The economy grew by 7.2%? But why are we still poor?

The Philippine Statistics Authority, which I am currently part of, released the estimates of the fourth quarter economic performance late last month. According to the PSA report, the Philippine economy grew by 6.5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013, bringing full year growth to 7.2 percent. The growth was particularly driven by manufacturing, an industry which has received a fair amount of attention from our policy makers, mainly because of its ability to employ unskilled workers, the type of workers which we have in abundance here in the Philippines.

The national government, big businesses and some economists in the academe tend to be celebratory whenever they hear GDP growth rates above 6 percent. Meanwhile, people from the left would often point out that these numbers are meaningless, and that growth only benefits the already rich. The majority, which compasses those who didn't have the luxury of going through basic economics and those who did but had bad professors or they were more preoccupied by their classroom crush, would be more likely to agree with the left, because you know, there's poverty everywhere. Our public transport is inefficient, wages are not rising, the electricity bill is burning holes in our pockets. There is great temptation to ask, where is this economic progress that you are talking about? How come things seem the same?

Although fast growth rates are essential in development, there is such a thing as sustained growth, which is more necessary if we want to make a dent on poverty. Sustained growth entails maintaining a fast growth rates by a certain number of years.

Why is sustained growth important? Let us look at a critical indicator derived from GDP, the GDP per capita. In a nutshell, GDP is the aggregate wealth of a country in terms of how much goods and services its residents produced within its economic boundaries. GDP per capita meanwhile is the average wealth per person, derived by dividing the GDP level with the total population. Having a high GDP level may not be significantly felt if you're population is really large. In simpler terms, it doesn't matter if you ordered a 17-inch pizza, if there would 50 of you sharing, each would have a smaller slice as compared to the group who ordered a 10-inch pizza, but there are only six of them sharing.

Source: Philippine Statistics Authority

Let's make a comparison between the GDP per capita of the Philippines and Malaysia, which has had substantial successes in dealing with poverty. The per capita GDP of Malaysia is $10,381 substantially higher than the per capita GDP of the Philippines at $2,588. If you want to reach that level in one year you have to grow by 400 percent, which is not realistic for any country. So you need to achieve that level gradually.

The current level of $2,588 would have to double twice in order to reach the level of Malaysia. Assuming annual growth of 7 percent per year, when will that double? the doubling time of 7 percent is ten (10) years*. So that means the country would have to grow by 7 percent for 20 years in order to reach the status of Malaysia. Sustained growth is not the ends of the policy but a means. And it's still something that we should be happy about because at least we're starting at the right direction.

                                           Source: World Bank


*formula for the doubling time:

On Population Growth

What does a 2% percent population growth rate mean? It means that population would double every 35 years. So if you're 20 years old now, and there are 97 million Filipinos in the archipelago, by the time you reach the age of 50, there would be 190 million Filipinos. The photo bellow, by the way, is just an illustration on what exponential growth looks like in a time series line graph. It also gives us a sense of global context on population growth and how improved living conditions, industrialization, improved medical technology, has resulted to the sky rocketing of world population. There were only less than a billion people before the end of the 18th century but since then, our population grew by six times as much. And that's just in two centuries or less than one twentieth of the whole history of human civilization. Now can the planet sustain that growth? I don't know. The past seems distant, even if it's near and that the future seems assured, even if it isn't.

Data source: World Bank

Boosting Our Economy and Sustaining Economic Growth Through Tourism

by Jose Ramon G. Albert, Ph.D.¹


With the goal of bringing in more foreign tourists to our country, the Department of Tourism (DOT) aggressively launched a global tourism campaign with the catchy slogan “It’s more fun in the Philippines.”  Domestic travel has also been strongly encouraged among our countrymen, especially as it is relatively much cheaper to fly these days. Several months ago, I asked a taxi driver in Singapore (during a private visit there) what he has heard about the Philippines. The cab driver mentioned that he has heard about Cebu (likely because of the Gokongwei-run airline that has truly made flying cheaper with all its budgets fares).

