NSCB - Statistically Speaking... Governance Statistics: Who Should We Vote For in the May 14 Elections?

Governance Statistics: Who Should We Vote For
in the May 14 Elections?
by Dr. Romulo A. Virola ¹
Secretary General, NSCB

Discombobulated and discombobulating politicians have started to graze the horizon for our attention. Sure, there are many of our elected officials who deserve our respect and gratitude for their distinguished service; unfortunately, public perception is that there are just too many of them who accept cash for dishonors, whose chameleonic colors and esoteric emissions trap greenhouse lies and promises that cause local warming until a day or two before May 14. The challenge, therefore, my dear voters, is for us to learn to discriminate and discern the good candidates from the bad and the ugly. But how?

Last week, this writer² made a presentation entitled “Indicators of Democratic Governance To Guide Voters In Philippine Elections: Inspiration from METAGORA” during the Regional Conference for Asia on “Measuring and Fostering the Progress of Societies” held on 8-9 February in Seoul, Korea. The seminar was organized by the OECD and the Korea National Statistics Office with the support of PARIS 21³and the World Bank in preparation for the second OECD World Forum on Statistics, Knowledge and Policy to be held in Istanbul, Turkey on 27-30 June 2007.

Professional statisticians and statistical agencies produce statistics to inform decisions. But many official statisticians have shied away from generating and disseminating indicators on democracy, human rights and governance for various reasons. The message of the METAGORA⁴ project is that statistical agencies can and should get involved in the measurement of democracy, human rights and governance. This is a challenge that official statisticians must address if we want to be relevant to society and respond to the aspirations of our people. In our case, one of the chapters in the Philippine Statistical Development Program 2005-2010 crafted by the Philippine Statistical System under the stewardship of the NSCB deals precisely with AntiCorruption and Governance and calls for statistical programs towards the generation of governance statistics.

But good quality statistics should be generated only if they will be used – as evidence in decision-making. Statistics and information should thus be transformed into knowledge and eventually find their way into policies and programs for the progress of society, as the OECD World Forum in Istanbul will emphasize. It is in this essence that, in preparing the electorate for the May 14 elections, Statistically Speaking seeks to show some statistics that measure the performance of our 79 provinces⁵.

In 2004, during the 9^th National Convention on Statistics, the author presented a paper entitled “The Best and Worst Provinces in the Philippines: What Happened To Their Leaders In The 2004 Elections?”⁶ The paper used a governance framework developed by the NSCB in 1998 which has three dimensions: economic governance, political governance and administrative governance. In this article, we use economic governance and administrative governance indicators to come up with a Good Governance Index (GGI) and a ranking of the provinces. Economic governance is measured in terms of the following indicators: per capita financial resources generated, per capita tax and non-tax revenue, per capita bank deposits, per capita expenditure on social services, unemployment and underemployment rates, poverty incidence and poverty gap⁷. On the other hand, administrative governance is measured in terms of the following: total health personnel per thousand population, percentage of live births weighing less than 2,500 grams, proportion of households with access to safe water, teacher to pupil ratio for elementary schools, number of elementary schools per thousand population, enrolment in government elementary schools per thousand population, cohort survival rate in elementary education, percentage of housing made of strong roofs, percentage of housing made of strong walls, length of national and local roads per thousand population, proportion of energized barangays and telephone density. We decided to exclude political governance due to the unavailability of data. And we added cohort survival rate among the indicators upon the suggestion of super economist Mareng Winnie, one of the most active and respected users of statistics produced by the Philippine Statistical System. We, of course, caution our readers regarding the usual limitations of an index such as the GGI; the GGI is also constrained by data availability which does not allow the inclusion of indicators which can enhance the validity of the GGI as a measure of performance.

So what do these governance statistics say?

As Table 1 shows, for 2003, the ten best provinces in the area of economic governance are Batanes, Rizal, Laguna, Bulacan, Bataan, Benguet, Cavite, Pampanga, Siquijor and Cagayan. Except for Siquijor all of these provinces are in Luzon. Table 2 shows the following as the ten best in administrative governance: Agusan del Norte, Batanes, Misamis Occidental, Abra, Siquijor, Aklan, Oriental Mindoro, Cavite, Zamboanga Sibugay and Compostela Valley. Four of the provinces are in Luzon, four in Mindanao and two in Visayas.

