Loob at Labas:
A Multiple Setting Case Study about Product Duplication in Public Markets

Alix, Viblikka Faye
Canare, Arra Camille
Catolico, Keith
Dolalas, Leslie Love
Garcia, Elmer Ponce

October 10, 2013

Introduction
Markets have been part of everyone’s daily lives. It is where people can buy the ingredients for their meals for the day, school related things, and even clothes and accessories; there’s no need to go to grocery stores and malls to purchase their desired items. Also, markets (public markets) provide items at a lower price compared to those sold in leading grocery stores and malls.
Since many people prefer buying goods from the public markets, the number of people who wants to sell their goods there is also high. In this regard, laws and some literature where written to help improve the schemes in public markets. In some areas in Metro Manila like Marikina, there are laws that were made to prohibit people from buying from sidewalk vendors as per Ordinance No. 201, Series of 1993. As a whole, we also have laws that were implemented to systematize the arrangement of stalls (Senate Bill No. 1319, Chapter 4 Section3).
In relation to the laws found in the archive of Marikina City, we decided to make a research about the selling of goods “informally” or “illegally” outside public markets, also known as product duplication. Hence, this study will focus on how duplication of goods occurs in public markets.
At the end of this study, the researchers aim to be able to know if product duplication really happens widely in the country, particularly in Metro Manila and its vicinity. Then, to be able to find out the extent of duplication and the kinds of goods duplicated and finally to be able to compare the prices of duplicated goods from the prices of goods inside the market. Moreover, this research aims to serve as an aid to legislation, from the barangay level to the national level, so that matters regarding duplication of goods can be addressed accordingly. Lastly, this research will also serve as a foundation to further researches regarding the said matter.

Review of Related Literature
Sidewalk Vendors
For many people, sidewalk vendors are a major nuisance. They obstruct foot and vehicle traffic, due to their encroachment of pavements and roads. Pedestrians have to pass through crowded and narrow aisles and are sometimes forced to step onto roads to walk, which a dangerous. Sidewalk stalls are unsightly, due to their shabbiness and improper garbage disposal. Their stalls also obstruct sunlight and hamper air flow (Dimas, 2008).
It is no wonder why they are considered as an urban scourge the world over. The government regularly applies police powers to evict them from the streets. As a result, sidewalk vendors tend to be hostile to anyone who questions them about their business. Even if they permit to be interviewed, they are reluctant to share information.
Such fear of sidewalk vendors is common. In the Dhaka City survey by Akharuzzaman and Deguchi in 2010, former vendors and local people thought that the authorswere government officers or from the media. They also thought that it would be submitted to DCC (Dhaka City Corporation) or it would be published in the media and expressed worry that street business might become more strictly prohibited.
Due to this, the researchers have resorted to observation and informal interview in their data collection to avoid violent reactions.
Statistics (Sample data as of 2008)
There were about 10.5 million informal sector operators identified by the National Statistics Office in their 2008 Informal Sector Survey. The results of the survey are presented in bar graphs followed by its interpretation.
Graph 1. Category of IS operators

Self-employed operators are those who do not have any paid employees while employers operate their own farms or business. The self-employed numbered about 9.1 million while the employers are about 1.3 million.

Graph 2. Gender of IS operators

Sixty-six percent of IS operators are males, which is about 7 million. The remaining thirty-four percent or about 3.5 million are females.
Graph 3. Household heads or not

IS operators who are also household heads comprised 61.4 percent or about 6.5 million of the informal sector. The remaining 38.6 percent or about 4 million are non-household heads.

Graph 4. Educational attainment of IS operators

IS operators who have no education at all make up 3.2 percent. Those who went to elementary school but did not graduate comprised 21.6 percent, followed closely by elementary graduates at 21.4 percent. IS operators who are high school undergraduates are at 13 percent. The highest percentage is by high school graduates, at 23.2 percent. College undergraduates comprised 11.2 percent while college graduates are at 6.5 percent.

