Instructive Stories and Mysteries

I SAID it last week, and it bears repeating: The Annual Poverty Indicators Survey, or APIS (the preliminary results of the 2002 survey is already out and the final version only awaits funding) contains a treasure trove of information that can be profitably mined by almost every sector in the community, whether national or local. At the very least, it can help improve the quality of discussions. Instead of the different parties resorting to anecdotal evidence or just plain assertions, the APIS survey data can be used to back up the claims and counterclaims on all sides. Which is what this country needs, because much too often discussions have descended to gutter level, the muddier the better, with not even a smidgen of solid, supporting evidence.

So it is encouraging that last week's column on the 2002 APIS results seems to have galvanized some sectors into action. Although I have no information as to how the opposition is taking it, the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) sent me a fax on the same day, thanking me for the "thoughtful commentary," and attaching a copy of a press release written also on the same day, as well as a copy of their August 2003 Poverty Update, where they were quoting from the APIS (a nice way of telling me that they were aware of the data). When I called up the National Statistics Office, or NSO (some of the staff and I are practically phone pals), they thanked me for the write-up and intimated that they got several phone calls and requests for the data. At least one government channel had a program on the topic a couple of days ago.

About time, too. One recalls that during the Fidel Ramos administration, every situation seemed to be closely monitored, with the best possible spin being put even on the most lackluster of performances. In contrast, the present administration, at least in this case, has shown an appalling lack of awareness/interest in what is touted to be its No. 1 concern: poverty reduction and human development. This perhaps would be understandable if the figures told a depressing story -- but when it is a good one? No wonder Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is in trouble.

And even when attention has been paid -- as the NAPC did, apparently -- it was focused on the wrong spot. The NAPC "poverty updates" that were so thoughtfully provided me and which used the 2002 APIS data, zeroed in on the situation of all families, both poor and non-poor, when it should have concentrated on how the bottom 40 percent of the families were doing. At the very least, it should have tried to determine how the improvements (and setbacks) in the situation of Filipino families as a whole were shared between the poor (bottom 40 percent) and the non-poor (top 60 percent). This is what the APIS is all about, after all.

As stated earlier, the APIS data contain a lot of interesting, instructive stories. Also mysteries. I have called the attention of the NSO to some of the latter, and they, already aware of it, are trying to find the answers. For one thing, the answer may be simple -- but then again, it may also add unforeseen dimensions to the country's population problem, and fuel to the fire of the country's raging population controversy.

By way of background, conventional wisdom, based on the triennial Family Income and Expenditure Surveys, or FIES, is that poor Filipino families have larger family sizes than the non-poor. It is easy to come to this conclusion: In 2000, for example, 28.4 percent of Filipino families were poor, and they made up 34 percent of the population.

But now comes the APIS, conducted in non-FIES years. And all three APIS results so far -- for 1998, 1999 and 2002 -- seem to point to a different conclusion, because the family size of the bottom 40 percent of Filipino families is smaller than the family size of the top 60 percent. While there are five members in the average Filipino family, those who are at the bottom 40 percent have a family size of 4.5, while those in the top 60 percent have a family size of 5.4 (in 2002, this went down to 5.3). The same phenomenon is apparent over all regions, as well as in urban and rural settings.

Of course, the FIES poverty figures refer to absolute poverty-families whose income are below a pre-determined poverty threshold -- while the APIS "bottom 40 percent" is a measure of relative poverty. Which means that just because a family in a certain region is in the bottom 40 percent does not necessarily mean that a family is poor, since its income may be above the poverty threshold. Conversely, just because a family is in the top 60 percent does not mean that it is non-poor, since its income may be below the poverty threshold. In Metro Manila, for example, only 5.7 percent of families are income poor, so the rest of the "bottom 40 percent" of families are non-poor in absolute terms. While in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, 57 percent of families are income poor, which means that the top 60 percent of families include poor households.

Nevertheless, someone still has to explain the seeming puzzle of higher income levels associated with higher family sizes. Again, take Metro Manila. Per the 2002 APIS, the family size of the bottom 40 percent (around 5.7 percentage points of whom are income poor, as pointed out) averages 3.4, as compared with a 5.0 average family size for the top 60 percent of households.

Maybe our population experts, from both sides of the population divide, can unravel this mystery for us.