In terms of improvement between 2000 and 2003⁸, Table 3 shows the ten most improved provinces in economic governance: Siquijor, Northern Samar, Kalinga, Rizal, Basilan, Ilocos Sur, Oriental Mindoro, Agusan del Sur, Mountain Province and North Cotabato. Five of the provinces are in Luzon, two in Visayas and three in Mindanao. It is to be noted that provinces with already very high levels of economic governance index like Batanes, Laguna and Bulacan are not on the list of the most improved provinces for obvious reasons, but Rizal is! For administrative governance, Table 4 shows the following as the ten most improved provinces: Aklan, Agusan del Norte, Zamboanga Sibugay, Biliran, Eastern Samar, Davao del Norte, Siquijor, Davao Oriental, Oriental Mindoro and Agusan del Sur. Five of these provinces are in Mindanao, four in Visayas and only one In Luzon. Also, three of the provinces, namely, Siquijor, Oriental Mindoro and Agusan del Sur are on the list of most improved provinces for both economic and administrative governance.

Combining economic governance and administrative governance, we come up with a provincial Good Governance Index. Table 5 shows that for 2003, the 10 best provinces overall are Batanes, Rizal, Laguna, Bulacan, Cavite, Bataan, Benguet, Siquijor, Apayao and Pampanga. All these provinces are in Luzon except for Siquijor in Region VII. It is also noted that eight of the ten provinces are also ranked among the top ten in terms of the 2003 Human Development Index. Siquijor and Apayao did poorly in the HDI. On the other hand, Table 6 shows the following as the ten most improved provinces between 2000 and 2003: Siquijor, Northern Samar, Oriental Mindoro, Agusan del Sur, Zamboanga Sibugay, Bukidnon, Aklan, Surigao del Norte, Eastern Samar and Basilan. Five provinces are in Mindanao, four in Visayas and one in Luzon.

Congratulations to these provinces and to their leaders! Those not on the list, bato-bato sa langit, tamaan ay wag magagalit, grab every chance to catch up and improve!

But good governance is the responsibility of the governed as much as it is of the governors. We therefore came up with a Voters’ Index that provides indication on the “wisdom” of voters during elections – whether they are voting for the best and the best performing and booting out the worst and the worst performing. Table 7 confirms that, indeed, the Pinoy voters have not matured. The Voters’ Index for the best and best performing provinces is relatively high, meaning that voters reelect candidates whose provinces do well. However, the Voters’ Index for the worst and worst performing provinces is low, meaning that candidates whose provinces do badly in the GGI get reelected just the same. Our hope, of course, is that when we assess the results of the 2007 elections, the Voters’ Index will have improved! And unless we achieve a Voters’ Index very close to 1, we cannot and should not complain when our leaders desert us in our search for a better quality of life. We get what we deserve, don’t we?

Meanwhile, as the lovey-doveys among you excitedly await your date this week, be forewarned that in Britain they talk about platinum diggers and the upward spiral in the cost of divorce; and in America, their attention has been captured by a troubled astronaut who wore pampers in hot pursuit of her love. But we, Pinoys have the fortune that for the next four months, we shall be pampered with the obsessive love of our politicians. Happy Valentine’s to everyone!

Table 1 - Thirty Best Provinces in Economic Governance Index, 2003

Region	Province	EGI
2000	Province	2003	Rank
Philippines		102.68
NCR		300.00
II	Batanes	300.00	1
IV	Rizal	291.61	2
IV	Laguna	258.80	3
III	Bulacan	249.49	4
III	Bataan	221.53	5
CAR	Benguet	213.41	6
IV	Cavite	204.36	7
III	Pampanga	178.28	8
VII	Siquijor	171.49	9
II	Cagayan	156.45	10
II	Nueva Vizcaya	148.01	11
XIII	Surigao del Norte	146.00	12
CAR	Kalinga	144.49	13
ARMM	Tawi-Tawi	139.93	14
CAR	Apayao	137.85	15
X	Camiguin	134.94	16
III	Zambales	134.51	17
ARMM	Lanao del Sur	133.53	18
III	Nueva Ecija	131.16	19
VIII	Northern Samar	130.01	20
I	Ilocos Norte	128.75	21
ARMM	Sulu	127.88	22
XI	Davao del Sur	125.27	23
IX	Basilan	124.33	24
CAR	Mt. Province	122.85	25
VI	Guimaras	118.51	26
IV	Batangas	118.36	27
I	Ilocos Sur	117.97	28
X	Bukidnon	106.90	29
IV	Palawan	104.70	30

