Reducing Poverty in the Philippines

Looking Back, then Sprinting On

by Rosemarie G. Edillon[*]

September 2005

This study looks at poverty outcomes over four three-year terms : 1991-94, 1994-97, 1997-2000, and 2000-03. We then attempt to explain the poverty outcomes in terms of the three broad strategies that reduce poverty: (1) sustained economic growth; (2) increasing the capacity of the poor to benefit from growth; and (3) reducing vulnerability to shocks. Each administration has always espoused poverty reduction as one of its major goals and each one has its bias regarding engines of growth and drivers of social change. These goals and strategies are articulated in development plans and official statements. We hope to derive lessons on how these different public strategies affected poverty outcomes. The policy bias, growth strategy, and the targeted Poverty Alleviation Programs (specifically choice of instruments, inclusion criteria, delivery scheme, and utilization of fund instruments and perceived impact) of each administration is discussed. From this, the challenge ahead is to come up with strategies to abide by the Philippines' commitments to the MTPDP and the MDG. The necessary policy bias and growth strategy is discussed, along with addressing vulnerability to shocks and managing public perception. In conclusion, the paper outlines a broad strategy on how to formulate the Plan of Action for Poverty Reduction (PAPR) in line with the MTPDP.

***The report is organized as follows:

A. Introduction

B. Effecting Redistribution – The Case of Targeted Anti-Poverty Programs

C. Trends in poverty outcomes

D.I. Background period – Aquino Administration

D.II. Ramos Administration - Policy Bias; Growth strategy

Targeted Poverty Alleviation Programs: Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (CIDSS); PAF-1 - Choice of Instruments; Inclusion Criteria; Delivery Scheme; Utilization of Fund Instruments and Perceived Impact

D.III. The Estrada Administration - Policy Bias; Growth strategy

Targeted Poverty Alleviation Program: “Lingap para sa Mahihirap” Program - Choice of Instruments; Inclusion Criteria; Delivery Scheme; Utilization of Fund Instruments and Perceived Impact

D.IV. The Macapagal-Arroyo Administration - Policy Bias; Growth strategy

Targeted Poverty Alleviation Programs: Kapit-bisig Laban sa Kahirapan (KALAHI); KALAHI-CIDSS - Choice of Instruments; Inclusion Criteria; Delivery Scheme; Utilization of Fund Instruments and Perceived Impact

E. The Challenges Ahead

Our commitment to poverty reduction is articulated in at least two platforms – the MTPDP and the MDG. The challenge is to come up with strategies to abide by these commitments.

Policy Bias; Growth Strategy; Benefiting from Growth; Addressing Vulnerability to Shocks; Monitoring and Evaluation

F. Sprinting On – Formulating the PAPR in line with the MTPDP

Policy Bias; Growth Strategy

G. Appendix:

Other Targeted Programs: NFA Rice Price Subsidy; NFA Rolling Stores; “Gamot Makamasa Abot-Kaya” (GMA) Program - Choice of Instruments; Inclusion Criteria; Delivery Scheme; Utilization of Fund Instruments and Perceived Impact