STUDY OF GOVERNMENT INTERVENTIONS FOR

EMPLOYMENT GENERATION
IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR

Marife M Ballesteros and Danilo C Israel

Final Report
January 2014

Philippine Institute for Development Studies

Department of Budget and Management
 Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. i

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
II. Conceptual Framework: Growth, Employment and Relevance of ALMPs ........................ 2
A. Economic Growth and Employment Nexus ..................................................................... 2
B. Impact of ALMPs: Review of International Experience .................................................. 3
III. Trends in Growth and Employment in the Philippines.......................................................... 6
A. Macroeconomic Trends .................................................................................................... 6
B. Regional Trends ............................................................................................................... 8
IV. Employment Generated from ALMPs of Government Agencies .......................................... 9
A. Type of Policy Interventions ............................................................................................ 9
B. Government Priority ALMPs: The Community-Based Employment Program (CBEP) 10
1. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) ................................................................... 11
2. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) .................................................................... 11
3. Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) ....................................... 11
4. Department of Tourism (DOT)................................................................................... 12
5. Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) ........................................................ 12
6. Department of Agriculture (DA) ................................................................................ 13
7. Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) ............................................... 13
8. Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) .................................... 14
V. Assessment of Selected Employment Generation Programs ................................................ 15
A. One Town, One Product (OTOP) Program, DTI ........................................................... 15
1. Macrolevel Assessment of Performance .................................................................... 15
2. Review of OTOP Performance Evaluation ................................................................ 16
B. Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP), DSWD ............................................................ 17
C. Comprehensive Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program (CLEEP), ............. 19
D. High Value Crops Development Program (HVDCP), DA ............................................ 20
E. Accelerated Hunger Mitigation Program (AHMP), DPWH .......................................... 20
VI. Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................... 21
References .......................................................................................................................................... 89
Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 93
 List of Tables

Table 1. Policy and Institutional Barriers to Industry Upgrading ................................................. 23

Table 2. Relevant Instruments, Target Groups and Intended Effects of ALMP's ........................ 23
Table 3. Overview of Impact Evaluation on Active Labor Programs .......................................... 25
Table 4. Effectiveness of ALMP's ................................................................................................ 26
Table 5. Employed Persons by Major Industry group, Philippines .............................................. 32
Table 6. Labor Productivity by Major Industry Group, Philippines ............................................. 33
Table 7. Share of Establishments to Total and Growth Rate, by Size Category and Industry ..... 34
Table 8. Share of Employees to Total and Growth Rate, by Size Category and Industry ............ 37
Table 9. GDP by Expenditure Share in Constant 2000 Prices, 2001-2012 .................................. 40
Table 10. Gross Regional Domestic Product Growth Rate, 2000-2012 ....................................... 41
Table 11. Labor Productivity, by Region, 2000-2011 .................................................................. 42
Table 12. Unemployment Rate, by Region, 2000-2012 ............................................................... 43
Table 13. Underemployment Rate, by Region, 2000-2012 .......................................................... 44
Table 14. Share of Establishments to Total and Growth Rate, by Size Category and Region ..... 45
Table 15. Share of Employees to Total and Growth Rate, by Size Category and Region ........... 48
Table 16. ALMPs by Program Intervention and by Department .................................................. 51
Table 17. Methodology for determining jobs generated, Selected Departments .......................... 55
Table 18. Jobs generated by Programs Enrolled in CBEP by Department, 2012 ......................... 59
Table 19. Recipients of Community-Based Tourism Assistance (GREET), DOT....................... 64
Table 20. Investments Generated under OTOP Programs ............................................................ 65
Table 21. Number of MSMEs Assisted by OTOP ........................................................................ 66
Table 22. Average Investment per MSME Assisted ..................................................................... 67
Table 23. New Jobs Created under OTOP Program ..................................................................... 68
Table 24. Domestic Sales under OTOP Program ......................................................................... 69
Table 25. Domestic Sales per MSME Assisted under OTOP Program ........................................ 70
Table 26. OTOP Program Correlation Results ............................................................................. 71
Table 27. Number of MSMEs Developed and Assisted, 2007-2009 ............................................ 72
Table 28. Representation of OTOP Beneficiaries......................................................................... 73
Table 29. Number of new jobs generated and direct jobs sustained, 2006-2009 ......................... 74
Table 30. Main Findings: Study on the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of DTI’s ONE
TOWN, ONE PRODUCT Program .............................................................................................. 75
Table 31. Constraints and Challenges: Study on the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of
DTI’s ONE TOWN, ONE PRODUCT Program .......................................................................... 76
Table 32. Result of Evaluation: Rapid Assessment of SEA-K ..................................................... 77
Table 33. Sustainable Livelihood Program-Track 1: Microenterprise Development (January
2011-June 2013)............................................................................................................................ 78
Table 34. Repayment Status of DSWD Funded Pantawid Households (January 2011-June 2013)
....................................................................................................................................................... 79
Table 35. Sustainable Livelihood Program-Track 2: Employment Facilitation (January 2011-June
2013) ............................................................................................................................................. 80
Table 36. Assistance to Workers during the Global Financial Crisis Under the Comprehensive
Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program (CLEEP), 2009 ............................................. 81
Table 37. Emergency Employment for Displaced Workers and their Dependents Under the
Comprehensive Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program (CLEEP), as of December 31,
2009............................................................................................................................................... 82
Table 38. Physical Accomplishment, Financial Utilization, and Amount Utilized per Person of
Emergency Employment for Displaced Workers and their Dependents Under the Comprehensive
Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program (CLEEP), as of December 31, 2009............. 85
Table 39. Number of Jobs Generated, High Value Crops Development Program of the DA, 2008-
2012............................................................................................................................................... 87
Table 40. Status of the Accelerated Hunger Mitigation Program (AHMP) Projects Implemented
by the DENR, 2005-2009 ............................................................................................................. 88

List of Figures

Figure 1. GDP Growth, Employment Growth and Labor Productivity Growth, Philippines 2000-
2012............................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 2. Philippine Unemployment and Underemployment, 2000-2012 .................................... 31

List of Appendices

Appendix 1. Department of Trade and Industry: Employment Generating Programs ................. 93

Appendix 2. Department of Social Welfare and Development: Employment Generating
Programs ....................................................................................................................................... 98
Appendix 3. Department of Agrarian Reform: Employment Generating Programs .................. 102
Appendix 4. Department of Labor and Employment: Employment Generating Programs ........ 105
Appendix 5. Employment-Generating Programs and Projects of the Department of Agriculture
(DA) of the Philippines, by Year, 2001-2011 ............................................................................. 111
Appendix 6. Employment-Generating Programs and Projects of the Department of Public Works
and Highways (DPWH) of the Philippines, by Year, 2001-2011 ............................................... 113
Appendix 7. Employment-Generating Programs and Projects of the Department of
Transportation and Communication (DOTC) of the Philippines, by Year, 2001-2011.............. 115
Appendix 8. Status on the collection of data on completed government projects which are related
to employment generation........................................................................................................... 116
 List of Acronyms

ADB Asian Development Bank

AFMA Agricultural Fisheries Modernization Act
AHMP Accelerated Hunger Mitigation Program
ALMP Active Labor Market Program
ARCP Agrarian Reform Communities Project
ARISP Agrarian Reform Infrastructure Project
BWSC Bureau of Workers and Special Concerns
CBEP Community-Based Employment Program
CFW Cash for Work
CLEEP Comprehensive Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program
DA Department of Agriculture
DAR Department of Agrarian Reform
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DILP DOLE Integrated Livelihood Program
DOJ Department of Justice
DOLE Department of Labor and Employment
DOT Department of Tourism
DOTC Department of Transportation and Communication
DPWH Department of Public Ways and Highways
DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development
DTI Department of Trade and Industry
FDA Food and Drug Administration
GIP Government Internship Program
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GREET Grassroots Entrepreneurship for Eco Tourism
GVA Gross Value Added
HVDCP High Value Crops Development Program
ILO International Labour Organization
KALAHI-
CIDSS Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan Comprehensive and Integrated
Delivery of Social Services
LGU Local Government Unit
MFI Microfinance Institution
MIAA Manila International Airport Authority
MSME Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
NEDA National Economic and Development Authority
NGO Non-Government Organization
OPS Office of the Press Secretary
OTOP One Town, One Product
OYSTER Out-of-School Youth toward Economic Recovery
PIDWW Pamilacan Island Dolphin and Whale Watching
PPP Public-Private Partnership
RUMEPP Rural Micro Enterprise Promotion Program
SEA-K Self-Employment Assistance Kaunlaran
SBGFC Small Business Guarantee and Finance Corporation
SLP Sustainable Livelihood Program
SPES Special Program for Employment of Students
TP-KP Tulay sa Pangulo sa Kaunlarang Pang Agraryo
 Study of Government Interventions for Employment Generation
in the Private Sector

Executive Summary

This study reviews the relationship between economic growth and employment and the
role of government interventions/programs on employment generation. There are several such
programs undertaken by government most of which are classified as active labor market
programs (ALMPs), which are programs intended to improved employability of targeted sectors.
There are only a few programs intended to promote private investments for employment
creation. Thus, the review focuses on the ALMPs with limited discussion on employment
generation for investments promotion. In particular, employment programs of the following
agencies are reviewed- (1) Department of Trade and Industry (DTI); (2) Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE); (3) Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); (4) Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD); (5) Department of Transportation and Communication
(DOTC); (6) Department of Public Ways and Highways (DPWH); and (8) Department of
Tourism (DoT).

Economic growth in the Philippines has not been accompanied by significant

improvements in employment. While the country displayed strong economic growth in the past
three years, employment growth remained sluggish at 1.1%. Underemployment and
unemployment rate remained high at 19% and 6.8% respectively. Moreover, about one-third of
total workers are employed in microenterprises, which are predominantly into self-help informal
economy with no paid employees or unpaid family labor.

Several studies attributed the slow growth in employment to the lack of broad base
development and to the low level of private investments in the country. Economic growth is
concentrated in the services sectors while the agriculture and manufacturing industries, which are
the sources of jobs for the unskilled and semi-skilled labor, are lagging. Gross capital
investment averages at only 19% of GDP in the last decade while domestic and government
consumption accounts for an average of more than 80% of GDP. .

To support employment generation or alleviate unemployment, the government

implements programs, commonly referred to as Active Labor Market Programs or ALMPs.
ALMPs are “purposive, selective, interventions by the government that indirectly or directly act
to provide work to, or increase the employability of people with certain disadvantages in the
labor market” (ILO). ALMPs are generally targeted to disadvantaged households and include
interventions such as direct employment, wage subsidy, livelihood or self-employment,
employment services and human resource development.

In particular, the national government’s priority ALMPs from 2010 to present, are
clustered under the Community-Based Employment Program (CBEP), which aims to provide
employment to skilled, semi-skilled, and low-skilled workers in the community through the
infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects of national government agencies (NGAs), local
government units (LGUs), government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs),
i
government financial institutions (GFIs), and public-private partnerships (PPPs) in the
national, regional, provincial, city, and municipal levels. The CBEP National Steering
Committee is chaired by DOLE with NEDA as Co-Chair. As such, the DOLE is tasked to lead
the monitoring and reporting of jobs generated from the enrolled programs and projects of
government agencies and other instrumentalities.

• The DOLE enrolled under CBEP two (2) programs which are being managed by the
Bureau of Workers with Special Concerns (BWSC), namely, Special Program for
Employment of Students (SPES) and the DOLE Integrated Livelihood Program (DILP).
In 2012, SPES benefited 138,381 students or 97.86 percent accomplishment utilizing a
total budget of P341 million. Meanwhile, the DILP benefitted 84,207 for a 145.18
percent accomplishment rate and utilized P291.079 million which translates to a per
capita cost of P3, 493.00.

• DTI implements the Rural Micro Enterprise Promotion Program (or RUMEPP) which is
a livelihood, self/employment program targeted to microentrepreneurs. Total
accomplishment of RUMEPP in terms of jobs generated is 15,831 or 152% of its target
(10,400) in 2012. This was achieved with 75% utilization of funds. The employment was
generated at an estimated cost of about P 8,732 per job based on obligated funds (PhP
138.23 million) for the project.

• DAR has three main programs in CBEP which provides both infrastructure and non-
infrastructure jobs. The programs are: (1) the Agrarian Reform Infrastructure Project (or
ARISP III); (2) Agrarian Reform Communities Project (ARCP II); and (3) Tulay sa
Pangulo sa Kaunlarang Pang Agraryo (TP-KP). These programs include both public
works and microenterprise development. Overall employment accomplishment based on
2012 targets is 48% for infrastructure related jobs and 72% for microenterprise
development (non-infrastructure). The low accomplishment corresponds to low
utilization of funds.

• DSWD includes all current programs under CBEP. These programs are: (1) Sustainable
Livelihood Program (/SLP); (2) Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan Comprehensive and
Integrated Delivery of Social Services (KALAHI-CIDSS); (3) Cash for Work (CFW)
Programs and (d) Government Internship Program. Except for the KALAH-CIDSS,
which is an infrastructure program, all other programs are non-infrastructure programs
involving employment services and livelihood programs. KALAHI-CIDSS reports 100%
employment accomplishment and utilization of funds. On the other hand, overall
employment accomplishment of the non-infrastructure projects is at about 75% of 2012
targets. On a per program basis CFW and GIP accomplished above 100% of target
employment while SLP shows an accomplishment rate of only 42%despite more than
100% utilization of funds..

• The SLP, which is an offshoot of the SEA-K (Self-Employment Assistance Kaunlaran

Program), is targeted to poor households specifically beneficiaries of the DSWD
Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program, which represents 84% of SLP beneficiaries. It is
implemented through a two-track program: (1) the Micro-Enterprise Development Track,

ii
 and (2) the Employment Facilitation Track. Further assessment of the program shows
that the program is exhibiting promising results. Under the Microenterprise Development
Track, DSWD reveals movement of some microenterprises from government
(NGA/LGU) capital seed fund users to self–finance and borrowers of MFIs within less
than three years of program implementation. From January 2011 to June 2013, a total of
215,699 households benefited from the Microenterprise Development program of which
32,817 (or 15%) were supported by MFIs. For households supported by DSWD credit
funds, overall repayment performance is good at 82.93%. However, the sustainability of
the microenterprise developed is a continuing challenge for DSWD. Monitoring and
partnership is important to help microenterprises that were developed and assisted to
attain viability in the long-term.

On the other hand, the Employment Facilitation Track Program reflects the job placement
activity of DSWD in partnership with national government agencies, NGOs and other
private sectors. From January 2011 to June 2013, the program employed a total of 5,702
persons. The bulk (or 86%) has been employed in DPWH infrastructure projects. A key
challenge for the program is how to move employment to the private sector, to enhance
their skills or upgrade them to microenterprise development to ensure long-term effects.

• DOT like DPWH also provides employment through public works and maintenance
services. These programs are undertaken by the DOT main office and attached agencies
such as the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority (TIEZA) and the
National Parks and Development Committee (NPDC). Overall, these agencies provided
3,976 jobs which correspond to an accomplishment rate of 100%.

With regards to facilitating employment in the private sector, the DOT focuses on the
development of community-based eco-tourism in potential tourist sites. A case in point is
the Pamilacan Island Dolphin and Whale Watching (PIDWW) Project. The PIDWW
organization is now the largest revenue contributor in the LGU. With the success of this
primary industry, secondary and support businesses are being set-up, which are expected
to generate more jobs and incomes for the entire community.

• DA’s employment-generating programs and projects include those related to the

Agricultural Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA), credit programs of the Land Bank of
the Philippines and the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan. DA also had the
Office of the One Million Jobs program during the Arroyo administration which is now
terminated. In particular, DA CBEP projects provided or facilitated through public works
and livelihood programs. In totality, the DA employed 292,116 persons for an
accomplishment rate of 74.63% and utilized P7.7 billion of its allocation for a utilization
rate of 48.20 %.

DPWH mainly provided employment through public works. Among its programs are:
the President’s Roadside Maintenance Program (Kalsada Natin, Alagaan Natin), Job
Creation KNAN on Roadside Maintenance, and the Out-of-School Youth toward
Economic Recovery (OYSTER) Program which are all aimed at gainfully employing
specific disadvantaged sectors. All these programs are currently implemented. The

iii
 DPWH has yet to fully utilize its budget. Based on employment targets, accomplishment
rate is at 63.05 percent in 2011 and only 29% in 2012.

• The DOTC has implemented both infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects which
provided a total of 20,963 and 2,968 jobs, respectively. This shows an accomplishment
rate of 78% for infrastructure projects and 66% for non-infrastructure projects. Among
the agencies under the DOTC, the Cebu Port Authority provided the most employment
(about 17,000) for infrastructure program. For non-infrastructure programs, the
Philippine national railways (PNR) contributed the most to direct employment, providing
jobs to 1,889 individuals for janitorial services and similar jobs.

A similar program to CBEP is the Comprehensive Livelihood and Emergency Employment

Program (CLEEP) which was implemented in 2009 to protect the most vulnerable sectors from
threats and consequences of reduced or lost income as a result of the global economic crisis,
through the provision of emergency employment and implementation of livelihood projects. The
assistance to workers during the global financial crisis under CLEEP benefited a total of 28,890
workers in 2009. About 94% of the programs total MOOE of P1.35 billion was utilized. The
total target number of workers to be hired was 48,532 persons while the actual number of
workers hired was 32,410 persons for an accomplishment rate of 66.78 percent.

Among programs enrolled under CLEEP, DOT and DOLE exceeded their targets while DOJ
and DENR had the weakest performance. In terms of financial utilization, PMS, OPS, and DTI
had the highest performance exceeding more than 100 percent while NEDA and DOJ had the
lowest performance registering less than 1 percent. In terms of amount utilized per person, DOJ
and DA had the best performance spending lower than P3,000 per person while OPS and PMS
had the weakest achievement spending at least P150,000 per person.

In addition to ALMPs and CBEP programs, government also implements programs intended
to promote private sector investments to generate employment. Most of these programs are
undertaken by DTI. One major program is the One Town, One Product (OTOP) Program.
Unlike RUMEPP, OTOP is not ALMP or covered by CBEP. It is a program intended to support
local economic development through development of MSMEs. While the policy interventions
include training and livelihood assistance, the intent is primarily investment promotion. The
performance of the OTOP in terms of investment generated and assisted MSMEs have been
positive. For the period 2007 to 2012, the OTOP program generated total investments of P11.6
Billion or an average investment of about P 2.0 Billion annually. The program assisted over
50,000 MSME or about 8,500 MSME annually. Average investment per MSME is about
P226,328. Regions IX and XII, registered the highest investment per MSME of about P2.0
Million. However, the number of jobs generated in these regions is not impressive. Regions VII
which registered only an annual investment of P 74.75 Million and the lowest investment per
MSME of P57,526 was able to generate annually 7,456 jobs compared to 5,811 jobs for Regions
IX and 2,290 jobs for Regions XII. Regions IX though generated the highest annual domestic
sales and domestic sale per MSME.

Based on the data, there is a positive and significant correlation between investments and
job generation and between number of MSMEs and job generation. On the other hand, there is

iv
negative and weak correlation between average investments per MSME to job generation.
Although the relationship is not significant, the evidence suggests that assisting bigger firms does
not necessarily lead to higher employment. However, it is possible that bigger firms are more
stable and provide sustained employment compared to micro and small firms.

A rapid assessment on the program undertaken in 2010 revealed that OTOP resulted in a
90% increase in income of the MSMEs beneficiaries which translated into an upgraded quality of
life and upgraded business activities. However, the program has weak employment effects with
only 6% of the MSMEs assisted citing that the OTOP resulted in additional employment and
25% citing possible positive effects on community employment. It has been observed that the
growth of SMEs has been constrained by (1) the lack of access to additional capital; (2)
Unavailability /inaccessibility of raw materials and (3) difficulty to comply with FDA
requirements to penetrate larger markets. These constraints are consistent with the macro studies
on the reasons for the low private investments in the country. Moreover, OTOP has not
necessarily led to local economic development due to the following: (1) lack of support from
some LGUs on the OTOP program; and (2) lack of innovative or more comprehensive marketing
strategy provided under OTOP (i.e. some products may require strategies that are not yet tried
and tested”).

Compared to programs for investment promotion, the CBEP programs are primarily stop-gap
measures to address unemployment and adverse effects of economic crisis on employment.
Overall, the employment performance of ALMPs of government agencies appears transitory and
short-term. Although some programs exceeded the employment targets, it is not clear how these
numbers are translated at the macro level. The programs are apparently intended to address other
social issues such as poverty reduction, social/human development or community development.
It is therefore possible that most programs are desirable for the social objectives rather than for
providing net employment impact. These inferences however need to be validated through in-
depth impact analysis of specific programs, which has not been possible under this study.

However, impact studies on ALMPs based on international experience, suggests similar

conclusions. Among the key findings of the studies are:

(1) Public works may temporarily increase employment but may also increase unemployment
by providing incentives to discouraged workers to reenter the labor market;

(2) In‐work benefits (e.g. wage subsidy) and public works are very cost‐inefficient in terms
of raising employment, but might be cost‐efficient in reducing poverty and inequity;

(3) Most authors point out the usefulness of the self-employment (livelihood) programs but
its applicability or impact is only up to 3 percent of the unemployed workforce. There
are also significant failure rate of small businesses suggesting high cost with minimal or
temporary employment effect. Moreover, studies show that the impact is more positive
for male, better educated workers with particular interest in entrepreneurial activities.

(4) Human capital enhancement are widely used and generally represent the largest share in
governments’ expenditure. Training programs generally had positive impacts on raising

v
 employability but these programs can be costly and have the effect of selecting
unemployed workers with higher employability leaving out disadvantage workers.
Among training programs, a more cost effective measure is on-the-job training targeted at
long-term unemployed workers.

With regards to government interventions for investment promotions such as OTOP, the
employment impact appears minimal. The effects specifically for microenterprises seems similar
to livelihood, self-employment programs of government whereby beneficiaries experience
positive results on incomes but effects tend to be short-term.

There is clearly a need to define the intent of employment programs. Most government
agencies are implementing ALMPS which clearly are intended to the vulnerable/marginalized
population or in emergency situations. The other focus should be on programs or policies that
will promote private investments to generate employment. The policies need to address the
constraints identified in several studies and to undertake programs linked to the overall industrial
policy of government.

There is also a need for the Departments to improve monitoring and evaluation system for
the programs to facilitate impact analysis. Within Departments there is no standard monitoring
system since different programs are managed by separate divisions or Bureaus. Thus, data are
generated as the need arise. The absence of a central evaluation monitoring and evaluation office
in each Department has created difficulty in identifying and integrating information and data.

Moreover, there is also a need to create convergence and agreements among key
Departments with regards to the methodology and definitions in identification and counting of
jobs. The DOLE, as the lead employment agency, can take the initiative starting with programs
listed under the CBEP.

vi
 Study of Government Interventions for Employment Generation
in the Private Sector
M.M. Ballesteros and D.C. Israel1

I. Introduction

This study reviews the relationship between economic growth and employment and the
role of government interventions such as active labor market programs (ALMPs) in
generating employment. The government also implements other employment programs
intended to promote private investments for employment but information on these programs
are limited and the bulk of programs under the agencies of government, with the exception of
the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Tourism, implement ALMPs.

Active labor market programs (ALMPs) have been adopted in many countries in response
to conditions that caused or may result in rising unemployment, reduction in wages and
increase in poverty. These programs, which are advocated by the Overseas Economic
Council for Development (OECD), have gained support especially in developing and
transition economies.

ALMPs include policy interventions in both the demand and supply side of the labor
market. Demand side instruments are intended to assist firms or enterprises to increase jobs
through direct employment programs or by providing incentives for creating or retaining
employment (e.g. wage subsidy, financing support, marketing support, etc.). On the other
hand, supply side interventions are directed to those in the labor force such as programs
intended for human capital enhancement, labor market matching and in-work benefits such
as tax credits and public works.

In the Philippines, ALMPs are mostly targeted to poor/ marginalized or vulnerable

households or communities. In particular, the programs include direct employment through
public works, livelihood or self-employment development, employment facilitation/services
and human resource development.

There are several national agencies implementing ALMPs with each agency targeting
specific sectors. For purpose of this study, we reviewed the implementation of ALMPs of
the following national agencies: (1) Department of Trade and Industry (DTI); (2) Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE); (3) Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); (4)
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD); (5) Department of Transportation
and Communication (DOTC); (6) Department of Public Ways and Highways (DPWH); (7)
Department of Agriculture (DA) and (8) Department of Tourism (DoT). Given time

1
Senior Research Fellows, PIDS. Assessment of employment-generating programs of DA,DOLE, DPWH and
DOTC is undertaken by Dr. Israel while the remaining agencies ( DTI, DAR, DSWD and DoT) is assessed by Dr.
Ballesteros. Research assistance is provided by Jasmine Egana and Diyina Gem Arbo.

1
 constraints and the unavailability of data to undertake impact assessment, the study focuses
on employment accomplishment, and the program relevance.

The paper is organized as follows: The next section provides the conceptual framework
on the relationship between growth and employment and the relevance of labor market
programs of government in employment. Section III presents the trends in Philippines
economic growth and associated effects on employment at the national and regional levels.
Section IV provides a review of ALMPs in different government agencies, the program
interventions implemented and the jobs generated from these interventions. Section V
provides performance evaluation for selected programs of specific Departments. The
programs were selected based on available data and information. The last section concludes
the study.

II. Conceptual Framework: Growth, Employment and Relevance of

ALMPs

A. Economic Growth and Employment Nexus

It is widely acknowledged that economic growth leads to job creation. Growth brings
about higher demand for output leading to increase investments that generate employment
and create opportunities for human capital. However, the relationship between economic
growth and employment growth is not the same across countries or over time. Some types of
economic growth may lead to faster job creation than others and in some cases, a “job-less”
growth is possible. In transition and developing countries which are undergoing economic
transformation and reforms, the initial sources of economic growth may be high rates of
labour productivity growth, which may lead to job losses in the short to medium term. As
labour productivity gains are sustained, employment growth is expected to pick up in the
long run.2

Empirical studies show that the relationship between growth and employment is affected
by the following factors: (1) the sectoral pattern of growth; (2) policy and institutional
environment; (3) development of SMEs. Economic growth which are biased towards labour-
intensive sectors such as smallholder agriculture and small and medium enterprises in the
manufacturing and services sectors are more likely to lead to faster employment growth than
growth patterns that are biased towards capital-intensive (such as pharmaceuticals) and
resource-intensive sectors (such as mining).

