NSCB - Statistically Speaking... THE POPULATION CENSUS: THE YOUNG, THE OLD AND YOUR BUSINESS!

WHICH PROVINCES DID BEST IN REDUCING POVERTY?
by Dr. Romulo A. Virola ¹
Secretary General, NSCB

Notes on this article
(posted 25 July 2006)

During its meeting last 22 May, the NSCB approved a methodology for generating poverty statistics at the provincial level which enhances the relevance of the Philippine Statistical System (PSS) and the responsiveness of the NSCB to the data demands of our users. Official estimates of poverty incidence used to be generated only down to the regional level, but with the decentralized planning now in place, regional statistics have become as useful as damo sa isang patay na kabayo ! Surely, the PSS must find ways to generate relevant statistics with appropriate disaggregation such as at the provincial or even municipal and barangay levels without necessarily asking for money from the national government. Fortunately, the NSCB Chairman, Secretary Romulo L. Neri is very supportive of the PSS efforts to improve its services.

Thus, on June 6, 2006 , through the hard work of our Social Sectors B Division under Didi M. Ignacio, the guidance of Dr. Celia M. Reyes as Chairperson of the NSCB Technical Committee on Poverty Statistics and the cooperation of the data source agencies, particularly the National Statistics Office under Administrator Carmelita N. Ericta, the NSCB released the official poverty incidence estimates at the provincial level for 2003 and the updated estimates for 2000².

As shown on the poverty page of our website at http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/, the ten poorest provinces for 2003 are Zamboanga del Norte, Maguindanao, Masbate, Surigao del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Sur, Misamis Occidental, Mt. Province , Biliran and Lanao del Norte. Calling the attention of program planners should be the fact that seven of the ten poorest provinces are in Mindanao . Three provinces, Maguindanao, Masbate and Agusan del Sur are in fact, on both the 2000 and 2003 lists of poorest provinces. But good for the following seven provinces, Sulu, Ifugao, Lanao del Sur, Camiguin, Camarines Norte, Tawi-tawi and Romblon; they were on the 2000 list but have succeeded in extricating themselves out of the 2003 list.

On the other hand, the ten least poor are all in Luzon: Rizal, 1 st District NCR, 4 th District NCR, 3 rd District NCR, 2 nd District NCR, Batanes, Laguna, Bulacan, Cavite and Nueva Vizcaya. Excluding the four districts of NCR, the six least poor provinces in 2003 were also on the honor list of being least poor in 2000. Congratulations therefore to the leaders and the people of Rizal, Batanes, Laguna, Bulacan³, Cavite and Nueva Vizcaya. Lessons should be learned from their success, don't you think?

As we had sadly expected, immediately after we released the provincial poverty statistics, we got bombarded by requests for justifications for the increases in the estimates of poverty incidence for specific provinces! Didi's explanation was simple: the income distribution of the province as captured in the Family Income and Expenditures Survey reflected a decline in average income in the income brackets of the poor! We are of course happy to provide the explanation, especially to those who want to improve their understanding of the poverty statistics. But how we wished the LGU executives and the development planners would soon after buckle down to work and figure out what programs to implement in these provinces to lift them out of poverty in the next reckoning! We never claimed that our statistics were perfectly accurate, but if the first reaction of some of our policy- and decision-makers to statistics that are not favorable to their image is to cast aspersion on the integrity of the statistics, no longer should one wonder why we have fallen so behind our neighbors in so many things. Let us grow up and learn how to accept and use statistics; only then will we know how to cope with the challenges of the competition and globalization in the Third Millennium, like Manny Pacquiao . Like the leaders and the people of Rizal, Batanes, Laguna, Bulacan, Cavite and Nueva Vizcaya!

Last month, Statistically Speaking infomed our stakeholders about the worrisome extent of poverty afflicting our children that threatened their future and consequently that of our country. We also noted that our poor children at risk were to be found mostly in Western Visayas (Region VI), Bicol (Region V) and Central Visayas (Region VII). The latest poverty statistics from NSCB allow us to add the following information, subject to the limitations explained on our website.

