Distribution of Families by Per Capita Income Class by Province TARLAC

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
Designation
Affiliation
Address
Tel. no.
E-mail
Co-authors names
Designation
Affiliation
Address
Tel. no.
E-mail addresses
Romulo A. Virola
Former Secretary General, National Statistical Coordination Board, &
Consultant
Statistically Speaking Consultancy Services (SSCS)
# 2 Camia St., Vergonville, Las Pias City, Philippines
+632-8952395; +63917-5278265
ravirola@yahoo.com
Jessamyn O. Encarnacion, Bernadette B. Balamban, Mildred B. Addawe,
and Mechelle M. Viernes
Director III, Statistical Coordination Officer (SCO) VI, SCO V, and SCO III
National Statistical Coordination Board
403 Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City
+632-8967981
jo.encarnacion@nscb.gov.ph; bb.balamban@nscb.gov.ph;
mb.addawe@nscb.gov.ph; mm.viernes@nscb.gov.ph;
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 its
middle class. With the impressive 6.8% growth of the countrys Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) for 2012, and four consecutive quarters of GDP growth of more than
7.0% since the third quarter of 2012, as well as the ratings upgrade to investment
grade 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 been
institutionalized in the Philippine Statistical System (PSS).
th
During the 10 National Convention on Statistics (NCS), Virola, Addawe & Querubin
presented 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 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
th
Labor Force Surveys (LFS). During the 11 NCS, Virola, et. al. updated and
th
improved on the 10 NCS paper, adding auxiliary variables as well 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 most worrying result that the two papers showed is a shrinking middle
class in the Philippines.
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 preparing the country better for the development challenges
ahead. As in the previous papers, data from the FIES and the LFS will be used.
Key words and phrases: middle-income class; cluster analysis; multiple
regression; socio-economic characteristics; demographic characteristics,
province of residence.
Former Secretary General, Director III, Division Chief, Statistical Coordination Officer V, and
Statistical Coordination Officer III, respectively, of the National Statistical Coordination Board. The
views 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 and
the cooperation of the National Statistics Office, particularly the Income and Employment Statistics
Division (IESD) in the preparation of this paper.
2
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 85th out 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 Global
Competitiveness 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 of
22.3%. (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
2
In 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 strengthen
their middle class by giving their children the education they deserve and the workers the skills they
need 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 social
activists who typically found and operate non-government organizations that demand greater
government accountability. (Asian Development Bank. Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2010 Special Chapter: Rise of the Asias Middle Class)
3 The 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 2013
Q2, at constant prices.
4 Next Eleven Economies include Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Philippines, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam
5 The BRIC countries are Brazil, Russia, India, and China.
3
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 10th National 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 socioeconomic 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 article (see [8]) by Virola and Addawe. Another Statistically 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 11th NCS, Virola, et.
al. updated and improved
(see[10]) on the 10th NCS paper, adding auxiliary variables as
well 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
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 of
developing 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 capita
income.
4
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 middle class. Ttests 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 11th NCS 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 the
household head only, hence, the need to merge with the LFS, to provide greater flexibility in
5
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 on
income (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 papers
are 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
7
Starting 2003 when a new master sample was used with region as domains, the NSO only generates employment data at the
provincial level and no longer generated unemployment and underemployment data..
8
During the workshop of the Technical Committee on Poverty Statistics on the overall review of the official poverty estimation
methodology 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 .
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 CPI9 for 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.
The 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
7
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 middleincome 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 class
for 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.
10
No economies of scale principle applied; computed simply as per capita income requirement multiplied by
family size.
8
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 were
classified as middle income families. This increased to 25.2% in 2009 with the
additions coming from a reduction of the share of low income families from
76% in 2003 and 2006 to 74.7% in 2009. On the other hand, the high income
families represented barely 1% of the total families in the country for 2003,
2006 and 2009. (Table 7)
Table 7 shows 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
11
http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Manual-on-PCC-Chapter-5.pdf
All municipal mayors have Salary Grade 27, except those in Metro Manila with Salary Grade 28. The Salary
Grade indicated was sourced from http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wpcontent/uploads/Issuances/2012/Local%20Budget%20Circular/LBC99.pdf
13
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 in
2012 is 4.68.
14
http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Manual-on-PCC-Chapter-5.pdf
12
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 increased
share of middle income class families in this region comes from the reduced
10
share of the low income class families, from 47.9% in 2003 to 46.9% in 2006
and 46% in 2009. (Table 9)
In 15 of the 17 regions in the country, more than 70% of the families belong to
the 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 the
years 2003, 2006 and 2009, no family from ARMM belonged to the high
income class. (Table 9)
The regions where the middle income class families comprise relatively the
highest 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 income

families in 2009 is in NCR with 28.3% share of the middle income families in
the 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 both
from 2003 to 2006 and from 2006 to 2009: Region II, Region VIII, and Region
XI. On the other hand, those with slower growing middle class than the national
rate both from 2003 to 2006 and from 2006 to 2009 are Region III, Region IVA, 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 the
families are middle income. In the 3rd district which includes the cities of
Caloocan, Malabon, Navotas and Valenzuela, the middle income class
comprises only 42-45%, with the low income class comprising 55-58%. (Table
10.1)
In 2009, the middle income class comprised more than 30% of the total
families 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 middle
income 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 are
Sulu (1.0%), Maguindanao (1.5%), Siquijor (2.0%), Tawi Tawi (4.5%) and
Davao Oriental (6.0%)., four of which are in Mindanao.(Table 10)
Outside of NCR, in terms of absolute number, the biggest concentration of

middle 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
11
by Laguna with 260,309 or 4.6%, Bulacan with 232,110 or 4.1%, and Rizal
with 224,327 or 4.0%. (Table 10.1)
Most impressive gains in the size of the middle class were achieved by the
provinces 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 income
class for years 2003, 2006 and 2009. On the other hand, middle income class
families in the rural area range from 10-12% in the same period. It may be
noted that for both areas, the share of middle income class increased from
2006 to 2009 while percentage of low income families declined from 2006 to
2009. (Table 11)
The distribution of the middle income families across the major island groups
highlights the disparity in development in the country. This development gap, which has
persisted for years requires new and innovative approaches both in planning and
implementation 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 been
5 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 made
of 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 a

