ISSN 2508-0865 (electronic)
2018-18 (December 2018)
Defining and profiling the middle class
Jose Ramon G. Albert, Angelo Gabrielle F. Santos, and Jana Flor V. Vizmanos
The middle class is crucial in society. With better
educational attainment and savings, middle-class
workers hold critical roles in higher value-added
sectors, particularly in services (Doepke and Zilibotti
2005, 2007). They are also willing to pay for better-
quality products and services, and their demands
encourage investments in production and marketing,
raising general income levels (Murphy et al. 1989).
The middle class is also key to enhancing human
capital given their large investments in education
and health care (Banerjee and Duflo 2008; Albert et
al. 2015). They also play a role in the improvements
in public services, not only as a source of public
revenues via taxes but also as agents of change
(Huntington 1991).
In AmBisyon Natin 2040, Filipinos have articulated a
long-term goal to “live in a prosperous, predominantly
middle-class society where no one is poor” (NEDA
2016, p. 3). This Policy Note profiles middle-class
persons and families in the Philippines. It also
examines the country’s progress in achieving long-
term objectives of a largely middle-class society.
No.
The middle class
Just as there is no universally accepted definition
of poverty, there is also no internationally accepted
definition of the middle class (Joliffe and Prydz
2016). Among social scientists, definitions of the
middle class vary widely. Birdsall (2010) defined
middle class through nonmonetary lenses, such as
profession, education, or social values. Meanwhile,
economists tend to define the middle class through
monetary lens. Even among them, however, there is
no consensus on a definition. Some studies defined
middle income in an absolute sense, such as an
income range at purchasing power parity, while others
use a relative sense, such as thresholds based on the
average income (Albert et al. 2015).
Modifying slightly the work of Albert et al. (2015),
which defined seven clusters of the income distribution
using thresholds based on multiples of the official
poverty line, this study grouped the seven clusters into
three income classes in such a way that the two lowest
clusters form the low-income class, the two highest
clusters form the high-income class, while the three
middle clusters form the middle-income class (Table 1).
Table 1. Indicative range of monthly family incomes (for a family of 5): Philippines, 2015 and 2017

Income Cluster Definition: Per-Capita Income Indicative Range

at 2015 prices at 2017 prices
1. Poor Less than official poverty threshold Less than PHP 9,100 Less than PHP 9,520
2. Low-income class (but Between the poverty line and twice the Between PHP 9,100 Between PHP 9,520
not poor) poverty line and PHP 18,200 and PHP 19,040
3. Lower middle-income class Between two and four times the poverty line Between PHP 18,200 Between PHP 19,040
and PHP 36,400 and PHP 38,080
4. Middle middle-income class Between four and seven times the poverty line Between PHP 36,400 Between PHP 38,080
and PHP 63,700 and PHP 66,640
5. Upper middle-income class Between 7 and 12 times the poverty line Between PHP 63,700 Between PHP 66,640
and PHP 109,200 and PHP 114,240
6. Upper-income class (but Between 12 and 20 times the poverty line Between PHP 109,200 Between PHP 114,240
not rich) and PHP 182,000 and PHP 190,400
7.Rich At least equal to 20 times the poverty line At least PHP 182,000 At least PHP 190,400
Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015 and 2017 Family Income and Expenditure Surveys (FIES) (PSA 2015a, 2017)

In other words, those belonging to the middle-income Place of residence

class are families (or persons belonging to families)
that have incomes between 2 and 12 times the
poverty line. In 2017, a family of five would thus be
middle income if its monthly income ranged roughly
between PHP 20,000 and PHP 115,000.
Urban dwellers are predominantly middle income. In
2015, 3 in 5 urban residents were middle income,
while only 1 in 20 was high income. Among rural
households, only a third were middle income, while
more than three-fifths were low income.

Making use of data sourced from the Family Income
and Expenditure Survey (FIES), conducted by the
Philippine Statistics Authority, this study described
the middle-income class relative to low- and high-
income classes in terms of place of residence, work
status and occupation, educational attainment,
schooling decisions, housing tenure, access to water,
and overseas employment.
According to latest data from the FIES (PSA 2015a),
about 2 in every 5 (40.2%) Filipinos belonged to
middle-income class, nearly three-fifths (58.4%)
to low-income, and the remaining (1.4%) to
high-income. Such shares of the income classes
hardly changed since 2006 (Figure 1). In terms of
households, less than half (45.1%) were middle
income in 2015, while a bigger proportion (52.8%)
belonged to low-income class.
Among the regions, it is in National Capital Region,
Central Luzon, and CALABARZON where the middle class
dominantly reside. In 2015, more than half of them
lived in these areas. As these areas have wide access to
commercial and manufacturing establishments, most of
the middle class also work in these regions.
Employment
Merged data from the Labor Force Survey (LFS) and
FIES (PSA 2015a, 2015b) showed that the members
of the middle-income households were working
outside the agriculture sector. In fact, only 11 percent
of them depended on agriculture, most of whom
belonged to the lower middle-income cluster.
A quarter of the middle income worked in wholesale
and retail trade, with jobs such as vegetable vendors
or sari-sari store owners. Nearly a fifth (17%) were

