Ranking provinces in terms of human development, which provinces fared well and which fared badly across time in each of the components of the human development index? This Policy Note, based on Chapter 3 of the latest Philippine Human Development Report (PHDR), provides the answers. Read on...Philippines, human development, human development index (HDI), Philippine Human Development Report (PHDR), provincial human development index

PIDS Research Information Staff

English

Research Papers in Economics

How do Philippine provinces fare
in terms of human development?
Philippine Institute
for Development Studies
Surian sa mga Pag-aaral
Pangkaunlaran ng Pilipinas
Policy Notes
No. 2010-01 (February 2010) ISSN 1656-5266
M
PIDS Policy Notes are observations/analyses written by PIDS researchers on cer-
tain policy issues. The treatise is holistic in approach and aims to provide useful
inputs for decisionmaking.
This Note was condensed from Chapter 3 of the Philippine Human Development
Report 2008/2009 by Barbara F. Gualvez with comments from Winfred M. Villamil
and Jennifer P.T. Liguton. The views expressed are those of the original authors of
the PHDR’s Chapter 3 and do not necessarily reflect those of PIDS or any of the
study’s sponsors.
uch has been written about the
country’s high economic growth for the past
number of years but how does this translate
to human development? Is this reflected in
improvements, if any, in people’s lives?
Beyond looking at the gross domestic product
(GDP), how is the well-being of Filipinos
measured, especially those living outside of
the nation’s capital or major cities?
The 2008/2009 Philippine Human Development
Report (PHDR), which carries the fifth update
of the provincial human development indices
(HDIs) in the country, looks more closely into
this concern in its Chapter 3 as it presents
the interprovince measures of the
subcomponents of human development. It
also identifies the provinces that have
performed better or worse across time in each
of the components of the HDI.
This Policy Note is a condensed version of this
Chapter and emphasizes the areas which
influenced some of the movements in the
provinces’ HDI during the period of review. It
is hoped that whatever subnational
disparities in the measured subcomponents of
human development are presented—
something not revealed by national
averages—may be used as basis for policy
review and formulation.
Period coverage
The update on the provincial HDIs as
contained in the 2008/2009 PHDR covers the
period 2004 to 2006. In the span of this
period, a presidential and local election took
place; various challenges to the legitimacy of
the current political administration werePN 2010-01
2
Policy Notes
raised; and ten destructive typhoons struck
the country in 2006, affecting 2.4 million
families. The gross domestic product (GDP)
during this period of 2004 to 2006 also grew
by 4.3 percent, higher than the country
average over the previous two decades, but it
has to be stressed that despite the growth in
the GDP, it is outcomes that matter from a
human development perspective rather than
incomes.
Human development index (HDI)
The HDI is a summary measure of human
development that seeks to gauge the average
achievement in a country in three basic
dimensions of human development: a long
and healthy life, knowledge, and a decent
standard of living (UNDP 2007). It is
motivated by the principle that income alone
cannot faithfully reflect the basic dimensions
of human development. Income is a means
toward human development, not an end. To
quantify these three basic dimensions, the
United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) uses life expectancy at birth, adult
literacy and combined primary, secondary, and
tertiary enrolment rates, and adjusted per
capita GDP in purchasing power parity (PPP)
(in US dollars) in its Human Development
Report (HDR).
Officials of the provinces that won the Top Ranked HDI award as well as the Most Improved HDI award
pose with their awards, together with UN, New Zealand, and Philippine HDN officials, during the national
