NSCB - Statistically Speaking... The Poor Have Bigger Families: A Matter of Choice or Circumstance? by Dr. Romulo A. Virola

The Poor Have Bigger Families: A Matter of Choice or Circumstance?
by Dr. Romulo A. Virola ¹
Secretary General, NSCB

Many of us have friends who yearn to have apos. But not everyone is blessed with those little rascals and cutie pies to pamper. Some rich couples have waited so long, despite many trips to fertility specialists here and abroad. On the other hand, when one goes to slum areas in Metro Manila, one sees hordes of happy children playfully chasing each other, completely oblivious to the impoverished environment that encumbers their young minds.

As the powerful Catholic Church opposes nontraditional methods of contraception, population management in the Philippines has certainly been a big challenge. Available data from the 1990, 1995 and 2000 censuses show that the Philippine population grew annually by 2.32% between 1990 and 1995, 2.36 % between 1995 and 2000 and 2.34% between 1990 and 2000.Based on the 2000 Census, population projections² put our growth rate at 1.97% between 2006 and 2007 and at 1.95% between 2007 and 2008, with the midyear 2008 population projected at 90,457,200 equivalent to a population density of 266 per square kilometer and an average population size of 2,154 per barangay. The decreasing population growth rate is due to the fact that the 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey in the Philippines shows a steady decline in fertility over the last three decades, from 6 children per woman in 1970 to 3.5 children per woman in 2001.³

Quote Relatedly, statistics from various sources (Table 1) show that the population growth rate of the Philippines is above the ASEAN average of 1.5% and is higher than Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam but lower than the 6 other ASEAN countries, including Singapore which is now promoting childbirth among couples. Notwithstanding decreases in fertility in the past, the Total Fertility Rate for the Philippines continues to be the highest among the five original ASEAN members. Our 2005 population density of 282 per sq. kilometer is topped only by the 6336 of Singapore. On the other hand, the Philippines has the lowest GDP per capita in US Dollars⁴ among the 5 original ASEAN countries and some attribute our economic underdevelopment to overpopulation.

The relationship between poverty and population growth has of course been probed by many researchers. In this connection, we wrote a paper entitled “Population and Poverty Nexus: Does Family Size Matter?”⁵ for the 10th National Convention on Statistics held on 1-2 October last year. Using data from the Family Income and Expenditures Surveys of the National Statistics Office, the paper dwelt on the differentials in the socio-economic situation of Filipino families by family size.

Here are some findings:

Per capita income, per capita expenditure and per capita savings decrease as family size increases. Thus, the bigger the family, the less money there is available to buy basic needs. This is true for the Philippines in general as well as separately for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. Table 2 shows that average sized-households of 4-6 members enjoy nearly close to 1 ½ times as much per capita income and expenditure as households with more than ten members.
In the last ten years, as family size increases, poverty worsens. Poverty measures like poverty incidence, poverty gap, severity of poverty, mean vulnerability and vulnerability incidence all increase with family size (Tables 3.1 and 3.2). For example, in 2003 the poverty incidence among families with at least 7 members is higher than 40%, compared to less than 20% among families with size no more than 4.
Between 1997 and 2000⁶, the reduction in poverty from 28.1% to 27.5% came mainly from the smaller families. But between 2000 and 2003 when poverty incidence went down further to 24.4%, there was poverty reduction even among the larger families. This could mean that the first to benefit from poverty reduction are the smaller families.
On the average, poor families are larger than non-poor families by more than one member ( 5.87 versus 4.34 in 2003). Specifically, 21 out of every 100 poor families had at least 7 members in 2003 compared to only 6 among the nonpoor. (Table 4)
Members of large families are less likely to reach college (Figure 1). Indeed, this should be cause for concern for government and civil society – less access to education among larger and poorer families gives them very little options and makes it viciously difficult for them to escape from poverty ever!
Per capita expenditures on education, medical needs and even recreation generally go down with increases in family size. ( Figures 2.1 to 2.3).
There is hope for the future, though. Consistent with declining population growth rates, FIES data show that the population of larger families is on the downtrend. Between 2000 and 2003 the number of families with sizes 1 to 3 and 4 to 6 increased annually by 10% and 3.5%, respectively while that of families with sizes 7 to 10 and more than 10 decreased by 2.7% and 5.5%, respectively.(Table 2)