On the other hand, policy and institutional constraints create barriers to investment and
employment growth. A recent ADB study identified the key institutional barriers to
investments in the Philippines which are: (1) the low return to economic activity; and (2)
high cost of finance (Table 1). Low returns to investment is affected by bad infrastructure,

2
Islam, R (2004); Loayza and Raddatz 2006; Satchi and Temple 2006.

2
the large pool of unskilled workers and the high cost of doing business resulting from both
micro risks (e.g. corruption, unclear property rights, etc.) and macro risks (e.g. financial,
monetary and fiscal instability).

The growth of micro, small and medium enterprises (or MSMEs) is critical specifically in
developing countries since more than 90% of firms are microenterprises. Historical
experiences in many nations also showed that SMEs have provided the bulk of entrepreneurs
and employment and the necessary foundations for sustained economic growth and rising
incomes (ADB 1990). Given SMEs’ lower capital requirement, they are expected to
stimulate growth of numerous indigenous enterprises with wide regional dispersal.

On the other hand, recent literature noted that while the development of MSMEs are
critical, success rate is usually low, that is, there are many MSMEs that tend to fail (Page and
Soderboom 2012). Thus, if the objective is to create more “good” jobs, interventions should
consider the constraints in growth of firms of all sizes. Microenterprises should not be
confused with the self-help informal economy, with no paid employees and unpaid family
labor (e.g. ambulant vendors, pedicabs drivers). These informal enterprises are not the types
of employment that have to grow. Labor market programs of government should in fact
moved these workers to the formal labor market and to ensure their employability in the long
run.

B. Impact of ALMPs: Review of International Experience

Active Labor Market Programs or ALMPs are government funded programs intended to
directly and indirectly contribute to the generation of employment in the country. The
International Labor organization or ILO defines ALMPs as “purposive, selective
interventions by the government in the pursuit of efficiency and/or equity objectives, acting
indirectly or directly to provide work to, or increase the employability of people with certain
disadvantages in the labour market.” The relevant instruments, target groups, and intended
effects of ALMPs are summarized in Table 2.

The effectiveness of these programs however differs. There are various ALMPs that
were implemented in Asia, the OECD and other countries. The choice of program depends
on various factors such as the economic situation the country is in, the objective(s) for which
the program is intended to address, the financial resources and the institutional capacity
available for implementation of the programs.

There have been several evaluations made on ALMPs. Abrahart et al. (2000) reviewed
the evidence of more than 100 evaluations of ALMPs covering OECD countries - mainly
the U.S., Canada, U.K., Sweden and Germany – a n d some developing and transition
economies such as Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Mexico. Brown and
Kottl (2012) provided a similar review focusing on the how, why, when and to what extent
specific policies are effective. In both reviews, the evaluation studies showed mixed results
depending on the intervention, the period in which the intervention was given, and whether
evaluation was conducted in the short-run or long-run (see Tables 3 and 4).

3
The key findings based on these summaries are as follows:

• ALMPs for retaining employment such as subsidies to employers (wage subsidy)

may reduce unemployment but is susceptible to extremely high deadweight and
substitution effects. The program also targets the “insiders”, strengthening their
position relative to “outsiders” thus does not really have the effect of generating
jobs. Such programs should be used only for very short periods and in severe
recessions. The more cost‐effective and desirable p r o g r a m s are those creating
employment which redistributes incentives to outsiders in the labor market.

• ALMPs providing incentives for employment creation such as financial and

advisory support for self-employment (e.g. livelihood programs) is a smaller
program used in several countries. Besides the direct objective of supporting the
outflow of unemployment into self-employment, the indirect objective is that the
start-ups create further employment. The results of evaluation in several countries
are mixed. Most authors point out the usefulness of the instrument but its
restricted applicability to a small fraction of the unemployed workforce of up to 3
percent. There are also significant failure rate of small businesses suggesting high
cost with minimal or temporary employment effect. Moreover, studies show that
the impact is more positive for male, better educated workers with particular
interest in entrepreneurial activities. Self-employment subsidies are also
especially effective for the disadvantaged workers, namely the young, low-skilled,
long-term unemployed and inactive workers. It can significantly lead to higher
incomes and employability for participants.

• ALMPs intended to provide incentives for seeking and keeping a job includes
program such as in-work benefits, tax credits and other work pay schemes paid to
low-wage workers or low-income families to raise their incomes conditional on
working (e.g. public works). These measures are conditional on employment and
generate incentives for specific disadvantage labor market actors. The direct
effect on employment of these measures lies on raising labor supply and labor
force participation, increasing transition into employment, activating discouraged
workers, and improving income and future employment prospects. Countries
such as the USA and the UK and other European countries are especially
increasing this type of program. It is considered more acceptable instrument
compared to tax or benefit reductions. However, this program may create
disincentives for unskilled workers to move to a better job or enhance their human
capital. It can effectively decrease wage differentials between low-wage work
and high-skilled work which will have negative long-run effects. Public works,
for instance, may temporarily increase employment but may also increase
unemployment by providing incentives to discouraged workers to reenter the
labor market. Based on the studies, in‐work benefits and public works are very
cost‐inefficient in terms of raising employment, but might be cost‐efficient in
reducing poverty and inequity.

4
 • ALMPs providing incentives for human capital enhancement are widely used and
generally represent the largest share in governments’ expenditure. A wide array
of training and retraining measures are adopted from basic job skills to vocational
skills and from targeting disadvantage workers to across-the-board programs.
The objective of these measures is to increase employability, productivity and
earnings of workers. Training programs generally had positive impacts on raising
employability but these programs can be costly and have the effect of selecting
unemployed workers with higher employability leaving out disadvantage workers.
Among training programs, a more cost effective measure is on-the-job training
targeted at long-term unemployed workers. Training programs are especially
effective the nearer they are to regular jobs and targeting disadvantaged outsiders.

• ALMPs improving labor market matching are highly cost effective and desirable
(that is even better than training). Besides giving incentive for job search of the
unemployed, it alleviates structural imbalances by improving matches and
adapting qualifications to employers’ needs. Studies provide evidence on the
significant effects of intensified job search assistance on employment
probabilities and sometimes earnings especially for long-term unemployed
workers. However, there can be difficulty in identifying who needs help.
Moreover, while results are achievable, the effectiveness is only in the short‐run.
It is also not sustainable and may not have much impact in times of recessions.

• ALMPs considered most cost effective and desirable are those creating
employment, which redistribute incentives to outsiders in the labor market,
whereby their attachment to the labor market is strengthened, the outflow out of
unemployment is supported thereby reducing labor market persistence. These
ALMPs are highly effective in supporting recoveries. Nonetheless it should be
realized that ALMPs can only have modest impacts and may even be desirable
without any net employment impact.

Given the above findings, the authors suggest the following approaches and considerations:

• Betcherman et al. (2009) suggest that policy-makers should be realistic about

what ALMPs can do and that investments in this area should be made carefully
and modestly. It is good practice to start with modest programs. The authors
argued that the following issues relating to the formulation of an active labour
market policy should be considered:

Priority setting- While ALMPs can have various policy objectives, in designing
an overall strategy, it is important to identify which of these are the
priority objectives since it is the objectives that should determine program choices
and program design.

Role of private sector –Private sector participation can lead to more diverse,
innovative, and cost-efficient services. However, governments must be
responsible for the overall system to ensure focus on public priorities.

5
 Promoting partnerships and dialogue - The identification of priorities can benefit
from dialogue between government, business, labor, and other groups. Where
done effectively, a close connection with the needs of the labor market can be
maintained.

“Infrastructure” for the labor market - Labor market information, a viable and
complete network of employment service offices, and certification and
accreditation systems are critical “infrastructure for ALMPs. These infrastructure
services should be given priority.

Coordination within government – ALMPs can be complicated when many

government agencies are involved and that coordination is insufficient. This must
be addressed through intra- government coordination.

Administrative/operational capacity - Designing and implementing ALMPs

requires considerable capacity within government. Government must recognize
that capacity building is a slow but essential process.

Financing ALMPs – Innovative financing arrangements that address market

imperfections but reflect the private-return aspect of ALMPs should be
considered. In public financing, the choice is to draw from general revenues or
finance ALMPs through earmarked funds.

Monitoring and evaluation - In an effort to improve the targeting and efficiency of

social programs, sound impact evaluation techniques should be used to evaluate
ALMPs. This is also suggested by Abrahart et al. (2000)

III. Trends in Growth and Employment in the Philippines

This section presents Philippine growth and employment trends based on the nexus of
growth and employment theory. In particular, the discussion focuses on the following
employment indicators: (1) improved productivity of various sectors and occupation; (2) shift
in the structure of employment towards occupations with higher levels of productivity and
(3) change in labor force participation rate. Note, however, the arguments do not imply
causality as this is difficult to show in the absence of general equilibrium model and
deficiencies in data. The indicators are meant to observe correlation between growth,
employment and productivity.

A. Macroeconomic Trends

• Philippine economic growth has been positive but relatively slow in the last
decade. From 2000 to 2012, GDP growth posted an average growth of 4.8

6
 percent (Figure 1). However, in the last three years, there has been considerable
excitement on the economic outlook as the country moves into a steady growth
pace with international agencies providing credit rating upgrades.

• GDP in 2012 grew at 6.6% but employment growth rate is still slow at 1.1%.
Underemployment and unemployment both decelerated but remains high at 19%
and 6.8%, respectively (Figure 2). With the growing population and high
underemployment and unemployment rate, the level of dependency remains high
in the country. About 39% of working population supports the total population.

• The services sector has been the main provider of jobs accounting for 53% of
employment in 2012 (Table 5). Employment is growing in this sector but the
increase is primarily a result of shift in labor from agriculture to services. The
contribution of industry to employment is practically unchanged. In the
manufacturing sector, there is a noticeable decline in the employment contribution
implying that the manufacturing industry did not take off in the last decade. In
the services sector, most employed are engaged in wholesale and retail (19%) and
community, social and personal services (19%). There is a need to broaden the
base of economic growth specifically agriculture and manufacturing which have
high demand for the unskilled and semi-skilled workers.

• While employment growth has been slow, improvement in labor productivity has
been significant suggesting better jobs for the employed. For the period 2000 to
2012, labor productivity increased by 28%. The high growth in 2012 was
accompanied by a 5.4% increase in labor productivity, the highest productivity
growth rate since 2001 (Table 6). Labor productivity for all sectors grew, with
service sector posting the highest contribution to growth in labor productivity.
Among sectors, labor productivity in the industry sector is highest (P350,000
compared to only P182,000 in the service sector and about P58,000 in the
agriculture sector). However, the development of the industry sector specifically
manufacturing has remained slow.

• SMEs have accounted for the bulk of employment in the country. More than 50%
of total workers are employed in micro and small enterprises (Table 7 and 8).
Most workers in the microenterprises are in the informal sector with unpaid
family labor and with no paid employees. Medium-sized enterprises accounted
for another 7%. Large enterprises also employed a significant number of workers
(about 39%) and this share is noted to be on the rise in the last decade. The
concentration of employment is in the services sector for all size categories.

• The slow growth in employment can also be attributed to low investment growth.
In the last decade, economic growth is fuelled mainly by domestic and
government consumption, which account for an average of more than 80% of
GDP while gross capital investment account for an average of 19% (Table 9).
Philippine economic growth has yet to translate into higher investments
specifically in the agriculture and manufacturing sector to have significant

7
 increase in jobs. Gross capital formation increased only by an average of 4.57%
annually since 2001.

B. Regional Trends

The regional trends are as follows:

• In the last three years (2009 to 2012), economic growth was highest in eight
regions (Regions ARMM, VIII, VII, XII, III, VI, X, XI and XII), where growth of
more than 5% average was posted. On the other hand, lowest growth of below
3% was noted in CAR and region V (Table 10). For the same period labour
productivity was highest in NCR followed by CALABARZON (Region 4-A)
(Table 11).

• Growth patterns, however, did not correspond to employment statistics.

Unemployment was high in regions which exhibited high to modest growth while
relatively lower in Regions of slow growth. Unemployment higher than the
Philippine average is noted in Regions NCR, 4-A, 3 and 1 while lowest
unemployment rate (below 4%) is posted in Regions 2, 9, ARMM and 12 (Table
12). For underemployment, Regions 5, 10 and 9 exhibited underemployment
rates higher by 10 percentage points than the Philippine average. Regions 3 and
NCR posted the lowest underemployment rate (Table 13).

• The number of establishments and employment are concentrated in three regions:

NCR, Central Luzon (Region 3) and CALABARZON (Region IV-A). About
one-fourth of total establishments are found in NCR (Table 14). Central Luzon
and CALABARZON together account for also one-fourth of total establishments.
The three regions significantly contributed to the total number of establishment
categorized by size. The combined employment generated from these regions
amounted to 65% of which 43 percentage points is accounted for by NCR (Table
15).

• A far second to the top regions are Central and Western Visayas (Regions 7 and
8) which account for 6% and 5.8% of total establishment, respectively. These
regions combined provide 12% of total employment.

8
IV. Employment Generated from ALMPs of Government Agencies

A. Type of Policy Interventions

Between the period 2004 and 2012, the government has funded several employment
generation programs in the DTI and various other Departments - DOLE, DA, DAR, DSWD,
DOTC, DPWH and DOT (Table 16. See Appendix 1-7 for detailed program description).
Most programs are considered ALMPs but there are also programs directed to investment
promotions specifically for DTI and DOT. For the ALMPs, the common interventions are
self-employment support, training and in-work benefits such as public works. Public works
are usually undertaken by the Departments in partnership with the DPWH, DA and DAR.
Among the Departments under review, the DTI is specifically involved (by virtue of its
mandate) with development of MSMEs through training, investment facilitation and
promotion services. Prior to 2010, DTI provided direct credit programs for livelihood/micro
enterprise development (a form of self-employment support) but these programs have not
been continued. At present, DTI mainly facilities access to financing of MSMEs through the
Small Business Guarantee Fund Corporation (SBGFC) or private sector finance institutions.
On the other hand, DSWD provides financing for livelihood projects of households
specifically for PANTAWID beneficiaries. For households qualified for private sector
financing, DSWD facilitates access to microfinance institutions.

The DAR programs are mainly geared to develop agrarian reform communities and
beneficiaries and the interventions include in-work benefits (or public works) through
Agrarian Reform Community (ARC) Infrastructure Projects; training for agro-industrial
livelihood enterprises, market facilitation and direct credit programs. In particular, the
development of agro-industrial microenterprises in ARCs is implemented in association with
the DTI.

Between 2006 and 2010, the DOT implemented a grassroots entrepreneurship and
employment in tourism (or GREET), which provides start-up capital or financing for the
development of livelihood or microenterprise activities of ecotourism warriors and
entrepreneurs. The program was conceived not only for employment generation but as a
strategy to develop ecotourism destinations.

The DOLE has the largest number of programs/projects related to employment

generation, being the main agency handling labor and employment. Most of the
programs/projects fall under employment facilitation (i.e. job placement or job matching) and
human capital formation (e.g. training). The programs and projects of the DA include those
related to the AFMA, credit programs of the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Medium
Term Philippine Development Plan. In addition, the DA has the Office of the One Million
Jobs program which is directly related to employment generation. The programs and projects
of the DPWH are mainly public works in national and community road projects, which
include the President’s Roadside Maintenance Program (Kalsada Natin, Alagaan Natin), Job
Creation KNAN on Roadside Maintenance, Out-of-School Youth toward Economic
Recovery (OYSTER) Program. In DOTC, the employment generation activities include

9
employment to support maintenance activities at airports, ports, railways administered by
attached agencies of DOTC (LRTA, MIAA, PNR, etc.).

B. Government Priority ALMPs: The Community-Based Employment

Program (CBEP)

The CBEP is among the priority programs of the government that aims to contribute to
the national goal of inclusive growth, poverty reduction and job creation, particularly in the
countryside or the local community. It has been in existence for more than two decades and
called different names in the past including Emergency Community Employment Program,
Community Employment and Development Program, Kabuhayan 2000, Rural Works
Program, and Community Livelihood Emergency Employment Program. As Chair of the
Steering Committee of the program, the DOLE leads in coordinating and the monitoring of
jobs generated by various involved agencies with enrolled infrastructure and non-
infrastructure projects under the program.

The three components of the CBEP are:

• Infrastructure projects - job-generating government or public-private partnership

(PPP) initiatives implemented at the local community, i.e., construction of roads,
bridges, flood control structures, school buildings, and water systems;

• Non-infrastructure projects - job generating initiatives that cover social

infrastructure, i.e., reforestation, coastal resource management, livelihood and
self-employment undertakings/projects;

• Emergency employment projects - emergency response income support projects

that create short-term wage employment or self-employment in distressed/remote
areas or those affected by calamities/contingencies

It is important to note that not all employment generating programs of the Departments
are enrolled in CBEP. Only ALMP programs are enrolled. The Departments decide on
which program to enrol and programs maybe added or deleted brought about by changes in
the development thrust of government. In general, enrolled programs under CBEP are those
targeted to poor and marginalized sectors in line with CBEP’s core objective of “reducing the
vulnerabilities of individuals and households against risk particularly during the economic
downturns or natural disasters that can push them down to poverty” (CBEP Reference
Manual). Essentially CBEP supports the Social Protection Plan of the DOLE and the
Philippine Development Plan, 2010-2016.

The reported employment generated across Departments is not comparable because of the
differences in methodology of Departments in reporting jobs. Note that the generated jobs
are not actual jobs but estimates of employment generation based on either the budgetary
allocation, gross value added, target area or target beneficiaries (Table 17). Year on year
jobs generated does not also mean new jobs each year since the numbers may reflect

10
 replacement or rehires as well as seasonality. For instance, DPWH count as one job a 4-
month employment while DSWD define one job as a six-month employment. DOLE reports
jobs generated in terms of calculated beneficiaries of programs and projects while DTI
includes both direct and indirect employment that is generated from its investment
facilitation and promotion programs.

Analysis of CBEP accomplishments in employment generation for each Department is

discussed below.

1. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)

The DTI implements the Rural Micro Enterprise Promotion Program (or RUMEPP),
which is a livelihood, self/employment program targeted to microentrepreneurs. DTI
provides technical support and facilitates access to financing from the Small Business
Guarantee and Finance Corporation (SBGFC) or microfinance institutions (or MFIs). The
development of the microenterprises is expected to provide income for the household and
also benefit other poor families through new job opportunities. Total accomplishment of
RUMEPP in terms of jobs generated is 15,831 or 152% of its target (10,400) in 2012. This
was achieved with 75% utilization of funds. The employment was generated at an estimated
cost of about P 8,732 per job based on obligated funds (PhP 138.23 million) for the project.

2. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)

The DAR has three main programs in CBEP which e are: (1) the Agrarian Reform
Infrastructure Project (or ARISP III); (2) Agrarian Reform Communities Project (ARCP II);
and (3) Tulay sa Pangulo sa Kaunlarang Pang Agraryo (TP-KP). These programs include
both public works and microenterprise development. Overall employment accomplishment
based on 2012 targets is 48% for infrastructure related jobs and 72% for microenterprise
development (non-infrastructure. The low accomplishment corresponds to low utilization of
funds.

3. Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)

The DSWD has included all current programs under CBEP. These programs are: (1)
Sustainable Livelihood Program, an off shoot of the Self-Employment Assistance Kaunlaran
(SEA-K); (2) Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of
Social Services (KALAHI-CIDSS); (3) Cash for Work (CFW) Programs and (d) Government
Internship Program. SLP is the major ALMP program at DSWD. The program supports not
only community-based livelihood or microentrepreneurial activities but also employment
facilitation. Employment facilitation is a job placement program implemented in partnership
with other government agencies (e.g. DPWH, DA, DENR, LGUs and other NGAs). Except
for the KALAHI-CIDSS Program which support infrastructure projects of LGUs, all other
programs are for non-infrastructure specifically livelihood development. Overall, non-
infrastructure programs accomplished about 75% of targeted employment in 2012. On a per
program basis KALAHI-CIDSS, CFW and GIP accomplished 100% of target employment in
2012.

11
 4. Department of Tourism (DOT)

In general, DOT does not implement specific ALMPs. Employment generation is

considered part of DOT activities mainly because tourism is itself a major industry and its
activities are geared towards investment promotion for employment generation. In
particular, the activities of the Department specifically Product Development and Marketing
Promotions are expected to result in jobs.

A case in point is the development of community-based eco-tourism in potential tourist

sites such as the Pinatubo Volcano and the Pamilacan Island Dolphin and Whale Watching
(PIDWW) Project. One major tourist development around the Pinatubo Volcano is the Sta
Juliana-O’ Donnell Crater route, which is now one of the tourist service center in the
Province of Pampanga. Likewise, the Pamilacan Island Dolphin and Whale Watching
(PIDWW) Project is a major tourist destination in the Province of Bohol. From a small
fishing village, the area is now part of the marine life tour in the country and the PIDWW
community organization has been the largest contributor to local government revenues. With
the success of this primary industry, it is expected that a series of secondary and support
businesses will follow, thus, generate more jobs and incomes to the entire community.

These projects were developed through DOT product development strategy and
facilitation in community organizing, entrepreneurial and professional training, market
support and funding facilitation. Prior to 2010, DOT also implemented a credit program for
eco-tourism under GREET. Between 2007 and 2010, GREET approved and disbursed P18.7
Million for different microenterprise projects (Table 19).

DOT estimates jobs generated in terms of gross value added of the tourism industry.
Tourism industry accounts for 6% of GDP and gross value added in 2011 amounted to P571
Billion. The tourism industry also exhibited double digit increase in GVA in the last two
years due to marketing promotions and tourism development projects of DOT.

5. Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)

The DOLE is the national government agency mandated to formulate and implement
policies and programs, and serve as the policy-advisory arm of the Executive Branch in the
field of labor and employment. The DOLE recognizes that the private sector is the primary
engine of economic growth, particularly in creating adequate employment opportunities.
However, given a labor market that is characterized by high rates of unemployment and
underemployment, public policy requires the Department to pursue an active strategy and
play a vital role in employment creation. For this reason, the DOLE actively advocates for
employment generation and provides bridging or transition opportunities for workers,
particularly for those who are in the vulnerable and disadvantaged sectors.

In general, the data and information on employment-generating programs and projects of

the government, including those of the DOLE, have been limited. In totality, there have been
13 ongoing programs and projects and 5 completed programs and projects for employment

12
generation at the department from 2000 to 2013. Given the data and information presented in
the Tables, an in-depth analysis of these programs and projects is not possible. (See detailed
program in Appendix 4)

From the CBEP data, the DOLE implemented two CBEP projects through the Bureau of
Workers and Special Concerns (BWSC) (Table 18). These projects were the Special Program
for Employment of Students (SPES) and the DOLE Integrated Livelihood Program (DILP).
In that year, the SPES employed 138,381 students for a 98 percent accomplishment rate. On
the other hand, the DILP employed 84,207 for a 145.18 percent accomplishment rate and
utilized P291 million which which translates to a per capita cost of P3, 493.00Based on the
available data, therefore, the SPES in 2012 almost attained its employment target although it
is not known at what cost. On the other hand, in the case of the DILP, the DOLE has greatly
exceeded its employment target while spending much less of its budget.

6. Department of Agriculture (DA)

The DA is the principal agency of the Philippine government responsible for the
promotion of agricultural and fisheries development and growth. Key informants at the DA
said that employment generation is an incidental and secondary function of the department.

The employment-generating programs and projects of the Department are listed in

Appendix 5. The list covers the period 2000 to 2012 and includes those related to the
Agricultural Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA), credit programs of the Land Bank of the
Philippines and the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan which are on-going. In
addition, the DA had the Office of the One Million Jobs program during the Arroyo
administration which was directly related to employment generation but which is now
terminated.

The DA implemented infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects under CBEP (Table

18). In totality, the DA employed 292,116 persons for an accomplishment rate of 74.63
percent and utilized P7.7 billion of its allocation for a utilization rate of 48.20 percent.
Therefore, in the case of the CBEP in 2012, the Department has not attained its employment
target and furthermore was low on its fund utilization.

7. Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)

The stated mission of the DPWH is to provide and manage quality infrastructure facilities
and services responsive to the needs of the Filipino people in the pursuit of national
development objectives. Hence, like many other Departments except the DOLE, the
promotion of employment is only a secondary function of the Department.

Appendix 6 presents the employment-generating programs and projects of the

Department from 2001 to 2011. The list includes the President’s Roadside Maintenance
Program (Kalsada Natin, Alagaan Natin), Job Creation KNAN on Roadside Maintenance,
Out-of-School Youth toward Economic Recovery (OYSTER) Program and Nationwide jobs’

13
Fair which are all aimed at gainfully employing specific disadvantaged sectors. All these
programs are currently implemented.

The DPWH implemented infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects under CBEP

(Table 18). In totality, the DPWH employed 279,057 persons for an accomplishment rate of
63.05 percent and utilized P38.65 billion of its allocation for a utilization rate of 20.66
percent. Therefore, in the case of the CBEP in 2012, the DPWH has not attained its
employment target and is also low on its fund utilization.

8. Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC)

The Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) is the government

institution which is mandated to promote, develop and regulate a dependable and coordinated
network of transportation and communications systems, as well as in the fast, safe, efficient
and reliable transportation and communications services.

Appendix 7 lists the employment-generating programs and projects of the Department

from 2001 to 2011. The employment generating activities reported are by agency attached to
DOTC and data reported were only for 2011. Among the agencies under the DOTC, the
MIAA appeared to have contributed the most to direct employment, providing jobs 1,899
individuals in janitorial services and similar jobs.

