Category Archives: market research/opinion surveys

Pinoys Look at P-Noy’s Porsche and Are Dissatisfied?

Malacanang occupants should remember the voting percentages for P-Noy in the May 2010 elections (see Table 1 below).  Maybe for 12-18 months these would be the core BSA3 support for key contentious issues.  These would be the groups which will give him the benefit of the doubt and take his side for some time.

Table 1. VOTE FOR PRESIDENT, BY CLASS (%)

TOTAL RP

ABC

D

E

AQUINO BENIGNO SIMEON III C. ‘NOYNOY’

44

48

44

36

Estrada Ejercito, Joseph M. ‘Erap’

25

19

27

32

Villar, Manuel Jr. B. ‘Manny’

13

11

14

16

Teodoro Gilberto Jr. C. ‘Gibo’

11

14

8

9

Villanueva Eduardo C. ‘Bro. Eddie’

3

4

3

3

Gordon Richard J. ‘Dick’

2

2

1

2

Acosta Vetellano S. ‘Dodong’

1

1

1

1

Madrigal Jamby A. S. ‘Jamby’

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

De Los Reyes John Carlos G. ‘Jc’

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.1

Perlas Jesus Nicanor P. ‘Nick’

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.2

Can’t Answer/Refused

1

1

1

1

Source: SWS May 2010 Elections Exit Poll

48 percent of ABC voters chose Aquino; D voters, 44 percent, and E voters, 36 percent.

Porsche Issue

I had written Mahar Mangahas on the Porsche issue and how this was picked by media to bear down on the decline of P-Noy’s satisfaction ratings.  The text of my letter is as follows:

———————————————————————–

Hi Mahar.

P-Noy’s ratings fell significantly for a new President, if we are to compare him with the others starting with his mother’s term.

Probably there are many other reasons but the SWS press release seems to attribute this solely to his Porsche purchase.

The statement posed to respondents was for me not neutrally phrased (kind of leading), a la Serge Osmena’s style of phrasing for his messaging strategy:

‘Pres. Aquino’s purchase of an expensive car such as a Porsche, even if through his own money, is not a good example for a President of a country like the Philippines.’

I would think that it would be difficult to disagree with such statement.

It is interesting that 1 out of  5, specifically the D and E classes, was undecided, did not want to take a position, or unsure of what the question/statement meant or wanted to elicit.

My opinion.  Please correct me if I am wrong, subject to availability of your time.

——————————————————————————

Mahar replied back:

——————————————————————————

Dear Butch,

…..
We put the Porsche item in the press release since it’s the only other survey item directly about PNoy that is open to report; we just didn’t want to devote a separate press release to the Porsche matter alone.  We could not have selected the Porsche item as “the cause” of anything, since there was nothing else to select.

Since all “agree-disagree” statements are vulnerable to affirmation bias, a question designer has to consciously choose what position is to be affirmed.  It is our practice to choose the “common sense” or orthodox position, which in this case is that buying such an expensive car does not set a good example.

Suppose we had used the reverse statement that “there is nothing wrong with PNoy’s buying the Porsche since anyway it’s his own money”?  To have done it that (unorthodox) way would have risked criticism for being too soft on PNoy, rather than neutral.

—————————————————————————

I defer to the long experience of SWS on these surveys, including how it designs questions,

But let us focus on the message, not the messenger.

Net Ratings

A positive net rating indicates that the respondents agree that it is not a good example that P-Noy has set by buying a Porsche, even with his own money.

A negative net rating could mean that it is a good example?  Perhaps it would be more appropriate to interpret this in the way that Malacanang does.  That this is a personal matter.  That the President is entitled to some leisure time and can use his free time to unwind in the way he wants to, like driving fast cars or practice shooting at the range.  That he did not use government funds. I wonder if this would be akin to playing golf by FVR and GMA.

But it is only in the ABC class where we observe this negative rating (-2).  The D (+17) and E (+15) respondents have positive net ratings.  Has the message from Malacanang only catered or made sense to the ABC class?  Note that the D and E classes have little access to leisure time, access and opportunity.