Quote In addition, data from the 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey conducted by the National Statistics Office show that the mean ideal number of children is largest for women belonging to the lowest economic status, ranging from 3.5 for the lowest quintile⁷ to 2.7 for the highest quintile. (Table 5). Not surprisingly, the mean ideal number of children is also largest for women with the least education: from 4.6 for women with no education to 2.8 for women with at least college education. It is worth noting too that the mean ideal number of children is smallest for women in the NCR (2.6), Central Luzon (2.8) and CALABARZON (2.8); it is largest for women from ARMM (4.7), CAR (3.4), MIMAROPA (3.2) and Eastern Visayas (3.2). And of course, NCR, Central Luzon and CALABARZON are the regions with the three lowest poverty incidence while ARMM and MIMAROPA have the 2nd and 5th highest poverty incidence in 2003⁸.

Despite the advocacy efforts of the Commission on Population, the Philippine population will be increasing at the rate of 200 per hour in the Year of the Rat. Surely, there is improvement in our population management but obviously, there are other factors that come into play when couples decide on childbearing. And so why do the poor have bigger families? Some possibilities: (1) The poor have no access to modern family planning methods. Should this be difficult for PopCom to address? (2) The poor need more children to do household chores or to help in economic activities of the family. Shouldn’t children be studying in school instead? (3)The poor are religiously guided by the Catholic Church. Does it mean that the rich do not really pray when they go to church? Susmaryosep! (4) The poor lead healthier lives. Try malunggay and ampalaya then. Also, drink plenty of water and leisurely take a healthy breakfast at home - not in the office nor in a fast food center! (5) The poor lead less stressful lives (read: the poor enjoy sex better). Workaholic couples probably find less quality time to enjoy themselves and so find it difficult to conceive. With a nagger of a biyenan to boot, how can the poor rich couples’ copulation techniques succeed? But recalling that nonrandomly selected women enjoy sex better than men⁹, maybe, just maybe, poor men do it better than rich men? (6) The poor are less able to resist the pangangalabit ni waswit or pag-aklay ni maybahay. Because even the poorest women desire fewer children than they actually have! Or are the innocently seductive poses of the poor far more effective than branded perfume, sculpted noses and tattooed eyebrows? (7) In vitro fertilization is subprime compared to dancing in Obando. Note that we seldom see rich childless couples hying off to Bulacan. Pride prevails, maybe? The poor - they simply swing it all out when Willie wheedles, Sayaw Darling, Sayaw Darling!

Unfortunately, there are no official statistics to indicate definitively the reason why the poor are more successful in going forth to multiply! Whether they are forced by circumstances or whether theirs is an informed choice.

But come to think of it, is overpopulation really bad when China and India¹⁰ are the envy of everybody these days? Is it not in fact partly because of their huge population of conspicuous consumers that investments are pouring in?

Perplexes my simple mind.

Nonetheless, even as it has not been established beyond reasonable doubt which between poverty and family size is the cause and which is the effect, the strong correlation between the two variables is unmistakably clear. Statistics also very convincingly point to the importance of education in addressing poverty reduction and population management. This should be more than enough information to inform our decisions.

Maybe, as a US politician says, our time for change has come! PopCom, instead of spending on condoms should probably spend a big part of its budget to promote reading as a hobby, don’t you agree?

Quote And there should be no more debate on this one - we should invest heavily on education, particularly on science and technology. I firmly believe that education¹¹ should be the focus and locus of our development agenda. Because to be able to cope with the knowledge-based economies, we need to equip ourselves with, in the words of Howard Gardner, the five minds for the future: the disciplined mind, the synthesizing mind, the creating mind, the respectful mind and the ethical mind.

Happy New Year!

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, USA 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 Lina V. Castro, Arturo M. Martinez Jr., Noel S. Nepomuceno, Cynthia S. Regalado, Marymell A. Martillan, Bernadette B. Balamban and Candido J. Astrologo, Jr. for their assistance in the preparation of this article.

