I’d like to present two items that Dr. Michael Alba, former Dean of the College of Business and Economics at DLSU, gave me permission to post online.
The first is a paper he wrote, titled Why has the Philippines Remained a Poor Country? Some Perspectives from Growth Economics. It makes for difficult reading for the layman but aside from the equations, the main points he wants to make are understandable enough. He believes that the Philippines is at a crucial point in its history, where it can either go the way of failed states or achieve a remarkable turnaround:
Is there hope for the future? Recall that, from the inference made by Jones (1997 and 2002) on the very long-run evolution of the world distribution of living standards, the Philippines is right on the demarcation line of countries headed for different futures. If it gets its act together—and this is a big if—the country may yet join the high performers that are tending toward high steady-state levels of output per worker. But to do so, it must exhibit a high growth rate (faster than that of the technological frontier) over a long period of time (as Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan have done), by persistently pushing out the steady-state level of output per worker to which it is headed, not so much by achieving a higher saving rate, a lower population growth rate, and a
higher quality workforce, although these will help because of synergistic effects, but by significantly improving its total factor productivity. Growth and modern development economics tell us, however, that this is not so easily done, because it involves improving the quality of the country’s social infrastructure by taking on the vestiges of our history and culture that are growth-constraining, such as flawed leadership that values loyalty more than competence, an entrenched political and business oligarchy that unashamedly promotes and jealously protects its narrow self-interests, and an incentive structure that is
nepotistic rather than meritocratic and that rewards thievery and corruption more than honest, hard work. 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.
I watched him distill his paper into a PowerPoint presentation, which also addressed some concerns about whether or not the economy is really improving, and whether the improvements that are taking place, are sustainable. He gamely presented his findings to high school and college students at the forum we both attended last Monday. Here’s the presentation, which I hope you will download and then we can all discuss it some more. I belive facts and numbers, economy-wise, are less mysterious to John than me, so maybe he’d like to take a look-see first.
Here is the paper.
Here is his PPT presentation: economic briefing-2.ppt
Technorati Tags: economy, philippines, politics
November 6th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
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)
November 6th, 2007 at 11:53 am
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.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
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….
November 5th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
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.
October 29th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
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.