The attention given to our country by the international community is not limited to the Philippines’ stellar economic performance.  Several tourist spots in our country have also gotten noticed, such as The Farm at San Benito in Batangas and the El Nido Resorts in Palawan. The Farm was awarded the Best Medical Wellness Resort worldwide at the International Tourismus Borse held in March 2013 in Berlin, Germany while the El Nido Resorts was given the Community Benefit Award by the World Travel and Tourism Council held in April 2013 at Abu Dhabi.  

Tourism is being viewed by our economic planners as one of the key prospects of sustained economic growth, as the tourism sector contributes to foreign exchange receipts and jobs generation.  In fact, the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) noted in our recent release of official poverty statistics for the first semester of 2012, that  among all the regions in the country, Caraga had a significant drop in the household poverty incidence from the first semester of 2009 (43.3 percent) to the first semester of 2012 (34.1 percent).  The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) attributes this drop to the rising tourism industry. Thus, in the 2011-2016 Philippine Development Plan (PDP) of NEDA, tourism has been identified as a priority sector. The National Tourism Development Plan (NTDP) of DOT also provides a number of targets for the tourism sector. It has been recently reported in the news that government intends to spend PhP 29 billion in tourism infrastructure expenditures, for this year (PhP 12 billion) and next year (PhP 17 billion). Clearly, these efforts to boost tourism should not depend on the national government and local governments alone.  The private sector needs to make serious investments. But as government works hand in hand with the private sector, it is important to also examine some statistics on tourism.

Visitor arrivals continues to increase

Based on the latest statistics of DOT, visitor arrivals (which includes both foreign visitors and overseas Filipinos) reached the 4 million mark for the first time, reaching 4,272,811 visitors in 2012, almost hitting the target of 4.5 million visitors for the year.  In fact in the last three years,   the number of visitor arrivals has been on an increasing trend, 16.7 percent growth in 2010, 11.3 percent in 2011, and 9.1 percent in 2012.  (Table 1)

The highest contributor to visitor arrivals in 2012 was East Asia, which accounted for 2,038,987 visitors, which is nearly half (47.7 percent) of the total visitor arrivals for the year.  Next was North America, with 778,162 visitors or 18.2 percent while our neighboring countries in the ASEAN region accounted for 375,190 visitors or 8.8 percent. (Table 2)

The top three countries where the visitors came from were Korea, accounting for 1,031,155 visitors or 24.1 percent of the visitor arrivals, USA with 652,626 visitors or 15.3 percent, and Japan with 412,474 visitors or 9.6 percent. These three countries also occupied the first three places in terms of volume of visitors to the country in 2011.  Among the top 12 countries by volume of tourists in 2012, Malaysia had the highest growth of visitor arrivals to the country at 24.8 percent, followed by Taiwan at 19.1 percent and Australia at 12.0 percent. (Table 2)

While the visitor arrivals to our country have improved over the recent years, these figures are lower in comparison with some of our neighboring countries.  Data show that the Philippines has still a lot of catching up to do if we want to be competitive in the global tourism scene.  Among the eight countries in the ASEAN, the Philippines came in only at seventh place.  Malaysia had the highest level of visitor arrivals in 2011 at 24,714,000, with a share of 25.7 percent.  Second was Hong Kong with 22,316,000 visitors or 23.0 percent and third was Thailand with 109,230,000 visitors or 19.8 percent.  Malaysia and Hong Kong have been consistently in the first two places throughout the years. (Tables 3a and 3b)

In terms of expenditure, the average daily expenditure of the visitors in 2012 amounted to US$92.99, with accommodation as the highest at US$27.26 per day, followed by food/beverage at US$23.73, and shopping at US$20.61.  For 2011, the average daily expenditure was US$91.88, with shopping as the highest at US$25.81 per day, followed by food/beverage at US$22.85 and accommodation at US$22.82.  Length of stay of the visitors in the country averaged 9.6 nights in 2012 and 8.0 nights in 2011. In terms of total  receipts, the DOT estimates showed that visitor receipts in 2012 was US$3.8 billion, higher by 27.5 percent compared to US$3.0 billion in 2011.  (Table 4)

Looking at the monthly trends, 2012 data show that the peak months for visitors which include foreign visitors and overseas Filipinos are during the months of December with 442,088 visitors, January with 411,064 visitors, and July with 376,948 visitors.  These same months hold true for 2011, with December as the highest, followed by the months of July and January.  (Table 2)

