Chapter IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter deals with the presentation, analysis and interpretation of

data. It contains the textual and tabular presentation of data, quantitative and

qualitative analysis of data, and interpretation of data in the light of relevant

literature.

1. Profile of the Respondents

This section described the profile of the respondents in Bauan Batangas in

terms of geographical location, family structure, household size and family

monthly income.

1.1 Geographical Location

Table 2 illustrates the frequency distribution of the respondents in terms of

geographical location.

Table 2
Distribution of Respondents in terms of Geographical Location

Geographical Location Frequency Percentage

Rural 134 47.3

Urban 149 52.7
Total 283 100.0

As shown in Table 2, majority of the respondents are from urban area with

a frequency of 149 and a percentage of 47.3 percent whereas from rural area

there’s a frequency of 134 and a percentage of 52.7 percent.

The table revealed that most of the respondents who are financially

excluded where from the urban area. Most of them are from nuclear families
whom are still starting to have a family. According to our informal interview, most

of the households in rural area are financially included in banks. Some of them

are staying abroad, families who’s the head of the family were OFW’s, seafarers

and so on.

According to Allen et.al, (2014), barrier related to distance is found to be

associated with living in a rural area, having less education, being married and

being poor. Not having enough money is likely to be reported by individuals who

are poor, older, unemployed, and living in an urban area.

1.2 Family Structure

Table 3 shows the percentage and frequency distribution of respondents

in terms of family structure.

Table 3
Distribution of Respondents in terms of Family Structure

Family Structure Frequency Percentage

Nuclear 174 61.5

Extended 109 38.5
Total 283 100.0

Table 3 shows the distribution of the respondents in terms of the family

structure. It shows that the majority of the financially excluded comes from

nuclear structure with the frequency of one hundred seventy-four (174) and a

percentage of sixty one point five percent (61.5%) whereas, the extended

structure have the least number of financially excluded with the frequency of one

hundred nine (109) and a percentage of thirty-eight point five percent (38.5%)
 The results revealed that majority of the financially excluded comes from

nuclear family because based on our study most of the families from the latter

have children who are still studying which is why they only have limited amount

of cash for their needs.

Based on the study of Feinian Chen, Luoman Bao et al. (2010) they

pointed out that the family nuclearization is ongoing in the Philippines. They

further states that even it is what is happening the norms for strong

intergenerational ties remain in every Filipino. They also states that since the

1970’s, despite the traditional norms of extended family which is living together

the average household size has been declining with an increasing trend toward

nuclear families or single family type. Also according to Devore (2016) nuclear

family is more likely to have a higher consistency with raising their children. By

reaching agreements on discipline and modeling appropriate behavior, parents

acts as team to strengthen and reinforce child behavior. Children get consistent

messages about behavioral expectations.

1.3 Household Size

Table 4 shows the percentage and frequency distribution of respondents

in terms of their household size.

Table 4
Distribution of Respondents in terms of Household Size

Household Size Frequency Percentage

3 members or less 67 23.7

4 - 6 members 164 58.0
 7 - 9 members 48 17.0
10 - 12 members 2 .7
13 members or more 2 .7
Total 283 100.0

Table 4 shows the distribution of the respondents in terms of the

household size. It shows that the household with the size of 4-6 members consist

majority of the respondents with fifty-eight percent (58%) with a frequency of one

hundred sixty-four (164) and 10-12 and 13 members or more both having the

least percentage with point-seven percent (0.7%) with a frequency of two (2).

It indicates the number of the family who are most likely to be financially

excluded comes from the majority of the respondents which consists of 4-6

members, since it is the average family size in the Philippines. Some of the

respondents also stated that one of the common reason is that their income is

only enough to sustain their daily and basic needs.

The researchers interpretation is supported by the study of Caringal et al

(2012) 62.30 % of the families have 3-6 members, they allocated their money

based on each member. There is a possibility that their financial aspects are in

good condition provided that each member knows how to lessen their spending

and they know how to circulate properly the money that they received each

month.

1.4 Family Monthly Income

 Table 5 illustrates the frequency distribution of the respondents as to their

family monthly income.