launch of the 2008/2009 PHDR and awarding of HDI plaques. From l-r: Dr. Arsenio Balisacan, HDN
president; H.E. Andrew Matheson, New Zealand Ambassador to the Philippines; Hon. Erineo Maliksi,
Governor of Cavite; Hon. Casimiro Ynares III, Governor of Rizal; Hon. Nestor Fongwan, Governor of
Benguet; Mr. Renaud Meyer, UNDP Country Director; Hon. Orlando Fua Sr., Congressman of Siquijor;
Hon. Rogelio Espina, Governor of Biliran; and Prof. Solita Monsod, founding president of Philippine HDN.PN 2010-01
Policy Notes
3
In the latest edition of the HDR for 2007/
2008, the Philippines ranked 90th among 177
countries, lower by six places since the
previous computation when it ranked 84th.
Although its ranking dropped, the country
remains in the category of countries with
“medium human development” since its
functional literacy rates and gross enrolment
rates continue to be above that of the
medium group average by 18.7 percent and
24.2 percent, respectively. This is an
advantage that allows the country to rank
much better in terms of HDI than in terms of
per capita GDP by 11 notches.
For domestic policy purposes, however, what
becomes more useful is not just this ranking
among countries but, as mentioned earlier,
the subnational disparities in the measured
subcomponents of human development. The
succeeding sections thus provide a picture of
this subnational situation.
Longevity
A long and healthy life is quantified by
achievements in life expectancy at birth. Life
expectancy figures for 2006 are derived using
newly computed life tables based on 2000
Census data and previous life tables for 1995
(Cabigon and Flieger 1999). Table 1 shows the
provinces with the highest and lowest life
expectancy projections for 2006 while Figure 1
shows provinces with the largest and smallest
gains in life expectancy between 1980 and 2006.
On the average, those born in 2006 in La
Union are expected to live 74.6 years, the
longest among Filipinos, followed closely by
those from Bulacan, Ilocos Norte, Camarines
Sur, and Benguet. On the other hand, those
born in four provinces in the Autonomous
Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), four
provinces in the Cordillera Administrative
Region (CAR), Palawan, and Agusan del Norte
are expected to live the shortest. Those in the
Table 1. Life expectancy (2006)*
     Top Ten Years      Bottom Ten Years
La Union 74.6 Agusan del Norte 63.6
Bulacan 73.4 Mt. Province 62.8
Ilocos Norte 73.0 Apayao 62.8
Camarines Sur 73.0 Palawan 62.7
Benguet 72.9 Kalinga 61.9
Cebu 72.6 Ifugao 61.2
Batangas 72.6 Lanao del Sur 58.7
Pampanga 72.4 Maguindanao 57.6
Cagayan 72.0 Sulu 55.5
Albay 71.9 Tawi-Tawi 53.4
*Linear projection based on 1995 and 2000 actual estimates.
Source: Statistical Annex 1 (PHDR 2008/2009).
Figure 1. Largest and smallest gainers:
life expectancy (1980–2006)*
* For 1980, actual estimates from Flieger and Cabigon (1994). For 2006,
linear projection from 1995 and 2000 actual estimates.PN 2010-01
4
Policy Notes
disparity in life expectancy observed across
provinces is likely explained by disparities in
access to quality health care.
If one looks at changes in life expectancy
over long periods, one finds that over the last
26 years from 1980 to 2006, life expectancy
improved for all provinces except two—Tawi-
Tawi and Sulu—where life expectancy
alarmingly dropped from 56.4 years to 53.4
years (or by 10.6 percent) and 55.8 to 55.5
years (or by 0.9 percent), respectively.
Camarines Sur, Leyte, and Zamboanga del
Norte, meanwhile, saw the biggest
improvements, with more than 14 years added
to life expectancy. They were followed by
Sorsogon, La Union, Surigao del Norte, Ilocos
Norte, Zambales, Albay, and Bulacan. On the
national level, Filipinos born in 2006 live
about eight years longer, on the average,
compared to those born in 1980, an
improvement in the life expectancy of roughly
three years every decade.
Knowledge
In terms of knowledge, subnational
achievements are measured as a weighted
average of the high school graduate ratio and
the basic education enrolment rate. For the
country as a whole, the proportion of high
school graduates among adults in 2006 was
