MODULE 1- FOURTH QUARTER TOPIC: ANALYZING THE EFFECTS OF

APPLIED ECONOMICS CONTEMPORARY ECONOMIC ISSUES

AFFECTING THE FILIPINO ENTREPRENEUR
OVERVIEW:

Now that you have already learned the different terms in order to identify
and differentiate a market structure in the previous lesson, you will identify the
contemporary economic issues of the country.
CONTENT STANDARD: Demonstrates understanding of … the law of supply and
demand, and factors affecting the economic situation.
PERFORMANCE STANDARD: Learners should be able… conduct a survey of current
economic situations within the vicinity.
LEARNING COMPETENCY:
 Differentiate economics as social science and applied science in terms of nature and
scope.

CONTENT: Contemporary Economic

Issues Affecting the Filipino
Entrepreneur

According to the Atlantis Report, the economy of the Philippines is the world’s
34th largest economy by nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 13 th largest economy in
Asia, the 3rd largest economy in the ASEAN after Indonesia and Thailand.
It is considered a highly industrialized country transitioning from an agricultural
to services and manufacturing in the year 2018. GDP at Purchasing Power Parity (PPP)
was estimated to be at ＄ 990 billion exporting semi-conductors and electronic products,
transport equipment’s, garments, copper products, petroleum products, coconut oil and
fruits. Major trading partners include Japan, China, United States, Singapore, South
Korea, Netherlands, Hongkong, Germany, Taiwan and Thailand.
It has been named as one of the Tiger Cub Economies together with Indonesia
and Thailand. Currently one of the Asian’s fastest growing economies.
It is the world’s epicenter of call centers because of the Business Process
Outsourcing (BPO) companies who trusted the Filipino workers here since Filipinos speak
English language fluently.
It’s revenues from the OFW’s remittances from all over the world has also put the
country’s economy into a stable condition.
However, there are still so many problems being faced by the country. To name a few,
these are poverty, lack of education, unemployment and corruption.
The following data below are taken from the Philippine Statistics Authority website.

Proportion of Poor Filipinos registered at 21.0 percent in the First Semester of 2018
Reference No.: 2019-053
Release Date: 10 April 2019

Food and Poverty Thresholds

In the first semester of 2018, a family of five needed no less than PhP 7,337, on
average, to meet the family’s basic food needs for a month. This amount is the food
threshold. On the other hand, no less than PhP 10,481, on average, was needed to meet
both basic food and non-food needs of a family of five in a month. This amount is the
poverty threshold. These are 10.9 percent higher than the food and poverty thresholds
from the first semester of 20151.
Food threshold is the minimum income required to meet the basic food needs,
satisfying the nutritional requirements set by the Food and Nutrition Research Institute
(FNRI) to ensure that one remains economically and socially productive. On the other
hand, poverty threshold is the minimum income required to meet the basic food and non-
food needs such as clothing, fuel, light and water, housing, rental of occupied dwelling
units, transportation and communication, health and education expenses, non-durable
furnishing, household operations and personal care and effects.

Poverty among Filipino families and individuals

Poverty incidence among Filipinos families in the first semester of 2018 was
estimated at 16.1 percent. This is defined as the proportion of families whose income is
below the poverty line to the total number of families. This was estimated at 22.2 percent 1
in the same period in 2015.
The poverty incidence among Filipino individuals in the first semester of 2018 was
estimated at 21.0 percent. This is referred to as the proportion of the population living
below the poverty line to the total population. During the same period in 2015, poverty
incidence among Filipinos was recorded at 27.6 percent 1.
The subsistence incidence among Filipino familieswas estimated at 6.2 percent 1 in
the first semester of 2018.This is alternatively called as the proportion of Filipino families
whose incomes fall below the food threshold. In the same period in 2015, the proportion of
families who are food poor was recorded at 9.9 percent.
The subsistence incidence among Filipino individuals was estimated at 8.5 percent in
the first semester of 2018, and 13.0 percent 1 in the first semester of 2015. It refers to the
proportion of Filipinos whose incomes fall below the food threshold.
In addition to the thresholds and incidences, the PSA also releases other poverty-
related statistics in the report such as the income gap, poverty gap and severity of
poverty. The income gap measures the average income required by the poor in order to
get out of poverty, expressed relative to the poverty threshold. The poverty gap refers to
the income shortfall (expressed in proportion to the poverty threshold) of families with
income below the poverty threshold, divided by the total number of families. The severity
of poverty is the total of the squared income shortfall (expressed in proportion to the
poverty threshold) of families with income below the poverty threshold, divided by the total
number of families. This is a poverty measure that is sensitive to income distribution
among the poor.
In the first semester of 2018, on average, incomes of poor families were short by 26.9
percent of the poverty threshold.
LISA GRACE S. BERSALES, Ph. D.
Undersecretary
National Statistician and Civil Registrar General

