‘Ayuda’ and much more
How helpful has “ayuda” been toward eliminating poverty in our country?
At the turn of the century and millennium in 2000, around one out of four (27.5 percent) Filipino families was income-poor, meaning they earned less than the monthly income poverty line set then at P4,835 per month for a family of five. Three years ago, or 23 years later, the percentage was a little over a third of what it was (10.9 percent), or about one in 10 families earning less than the then poverty line of P13,873 per month. The data are from the Philippine Statistics Authority’s Family Income and Expenditures Survey (FIES), a nationwide household survey now done every two years (every three years before 2021). While the latest 2025 survey was completed last January, it won’t be until August that results will be ready for release.
At first blush, 27.5 to 10.9 percent sounds like a substantial decline in poverty, until one finds out that Indonesia now has 9.4 percent, Malaysia 5.1 percent, Thailand 3.4 percent, and Vietnam 2.9 percent of families falling short of their respective poverty lines. Around the world, falling poverty incidence has consistently accompanied economic growth; studies estimate an average drop of 2.0-2.5 percent with every one percent growth of gross domestic product. But not in the Philippines. Here, poverty incidence even rose in 2003-2006, while the economy grew 5-6 percent annually. Through those years, poverty declined annually at an average of only 0.7 percentage points. That was when I used to describe our economy as narrow, shallow, and hollow, as few sectors, geographical areas, and socioeconomic classes were benefiting from its growth—not the inclusive growth our development plan envisaged.
The government thus saw the need to give more deliberate attention to social protection (SP) as an integral part of its poverty reduction strategy. With support from the World Bank, it embarked in 2007 on the conditional cash transfer (CCT) program called the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program or 4Ps, inspired by the success of CCTs in Latin America. To this day, 4Ps continues to be the government’s flagship SP program. The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) reports that 1.4 million beneficiary families have so far graduated into self-sufficiency. Contrary to common perception, 4Ps is much more than a dole-out, as unlike some notorious ayuda schemes, it is well-targeted, and beneficiary families must comply with health, nutrition, education, and family development conditions to receive their cash grants. Thus, even as the modest cash grant itself would not necessarily lift the family out of poverty, it is the longer-term investment that the family makes to boost its human capital that eventually will. There is much anecdotal evidence showing that it’s working.
To guide all SP interventions, of which there are now dozens across different agencies, the government has also adopted a Social Protection Operational Framework, systematically defining four complementary types of interventions addressing various long- and short-term needs of the poor: (1) labor market interventions, to provide gainful employment, and hence income, to beneficiaries; (2) social assistance, to give longer-duration assistance to the poor and marginalized; (3) social safety nets that are short-term stopgap measures to fill needs in times of emergency or crisis; and (4) social insurance, to shield beneficiaries from life cycle and health-related risks, funded by their contributions and/or government subsidies.
Examples of the first are the Department of Labor and Employment’s Tupad (Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers), DSWD’s SLP (Sustainable Livelihood Program), and various skills training scholarships offered by the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority. The second is exemplified by the 4Ps; the Social Pension for Indigent Senior Citizens, a regular cash allowance for senior citizens in need; DSWD’s Supplementary Feeding Program for malnourished preschool children; and the Department of Education’s School-Based Feeding Program. The third includes AICS (Assistance to Individuals in Crisis Situations), the Department of Health’s Maifip (Medical Assistance for Indigent and Financially Incapacitated Patients), the controversial and now-defunded Akap (Ayuda Para sa Kapos ang Kita), and the newer Walang Gutom Food Stamp Program of DSWD. Under the fourth category are the agricultural insurance program of the Philippine Crop Insurance Corp. and universal health coverage under the Philippine Health Insurance Corp. or PhilHealth.
DSWD commissioned a third-party assessment of government’s package of SP programs, and the task fell on me to lead it. I will share key observations, findings, lessons, and recommendations arising from the assessment in future columns.
—————-
cielito.habito@gmail.com