Table 2 - Thirty Best Provinces in Administrative Governance Index, 2003

Region	Province	AGI
2000	Province	2003	Rank
Philippines		97.41
NCR		191.16
XIII	Agusan del Norte	155.36	1
II	Batanes	140.74	2
X	Misamis Occidental	128.10	3
CAR	Abra	125.70	4
VII	Siquijor	115.40	5
VI	Aklan	115.27	6
IV	Oriental Mindoro	115.09	7
IV	Cavite	113.57	8
IX	Zamboanga Sibugay	112.91	9
XI	Compostela Valley	111.60	10
CAR	Apayao	107.16	11
X	Camiguin	106.56	12
IV	Laguna	105.89	13
II	Quirino	105.49	14
X	Bukidnon	105.14	15
IV	Rizal	99.55	16
XI	South Cotabato	99.45	17
XI	Saranggani	98.47	18
VIII	Biliran	98.01	19
VIII	Eastern Samar	96.45	20
XI	Davao del Norte	95.94	21
VI	Guimaras	95.02	22
IV	Occidental Mindoro	94.49	23
VIII	Southern Leyte	94.34	24
I	Ilocos Norte	93.79	25
XI	Davao Oriental	93.05	26
IX	Basilan	92.69	27
XI	Davao del Sur	91.73	28
CAR	Mt. Province	90.33	29
VII	Bohol	89.80	30

Table 3 - Thirty Best Performing Provinces in Economic Governance Index, 2000-2003

Region	Province	EGI				Diff
2000	Province	2000	Rank	2003	Rank	2000-03	Rank
Philippines		100.00		102.68		2.68
NCR		300.00		300.00		0.00
VII	Siquijor	125.44	17	171.49	9	46.05	1
VIII	Northern Samar	84.59	48	130.01	20	45.43	2
CAR	Kalinga	109.49	25	144.49	13	35.00	3
IV	Rizal	258.38	2	291.61	2	33.23	4
IX	Basilan	95.30	36	124.33	24	29.03	5
I	Ilocos Sur	91.52	40	117.97	28	26.45	6
IV	Oriental Mindoro	65.45	71	91.12	42	25.67	7
XIII	Agusan del Sur	65.96	69	91.47	40	25.51	8
CAR	Mt. Province	98.85	32	122.85	25	24.00	9
XII	North Cotabato	72.19	61	95.82	35	23.63	10
XIII	Surigao del Norte	122.66	18	146.00	12	23.33	11
ARMM	Tawi-Tawi	118.73	19	139.93	14	21.21	12
III	Nueva Ecija	110.97	24	131.16	19	20.19	13
X	Camiguin	117.05	20	134.94	16	17.88	14
X	Bukidnon	89.50	42	106.90	29	17.41	15
V	Catanduanes	57.64	76	73.85	61	16.20	16
XII	Sultan Kudarat	81.76	51	97.95	34	16.19	17
IX	Zamboanga Sibugay ^/1	4.25 ^/1	79 ^/1	17.87	78	13.62	18
XII	Lanao del Norte	40.11	77	53.31	77	13.20	19
CAR	Apayao	125.72	16	137.85	15	12.13	20
CAR	Benguet	202.12	7	213.41	6	11.30	21
X	Misamis Occidental	68.56	66	79.64	54	11.08	22
II	Cagayan	146.14	9	156.45	10	10.31	23
II	Nueva Vizcaya	139.23	11	148.01	11	8.77	24
V	Masbate	65.33	72	72.40	65	7.07	25
ARMM	Lanao del Sur	126.64	15	133.53	18	6.89	26
III	Tarlac	96.90	34	103.63	31	6.72	27
IX	Zamboanga del Norte	65.89	70	72.37	66	6.48	28
XI	Davao Oriental	84.85	46	91.29	41	6.44	29
IV	Romblon	65.20	73	71.10	68	5.90	30

^/1 2001 EGI (Zamboanga Sibugay created in February 2001, 2003 EGI compared
with 2001 EGI)

Table 4 - Thirty Best Performing Provinces in Administrative Governance Index,
2000-2003

