| [ |
music |
| |
love in this club - usher |
] |
it's about time that someone wrote an inquirer opinion article on something that truly matters. and not just anyone but one of the very few inquirer columnists (you can count them with only one hand) that i respect. even though the idea that the article talks about has yet to be implemented in the philippines, it's great to know that it's being talked about, that people still pay attention to the real issues.
i mean, aren't you guys sick of all the political scandals? i am. really, since three years ago. and i'm also sick of people telling me that i don't care about my country just because i didn't join their loony ass protest, as if that makes me less of a filipino than they are. please, bitch, don't even start.
well, back to the real issue.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080531-139885/Education-and-poverty-reduction
=================
Education and poverty reduction
By Solita Collas-Monsod
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:11:00 05/31/2008
MANILA, Philippines—The economy’s first-quarter growth slowed down to 5.2 percent from last year’s 7.0 percent, and the silence is deafening. The critics who were so quick to point out the flaws in the national income estimation methodology of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) last year, when it was reporting record-high growth rates for the country, have not as yet said a word. It would seem they have no problems with the methodology when what is being reported is relatively low growth, when our growth rate is lower than Thailand’s and Indonesia’s. But high growth rates are immediately suspect. Since the methodology has remained the same, the problem has to be with the critics: Low sense of self-worth? Partisanship? Overweening hatred for Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in such a way that any success on her part must be immediately denigrated?
Let’s put that 5.2-percent growth rate in perspective. The latest World Economic Outlook of the IMF projects the country’s 2008 growth at 5.8 percent; the Asian Development Outlook of the ADB is a little more sanguine at 6 percent, while the projections of the National Economic and Development Authority are the most conservative, giving a range with a low at 5.2 percent and a high of 6.2 percent. In effect, the government is being more cautious than the outsiders, which is a switch. But it looks like—although it is early days yet and the government projections have an advantage not only because they are interval estimates rather than point estimates, but also because the IMF and ADB projections were made earlier—the official projections are more accurate.
Some more perspective: While 5.2 percent suffers in comparison with last year’s growth rate, it is only slightly lower than the average growth in the gross domestic product between 2002 and 2007 (5.4 percent), and is slightly higher than the average growth between 1993 and 1997 (5.1 percent), the best of the Ramos years. In other words, it is nothing to sneeze at. Way better than the country’s growth rate in the aftermath of the Dec. 1, 1989 coup attempt (3.3 percent in 1990, 0 percent in 1991).
That’s the good news. The bad news, as has been mentioned in previous columns, is that the country’s growth did not result in poverty reduction. But hold on: It is not just during President Arroyo’s watch that poverty has increased (actually, it decreased and then increased). A graph of family poverty incidence from 1985 to 2006 looks like the picture of a grandfather’s (or grandmother’s) oil (fuel, light and water account for 7.3 percent, and transport and communication for 3.8 percent) chair: downward sloping from 1985 to 1997 (corresponding to the back of the chair), and then at best flat (actually, slightly upward sloping) between 1997 and 2006. What it shows is that both the Joseph Estrada and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (so far) administrations are big, fat failures insofar as poverty reduction is concerned.
The long-term outlook for poverty reduction doesn’t look good either, unfortunately. We all know that there is a very strong link between education (or lack of education) and poverty—two-thirds of our poor families have household heads whose highest educational attainment is at most Grade 6. Well, the education statistics (all from the NSCB ) tell a very sad tale: elementary school net participation rates (NPR)—the proportion of the number of enrollees 7-12 years old to population 7-12 years old—have plummeted from 95 percent in school year (SY) 1997-98 to 74 percent in 2005-2006, as have high school NPRs.
Cohort survival rates (CSR) have also dropped: Out of every 100 children who enter Grade 1, only 63 will reach Grade 6, down from 69 children in 1997-1998. In high school, CSR have dropped even more: from 71 to 55. Which means, of course, that school dropout rates have increased. Which is one of the reasons why, in 2005-2006, for the first time in 35 years, total enrollment decreased in both elementary and high school: although private school enrollment increased, public school enrollment went down more.
This does not augur well for future poverty reduction: based on the most recent poverty estimates, more than one-half of those who drop out of the elementary level are likely to join the ranks of the poor, as will more than one out of three dropouts from the high school level. So if dropouts increase (or enrollment decreases), one can expect more poverty, c.p. For purposes of comparison, the likelihood that one who has done some post-secondary education will be poor is one out of 10, and the likelihood that a college graduate will be poor is one out of 44.
Given all the above, the Ahon Pamilyang Pilipino (APP), a conditional cash transfer (CCT) program, is looking more and more attractive: it gives cash to the poorest families in exchange for school attendance on the part of the children, and regular visits to the health clinic for all the family members. It hits two birds with one stone: It reduces current poverty directly, and it builds human capital to prevent poverty in the future. And it is not a dole-out. It is a social contract, with the mother holding the money.
There are problems, of course—the danger of political interference so that the “malalakas” [well-connected] become the beneficiaries, rather than the “mahihirap” [poor]. But it has been successful in several countries, including Mexico, Brazil, South Africa and Turkey. In any case, the best indicator that CCT programs are effective is that the United States has joined the bandwagon, with NYC starting its own Opportunity NYC last year.
This program could reverse our dismal poverty alleviation record since 1997. Let’s not flub this one. Please.
=======
sounds like a great idea.
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
palengkequeen's journal
thankful
blah
relaxed