science research centers in thecountry over the last two decades that thedirector of Ateneo’s Development Studiesprogram is now completing a dissertation thatsituates these changes theoretically in thedifferentiation of universities in response totheir environment, which now includes thechallenges of globalization.

Let me cite some of the factors that have setlimits on university-based development-ori-

ented research units in general, and policyresearch units, in particular.

• Changes in the global valuation sys-tem of higher education (given therankings game) and the changingpriorities of universities.

Globalization is changing higher educationall over the world in profound ways. In oursynthesis of the UP system-wide conferenceon the challenge of being a national univer-sity in May 2009, we cited a World Bank re-port on the establishment of world-class uni-versities3 claiming that with globalization,“countries are no longer comfortable withdeveloping their tertiary education systemsto serve local or national communities. In-stead, global comparison indicators havegained significance in the local developmentof universities.”

They are now ranked and compared witheach other on the basis of internationallyaccepted standards in which research andpublications in indexed journals figureprominently. Underlying the preoccupationwith university rankings and academic/disciplinal research is the general recogni-tion that universities play a key role in pro-ducing the knowledge drivers of economicgrowth and global competitiveness.

In the context of globalization and therankings game, the value of extension workand applied development/policy researchhas diminished considerably vis-à-vis aca-demic research in the upward mobility of thefaculty. This is not to say, however, that uni-versities do not grapple with the competingdemands of global competitiveness and pub-lic service.

3 Lin, J. 2009. Foreword to J. Salmi. The Challenge of Estab-lishing World-Class Universities, Executive Summary. TheWorld Bank as cited in M.C.R. Bautista. 2009. Being aNational University in a Global Context: Synthesis of theUniversity of the Philippines System Conference. UP ForumJuly-August 10(4).

"In the context of globalization and the rankings game, the value of extension work and applieddevelopment/policy research has diminished considerably vis-à-vis academic research in the upwardmobility of the faculty. This is not to say, however, that universities do not grapple with the competingdemands of global competitiveness and public service."


The tension is reflected in a continuum ofviews on how the University of the Philip-pines can best serve the nation, at the ex-treme of which are two ideal typical posi-tions:4 (1) UP serves “the Filipino public bestby aiming to be one of the finest universitiesin Asia and the world. Its primary task, there-fore, is to be at par with other universities byachieving excellent research and research-based teaching that the Filipino public ex-pects of its national university.” Direct andindirect service to UP’s multiple publicsfrom this viewpoint would thus be limited towhat the units are already doing or can do;versus (2) UP serves the Filipino public bestnot only by performing its traditional func-tions, i.e., teaching and research, well butalso by walking extra miles to help addresssocial problems through much-needed ini-tiatives, from clarifying public issues and pro-viding policy options all the way to filling insome of the gaps that other agencies anddevelopment nongovernment organizations(NGOs) are unable to fill because of the lim-its of their institutional development.

• Changes, too, in the priorities of thetraditional donor agencies (e.g., theFord Foundation) that have providedthe external funds for research—from academic research, to researchwith policy implications, to participa-tory development research, and, fi-nally, to funding the higher educationof the marginalized and other priori-ties;

• Increasing difficulties in obtaining in-stitutional research grants, particu-larly in the social sciences, leaving in-dividual or institutional consultanciesas a means to tangentially supportagenda-based research; and

• The devolution of policy-oriented re-search to the units where they prop-erly belong. This has augured well forunits with experts who appreciatepolicy research and who can balancedevelopment-oriented concerns withmeeting academic demands (e.g.,publications in indexed journals) but

could spell the end of development-oriented or policy research for others.

What about the private think tanks? Howmany do we really have? The few we are fa-miliar with are focused on very specificthemes. Moreover, some of them rely on uni-versity-based faculty for the conduct of theirstudies and are thus subjected to the samelimitations as university-based research cen-ters, e.g., part-time researchers with signifi-cant teaching loads.

In light of the constraints to university-basedpolicy research, the small number of privatethink tanks, and the country’s urgent needfor strategic thinking and research-basedinterventions, PIDS to my mind remains themost consistent policy research institutionwith a sustained track record. I dare say thisdespite the irony of it being in the long listof government-owned and -controlled cor-porations (GOCCs) for probable closure.

Through the years, PIDS has consistentlyproduced various publications and policynotes that are now accessed by a wide rangeof users. It continues to command the re-spect of the academic and development com-munities and is thus in a good position tomobilize the multidisciplinary expertise ofuniversity-based research units and privatethink tanks for priority research beyond the

4 Bautista, M.C.R. 2010. Synthesis: The University of the Phil-ippines, The University for our People in UP: A Public ServiceUniversity. pp 39–51. The positions cited are in page 48.

Through the years, PIDS has consistently produced various publications and policynotes that are now accessed by a wide range of users. (PIDS Stock Photo)


With regards to this balancing act, I was askedby the Philippine Social Science Council(PSSC) many years ago to reflect on the de-velopment of the social sciences in the Phil-ippines. I remember saying then that eco-nomics in the country is different from theother social sciences not only because it hasa hegemonic paradigm in neoclassical eco-nomics, but also because this paradigm,based on the premise of the rational actor—which is interestingly being nuanced by de-velopments in the neurosciences and behav-ioral experiments—seems able to explainanything theoretically, from the workings ofthe economy to marriage and family life.

Since the paradigm is hegemonic, I alsonoted that there is very little incentive foreconomists to work with other social scien-tists on a common research. They can worktogether as long as each one focuses on dif-ferent topics under an umbrella project orthe other social scientists operate within therational actor model. My article concludedthat it is difficult for economists to engage inmultidisciplinary research and almost impos-sible for them to be part of interdisciplinaryresearch, an observation that seemed to haveprompted its reprinting in the PhilippineReview of Economics.

What are among the fundamental differ-ences in approaches between economistsand the “other social scientists,” notwith-standing the engagement of political scien-tists, mostly in the West, in game theoreticstudies that assume a rational actor? Part ofour difference may be traced to the episte-mological roots of our disciplines—rational-ism for economics and empiricism for therest of us. This translates to a difference inapproach. Where economists tend to benormative in their formulations, the othersocial scientists tend to look at actual prac-tices on the ground, albeit from lenses thathave varied theoretical premises. Policies,from such an approach, ought to be enlight-ened by how things actually work, apart fromhow they should work given the theory.