According to the Family Income and Expenditures Survey of the National Statistics Office, Filipino families in 2009 spent a measly 0.4 percent of their income for recreation.  Also, the average income of the top 1 percent of the income distribution was less than Php 1.9 million.

So it is still somewhat positive that a third of the D (33 percent) and E (31 percent) took the side of Malacanang, as did 48 percent of class ABC.

Going back to P-Noy’s voters last May 2011, it is interesting that 48 percent of class ABC supported him.  This is the same percentage that sided with him in the Porsche issue; there is only a small percentage (6) that was undecided.  Of course it would be too presumptuous to think that the same 48 percent who voted for him are the same 48 percent who sided with him here.  But the conclusion is that this core among the ABC has not been eroded, nor added to.

This is not the case with voter percentages for the D and E classes versus those favorable to the ‘Porsche’ issue. For D, it is 44 vs. 33; and for E, 36 vs.31.  Note also the significant percentages of the undecided, 18 percent for D and 24 percent for E.  Malacanang should sharpen its focus of their messaging to the D and E groups, especially the ‘undecideds’, to keep at least his voters loyal to him.

This is of course a conservative way of targeting their constituency, at least in this Porsche issue or anything related to this genre.  Otherwise it would be the sentiments of Juana Change that would offer the more compelling argument/s, as it seemed.

Well, back to the title, I am unsure if the correlation between the purchase of the Porsche and the decline in P-Noy’s ratings is significant.  As Mahar had written and let me reiterate, ‘We put the Porsche item in the press release since it’s the only other survey item directly about PNoy that is open to report; we just didn’t want to devote a separate press release to the Porsche matter alone.  We could not have selected the Porsche item as “the cause” of anything, since there was nothing else to select’.

Leave a comment

Filed under exit polls, market research/opinion surveys, Philippines, statistics

Various Assessments of the 2010 COMELEC – Smartmatic Automated Election System

The people have spoken.  75% of Filipinos are satisfied with the conduct of the May 2010 Elections [from the Social Weather Stations [http://www.sws.org.ph].  An excerpt of this report follows:

—————————————-

Seventy-five percent of Filipinos are satisfied with the general conduct of the May 2010 automated elections, according to the Second Quarter 2010 Social Weather Survey conducted from June 25 to 28, 2010.  The survey also found that Filipinos are satisfied with how the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and other institutions have handled various aspects of the May 10, 2010 elections.  In addition, a complementary survey of 480 Poll Workers nationwide who served in the May 2010 elections showed that Poll Workers are even more satisfied with the conduct of the May 2010 elections compared to the general public.

Satisfaction with conduct of Elections highest ever

Three out of four (75%) adult Filipinos are satisfied and 15% are dissatisfied with the general conduct of the May 2010 elections. This year’s public satisfaction with the conduct of the May 2010 elections is a marked improvement compared to the previous two elections.  In 2004, 53% were satisfied and 35% were dissatisfied with the conduct of the May 2004 elections. In 2007, 51% were satisfied and 32% were dissatisfied with the conduct of the May 2007 elections.

Compared to the general public, the Poll Workers are even more satisfied with the conduct of the May 2010 elections, with 90% satisfied and 7% dissatisfied.  In 2007, the Poll Workers were also more satisfied than the general public with the conduct of the May 2007 elections, with 78% Poll Workers satisfied compared to 51% among adults in general.

—————————————-

The eminent columnist Conrad de Quiros called this an EDSA 3 masquerading as an election.  In fact, EDSA 3 could be taken as an Election Day Support for Aquino III.

There are many who posit that the people really willed it to be a success.  Include the dedication and commitment of the teachers acting as the Board of election Inspectors and the volunteers of the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting [PPCRV].  Even the military in most circumstances reportedly took a 180 degree position from influencing the vote in the past elections to protecting the right of people to vote.

But it is no time to sit back and accept the total experience of these 2010 elections.

