Middle Class Shrinking

8/12/2019 Middle Class Shrinking

1/32

1

12th National Convention on Statistics (NCS)EDSA Shangri-La Hotel, Mandaluyong City

October 1-2, 2013

WILL THE RECENT ROBUST ECONOMIC GROWTH CREATE A BURGEONING MIDDLE

CLASS IN THE PHILIPPINES?

by

Romulo A. Virola,

Jessamyn O. Encarnacion, Bernadette B. Balamban,

Mildred B. Addawe, and Mechelle M. Viernes

For additional information, please contact:

Authors name Romulo A. VirolaDesignation Former Secretary General, National Statistical Coordination Board, &

ConsultantAffiliation Statistically Speaking Consultancy Services (SSCS)Address # 2 Camia St., Vergonville, Las Pias City, PhilippinesTel. no. +632-8952395; +63917-5278265E-mail [email protected]

Co-authors names Jessamyn O. Encarnacion, Bernadette B. Balamban, Mildred B. Addawe,and Mechelle M. Viernes

Designation Director III, Statistical Coordination Officer (SCO) VI, SCO V, and SCO III Affiliation National Statistical Coordination BoardAddress 403 Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati CityTel. no. +632-8967981E-mail addresses [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected];[email protected];
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/32

2

WILL THE RECENT ROBUST ECONOMIC GROWTH CREATE A BURGEONING

MIDDLE CLASS IN THE PHILIPPINES?

by

Romulo A. Virola,

Jessamyn O. Encarnacion, Bernadette B. Balamban,

Mildred B. Addawe, and Mechelle M. Viernes1

Abstract

It is now widely-accepted that the development of a nation hinges on building itsmiddle class. With the impressive 6.8% growth of the countrys Gross DomesticProduct (GDP) for 2012, and four consecutive quarters of GDP growth of more than7.0% since the third quarter of 2012, as well as the ratings upgrade to investmentgrade by Standard & Poors and Fitch, and the expected similar upgrade by Moodys,the prospects for the Philippines joining the Asian tigers have surely become rosier.To achieve this goal, the Filipino middle class will have to play its role.However, aside from the fact that there is no internationally-adopted definition of the

middle class, the systematic generation of data on the middle class has not beeninstitutionalized in the Philippine Statistical System (PSS).During the 10thNational Convention on Statistics (NCS), Virola, Addawe & Querubinpresented a paper that used cluster analysis and multiple regression to propose two

possible definitions of the middle class, one based on income and the other based onsocio-economic characteristics. The paper used the 1997, 2000 and 2003 data fromthe Family Income and Expenditures Surveys (FIES) and the January 2001 and 2004Labor Force Surveys (LFS). During the 11

th NCS, Virola, et. al. updated and

improved on the 10th

NCS paper, adding auxiliary variables as well as two-wayinteraction among independent variables in the multiple regression component, andusing data from the 2000, 2003, and 2006 FIES and the January 2001, 2004 and2007 LFS. The most worrying result that the two papers showed is a shrinking middleclass in the Philippines.Convinced that the PSS should sustain the generation of statistics that can contributeto policy formulation towards the protection of the middle class, in particular, and toevidence-based decision making towards national progress in general, this paper willhighlight the socio-economic and demographic characteristics as well as the province

of residence of the Filipino middle class. It will also assess whether the middle classhas started to expand preparing the country better for the development challengesahead. As in the previous papers, data from the FIES and the LFS will be used.

Key words and phrases: middle- income class; cluster analysis; mult ip le

regression; socio-economic character ist ics; demographic character ist ics,

provinceof residence.

1Former Secretary General, Director III, Division Chief, Statistical Coordination Officer V, andStatistical Coordination Officer III, respectively, of the National Statistical Coordination Board. Theviews expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the

NSCB. The authors acknowledge the assistance of Noel S. Nepomuceno and Albert A. Garcia andthe cooperation of the National Statistics Office, particularly the Income and Employment StatisticsDivision (IESD) in the preparation of this paper.


3/32

3

I. Introduction

It is now widely-accepted that the development of a nation hinges on building its

middle class2. In 2012, the economy recorded an impressive 6.8% growth of the countrys

Gross Domestic Product(GDP)and for four consecutive quarters since the third quarter of

2012, GDP has grown by more than 7.0%3(see [1])Prior to the release of the 2013 Q2 GDP

by the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) Technical Staff (TS),the Philippines

has been included in the N11 economies4, which according to Goldman Sachs (see [2])

could follow the BRIC5 countries Recently, the Philippines was upgraded to investment

grade by Standard & Poors and Fitch, with the understandable expectation that the third

major rating agency Moodys, will follow suit. In addition, the Philippines jumped several

notches up from 85thout of 139 countries in 2010-2011 to 65th out of 144 in 2012-2013 and

to 59th

out of 144 countries in 2013-2014 in the World Economic Forum GlobalCompetitiveness Index. Surely, the prospects for the Philippines joining the Asian tigers

have become rosier. To achieve this goal, the Filipino middle class will have to play its role

Despite all the good news and the worldwide recognition of the robust performance

of the Philippine economy, the news about the overarching goal of poverty reduction has not

been that good. In the words of the NSCB TS, the poverty situation has remained

practically unchanged from the first semester of 2009 with a poverty incidence among

families of 22.9 % to the first semester of 2012 with a poverty incidence among families of22.3%. (see [3]) In contrast, the British Broadcasting Company says hundreds of millions of

people around the world are escaping poverty and becoming middle class. The explosion of

new consumers in China, India and other economic powerhouses is changing the global

balance of power. (see[4] ) Related references on the middle class in the developing world

are [5] and [6].

But why has the economic growth in the Philippines not been trickling down to the

poor, as claimed by many? Is it only the rich and the Senators, Congressmen and all those

2In a speech last 31 August 2010, US President Barack Obama underscored the importance of the

middle class calling them the bedrock of their prosperity, and hence, the need for them to strengthentheir middle class by giving their children the education they deserve and the workers the skills theyneed to compete in the global economy. On the other hand, the Asian Development Bank (ADB)stresses the role of the middle class, specifically in Asia, referring to it as the main source of socialactivists who typically found and operate non-government organizations that demand greatergovernment accountability. (Asian Development Bank. Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2010 -Special Chapter: Rise of the Asias Middle Class)3The GDP grew by 7.3% in 2012 Q3, by 7.1% in 2012 Q4, by 7.7% in 2013 Q1 and by 7.5% in 2013Q2, at constant prices.

4Next Eleven Economies include Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan,Philippines, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam5 The BRIC countries are Brazil, Russia, India, and China.


4/32

4

involved in the pork barrel scam who have been unconscionably reaping the benefits of this

growth? Or are our economic managers really not smart enough to have learned the ropes

of development and come up with programs and policies that will translate into better quality

of lives for the marginalized sectors of our society? Could it be that our development agenda

simply fails to recognize or does not consider it imperative that the middle class must

expand if we want to achieve inclusive growth and meaningful development? And could this

be a reason why numerous studies have been done and indicators/statistics developed with

primary focus on the poor, and very little focus on the vulnerable sectors of society including

the middle-income class? In fact, the Millennium Development Goals do not include an

indicator on the middle class.

.

In order to effectively monitor the situation of the middle class, high quality and relevant

statistics are needed. This paper advocates for the generation and dissemination of statistics

on the middle class in the Philippine Statistical System (PSS). However, there is no

internationally-adopted definition of the middle class6. Some have defined it based on

relative measures while others use absolute measures. Partly because of this, the

systematic generation of data on the middle class has not been institutionalized in the PSS.

During the 10thNational Convention on Statistics (NCS), Virola, Addawe & Querubin

presented a paper (see[7]) that used cluster analysis and multiple regression to propose two

possible definitions of the middle class, one based on income and the other based on socio-

economic characteristics. The paper used the 1997, 2000 and 2003 data from the Family

Income and Expenditures Surveys (FIES) and the January 2001 and 2004 Labor Force

Surveys (LFS). In June 2009, this was updated through an NSCB website Statistically

Speaking art ic le (see [8]) by Virola and Addawe. Another Stat ist ical ly Speaking article

(see [9]) by Virola, Encarnacion, and Viernes looked into the income and expenditure pattern

of the rich in comparison with the middle class and the poor. During the 11 thNCS, Virola, et.

al. updated and improved (see[10]) on the 10

th

NCS paper, adding auxiliary variables aswell as two-way interaction among independent variables in the multiple regression

component, and using data from the 2000, 2003, and 2006 FIES and the January 2001,

2004 and 2007 LFS. The studies showed that the ranks of the rich dwindled from 2000 to

2006. The most worrying result shown by the papers is a shrinking middle class in the

6 In a study done by the ADB, they have defined the middle class as those with consumption

expenditures of $2-$20 per person per day in 2005 PPP$. Ravallion (2009), on the other hand,defined the developing worlds middle class as those who live above the median poverty line ofdeveloping countries but are still poor by US standards or those with income between $2 per person

per day and $13 per person per day. Another study done by Birdshall, Graham and Pettinato (2000)defined the middle class as those earning between 75% and 125% of a societys median per capitaincome.


5/32

5

Philippines, losing its members to the low-income class. However,these papers did not say

if the decline was statistically significant.

Convinced that the PSS should sustain the generation of statistics that can contribute

to policy formulation towards the protection of the middle class, in particular, and to

evidence-based decision making towards national progress in general, this paper will

highlight the socio-economic and demographic characteristics as well as the province of

residence of the Filipino middle class. It will also assess whether the middle class has

started to expand at a statistically significant pace, thereby preparing the country better for

the development challenges ahead. As in the previous papers, data from the FIES and the

LFS including the 2009 FIES and the January round of the 2010 LFS will be used.