2 w Defining and profiling the middle class

 Figure 1: Population distribution, by income cluster: 2006-2015
Figure 1:1:
Figure Population
Figure distribution,
Population byby
distribution,
1: Population income
distribution, cluster:
income 2006-2015
cluster:
by income 2006-2015
cluster: 2006-2015
Figure
Figure
Figure
1:1:
Population
Population
1: Population
distribution,
distribution,
distribution,
byby
income
income
by income
cluster:
cluster:
cluster:
2006-2015
2006-2015
2006-2015
Figure 1: Population distribution, by income cluster: 2006-2015
Figure 1. Population distribution, by income cluster: Philippines, Education
2006–2015 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
1.4%
Educational attainment correlates with
13.3%
1.5% 12.5% 13.2%
1.4% 13.1%
1.6% 12.5%
12.5%
12.5% 13.2%1.5% 13.1%
13.1%
13.1% income (Table 2). In 2015, half of middle-
13.3%
13.3%
13.3% 12.5%
12.5%
12.5% 13.2%
13.2%
13.3%
13.3%
13.3% 13.2%
13.2%
13.2% 13.1%
13.1%
13.1%
13.3% 12.5% 13.2% 13.1% income persons aged 24 years and above
attained education beyond secondary
24.2% 24.2% 24.8%
24.2%
24.2%
24.2%
24.2%
24.2%
24.2%
24.2%
24.2%
24.2%
24.2%
24.2%
24.2% 24.8%
24.8%
24.8%
24.8%
24.8%
24.8%
26.4%
26.4%
26.4% education. 26.4%
While this figure was lower
26.4%
26.4%
26.4%
24.2%
24.2% 24.8% 26.4% than that of the high income (78%),
it was higher than the corresponding
proportion for low income (13%).
33.4% 34.7% 34.3%
33.4%
33.4%
33.4% 34.7%
34.7%
34.7% 34.3%
34.3%
34.3% 36.8%
33.4%
33.4%
33.4% 34.7%
34.7%
34.7% 34.3%
34.3%
34.3%
33.4% 34.7%
36.8%
36.8%
36.8%
36.8%
36.8%
36.8% As of 2015, only a quarter (23%) of
34.3%
36.8% the lower middle income finished
college. Nonetheless, this figure was
higher among middle and upper middle
26.6% 26.3% 25.2%
26.6%
26.6%
26.6%
26.6%
26.6%
26.6%
26.3%
26.3%
26.3%
26.3%
26.3%
26.3%
25.2%
25.2%
25.2% income at 21.6%
47 percent and 62 percent,
25.2%
25.2%
25.2% 21.6%
21.6%21.6%
21.6%
21.6%21.6%
26.6% 26.3% 25.2%
21.6%
respectively. Meanwhile, a majority (59%)
2006 2009 2012 of the low income
2015 did not finish high
2006
20062006 2009
20092009 2012
20122012 2015
2015 2015
2006
20062006 2009
20092009 2012
20122012 2015
2015 2015 school given high immediate economic
2006 2009
Poor 2012Low income but not poor 2015 Lower middle income
Poor
PoorPoor
PoorPoor
Poor
Poor
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
income
income
Low
income
income
Low
income
butbut
income
but
notnot
not
income
butbut
poor
but
poor
notnot
but
not poorLower
poor
poor
poor
not poorLower
middle
Lower
Lower
Lower
Lower
income
middle
Lower income
middle income
middle-income
middle
middle
middle
income
income
income
needs particularly among the poor.
Poor Low income but not poor Lower middle income
Middle middle income Upper middle income Upper income but not rich
Middle
Middle
Middle middle-income
middle
middle
Middle income
income
middle Upper
income Upper middle-income
Uppermiddle income
middle
Upper income Upper
income
middle Upper
income
Upper income
income
Upper income but
butbut
not notrich
rich
not
but notrichrich
Middle
Middle
Middle
middle
middle
middle
income
income
income Upper Upper
Upper
middle
middle
middle
income
income
income UpperUpper
Upper
income
income
income
butbut
notnot
but not rich Merged FIES-LFS data (PSA 2015a,
rich
rich
Middle middle income Upper middle income Upper income but not rich
Rich
Rich
2015b) also showed that increased
Rich
RichRich
Rich
RichRich
Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015 FIES (NSO 2006, 2009, 2012;
Rich
Source: Authors’ calculations on NSO (2006, 2009, 2012); PSA (2015a) school participation rates were associated
PSA 2015a)
Source:
Source:Authors’
Source:Authors’ calculations
Authors’calculations
calculationsononNSO on (2006,
NSO NSO(2006, 2009,
2009,
(2006, 2012);
2012);
2009, PSAPSA
2012); (2015a)
(2015a)
PSA (2015a)
Source:
Source:
Source:
Authors’
Authors’
Authors’
calculations
calculations
calculationsononNSO NSO
on (2006,
NSO(2006,
(2006,
2009,
2009, 2009,
2012);
2012);
2012);
PSAPSA (2015a)
PSA
(2015a)
(2015a) with higher-income levels. In 2015, the
Source: Authors’ calculations Placeon of NSO (2006, 2009, 2012); PSA (2015a)
residence
Place of of
residence school
Place
Place
Place
Place
Place
of of
residence
inof transport,
residence
residence Urban dwellers are predominantly
of residence communication,
residence and storage,middle-income.
usually In 2015, threeattendance
in five urbanrate of children
residents were aged 5–14 years
Urban
Urbandwellers
dwellers
Urban