Graph 5. Age group of IS operators

Ninety-four percent of the IS operators are in age group 25 years old and over. Age group 25-34 comprised of 20.1percent while the largest age group is 35-44 (27.5%). It is followed by age groups 45-54 (23.6%), 55-64 (25%), and by 65 & over (8.6%). The lowest percentage was reported by age group 15-24, at 5.2 percent.
Graph 6. Place of work

About 40.5 percent of IS operators work in farms or individual agricultural/subsidiary plots. Twenty-two percent work in their homes while 5.2 percent says they work within business premises. Some who work in the homes of their clients or employers make up about 2.4 percent. Other IS operators work in markets, bazaars, and trade fairs (4.1%), in street pavements (2.4%), in transport vehicles (8.9%), while 8.7 percent report that they do not have a fixed place of work. The remaining 5 percent IS operators are unspecified.
Graph 7. Kinds of work

Of the 10.5 million IS operators counted in 2008, 48.4 percent were engaged in the agriculture sector, 6.6 percent in industries, 15.3 percent in services, and 29.6 percent in wholesale and retail trade.

Street Vending Problems
Crowded Sidewalks Since these kinds of activity take place on streets particularly sidewalks, a portion or sometimes the whole path is being utilized for vending alone giving pedestrians less space to occupy for walking, making it a bit difficult for movement and can sometimes mean risking of the users’ lives to the speeding vehicles. This could also add to traffic disturbances among vehicles (AKHARUZZAMAN & DEGUCHI, 2010).

Garbage Problem Unlike businesses done inside the market, street vending, which is commonly an informality done by duplicators, is not properly administered. Disposal of waste in street vending among vendors and as well as the customers, is not managed. People tend to dispose off their garbage and leftovers after their business time (for vendors) or after consuming the product they have bought (for customers) on the streets. This kind of behaviour causes garbage problems (AKHARUZZAMAN & DEGUCHI, 2010).

