We rightly should be proud that we do many things well. Yet being in a ‘convoy’, we move only as fast as the slowest boat – i.e., we need to raise our consciousness and seek to strengthen our institutions? And institutions start with Juan de la Cruz? The writer is delighted that Dr Jesus P Estanislao’s efforts are dedicated to the cause.
It is heartening to read good news like: (a) Reports The Philippine Star, Apr 18th, “CITEM officially becomes a national event . . . when all design-driven product sourcing . . . shall have been consolidated . . . [thus] an icon of unprecedented unity in a business sector once marked by divisiveness and intense rivalry”; (b) Zest “gave the airline a shot in the arm . . . change is painful for most—if not all—environments, but required if a new culture of excellence is desired.” says the Manila Bulletin, Apr 18th. Institutions are stronger in a broad-based economy given its critical mass, and rising knowledge and competitiveness. It is the opposite of a banana republic, which finds legitimacy in demonizing the imperfections of market economies, for instance, thus lost to the dynamics of its ‘ecosystem’ as exemplified by the Asian tigers? There will always be unscrupulous investors, foreign and local – a reality that is the human condition: love begets love?
The roadmap of ‘Arangkada Philippines’ that the Aquino administration has embraced is designed to create a broad-based economy. It is meant to encourage investors in strategic industries to ante up at levels unheard of in our history, and beyond a handful of local interests. And thus harness into the country the building blocks of competitiveness. But we’re preoccupied cheering our favorite tycoons and/or livelihood efforts – unfortunately proven insufficient, over decades, to enlarge our economic pie, while unwittingly reinforcing a skewed, hierarchical economy and culture?
It takes a village to raise a child – it takes leveraging the global economy to lift 100 million Filipinos? And we can’t compare our problem with that of the US re globalization, i.e., they are losing jobs overseas. That overseas is Asia, where we are. And to partake of its spoils, the ADB is telling us that we need to elevate trade not just locally but, more importantly, with the region – and with higher value-added products, the hurdle to attain competitiveness. And with China the message is different: to raise domestic consumption – i.e., they’ve already attained aggressive levels of investment!
The writer’s Eastern European friends find inspiration in product development (for local, regional and markets beyond) and innovation (i.e., thinking discipline beyond the requisite elements of ‘galing’ and ‘yabang’) from the Lexus story – it takes a village. But it starts with ‘the end in view’, defined simply and with clarity’: “Can we create a luxury vehicle to challenge the world’s best?” [Thus] “posed the Toyota Chairman to his executives”. [And armed with simplicity and clarity of purpose, they organized] “focused groups and market research efforts – several designers rented a home in Laguna Beach, California – to observe the lifestyles and tastes of American upper class consumers. The development process involved 60 designers, 24 engineering teams, 1,400 engineers, 2,300 technicians and 220 support workers.” [Wikipedia] Of course, Toyota has to be committed to dynamism – even empires aren’t guaranteed permanence?
It would take a great number of committed souls – and institutions in the public and private sectors – to lift us up as a nation? The controversial Ro-Ro ports deal seems to mirror the fiasco of NAIA 3 and the Laguna Lake rehabilitation project and that of ZTE? Did it take some number of errant players to mess up these projects thus undermining the wellbeing of Juan de la Cruz? It took an institution to create Lexus – an institution of Japanese men and women that is downright strong, and able to create something tangible to beat icons like Mercedes Benz and BMW in the large US market? The Japanese have learned from the likes of Edison, Gates and Jobs that pragmatic innovation is anchored in the contemporary lifestyle – i.e., consumerism? Should we simply seek competitiveness and ask: Can we create an outstanding 'widget' to challenge the world’s best? And then do our homework like Toyota did? Deng Xiaoping did not confuse ‘Caesar’ (market economy) and from his god (communism)?
And meanwhile a neighbor has upped the competitive ante: “Indonesia to modernize infrastructure and dominate the global seafood market”, WSJ, April 19th. We ought to look at agribusiness (identified as a strategic industry in ‘Arangkada Philippines’) as a vehicle to dominate a specific segment of the global market, not as a livelihood project? To dominate means we have committed souls and institutions – and looking at the versatility of the coconut is a good first step?
No comments:
Post a Comment