THE World Bank and other international institutions use gross national income (GNI, formerly known as gross national product) per capita as an indicator of development. The higher the country’s GNI per capita, the more developed that country is. When expressed in the same currency—the United States dollar—the indicator also permits a comparison between countries. For instance, in 2013 the Philippines’s GNI per capita was $3,270; Thailand’s, $5,370; and Malaysia’s, $10,406.
The indicator is simple and easy to understand. The faster the GNI is growing and/or the slower the population is growing, the faster the country will develop. Also, the lower an economy’s rank is when compared to other economies, the greater the need for it to develop further and the faster it must go to catch up with—or, at least, not fall farther behind—those other economies.
For various reasons, Filipinos have not been able to enjoy the benefits of this indicator. For one thing, the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) has not been highlighting GNI per capita in its reports, preferring, instead, to focus on the annual growth rate of gross domestic product (GDP), which, of course, is not a bad thing.
For another reason, some people, either with good or ill intentions, immediately take over the lead in the debate on the GDP growth rate and then shift to another subject—poverty—saying that, no matter how high the GNI growth rate is, it is not reducing the number of the country’s poor people. Suddenly, instead of rejoicing over good economic performance or brooding over a poor one, we are all bemoaning how far too many of our people are poor.
Incidentally, subjective-perception surveys that call on respondents to rate themselves poor or not poor on the basis of descriptive words report a steady increase in the number of self-rated poor. We are jolted back to reality when scientific surveys that classify people according to objective criteria report that the poverty-incidence rate in our country has remained, more or less, the same in the last three or four years.
To be clear, we are all determined to reduce, if not eliminate, poverty in the country, but that is a “distribution” issue, not a “development” one. Let us concentrate on how to boost the growth of our GNI per capita and devote another time and space to how to speed up poverty reduction.
That means concentrating on investment, both public and private. What has been delaying the construction of hundreds of billions of pesos worth of highways, seaports and airports? Shall we amend the antiforeign-investment provisions of the 1987 Constitution? Can we, perhaps, also discuss population policy without any bias or blame?
Though poverty and economic growth are two completely separate issues, they are, nevertheless, connected by employment. That is the meaning of inclusive growth: The participation of all working members of society in the expansion of the economy. Even as we wait for the report on the effectiveness of the government’s conditional cash-transfer program, let us pay serious attention to employment creation, which is the most effective means to reduce or eliminate poverty.
In the meantime, let’s call on the NSCB to give more prominence to GNI per capita in future reports.