“Steady growth in the number of overseas workers seems to belie assertions of improved socio-economic conditions of the greater majority of the population.

The World Bank October update on the country’s economic performance predicts poverty reduction “to continue based on the current economic outlook.” Based on the middle-income poverty line of $3.20/day, poverty is deemed to have declined from 26 percent in 2015 to 20.8 percent in 2019, and projected to decline to 19.7 percent in 2020.

Yet, in the first half of 2019, the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) revealed 21 percent of Filipinos to be below the poverty line. The finding is echoed by the Social Weather Stations’ (SWS) second quarter 2019 survey where 11.1 million have rated themselves as “poor,” with 8.5 million claiming to not having enough money to feed themselves.

The PSA poverty assessments drew a lot of flak for low-balling the number of the impoverished in the country. The National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) was disparaged for benchmarking the poverty line at P10,481 each month — an amount unrealistically low and not reflective of current conditions.

The NEDA poverty threshold was derived, not out of thin air as some may have surmised, but with due consideration of the national reference food bundle or the food menu that meets the 2,000 kilocalories food nutrient requirement of an individual. However, food component prices are obtained from farmgate prices which are naturally lower than the retail prices a family typically pays.

There are other objections, including the adequacy of the 2,000 kilocalories nutrient standard (short of the UN standard of 2,100 kilocalories) and the inherent difficulty in estimating non-food consumption components such as water, fuel, light, clothing, housing, health care, education and transportation.

How can an average-sized family of five, ever get by with only P10,481, or roughly P344.58 to spend each day for food, shelter and other basic necessities? This is equivalent to a paltry sum of P69.87 allocated for the three daily meals of each family member plus the non-food basic needs.

The rejection of the poverty statistics wrung a clarificatory statement from NEDA director general Ernesto Pernia, who then quoted P42,000, not P10,481, as a decent enough monthly salary adequate for the needs of a family of five.

Needless to say, setting a low benchmark for poverty results in the underestimation of the number of families living below that benchmark, and unnecessarily creating an inaccurately rosy picture of the country’s poverty eradication successes. Thus, the Filipino poor are made invisible by statistical data.

“Poverty reduction efforts, particularly those designed for the lowest rung of society, remains on track.” So declared the presidential spokesman Secretary Sal Panelo.

For one, the Executive Secretary enjoined all government agencies and instrumentalities, including GOCC, to participate in the “Sambayanihan: Serbisyong Sambayanan” program implementation and lower poverty incidence by 7.6 percent in 2022 (Memo Circular 59). This “whole of government approach” is expected to create “a prosperous, predominantly middle-class society where no one is poor and those in public service are watching out for the less fortunate, protecting their rights, and helping them out of poverty, instead of taking public funds and keeping it for themselves.” And that “Every Filipino family will be empowered to meet its minimum basic needs of health, food and nutrition, water and environmental sanitation, income security, shelter and decent housing, peace and order, education and functional literacy, participation in governance, and family care and psycho-social integrity.”

These poverty reduction efforts, while purportedly on tract, have not been as effective as anticipated. Both the PSA and SWS data reinforce the perception that existing policies and programs have not hit the mark.

Otherwise there will be no compelling urgency for the millions of Filipinos to leave their families and seek economic opportunities in foreign shores. The steady growth in the number of overseas workers seems to belie assertions of improved socio-economic conditions of the greater majority of the population.