There are numerous critical issues that need to be addressed and clarified by the COMELEC and Smartmatic before the country undertakes a similar type of automated elections.  Perhaps the election protests filed in the Vice Presidency and Manila mayoralty contests can help find answers to these issues and concerns.

I am posting a position paper of the Kaakbay Partylist, which articulates the shortcomings in the last elections from its own perspectives as culled from various reports of concerned authorities.  This was emailed to me on July 6, 2010.

—————————————-

COMELEC’s non compliance with the law resulted in a completely untested and unaudited system. The only testing made was at the precinct level and used in conjunction with sporadic voter training. No system testing was made with the Boards of Canvassers for the municipal, city, provincial and national levels. No testing was also made to determine whether the voting continuity and contingency measures were realizable.

As a result, it led to the following problems, difficulties, irregularities and inaccuracies during the elections:

  1. Long queues of voters waiting to vote for more than 3 hours in order to locate their precincts, resulting in 3 to 5 million disenfranchised voters.
  2. Erroneous count of 253 million registered voters in the Server of the House of Representatives.
  3. Failure to read 3 to 4 million “null” votes recorded nationwide.
  4. Printed election returns containing dates before, during and after 10 May 2010 and printed on credit cards thermal papers.
  5. Many election returns showed only 10 votes from about 500 to 600 actual voters, indicating that these returns were based on test ballots prior to Final Testing and Sealing of the PCOS machines.
  6. Electoral protests at various levels in 41 provinces and cities. The congressional inquiry at the House of Representatives (Locsin hearing) “showed that there was electoral fraud committed, and substantiated by documentary evidence, with COMELEC and Smartmatic, keeping the public in the dark about the many ways one could cheat through the machines, the many irregularities and last minute changes in orders coming from COMELEC that provided many opportunities to cheat and manipulate the votes for favored candidates.”

POINT 1. The PCOS machine uses an Ultra Violet (UV) Security Mark Sensor to determine the genuineness of a ballot. Prior to the elections, this UV Sensor was disabled by COMELEC.

The Locsin hearing confirmed that Smartmatic provided all the paper, UV ink, and several printing machines for National Printing Office (NPO) to print the ballots. Ms. Grace Enriquez of NPO and Mr. Flores of Smartmatic confirmed that the PCOS cannot read the UV ink printed ballots because of the lessened density of the UV ink due to the heightened printing speed to meet the printing deadline.

Instead, COMELEC immediately purchased some 76,000+ handheld UV readers that were not used during the elections.

POINT 2. In the Locsin hearing, it was confirmed that the Compact Flash (CF) cards of the PCOS can allow the reinsertion and acceptance of already scanned ballots. Later, both Ms. Quimson of Navigation Information and Mr. Flores said that scanned or previously read ballots can be re-fed into the computers even without a change of CF card.

There was no way to know whether the ballots read during the elections were genuine or fake.

POINT 3. The Joint Forensic Team, commissioned by the Joint Canvassing Committee reported June 9, 2010 the discovery that the PCOS machines have a controlling CONSOLE PORT which allowed the unsecured vulnerability of the PCOS machines to manipulation and open to malicious control and electoral fraud.

Through an unsecure (that is, with no username and password) connection of a laptop, the laptop was able to access the operating system of the PCOS machine. Smartmatic was not able to offer a technical explanation to this major security breach loophole.

The Namfrel terminal report, released July 2, 2010, said the random manual audit of certain precincts showed that the degree of variance was less than what was the required 99.995 percent accuracy. The overall performance of the machine is 99.35 percent accuracy, which was below the required 99.995 percent.

Extrapolating this percentage to 76,340 precincts, it will amount to about 345,000 ballots inaccurately read.

The digital signature is the primary feature to determine the authenticity and verifiability of the election returns from the precincts. Thus, the Contract specified these as the second main deliverable of Smartmatic.

