NOT CAUSE-EFFECT DEAL
UP economics professor Ernesto Pernia does caution that while infrastructure and poverty are related, they may not be treated under the cause-and-effect principle all the time. “It will take time for projects to make impact, to bring about benefit to the poor,” he says.

Still, a 2002 study he did with colleague Arsenio Balisacan revealed that investment in roads has to be matched with money sunk in something else — education especially — to be able to exert significant indirect and direct impact on the welfare of the poor.

	The Arroyo administration's road-building binge has not helped raise incomes of ordinary farmers, who are among the country’s poorest. [photo by Ruby Shaira Panela]

Using provincial data, Pernia and Balisacan suggested that a one-percent increase in road access coupled with schooling results in a 0.32-percent rise, via growth, in the mean incomes of the poor. Similarly, a one-percent improvement in roads with schooling is directly associated with a 0.11-percent increase in the incomes of the poor.

Unfortunately, the most recent relevant statistics indicate a lag in state investment in education. Provincial data show that both the participation and completion rates have declined (elementary level) in majority of the 10 provinces with the highest total per capita infrastructure spending from 2000 to 2008. This means that the probability of achieving universal primary education is low.

Participation rate is the ratio between the enrolment in the school-age range to the total population of that age range. Completion rate, meanwhile, is the percentage of first year entrants in a level of education who complete or finish the level in accordance with the required number of years of study.

The good news is that the pupil-room ratios in most of the provinces did improve. Based on data gathered through the education department’s Basic Education Information System for the school year 2006-2007, elementary schools in the provinces reviewed met Republic Act No. 7880’s stipulation to have less than 46 pupils in one classroom in one shift.

By mandate, the DPWH is also in charge of constructing school buildings among other public facilities. This is in addition to school building projects led by the Department of Education (DepEd), school principals, and local governments.

SCHOOLS NOT A PRIORITY
But official data clearly show, too, that building more schools or classrooms was not the first priority among the top five provinces in terms of total per capita infrastructure spending from 2000 to 2008. Instead, the bulk of the public monies there went to the regravelling, asphalting, and improvement of roads, with the most expensive projects in two of the provinces involving road rehabilitation and repair.

In 2007, Albay spent P28.9 million for the repair/restoration of a damaged road pavement along the Balogo-Nasisi Road in Polangui. Albay had 19 percent or P762.8 million of its total funds spent on improvement of roads between 2000 and 2008.

In 2008, Quirino spent P19.3 million for the improvement/rehabilitation of the Dumabato-Balligui Road in Maddela. The province spent 58 percent or P447.8 million in projects of the same nature.

In Catanduanes, which leaped to first place in 2006 from being 10th in 2005, a good 43 percent or P1 billion went to similar projects. But Apayao, which slipped from third place in 2005 to fourth place the next year in the big infrastructure spenders’ list, beat Catanduanes. Records show that about 60 percent of the P435 million it spent on infrastructure projects between 2000 and 2008 went to roads and bridges. Significantly, too, the figure excludes expenditures for road repair and rehabilitation.

It could be argued that Albay and Quirino simply had to fix the roads damaged by typhoons that had hit these provinces in 2006, hence their huge road repair bills. After all, they — along with seven other provinces included in the 2000-2008 top 10 list — had been declared under the state of national calamity on December 4, 2006 through President Arroyo’s Proclamation No. 1185. (see Table 2)

Table 2: Top Ten Provinces by Value of DPWH Contracts Per Capita (2000-2008) Source: DPWH, NSCB
PROVINCE	DPWH CONTRACT PER CAPITA (in pesos)	POVERTY INCIDENCE AMONG FAMILIES (%)
		2003	2006
Catanduanes	10,340.13	31.8	37.3
Quirino	4,707.87	24.1	15.9
Apayao	4,201.75	16.8	57.5
Quezon	3,809.03	32.8	38.4
Albay	3,398.92	34.4	37.8
Marinduque	3,340.27	38.3	40.8
Aurora	3,028.45	29.2	31.6
Batanes	2,991.50	6.3
Mt. Province	2,819.33	46.7	45.0
Ifugao	2,769.40	28.1	30.9
Philippines	1,563.15	24.4	26.9

EXCESSIVE CONTRACT COSTS
Catanduanes could claim a similar excuse, having been hit by two typhoons at the tail-end of 2006. That year, however, most of the infrastructure projects done there involved flood-control and not road repair.

Then again, in 2007, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) released P1.2 billion to the DPWH for the repair of roads, bridges, flood-control structures, and other facilities damaged by typhoons Milenyo, Reming, and Seniang in Region V, which includes Catanduanes, along with Albay, Camarines Norte, Camarines Sur, Masbate, and Sorsogon.

Of the amount, however, it is Albay (which has the fifth highest per capita infrastructure spending among all provinces) that received the lion’s share of P770 million.

Interestingly, COA’s report on the DPWH shows that contract costs of various projects in 2007 exceeded the commission’s estimates by a total of P60.7 million.

In addition, whatever post-typhoon funds were received by Camarines Norte, Eastern Samar, and La Union — which were also covered by Proclamation No. 1185 — failed to help exclude them from being among the 10 provinces that had the lowest per capita infrastructure spending in the last eight years. (See Table 3)

Table 3: Bottom Ten Provinces by Value of DPWH Contracts Per Capita (2000-2008) Source: DPWH, NSCB
PROVINCE	DPWH CONTRACT PER CAPITA (in pesos)	POVERTY INCIDENCE AMONG FAMILIES (%)
		2003	2006
North Cotabato	190.24	26.1	27.7
Zamboanga Sibugay	172.33	40.7	34.0
Eastern Samar	136.28	33.9	42.7
Camiguin	117.46	34.5	39.3
Romblon	111.66	37.5	41.9
Aklan	101.48	33.5	42.6
Camarines Norte	97.66	46.1	38.4
Capiz	61.75	21.6	24.3
La Union	21.48	24.6	27.6
Western Samar	6.32	38.7	40.2
Philippines	1,563.15	24.4	26.9