Gender Equality, Disability, and Social Inclusion in the Philippines: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities in SDG 5 and SDG 10

Agnes R. Author_Email: Quisumbing, Jose Ramon G. Author_Email: Albert, Connie Author_Email: Bayudan-Dacuycuy, Anna Rita P. Author_Email: Vargas, Lovelaine B. Author_Email: Basillote, Paola Ellaine D. Author_Email: Luzon, Mohammad A. Author_Email: Mahmoud and Deanne Lorraine D. Author_Email: Cabalfin

No DP 2025-35, Discussion Papers from Philippine Institute for Development Studies

Abstract: This study examines the Philippines' progress toward achieving gender equality, disability inclusion, and social inclusion (GEDSI) through an analysis of available data on Goals 5 (Gender Equality) and 10 (Reduced Inequalities) of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) from 2015 to 2025. The research reveals substantial policy achievements alongside critical implementation gaps that undermine transformational potential, with intersecting forms of marginalization creating complex patterns of exclusion that require integrated policy responses. Despite robust legal frameworks, including the Magna Carta of Women and the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, significant inequalities persist for women, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples (IPs), and marginalized groups across multiple dimensions of identity and experience. Using descriptive and intersectional analytics, Shapley decomposition, and intersectional analysis, the study combines quantitative data from national surveys with qualitative insights from stakeholder interviews to examine how gender, disability, ethnicity, and geography interact to shape development outcomes. Key findings show notable advances in gender equality indicators, but persistent challenges remain for persons with disabilities (12% of the population aged 15+, with 15% female prevalence versus 9% male). Multiple identities intersect to create unique patterns of disadvantage, with substantial regional disparities. Key findings reveal stark disparities across marginalized groups that demonstrate the inadequacy of single-identity approaches to inclusion. For persons with disabilities, severe disability prevalence varies dramatically by educational attainment, from 39 percent among those with no formal education (reaching 55% among women compared to 23% among men) to just 6 percent among college graduates. Ethnic variations are equally pronounced, with Waray speakers experiencing 21 percent overall disability prevalence, including 31 percent among women versus 11 percent among men. IPs face compounded disadvantages through intersecting barriers: gender gaps in labor market participation are significantly larger among IPs and Muslim ethnic groups, with Indigenous women's engagement in unpaid family work more than three times higher than their non-Indigenous counterparts. Educational exclusion reflects both ethnic and administrative barriers, as around 20 percent of Muslim ethnic groups and 10 percent of IPs lack birth registration, fundamentally limiting access to essential services. About half of Indigenous and Muslim ethnic groups did not progress beyond elementary school, compared to less than one-third among non-Indigenous peoples, while more than half remain concentrated in agriculture, compared to 19 percent of non-IPs. Intersectional analysis reveals that multiple identities create distinctive experiences of marginalization that cannot be understood through additive approaches. The research demonstrates that spatial inequalities often exceed ethnic disparities, while ethnic inequalities in education remain particularly pronounced and significantly correlated with poverty. The systematic exclusion of IPs creates what is referred to as "statistical invisibility," where IPs remain hidden in national statistics, constituting the first layer of social, economic, and political exclusion that undermines evidence-based policy development. Critical implementation deficits center on the Gender and Development (GAD) budget crisis, where the mandatory 5% allocation has become compliance-oriented rather than transformational. Widespread fund misuse, weak accountability mechanisms, and the institutional weakening of oversight bodies significantly limit the effectiveness of GAD budget interventions. Priority reforms include transforming GAD budgeting through outcome-based criteria, restoring institutional architecture, strengthening enforcement mechanisms, and developing intersectional monitoring systems. Strategic interventions focus on legislative harmonization, capacity building, and anti-discrimination enforcement. Women with disabilities face compounded marginalization through both stigma and infrastructural barriers, while rural women with disabilities encounter additional transport challenges that one-off programs fail to address. The study's policy recommendations emphasize four priority reform areas that can collectively accelerate progress toward inclusive development. Legislative and regulatory reforms must harmonize existing laws with international standards, particularly regarding disability rights and protections for indigenous peoples. Budget and resource allocation reforms should transform GAD budgeting through outcome-based criteria while establishing community-controlled funding mechanisms that respect indigenous governance structures. Institutional capacity building requires systematic strengthening across all government levels, with mandatory GEDSI training for personnel and enhanced technical assistance for local government units. Improvements in data and monitoring systems must develop intersectional indicators, strengthen community-based monitoring mechanisms, and address the statistical invisibility of marginalized groups through systematic data collection and analysis. This research provides evidence-based recommendations for addressing intersectional inequalities and accelerating progress toward inclusive development that ensures no one is left behind in achieving the 2030 SDGs. Through integrated policy interventions that recognize how multiple forms of disadvantage compound to create unique patterns of exclusion, transformational change that reaches the Philippines' most marginalized populations in pursuit of the 2030 SDGs is ensured. Comments to this paper are welcome within 60 days from the date of posting. Email publications@pids.gov.ph.

Keywords: GEDSI; gender equality; disability inclusion; social inclusion; intersectionality; SDG 5; SDG 10; persons with disabilities; indigenous peoples; marginalized groups; multiple discrimination; intersection analysis; statistical invisibility; compound marginalization; gender-responsive budgeting; GAD budget reform; institutional strengthening; legislative harmonization; community-controlled funding; inclusive development; Shapley decomposition; educational exclusion; labor market discrimination; ancestral domain rights; outcome-based budgeting; evidence-based policy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 115
Date: 2025
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-inv
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.pids.gov.ph/publication/discussion-pap ... -in-sdg-5-and-sdg-10 (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:phd:dpaper:dp_2025-35

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Discussion Papers from Philippine Institute for Development Studies Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Michael Ralph M. Abrigo ().