Place of areare
dwellers
residence predominantly
predominantly
are predominantly middle-income.
middle-income.
middle-income. In In
2015,
2015,
In three
three
2015, in five
in
three inurban
five urban
five residents
residents
urban were
were
residents were
Urban
Urban
Urban
dwellers
dwellers
dwellers
workingareare
predominantly
are
as middle-income,
predominantly
predominantly
tricycle and jeep while
middle-income.
middle-income. only
middle-income.
driversIn In 1
2015,in
2015,
or 20
Inbus
2015,was
three
threein high-income.
three
in
five
five
conductors. inurban
five
urban Among
urban
residents
residents rural
residents
from were
were households,
were
middle-income only a third were
families was 93 percent, higher
middle-income,
middle-income,
middle-income,
Urban dwellers while
while only
arewhile only 1only
predominantlyin
1 in20
120was
in was
20 high-income.
high-income.
was Among
high-income.
middle-income. InAmong rural
Among
2015, rural
three households,
households,
rural
in only
households,
five urban onlyaonly
thirda were
a third
residents were
third were
middle-income,
middle-income,
middle-income, while
whilewhile
onlyonly 1middle-income,
only
in
1 in20
120in
waswas
20 while
high-income.
was more
high-income.
high-income. than
Among
Among three-fifths
Among
rural
rural were
households,
rural
households, low-income.
households,
onlyonly
aonly
thirda were
a third
third
werewere
middle-income,
middle-income,
middle-income, while
Meanwhile,
middle-income, while
whilemore
whilemore
about
only than
1 inthree-fifths
than
more 16 three-fifths
than
20 percent
was were
were
three-fifths low-income.
low-income.
were
worked
high-income. low-income.
in government,
Among rural households, only by 6-percentage
a third were points than low-income counterparts.
middle-income,
middle-income,
middle-income, while
whilewhile
moremore more
than
thanthree-fifths
than
three-fifths
three-fifths
were
were low-income.
were
low-income.
low-income.
middle-income, while more Among than the
three-fifths
regions, were
it is inlow-income.
National Capital Region, Central Luzon,
The average and CALABARZON where of middle-income
spending on education
Among
Among
Among mostly
thethe
regions,
regions,
the as itclerks
it is
regions, initin
is inor
National public
isNational Capital
National school
Capital Region,
Region,
Capital teachers.
Central
Region,Central Luzon,
Luzon,
Central and
Luzon, and CALABARZON
CALABARZON
and CALABARZON where
where
Among
Among
Among
thetheregions,
the
regions,
regions,
it is
it is
initinthe inmiddle
National
isNational
Nationalclass
Capital
Capital dominantly
Capital
Region,
Region,
Region, reside.
Central
Central
CentralIn 2015
Luzon,
Luzon,
Luzon,
andandalone, more than half
CALABARZON
and
CALABARZON
CALABARZON of where
where
wherethem lived in these areas.
where
thethe
middle
middle
the
Among class
middle
the dominantly
class
class
regions, it is inreside.
dominantly
dominantly reside.InIn2015
reside.
National In alone,
2015 alone,
2015
Capital more
more
alone,
Region, than
than
more
Central half
half
than ofhalf
Luzon, ofthemof lived
them
and lived
them in these
in
lived
CALABARZON these areas.
areas.
in these
households areas.
wherewas also six times more, in nominal terms,
thethe
middle
the
middle
middle
class
class
dominantly
class
dominantly
dominantly reside.
reside.
reside.
In In
2015
2015
In alone,
2015
alone,
alone,
more
more more
than
thanhalf
than
halfofhalf
of
them
them
of lived
them
livedin
lived
in
these
these
in these
areas.
areas.
areas.
the middle class dominantly reside. In 2015 alone, more than half of them lived in these areas.
and twice in share to overall household expenditures
The middle-income class is also not into vulnerable
employment. In 2015, more than 6 in every 10 of compared to low-income households.
the employed middle income were in salaried work.
Around three-fourths also had permanent jobs. Housing tenure
Middle-income households tend to own their
Middle-income workers are largely not entrepreneurial. dwellings. In 2015, about 3 in every 4 (74%) middle-
As of 2015, the share of middle-income workers as income households resided in dwellings that they
self-employed (23%) was lower than that of the low own. Meanwhile, 23 percent rented and 3 percent
income (30%). Moreover, only 4 percent of middle- were informal settlers. In this study, informal settlers
income workers were employers, compared to are those residing in a house or lot without consent
12 percent among the high income. of the owner.