² Using medium assumption, i.e., moderate pace of fertility decline with a Net Reproduction Rate of 1 being achieved in 2040.

³ National Statistics Office.” 2003 National Demographic and Health Survey: Summary of Findings”.

⁴ Note that the Philippine GDP per capita in US $ PPP is higher than that of Indonesia.

⁵ The paper was co-written and presented in the 10th NCS by Arturo M. Martinez Jr., winner of the NSCB Most Promising Employee Award for 2006.

⁶ The 1997 and 2000 poverty figures are not completely comparable because of slight differences in methodologies.

⁷ Based on a wealth index that captures presence of amenities like electricity, television, telephone, washing machine, refrigerator, vehicle, personal computer, etc. in the household.

⁸ http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/2004/table_1.asp

⁹ Power Point presentation of “The Actuary: Steering Towards the Risk-Based Capital Framework”, paper co-written with Arturo M. Martinez Jr. & Raymond S. Perez during the 48th Annual Convention of the Actuarial Society of the Philippines in Costabella Tropical Beach Resort, Mactan Island, Cebu, 15-17 November 2007.

¹⁰ India and China have a population density of 345 and 137 per sq. kilometer, respectively compared to 282 for the Philippines.

¹¹ See Statistically Speaking, “Statistics on Philippine Education: Good News and Bad News!” 08 January 2007.

Posted 14 January 2008.

Table 1. Annual Population Growth Rates, Gross Domestic Product Per Capita of ASEAN Countries, Total Fertility rate and Population Density

Country	Annual Population Growth^3/ In Percent 2006	Gross Domestic Product Per Capita At Current Prices		Total Fertility rate (2005-2010)	Population density (population per sq. km, 2005) Medium variant 1950-2050
Country	Annual Population Growth^3/ In Percent 2006	US $ 2006	US $ PPP^4/ 2006	Total Fertility rate (2005-2010)
Brunei Darussalam	3.5	30,213.6	25,094.1		65
Cambodia^1/	2.5	512.3	3,226.0		77
Indonesia	1.3	1,640.4	4,321.3	2.2	119
Lao PDR	2.5	574.0	2,332.1		24
Malaysia	2.1	5,880.4	12,184.9	2.6	78
Myanmar^2/	2.3	208.6	1,958.8		71
Philippines	2.0	1,351.5	5,332.7	3.2	282
Singapore	3.3	29,499.6	32,379.6	1.3	6,336
Thailand	0.7	3,167.8	9,163.5	1.9	123
Viet Nam	1.3	723.9	3,373.3	2.1	256
ASEAN	1.5	1,890.3	5,210.2
Korea, Rep. of				1.2	481
Japan					338
China					137
India					345
United States of America					31

1/ - GDP per capita is preliminary figure computed using the latest/revised GDP estimate per Cambodia's submission dated 16 July 2007 and population projection (high estimated) from NIS, based on Intercensal Population Survey 2004.
2/ - Myanmar's GDP is based on fiscal year from April to March of the following year, and computed using derived foreign exchange rate based on IMF WEO database April 2007.
3/ - Refers to/based on mid-year total population based on the latest updates from AMCs as of 25 July 2007.
4/ - Recomputed based on IMF WEO Database April 2007 estimates and actual country data

Source: - ASEAN Finance and Macro-economic Survellance Unit Database and ASEAN Statistical Yearbook 2006 (compiled/computed from data submission and/or website of ASEAN Member Countries' national statistical offices, central banks, and other relevant government agencies).
- ASEAN Trade Database as of 18 July 2007
- IMF World Economic Outlook Database as of April 2007
- United Nations Statistics Division - Common Database website
- United Nations Population Division - website

Table 2. Annualized Growth of Number of Families, by Major Island Group and Family size

Island Group	Family size	Annualized Growth of Number of Families
Phils.	1 to 3	9.97
	4 to 6	3.47
	7 to 10	-2.74
	> 10	-5.52
Luzon	1 to 3	11.23
	4 to 6	4.00
	7 to 10	-1.41
	> 10	-6.17
Visayas	1 to 3	5.31
	4 to 6	2.26
	7 to 10	-4.47
	> 10	-4.95
Mindanao	1 to 3	11.52
	4 to 6	3.14
	7 to 10	-4.36
	> 10	-4.43

Source: Basic data come from the 2000 and 2003 FIES of the NSO.