The paper uses Cluster Analysis to define the income bracket of the middleclass.T-

tests of statistical significance are used to assess the changes in the share of the middle

class in the population distribution at the national level. The limitations of the methodology

are described in the 11thNCS paper ( see [10]).

The next section will present an overview of the data sources and the methodology.

Section 3 will show the results and the last section will give some concluding remarks and

update the recommendations to advance the research agenda on the middle class of the

Philippines.

II. Data Sources and the Methodology

Data Sources

As in the other NSCB TS studies by the authors on the middle class, the data used

come mainly from the FIES and the LFS conducted by the NSO. More specifically, this

paper uses the 2003, 2006 and 2009 FIES merged with the January round of the 2004,2007 and 2010 LFS, respectively. The authors had planned to use the 2012 FIES for more

updated information; unfortunately, the microdata files of the 2012 FIES have not yet been

released to the public. The FIES is a nationwide household survey, conducted by the NSO

every three years to collect data on family income, sources of income as well as family

expenditure and other related information, which can be used to determine the degree of

inequality among families, provide information to update the weights used in the compilation

of the CPI and in the estimation of poverty statistics in the country. However, most of the

information collected by the FIES refers to the collective characteristics of the family and thehousehold head only, hence, the need to merge with the LFS, to provide greater flexibility in


6/32

6

the analysis. The LFS is also a nationwide survey conducted by the NSO every quarter,

designed to provide statistics on the levels and trends of employment, unemployment and

underemployment7 in the country. It contains data on the characteristics of the different

household members, particularly on their education and employment. With the FIES being

a rider to the LFS, these two data sets can be merged to produce a dataset containing

characteristics of the family as well as its individual members, which can all be useful in the

analysis of the characteristics of the middle class.

Methodology

A. Identifying Middle-Income Class Based on Income

The methodology used in this paper to define the middle class is the approach based onincome (see [10] )and uses cluster analysis.

Cluster analysis is used to divide the population into clusters. This tool is a multivariate

analysis technique that classifies objects or individuals into a small number of mutually exclusive

groups based on the similarities among the entities so that each object is very similar to others in

the cluster with respect to some predetermined selection criterion (see [11]). In the 2013 paper,

the option of five clusters was specified, as was chosen in the 2010 paper when the cluster

analysis was done on 3, 4, 5, and 6 clusters. The 5-cluster option gives the most meaningful

results in identifying the middle class. The cluster analysis allows us to define the per capita

income boundaries of the middle class in the reference year. These boundaries are extrapolated

to future years using the CPI instead of doing separate cluster analyses for each of the FIES

years to maintain consistency in the standard of living defined for the middle class. Redoing the

cluster analysis for each FIES could mean a changing conceptual definition of the middle class

with every FIES. This is similar to the issue of whether to use a fixed or changing FE/TBE ratio in

the generation of poverty statistics8.

The differences in the methodology between the 2010 NCS and the 2013 NCS papersare as follows:

1. Cluster Analysis is performed on the 2003 FIES for the 2013 paper while the

2000 FIES was used for the 2010 paper. The current master sample used by

the NSO in its household surveys was first used in 2003. Available poverty

estimates are based on data using this master sample and therefore using

7Starting 2003 when a new master sample was used with region as domains, the NSO only generates employment data at theprovincial level and no longer generated unemployment and underemployment data..8During the workshop of the Technical Committee on Poverty Statistics on the overall review of the official poverty estimationmethodology held last August 27-29, 2010, the TC PovStat recommended the use of a constant FE/TBE ratio for the indirect

estimation of the non-food threshold for a period of 12 years to ensure consistency of the estimates across time.


7/32

7

the 2003 FIES instead of the 2000 FIES in the cluster analysis will enhance

the comparability/consistency of statistics on the middle class with official

poverty statistics. Thus the base year/reference year was changed from 2000

to 2003

2. The income variable used for the 2013 paper is per capita income; the 2010

paper used total family income. Again, this is consistent with poverty

estimation and it takes into consideration the size of the family that

contributes to and spends the total family income. This was also one of the

comments raised during the presentation of the 2010 paper.

3. The CPI used to define the per capita income boundaries of the middle class

for years other than the reference year was the 2000-based CPI for the 2010

paper and the 2006-based CPI9for the 2013 paper.

A series of runs on 3, 4, 5, and 6 clusters was undertaken but the five-group cluster

analysis performed on the 2003-merged FIES-LFS provided the most meaningful results in

classifying low, middle or high-income class families. For example, as shown in Annex Table

1 using 3 clusters, the maximum per capita annual income for the low-income class is too

high resulting in 94.03% of the families being classified as low income. Using 4 clusters, the

maximum per capita income for the low-income class may still be high while the maximum

per capita income for the middle class seems to be too high [Annex Table 2]. Using 6

clusters, both the minimum per capita income and the maximum per capita income for the

middle-income class seem too high [Annex Table 3].

For purposes of defining the income boundaries of the three income classes using

the results of the 5-cluster run, the actual limits of the income intervals were used. Thus, the

class intervals are not continuous. While recomputations using continuous intervals did not

show differences in the share of the three income classes, in future work, interpolation of the

class limits should nevertheless be done to come up with continuous, contiguous intervals.

B. Characterizing the Middle-Income Class Based on Socio-Economic

Characteristics

In addition to the distribution of families by income class from 2003 to 2009, this paper

presents some socio-economic characteristics of the middle-income class families identified

based on their income.

9The use of 2006 as base year for the CPI, replacing 2000, was approved by the NSCB Executive

Board thru Board Resolution No.7 Series of 2011


8/32

8

The merged FIES-LFS was used to draw the profile of the middle-income class

families based on their location to examine whether the distribution of families belonging to

the middle-income class varies considerably across location by region, province and by

urban and rural and over time. Moreover, the characteristics of the housing units such as the

type of roof materials, type of wall materials, tenure status, type of building and type of toilet

facility for the low-, middle-and high-income class families were also analyzed.

The household composition, which includes the educational attainment of the

working age population, average percentage of school children who are currently in school

and the average percentage of working age population who are employed were also

examined. Furthermore, an analysis on the household heads age, sex, marital status,

highest educational attainment, employment status and occupation was done.

III. Results and Discussions

A. Distribution By Income Classes

This section presents the distribution of families into low-, middle- and high- income

class based on the income cut-off defined using the 5-Cluster Analysis.

1) Per Capita Annual Income of the Low-, Middle-, and High-income

classes (Table 4 and 5)

As shown in Table 4, Cluster1 is the appropriate cluster to define the income

limits of the low-income class, Clusters 2 and 3 for the middle-income class, and Clusters 4

and 5 for the high-income class. Thus, the per capita annual income limits of the middle-

income families for 2003 are P 41,972 P 513,950. Families with per capita annual income

below the lower limit (P 41,972) will be low income, and families with per capita annual

income higher than the upper limit (P 513,950) will be high income.

Table 5 shows that the annual per capita income of the middle income classfor 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2013 applying the 2006 based CPI.

For 2013, the middle income families are those with per capita income of PhP

65,787 to PhP 805,582. For different family sizes, the required income for a

family to be classified as middle class is given in Table 610.

10No economies of scale principle applied; computed simply as per capita income requirement multiplied by

family size.


9/32

9

Thus, a national government employee without a dependent and with no

other sources of income will be classified as middle income class, if he/she is

holding a position with Salary Grade of at most 26 (about PhP

790,364/annum).

A Department Undersecretary with Salary Grade 3011 (at least PhP

1,062,298/annum) and any Municipal Mayor with Salary Grade 2712(at least

PhP 769,239/annum) and even a Cabinet Secretary with nonworking,

nonearning wife/husband and three children13 will still belong to the middle

income class, not to the high income class unless he/she has other sources

of income, or unless he receives huge, possibly illegal allowances.

The unmarried President with Salary Grade 3314, even if he has no other

sources of income, belongs to the high income class.

Do the members of the Judiciary, the Senators, the Congressmen, the other

politicians, the pork barrel scammers, etc. with four nonworking dependents

still belong the middle class? Even BIR Commissioner Kim Henares probably

does not know!

2) Trends in the Structure of the Distribution of Families by Income-Class (Tables

5, 6, and 9)

At the national level, almost 24% of the total families in 2003 and 2006 wereclassified as middle income families. This increased to 25.2% in 2009 with theadditions coming from a reduction of the share of low income families from76% in 2003 and 2006 to 74.7% in 2009. On the other hand, the high incomefamilies represented barely 1% of the total families in the country for 2003,2006 and 2009. (Table 7)

Table 7shows that the percentage of families belonging to the middle-income

class expanded from 2003 to 2006 and 2006 to 2009, in contrast with the

findings in the earlier papers of Virola, et. al. This is due to the change in the

11http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Manual-on-PCC-Chapter-5.pdf

12All municipal mayors have Salary Grade 27, except those in Metro Manila with Salary Grade 28. The Salary

Grade indicated was sourced fromhttp://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/Issuances/2012/Local%20Budget%20Circular/LBC99.pdf13

The CPH provides information on the average household size and not on the average family size. Thus, an

adjustment factor is needed to obtain the latter using the information on the former. Based on the results of the

2010 CPH, the average household size is 4.57. The adjustment factor is computed as the ratio of the 2009 FIES

average family size (average of the 2 visits in July 2009 and January 2010) to the 2009 LFS average household

size (average of the July 2009 and January 2010 LFS). Based on this, the estimated average family size of

Filipinos for 2010 is 4.48. Moreover, using the results of the 2012 FIES, the estimated average family size in2012 is 4.68.14

http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Manual-on-PCC-Chapter-5.pdf
http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Manual-on-PCC-Chapter-5.pdfhttp://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Manual-on-PCC-Chapter-5.pdfhttp://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Manual-on-PCC-Chapter-5.pdfhttp://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/Issuances/2012/Local%20Budget%20Circular/LBC99.pdfhttp://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/Issuances/2012/Local%20Budget%20Circular/LBC99.pdfhttp://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/Issuances/2012/Local%20Budget%20Circular/LBC99.pdfhttp://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/Issuances/2012/Local%20Budget%20Circular/LBC99.pdfhttp://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Manual-on-PCC-Chapter-5.pdfhttp://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Manual-on-PCC-Chapter-5.pdfhttp://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Manual-on-PCC-Chapter-5.pdfhttp://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Manual-on-PCC-Chapter-5.pdfhttp://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/Issuances/2012/Local%20Budget%20Circular/LBC99.pdfhttp://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/Issuances/2012/Local%20Budget%20Circular/LBC99.pdfhttp://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Manual-on-PCC-Chapter-5.pdf


10/32

10

methodology for the 2012 paper adopting 2003 FIES as reference year as

against 2000 FIES and adopting the 2006-based CPI over 2000-CPI. The

other changes in the methodology did not contribute to the reversal in the

trend of the share of the middle income class from the previous papers.