Region	Province	AGI				Diff
2000	Province	2000	Rank	2003	Rank	2000-03	Rank
Philippines		100.00		97.41		-2.59
NCR		209.20		191.16		-18.04
VI	Aklan	75.19	37	115.27	6	40.08	1
XIII	Agusan del Norte	118.19	5	155.36	1	37.16	2
IX	Zamboanga Sibugay ^/1	77.45 ^/1	50 ^/1	112.91	9	35.46	3
VIII	Biliran	64.06	60	98.01	19	33.95	4
VIII	Eastern Samar	63.52	63	96.45	20	32.93	5
XI	Davao del Norte	64.05	61	95.94	21	31.89	6
VII	Siquijor	83.77	27	115.40	5	31.63	7
XI	Davao Oriental	64.27	59	93.05	26	28.78	8
IV	Oriental Mindoro	88.14	20	115.09	7	26.95	9
XIII	Agusan del Sur	62.75	64	89.49	32	26.75	10
X	Bukidnon	79.36	33	105.14	15	25.78	11
II	Batanes	116.03	9	140.74	2	24.71	12
VII	Bohol	68.19	53	89.80	30	21.62	13
II	Quirino	87.55	22	105.49	14	17.94	14
XIII	Surigao del Norte	64.28	58	81.26	42	16.98	15
X	Camiguin	90.78	18	106.56	12	15.78	16
IV	Occidental Mindoro	79.21	34	94.49	23	15.28	17
VIII	Southern Leyte	79.81	32	94.34	24	14.54	18
XII	Sultan Kudarat	59.41	68	73.75	54	14.34	19
VI	Negros Occidental	64.51	57	77.99	45	13.48	20
XI	Compostela Valley	98.44	12	111.60	10	13.16	21
CAR	Benguet	74.08	40	86.24	34	12.16	22
VII	Negros Oriental	58.25	70	70.36	58	12.11	23
CAR	Apayao	95.15	16	107.16	11	12.01	24
VI	Iloilo	70.75	45	82.46	38	11.71	25
IV	Marinduque	78.18	35	89.73	31	11.55	26
IV	Aurora	74.19	39	85.72	36	11.53	27
V	Sorsogon	56.78	71	68.23	62	11.46	28
X	Misamis Oriental	63.56	62	74.24	52	10.68	29
VI	Antique	65.55	56	75.95	49	10.40	30

^/1 2001 AGI (Zamboanga Sibugay created in February 2001, 2003 AGI compared
with2001 AGI)

Table 5 - Thirty Best Provinces in Good Governance Governance Index, 2003

Region	Province	GGI		HDI
2000	Province	2003	Rank	2003 /P
Philippines		100.04
NCR		245.58
II	Batanes	220.37	1	1
IV	Rizal	195.58	2	3
IV	Laguna	182.34	3	4
III	Bulacan	165.85	4	7
IV	Cavite	158.96	5	5
III	Bataan	151.74	6	6
CAR	Benguet	149.83	7	2
VII	Siquijor	143.44	8	68
CAR	Apayao	122.50	9	60
III	Pampanga	121.37	10	10
X	Camiguin	120.75	11	35
II	Nueva Vizcaya	117.48	12	9
II	Cagayan	114.82	13	16
XIII	Surigao del Norte	113.63	14	62
CAR	Abra	111.92	15	40
I	Ilocos Norte	111.27	16	17
IX	Basilan	108.51	17	76
XI	Davao del Sur	108.50	18	13
CAR	Kalinga	107.29	19	66
VI	Guimaras	106.76	20	58
XIII	Agusan del Norte	106.66	21	43
CAR	Mt. Province	106.59	22	69
X	Bukidnon	106.02	23	59
III	Zambales	104.86	24	12
X	Misamis Occidental	103.87	25	45
IV	Oriental Mindoro	103.10	26	41
II	Quirino	102.54	27	23
I	Ilocos Sur	101.85	28	24
ARMM	Lanao del Sur	101.29	29	67
VI	Aklan	101.24	30	49

