Why dynamism

“From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Dynamism has several meanings. Dynamism (metaphysics), a cosmological explanation of the material world in the vein of process philosophy. Dynamism (computing), When any process in computer is using Dynamic management methods for its processing/computing/memory management/parallelism handling for being able to give more user friendly work that are more easy to interact and modify . . . The activeness of an energetic personality . . . Dynamis (Greek: δύναμις), an Ancient Greek word meaning "power" . . . Dynamicism, the application of dynamical systems theory to cognitive science.”

And from Wiktionary, the free dictionary: Dynamism. Noun. dynamism (countable and uncountable; plural dynamisms) . . . (philosophy, metaphysics) Any of several philosophical theories that attempt to explain the universe by an immanent force . . . Great energy, drive, force, or power; vigor of body, mind or personality; oomph or pizzazz . . . Dynamic reality; active energy; continuous change, progress, or activity.”

Should we even care about dynamism? Is it in our vocabulary? What about change versus status quo? Or global versus local? Instinctively we equate parochial to patriotism or nationalism? Indeed we are proud of our culture, our beliefs and our assumptions. On the other hand: "How are we to know what we should do if we do not know who we are . . . Let there be me . . ." writes Teodoro M. Locsin, "The Masks of Filipinos, June 17, 1961," Philippine Free Press.

Or are we simply at home in our comfort zone? What are the various global yardsticks in development, competitiveness, economic freedom, etc. really saying? Every nation has its own set of beliefs and assumptions but we rank poorly in many of these global yardsticks? Is Juan de la Cruz the opposite of dynamism?

“After the Philippines was adjudged as one of the worst places in the world to do business in by global ratings agencies, the National Competitiveness Council (NCC) recently summoned captains of industry to help it draw up a practical plan, complete with doable programs, to make the country more competitive.” [Council to draw up plan making PHL more competitive, Business Mirror, 13th Jan 2013] “A rethinking of a competitiveness plan for the Philippines was called by NCC on the heels of a report made by the International Finance Corp., the investment arm of the World Bank, that the Philippines had slid down to become one of the worst places to do business in the whole world.”

“Pointed out as the country’s Achilles heel during a consultation meeting with business leaders, led by Jaime Zobel de Ayala, is the tedious system of processing business papers from registering a new business to getting permits and clearances where the Philippines was found to have the record of taking too long a time and requiring too many signatures.”

“Guillermo Luz, NCC private sector co-chairman, said the strategic plan must only pick a few industries with high growth potentials chosen by the business leaders to lead the competiveness drive, like tourism, to give the plan more focus. Trade Undersecretary Adrian Cristobal Jr., however, disagreed. He pointed out that before the end of last year, up to 15 out of 50 strategic industries in the country have drafted their own road-map plans to lift the Philippines to industrialized status.”

Indeed it is counterintuitive to "start with the end in view" and to be "outcome-driven" and to internalize the Pareto principle – it is an econometric model, not an opinion or “kuro-kuro”? And we still have to be one in defining our Achilles heel? “A new industrial policy for the Philippines (part 2),” Business World, 13th Jan 2013, identified PHL’s “weaknesses” and “threats” as: “high power cost and poor infrastructure; and strong peso and global uncertainty and economic slowdown in the developed world . . .” It goes beyond “the tedious system of processing business papers from registering a new business to getting permits and clearances . . .” and we have serious deficiencies that we can ignore at our peril?