[…] Manuel L. Quezon III blogs about Alba’s answers in […]

This is difficult reading for the layman, indeed, much more for an ordinary blogger like me. I’m sure the lovers of the scammers here will be quick to find fault with this entry here of mlq3 even without so much the benefit of enough comprehension about the content. They sure will cite justifications in order to defend their idol’s good points, however small, which, definitely, would be contrary to Mr. Alba’s thesis. As usual. For one, MC_90 would dazzle us with his eloquence again with that mirthful HA-HA-HA to spite us hater of the scammers, his way of a camouflage defense of his idol, camouflage because he’s embarrass defending someone with a statistical popularity and trust ratings of negative 30. And we all know why the Filipino people has given his idol that so low a rating, the reasons of which are exactly the points being raise here by Dr. Michael Alba. As for me, I agree with Dr. Alba.

Let me comment on two points being discussed here. I will label them points A and B:

Point A: Dr. Alba highlighted three factors that prevent growth of the country, pardon me if I got them all wrong:

1.) A flawed leadership–leadership that valued loyalty more than competence.
2.) Politicians that unashamedly promote and jealously protects its narrow self-interests.
3.) Political incentive structure that reward thievery and corruption more than honest, hard work.

Point B: Three elements absolutely essential and indispensable for social improvements:

1.) Effective, efficient, and high quality education.
2.) A vigilant civil society that demand accountability from government.
3.) A competent, corruption-intolerant goverment administration of firm purpose committed to reform.

Point A is present in our present government. Point B is not present. There is a vigilant civil society, but there is also the lovers of the scammers, like, for example, in this blogsite. So, if we follow the logic of Dr. Michael Alba, it is very clear why the Philippines is at the bottom of the pit. See, MC_90?

In his paper, Alba mentions industrialization only once. I believe that Alba’s prescriptions, if followed would result in an improvement in human development without an acceleration of growth as in the case of Kerala. In this scenario, any acceleration in growth manifested may be due to level effects rather than an acceleration in long run growth rate.

[…] well as some points raised the paper of Economist Dr. Michael Alba (which I posted, yesterday, at Inquirer Current) and the argument put forward by yesterday’s Inquirer editorial on the repercussions of the […]

Hi Manuel,

A good analysis from Dr. Alba, this part sums up a lot of things needed for true progress:

“…In particular, three absolutely essential and indispensable elements for social transformation are: an effective, efficient, and high-quality education system, a vigilant civil society that demands high accountability from the government, and a competent, corruption-intolerant government administration of firm purpose committed to reform and transformation.”

To this I would also add: Transparency in governance, love of God, rediscovering a sense of decency and morality, love and care of our people, and care for our land, resources, environment and nature.

Oh, since he’s a college Economics dean, he must know a lot of stuff, and since he knows a lot, he must be more right. Agreed. But the problem is it doesn’t take an honest college dean to know what he just stated. :

My comment was truncated.

He merely described accurately the very kind of life a lot of us live day in and day out.

Mr. Alba’s main thesis is Filipinos remain poor because of our country’s low economic growth per capita, which is caused by many factors. There’s not enough wealth for everybody. We need to create wealth faster to eradicate poverty.

What if the wealth created benefits only a few and the vast majority still remains poor? Then the problem is not wealth creation but wealth distribution. The annual per capita poverty threshold is P14,800. The annual per capita income of the Philippines is P69,000. Theoretically, every Filipino could earn 4x more than the poverty threshold. There’s more than enough wealth to eradicate poverty. Yet 1 out 3 Filipinos earns less than the poverty threshold. 26 million Filipinos remain poor. I don’t have the data but I hypothesize that the Pareto rule applies to the national income distribution. The richest 20% of the population earn 80% of the total national income.

We can moderate this extreme inequality in income distribution through social democratic reforms like progressive taxation that is exclusively focused on the top 20% of the population and state welfare exclusively focused on the bottom 30% of the population below the poverty threshold. 50% of the population will not be affected (those not in the top 20% or bottom 30%) while 30% of the population will benefit (the poor).

We can eradicate or at least alleviate poverty now. But it takes tremendous political will to do it because all our politicians and business leaders belong to the top 20% of the population. I agree with Mr. Alba that we need servant-leaders who values people’s welfare above their own interest; leaders who will go against the political and business oligarchy to promote the highest good for the greatest number of people.

To: pinoy

We elect somebody from the bottom 30%, in no time she or he become a member of the top 20%. Leaning heavily on political solution to the problem therefore is wishful thinking, considering the above. Which means that, for all our and the expert’s prognostications, it seems we are all groping in the dark, clutching at the straw, trying to find our way and hoping to see some light at the end of the tunnel. Analyzing the problem beyond wishful thinking, it seems to indicate that the sickness affects the whole strata of society such that, one part not in cooperation with the whole will not cure the sickness. Let’s dissect the whole, starting from the top 20% because this is the part probably the most defective, but has the most potential for cure. The top 20% holds the most resources, also the most enlightened. Their degree of cooperation must be enhance, if not, nothing, the situation remains. The middle 50% has a varied role to play,either political or resources. This must be studied by the expert. The bottom 30% is neither enlightened nor reliable on providing cooperation of providing resources. Their potential rests solely on political benefits that could be derive from their numbers, and this political potential must be properly and meticulously manage by disinterested entity to be able to derive optimum benefit from them for the wellbeing of the desired objective.

can’t we just do away w/ congress? and have a gov’t just like what singapore has?
look at what lee kuan yew, and now his son is doing. besides the leaders having political will, they make sure their bureaucrats and technocrats are well-paid, hence no reason for corruption.

i don’t think the bloggers who do not espouse change of leaders would mean that the sitting pres. is their idol, and that they want the perpetuation of scams.
non-sequitur…
edsa does not appeal to them, give them another option.

Abbygail,

We will be better off without the congress and the senate…imagine how much money will be saved by the govt…not to mention the reduction of corruption….

But that will be the hardest thing to do…because for sure all the congressmen..and the senators will not allow that to happen…dahil mawawalan sila ng SOP at POWER….iisipin pa lang nila ang perang mawawala sa kanila…hehehehehe

The truth is…congress and senate in our country are useless…

I think the best thing to do is to do Federal system…. I am sure majority of the people of the visayas would love to separate from the national govt….

To: bert

Not all those in the top 20% of society are corrupt. The problem is our capitalist system allows and encourages those who have the most money and power to accumulate more money and power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We need a system that promotes sharing and altruism.

I’m advocating for social democracy, which in between capitalism and communism, for a more equitable society. Prominent supporters of social democracy are not communists but ultra capitalists who know very well the flaws of capitalism: Joseph Schumpeter - a Harvard economist and advocate of entrepreneurship and big corporations; Joseph Stiglitz - a Nobel Prize winner in economics and former chief economist of World Bank; George Soros - a multibillionaire investor and global fund manager.

On the other hand, one of the staunchest defenders of capitalism was the philosopher Ayn Rand. She correctly recognized that selfishness is the driving force behind capitalism. She promoted capitalism as ideal and selfishness as virtue. At least Ayn Rand was more honest than the other defender of capitalism who believes the same thing but will not say so – the political and business oligarchy.

Why has the Philippines Remained a Poor Country?

Its too easy to answer this question…we dont need an expert or a highly intelligent professor from any prominent schools to figure it out…

#1 Cause - Politicians

#2 Cause - The people who votes/voted for the politicians (us filipinos)