In 2003, 23.8 percent of the families were classified as middle-income class.

The share of the middle-income class increased by 0.1 percentage points

from 23.8% in 2003 to 23.9% in 2006, but the increase is not statistically

significant. On the other hand, the increase in the percentage of middle

income class families from 23.9% in 2006 to 25.2% in 2009 is statistically

significant.Likewise, the decrease in the percentage of families belonging to

the low-income class from 76.0% in 2006 to 74.7% in 2009 is statistically

significant .

3) The Poor and the Low Income Class

Table 8 shows the distribution the low income group into poor and non-poor

families. The number of poor families is obtained from the official poverty

statistics (see [12]) and is subtracted from the number of low income families

to obtain the number of non-poor low income families.

Many families in the low income class are not poor.

In terms of the magnitude of families, Table 8 shows an increasing number of

middle-income families from 2003 to 2009. In particular, between 2006 and

2009, one family per hundred was added to the middle-income families. Both

in terms of absolute number and percentage share, the middle-income class

of the Philippines has been expanding.

On the other hand, the high income class which is already below 0.2% of the

distribution is showing indications of shrinking, just like the low income class..

B. Characteristics of them middle income class

1) Characteristics of Middle-Income class families

a. Location by Region

Among the regions, it is only in the National Capital Region (NCR) where more

than 50% of the families belong to the middle income class. The increasedshare of middle income class families in this region comes from the reduced


11/32

11

share of the low income class families, from 47.9% in 2003 to 46.9% in 2006and 46% in 2009. (Table 9)

In 15 of the 17 regions in the country, more than 70% of the families belong tothe low income class. Only NCR and Region IVA have less than 70%: 46-48 %for NCR and 65-67% for Region IV A. (Table 9)

The highest proportion of low income families at 94-96% is in ARMM. For theyears 2003, 2006 and 2009, no family from ARMM belonged to the highincome class. (Table 9)

The regions where the middle income class families comprise relatively thehighest shares are NCR (51-54%), Region IV A (32-35%), Region III (28-29%)and CAR (26-29%). (Table 9)

In terms of absolute number, the biggest concentration of middle incomefamilies in 2009 is in NCR with 28.3% share of the middle income families inthe country, followed by Region IV-A with 17.5%, Region III with 12.7%, and

Region VII with 5.9%. (Table 9.1)

Three regions had a faster growing middle class than the national rate bothfrom 2003 to 2006 and from 2006 to 2009: Region II, Region VIII, and RegionXI. On the other hand, those with slower growing middle class than the nationalrate both from 2003 to 2006 and from 2006 to 2009 are Region III, Region IV-A, Region V, ARMM, and Caraga. (Table 9)

b. Location by Province

In the districts of the NCR except for the 3rd District, more than 50% of thefamilies are middle income. In the 3rd district which includes the cities ofCaloocan, Malabon, Navotas and Valenzuela, the middle income classcomprises only 42-45%, with the low income class comprising 55-58%. (Table10.1)

In 2009, the middle income class comprised more than 30% of the totalfamilies in only 8 out of the 79 provinces, all of which are in Luzon: Benguet(46.7%), Cavite (43.6%), Batanes (41.7%), Bataan (39.4%), Bulacan (37.6%),Laguna (35.7%), Aurora (33.5%), and Pampanga (30.1%).(Table 10)

In the Visayas region, only Cebu (24.8%), Iloilo (23.8%), and Biliran (22.6%)had more than 20% of families belonging to the middle income class in 2009.For Mindanao, the provinces with the highest relative share of the middleincome families in 2009 are Davao del Sur (23.9%), Misamis Oriental (23.8%)and South Cotabato (22.6%) (Table 10)

The provinces with the smallest relative sizes of the middle income class areSulu (1.0%), Maguindanao (1.5%), Siquijor (2.0%), Tawi Tawi (4.5%) andDavao Oriental (6.0%)., four of which are in Mindanao.(Table 10)

Outside of NCR, in terms of absolute number, the biggest concentration ofmiddle income families among the provinces in 2012 are in Cavite with

324,609 or 5.8% share of the middle income families in the country, followed


12/32

12

by Laguna with 260,309 or 4.6%, Bulacan with 232,110 or 4.1%, and Rizalwith 224,327 or 4.0%. (Table 10.1)

Most impressive gains in the size of the middle class were achieved by theprovinces of Aurora (from 18.0 % in 2003 to 24.4 % in 2006 to 33.5 % in 2009)and Marinduque (from 8.9 % in 2003 to 13.3 % in 2006 to 16.3 % in 2009 ).(Table 10)

c. Location by Urban-Rural Area

More than 35% of families in the urban area were classified as middle incomeclass for years 2003, 2006 and 2009. On the other hand, middle income classfamilies in the rural area range from 10-12% in the same period. It may benoted that for both areas, the share of middle income class increased from2006 to 2009 while percentage of low income families declined from 2006 to2009. (Table 11)

The distribution of the middle income families across the major island groupshighlights the disparity in development in the country. This development gap, which haspersisted for years requires new and innovative approaches both in planning andimplementation that must be addressed by the national and local leadership.

d. Family Size of the Middle Class

For years 2003, 2006, and 2009, the average family size has consistently been5 among low income families and 4 among middle income class families.Average family size among high income class ranges from 2 to 3 family

members. (Table 12)

e. Housing

About 9 out of 10 middle-income families have houses with roof and wall madeof strong materials, i.e., either galvanized, iron, aluminum, tile, concrete, brick,stone, asbestos. (Table 20 and 21)

There is an increasing number of middle income class families who live in aSingle House type of housing unit: from 83.6% in 2003 to 85.6% in 2006 to87.7% in 2009. On the other hand the number of middle income class familiesliving in apartments/accessoria/condo/townhouses has decreased: from 10.4%in 2003 to 9.3% in 2006, to 8.6% in 2009. Is the condo bubble about to burst?(Table 22)

About 7 to 8 out of 10 middle-income families own or have owner typepossession of their house and lot., compared to 8 to 9 among the high incomefamilies. (Table 23)

Not quite all middle-income families use water-sealed toilet facilities but theproportion has been increasing: 92.6% in 2003 to 95.5% in 2006 to 97.1% in2009. (Table 24)


13/32

13

f. Household Head

The most common occupation of the Household Head of middle-incomefamilies is that of officials of government, executives, managers or supervisors,(34 % in 2009) followed by farmers/fishermen/foresty (11.3 % in 2009),professionals. (10.2 % in 2009), and service workers (9.4 % in 2009). (Table

15)

Heads of low-income families, consistently had the highest averagepercentage of employed at 88.7, 84.0 and 77.6 for the periods 2003, 2006 and2009, respectively. On the other hand, heads of high-income families haveaverage percentage of employed at 76.9%, 72.7% and 74.1% in the sameperiod.(Table 16) So where do the high income families with unemployedhousehold heads get their sources of livelihood? From pork barrel?

g. Presence of OFWs

The proportion of families with an OFW belonging to the low income class hasdeclined: 53.2% in 2003, 45.6% in 2006, and 44.9% in 2009 while theproportion belonging to the middle income class has increased: from 46.6% in2003, to 54.2% in 2006, to 55% in 2009. That explains why many youngwomen and men have joined the Filipino diaspora, seeking greener pastureabroad. (Table 13)

h. Working Age Population

In general, among the three income classes, the high income families (87.2% in2009) have the highest average percentage of working age population who areemployed, followed by the middle class (66.1% in 2009) and the low incomeclass (62.2% in 2009). Indeed, jobless growth should not be allowed to happen!(Table 14)

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on what could possibly be internationally comparable statistics on might be aworking definition of the lower middle class, the size of the Filipino lower middle class is not

too small. For this purpose, we consider as lower middle class families those with percapita income/consumption of; $2 to $20. Under this definition, the middle-income class inChina would be about 56% in 2007; in Indonesia, about 43% in 2009; in.India, about 38% in2004-2005 and in the Philippines about 54% in 2006 ([see[13]) It is the upper middle classwhere the Philippines probably has a lower share compared to other countries. And so it is inthis area where our government might need to do infuse some radical changes in thedevelopment agenda.

Regardless of the current size of the middle class in the Philippines, the generation ofstatistics must continue, must improve and must be institutionalized in the PSS. Currently,precious too little is being done in the PSS to generate statistics on the middle class. TheNSCB TS has devoted a fair share of its very limited manpower resources to provide

information on whether the middle class is expanding or shrinking, but if there aresurveys/registries on the informal sector, the basic sectors in agriculture, the unemployed


14/32

14

and underemployed, as well as other vulnerable sectors of the Philippine society, thereshould be as strong a reason for a data gathering system that tries to know and understandbetter the socio-economic and demographic characteristics, the aspirations, the governmentprograms for and the support systems of the middle class. Toward this end the followingrecommendations are made/reiterated:

1. The job of the National Statistician will be extremely super challenging but he/she isgiven the opportunity to provide the statistical leadership that will steer the PSStowards an even greater national statistical system. The mandate is daunting, to saythe least, but he/she should take on the challenge with patriotic fervor and utmostdedication to public service.