I am reminded of an anecdote about econo-mists and sociologists that NEDA Dir. Gen.

areas of work of its fellows. It is also in thebest position to conduct the second tier orshorter-term research needed to facilitatestakeholder discussions and public debateson policy options, if it chooses to follow theAustralian model that it has been studyingof late.

In the interest of time, let me just enumer-ate some of the challenges facing the Insti-tute today from an outsider’s viewpoint.These challenges, which are mostly balanc-ing acts given the little I know of PIDS at thistime, hold as well for university-based re-search units albeit to a lesser extent:

• balancing research support for stra-tegic thinking in government andthe need for relative independencefrom the whims of politicians. This,I think, is harder to do for PIDS thanthe university-based research unitswhich seem to be more shieldedfrom political interventions and de-mands;

• balancing the priorities of NEDAand other relevant agencies andthose of PIDS itself and the donor-supported research networks ofwhich it is a part. Perhaps a ques-tion that PIDS needs to reflect uponis its role in strategic planning vis-à-vis NEDA. Is it the research arm ofNEDA for developing strategicpolicy options? A relatively autono-mous partner that balances strate-gic studies for NEDA with its ownagenda? Or an autonomous unitlike a university research center withno teaching assignment?

• balancing the PIDS research of theFellows and their consultancies—which arguably hone the Fellows’expertise and augment limited gov-ernment salaries but may neverthe-less tend to compete with priorityresearch—a university issue as well;and

• balancing economic studies donepurely within the framework of neo-classical economics andmultidisciplinary research sincePIDS has ‘development studies’ inits nomenclature.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Continued on page 20


Filipino children sufferfrom multiple dimensions of poverty

In the Philippines, poor Filipino childrenexperience not only income deprivation.They are also deprived of food, access to

basic healthcare services, shelter, education,water and sanitation, and protection fromvarious forms of abuses.

This was highlighted in the launching of therecently published book on “Global Studyon Child Poverty and Disparities: The Caseof the Philippines” held at the Carlos P.Romulo Hall of the NEDA Building inMakati City on September 16, 2010.

The study, commissioned by the United Na-tions Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and un-dertaken by the Philippine Institute for De-velopment Studies (PIDS), revealed that “44percent of all Filipino children below 15years of age are living in poverty, equal to12.8 million children under the age of 15.”

UNICEF Country Representative VanessaTobin said that it is still a long way to go to liftmillions of children out of poverty. As such,she stressed that “we must do more and en-sure that those who live under the bridges,or along the rivers, or far-flung areas, mustnot be left out.”

PIDS President Dr. Josef T. Yap, on the otherhand, reiterated that “because children aremost vulnerable, meeting their needs andhelping them achieve their full potential ispromoting human development and invest-ing in humankind.”

The study, which is part of a global undertak-ing to promote a deeper understanding ofchild poverty and disparities, likewise aimsto get the attention of all stakeholders andduty bearers, according to Dr. AugustoRodriguez, Social Policy Specialist atUNICEF-Philippines, as the study tries torecognize the emerging risks and new de-velopment opportunities in terms of uplift-ing the condition of children. Thus, in theexchange of experiences both in the re-

Philippine Institute for Development Studies President Dr. Josef T. Yap, in hisopening remarks during the launch of the "Global Study on Child Poverty andDisparities: The Case of the Philippines," said that because children are mostvulnerable, helping them achieve their full potential is promoting human devel-opment and investing in humankind. (Photo: Maria Gizelle G. Manuel)


gional and global areas, the UN, particularlyUNICEF’s, contribution to development dis-course is reinforced.

Highlighted in the book launch are two chap-ters of the book: (a) Section Two: Poverty andChildren by PIDS Senior Research FellowDr. Celia M. Reyes and PIDS Research Asso-ciate Aubrey D. Tabuga; and (b) SectionThree: Pillars of Child Well-being by PIDSSenior Research Fellows Dr. Aniceto C.Orbeta and Dr. Rouselle F. Lavado and PIDSResearch Associates Michael R. Cabalfin andJanet S. Cuenca.

Poverty and childrenIn general, poverty incidence has risen to32.9 percent in 2006, up by 2.9 percentagepoints from 30 percent in 2003. The samescenario is shared among children in thePhilippines with poverty rate reaching 43.9percent from 40.2 percent in the same pe-riod. These numbers translate to an increaseof approximately 1 million poor children.

The study estimated that from the 27. 6 mil-lion poor individuals in 2006, 12.8 millionor 47 percent are children 15 years old andbelow. Out of this number, about 9 millionare found in the rural areas.

Income poverty rates greatly differ across vari-ous regions in the country as well, with theglaring example shown in the poverty rate of69.3 percent in the Autonomous Region inMuslim Mindanao (ARMM) versus 15.8 per-cent in the National Capital Region (NCR).

The other faces of povertyAside from being income poor, children alsosuffer from deprivations that hinder boththeir physical health and overall well-being.One of which is food deprivation measuredthrough the use of data on malnutrition.While data show that from 1998 to 2005, mal-nutrition among children aged 0–5 years oldhave declined, the rate rose again to 26.2 in2008 from the previous 24.6 percent in 2005.In 2008, the rates of underweight and thinchildren also increased (Table 1).

Filipino children living in houses made ofmakeshift materials are considered deprivedof shelter. Children in this state have beenslightly increasing in rate and magnitude inrecent years. Metro Manila has the largestnumber (around 78,000) and percentage ofchildren (2.2%) without decent shelter. Se-vere deprivation of shelter is also found inCotabato City and Maguindanao.

Meanwhile, the number of children who areinformal settlers has doubled from 1985 to2006 and the percentage of children in in-formal settlements has been rising from 3.7percent in 2000 to 4.2 percent in 2006.

In 2006, a total of 8.6 million children suf-fered from deprivation of sanitation facili-ties in varying degrees, with 3.4 millionamong them having no access at all to a toiletfacility of any kind, thereby suffering fromsevere sanitation deprivation.

There have been marked improvements interms of access to water, though. The pro-portion of children suffering from severedeprivation of water has been declining. Still,water remains a concern in regions likeARMM and the Zamboanga Peninsula where34 and 21 percent of children, respectively,are severely deprived of water.

