 |
 |
|||
 |
|
     |
||
| |
|
|||
|
|
|
||
Press Release
One Family Per 100 was Lifted Out of Food Poverty in 2009 
(PR-201102-SS2-01, Posted 08 February 2011)
The latest official poverty data indicate that a Filipino needed Php974 in 2009 to meet his/her monthly food needs and Php1,403 to stay out of poverty. Both food and poverty thresholds increased by 26% from 2006 to 2009, compared to only 22% between 2003 and 2006.
Consequently, a Filipino family of five needed Php4,869 monthly income to meet the basic food needs and Php 7,017 to stay out of poverty.
Subsistence incidence or proportion of food poor families improved from 8.7 percent in 2006 to 7.9 percent in 2009. This means that one family per 100 was lifted out of food poverty between 2006 and 2009.
In terms of poverty incidence among families, there was a slight reduction from 21.1% in 2006 to 20.9% in 2009 or 2 families per 1,000 were lifted out of poverty between 2006 and 2009.
Moreover, subsistence incidence among population improved from 11.7% in 2006 to 10.8% in 2009. This means that one per 100 Filipino was lifted out of food poverty between 2006 and 2009.
While there was a decrease in the poverty incidence among families from 2006 to 2009, in terms of poverty incidence among population, there was a very slight increase from 26.4% in 2006 to 26.5 in 2009.
In terms of the magnitude of the poor families, there was an increase of about 185,000 from 3.67 million in 2006 to 3.86 million in 2009. On the other hand, the magnitude of poor population increased by almost 970,000 Filipinos from 22.2 million in 2006 to 23.1 in 2009.
Meanwhile, the magnitude of subsistence poor families decreased by about 58,000 from 1.51 million in 2006 to 1.45 million in 2009.
Table 1: Annual Per Capita Thresholds, Poverty Incidence and Magnitude of Poor
| Statistics | Estimate | Inc/Dec |
Coefficient of Variation | |||||
| 2003 | 2006 | 2009 | 2003 to 2006 | 2006 to 2009 | 2003 | 2006 | 2009 | |
Annual Per Capita |
10,976 | 13,348 | 16,841 | 21.6 | 26.2 | |||
Poverty Incidence (%) |
||||||||
Families |
20.0 | 21.1 | 20.9 | 1.1 | (0.2) | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.1 |
Population |
24.9 | 26.4 | 26.5 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
Magnitude of poor (in million) |
||||||||
Families |
3.29 | 3.67 | 3.86 | 11.5 | 5.0 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.1 |
Population |
19.8 | 22.17 | 23.14 | 12.0 | 4.4 | 2.1 | 2.1 | 1.9 |
Subsistence Incidence (%) |
||||||||
Families |
8.2 | 8.7 | 7.9 | 0.4 | (0.8) | 3.4 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
Population |
11.1 | 11.7 | 10.8 | 0.6 | (0.9) | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.1 |
Magnitude of subsistence poor (in million) |
||||||||
Families |
1.36 | 1.51 | 1.45 | 11.3 | (3.8) | 3.4 | 3.3 | 3.2 |
Population |
8.8 | 9.85 | 9.44 | 11.9 | (4.2) | 3.2 | 3.2 | 3.1 |
Source: National Statistical Coordination Board
Other poverty measures such as the income gap 1, poverty gap 2, and severity of poverty 3 improved from 2006 to 2009. The income gap contracted by 1.5 percentage points from 27.2 percent in 2006 to 25.7 in 2009. This means that on the average, the income of the poor in 2009 would need to be increased by 25.7 percent of the poverty threshold for them to become non-poor. This translates to a total amount of Php100.2 billion or Php4,328 per poor individual needed to be distributed for them to become non-poor. The poverty gap also improved by 3.1 percentage points from 2006 to 2009. The severity of poverty, which captures inequality of income among the poor, improved by 0.2 percentage point from 2.2% to 2.0%.
