Informal Economy Budget Analysis in Philippines and ... - WIEGO

WIEGO Working Paper N o 12Compelling Government Budgets to Address PracticalNeeds and Strategic GoalsWhile it is true that in recent years governments have allocated more budgets, programmes and services to addressthe needs of the growing informal sector, there is still significant room for improvement in terms of analyzing andaddressing the immediate needs and strategic interests and aspirations of women in the informal economy.Providing micro-finance programmes to poor women is very popular with the current administration. In her2001 State of the Nation Address, President Arroyo named microfinance as the cornerstone strategy of thegovernment’s fight against poverty. She said that the target is to reach 1 million women as beneficiaries ofmicrofinance projects, to be broken down into annual outreach of 300,000 new women borrowers. Thetarget number increased to 500,000 clients by the year 2004 to 2005, which is a 66 percent increase fromthe original. To date, there are 2 million beneficiaries of micro-financing programmes from governmentfinancial institutions alone with PhP24 billion (or US$500 million) released for small loans. (Leal, 2006)However, it is only the entrepreneurial poor that are being served by the programme. The poorer andmarginal sectors are not even reached. At the same time, microcredit programmes do not change thestructural conditions underlying poverty—such as loss of land rights, privatisation of essential publicservices, or cutbacks in health and education spending.Why then do national governments and international organisations promote microcredit, thereby encouragingwomen’s work in the informal economy? According to Susan F. Feiner and Drucilla K. Barker, co-authors ofLiberating Economics: Feminist Perspectives on Families, Work, and Globalisation’ (Feiner and Barker, 2007):Microcredit as an antipoverty programme, fits nicely with the prevailing ideology that defines povertyas an individual problem and that shifts responsibility for addressing it away from government policymakersand multilateral bank managers onto the backs of poor women. The neoliberal view that individualbehavior is the source of poverty and the neoliberal agenda of restricting state aid to the mostvulnerable when and where the need for government assistance is most acute. Progressives workingin poor communities around the world disagree. They argue that poverty is structural, so the solutionsto poverty must focus not on adjusting the conditions of individuals but on building structures of inclusion.Expanding the state sector to provide the rudiments of a working social infrastructure is, therefore,a far more effective way to help women escape or avoid poverty.This includes promoting a more objective review of the local and national budgets and genuinelyconsidering the needs of the most vulnerable sectors in preparing the budgets. For instance in the 2009budget, the government plans to spend PhP7,391.54 ($154) per capita for onerous debt servicing whileallotting only PhP2,050.98 ($43) per capita for education, PhP301.52 ($6.30) for health, P57.48 ($1.2) forhousing and P112.80 ($2.35) for social services.In the same vein, the IBON Foundation said that the Arroyo administration must start by increasing theallocation for social services in the 2009 national budget. The group criticised the allocation of only 2.5%of the total budget for health; only 13% for education; and a measly 0.4% for housing as atrociously lowespecially in today’s environment of rapidly rising prices and greater economic uncertainty.IBON said that the perennially low budget allocation for social services will have deeper repercussions onthe poor and vulnerable sectors such as the workers in the informal economy, as the deteriorating globaleconomic crisis destroys more jobs and livelihood and inflates the cost of living.With increased poverty, it becomes more urgent for government to provide sufficient social services suchas health, education and housing. But the budget levels allocated obviously could not cover the expecteddemand for public schools and hospitals among others.30