Point i. COMELEC issued Resolution 8786 March 4, 2010 that no longer required the use of digital signatures. The Resolution stated:

“WHEREAS, there is a need to amend or revise portions of Resolution No. 8739 in order to fine tune the process and address procedural gaps;
SEC. 40. Counting of ballots and transmission of results
f) Thereafter, the PCOS shall automatically count the votes and immediately display a message “WOULD YOU LIKE TO DIGITALLY SIGN THE TRANSMISSION FILES WlTH A BEI SIGNATURE KEY?”, with a “YES” or ‘NO” option;
g) Press “NO” option.
The PCOS will display “ARE YOU SURE YOU DO NOT WANT TO APPLY A DIGlTAL SIGNATURE?” with a “YES” and “NO” option;
h) Press “YES” option.”

Point ii. The Locsin Report stated: “14. The digital signature—only of a particular PCOS—and not of the BEI person herself was conceded as being, for practical but not legal purposes, sufficient compliance with the intent of the E-Commerce and Automated Election laws. The Chair argued that a PCOS [or machine] digital signature serves equally as the digital signature of the BEI who has custody of the machine because it is possible to link one to the other.”

Point iii. The Joint Forensic Report however proved that such practical purposes were not true, as there were no such digital signatures. The Report stated:

“ Absence of Machine Digital Signatures
Examination o the PCOS machines revealed that there was no evidence found to prove the existence of digital certificates in the PCOS machines, contrary to the claims of Smartmatic. The technicians of Smartmatic were not able to show to the forensic team the machine version of the digital signature, alleging that they do not have the necessary tools to show the same. More so, they were at a quandary as to how to extract the said machine signatures— to the dismay of the forensic team.

If there are digital certificates, then these were supposed to be revealed. The forensic team tried to extract the digital signatures but to no avail. Hence, the forensic team is of the opinion that there exists no digital signature in the PCOS machine.”

Point iv. Without the digital signatures (whether that of the PCOS or the BEI), there is no way to check in the CCS servers in the municipality, city, province and national to know which PCOS machine (authorized or unauthorized) is transmitting to their CCS servers.

This is crucial with the discovery of 60 PCOS machines and 2 Broadband Global Area Network (BGAN) in Antipolo in the house of a Smartmatic technician (who could not show any authority for safekeeping, back up and to which CCS he is transmitting), and the subject of the Forensic team’s investigation.

Point v. As proven above, there were no digital signatures used in all level of the AES. Therefore, the Board of Canvassers themselves, from the municipal, city, provinces and national canvassing centers, cannot authenticate, duly execute and certify the Certificates of Canvass they transmit electronically to the higher levels of canvassing.

Thus, all the BOC proclamations are null and void from the beginning.

The voter had no way to check whether the PCOS correctly read and recorded his vote choices.

No Statement of Votes (SOV) accompanied the Certificates of Canvass (COC). The SOV is the details of the votes by precincts (indicated in the election returns) by which the summary votes of each candidate in the COC can be verified and checked.

COMELEC stated that it will take some time to print 10,000 SOV recorded in the CCS servers of the Board of Canvassers.

The results of 30 RMA precincts were released and announced as of 15 May 2010.

Last 20 May, COMELEC announced results of about 300 RMA precincts were completed with few discrepancies.

In the Locsin hearing, Ambassador de Villa of PPCRV reported the partial results of the RMA. Out of the 1,145 randomly selected precincts, 845 precincts have already submitted reports, 15 precincts’ results were in transit leaving 285 precincts with no results yet.

As of this writing, COMELEC has not published the results of this Random Manual Audit.

SysTest Lab submitted a report with some 4,000 comments for action by COMELEC. No official announcement by COMELEC whether these SysTest comments were addressed.

The lack of transparency by the COMELEC made the Supreme Court to order COMELEC to produce the relevant documentation on these items.

Tests were conducted only at precinct level, none at the municipal, city, provincial and national.

The Joint Forensic Team reported that “the hash codes for the firmware residing in the 6 PCOS machines found in Antipolo have the same SMA256 output … However, a thorough comparison with the official document posted in the COMELEC website revealed that the published hash code is not the same as the extracted one [from the PCOS machines.”

This indicates that the computer programs in the PCOS machines have been altered.