In the regions where most of our poor children live, poverty is concentrated in Negros Occidental and Iloilo where 41% and 30%, respectively, of the poor families in Region VI lived in 2003; in Camarines Sur (32%), Masbate (21%) and Albay (20%) in Region V; and in Cebu ( 44%) and Negros Oriental ( 31% ) in Region VII. Sad to note too, is that Negros Oriental is among the ten provinces with the biggest increases in poverty incidence from 2000 to 2003, while Masbate has been mired in poverty too long. Good news is that Negros Occidental and Cebu are among those who did relatively better than others in reducing poverty incidence.
As shown in Table 1, the nation's poverty incidence among families was reduced from 27.5% in 2000 to 24.4% in 2003 or a reduction in the number of poor families by 3 per hundred. Poverty incidence was reduced in all major island groups with the largest reduction in Visayas and the smallest in Mindanao . Happily⁴, there was also a reduction of 123,968 families or 3% in the actual number of poor families in the country from 4,146,663 in 2000 to 4,022,695 in 2003. However, while Visayas and Luzon experienced actual reductions in the number of poor families, there was an increase in the number of poor families in Mindanao .
The ten provinces that succeeded best in reducing poverty incidence between 2000 and 2003 as listed in Table 2 are Ifugao, Bohol, Camiguin, Capiz, Tawi-tawi, Lanao del Sur, North Cotabato, Romblon, Sulu and Tarlac. Six of these provinces namely, Ifugao, Camiguin, Tawi-tawi, Lanao del Sur, Romblon and Sulu, were among the ten poorest provinces in 2000; none of them now appears on the 2003 list. The number of poor families in these ten provinces altogether was reduced by 164,216 or 33% from 498,792 families in 2000 to 334,576 in 2003. Towards improving the situation in the south, it is reassuring to know that 5 of the best performing provinces are from Mindanao , three of which are in ARMM.
Other provinces that succeeded in reducing poverty incidence better than the rest are Catanduanes, Eastern Samar, Zambales, Negros Occidental, Apayao, Cebu, La Union, South Cotabato ( could it be the Manny Pacquiao factor?), Sorsogon and Ilocos Sur.
On the other hand, the ten provinces that exhibited the largest increases in poverty incidence from 2000 to 2003 as listed in Table 3 are Palawan, Zamboanga del Norte, Biliran, Surigao del Norte, Surigao del Sur, Guimaras, Antique, Negros Oriental, Kalinga and Davao del Sur. Four of the provinces, Zamboanga del Norte, Surigao del Norte, Surigao del Sur and Biliran which were not on the list of ten poorest provinces in 2000 are now on the list for 2003. But while Guimaras and Davao del Sur are on the list, they actually ranked only 43 rd and 59 th poorest, respectively among 79 provinces. The number of poor families in these ten provinces rose by 172,950 families or 45% from 384,931 families in 2000 to 557,881 in 2003. Four of the provinces are in Visayas and four are in Mindanao .
Other provinces that exhibited increases in poverty incidence worse than the rest are Southern Leyte, Batangas, Davao Oriental, Bukidnon, Bulacan, Occidental Mindoro, Siquijor, Aurora, Ilocos Norte and Iloilo.
Table 4 shows other indicators of poverty that reveal that the severity of poverty in the country has diminished between 2000 and 2003. In terms of income gap, or the average percentage increase in the income of the poor families needed to get them out of poverty, the biggest challenges are in Zamboanga del Norte, Masbate and Mountain Province, all of whom are among the ten poorest provinces. This means that we need to increase the income of the poor families in Zamboanga del Norte by 46%, in Masbate by 41 % and in Mt. Province by 38% of the poverty threshold on the average, to eliminate poverty in these regions.
Table 4 also shows that in terms of poverty gap or the increase in total income needed, which when appropriately distributed to the lower income groups will eliminate poverty, the heaviest requirements are again in Zamboanga del Norte and Masbate . The cost of eradicating poverty when shared by each family is 30 % of the poverty threshold in Zamboanga del Norte and 23 % in Masbate .
Likewise, the severity of poverty, which captures inequality of income among the poor has decreased by 0.6 percentage point from 3.4% to 2.8 %. Among the poorest provinces in 2003, poverty is most severe in Zamboanga del Norte, Masbate, Mt. Province , Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Norte, Lanao del Norte and Maguindanao.