Notes: Less than 200 observations fall for each of the group corresponding to more than 10 family members. The annualized population growth is computed based on the FIES.

Table 3.1. Foster-Greer-Thorbecke Measures, by Family size

		1997	2000	2003
	Family size
Poverty Incidence	Phils.	28.1	27.5	24.4
	1	8.36	7.57	4.44
	2	11.76	11.74	7.81
	3	15.86	14.52	11.45
	4	20.44	19.62	17.05
	5	27.38	27.14	24.31
	6	35.59	37.00	33.48
	7	41.22	45.62	41.44
	8	47.81	52.70	46.55
	9	52.41	55.42	52.27
	10	48.99	54.44	50.63
	> 10	43.35	50.74	52.96
Poverty Gap	Phils.	8.4	8.0	7.0
	1	1.82	1.57	0.96
	2	2.82	2.75	1.63
	3	3.75	3.47	2.56
	4	5.18	4.81	4.05
	5	7.48	7.15	6.38
	6	10.87	11.11	9.63
	7	13.64	14.80	13.08
	8	16.70	18.64	15.74
	9	19.66	20.48	18.62
	10	17.30	20.30	18.65
	> 10	15.64	17.29	19.54
Poverty Severity	Phils.	3.5	3.4	2.8
	1	0.65	0.45	0.32
	2	1.00	0.94	0.55
	3	1.32	1.19	0.90
	4	1.88	1.75	1.42
	5	2.87	2.64	2.42
	6	4.50	4.45	3.84
	7	5.99	6.36	5.56
	8	7.60	8.53	7.00
	9	9.48	9.75	8.67
	10	7.95	9.72	8.88
	> 10	7.41	7.69	9.17

Source: Basic data come from the 1997, 2000 and 2003 FIES of the NSO.

Note: The values were computed using a Stata do-file for computing FGT measures. Except for the weights, the sampling design was not used to generate the values, in an attempt to facilitate comparability of the figures.

Table 3.2. Estimated mean vulnerability and vulnerability incidence,
by level of predictors of vulnerability, 1997

Indicator of vulnerability	Mean vulnerability Level			Vulnerability incidence (%)
Indicator of vulnerability	Estimate	Standard Error	CV	Estimate	Standard Error	CV
Family size
1 <= famsize <= 2	0.208	0.007	3.1	26.1	1.606	6.2
2 < famsize <= 5	0.277	0.005	1.9	37.4	1.058	2.8
5 < famsize <= 10	0.423	0.007	1.6	57.5	1.056	1.8
famsize > 10	0.437	0.017	3.9	60.6	2.924	4.8

Source: NSCB Assessment of Vulnerability to Poverty in the Philippines study under the Strengthening Institutional Mechanisms for the Convergence of Poverty Alleviation Efforts, Phase II (SIMCPAE-2), an umbrella project spearheaded by the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) with funding support from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

Note: Vulnerability is defined as the risk that a household will fall into poverty in the future. Conceptually, the vulnerability level of a household at time t is formally defined as the probability that it would find itself income poor at time t + 1. A household with vulnerability level greater than a pre-specified threshold is considered as vulnerable. Consequently, vulnerability incidence is estimated as the ratio of the total number of vulnerable households over the total number of households.

Table 4. Average Family Size and Proportion of Households with at least 7 members, by Income Groups

Income Groups	2000		2003
Income Groups	Average Family size	% of Households w/ > 7 members	Average Family size	% of Households w/ > 7 members
Poor Households	6.11	38.60	5.87	20.55
Non-poor Households	4.71	15.92	4.34	6.45

Source: Basic data come from the 2000 and 2003 FIES of the NSO

Note: Households are grouped into two: poor and non-poor. Poor households correspond to Families whose income fall below the official poverty line computed by NSCB.