55 percent, an improvement of three
percentage points and about nine percentage
points from its 2003 and 1997 levels,
respectively. Metro Manila is highest in the
rankings, with about four in every five adults
Table 2. High school graduate ratio (2006)
   Top Ten Percent        Bottom Ten Percent
Benguet 76.6 Basilan 38.9
Rizal 73.9 Western Samar 37.4
Cavite 73.7 Tawi-Tawi 37.4
Laguna 72.5 Northern Samar 34.9
Bataan 72.0 Zamboanga del Norte 34.0
Pangasinan 69.8 Negros Oriental 33.6
La Union 66.5 Masbate 32.3
Batanes 65.5 Davao Oriental 29.9
Pampanga 65.3 Sarangani 28.4
Abra 64.7 Sulu 23.1
Note: Metro Manila 81.1
Source: Statistical Annex 1 (PHDR 2008/2009).
ARMM provinces of Tawi-Tawi, Sulu,
Maguindanao, and Lanao del Sur are worst off,
with those in Tawi-Tawi expected to live 21
years less than those in La Union. The high
Dr. Winfred Villamil, member of the board of the
Philippine Human Development Network (HDN),
presents the provincial HDIs for the period 2004–2006
during the national launch of the 2008/2009 PHDR.PN 2010-01
Policy Notes
5
finishing high school. Benguet follows closely
with about seven in every nine adults
completing secondary education (Table 2). As
expected, provinces close to the metropolis
such as Rizal, Cavite, and Laguna have
relatively high ratios as do provinces along
the northern Luzon corridor of Bataan,
Pampanga, Pangasinan, and La Union. Abra
registered the greatest improvement, with an
increase of 15 percentage points from its
value in 2003, followed by Guimaras and
Biliran with a 13 percentage point increase
each (Figure 2). Other provinces with gains of
at least nine percentage points include
Maguindanao, Benguet, Apayao, and Surigao
del Norte. Batanes, on the other hand, which
had the highest ratio in 2003, registered a
decrease of almost 11 percentage points in
2006. Two other provinces, Tawi-Tawi and
Lanao del Sur, also slid by 3.5 and 1
percentage point, respectively.
Basic education enrolment rates hardly
improved on the whole, remaining at 91
percent between 2002 and 2004. This is in
contrast to the trend exhibited by the high
school graduate ratio. The alarming
development for basic education is the actual
drop in enrolment rates in three quarters of
all the provinces.
As to the provinces that fared well in terms of
basic education enrolment rates, the province
of Batanes topped the list, as it did in 2002,
with all primary school-aged children
enrolled. Mt. Province, Camiguin, and Benguet
followed closely. The top ten list also
included newcomers Aurora, Rizal, Ilocos Sur,
Antique, and Misamis Occidental (Table 3).
Displaced from the top ten list were
Zambales, Misamis Oriental, Kalinga, Ifugao,
Aklan, Ilocos Norte, and Southern Leyte.
Meanwhile, the bottom list still had a
majority of provinces coming from Mindanao
Table 3. Basic enrolment rate (2004)
        Top Ten Percent         Bottom Ten Percent
Batanes 100.0 Lanao del Sur 85.0
Mt. Province 94.6 Bukidnon 84.6
Camiguin 94.3 Kalinga 83.2
Benguet 93.8 Davao Oriental 81.9
Misamis Occidental 93.4 Tawi-Tawi 81.8
Surigao del Sur 93.4 Negros Oriental 81.0
Antique 92.8 North Cotabato 79.6
Ilocos Sur 92.8 Zamboanga del Norte 79.4
Rizal 92.5 Sarangani 78.7
Aurora 92.5 Maguindanao 75.2
Note: Metro Manila 92%
Source: Statistical Annex 1 (PHDR 2008/2009).
Figure 2. Largest gainers and losers: high school
graduate ratio (2003 vs. 2006)
Source: Statistical Annexes 1 and 2 (PHDR 2008/2009).PN 2010-01
6
Policy Notes
such as Lanao del Sur, Bukidnon, Davao
Oriental, North Cotabato, Tawi-Tawi, and
Zamboanga del Norte. The latter four in fact
experienced large drops of 10 percentage
points or more, thereby leaving them still at
the bottom list (Table 3). But there are other
Mindanao provinces like Basilan and Sulu
which managed to move out of the bottom
list. In fact, Sulu, together with Western
Samar from the Visayas, was among the
largest gainers in basic enrolment, registering
at least three percentage points more than its
2002 level.
Standard of living
A decent standard of living, as measured in
the HDI, is substituted by an income measure,
which serves as a surrogate for all the