Table 2: Income Gap, Poverty Gap and Severity of Poverty
| Estimate | Inc/Dec | ||||
| 2003 | 2006 | 2009 | 2003 - 2006 | 2006 - 2009 | |
| Income Gap | 27.7 | 27.2 | 25.7 | (0.5) | (1.5) |
Poverty Gap |
5.6 | 5.7 | 2.7 | 0.1 | (3.0) |
Severity of Poverty |
2.2 | 2.2 | 2.0 | (0.0) | (0.2) |
Source: National Statistical Coordination Board
In the National Capital Region, a sole breadwinner of a family of five in 2009 needed to earn at least PhP 8,251 per month to keep out of poverty. Consequently, a minimum wage earner 4 in Metro Manila can support a family of at most 6 members in 2009, to be classified as non-poor.
Among the 17 regions in the country, Caraga and ARMM consistently posted the highest poverty incidence among families in 2006 and 2009. Two regions that also posted high poverty incidence for both years were Region IX and V. In terms of the share to total poor families, Regions VII, V and VI continue to have the biggest share for years 2003, 2006 and 2009.
In terms of poverty incidence among families Regions IV-B, VII, I, II, XI, V, CAR and NCR had decreasing poverty incidence between 2006 and 2009 while Regions V, VI, IX, XII and Caraga has decreasing poverty incidence from 2003 to 2006. It is worth noting that Regions V consistently decraesed its poverty incidence in over the six-year period.
Table 3: Annual Per Capita Poverty Threshold and Poverty Incidence among Families
| Region | Annual Per Capita Poverty Threshold (PhP) | Poverty Incidence among Families | Share to Total Poor Families | |||||||||
| Estimate | Coefficient of Variation | |||||||||||
| 2003 | 2006 | 2009 | 2003 | 2006 | 2009 | 2003 | 2006 | 2009 | 2003 | 2006 | 2009 | |
| PHILIPPINES | 10,976 | 13,348 | 16,841 | 20.0 | 21.1 | 20.9 | 2.3 | 2.3 | 2.1 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
NCR |
13,997 | 16,487 | 19,802 | 2.1 | 3.4 | 2.6 | 12.0 | 13.1 | 12.0 | 1.5 | 2.2 | 1.7 |
CAR |
10,881 | 12,976 | 16,122 | 16.1 | 18.6 | 17.1 | 11.2 | 12.8 | 11.8 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 1.4 |
Region I |
11,791 | 14,350 | 17,768 | 17.8 | 20.4 | 17.8 | 7.8 | 7.6 | 7.0 | 4.7 | 5.3 | 4.6 |
Region II |
10,350 | 12,212 | 15,306 | 15.2 | 15.5 | 14.5 | 8.4 | 9.2 | 8.3 | 2.7 | 2.6 | 2.4 |
Region III |
12,771 | 15,374 | 18,981 | 9.4 | 12.0 | 12.0 | 8.6 | 8.4 | 7.6 | 5.2 | 6.2 | 6.3 |
Region IV-A |
12,394 | 14,284 | 17,779 | 9.2 | 9.4 | 10.3 | 8.7 | 10.6 | 7.9 | 6.1 | 5.7 | 6.4 |
Region IV-B |
10,398 | 12,610 | 15,769 | 29.8 | 34.3 | 27.6 | 6.6 | 7.2 | 6.8 | 4.5 | 5.1 | 4.2 |
Region V |
11,476 | 13,645 | 17,146 | 38.0 | 36.1 | 36.0 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 4.2 | 10.9 | 9.9 | 10.0 |
Region VI |
10,548 | 12,432 | 16,036 | 23.5 | 22.1 | 23.8 | 6.7 | 7.2 | 6.4 | 9.1 | 8.2 | 9.0 |
Region VII |
11,798 | 14,468 | 17,848 | 32.1 | 33.5 | 30.2 | 6.5 | 6.4 | 6.3 | 11.8 | 11.8 | 10.8 |
Region VIII |