Education is another dimension of povertywith serious implications to the long-termwelfare of Filipino children. In 2002, therewere about 1.8 million children aged 6–16years old who did not attend school. By 2007,this figure has gone up to 2.2 million. Thesechildren cited lack of personal interest andhigh cost of education as the main reasonsfor not attending school. To add, net enrol-

Source: Food and Nutrition Research Institute

Table 1. Prevalence of underweight, underheight, thin, and overweight children0–5 years old, Philippines, 1989–2008 (in %)

Year1989–1990

1992

19931996

1998

20012003

2005

2008

Underweight34.5

34.0

29.930.8

32.0

30.626.9

24.6

26.2

Underheight39.9

36.8

34.334.5

34.0

31.429.9

26.3

27.9

Thinness5.0

6.6

6.75.2

6.0

6.35.3

4.8

6.1

Overweight-for-age0.6

0.7

0.40.5

0.4

1.01.4

2.0

2.0


ment has declined from 90.3 percent in 2002to 84.8 percent in 2007. The lowest enrol-ment rate occurs in Western Visayas.

On the whole, while there has been progressin the past years in improving the plight ofthe poor, particularly the children, the factstill remains that more children are currentlyexperiencing multiple deprivations. In2006, an estimated 855,000 children expe-rienced two or more deprivations. Moreover,17,000 children experienced simultaneousdeprivation in shelter, sanitation, and water.

Pillars of child well-beingAside from poverty, there are other facets ofdeprivation that Filipino children, particu-larly the poor, experience in different sever-ity across the regions in the country. Theseinterrelated facets of child deprivation aremade up of five counterpoints or what iscalled the pillars of child well-being. Thefirst four are nutrition, health, child protec-tion, and education that cover the core mini-mum elements of a child’s well-being pro-tected in the Convention on the Rights ofthe Child (CRC). The fifth and the last, so-cial protection, is provided to the poor andvulnerable people in order for them to bet-ter manage and overcome risks such as eco-nomic recession, political instability, unem-ployment, disability, old age, sickness, sud-den death of a breadwinner, and drought,among others.

Malnutrition is one of the root causes of childmortality in the country. To address this, anumber of policies and programs, from in-fant feeding to micronutrient supplementa-tion, weight and height monitoring, amongothers, have been conducted by the govern-ment.

The Philippines has two main nationalplans for nutrition; the Plan of Action forNutrition (PPAN) 2005–2010 and the Ac-celerated Hunger Mitigation Plan(AHMP). PPAN aims to reduce thepercentage of households with foodintakes below the dietary requirement,reduce underweight, stunting, iron andVitamin A deficiencies among children,and help to address the prevalence of lowbirth weight.

On the other hand, the task of helping solvethe unavailability of food to eat rests in thehands of the AHMP. One of the major pro-grams initiated under the AHMP is the Food-for-School Program (FSP) wherein a dailyration of one kilo of rice is given to eligiblefamilies for every day that their children con-tinue to attend school. Another project is theTindahan Natin which sells rice and noodlesat subsidized price to poor families. Still an-other is the Gulayang Masa/Barangay FoodTerminal of the Department of Agriculture(DA) which endorses backyard gardening asalternative food sources.

In education, more boys drop out from schoolcompared to girls. One of the reasons citedis the need for the boys to look for employ-ment, specifically for those enrolled in thesecondary level estimated at 39.4 comparedto females with 24.8 percent. In theelementary level, 40.8 percent of male stu-dents cited lack of interest in attendingschool compared to 24.2 percent for fe-males. Other reasons mentioned areinability to cope with school work, illness/disability, schools that are too far from theirhomes, housekeeping, and no regulartransportation.

More boys drop out from school compared to girls. One of the reasons cited is theneed for the boys to look for employment, specifically for those enrolled in thesecondary level. (Photo: Richelle Quilatan-Omaña)


Students who have dropped out from schoolcame from families whose parents have noor low schooling. As such, education out-comes are seen as transmitted across gen-erations. The study thus recommends thatspecial attention should be given to boys toreduce their dropout rates. It is also impera-tive for the school-aged children to be keptlonger in school as a countermeasure totheir lack of interest in schooling.

Access to healthcare is generally expensivein the country. Richer households can alsobe affected by the high cost of treatment,medicines, and admissions to health facili-ties which may push them to poverty. Statis-tics from the study showed that the Philip-pines is still slow in curbing infant and childmortality that would have been prevented ifthere were access to essential services suchas adequate antenatal care, skilled atten-dance at delivery, basic and comprehensiveemergency obstetric and newborn care, post-natal and neonatal care, and integrated man-agement of neonatal and childhood ill-nesses.

It was suggested that for the part of the DOH,the agency must organize its funds to sup-port maternal, neonatal, child health, andnutrition programs. The local governmentunits (LGUs) should also give priority to

delivering programs of the DOH in the prov-inces. More importantly, the national govern-ment must ensure the health coverage of thepoorest of the poor through enrolment inthe Philippine Health Insurance Corpora-tion (PhilHealth).

The Philippines is the 31st nation to ratifythe United Nations Convention on theRights of the Child (CRC) which upholdsthe rights for survival, protection, develop-ment, and participation of children. Theright to be registered upon birth is one ofthe issues that confront many Filipino chil-dren particularly those who are born by Mus-lim and indigenous parents. Out of the 2.6million unregistered children in the coun-try, 70 percent of them are found in ARMM,Eastern Visayas, Central Mindanao, WesternMindanao, and Southern Mindanao. Thereasons cited were cost of birth registrationand lack of access to it particularly for par-ents residing in remote areas. Anotheremerging issue is the increasing number ofchildren of overseas Filipino workers(OFWs) born abroad who are left unregis-tered.

Because of malnutrition and unsanitary con-ditions due to extreme poverty, many poorFilipino children suffer from disabilities.The study showed that 20 percent of approxi-mately 200,000 Filipinos with disabilities arechildren. This highlights the crucial needfor immunization, vitamin supplementation,iodized salt usage, nutrition education, pre-natal and postnatal care, and newbornscreening for early detection of possible dis-abilities.