PIDS Policy Notes 2018-18 w 3

Table 2. Educational attainment of Filipinos aged 24
years and over by income classes (in %)
Highest Grade Low Middle High
Completed Income Income Income
At most primary 43.7 15.9 5.3
At most, some 42.9 35.4 16.4
secondary
Beyond secondary 13.4 48.8 78.2
Source: Authors’ calculations on 2015 FIES and 2015 Labor Force Survey
(PSA 2015a, 2015b)
In Metro Manila, tenure status is different from
the rest of the country. While three-fifths (58%) of
middle-income residents in Metro Manila lived in their
own homes, a third (35%) rented houses, and a tenth
(7%) were informal settlers.
While a relatively small proportion of middle-income
households live as informal settlers, they constitute
a big proportion of informal settlers nationwide. In
2015, 2 in every 5 (42%) informal settlers belonged to
the middle-income class, while the remaining (58%)
were from the low-income class. In Metro Manila
alone, roughly 7 in every 10 (69%) informal settlers
belonged to the middle-income class in 2015, which
is contrary to the conventional view that informal
settlers in urban areas are the urban poor. Middle-
income informal settlement has also been observed in
some countries with a shortage of affordable housing
in urban areas (Turok 2015; Ellis and Roberts 2016).
Access to water
Middle-income households have better access to safe
and clean water than low-income counterparts. Around
5 in every 7 middle-income households used water
from the community water system; in contrast, around
60 percent of the low-income households relied on
ground and surface water, considered potential sources of
contamination from microbes and chemicals (WHO 2006).
Low access to safe water services among the low
income is associated with where they live. In rural
4 w Defining and profiling the middle class
areas, access to community water system was very low
at only 41 percent in 2015. In some regions, a majority
of the middle income still used ground water. These
Total
include the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
30.0
(69%) and the Cordillera Administrative Region (56%).
38.8
31.2 Overseas Filipino workers and remittances
About 13 percent of middle-income households had a
member working as an overseas Filipino worker (OFW).
Upper middle-income (18%) households were also
more likely to have members working as OFWs than
the middle (16%) and lower (11%) middle-income
clusters. In contrast, less than 4 percent of low-income
households had members working as OFWs. Nonetheless,
the distribution of the OFWs shows that they were
predominantly middle income (73%), with more than a
third belonging to the lower, a quarter to middle, and
only 11 percent to upper middle-income households.
Remittances contribute substantially to household
income among middle-income recipients. In 2015, 1
in every 3 middle-income households, largely from
the lower middle-income cluster, received foreign
remittances. Of this figure, 45 percent received
remittances covering at least 25 percent of the entire
household income, while one-fifths sourced the
majority of household income from remittances.
Transitioning from low income to middle income
Following Morduch (1998), this study examined how
long it takes for the low-income class to transition
to middle-income status assuming that per-capita
income grows annually at a constant rate. To adjust
for differences in cost of living across the country, the
study also applied a spatial price index1 to the
per-capita income of each household.
________________________
1
Based on the official poverty lines estimated across urban and rural
areas in each province
 Figure 2: Number of years to transition into lower middle income
Simulation results indicated that if real Figure 2. Number of years to transition into lower middle-income
income per capita grows by 2.4 percent2 300
per year, the average transition time
250
for the low-income class to become
200
middle class would be 18 years3 (Figure