9,850 | 11,885 | 15,910 | 30.2 | 31.1 | 33.2 | 5.9 | 5.8 | 5.3 | 6.9 | 6.9 | 7.4 |
Region IX |
9,642 | 11,810 | 15,160 | 40.5 | 34.2 | 36.6 | 7.1 | 9.3 | 6.7 | 7.2 | 6.1 | 6.3 |
Region X |
10,501 | 12,987 | 16,568 | 32.4 | 32.7 | 32.8 | 7.2 | 5.7 | 5.8 | 7.3 | 7.0 | 7.1 |
Region XI |
10,737 | 13,469 | 17,040 | 25.4 | 26.2 | 25.6 | 8.3 | 8.7 | 8.4 | 6.3 | 6.0 | 5.9 |
Region XII |
10,277 | 12,530 | 15,762 | 27.2 | 27.1 | 28.1 | 8.1 | 7.0 | 6.7 | 5.8 | 5.5 | 5.8 |
Caraga |
10,355 | 12,935 | 16,858 | 37.6 | 36.9 | 39.8 | 6.2 | 6.4 | 5.4 | 4.7 | 4.5 | 4.9 |
ARMM |
9,664 | 12,358 | 16,334 | 25.0 | 36.5 | 38.1 | 10.1 | 7.4 | 6.1 | 3.8 | 5.3 | 5.7 |
Source: National Statistical Coordination Board
Among the provinces, Batanes, the four districts of NCR, Benguet, Cavite, Bulacan, Laguna, Rizal, Pampanga, Nueva Vizcaya and Bataan were consistently included in the least poor cluster of provinces in 2003, 2006 and 2009. Further, new entrants in the least poor cluster in 2009 were Ilocos Norte, Bataan and Nueva Vizcaya.
Table 4: Provinces in the Least Poor Cluster: 2003, 2006 and 2009
Province |
2009 |
2006 |
2003 |
|||||||||
| Cluster | Poverty Incidence | 90% Confidence Interval | Cluster | Poverty Incidence | 90% Confidence Interval | Cluster | Poverty Incidence | 90% Confidence Interval | ||||
| Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | |||||||
Batanes |
5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
4th District |
5 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 2.5 | 5 | 2.9 | 2.0 | 3.7 | 5 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 2.4 |
2nd District |
5 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 3.2 | 5 | 3.8 | 2.1 | 5.5 | 5 | 2.6 | 1.7 | 3.4 |
1st District |
5 | 3.8 | 2.0 | 5.6 | 5 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 4.5 | 5 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 1.7 |
3rd District |
5 | 3.8 | 2.5 | 5.1 | 5 | 3.7 | 2.6 | 4.8 | 5 | 2.6 | 1.7 | 3.5 |
Benguet |
5 | 4.0 | 2.0 | 6.1 | 5 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 5.0 | 5 | 4.4 | 1.7 | 7.1 |
Cavite |
5 | 4.5 | 3.1 | 5.9 | 5 | 4.2 | 2.6 | 5.7 | 5 | 4.8 | 3.4 | 6.2 |
Bulacan |
5 | 4.8 | 3.7 | 5.9 | 5 | 5.1 | 3.7 | 6.6 | 5 | 4.3 | 2.9 | 5.7 |
Laguna |
5 | 5.9 | 4.1 | 7.6 | 5 | 4.5 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 5 | 5.2 | 3.5 | 6.9 |
Rizal |
5 | 6.5 | 4.2 | 8.7 | 5 | 2.7 | 1.6 | 3.7 | 5 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 3.9 |
Pampanga |
5 | 6.7 | 4.9 | 8.4 | 5 | 3.8 | 2.4 | 5.2 | 5 | 4.9 | 3.5 | 6.3 |
Nueva Vizcaya |
5 | 6.7 | 2.9 | 10.5 | 4 | 5.8 | 1.4 | 10.3 | 5 | 3.2 | 1.8 | 4.6 |
Bataan |
5 | 7.4 | 4.8 | 10.0 | 4 | 7.2 | 4.0 | 10.5 | 5 | 8.1 | 5.1 | 11.0 |
Ilocos Norte |
5 | 9.2 | 6.1 | 12.3 | 4 | 11.3 | 5.8 | 16.9 | 4 | 14.3 | 7.9 | 20.6 |
Note: Provinces were clustered using confidence intervals of poverty incidence as the clustering variable, where cluster 5 is comprised of least poor provinces.