2. The PSA-to-be should give top priority to the generation of statistics on the poor andthe middle class. In the past, the FIES data file was made available to the NSCB TS12 months after the reference period considering the significant time needed for theprocessing of the FIES; poverty statistics were released a month later, i.e., 13months after the reference period. For the 2012 FIES microdata, the NSO has

shortened the time lag of releasing the FIES microdata, that is, nine months andeight months after the reference period for the first semester and full year 2012 FIESmicrodata files, respectively. While there has been a decrease in the time lag ofrelease of FIES data files, this can be further shortened to respond to the need torelease poverty statistics earlier.

3. The PSA should put up a Microdata Center where data users will be given access tostatistical information without violating the Fundamental Principles of OfficialStatistics. Initially, the PSA should exert best efforts to generate anonymizedmicrodata files (such as the Public Use Files of the FIES, the LFS, the agriculturalsurveys etc. ) in a much more timely manner. This way, the many excellentresearchers from the academe and research institutions will have the opportunity tocontribute their expertise in generating information, such as on the poor and the

middle class, if for some reason, this could not be given top priority by the PSA.4. Regular generation of provincial level information on the middle class should be

considered. If the PSA could not give this top priority, partnerships with the LGUs andthe private sector should be established.

5. The middle income methodology should continue to be enhanced.6. Find ways to restore the high response rate that the FIES used to have.. The FIES

response rates for years 2003, 2006 and 2009 were 95.7%, 86.4% and 90.8%,respectively.

7. Finally, this paper reiterates the call for strengthening the partnership as well as thepolitical will of the government, the NGOs and the private sector to facilitate theprocess for the middle class to emerge as the driver of development that it could be,that it should be.


15/32

15

ACRONYMS

CPI Consumer Price IndexFE/TBE Ratio of Food Expenditures to Total Basic ExpendituresFIES Family Income and Expenditures SurveyGDP Gross Domestic ProductLFS Labor Force SurveyMDG Millennium Development GoalsNCR National Capital RegionNCS National Convention on StatisticsNSCB National Statistical Coordination BoardNSO National Statistics OfficePSS Philippine Statistical SystemTS Technical Staff

REFERENCES

[1] National Statistical Coordination Board. The National Accounts of the Philippines,

various issues.

[2] http://www.cfoinnovation.com/content/bric-n-11-nations-emerging-stronger-g7-economies

[3] http://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2013/PR-201304-NS1-04_poverty.asp

[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22951558

[5] Ravallion, Martin. Policy Research Working Paper4816: The Developing WorldsBulging (but Vulnerable) Middle Class.

[6] Birdsall, Nancy, Graham, Carol and Pettinato, Stefano. Brookings Institution CenterWorking Paper No. 14: Stuck in Tunnel: Is Globalization Muddling the Middle?

[7] Virola, Romulo A., Addawe Mildred B. and Querubin, Ma. Ivy T. Trends andCharacteristics of the Middle Class in the Philippines: Is it Expanding or Shrinking?

[8] National Statistical Coordination Board. Statistically Speaking: Pinoy Middle ClassBefore the Crisis. 03 June 2009,http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2009/060809_rav_middleclass.asp

[9] National Statistical Coordination Board. Statistically Speaking: How Rich is Rich?15 June 2010,http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2010/061510_rav_joe.asp

[10] Virola, Romulo A., Encarnacion Jessamyn O., Balamban Bernadette, AddaweMildred, Viernes Mechelle and Pascasio Mark.The Pinoymiddle-income class isshrinking: Its impact on income and expenditure patterns

[11] Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998)Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice-Hall,Inc. U.S.A.

[12] National Statistical Coordination Board .http://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2011/PR-22011-SS2-01_pov2009.asp http://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2013/PR-201304-NS1-04_poverty.asp

[13] Asian Development Bank. Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2010
http://www.cfoinnovation.com/content/bric-n-11-nations-emerging-stronger-g7-economieshttp://www.cfoinnovation.com/content/bric-n-11-nations-emerging-stronger-g7-economieshttp://www.cfoinnovation.com/content/bric-n-11-nations-emerging-stronger-g7-economieshttp://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2013/PR-201304-NS1-04_poverty.asphttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22951558http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2009/060809_rav_middleclass.asphttp://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2010/061510_rav_joe.asphttp://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2011/PR-22011-SS2-01_pov2009.asphttp://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2011/PR-22011-SS2-01_pov2009.asphttp://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2013/PR-201304-NS1-04_poverty.asphttp://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2013/PR-201304-NS1-04_poverty.asphttp://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2013/PR-201304-NS1-04_poverty.asphttp://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2011/PR-22011-SS2-01_pov2009.asphttp://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2010/061510_rav_joe.asphttp://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2009/060809_rav_middleclass.asphttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22951558http://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2013/PR-201304-NS1-04_poverty.asphttp://www.cfoinnovation.com/content/bric-n-11-nations-emerging-stronger-g7-economieshttp://www.cfoinnovation.com/content/bric-n-11-nations-emerging-stronger-g7-economies


16/32

16

ANNEX

Table 1. 3-Cluster Analysis of Annual Per Capita Income using 2003 FIES data

Cluster mean median min maxPercent

Families

Income

Class1 24,200 18,236 1,257 87,455 94.03 Low

2 154,839 123,667 87,539 1,205,592 5.94 Middle

3 2,249,815 1,418,590 1,383,386 8,064,012 0.03 High

Total 32,637 19,500 1,257 8,064,012

Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the results of the 2003, 2006 and 2009Family Income and Expenditure Survey of the National Statistics Office


Cluster mean median min max

Percent

FamiliesIncomeClass

1 19,469 16,365 1,257 50,545 84.22 Low

2 83,423 72,300 50,555 190,384 14.65 Middle

3 302,791 250,800 190,850 1,205,592 1.10 Middle

4 2,249,815 1,418,590 1,383,386 8,064,012 0.03 High

Total 32,637 19,500 1,257 8,064,012



Cluster mean median min maxPercentFamilies

IncomeClass

1 16,555 14,767 1,257 36,920 74.97 Low

2 58,201 53,185 36,931 107,371 21.01 Middle

3 157,600 143,145 107,442 304,038 3.65 Middle

4 457,872 403,900 305,370 985,960 0.34 Middle

5 1,798,485 1,418,590 1,205,592 3,129,097 0.03 High

6 6,585,019 8,064,012 4,096,752 8,064,012 0.003 High

Total 32,637 19,500 1,257 8,064,012



17/32

17

Table 4. Annual Per Capita Income of the Five Clusters from the 5-Cluster Analysis of the 2003FIES data

2003

ClusterPER CAPITA INCOME Percent

familiesIncomeClassMean Median Minimum Maximum

1 17,738 15,463 1,257 41,972 74.4 Low

2 67,240 60,315 41,972 133,672 21 Middle

3 201,632 176,029 133,791 513,950 2.8 Middle

4 827,758 679,598 513,950 1,998,767 0.1 High

5 4,331,790 3,129,097 3,129,097 8,064,012 0.004 High


Table 5. Annual Per Capita Income and Size of the Middle-Income Class: 2003, 2006, 2009,

2012 and 2013

Year

Low

Middle

High

Minimum Maximum

2003 513,950

2006 605,359

2009 702,822

2012 787,572

2013 805,582

Note: CPI (2006=100): 2003- 84.9, 2006- 100.0, 2009-116.1, 2012- 130.1, 2013- 132.9 (January- July)Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the 2006-based Consumer Price Index of the

National Statistics Office

Table 6. Annual Family Income of the Low-, Middle-, High-Income Class by family size: 2013

FamilySize

Low(Up To)

Middle High(At Least)Minimum Maximum

1 65,708 65,708 802,063 802,063

2 131,416 131,416 1,604,126 1,604,1263 197,124 197,124 2,406,189 2,406,1894 262,832 262,832 3,208,252 3,208,252

5 328,540 328,540 4,010,315 4,010,315

6 394,248 394,248 4,812,378 4,812,378

7 459,956 459,956 5,614,441 5,614,4418 525,664 525,664 6,416,504 6,416,504

9 591,372 591,372 7,218,567 7,218,567

10 657,080 657,080 8,020,630 8,020,630Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the 2006-based Consumer Price Index of the

National Statistics Office


18/32

18

Table 7. Structure of the Distribution of Families by Per Capita Income Class, 2003, 2006 and2009

Estimate Standard Error Difference

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2006-2003 2009-2006

low 76 76 74.7 0.331 0.235 0.433 0 -1.3*

middle 23.8 23.9 25.2 0.329 0.234 0.429 0.1 1.3*

high 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.022 0.019 0.031 0 0

Note: */ statistically significant at 5% level of significanceSource: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the results of the 2003, 2006 and 2009

Family Income and Expenditure Survey of the National Statistics Office

Table 8. Distribution of Families by Income Class including the Distribution of Low-IncomeClass into Poor and Non-Poor : 2003, 2006, and 2009

Year

Income Class

LowMiddle High

Poor Non-Poor TotalLevel Percent Level Percent Level Percent Level Percent Level Percent