Table 5
Distribution of Respondents in terms of Family Monthly Income

Family Monthly Income Frequency Percentage

Php 9,520 and below 147 51.9

Php 9,521 - Php 19,040 103 36.4
Php 19,041 - Php 38,080 32 11.3
Php 38,081 - Php 66,640 1 .4
Total 283 100.0

It was indicated in Table 5 that majority of the respondents have an

income of Php 9520 and below with a percentage of 51.9 percent from the

frequency of 147. However, Php 38,081 to Php 66,640 family monthly income

has a frequency of 1 with a percentage of 0.4 percent.

Majority of the respondents that are financially excluded are households

with incomes of less than Php 9520. According to them, their income is only

enough to sustain their basic survival needs. They have some comfort and

means but basically thrive on a hand-to mouth existence. If they want an

emergency fund, they will resort to informal ways like informal money lenders.

The findings and analysis of the researchers are supported by the Study

of Albert J.G. et al about “Profile and determinants of the Middle-Income Class in

the Philippines (2018)”, wherein a family of five needed at least an average of

Php 9, 520 every month to meet both basic food and non-food needs. These

amounts represents the monthly food threshold, respectively.

2.How Financial Exclusion may be Assessed in terms of:

This part showed that respondents financial exclusion to bank sevices in

Bauan, Batangas relative to voulntary exclusion and involuntary excusion

2.1 Voluntary Exclusion

Table 6 showed the financial exclusion of households to bank services in

terms of voluntary exclusion.

Table 6
Assessment on Financial Exclusion to Bank Services of Households in
terms of Voluntary Exclusion

Weighted Verbal
Mean Interpretation
Items
1. They think that they don’t need to avail any 2.51 Agree
bank services. .
2 .They don’t trust on banks in terms of safe 2.04 Disagree
keeping our money.
3. They find the services inapplicable to their 2.41 Disagree
needs like small loans.
4. Their culture doesn’t encourage them to have 1.73 Disagree
access on banks.
5. They fear that there might be bankruptcy 2.46 Disagree
associated with the banks.
6. They are already resorting to informal 2.70 Agree
institutions or methods (e. g. loan sharks, piggy
banks and the like).
7. They already have indirect access to banks 1.91 Disagree
(e.g. through relatives or friends from other
household).
8. They find other formal financial institutions 2.51 Agree
more suitable rather than banks (e.g. insurance
companies, microfinance institutions, pawnshops,
lending institutions).
9. The process of acquiring services of the banks 2.21 Disagree
are time consuming.
10. They don’t trust on banks in terms of personal 2.01 Disagree
information policy.
11. They find the issues about system errors 2.52 Agree
worrisome.
12. Their religion doesn’t encourage them to have 1.44 Strongly
access on banks. Disagree
13. Cash on hand can be spent more easily rather 2.83 Agree
than deposited money from the bank
14. In times of emergency, the banks are not ideal 2.33 Disagree
due to their banking hours.
15. They have lack of confidence in approaching 2.31 Disagree
the banking staff to inquire about their available
services because of the fear of rejection.
COMPOSITE MEAN 2.2624 Disagree

As presented in Table 6 the overall composite mean of voluntary exclusion

to banking services of households is 2.26 with the verbal interpretation of

“Disagree”. Furthermore, the items that got highest weighted mean was “The

liquidity of money is quite low when in bank rather than cash on hand” interpreted

as “Agree”. The reason of “Already resorting to informal institutions got the

second highest weighted mean which is 2.70 with the verbal interpretation of

“Agree” and the third highest was that “They find the system Errors worrisome”
with the weighted mean of 2.52 that means “Agree”. However, Items Culture and

Religion doesn’t encourage them to have access on banks and having indirect

access to Banking services” got the lowest weighted mean of 1.73, 1.44 and 1.

91 respectively.

The findings show that most of the households agrees that cash on hand

can be spent more easily rather than deposited money from the bank. Based on

the informal interview that we had from the respondents, having access to banks

can be inconvenient and time consuming for it will be easier for them to spend

their money without having trouble to go to banks to withdraw their money.