Single House type of housing unit: from 83.6% in 2003 to 85.6% in 2006 to
87.7% in 2009. On the other hand the number of middle income class families
living 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 type

possession of their house and lot., compared to 8 to 9 among the high income
families. (Table 23)
Not quite all middle-income families use water-sealed toilet facilities but the
proportion has been increasing: 92.6% in 2003 to 95.5% in 2006 to 97.1% in
2009. (Table 24)
12
f.
Household Head
The most common occupation of the Household Head of middle-income

families 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 average

percentage of employed at 88.7, 84.0 and 77.6 for the periods 2003, 2006 and
2009, respectively. On the other hand, heads of high-income families have
average percentage of employed at 76.9%, 72.7% and 74.1% in the same
period.(Table 16) So where do the high income families with unemployed
household 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 has
declined: 53.2% in 2003, 45.6% in 2006, and 44.9% in 2009 while the
proportion belonging to the middle income class has increased: from 46.6% in
2003, to 54.2% in 2006, to 55% in 2009. That explains why many young
women and men have joined the Filipino diaspora, seeking greener pasture
abroad. (Table 13)
h. Working Age Population
In general, among the three income classes, the high income families (87.2% in
2009) have the highest average percentage of working age population who are
employed, followed by the middle class (66.1% in 2009) and the low income
class (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 a

working 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 per
capita income/consumption of; $2 to $20. Under this definition, the middle-income class in
China would be about 56% in 2007; in Indonesia, about 43% in 2009; in.India, about 38% in
2004-2005 and in the Philippines about 54% in 2006 ([see[13]) It is the upper middle class
where the Philippines probably has a lower share compared to other countries. And so it is in
this area where our government might need to do infuse some radical changes in the
development agenda.
Regardless of the current size of the middle class in the Philippines, the generation of
statistics 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. The
NSCB 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 are
surveys/registries on the informal sector, the basic sectors in agriculture, the unemployed
13
and underemployed, as well as other vulnerable sectors of the Philippine society, there
should be as strong a reason for a data gathering system that tries to know and understand
better the socio-economic and demographic characteristics, the aspirations, the government
programs for and the support systems of the middle class. Toward this end the following
recommendations are made/reiterated:
1. The job of the National Statistician will be extremely super challenging but he/she is
given the opportunity to provide the statistical leadership that will steer the PSS
towards an even greater national statistical system. The mandate is daunting, to say
the least, but he/she should take on the challenge with patriotic fervor and utmost
dedication to public service.
2. The PSA-to-be should give top priority to the generation of statistics on the poor and
the middle class. In the past, the FIES data file was made available to the NSCB TS
12 months after the reference period considering the significant time needed for the
processing of the FIES; poverty statistics were released a month later, i.e., 13
months 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 and
eight months after the reference period for the first semester and full year 2012 FIES
microdata files, respectively. While there has been a decrease in the time lag of
release of FIES data files, this can be further shortened to respond to the need to
release poverty statistics earlier.
3. The PSA should put up a Microdata Center where data users will be given access to
statistical information without violating the Fundamental Principles of Official
Statistics. Initially, the PSA should exert best efforts to generate anonymized
microdata files (such as the Public Use Files of the FIES, the LFS, the agricultural
surveys etc. ) in a much more timely manner. This way, the many excellent
researchers from the academe and research institutions will have the opportunity to
contribute 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 and
the 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 the
political will of the government, the NGOs and the private sector to facilitate the
process for the middle class to emerge as the driver of development that it could be,
that it should be.
14
ACRONYMS
CPI
FE/TBE
FIES
GDP
LFS
MDG
NCR
NCS
NSCB
NSO
PSS
TS
Consumer Price Index

Ratio of Food Expenditures to Total Basic Expenditures
Family Income and Expenditures Survey
Gross Domestic Product
Labor Force Survey
Millennium Development Goals
National Capital Region
National Convention on Statistics
National Statistical Coordination Board
National Statistics Office
Philippine Statistical System
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-g7economies
[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 Paper 4816: The Developing Worlds
Bulging (but Vulnerable) Middle Class.
[6]
Birdsall, Nancy, Graham, Carol and Pettinato, Stefano. Brookings Institution Center
Working Paper No. 14: Stuck in Tunnel: Is Globalization Muddling the Middle?
[7]
Virola, Romulo A., Addawe Mildred B. and Querubin, Ma. Ivy T. Trends and
Characteristics of the Middle Class in the Philippines: Is it Expanding or Shrinking?
[8]
National Statistical Coordination Board. Statistically Speaking: Pinoy Middle Class