2003 3,293,096 20 9,234,712 56.0 12,527,808 76 3,929,591 23.8 22,993 0.1

2006 3,670,791 21.1 9,559,859 54.9 13,230,650 76 4,152,006 23.9 20,089 0.1

2009 3,855,730 20.9 9,914,946 53.8 13,770,676 74.7 4,659,178 25.2 21,688 0.1


Table 9. Trends in the Structure of the Distribution of Families, by Income Class and byRegion, 2003, 2006 and 2009(Share to Row Total)

RegionLow Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

Philippines 76.0 76.0 74.7 23.8 23.9 25.2 0.14 0.12 0.12

NCR 47.9 46.9 46.0 51.7 52.6 53.6 0.48 0.47 0.41

CAR 74.1 71.8 70.7 25.9 28.1 29.2 - 0.15 0.1

I 80.8 82.2 79.0 19.1 17.8 20.9 0.04 - 0.13

II 82.3 81.5 79.9 17.5 18.5 19.9 0.19 - 0.17

III 71.6 71.6 70.8 28.4 28.3 29.2 0.03 0.1 0.03

IV-A 65.2 67.0 66.1 34.6 32.9 33.9 0.17 0.06 0.05

IV-B 87.7 88.8 86.3 12.2 11.1 13.7 0.11 0.07 -

V 87.0 87.5 86.6 12.9 12.2 13.4 0.17 0.22 -VI 85.3 84.7 82.2 14.6 15.3 17.6 0.07 0.07 0.11

VII 82.2 81.9 79.8 17.8 18.1 20.1 - - 0.13

VIII 87.8 86.3 84.6 12.1 13.6 15.3 0.09 0.1 0.1

IX 88.9 85.5 85.7 11.0 14.5 14.2 0.07 - 0.11

X 84.6 82.6 82.3 15.3 17.4 17.7 0.05 - 0.06

XI 84.7 83.8 81.5 15.2 16.2 18.5 0.11 - -

XII 88.5 88.4 84.6 11.4 11.5 15.3 0.08 0.1 0.08

ARMM 94.5 96.2 95.9 5.5 3.8 4.1 - - -

Caraga 88.9 88.8 87.5 11.0 11.1 12.3 0.06 0.07 0.19



19/32

19

Table 9.1. Trends in the Structure of the Distribution of Families, by Income Class and byRegion, 2003, 2006 and 2009(Share to Column Total)

RegionLow Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009Philippines 76.0 76.0 74.7 23.8 23.9 25.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

NCR 8.8 8.4 8.2 30.1 30.0 28.3 48.2 55.2 46.1

CAR 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.0 - 2.3 1.5

I 5.7 5.9 5.8 4.3 4.1 4.5 1.5 0.0 6.0

II 3.9 3.8 3.8 2.6 2.8 2.8 4.9 0.0 5.2

III 10.3 10.3 10.4 13.1 13.0 12.7 2.4 9.5 3.0

IV-A 11.4 11.4 11.5 19.2 17.8 17.5 16.5 6.2 5.7

IV-B 3.5 3.7 3.7 1.6 1.5 1.7 2.3 1.8 0.0

V 6.6 6.7 6.7 3.1 3.0 3.1 6.9 11.1 0.0

VI 8.6 8.8 8.7 4.7 5.0 5.5 3.6 4.6 7.5VII 8.0 8.0 8.0 5.5 5.6 5.9 - 0.0 8.1

VIII 5.3 5.3 5.3 2.3 2.7 2.8 2.9 4.0 4.1

IX 4.2 4.0 4.1 1.6 2.2 2.0 1.9 0.0 3.4

X 5.0 4.9 5.0 2.9 3.3 3.2 1.6 0.0 2.3

XI 5.5 5.3 5.2 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 0.0 0.0

XII 5.0 5.0 4.9 2.1 2.1 2.6 2.5 3.9 2.9

ARMM 3.8 3.9 4.0 0.7 0.5 0.5 - 0.0 0.0

Caraga 2.9 3.0 3.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.5 4.2



20/32

20

Table 10.1 Distribution of Families by Per Capita Income Class by Province, 2003, 2006 and 2009Share To Row Total

Region

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

Level Percent Level Percent Level Percent Level Percent Level Percent Level Percent Level Percent Level Percent Level Percent

NCR1st District 145,138 40.3 168,814 45.6 129,292 44.2 211,654 58.8 199,540 53.9 163,037 55.8 3,018 0.8 1,540 0.4 0 02nd District 230,291 45.4 393,638 47.3 397,684 44.4 274,312 54 436,183 52.4 496,674 55.4 3,098 0.6 2,763 0.3 1,691 0.23rd District 472,800 58 292,552 55.1 282,453 55.9 340,925 41.9 238,101 44.8 222,877 44.1 887 0.1 578 0.1 0 04th District 249,164 40.8 252,674 40.2 322,169 42 357,800 58.6 369,781 58.8 436,724 56.9 4,073 0.7 6,212 1 8,316 1.1

CAR

Abra 35,672 84.3 39,549 88.2 39,476 86.6 6,653 15.7 5,315 11.8 6,124 13.4 0 0 0 0 0 0Apayao 18,171 92.1 18,962 89.9 20,434 87.6 1,552 7.9 2,127 10.1 2,892 12.4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Benguet 71,782 58.4 70,564 52.8 78,804 53 51,110 41.6 62,905 47 69,431 46.7 0 0 263 0.2 321 0.2Ifugao 26,329 81.6 29,981 83.5 31,361 86.6 5,925 18.4 5,927 16.5 4,848 13.4 0 0 0 0 0 0Kalinga 28,856 87.8 30,542 86.7 31,669 83.6 4,004 12.2 4,669 13.3 6,190 16.4 0 0 0 0 0 0Mt. Province 26,236 89.1 27,534 86.8 25,925 85.2 3,200 10.9 3,979 12.5 4,518 14.8 0 0 194 0.6 0 0

Region IIlocos Norte 88,124 79.7 91,082 76.6 98,371 76.2 22,505 20.3 27,762 23.4 30,388 23.5 0 0 0 0 414 0.3Ilocos Sur 99,133 79.8 104,859 79.6 105,083 76.2 25,080 20.2 26,862 20.4 32,739 23.8 0 0 0 0 0 0La Union 107,485 79.6 115,250 78.3 121,116 79.4 27,201 20.1 31,961 21.7 31,476 20.6 347 0.3 0 0 0 0Pangasinan 413,531 81.7 467,173 85.1 469,292 80.2 92,697 18.3 81,694 14.9 115,121 19.7 0 0 0 0 892 0.2

Region IIBatanes 1,796 50 2,008 50 2,825 58.3 1,796 50 2,008 50 2,018 41.7 0 0 0 0 0 0Cagayan 170,868 84.5 177,815 83.5 183,991 80 30,831 15.2 35,209 16.5 46,138 20 556 0.3 0 0 0 0Isabela 222,623 82.8 235,558 82.9 249,126 81.6 46,074 17.1 48,680 17.1 55,089 18 281 0.1 0 0 1,135 0.4Nueva Vizcaya 62,219 78.5 62,444 74.2 55,792 74.6 16,729 21.1 21,748 25.8 19,030 25.4 288 0.4 0 0 0 0Quirino 26,049 78.5 26,915 79.1 29,574 79 7,116 21.5 7,126 20.9 7,881 21 0 0 0 0 0 0

Region III

Aurora 30,723 82 30,663 75.6 21,121 66.5 6,759 18 9,917 24.4 10,635 33.5 0 0 0 0 0 0Bataan 83,277 67.3 84,251 65.6 87,921 60.6 40,422 32.7 44,104 34.4 57,050 39.4 0 0 0 0 0 0Bulacan 341,940 65.1 358,051 64.1 376,748 62.4 182,735 34.8 200,548 35.9 226,890 37.6 551 0.1 0 0 0 0Nueva Ecija 301,921 82.6 320,356 84.6 351,443 82.4 63,698 17.4 57,567 15.2 74,375 17.4 0 0 538 0.1 645 0.2Pampanga 260,613 67.1 262,046 63.5 300,371 69.9 128,014 32.9 149,752 36.3 129,104 30.1 0 0 555 0.1 0 0Tarlac 171,844 74.6 192,695 79.9 198,670 77.5 58,535 25.4 48,588 20.1 57,515 22.5 0 0 0 0 0 0Zambales 105,238 75.5 118,968 79.4 98,493 72.9 34,226 24.5 30,055 20.1 36,540 27.1 0 0 809 0.5 0 0

Region IV-ABatangas 292,351 72.1 314,396 74.1 328,875 71.6 112,884 27.8 110,057 25.9 130,039 28.3 504 0.1 0 0 611 0.1Cavite 273,780 52.9 301,864 55.9 327,247 56.4 243,615 47 238,427 44.1 253,341 43.6 507 0.1 0 0 0 0Laguna 276,384 59.1 306,023 64.1 317,641 64.3 190,388 40.7 170,069 35.6 176,684 35.7 1,161 0.2 1,251 0.3 0 0Quezon 320,945 88.6 344,569 90.8 345,991 86 40,811 11.3 35,039 9.2 55,867 13.9 519 0.1 0 0 625 0.2Rizal 261,740 60.7 240,817 56.2 269,292 57.5 168,624 39.1 187,326 43.8 199,408 42.5 1,102 0.3 0 0 0 0

Region IV-B

Marinduque 41,729 90.6 43,763 86.7 46,330 83.7 4,098 8.9 6,737 13.3 9,015 16.3 255 0.6 0 0 0 0OccidentalMindoro

72,097 85.3 78,183 85.3 75,853 81.7 12,186 14.4 13,104 14.3 17,027 18.3 271 0.3 363 0.4 0 0

Oriental Mindoro 123,961 86.3 144,371 91.6 152,388 86.2 19,685 13.7 13,243 8.4 24,317 13.8 0 0 0 0 0 0