dimensions of human development not
reflected in a long and healthy life and in
knowledge (UNDP 2007). Ideally, a decent
standard of living per province would be
measured by provincial per capita GDP.
However, per capita GDP data are
disaggregated only up to the regional level.
Thus, estimates for provincial per capita
income are based on the Family Income and
Expenditures Survey (FIES), a nationwide
survey undertaken by the National Statistics
Office every three years since 1985. The FIES
is the most comprehensive source of
information on household income used in
computing human development indicators.1
On the average, real per capita incomes have
been declining (Figure 3). The national
estimate for 2006 is P24,727, or about 10
percent lower than the estimate in 2003.
Curiously, the national income accounts
reported a steady positive growth in per
capita GDP over the same period, indicating a
disconnect between the behavior of the
macroeconomy (its expansion) and per capita
income levels. The decrease in mean per
capita income is reflected in per capita
income declines in 50 provinces between
2003 and 2006. Table 4 shows the top gainers
and losers (these relative rankings must be
viewed with caution).2 Tawi-Tawi had the
sharpest decline with an almost 42 percent
decrease in real per capita income. Other
provinces that experienced dramatic declines
are Lanao del Sur (33 percent), Apayao (24
percent), and Abra (24 percent). The top
______________
1 An indispensable source of data, the FIES’ reliability,
however, has come into question beginning 2003 when
unusually large income variances within provinces were
observed and the nonresponse rate increased fivefold. See
Box 3.1 in Chapter 3 of the Philippine Human Development
Report 2008/2009.
2 Ibid.
Figure 3. Mean per capita income (1997–2006)
Source: Statistical Annexes 1 to 4 (PHDR 2008/2009).PN 2010-01
Policy Notes
7
gainer is the island province of Siquijor whose
average per capita income increased by 43.6
percent from the 2003 levels, followed closely
by Biliran with an increase of 27.5 percent.
The provinces of Guimaras, Lanao del Norte,
and Iloilo experienced an increase of between
10 and 16 percent in annual per capita
incomes. Table 5 shows the top and bottom
provinces in terms of real per capita income
levels for 2006 (in NCR 1997 pesos). With the
exception of Ilocos Norte, the list of top
ranked provinces consists of the same
provinces as in 2003.
HDI levels
The HDI is calculated as a simple average of
indices for each of the three dimensions
discussed above. The PHDR computes two sets
of HDIs. The first, HDI-1, is used to compare
performance across provinces and employs the
modified measures for knowledge and
standard of living discussed above. The
second, HDI-2, is used to compare provinces
with other countries and thus follows the
global HDI methodology for comparability.
The top and bottom ten provinces based on
HDI for 2006 are displayed in Table 6.
Basically, the picture remained almost the
same as that in 2003. The top HDI provinces
are all in Luzon, with nine among them being
the same that topped the list in 2003. The
only exception is La Union which is new,
dislodging Bulacan. The bottom four
provinces in 2006, meanwhile, are also the
same ones in 2003. Three provinces that were
Table 5. Real per capita income (2006, in NCR 1997 pesos)*
     Top Ten Real per Capita        Bottom Ten Real per Capita
      Income       Income
Benguet 36,355 Sarangani 15,801
Nueva Vizcaya 36,120 Maguindanao 15,681
Batanes 33,578 Romblon 15,186
Bataan 31,640 Zamboanga del Norte 15,156
Laguna 30,838 Sorsogon 14,858
Pampanga 30,647 Lanao del Sur 14,281
Cavite 30,539 Masbate 13,624
Rizal 30,525 Basilan 12,206
Ilocos Norte 29,953 Sulu 7,594
Quirino 29,564 Tawi-Tawi 6,664
*Using nonuniform trimming.
Note: Metro Manila P37,309
Source: Statistical Annex 1 (PHDR 2008/2009).
not there in 2003, however, moved into this
year’s bottom list: Lanao del Sur, completing
the list of ARMM provinces, Eastern Samar,
and Romblon. As in 2003, seven out of the
ten bottom provinces in terms of HDI are from
Mindanao.
Table 4.Top gainers and losers: real per capita