Before 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, Addawe

Mildred, Viernes Mechelle and Pascasio Mark.The Pinoy middle-income class is
shrinking: Its impact on income and expenditure patterns
[11]
[12]
Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice-Hall,
Inc. U.S.A.
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
15
ANNEX
Table 1. 3-Cluster Analysis of Annual Per Capita Income using 2003 FIES data
Cluster
mean
median
min
max
Percent
Families
Income
Class
24,200
18,236
1,257
87,455
94.03
Low
154,839
123,667
87,539
1,205,592
5.94
Middle
3
Total
2,249,815
32,637
1,418,590
19,500
1,383,386
1,257
8,064,012
8,064,012
0.03
High
Source: 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
Cluster
mean
median
min
max
Percent
Families
19,469
16,365
1,257
50,545
84.22
Income
Class
Low
83,423
72,300
50,555
190,384
14.65
Middle
302,791
250,800
190,850
1,205,592
1.10
Middle
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
1
mean
16,555
median
14,767
min
1,257
max
36,920
Percent
Families
74.97
Income
Class
Low
58,201
53,185
36,931
107,371
21.01
Middle
157,600
143,145
107,442
304,038
3.65
Middle
457,872
403,900
305,370
985,960
0.34
Middle
1,798,485
1,418,590
1,205,592
3,129,097
0.03
High
6
Total
6,585,019
32,637
8,064,012
19,500
4,096,752
1,257
8,064,012
8,064,012
0.003
High
16
Table 4. Annual Per Capita Income of the Five Clusters from the 5-Cluster Analysis of the 2003
FIES data
2003
Cluster
1
PER CAPITA INCOME

Mean
Median
Minimum
Maximum
Percent
families
Income
Class
17,738
15,463
1,257
41,972
74.4
Low
67,240
60,315
41,972
133,672
21
Middle
201,632
176,029
133,791
513,950
2.8
Middle
827,758
679,598
513,950
1,998,767
0.1
High
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
Middle
Low
Year
High
2003
<41,972
Minimum
41,972
Maximum
513,950
>513,950
2006
<49,436
49,436
605,359
>605,359
2009
<57,396
57,396
702,822
>702,822
2012
<64,317
64,317
787,572
>787,572
2013
<65,787
65,787
805,582
>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
Table 6. Annual Family Income of the Low-, Middle-, High-Income Class by family size: 2013
Middle
Family
Low
High
Size
(Up To)
(At Least)
Minimum
Maximum
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
65,708
131,416
197,124
262,832
328,540
394,248
459,956
525,664
591,372
657,080
65,708
131,416
197,124
262,832
328,540
394,248
459,956
525,664
591,372
657,080
802,063
1,604,126
2,406,189
3,208,252
4,010,315
4,812,378
5,614,441
6,416,504
7,218,567
8,020,630
802,063
1,604,126
2,406,189
3,208,252
4,010,315
4,812,378
5,614,441
6,416,504
7,218,567
8,020,630
Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff using the 2006-based Consumer Price Index of the
17
Table 7. Structure of the Distribution of Families by Per Capita Income Class, 2003, 2006 and
2009
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
-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
Note: */ statistically significant at 5% level of significance

Table 8. Distribution of Families by Income Class including the Distribution of Low-Income