With regard to street children in the coun-try, there are about 246,011 street children,i.e., 3 percent of the population aged 0–17years old. Around 20 percent of them areidentified to be “highly visible on the streets.”According to a previous study conducted bythe De La Salle University’s Social Develop-ment Research Center, the highly visiblechildren on the streets are those who stay onthe streets and public areas at least four hoursdaily to engage in varied activities such asplaying with friends and earning a living.These street children comprise the “targetedpriority group,” which needs primary atten-

There is crucial need to step up programs on immunization, vitamin supplementa-tion, iodized salt usage, nutrition education, prenatal and postnatal care, andnewborn screening. (Photo: Diana A. Salterio)


tion due to the risks and hazards involved instaying most of the time on the streets with-out adult supervision. Notably, Metro Manilahas the highest number of street children at11,346.

Meanwhile, the study mentioned that, basedon the 2009 Situationer on Filipino Chidrenprepared by the Council for the Welfare ofChildren (CWC), children in conflict withthe law (CICL) are usually males, aged 14–17 years old, have stopped schooling, andwith low educational attainment. They nor-mally belong to a large, low-earning family ofsix members. Also, they are typically users ofalcohol and drugs, and they are usuallycharged with property-related crimes.

The NCR has the highest property-relatedcrime committed by CICL while ARMM hasthe lowest incidence of crimes against prop-erty (robbery and theft). Again, NCR postedthe highest record of crimes perpetrated byCICL against persons. In general, NCR, Re-gion IV-A, and Region VII are the three re-gions with high incidence of crimes commit-ted by CICL against person and property.The study argues that urbanization in theseregions might also have spawnedmarginalized and disadvantaged families,which may be linked with the incidence ofcrimes in these areas.

Child abuse and other forms of violencetrouble children even in their own homes aswell as in schools and in the communities.In 2006–2007, child abuse cases handled bythe Department of Social Welfare and De-velopment (DSWD) increased from 6,606 to7,182. The cases range from neglect, childlabor, illegal recruitment, child trafficking,and engagement in armed conflict. However,the study stressed that the data may not beconclusive as there is still the possibility ofmany unreported child abuse cases in therural areas. Thus, it is more crucial for thegovernment, with the help of various sectorsin society, to be proactive and aggressive incurbing, if not totally eradicating, childabuse.

The Philippine Constitution upholds theright of every Filipino child. The country isalso a signatory to the CRC and a number of

government programs has been designed toprotect and uplift the living conditions ofthe poor. Yet, the number of poor and un-protected Filipino children is continuouslyincreasing.

Concluding remarksThe study reveals that children suffer frommultiple dimensions of poverty: income,food, education, shelter, sanitation, toname a few. It likewise shows that dispari-ties across regions and provinces are large,suggesting the need for focused interven-tions. While there are indications thatsome progress had been made, the studynevertheless notes that there is much tobe done in order to address the plight ofpoor Filipino children. In this light, thestudy provides a solid basis in crafting aroadmap for poverty reduction. Specifically,key results of the child poverty study pointto the need for more focused interven-tions, and a well-designed, well-targeted,and sustainable social protection system.What is warranted is the active role of pub-lic institutions, or the duty bearers, withequally active participation of private orga-nizations, communities, and individuals inpromoting the welfare of the poor Filipinochildren.CSM

While there are indications that some progress had been made, the study onchild poverty and disparities nevertheless notes that there is much to be done inorder to address the plight of poor Filipino children. (Photo: Ma. Aileen A. Garcia)


8th DPRM tackles poverty reduction

Issues behind the rising poverty rate werechosen as the focus of this year’s obser-vance of the 8th Development Policy Re-

search Month (DPRM), giving emphasis tothe huge role that research plays in helpingsolve poverty in the country.

By virtue of Malacanang Proclamation No.247, the Philippine Institute for Develop-ment Studies (PIDS) was designated as leadcoordinating agency of the DPRM which isbeing celebrated every September of eachyear. For 2010, DPRM carried the theme“Pananaliksik at Talakayan tungo sa Pag-ahonmula sa Kahirapan.”

The highlight of the month-long commemo-ration is the conduct of the “Forum on thePIDS Economic Policy Monitor” held at theC.P. Romulo Hall, NEDA sa Makati Buildingon September 28, 2010. It served as thevenue for the presentation and discussion

of poverty-related topics and issues amongconcerned stakeholders, including repre-sentatives from the Institute, the government,and the private and civic sectors, in order tocome up with viable solutions on how thePhilippines can reduce poverty and achievethe Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) of 2015 that will promote the well-being of Filipinos.

During the forum, PIDS President Josef T.Yap announced the Institute’s upcomingpublication, the PIDS Economic Policy Moni-tor, to be launched in early 2011. The Moni-tor shall consist of two parts: the macroeco-nomic trends in which data frequency arehigh; and the microeconomic issues in whichdata frequency are low. It will include anupdate on the economy and highlights ofkey policy issues in the country today.

According to Dr. Yap, compared with someEast Asian countries, the Philippines has thelargest population experiencing poverty at30 percent (Table 1). It also has the highestproportion (13.20%) of population livingbelow an income level of US$1 PPP a day. Dr.Yap pointed to the country’s high depen-dence on the agriculture sector; low invest-ment rate; and lack of economic transforma-tion as some of the major reasons for thecountry’s perpetual poverty.

Moreover, weak institutions and poor gover-nance have persisted and have led to a lackof coordination among various agencies.Other constraints in achieving a positive in-vestment environment are poor infrastruc-

Table 1. Poverty in the Philippines vis-à-vis other Asian countries

Source: Asian Development Bank Key Indicators, 2007

PRCIndonesia

Malaysia

PhilippinesThailand

Viet Nam

Population in

Poverty (in %)

2.50

16.705.10

30.00

9.8019.50

Proportion of

Population

Below $1 (PPP)a Day (%)

10.80

7.700.00

13.20

0.008.40

Gini Coefficient

0.47

0.340.40

0.44

0.420.37


ture, high transaction costs, lack of coherentindustrial policy, and weak tax effort.

Fiscal performance and prospectsThe increasing budget deficit and the ris-ing public debt pose a great challenge inthe country’s fiscal disposition.

