NCR, Region III, Region IV, Region XI and Region XII were highest in average family income. NCR, Region IV and Region XI hardly changed their ranks between the two periods. Regions X, XII, I, VII, and IXmade a remarkable improvement in their ranking in terms of per capita GRDP while Regions VI, II and III did otherwise. These slots occupied by all regions, except for Regions VII and IX, were reflected in the ranking based on the populations' average family income. In the assessment of poverty incidence, the NCR and Regions I, II,IX, and X declined in their ranks, implying that they were relatively less successful in alieviating poverty in their regions. Regions IV, V, VI,VII,and XI were more successful. The positions of the rest of the regions hardly
changed. On the other hand, with the social development indicators as bases, the NCR, Region IIIand Region VII registered the lowest infant mortality rates for both periods. Regions III, VIII, and XII descended from their positions during the years 1975 to 1988, while Regions II, IIl, W, IX, and X were better off than the others by 1988. The ranking in terms of literacy rate hardly changed, with Regions VII, VIII,IX, and XIIoften outranking each other for the top slots. The correlation analysis shows that while there was no significant difference in rank over time in terms of economic and social development, there had been a great change in poverty incidence and average family income (Table 30). Though the regions made remarkable economic progress between 1975and 1985, others performed better than the rest. Those areas with better performance records were also those which outranked the rest in terms of lower poverty incidence and higher average family income. This significant inverse relationship between economic development and poverty indicators confirmed the undeniable role of economic development in poverty alleviation. However, the insignificant relationship between infant mortality rate and economic development confirmed that no significant relationship existed between the level of social development and economic progress. A composite ranking was also done to compare regions based on their present levels of economic development by using poverty incidence and per capita GRDP as basic indicators. Raw data on poverty incidence by region and GRDPwere transformed into standard scores(Appendix B).Then, scores for each region were averaged and ranked by decreasing order. The results in Table 31show thatNCR continued to lead the other regions, followed by Regions nI and IV. On the other end were the lagging regions, which included Region V, and the two Visayas regions, VIII and VI. Interestingly, Region VII also occupied a relatively low rank due mainly to its high poverty incidence. 71