Under CBEP, The DOTC has implemented both infrastructure and non-infrastructure
projects which provided a total of 20,963 and 2,968 jobs, respectively (Table 18). This
shows an accomplishment rate of 78% for infrastructure projects and 66% for non-
infrastructure projects. Among the agencies under the DOTC, the Cebu Port Authority
provided the most employment (about 17,000) for infrastructure program. For non-
infrastructure programs, the Philippine national railways (PNR) contributed the most to direct
employment, providing jobs to 1,889 individuals for janitorial services and similar jobs. .

Overall, the different Departments of government acknowledge the need for greater
access to employment opportunities. While the impact of the CBEP programs is not yet clear
due to lack of impact analysis, DOLE argues that government needs to make program
interventions specifically to address the following (DOLE 2011):

Vulnerable employment. A more serious dimension of the employment problem is the

number of persons in vulnerable employment. Accounting for two (2) out of every five
(5) employed persons, workers in vulnerable employment are under relatively precarious
circumstances i.e., less likely to have formal work arrangements or access to benefits or
social protection, and are more at risk to adverse impact of economic cycles.

Youth unemployment. Globally, one out of four in the working age population is between
15 and 24 years old. About half of them are unemployed. This is also the case in the
Philippines. In 2010, of the total 2.9 million unemployed, more than half were in the age
range of 15-24.

14
 Educated unemployed. Unemployment among the educated is also high. In 2005 to 2010,
an average of 39.8% of the unemployed or 1.1 million reached college. The
unemployment of the educated means lost opportunities for productive work among this
population group.

Job and skill mismatch. Due to inadequate employment opportunities in the formal
economy, limited labor market information and inadequate academic preparation, the
mismatch between jobs and skills compounds the problem of high levels of
unemployment of youth and the educated.

V. Assessment of Selected Employment Generation Programs

This section provides further evaluation on ALMPs and other employment generation
programs of selected Departments. The choice of program and Departments is based on
available data and/or evaluation studies undertaken on the programs. For most agencies, it is
not possible to undertake in-depth analysis due to limited data and information.

A. One Town, One Product (OTOP) Program, DTI

The OTOP was launched in 2004 as a major strategy for MSMEs development and job
generation. The program provides a localized approach by focusing on the development and
promotion of locality’s competitive product or service through a comprehensive assistance
package that includes business counselling, skills and entrepreneurial training, product design
and development, appropriate technologies and marketing. The capability building strategies
are designed to expand and improve the managerial and technical competence of
entrepreneurs and workers while marketing support enhances the opportunities to expand
domestic and export markets.

The DTI’s regional operations and Development Group is the lead implementor of OTOP
with partnership from the local government units (LGUs) and other national government
agencies.

1. Macrolevel Assessment of Performance

The OTOP performance indicators are based on DTI’s monitoring data which includes
information on the following: (1) investment generated; (2) MSMEs assisted; (3) New jobs
created; (4) Domestic sales generated; and (5) services extended in terms of loan facilitation
and trainings conducted. Investment generated refers to the capital spending of the
entrepreneurs as start-up capital or as capital to expand existing business. MSME assisted
refers to the number of enterprises that have been assisted under the program for start-up or
expansion. New jobs refer to employment, which is the number of people hired by the
enterprises on a permanent or temporary basis. This number is likely to be affected by
seasonality of production and also by replacements. The practice of replacement means that

15
 if one job is equivalent to 4-month employment, there can be 3 jobs (or employment)
generated within a year for the same activity or item. Domestic sales refer to local receipt of
products and services sold/consumed in the country. DTI also monitors exports sales but this
data has not been consistently provided by the regions. Services extended refer to the major
business development support for capability building.

For the period 2007 to 2012, the OTOP program generated total investment of P11.6
Billion or an average investment of about P 2.0 Billion annually (Table 20). Regions IX and
XII generated the highest investment among regions while Regions VIII and IV-B registered
the lowest investment. The program assisted over 50,000 MSME for the period 2007 to 2012
or about 8,500 MSME annually (Table 25). Average investment per MSME is about
P226,328 (Table 22). On a regional basis, the average investment per MSME normally range
from P57,500 to P399,000 except in Regions IX and XII, where the average investment
generated is about P2.0 Million per MSME. However, while Regions IX and XII generated
the highest investment per MSME, the number of jobs generated has not been impressive
(Table 23). Regions VII which registered only an annual investment of P 74.75 Million and
the lowest investment per MSME of P57,526 was able to generate annually 7,456 jobs
compared to 5,811 jobs for Regions IX and 2,290 jobs for Regions 12. Similar trend is
observed for Regions III, IV-A and VI. Regions IX though generated the highest annual
domestic sales and domestic sale per MSME (Tables 24 and 25).

Based on the data, there is a positive and significant correlation between investments and
job generation and between number of MSMEs and job generation (Table 26). This implies
that increase in investments and in the number of MSMEs supported raise or generate
employment. However, the assumption here is that new investments are created yearly and
that the MSMEs developed are able to sustain and expand operations in the medium to long
term period.

On the other hand, there is negative and weak correlation between average investments
per MSME to job generation. Although the relationship is not significant, the evidence
suggests that assisting bigger firms does not necessarily lead to higher employment.
However, it is possible that bigger firms are more stable and provide sustained employment
compared to micro and small firms where seasonal and temporal employment are more
common.

2. Review of OTOP Performance Evaluation

In 2010, DTI commissioned a study to assess the effectiveness of the OTOP program
specifically to determine the socioeconomic effects of the program on the MSMEs.3 The
analysis covered the period 2006 to 2009 (taking out the years 2004 and 2005, which
corresponds to OTOP’s formative phase).

The relevant findings on the OTOP performance are:

3
The study was undertaken by the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP 2011).

16
 • OTOP has supported 33,654 MSMEs for the period 2007 to 2009 (Table 27). Most
(or 88%) of the enterprises had existing business while about 7,496 (or 22%) were
established through the program. The enterprises are mainly microenterprises with
small and medium businesses accounting for 25% (Table 28). The top three products
of these businesses in order of ranking are food, fashion and homestyle.

• The top three regions in MSMEs developed are Region 8, Region 3 and Region 3
while the lowest are in NCR, Region 4b and CARAGA.

• On jobs generated, 495,194 jobs (i.e. permanent or seasonal) were generated from
2006 to 2009 representing only 66% of the 750,000 jobs targeted by the program
(Table 29). Of the total jobs generated only 40% are direct jobs sustained.

• The socioeconomic indicators of OTOP performance reveals a 90% increase in

income of the MSMEs beneficiaries which translated into an upgraded quality of life
and upgraded business activities (Table 30). About one-fourth of the respondents
perceived that the positive effects of OTOP are increased employment and better
quality of local products. DTI interventions considered most useful in assisting
MSMEs are product design and development and skill, business and entrepreneurial
training.

• Major constraints faced by MSMEs in their business are: (1) the lack of access to
additional capital; (2) Unavailability /inaccessibility of raw materials and (3)
difficulty to comply with FDA requirements to penetrate larger markets (Table 35).

• Main challenges to the OTOP program are: (1) lack of support from some LGUs on
the OTOP program; and (2) lack of innovative or more comprehensive marketing
strategy provided under OTOP (i.e. some products may require strategies that are not
yet tried and tested”).

B. Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP), DSWD

The SLP is a community-based capacity building program which aims to enhance the
socioeconomic status of its participants. It is implemented through a two-track program: (1)
the Micro-Enterprise Development Track, which involves skills enhancement, partnership
building and provision of seed capital assistance; and (2) the Employment Facilitation Track,
which involves occupational guidance, technical skills training and job referral or placement.
Both tracks are targeted to poor families as identified in the National Household Targeting
Survey (NHTS).

The SLP, which was launched in 2011 is an offshoot of the Self-Employment Assistance
Kaunlaran (SEA-K) Program implemented under the Arroyo administration. However,
unlike SLP, SEA-K focused mainly on microenterprise development through the provision of
credit and access to community social services. The expanded version of SEA-K also
included credit for shelter/home improvement. There has been no impact evaluation of the

17
SEA-K Program but initial assessment show some positive results in terms of improvement
in incomes (Table 32). However, performance in terms of employment generation and
access to basic services (water, health management) is poor. A major challenge mentioned
about the program is the sustainability of microenterprise projects of the beneficiaries. It
appears that the surge in income has been the result of credit provision rather than enterprise
development thus, the employment effect has been minimal.

Comparatively, the SLP is showing more positive results than SEA-K. Under the
Microenterprise Development Track, DSWD reveals movement of some microenterprises
from government (NGA/LGU) capital seed fund users to self–finance and borrowers of MFIs
within less than three years of program implementation. The program is also better targeted
since only the poorest households have access to DSWD/LGUs or NGAs credit funds while
households qualified to take a loan are partnered with microfinance institutions (or MFIs).
From January 2011 to June 2013, a total of 215,699 households benefited from the
Microenterprise Development program of which 32,817 (or 15%) were supported by MFIs
(Table 33).

For households supported by DSWD credit funds, overall repayment performance is good
at 82.93% (Table 34). However, there are regions with poor repayment performance such as
Region 12 (22%), ARMM (55%) and CAR (55%). The high performing regions with 100%
repayment performance are regions IV-B, IX, X, XI and CARAGA.

SLP Track 2 Employment Facilitation Program reflects the job placement activity of
DSWD in partnership with national government agencies, NGOs and other private sectors.
Employment is defined as a 6-month contract. From January 2011 to June 2013, the program
employed a total of 5,702 persons (Table 35). The bulk (or 86%) has been employed in
DPWH infrastructure projects. Other sources of employment are the private sector (9%) and
other government agencies (DENR, DA, DOT, DOLE, LGU and TESDA).

SLP also works as support program for the DSWD Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino
Program, which is a short-term conditional cash transfer program that invests on the health
and education of poor households. Thus, as indicated in SLP’s accomplishment, the bulk of
beneficiaries (about 84%) for both tracks are also Pantawid households. The rationale for
this is to provide a comprehensive program that will enable the benefited Pantawid
households to increase income and continue the investment for the health and education of
their children after they exit from Pantawid.

Therefore, the sustainability of the microenterprise developed and employability of SLP

beneficiaries are continuing challenges for DSWD. Monitoring and partnership is a major
component of the program to help microenterprises that were developed and assisted to attain
viability in the long-term. In the case of the Employment Track, moving them to private
sector employment, enhancing their skills or upgrading them to microenterprise development
is needed to ensure long-term effects. DSWD is also at the forefront of collaborative
approach among key government agencies. There is a need to strengthen convergence of
programs among agencies to address the increasing and other important needs of the
underprivileged.

18
 C. Comprehensive Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program
(CLEEP),

The Comprehensive Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program (CLEEP) is

another CBEP, which was set into motion in 2009 as a stop-gap measure to reduce the impact
on employment of the global financial crisis and the economic crisis following natural
disasters (Typhoon Ondoy and Pepeng). The program was targeted to the most vulnerable
sectors. Specifically, this program intends to hire workers for emergency employment and
to fund and supervise livelihood projects.

Similar with CBEP, DOLE was tasked to lead the monitoring and reporting of
employment generated through employment and livelihood programs and projects enrolled
under CLEEP by government agencies and other instrumentalities. All cabinet members
were instructed to draw up emergency work programs and doable and fundable livelihood
projects for the middle class, middle-low income class and the poorest of the poor. The
priority areas of the program include the Mindanao Agri-business Quadrangle, North Luzon
Agri-business Quadrangle, 12 poorest provinces, depressed areas of the National Capital
Region (NCR) and 12 most food poor provinces, Luzon urban beltway, and tourism center
(EO 783). Concerned agencies and instrumentalities of the government were directed to
allocate and utilize 1.5 % of their budget for operating expenses for temporary hiring of
qualified DOLE-registered displaced workers and their dependents (EO 782, series of 2009).

Table 36 shows that in 2009, the assistance to workers during the global financial crisis
under CLEEP benefited a total of 28,890 workers. The region which gained the most from
the program in terms of workers benefited was NCR while the region which gained the least
was Region XII. The Regions in Luzon which were affected by Typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng
in 2009 also benefited with NCR gaining the most and Region II gaining the least. In totality,
16,521 workers benefited under TUPAD, 7,025 gained under ISLA, 194 benefited under
1.5% MOOE provision of EO 782 and 5,150 gained under the emergency employment due to
Typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng.

Table 37 further shows some data and information on the emergency employment for
displaced workers and their dependents under CLEEP. The total 1.5% MOOE of the
program in 2009 under EO 742 was P1.35 billion while the total amount utilized was P1.27
billion for a utilization rate of 94 percent. The total target number of workers to be hired was
48,532 persons while the actual number of workers hired was 32,410 persons for an
accomplishment rate of 66.78 percent.

In terms of employment accomplishment by agency, DOT and DOLE exceeded their

targets while DOJ and DENR had the weakest performance (Table 38). In terms of financial
utilization, PMS, OPS, and DTI had the highest performance exceeding more than 100
percent while NEDA and DOJ had the lowest performance registering less than 1 percent. In
terms of amount utilized per person, DOJ and DA had the best performance spending lower

19
than P3,000 per person while OPS and PMS had the weakest achievement spending at least
P150,000 per person.

D. High Value Crops Development Program (HVDCP), DA

The HVDCP is a priority program of the Department which was created to help address
food security, poverty alleviation and sustainable growth of the country. It was intended to
promote the production, processing, marketing and distribution of high value crops. Its stated
goals were to a) increase production, income and livelihood opportunities among small
producers; and b) access to affordable, safe and healthy food.

Data on performance of the HVCP in terms of number of jobs generated are available for
2008 and 2012 and are shown in Table 39. In 2008, the accomplishment rates were more than
100 percent for some crops planted including banana, vegetable, and coffee but less for
others namely mango, pineapple, and rubber. In general, the accomplishment rates for
production-oriented activities were also higher compared to non-production-oriented
activities. Also, the accomplishment rate was 178 percent for production (agriculture and
fisheries) support services in 2008 but this decreased to only 73 percent in 2012.
Furthermore, the accomplishment rate of other infrastructure and postharvest development
was only 26 percent in 2008 but this increased to 32 percent in 2012. While the available data
are sketchy, it is apparent that the performance of the HVCP in terms of number of jobs
generated has been inconsistent between crops planted, between production and non-
production-oriented activities and between years. Based on this, the overall performance of
the program is indeterminate.

E. Accelerated Hunger Mitigation Program (AHMP), DPWH

Based on additional data availed by the study team from the DPWH through the DBM,
some analysis can be done on the component of the Accelerated Hunger Mitigation Program
(AHMP) implemented by the DPWH. Launched by the government in 2007, AHMP is a
program which seeks to diminish food insecurity and hunger in the country. As such, its target
beneficiaries include 42 priority provinces, identified by a nationwide survey adopting Social
Weather Station’s self-rated hunger survey. On the supply side, the program includes
increased food production and enhanced efficiency of logistics and food delivery. The first is
addressed through seed subsidies, repair and rehabilitation of irrigation facilities, and
technical assistance. The second is addressed through food depositories called Barangay Food
Terminals in Manila and major cities in the country, TN, RO-RO ports, farm-to- market
roads, and Food for School Program. On the demand side, on the other hand, the program
includes “putting money into poor people’s pockets”—training, microfinance, and upland
distribution to poor people; promoting nutrition through education; and managing the
population. The AHMP is also a component of the pump-priming strategy of the government
which seeks to generate investments, create jobs, and provide basic services to poor families
which is why is considered an employment generating program.

20
 Table 40 presents data on the status of the AHMP as implemented by the DPWH from
2005 to 2009. During the period, the accomplishment rates for the completion of projects
were generally higher during the earlier years than in the latter years. In particular,
accomplishment rates for farm-to-market roads, roadside maintenance, and water supply
were 100 percent in 2005 but these were down to less than 50 percent in 2009. The man-days
and number of workers, on the other hand, were generally lower in the earlier years
compared to the latter years. In particular, total man-days employed increased from 545,790
in 2005 to 4,336,903 in 2009 while number of workers employed rose from 8,430 in 2005 to
26,658 in 2009. During the period, roadside maintenance employed a lot more people
compared to farm-to-market roads and water supply.

VI. Conclusions and Recommendations

In the last three years, the country has been experiencing strong economic growth but this
trend has not been matched by growth in employment. Employment barely grew during the
period registering lower than the 1.9% population growth rate. The level of dependency thus
remains high with about 39% of the working population supporting the entire population.

A major factor to the sluggish growth in employment is the low growth of private
investment. In the last decade, economic growth is fuelled mainly by domestic and
government consumption, which account for an average of more than 80% of GDP. Gross
capital investment was only 19% of GDP and grew by an average of only 4.5% annually
since 2000. Philippine economic growth has yet to translate into higher investments
specifically in the agriculture and manufacturing sector to have significant increase in jobs.

The government has established active labor market programs (ALMPs) to address this
persistent unemployment and underemployment. In particular, national government agencies
implemented several ALMPs targeting specific groups of clientele. However, the impact of
this program has been apparently irregular and short-term. The ALMPs were also intended
to address other social issues such as poverty reduction, social/human development or
community development. It is therefore possible that most ALMPs are desirable for the
social objectives rather than for providing net employment impact. However, these
inferences need to be validated through an in-depth analysis of specific programs, which has
not been possible under the study.

Aside from ALMPs, government also implemented programs for investment promotion
to generate jobs. In particular, the DTI implements mostly this type of program. A major
program is the One Town One Program (OTOP) a program intended to support local
economic development through development of MSMEs. The performance of the OTOP in
terms of investment generated and assisted MSMEs have been positive. Moreover, OTOP
resulted in a 90% increase in income of the MSMEs beneficiaries which translated into an
upgraded quality of life and upgraded business activities. However, the program has weak
employment effects with only 6% of the MSMEs assisted citing that the OTOP resulted in
additional employment and 25% citing possible positive effects on community employment.

21
It has been observed that the growth of SMEs has been constrained by (1) the lack of access
to additional capital; (2) Unavailability /inaccessibility of raw materials and (3) difficulty to
comply with FDA requirements to penetrate larger markets. These constraints are consistent
with the macro studies on the reasons for the low private investments in the country.
Moreover, OTOP has not necessarily led to local economic development due to the
following: (1) lack of support from some LGUs on the OTOP program; and (2) lack of
innovative or more comprehensive marketing strategy provided under OTOP (i.e. some
products may require strategies that are not yet tried and tested”).

There is clearly a need to define the intent of employment programs. Most government
agencies are implementing ALMPS which clearly are intended to the vulnerable/marginalized
population or in emergency situations. The other focus should be on programs or policies that
will promote private investments to generate employment. The policies need to address the
constraints identified and to undertake programs linked to the overall industrial policy of
government.

It is also important to examine the employment targets provided by agencies. First, job is
defined by most agencies as employment (or hired manpower) monitored on a yearly basis.
This definition implies that employment for a specific service maybe counted several times
within a year. For instance, DAR and DPWH define 1 job as 4-month employment. This
means that in one year, there can be 3 jobs for a specific work activity. Second, the jobs
reported by one Department may also be reported by another Department because of
partnerships among Department specifically for job placement or even assisted MSMEs.
Third, jobs reported are not actual figures but derived from assumptions and factors with
each Department having its own basis or methodology for counting jobs. Fourth, double
counting may result from the methodology of some Departments to count the impact of the
program intervention on both direct jobs and indirect jobs. For instance, investment
facilitation or product development activities of DTI and DOT would likely affect other
sectors. The employment impact is not confined to households or enterprises directly
assisted but also those that are linked to these industries/firms.

Given these issues there is a need to create convergence and agreements among key
Departments with regards to the methodology and definitions in identification and counting
of jobs. The DOLE, as the lead employment agency, can take the initiative starting with
programs listed under the CBEP.

The Departments also need to improve monitoring and evaluation system for ALMPs that
are administered by their offices. The indicators usually have not been identified in the
conceptualization of the program thus data or information is not available to facilitate
assessment of programs’ impact. Within Departments there is no standard monitoring
system since different programs are managed by separate divisions or Bureaus. The absence
of a central evaluation monitoring and evaluation office in each Department has created
difficulty in identifying and integrating information and data.

Tables and Figures

22
Table 1. Policy and Institutional Barriers to Industry Upgrading

Low Social Returns

• Poor Geography
• Low Human Capital
• Bad Infrastructure
Low Appropriability
• Government Failures
Low Return to o Micro Risks: Property Rights,
Economic Activity Corruption, Taxes
LOW LEVELS OF o Macro Risks: Financial, Monetary,
PRIVATE Fiscal Instability
INVESTMENT AND • Market Failures
ENTREPRENEURSHIP o Information Externalities: “Self
Discovery”
o Coordination Externalities
Bad International Finance
• Market Failures
High Cost of Finance
Bad Local Finance
• Low Domestic Savings
• Poor Intermediation
Source: ADB (2007). Country Diagnostics Study. Manila, Philippines

Table 2. Relevant Instruments, Target Groups and Intended Effects of ALMP's

Target Targeted
Aim Instruments Intended Effects
Area Workers

Work sharing
Provide Reduce outflow from employment
and short work
Incentives for
Insiders
retaining
employment Wage Subsidies Retain labor market attachment
Labor
Demand
Provide Hiring Subsidies Increase inflow into employment
Incentives for
Outsiders
creating
Business start-up
employment Increase labor market attachment
support

Labor Provide In-work benefits, Insiders and Increase inflow into employment by
Supply incentives for subsidies, tax Outsiders strengthening work incentives

23
 seeking and credits
Reduce outflow from employment
keeping a job
Increase labor market attachment

Provide income support

Increase inflow into employment by

strengthening work incentives
Public works Outsiders
Increase labor market attachment

Provide income support

Activation and
Workfare Increase inflow into employment by
Outsiders
strengthening work incentives

Sanctions

Increase inflow into employment

Provide On the job
incentives for training Outsiders
Increase productivity
human capital and Insiders
enhancement Classroom
Improve match quality
training
Improve job search efficiency
Job search
Outsiders
assistance
Increase inflow into employment

Improve job search efficiency

Labor Improved labor
Employee
Market market Outsiders
intermediation Improve match quality
Matching matching and Insiders
services
Increase inflow into employment

Counselling and Improve job search efficiency

Outsiders
monitoring
Increase inflow into employment
Source: Brown and Kottl (2012)

24
Table 3. Overview of Impact Evaluation on Active Labor Programs

Program Appear to Help Impact

1 Public Works Severely disadvantaged Long-term employment prospects not helped: program
Programs/Public groups in providing participants are less likely to be employed in a normal job
Service temporary employment and earn less than do individuals in the control group. Not a
Employment (13 and a safety net. cost-effective instrument if objective is to get people into
evaluations) gainful employment after program completion.
2 Job-search Adult unemployed Relatively more cost-effective than other labor market
assistance/ generally when interventions (e.g. training) - mainly due to the lower cost,
Employment economic conditions are youth do not benefit usually. Difficulty lies in deciding
Services (18 improving; women may who needs help in order to minimize deadweight loss.
evaluations) benefit more.
3. Training of Women and other These programs are no more effective than job-search
long-term disadvantaged groups assistance in increasing re-employment probabilities and
unemployed (23 generally when post-intervention earnings and are 2-4 times more costly.
evaluations) economy is improving. However, job search assistance may not be a direct
substitute as it may cater to a different groups of the
unemployed.
4. Retraining in Little positive impact mainly These programs are no more effective than job-search
the case of mass when economy assistance and significantly more expensive. Rate of return
layoffs (11 Is on these programs usually negative. However, job search
evaluations) doing better. assistance may not be a direct substitute as it may cater to a
different groups of the unemployed.
5. Training for No positive impact. Employment/earnings prospects not improved as a result of
youth (7 going through the training. Taking costs into account – the
evaluations) real rate of return of these programs both in the short as
well as the long run is negative.
6. Microenterprise Relatively older groups, Very low take-up rate among unemployed. Significant
Development the more educated. failure rate of small businesses. High deadweight and
Programs displacement effects. High costs (cost-benefit analysis
(13 rarely conducted).
evaluations)
7. Employment/ Long-term unemployed Extremely high deadweight and substitution effects. Impact
Wage subsidies in providing an entry analysis shows treatment group does not do well as
(15 evaluations) into the labor force. compared to control. Sometimes used by firms as a
However, no long-term permanent subsidy program.
impact.
Source: Abrahart et al. (2000)

25
Table 4. Effectiveness of ALMP's

Effective
ALMP Policy Positive Effects Negative Effects Impact in Normal Times Role During Crisis and Recovery Cost- Effectiveness
Objective

*Increased LM Useful temporarily at beginning of Very costly and potential

segmentation severe recessions negative longer-term impacts
Substantial deadweight,
substitution and
displacement effects *Increase in unemployment
Work prone groups, lower Needs to be in place before
sharing/ Temporarily productivity
Short prevent layoffs Only useful for a very limited
work time for existing schemes at
Negative competition, onset of severe recessions
*Inhibits efficient Labor Might obstruct recovery if not
wage effects and no
Incentives Reduce outflow reallocations phased out swiftly
effect on temporary jobs
for retaining from
employment employment
*Reduced outflow from
unemployment
Potentially useful temporarily at
Lock-in effects, skill beginning of severe recessions
Continued
acquisition disincentives *Increased LM persistence,
employment of
and retaining low- long-term unemployment
insiders
productivity workers

*Skill attrition, lack of Might obstruct recovery if not

Wage adaption phased out swiftly
Cost-ineffective and potential
Subsidie
negative longer-term impacts
s
Substantial deadweight,
and displacement effects

Incentives Increase
Employment of Negative competition, *Skill attrition, lack of
for creating outflow from
outsiders wage effects adaption
employment unemployment

