How long can the poor wait?

The main challenge in the Philippines today is poverty. It remains high compared with that of neighbors that used to be as poor as or even poorer. This issue has come to the fore again with the recent government report which shows that poverty remained unchanged in the last six years. The nature and causes of Philippine poverty are no longer unknown but what is perplexing is what exactly is needed to cut it down.

In its 2009 study, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) showed that majority of the poor live in rural areas, mostly farmers and fishers. In the urban areas, such as Metro Manila, they are found in slums and the informal sector. They have large families (six members or more). In two-thirds of poor families, the head of household has only an elementary education or below. They have no or few assets and minimal access to credit. A major income source of the poor is enterprise(informal sector activities). A significant segment of the poor households are “chronically poor.”

The ADB identified the main causes of poverty to include low to moderate economic growth for the past 40 years; low growth elasticity of poverty reduction; weakness in employment generation and the quality of jobs generated; failure to fully develop the agriculture sector; high inflation during crisis periods; high levels of population growth; high and persistent levels of inequality (incomes and assets), which dampen the positive impacts of economic expansion; and recurrent shocks and exposure to risks such as economic crisis, conflicts, natural disasters, and “environmental poverty.”

Our close neighbors in Asia succeeded in eliminating much of their poverty due mainly to rapid growth. Citing other sources, the ADB explained the difficulties of the Philippines to transition to a higher and sustained level of growth due to a sustained decline in domestic investments, weaknesses in institutions and social infrastructure, institutional uncertainty, and a history and culture that have impeded growth. It also cited the possibility that poverty itself is constraining economic expansion. For example, the poor lack access to credit aggravated by the underdevelopment of the financial markets. They also lack education and health care.

But failing to grow as fast as our neighbors does not excuse us from not doing something to fight poverty. So what has the government been doing? First, we have the National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) which was established in the Office of the President in 1997 to coordinate and monitor the agencies implementing poverty reduction programs under the National Anti-Poverty Action Agenda (NAAA).

Before the NAAA was the Social Reform Agenda (SRA). A Poverty Alleviation Fund was placed under the Office of the President to implement SRA projects. SRA targeted 20 of the poorest provinces to improve the quality of life by empowering the poor and vulnerable. The target included (1) small and landless farmers, (2) fisherfolk and indigenous peoples, (3) urban poor, and (4) disadvantaged groups. But according to a 2001 paper of the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC), success was limited due to inadequate funding for specific projects and resources being distributed equally across provinces despite varying magnitudes of poverty.

In 1999, the Estrada administration changed the SRA to Lingap Para Sa Mahihirap (LPSM) or Care for the Poor. It also changed the Poverty Alleviation Fund to the LPSM Fund. The difference between SRA and LPSM was that the former targeted poor provinces, while the latter targets poor families.

Another government anti-poverty program, the Comprehensive Integrated Delivery of Social Services (CIDSS), aims to address poverty through the empowerment of every Filipino family. Communities or local governments are entrusted to carry out a survey according to minimum basic needs indicators and prepare their own plan. The program is implemented through the cooperation of many national government agencies led by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) with funding from the national budget through DSWD and the Poverty Alleviation Fund.

In 2001, the government under Arroyo made it explicit that the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) itself would be the government’s poverty plan to eliminate poverty. The flagship program was the Kapit–Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services Project. The strategies under the program include (1) accelerated asset reform, (2) improved access to human development services, (3) provision of employment and livelihood opportunities, (4) security from violence and social protection (including safety nets for vulnerable groups), (5) institutionalized and strengthened participation of the basic sectors in governance, (6) pro-poor infrastructure development.

The Arroyo government also introduced the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) Program or Pantawid ng Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps). Copied from Latin America, the program provides cash to targeted poor families if they send their kids to school and immunize their children.

Poverty characterized society with exclusive growth or growth which benefits only the rich in society. The new Aquino government pursues inclusive growth that the new MTPDP defined as rapid growth that is sustained; that massively creates jobs; and reduces poverty. It also continued implementing, increased the budget and expanded the coverage of the 4Ps.

But 10 years of Arroyo and two years of Aquino have not done enough to alter the country’s poverty landscape.

For how long shall we wait? Can the poor still wait?