In her review of “Fiscal Performance andProspects,” PIDS Senior Research FellowRosario G. Manasan reported that the fiscaldeficit surged from less than 1 percent ofthe gross domestic product (GDP) in 2007and 2008 to 3.9 percent of GDP in 2009. Onthe other hand, the national government(NG) debt-to-GDP ratio went up from 56 per-cent of GDP in 2007 to 57 percent of GDP in2008 and 2009 although the 2009 debt ratiois still much lower than the 2004 level of 78percent of GDP. Dr. Manasan argued that itis worrisome that the NG incurred a primarydeficit in 2009 and thus, it had to borrow tofinance parts of its interest payments. Therise in deficit, meanwhile, was caused by theconcomitant decline in NG revenues andrise in NG expenditures.

After increasing from 14.5 percent of GDPin 2002 to 17.1 percent in 2007, total NGrevenues declined to 16.2 percent of GDPin 2008 and 14.6 percent in 2009. Likewise,after increasing from 12.4 percent of GDPin 2002 to 14.3 percent in 2006, NG tax ef-fort went down to 14.0 percent of GDP in2007, 14.2 percent in 2008, and 12.8 per-cent in 2009. On the contrary, NG expendi-ture went up from 17.2 percent of GDP in2008 to 18.5 percent in 2009 after decreas-ing from an average of 19.5 percent of GDPin 2001–2004 to 17.4 percent in 2005–2008.Likewise, the nonmandatory expenditure

rose from 3.9 percent of GDP in 2006, 5.1percent in 2007, 5.4 percent in 2008, and5.8 percent in 2009 after declining from 7.4percent of GDP in 1999 to 3.8 percent in2005. On the other hand, interest paymentswent down continuously from 5.5 percent ofGDP in 2005 to 3.7 percent and 3.6 percentof GDP in 2008 and 2009, respectively.

Dr. Manasan stressed that the biggest fiscalchallenge is how to increase government rev-enues. Such challenge is doubly dauntingfor two reasons: (1) the need to increase therevenues to reduce deficit or else, debt ser-vice will start to rise again; and (2) the needto increase revenues to sustain, if not in-crease some more, the current spending onMDGs and infrastructure.

To address the need to increase revenues,the new administration is focused on improv-ing tax administration given the large andpersistent leakages in tax collections. Forexample, the estimated leakage in valueadded tax (VAT) increased from PHP 122.1billion (i.e., 2.5% of GDP) in 2004 to PHP335.5 billion (i.e., 4.4% of GDP) in 2009(Table 2). Whether large improvements intax administration can be made soon enoughremains a question.

Nevertheless, Dr. Manasan mentioned thatthe recent record is not encouraging. TheBureau of Customs (BOC) met its revenue tar-get only about half the time in the last 13 yearswhile the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)was successful only twice in the same period.

Also, based on Dr. Manasan’s simulations,VAT effort increased from 1.7 percent of GDPin 2004 to 2.2 percent of GDP in 2007 but it

Table 2. Estimated leakage from selected taxes, 2004–2009

VAT (in billion pesos)% of GDP

Individual income tax from

nonwage earners % of GDP

Effective tax rate on wage income

Effective tax rate on nonwage income

2004122.1

2.5

87.6

1.8

6.0

0.7

2005

162.4

3.0

91.0

1.76.0

1.0

2006

245.6

4.1

103.2

1.76.1

1.0

2007

291.6

4.4

124.4

1.96.3

0.8

2008

351.0

4.7

133.6

1.86.0

0.7

2009

335.5

4.4

108.1

1.44.9

0.7


declined to 1.9 percent in 2008 and wentback to 2.2 percent in 2009. The increase inVAT effort was mainly due to policy changes(i.e., increase in tax rate from 10% to 12% in2006) while the deterioration in the samewas attributed to tax leakage that has wors-ened in 2005–2009.

On the other hand, revenues from the ex-cise tax on tobacco went down from 0.47 per-cent of GDP in 2004 to 0.32 percent of GDPin 2009 largely because of the reduction involume of production as indicated by thegross value added (GVA) of tobacco. In ad-dition, the positive effect on tax ratio of thechange of tax policy (brought about the in-crease in excise tax rate in 2005) was domi-nated by the negative impact of the changein economic structure and higher tax leak-age in 2005–2009.

Similarly, revenues from the excise tax onalcoholic products decreased from 0.33 per-cent of GDP in 2004 to 0.27 percent in 2009due to an increase in tax leakage. The posi-tive effect of the change in tax policy for thisindustry was wiped out by the increase in taxleakage in 2006–2007. Moreover, the changein economic structure had negative impacton tax effort in 2005–2006.

Excise tax effort on petroleum products de-clined from 0.37 percent of GDP in 2004 to0.17 percent in 2007 as tax rates on diesel,kerosene, and bunker fuel oil were reducedto zero in 2006. Also, the volume of petro-leum production (relative to GDP) was re-

duced in 2005–2009. On a positive note,there was a significant reduction in tax leak-age in 2007.

Given this perspective, Dr. Manasan suggestedthat instead of sporadic tax campaign in orderto increase revenues, the government shouldfocus on systemic improvements in processesand procedures specifically in registration,audit, and enforcement. It is also crucial thatconcerned institutions support the comput-erization program of the BIR and BOC. Finally,greater flexibility in the bank secrecy law willalso help in reducing tax evasion.

As regards debt sustainability, Dr. Manasanestimated the amount of additional revenuesfrom tax administration improvements thatwill prevent the country from falling into debttrap. Her simulations indicated that NG rev-enues should rise to 14.9 percent of GDP in2011, 18.2 percent in 2012, and 17.4 per-cent in 2013–2016 in order to achieve fiscalconsolidation while providing sufficientfunding support for the achievement of theMDGs by 2015 and higher infrastructure in-vestments.

In the event that large enough improvementsin tax administration are not forthcoming,Dr. Manasan emphasized the need for newtax measures. There are a number of taxmeasures that has been proposed for a num-ber of years already. These include: (1) re-structuring and indexation of excise taxon sin products; (2) increasing the excisetax on petroleum products; and (3) the ra-tionalization of fiscal incentives.