According to Ferdinand Tan (2017), aside from having a sense of security

with holding their money and having a fear of bank run, one of the common

reason why some people are unbanked is because they are avoiding the

inconvenience of finding the nearest ATM Machine or the tiresome long queues

for the withdrawal of their money.

2.2 Involuntary Exclusion

Table 7 showed the financial exclusion of households to bank services in

terms of involuntary exclusion.

Table 7
Assessment on Financial Exclusion to Bank Services of Households in
terms of Involuntary Exclusion

Weighted Verbal
Mean Interpretation
Items
1. They have insufficient funds to save or invest 3.11 Agree
on banks.
2. They don’t have any idea how to avail bank 2.40 Disagree
services.
3. They don’t know how to use the bank services 2.38 Disagree
offered because they don’t have the ability to use
new technology to engage in banking services.
4. They don’t have any idea about bank services 2.48 Disagree
offered.
5. They don’t have enough documentary 2.35 Disagree
requirements.
6. The cost of service are quite high. 2.32 Disagree
7. There is lack of physical access in their 1.99 Disagree
location.
8. One or some of their members are already 1.43 Strongly
blacklisted on banks. Disagree
9. They have experienced discrimination by the 1.73 Disagree
banking personnel.
10. Most of the members of the family are 2.35 Disagree
unemployed.
11. They have been denied once in accessing 1.75 Disagree
some bank services.
12. The maintaining balance is quite high. 2.22 Disagree
13. They’ve encountered bad customer service 1.83 Disagree
before
14. The initial deposit is quite expensive. 2.21 Disagree
15. The contract enforcement within the bank is 1.88 Disagree
deficient.
COMPOSITE MEAN 2.1609 Disagree
 As shown in table 7, “having insufficient fund to invest and to save on

banks” got the highest weighted mean of 3.11 which means that most of the

households income are just enough for their everyday needs since most of their

family members are unemployed and that income of breadwinner of the family

usually have less than the minimum salary wage.

The findings and the researcher’s analysis are supported by World Bank,

(2014) wherein lack of enough money to have and use is the most cited reason

of being financially excluded. Most of the times, this comes from the belief that

they have not enough income to transact with formal financial institutions and

that they are concerned about requirements around collateral. Additionally,

irregular and unreliable cash flows provided by banks dissuade the

underprivileged from availing herself of formal financial services. Moreover,

responses from both voluntary exclusion and involuntary exclusion households

suggest that the main obstacles to access commercial banks and SFI’s or

Special Financial Institutions’s deposits/savings services were poor financial

position or having insufficient income (Bank of Thailand, 2017)

3. How may the Responses be Compared when Grouped According to

Profile

This part presents the comparison of the responses of the respondents about

financial exclusion to bank services when grouped according to profile variables.

Table 8
Comparison of Responses of Different Groups based on Geographical
Location
 Voluntary Exclusion Involuntary exclusion
Geographical Mean Verbal Mean Verbal
Location Interpretation Interpretation
Rural 2.2428 Disagree 2.1776 Disagree
Urban 2.2801 Disagree 2.1459 Disagree
Total 2.2624 Disagree 2.1609 Disagree

As shown in table 8, involuntary exclusion from rural areas gather a

weighted mean of 2.17 while the voluntary exclusion gathers the weighted mean

of 2.24. On the other hand, the weighted average of involuntary exclusion from

the urban areas gathers 2.14 while its voluntary exclusion gathers 2.26. Both

rural and urban areas have the verbal interpretation of Disagree to both

Voluntary and Involuntary Exclusion.

We could notice that people living in urban and rural areas cannot be

considered as voluntarily and involuntarily excluded form banking services which

means that their location is not one of the factors as to why households are

financially excluded to the banking services.

The interpretation is supported by the study of World Bank (2012) wherein

Distance – as one moves down the income level of countries, the number of

answers citing distance sharply increases. The shortage of physical points where

financial services are performed harms mostly the populations who live in rural

areas, but in some countries this is the case also for people living in urban areas.

