Rich and Poor pp 123-135 | Cite as

Subjective Poverty and Affluence in the Philippines

  • Mahar Mangahas
Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 15)

Abstract

In the Philippines, self-rated poverty and poverty thresholds have been measured at the national level since the mid-1980s, and are now being monitored from quarterly surveys, together with other subjective indicators of the quality of life. The self-rated poor are about twice as many as the poor officially defined. The official poverty line meets the subjective needs of only half of the self-rated poor. Self-rated poverty has a strong inverse relation to educational attainment, but is unconnected to gender and age of the household head. Surveys into food-poverty, hunger, and illness have been internally consistent. The rapidity of the tracking system has enabled short-run changes in poverty to become manifest.

There has been comparatively little measurement of affluence. A new survey looking into the subjective threshold of affluence finds that, like the subjective threshold of poverty, it increases with household head’s education, and is slightly higher among female heads. For most people, the affluence threshold is only some three times their poverty threshold. More research into perceptions of poverty and affluence will help explain why Filipinos are less concerned than most other nationalities about reducing inequality between the rich and the poor.

Keywords

Income Expense Volatility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrera, A.S. (1976): Philippine Poverty Thresholds. In Mangahas, M. (ed.): Measuring Philippine Development: Report of the Social Indicators Project. Manila: Development Academy of the Philippines, 223–274.Google Scholar
  2. Garner, T., L. Stinson & S. Shipp (1996): Affordability, Income Adequacy, and Subjective Assessments of Economic Well-Being: Preliminary Findings. Paper presented at the Association for Consumer Research Conference, Tucson, Arizona, October 10–13, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. Land, K.C. (1996): Social Indicators and the Quality-of-Life: Where Do We Stand in the Mid-1990s? Social Indicators Network News, 45 (February 1996), 5–8.Google Scholar
  4. Mangahas, M. (1977): The Philippine Social Indicators Project. Social Indicators Research, 4 (1), 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Mangahas, M. (1994): The Philippine Social Climate: From the SWS Surveys. Manila: Anvil Publishing.Google Scholar
  6. Mangahas, M. (1995): Self-Rated Poverty in the Philippines, 1981–1992. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 7 (1), 40–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mangahas, M. & L.L. Guerrero (1998): Self-Sustained Quality of Life Monitoring: The Philippine Social Weather Reports. Social Weather Stations Occasional Paper.Google Scholar
  8. Riffault, H. (1991): How Poverty Is Perceived. In Reif, K. & R. Inglehart (eds.): Eurobarometer: The Dynamics of European Public Opinion. London: Macmillan, 349–354.Google Scholar
  9. Vogel, J. (1997): The Future Direction of Social Indicator Research. Social Indicators Research, 42 (2), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mahar Mangahas
    • 1
  1. 1.Social Weather StationsPhilippines

Personalised recommendations