When asked what things are liked most about the Philippines, a little more than half (52.6 percent) of the visitors in 2012 cited "warm hospitality and kindness of people".  Next is  "beautiful sceneries/nice beaches" cited by a little less than one fourth (22.6 percent), with the rest attributing other reasons, such as good food/liquor/fruits, able to see relatives/friends, good place for relaxation, and good climate.  On the other hand, about a quarter (24.6 percent) of the tourists cited "heavy traffic" as the thing disliked most about the Philippines, followed by air/water pollution/dirty environment cited by about a fifth (17.3 percent).  Other reasons include poverty/beggars/ unemployment and rainy/humid/bad weather among other things.  These responses of the visitors  followed almost the same ranks as in the previous year.  (Table 4)

Domestic tourism also on the rise; top major destinations identified

Based on the report of DOT, domestic travelers in 2011 reached 21,030,921 or an increase of 21.0 percent from 16,940,751 in 2010.  The top five destinations of local travelers in 2011 region wise were CALABARZON at 5,048,727, Bicol at 2,671,572, Western Visayas at 1,888,237, Northern Mindanao at 1,579,227, and Central Luzon with 1,557,746 travelers.  By province, the local tourists chose to go to Laguna with 2,650,962 tourists, Camarines Sur with 1,979,217 tourists, Cavite with 1,767,025 tourists, Zambales with 1,134,221 tourists, and Cebu with 1,089,441 tourists. (Table 5)

For long holiday weekends during the period April to September 2010, results from the 2010 Household Survey on Domestic Visitors (HSDV) of the National Statistics Office (NSO) and the DOT showed that the Filipinos who traveled the most was during the Holy Week in April, with 1,306,000 travelers.  Second was during Labor Day in May, with 903,000 travelers and third was during the celebration of Eid al-Fitr in September, with 582,000 travelers. (Table 6)

Data from DOT also showed that there was a total of 26,187,130 travelers in the country in 2011, which include the foreign travelers, overseas Filipinos and domestic travelers.  The top five destinations by region were CALABARZON with 5,390,742 travelers, followed by Bicol  with 3,413,610 travelers, Metro Manila with 2,727,457 travelers, Central Visayas with 2,548,976 travelers, and Western Visayas with 2,470,208 travelers.  Among the provinces, Laguna was the top destination, followed by Camarines Sur, Cebu, Cavite, and Zambales.  For foreign travelers alone, the top five major destinations in 2011 include Cebu, Camarines Sur, Boracay, Laguna and Bohol. (Table 5)

The regions with the largest increases in number of total visitors from 2010 to 2011 include Central Luzon (189.1 percent), Eastern Visayas (157.6 percent), CALABARZON (45.7 percent), Western Visayas (27.7 percent), and Caraga (21.0 percent).  In the case of Caraga, there was a large increase of domestic travelers, from 8,822 in 2010 to 70,900 in 2011, specifically in Agusan del Sur where Lolong, the world’s largest crocodile in captivity, stayed after it was captured in September 2011. Lolong has become a tourism draw, generating some revenues for the region, but unfortunately, the crocodile died in February this year.  Aside from Lolong, the other attraction in the region is Siargao Island in Surigao del Norte, where the number of tourists went up by 23.4 percent.  (Table 5)

As previously mentioned, according to NEDA, the  tourism sector may have played a major role in the reduction of poverty in the Caraga region.  Looking at the data for Caraga from the Labor Force Survey of NSO, there was a 3.4 percent increase in the number of employed persons in April 2011 at 1,014,000 from 981,000 in April 2010.  Similarly, a 3.3 percent increase was recorded in April 2012, with 1,047,000 employed persons.  Unemployment rate was estimated to be 4.9 percent in April 2011 and 5.0 percent in April 2012.  Meanwhile, underemployment rate went down by six percentage points, from 29.0 percent in April  2011 to 23.0 percent in April 2012.  (Tables 7a and 7b)

Other indicators on tourism

Based on the 2011 Philippine Tourism Satellite Account (PTSA) released by the NSCB, the tourism direct gross value added (TDGVA), which measures the value added of different industries in response to activities of both domestic and inbound visitors, was estimated to be PhP 571.3 billion in 2011, higher by 10.2 percent compared to  PhP 518.5 billion in the previous year.  In terms of the share to the country’s gross domestic product, the tourism sector contributed 5.9 percent to the economy in 2011.  The sector’s contribution to the economy has been growing steadily through the years, yielding an average of 5.8 percent  for the years 2000 to 2011.  (Table 8)

