The Center for Women's Resources (CWR) has pushed back against the notion that the World Bank's reclassification of the Philippines as an upper middle-income country (UMIC) signifies meaningful improvements in the lives of Filipino women. CWR argues that the income classification, based on gross national income (GNI) per capita, masks deep-seated inequalities and fails to capture the economic realities faced by millions of women.
Flawed Metric Conceals Inequality
According to CWR, the World Bank's classification relies on an average income measure that does not account for income distribution, poverty levels, labor conditions, or women's specific economic challenges. The organization contends that despite the higher income designation, Filipino women continue to grapple with low wages, insecure informal employment, rising living costs, and limited access to quality public services.
“The problem with relying on an average income measure is that averages conceal inequality,” said CWR Executive Director Cham Peres. “The enormous wealth accumulated by a handful of billionaires raises the country’s average income, but this does not mean that ordinary workers are earning more or living better.”
Wealth Gap and Labor Realities
Peres highlighted the vast disparity between the country's wealthiest individuals—such as billionaires Enrique Razon and Ramon Ang—and ordinary workers. A minimum wage earner in Metro Manila receives ₱695 per day, a sum that barely covers basic necessities. Yet both the billionaire and the minimum wage worker are included in the same national average used for the income classification.
CWR pointed to multiple indicators revealing this disconnect. Women's labor force participation stands at only 52.3%, compared to 75.2% for men, indicating barriers to paid employment. Many employed women are concentrated in low-paying, precarious occupations such as domestic work, vending, home-based work, gig work, and export-oriented manufacturing, where contractualization, low wages, and limited social protection are widespread.
CWR estimates that well over 20 million Filipino women continue to experience economic insecurity due to insufficient income, unstable employment, lack of livelihood opportunities, or exclusion from paid work because of caregiving responsibilities.
Employment Statistics Questioned
The organization also challenged the government's employment statistics, noting that anyone who worked for at least one hour during the reference week is officially counted as employed. While employment rates may appear favorable, they often conceal underemployment, irregular work, and wages insufficient to meet a family's basic needs.
“The real condition of workers cannot be measured simply by employment figures,” Perez said. “Having a job does not mean having a decent livelihood. Millions of Filipinos are working but remain poor because their wages are too low, their jobs are insecure, or they cannot find enough hours of work.”
The January 2026 Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey found that 51% of Filipino families, or an estimated 14.3 million households, consider themselves poor—a clear discrepancy between macroeconomic indicators and lived experiences.
Gender Wage Gap and Policy Roots
Women also face persistent wage inequality. The gender wage gap is largest in occupations where women are highly concentrated: 26.2% for service and sales workers and 29.4% for workers in elementary occupations, demonstrating how occupational segregation depresses women's earnings.
CWR attributes these conditions to decades of neoliberal policies that prioritize foreign investment, trade liberalization, deregulation, and privatization over building domestic industries and modernizing agriculture. The same international financial institutions that now classify the Philippines as UMIC have promoted these policies through development lending and policy prescriptions.
“Instead of building a strong domestic industrial base and a productive agricultural sector, these policies have encouraged greater dependence on foreign investment, imports, labor export, and cheap Filipino labor,” Perez said. “The result has been an economy that generates wealth for corporations and a small elite while leaving millions of workers – especially women – in precarious employment, low-paying jobs, and economic insecurity.”
Debt Burden and Losing Concessional Financing
Perez warned that the upgraded income status comes amid a growing public debt burden. Outstanding national government debt reached ₱17.71 trillion by end-2025 and is projected to approach ₱19 trillion by end-2026. This year alone, approximately ₱950 billion will be spent on debt servicing—resources that could otherwise be invested in health care, education, childcare, housing, and social protection.
CWR further cautioned that, as an UMIC, the Philippines may gradually lose access to concessional financing, potentially increasing borrowing costs without addressing the structural causes of poverty and inequality.
“Development cannot be measured simply by crossing an income threshold,” Perez said. “The real question is whether economic growth has translated into secure livelihoods, living wages, affordable food, quality education, accessible health care, and a life of dignity for Filipino women and their families.”
Call for Alternative Development Strategy
Rather than celebrating a statistical milestone, CWR called on the Marcos Jr. administration to pursue a development strategy anchored in national industrialization, genuine agrarian reform, living wages, strengthened labor rights, universal social protection, expanded public care services, and gender-responsive public investments. The organization also urged the government to adopt a more progressive fiscal system that ensures those with the greatest wealth contribute a greater share toward financing public services.
“Women should not be asked to measure progress through economic statistics that fail to reflect their everyday realities,” Perez concluded. “Real development occurs only when women are free from poverty, have decent and secure jobs, receive equal pay for equal work, and enjoy access to quality public services.”