Table 9
Comparison of Responses of Different Groups based on Family Structure
 Voluntary Exclusion Involuntary Exclusion
Family Structure Mean Verbal Mean Verbal
Interpretation Interpretation
Nuclear 2.2697 Disagree 2.1916 Disagree
Extended 2.2508 Disagree 2.1119 Disagree
Total 2.2624 Disagree 2.1609 Disagree

The table 9 shows that the weighted mean of the Nuclear family as to

voluntary and involuntary exclusion is 2.26 and 2.19 respectively. Both having

the verbal interpretation of Disagree. Also, the weighted mean of Extended family

to voluntary and involuntary exclusion gathers 2.25 and 2.11 respectively which

have a verbal interpretation of Disagree.

Based on the table, extended family and nuclear family cannot be

considered as voluntarily excluded nor involuntarily excluded. Because the size

of the family would still matter than the structure of the family.

Table 10
Comparison of Responses of Different Groups based on Household Size

Voluntary Exclusion Involuntary Exclusion

Household Size Mean Verbal Mean Verbal
Interpretation Interpretation
3 members or less 2.2468 Disagree 2.2348 Disagree
4 - 6 members 2.2821 Disagree 2.1220 Disagree
7 - 9 members 2.2250 Disagree 2.1583 Disagree
10 - 12 members 2.1000 Disagree 2.5000 Agree
13 members or more 2.2333 Disagree 2.6000 Agree
Total 2.2624 Disagree 2.1609 Disagree
 As shown in Table 10, the comparison between the profile variable names

stated both Disagree with the total mean of 2.26 and 2.16. Based on the size of

household, 10 and above members of the family agreed that they are involuntary

excluded with the mean of 2.5 and 2.6. Those whose member are 9 or less

stated that though they both disagree in both voluntary and involuntary, they are

voluntary excluded because they have the highest mean of 2.24, 2.28 and 2.22

compared to involuntary exclusion with a mean of 2.23, 2.12 and 2.15.

Based on the result, the higher the number of the family members, the

more likely it is for them to be Involuntarily excluded to the banking services or

that they belong to the group of people who liked to have access on banks but

due to some barriers (like insufficient funds, illiteracy, cost barriers etc), they

cannot have access on it.

According to the study of Eric Osei- Assibey (2009), the ability to hold a

deposit account is also believed to be influenced by the household size as a

proxy for dependency. High dependency means high household consumption

and fewer saving, thus less likelihood to demand a savings account.

Table 11
Comparison of Responses of Different Groups based on Family Monthly
Income

Voluntary Exclusion Involuntary Exclusion

Family Monthly Mean Verbal Mean Verbal
Income Interpretation Interpretation
Php 9,520 and below 2.2721 Disagree 2.2630 Disagree
 Php 9,521 - 19,040 2.2447 Disagree 2.0615 Disagree
Php 19,041 - 38,080 2.2833 Disagree 2.0250 Disagree
Php 38,081 - 66,640 2.0000 Disagree 1.7333 Disagree
Total 2.2624 Disagree 2.1609 Disagree

As presented in Table 11, the comparison between the profile variable

names stated both Disagree with the total mean of 2.26 and 2.16. Based on the

family monthly income, all income brackets from the voluntary exclusion are

higher than involuntary exclusion.

Having insufficient fund should fall under involuntary exclusion but it

showed that the verbal interpretation resulted to disagree. Having less enough

income is not the only reason as to why they are involuntarily excluded, it show

also includes the financial illiteracy, cost and fees for having bank account,

discrimination or rejection form availing bank services and geographical location.

According to World Bank (2014) some other individuals may be

involuntarily excluded from the use of financial services. Many of them have

insufficient income, carry high risk, of repaying any amount of money borrowed.

In this case, the lack of use is not caused by inefficiencies of market and

governments. Others do not have access because of discrimination, lack of

information, poor environment and price barriers.

4. Researchers wanted to provide an information dissemination to

promote financial exclusion to bank services in Bauan, Batangas.

 The recommendations that the researchers may propose to promote

financial inclusion to bank services in Bauan, Batangas.

The researchers came up with the strategy of information dissemination

through flyers including the benefits and importance of having bank accounts or

accessing different bank services. The researchers expect that the households

will have a better knowledge about the services offered by banks which will

promote financial inclusion in Bauan.