21/32

21

Region

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009


Palawan 149,024 87.9 159,968 87.3 168,643 87.7 20,498 12.1 23,348 12.7 23,585 12.3 0 0 0 0 0 0Romblon 51,873 92.1 58,174 93.2 66,042 90.8 4,464 7.9 4,217 6.8 6,657 9.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Region V

Albay 186,462 84.2 192,137 82 203,057 84.5 34,150 15.4 41,231 17.6 37,205 15.5 747 0.3 1,006 0.4 0 0Camarines Norte 84,966 87.3 86,818 84.5 97,261 87 12,317 12.7 15,890 15.5 14,594 13 0 0 0 0 0 0Camarines Sur 267,126 87.9 292,003 89.3 283,785 86.9 36,814 12.1 34,841 10.7 42,828 13.1 0 0 0 0 0 0Catanduanes 35,045 81.9 40,062 87.9 37,653 77.2 7,319 17.1 4,746 10.4 11,137 22.8 443 1 744 1.6 0 0Masbate 131,128 89.7 146,290 92.7 142,729 92.2 15,111 10.3 10,965 7 12,094 7.8 0 0 477 0.3 0 0Sorsogon 117,578 87.7 126,677 88.8 161,472 86.2 16,053 12 15,999 11.2 25,897 13.8 404 0.3 0 0 0 0

Region VI

Aklan 82,545 88.9 85,361 86.1 89,451 88.5 10,306 11.1 13,830 13.9 11,571 11.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Antique 84,433 86.5 97,073 90.8 85,361 82.1 13,207 13.5 9,853 9.2 18,550 17.9 0 0 0 0 0 0Capiz 115,023 86.4 122,431 84.9 136,188 82.6 18,177 13.6 21,286 14.8 27,643 16.8 0 0 435 0.3 1,060 0.6Guimaras 26,359 90.6 28,604 90.9 31,223 85.9 2,727 9.4 2,878 9.1 5,132 14.1 0 0 0 0 0 0Iloilo 319,655 82 333,791 79.9 343,518 76 69,692 17.9 83,545 20 107,763 23.8 403 0.1 481 0.1 559 0.1NegrosOccidental

452,725 86.4 492,421 86.3 508,646 85.6 70,729 13.5 77,981 13.7 85,520 14.4 431 0.1 0 0 0 0

Region VII

Bohol 203,560 90.2 208,350 87.5 221,075 88.4 22,037 9.8 29,738 12.5 29,078 11.6 0 0 0 0 0 0Cebu 564,249 77.2 609,054 77.8 635,802 75 166,685 22.8 173,888 22.2 209,739 24.8 0 0 0 0 1,754 0.2Negros Oriental 214,876 88.9 225,400 88.9 214,536 85.3 26,868 11.1 28,189 11.1 36,849 14.7 0 0 0 0 0 0Siquijor 16,576 92.7 16,207 86.1 24,608 98 1,300 7.3 2,615 13.9 492 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Region VIIIBiliran 24,618 83.6 24,241 75.6 32,165 77.4 4,836 16.4 7,835 24.4 9,365 22.6 0 0 0 0 0 0Eastern Samar 66,759 87.7 70,557 85.2 76,102 84.4 9,323 12.3 11,883 14.3 14,116 15.6 0 0 410 0.5 0 0Leyte 297,087 87.7 317,809 87 329,669 83.1 41,817 12.3 47,267 12.9 66,105 16.7 0 0 385 0.1 887 0.2Northern Samar 90,979 88.7 96,655 88.6 97,574 90.4 11,573 11.3 12,407 11.4 10,403 9.6 0 0 0 0 0 0Southern Leyte 66,180 87.8 69,613 85.4 129,042 87.3 8,883 11.8 11,937 14.6 18,789 12.7 325 0.4 0 0 0 0Western Samar 116,200 88.3 123,808 86.5 67,356 83.6 15,109 11.5 19,361 13.5 13,230 16.4 349 0.3 0 0 0 0

Region IXb

Zamboanga delNorte

159,468 92.9 165,813 90.4 188,034 90.7 12,227 7.1 17,570 9.6 19,019 9.2 0 0 0 0 370 0.2

Zamboanga delSurc

258,446 86 261,422 82.7 274,077 81.4 41,964 14 54,523 17.3 62,212 18.5 0 0 0 0 369 0.1

ZamboangaSibugay

91,015 90.9 93,317 85.9 83,683 90.1 8,636 8.6 15,262 14.1 9,158 9.9 432 0.4 0 0 0 0

Isabela City 12,703 86.4 12,571 81.2 21,505 85.8 2,006 13.6 2,907 18.8 3,546 14.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Region XBukidnon 191,778 88.5 201,700 86.4 181,618 85.6 24,904 11.5 31,698 13.6 30,553 14.4 0 0 0 0 0 0Camiguin 11,632 75 13,978 83.1 20,270 83.8 3,877 25 2,847 16.9 3,918 16.2 0 0 0 0 0 0Lanao del Norte 133,784 85 129,534 78.8 147,096 82.8 23,561 15 34,768 21.2 30,497 17.2 0 0 0 0 0 0MisamisOccidental

92,552 88.7 99,022 89.1 129,716 88.6 11,825 11.3 12,068 10.9 16,767 11.4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Misamis Oriental 196,016 79.9 206,758 78.6 211,723 76 48,966 20 56,185 21.4 66,447 23.8 359 0.1 0 0 505 0.2


22/32

22

Region

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009


Region XI

Davao del Norte 138,415 85.3 144,717 87 137,346 82.8 23,464 14.5 21,647 13 28,538 17.2 471 0.3 0 0 0 0Davao del Sur 346,953 80.7 344,811 78 371,967 76.1 82,589 19.2 97,442 22 116,737 23.9 382 0.1 0 0 0 0Davao Oriental 83,914 93.4 88,833 92.7 98,027 94 5,971 6.6 7,012 7.3 6,203 6 0 0 0 0 0 0CompostelaValley

117,854 91.2 125,800 92.4 112,324 90.1 11,428 8.8 10,407 7.6 12,384 9.9 0 0 0 0 0 0

Region XIINorth Cotabato 185,172 91.5 195,689 90.5 193,141 88.6 17,178 8.5 20,436 9.5 24,883 11.4 0 0 0 0 0 0Saranggani 88,056 94.6 92,298 94.5 88,063 91.4 5,064 5.4 5,351 5.5 8,259 8.6 0 0 0 0 0 0South Cotabato 207,084 81.8 225,075 84.2 256,486 77.2 45,515 18 41,406 15.5 75,207 22.6 568 0.2 776 0.3 619 0.2Sultan Kudarat 117,590 93.6 120,870 91.4 117,974 91 7,985 6.4 11,412 8.6 11,672 9 0 0 0 0 0 0Cotabato City 29,326 85.6 27,938 79.1 21,945 89.7 4,952 14.4 7,384 20.9 2,516 10.3 0 0 0 0 0 0

ARMM

Basilan 53,279 99.3 52,005 94.4 44,498 92.5 382 0.7 3,074 5.6 3,585 7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0Lanao del Sur 112,647 87.6 127,019 94.6 131,390 90.7 15,969 12.4 7,264 5.4 13,436 9.3 0 0 0 0 0 0Maguindanao 148,451 95.9 165,827 96 160,837 98.5 6,368 4.1 6,977 4 2,416 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0Sulu 103,735 97 106,587 97.7 163,926 99 3,232 3 2,533 2.3 1,588 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Tawi-tawi 58,680 97 62,123 99.2 47,838 95.5 1,827 3 528 0.8 2,252 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

CaragaAgusan del Norte 94,327 86.6 100,241 86.8 113,201 82.5 14,571 13.4 15,288 13.2 23,795 17.3 0 0 0 0 295 0.2Agusan del Sur 102,550 90.5 108,573 90.8 102,509 91.8 10,503 9.3 10,943 9.2 9,140 8.2 261 0.2 0 0 0 0Surigao Del Norte 84,504 87.8 91,774 87.9 90,201 85.8 11,721 12.2 12,336 11.8 14,595 13.9 0 0 310 0.3 347 0.3Surigao Del Sur 88,041 90.7 93,920 89.6 105,506 90.7 9,069 9.3 10,901 10.4 10,510 9 0 0 0 0 272 0.2



23/32

Draft as of 19 September 2013

23

Table 10.2. Distribution of Families by Per Capita Income Class by Province, 2003, 2006 and 2009Share To Column Total

Region

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009


NCR

1st District 145,138 1.2 168,814 1.3 129,292 0.9 211,654 5.4 199,540 4.8 163,037 3.5 3,018 13.1 1,540 7.7 0 0

2nd District 230,291 1.8 393,638 3 397,684 2.9 274,312 7 436,183 10.5 496,674 10.7 3,098 13.5 2,763 13.8 1,691 7.8

3rd District 472,800 3.8 292,552 2.2 282,453 2.1 340,925 8.7 238,101 5.7 222,877 4.8 887 3.9 578 2.9 0 0

4th District 249,164 2 252,674 1.9 322,169 2.3 357,800 9.1 369,781 8.9 436,724 9.4 4,073 17.7 6,212 30.9 8,316 38.3

CAR

Abra 35,672 0.3 39,549 0.3 39,476 0.3 6,653 0.2 5,315 0.1 6,124 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Apayao 18,171 0.1 18,962 0.1 20,434 0.1 1,552 0 2,127 0.1 2,892 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Benguet 71,782 0.6 70,564 0.5 78,804 0.6 51,110 1.3 62,905 1.5 69,431 1.5 0 0 263 1.3 321 1.5

Ifugao 26,329 0.2 29,981 0.2 31,361 0.2 5,925 0.2 5,927 0.1 4,848 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kalinga 28,856 0.2 30,542 0.2 31,669 0.2 4,004 0.1 4,669 0.1 6,190 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mt. Province 26,236 0.2 27,534 0.2 25,925 0.2 3,200 0.1 3,979 0.1 4,518 0.1 0 0 194 1 0 0