For all documents related to the Automated Election System (AES):
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=c83e06e1eeda20b0d8f14848abf485dd1e97232231037841759e682a8cd2154a

For all documents related to Critique of the AES:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=c83e06e1eeda20b0d8f14848abf485dd1e972322310378414df0d6082f1c2cd0

Leave a comment

Filed under election, market research/opinion surveys, Philippines

Noynoy Aquino – SWS Survey 5-6 September 2009

Here are some of my notes on this survey.  I don’t question how the interviews were accomplished in 2 days and processing in a couple more days.  SWS has been in this business long enough to carry out sound operations in a jiffy. Perhaps if its accuracy is an issue and need to be proven, Senator Noynoy can motor to these key areas as part of a thanksgiving trip to the people who condoled with his family but could not come to Manila and gauge the public support/acclaim.  Anyone could question my notes but I put these up for discussion purposes.

For all you know, these may be valid observations.  I compared the NCR results from the Serge Osmena commissioned survey of September 5-6 with the Pulse Asia survey of May 4-17.  These have similarities: same area, same sample size of 300, similar questions:

SWS (September 5-6)

Among the names found in this list, who will you probably vote for as President of the Philippines if elections were held today? [Aquino, Villar, Estrada, Escudero, De Castro]?

Pulse Asia (May 4-17)

Of the people in this list, whom would you vote for the President of the Philippines if the election were held today and they were Presidential candidates? [Villar, Estrada, Escudero, De Castro, Roxas, …and Legarda, Binay, Lacson, and others who got 0 or 1 percent]

Comparative NCR Results (in percent):   September 5-6 ***** May 4-17

AQUINO —> 50 ***** 0

VILLAR —> 14 ***** 14

ESTRADA —> 15 ***** 13

ESCUDERO —> 14 ***** 26

DE CASTRO —> 5 ***** 15

ROXAS —> 0 ***** 7

OTHERS —> 0 ***** 24

DON’T KNOW/NONE —> 2 ***** 2

If my premises can be accepted as valid/passable. AQUINO got his votes from ESCUDERO [12], DE CASTRO [10], and ROXAS [7], and the others [24].  Estrada got more [2].  Assigning the votes to AQUINO from the others in the May list (such as Legarda, Binay, Lacson ..and excluded in the September list) may be questionable but then if the respondent felt strongly for them, s/he could have refused or answered NONE from among the September list of 5 names. 

By the way, the SWS survey of June 19-22, where VILLAR got 33 percent, had a larger sample of 7 thousand but a differently formulated question

Under the present Constitution, the term of Pres. Arroyo is up to 2010 only, and there will be an election for a new President in May 2010. Who do you think are good leaders who should succeed Pres. Arroyo as President? You may give up to 3 names……[and there was no list of names to prompt the respondents.]

My opinion.

1 Comment

Filed under election, market research/opinion surveys, Philippines, Uncategorized

Pulse Asia’s February 2009 Survey on the May 2010 Elections: The Undecided

I am not in any way connected with Pulse Asia.  While going through their results, I found some interesting things about the ‘Undecided’ group.  For strategic think tanks seeking to swing the tide of opinion from one to the other, they should mine the data on the ‘Undecideds’ especially if the percentages show 20-30 percent incidence on particular issues.  The 2010 elections and Charter Change are examples.

 

——————————————-

 

Main Findings

 

For 65% of Filipinos, there is a big possibility that the next elections will push through according to schedule – a sentiment shared by small to big majorities (55% to 76%) across geographic areas and socio-economic classes.

 

A bare majority of Filipinos (51%) is of the opinion that the postponement or cancellation of the May 2010 elections will cause much trouble in the country.

 

 

 

Additional Findings: The Undecided

 

It would be helpful to look at the ‘Undecided’ group as this could be the swing vote to the issues at hand and can still be influenced in the political debate.  Already the group was less by about 10 percent from October 2008 to February 2009; more are making their stand.