Class into Poor and Non-Poor : 2003, 2006, and 2009
Income Class
Year
Poor
Level
Percent
Low
Non-Poor
Level
Percent
Middle
Total
High
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 by
Region, 2003, 2006 and 2009
(Share to Row Total)
Low
Middle
High
Region
2003
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
2003
2006
Philippines
2009
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
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
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
IX
88.9
85.5
85.7
11.0
14.5
14.2
0.07
0.11
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
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
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.08
18
Table 9.1. Trends in the Structure of the Distribution of Families, by Income Class and by
Region, 2003, 2006 and 2009
(Share to Column Total)
Region
Low
Middle
High
2003
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
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
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
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
7.5
VII
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
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
1.5
4.2
Philippines
1.1
19
Table 10.1 Distribution of Families by Per Capita Income Class by Province, 2003, 2006 and 2009
Share To Row Total
Region
2003
Level
Percent
Low
2006
Level
Percent
2009
Level
Percent
2003
Level
Percent
Middle
2006
Level
Percent
2009
Level
Percent
2003
Level
Percent
High
2006
Level
Percent
Level
2009
Percent
NCR
1st District
2nd District
3rd District
4th District
145,138
230,291
472,800
249,164
40.3
45.4
58
40.8
168,814
393,638
292,552
252,674
45.6
47.3
55.1
40.2
129,292
397,684
282,453
322,169
44.2
44.4
55.9
42
211,654
274,312
340,925
357,800
58.8
54
41.9
58.6
199,540
436,183
238,101
369,781
53.9
52.4
44.8
58.8
163,037
496,674
222,877
436,724
55.8
55.4
44.1
56.9
3,018
3,098
887
4,073
0.8
0.6
0.1
0.7
1,540
2,763
578
6,212
0.4
0.3
0.1
1
0
1,691
0
8,316
0
0.2
0
1.1
CAR
Abra
Apayao
Benguet
Ifugao
Kalinga
Mt. Province
35,672
18,171
71,782
26,329
28,856
26,236
84.3
92.1
58.4
81.6
87.8
89.1
39,549
18,962
70,564
29,981
30,542
27,534
88.2
89.9
52.8
83.5
86.7
86.8
39,476
20,434
78,804
31,361
31,669
25,925
86.6
87.6
53
86.6
83.6
85.2
6,653
1,552
51,110
5,925
4,004
3,200
15.7
7.9
41.6
18.4
12.2
10.9
5,315
2,127
62,905
5,927
4,669
3,979
11.8
10.1
47
16.5
13.3
12.5
6,124
2,892
69,431
4,848
6,190
4,518
13.4
12.4
46.7
13.4
16.4
14.8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
263
0
0
194
0
0
0.2
0
0
0.6
0
0
321
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
Region I
Ilocos Norte
Ilocos Sur
La Union
Pangasinan
88,124
99,133
107,485
413,531
79.7
79.8
79.6
81.7
91,082
104,859
115,250
467,173
76.6
79.6
78.3
85.1
98,371
105,083
121,116
469,292
76.2
76.2
79.4
80.2
22,505
25,080
27,201
92,697
20.3
20.2
20.1
18.3
27,762
26,862
31,961
81,694
23.4
20.4
21.7
14.9
30,388
32,739
31,476
115,121
23.5
23.8
20.6
19.7
0
0
347
0
0
0
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
414
0
0
892
0.3
0
0
0.2
Region II
Batanes
Cagayan
Isabela
Nueva Vizcaya
Quirino
1,796
170,868
222,623
62,219
26,049
50
84.5
82.8
78.5
78.5
2,008
177,815
235,558
62,444
26,915
50
83.5
82.9
74.2
79.1
2,825
183,991
249,126
55,792
29,574
58.3
80
81.6
74.6
79
1,796
30,831
46,074
16,729
7,116
50
15.2
17.1
21.1
21.5
2,008
35,209
48,680
21,748
7,126
50
16.5
17.1
25.8
20.9
2,018
46,138
55,089
19,030
7,881
41.7
20
18
25.4
21
0
556
281
288
0
0
0.3
0.1
0.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,135
0
0
0
0
0.4
0
0
Region III
Aurora
Bataan
Bulacan
Nueva Ecija
Pampanga
Tarlac
Zambales
30,723
83,277
341,940
301,921
260,613
171,844
105,238
82
67.3
65.1
82.6
67.1
74.6
75.5
30,663
84,251
358,051
320,356
262,046
192,695
118,968
75.6
65.6
64.1
84.6
63.5
79.9
79.4
21,121
87,921
376,748
351,443
300,371
198,670
98,493
66.5
60.6
62.4
82.4
69.9
77.5
72.9
6,759
40,422
182,735
63,698
128,014
58,535
34,226
18
32.7
34.8
17.4
32.9
25.4
24.5
9,917
44,104
200,548
57,567
149,752
48,588
30,055
24.4
34.4
35.9
15.2
36.3
20.1
20.1
10,635
57,050
226,890
74,375
129,104
57,515
36,540
33.5
39.4
37.6
17.4
30.1
22.5
27.1
0
0
551
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
538
555
0
809
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0
0.5
0
0
0
645
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
Region IV-A
Batangas
Cavite
Laguna
Quezon
Rizal
292,351
273,780
276,384
320,945
261,740
72.1
52.9
59.1
88.6
60.7
314,396
301,864
306,023
344,569
240,817
74.1
55.9
64.1
90.8
56.2
328,875
327,247
317,641
345,991
269,292
71.6
56.4
64.3
86
57.5
112,884
243,615
190,388
40,811
168,624
27.8
47
40.7
11.3
39.1
110,057
238,427
170,069
35,039
187,326
25.9
44.1
35.6
9.2
43.8
130,039
253,341
176,684
55,867
199,408
28.3
43.6
35.7
13.9
42.5
504
507
1,161
519
1,102
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0
0
1,251
0
0
0
0
0.3
0
0
611
0
0
625
0
0.1
0
0
0.2
0
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
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
123,961
86.3
144,371
91.6
152,388
86.2
19,685
13.7
13,243
8.4
24,317
13.8
Region IV-B
Marinduque
