Of surveys on hunger and poverty: perceptions and reality
It is a sad truth that, given an economy which is taught to have inched its way further and has managed to cushion the impact of the global crisis (at least in this difficult season), our country is still caught in the sticky quagmires of hunger and poverty. Being the fifth hungriest out of the 55 countries surveyed by Gallup International’s Voice of the People, it makes me think what is really wrong with the system; whether the problem lies with the Filipinos’ contentment standards or with the counterweight of the inflated economy defeating any statistical improvements.
Gallup International indicated that between June and September 2008, 40% of Filipino citizens said they have experienced frequent hunger in the last 12 months. The Social Weather Station (SWS) has also reported that approximately 3.3 million household have suffered involuntary hunger during the same period. In addition, the National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB) projected that there were 27.6 million poor Filipinos (32.9% of the total population) in 2006.
Considering also the over-all economic stability and growth which the President has been boasting of in her previous State of the Nation Addresses, here we will see both sides of the same coin presenting us with a picture of the Philippine economy from two vantage points, the macroscopic observation and microscopic observation.
Perhaps we can say that GMA’s description of the economy is not an overstatement, but those reported by surveys are not understatements either. Both of them relied on numbers which are hard facts, the only difference is that GMA’s indicators such as general growth in infrastructure, investment, agriculture etc. are too stiff and does not explain well the distributions of the elements and its effects on the growth of the classes, while on the other hand, popular surveys are more detailed, taking in consideration each individual status relevant to the scope of the needed information. The former suggest the situation according to the eyes of the observer, while the latter speaks of the condition according to the eyes of the observed. Currency and production are not enough indicators, for they fail to detect the great gap and disparity between the social classes amidst the projected over-all growth. They can tell you many things but they cannot tell you everything. They may tell you that the PSE is doing great at the moment, that the currency is gaining, or that the GDP is improving; they will tell you that the country is richer than ever. But what they cannot tell you is that only a small percentage, the upper class and a little of the middle class, reflects and enjoys this growth, while a significantly huge part of the population remains nigh or in the borderline of poverty and beneath. [continue reading]