On the other hand, some new tax policymeasures have been proposed more recently,namely: (1) increasing VAT rate combinedwith a reduction in the corporate income tax(CIT) to shift from income taxation in favorof taxing consumption; (2) reduction in CIT;and (3) reform of taxation of financial in-struments.

After reviewing the revenue impact of theseproposed tax policy changes as well as ef-fects on economic efficiency and equity, Dr.Manasan argued that the restructuring andindexation of excise taxes on sin products,fiscal incentives reform and increases in theexcise tax on petroleum will introduce the

National revenues should be raised in order to achieve fiscal consolida-tion. (Photo: www.trust.org)


least distortions in the economy while in-creasing revenues.

Aside from tax administration improve-ments, Dr. Manasan also emphasized theneed to bring budget reform to the atten-tion of the legislative branch. To date, bud-get reforms such as Public ExpenditureManagement (PEM), Medium-Term Expen-diture Framework (MTEF) and Organiza-tional Performance Indicator Framework(OPIF) have been initiated in the executivebranch but not yet in the legislative branch.The PEM and MTEF promote fiscal disci-pline and greater efficiency in resource al-location while OPIF promotes results orien-tation in budgeting.

Lastly, she recommended a simple yet im-portant reform that will result in greater dis-cipline on the part of both executive andlegislative branches in the timely enactmentof the General Appropriations Act.

Meanwhile, Dr. Milwida M. Guevara, Presi-dent of Synergeia Foundation, scored theexcessive tax incentives in addition to theflawed tax policies and inefficient tax admin-istration as “problems in public finance thatseem like ghosts that haunt our country.”

“We are concerned with the deficit but thegovernment keeps giving away incentives toattract investments. This stance has neverwavered despite studies that show that themajor barriers to investment in the Philip-pines are corruption, red tape, instability inpolicies, and a stifling regulatory system,” Dr.Guevara explained. She also suggested somestrategies for a more robust public system inthe form of: simpler tax structure with broadbases and low and uniform rates; processesand rules for tax payment and audits that areclear and consistent, and detection and pun-ishment of dishonest tax enforcers and tax-payers; and an expenditure system that isbased on outcomes.

The fight against povertyPoverty has worsened and may continue toworsen unless serious efforts are employed.The type of economic growth that the coun-try has been experiencing has not been ableto significantly bring poverty rate down. Thefact that a large number of people move in

and out of poverty within short periods oftime presses the need for effective socialsafety nets.

The above sums up PIDS Senior ResearchFellow Dr. Celia M. Reyes’ presentation on“Are We Winning the Fight against Poverty?”

In 2006, 27.6 million (32.9%) of the popula-tion were poor, an increase of approximately3.8 million from the 23.8 million in 2003.The largest number of poor (2,657,417 or9.6%) are located in the Bicol and WesternVisayas regions. According to Dr. Reyes, therise in the poverty rate was due to the natureof economic growth that occurred during theperiod. The relatively high GDP growth rateduring the period (average annual growthrate of 5.4%) did not translate into higherincomes for the poor households. This wasevidenced by income inequality data in therural areas where 71 percent of the poor canbe found.

Measures of income inequality in the ruralareas have worsened from 2003 to 2006. Theagriculture sector has been growing veryslowly causing per capita income of farmersand agricultural workers to decline. Dr.Reyes noted that 55 percent of the increasein the national poverty incidence during theperiod was attributable to the rural areas.

Dr. Reyes also showed that from 2003 to 2008,there have been considerable movements ofpeople in and out of poverty prompting theneed for appropriate interventions. Sheemphasized that the poor is not a homoge-neous group and therefore public policiescannot be uniformly applied. It consists ofchronic poor, or those who have been consis-tently poor in all years covered by the longi-tudinal data used in their study, and the tran-sient poor, who make up those that move inand out of poverty.

The chronic poor include those that havevery limited income resources. They can becharacterized as consisting of larger familieswith more dependents, with householdheads of very low educational achievement,and are engaged in the agricultural sector(as farmers, forestry workers, andfisherfolks). Almost all of these householdsdo not have members working overseas.


Based on their estimates using 2003, 2004,2006, 2007, and 2008 data, Dr. Reyes showedthat about 12.4 percent of all families are con-sidered chronic poor (Table 3). Forty-six per-cent of these families can be found inMindanao.

Meanwhile, the transient poor include thosefamilies that have fallen into poverty at anypoint between 2003 and 2008 as they mayhave experienced certain income shocks likeincreasing food prices, job losses, suddenchronic illness, crop failures, or natural di-sasters. The transient poor makes up 43 per-cent of all families with the largest propor-tion living in Luzon and are working in theagricultural sector as well.

The magnitude of movements in and out ofpoverty has been significant. For instance,Dr. Reyes said that one of every three fami-lies classified as poor in 2006 were nonpoorin 2003. Distinguishing the chronic againstthe transient poor is essential in policy for-mulation. This is because the two groups callfor different poverty reduction strategies.Short-term interventions such as creation ofemployment opportunities for those who areable to escape poverty may not work for thechronic poor (Hulme and Shepherd 2003in Ribas and Machado 2007). This is becausetheir condition was caused by their adverseindividual characteristics like lack of educa-tion or assets. Such short-term policy inter-ventions may be suitable for the transientpoor who have better chances of getting outof poverty and staying as nonpoor.

In addition, the impacts of fuel and foodprice increases, the global financial crisis,and the string of natural calamities in therecent years will most likely pull up the pov-erty rate even higher. In 2008, food prices

increased by 13. 6 percent, higher than thefood inflation rate of 3.3 percent in 2007.Fuel prices also rose to 17 percent in 2008,five times more than the fuel inflation rateof 3.3 percent in 2007. Prices of rice and fuelhave, however, already gone down from theirpeak in 2008 but have yet to return to theirpreshock levels.

The country experienced slower economicgrowth due to the global financial crisis thatstarted in the United States. Gross nationalproduct (GNP) was only at 3 percent andGDP was at 0.9 percent.

In the past few years, the Philippines has alsoexperienced more episodes of El Niño andLa Niña as compared with past decades. Ty-phoons Milenyo and Reming (2006), Frank(2007), and Ondoy and Pepeng (2009) have,moreover, aggravated the prior shocks thatled to higher prices and are threatening toworsen the poverty situation even more.