Occidental
Mindoro
Oriental Mindoro
20
Region
2003
Low
2006
Level
Percent
159,968
87.3
58,174
93.2
Level
168,643
66,042
Percent
87.7
90.8
2009
2003
Level
Percent
20,498
12.1
4,464
7.9
Middle
2006
Level
Percent
23,348
12.7
4,217
6.8
2009
Level
Percent
23,585
12.3
6,657
9.2
2003
Level
Percent
0
0
0
0
High
2006
Level
Percent
0
0
0
0
Level
0
0
2009
Percent
0
0
0.4
0
0
1.6
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
435
0
481
0
0
0.3
0
0.1
0
0
1,060
0
559
0
0
0.6
0
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,754
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
22.6
15.6
16.7
9.6
12.7
16.4
0
0
0
0
325
349
0
0
0
0
0.4
0.3
0
410
385
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
887
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
19,019
9.2
370
0.2
17.3
62,212
18.5
369
0.1
15,262
14.1
9,158
9.9
432
0.4
2,907
18.8
3,546
14.2
11.5
25
15
31,698
2,847
34,768
13.6
16.9
21.2
30,553
3,918
30,497
14.4
16.2
17.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,825
11.3
12,068
10.9
16,767
11.4
48,966
20
56,185
21.4
66,447
23.8
359
0.1
505
0.2
Palawan
Romblon
Level
149,024
51,873
Percent
87.9
92.1
Region V
Albay
Camarines Norte
Camarines Sur
Catanduanes
Masbate
Sorsogon
186,462
84,966
267,126
35,045
131,128
117,578
84.2
87.3
87.9
81.9
89.7
87.7
192,137
86,818
292,003
40,062
146,290
126,677
82
84.5
89.3
87.9
92.7
88.8
203,057
97,261
283,785
37,653
142,729
161,472
84.5
87
86.9
77.2
92.2
86.2
34,150
12,317
36,814
7,319
15,111
16,053
15.4
12.7
12.1
17.1
10.3
12
41,231
15,890
34,841
4,746
10,965
15,999
17.6
15.5
10.7
10.4
7
11.2
37,205
14,594
42,828
11,137
12,094
25,897
15.5
13
13.1
22.8
7.8
13.8
747
0
0
443
0
404
0.3
0
0
1
0
0.3
1,006
0
0
744
477
0
82,545
84,433
115,023
26,359
319,655
88.9
86.5
86.4
90.6
82
85,361
97,073
122,431
28,604
333,791
86.1
90.8
84.9
90.9
79.9
89,451
85,361
136,188
31,223
343,518
88.5
82.1
82.6
85.9
76
10,306
13,207
18,177
2,727
69,692
11.1
13.5
13.6
9.4
17.9
13,830
9,853
21,286
2,878
83,545
13.9
9.2
14.8
9.1
20
11,571
18,550
27,643
5,132
107,763
11.5
17.9
16.8
14.1
23.8
0
0
0
0
403
0
0
0
0
0.1
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
Region VII
Bohol
Cebu
Negros Oriental
Siquijor
203,560
564,249
214,876
16,576
90.2
77.2
88.9
92.7
208,350
609,054
225,400
16,207
87.5
77.8
88.9
86.1
221,075
635,802
214,536
24,608
88.4
75
85.3
98
22,037
166,685
26,868
1,300
9.8
22.8
11.1
7.3
29,738
173,888
28,189
2,615
12.5
22.2
11.1
13.9
29,078
209,739
36,849
492
11.6
24.8
14.7
2
Region VIII
Biliran
Eastern Samar
Leyte
Northern Samar
Southern Leyte
Western Samar
24,618
66,759
297,087
90,979
66,180
116,200
83.6
87.7
87.7
88.7
87.8
88.3
24,241
70,557
317,809
96,655
69,613
123,808
75.6
85.2
87
88.6
85.4
86.5
32,165
76,102
329,669
97,574
129,042
67,356
77.4
84.4
83.1
90.4
87.3
83.6
4,836
9,323
41,817
11,573
8,883
15,109
16.4
12.3
12.3
11.3
11.8
11.5
7,835
11,883
47,267
12,407
11,937
19,361
24.4
14.3
12.9
11.4
14.6
13.5
9,365
14,116
66,105
10,403
18,789
13,230
159,468
92.9
165,813
90.4
188,034
90.7
12,227
7.1
17,570
9.6
258,446
86
261,422
82.7
274,077
81.4
41,964
14
54,523
91,015
90.9
93,317
85.9
83,683
90.1
8,636
8.6
12,703
86.4
12,571
81.2
21,505
85.8
2,006
13.6
191,778
11,632
133,784
88.5
75
85
201,700
13,978
129,534
86.4
83.1
78.8
181,618
20,270
147,096
85.6
83.8
82.8
24,904
3,877
23,561
92,552
88.7
99,022
89.1
129,716
88.6
196,016
79.9
206,758
78.6
211,723
76
Region VI
Aklan
Antique
Capiz
Guimaras
Iloilo
Negros
Occidental
Region IXb
Zamboanga del
Norte
Zamboanga del
Surc
Zamboanga
Sibugay
Isabela City
Region X
Bukidnon
Camiguin
Lanao del Norte
Misamis
Occidental
Misamis Oriental
21
Region
2003
Level
Region XI
Davao del Norte
Davao del Sur
Davao Oriental
Compostela
Valley
Percent
Low
2006
Level
Percent
2009
Level
Percent
2003
Level
Percent
Middle
2006
Level
Percent
2009
Level
Percent
2003
Level
Percent
High
2006
Level
Percent
Level
2009
Percent
138,415
346,953
83,914
85.3
80.7
93.4
144,717
344,811
88,833
87
78
92.7
137,346
371,967
98,027
82.8
76.1
94
23,464
82,589
5,971
14.5
19.2
6.6
21,647
97,442
7,012
13
22
7.3
28,538
116,737
6,203
17.2
23.9
6
471
382
0
0.3
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
117,854
91.2
125,800
92.4
112,324
90.1
11,428
8.8
10,407
7.6
12,384
9.9
Region XII
North Cotabato
Saranggani
South Cotabato
Sultan Kudarat
Cotabato City
185,172
88,056
207,084
117,590
29,326
91.5
94.6
81.8
93.6
85.6
195,689
92,298
225,075
120,870
27,938
90.5
94.5
84.2
91.4
79.1
193,141
88,063
256,486
117,974
21,945
88.6
91.4
77.2
91
89.7
17,178
5,064
45,515
7,985
4,952
8.5
5.4
18
6.4
14.4
20,436
5,351
41,406
11,412
7,384
9.5
5.5
15.5
8.6
20.9
24,883
8,259
75,207
11,672
2,516
11.4
8.6
22.6
9
10.3
0
0
568
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
776
0
0
0
0
0.3
0
0
0
0
619
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
ARMM
Basilan
Lanao del Sur
Maguindanao
Sulu
Tawi-tawi
53,279
112,647
148,451
103,735
58,680
99.3
87.6
95.9
97
97
52,005
127,019
165,827
106,587
62,123
94.4
94.6
96
97.7
99.2
44,498
131,390
160,837
163,926
47,838
92.5
90.7
98.5
99
95.5
382
15,969
6,368
3,232
1,827
0.7
12.4
4.1
3
3
3,074
7,264
6,977
2,533
528
5.6
5.4
4
2.3
0.8
3,585
13,436
2,416
1,588
2,252
