Philippine Journal of Science EDITORIAL

147 (1): vii-viii, March 2018

ISSN 0031 - 7683

Life Expectancy in the Philippines

Life expectancy is the average time that a human being is expected to live, based on his or her birth year, current age,
and other demographic factors such as gender and country of birth. It is improving globally from 65 years for men
and 69 years for women in 2000-2005, to 69 years for men and 73 years for women in 2010-2015 (Source: UN World
Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision). Life expectancy when combined for both sexes was 70.8 years in 2010-
2015, representing an increase of 6.2 years relative to that in 1990-1995.

The world population in 2017 was 7.55 billion (male-to-female ratio of 1.02) and is projected to reach 9.77 billion by
2050. Twenty countries are enough to account for 70% of humanity. The Philippine population was the 13th largest in
2017—positioned in-between those of Ethiopia (12th) and Egypt (14th)—while those of Indonesia and Thailand were
in 4th and 20th, respectively. The fertility rate of Filipino women was 3.30, with the world average computed at 2.52
in 2005-2010. In contrast, it was 5.46 in 1975-1980.

Life expectancy in the country in 2010-2015 was 68.6 years, which was lower than the world average by 2.2 years.
Filipino females (72.06 years) tend to outlive their male counterparts by 6.75 years. In 1990-1995, life expectancy was
at 65.7 years and higher than the world average by 1.1 years. The Philippines has been unable to keep pace with the
rest of the world in extending the longevity of its citizens in the last 25 years. The following are the life expectancies
(2010-2015) and 2017 GDP per capita of the six major ASEAN economies: Singapore (82.3 years; USD 53,880),
Malaysia (74.7 years; USD 9,659), Viet Nam (75.6 years; USD 2,306), Thailand (74.6 years; USD 6,336), Indonesia
(68.6 years; USD 3,858), and the Philippines (68.6 years; USD 3,022).

The Gini coefficient is a measure for income equality and wealth distribution where a score of zero and 100%,
represents perfect equality and maximal inequality, respectively. The following are the Gini coefficients of the major
ASEAN economies (World Bank, CIA*): Viet Nam (34.8% in 2014), Thailand (37.8% in 2013), Indonesia (39.5% in
2013), the Philippines (40.1% in 2015), Malaysia (46.3% in 2009), and Singapore* (46.4% in 2014). In terms of ratio
of the average income of the richest 10% to the poorest 10%, the results are (UNDP 2009): Viet Nam (6.9), Indonesia
(7.8), Thailand (12.6), the Philippines (15.5), Malaysia (22.1), and Singapore* (17.7). China (life expectancy: 75.7
years; GDP per capita: USD 8,126) obtained a Gini rating of 42.2% in 2012 and a ratio of 21.6. Income inequality is
lowest in Viet Nam, which also has the highest life expectancy outside of Singapore, which has 23 times its GDP per
capita and barely 7% of the population. Income inequality is more serious in China than any of the ASEAN economies
considered except Malaysia.

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite index of life expectancy, education, and per capita income
indicators. It is utilized to rank countries into four tiers (very high, high, medium, and low) of human development.
The 2015 HDI scores of the ASEAN economies are: Singapore (0.925, ranked 5th out of 188 countries), Malaysia
(0.789; 59th), Thailand (0.740, 87th), Indonesia (0.689, 113th), Viet Nam (0.683, 115th), and the Philippines (0.682;
116th). Human development in Singapore and Malaysia is categorized as very high and high, respectively. The HDI
scores of China and India (life expectancy: 67.6 years) are 0.738 (90th) and 0.624 (131st), respectively. Together, they
account for 36.4% of the world population in 2017.

The 2017 Global Innovation Index Report yields the following rankings: Singapore (7th; 58.69), Malaysia (37th;
42.72), Viet Nam (47th; 38.34), Thailand (51st; 37.57), the Philippines (73rd; 32.48), and Indonesia (87th; 30.10).
Switzerland (67.69) ranks first while Yemen (15.64) is last at 127th. Innovation happens with the successful application
of new scientific knowledge. It boosts labor productivity and improves the quality of life of citizens by increasing
their purchasing power and allowing them with more time to pursue other meaningful activities that promote their
well-being. It is found that self-reported life satisfaction improves with GDP per capita at purchasing power parity
(ourworldindata.org).

vii
The World Happiness Report 2017 explains that happiness is increasingly considered to be the proper measure of social
progress and the goal of public policy. Highest possible life satisfaction corresponds to a score of 10. The following is
how the ASEAN economies fared in the rank of happiness: Singapore (26th; Cantrill Ladder score: 6.572), Thailand
(32nd; 6.424), Malaysia (42nd; 6.084), the Philippines (72nd; 5.430), Indonesia (81st; 5.262), and Viet Nam (94th;
5.074). Norway (7.537) is at the apex while the Central African Republic (2.693) is at the 155th position.

While not straightforward to correlate precisely with other socio-economic performance indicators, it is generally
clear that life expectancy improves with growing national prosperity and increasing wherewithal to innovate and find
better ways of doing things, especially in government. Sustained GDP growth would enable a government to improve
its fiscal capability and use to enhance the quality and coverage of its health care and social welfare programs, as well
as to increase available funding for scientific R&D. Between 1990-1995 and 2010-2015, life expectancy in China
increased by 9% while its GDP per capita grew 24.56 times from 1990 to 2017.

Compulsory retirement in the Philippines is at 60 years for workers in the private sector and 65 years for government
employees, including faculty members in state universities and colleges. Our country has the lowest researcher
density (with 78 full-time equivalents per million of population in 2007) among the major ASEAN economies with
numbers that are at least an order of magnitude larger. In 2005, the number was 80 and the world average was 1,204.

The country only produces about a hundred new PhD graduates in STEM per year and there is no clear indication of
an increasing trend. According to CHED, only 13.32% of faculty members in our higher education institutions have
the requisite PhD degrees in AY 2016-2017. Since AY 2006-2007, the number has increased at a pathetic average
rate of 0.33% per year that would not impact positively on the researcher density. There is no shortage of smart
and hardworking Filipino graduate students—only a persistent lack of capable, competent and inspirational PhD
supervisors. A promising strategy to adapt in motivating qualified faculty members to mentor is to allow those with
proven track record of producing excellent PhD graduates in STEM, to continue serving their institutions beyond the
age of 60 or 65.

CAESAR SALOMA
Editor-In-Chief

viii