Farmers, Fishermen and Children consistently posted the highest poverty incidence
among basic sectors - PSA
Reference No.: 2017-150
Release Date: 30 June 2017 7

The Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) releases its latest report today on the
country’s official poverty statistics for the basic sectors for 2015. PSA report provides the
estimates of poverty incidence for 9 of the 14 basic sectors identified in Republic Act 8425
or the Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act using the income and sectoral data from
the merged Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) and Labor Force Survey (LFS).
5 of the 9 basic sectors have higher poverty incidence than the general
population
Among the nine basic sectors, farmers, fishermen and children belonging to families
with income below the official poverty threshold or poor families posted the highest poverty
incidences in 2015 at 34.3%, 34.0% and 31.4%, respectively. These sectors consistently
registered as the three sectors with the highest poverty incidence in 2006, 2009 and 2012.
Also, 5 of the 9 basic sectors consisting of farmers, fishermen, children, self-employed and
unpaid family workers, and women, belonging to poor families, had higher poverty
incidence than the general population estimated at 21.6% in 2015.

Poverty Incidence for Basic Sectors: 2006, 2009, 2012 and 2015
Source: Philippine Statistics Authority

a/ Considering data available in the Philippine Statistical System, poverty estimates for self-
employed and unpaid family workers, which serve as a proxy indicator for informal sector
workers, have been generated since the June 2012 release of the 2009 Poverty Statistics for
the Basic Sectors.
Notes:
1/ Basic sectors are not mutually exclusive, i.e., there are overlaps for sectors (women may
also be counted as senior citizens, farmers, etc.) 2/ Income derived from the FIES, which
was used for classifying poor or non-poor basic sectors, refer to the total family income and
not necessarily the income of the individual in a particular sector. Hence, total income of a
family with two family members who are both working, one is a farmer while the other is a
fisherman, for example, is divided among the family members to get the per capita income of
each member including the farmer. If the per capita income is below the poverty threshold,
then all the members of the family are considered poor.
3/ Poverty estimates for the three other basic sectors, i.e., indigenous people, persons with
disabilities, and victims of calamities and disasters were not generated as information on
these were not available in the merged FIES and LFS, the major data sources for the
estimation of poverty statistics for the basic sectors. On the other hand, poverty estimates
for the remaining two sectors, i.e., nongovernment organization, and cooperatives are not
generated as they are not applicable due to the nature of the sector (i.e., not individuals).

Poverty incidence among employed and unemployed Filipinos who belong to poor
families registered at 18.0% and 16.4%, respectively, in 2015 8

Similar in 2006, 2009 and 2012, employed individuals belonging to poor families posted
higher incidence in 2015 with 18% compared to the unemployed with 16.4%. It may be
noted, however, that the difference between the poverty incidence among employed and
unemployed has declined through the years.
Table 2. Poverty Incidence for Employed and Unemployed Population: 2006, 2009,
2012 and 2015
Source: Philippine Statistics Authority
a/ PSA releases poverty estimates for the employed population starting with the June 2012
release of the 2009 Poverty Statistics for the Basic Sectors in response to the need to
measure the country’s performance towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals
(MDG) target on achieving full and productive employment and decent work, i.e., indicator
1.6 or the proportion of employed people living below the national poverty thresholds.
Similarly, poverty incidence for unemployed population was generated for comparison.
b/ Poverty incidence among employed population refers to the proportion of employed
individuals who belong to poor families to the total number of employed individuals. On the
other hand, poverty incidence among unemployed population refers to the proportion of
unemployed individuals who belong to poor families to the total number of unemployed
individuals.
LISA GRACE S. BERSALES, PH.D.
Undersecretary
National Statistician and Civil Registrar General
Filipino Families Are Most Deprived in Education
Reference No.: 2018-187
Release Date: 14 November 2018

The Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) releases today the multidimensional poverty
statistics based on an initial methodology. It is called the multidimensional poverty index
(MPI) and serves to complement the income-based measure of poverty. The MPI is a
measure that intends to capture deprivations on various dimensions. Thus, the MPI
provides information on which dimension the Filipinos are most deprived in. In the initial
methodology, there are 13 indicators identified across the following four dimensions:
I. Education dimension
Share of Each Dimension to MPI2
The Education dimension had the largest share or contribution to overall deprivation (MPI)
at 36.5 percent and 36.9 percent in 2016 and 2017, respectively. The Health and Nutrition
dimension comes next with a contribution of 26.2 percent in 2016 and 27.5 percent in
2017.The share of Housing, Water and Sanitation to MPI was 26.4 percent in 2016 and
27.4 percent in 2017. Employment dimension, on the other hand, had the least share to
MPI.

Incidence of Deprivation among Families per Indicator

Among the 13 indicators, educational attainment consistently had the highest incidence of
deprivation among families for 2016 and 2017 at 59.3 percent and 49.4 percent, respectively.
These mean that 6 out of 10 families in 2016 and 5 out of 10 families in 2017 were deprived of
basic education; that is, 6 out of 10 families had at least one family member aged 18 years old
and above who did not complete basic education in 2016 and 5 out of 10 in 2017. Conversely,
hunger had the least incidence at 0.3 percent and 0.6 percent in 2016 and 2017, respectively.
In 2017, the following indicators had the highest incidence of deprivation among families for
the other dimensions:

It must be noted, though, that there was an increase in incidence of deprivation from 2016
to 2017 in the following indicators and dimensions:

Highlights of the April 2020 Labor Force Survey

a. Unemployment rate rose to 17.7 percent accounting to 7.3 million unemployed
Filipinos in the labor force in April 2020. This is a record high in the unemployment
rate reflecting the effects of Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) economic
shutdown to the Philippine labor market. Unemployment rate in January 2020 was
5.3 percent while in April 2019, it was recorded at 5.1 percent.
b. Labor force participation rate among Filipinos 15 years and older is estimated at
55.6 percent in April 2020, the lowest in the history of Philippine labor market.
c. Employment rate in April 2020 fell to 82.3 percent from 94.7 percent in January
2020. In April 2019, it is posted at 94.9 percent. This translates to 33.8 million
employed persons in April 2020 from 41.8 million in April 2019.
d. Average number of hours worked per week also fell to 35.0 in April 2020, a drop
from 41.8 hours per week in April 2019.
e. Employed persons with job but not at work is reported at 38.4 percent or 13.0
million of the total employed.
f. All regions reported double-digit unemployment rates. The highest unemployment
rate was in Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARRM) at 29.8
percent. It is followed by Region III (Central Luzon) and Cordillera Administrative
Region (CAR) with unemployment rates recorded at 27.3 percent and 25.3 percent,
respectively.
(Sgd.) CLAIRE DENNIS S. MAPA, Ph.D. Undersecretary National Statistician and Civil
Registrar General

Technical Notes
 Starting April 2005, the new unemployment definition was adopted per NSCB Resolution
Number 15 dated October 20, 2004. As indicated in the said resolution, the unemployed
include all persons who are 15 years and over as of their last birthday and are reported as:
(1) without work and currently available for work and looking for work; or (2) without work
and currently available for work but not looking for work due to the following reasons:

1. Tired/believed no work available 2. Awaiting results of previous job application 3.

Temporary illness/disability 4. Bad weather 5. Waiting for rehire/job recall
 Starting April 2012 LFS, the codes for industry adopted the 2009 Philippine
Standard Industrial Classification (PSIC). Prior to this, codes for industry used the
1994 PSIC.
 Question on vocational course was introduced in the April 2012 LFS questionnaire.
 Starting April 2016 round, the Labor Force Survey (LFS) adopted the 2013 Master
Sample Design, with a sample size of approximately 44,000 households.
 The 2012 Philippine Standard Occupational Classification (PSOC) was adopted
starting April 2016. The 1992 PSOC had been used prior to April 2016.
 In July 2016, the 2008 Philippine Standard Classification of Education (PSCED)
that was used in the 2015 Population Census (2015 POPCEN) has been adopted.
The categories for highest grade completed were also revised considering the K to 12
programs in the education system.
 In April 2017 round, Computer Aided Personal Interviewing (CAPI) using Tablet was
utilized in the LFS enumeration.
 Overseas Filipino Workers are not considered part of the labor force in the
Philippines. Hence, in the LFS, data on economic characteristics of household
members who are overseas workers are not collected. For the LFS reports, they are
excluded in the estimation of the size of working population, that is, population
aged 15 years and older, and in the estimation of the labor force.
 Starting with the January 2020 LFS round, the population projections based on the
2015 Population Census (POPCEN 2015) has been adopted to generate the labor
force statistics. For comparability, population projections based on the POPCEN
2015 was likewise used in the April 2019 labor force statistics.
 The April 2020 LFS was conducted from 20 April to 16 May 2020.
Employment Situation in October 2019
Reference Number: 2020-056
Release Date: May 12, 2020

More than 60 percent of the population 15 years old and over are in the labor force
Of the estimated 73.5 million population 15 years old and over in October 2019,
approximately 45.2 million persons were in the labor force, that is, either employed or
unemployed (Table 1 and Table 3). This translates to a labor force participation rate (LFPR)
of 61.5 percent. Region X (Northern Mindanao) had the highest reported LFPR with 66.8
percent while the lowest LFPR reported was in Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao (BARMM) at 53.4 percent (Table 1 and Figure 1).
Employment rate registers at 95.5 percent
The total number of employed persons in October 2019 was estimated at 43.1 million
(Table 2). The reported employment rate or the proportion of employed persons to total
labor force was 95.5 percent(Table 1).
Region IX (Zamboanga Peninsula) had the highest employment rate with 98.1 percent.
Seven of the 17 regions registered employment rates lower than the national figure of 95.5
percent. These regions are the following: Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim
Mindanao (BARMM) (93.4%),Region IV-A (CALABARZON) (94.2%),Region I (Ilocos Region)
(94.8%),Region V (Bicol Region) (95.2%),Region III (Central Luzon) (95.3%),National Capital
Region (NCR) and Region XIII (CARAGA) (95.4%). (Table 1 and Figure 2).

More males are employed than females

More than sixty percent (61.3%) of the estimated 43.1 million employed persons in
October 2019 were males. The largest number of the employed persons was in age group
25 to 34 years with 27.7 percent of the total employed. The 35 to 44 age group comprised
the second largest group (23.0%), while the 45 to 54 age group made up the third largest
group (18.7%). Employed females were reported at 38.7 percent of total employed persons
(Table 3 and Figure 3).
More than half of employed persons are in the services sector
Employed persons in the services sector remained the highest group estimated at 57.7
percent of the total employed in October 2019. In October 2018, it was estimated at 56.8
percent.
The share of the industry sector to total employment posted a decrease of 0.2 percentage
points, from a contribution of 19.1 percent in October 2018 to 18.9 percent in October
2019. In the agriculture sector, a combined share of agriculture, forestry, hunting and
fishing sub-sectors showed a 0.6 decrease, from 24.1 percentin October 2018 to 23.5
percent in October 2019. (Table 4 and Figure 4).
Among workers in the services sector, those engaged in wholesale and retail trade; repair
of motor vehicles and motorcycles made up the largest percentage with 19.8 percent of the
total employed (Table 4).

More than one-fourth of employed persons are in elementary occupations

Across occupation groups, workers in elementary occupations made up the largest
percentage of 26.0 percent of the 43.1 million total employed population. Service and sales
workers were the second largest group of workers with 18.6 percent. Skilled agricultural,
forestry and fishery workers were the third largest group accounted at 12.0 percent (Table
5 and Figure 5).
Majority of employed persons are wage and salary workers
Employed persons were categorized as wage and salary workers, self-employed without
any paid employee, employer in own family-operated farm or business and unpaid family
workers.
Wage and salary workers are those who work for private households, private
establishments, government and government-controlled corporations and those who work
with pay in own family-operated farm or business. In October 2019, wage and salary
workers registered at 64.2 percent. Those who worked in private establishments made up
50.8 percent and those working in government and government-controlled corporations
were accounted for 9.2 percent of the total employed persons. (Table 6).
Classified according to broad industry group, 55.9 percent of unpaid family workers were
in the agriculture sector. In contrast, sixty percent (60.8%) of wage and salary workers
were in the services sector. More than half (54.0%) of those who were employer in own-
family operated farm or business were in agriculture. Also, more than fifty percent (56.6%)
of self-employed without any paid employee were in the services sector (Table 7 and Figure
6).