Years
2). While the low-income but not poor 150
cluster can transition to middle income
100
by 2023, the poor, on average, can only
do so by 2051. For the poor to transition 50

to middle income by 2040, their income

1 2 3 4 5 6
should grow annually by 3.4 percent, Income growth
or 42 percent more than the benchmark Poor Low-income cluster
2.4 percent, which is deemed unrealistic Low-income class Bottom 40 percent income growth (2.4%)

especially given that income distribution Source: Authors’ calculations

Source: Authors’ calculations
was unchanged from 2006 to 2012.
Recommendations may be vulnerable to falling into poverty if the OFW
Based on the definition used in this study, the middle-income households in the country have
Recommendations member
substantially better accessloses his/her job
to nonmonetary as remittances
welfare indicators than cover a
their low-income counterparts.
Based on the definition used in this study, theThey also largely
substantial proportion of the household income. have ease of access
live in urban areas, especially Greater Manila areas, which
to various services and private establishments.
middle-income households in the country have
Compared to those in the low-income class, middle class have higher educational attainment and
substantially better access to health, education, and In urban areas, those in informal settlements,
put high value on human capital development. They likewise tend to be employed in stable jobs
other services than their low-income counterparts. including
outside agriculture. the middle
Nonetheless, these doclass, face
not make thedifficulties in access
middle class strongly resilient to risks.
They also largely live in urban areas, especiallyMiddle-incometo affordable housing. Families among the low
households in rural areas and certain regions remain to have low access to social
Greater Manila areas, which have ease of access services.
to Thoseincomewith relatives working
but not poor,overseas,
togetherespecially
with among
those those
in thein the lower middle-
income cluster, may be vulnerable to falling into poverty if the OFW member loses his/her job as
various services and private establishments. remittances cover lower middle-income
a substantial proportioncluster, are income.
of household far more vulnerable
to income poverty than others in higher-income
In urban areas, those in informal settlements, including the middle class, face difficulties in
Compared to those in the low-income class, middle clusters
access to affordable andFamilies
housing. will thus require
among support
the low income for improving
but not poor, together with those
class have higher educational attainment and put in the lower middle-income cluster, are far more vulnerable to income
resilience to risks. Government will need to reexamine poverty than others in
higher income clusters and will thus require support for improving resilience to risks.
high value on human capital development. They Government will itsneed
social protection
to reexamine policies
its social and recognize
protection policies and that while
recognize that while the
likewise tend to be employed in stable jobs outside poor is most vulnerable
the poor is most vulnerable to future poverty, even(Albert and
to future poverty, even the middle-class is vulnerable
Vizmanos 2018). Transfers to the poor and vulnerable, e.g. unconditional cash grants in the wake
agriculture. Nonetheless, these do not make the the middle class is vulnerable (Albert and Vizmanos
middle class strongly resilient to risks. 2018). Transfers to the poor and vulnerable, e.g.,
unconditional cash grants in the wake of tax reform,
Middle-income households in rural areas and certain also cannot be one-size-fits-all but should account for
regions remain to have low access to social services. differing risks and vulnerabilities.
Those with relatives working overseas, especially
among those in the lower middle-income cluster, Ensuring availability and sustainable management of
________________________
safe water and safe sanitation for all can be achieved
2
The estimated growth rate of the bottom 40 percent in the period by expanding access to community water systems.
2009–2015
3
Under the assumption that the growth rate will be continuous and
For cities to be more inclusive, safe, smart, resilient,
uniform across the low-income population and sustainable, the government should considerably

