A study from the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (188ΜεΣύ) reveals that the long-term effects of bullying among students could shrink the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) by up to β‚�20 billion annually.
Drawing from the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data, 188ΜεΣύ estimates that 36 percent of Filipino students fall into the top 10 percent of most bullied students globally.
About 76 percent of students reported experiencing at least one form of bullying in the past year. For an estimated 11,000 students nationwide, bullying— ranging from exclusion to threats and extortion— happens almost weekly.
188ΜεΣύ Senior Research Fellow Dr. Michael Abrigo, lead author of the study “School Bullying Contributes to Lower PISA Achievement among Filipino Students: Who Gets Bullied? Why Does It Matter?,” presented the findings during a webinar on April 10, 2025.
He highlighted the far-reaching consequences of bullying— not just on academic achievements and mental health, but also hampers students’ future employment opportunities and earning potential. As these individual setbacks can accumulate over time and across the student population, they contribute to a measurable loss in national economic productivity.
To quantify the economic implications, Abrigo’s team used established human capital models to estimate how learning losses linked to bullying impact future earnings and, consequently, GDP. They found that bullying accounts for a sizeable share of the gap in academic performance. The projected loss to the country’s GDP ranges from 0.05 to 0.08 percentage points annually— or about β‚�10 to 20 billion.
“This is approximately the budget of the Department of Education (DepEd) for textbooks in 2024, which is about 12 billion, and the whole computerization program of DepEd is about 8 billion,” Abrigo said.
Who gets bullied and where?
To better understand the roots of this national concern, the study also mapped out the demographics and locations where bullying is most severe. Using machine learning and small-area estimation, the researchers found that public school students are more at risk than those in private institutions.
While urban regions, like Mega Manila and CALABARZON, demonstrated a degree of protection, the highest risks were still found in areas with broader socio-economic vulnerabilities.
The data also revealed that students who have repeated grade levels or experienced hunger are more than twice as likely to be bullied compared to their peers.
In contrast, girls and students attending private schools are less likely to be targeted, indicating how bullying often follows existing inequalities.
Despite these concerning findings, “bullying is a modifiable risk factor for learning losses. Unlike socioeconomic status, which would require another generation to correct, we can do something about bullying,” said Abrigo.
He cited international evidence of successful programs to counter it and emphasized the need to identify what works for the Philippines. Recognizing bullying as modifiable, he noted, shifts the narrative from helplessness to action.
Abrigo called for better support systems for school heads, counselors, and program implementers. These key factors, he said, need training, resources, and community involvement to create a sustainable, responsive school environment—a long-term vision of enabling anti-bullying as investments to human capital development.
A critical perspective on interpretation
Not all experts agree on the extent of the economic link. Dr. Allan Benedict I. Bernardo, Distinguished Full Professor and University Fellow at De La Salle University’s Psychology Department, shared a cautious take on the findings.
He noted that while the PISA survey measures bullying-related behaviors, it does not explicitly use the term “bullying.” The ambiguity in how these behaviors are defined and interpreted across countries and cultures may affect how national policies are shaped, including the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Anti-Bullying Act.
While he echoed Abrigo’s optimism on bullying as a modifiable risk factor, Bernardo warned against over-reliance on community-level estimates without stronger inferential foundations. He cautioned that linking bullying too directly to GDP losses may risk oversimplification. This, he argued, is critical to ensure that economic arguments are responsibly integrated into the national policy discourse.
Nonetheless, he affirmed that change is possible, provided that policy decisions are grounded in a clear, contextual understanding of what makes interventions work.
Public policies and a change of culture
Bernardo added that bullying thrives in school environments where it is normalized. Citing PISA data revealing Filipino students’ low levels of disapproval toward bullying, he suggested that this normalization may also weaken the perceived connection between bullying and mental health outcomes.
“The bigger problem may be that our students are looking at bullying as a normal part of their social experiences in our schools,” he said.
To address this issue effectively, he emphasized, requires more than policy reform— it calls for a collective shift in cultural mindset.
Watch the forum playback at or read the full study at .— RTG