Majority of employed persons work full-time

Employed workers are classified as either full-time or part-time workers. Full-time workers
are those who work for 40 hours or more while part-time workers work for less than 40
hours. Full-time workers comprised 68.7 percent of the total employed persons in October
2019. Those who worked for 40 to 48 hours made up a larger proportion of 48.2 percent,
while those who worked more than 48 hours comprised 20.5 percent. Part-time workers
comprised 30.5 percent of the total employed. In October 2019, part-time workers
increased while full-time workers decreased in terms of numbers and percentages. Mean
hours worked per week also decreased, from 42.8 in October 2018 to 41.8 in October 2019
(Table 8).

Underemployment rate is registered at 13.0 percent

Underemployed persons were estimated at 5.6 million in October 2019. This number
represented 13 percent of the total employed persons (Tables1 and 2). Underemployed
persons are employed persons who express the desire to have additional hours of work in
their present job or to have additional job, or have a new job with longer working hours.
Among the broad industry group, underemployed persons were highest in the services
sector at 44.9 percent,37.8 percent in the agriculture sector and 17.3 percent in the
industry sector (Table 9 and Figure 7).
Visibly underemployed, or those persons who had been working for less than 40 hours a
week accounted for 60.5 percent, a large percentage (77.4%) of which were in the
agriculture sector (Table 9).

Unemployment rate is recorded at 4.5 percent

Of the total 45.2 million15 years old and over who are economically active, 2.1 million
were unemployed which placed the country's unemployment rate to 4.5 percent (Tables 1
and 2).
The regions with unemployment rates higher than the national figure of 4.5 percent are as
follows: Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) (6.6%), Region
IV-A (CALABARZON) (5.8%), Region I (Ilocos Region) (5.2), Region V (Bicol Region) (4.8%),
Region III (Central Luzon) (4.7%), National Capital Region (NCR) and Region XIII (Caraga)
(4.6%) (Table 1 and Figure 8).
Unemployed persons were highest in age group 15 to 24 years at 46.1 percent. More males
(61.4%) were unemployed than females (38.6%) (Table 3).
Across educational groups, 37.0 percent of unemployed persons were either
undergraduate or graduate of junior high school or the old curriculum, 37.8 percent
reached college wherein 27.9 percent were graduates, 6.8 percent were elementary
graduates, 3.6 percent were Senior High School graduates, and 4.4 percent were
graduates of post-secondary courses (Table 10).
Majority of persons not in the labor force are women
Thirty-eight percent of the 73.5 million population 15 years old and over in October 2019
were not in the labor force. These include housewives, students, persons with disability,
and those who have retired from their employment. About seventy percent (67.3%) were
women.
By age group, 44.2 percent of persons not in the labor force were in age group 15-24 years
old. Among the 15-24 years old age group 80.3 percent are students or the reason why not
in the labor force is due to schooling (Table 3 and Figure 9).

  The labor force population in October 2019 was estimated at 45.2 million. This
translates to a labor force participation rate (LFPR) of 61.5 percent.
 Total employed persons were approximately 43.1 million, resulting to a national
employment rate of 95.5 percent.
 More than half (57.7%) of the total employed were in the services sector, 23.5
percent were in the agriculture sector, and 18.9 percent were in the industry sector.
 Workers in elementary occupations made up the largest proportion of employed
persons as they comprised 26.0 percent of the total employed population.
 The total unemployed persons was 2.1 million which translates to an
unemployment rate of 4.5 percent.
 Underemployment rate was estimated at 13.0 percent.

(Sgd.) CLAIRE DENNIS S. MAPA, Ph.D.