PIDS Policy Notes 2018-18 w 5

improve access to affordable housing. In the wake of
risks of job losses from automation, social protection
measures are also important, especially for middle-
income households relying on OFW remittances
(Albert et al. 2018). These steps to manage risks and
resilience are aligned with the country’s commitment
to attaining the Sustainable Development Goals to
ensure that divides that separate the low-, middle-,
and high-income classes will not get any wider. 4
References
Albert, J.R.G., R.E. Gaspar, and M.J.M. Raymundo. 2015. Why
we should pay attention to the middle class. PIDS Policy
Notes No. 2015-13. Makati City, Philippines: Philippine
Institute for Development Studies.
Albert, J.R.G., A.C. Orbeta Jr., V.B. Paqueo et al. 2018.
Harnessing government’s role for the Fourth Industrial
Revolution. PIDS Policy Notes No. 2018-14. Quezon City,
Philippines: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Albert, J.R.G. and J.F.V. Vizmanos. 2018. Vulnerability to
poverty in the Philippines: An examination of trends
from 2003 to 2015. PIDS Discussion Paper No. 2018-
10. Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Institute for
Development Studies. https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN
/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps1810.pdf (accessed on November
1, 2018).
Banerjee, A. and E. Duflo. 2008. What is middle class about
the middle classes around the world? Journal of Economic
Perspectives 22(2):3–28.
Birdsall, N. 2010. The (indispensable) middle class in
developing countries. In Equity and growth in a globalizing
world, edited by R. Kanbur and M. Spence. Washington
D.C.: World Bank.
Doepke, M. and F. Zilibotti. 2005. Social class and the spirit of
capitalism. Journal of the European Economic Association
3(2–3):516–524.
Doepke, M. and F. Zilibotti. 2007. Occupational choice and the
spirit of capitalism. IZA Discussion Paper No. 2949. Bonn,
Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor. https://doi
.org/10.1162/qjec.2008.123.2.747 (accessed on August
28, 2018).
Contact us
Address: Research Information Department PIDS Policy Notes are analyses written by PIDS researchers on certain
Philippine Institute for Development Studies
18/F Three Cyberpod Centris - North Tower
EDSA corner Quezon Avenue, Quezon City
Telephone: (+63-2) 877-4000, 372-1291 to 92
Email: publications@mail.pids.gov.ph
Website: www.pids.gov.ph
6 w Defining and profiling the middle class
Ellis, P. and M. Roberts. 2016. Leveraging urbanization in South
Asia: Managing spatial transformation for prosperity and
livability. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Huntington, S. 1991. The third wave: Democratization in
the late twentieth century. Norman, OK: University of
Oklahoma Press.
Joliffe, D. and E.B. Prydz. 2016. Estimating international
poverty lines from comparable national thresholds. World
Bank Policy Research Working Paper 7606. Washington,
D.C.: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank
.org/bitstream/handle/10986/24148/Estimating0int
00national0thresholds.pdf (accessed on August 28, 2018).
Morduch, J. 1998. Poverty, economic growth and average exit
time. Economics Letters 59(3):385–390.
Murphy, K., A. Shleifer, and R.W. Vishny. 1989. Industrialization
and the big push. Journal of Political Economy
97(5):1003–1026.
National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). 2015.
Ambisyon 2040: A long term vision for the Philippines.
Pasig City, Philippines: NEDA. http://2040.neda.gov.ph
/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/A-Long-Term-Vision-for
-the-Philippines.pdf (accessed on August 10, 2018).
National Statistics Office (NSO). 2006. 2006 Family Income and
Expenditure Survey. Manila, Philippines: NSO.
———. 2009. 2009 Family Income and Expenditure Survey.
Manila, Philippines: NSO.
———. 2012. 2012 Family Income and Expenditure Survey.
Manila, Philippines: NSO.
Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA). 2015a. 2015 Family Income
and Expenditure Survey. Quezon City, Philippines: PSA.
———. 2015b. Labor Force Survey. Quezon City, Philippines: PSA.
———. 2017. 2017 Family Income and Expenditure Survey.
Quezon City, Philippines: PSA.
Turok, I. 2015. Informal settlements: Poverty traps or ladders
to work. Rondebosch, South Africa: University of Cape
Town. http://www.econ3x3.org/sites/default/files
/articles/Turok%202015%20Informal%20settlements
%20FINAL_0.pdf (accessed on September 10, 2018).
World Health Organization (WHO). 2006. Health aspects of
plumbing. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. https://sswm
.info/sites/default/files/reference_attachments/WHO%20
2006%20Health%20Aspects%20of%20Plumbing.pdf
(accessed on August 30, 2018).
policy issues. The treatise is holistic in approach and aims to provide
useful inputs for decisionmaking.
The authors are senior research fellow, consultant, and research
assistant, respectively, of the Philippine Institute for Development
Studies (PIDS). The views expressed are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect those of the PIDS or any of the study’s sponsors.