Locking-in effects, skill

acquisition disincentives

26
 *Cost-effective
countercyclical automatic
Cheapest and most cost-
stabilizer to increase
effective measure
outflow from
Very significant unemployment
Potentially sizeable
transition and Important stabilizer to support
short-run displacement
screening recoveries
effects
effects
*Increase of LM flows,
reduction of persistence
Hiring
subsidie
s
As automatic stabilizer: target
disadvantaged, especially long-
*Strengthen LM
term unemployed worker for
attachment
limited period
Limited deadweight and
Competition
substitution effects, Keep LM attachment in recessions
effects
displacement

*Promote adaptability

*Increase of LM flows,
Potentially high reduction of persistence
Self- deadweight and
employ displacement Potentially high
effects Cost-effective, but restricted
ment deadweight and *Strengthen LM Support recoveries
applicability
incentiv displacement effects attachment
es

Competition
*Promote adaptability
effects

Substantial deadweight, Cost-effective redistributive Cost-ineffective: costly and no

*Increased LM persistence,
substitution and instrument to soften income long-run positive employment
In-work Positive long-term unemployment
Incentives displacement shortfalls effects
benefits Create screening, wage
for seeking a
and employment and
job and Sizeable skill acquisition
subsidie incentives competition *Increase in unemployment Cost-effective redistribution
working disincentives and Temporary use in crises together
s effects prone groups, lower policy in crises, but targeting
incentives for low- with demand side policies
productivity issues
productivity work

27
 Very limited Locking-in and
*Skill attrition, lack of
transition asymmetric information
adaption
effects effects

Cost-ineffective: costly and no

No transition *Lower employment Temporary safety-net in MICs
Reduce long-run positive employment
effects probabilities during crises
inequality and effects
in-work poverty Strong stigmatizing and
Public
locking-in effects, skill
works
Threat effect, acquisition disincentives
Infrastructure *Skill attrition, lack of Employment of last resort in LICs
Safety-net role in crises
provision, adaptation during crises
safety-net

*Increase in employment
incentives
Activati
Make Threat effects No special role during crises, but
on and
unemployment and wage Locking-in effects *Increase of LM flows, can support recovery in tandem
workfar
more costly effects reduction of persistence, with demand side policies
e
shorter unemployment
durations
Cost-effective policy in shifting
*Increase in employment towards active income support
incentives

Make Threat effects No special role during crises, but

Sanctio
unemployment and wage *Increase of LM flows, can support recovery in tandem
ns
more costly effects reduction of persistence, with demand side policies
shorter unemployment
durations

*Effective in increasing
long-run employability and
Strong earnings through skill
Incentives Enhance labor upgrading In recessions to counter On the job training targeted at
On the screening, Sizeable deadweight
for human supply by disadvantages of work sharing long-term unemployed workers
job competition costs as well as creaming
capital adapting and schemes, to strengthen LM are particularly cost-effective in
training and transition and locking-in effects
formation increasing skills attachment, and upgrade skills. the long-run
effects
*Strengthen LM
attachment

28
 Weak *Promote adaptability
Increase
Classroo screening, Important: training focus,
productivity, Most effective in strengthening
m competition Small wage effects involving employers providing
employability recoveries.
training and transition *Increase of LM flows, formal qualifications, targeting.
and earnings
effects shorter unemployment
durations

Job
*Increase outflow from
search
unemployment, job search
assistan
Deadweight and incentives Cost-effective policy, essential
ce Competition
creaming effects for LM functioning with short-
effects
potentially strong run impact
*Strengthen LM
Employ attachment
Increase job
Improved er
search and Strong role in supporting the
labor market interme
matching recovery
matching diation *Increase of LM flows,
efficiency
service shorter unemployment
Threat effects durations Search assistance: proven strong
Also displacement, wage
combined with impacts on employability, esp.
Counsell and churning effects
sanctions for disadvantaged workers
ing,
*Promote adaptability
monitor
ing
Source: Brown and Kottl (2012)

29
30
Figure 1. GDP Growth, Employment Growth and Labor Productivity Growth, Philippines 2000-2012

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board and National Statistics Office

Figure 2. Philippine Unemployment and Underemployment, 2000-2012

Source: National Statistics Office

31
 Table 5. Employed Persons by Major Industry group, Philippines

Number (In Thousands) % Share Growth Rate (%)

Major Industry Group 2000- 2006- 2011- 2000- 2006- 2011-
2000 2005 2010 2011 2012
2005 2010 2012 2005 2010 2012
Total 27,453 32,313 36,035 37,192 37,607 100.0 100.0 100.0 17.71 10.4 1.1
Agriculture 10,181 11,628 11,956 12,268 12,086 36.6 34.7 32.6 14.22 2.3 (1.5)
Industry 4,454 5,024 5,399 5,530 5,772 15.8 15.0 15.1 12.79 8.0 4.4
Mining and Quarrying 108 123 199 211 252 2.3 3.2 4.1 14.19 43.2 19.5
Manufacturing 2,745 3,077 3,033 3,080 3,132 61.3 58.3 55.0 12.10 (0.7) 1.7
Construction 1,479 1,708 2,017 2,091 2,227 33.9 35.8 38.2 15.45 20.3 6.5
Electricity, Gas and Water
Supply 123 117 150 148 161 2.5 2.7 2.7 (4.90) 17.0 8.8
Services 12,817 15,660 18,682 19,394 19,749 47.5 50.3 52.3 22.18 17.1 1.8
Wholesale and Retail Trade 4,484 6,147 7,034 7,399 7,050 38.3 38.0 36.9 37.09 13.4 (4.7)
Transportation, Storage and
Communications 1,987 2,451 2,723 2,775 2,954 15.6 15.2 14.6 23.40 9.7 6.5
Financing, Insurance, Real
Estate and Business Services 711 1,075 1,546 1,691 1,708 6.3 7.7 8.7 51.20 37.2 1.0
Community, Social and
1
Personal Services 5,630 5,986 7,377 7,527 8,035 39.8 39.1 39.8 6.32 20.1 6.7
(78.26
Others 6 1 2 2 3 0.02 0.01 0.01 ) 14.3 37.5
Source: National Statistics Office
Notes:
1
2001-2011: Includes Education, Health and Social Work, Other Community, Social and Personal Activities, Private Households with Employed Persons and
Public Administration and Defense, Compulsory Social Security ;
2012-Includes Accommodation and Food Service Activities, Education, Human Health and Social Work Activities, Arts, Entertainment and Recreation, Other
Service Activities and Activities of Households as Employers; Undifferentiated Goods and Services-producing Activities of Households for Own Use, Other
Service Activities
2000 Agriculture data includes Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry

32
Table 6. Labor Productivity by Major Industry Group, Philippines

In 2000 Constant Prices

Labor Productivity (In 2000 Constant Prices) Growth Rate (%)

Major Industry Group 2000- 2006- 2011-
2000 2005 2010 2011 2012
2005 2010 2012
Total 130,433 138,683 158,222 159,293 167,918 6.33 9.49 5.42
Agriculture 49,123 51,317 55,425 55,465 57,815 4.47 4.69 4.24
Industry 277,003 291,669 344,418 343,834 350,759 5.29 12.29 2.01
Mining and Quarrying 209,472 355,390 331,146 334,166 269,110 69.66 5.73 (19.47)
Manufacturing 319,194 345,368 416,922 429,977 445,802 8.20 15.09 3.68
Construction 137,862 116,032 161,537 144,435 155,168 (15.83) 24.45 7.43
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1,071,150 1,380,965 1,355,159 1,382,074 1,335,882 28.92 4.96 (3.34)
Services 144,092 154,485 170,183 172,350 181,864 7.21 5.87 5.52
Source: National Statistics Office

Note: Labor productivity= Gross Value Added (GVA in real terms)/ Number of Employed Persons

33
Table 7. Share of Establishments to Total and Growth Rate, by Size Category and Industry

Major Industry Group Total Micro Small Medium Large

Total (2002) 100.00 91.86 7.47 0.34 0.33
Agriculture 0.51 0.24 0.24 0.01 0.02
Industry 15.70 13.71 1.70 0.14 0.15
Mining & Quarrying 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00
Manufacturing 15.19 13.44 1.51 0.11 0.13
Construction 0.32 0.18 0.12 0.01 0.01
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 0.14 0.06 0.06 0.01 0.01
Services 83.79 77.92 5.53 0.18 0.16
Wholesale and Retail Trade 53.66 51.33 2.24 0.05 0.03
Transportation, Storage and Communications 1.75 1.32 0.39 0.02 0.02
Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services 7.78 6.54 1.15 0.04 0.05
Community, Social and Personal Services 5.02 4.73 0.27 0.01 0.01
Others 15.58 13.99 1.48 0.07 0.05
Total (2005) 100.0 91.3 8.0 0.4 0.3
Agriculture 0.72 0.42 0.26 0.02 0.02
Industry 15.53 13.54 1.68 0.16 0.15
Mining & Quarrying 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00
Manufacturing 14.99 13.28 1.45 0.13 0.13
Construction 0.32 0.17 0.13 0.01 0.01
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 0.18 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.01
Services 83.75 77.31 6.09 0.19 0.16
Wholesale and Retail Trade 49.98 47.43 2.47 0.05 0.03
Transportation, Storage and Communications 1.19 0.87 0.29 0.02 0.01
Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services 8.85 7.59 1.14 0.05 0.07
Community, Social and Personal Services 5.70 5.37 0.32 0.01 0.01
Others 18.04 16.06 1.87 0.06 0.04
Total (2010) 100.0 91.3 8.0 0.4 0.4
Agriculture 0.66 0.45 0.17 0.02 0.02
Industry 14.95 13.24 1.43 0.14 0.15
Mining & Quarrying 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00
Manufacturing 14.38 12.96 1.20 0.10 0.12
Construction 0.31 0.17 0.11 0.02 0.02
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 0.21 0.08 0.10 0.02 0.01

34
 Services 84.39 77.60 6.37 0.20 0.22
Wholesale and Retail Trade 47.79 45.34 2.36 0.05 0.04
Transportation, Storage and Communications 2.31 1.93 0.33 0.02 0.03
Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services 8.69 7.33 1.22 0.05 0.09
Community, Social and Personal Services 13.12 11.73 1.29 0.05 0.05
Others 12.48 11.27 1.18 0.02 0.01
Total (2011) 100.0 90.6 8.6 0.4 0.4
Agriculture 0.62 0.43 0.16 0.02 0.02
Industry 14.41 12.62 1.48 0.14 0.16
Mining & Quarrying 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00
Manufacturing 13.75 12.29 1.22 0.11 0.12
Construction 0.37 0.20 0.14 0.01 0.02
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 0.22 0.09 0.10 0.02 0.01
Services 84.97 77.56 6.93 0.24 0.25
Wholesale and Retail Trade 46.82 44.15 2.55 0.07 0.05
Transportation, Storage and Communications 3.15 2.72 0.38 0.03 0.03
Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services 8.86 7.40 1.29 0.06 0.11
Community, Social and Personal Services 13.31 11.86 1.34 0.06 0.05
Others 12.83 11.42 1.37 0.02 0.01
Growth Rate (%)
2002-2005
Total (3.25) (3.87) 3.85 4.97 (0.11)
Agriculture 36.76 73.80 3.12 28.10 8.51
Industry (4.31) (4.45) (4.81) 12.47 (1.31)
Mining & Quarrying (3.06) - (6.32) (44.44) -
Manufacturing (4.54) (4.42) (7.33) 14.79 (0.79)
Construction (4.87) (12.79) 8.57 (1.16) (19.59)
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 20.85 13.00 32.92 8.16 11.83
Services (3.29) (4.00) 6.54 (2.41) 0.08
Wholesale and Retail Trade (9.88) (10.60) 6.38 0.26 (11.85)
Transportation, Storage and Communications (34.04) (36.40) (27.06) (22.70) (25.00)
Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services 9.95 12.23 (4.31) 22.83 27.90
Community, Social and Personal Services 9.87 9.68 14.15 (6.90) (14.04)
Others 12.00 11.07 22.67 (13.74) (10.05)
2006-2010

35
Total (0.69) (1.43) 7.90 (1.87) 16.45
Agriculture (9.46) (0.45) (28.28) (6.45) 4.70
Industry (4.32) (3.99) (7.17) (10.76) 0.59
Mining & Quarrying 31.66 7.37 78.05 200.00 73.33
Manufacturing (4.69) (4.10) (9.15) (19.42) (6.19)
Construction (2.89) (5.03) (9.81) 48.81 69.86
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 15.58 14.85 18.10 14.15 5.77
Services 0.06 (0.98) 13.55 5.79 32.52
Wholesale and Retail Trade (5.06) (5.66) 7.18 9.11 35.62
Transportation, Storage and Communications 90.62 113.33 18.80 39.02 88.60
Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services (2.10) (4.41) 12.71 (13.64) 32.34
Community, Social and Personal Services 128.29 115.87 328.42 744.00 700.00
Others (31.30) (30.90) (32.65) (65.67) (81.07)
2010-2011
Total 5.47 4.70 13.30 17.98 15.65
Agriculture 0.23 1.54 (2.22) (3.45) (5.13)
Industry 1.60 0.58 9.31 9.44 10.81
Mining & Quarrying 35.71 52.79 10.96 20.00 30.77
Manufacturing 0.84 0.06 7.45 11.12 10.82
Construction 23.92 24.77 29.11 (4.80) 7.26
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 12.00 16.04 8.87 11.57 10.00
Services 6.20 5.42 14.60 25.78 20.97
Wholesale and Retail Trade 3.33 2.72 14.08 32.94 25.00
Transportation, Storage and Communications 44.34 48.77 22.26 35.67 2.33
Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services 7.57 6.52 11.11 32.08 30.90
Community, Social and Personal Services 6.95 6.60 9.91 11.37 7.45
Others 8.40 6.91 22.25 18.75 32.81
Source: National Statistics Office
Note: Growth Rate: No Available data for 2012, used period 2010-2011

36
Table 8. Share of Employees to Total and Growth Rate, by Size Category and Industry

Major Industry Group Total Micro Small Medium Large

Total (2002) 100.00 39.84 24.22 6.86 29.07
Agriculture 2.89 0.15 0.84 0.30 1.60
Industry 30.43 6.72 6.23 2.81 14.67
Mining & Quarrying 0.36 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.26
Manufacturing 26.14 6.54 5.47 2.31 11.82
Construction 2.52 0.12 0.44 0.21 1.74
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1.41 0.04 0.27 0.26 0.84
Services 66.68 32.98 17.15 3.75 12.80
Wholesale and Retail Trade 29.90 20.52 6.26 0.96 2.16
Transportation, Storage and Communications 5.20 0.73 1.35 0.40 2.71
Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services 11.67 3.34 3.43 0.88 4.02
Community, Social and Personal Services 3.42 1.95 0.82 0.15 0.50
Others 16.49 6.44 5.28 1.36 3.41
Total (2005) 100.00 37.55 24.88 7.01 30.56
Agriculture 3.27 0.24 0.83 0.40 1.80
Industry 30.30 6.08 5.80 3.02 15.40
Mining & Quarrying 0.28 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.21
Manufacturing 26.71 5.90 4.93 2.51 13.35
Construction 1.78 0.11 0.49 0.21 0.97
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1.53 0.05 0.35 0.28 0.86
Services 66.43 31.23 18.25 3.60 13.36
Wholesale and Retail Trade 27.88 18.24 6.79 0.95 1.90
Transportation, Storage and Communications 3.50 0.51 0.97 0.31 1.70
Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services 14.32 3.51 3.30 1.01 6.50
Community, Social and Personal Services 3.52 2.08 0.82 0.13 0.50
Others 17.22 6.89 6.37 1.20 2.76
Total (2010) 100.00 30.50 25.01 6.81 37.68
Agriculture 2.94 0.23 0.65 0.37 1.69
Industry 27.72 4.73 5.23 2.66 15.10
Mining & Quarrying 0.49 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.37
Manufacturing 22.78 4.55 4.24 1.98 12.00
Construction 2.53 0.09 0.49 0.31 1.64

37
 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1.76 0.05 0.40 0.31 1.00
Services 69.34 25.54 19.12 3.78 20.90
Wholesale and Retail Trade 23.81 13.98 6.37 1.01 2.45
Transportation, Storage and Communications 5.02 0.73 1.19 0.41 2.70
Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services 19.90 3.15 3.52 0.97 12.26
Community, Social and Personal Services 11.89 3.57 4.11 1.05 3.16
Others 8.71 4.11 3.93 0.35 0.33
Total (2011) 100.00 28.02 25.88 7.12 38.98
Agriculture 2.77 0.21 0.57 0.30 1.69
Industry 26.33 4.18 5.26 2.56 14.32
Mining & Quarrying 0.67 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.53
Manufacturing 21.64 4.00 4.26 1.96 11.42
Construction 2.27 0.10 0.54 0.26 1.37
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 1.75 0.05 0.39 0.31 1.00
Services 70.91 23.64 20.05 4.25 22.96
Wholesale and Retail Trade 23.44 12.70 6.79 1.20 2.75
Transportation, Storage and Communications 5.06 0.79 1.34 0.49 2.45
Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services 21.95 2.93 3.62 1.14 14.27
Community, Social and Personal Services 11.37 3.41 4.01 1.03 2.92
Others 9.08 3.81 4.29 0.39 0.58
Average Annual Growth Rate (%)
2002-2005
Total 1.52 (4.32) 4.25 3.71 6.72
Agriculture 14.84 69.26 0.12 32.80 14.16
Industry 1.07 (8.15) (5.46) 9.02 6.55
Mining & Quarrying (21.15) (4.98) (34.09) (40.76) (17.72)
Manufacturing 3.73 (8.29) (8.37) 10.27 14.68
Construction (28.38) (12.47) 12.29 1.97 (43.49)
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 10.30 27.07 30.47 8.44 3.64
Services 1.14 (3.87) 7.98 (2.61) 5.98
Wholesale and Retail Trade (5.37) (9.74) 10.02 0.27 (11.01)
Transportation, Storage and Communications (31.73) (29.70) (27.11) (21.33) (36.13)
Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services 24.56 6.77 (2.36) 16.60 64.02
Community, Social and Personal Services 4.63 8.38 0.91 (12.19) 1.14
Others 6.00 8.53 22.38 (10.50) (17.58)

38
 2006-2010
Total 13.73 3.67 10.84 1.35 28.93
Agriculture (4.40) 0.18 (12.31) (3.84) (1.73)
Industry 0.38 (0.26) (0.72) (5.72) 2.14
Mining & Quarrying 88.41 9.41 106.61 145.61 87.29
Manufacturing (5.94) (0.60) (4.98) (15.07) (6.53)
Construction 52.28 (4.03) 9.40 50.39 79.83
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 19.67 13.43 20.12 15.62 21.15
Services 21.15 4.47 15.56 7.58 64.63
Wholesale and Retail Trade 5.16 0.27 6.53 9.78 36.15
Transportation, Storage and Communications 53.83 59.70 33.38 39.16 66.03
Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services 49.96 4.56 14.90 (6.68) 99.21
Community, Social and Personal Services 294.19 112.18 447.71 802.49 632.54
Others (42.09) (23.22) (32.96) (69.68) (87.86)
2010-2011
Total 11.93 2.85 15.86 16.94 15.77
Agriculture 5.18 (1.78) (1.90) (8.70) 11.91
Industry 6.33 (1.09) 12.59 7.97 6.19
Mining & Quarrying 52.60 45.59 30.45 20.05 59.97
Manufacturing 6.36 (1.62) 12.39 10.80 6.51
Construction 0.42 20.30 23.94 (6.05) (6.54)
Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 10.82 11.36 9.09 11.29 11.32
Services 14.46 3.62 17.36 25.73 23.01
Wholesale and Retail Trade 10.22 1.72 19.30 32.85 25.79
Transportation, Storage and Communications 12.82 21.08 26.19 34.40 1.45
Financing, Insurance, Real Estate and Business Services 23.45 4.07 15.02 30.80 30.26
Community, Social and Personal Services 7.00 6.80 9.05 10.55 3.36
Others 16.63 3.86 22.33 26.50 98.56
Source: National Statistics Office
Note: Growth Rate: No Available data for 2012, used period 2010-2011

39
Table 9. GDP by Expenditure Share in Constant 2000 Prices, 2001-2012

Average
% Share to % Share to % Share to Annual
2001-2004 2005-2008 2009-2012
GDP GDP GDP Growth
Rate

GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT 3,947,104 100 4,865,725 100 5,809,514 100 5.03
A. Household Final Consumption Expenditure 2,916,211 74 3,517,742 72 4,102,240 71 4.69
B. Government Consumption 399,479 10 466,324 10 584,537 10 4.47
C. Capital Formation 903,800 23 882,569 18 1,146,372 20 4.57
Fixed Capital 797,644 20 928,322 19 1,155,466 20 5.18
Construction 332,728 8 372,238 8 473,030 8 4.54
Durable Equipment 365,523 9 450,461 9 562,155 10 6.41
Breeding Stock & Orchard Development 99,393 3 105,625 2 99,061 2 0.40
Changes in Inventories 86,492 2 -68,600 -1 -2,183 0 -2.49
Intellectual Property Products 19,664 0 22,846 0 14,309 0 572.29
D. Exports 1,869,190 47 2,488,167 51 2,760,574 48 5.56
E. Less: Imports 2,141,575 54 2,489,077 51 2,785,158 48 4.34

Source: NSCB

40
Table 10. Gross Regional Domestic Product Growth Rate, 2000-2012
In Constant Prices

Region 2000-2004 2005-2008 2009-2012

Philippines 4.7 5.3 4.79
NCR 5.4 6.7 4.41
CAR 2.8 3.3 2.65
I 3.8 4.8 3.40
II 3.0 2.9 3.64
III 4.0 4.2 5.68
IV-A 4.2 3.5
IV-B 6.6 5.2 4.55
V 4.7 4.9 2.31
VI 4.9 5.5 5.60
VII 5.1 5.7 5.82
VIII 3.6 3.7 7.32
IX 3.2 4.6 (0.10)
X 10.0 6.1 5.73
XI (1.0) 4.7 5.75
XII 11.8 5.0 5.38
XIII 3.3 5.4 4.19
ARMM 3.0 3.7 7.29
Source: National Statistical Coordination Board
Notes:
2000-2008: 1985 Constant Prices
2009-2012: 2000 Constant Prices

41
Table 11. Labor Productivity, by Region, 2000-2011
In Constant Prices

Region 2000-2004 2005-2008 2009-2011

Philippines 35,146 39,722 150,463
NCR 82,903 106,137 449,394
CAR 45,283 45,330 163,296
I 19,970 22,505 89,580
II 18,784 19,516 70,567
III 32,205 32,942 129,495
IV-A 39,838 39,641 208,838
IV-B 33,229 33,712 84,195
V 16,259 18,769 54,355
VI 29,757 34,467 73,985
VII 34,756 37,485 112,452
VIII 15,863 17,746 87,646
IX 24,266 26,839 84,022
X 31,751 37,211 108,358
XI 31,439 36,297 119,410
XII 27,429 30,998 91,196
XIII 16,476 18,376 60,385
ARMM 11,755 11,175 39,430
Source: National Statistical Coordination Board and National Statistics Office

Notes:
2000-2008: 1985 Constant Prices
2009-2011: 2000 Constant Prices

42
Table 12. Unemployment Rate, by Region, 2000-2012

Unemployment Rate
Region
2000-2004 2005-2008 2009-2012
Philippines 6.6 7.6 7.2
NCR 11.4 13.4 11.9
CAR 4.2 4.8 5.1
I 6.6 8.4 8.2
II 2.4 3.2 3.0
III 8.6 9.9 9.1
IV-A 9.2 9.9 9.8
IV-B 3.5 4.5 4.3
V 4.8 5.3 5.6
VI 6.0 6.5 6.8
VII 7.3 7.2 7.1
VIII 5.3 4.6 5.2
IX 4.4 3.6 3.5
X 4.6 5.5 5.0
XI 6.5 6.4 5.7
XII 6.1 5.1 4.2
XIII 5.5 5.7 5.7
ARMM 3.1 3.8 3.3
Source: National Statistics Office

43
 Table 13. Underemployment Rate, by Region, 2000-2012

Region 2000-2004 2005-2008 2009-2012

Philippines 18.1 20.8 19.3
NCR 11.5 14.1 13.0
CAR 15.0 19.9 16.7
I 15.5 18.3 17.6
II 19.7 20.0 15.1
III 8.9 10.9 9.6
IV-A 12.2 16.7 17.2
IV-B 16.5 24.8 24.0
V 32.0 36.5 35.9
VI 22.3 24.9 23.9
VII 11.1 17.9 17.0
VIII 25.7 28.7 24.7
IX 19.6 23.9 23.6
X 30.4 30.6 28.7
XI 24.3 22.0 18.9
XII 23.8 25.7 21.8
XIII 21.3 25.8 24.3
ARMM 11.0 15.3 13.3
Source: National Statistics Office

44
Table 14. Share of Establishments to Total and Growth Rate, by Size Category and Region

2005 2011
Total Micro Small Medium Large Total Micro Small Medium Large
Philippines 100.00 91.28 8.02 0.36 0.34 100.00 90.61 8.56 0.40 0.43
NCR 24.96 21.44 3.22 0.16 0.14 26.04 21.97 3.70 0.18 0.20
CAR 1.89 1.77 0.11 0.00 0.00 1.87 1.76 0.10 0.00 0.00
I 5.64 5.35 0.27 0.01 0.00 5.30 5.05 0.24 0.01 0.00
II 3.06 2.94 0.12 0.00 0.00 2.96 2.84 0.12 0.00 0.00
III 10.78 10.00 0.73 0.03 0.02 10.18 9.37 0.75 0.03 0.02
IV-A 14.58 13.47 0.98 0.06 0.07 15.02 13.93 0.95 0.06 0.07
IV-B 2.96 2.81 0.15 0.00 0.00 2.78 2.65 0.13 0.00 0.00
V 4.04 3.82 0.21 0.01 0.00 3.26 3.05 0.20 0.01 0.00
VI 5.91 5.44 0.44 0.02 0.01 5.77 5.29 0.44 0.02 0.02
VII 5.67 5.06 0.54 0.03 0.03 6.15 5.50 0.57 0.03 0.04
VIII 2.65 2.50 0.14 0.00 0.00 2.24 2.11 0.13 0.01 0.00
IX 3.23 3.05 0.16 0.00 0.00 3.32 3.14 0.17 0.01 0.01
X 3.76 3.46 0.28 0.01 0.01 3.64 3.30 0.31 0.01 0.01
XI 4.69 4.30 0.35 0.02 0.02 4.92 4.48 0.40 0.02 0.02
XII 3.40 3.18 0.20 0.01 0.01 3.86 3.62 0.22 0.01 0.01
XIII 1.73 1.63 0.10 0.00 0.00 1.69 1.57 0.11 0.00 0.00
ARMM 1.06 1.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.97 0.03 0.00 0.00
Source: National Statistics Office