7.5
9.3
1.5
1
4.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Caraga
Agusan del Norte
Agusan del Sur
Surigao Del Norte
Surigao Del Sur
94,327
102,550
84,504
88,041
86.6
90.5
87.8
90.7
100,241
108,573
91,774
93,920
86.8
90.8
87.9
89.6
113,201
102,509
90,201
105,506
82.5
91.8
85.8
90.7
14,571
10,503
11,721
9,069
13.4
9.3
12.2
9.3
15,288
10,943
12,336
10,901
13.2
9.2
11.8
10.4
23,795
9,140
14,595
10,510
17.3
8.2
13.9
9
0
261
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
310
0
0
0
0.3
0
295
0
347
272
0.2
0
0.3
0.2
22
Draft as of 19 September 2013
Table 10.2. Distribution of Families by Per Capita Income Class by Province, 2003, 2006 and 2009
Share To Column Total
Low
Region
2003
Middle
2006
2009
2003
High
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
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
2nd District
230,291
1.8
393,638
397,684
2.9
274,312
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
4th District
249,164
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
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
NCR
CAR
Apayao
18,171
0.1
18,962
0.1
20,434
0.1
1,552
2,127
0.1
2,892
0.1
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
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
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
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
194
88,124
0.7
91,082
0.7
98,371
0.7
22,505
0.6
27,762
0.7
30,388
0.7
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
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
Pangasinan
413,531
3.3
467,173
3.5
469,292
3.4
92,697
2.4
81,694
115,121
2.5
892
4.1
Batanes
1,796
2,008
2,825
1,796
2,008
2,018
Cagayan
170,868
1.4
177,815
1.3
183,991
1.3
30,831
0.8
35,209
0.8
46,138
556
2.4
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
1,135
5.2
Region I
Ilocos Norte
Region II
23
Low
Region
2003
Middle
2006
2009
2003
High
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Nueva
Vizcaya
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
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
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
Bataan
83,277
0.7
84,251
0.6
87,921
0.6
40,422
44,104
1.1
57,050
1.2
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
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
538
2.7
645
Pampanga
260,613
2.1
262,046
300,371
2.2
128,014
3.3
149,752
3.6
129,104
2.8
555
2.8
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
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
809
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
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
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
1,251
6.2
Quezon
320,945
2.6
344,569
2.6
345,991
2.5
40,811
35,039
0.8
55,867
1.2
519
2.3
625
2.9
Rizal
261,740
2.1
240,817
1.8
269,292
168,624
4.3
187,326
4.5
199,408
4.3
1,102
4.8
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
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
123,961
144,371
1.1
152,388
1.1
19,685
0.5
13,243
0.3
24,317
0.5
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
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
Region IV-A
Region IV-B
Marinduque
Occidental
Mindoro
Oriental
Mindoro
24
Low
Region
2003
Middle
2006
2009
2003
High
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
186,462
1.5
192,137
1.5
203,057
1.5
34,150
0.9
41,231
37,205
0.8
747
3.3
1,006
84,966
0.7
86,818
0.7
97,261
0.7
12,317
0.3
15,890
0.4
14,594
0.3
267,126
2.1
292,003
2.2
283,785
2.1
36,814
0.9
34,841
0.8
42,828
0.9
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
Masbate
131,128
146,290
1.1
142,729
15,111
0.4
10,965
0.3
12,094
0.3
477
2.4
Sorsogon
117,578
0.9
126,677
161,472
1.2
16,053
0.4
15,999
0.4
25,897
0.6
404
1.8
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
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
Capiz
115,023
0.9
122,431
0.9
136,188
18,177
0.5
21,286
0.5
27,643
0.6
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
Iloilo
319,655
2.6
333,791
2.5
343,518
2.5
69,692
1.8
83,545
107,763
2.3
403
1.8
481
2.4
559
2.6
Negros
Occidental
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
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
Region V
Albay
Camarines
Norte
Camarines
Sur
Region VI
Region VII
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
1,754
8.1
Negros
Oriental
214,876
1.7
225,400
1.7
214,536
1.6
26,868
0.7
28,189
0.7
36,849
0.8
Siquijor
16,576
0.1
16,207
0.1
24,608
0.2
1,300
2,615
0.1
492
24,618
0.2
24,241
0.2
32,165
0.2
4,836
0.1
7,835
0.2
9,365
0.2
66,759
0.5
70,557
0.5
76,102
0.6
9,323
0.2
11,883
0.3
14,116
0.3
410
Region VIII
Biliran
Eastern
Samar
25
Low
Region
2003
Middle
2006
2009
2003
High
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
297,087
2.4
317,809
2.4
329,669
2.4
41,817
1.1
47,267
1.1
66,105
1.4
385
1.9
887
4.1
90,979
0.7
96,655
0.7
97,574
0.7
11,573
0.3
12,407
0.3
10,403
0.2
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
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
159,468
1.3
165,813
1.3
188,034
1.4
12,227
0.3
17,570
0.4
19,019
0.4
370
1.7
258,446
2.1
261,422
274,077
41,964
1.1
54,523
1.3
62,212
1.3