There. Statistics show that we succeeded in easing the pains of poverty from 2000 to 2003. But there remain pockets of poverty that should be a challenge to all of us. Hopefully, towards more focused targeting of our poverty alleviation efforts, towards informed choices, our decision makers, particularly the politicians will have the interest and the wisdom to digest, discern and translate these statistics into their comparative advantage. Otherwise, the voters may not be kind to them in 2007. Sige, kayo rin !

Table 1
Poverty Incidence, Magnitude of the Poor and Share to the Total Poor
in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao , 2000 and 2003

Island	Poverty Incidence Among Families (%)			Magnitude of Poor Families			Share to the Total Poor (%)
2000 Revised	2000 Revised	2003 Final	Inc/Dec	2000 Revised	2003 Final	Inc/Dec (%)	2000 Revised	2003 Final

PHILIPPINES	27.5	24.4	(3.1)	4,146,663	4,022,695	(3.0)	100.0	100.0

Luzon	20.0	17.4	(2.5)	1,704,589	1,652,932	(3.0)	41.1	41.1
Visayas	35.0	29.4	(5.7)	1,069,204	949,975	(11.2)	25.8	23.6
Mindanao	39.3	37.7	(1.6)	1,372,870	1,419,788	3.4	33.1	35.3

Table 2
Ten Provinces with Largest Reduction in Poverty Incidence from 2000 to 2003

Province	Region	Poverty Incidence Among Families (%)					Magnitude of Poor Families
		Estimates (%)			Coefficient of Variation		Estimates (%)
		2000 Revised	2003 Final	Inc/ Dec	2000 Revised	2003 Final	2000 Revised	2003 Final	Inc/ Dec (%)	Diff
Ifugao	CAR	55.7	28.1	(27.6)	8.0	21.9	18,140	9,069	(50.0)	(9,071)
Bohol	VII	50.2	29.2	(20.9)	9.4	12.8	105,470	65,953	(37.5)	(39,517)
Camiguin	X	54.2	34.5	(19.7)	10.5	21.7	7,826	5,356	(31.6)	(2,471)
Capiz	VI	40.8	21.6	(19.3)	9.6	13.3	53,542	28,711	(46.4)	(24,832)
Tawi-tawi	ARMM	52.4	34.6	(17.8)	10.2	20.0	25,562	20,964	(18.0)	(4,599)
Lanao del Sur	ARMM	54.7	37.6	(17.1)	8.3	13.9	66,146	48,351	(26.9)	(17,795)
North Cotabato	XII	41.6	26.1	(15.5)	9.5	11.9	79,750	52,759	(33.8)	(26,991)
Romblon	IV-B	52.2	37.5	(14.8)	10.5	10.6	27,737	21,116	(23.9)	(6,621)
Sulu	ARMM	58.9	45.1	(13.8)	9.8	11.3	58,522	48,195	(17.6)	(10,327)
Tarlac	III	27.6	14.8	(12.8)	18.5	11.9	56,095	34,102	(39.2)	(21,993)
Total							498,792	334,576	(32.9)	(164,216)

Note: The four districts of NCR, Isabela City and Cotabato City were not included in the ranking. Davao del Norte, Zamboanga del Sur and Basilan were also not included in the ranking since in the 2000 estimate, Davao del Norte still included Compostela Valley, Zamboanga del Sur still included Zamboanga Sibugay and Basilan still included Isabela City

Table 3
Ten Provinces with Largest Increase in Poverty Incidence from 2000 to 2003