Growth Rate (%)

Total MICRO SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
PHILIPPINES (2002-2005) (44.1) (44.7) (38.2) (36.8) (38.5)
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (14.8) (14.0) (18.5) (17.0) (28.0)
CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION (65.3) (65.1) (66.8) (74.2) (74.7)
ILOCOS REGION (8.8) (9.1) (2.1) (11.1) 6.7
CAGAYAN VALLEY (4.5) (4.6) (0.5) (23.8) (22.7)
CENTRAL LUZON (4.0) (4.5) 3.7 (2.3) (5.6)
SOUTHERN TAGALOG (21.5) (22.5) (8.1) 1.6 8.6
BICOL REGION (70.9) (71.0) (68.4) (86.9) (85.5)
WESTERN VISAYAS (55.6) (55.3) (59.3) (64.8) (77.7)

45
CENTRAL VISAYAS (66.4) (66.4) (66.4) (67.8) (72.6)
EASTERN VISAYAS (73.5) (74.7) (57.3) (53.6) (50.4)
ZAMBOANGA PENINSULA (65.3) (65.4) (63.1) (67.0) (75.4)
NORTHERN MINDANAO (65.9) (65.2) (74.7) (82.9) (77.6)
DAVAO REGION (69.9) (69.6) (72.4) (76.5) (79.3)
SOCCSKSARGEN (15.3) (17.9) 28.8 54.8 160.0
CARAGA (30.2) (31.3) (8.3) (6.5) 16.3
AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO (74.8) (74.4) (79.0) (85.2) (82.8)
PHILIPPINES (2006-2010) (0.7) (0.7) (1.3) (2.3) 14.4
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION 7.8 7.4 10.1 0.7 22.8
CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION (4.6) (4.1) (13.7) 25.0 21.1
ILOCOS REGION (4.4) (3.6) (21.1) 20.8 3.1
CAGAYAN VALLEY (1.1) (0.8) (10.1) 56.3 23.5
CENTRAL LUZON (6.1) (6.1) (7.5) (4.3) 17.6
CALABARZON 0.2 0.9 (8.4) (22.2) (4.8)
MIMAROPA (3.1) (2.1) (20.2) (7.1) 30.0
BICOL REGION (13.3) (13.6) (8.1) 15.9 36.0
WESTERN VISAYAS (2.1) (1.8) (7.0) 4.3 26.4
CENTRAL VISAYAS 2.8 3.4 (2.2) (12.6) 8.7
EASTERN VISAYAS (13.3) (13.5) (11.0) 12.1 64.7
ZAMBOANGA PENINSULA (4.0) (3.2) (20.8) 5.6 5.4
NORTHERN MINDANAO (3.3) (3.6) (1.0) 14.1 15.5
DAVAO REGION 0.0 0.6 (7.8) 12.3 6.9
SOCCSKSARGEN (6.4) (5.8) (17.3) 1.7 31.6
CARAGA (9.3) (10.1) 3.3 13.6 3.4
AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO (3.5) (3.0) (22.4) 44.4 -
PHILIPPINES (2010-2011) 5.5 4.7 13.3 18.0 15.6
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION 1.4 (0.0) 9.3 18.7 19.9
CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 8.8 9.1 3.6 (3.3) 17.4
ILOCOS REGION 3.1 2.6 14.2 13.8 18.2
CAGAYAN VALLEY 2.4 1.8 18.0 16.0 (4.8)
CENTRAL LUZON 5.4 4.4 17.8 31.2 (1.5)
CALABARZON 7.7 7.3 11.6 19.3 17.7
MIMAROPA 1.4 1.0 8.9 76.9 30.8
BICOL REGION (2.4) (3.2) 11.5 7.8 5.9

46
 WESTERN VISAYAS 4.4 3.7 13.4 13.9 (3.6)
CENTRAL VISAYAS 10.5 10.2 13.8 11.7 16.0
EASTERN VISAYAS 2.1 1.9 5.4 16.2 (7.1)
ZAMBOANGA PENINSULA 12.4 11.2 39.6 39.5 20.5
NORTHERN MINDANAO 5.0 3.6 19.5 29.2 32.9
DAVAO REGION 9.8 8.5 27.9 8.9 12.9
SOCCSKSARGEN 27.0 26.5 37.2 (3.4) 1.3
CARAGA 13.0 12.4 20.1 24.0 16.7
AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO 2.8 2.6 15.3 (38.5) 20.0
Note: Growth Rate: No Available data for 2012, used period 2010-2011

47
Table 15. Share of Employees to Total and Growth Rate, by Size Category and Region

2005 2011
Total Micro Small Medium Large Total Micro Small Medium Large
Philippines 100.00 35.79 23.71 6.68 29.13 100.00 28.02 25.88 7.12 38.98
NCR 34.38 9.11 10.01 2.90 12.35 43.23 7.83 11.68 3.18 20.55
CAR 1.23 0.61 0.30 0.06 0.26 1.16 0.47 0.27 0.06 0.36
I 3.05 2.01 0.72 0.12 0.20 2.49 1.40 0.67 0.14 0.28
II 1.55 1.11 0.30 0.04 0.09 1.26 0.77 0.31 0.06 0.12
III 8.35 3.85 2.06 0.51 1.93 7.30 2.76 2.23 0.58 1.72
IV-A 16.09 5.07 2.98 1.13 6.90 14.93 3.96 3.00 1.01 6.96
IV-B 1.45 1.03 0.33 0.04 0.05 1.16 0.70 0.32 0.05 0.09
V 2.26 1.45 0.55 0.10 0.16 1.90 0.96 0.56 0.12 0.27
VI 4.56 2.11 1.26 0.32 0.86 4.26 1.64 1.26 0.35 1.02
VII 7.01 2.01 1.63 0.58 2.78 7.58 1.78 1.75 0.54 3.51
VIII 1.57 1.01 0.37 0.08 0.11 1.27 0.66 0.34 0.09 0.18
IX 1.95 1.12 0.46 0.09 0.28 1.76 0.84 0.47 0.12 0.32
X 3.04 1.35 0.78 0.18 0.72 3.16 1.05 0.88 0.26 0.98
XI 4.30 1.68 1.04 0.31 1.28 4.33 1.43 1.14 0.35 1.41
XII 2.72 1.22 0.55 0.15 0.81 2.57 1.02 0.62 0.13 0.80
XIII 1.17 0.63 0.26 0.94 0.22 1.16 0.47 0.30 0.07 0.31
ARMM 0.63 0.42 0.08 0.02 0.12 0.48 0.28 0.08 0.02 0.10
Source: National Statistics Office

Growth Rate (%)

Total MICRO SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
PHILIPPINES (2002-2005) 6.5 (4.3) 4.3 3.7 6.7
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION (6.1) (3.8) (1.4) (2.7) (11.8)
CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 6.1 (0.5) 27.0 10.0 1.7
ILOCOS REGION (3.1) (3.5) 5.6 (13.9) (18.2)
CAGAYAN VALLEY (5.6) (4.7) (1.8) (9.5) (22.4)

48
 Growth Rate (%)
Total MICRO SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
CENTRAL LUZON 6.8 (6.2) 16.1 17.9 28.0
SOUTHERN TAGALOG 6.8 (20.1) 2.2 20.0 42.3
BICOL REGION (36.9) (28.2) (37.1) (71.0) (74.5)
WESTERN VISAYAS (49.7) (32.5) (50.6) (71.9) (81.9)
CENTRAL VISAYAS (31.0) (5.5) (21.5) (34.3) (62.0)
EASTERN VISAYAS 326.2 98.0 345.2 501.5 1,587.7
ZAMBOANGA PENINSULA (19.0) (11.4) (16.9) (18.9) (57.2)
NORTHERN MINDANAO (35.7) (25.9) (37.8) (56.2) (50.7)
DAVAO REGION (26.0) (18.0) (22.8) (33.9) (38.3)
SOCCSKSARGEN 95.6 36.7 143.7 242.4 180.7
CARAGA 126.6 69.0 114.8 146.6 387.7
AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO 25.9 16.0 61.5 1,820.8 27.3
PHILIPPINES (2005-2010) (1.4) (16.0) 4.0 0.5 27.6
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION 22.5 (5.0) 14.0 2.7 54.3
CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION (3.2) (16.8) (7.4) 29.3 26.8
ILOCOS REGION (17.5) (23.5) (14.9) 19.1 11.4
CAGAYAN VALLEY (14.4) (23.6) (3.7) 42.9 36.4
CENTRAL LUZON (10.4) (24.4) (1.3) (4.3) 6.0
CALABARZON (9.5) (18.7) (2.0) (16.2) (4.8)
MIMAROPA (11.2) (16.8) (3.4) (12.9) 50.7
BICOL REGION (5.3) (20.7) (1.5) 18.0 107.9
WESTERN VISAYAS (4.8) (18.0) (4.7) 7.2 22.6
CENTRAL VISAYAS 2.6 (9.9) 3.9 (8.7) 13.2
EASTERN VISAYAS (13.5) (26.9) (3.0) 12.4 57.9
ZAMBOANGA PENINSULA (14.4) (23.7) (17.6) 0.7 21.6
NORTHERN MINDANAO 1.0 (14.9) 2.4 22.7 23.8
DAVAO REGION (4.4) (13.6) (7.8) 18.1 4.9
SOCCSKSARGEN 0.2 (21.8) (11.5) 2.3 40.7

49
 Growth Rate (%)
Total MICRO SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
CARAGA (9.6) (20.6) 8.8 (93.8) (2.9)
AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO (23.2) (27.6) (12.6) 27.7 (28.9)
PHILIPPINES (2010-2011) 11.9 2.8 15.9 16.9 15.8
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION 13.3 (0.1) 12.9 17.7 19.0
CORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION 8.1 2.1 5.0 (4.2) 22.9
ILOCOS REGION 9.1 0.3 20.4 11.7 36.3
CAGAYAN VALLEY 5.1 0.1 17.1 15.2 6.1
CENTRAL LUZON 7.7 4.5 21.1 32.3 (6.9)
CALABARZON 13.2 6.0 13.4 17.9 16.9
MIMAROPA (0.6) (9.5) 12.5 66.4 16.1
BICOL REGION (1.8) (8.0) 13.7 10.9 (10.1)
WESTERN VISAYAS 8.3 4.8 15.0 10.3 5.9
CENTRAL VISAYAS 16.2 8.5 13.8 10.9 22.9
EASTERN VISAYAS 3.0 (2.1) 3.2 13.1 19.5
ZAMBOANGA PENINSULA 16.1 8.9 37.7 40.3 3.6
NORTHERN MINDANAO 13.9 0.3 22.1 25.5 21.1
DAVAO REGION 16.3 9.2 31.7 7.1 15.7
SOCCSKSARGEN 4.1 19.0 38.9 (4.8) (22.0)
CARAGA 21.4 4.8 20.5 27.4 59.2
AUTONOMOUS REGION IN MUSLIM MINDANAO 8.3 2.7 20.8 (27.1) 29.4
Note: Growth Rate: No Available data for 2012, used period 2010-2011

50
Table 16. Employment Generating Programs by Department

A. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Program Program Description
On-Going Projects
DTI-Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program • Training for agro-industrial activities
• Market Development Assistance
• Consultancy Services
One Town, One Product (OTOP-Philippines) • Business Counseling through LGUs, National
Government Agencies and the private sector
• Skills and entrepreneurial training
• Product design and development
• Marketing
Rural Micro-Enterprise Promotion Programme • Technical and Financial support for micro-enterprises
(RuMEPP)

Export Pathways Programs (EPP)/ Regional • Capacity Building to potential exporters

Interactive Platform for Philippine Exports • Product Design
(RIPPLES) • Market Info Seminar
• Export Marketing Activities
National Industry Cluster Capacity- • Investment generation through capacity building
Enhancement Program (NICCEP) • Exports expansion
• Job creation
• Development of MSMEs
Shared Services Facilities (SSF) • Provision of processing and or manufacturing tools,
machinery and equipment for microenterprises and
SMEs.
Completed Projects
SME Unified Lending Program for National • Financing Program for MSME Development
Growth (Sulong)
Small and Medium Enterprise Development for • Financing Program for MSME Development
Sustainable Employment Program (SMEDSEP):
Enhancing Businesses in the Visayas (thru GTZ)
Small Business Guarantee and Finance • Financing Program MSME Development
Corporation (SBGFC)
Tulong sa Tao Microfinancing Program • Financing Program for NGOs
Self-Employment Loan Assistance (SELA) II • Livelihood financing support
Credit Program for the Poorest of the Poor • Financing program for micro businesses
(CPPP)
Techno-managerial and Regular Trainings • Training for MSME Development
Livelihood and Skills Development
B. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT
On-Going Projects
Self-Employment Assistance-Kaunlaran I & II • Micro-Enterprise development
(SEA-K)/ • Employment Facilitation through LGU, NGAs and
Sustainable Livelihood Program private sector
Cash/Food for Work Project for Internally • Temporary employment for displaced individuals
Displaced Person • Preparedness, mitigation, relief, rehabilitation or risk
reduction projects and activities
Recovery and Reintegration Program for • Provision of livelihood assistance
Trafficked Persons (RRTP)

51
Government Internship Program • Internship program for both out-of-school youth and in-
school youths
Comprehensive Program for Street Children, • Educational Assistance
Street Families and Ips Especially Bajaus • Provide psycho-social services for healing and
development
• Livelihood Assistance
Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive • Enhancing community and LGU capacity
and Integrated Delivery of Social Services • Provide seed funding for community implementation of
(Kalahi-CIDSSS) projects
Completed Projects
Job Network Services • Job matching
• Occupational guidance and counseling
• Granting of cash assistance
Youth Productivity Service • Technical/vocational training for out-of-school youth, in
partnership with local government units,
corporations, industries and other concerned
agencies.
Tindahan Natin • Livelihood assistance program
C. DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM
Completed Program
Grassroots Entrepreneurship • Financing for tourism-related livelihood/ micro-
for Eco Tourism (GREET) program enterprise projects

D. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

On-Going Projects
Agrarian Reform Infrastructure Support Project • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
III (ARISP III) training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Agrarian Reform Communities Project II (Phase • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
II) training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Tulay ng Pangulo Para sa Kaunlarang Pang- • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
Agraryo (TPKP) training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Italian Assistance to Agrarian Reform • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
Communities Development Support Program training, technology and community organizing in
(IARCDSP) land reform areas
Mindanao Sustainable Agrarian and Agriculture • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
Development Project (MinSAAD) training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Bridge Construction Project for Expanded ARCs • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
Dev. (Umiray Bridge) training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Completed Projects
Agrarian Reform Infrastructure Support Project • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
(ARISP) training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Agrarian Reform Support Project (ARSP) • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas

52
Poverty Alleviation Program for Social Reform • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
Agenda (PAPSRA): Support to Selected training, technology and community organizing in
Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) and land reform areas
Agrarian Reform Communities in Mindanao
Agrarian Reform Communities Development • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
Project (ARCDP) training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Belgian Integrated Agrarian Reform Support • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
Project (BIARSP) training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Development of Agrarian Reform Communities • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
in Marginal Areas (DARCMA) training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Solar Power Technology Support Project to • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
Agrarian Reform Community Initiatives and training, technology and community organizing in
Resource Management Project (SPOTS I) land reform areas
Agrarian Reform Infrastructure Support Project • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
II (ARISP II) training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Belgian Integrated Agrarian Reform Support • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
Project (BIARSP) III training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Agrarian Reform Communities Project (ARCP) • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Western Minandanao Community Initiatives • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
Proejct (WMCIP) training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Support to Agrarian Reform in Central • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
Mindanao (STARCM) training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Solar Power Technology Support Project to • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
Agrarian Reform training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Mindanao Sustainable Settlement Area Dev't • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
Project(MINSSAD) training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Northern Mindanao Community Initiatives and • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
Resource Management Proejct (NMICIREMP) training, technology and community organizing in
(SOP Grant) land reform areas
Project for Bridge Construction for Expanded • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
ARCs Development (Basal) training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas
Second Agrarian Reform Communities • Provision of support services like infrastructure, credit,
Development Project training, technology and community organizing in
land reform areas

E. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

On-Going Projects
Special Program for Employment of Students • On the job training
(SPES)

53
Kasanayan at Hanapbuhay (KasH) Program • Training for new graduates and young workers

DOLE Integrated Livelihood Program • Develop sustainable enterprises in community groups

Self-Reliant Organization for Comprehensive• Provides organizational and technical assistance and
Agrarian Reform Program (SRO-CARP) other support services to agrarian reform farm
workers/beneficiaries turned farm-
owners/managers
Workers Organization and Development • Provides training, education, information and
Program (WODP) entrepreneurship development assistance
Reintegration Program for OFWs • Training on financial literacy and entrepreneurial
development training
• Provision of credit facility for those who may wish to
start their business
TULAY 2000 (Tulong Alalay sa mga Taong may • Skills training programs suited to their interests,
Kapansanan) potentials and circumstances;
• Facilitates placement to wage employment
• Provides technical and financial livelihood support
assistance either as individual or group
Katulong at Gabay sa mga Manggagawang may • Integration of occupational disabled workers into the
Kapansanan (KAGABAY) economic mainstream
DOLE –Adjustment Measures Program (DOLE- • Livelihood assistance
AMP) • Training/retraining services
Worktrep Program (Unlad Kabuhayan Laban sa • Improve socio-economic well-being of the poor IS-
Kahirapan) Worktreps
Promotion of Rural Employ-ment and Self- • Provides access to a package of integrated services,
Employment and Entrepreneurship from human and institutional development to a
Development (PRESEED) more comprehensive entrepreneurial development
support system
Women Workers Employment and • Provides Entrepreneurship Development Training (EDT)
Entrepreneurship Development (WEED) and the Appropriate Skills training (AST).
Completed Projects
Classroom Galing sa Mamamayang Pilipino • Generate employment through construction of
Abroad (CGMA) classrooms
OFW Groceria Project • Financing program (in the form of P50 thousand worth
of grocery items and goods) for OFW Family Circles
OFW Enterprise Development • Provision of technical and financial assistance to OFWs
and their families
Poverty-Free Zone (PFZ) Program (Aksyon ng • Delivers a package of organizational, entrepreneurship
Sambayanan Laban sa Kahirapan) and training interventions to identified
communities
Working Youth Center (WYC) Program • Setting up of and provision of assistance to WYCs
(upliftment of their socio-economic well-being)
• Organization and strengthening of working youth
associations/ organizations
• Facilitation of the delivery of existing programs to the
young workers such as (training, employment and
other programs)
• Enlightenment of the young workers on government
laws, rules and regulations and on other issues
relating to their employment; and
• Mobilization of all sectors and available resources in

54
 undertaking programs, services and activities
F. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
On-going Projects
Agricultural and Fisheries Modernization Act • Job creation through SME Development
(AFMA)
Credit Programs of Landbank • Job creation through SME Development
Office of the One Million Jobs Program • Job creation through DA programs
Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan • Job creation through DA programs
Related Employment (2004-2010)
G. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS
On-going Projects
President's Roadside Maintenance Program • Public Works
(Kalsada Natin, Alagaan Natin)
Job Creation KNAN on Roadside Maintenance • Public Works
Out of School Youth Toward Economic Recovery • Public Works-Community Roads
(OYSTER)
Job Fairs • Job placement in private sector (contractors)
H. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATION
On-going Projects
Comprehensive Livelihood and Emergence • Public works
Employment Program (LRTA)
Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority • Livelihood financing support
(MCIAA)
Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) • Job placement in janitorial services
Philippine Aerospace Development Corporation • Job placement in maintenance
(PADC) • On the job training
Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) • On the job training
Philippine Merchant Marine Academy (PMMA) • Job placement
Philippine National Railways (PNR) • Job placement in railways
Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) • Job placement in ports
Source: Agency Reports

Table 17. Methodology for determining jobs generated, Selected Departments

55
 KEY PROGRAMS/SPECIFIC
AGENCY METHOD OF COMPUTATION
ACTIVITIES
Department of Infrastructure Projects Assumptions:
Public Works and 1 job = 4 months employed @ 22
Highways days a month (88 days)
Ave. labor rate (skilled and
unskilled) = Php 550/day
Factor (% of labor cost) = 20%
(low), 25% (medium), 30% (high)
Project Cost = Effective CO budget
to generate labor out of the total
proposed FY 2012 DPWH
infrastructure budget( less ROW,
Contractual Obligations, PDE and
EAO, etc.)

Formula:

Number of jobs= Total Project Cost

x 20%
550 x 88
Department of Tourism promotion Based on Tourism Gross Value
Tourism Development planning and Added
regulation
Department of BWSC, ROs Capacity Building Calculated beneficiaries of
Labor and Services programs and projects
Employment BLE, BWSC, Job Search
TESDA, ROs, Assistance
PESO Services
Department of PEZA Investment Direct employment. Projections
Trade and Industry facilitation and based on 10 % growth rate year-
promotion on-year
services
BOI Investment Direct and indirect employment.
facilitation and Projections based on a 6 year
promotion average annual growth rate of
services 10.11 % (2005-2010)
Regional MSME Direct Employment
Operations development and
promotion
services
SB Corp MSME Financing 1 job supported = Php 80,000 loan
Department of Infrastructure Projects Assumptions:

56
Agrarian Reform
Average Daily Wage= P243.00
(Skilled and Unskilled)
Average Construction Period
(ACP):
FMR=144 days
Bridge=144 days
Irrigation=216 days
Other infra=120 days

Working Days per Month = 24

Formula:

Labor Cost = 85% x 20% x Total

Project Cost (TPC)

Person Days Factor (PDF)= Labor

Cost/Average Daily Wage

Estimated Jobs = ((TPC/1M) x

PDF)/ACP
Department of Construction of Farm-to-Market 1 job = 4 mos. employed@22
Agriculture Roads days/mon.= 88 days. Average
Labor Rate (Skilled and Unskilled) =
Php 550/day
Construction of Small Water
Impounding Projects 1 job = 90 days employed. Average
Labor Rate (Unskilled at Rural
Area) = Php 550/day
Department of Livelihood Actual number of direct
Social Welfare and beneficiaries
Development
Department of No. of jobs generated:
Transportation and % share of labor cost to total
Communication project cost/ average cost of one
job

Where:
Average cost of one job = Average
daily wage per job x project
duration
Project duration = Number of

57
 months x 22 days per month
Source: DOLE-Community Based Employment Program

58
Table 18. Jobs generated by Programs Enrolled in CBEP by Department, 2012

Jobs Generated Financial

Cost per Job
Program/Project (Obligation/Actual
Target Actual % Accomplishment Allocation Obligation % Utilization No. of Jobs)

Department of Trade and Industry

A. Infrastructure 10,400 15,831 152.00 103,672,500 138,230,000 75 8,732.00

1. Rural Micro Enterprise Promotion Program (RUMEPP) 10,400 15,831 152.00 103,672,500 138,230,000 75 8,732.00
Department of Social Welfare and Development

A. Infrastructure 64,801 64,801 100.00 95,986,485 95,986,485 100.00 1,481.25

1. Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan Comprehensive and

Integrated Delivery of Social Services (KALAHI-CIDSS) 64,801 64,801 100.00 95,986,485 95,986,485 100.00 1,481.25

B. Non-Infrastructure 409,876 289,783 70.70 1,473,293,691 1,710,350,654 116.09 5,902.18

1. Sustainable Livelihood Program (Self-Employment

Assistance Kaunlaran-Pantawid Pamilya Beneficiaries) 209,745 60,308 28.75 241,546,851 465,298,003 192.63 7,715.36

2. Sustainable Livelihood Program (Self-Employment

Assistance Kaunlaran-Non-Pantawid Pamilya Beneficiaries) - 27,157 - - 237,514,757 - 8,745.99

3. Recovery and Reintegration Program for Trafficked Persons

(RRPTP) 400 520 130.00 4,000,000 4,733,004 118.33 9,101.93

4. Comprehensive Program for Street Children, Street

Families, and Indigenous Peoples, especially the Badjaus 530 553 104.34 23,700,820 18,950,110 79.96 34,267.83

5. Cash-for-Work (CFW) as a support component of PAMANA-

Shelter Assistance Project 4,000 - - 6,960,000 - - -

6.Government Internship Program (GIP) (Regular) 340 340 100.00 1,870,000 1,870,000 100.00 5,500.00
 7.Government Internship Program (GIP) (Expanded) 24,492 24,492 100.00 309,862,920 309,862,920 100.00 12,651.60

8. Cash for Work for Pag-asa Youth Association of the

Philippines (PYAP) Members 3,400 - - 2,159,100 - - -

9. Cash for Work for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) 166,869 176,310 105.64 881,219,000 670,394,958 76.08 3,802.36
10. National Youth Commission (NYC) 100 103 103.00 1,975,000 1,726,902 87.44 16,766.04

C. Total 474,707 354,584 74.70 1,569,280,176 1,806,337,139 115 5,094.24

Department of Agrarian Reform

A. Infrastructure 10,095 4,884 48.38 2,095,115,482 905,903,611 43.24 185,483.95

1. Agrarian Reform Infrastructure Support Project III (ARISP III) 7,302 3,578 49.00 1,523,059,242 686,364,800 45.06 191,829.18

