Social indicators research at 50

This year marks the golden anniversary of the book “Measuring Philippine Development,” published in 1976 by the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP), the hefty 593-page final report of its Social Indicators Project (SIP). (Long out of print, but I have been sharing it in PDF form without any objection from DAP.)

Social Indicators was on the draft research agenda shown in October 1973 by DAP’s president Onofre “OD” D. Corpuz and research director Jose Conrado “Jolly” Benitez to some academic friends invited for a weekend at the DAP’s spanking new campus in Tagaytay. DAP itself had been newly created by presidential decree in June that year. I was a University of the Philippines (UP) economics professor then. Sensing that the topic included poverty measurement, I volunteered for it. Directing the SIP, as conceived and internally funded by DAP, was my sideline up to December 1974.

The adjective “social” before “indicators” was code for “non-economic.” Declaring freedom from the gross national product (GNP) as THE measure of national well-being was already popular worldwide. After all, GNP has many components—most of all the production of implements of war—that are not for individual or personal benefit. More relevant to general well-being would be the narrower concept of net beneficial product (NBP), which subtracts from GNP the value of instrumental goods and services, and keeps the value of directly consumable items. NBP was estimated in Japan, and also in the Philippines by our own SIP; but it hasn’t caught on.

The SIP followed the approach of the European Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, of listing vital Social Concerns, and then designing indicators for monitoring progress along each concern over time. For the prime social concerns of Filipinos it had nine categories: 1. Health and nutrition, 2. Learning, 3. Income and consumption, 4. Employment, 5. Nonhuman productive resources, 6. Housing, utilities, and the environment, 7. Public safety and justice, 8. Political values, and 9. Social mobility. Then it recommended 30 indicators—some already measurable, and some still experimental—to cover these concerns.

The strategy of listing topics is basic. It is seen in the United Nations’ eight Millennium Development Goals, which were targeted for attainment in the year 2015, and followed by its 17 Sustainable Development Goals, targeted for attainment in 2030. Each goal has a target. Goals have subgoals, and targets have subtargets.

For my job as SIP director, the most critical topic was No. 8, political well-being, so as to demonstrate that the work was independent of the martial law regime that had just started in September 1972. This component, led by UP political scientist Elsa Jurado, designed indexes for measuring political mobility, political participation, political awareness, freedom of political dissent, and political efficacy.

These and all other SIP experimental indicators—including self-rated poverty—were tested in a pilot survey of 1,000 adults in Batangas province on June 7 to July 4, 1974. The budget to cover costs of fieldwork and data processing, which were outsourced to the private company Asia Research Organization, was specially raised by Horacio “Boy” Morales, DAP executive vice president (who went underground in 1977).

The relevance of growth. The indicators recommended by SIP covered some good things like schooling which ought to grow, and some bad things like pollution which ought to be reduced. Good or bad, all these need numerical targets that should be monitored regularly: an unmeasured target is de facto a no-priority target.

The relevance of equity. Many of the targets involve fairness in sharing among the people: in sharing the benefits of the things that are good, and in sharing the suffering of the things that are bad. The indicators for such targets necessarily entail comparisons of the better off and the worse off. Measuring by means of averages—like per capita income—only pretends that equality exists among the people, and is silent about the extent of fair sharing.

The relevance of the future. The well-being of the present generation of people also includes the quality of its preparation for the well-being of future generations. This is why social indicators must include all the various forms of capital, which by definition are the stock from which flows the well-being of the future. The concept of capital includes not only (a) reproducible capital goods like machinery, buildings, and other constructions, but also (b) natural resources like lands, forests, mines, seas, and all other natural features, and (c) the human capital embedded in people themselves by means of formal education and other learning processes. Capital can be depleted as well as enhanced; it might be shared fairly, or it might be monopolized.

There is a science for keeping track of all these things.

Upon finishing the SIP 50 years ago, I took for granted that our conclusions and recommendations would be for the public sector to consider and implement if worthwhile. Now I see that they are useful for anyone interested in human well-being.

—————-

mahar.mangahas@sws.org.ph.

Mahar Mangahas

Dr Mahar Mangahas is a multi-awarded scholar for his pioneering work in public opinion research in the Philippines and in South East Asia. He founded the now familiar entity, “Social Weather Stations” (SWS) which has been doing public opinion research since 1985 and which has become increasingly influential, nay indispensable, in the conduct of Philippine political life and policy. SWS has been serving the country and policymakers as an independent and timely source of pertinent and credible data on Philippine economic, social and political landscape.