Source: National Statistical Coordination Board
On the other hand, Zamboanga del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Surigao del Norte, Maguindanao, Masbate and Bohol were consistently included in the bottom cluster of provinces in 2003, 2006 and 2009. Ten provinces from the 2006 bottom cluster of provinces dropped out from the list in 2009, namely, Tawi-Tawi, Negros Oriental, Mindoro, Sultan Kudarat, Misamis Occidental, Camiguin, Apayao, Catanduanes, Mt. Province and Isabela City.
Table 5: Provinces in the Bottom Cluster: 2003, 2006 and 2009
Province |
2009 |
2006 |
2003 |
|||||||||
| Cluster | Poverty Incidence | 90% Confidence Interval | Cluster | Poverty Incidence | 90% Confidence Interval | Cluster | Poverty Incidence | 90% Confidence Interval | ||||
| Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | |||||||
Zamboanga del Norte |
1 | 52.9 | 46.0 | 59.8 | 1 | 54.1 | 46.4 | 61.7 | 1 | 59.5 | 51.4 | 67.5 |
Agusan del Sur |
1 | 51.2 | 43.5 | 58.9 | 1 | 45.5 | 38.2 | 52.9 | 1 | 48.5 | 41.3 | 55.6 |
Surigao Del Norte |
1 | 47.9 | 43.1 | 52.8 | 1 | 41.6 | 34.9 | 48.3 | 1 | 42.3 | 35.2 | 49.4 |
Eastern Samar |
1 | 45.8 | 37.6 | 54.1 | 1 | 37.6 | 31.8 | 43.5 | 2 | 29.8 | 20.5 | 39.0 |
Maguindanao |
1 | 44.6 | 37.7 | 51.6 | 1 | 44.9 | 39.0 | 50.9 | 1 | 41.9 | 34.4 | 49.5 |
Zamboanga Sibugay |
1 | 43.2 | 35.4 | 50.9 | 2 | 34.1 | 25.7 | 42.5 | 1 | 43.3 | 33.3 | 53.2 |
Romblon |
1 | 43.0 | 36.3 | 49.8 | 1 | 40.6 | 34.7 | 46.6 | 2 | 35.8 | 27.9 | 43.7 |
Masbate |
1 | 42.5 | 36.6 | 48.3 | 1 | 42.9 | 33.9 | 51.8 | 1 | 50.2 | 42.3 | 58.0 |
Davao Oriental |
1 | 42.5 | 36.4 | 48.6 | 1 | 39.0 | 28.0 | 50.1 | 2 | 35.6 | 26.7 | 44.4 |
Northern Samar |
1 | 41.7 | 32.4 | 51.0 | 1 | 43.3 | 32.9 | 53.8 | 2 | 37.4 | 27.9 | 47.0 |
Bohol |
1 | 41.0 | 33.6 | 48.4 | 1 | 43.7 | 35.8 | 51.6 | 1 | 40.2 | 33.8 | 46.7 |
Saranggani |
1 | 40.7 | 34.0 | 47.3 | 2 | 34.0 | 29.2 | 38.8 | 1 | 36.7 | 28.4 | 45.1 |
Sulu |
1 | 39.3 | 33.0 | 45.5 | 1 | 36.7 | 29.1 | 44.2 | 3 | 20.3 | 13.4 | 27.1 |
Lanao del Norte |
1 | 39.0 | 31.9 | 46.1 | 2 | 34.3 | 28.1 | 40.6 | 2 | 35.6 | 27.0 | 44.1 |
Camarines Sur |
1 | 38.7 | 33.8 | 43.6 | 1 | 36.6 | 31.0 | 42.3 | 2 | 38.3 | 32.5 | 44.1 |
Note: Provinces were clustered using confidence intervals of poverty incidence as the clustering variable, where cluster 1 is comprised of bottom poor provinces.