Region I

Ilocos Norte 88,124 0.7 91,082 0.7 98,371 0.7 22,505 0.6 27,762 0.7 30,388 0.7 0 0 0 0 414 1.9

Ilocos Sur 99,133 0.8 104,859 0.8 105,083 0.8 25,080 0.6 26,862 0.6 32,739 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0

La Union 107,485 0.9 115,250 0.9 121,116 0.9 27,201 0.7 31,961 0.8 31,476 0.7 347 1.5 0 0 0 0

Pangasinan 413,531 3.3 467,173 3.5 469,292 3.4 92,697 2.4 81,694 2 115,121 2.5 0 0 0 0 892 4.1

Region II

Batanes 1,796 0 2,008 0 2,825 0 1,796 0 2,008 0 2,018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cagayan 170,868 1.4 177,815 1.3 183,991 1.3 30,831 0.8 35,209 0.8 46,138 1 556 2.4 0 0 0 0

Isabela 222,623 1.8 235,558 1.8 249,126 1.8 46,074 1.2 48,680 1.2 55,089 1.2 281 1.2 0 0 1,135 5.2


24/32


24

Region

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009


NuevaVizcaya

62,219 0.5 62,444 0.5 55,792 0.4 16,729 0.4 21,748 0.5 19,030 0.4 288 1.3 0 0 0 0

Quirino 26,049 0.2 26,915 0.2 29,574 0.2 7,116 0.2 7,126 0.2 7,881 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Region III

Aurora 30,723 0.2 30,663 0.2 21,121 0.2 6,759 0.2 9,917 0.2 10,635 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bataan 83,277 0.7 84,251 0.6 87,921 0.6 40,422 1 44,104 1.1 57,050 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bulacan 341,940 2.7 358,051 2.7 376,748 2.7 182,735 4.7 200,548 4.8 226,890 4.9 551 2.4 0 0 0 0

Nueva Ecija 301,921 2.4 320,356 2.4 351,443 2.6 63,698 1.6 57,567 1.4 74,375 1.6 0 0 538 2.7 645 3

Pampanga 260,613 2.1 262,046 2 300,371 2.2 128,014 3.3 149,752 3.6 129,104 2.8 0 0 555 2.8 0 0

Tarlac 171,844 1.4 192,695 1.5 198,670 1.4 58,535 1.5 48,588 1.2 57,515 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zambales 105,238 0.8 118,968 0.9 98,493 0.7 34,226 0.9 30,055 0.7 36,540 0.8 0 0 809 4 0 0

Region IV-A

Batangas 292,351 2.3 314,396 2.4 328,875 2.4 112,884 2.9 110,057 2.7 130,039 2.8 504 2.2 0 0 611 2.8

Cavite 273,780 2.2 301,864 2.3 327,247 2.4 243,615 6.2 238,427 5.7 253,341 5.4 507 2.2 0 0 0 0

Laguna 276,384 2.2 306,023 2.3 317,641 2.3 190,388 4.8 170,069 4.1 176,684 3.8 1,161 5 1,251 6.2 0 0

Quezon 320,945 2.6 344,569 2.6 345,991 2.5 40,811 1 35,039 0.8 55,867 1.2 519 2.3 0 0 625 2.9

Rizal 261,740 2.1 240,817 1.8 269,292 2 168,624 4.3 187,326 4.5 199,408 4.3 1,102 4.8 0 0 0 0

Region IV-B

Marinduque 41,729 0.3 43,763 0.3 46,330 0.3 4,098 0.1 6,737 0.2 9,015 0.2 255 1.1 0 0 0 0

OccidentalMindoro

72,097 0.6 78,183 0.6 75,853 0.6 12,186 0.3 13,104 0.3 17,027 0.4 271 1.2 363 1.8 0 0

OrientalMindoro

123,961 1 144,371 1.1 152,388 1.1 19,685 0.5 13,243 0.3 24,317 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Palawan 149,024 1.2 159,968 1.2 168,643 1.2 20,498 0.5 23,348 0.6 23,585 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Romblon 51,873 0.4 58,174 0.4 66,042 0.5 4,464 0.1 4,217 0.1 6,657 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0


25/32


25

Region

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009


Region V

Albay 186,462 1.5 192,137 1.5 203,057 1.5 34,150 0.9 41,231 1 37,205 0.8 747 3.3 1,006 5 0 0

CamarinesNorte

84,966 0.7 86,818 0.7 97,261 0.7 12,317 0.3 15,890 0.4 14,594 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0

CamarinesSur

267,126 2.1 292,003 2.2 283,785 2.1 36,814 0.9 34,841 0.8 42,828 0.9 0 0 0 0 0 0

Catanduanes 35,045 0.3 40,062 0.3 37,653 0.3 7,319 0.2 4,746 0.1 11,137 0.2 443 1.9 744 3.7 0 0

Masbate 131,128 1 146,290 1.1 142,729 1 15,111 0.4 10,965 0.3 12,094 0.3 0 0 477 2.4 0 0

Sorsogon 117,578 0.9 126,677 1 161,472 1.2 16,053 0.4 15,999 0.4 25,897 0.6 404 1.8 0 0 0 0

Region VI

Aklan 82,545 0.7 85,361 0.6 89,451 0.6 10,306 0.3 13,830 0.3 11,571 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Antique 84,433 0.7 97,073 0.7 85,361 0.6 13,207 0.3 9,853 0.2 18,550 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Capiz 115,023 0.9 122,431 0.9 136,188 1 18,177 0.5 21,286 0.5 27,643 0.6 0 0 435 2.2 1,060 4.9

Guimaras 26,359 0.2 28,604 0.2 31,223 0.2 2,727 0.1 2,878 0.1 5,132 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Iloilo 319,655 2.6 333,791 2.5 343,518 2.5 69,692 1.8 83,545 2 107,763 2.3 403 1.8 481 2.4 559 2.6

NegrosOccidental

452,725 3.6 492,421 3.7 508,646 3.7 70,729 1.8 77,981 1.9 85,520 1.8 431 1.9 0 0 0 0

Region VII

Bohol 203,560 1.6 208,350 1.6 221,075 1.6 22,037 0.6 29,738 0.7 29,078 0.6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cebu 564,249 4.5 609,054 4.6 635,802 4.6 166,685 4.2 173,888 4.2 209,739 4.5 0 0 0 0 1,754 8.1

NegrosOriental

214,876 1.7 225,400 1.7 214,536 1.6 26,868 0.7 28,189 0.7 36,849 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0

Siquijor 16,576 0.1 16,207 0.1 24,608 0.2 1,300 0 2,615 0.1 492 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Region VIII

Biliran 24,618 0.2 24,241 0.2 32,165 0.2 4,836 0.1 7,835 0.2 9,365 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

EasternSamar

66,759 0.5 70,557 0.5 76,102 0.6 9,323 0.2 11,883 0.3 14,116 0.3 0 0 410 2 0 0


26/32


26

Region

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009


Leyte 297,087 2.4 317,809 2.4 329,669 2.4 41,817 1.1 47,267 1.1 66,105 1.4 0 0 385 1.9 887 4.1

NorthernSamar

90,979 0.7 96,655 0.7 97,574 0.7 11,573 0.3 12,407 0.3 10,403 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

SouthernLeyte

66,180 0.5 69,613 0.5 129,042 0.9 8,883 0.2 11,937 0.3 18,789 0.4 325 1.4 0 0 0 0

WesternSamar

116,200 0.9 123,808 0.9 67,356 0.5 15,109 0.4 19,361 0.5 13,230 0.3 349 1.5 0 0 0 0

Region IXb

Zamboangadel Norte

159,468 1.3 165,813 1.3 188,034 1.4 12,227 0.3 17,570 0.4 19,019 0.4 0 0 0 0 370 1.7

Zamboangadel Surc

258,446 2.1 261,422 2 274,077 2 41,964 1.1 54,523 1.3 62,212 1.3 0 0 0 0 369 1.7

ZamboangaSibugay

91,015 0.7 93,317 0.7 83,683 0.6 8,636 0.2 15,262 0.4 9,158 0.2 432 1.9 0 0 0 0

Isabela City 12,703 0.1 12,571 0.1 21,505 0.2 2,006 0.1 2,907 0.1 3,546 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Region X

Bukidnon 191,778 1.5 201,700 1.5 181,618 1.3 24,904 0.6 31,698 0.8 30,553 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0

Camiguin 11,632 0.1 13,978 0.1 20,270 0.1 3,877 0.1 2,847 0.1 3,918 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lanao delNorte

133,784 1.1 129,534 1 147,096 1.1 23,561 0.6 34,768 0.8 30,497 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0

MisamisOccidental

92,552 0.7 99,022 0.7 129,716 0.9 11,825 0.3 12,068 0.3 16,767 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0

MisamisOriental

196,016 1.6 206,758 1.6 211,723 1.5 48,966 1.2 56,185 1.4 66,447 1.4 359 1.6 0 0 505 2.3

Region XI

Davao delNorte

138,415 1.1 144,717 1.1 137,346 1 23,464 0.6 21,647 0.5 28,538 0.6 471 2 0 0 0 0

Davao delSur

346,953 2.8 344,811 2.6 371,967 2.7 82,589 2.1 97,442 2.3 116,737 2.5 382 1.7 0 0 0 0

DavaoOriental

83,914 0.7 88,833 0.7 98,027 0.7 5,971 0.2 7,012 0.2 6,203 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

CompostelaValley

117,854 0.9 125,800 1 112,324 0.8 11,428 0.3 10,407 0.3 12,384 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0