Government Action and Management Street vending is considered as illegal and unplanned. "Those street vendors are illegally possessed on the public sidewalk, thus they are not originally designed in a city street planning, which inherited various problem such as unpleasant urbanscape and especially obstruction for pedestrian” (LEE, 2004). But such informality – although illegal – when removed, can affect a large portion of the city’s population. Since most of the city dwellers are part of the informal sector and are part of these kind of business, eviction of such activity would cause another problem, for street vending plays an essential role in the informal community (AKHARUZZAMAN & DEGUCHI, 2010). Thus intervention of the government to manage this “problem” is needed.
Existing Policies and Bills in the Philippines During the second session of the Fourteenth Congress, Representative Eduardo Nonato N. Joson filed House Bill 4978 or the Act to Protect the Rights of Sidewalk Vendors, Designating a Place for Them to Ply Their Wares and for Other Purposes. The bill is still pending approval. Moreover, in Section 2, a sidewalk vendor is defined as "an itinerant vendor who sells his merchandise alongside a street, alleys, or vacant areas along roads". With this definition, duplicators are considered as sidewalk vendors because their businesses are positioned in the aforementioned areas.(REP. OF PHILS.) The bill also suggests that LGUs should provide a designated area and time for street vending whether the business is mobile or stationary provided that garbage problems and disturbances in pedestrian and vehicular would be avoided. It is also mentioned in sections 6 and 7 that this activity should be supported and funded by LGUs through lending of capital to the vendors and as well as handling of seminars for training and proper business management. The bill also proclaims that such trade would not require obtainment of permits but would only require registration to the Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office (MSWDO) (Joson, 2008). However, in contrast to this, Marikina City’s administration had already created ordinances regarding this kind of activity. They prohibited sidewalk vending specifically within the market zone to operate. Violators would be otherwise penalized. They also discouraged and prohibited the public to tolerate such activity (Viliran).
Methodology
The researchers will use a multiple setting case study for the overall outline of the study. The research is situated in two public markets in Metro Manila namely: Kamuning Public Market and Nepa Q-Mart. The methods that will be used in gathering data will be field observations and ‘pakikipagkwentuhan’ or sharing of stories between the researcher and the research participants.
Results and Discussions
The results of the field observation and informal interview yielded six major findings: 1) cause for duplication 2) incentives of duplication 3) kinds of duplicators 3) kind of products duplicated 4) sources of duplicated products 5) price differences and 6) locations of duplicators.
How Duplication Occurs
Dimas (2008) says that sidewalk vendors "rob the sidewalk of its conveniences and deter walking traffic into going inside the market, hence reducing the stores’ business". Since pedestrians are discouraged to go inside the market to do their shopping, they opt to buy in easily accessible areas. Accessibility, however, is not the only factor that customers consider. Price, other non-price dimensions such as product quality and friendly staff (Dueñas-Caparas, 2005), and the suki concept also play a role in determining a customer’s choice of store.
Although it is true that sidewalk vendors pose as direct competitors and unfair ones at that since they "steal" customers, some stores inside the market have come up with ways to compete with sidewalk vendors by creating illegal extensions or subsidiaries also situated beside the sidewalk. These extensions are what this paper refers to as sub-businesses.
Product duplication occurs because the sidewalk vendors and sub-businesses now sell similar products which the stores inside the public market also sell.
Why Vendors Duplicate The most obvious motivation for duplication is freeloading or the lack of having to pay for the required permits, taxes, and daily market fees. In addition to freeloading, duplication is also a way for the stores inside the market to compete with sidewalk vendors. It is also a mechanism for selling products, specifically perishables, which are deemed unwanted or hard to sell because they are rejects, no longer fresh, on the verge of or are already rotting. Duplicators are able to sell them because they are easy to get to (especially for customers who do not go inside the market) and because of considerably lowered prices. Hence, food spoilage and loss of income is avoided, though this may not be the case always because fresh fruits and vegetables are also sold by duplicators. Sub-businesses also provide free advertising for its main store.
Who Becomes the Duplicators The 2008 Informal Sector Survey of the NSO shows that 82.3 percent of IS operators did not go to college. Moreover, 94 percent of IS operators are 25 years old and over. Majority of the IS operators are also household heads, comprising 61.4 percent or about 6.5 million of the informal sector. Since sidewalk vending is a part of the informal sector, this information can be used to somehow make a profile of the kind of people who usually become duplicators.
The urban poor comprise the majority of duplicators. Due to their economic condition, their typical highest education attainment is high school. Because of the lack of a college degree, they help augment their family’s income by working in the informal sector. Incidentally, majority of the IS workers are aged 25 years old and over and most of them are also household heads. These two can be said to be related because this is also the typical marrying age of Filipinos.1
Although the data from NSO reflects for all types of informal sector activities and not just sidewalk vending, it is a good enough basis considering 29.6 percent of IS workers or about 3.1 million Filipinos are into informal wholesale and retail trading.
Kinds of Duplicators Duplicators shall be classified into free agents and sub-businesses. Free agents are the most common type of sidewalk vendors. They are those who do not pay any rent. However, they do pay tong or illegal toll to local authorities for unofficial permit and/or also to policemen for "protection".
Akharuzzaman and Deguchi (2010) stated that “some of [the stores] have a relation with [the] nearest shop as an external business on the urban street”. This “external business” is referred in this paper as the sub-business. Unlike free agents, sub-businesses pay a small rental fee to the owner of a store inside the market on which they are a spillover or have relations with. Sub-businesses could either be owned by the same owner as the main store or it could be leased to a relative or friend of the main store’s owner. They pay tong at times but not as often as free agents.
Free agents and sub-businesses are further divided into four types of vending systems: permanent, semi-permanent, semi-mobile, and mobile.
The permanent type means that at the end of the day, the vendors leave their goods on their stalls. Permanent shops usually operate on a larger scale compared to the other types of vending in terms of quantity and range of goods sold. Thus, their income level is higher compared to the other three vending types. Moreover, their permanence is permanent only until they are evicted. But unlike the next three vending systems, they have the least priority during evictions because of their connections with stores inside the public market. Most permanent type shops are sub-businesses.
Semi-permanent vendors bring their goods home at the end of the day but they leave their stall or stand on the sidewalk for the next day. Semi-mobile shops are those commonly referred as bangketa. Semi-mobile vendors commonly display their goods on pushcarts or makeshift platforms. At the end of the day, they take their pushcarts and goods with them. On the other hand, mobile vendors move from one area to the next, depending on where the customers are. They are usually children. Some of them sell to transport vehicles.
Free agents normally operate semi-mobile and mobile shops. Permanent and semi-permanent businesses need more capital and require good connections with people who have stores inside the market. Most free agents belong in the lower poor classes; they simply don’t have the money and/or they don’t know the right people. Sub-businesses observed rarely have semi-mobile operations and no mobile vending since these kinds of business do not generate much money and are more suited for free agents.
Kinds of Products Duplicated Most products sold by duplicators, especially those who are more mobile, are perishables. Permanent vendors sell a wider variety of goods, from school supplies to hardware merchandise. Semi-permanent and semi-mobile vendors commonly sell fruits, vegetables, eggs, dried fish and the like.