Analyses indicate that the poverty situationin the Philippines is worsening. And worseis that the coping strategies of householdsmay tend to have adverse effects on otherdimensions of poverty in the long run, suchas the impact on children’s education andhealth.

In this regard, Dr. Reyes emphasized thatinterventions and targeting of beneficiariesfor such interventions to address povertymust be carefully thought of. For one, cur-rent targeting approaches of governmentneed to be improved. She cited as an ex-ample, a study of the National Food Author-ity (NFA) rice subsidy program in selectedbarangays. This program, which is aimed atproviding cheaper rice to the poor, showedhigh leakage exclusion rates. In the study

Table 3. Characteristics of chronic poor, transient poor, and nonpoor*Poverty StatusPercent to total

Mean family size

Mean percentage of family income derived from agriculture

Proportion of children aged below 15

Percentage of female-headed families

Chronic Poor

12.4

6.560.6

47.593.4

Transient Poor

42.7

5.0439.5

30.685.36

Never Poor

44.9

4.1513.3

20.775.17

All

100

4.8230.4

28.381.8

*Authors’ estimates, basic data are from the National Statistics Office and National Statistical Coordination Board.


areas, 69 percent of the benefits were goingto the nonpoor while 27 percent of the poorwere not able to avail of the benefits.

It is therefore recommended that differenttypes of intervention be applied since thepoor are not homogeneous. Particularly, forthe chronic poor engaged in agriculture,strategies should focus on poverty reductionin the rural areas and those working in agri-culture. Better population management isalso an important key to effective poverty re-duction among the chronic poor because oftheir tendency to have larger family size.Moreover, providing access to education willbe a crucial part in breaking the cycle of pov-erty. Meanwhile, appropriate and effectivesocial protection policies are much neededto safeguard families from falling into pov-erty during times of crisis, thereby reducingthe number of transient poor.

Commenting on the profile and characteris-tics of poverty, Dr. Arsenio M. Balisacan fromthe University of the Philippines School ofEconomics said that there is a need to linkearlier and more recent studies to enhancewhat are already known and identify whatcharacteristics have changed. Thus, hefound the panel data presented and used tolook into the movement in and out of pov-erty as a novel thing to do. He added that thepanel data can further be developed to im-prove the understanding of the dynamics ofpoverty.

However, Dr. Balisacan mentioned that inrevisiting official poverty data, the probabil-ity of achieving the MDG target on povertymay be low to medium. Moreso, he noted thatcompared to what was officially reported,there could have been 2 million to 5.8 mil-lion more poor people in 2006. Focusing onmoving out of rural poverty, Dr. Balisacanemphasized that the agriculture sector is wheremost of the rural poor are trapped. This meansthat the pathway out of rural poverty is to searchfor drivers of rural poverty reduction, especiallyin view of recent challenges such as climate

change, water scarcity, and global supplychains. Dr. Balisacan noted that in the recentpast, agricultural growth has been largelydriven by technological change; the key driverof rural poverty reduction. However, agricul-tural growth is no longer the key driver to pov-erty reduction at the national level. In fact, atpresent, nonagricultural income growth hasbeen the catalyst for poverty reduction for thelarge majority of provinces. Dr. Balisacan notedthat future sources of sustainable growth inagriculture will likely come from labor/land-saving technological change (e.g., biotechnol-ogy, global supply chains, etc.).

Meanwhile, the response of poverty reductionto nonagricultural source of growth is influ-enced by the initial level of income inequality,human capital, and infrastructure develop-ment. On the other hand, the response to ag-ricultural growth is higher in areas where thereis a high potential of agricultural productivity(based on geographical endowment) andthere is a low level of urbanization. To enhanceinclusive rural growth, Dr. Balisacan recom-mends the following policy and investmentreforms: (a) pushing for food (rice) self-suf-ficiency; (b) promoting agricultural landmarket and land market use; and (c) invest-ing in basic rural infrastructure and agricul-tural technology options.

Concluding remarksTo reduce if not completely solve poverty inthe country, the government must executeprograms that directly target and answer theneeds of the poor. One way to achieve this is toutilize research-based studies in crafting gov-ernment policies for the poor. This way, therewill be formal structures to determine who thepoor are, where they are found, and what typeof intervention suit their situations.CSM

ReferenceRibas, R.P. and A.F. Machado. 2007. Distinguishing

chronic poverty from transient poverty in Brazil:developing a model for pseudo-panel data. Inter-national Poverty Centre (IPC) Working Paper No.36. United Nations Development Programme: IPC.

It is therefore recommended that different types of intervention be applied since the poor are nothomogeneous. Particularly, for the chronic poor engaged in agriculture, strategies should be focused onpoverty reduction in the rural areas and those working in agriculture.


Research-based programs needed to achieveMDG goal on poverty reduction

This year ’ s observance of the Development Pol icy Research Month (DPRM)marked an increased number of partic ipating local government units whichprominently displayed the DPRM streamer in their areas.

Research plays a major role in thecrafting and implementation ofgovernment’s poverty reduction pro-

grams. Especially since the 2015 deadlinefor the achievement of the UN MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs) is fast approach-ing, there is a need to assess the Philippinegovernment’s progress in achieving the goalof poverty reduction based on careful studyand active interaction and collaborationamong different sectors of society.

This is the reason behind the choice of thetheme, “Pananaliksik at Talakayan tungo saPag-ahon mula sa Kahirapan” for this year’scelebration of the Development Policy Re-search Month (DPRM).

The DPRM, with its broad-based and nation-wide outlets for discussion, provided an op-portunity to discuss the important issues re-lating to poverty reduction. The various stud-ies and activities presented and organizedduring the month-long celebration of theDPRM aimed to provide the appropriate baseand support in crafting a roadmap for eco-nomic development and poverty reductionfor the new administration.

DPRM is an annual celebration mandatedby Malacañang Proclamation 247, signed byFormer President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyoin 2002. The observance of the DPRM ismeant to elevate people’s awareness andappreciation of the value and importance ofpolicy research in nation building. The Phil-ippine Institute for Development Studies(PIDS) is the agency designated to lead andcoordinate the activities for the annual ob-servance of the DPRM.