2. Agrarian Reform Communities Project II (ARCP II) 1,242 392 31.56 252,714,404 81,801,899 32.37 208,678.31

3. Tulay ng Pangulo para sa Kaunlarang Pang-Agraryo (TPKP) 1,551 914 58.93 319,341,837 137,736,913 43.13 150,696.84

B. Non-Infrastructure 2,235 1,617 72.35 14,174,889 8,522,471 60.12 5,270.54

1. Agrarian Reform Infrastructure Support Project III (ARISP III) 2,235 1,162 51.99 14,174,889 8,522,471 60.12 7,334.31

2. Margeting Assistance Program (MAP) - 350 - - - - -

3. Village Level Processing Center Enhancement Project

(VLPCEP I, II, I) - - - - - - -

4. National Technology Commercialization Program (NTCP) - 25 - - - - -

5. DAR-Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Partnership Project on

Linkin Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries to Corporate Supply Chain - - - - - - -

6. Community-Managed Potable Water Supply, Sanitation and

Hygiene (CPWASH) Project - 80 - - - - -

C. Total 12,330 6,501 52.73 2,095,115,482 905,903,611 43.24 139,348.35

60
Department of Tourism

A. DOT Main Office

- Hiring of Contract Service 832 878 105.53 32,711,602 37,306,869 114.05 42,490.74
B. Intramuros Administration (IA) 312 292 93.59 9,586,031 9,000,000 93.89 30,821.92

C. Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority (TIEZA) 2,096 2,130 101.62 68,852,910 68,852,910 100.00 32,325.31

D. National Parks and Development Committee (NPDC) 684 676 98.83 3,532,900 2,610,470 73.89 3,861.64

Total 3,924 3,976 101.33 114,683,443 117,770,249 102.59 29,620.28

Department of Agriculture
A. Infrastructure 213,778 123,690 57.86 15,148,634,000 7,243,577,508 47.82 58,562.35

1. Construction of Farm-to-Market Roads Project 19,055 9,620 50.49 6,147,193,000 3,117,111,478 50.71 324,024.06

a. Regular GAA 15,503 8,837 57 5,000,940,000 2,827,995,058 56.55 320,017.55

b. Locally Funded Projects 2,896 521 17.99 211,660,000 120,741,000 57.04 231,748.56
c. Foreign-Assisted Projects 656 262 39.94 934,593,000 168,375,420 18.02 642,654.27
2. Construction/Rehabilitation of Irrigation Systems 192,541 113,729 59.07 8,801,441,000 3,836,466,030 43.59 33,733.40
3. Construction of Small Water Impounding Projects 2,182 341 15.63 200,000,000 290,000,000 145 850,439.88

B. Non-Infrastructure 177,635 168,426 94.82 864,498,646 478,875,834 55.39 2,843.24

1. Integrated Farming, Other Income Generating Project 11,056 4,647 42.03 246,636,646 115,285,834 46.74 24,808.66
2. Accelerated Coconut Planting & Replanting Program 138,125 131,205 94.99 502,310,000 262,360,000 52.23 1,999.62
3. Fishing Paraphernalia Distribution 27,530 32,277 117.24 106,312,000 94,260,000 88.66 2,920.35
4. Agrikultura: Kaagapay ng Bayang Pinoy Program 924 297 32.14 9,240,000 2,970,000 32.14 10,000.00

C. Total 391,413 292,116 74.63 16,013,132,646 7,718,453,342 48.2 26,422.56

Department of Public Works and Highways
A. Infrastructure 442,626 279,057 63.05 187,101,030,120 38,650,102,300 20.66 138,502.54
1. Infrastructure Program (2011 Funds, Continuing) 162,158 198,557 122.45 94,160,000,000 - - -

61
 Capital Outlay/Preventive Maintenance 162,158 81,429 50.22 94,160,000,000 - - -
Routine Maintenance (MOOE) - - - - - - -
Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) - 116,799 - - - - -
Routine Maintenance (Motor Vehicles Users Charge or
- - - - - - -
MVUC)
Trabahong Lansangan (MVUC) - - - - - - -
Road Safety (Anti-Overloading) (MVUC) - - - - - - -
Preventive Maintenance (MVUC) - 329 - - - - -
Project Management Office (PMO) - - - - - - -
2. Infrastructure Program (2012 Funds, Current) 280,468 80,500 28.7 92,941,030,121 38,650,102,300 41.59 480,125.49
Capital Outlay/Preventive Maintenance 243,733 38,886 15.95 78,644,483,000 36,327,152,300 46.19 934,196.17
Routine Maintenance (MOOE) 12,397 5,286 42.64 4,000,000,000 750,000,000 18.75 141,884.22
Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) 7,031 22,222 316.06 - - - -
Routine Maintenance (MVUC) 8,706 8,668 99.56 3,086,688,000 900,000,000 29.16 103,830.18
Trabahong Lansangan (MVUC) 2,077 1,695 81.61 - - - -
Road Safety (Anti-Overloading) (MVUC) 304 304 100 1,188,859,120 - - -
Preventive Maintenance (MVUC) 6,220 - - 6,021,000,000 672,950,000 11.18 -
Project Management Office (PMO) - 3,439 - - - - -

B. Non-Infrastructure - - - - - - -

C. Total 442,626 279,057 63.05 187,101,030,120 38,650,102,300 20.66 138,502.54

Department of Transportation and Communications
A. Infrastructure 26,747 20,963 78.38 1,254,970,332 472,840,000 37.68 22,555.93

Cebu Port Authority (CPA) 21,138 16,978 80.32 633,320,000 188,060,000 29.69 11,076.69

Clark International Airport Authority (CIAC) 47 47 100 2,532,100 1,735,050 68.52 36,915.96

Land Transportation Office 1,684 - - 301,400,000 - - -

Light Rail Transit Authority 180 164 91.11 8,316,000 8,316,000 100 50,707.32
Philippine National Railways (source of fund: GAA(LFP)) 360 360 100 - - - -

62
 Philippine Ports Authority 3,338 3,414 102.28 309,402,232 274,728,950 88.79 80,471.28

B. Non-Infrastructure 4,070 2,698 66.29 249,584,500 139,171,000 55.76 51,583.02

DOTC Central Office 17 - - 17,218,000 - - -
Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority 322 322 100 67,919,600 54,983,800 80.95 170,757.14
Office Transportation Security 388 388 100 48,000,000 3,600,000 7.5 9,278.35
Clark International Airport Authority (CIAC) 99 99 100 15,576,900 10,597,200 68.03 107,042.42
Philippine National Railways (source of fund: COS) 3,244 1,889 58.23 100,870,000 69,990,000 69.39 37,051.35

C. Total 30,817 23,661 76.78 1,504,554,832 612,011,000 40.68 25,865.81

Department of Labor and Employment

A. Bureau of Workers and Special Concern (BWSC)
Special Program for Employment of Students (SPES) 140,000 138,635 99.03 340,582,000 - - -
DOLE Integrated Livelihood Program (DILP) 58,000 84,207 145.18 294,588,000 36,040,912 12.23 428

B. Total 198,000 222,842 112.55 635,440,000 36,040,912 5.67 161.73

Source: DOLE-CBEP
Notes:
- : no data
Cost per Job: based on total budget allocated

63
Table 19. Recipients of Community-Based Tourism Assistance (GREET), DOT

Category (Amount Approved-PhP)

Region Total
Homestay Outdoor Recreation Souvenir Shop F&B Others
1 202,190 172,000 45,000 50,000 - 469,190
2 - 460,326 293,200 79,405 166,400 999,331
4 - 100,000 - 85,000 6,439,200 6,624,200
5 - 2,191,380 397,000 100,000 515,180 3,203,560
6 88,088 320,500 - - - 408,588
7 - 1,598,550 350,000 - 300,000 2,248,550
8 - 100,000 - 330,000 300,000 730,000
9 - 141,000 - - - 141,000
10 - 84,000 45,000 - 142,200 271,200
11 - 357,341 100,000 - 142,000 599,341
12 - 138,000 627,500 - - 765,500
13 - 357,000 - 50,000 100,000 507,000
CAR 186,772 376,541 728,953 256,405 223,020 1,771,691
Total 477,050 6,396,638 2,586,653 950,810 8,328,000 18,739,151

64
Table 20. Investments Generated under OTOP Programs
In Million Pesos

Region 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Average Investment

Total 2007-2009 2010-2012

CAR 46.15 60.18 81.65 39.89 109.62 92.02 429.51 71.59 62.66 80.51
I 15.27 15.01 24.77 155.50 71.13 123.69 405.37 67.56 18.35 116.77
II 118.61 90.78 131.09 56.08 129.00 72.48 598.03 99.67 113.49 85.85
III 222.25 251.47 198.63 52.23 116.14 146.73 987.43 164.57 224.11 105.03
IVA 53.82 102.00 80.00 62.25 60.05 157.03 515.15 85.86 78.61 93.11
IVB 12.23 34.81 31.67 73.75 15.20 31.75 199.42 33.24 26.24 40.24
V 67.87 79.93 119.71 54.44 193.94 174.14 690.03 115.01 89.17 140.84
NCR - - - - 185.00 1.34 186.34 31.06 - 62.11
VI 70.22 114.32 92.63 68.66 53.49 53.05 452.37 75.39 92.39 58.40
VII 2.92 0.61 100.00 50.00 268.00 27.00 448.53 74.75 34.51 115.00
VIII 24.22 32.56 54.07 32.35 25.21 27.00 195.41 32.57 36.95 28.19
IX 529.14 697.60 244.66 183.41 277.20 258.62 2,190.63 365.11 490.47 239.74
X 48.80 176.18 155.89 51.51 102.38 127.26 662.02 110.34 126.96 93.72
XI 26.72 113.68 58.19 88.16 127.04 198.89 612.68 102.11 66.20 138.03
XII 965.10 651.00 169.00 42.35 385.69 220.00 2,433.14 405.52 595.03 216.01
CARAGA 127.18 197.99 121.28 65.99 52.61 56.50 621.56 103.59 148.82 58.37
Philippines 2,330.49 2,618.12 1,663.23 1,076.57 2,171.69 1,767.53 11,627.62 1,937.94 2,203.94 1,671.93
Source: DTI

65
Table 21. Number of MSMEs Assisted by OTOP

All %
Region 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Years Share
CAR 253 672 850 443 259 482 2,959 5.8%
I 438 616 759 468 148 407 2,836 5.5%
II 768 858 510 560 520 484 3,700 7.2%
III 767 661 750 351 765 899 4,193 8.2%
IVA 664 1,792 1,870 759 305 576 5,966 11.6%
IVB 127 220 179 238 136 254 1,154 2.2%
V 583 653 967 765 1,478 1,860 6,306 12.3%
NCR - 944 26 83 - - 1,053 2.0%
VI 776 1,641 1,216 725 557 538 5,453 10.6%
VII 160 5,660 310 514 590 563 7,797 15.2%
VIII 1,060 445 418 462 99 117 2,601 5.1%
IX 122 151 230 181 245 96 1,025 2.0%
X 232 285 600 325 345 160 1,947 3.8%
XI 73 177 117 306 129 732 1,534 3.0%
XII 455 181 362 55 145 95 1,293 2.5%
CARAGA 307 319 220 198 104 410 1,558 3.0%
Total 6,785 15,275 9,384 6,433 5,825 7,673 51,375 100.0%

Source: DTI

66
Table 22. Average Investment per MSME Assisted
In Pesos

Region 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 All Years

CAR 182,411 89,555 96,055 90,052 423,247 190,919 145,155
I 34,856 24,372 32,633 332,267 480,588 303,914 142,937
II 154,440 105,802 257,033 100,139 248,079 149,752 161,631
III 289,759 380,431 264,833 148,803 151,810 163,216 235,495
IVA 81,054 56,920 42,781 82,016 196,885 272,628 86,348
IVB 96,299 158,245 176,899 309,887 111,794 125,016 172,808
V 116,415 122,404 123,794 71,166 131,215 93,625 109,424
NCR - - - 176,961
VI 90,492 69,665 76,176 94,703 96,027 98,606 82,958
VII 18,219 108 322,581 97,276 454,237 47,957 57,526
VIII 22,848 73,162 129,364 70,022 254,636 230,769 75,128
IX 4,337,221 4,619,841 1,063,748 1,013,309 1,131,429 2,694,000 2,137,202
X 210,345 618,161 259,817 158,483 296,751 795,394 340,018
XI 366,027 642,260 497,350 288,095 984,767 271,712 399,397
XII 2,121,099 3,596,685 466,851 770,000 2,659,931 2,315,789 1,881,779
CARAGA 414,261 620,668 551,286 333,298 505,885 137,805 398,947
Philippines 343,476 171,399 177,241 167,352 372,822 230,357 226,328
Source: DTI

67
Table 23. New Jobs Created under OTOP Program

Region 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average Jobs

Total 2007-2009 2010-2012
CAR 3,485 4,269 4,026 2,831 3,432 3,590 3,606 3,927 3,284
I 1,363 1,296 2,455 1,616 2,275 2,794 1,967 1,705 2,228
II 2,904 4,720 4,013 2,387 1,168 1,741 2,822 3,879 1,765
III 26,365 22,335 20,313 2,013 4,445 8,001 13,912 23,004 4,820
IVA 2,897 8,503 7,044 18,746 2,738 2,499 7,071 6,148 7,994
IVB 423 2,194 2,016 2,057 1,557 2,043 1,715 1,544 1,886
V 2,479 2,411 2,669 1,313 2,497 2,706 2,346 2,520 2,172
NCR - 76 52 10 100 225 77 43 112
VI 6,216 5,948 11,331 11,399 3,093 3,183 6,862 7,832 5,892
VII 799 3,290 3,124 1,689 17,221 18,616 7,457 2,404 12,509
VIII 4,558 4,227 3,916 3,472 1,435 1,405 3,169 4,234 2,104
IX 7,357 10,837 4,948 2,936 6,204 2,582 5,811 7,714 3,907
X 1,611 5,114 10,699 1,651 2,232 6,923 4,705 5,808 3,602
XI 1,391 3,662 3,465 4,146 5,979 10,580 4,871 2,839 6,902
XII 3,732 3,745 1,863 476 1,125 2,801 2,290 3,113 1,467
CARAGA 5,153 2,792 2,294 1,528 1,650 1,381 2,466 3,413 1,520
Philippines 70,733 85,419 84,228 58,270 57,151 71,070 71,145 80,127 62,164
Source: DTI

68
Table 24. Domestic Sales under OTOP Program
In Million Pesos

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Average Sales

Total 2007-2009 2010-2012
CAR 53.62 78.25 102.21 59.11 168.86 155.30 617.36 102.89 78.03 127.76
I 105.56 113.69 87.27 155.68 211.93 223.67 897.80 149.63 102.17 197.09
II 644.90 547.07 689.87 436.24 446.83 324.98 3,089.88 514.98 627.28 402.68
III 647.10 649.71 719.50 174.16 337.44 387.37 2,915.28 485.88 672.10 299.66
IVA 54.00 149.00 201.00 234.05 428.00 462.43 1,528.48 254.75 134.67 374.83
IVB 17.77 61.95 62.56 97.23 100.28 159.88 499.67 83.28 47.43 119.13
V 92.79 102.21 115.11 94.69 199.62 236.91 841.33 140.22 103.37 177.07
NCR - 0.82 0.26 0.38 15.25 33.18 49.89 8.31 0.36 16.27
VI 140.42 301.43 425.64 332.18 241.79 301.44 1,742.88 290.48 289.16 291.80
VII 103.81 114.31 113.00 236.00 474.00 241.00 1,282.12 213.69 110.37 317.00
VIII 31.51 31.90 52.18 36.39 31.83 21.78 205.58 34.26 38.53 30.00
IX 617.29 706.99 325.40 499.65 1,055.60 1,297.46 4,502.39 750.40 549.89 950.90
X 128.70 168.39 207.34 300.59 276.97 565.52 1,647.51 274.59 168.14 381.03
XI 34.28 196.34 215.66 218.01 338.95 419.12 1,422.36 237.06 148.76 325.36
XII 75.43 197.00 164.00 48.50 137.34 246.00 868.27 144.71 145.48 143.95
CARAGA 26.62 146.16 133.04 41.86 52.13 108.36 508.17 84.70 101.94 67.45
Philippines 2,773.79 3,565.22 3,614.04 2,964.70 4,516.82 5,184.40 22,618.97 3,769.83 3,317.68 4,221.97
Source: DTI

69
Table 25. Domestic Sales per MSME Assisted under OTOP Program
In Pesos

Region 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 All Years

CAR 211,929 116,449 120,252 133,429 651,985 322,203 208,638
I 241,000 184,563 114,982 332,652 1,431,959 549,565 316,574
II 839,711 637,613 1,352,678 778,995 859,288 671,446 835,104
III 843,682 982,912 959,329 496,192 441,098 430,893 695,274
IVA 81,325 83,147 107,487 308,366 1,403,279 802,823 256,198
IVB 139,890 281,605 349,503 408,508 737,368 629,441 432,985
V 159,156 156,528 119,042 123,780 135,059 127,368 133,417
NCR 868 10,018 4,518 47,376
VI 180,948 183,686 350,030 458,177 434,084 560,288 319,618
VII 648,794 20,197 364,516 459,144 803,390 428,064 164,438
VIII 29,726 71,688 124,828 78,755 321,525 186,128 79,040
IX 5,059,770 4,682,053 1,414,778 2,760,470 4,308,588 13,515,177 4,392,573
X 554,741 590,828 345,572 924,886 802,823 3,534,519 846,181
XI 469,589 1,109,277 1,843,248 712,451 2,627,481 572,572 927,223
XII 165,785 1,088,398 453,039 881,818 947,172 2,589,474 671,517
CARAGA 86,717 458,166 604,723 211,429 501,250 264,302 326,170
Philippines 408,812 233,402 385,128 460,858 775,420 675,668 440,272
Source: DTI

70
Table 26. OTOP Program Correlation Results

Jobs Generated
Corr t-stat
Investment 0.9034 0.0000
Investment per -0.0476 0.6402
MSME
No. of MSMEs 0.8482 0.0000
Assisted*
*includes developed & assisted

71
Table 27. Number of MSMEs Developed and Assisted, 2007-2009

Year MSMEs Developed MSMEs Assisted % MSMEs Developed

2007 2,506 6,785 27.0
2008 2,869 10,175 22.0
2009 2,121 9,198 18.7
Total 7,496 26,158 22.3
Source: Table generated from DAP (2011). A Study on the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of DTI’s ONE TOWN,
ONE PRODUCT Program

72
Table 28. Representation of OTOP Beneficiaries

Item/Description Count/%
Total number of MSMEs
235
represented
- Microenterprises 75%
- Small 20%
- Medium 5%
Business category:
- Sole proprietorship 65%
- Cooperatives 18%
- Corporations 8%
- Family-owned/Pertnerships 4%
Product types:
- Food 46%
- Fashion 18%
- Homestyle 14%
- Health 7%
- Marine products 4%
- Others 3%
Ownership of enterprise:
- Owner/Manager 88%
- Employee/representative/ 12%
Source: Table generated from DAP (2011). A Study on the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of DTI’s ONE TOWN,
ONE PRODUCT Program

73
Table 29. Number of new jobs generated and direct jobs sustained, 2006-2009

Year Direct Jobs Sustained New Jobs Generated % of Jobs Sustained

2006 43,441 70,599 38.1
2007 42,345 70,733 37.4
2008 53,579 85,419 38.5
2009 65,132 84,268 43.6
Total 161,056 240,420 40.1
Source: Table generated from DAP (2011). A Study on the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of DTI’s ONE TOWN,
ONE PRODUCT Program

74
Table 30. Main Findings: Study on the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of DTI’s ONE TOWN, ONE
PRODUCT Program

Item % of OTOP Beneficiaries

Intervention
Usefulness of Product Design and Development 27%
Usefulness of Skills, entrepreneurial and business trainings 25%
Attributed Credit Access through OTOP 7%
Income
Increase in Income 90%
Upgraded quality of life
Purchased vehicles 26%
Enjoyed travels 19%
Acquired Gadgets 18%
Purchased land/real estate 23%
Purchased insurance products 16%
Diversified to other business ventures 13%
Placed Additional Capital in current business 30%
Savings 67%
Upgraded business facilities
Renovated existing facilities 55%
Purchased land/Built new production area 30%
Purchased new and modern equipment 71%
Expanded sales to other country 57%
Added international clients 14%
OTOP Effects to MSMEs
Access to wider market and resources for expansion 59%
Product Improvement 12%
Contributed additional employment 6%
Source of Pride 5%
Easy access to loans 4%
Easy access to LGU support 3%
Community Effects
Increased employment 26%
Improved standard of living 12%
Increase in infrastructure 3%
Strengthened Private-Public Partnership 4%
Awareness in the use of technology for businesses 4%
Quality of products are associated with towns of origin 20%
Source: Table generated from DAP (2011). A Study on the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of DTI’s ONE TOWN,
ONE PRODUCT Program
Note:
Response of 235 Discussants

75
Table 31. Constraints and Challenges: Study on the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of DTI’s ONE
TOWN, ONE PRODUCT Program

% of OTOP
Item Beneficiaries
Constraints
Lack of access to additional capital 21%
Unavailability/inaccessibility of raw materials 19%
Difficulty in complying with requirements to obtain permits from
FDA and requirement to penetrate larger markets 10%
Lack of financial capacity 7%
Decrease of skilled labor force 5%
Negative working habits of workers 4%
Lower priced competitors 5%
Lack of LGU support 7%

High taxes and unclear policies on payment of fees for permits 5%

Challenges
Difficulty in responding to collateral and documentary requirements
needed to access loans, even from GFIs 19%
Looking for a more comprehensive marketing strategy from OTOP
aside from the tried and tested 9%
LGUS are not taking a more proactive role in implementing the
OTOP Program 11%
Weak business support by LGUs 10%
Source: Table generated from DAP (2011). A Study on the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of DTI’s ONE TOWN,
ONE PRODUCT Program
Note:
Response of 235 Discussants

76
Table 32. Result of Evaluation: Rapid Assessment of SEA-K

Item SEA-K SEA-Kababayan Challenges

Ability to Pay Monthly Amortization 99.6% 90.0% • Sustainability of
Increase in Income 95.8% 96.6% the projects of the
Generated Employment 24.8% 30.6% participants
Improvement in Health Management 55.3% 62.2% • Cooperation
Increase in Number of Meals eaten 65.5% 71.8% among members of
the association
Increase in House Ownership 92.0% 94.8%
• Good leadership
Housing Improvement 75.0% 94.0%
among association
Improvement in Access to Water 36.5% 50.3% officers
Improvement in Education • Excellent and
(allowance & transport fare) 86.0% 88.0% supportive
implementers
• Some members
Involvement in Project 94.0% 98.0% do not pay on time
Source: Gervacio, Juvy (2007). Self-Employment Assistance Kaunlaran (An Assessment). DSWD and NCPAG.
Note: Responses of 529 members

77
Table 33. Sustainable Livelihood Program-Track 1: Microenterprise Development (January 2011-June
2013)

Total Served
NGAs/LGU
(DSWD/MFIs DSWD (Pantawid and Non-Pantawid) MFIs
s
Region /NGA/LGU)
No. of HH No. of HH Capital Seed Fund Cost No. of HH No. of HH
Served Served Provided per HH Served Served
NCR 4,495 4,495 27,786,100 6,182 - -
CAR 7,873 5,563 44,815,500 8,056 2,078 232
I 9,668 6,573 43,556,000 6,627 3,021 74
II 8,133 8,095 63,489,007 7,843 2 36
III 9,574 9,574 61,453,500 6,419 - -
IV-A 5,042 3,792 32,382,000 8,540 1,250 -
IV-B 13,571 11,868 100,821,200 8,495 1,668 35
V 8,259 8,001 65,296,500 8,161 258 -
VI 7,277 6,590 44,176,650 6,704 600 87
VII 11,926 7,859 49,501,000 6,299 4,067 -
VIII 5,656 5,599 54,264,910 9,692 57 -
IX 24,817 19,230 179,712,853 9,345 5,587 -
X 31,163 30,836 167,886,500 5,444 327 -
XI 7,118 7,118 53,633,000 7,535 - -
XII 7,144 6,505 63,325,000 9,735 434 205
CARAG
A 32,138 18,515 143,862,000 7,770 13,468 155
ARMM 21,845 21,845 217,826,000 9,971 - -
Total 215,699 182,058 1,413,787,720 7,766 32,817 824
Source: DSWD-Sustainable Livelihood Program
Note:
Job lasts up to 6 months

78
Table 34. Repayment Status of DSWD Funded Pantawid Households (January 2011-June 2013)

Field Office No. of HH Served Capital Seed Fund Provided Cost/HH Repayment Rate
NCR 4,002 24,860,500 6,212 68.75%
CAR 4,598 38,306,500 8,331 55.32%
I 4,422 32,493,000 7,348 76.42%
II 5,315 45,292,750 8,522
Submitted repayment
III 4,392 25,232,000 5,745 has yet to be reviewed
IV-A 2,315 20,955,000 9,052 82.34%
IV-B 10,760 93,328,700 8,674 100.00%
V 7,420 61,206,500 8,249 74.71%
VI 4,502 32,727,900 7,270 70.41%
VII 7,052 45,361,000 6,432 640.04%
VIII 5,189 50,932,910 9,816 64.20%
IX 18,955 177,970,853 9,389 100.00%
X 25,896 140,789,500 5,437 100.00%
XI 6,397 49,246,000 7,698 100.00%
XII 6,465 63,125,000 9,764 22.59%
CARAGA 18,465 143,512,000 7,772 100.00%
ARMM 3,645 35,826,000 9,829 55.32%
Total 139,790 1,081,166,113 135,539 82.93%
Source: DSWD-Sustainable Livelihood Program