 

Between October 2008 and February 2009 surveys, the notable shifts among the ‘Undecided’ are:

 

1. Possibility of 2010 elections:

There were less ‘undecided’ nationwide, from 30 percent in October 2008 down to 22 percent in February 2009.  In the Visayas, there were 16 percent less ‘undecided’; in Mindanao, 10 percent less; and in class E, 15 percent more.

 

An additional 6 percent nationwide felt that there is now a big possibility that the 2010 elections will push through. In the Visayas, there were 23 percent more who felt that there is a big possibility; in Mindanao, 11 percent more; and in socio-economic Class E, 15 percent more.

 

There were insignificant shifts in opinions among the undecided in NCR and the rest of Luzon, and Classes ABC and D from October 2008 to February 2009.

 

2. Much trouble, if no elections?

There were less ‘undecided’ nationwide, from 29 percent in October 2008 down to 21 percent in February 2009.  In the Rest of Luzon, there were 13 percent less ‘undecided’; in the Visayas, 9 percent less; in Class ABC, 9 percent less; and in class E, 15 percent less.

 

There was an almost even split from among the ranks of the ‘undecided’ in October 2008, to among those who foresaw much trouble if there were no elections in 2010 and to among those who did not in the Rest of Luzon and the Visayas. (February 2009) 

 

However among Classes ABC and E, there was a significant shift of the ‘undecided’ in October 2008 to among those who felt in February 2009 that much trouble would ensue if there were no elections in 2010.

 

It is interesting that the gain in Mindanao of those who foresaw much trouble in February 2009 came not from the ‘Undecided’, but from those who did not foresee such in October 2008.

 

Shifts have not been discernible in NCR as the percentage changes have remained the same (57 agree and 22 disagree) as of October 2008 to (55 agree and 23 disagree), in February 2009.  Class D ratios also essentially remained the same (49:25 agree:disagree  to 51:27)    

 

Events prior to or during the survey

 

Pulse Asia also reported that during the period prior to and the conduct of this survey, the news headlines focused on the alleged bribery of several officials from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in relation to a drug case; the reported bid rigging behind road projects in the country being funded by the World Bank (WB); the planned automation of the May 2010 elections; the revival of congressional discussions on constitutional amendments; controversies involving the Supreme Court including the aborted plan to file impeachment charges against Chief Justice Reynato Puno; the closure of some companies and the laying off of workers both here and abroad; the Arroyo administration’s efforts to create jobs and provide assistance to laid off workers; and, the US Presidential election and the inauguration of President Barack Obama.

 

I would also add that the consumer price index (CPI) slowed down from 11.2 percent in October 08 down to 7.3 percent in February 09 due to stable food prices and lower fuel costs.   

 

Some pointed questions:

·         The news did not (significantly) move NCR nor class D (the masa), in spite of the bad, even scandal-ridden, news.

·         GMA’s spinmeisters making inroads among these groups? And/or people just getting more confused or indifferent? GMA being lucky with good weather and favorable price developments of crude oil?

·         Rallies in NCR not worth mounting at this time, with the masa feeling so-so? 

·         Mindanao residents and class E households tending to be more militant … and passionate about the 2010 elections.

·         Are the Cha-cha advocates reading into this?

 

1 Comment

Filed under Charter Change, election, market research/opinion surveys, Philippine development, Philippines

3 ways of looking at the income distribution of the Philippines -2006 updates

A.  Median incomes  

1.  Income distribution from 1960 to 2000 has remained stable, if not stagnant, using median income comparison.  Over four decades, from Vice President Macapagal to Vice President Macapagal Arroyo, the upper half of the income distribution earned 82 percent of total income while the lower half earned 18 percent.  This situation cannot be explained from the perspective of lopsided distribution of productive assets like land and other properties simply because there are no available statistics on capital ownership of families.  We can conjecture however that salaries and wages have remained low through the years.  

As of 2003, there appears to be an ‘encouraging’ 1 percent increase in the share of families in the lower 50 percent of the distribution.

Median Income and Income Distribution

Family Income

1961

2000

2003

Median income (x P1,000)

1

89

95

% Income Share of upper 50% families 

82.4

82.2

81.0

% Income Share of lower 50 % families

17.6

17.8

19.0

Source: National Statistics Office.  Website: http://www.census.gov.ph; Family Income and Expenditures publications.