27/32


27

Region

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009


Region XII

NorthCotabato

185,172 1.5 195,689 1.5 193,141 1.4 17,178 0.4 20,436 0.5 24,883 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Saranggani 88,056 0.7 92,298 0.7 88,063 0.6 5,064 0.1 5,351 0.1 8,259 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0

SouthCotabato

207,084 1.7 225,075 1.7 256,486 1.9 45,515 1.2 41,406 1 75,207 1.6 568 2.5 776 3.9 619 2.9

SultanKudarat

117,590 0.9 120,870 0.9 117,974 0.9 7,985 0.2 11,412 0.3 11,672 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cotabato City 29,326 0.2 27,938 0.2 21,945 0.2 4,952 0.1 7,384 0.2 2,516 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

ARMM

Basilan 53,279 0.4 52,005 0.4 44,498 0.3 382 0 3,074 0.1 3,585 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lanao delSur

112,647 0.9 127,019 1 131,390 1 15,969 0.4 7,264 0.2 13,436 0.3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maguindanao 148,451 1.2 165,827 1.3 160,837 1.2 6,368 0.2 6,977 0.2 2,416 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sulu 103,735 0.8 106,587 0.8 163,926 1.2 3,232 0.1 2,533 0.1 1,588 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tawi-tawi 58,680 0.5 62,123 0.5 47,838 0.3 1,827 0 528 0 2,252 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Caraga

Agusan delNorte

94,327 0.8 100,241 0.8 113,201 0.8 14,571 0.4 15,288 0.4 23,795 0.5 0 0 0 0 295 1.4

Agusan delSur

102,550 0.8 108,573 0.8 102,509 0.7 10,503 0.3 10,943 0.3 9,140 0.2 261 1.1 0 0 0 0

Surigao DelNorte

84,504 0.7 91,774 0.7 90,201 0.7 11,721 0.3 12,336 0.3 14,595 0.3 0 0 310 1.5 347 1.6

Surigao DelSur

88,041 0.7 93,920 0.7 105,506 0.8 9,069 0.2 10,901 0.3 10,510 0.2 0 0 0 0 272 1.3



28/32


28

Table 11. Share of Families by Per Capita Income Class by Urban-Rural Areas, 2003, 2006,and 2009

AreaLow Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

Urban 62.2 62.2 61.3 37.6 37.6 38.6 0.3 0.2 0.19Rural 89.6 89.6 87.9 10.4 10.3 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.05

Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the results of the 2003, 2006and 2009 Family Income and Expenditure Survey of the National Statistics Office

Table 12. Average Family Size by Per Capita Income Class, 2003, 2006, and 2009

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

Philippines 5.1 5.1 5.0 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.0 2.0 2.5


Table 13. Presence of Overseas Filipino Workers among Families by Income Class, 2003,2006 and 2009

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

With OFW 53.2 45.6 44.9 46.6 54.2 55.0 0.2 0.2 0.2


Table 14. Average Percentage of Working Age Population Who Are Employed by Income

Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009

Income Class 2003 2006 2009

Low 51.0 59.1 62.2

Middle 68.1 56.2 66.1

High 88.4 73.9 87.2Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff

using the results of the 2003, 2006 and 2009 Family Incomeand Expenditure Survey of the National Statistics Office


29/32


29

Table 15. Occupation of the Household Head, by Income Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009

Occupation of theHousehold Head

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

Officials of government,executives, managers,

supervisors

8.0 8.8 12.5 27.0 29.5 34.0 67.0 74.8 67.6

Professionals 0.6 0.5 0.5 9.6 10.2 10.2 21.4 15.7 13.2

Technicians and associateprofessionals

1.5 1.5 1.5 5.9 6.5 5.2 5.0 0.0 3.4

Clerks 1.3 1.6 1.8 5.3 6.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 6.5

Service Workers 5.0 5.1 5.5 9.9 9.1 9.4 0.0 9.4 1.5

Farmers,fishermen,forestry

38.4 37.0 33.8 10.6 10.3 11.3 3.4 0.0 5.0

Trade workers 12.5 11.7 11.5 9.2 8.1 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Plant operators 10.7 10.7 8.8 11.5 10.6 7.9 3.2 0.0 0.0

Laborers and unskilledworkers

21.5 22.8 23.7 9.2 8.3 8.1 0.0 0.0 2.8

Special occupation 0.4 0.3 0.4 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Table 16. Employment Status of the Household Head, by Income Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009

Employment Status ofthe Household Head

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

Employed 88.7 84.0 77.6 76.9 72.7 74.1 72.6 62.6 61.8Unemployed 11.3 2.7 22.3 23.1 2.3 25.9 27.4 37.4 38.1


Table 17. Employment Status of the Household Head by Class of Worker and by IncomeClass, 2003, 2006, and 2009

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

worked w/ private

hhld 1.9 1.9 2.3 1.4 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.8worked w/ private

estab 38.7 38.1 39.8 39.6 37.1 34.5 27.6 38.8 25.0

worked for govt 4.5 4.8 5.2 18.5 18.6 19.2 18.1 20.5 6.2

self-employed 45.0 46.1 43.2 27.7 29.6 29.6 18.6 12.0 8.3

employer in own

farm/business 9.0 8.4 8.8 11.5 12.0 13.8 35.8 23.5 53.1

worked w/ pay in

own farm/business 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8

worked w/o pay in

own farm/business 0.8 0.6 0.7 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.0 5.2 1.8



30/32


30

Table 18. Educational Attainment of the Household Heads Spouse, by Income Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009

Educational Attainmentof the Household Head's

Spouse

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

No Grade 3.0 2.8 2.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0Elementary Undergraduate 20.4 19.8 18.7 3.9 3.3 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Elementary Graduate 24.3 23.1 23.0 8.2 7.3 7.2 0.0 6.4 0.0

High SchoolUndergraduate

16.5 16.5 15.7 6.4 5.9 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

High School Graduate 22.4 23.6 25.4 22.5 22.5 22.6 11.8 12.9 9.5

College Undergraduate 8.7 9.3 9.5 19.3 20.6 19.9 5.4 11.3 9.5

College Graduate 4.7 4.9 5.0 39.3 40.3 40.7 82.7 69.4 81.0Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the results of the 2003, 2006 and 2009

Family Income and Expenditure Survey of the National Statistics Office

Table 19. Employment Status of the Household Heads Spouse, by Income Class, 2003, 2006, and 2009

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

Employed 41.0 46.7 72.5 58.6 61.8 81.6 48.1 58.1 66.7

Unemployed 59.0 53.3 27.3 41.4 38.2 18.4 51.9 41.9 33.1Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the results of the 2003, 2006

and 2009 Family Income and Expenditure Survey of the National Statistics Office

Table 20. Roof Materials of Housing Units, by Income Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009

Roof Material

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

Strongmaterial(galvanized,iron,al,tile,concrete,brick,stone,asbestos)

59.7 63.5 72.3 88.9 91.6 94.8 100.0 100.0 95.3

Light material(cogon,nipa,anahaw)

25.0 20.9 17.3 2.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 4.7

Salvaged/makeshiftmaterials

1.0 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mixed but predominantlystrong materials

9.7 10.3 6.5 6.9 5.8 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mixed but predominantlylight materials

4.4 4.0 2.8 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mixed but predominantlysalvaged

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



31/32


31

Table 21. Wall Materials of Housing Units, by Income Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009

Wall Material

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

Strong

material(galvanized,iron,al,tile,concrete,brick,stone,asbestos)

49.3 51.5 57.0 86.0 89.0 90.9 100.0 100.0 97.6

Light material(cogon,nipa,anahaw)

29.4 26.5 25.1 3.0 1.7 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.4

Salvaged/makeshiftmaterials

1.4 1.5 1.3 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mixed but predominantlystrong materials

13.5 14.4 11.4 8.6 7.8 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mixed but predominantlylight materials

6.1 5.8 4.9 1.7 1.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Mixed but predominantlysalvaged materials 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


Table 22. Type of Building/House of Housing Units, by Income Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009

Type of Building/House

Low Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

Single house 93.8 94.8 95.2 83.6 85.6 87.7 69.2 86.0 90.5

Duplex 2.9 2.5 2.4 4.8 4.0 3.3 2.0 9.3 5.0

Apartment/accessoria/condo/townhouse

3.0 2.5 2.4 10.4 9.3 8.6 21.8 2.0 4.6

Commercial/industrial/agricultural building/house

0.3 0.2 0.1 1.1 1.0 0.3 7.0 2.7 0.0

Other building unit (e.g.cave, boat)

0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0



32/32


Table 23. Tenure Status of the Household, by Income Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009

Tenure StatusLow Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

Own or owner-like

possession of house andlot 66.0 69.3 70.1 74.2 74.9 77.3 87.8 91.9 84.5

Rent house/room includinglot

5.7 4.9 4.8 14.1 12.8 11.6 10.1 5.7 10.6

Own house, rent lot 3.2 2.6 2.8 1.6 1.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 5.0

Own house, rent-free lotwith consent of owner

15.9 14.8 14.2 3.3 3.5 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

Own house, rent-free lotwithout consent of owner

3.7 3.9 3.7 1.7 2.5 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rent-free house and lot

with consent of owner

5.1 4.3 4.3 4.9 4.5 3.9 2.0 2.5 0.0

Rent-free house and lotwithout consent of owner

0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0


Table 24. Toilet Facilities of Housing Units, by Income Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009

Type of Toilet FacilityLow Middle High

2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009 2003 2006 2009

Water-sealed 64.2 69.6 74.1 92.6 95.5 97.1 100.0 100.0 98.3

Closed Pit 12.8 10.8 8.3 4.4 2.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.7

Open Pit 7.9 6.3 5.2 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Others 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

None 12.8 11.6 10.8 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0


Documents

Middle Class Shrinking