The tourism sector is also a large provider of employment in the country. Tourism-related industries employed about 3.8 million persons in 2011 or 10.3 percent of the total employment in the country for the period.  In particular, passenger transport provided the most number of jobs at 1.5 million.  Restaurants and similar industries was second, generating about  989,000 jobs in 2011. Employment generation for these two tourism characteristic industries also saw the fastest growth in 2011, both increasing by 6.8 percent compared to their levels in 2010. (Table 9)

Concluding remarks

The national government, local governments, and the private sector should work hand in hand to attain the targets in the tourism sector and be able to contribute immensely to inclusive growth and employment generation.  And in promoting the Philippines as a major tourist destination and in increasing our tourism competitiveness, we should not also forget about the ecological aspects/issues that have to be addressed if we want to sustain all our efforts in making tourism a driver of economic growth.

While enhancements in the tourism infrastructure and facilities and in the tourism industry are  being programmed, there are also improvements that need to be done in terms of monitoring the tourism activities and generating better quality tourism statistics in the country.  This would serve as basis for evidence-based planning and decision making for the tourism sector in particular and for the Philippine economy in general.

So if you are a local tourist, you are not just relaxing or enjoying the fun and adventures -  you are also contributing to the economy.  I am hoping that more of our tycoons, other than Gokengwei, can significantly invest in making this country more marketable not only to foreign tourists, but to local tourists as well. I also hope that our hotels can try to be more competitive with their accommodation costs as total revenues are a sum of unit prices multiplied by quantities. These hotels can certainly bring down their costs and get more volume, and still yield a nifty profit.

By the way, let me take this opportunity to hope that we shall all vote wisely on May 13!  Let us hope that the officials we get to elect, together with other current government officials, will be able to govern our country well, and inspire us to work harder at sustaining growth and development, especially the tourism sector!  And Happy Mother’s Day to all mothers!

Tables and the original text can be viewed from the NSCB Website.

¹ Secretary General of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB). The NSCB, a statistical agency functionally attached to the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), is the highest policy making and coordinating body on statistical matters in the Philippines. Immediately prior to his appointment at NSCB, Dr. Albert was a Senior Research Fellow at the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, a policy think tank attached to NEDA. Dr. Albert finished summa cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in Applied Mathematics from the De La Salle University in 1988. He completed a Master of Science in Statistics from the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1989 and a Ph.D. in Statistics from the same university in 1993. He is a Professorial Lecturer at the Decision Sciences and Innovation Department of Ramon V. Del Rosario College of Business, De La Salle University. He is also a past President of the Philippine Statistical Association, a Fellow of the Social Weather Stations, and an Elected Regular Member of the National Research Council of the Philippines.

This article was co-written by Cynthia S. Regalado and John Lourenze S. Poquiz, Statistical Coordination Officer VI and Statistical Coordination Officer III, respectively of the NSCB. This article was translated in Filipino by Assistant Secretary General Lina V. Castro and Virginia M. Bathan of NSCB. The authors thank Stephanie Rose R. Moscoso, Andrea C. Baylon, Candido J. Astrologo, Simonette Nisperos and Noel S. Nepomuceno of the NSCB, respectively, for the assistance in the preparation of the article. The views expressed in the article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NSCB and its Technical Staff.

Time for an upgrade?

You probably saw this in the news: the Philippine economy, as measured by gross domestic product, grew by 6.8% in the fourth quarter, bringing full-year growth to 6.6%, above the upper-end of the national government target.

I was at the press conference this morning and one of the questions raised during the Q&A portion really caught my attention. The reporter was asking Neda Director General Balisacan to comment about how the country seems to be unable to maximize the benefits of the Philippine Peso appreciation. Given that the value of currency has sky rocketed, I guess it is safe to assume that it would be less costly for us to import top-of-the-line machinery and other equipment that would further boost productivity.

Baliscan enumerated several reasons why the appreciation of the Peso, if kept unchecked, would mean disaster to exporters and to the families dependent on OF remittances.

