Empirical Overview of the Relationships of Family Size, Poverty and Vulnerability to Poverty

3.1 Poverty Incidence, Gap and Severity and Family Size

The easiest and perhaps the most obvious way to demonstrate the relationship of poverty and family size is to show the extent of poverty incidence by size of family. Table 1 [ PDF 72.4KB | 1 page ] shows the incidence of poverty by family size in the last 25 years using the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) and official poverty lines. Clearly the incidence of poverty rises as family size increases. For instance, in 1985 the poverty incidence for a four-member household is 36.4 while it is 59.9 for a 9 or more-member household. Hardly surprising, twenty-five years later in 2000, the incidence of poverty for a 4- member household is 23.8, while the corresponding incidence for a 9 or more-member household is 57.3. This relationship has not changed over the last 25 years. If at all, the difference in poverty incidence has even widened.

The picture is virtually duplicated when one looks at both poverty gap and severity by family size. The average proportionate distance between the poverty line and the average income of the poor (the poverty gap) doubles as one moves from a 4-member household to a 9 or more-member household. This has even worsened over the years. In 1985 this gap is 10% and 23% for the 4-member and 9 or more-member household, respectively, or about twice as large (Table 1 [ PDF 72.4KB | 1 page ]). By 2000 the relative proportions are 6% and 22%, respectively, or more than three times as large. The square of this gap, which a well-accepted measure of the severity of poverty because it puts higher weight on those farther from the poverty line, also tells an identical story.

All of these indicators, thus show that no matter what poverty measure one uses, there is clear indication that poverty worsens as one moves from smaller to bigger family size households.

It is also informative to show a very similar result obtained from looking at the vulnerability of households to poverty given the size of their families.

3.2 Vulnerability to Poverty and Family Size

Observing the poverty status of households experiencing economic shocks can reveal the relationship of vulnerability to poverty and family size. Reyes (2002) used a panel data constructed from the 1997 FIES and the 1998 and 1999 Annual Poverty Indicator Surveys (APIS) to study the movement of households in and out of poverty. These surveys were done right after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. Table 2 [ PDF 44.2KB | 1 page ] shows the poverty status of household across the three surveys. Letter P means “poor” while N means “non-poor”. Thus, PPP means always poor throughout the three years while NNN means always non-poor throughout the three years. What one can readily observe as one goes from always non-poor to the always-poor categories over the three years is that family size is increasing. Families that are always poor over the three-year period have an average of size of 6.1 while those that are always non-poor have a size of 4.6. This clearly indicates that the vulnerability to poverty increases with family size.⁵

While it is very clear from the foregoing that family size and poverty incidence as well as vulnerability to poverty are positively related, their usefulness for policy is limited unless one understands better the mechanisms behind the connection. It is hypothesized that the main mechanisms operating between family size and poverty and vulnerability to poverty are savings, the labor supply and earnings of parents and the investments in the education of children. The first two are known to be the primary engines for consumption smoothing of households. The last one is the main avenue for securing the future consumption of children and also of parents in their old age.

The rest of the paper uncovers the role of family size in these mechanisms.

Download this Discussion Paper [ PDF 187.8KB| 24 pages ].

Comment(s)

There are [5] comment(s) for this entry. Post a comment.

1. Edgar
   (posted 01 August 2007 / 03:06:59 AM)
   
   I haven't really exhaustively read the discussion paper, just breezed through, so I might sound unfair, but I am now old enough to be highly distrustful of kneejerk reactions and conventional wisdom that suggest population is largely causative of family poverty. Has there not been enough research that large scale asset reform in highly skewed income distributive countries such as the Philippines is needed to industrialize a population and as a side effect put more females in the smokestack workforce? And this industrialization will lead to more families involuntarily spacing births? Come on, address land ownership first and produce indigenous jobs, rather than depending on migrant employment to create a surplus. Be more critical of theories that population is a major contributory factor to poverty.
2. krisjoy
   (posted 22 March 2007 / 03:27:52 PM)
   
   It's not enough to just be aware that we are poor. Since the government posted ambitious poverty reduction targets, then the average 'juan' will continue to think rice is special for more years. I think what we need is to work as a nation, achieving realistic marks for developments in agriculture, land reform, population planning, security issues, among others. I am young and I am earning; however, I feel very poor seeing that many of my fellowmen do not eat rice and that the tax I religiously pay does not get to projects.
3. MARIONNE
   (posted 06 March 2007 / 10:38:21 AM)
   
   poverty is a very hard opponent. if we want to have even a wee bit of development in our poor country, the government must see to it that poverty is lessened.
   tnx...
4. Junior
   (posted 01 March 2007 / 09:05:08 PM)
   
   In our country corruption is the number one cause of poverty thanks.
5. john
   (posted 11 July 2006 / 05:43:07 PM)
   
   Yes! It is evident here in the philippines
   because, as we can see now it is our problem ....thats all.