I live in the Philippines and which causes which has become a never ending debate in university.
Depends on two “ifs”. If the actual population level of the Philippines is under optimal, a growing population is good as it enriches everyone. A rather rough way to check whether the population is sub-optimal or not could be to see whether criminality is rampant and seemingly unstoppable. If so, the optimal population point has already been superseded and a growing population does bring about poverty.
And than again if people in the Philippines are actually willing to improve their lot (do not take this for granted, it would be a mistake), that is, they do prefer more over less, than we need go back to the first “if” above. If they do not, and they only aim to reach subsidence and stay there (“a simple life”), the answer to the first “if” is unimportant: population growth does bring poverty.
I can bring about examples form my own country: when communism fell in 1991 criminality soared, because given the very meager stock of capital at the time, the population was well over-optimal and it just paid to kill people. Only massive emigration prevented a massive famine and endless civil unrest. By 1996 double-digit growth had been achieved and the capital stock was rising faster than population. Hence the population became under-optimal. These days criminality is much, much lower (actually lower than the EU average).
As for the second test, I tend to assume that the vast majority of the rural population started actually longing for a better life only after being starved by the commies. But one cannot tell with certainty.
I think Merlin answered it very well.
I would like to add that it depends. All cases are unique regarding to population.
Corporatism is using state means to enhance market share and profitability of a few favored firms, at the expense of the citizen.