As of 2006, we see a standstill relative to the 2003 distribution. 

Median Income and Income Distribution
Family Income 1961 2000 2003 2006
Median income (x P1,000) 1 90 95 111
% Income Share of upper 50% families  82.4 82.2 81.0 81.0
% Income Share of lower 50 % families 17.6 17.8 19.0 19.0
Source: National Statistics Office.  Website: http://www.census.gov.ph; Family Income and Expenditures publications.

 

B.  Incomes of Top 1% families 

 

2. In 1985, right before EDSA 1, the families in the top 1 percent (numbering about 100 thousand)  of the income distribution earned an aggregate income of PhP 31.4 billion.  This is nearly what the combined 3.15 million families (or 32 percent) in the lower brackets of the distribution earned, which amounted to PhP 31.3 billion.

3. In 2000, right before EDSA 2, the top 1 percent families (numbering about 150 thousand)  in the income distribution earned an aggregate income of PhP 251.2 billion.  This is nearly what the combined 5.8 million families (or 38 percent) in the lower brackets of the distribution earned, which amounted to PhP 249.6 billion.

4. In 2003, before the end of the first term of Mrs. Arroyo, the top 1 percent families (numbering about 165 thousand)  in the income distribution earned an aggregate income of PhP 235.0 billion (hard to imagine that this declined by 6.4 percent from 2000 but this is the official figure).  This is nearly what the combined 5.3 million families (or 32 percent) in the lower brackets of the distribution earned, which amounted to PhP 227.1 billion.

5. In 2006, before the last national elections, the top 1 percent families (numbering about 174 thousand)  in the income distribution earned an aggregate income of PhP 256.3 billion.  This is nearly what the combined 5.2 million families (or 30 percent) in the lower brackets of the distribution earned, which amounted to PhP 257.9 billion.

6. So 174 thousand ‘top 1 percent’ families earned the equivalent of what 5.2 million ‘bottom 30-percent’ families collectively earned in 2006.

7.  I am not sure if this is cause for relief or even success for the economic managers, using this measure.  The 1:30 ratio in 2006 was marginally better than the 1:32 ratio in 2003 and 1:38 ratio in 2000. 

C.  ABCDE Socio-economic classification

6.  Market/opinion researchers classify according through proxies of wealth/assets, rather than direct measure of income to segment the (consumer) market.

7.  From the 16 April 2007 release of Pulse Asia, its nationally-representative sample has seven (7) percent making up classes A, B, and C; sixty-seven (67) percent, class D; and twenty-five (25) percent, class E.  This breakdown has a sampling error of +/- 3 percent.  [Statistically speaking, classes ABC may be  4 to 10 percent of the population; class D, 64-70 percent; and class E, 22-28 percent.]

8.  While statistical rigor will not be as robust, we can apply the above Pulse Asia percentages to the income distribution and find out how much income these classes earned in 2003.

CLASS

Families

Cumulative Income

Average Income

Number

Share

Amount

Share

(x 1000)

%

 (x PhP 1 million)

%

(x PhP 1000)

ABC

1154

7

         722,645

30

626

D

11206

68

       1,556,915

64

139

E

4120

25

         157,690

6

38

Total

16480

100

       2,437,250

100

148

9. We also apply the above Pulse Asia percentages to the income distribution and find out how much income these classes earned in 2006.

CLASS Families Cumulative Income Average Income
Number Share Amount Share
(x 1000) %  (x PhP 1 million) % (x PhP 1000)
ABC 1,218 7 871,770 29 716
D 11,834 68        1,923,907 64 162
E 4,351 25        210,427 7 48
Total 17,403 100 3,006,104 100 173

In summary, in 2006 –

the good news: the income distribution has not worsened.

the bad news: the income distribution in 2006 has remained essentially the same. 

Not worth a praise release from the powers-that-be…  

 

19 Comments

Filed under income distribution, market research/opinion surveys, Philippine development, statistics