I think the guy's point was not given the appreciation it deserved. He makes a valid argument. We haven't seen this level of the Peso values since 2002. We should might as well make the most out of it. Sure exporters would feel the pinch, but I guess it is reasonable to ask if we're grabbing the opportunity of importing hard capital we need to raise productivity even further.

Technology is one of the prime contributors to efficiency nowadays. If you have the best machines, the best computers, and your workforce is well-trained, then you have no excuse not to be productive.

I'm sure with the value of our currency now, we are in the best position to import the technology we need to boost local productivity. Now is the best time to get the best deal on imported trains, clean buses, cutting-edge software, farm tractors. It makes sense to seize this opportunity.

Peso-Dollar Exchange Rate from 2000-2012

                                  data souce: BSP

Vital Statistics: Up, Up, Down, Down

Last week, the National Statistical Coordination Board came out with the analysis report, "GDP, GDP, GDP: Who’s the FAREst ofthem all?" The article compares the economic performance of the five presidents of the country's Fifth Republic.

NSCB, my current employer, said that among the post-martial law presidents, President Benigno Aquino III (N. Aquino) got the highest GDP growth rate in his first year in office with 5.4% while former President Estrada got the lowest with 0.1%. Aquino also got the highest GDP growth rate in his second year of service with 4.9%, while Ramos got the lowest with 3.4%.

The article used the average annualized growth rate, a measure of central tendency, to compare the economic performance of each administration. While it is enlightening to parallel the average growth rates of each regime, I believe that it is equally important to consider another barometer of performance, which is stability.

How can we measure stability and why is this important? Businesses, and ordinary people for that matter, would want to be situated in a stable environment. Having a turbulent economy makes it impossible to look forward and forecast. How could a retailer project revenues if the economy keeps on swinging from a 10% surge one quarter to a 2% slowdown the next, to a 4% rebound the quarter after that. It would make forecasting a pain. If a company cannot forecast its sales, it cannot forecast its profits, and if it cannot project its profits, it would have a difficulty time deciding how much capital to invest.

The lack of stability creates a risky environment for businesses and investors, and we were taught in Economics 101 that we need investments to create jobs and raise the income of the average citizen.

Economists often use the measures of dispersion, the standard deviation and the variance are two of the most popular ones, to estimate risk and ultimately evaluate stability.

If you have a strong foundation in mathematics, statistics or economics, you may skip this part and move on to the next paragraph, but for those of you who don't, carry on. The measures of dispersion would give us a summary on spread of the data in a given set. It gives us a sense on how distant the observations are from one other. When the value of the measures of dispersion is high, then it is likely that observations in your data set are really distant from each other. For example, data set A (8, 56, 16, 6, 105, 2) would have a standard deviation* of 43, compare it to the data set B (1, 2, 2, 1, 5), which would have a standard deviation of 2. Notice how far way the values of each observations in set A are and how that resulted into set A having a significantly higher standard deviation compared to set B.

I've taken the liberty of computing for the standard deviation of annual GDP growth rates of the Corry Aquino (C. Aquino), Ramos, Estrada, and Arryo administrations. I felt that it was unfair to include the performance of the N. Aquino administration in the analysis since his term is still on-going. One may argue that the same consideration must be given with Estrada's, since his time in office was cut short by the revolt which launched Arroyo into power,. However, I believe that there is credit in including Estrada's administration in the analysis since his term has ended and the data needed to evaluate the overall stability of his entire regime is already complete.

Cory
INDUSTRY	Agri., Hunting, Forestry & Fishing	Industry Sector	Service Sector		GDP		GNI
85-86	3.7	2.3	4.2		3.4		4.1
86-87	3.1	3.9	5.1		4.3		6.7
87-88	3	8.4	6.9		6.8		8
88-89	2.7	7.1	6.7		6.2		6.2
89-90	0.20	2.30	4.60		3.00		7.90
90-91	1.5	-2.6	0.2		-0.6		2.2
91-92	0.4	-0.6	1		0.3		3.6
standard dev	1.39	3.92	2.60		2.77		2.25
Ramos
INDUSTRY	Agri., Hunting, Forestry & Fishing	Industry Sector	Service Sector		GDP		GNI
91-92	0.4	-0.6	1		0.3		3.6
92-93	2.1	1.6	2.5		2.1		3.8
93-94	2.5	5.6	4.1		4.4		5
94-95	0.6	6.4	4.7		4.7		5.2
95-96	3.70	6.30	6.20		5.80		9.40
96-97	2.9	6	5.3		5.2		5.4
97-98	-7	-2.7	2.8		-0.6		1.9
standard dev	3.62	3.77	1.80		2.53		2.33
Erap
INDUSTRY	Agri., Hunting, Forestry & Fishing	Industry Sector	Service Sector		GDP		GNI
97-98	-7	-2.7	2.8		-0.6		1.9
98-99	9.6	-1.5	4.5		3.1		2.7
99-00	3.4	6.5	3.3		4.4		7.7
00-01	3.4	1	4		2.9		3.6
standard dev	6.88	4.09	0.75		2.14		2.58
GMA
INDUSTRY	Agri., Hunting, Forestry & Fishing	Industry Sector	Service Sector		GDP		GNI
00-01	3.4	1	4		2.9		3.6
01-02	3.3	2.9	4.2		3.6		4.1
02-03	4.7	4.3	5.5		5		8.5
03-04	4.3	5.2	8.3		6.7		7.1
04-05	2.20	4.20	5.80		4.80		7.00
05-06	3.6	4.6	6		5.2		5
06-07	4.7	5.8	7.6		6.6		6.2
07-08	3.20	4.80	4.00		4.20		5.00
08-09	-0.7	-1.9	3.4		1.1		6.1
09-10	-0.2	11.6	7.2		7.6		8.2
standard dev	1.90	3.46	1.70		1.94		1.66

Based on the estimates, it is during the regime of former President Arroyo when the country experienced the least variability in terms of GDP fluctuation. The standard deviation of the GDP growth rates of the president, who is now facing criminal charges for corruption, was at 1.9, substantially lower compared to the standard deviation of the growth rates during the time of Estrada (2.13), Ramos (2.5), and C. Aquino (2.77). This means that despite the roller coaster boom and bust the country experienced during Arroyo's regime (GDP growth peaked growing at 6.6% in 2004, then it suddenly dropped to 1.1% two years later due to the Wallstreet Meltdown), the economy was still at its most stable.

I also thought that it would be interesting to find out which administration was most stable in the first 10 quarters of their terms. This is the most objective way, I believe, we can compare the stability of the N. Aquino administration with the administration of his predecessors. I computed for the standard deviation the growth rates of all five presidents in the first 10 quarter of their terms.

According to the estimates, the Arroyo regime still has the smallest standard deviation, at 0.99, suggesting that the economy during her first two years in office was still the most stable. The standard deviation for N. Aquino's regime only came in second, at 1.5. The standard deviation for C. Aquino, Ramos, and Estrada were estimated at 2.28, 1.9, and 2.6, respectively.

After giving it a lot of thought, I'm inclined to believe that the level of standard deviation in the first 10 quarters of the Arroyo rule may not necessarily be the result of her administration's policies. Normally, the first few quarters of a government regime would start from a high base because the previous year would be an election year. Election spending often fuels the economy. A slowdown usually follows an election year since the political spending would come to a stop by then. This is called the high-base effect. The sharp slowdown would reasonably result to a high discrepancy between the GDP growth of the first and second year in office, ultimately causing the standard deviation to be higher.

In Arroyo's case, there was no election prior to the start of her term. She was put to office by a popular revolt. There would be no base-effect to cause a discrepancy in the growth rates in the first two years of her term. Standard deviation would be moderate.

Cory
INDUSTRY		Agri., Hunting, Forestry and Fishing	Industry Sector	Service Sector		GDP		GNI
1985-1986	Q1	1.7	-1.7	0.5		-0.1		3.4
	Q2	3.2	2.3	2.9		2.8		-0.3
	Q3	7.8	7.1	8.1		7.7		12.4
	Q4	3.2	1.5	5.2		3.6		2.2
1986-1987	Q1	2.4	-0.6	6.3		3.1		3.4
	Q2	4.4	1.2	5.2		3.6		3.9
	Q3	3.7	11.8	3.7		6.7		13.5
	Q4	2	3.1	5.2		3.9		6.3
1987-1988	Q1	0.2	9.8	5.3		6		10.5
	Q2	-5.5	1.4	6.1		2.4		5.2
Standard Dev		3.40	4.48	2.08		2.28		4.60
Ramos
INDUSTRY		Agri., Hunting, Forestry & Fishing	Industry Sector	Service Sector		GDP		GNI
1991-1992	Q3	-1.7	1	0.5		0.4		7.4
	Q4	3.4	-5.8	1.4		-0.8		0.1
1992-1993	Q1	5	-3.2	2		0.7		2
	Q2	2.8	2.7	2.4		2.5		7.5
	Q3	-1.8	4	2.9		2.7		2
	Q4	1.7	3	2.6		2.5		3.6
1993-1994	Q1	-1.1	6.1	3.7		3.6		3.9
	Q2	5.9	4.5	4.4		4.6		4.3
	Q3	10.2	4.1	4.5		5.1		6.7
	Q4	-1.6	7.7	3.9		4.2		5
Standard Dev		4.00	4.12	1.31		1.94		2.47
Erap
NDUSTRY		Agri., Hunting, Forestry and Fishing	Industry Sector	Service Sector		GDP		GNI
1997-1998	Q3	-1.3	-3	3		0.2		2.3
	Q4	-8	-6.4	0.8		-3.1		0.1
1998-1999	Q1	6.3	-6	3.5		0.5		0.8
	Q2	12.8	-2.2	4.4		3.1		3.1
	Q3	8.9	0.3	4.7		3.6		2.3
	Q4	10.8	1.7	5.3		4.9		4.4
1999-2000	Q1	-0.4	7.7	3.2		4.1		6.8
	Q2	3.3	5.7	3.9		4.4		7
	Q3	6.7	7.5	3.9		5.5		8.5
	Q4	4.3	5.5	2.4		3.7		8.3
Standard Dev		6.25	5.38	1.28		2.67		3.10
GMA
INDUSTRY		Agri., Hunting, Forestry and Fishing	Industry Sector	Service Sector		GDP		GNI
2000-2001	Q3	2.9	0.8	4		2.7		4.2
	Q4	4.2	0.9	4.7		3.3		1.8
2001-2002	Q1	6	1.2	3.7		3.2		4.9
	Q2	0.5	5	4.2		4		2.8
	Q3	0.4	1.8	3.8		2.7		2.1
	Q4	5.5	3.5	5.1		4.6		6.6
2002-2003	Q1	4.1	4.5	5.1		4.8		7.9
	Q2	1.6	4.5	5.8		4.8		9.1
	Q3	6.4	4.7	5.4		5.3		9.7
	Q4	6.1	3.4	5.7		5		7.3
Standard Dev		2.31	1.69	0.78		0.99		2.89
PNoy
Industry		Agri., Hunting, Forestry & Fishing	Industry Sector	Service Sector		GDP		GNI
2009-2010	Q3	-2	9.8	7.8		7.3		6.9
	Q4	4.1	6.5	6.4		6.1		5.6
2010-2011	Q1	4.4	7.3	3.6		4.9		3.5
	Q2	8.3	-1.4	5.6		3.6		2.4
	Q3	2.2	0.1	5.2		3.2		2.2
	Q4	-2.5	3.4	5.9		4		4.5
2011-2012	Q1	1	5.3	8.1		6.3		5.1
	Q2	0.6	5.5	7.4		6		5.7
	Q3	4.1	8.1	7		7.1		6.6
	Q4	4.7	7.5	6.9		6.8		5.4
Standard Dev		3.3	3.6	1.4		1.5		1.6

My goal in writing this blog entry is to provide addition insight and supplement the information provided by NSCB. I admit that there are weaknesses the methodology used.  As the NSCB article said, "some analysts suggest that the changes in GDP mirror how Philippine presidents and their economic managers manage our economy. Of course, other analysts would think that this may be far too simplistic given that the starting conditions and other factors, including the external environment, were not the same across the periods of these Presidents." However, I believe that my analysis would somehow contribute to the on-going discourse on public policy and macroeconomic trends.

*the formula for the standard deviation is as follows:

Data Source: National Statistical Coordination Board