369
1.7
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
12,703
0.1
12,571
0.1
21,505
0.2
2,006
0.1
2,907
0.1
3,546
0.1
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
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
133,784
1.1
129,534
147,096
1.1
23,561
0.6
34,768
0.8
30,497
0.7
92,552
0.7
99,022
0.7
129,716
0.9
11,825
0.3
12,068
0.3
16,767
0.4
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
505
2.3
138,415
1.1
144,717
1.1
137,346
23,464
0.6
21,647
0.5
28,538
0.6
471
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
83,914
0.7
88,833
0.7
98,027
0.7
5,971
0.2
7,012
0.2
6,203
0.1
117,854
0.9
125,800
112,324
0.8
11,428
0.3
10,407
0.3
12,384
0.3
Leyte
Northern
Samar
Southern
Leyte
Western
Samar
Region IXb
Zamboanga
del Norte
Zamboanga
del Surc
Zamboanga
Sibugay
Isabela City
Region X
Lanao del
Norte
Misamis
Occidental
Misamis
Oriental
Region XI
Davao del
Norte
Davao del
Sur
Davao
Oriental
Compostela
Valley
26
Low
Region
2003
Middle
2006
2009
2003
High
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
Level
Percent
185,172
1.5
195,689
1.5
193,141
1.4
17,178
0.4
20,436
0.5
24,883
0.5
Region XII
North
Cotabato
Saranggani
South
Cotabato
Sultan
Kudarat
88,056
0.7
92,298
0.7
88,063
0.6
5,064
0.1
5,351
0.1
8,259
0.2
207,084
1.7
225,075
1.7
256,486
1.9
45,515
1.2
41,406
75,207
1.6
568
2.5
776
3.9
619
2.9
117,590
0.9
120,870
0.9
117,974
0.9
7,985
0.2
11,412
0.3
11,672
0.3
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
Basilan
53,279
0.4
52,005
0.4
44,498
0.3
382
3,074
0.1
3,585
0.1
Lanao del
Sur
112,647
0.9
127,019
131,390
15,969
0.4
7,264
0.2
13,436
0.3
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
Sulu
103,735
0.8
106,587
0.8
163,926
1.2
3,232
0.1
2,533
0.1
1,588
Tawi-tawi
58,680
0.5
62,123
0.5
47,838
0.3
1,827
528
2,252
0.4
23,795
0.5
295
1.4
0.3
9,140
0.2
261
1.1
0.3
14,595
0.3
310
1.5
347
1.6
0.3
10,510
0.2
272
1.3
ARMM
Caraga
Agusan del
94,327
0.8
100,241
0.8
113,201
0.8
14,571
0.4
15,288
Norte
Agusan del
102,550
0.8
108,573
0.8
102,509
0.7
10,503
0.3
10,943
Sur
Surigao Del
84,504
0.7
91,774
0.7
90,201
0.7
11,721
0.3
12,336
Norte
Surigao Del
88,041
0.7
93,920
0.7
105,506
0.8
9,069
0.2
10,901
Sur
27
Table 11. Share of Families by Per Capita Income Class by Urban-Rural Areas, 2003, 2006,
and 2009
Urban
2003
62.2
Low
2006
62.2
2009
61.3
2003
37.6
Rural
89.6
89.6
87.9
10.4
Area
Middle
2006 2009
37.6 38.6
10.3
12.0
2003
0.3
High
2006
0.2
2009
0.19
0.0
0.0
0.05
Source: 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 12. Average Family Size by Per Capita Income Class, 2003, 2006, and 2009
2003
Philippines
Low
2006 2009
5.1
5.1
5.0
Middle
High
2003 2006 2009 2003 2006
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.0
2.0
2009
2.5
Table 13. Presence of Overseas Filipino Workers among Families by Income Class, 2003,
2006 and 2009
With OFW
2003
53.2
Low
2006
45.6
2009
44.9
2003
46.6
Middle
2006
54.2
2009
55.0
2003
0.2
High
2006
0.2
2009
0.2
Table 14. Average Percentage of Working Age Population Who Are Employed by Income
Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009
Income Class
Low
Middle
High
2003
51.0
68.1
88.4
2006
59.1
56.2
73.9
2009
62.2
66.1
87.2
Source: 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
28
Table 15. Occupation of the Household Head, by Income Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009
Occupation of the
Household Head
Officials of government,
executives, managers,
supervisors
Professionals
Technicians and associate
professionals
Clerks
Service Workers
Farmers,fishermen,
forestry
Trade workers
Plant operators
Laborers and unskilled
workers
Special occupation
2003
Low
2006
2009
2003
Middle
2006
2009
2003
High
2006
2009
8.0
8.8
12.5
27.0
29.5
34.0
67.0
74.8
67.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
9.6
10.2
10.2
21.4
15.7
13.2
1.5
1.5
1.5
5.9
6.5
5.2
5.0
0.0
3.4
1.3
1.6
1.8
5.3
6.0
6.1
0.0
0.0
6.5
5.0
5.1
5.5
9.9
9.1
9.4
0.0
9.4
1.5
38.4
37.0
33.8
10.6
10.3
11.3
3.4
0.0
5.0
12.5
11.7
11.5
9.2
8.1
6.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.7
10.7
8.8
11.5
10.6
7.9
3.2
0.0
0.0
21.5
22.8
23.7
9.2
8.3
8.1
0.0
0.0
2.8
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 of
the Household Head
Employed
Unemployed
2003
88.7
11.3
Low
2006
84.0
2.7
2009
77.6
22.3
2003
76.9
23.1
Middle
2006
72.7
2.3
2009
74.1
25.9
2003
72.6
27.4
High
2006
62.6
37.4
2009
61.8
38.1
Table 17. Employment Status of the Household Head by Class of Worker and by Income
Class, 2003, 2006, and 2009
Low
worked w/ private
hhld
worked w/ private
estab
worked for govt
self-employed
employer in own
farm/business
worked w/ pay in
own farm/business
worked w/o pay in
own farm/business
Middle
High
2003
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
1.9
1.9
2.3
1.4
1.5
2.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
38.7
4.5
45.0
38.1
4.8
46.1
39.8
5.2
43.2
39.6
18.5
27.7
37.1
18.6
29.6
34.5
19.2
29.6
27.6
18.1
18.6
38.8
20.5
12.0
25.0
6.2
8.3
9.0
8.4
8.8
11.5
12.0
13.8
35.8
23.5
53.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.8
0.6
0.7
1.2
0.9
1.0
0.0
5.2
1.8
29
Table 18. Educational Attainment of the Household Heads Spouse, by Income

Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009
Educational Attainment
of the Household Head's
Spouse
No Grade
2003
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
3.0
2.8
2.7
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Elementary Undergraduate
20.4
19.8
18.7
3.9
3.3
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
Elementary Graduate
High School
Undergraduate
High School Graduate
24.3
23.1
23.0
8.2
7.3
7.2
0.0
6.4
0.0
16.5
16.5
15.7
6.4
5.9
6.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
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
81.0
Low
Middle
High
Table 19. Employment Status of the Household Heads Spouse, by Income

Class, 2003, 2006, and 2009
Low
Employed
Unemployed
Middle
High
2003
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
41.0
59.0
46.7
53.3
72.5
27.3
58.6
41.4
61.8
38.2
81.6
18.4
48.1
51.9
58.1
41.9
66.7
33.1
Table 20. Roof Materials of Housing Units, by Income Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009
Low
Middle
High
2003
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
59.7
63.5
72.3
88.9
91.6
94.8
100.0
100.0
95.3
25.0
20.9
17.3
2.4
1.4
1.4
0.0
0.0
4.7
1.0
1.1
0.9
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.7
10.3
6.5
6.9
5.8
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mixed but predominantly

light materials
4.4
4.0
2.8
1.3
1.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0

salvaged
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Roof Material
Strong
material(galvanized,iron,al,
tile,concrete,brick,stone,
asbestos)
Light material
(cogon,nipa,anahaw)
Salvaged/makeshift
materials
strong materials
30
Table 21. Wall Materials of Housing Units, by Income Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009
Low
Middle
High
2003
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
49.3
51.5
57.0
86.0
89.0
90.9
100.0
100.0
97.6
29.4
26.5
25.1
3.0
1.7
2.4
0.0
0.0
2.4
1.4
1.5
1.3
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.5
14.4
11.4
8.6
7.8
5.2
0.0
0.0
0.0

light materials
6.1
5.8
4.9
1.7
1.1
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.0

salvaged materials
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Wall Material
Strong
material(galvanized,iron,al,
tile,concrete,brick,stone,as
bestos)
Light material
(cogon,nipa,anahaw)
Salvaged/makeshift
materials
strong materials
Table 22. Type of Building/House of Housing Units, by Income Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009
Low
Type of Building/House
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/con
do/townhouse
3.0
2.5
2.4
10.4
9.3
8.6
21.8
2.0
4.6
Commercial/industrial/agri
cultural 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
31
Table 23. Tenure Status of the Household, by Income Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009
Tenure Status
Low
Middle
High
2003
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
2003
2006
2009
66.0
69.3
70.1
74.2
74.9
77.3
87.8
91.9
84.5
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 lot

with 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 lot

without 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 lot

without consent of owner
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Own or owner-like
possession of house and
lot
Rent house/room including
lot
Table 24. Toilet Facilities of Housing Units, by Income Class, 2003, 2006 and 2009
Type of Toilet Facility
Low
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
32

Distribution of Families by Per Capita Income Class by Province TARLAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Distribution of Families by Per Capita Income Class by Province TARLAC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Distribution of Families by Per Capita Income Class by Province TARLAC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12th National Convention on Statistics (NCS)

EDSA Shangri-La Hotel, Mandaluyong City

WILL THE RECENT ROBUST ECONOMIC GROWTH CREATE A BURGEONING MIDDLE

For additional information, please contact:

WILL THE RECENT ROBUST ECONOMIC GROWTH CREATE A BURGEONING

(see[10]) on the 10th NCS paper, adding auxiliary variables as

well as two-way interaction among independent variables in the multiple regression

Identifying Middle-Income Class Based on Income

income (see [10] ) and uses cluster analysis.

III. Results and Discussions

Distribution By Income Classes

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

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

A Department Undersecretary with Salary Grade 3011 (at least PhP

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

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

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

The Poor and the Low Income Class

Many families in the low income class are not poor.

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

B. Characteristics of them middle income class

1) Characteristics of Middle-Income class families

In terms of absolute number, the biggest concentration of middle income

Outside of NCR, in terms of absolute number, the biggest concentration of

c. Location by Urban-Rural Area

d. Family Size of the Middle Class

There is an increasing number of middle income class families who live in a

About 7 to 8 out of 10 middle-income families own or have owner type

The most common occupation of the Household Head of middle-income

Heads of low-income families, consistently had the highest average

h. Working Age Population

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on what could possibly be internationally comparable statistics on might be a

Consumer Price Index

National Statistical Coordination Board. The National Accounts of the Philippines,

National Statistical Coordination Board. Statistically Speaking: Pinoy Middle Class

National Statistical Coordination Board. Statistically Speaking: How Rich is Rich?

Virola, Romulo A., Encarnacion Jessamyn O., Balamban Bernadette, Addawe

PER CAPITA INCOME

Note: */ statistically significant at 5% level of significance

Table 8. Distribution of Families by Income Class including the Distribution of Low-Income

Draft as of 19 September 2013

Draft as of 19 September 2013

Draft as of 19 September 2013

Draft as of 19 September 2013

Draft as of 19 September 2013

Draft as of 23 September 2013

Source: Special computations made by the NSCB Technical Staff

Draft as of 23 September 2013

Draft as of 23 September 2013

Table 18. Educational Attainment of the Household Heads Spouse, by Income

Table 19. Employment Status of the Household Heads Spouse, by Income

Mixed but predominantly

Mixed but predominantly

Draft as of 23 September 2013

Mixed but predominantly