ARB households in ARCs associated with higher incomes, lower poverty incidence, and better welfare outcomes.

Studies on agrarian reform in the Philippines show the role of the Agrarian Reform Community 

(ARC) approach in the Philippines and how membership in an ARC is associated with better incomes and welfare outcomes among agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs):

Impact of Agrarian Reform on Poverty (Celia M. Reyes, 2002)

• Using panel data from ~1,500 farming households (1990 and 2000), the study finds that being an ARB and being in an agrarian reform community (ARC) increases the probability of being non-poor. 

• It also shows that ARB households in ARC areas had higher real per capita incomes and lower poverty incidence compared to non-ARBs.

• The study explicitly mentions: “being in an agrarian reform community also has the same effect” of increasing the chance of being non-poor. 

Agrarian Reform and Poverty Reduction in the Philippines (Arsenio M. Balisacan & others, 2007)

• The paper describes the ARC approach (launched in 1993), which “concentrates resources in selected areas to deliver support services” rather than dispersing them broadly. 

• It asserts that “the ARC approach … if properly implemented, improves the economic conditions, social capital, and democratic participation of the communities.” 

• While it does not always report precise income coefficients for ARCs in all cases, it identifies ARCs as a key channel for delivering complementary services that enhance the poverty-reduction impact of agrarian reform.

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP): Time to Let Go (Raul V. Fabella, 2014)

• This review paper notes that a 2011 internal DAR study (the “ARC Level of Development Assessment (ALDA)”) found that among ARBs in ARCs:

  “the average yield (ton/hectare) among ARC beneficiaries in palay was 10 percent higher than the national average … in corn it was 50 percent higher” and that ARCs receive more credit and irrigation support. 

• Although not purely income data, the yield and support-service data support the link between ARC membership and improved productivity/investment, which ties to higher incomes.

Economic Evaluation of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries in Agrarian Reform Communities in Nueva Ecija (Johnah Jefferson Mercado, Alma Dela Cruz & Ma. Pamela Roguel, 2021)

• This more recent case study investigates two ARCs in Nueva Ecija and evaluates support services, infrastructure and income/benefit outcomes. 

• While the full paper may need to be accessed for detailed income figures, it provides empirical evidence of ARCs being privileged in terms of infrastructure and support, which correlates with better outcomes.

Summary of Evidence

• There is empirical support that being part of an ARC (i.e., a cluster of ARB households with concentrated support services) is associated with higher incomes, lower poverty incidence, and better welfare outcomes.

• The mechanism is that ARCs allow for targeted delivery of infrastructure, credit, irrigation, extension services and community organization, which amplify the benefits of land-reform.

• The evidence is stronger in some cases (like the Reyes 2002 study) and somewhat weaker or mixed in others—but taken together, the weight of evidence supports the proposition that ARCs matter.

Link: What is an Agrarian Reform Community (ARC)

           DAR MC 14-99 Guidelines on ARC Launching

ARBs who were given lands under RA 6657 (CARL) may still be qualified as beneficiaries of 4Ps under RA 11310 (4Ps Act)

ARBs who are awarded agricultural lands under RA 6657 (CARL) are not automatically considered
poor or not poor under the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) of RA 11310.

Whether they are considered “poor” depends on whether they meet the poverty criteria defined under the 4Ps Law—not on whether they own land.

Does owning land as an ARB remove a household from being considered “poor”? No. Land ownership is not a basis for exclusion.                                                                                        

How does 4Ps define “poor”? Households classified as poor or near-poor by the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction (Listahanan), based on income and living conditions.

Are farmers or ARBs excluded from 4Ps? No. In fact, farmers and farmworkers are priority sectors for inclusion in 4Ps under RA 11310.                                                                   

So, can an ARB household still be considered “poor” and qualify for 4Ps?  Yes—if they are still income-poor and meet 4Ps conditions.

Legal Bases

1.   RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law).  Provides that qualified farmers and farmworkers may be awarded land.  The law does not state that once awarded land, ARBs are no longer poor or disqualified from social welfare benefits.  Many ARBs remain economically poor despite land ownership due to lack of capital, irrigation, markets, or support services.

2.     RA 11310 (4Ps Act), Section 6.  A household is eligible for 4Ps if: (1) Classified as poor or near-poor by the National Household Targeting System (Listahanan); (2) Has children 0–18 years old or a pregnant member; (3) Agrees to comply with health and education conditions.  Section 6(c) further states that households of farmers, fisherfolk, and farmworkers are priority sectors for inclusion in the targeting system. This means ARBs are “priority for inclusion”—not excluded.

Conclusion

*ARBs who were awarded land may still be classified as poor under the 4Ps Law.

*Land ownership does not automatically mean they are no longer poor.

*What matters is income, access to services, and living standards—not land title alone.

* If the ARB household still lives below the poverty threshold and meets 4Ps conditions, they remain qualified.