79
Table 35. Sustainable Livelihood Program-Track 2: Employment Facilitation (January 2011-June 2013)

No. of Households Employed

Region DPW D DEN Go TESD LG Others Others
H A R Negosyo A U (NGA) (Private) Total
NCR 802 - - 9 - - - 62 873
CAR 310 38 8 - - 42 17 45 460
I 275 - - - 1 3 1 28 308
II 219 - 135 - - - - - 354
III 129 - - - - - - - 129
IV-A 154 - - - - - - - 154
IV-B 254 - - - - - - - 254
V 260 - - - - - - - 260
VI 564 - - - - - - 61 625
VII 258 - - - - - - - 258
VIII 756 57 - - - - - - 813
IX 161 - - - - 3 - 15 179
X 267 - - - - - - - 267
XI 104 - - - - - - - 104
XII 217 - - - - - - - 217
CARAG
A 203 - - - - - - 244 447
ARMM - - - - - - - - -
5,70
Total 4,933 95 143 9 1 48 18 455 2
Source: DSWD-Sustainable Livelihood Program

80
Table 36. Assistance to Workers during the Global Financial Crisis Under the Comprehensive Livelihood
and Emergency Employment Program (CLEEP), 2009

No. of Beneficiaries
Emergency
Integrated Employment
Tulong
Services for
Region Total Panghanapbuhay sa 1.5% MOOE to Victims of
Livelihood
Ating Disadvantaged (EO 782) Typhoon
Advancement of
Workers (TUPAD) Ondoy and
Fisherfolks (ISLA)
Pepeng
NCR 5,699 3,191 245 18 2,245
CAR 1,876 1,296 - 5 575
1 2,264 461 1,183 21 599
2 1,128 645 170 16 297
3 3,185 1,688 989 8 500
4A 2,370 1,220 216 - 934
4B 2,331 1,948 377 6 -
5 1,079 850 228 1 -
6 1,587 1,010 565 12 -
7 284 158 114 12 -
8 1,982 882 1,091 9 -
9 826 388 425 13 -
10 1,543 977 558 8 -
11 1,164 846 300 18 -
12 207 50 145 12 -
CARAGA 1,365 911 419 35 -

Total 28,890 16,521 7,025 194 5,150

Note: The figures under the 1.5 % MOOE column indicates each department’s allocated budget
for the temporary hiring of qualified DOLE registered displaced workers and dependents in
compliance with EO 782: Instituting Measures to Assist Workers Affected by the Global
Financial Crisis and Temporary Filling-Up of Vacant Positions in the Government.
Source of data: DOLE

81
Table 37. Emergency Employment for Displaced Workers and their Dependents Under the
Comprehensive Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program (CLEEP), as of December 31, 2009

Computation
Number of
Department/ Estimated Amount Utilized
Workers
Agency FY 2009 MOOE 1.5% of Number of (PhP)
Hired
(PhP) MOOE (PhP) Workers to
be Hired
Commission of
Information and
Communications 36,365,000 545,475 9 59,088 6
Technology
(CICT)
Commission on
Population 311,814,000 4,677,210 20 57,272 7
(PopCom)
Department of
930,703,000 13,960,545 No Data 410,461 142
Agriculture (DA)
Department of
Agrarian Reform 4,152,388,000 62,285,820 2,302 13,556,206 781
(DAR)
Department of
Enviroment and
Natural 4,683,841,000 70,725,615 1,673 9,476,456 124
Resources
(DENR)
Department of
Education 22,767,474,000 341,512,110 9,492 243,000,000 4,500
(DepEd)
Department of
Foreign Affairs 6,176,370,000 92,645,550 2,000 5,000,000 498
(DFA)
Department of
the Interior
Local 8,601,315,000 129,019,725 2,330 7,300,000 767
Government
(DILG)
Department of
National 15,214,621,000 228,219,315 3,631 141,288,248 3,603
Defense (DND)
Department of
394,053,000 5,910,795 75 690,592 75
Energy (DOE)
Department of
14,677,424,000 220,161,360 6,201 10,603,604 1,812
Health (DOH)
Department of
1,971,334,000 29,570,010 833 75,240 42
Justice (DOJ)

82
 Department of
Labor and
3,878,026,000 29,096,111 789 13,668,800 821
Employment
(DOLE)
Department of
1,017,595,000 20,205,450 111 14,565,099 118
Tourism (DOT)
Department of
Social Welfare
and No Data No Data 17,018 732,029,656 17,018
Development
(DSWD)
Department of
Trade and 1,719,375,000 25,790,625 1,710 36,085,539 1,699
Industry (DTI)
Housing and
Urban
Development 62,215,000 933,225 16 933,225 16
Coordinating
Council (HUDCC)
Home
Development
2,759,913,154 41,398,697 51 7,500,000 51
Mutual Fund
(HDMF)
Home Guaranty
Corporation 230,306,048 3,459,045 No Data 2,337,603 56
(HGC)
Light Rail Transit
85,764,000 1,286,460 20 1,166,011 20
Authority (LRTA)
Metro Rail
521,011,000 7,815,165 35 196,881 23
Transit (MRT)
National
Computer 23,508,000 352,620 13 110,276 8
Center (NCC)
National
Economic and
Development 1,141,238,000 17,118,570 30 90,221 21
Authority
(NEDA)
National
Historical 41,165,000 617,475 11 178,825 10
Institute (NHI)
National Youth
Commission No Data No Data No Data 23,430 3
(NYC)
Office of the
388,139,000 5,822,085 162 14,339,000 77
Press Secretary
Philippine No Data No Data No Data 2,582,356 24

83
 International
Trading
Corporation
(PITC)
Presidential
Management 119,395,000 1,790,925 No Data 13,200,000 88
Staff (PMS)

Total 91,905,352,202 1,347,919,984 48,532 1,270,524,089 32,410

Source of data: DOLE

84
Table 38. Physical Accomplishment, Financial Utilization, and Amount Utilized per Person of Emergency
Employment for Displaced Workers and their Dependents Under the Comprehensive Livelihood and
Emergency Employment Program (CLEEP), as of December 31, 2009

% Physical
Accomplishment Amount Utilized per
% Financial Utilization
(Number of Persons Person Hired
Department/Agency (Amount
Hired/Estimated
Utilized/1.5%MOOE)
Number of Persons to
be Hired)

Commission of
Information and
66.67 10.83 9,848.00
Communications
Technology (CICT)
Commission on
35.00 1.22 8,181.71
Population (PopCom)
Department of
No Data 2.94 2,890.57
Agriculture (DA)
Department of
Agrarian Reform 33.93 21.76 17,357.50
(DAR)
Department of
Enviroment and
7.41 13.40 76,423.03
Natural Resources
(DENR)
Department of
47.41 71.15 54,000.00
Education (DepEd)
Department of
24.90 5.40 10,040.16
Foreign Affairs (DFA)
Department of the
Interior Local 32.92 5.66 9,517.60
Government (DILG)
Department of
National Defense 99.23 61.91 39,214.06
(DND)
Department of Energy
100.00 11.68 9,207.89
(DOE)
Department of Health
29.22 4.82 5,851.88
(DOH)
Department of Justice
5.04 0.25 1,791.43
(DOJ)
Department of Labor
and Employment 104.06 46.98 16,648.96
(DOLE)
Department of 106.31 72.09 123,433.04

85
 Tourism (DOT)
Department of Social
Welfare and 100.00 No Data 43,015.02
Development (DSWD)
Department of Trade
99.36 139.92 21,239.28
and Industry (DTI)
Housing and Urban
Development
100.00 100.00 58,326.56
Coordinating Council
(HUDCC)
Home Development
100.00 18.12 147,058.82
Mutual Fund (HDMF)
Home Guaranty
No Data 67.58 41,742.91
Corporation (HGC)
Light Rail Transit
100.00 90.64 58,300.55
Authority (LRTA)
Metro Rail Transit
65.71 2.52 8,560.04
(MRT)
National Computer
61.54 31.27 13,784.50
Center (NCC)
National Economic
and Development 70.00 0.53 4,296.24
Authority (NEDA)
National Historical
90.91 28.96 17,882.50
Institute (NHI)
National Youth
No Data No Data 7,810.00
Commission (NYC)
Office of the Press
47.53 246.29 186,220.78
Secretary
Philippine
International Trading No Data No Data 107,598.17
Corporation (PITC)
Presidential
Management Staff No Data 737.05 150,000.00
(PMS)

Total 66.78 94.26 39,201.61

Source of data: Table 5

86
Table 39. Number of Jobs Generated, High Value Crops Development Program of the DA, 2008-2012

Year Program/Project/Activity Target Accomplishment %

Agriculture and Fisheries

59,730 106,551 178
Support Services
Mango 4,738 3,607 76
Banana 14,061 23,032 164
Vegetable 23,820 64,620 271
Pineapple 2,298 2,159 94
Coffee 3,451 5,780 167
Rubber 11,362 7,353 65
Other Infrastructure and
Postharvest 211 18 26
2008 Development
Postharvest
Equipment and
134 4 3
Machinery
Provided
Postharvest
Facilities 61 14 23
Constructed
Other
Infrastructure
16 - -
Facilities
Constructed
Production Support
183,389 133,386 73
Services
Irrigation Development
1,586 962 61
2012 Services
Other Infrastructure and
Postharvest 2,511 791 32
Development
Note: Other years have no data.

87
Table 40. Status of the Accelerated Hunger Mitigation Program (AHMP) Projects Implemented by the DENR, 2005-2009

Employment Generated
Year Program Total Target Amount (PM) On-going Completed % Accomplished
Man-Days No. of Workers
Farm-to-Market Road 37 80.00 - 37 100.00 59,859 1,251
Roadside Maintenance 26,867 1,000.00 - 26,867 100.00 426,072 5,928
FY 2005
Water Supply 652 416.63 - 652 100.00 59,859.00 1,251
Total 27,556 1,496.63 0 27,556 100.00 545,790 8,430
Farm-to-Market Road 100 165.20 - 100 100.00 70,002 3,155
Roadside Maintenance 22,137 1,565.00 - 22,137 100.00 5,528,968 222,648
FY 2006
Water Supply 324 289.90 2 322 99.38 223,636 3,635
Total 22,561 2,020.10 2 22,559 99.99 5,822,606 229,438
Farm-to-Market Road 63 169.00 6 58 92.06 49,371 1,601
Roadside Maintenance 27,144 1,841,014.00 - 27,144 100.00 6,880,771 26,847
FY 2007
Water Supply 279 253.02 8 269 96.49 134,623 3,233
Total 27,486 1,841,436.02 14 27,471 99.95 7,064,765 31,681
Farm-to-Market Road 389 1,053.30 51 325 83.55 141,317 1,804
Roadside Maintenance 27,222 1,850.00 - 22,621 83.10 6,783,982 27,501
FY 2008
Water Supply 322 240.32 53 157 48.76 59,399 2,852
Total 27,933 3,143.62 104 23,103 82.71 6,984,698 32,157
Farm-to-Market Road 735 2,016.30 614 121 16.46 201,630 3,360
FY 2009 Roadside Maintenance 27,302 2,020.00 - 12,914 47.30 4,135,273 23,298
Total 28,037 4,036.30 614 13,035 46.49 4,336,903 26,658
TOTAL 133,573 1,852,132.67 734 113,724 85.14 24,754,762 328,364
Note: Data is as of August 31, 2009.
Source of data: DPWH

88
 References

Abrahart, A., I. Kaur and Z.Tzannatos. (2000). Government Employment and Active Labor
Market Policies in MENA in Comparative International Context. Paper Presented at
MDF3, Cairo, Egypt. 24 p.

Aldaba, R. (2013). New Industrial Policy, Inclusive growth to reduce poverty. Philippine Daily
Inquirer 18 May 2013.

Aldaba, R. (2013). The Philippine Manufacturing Industry Roadmap: Agenda for New Industrial
Policy, High Productivity Jobs and Inclusive Growth. Makati City: Philippine Institute
for Development Studies

Betcherman, G., A. Dar, A. Luinstra and M. Ogawa. (1999). Active Labor Market Policies:
Policy Issues for East Asia. Social Protection Unit, The World Bank, Second Draft,
December 1999. 46 p.

Betcherman, G., K. Olivas, and A. Dar. (2003). Impacts of Active Labor Market Programs: New
Evidence from Evaluations with Particular Attention to Developing and Transition
Countries. Social Protection Unit, World Bank, Preliminary Draft. 62 p.

Brown, Alessio J. G. and J. Kottl. (2012). Active Labor Market Programs employment gain or
fiscal drain. Kiel Working Paper, No. 1785, http://hdl.handle.net/10419/60332

Congressional Budget Office (2011). Policies for Increasing Economic Growth and Employment
in 2012 and 2013. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office

DAP (2011). A Study on the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of DTI’s ONE TOWN, ONE
PRODUCT Program. Pasig City: Development Academy of the Philippines

Dar, A. and Z. Tzannatos. 1999. Active Labor Market Programs: A Review of the Evidence from
Evaluations. Social Protection Department, Human Development Network, The World Bank.
75 p.

Department of Agrarian Reform. 2000-2011 Annual Reports

Department of Agriculture. 2001-2011. Annual Accomplishment Report.

Department of Labor and Employment. 2001-2011. Annual Report.

Department of Labor and Employment. 2011. The Philippine Labor and Employment Plan 2011-
2016: Inclusive Growth Through Decent and Productive Work. 66 p.

Department of Public Works and Highways. 2001-2011. Annual Report.

89
Department of Social Welfare and Development. 2007-2011 Annual Reports

Department of Trade and Industry. 2000-2011 Annual Reports

Department of Transportation and Communications. 2001-2011. Annual Report.

DOT (2010). Grassroots Entrepreneurship and Employment in Tourism Turn-Over Report.

Manila: Department of Tourism

DSWD (2013). Sustainable Livelihood Program Updates as of July 2013. Quezon City:
Department of Social Welfare and Development

Gervacio, Juvy (2007). Self-Employment Assistance Kaunlaran (An Assessment). Quezon City:
Department of Social Welfare and Development and National College of Public
Administration and Governance.

Hull, K. (2009). Understanding the Relationship between Economic Growth, Employment and
Poverty Reduction.

Islam, R., J. Krishnamurty and Shivani Puri. (2001). Active Labour Market Policies in East and
South-East Asia: What has been done and what can be done? Paper prepared for the
World Bank-ILO-JMOL-PDOLE Seminar on Labour Market Policies: their implications
for East and South East Asia to be held in Manila on 1-2 March 2001. 38 p.

Lal, R., S. Miller, M. Liew-Kie-Song and D. Kostzer. (2010). Public Works and Employment
Programmes: Towards a Long-Term Development Approach. Working Paper Number
66, International Policy Center for Inclusive Growth and the Poverty Group, United
Nations Development Programme. 48 p.

Martinez-Fernandez, C. and M. Powell. (2009). Employment and Skills Strategies in Southeast

Asia: Setting the Scene. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) and Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED). 112 p.

Morrison, N. (2006). Active Labor Market Programs Evidence from Evaluations. World Bank
Employment Policy Primer No. 7, World Bank. 6 p.

National Economic and Development Authority. 2011. Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016.
411 p.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1993. Employment Outlook .

Page, J. and Soderbom, M. (2012). "Is Small Beautiful? Small Enterprise, Aid and Employment
in Africa," Working Papers UNU-WIDER Research Paper , World Institute for
Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER)

90
Tamangan, R., Josef, F. and Habito, C. (2004). Small and Medium Enterprise Development
Experience and Policy in Japan and the Philippines: Lessons and Policy Implications.
Philippine Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper No. 2004-30.

World Bank (n.d.) Guide to Growth, Employment and Productivity Analysis

91
92
 Appendices
Appendix 1. Department of Trade and Industry: Employment Generating Programs

Programs/ Description Level of Clientele Coverage

Projects Operation

On-going Projects
DTI- Program assistance is directed to Nationwide Cooperatives/
Comprehensi Agrarian Reform Communities associations of farmers,
ve Agrarian (ARCs) nationwide. DTI-CARP landowners, women, and
Reform provides support services to farmers youths
Program and affected landowners and their
families. Particularly, it assists
cooperatives/ associations of farmers,
landowners, women, and youths, who
are capable of managing micro, small,
and medium enterprises (MSMEs).

The program provides comprehensive

package of support services to
stimulate agro-industrial activities in
the ARCs. These services are in the
form of training, studies, market
development assistance, and
consultancy services.

One Town OTOP-Philippines offers a Nationwide LGU Communities/

One Product- comprehensive assistance package, MSMEs
Philippines i.e., business counseling, skills and
(OTOP) entrepreneurial training, product
design and development, appropriate
technologies, and marketing through
local government units (LGUs),
national government agencies and the
private sector.

93
Rural RUMEPP is a 7-year Program Nationwide Poor Rural Households
Microenterpri assisted by the International Fund for
se Promotion Agricultural Development (IFAD)
Program which aims to enable poor households
(RuMEPP) and entrepreneurs to get technical and
financial support for micro-
enterprises, which can, in turn,
benefit other poor families through
new job opportunities.

Also, the Programme will assist the

Small Business Guarantee and
Finance Corporation (SBGFC) and
microfinance institutions (MFIs) to
strengthen their operations and
expand their reach to more poor
families.
Export A program that aims to expand Nationwide Suppliers/Exporters
Pathways Philippine exports by increasing the
Programs number of suppliers/exporters of
(EPP)/ quality export products and services
Regional to enable the Philippines to meet
Interactive global demand and contribute to
Platform for employment generation.
Philippine
Exports The EPP is a systematic approach
(RIPPLES) designed to provide interventions at
every stage of an exporter’s growth.
The RIPPLES, a partner program of
EPP, enables the regional and
provincial staff to handhold potential
exporters thru capacity building and
provision of direct interventions (e.g.
product design, market info seminar,
compliance with market
requirements, export marketing
activities) to potential and existing
exporters enrolled under the EPP.

94
National NICCEP is a three-year technical Nationwide Industry Clusters
Industry cooperation project funded by the
Cluster Japan International Cooperation
Capacity- Agency (JICA).
Enhancement
Program The project envisions of developing
(NICCEP) and mobilizing pilot industry clusters
nationwide. As a result of the
capacity building interventions, the
targeted industry clusters are
expected to increase their
contribution to the national economy
in terms of investment generation,
exports expansion, and creation of
jobs and development of MSMEs
which ultimately will also contribute
to the goal of inclusive growth and
poverty reduction.
Shared Aims to improve the quality and Nationwide Microenterprises/MSEs
Service productivity of Microenterprises and
Facilities MSEs by addressing the gaps and
(SSF) bottlenecks in the value chain of
priority industry clusters through the
provision of processing and/or
manufacturing tools, machinery and
equipment for the common use of the
Microenterprises and SMEs within
the said industry clusters all over the
country.

The project envisions that it will

benefit the most of existing
Microenterprises and SMEs in the
priority industry cluster within the
poorest 609 municipalities.
Completed Projects
SME Unified The SME Unified Lending Program Nationwide SMEs
Lending for National Growth (Sulong) is
Program for anchored on the belief that supporting
National SMEs in many aspects will translate
Growth into a healthier economy noting that
(Sulong) 99 percent of business entities in the
country are made up of SMEs, which
employ 70 percent of the workforce.

Sulong aims to lower the effective

cost of borrowing by SMEs and
liberalize requirements, create a wider
financing system that will give SMEs
better access to short and long-term

95
 funds and standardize lending
procedures.

Under the program, SMEs get the

necessary assistance not only in terms
of financing but likewise through
market exposure, human resource
training and product development.
Small and SMEDSEP is a cooperation Visayas SMEs
Medium development project between the
Enterprise Republic of the Philippines and the
Development Federal Republic of Germany that
for aims to improve the business and
Sustainable investment climate for MSMEs in the
Employment country, focusing on the Visayas
Program region.
(SMEDSEP):
Enhancing It contributes to the efforts of the
Businesses in Philippine government to improve the
the Visayas framework conditions for private
(thru GTZ) sector development in the country.
Small To help the SME sector offset some Nationwide SMEs
Business of the effects of the Asian financial
Guarantee crisis, the DTI, through this project,
and Finance intervened to address the dearth in
Corporation funds.
(SBGFC)
Tulong sa Tao This program seeks to address the Nationwide Micro-entrepreneurs
Microfinancin credit needs of existing and potential
g Program micro-entrepreneurs through the
extensive use of NGOs as conduits
for lending and technical assistance.
Self- This is a financing program which Nationwide Entrepreneurs
Employment assists entrepreneurs through NGOs.
Loan
Assistance
(SELA) II
Credit This is a financing program which Entrepreneurs/Rural
Program for assists entrepreneurs/rural workers workers
the Poorest of through NGOs.
the Poor
(CPPP)
Techno- Training Programs for SMEs/ Nationwide SMEs and LGU
managerial Entrepreneurial training for Communities
and Regular communities.
Trainings

Livelihood
and Skills
Development

96
Source: DTI Office of Operational Planning

97
Appendix 2. Department of Social Welfare and Development: Employment Generating Programs

Programs/Pro Description Level of Clientele Coverage

jects Operation

On-going Projects
Self- The Sustainable Livelihood Programs Nationwide Pantawid and Non-
Employment is a community-based capacity Pantawid Beneficiaries
Assistance- building program implemented
Kaunlaran I through the Community Driven
& II (SEA-K)/ Enterprises Development approach,
Sustainable which equips program participants to
Livelihood actively contribute to production and
Program labor markets by looking at available
resources and accessible markets.

It relies on multi-stakeholder
partnerships and participatory
community planning, implementation
and monitoring. The capacity
building of the SLP is implemented
through a two-track program.

The first track, the Micro-Enterprise

Development Track, supports micro-
enterprise in becoming
organizationally and economically
viable.

Meanwhile, the second track, the

Employment Facilitation, assists the
participants to access appropriate
employment opportunities.
SLP implementation highlights five
stages such as Pre-implementation,
Social Preparation, Capacity
Building, Resource Mobilization and
Management and Sustainability.
Cash/Food for A short-term intervention to provide Nationwide Distressed/Displaced
Work Project temporary employment to Individuals
for Internally distressed/displaced individuals by
Displaced participating in or undertaking
Person preparedness, mitigation, relief,
rehabilitation or risk reduction
projects and activities in their
communities or in evacuation centers.

98
Recovery and A comprehensive program that will Nationwide Trafficked Persons
Reintegration ensure that adequate recovery and
Program for reintegration services will be
Trafficked provided to trafficked persons.
Persons Utilizing a multi-sectoral approach, it
(RRTP) will deliver a complete package of
services that will enhance the
psychosocial, social and economic
needs of the clients

It will enhance the awareness, skills

and capabilities of the clients, the
families and the communities where
the trafficked persons will eventually
return to. It will also improve
community-based systems and
mechanisms that will ensure the
recovery of the victims-survivors, and
prevent other family and community
members from being victims of
trafficking.
Government This program is part of the Kabataan Nationwide Out-of-school and In-
Internship 200 program of the government and school youths
Program has been implemented in DSWD
since 1996.

It was developed with the end goal of

providing opportunity for both out-of-
school youth and in-school youths as
hands-on experience of working in
various government agencies at the
same time earn money to augment for
their school needs, hence this
program is usually implemented
during summertime.
Comprehensi The program is an integrated Nationwide Street children and
ve Program approach in responding to the needs Bajaus
for Street of street children, their families and
Children, Bajaus, with an ultimate goal of
Street reducing the number of children,
Families and families and indigenous people in the
Ips Especially streets.
Bajaus
Through this Program, the
Department will send the street
children to schools by providing them
with educational assistance,
strengthen the operation of activity
centers for children for their literacy
and recreational activities, and

99
 provide psycho-social services for
healing and development through
camping project and day/night
minding center for very young
children to enable their parents to
work and earn for the family.

The Program shall also provide safe

shelter for relocation, opportunities to
go back in the province, and live a
new life with better income
opportunities through livelihood
program of the Department.
Kapit-Bisig This is a community-driven Nationwide LGU Communities
Laban sa development (CDD) project of
Kahirapan- DSWD which aims to empower
Comprehensi communities through participation in
ve and local governance and involvement in
Integrated the implementation of poverty
Delivery of reduction activities.
Social
Services The project provides assistance by
(Kalahi- enhancing community and LGU
CIDSSS) capacity, providing seed funding for
community implementation of their
priorities that help reduce poverty and
improving sustainability and LGU
responsiveness to community needs
by mobilizing communities and
adapting participatory strategies that
reduce existing gaps in social
inclusion, transparency,
accountability and people’s
participation in priority-setting,
design, planning, implementation,
and operation and maintenance of
community development projects and
activities.
Completed Projects
Job Network This is a service that provides job Region 8 Clients of Crisis
Services opportunities to unemployed clients Intervention Unit (CIU)
of the Department. Services will
include job matching, occupational
guidance and counseling, and
granting of cash assistance to be used
by the clients while job hunting to
support himself and his family.

100
 Youth This is an integrated skills and job Region 10 Out-of-school youths
Productivity placement program. It aims to
Service improve education and employment
opportunities for out-of-school youth
through technical/vocational training
in partnership with local government
units, corporations, industries and
other concerned agencies.

Tindahan The Tindahan Natin Project, which Nationwide LGU Communities

Natin started in 2006, is a national
government initiative for food
security, job generation and
livelihood. It is part of the Hunger
Mitigation Program of the Arroyo
Administration.

Source: DSWD Policy Development and Planning Bureau

101
Appendix 3. Department of Agrarian Reform: Employment Generating Programs

Programs/Pro Description Level of Clientele Coverage

jects Operation

ARC The ARC development strategy aims Nationwide Agrarian Reform

Development to increase farm production, improve Communities
household income and promote
sustainable rural development
through the provision of support
services like infrastructure, credit,
training, technology and community
organizing in land reform areas.
DAR-Local A lending program wherein Nationwide Agrarian Reform
Credit accredited program partners or Beneficiaries
Assistance conduits re-lend the funds to end-
Program beneficiaries for livelihood micro-
projects in the ARCs (i.e. livestock
and poultry production; vegetable and
root crop production; dried and
smoked fish processing, sari-sari
store, handicrafts making).

Credit This is a special lending window Nationwide Agrarian Reform

Assistance specifically for ARB cooperatives Beneficiaries-
Program for and farmers’ organizations in ARCs. Cooperatives
Program This program makes available credit
Beneficiaries for agricultural production inputs,
Development pre- and post-harvest facilities and
(CAP-PBD) fixed assets.

