A Simple Poverty Scorecard for the Philippines - About the Philippines

55.3 percent of the poor while targeting 25.8 percent of all households. For cut-offs of 70and 80 percent, coverage is 83.7 and 91.3 percent, while 46.5 and 55.7 percent of allhouseholds are targeted.For equivalent cut-offs, the scorecard here covers 62, 87, and 93 percent of thepoor, so it is more accurate. The difference more pronounced than this comparisonsuggests, because Reyes tests in-sample (using the same data used in scorecardconstruction), while this paper tests out-of-sample (using data not used in scorecardconstruction). Out-of-sample testing mimics how scoring is used in practice, and itgenerally shows less accuracy than in-sample tests; comparisons for scorecards inCopestake et al. (2005) and Hentschel et al. (2000) suggests reductions of 15–17 percent.Overall, the scorecard in Reyes (2006) is similar to the one here, except it isbased on the 2000 FIES, less user-friendly, and less accurate for targeting. Reyes doesnot address estimating poverty rates nor changes in poverty rates.3.2 Haslett and JonesHaslett and Jones (2005) use “poverty mapping” (Elbers, Lanjouw, and Lanjouw,2003) to estimate poverty rates for Philippines’ municipalities. They first construct apoverty scorecard based on income in the 2000 FIES, using only indicators found bothin the 2000 FIES and in the 2000 Census of Population and Housing. The povertyscorecard is then applied to the census data to estimate poverty rates for smaller areasthan would be possible with only the 2000 FIES. Finally, they make “poverty maps”9