The label we like to use – global nation – focuses us on the OFWs. What about nation-building instead?
We don’t dispute the following: (a) we’re sinking in the global competitiveness ranking and (b) likewise in the human development index, and (c) it will take 175 years for us to attain developed-country status?
Competitiveness needs to be driven by our major industries but their DNA does not spell c-o-m-p-e-t-i-t-i-v-e. But we create conglomerates and develop SMEs (small and medium-scale enterprises); and the latter, in fairness, support the larger companies. But the kind of ship we’ve built does not make us a global nation? Our ship, like it or not, is meant for a small pond?
The same logic applies to country-side development. Until the object is designed for competitiveness, the outcome will be uncompetitive and thus unsustainable. Ex-communists countries learned the lesson the hard way – that pricing couldn’t be set in la-la land; it’s dynamic with value was a given and must generate margins to make the venture sustainable. Bread was rationed and cheap in la-la land hence it disappeared from store shelves that people had to die fighting for crumbs. In our case, Magsaysay knew that the law of supply and demand couldn’t be repealed even by a compassionate, nationalistic and patriotic Congress!
But Japan and South Korea have zillions of SMEs supporting their larger companies! But these larger companies have their DNAs spell c-o-m-p-e-t-i-t-i-v-e – g-l-o-b-a-l-l-y. How do we pursue nation-building then?
Enter the SMEs; but not the current generation – they have to move closer and faster towards the latest, globally competitive generation of SMEs like they have in China.
Beyond a rehab czar, we need a czar to get us into our next generation of SMEs – a “nation-building” czar? (And Tommy Alcantara comes to mind – if only to start a short-list?)
And that means starting with a roadmap: Generate the requisite infrastructure – capital, market, technology and talent – but first identify strategic industries where we can develop global competitive advantage. The recently announced R&D and investment program is a good stepping stone to build on, e.g., higher value-added electronics beyond semi-conductors; agribusiness but all the way to branded products; BPOs, but including software development and higher value-added services, etc.
The next steps can play out as follows: (a) define the use of the capital (sourced globally, ergo, we better pay our debts – no defaulter will have a prayer sourcing capital); (b) that means to produce products (and product architecture modeling is a practical tool to employ) that have a compelling concept – a clarity of purpose, that will have a leg and a message to stand on, and travel the global market and ; (c) that we can tap the requisite technology (sourced globally, as well) to produce these products and (d) develop and tap the talents (not limited to ourselves!) to keep the technology updated and the capital coming . . . because the global market sings halleluiah!
Nation-building can be done in small steps but the object has to be equal to the task – not limited to stop-gap measures that have become our DNA?
We don’t dispute the following: (a) we’re sinking in the global competitiveness ranking and (b) likewise in the human development index, and (c) it will take 175 years for us to attain developed-country status?
Competitiveness needs to be driven by our major industries but their DNA does not spell c-o-m-p-e-t-i-t-i-v-e. But we create conglomerates and develop SMEs (small and medium-scale enterprises); and the latter, in fairness, support the larger companies. But the kind of ship we’ve built does not make us a global nation? Our ship, like it or not, is meant for a small pond?
The same logic applies to country-side development. Until the object is designed for competitiveness, the outcome will be uncompetitive and thus unsustainable. Ex-communists countries learned the lesson the hard way – that pricing couldn’t be set in la-la land; it’s dynamic with value was a given and must generate margins to make the venture sustainable. Bread was rationed and cheap in la-la land hence it disappeared from store shelves that people had to die fighting for crumbs. In our case, Magsaysay knew that the law of supply and demand couldn’t be repealed even by a compassionate, nationalistic and patriotic Congress!
But Japan and South Korea have zillions of SMEs supporting their larger companies! But these larger companies have their DNAs spell c-o-m-p-e-t-i-t-i-v-e – g-l-o-b-a-l-l-y. How do we pursue nation-building then?
Enter the SMEs; but not the current generation – they have to move closer and faster towards the latest, globally competitive generation of SMEs like they have in China.
Beyond a rehab czar, we need a czar to get us into our next generation of SMEs – a “nation-building” czar? (And Tommy Alcantara comes to mind – if only to start a short-list?)
And that means starting with a roadmap: Generate the requisite infrastructure – capital, market, technology and talent – but first identify strategic industries where we can develop global competitive advantage. The recently announced R&D and investment program is a good stepping stone to build on, e.g., higher value-added electronics beyond semi-conductors; agribusiness but all the way to branded products; BPOs, but including software development and higher value-added services, etc.
The next steps can play out as follows: (a) define the use of the capital (sourced globally, ergo, we better pay our debts – no defaulter will have a prayer sourcing capital); (b) that means to produce products (and product architecture modeling is a practical tool to employ) that have a compelling concept – a clarity of purpose, that will have a leg and a message to stand on, and travel the global market and ; (c) that we can tap the requisite technology (sourced globally, as well) to produce these products and (d) develop and tap the talents (not limited to ourselves!) to keep the technology updated and the capital coming . . . because the global market sings halleluiah!
Nation-building can be done in small steps but the object has to be equal to the task – not limited to stop-gap measures that have become our DNA?
No comments:
Post a Comment