DAR-KMI This was established in 1993 as a Nationwide Organized farmers,

Peasant source of non-traditional credit for Fisher folks and Rural
Development organized farmers, fisherfolks and women
Fund rural women for agro-industrial
development.

This fund is primarily provided to

enable the peasantry to participate in
agro-industrial development.

DAR- The program aims to uplift the Nationwide Agrarian Reform

Technology economic condition of ARBs in the Beneficiaries
and ARCs through the timely provision of
Livelihood credit for viable non-rice livelihood
Resource projects. Eligible projects under this
Center program include processing,
Partnership manufacturing, crop production
Program for (except rice) and other technology
Non-Rice and livelihood projects.

102
Livelihood
Projects

Microfinance The MICOOP was established by the Nationwide Potential Entrepreneurs in

Innovations in National Confederation of LGU Communities
Cooperatives Cooperatives (NATCCO) in 2006.
(MICOOP)
It was launched as a special project
that intends to extend the reach of
cooperatives’ microfinance services
to the poorest of the poor who desire
to engage in micro, small and
medium enterprises but have no
access to formal lending institutions.

Micro-Agri The MALP is a multi-platform Nationwide Agrarian Reform

Loan Product approach in micro finance delivery. Beneficiaries
(MALP) The program, which started in
December 2008, seeks to provide
sustainable credit access to ARBs by
developing various micro-agri loan
products channeled through ARC
cooperatives, bank–assisted
cooperatives and countryside
financial institutions.

DAR-Center In June 2008, DAR forged Nationwide Agrarian Reform

for partnership with the Center for Beneficiaries
Agriculture Agriculture and Rural Development
and Rural (CARD), Inc. to implement the
Development, Microfinance Capacity Development
Inc. (DAR- Program for 12 Partner
CARD) Organizations.

ARBs The Department is pursuing an Nationwide Agrarian Reform

Training/Far intensive ARB-driven education and Beneficiaries
mer- training program geared towards
Beneficiaries program awareness, capability
Training building and self-reliance among
ARBs. The training programs are on:
1) land tenure improvement (LTI); 2)
social infrastructure and local
capability building (SILCAB); 3)
sustainable area-based enterprise
development (SARED); and 4) basic
social services development (BSSD).

103
 Sustainable Interventions provided to ARBs are Nationwide Agrarian Reform
Agribusiness geared at enabling them to eventually Beneficiaries
and Rural own, operate and manage their farm,
Enterprise non-farm and off-farm enterprises.
Development
(SARED)
Source: DAR Annual Reports

104
 Appendix 4. Department of Labor and Employment: Employment Generating Programs

Level of Clientele Lead

Programs/Projects Description
Operation Coverage Agency
Ongoing Programs/Projects
1. Special Program The SPES is mandated under Republic Act No. 7323 otherwise known as Nationwide Students/Employers Bureau of
for Employment of “An Act To Help Poor But Deserving Students Pursue Their Education By (Government or Local
Students (SPES) Encouraging Their Employment During Summer and/or Christmas Private) Employment
Vacations, Through Incentives Granted to Employers, Allowing Them to (BLE)
Pay Only Sixty Per Centum (60%) of Their Salaries or Wages and The
Forty Per Centum (40%) Through Education Vouchers To Be Paid By the
Government, Prohibiting and Penalizing The Filing of Fraudulent and
Fictitious Claims, and For Other Purpose.” In partnership with the private
sector and other government offices, qualified students, who are also
soon-to-be entrants to the workforce, are afforded opportunity to earn
while they acquire work experience and positive ethics during summer
and Christmas vacations.

* DOLE Program enrolled under the Community-Based Employment

Program (CBEP)

2. Kasanayan at KasH affords new graduates and young workers with the opportunity to Nationwide Youth/New Technical
Hanapbuhay acquire the six-month work experience and entry-level requirement of graduates Education
(KasH) Program the industry. Under this bridging mechanism, workers are trained as and Skills
apprentices for four (4) to Six (6) months and paid 75% of the minimum Development
wage or 100% if employers avail of tax incentives. Authority
(TESDA)

3. DOLE Integrated DOLE Integrated Livelihood Program is designed to assist community Nationwide Ambulant vendors/ Bureau of
Livelihood groups in developing sustainable enterprises or undertakings right in Drivers and Workers with
Program their communities thereby providing opportunities for generation operators of pedicab Special
incomes through wage and self-employment. It aims to enhance and and tricycles/ Concerns
transform existing livelihood projects in the barangays into community Homebased and (BWSC)
enterprises to be managed by community groups. home service

105
 Level of Clientele Lead
Programs/Projects Description
Operation Coverage Agency
workers/Scrap
* DOLE Program enrolled under the Community-Based Employment collector workers/
Program (CBEP) Landless farmers/
Mariginal Fishery
Workers/Others
deemed necessary to
be covered by the
DOLE and LGU

4. Self-Reliant The program provides organizational and technical assistance and other Regions 9, Farm workers/ Bureau of
Organization for support services to agrarian reform farm workers/beneficiaries turned 10 & 11 beneficiaries turned Workers with
Comprehensive farm-owners/managers to help them transform into self-reliant owners/ managers Special
Agrarian Reform organizations in three (3) to five (5) years’ time that are politically, Concerns
Program (SRO- socially and economically viable. (BWSC)
CARP)
It involves capability building among agrarian reform beneficiaries in
selected commercial or plantation farms leading to their competencies
in collectively managing their farms in order to further and promote
and/or generate income and employment opportunities in their
respective communities

5. Workers The program promotes and strengthens workers’ organizations as the Nationwide Trade union centers, Bureau of
Organization and mechanism for workers empowerment by providing them with training, labor federations, Labor
Development education, information and entrepreneurship development assistance. national unions, Relations
Program (WODP) Its components are: workers capability development training; creation of locals/chapters and (BLR)
upgrading of libraries; and provision of scholarship for officers and independent unions;
members of workers organizations. Women workers’
organizations, and
Workers’
cooperatives

106
 Level of Clientele Lead
Programs/Projects Description
Operation Coverage Agency

6. Reintegration The program aims to maximize the gains of overseas employment, Nationwide Member-OFWs and Overseas
Program for OFWs mitigate the social cost of migration and cushion the impact of forced their dependents Workers
repatriation due to unexpected events. Welfare
Administratio
The program involves the preparation of the OFW and their families for n (OWWA),
their eventual return in the country. Philippine
This involves the organization of families left behind and the conduct of Overseas
various training on financial literacy and entrepreneurial development Employment
training as well as the provision of credit facility for those who may wish Administratio
to start their business. n (POEA)

On June 7, 2011, the loan program was launched during the celebration
of the 1st National Congress of OFWs and Families, with Development of
Bank of the Philippines and the Landbank of the Philippines contributing
P500-million each, thereby increasing the reintegration fund to P2
billion.

7. TULAY 2000 TULAY 2000 is a program to assist the integration of persons with Nationwide Persons with Bureau of
(Tulong Alalay sa disability in the mainstream of society by enhancing their employability disabilities Local
mga Taong may through skills training programs suited to their interests, potentials and Employment
Kapansanan) circumstances; facilitating their placement to wage employment; and (BLE)
providing them technical and financial livelihood support assistance
either as individual or group.

8. Katulong at Gabay KAGABAY is a special assistance program to workers and their families in Occupationally Employees’
sa mga the event of major accidents or outbreak of occupational diseases. It Nationwide disabled workers and Compensatio
Manggagawang aims to facilitate the integration of occupational disabled workers into families n Commission
may Kapansanan the economic mainstream and make them once again productive (ECC)
(KAGABAY) members of society.

107
 Level of Clientele Lead
Programs/Projects Description
Operation Coverage Agency

9. DOLE –Adjustment A special package of interventions purposely directed to prevent job Nationwide Retrenched/Displace Bureau of
Measures losses by assisting displaced workers affected by globalization and the d Workers Local
Program (DOLE- financial crisis in their search for alternative employment opportunities. Employment
AMP) This is done thru the Quick Response Teams (QRTs) in all Regional (BLE)
Offices. The components of this package include livelihood assistance,
training/retraining services.

10. Worktrep Program This is a DOLE initiated program to make the businesses of the Workers Informal Sector- Bureau of
(Unlad Kabuhayan in the informal sector, termed as the IS-Worktreps, grow. It is a program Nationwide Worktreps Workers with
Laban sa intended to bring about improved socio-economic well-being of the poor Special
Kahirapan) IS-Worktreps, thus, contributing to the Government’s Goal of reducing Concerns
poverty (BWSC),
Regional
Offices (ROs)

11. Promotion of Rural PRESEED promotes self-employment among rural workers and their Nationwide Rural Workers Bureau of
Employ-ment and families who have entrepreneurial potentials by providing them access Workers with
Self-Employment to a package of integrated services, from human and institutional Special
and development to a more comprehensive entrepreneurial development Concerns
Entrepreneurship support system (BWSC)
Development
(PRESEED)

12. Women Workers The WEED program is an affirmative action to improve the plight of Nationwide Working women in Bureau of
Employment and Filipino Women, especially those in the informal sector. It seeks to the informal sector, Workers with
Entrepreneurship strengthen the role pf women as partner in economic development by specifically Special
Development supporting them in the areas of entrepreneurship and income- underemployed and Concerns

108
 Level of Clientele Lead
Programs/Projects Description
Operation Coverage Agency
(WEED) generating concerns, primarily utilizing the “Training-Cum-Production home-based workers (BWSC)
Scheme” which consists of the Entrepreneurship Development Training
(EDT) and the Appropriate Skills training (AST).

Completed Programs and Projects

1. Classroom Galing The CGMA is a donate-a-classroom project tapping primarily the Nationwide Schools/Unemployed DOLE
sa Mamamayang resources of overseas Filipino community groups overseas, in Persons
Pilipino Abroad partnership with the Dept. of Education (DepEd), Department of Foreign
(CGMA) Affairs (DFA), and the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and
Industry (FCCCI).

The project is in support of the President’s thrust of reducing the

shortage of classrooms. Each classroom, sized 7 x 7 meters with
washroom facilities, benefits at least 50 students, the actual construction
of which generates employment for about 20 Filipino laborers.

2. OFW Groceria The OFW Groceria Project grants interest-free loan to qualified OFW Nationwide OFWs and their Overseas
Project Family Circles in the form of P50 thousand worth of grocery items and families Workers
goods. Welfare
Administratio
n (OWWA)

3. OFW Enterprise This program involves the provision of technical and financial assistance Nationwide FWs and their Overseas
Development to develop OFWs and their families as entrepreneurs. families Workers
Welfare
Administratio
n (OWWA)

4. Poverty-Free Zone The PFZP is a convergence strategy, which aims to deliver a package of Nationwide Informal and rural Bureau of

109
 Level of Clientele Lead
Programs/Projects Description
Operation Coverage Agency
(PFZ) Program organizational, entrepreneurship and training interventions to identified workers in poor Workers with
(Aksyon ng communities toward the development of core and support enterprises communities Special
Sambayanan that take advantage of local resources. Concerns
Laban sa (BWSC)
Kahirapan)

5. Working Youth The WYC Program aims to develop the Filipino young workers into Nationwide Working youth ages Bureau of
Center (WYC) effective leaders, self-reliant and productive citizens. It involves the 15-30 who are Workers with
Program following: employed, self- Special
employed and Concerns
– Setting up of and provision of assistance to WYCs which are designed underemployed: (BWSC)
basically to promote total development of working young women
and men through the upliftment of their socio-economic well-being;
– Organization and strengthening of working youth associations/
organizations for their own collective protection and benefit and for
facilitating the delivery of program's services to them;
– Facilitation of the delivery of existing programs to the young workers
such as training, employment and other programs that will ensure
the fullest development of the young workers' potential and
productivity;
– Enlightenment of the young workers on government laws, rules and
regulations and on other issues relating to their employment; and
– Mobilization of all sectors and available resources in undertaking
programs, services and activities for the full attainment of the young
workers' participation in labor and development.

Source: DOLE

110
Appendix 5. Employment-Generating Programs and Projects of the Department of Agriculture (DA) of the Philippines, by Year, 2001-2011

Available Employment-Related Data and Information

Project/Description/Objective 200 201 201
2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
4 0 1
209,616
jobs have
been
generated More
(210% of than
the 2001 760,000
commitmen jobs were
269,766
1. Agriculture and Fisheries t of 100,000 generate
jobs were - - - - - - - -
Modernization Act (AFMA) jobs) of d from
generated
which October
132,175 2001 to
jobs were October
through the 2003
credit
provided by
Land Bank
136,958
jobs were
2. Credit Programs of Land Bank - - - - - - - - - -
generated
.
1,026,216
3. Office of the One Million Jobs
- jobs were - - - - - - - - -
Program
generated

111
 686,143
jobs were
generated
invalidate
d areas 532,646 393,557 509,206 2,615,079
4. Medium-Term Philippine
and jobs were jobs were jobs were jobs were
Development Plan 2004-2010 - - - - - -
313,291 generated generated generate generated
(MTPDP) Related Employment
jobs were . . d .
generated
in
developed
areas
Sources of data: DA Annual Reports and/or Annual Accomplishment Reports

112
Appendix 6. Employment-Generating Programs and Projects of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) of the Philippines, by Year,
2001-2011

Available Employment-Related Data and Information

Project/Description/Objective
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Employed a
1. President’s Roadside total of
Maintenance Program (Kalsada 4,941 job 27,144
Natin, Alagaan Natin or KNAN) opportunities workers
Employed
were created every month
- - - - 231,244 - - - -
(Renamed to Trabahong in 1,525 Metro or a total of
persons
Lansangan-Pantawid Pamilyang Manila 244,296 from
Pilipino Program during PNOY’s barangays April to
administration) December
2007
3. “Out-of-School Youth Toward
Economic Recovery” (OYSTER)
Program which was
conceptualized for the direct
Employed
participation of the community
- - - - - 92,890 - - - - -
in the maintenance of roadsides
persons
and at the same time generating
employment through the hiring
of the out-of-work, out-of-
school youths.

113
 About 57,713
applicants
were hired by
the
participating
827
contractors
nationwide.
4. Nationwide jobs’ Fair which
Also, with
was aimed to provide gainful
thousands of
employment to workers - - - - - - - - - -
government
displaced or affected by the
infrastructure
global recession.
projects being
implemented
nationwide, a
total of
653,496 jobs
were
generated for
infrastructure
Sources of data: DPWH Annual Reports and/or Annual Accomplishment Reports

114
Appendix 7. Employment-Generating Programs and Projects of the Department of Transportation and Communication (DOTC) of the Philippines,
by Year, 2001-2011

Available Employment-Related Data and Information

Project/Description/Objective
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1. Comprehensive Livelihood
and Emergency Employment 19 workers were
- - - - - - - - - -
Program (Light Railway Transit employed
Authority or LRTA)
provided livelihood
2. Mactan-Cebu International
- - - - - - - - - - opportunities to 40
Airport Authority (MCIAA)
visually impaired persons
provided employment to
3. Manila International Airport 1,899 individuals in
- - - - - - - - - -
Authority (MIAA) janitorial services and
similar jobs
4. Philippine Aerospace utilized 17 job orders and
Development Corporation - - - - - - - - - - 28 on-the-job trainees in
(PADC) its maintenance activities
5. Philippine Coast Guard 500 applicants were
- - - - - - - - - -
(PCG) accepted as trainees
PMMA graduates
6. Philippine Merchant Marine comprised 10 percent of
- - - - - - - - - -
Academy (PMMA) the 50,000 Filipino deck
and engine officers
A total of 214 personnel of
7. Philippine National Railways PNR were recorded and
- - - - - - - - - -
(PNR) 1,200 workers with job
order status was recorded
Granted employment to
8. Philippine Ports Authority
- - - - - - - - - - 1,468 people in ports
(PPA)
nationwide.
Sources of data: DOTC Annual Reports and/or Annual Accomplishment Reports

115
Appendix 8. Status on the collection of data on completed government projects which are related to
employment generation

Other than those generated from the annual reports and/or accomplishment reports of the
individual government departments, additional data and information were solicited from the
departments relevant to the study, either through DBM itself or through the initiative of the
PIDS study team. Below, these additional data and information and the process of generating
them are explained by individual department.

a. Department of Agriculture

The DA has designated the following focal person in the department to coordinate with
the DBM and the study team on data gathering matters.

Carlos Magnaye, OIC Planning Service

Tel. No.: 920 1921
Email: [email protected]

Through the efforts of the aforementioned focal point and the study team, a focused
group discussion (FGD) was conducted at the DA on July 9, 2013 attended by the following DA
personnel:

Jallyne Remoquitto- Technical Staff/HVCDP

Marie Flor Aquino- Technical Staff/HVCDP
Email: [email protected]

Angelita Martin- PDO II/DA-SPCMAD

Adamar Estrad- PDO II/DA-SPCMAD
Email: [email protected]

Roan Nuelan- Project Assistant II/FMRDP

Email: [email protected]

Eduardo Sanguyo- Statistician III/BAS

Email: [email protected]

Vincent Chua- Agriculturist II/Livestock Dev’t Council

Freido Prado- Senior Agriculturist/Livestock Dev’t Council
Email: [email protected]

Representative from the Rice Program

Email: [email protected]

The aforementioned personnel at the DA explained that at present, the main functions of
the department do not include generating jobs/employment. They explained that it was only
during the time of President Arroyo that the DA projects and programs were aimed specifically

116
to create jobs. However, the department also reports incidental jobs created by projects and
programs at present.

The incidental jobs reported by the DA are computed based on a list of coefficients and
therefore are only derived and not actual figures. A coefficient which is usually different per
subsector (e.g. 1 job/ha) is used to compute for the jobs created per project or program. The list
of coefficients of each sector will be provided by the DA through email based on which the study
team can compute the incidental jobs generated. As of this writing, however, only the high value
crops development program (HVCDP) of the DA has provided the study team with some data
and information.

Since job generation is not a main function of the DA, current monitoring and evaluation
of the projects and programs is not concerned on the number of jobs created per project or
program. The DA has two monitoring reports, one of which is strategic which monitors
projects/programs based on the set objectives and the other is operational which checks the day
to day progress of projects/programs. A recent monitoring report is promised to be sent through
to the study tram but this has not been received yet.

Aside from the comprehensive annual reports uploaded in the DA website, each
subsector of agriculture has its own annual report in the DA. This is a detailed subsector report
where the figures in the final DA annual reports are sourced. The DA said that each sector will
also provide its own annual report to the study team through email. As of this writing, only the
HVCCP has e-mailed its annual physical accomplishment reports for 2008 to 2012. Only data for
2008 and 2012 are relatively enough for use by the study team.

Aside from the results of the FGD, a letter document was forwarded to the study team by
the DBM. This letter from Hon. DA Secretary Proceso J. Alcala to Hon. DOLE Secretary
Rosalinda Baldoz showed the accomplishment of the DA on the jobs generated under the
Community-Based Employment Program (CBEP) as of December 31, 2012.

b. Department of Labor and Employment

The DOLE has designated the following focal person in the department to coordinate
with the DBM and the study team on data gathering matters.

Analee delos Santos, Div. Chief Planning Service

Arlene Marasigan, Planning Service
Tel. No.: 527 3000 local 612/615
Email: [email protected]

The Planning Service Department of the DOLE, however, is currently busy with its post-
assessment of projects. The staff will be available for interview or FGD by the second week of
August (As of this writing, an appointment has not been set yet). Aside from this development,
the following documents have been received by the study team:

117
 1) A copy of a letter from Hon. DOLE Acting Secretary Rebecca Chato to Hon. DBM
Undersecretary Laura B. Pascua which forwarded the following documents:

- DOLE Employment Generation Programs and Projects with brief profile of each program
and project that were implemented from 2000 to 2013;

- Infrastructure and Non-infrastructure Programs and Projects enrolled/implemented under

the Community-Based Employment Program (CBEP) by different national government
agencies, GFis and GOCCs from 2011 to 2012; and

- Programs and Projects which were implemented under the Comprehensive

Livelihood & Emergency Employment Program (CLEEP) by different national
government agencies, GFIs and GOCCs in 2009 to assist workers affected by the global
crisis.

c. Department of Public Works and Highways

The DPWH has designated the following focal person in the department to coordinate
with the DBM and the study team on data gathering matters.

Engr. Richard Estanislao

Tel. No.: 304 3091
Email: [email protected]

The study team has not scheduled an interview yet at the DPWH as this depends on the
availability of Engr. Estanislao. Aside from this development, the following documents have
been received by the study team:

1) A copy of the letter from Hon. DPWH Secretary Rogelio Singson to Hon. DBM
Undersecretary Hon. Laura B. Pascua forwarding the following documents:

- Print Materials to be published in various broadsheets and tabloids during the

information campaign on nutrition and awareness about Accelerated Hunger
Mitigation Program (AHMP) with summary report on status/update, as of 31
October 2009 for the period from CYs 2005 to 2009 and list of completed projects
and at various stages of implementation --- Annex "A"

- Status Report of the Farm-to-Market Road (FMR) Projects, funded under the FY 2008
Budget of the Department of Agriculture of the DPWH Region IX, Zamboanga
City, under the AHMP --- Annex “B”

- Status Report, as of 31 August 2009 of the AHMP for the DPWH implemented
projects (FMR; Roadside Maintenance; and Water Supply Projects)--- Annex "C"

- Status Report of the AHMP, as of 30 June 2009, Accomplishment below 80% of the
FMR projects, FY 2008 DA funded program --- Annex "D"
118
d. Department of Transportation and Communication

The DOTC has designated only the following focal office but not a focal person in the
department to coordinate with the DBM and the project team on data gathering matters.

Office of Usec. Rene Limcaoco, Planning Service

Dir. Creus’ office
Tel. No.: 727 1703/725 0204
Email: [email protected]

No date for an interview has been set yet with the DOTC staff because of the busy
schedule at the department. Aside from this development, the study team received a copy of a
letter from Hon. Ricardo C. Diaz, Director, Program Monitoring and Evaluation Service, to Hon.
DBM Undersecretary Hon. Laura B. Pascua forwarding a listing DOTC implemented (airport
and port) projects from CY 2000 to the present.

e. Department of Trade and Industry

The DTI has designated the following focal person in the department to coordinate with
the study team on data gathering matters.

Eng. Robert Alvin Arceo, Office of Operational Planning

Tel. No.: 8904954
Email: [email protected]

Through the efforts of the aforementioned focal point and the study team, a focused
group discussion (FGD) was conducted at the DTI on August 6, 2013 attended by the following
DTI personnel:

Ms. Mary Jean Pacheco- Director/OOP

Email:[email protected]

Mr. Nonoy Blanco-Program Director/Regional Operations and Development Group

Ms. Elma Viray- Technical Staff/RODG
Email: [email protected]

Ms. Elvira Tan-Chief/Program Development & Coordination/BMSMED

Email: [email protected]

Mr. Manuel Abad-Program Manager/ DTI-Comprehensive Agrarian

Reform Program (CARP)

It was explained by OOP that The DTI may not have programs/projects -- the likes of
DOLE's Public Employment Service Office (PESO) or Job Fairs -- that specifically aim to
generate employment, but they do have industry/SME development programs that assist

119
enterprises to grow and generate jobs in the process. It is a tricky business because enterprises
are hesitant to report growth and job generation information. There are also programs, such as
the Export Pathways Program (EPP) that provide assistance at every stage of an SME's growth
(and thereby creation of jobs), but that just aren't geared to report jobs. Also, the conduct of
entrepreneurship briefings that may lead to the development of enterprises but alas, they do not
count job generation from these programs as well (more cost to monitor than briefing itself).

Data provided by the department are the following:

1. List of on-going projects related with job generation (Description, Year started, Jobs
generated (if available))
2. OTOP’s Monitoring Statistics (Regional)
3. DTI-CARP’s Monitoring Statistics (Regional)

Data to be still provided by the department are the following:

1. RUMEPP’s Monitoring Statistics (Regional)

2. RIFFLE’s Monitoring Statistics (Regional)

f. Department of Social Welfare and Development

The DSWD has designated the following focal person in the department to coordinate
with the study team on data gathering matters.

Mr. Joven Valenzuela, Planning and Monitoring Division

Policy Development and Planning Bureau
Tel. No.: 9318130
Email: [email protected]

Through the efforts of the aforementioned focal point and the study team, an interview
was conducted with Ms. Amada Dimaculangan of Sustainable Livelihood Program on August 5,
2013.

Data provided by the department are the following:

1. List of on-going projects related with job generation (Description, Year started, Jobs
generated (if available))
2. SLP’s Monitoring Statistics (Regional)

Data will still be provided and interview to be conducted for the following projects:

1. Cash/Food for Work Project for Internally Displaced Person

2. Recovery and Reintegration Program for Trafficked Persons (RRTP)
3. Government Internship Program
4. Comprehensive Program for Street Children, Street Families and Ips Especially
Bajaus

120
 5. Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan-Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of
Social Services (Kalahi-CIDSSS)

g. Department of Tourism

The DOT has designated the following focal person in the department to coordinate with
the study team on data gathering matters.

Mr. Christian Lingat, Data Controller/Tourism Development Planning

Tel. No.: 5252928
Email: [email protected]

Through the efforts of the aforementioned focal point and the study team, an interview
was conducted with the Office of Product Research & Development headed by Mr. Warner
Andrada on August 6, 2013.

Data provided by the department are the following:

1. Data and Program Report on Grassroots Entrepreneurship for Eco Tourism (GREET) program
2. Reports on Eco-Tourism Projects of the Department

h. Department of Agrarian Reform

The DOT has designated the following focal person in the department to coordinate with
the study team on data gathering matters.

Ms. Purita Reynacido, Policy and Planning Service

Tel. No.: 4821377
Email: [email protected]

The department has provide a list of List of on-going and completed projects related to
employment generation (Description, Year started, Jobs generated (if available)). The list
consists of foreign assisted infrastructure projects. Interview will still be conducted with
the department.

End

121