Table 5. Mean ideal number of children by background characteristics

Mean ideal number of children for all women, by age and background characteristics, Philippines 2003

Background characteristics	Age							Total
Background characteristics	15-19	20-24	25-29	30-34	35-39	40-44	45-49	Total
Residence
Urban	2.4	2.5	2.7	2.9	3.1	3.2	3.5	2.8
Rural	2.5	2.8	3.1	3.4	3.6	3.6	3.9	3.2

Region
National Capital Region	2.3	2.3	2.5	2.6	2.9	2.9	3.2	2.6
Cordillera Admin Region	2.9	3.0	3.3	3.6	4.2	3.6	4.0	3.4
I - Ilocos	2.4	2.8	3.0	3.3	3.4	3.5	3.9	3.1
II - Cagayan Valley	2.3	2.6	2.9	3.0	3.4	3.4	3.7	3.0
III - Central Luzon	2.0	2.6	2.8	2.9	3.2	3.6	3.5	2.8
IVA - CALABARZON	2.5	2.6	2.6	3.0	3.0	3.2	3.3	2.8
IVB - MIMAROPA	2.4	2.7	3.3	3.4	3.9	3.6	3.7	3.2
V - Bicol	2.6	2.7	3.1	3.1	3.3	3.3	3.8	3.1
VI - Western Visayas	2.4	2.6	2.9	3.0	3.1	3.4	3.8	2.9
VII - Central Visayas	2.5	2.6	2.7	3.0	3.3	3.2	3.8	2.9
VIII - Eastern Visayas	2.7	2.6	3.1	3.2	3.5	4.0	4.3	3.2
IX - Zamboanga Peninsula	2.6	2.7	3.0	3.2	3.1	3.5	3.4	3.0
X - Northern Mindanao	2.4	2.6	2.7	3.2	3.7	3.5	3.7	3.0
XI - Davao	2.4	2.4	2.8	2.9	3.2	3.5	3.6	2.9
XII - SOCCSKSARGEN	2.5	2.7	3.0	3.4	3.6	3.6	3.5	3.1
XIII - Caraga	2.4	2.6	2.9	3.5	3.6	4.0	4.1	3.1
ARMM	3.8	4.0	4.9	5.3	5.4	5.0	5.2	4.7

Education
No education	3.0	3.3	4.8	4.4	4.9	5.2	4.7	4.6
Elementary	2.5	2.9	3.3	3.5	3.8	3.7	3.9	3.4
High School	2.4	2.6	2.8	3.0	3.2	3.3	3.4	2.8
College or higher	2.5	2.6	2.7	2.8	3.0	3.0	3.4	2.8

Wealth index quintile
Lowest	2.7	3.0	3.6	3.6	4.0	3.9	4.3	3.5
Second	2.5	2.6	3.0	3.3	3.5	3.7	3.7	3.1
Middle	2.4	2.6	2.7	3.1	3.3	3.3	3.6	3.0
Fourth	2.4	2.5	2.7	2.7	3.0	3.2	3.5	2.8
Highest	2.4	2.5	2.6	2.8	2.9	3.0	3.4	2.7

Total	2.5	2.6	2.9	3.1	3.3	3.4	3.6	3.0

Source: 2003 National Demograpic and Health Survey, NSO

Figure 1. Proportion of households members 25 years and over who did not finish high school, by family size

Chart

Source: Basic data come from the 2003 FIES of the NSO. Note(s): This is computed as the ratio of the number of household member s of age 25 years and over who did not finish high school by the number of household members who are of age 25 years and over.

Figure 2.1. Per capita Expenditure on Education

Chart

Source: Basic data come from the 2000 and 2003 FIES of the NSO.

Figure 2.2. Per capita Expenditure on Medical Needs

Chart

Figure 2.3. Per capita Expenditure on Recreation

Chart

Source: Basic data for Figures 2.2 and 2.3 come from the 2000 and 2003 FIES of the NSO.

Poverty Statistics Page


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