/P - Preliminary

Table 6 - Thirty Best Performing Provinces in Good Governance Index, 2000-2003

Region	Province	GGI				Diff
2000	Province	2000	Rank	2003	Rank	2000-03	Rank
Philippines		100.00		100.04		0.04
NCR		254.60		245.58		-9.02
VII	Siquijor	104.60	17	143.44	8	38.84	1
VIII	Northern Samar	63.35	72	90.58	36	27.23	2
IV	Oriental Mindoro	76.79	51	103.10	26	26.31	3
XIII	Agusan del Sur	64.35	71	90.48	37	26.13	4
IX	Zamboanga Sibugay	40.85 ^/1	79	65.39	73	24.54	5
X	Bukidnon	84.43	38	106.02	23	21.60	6
VI	Aklan	81.08	45	101.24	30	20.16	7
XIII	Surigao del Norte	93.47	27	113.63	14	20.16	8
VIII	Eastern Samar	69.85	64	87.66	41	17.80	9
IX	Basilan	90.79	30	108.51	17	17.72	10
XI	Davao Oriental	74.56	57	92.17	35	17.61	11
X	Camiguin	103.92	18	120.75	11	16.83	12
VIII	Biliran	79.33	48	95.25	33	15.92	13
XII	Sultan Kudarat	70.59	62	85.85	44	15.26	14
XIII	Agusan del Norte	92.49	29	106.66	21	14.18	15
XI	Davao del Norte	72.16	59	85.02	47	12.87	16
XII	North Cotabato	72.09	60	84.79	48	12.70	17
CAR	Mt. Province	93.99	26	106.59	22	12.60	18
II	Batanes	208.02	1	220.37	1	12.35	19
CAR	Kalinga	94.98	24	107.29	19	12.31	20
CAR	Apayao	110.43	13	122.50	9	12.07	21
CAR	Benguet	138.10	7	149.83	7	11.73	22
ARMM	Tawi-Tawi	84.17	40	94.95	34	10.78	23
V	Catanduanes	66.33	68	76.70	61	10.37	24
III	Nueva Ecija	85.94	35	95.50	32	9.56	25
II	Nueva Vizcaya	108.33	15	117.48	12	9.15	26
I	Ilocos Sur	93.26	28	101.85	28	8.59	27
VI	Iloilo	73.11	58	81.20	52	8.09	28
VI	Negros Occidental	67.70	66	75.61	64	7.91	29
IV	Aurora	80.50	46	88.39	39	7.90	30

^/1 2001 GGI (Zamboanga Sibugay created in February 2001, 2003 GGI compared
with 2001 GGI)

Table 7 - Voters' Index for the 2004 Elections

Voters' Index	10 Provinces	20 Provinces	30 Provinces
Best Provinces 2003	0.89	0.89	0.89
Worst Provinces 2003	0.20	0.15	0.23

Best Performing Provinces 2003 /1	0.90	0.85	0.86
Worst Performing Provinces 2003	0.22	0.26	0.24

Reactions and views are welcome thru email to the author at ra.virola@nscb.gov.ph.

_______________
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. The author thanks Severa B. De Costo, Kristine Faith S. Agtarap, Mailin C. Villaruel, Noel S. Nepomuceno, Maria Ivy T. Querubin and Candido J. Astrologo for the assistance in the preparation of the article.

² The author also acted as Chair of the Roundtable: The Future for International Indicators. His participation was funded by the OECD PARIS 21 thru the METAGORA project. Atty. Purificacion Valera-Quisumbing, Chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights also participated with a presentation entitled Measuring Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Philippines: Quantitative and Qualitative Outcomes”.

³ PARIS 21 stands for Partnership in Statistics for Development in the 21^st Century and is an OECD-hosted North-South consortium to foster more effective dialogue between producers and users of statistics on development issues.

⁴ METAGORA is a pilot project focusing on methods, tools and frameworks for measuring democracy, human rights and governance and is implemented under the auspices of PARIS 21 (Partnership in Statistics for Development in the 21^st Century), within the OECD.

⁵ As of December 31, 2006, the Philippines has 17 regions, 81 provinces, 118 cities, 1510 municipalities and 41,995 barangays.Excluded from the ranking are the new provinces of Dinagat Islands in CARAGA and Shariff in ARMM.

⁶ This paper was co-written by Severa B. De Costo, Joseph M. Addawe and Leonor G. Reyes. An update featuring the results of the 2007 elections is being planned for presentation during the 10^th National Convention on Statistics to be held on 1-2 October 2007 in EDSA Shang-ri-la, Mandaluyong City.

⁷Poverty gap refers to the total income/expenditure shortfall (expressed in proportion to the poverty threshold) of families/individuals with income/expenditure below the poverty threshold divided by the total number of families/individuals.

⁸Improvement is measured in terms of the difference in the GGI between 2003 and 2000.

Posted 12 February 2007.