Province	Region	Poverty Incidence Among Families (%)					Magnitude of Poor Families
		Estimates (%)			Coefficient of Variation		Estimates
		2000 Revised	2003 Final	Inc/ Dec	2000 Revised	2003 Final	2000 Revised	2003 Final	Inc/ Dec (%)	Diff
Palawan	IV-B	24.7	43.1	18.4	14.5	8.4	35,749	73,049	104.3	37,300
Zamboanga del Norte	IX	47.0	64.6	17.5	12.0	6.5	78,059	110,831	42.0	32,772
Biliran	VIII	33.3	46.5	13.3	18.3	13.4	9,531	13,709	43.8	4,177
Surigao Del Norte	CARAGA	42.6	54.5	11.9	11.0	8.1	38,936	52,417	34.6	13,481
Surigao Del Sur	CARAGA	38.4	48.6	10.2	8.7	7.2	37,350	47,192	26.4	9,842
Guimaras	VI	22.6	32.7	10.1	18.7	13.2	5,900	9,525	61.5	3,626
Antique	VI	35.1	43.4	8.3	8.1	10.6	32,393	42,389	30.9	9,996
Negros Oriental	VII	29.7	37.1	7.4	14.7	9.2	66,788	89,654	34.2	22,866
Kalinga	CAR	39.3	46.1	6.8	15.0	11.7	12,140	15,151	24.8	3,011
Davao del Sur	XI	18.3	24.2	5.8	13.3	8.2	68,084	103,963	52.7	35,879
Total							384,931	557,881	44.9	172,950

Table 4
Ten Provinces with Highest Income Gap, Poverty Gap and Severity of Poverty, 2003

Income Gap				Poverty Gap				Severity of Poverty
Province	Region	2003 Estimate	Rank	Province	Region	2003 Estimate	Rank	Province	Region	2003 Estimate	Rank
Zamboanga del Norte	IX	45.9	1	Zamboanga del Norte	IX	29.6	1	Zamboanga del Norte	IX	16.5	1
Masbate	V	40.6	2	Masbate	V	22.7	2	Masbate	V	11.4	2
Mt. Province	CAR	38.4	3	Agusan del Sur	CARAGA	18.5	3	Mt. Province	CAR	8.8	3
Lanao del Norte	X	35.7	4	Maguindanao	ARMM	18.3	4	Agusan del Sur	CARAGA	8.4	4
Bukidnon	X	35.5	5	Surigao Del Norte	CARAGA	18.0	5	Surigao Del Norte	CARAGA	7.9	5
Agusan del Sur	CARAGA	35.1	6	Mt. Province	CAR	17.9	6	Lanao del Norte	X	7.7	6
Camarines Norte	V	34.7	7	Lanao del Norte	X	16.6	7	Maguindanao	ARMM	7.4	7
Occidental Mindoro	IV-B	33.3	8	Camarines Norte	V	16.0	8	Camarines Norte	V	7.1	8
Lanao del Sur	ARMM	33.3	9	Kalinga	CAR	15.2	9	Kalinga	CAR	6.8	9
Agusan del Norte	CARAGA	33.0	10	Misamis Occidental	X	14.7	10	Misamis Occidental	X	6.1	10

_______________________

¹ Secretary General of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) and Chairman of the Statistical Research and Training Center (SRTC). He holds a Ph. D. in Statistics from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor , U.S.A. and has taught mathematics and statistics at the University of the Philippines . He is also a past president of the Philippine Statistical Association.

²Estimates for 2003 were computed separately for 79 provinces, the cities of Isabela and Cotabato which have been separated from their mother provinces and the four districts of NCR.

³ However, although Bulacan is among the least poor provinces, the increase in its poverty incidence from 5.4% in 2000 to 8.5% in 2003 was the 15 th highest.

⁴Even if the poverty incidence in a particular area decreases, the actual number of poor families in that area may increase due to a number of factors including migration, marriage and members of poor families living out and away as new families.

Poverty Main Page


E-mail the webmaster	Terms of Use	Home • Top of Page
	1997-2008, National Statistical Coordination Board Makati City, Philippines