Activities conducted for the 8th DPRM in-cluded consultative meetings, workshopsand discussion forums, preparation and pre-sentation of policy papers, production ofposters, and putting up banners. This year’scelebration engaged the support of a total of62 partner institutions coming from thevarious government agencies, LGUs, theacademe, international organizations, privateinstitutions, and nongovernment organiza-tions (NGOs). More importantly, there wasan increased number of participating localgovernment units (LGUs) which include the

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Continued on page 19


cities of Antipolo, Dagupan, Malaybalay,and Tuguegarao; the municipalities ofCapas, Tarlac; Itogon, Benguet; Maco,Compostela Valley; Pagsanghan, Samar; andthe provinces of Agusan del Norte, Bataan,and Bohol.

The culminating activity for the month-long observance of the DPRM was held onSeptember 28, 2010 at the Romulo Hall ofthe NEDA sa Makati Building, Makati City.The forum on the PIDS Economic PolicyMonitor presented an assessment of the

country’s poverty situation (see relatedstory on page 7) and the initial monitor-ing of the economic policies of the coun-try in the recent months.

The 8th DPRM Steering Committee ischaired by the PIDS with the United Na-tions Children’s Fund (UNICEF)-Philip-pines, National Anti-Poverty Commission(NAPC), Ateneo Center for Economic Re-search and Development (ACERD), Na-tional Economic and Development Author-ity (NEDA), and Philippine InformationAgency (PIA) as members.APQ and MGGM

PIDS launches "A review of build-operate-transfer for infrastructure development"

After a brief period of success in us-ing the build-operate-transfer(BOT) approach to provide infra-

structure, the country faces a loss of interestand retreat by private investors in this modeof infrastructure provision. Citing the expe-rience with some BOT projects in the coun-try, this book by Dr. Gilberto Llanto, SeniorResearch Fellow at the Philippine Institutefor Development Studies, discusses variousissues that policymakers and stakeholdershave to address in order to improve BOTimplementation in the country. The book “Areview of build-operate-transfer for infra-structure development” was formallylaunched on September 28, 2010 during theforum on PIDS Economic Policy Monitor, theculminating activity for the observance of the8th Development Policy Research Month. Formore inquiries regarding the BOT book,email [email protected]

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Continued from page 18


DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH NEWSVol. XXVIII No. 5

September - October 2010ISSN 0115 - 9097

Editorial Board: Dr. Josef T. Yap,

President; Mr. Mario C. Feranil, OIC

Vice-President and Director for Project

Services and Development; Ms. Jenni-

fer P.T. Liguton, Director for Research

Information; Ms. Andrea S. Agcaoili,

Director for Operations and Finance;

Atty. Roque A. Sorioso, Legal Consult-

ant.

Staff: Jennifer P.T. Liguton, Editor-in-

Chief; Ma. Aileen A. Garcia, Issue Edi-

tor; Claudette S. Malana, Ma. Gizelle

G. Manuel, and Analia P. Quion, Writ-

ers; Jane C. Alcantara and Edwin S.

Martin, Contributors; Valentina V.

Tolentino and Rossana P. Cleofas, Ex-

change; Delia S. Romero, Gerald Jay S.

Libiran, Necita Z. Aquino and

Michael A. Caturan, Circulation and

Subscription; Ma. Aileen A. Garcia, Lay-

out.

STAFF BOX DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH NEWS is a bimonthly

publication of the PHILIPPINE INSTITUTE FORDEVELOPMENT STUDIES (PIDS). It highlights the findings

and recommendations of PIDS research projects and important

policy issues discussed during PIDS seminars. PIDS is a nonstock,

nonprofit government research institution engaged in long-term,

policy-oriented research. This publication is part of the Institute's

program to disseminate information to promote the use of research findings. The views and opinions

expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute. Inquiries

regarding any of the studies contained in this publication, or any of the PIDS papers, as well as suggestions

or comments are welcome. Please address all correspondence and inquiries to:

Research Information StaffPhilippine Institute for Development Studies

Fifth floor, NEDA sa Makati Bldg., 106 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village

1229 Makati City, Philippines

Telephone numbers 894-2584 and 893-9585 up to 893-9592

Telefax numbers (632) 893-9589 and 816-1091

E-mail address: [email protected]

Reentered as second class mail at the Makati Central Post Office under Permit No. PS-570-04 NCR. Valid

until December 31, 2010. Annual subscription rates are: P200.00 for local subscribers and US$20.00 for

foreign subscribers. All rates are inclusive of mailing and handling costs. Prices may change without prior

notice.

Paderanga loves to tease us with and which Iretold in the recent launching of Philippineinstitutions: growth and prosperity for all, abook conceptualized by economists. In thePaderanga narrative, Amartya Sen was sup-posed to have advised his students to do theirmathematics well so that they will be rein-carnated as physicists. Accordingly, if theyfail to do so, they would end up as sociolo-gists, immersed in everyday life on theground and muddied by observations ofmundane affairs. This is of course an amus-ing tale that reflects the alleged “physicsenvy” of the economists and the “economicsenvy” of the other social sciences.

I am not saying economists do not go to theground for their empirical data but evenhere, there may be differences in viewingdatasets. However, this is not the venue tospeak about differences between economistsand social scientists. The only point I ammaking is for PIDS to broaden even more itsdisciplinal reach and analytical frames. SincePIDS has worked with noneconomists and

has established itself as an emerging hub ofdifferent multidisciplinary research centers,it could expend additional effort in build-ing the hub and, through it, facilitating themobilization of experts for strategic studiesin multidisciplinary areas of developmentwork.

• Finally, the challenge of balancingthe organizational demands of theInstitute and other priority areasof development—research. Evenmore challenging is the balancingof the new role of facilitatingpublic discussions and debatesand the Institute’s human andintellectual resources.

A major challenge at this historical junc-ture is the need for PIDS to enhance itscapabilities as an institution to continueproducing quality research and fulfill itsmandate of crafting empirically based poli-cies in strategic areas in the interest of ourpeople.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Reflections..... from page 6

DRN

Documents

P I DEVELOPMENT D S RESEARCH NEWS · 2011-02-24 · Editor's Notes Vol. XXVIII No.5 September - October 2010 ISSN 0115-9097 PHILIPP I NE INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Surian sa