Sources of Goods
In farmers’ markets like Nepa-Q, vendors get their goods direct from the producer. Sometimes the producers themselves sell their own goods. Products sold in this manner are significantly cheaper than those sold by retailers. Retailers obtain their products from middle men or those who buy from the producer and resell them to retailers.
Price Difference Prices of products sold by duplicators are lower by ten to twenty pesos than those sold inside the market. This amount is significant considering that most of the people who depend on sidewalk vendors are themselves part of the urban poor sector.

Table 1. Street vendors typology | | | Description | Goods | Income | Free agent↓ | Sub-business↑ | Permanent | leaves goods in their stalls at the end of the day or they leave them at the main store | wider range of goods and in large quantities, from hardware merchandise to school supplies | ↑income increases from bottom to top | | | Semi-permanent | leaves their stalls but brings their goods | fruits, vegetables, eggs, dried fish and the like | | | | Semi-mobile | usually no stall, just a makeshift platform or pushcart; brings their goods | | | | | Mobile | carries their goods around | cigarettes, bottled water, plastic bags, snacks | |

Locations of Duplicators * Nepa Q-Mart
Duplicators are located in the fringes of the public markets at approximately one hundred meters away from the main market. They display their goods on sidewalks and some parts of the road. Because of this, a two-way street turns into a one-way road.

* Kamuning Public Market

Economic Potential of Duplicators This study found out that product duplication plays two crucial roles in the lives of the urban poor. First, it gives them jobs. Second, it provides them affordable goods. Product duplication does not require special skills and a large capital. Some product duplicators even become "successful" and they branch out, spawning more job opportunities. Sidewalk vending is also the cheapest way to shop not only for the low-income urban dwellers but also for the middle-class. Dimas (2008) describes it as catering "to the needs of people just above them in the urban social rung (the poor relying on the less poor)".

Conclusion At the end of the research, the researchers found out that product duplication in public markets occur. Several factors can be related to this phenomenon, based on the research done, such as the cause for product duplication, what can they possibly get out of duplication, the kinds of duplicators, the kind of products duplicated, the sources of duplicated products, the price difference of products inside and outside the market and the locations of the duplicators. Discussion of gender, age, educational attainment and class can also be a factor on answering the question who, what, why and how product duplication occurs. A key highlight of the study is on how duplicators utilize their social capital (social relationships) towards other people such as their customers, the owners of the place they are doing business on, and to those select few that they pay ‘tong’ to. And eventhough duplicators are considered illegal or informal in our society, most of the time, they are the ones who provide goods, labor and services that we, lower middle class and above people, do not want to do but will pay for it at a lower cost compared to others.

Potential Directions of the Study As mentioned beforehand, the researchers aim for this study is for it to be an aid to legislation and a possible backbone of another study. The researchers based this insight from having difficulties in finding related literature about the topic. This researcher could be a possible take off point for other researches regarding product duplication not only in public markets but in general. Another point is that laws regarding product duplication in the Philippines is not well defined and/or is not implemented well. The mere presence of archived documents on laws but seeing reality otherwise is a possible indicator of flaws in the laws written.

References

AKHARUZZAMAN, M., & DEGUCHI, A. (2010). Public Management for Street Vendor Problems in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. Proc. of International Conference on Environmental Aspects of Bangladesh (ICEAB10), (pp. 45-46). Japan. Retrieved April 4, 2013, from PNRM Consultants: http://participatorynrm.com/about_pnrm

Dimas, H. (2008). Street Vendors: Urban Problem and Economic Potential. First Indonesian Regional Science Association (pp. 6, 8-10). Pajadjaran: Department of Economics, Padjajaran University.

Joson, E. N. (2008). AN ACT TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF SIDEWALK VENDORS. Quezon, Philippines.

LEE, J.-H. (2004). Characteristic Analysis of Street Vendors In Seoul Korea. Proceedings of Asian Street Vendor Research Symposium, (pp. 1-10). DHAKA.

Office, N. S. (2009, January 14). Labor Force. Retrieved October 7, 2013, from Census.gov: http://www.census.gov.ph/content/informal-sector-operators-counted-105-million-results-2008-informal-sector-survey

Viliran, R. (n.d.). MPMO. Retrieved 2013, from Marikina.gov.ph: http://www.marikina.gov.ph/#!mpmo

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Statistics from the 2003, 1998 and 1993 National Demographic and Health surveys by the NSO indicate that more than 70 percent of formal and informal unions occur in women 25-29 years old.