Source: National Statistical Coordination Board
Among the provinces, Cebu and Negros Occidental continue to have the biggest share in the total number of poor families, followed by Camarines Sur and Pangasinan, accounting for close to 16% in 2006 and 2009. Other provinces with the highest share in the total number of poor families for both years are Nueva Ecija, Leyte, Zamboanga del Norte, Bohol, Quezon and Davao del Sur.
Table 6: Provinces with the Highest Share toTotal Poor
| Magnitude of Poor Families | Share to the Total Poor Families | |||||
| 2003 | 2006 | 2009 | 2003 | 2006 | 2009 | |
Cebu |
185,624 | 211,406 | 213,162 | 5.6 | 5.8 | 5.5 |
Negros Occidental |
112,512 | 130,077 | 144,828 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.8 |
Camarines Sur |
116,460 | 119,747 | 126,280 | 3.5 | 3.3 | 3.3 |
Pangasinan |
92,191 | 128,396 | 114,400 | 2.8 | 3.5 | 3.0 |
Nueva Ecija |
64,808 | 94,026 | 112,367 | 2.0 | 2.6 | 2.9 |
Leyte |
99,082 | 104,260 | 110,214 | 3.0 | 2.8 | 2.9 |
Zamboanga del Norte |
102,074 | 101,511 | 109,745 | 3.1 | 2.8 | 2.8 |
Bohol |
90,735 | 104,032 | 102,522 | 2.8 | 2.8 | 2.7 |
Quezon |
84,031 | 101,394 | 98,426 | 2.6 | 2.8 | 2.6 |
Negros Oriental |
105,334 | 112,585 | 91,387 | 3.2 | 3.1 | 2.4 |
Davao del Sur |
88,165 | 89,452 | 94,049 | 2.7 | 2.4 | 2.4 |
II. Refinements in the Methodology
It must be noted that these estimates were generated based on the refinements in the official poverty estimation methodology approved by the NSCB Executive Board on 1 February 2011. Main features of the refinements are: 1) Use of a provincial food bundle developed based on an indicative national food bundle that passed the Test of Revealed Preference 5, and 2) Use of a standard/benchmark for non-food basic needs that is comparable across space and over time. These enhancements were to ensure that province-specific characteristics are captured in the estimation of provincial poverty statistics, the food bundle chosen for the province is “superior” over another bundle based on preferences, that is, the former will provide the least cost but with same level of utility and the poverty measures are comparable across space and over time.
In general, the trends of the poverty estimates from 2003-2006 and 2006-2009 using the refined methodology are consistent with the trends in the estimates generated using the old methodology. In terms of levels, estimates based on the old methodology were higher than those of the refined methodology as the latter better reflected the actual situation and unique condition in the provinces.
ROMULO A. VIROLA
Secretary General
Contact Person:
Ms. Bernadette B. Balamban
Tel. No.: +632-8967981
E-mail:bb.balamban@nscb.gov.ph
1 The average income shortfall, expressed in proportion to the poverty threshold, of families/ individuals with income below the poverty threshold
2 The total income 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
3 The total of the squared income shortfall (expressed in proportion to the poverty threshold) of families/ individuals with income below the poverty threshold, divided by the total number of families/ individuals
4 In the non-agriculture sector, effective 28 August 2008 per Wage Order No. 14 (source of data: http://www.dole.gov.ph/pages/statistics/stat_wage%20rates1989-present_non-agri.html)
5 The Test of Revealed Preference is a procedure done to ensure that the bundle chosen for the province is “superior” over another bundle, that is, the former will provide the least cost but with the same level of utility.
 |
 |
|||||||
  E-mail the webmaster |
Terms of Use |
Home • Top of Page | ||||||
1997-2013,
National Statistical Coordination Board |
||||||||