income (2003 vs. 2006)*
    Top Gainers Percentage   Top Losers Percentage
   Change    Change
Siquijor 43.6 Tawi-Tawi -41.7
Biliran 27.5 Lanao del Sur -32.7
Guimaras 15.8 Apayao -23.9
Lanao del Norte 10.8 Abra -23.5
Iloilo 10.2 Sorsogon -21.8
Palawan 9.0 Eastern Samar -20.0
Southern Leyte 7.7 Camiguin -18.5
Batanes 6.8 Camarines Sur -17.1
Surigao del Sur 6.6 Oriental Mindoro -17.1
Zamboanga del Norte 6.2 Antique -16.9
*Using nonuniform trimming for 2006.
Note: Metro Manila -6.9%
Source: Statistical Annexes 1 and 2 (PHDR 2008/2009).PN 2010-01
8
Policy Notes
For further information, please contact
The Research Information Staff
Philippine Institute for Development Studies
NEDA sa Makati Building, 106 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City
Telephone Nos: (63-2) 894-2584 and 893-5705
Fax Nos: (63-2) 893-9589 and 816-1091
E-mail: winfred.villamil@dlsu.edu.ph; jliguton@mail.pids.gov.ph
The Policy Notes series is available online at http://www.pids.gov.ph. Reentered
as second class mail at the Business Mail Service Office under Permit No. PS-
570-04 NCR. Valid until December 31, 2010.
International comparisons
If provinces were countries, how would they
fare against other countries? At the top of the
list, Metro Manila is between Lebanon and
Peru, higher than Thailand, but lower than
Turkey. Benguet’s HDI-2 is roughly equivalent
to that of Armenia, while Cebu’s is equal to
that of the Palestinian territories. Davao del
Sur, Abra, and Bohol lie between Nicaragua
and Uzbekistan. At the bottom, Tawi-Tawi is
sandwiched between Nigeria and Senegal,
Maguindanao with Ghana, and
Sulu with Mauritania and
Pakistan.
Conclusion
So what can one draw as
conclusion on the basis of the
preceding discussions? Even
with the increased per capita
GDP, it was noted that the
Philippines’ average is lower
than the average for East Asia
and the Pacific. Life expectancy
of Filipinos is also below the
average for the region. Clearly
then, policymakers need to
make the connection between gains the
country has been registering in terms of its
income and the outcomes that should be
measured in terms of changes for the better
of the Filipino people’s lives. 
References
Cabigon, J.V. and W. Flieger. 1999. 1995 gender-
specific life tables for the Philippines, its
regions and provinces. Manila: National
Statistics Office.
Flieger, W. and J. Cabigon. 1994. Life table estimates
for the Philippines, its regions and provinces by
sex: 1970, 1980, and 1990. Health Finance
Development Project Monograph No. 5. Manila:
Department of Health.
Human Development Network (HDN). 2009.
Philippine human development report 2008/
2008. Manila: HDN.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
2007. Human development report 2007/2008.
New York: UNDP.
Table 6. Human development index-1 (2006)
     Top Ten Index Per Capita Income       Bottom Ten Index Per Capita Income
     Rank minus      Rank minus
       HDI Rank        HDI Rank
Benguet* 0.787 0 Romblon 0.487 2
Rizal* 0.725 6 Zamboanga del Norte 0.487 2
Cavite* 0.718 4 Eastern Samar 0.484 -3
Bataan* 0.716 0 Sarangani 0.475 -3
Laguna 0.708 0 Masbate 0.457 2
Pampanga 0.706 0 Lanao del Sur 0.445 0
Ilocos Norte 0.700 2 Basilan 0.434 1
Batanes 0.699 -5 Maguindanao* 0.430 -6
Nueva Vizcaya 0.699 -7 Tawi-Tawi* 0.332 1
La Union 0.692 4 Sulu* 0.326 -1
*Rankings robust to all trimming rules applied to 2006 FIES data shown in Statistical Annex 11 (PHDR 2008/
2009). The other provinces are robust to other rules’ top and bottom lists but without their rankings.
Note: Metro Manila .795
Source: Statistical Annex 1 (PHDR 2008/2009).

Development Programme (UNDP).

genderspecific life tables for the Philippines, its regions and provinces. Manila: National Statistics Office.

Life table estimates for the Philippines, its regions and provinces by sex:

Philippine human development report

How Do Philippine Provinces Fare in Terms of Human Development?

http://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/pn/pidspn1001.pdf

How Do Philippine Provinces Fare in Terms of Human Development?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics