Food is a major item in the Filipino market basket. This is true not just for poor households in both rural and urban areas, but to rich and elite households as well.
In the 2006 and 2009 Family Income and Expenditure Survey Final Results [1], the total expenditures (in billion pesos) of both the bottom 30% and upper 70% of the income classes are broken down into corresponding expenditure items. We can see from the data (Table 7) that from the 19 items listed, Food Expenditures accounted for the biggest chunk. Given that food is the most basic necessity among other items enumerated, then no wonder that that would be the case.
Common sense tells us to believe such case. But there is something unusual about the data: the bottom 30% of the income classes accounted for 59.1% (year 2006) to almost 60% (year 2009) of its expenditures in food, while the upper 70% only accounted for 39.3% (year 2006) to 40.5% (year 2009). Isn’t it strange? The richer ones who fall in the upper 70% must have more money to spend for food than the bottom 30% of the population. It is true, that both income class divisions used in the FIES statistics face an increasing trend in food consumption; however, the data surprisingly presents us a much more intriguing case here. Thus, the question is: Why is food expenditure higher for the bottom 30% of the population compared to the upper 70%, and what factors contribute to it?
We all know that without enough job opportunities, people will more likely not be able to earn income, to earn a living [2]. This actually makes the poor more vulnerable to poverty. Because of this scarcity in [economic] opportunities, obviously, the ones who belong in the bottom 30% of the population would have a more minimal income and lesser earnings, than that of the upper 70%. This just leads us to the next point we want to stress out: income inequality [3].
The Philippines exhibit a highly inequitable income distribution. In ADB Philippines’ book Poverty in the Philippines, it showed that 20% of the richest Filipino families already accounted for 53% of total family income and what was left was shared by the 80% of the poorest. To confirm of the country’s income inequality, it showed that the income of the top 10% was equivalent to 19 times of the lowest 10%. These are just figures. To further investigate, interviews have been conducted. In these interviews, we have seen a huge difference. A small time vendor earns more or less 200 a day. Another man who runs his own business earns approxiamtely 2500 a day. And there was a man who only earned less than 90 pesos a day. The poor, obviously earn so much less than the rich. This is a result of minimal job opportunities for the poor. As a result, a big proportion of their minimal income is allotted to food consumption. These people felt that they have no one to blame but the government. But is it really the government’s fault? Maybe. Maybe not.
Now, we ask how do each person budget their income. The businessman, obviously can afford any luxury he wants. So, aside from the basic necessities such as food, his surplus income goes to investments that would only give him more money. Although it may seem that the small time vendor earns enough, she does not have the extra money to spend for other than what her family needs the most. What makes things even worse is the fact that those who belong in the lower 30% of the population are relatively bigger families, thus, they have more people to feed. That is why most of them don’t have the capacity to spend on other things besides basic necessities, besides food. The man whose income is lesser than an average Ateneo sudent’s baon has to feed his family of 7. And according to him, “lahat nang yun napupunta nalang sa pagkain namin bawat araw”. Given these, it may be that the reason the lower 30% has a higher expenditure on food is that their budget is solely appportioned to the most important item --- food, since they no longer have that extra to spend on other items.
What happens when prices on food increase? Then, the poor would definitely feel this change, butas agad bulsa nila. Unlike with the rich, it does not matter since they earn an incredibly large amount. So the income of the upper 70% is distributed to different items as reflected in the FIES result.The poor on the other hand, have a limited budget so more than 60% of their consumption is allocated for food and thus a higher food expenditure percentage compared to the rich.
But, above all that, we have to ask ourselves this important question: so what? What do these numbers and figures really tell us? What do these numbers and figures really tell about us, about who we are as people, about who we are as a culture? Undeniably, there is hunger in this country now; our poorest eat only once a day. And what lies behind this is a damaged culture―a culture that impedes our development―that we don’t usually realize, that we don’t usually take time to think of.
We may not know it, but cultural factors also shape (and are shaped by) poverty and inequality in this country. In fact, according to Lewis, “culture emerged when populations that were socially and economically marginalized from a capitalist society developed patterns of behavior to deal with their low status”. This behavior was characterized by low aspirations, political apathy, helplessness, and disorganization[6]. And once this culture is in place, it develops mechanisms that tended to perpetuate―yes, even if structural conditions change [7]. The saying “We are poor because we are poor” is not a mere tautology. This just reflects the culture―and the mechanisms that developed from this culture―that we’re speaking of just now. This is the culture of poverty, a culture that is in fact self-perpetuating, a culture that constitutes a “design for living” [8] that is passed on from generation to the next.
More specifically, this culture of poverty argues that the poor remained in poverty not merely as a result of their economic conditions but also because of cultural values and practices they had developed from poverty[9]. It is conceived as some sort of a lifestyle, sometimes a “worldview”, which made the escape of poverty even more difficult, perhaps impossible. For instance, in the bottom 30% of the income class in the Philippines―which is more likely being comprised of the poor people in the country―individuals usually feel marginalized, helpless and inferior. With that, they adopt an “attitude of living” for the present, an attitude expressed as a “reaction” to low income and lack of opportunity. And what attitude is this? Idleness. In layman’s term, laziness.
“We are poor because our people are lazy.” True, poverty in the Philippines is caused by laziness to work harder given the difficulties, the laziness to continue try to earn more so that the family won’t stay as isang-kahig-isang-tuka, the laziness to strive harder so that they can at least taste a different kind (a better one) of living. I pass a slum area one morning, and I saw dozens of adults doing nothing but idle, gossip, and drink. Majority of them don’t use their time wisely for productive things that could’ve at least make them makariwa-riwasa. Result? No earnings, if there is, only minimal. Because of insufficient income, man is obliged to “expend all his resources on maintaining himself from moment to moment”[10]. And from that little earning, alangan namang iba pa ang bilhin kundi pagkain. This fact is reflected on the FIES data on the percentage of food consumption to overall expenditure.
Besides idleness and laziness, the debilitating mindset of the poor is another main cause of poverty in this country[11]. It is thinking and believing that nothing else can be done for one to prosper and have a good life. We may not be conscious of it, but it is what we all nurture in our “mind” that causes poverty and not the government or anybody else. What we think, we act, we feel and the rest is just a resultant of it. In fact, many sociologists believe that the poor share the same values as the rest of society, but their attitudes and habits are reactions to their knowledge of their situation, and their behavior is just a response to their perception of hopelessness in realizing these ideals.
The upper 70% consists of the rich population, those who can afford to buy and those who have a stable job. Unlike the poor, their budget is not only concentrated on basic neccessities but also on things that will increase their status. Most of them, they spend on things they can brag about. This is the attitude of most well-off individuals, they present themselves expensively.
For us, it is better to think of poverty as a choice. While poverty is a result of many factors, the value system of the Filipinos remains to be its major cause [12]. Think of these real life examples: the economically struggling family would have more children than the economically blessed. In slum areas, a lot of parents and children are hooked on vices such as gambling instead of looking for a decent job that can provide them means of sustenance. How ironic! As the saying goes, life is what you make it; thus, it is safe to believe that “to wallow in poverty is indeed a choice”.
Summing it all up, we have to be aware of this: we currently face a real and insidious enemy that we must all vanquish. And this enemy is worse than the stubbornness and the narrow-mindedness of any extraneous power. As F. Sionil Jose puts it, “We are our own enemy.” And in order for us to get a break from the claws of poverty, we must have the courage, the guts, and the will to change not just the government, not just the system, but ourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper on Poverty and Consumption. Submitted to Ms. Czarina Medina, Sociology and Anthropology (SA21) Class. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment