Philippine Poverty 1970

THE PHILIPPINE POOR II PHILIPPINE POVERTY An Annofated Bibliography 1970 - 1983 Compiled by: Ricardo G. Abad Elizabeth U. Eviota Contents Foreword Introduction I. General Works A. Overviews and Frameworks 1 B. Indicators 26 II. Social Institutions and Poverty 37 A. Agriculture and Agrarian Reform 37 B. Commodities and Transnational 69 C. Economy: Labor and unemployment Corporations 79 D. Economy: Income and Wages 94 E. Education 104 F. Health and Nutrition 108 G. Housing 114 H. Energy and Infrastructure 121 I. Law 127 J. Mass Media 131 III. Disadvantaged Groups andCommunities 133 A. Ethnic Groups 133 B. Women 138 C. Fishing Communities 142 D.Upland Areas and Social Forestry 146 E. Urban Areas and Relocation 152 IV. Social Processes and Social Psychological Correlates 173 A. CommunityOrganization and People's Participation 173 B. Social Stratification and Mobility 185 C. Population 190 - D.Social Psychological Correlates 195 V. General Policies 200 VI. Related Bibliographies 208 Author Index Foreword The present bibliography updates two earlier compilations: the first one prepared in 1978 for the National Economic and Development Authority by the Institute of Philippine Culture (IPC); the second one completed in 1982 by the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Ateneo de Manila University, with the support of the Faura Research Council. This edition covers social science works written between 1970 and 1983, and contains over 650 an- notated and unannotated entries. The unannotated part, presented separately, lists other bibliographies which users can review for related topics and for works written before 1970.The an- notated entries, in turn, are grouped under five major headings -- general works, social institutions and poverty, disadvantaged groups and communities, social processes, and general policies -- and are further subdivided into subcategories within each heading. For example, the section on "Social Institutions and Poverty" is subdivided into such sUbcategories as agriculture, economy, health and nutrition, housing, and the like. Within each subcategory, the entries are arranged alphabetically by author. A "locator index" at the end of each entry identifies the place where the work was obtained (see legend on the next page). Finally, an author index is appended to help facilitate the search of a specific entry. The IPC and the Philippine Institute for DevelopmentStudies (PIDS) collaborated in this publication. The IPC provided an initial fund for research and clerical assistance, while the PIDS under. wrote the pub/ication costs both as part of/PC Papers and the P/DS Monograph series. Several staff members of the two in- stitutes -- notably Ernesto Acosta, Cecilia Go.Bartolome,Jennifer Liguton, Armando Mariano, Thelma Padero, Cynthia Santos, Rebecca Sawyer, and Evangeline Tandaguen -- spent the most time in preparingthe manuscript for press. A number of Ateneo de Manila University students also helped to find entries, write or copy abstracts, and prepare the author index. These were: Rose Erer_o,David C. Fabros, Eliza Fajardo, Margaret Ng, Francisco X. Reyes, and Esther Velasco. The IPC and PIDS also wish to thank research centers and commun!ty libraries around the country for recommending titles for inclusion in this bibliography and for giv- ing access to their facilities. The compilers tried to cover as much ground in preparing this work, and users are urged to suggest titles which may have been inadvertently omitted in preparingthis edition. This bibliography, we hope, will serve as a useful guide for social scientists, students, and program personnel in thinking more imaginatively about the Philippine povertycondition. Wilfredo F. Arce Filologo L. Pante, Jr. IPC Director PIDS Executive Director Legend for Locator Index DAP Development Academy of the Philippines IIR Institute of Industrial Relations, University of the Philip- pines at Diliman IPC Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University IRRI International Rice Research Institute IRC Integrated Research Center, De La Salle University ISWCD Institute of Social Work and Community Development, University of the Philippines at Diliman PCARRD Philippine Council for Agriculture and Resources Re- Search Development PIDS Philippine Institute for Development Studies PSSC Philippine Social Science Council PCF Population Center Foundation RI.MCU Research Institute for Mindanao Culture, Xavier Univer- sity RSC Research and Service Center, Ateneo de Naga RL Rizal Library, Ateneo de Manila University SU Silliman University TWSC Third World Studies Center, University of the Philippines at Diliman USAID United States Agency for International Development UPSE School of Economics, University of the Philippines at Diliman Introduction There seems to be a consensus on the basic configuration of the Philippine poor. They are ill-fed, badly-nourished, inade- quately.housed, under-educated, and unorganized. What seems to be the subject of much debate, however, is how they got to be that way and how many they are. Let us consider each issue separately. Explanations of the causes of poverty in the Philippines may be grouped into four main themes. Each theme equips the social scientist with a viewpoint and a vocabulary with which to interpret certain conditions as the causes of poverty, and consequently to point out those conditions which provide solutions to the poverty problem. One theme looks at poverty as a pathological condition brought about by anti-development values, attitudes and "life- styles" of the poor. The poor, because of their values and attitudes are, in effect, responsible for their own condition: they are resis- tant to change and their refusal to improve themselves -- that is, to "modernize," results in deteriorating levels of living. A "culture of poverty" inevitably develops which perpetuates poverty unto succeeding generations. A second theme explains poverty as the inevitable result of historical circumstances and the industrialization process, a viewpoint consistent with the "social disorganization" approach to social problems. It sees the pursuit of this particular path of development as inherently beneficial but that certain institutional changes -- government policies or market mechanisms -- have tended to exclude the benefits of development from being ex- perienced by specific sectors of the population. The most popular of the themes, gauging from the number of papers written with this perspective, its most common proposition is that economic growth has been given a pre-eminent position in the economic and social strategy of the country with little, if any, regard for the problems of equity and redistribution. Allied with this perspective is the explanation that worsening social and economic conditions are a consequence of increasing population pressures on limited natural resources. A third theme sees the problem in terms of power conflicts, specifically in the need of the poor to participate in the design and implementation of development programs which have been large- ly formulated by planners from above. Because the poor do not have access to decision-making processes, their interests are not re- flected in political and economic policies. Powerless, the poor become prone to exploitation and subject to deception by a series of "confidence mechanisms" which give the illusion that conditions are getting better. The fourth theme considers poverty as the outgrowth of a political economy which has consistently (and throughout its history) concentrated the ownership of productive assets and resources in the hands of a small class at the expense of the large masses of people. The development process is seen as intrinsical- ly exploitative because the main mechanisms for the perpetuation of such a system are the appropriation of the labor of large numbers of people and the extraction of productive resources for the profit of the ruling class. This type of development has, at times, been called "underdevelopment," or "dependent" or "subordinated" development. Within the context of dependent development, productive assets and resources are heavily tied to a global economy and may be said to be structurally dependent upon it for its endurance. Dependent development is a legacy of colonialism which in recent years has been deepened by the accelerated thrust of capitalist expansion and accumulation. This'thrust has its basis in two processes: (1)the total dispossession of the masses of people in the countryside from their means of production, thereby creating legions of landless agricultural workers and urban poor who have to sell their labor power for a pittance; and (2)the further fragmentation (and therefore, precariousness) of the means of livelihood of these masses, leading to their direct integration into the commodity economy while at the same time preserving their material reproduction outside of this economy. These totally or partially uprooted women and men provide to capital the raw material for exploitation and the realization of profit which results in their ever-increasing impoverishment. The ideological hue which explains poverty colors its implica- tions for action. While one observes that studies do not often have a stated ideology, the recommendations for action reflect the stance from which authors look at the roots of impoverishment. Adherents of the social pathology viewpoint Opt for value and at- titude change, particularly in motivating and training people to adopt modern practices. Those wno take the "social

Load more