Undersecretary National Statistician and Civil Registrar General
CORRUPTION
According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, it is the dishonest or illegal behavior especially
by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers. It is an inducement to
wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery).
Global Compliance News identified bribery as corruption.
Bribery of public officials is penalized under Articles 210 to 212 of the Revised Penal Code.
There are other laws that penalize corrupt acts/practices and prohibit the giving of gifts to
public officers under certain circumstances.

Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) is the main anti-
corruption law. It enumerates certain acts of public officers that constitute graft or corrupt
practices, or which may lead thereto, as follows:
 Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act
constituting a violation of rules, or an offense in connection with official duties
 Requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or benefit, for himself or
for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the
government and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity
has to intervene under the law
 Requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit,
from any person for whom the public officer has secured or obtained, or will secure
or obtain, any government permit or license
 Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private
enterprise that has pending official business with him, during the pendency thereof
or within one year after its termination
 Causing any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any
private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of
his functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence
 Neglecting or refusing to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before
him for the purpose of obtaining some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage,
or for the purpose of favouring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favour
of or discriminating against any other interested party
 Entering, on behalf of the government, into any contract or transaction manifestly
and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited
or will profit thereby
 Having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in
connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in
which he is prohibited from having any interest
 Becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any
transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a
member, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of
the board, committee, panel or group
 Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favour of
any person not qualified
 Divulging to unauthorized persons valuable information of a confidential character
acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position, or releasing such
information in advance of its authorized release date

Republic Act 6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees) prohibits public officials and employees from soliciting or accepting, directly or
indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favour, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value
from any person: (a) in the course of their official duties; or (b) in connection with any
operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by, the functions
of their office.

Presidential Decree No. 46 (Giving of Gifts on any Occasion) punishes the act of giving, or
offering to give, to a public official or employee, a gift, present or other valuable thing on
any occasion, including Christmas, when such gift, present or other valuable thing is
given by reason of the public official/employee’s position, regardless of whether or not the
same is for past favour or the giver hopes or expects to receive a favour or better treatment
in the future from the public official or employee concerned, in the discharge of his official
functions. Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties or entertainment in
honour of the public official or employee, or of his immediate relatives.
Republic Act 7080 (Plunder) penalizes a public officer who acquires ill-gotten wealth in the
total of at least PHP 50 million through overt or criminal acts.
Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, January 23) — Corruption worsened in the Philippine
government in 2019 as it ranked 113th of 180 countries studied on their perceived
political integrity.

Transparency International, a nonprofit watchdog monitoring the status of global

corruption in the public sector, has issued the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) for
2019, showing that the Philippines dropped 14 notches from 99th in year 2018.
In its current ranking, the Philippines obtained a score of 34, down by 2 points from 36 in
2018.
The CPI scores countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector
corruption using a scale of zero to 100, with zero as “highly corrupt” and 100 as “very
clean.”
The Philippines’ score indicates that it “continue[s] to struggle to tackle corruption,” along
with other countries in the Asia Pacific region, the report read.
This is the lowest ranking that the country has received since 2012. While the Philippines
also got a score of 34 in 2017, it only ranked 111th out of 180 countries.
In 2016, the country placed 101st, 95th in 2016, 85th in 2018, 94th in 2013, and 105th
in 2012.
The index noted that of the 31 countries assessed in the Asia Pacific, the regional average
was at 45, illustrating “general stagnation” in control of corruption in the region.
“Governments across the region, from China to Cambodia to Vietnam, continue to restrict
participation in public affairs, silence dissenting voices and keep decision-making out of
public scrutiny,” the report read.
“Given these issues, it comes as no surprise that vibrant economic powers like China (41),
Indonesia (40), Vietnam (37), the Philippines (34) and others continue to struggle to tackle
corruption,” it added.

New Zealand and Denmark topped the corruption index, with scores of 87 each, followed
by Finland with a score of 86, Singapore with 85, Sweden with 85, and Switzerland with
85.
The bottom countries are Somalia, South Sudan and Syria with scores of 9, 12 and 13,
respectively.
“Governments must urgently address the corrupting role of big money in political party
financing and the undue influence it exerts on our political systems,” said Transparency
International chair Delia Ferreira Rubio.
References
Philippine Statistics Office