Think $200-B, not 6%-7% GDP growth

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

It comes back to the science of “thinking,” i.e., forward- and lateral thinking instead of logical yet linear and incremental thinking.

Can we shift our mindset from “reflex” mode to “reflection” mode?

Recall the two operating systems in the brain: (1) automatic and (2) conscious.

Put another way, we – the Philippine elite and chattering classes – must get into an “unfreezing” exercise – to allow our brains to take in a new paradigm.

And let us internalize the distinctions between “outputs” and “outcomes.” The Western metric of 6%-7% GDP growth has kept us the regional laggard – because we were victims of the reflex mode.

Wait a minute, after several years of delivering against the said metric, why does Juan de la Cruz still suffer from abject poverty?

Let’s hold it right there and ponder – reflect on the above predicate.

For example, we celebrated the advent of the OFW phenomenon because we were generating jobs. What did we ignore?

In high school economics, we knew that economies evolved: from agriculture to industrial to service.

But we did not have the wherewithal to move to an industrial economy. 

Beg for Western money and technology!

Stop. Look. Listen.

Did the Asian Tigers heed that, including latecomer Vietnam?

And what have we to show for our shortsightedness?

“Dismal investment record,” EDITORIAL, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 25th Oct 2021.

“Despite (1) having a highly-skilled, English-speaking workforce, (2) a favorable geographical location in a region that has seen the fastest growth rates in the world, and (3) efforts to improve the ease of doing business in the country, the Philippines still placed second to last among 14 Asia-Pacific economies in terms of attractiveness to foreign direct investments (FDIs), as ranked by the UK-based think tank Oxford Economics.

“Former economic planning secretary Cielito Habito pointed in his 14th September column in this paper the bad state of governance in the country. ‘When dealing with government from the top leadership down to local governments is — to put it kindly — fraught with risk and uncertainty, a potential foreign investor would simply move on and look elsewhere in the neighborhood.’”

But we never learn. Take the UP and Ateneo Economics disciplines. We celebrated the uptick in manufacturing — digging us deeper into the grave — while ignoring that our neighbors were leaving us behind in industrialization and competitiveness. 

Unsurprisingly, we lag across vital economic metrics, especially poverty. And worse, we hide behind populist window-dressing initiatives that add insult to injury. Translation: The crab mentality is not the answer to abject poverty; it is robbing Peter to pay Paul — while being in “reflex” mode instead of “reflection” mode. 

See above; we must shift mindsets. But can we — given our caste system?

And what about our think-tanks? Did they holler?

That’s why the blog never tires of asserting: Democracy comes with the imperative of leadership, a critical element in self-government that presupposes personal responsibility and an egalitarian ethos.

An egalitarian ethos is a virtue, and paternalism is not. That explains why we love tyranny and submit to it.

There are distinctions between analysis and analytics, between outputs and outcomes.

And leadership is dynamic too. There is such a thing as “horizontal leadership” in the egalitarian ethos. Even “upward leadership.”

Don’t we encounter signs like “When you see something, say something” at airports and other public places, especially after 9/11?

It is the common good!

Sadly, the common good is foreign to Juan de la Cruz. 

It comes back to our instincts: We are parochial — and what else?

How do we break from tradition?

This generation must internalize the relevance of the 3C’s of sturdy mindset – Challenge, Commitment, Control – to the plight of Juan de la Cruz.

Let’s get some breathing room so we can do a simple exercise – and quote from earlier postings:

That’s why the blog has criticized our approach to GDP growth, i.e., setting a 6-7% rate as nirvana.

What we want is: To traverse poverty to prosperity rapidly. 

Not brag about a 6%-7% GDP growth. 

That is “output,” not “outcome.” We are still the regional laggard despite delivering such growth over several years.

And if we map or trace [the “outcome” of “rapid prosperity”] backward, we will recognize the need to beg for foreign money and technology.

And so, we want to get Bill Gates, the CEO of Apple, Samsung, and Warren Buffett, and ask the question: Why can’t we get businesses the size of Samsung Vietnam and Apple AirPods Vietnam into the Philippines?

What must we do and do fast? Because we want a quantum leap in GDP – i.e., by an incremental $200 billion, to leapfrog the economic output of our neighbors. And we shall be able to put poverty in the rearview mirror – as our neighbors did.

Do we think Bill Gates or Warren Buffett would give an ear to Marcos or Duterte? As VP Robredo said during the Rotary Club meeting, we must first establish a “trust” environment before FDIs will even come.

In other words, the next president must recognize that we can’t move this nation forward until we make a quantum leap in national income or GDP.

With due respect to economists, business professors, and strategists, we cannot indulge in Ivory-tower speak when we are sinking fast in the abyss.

This article is classic schoolwork, i.e., the next president and the next and the one after cannot deliver on this laundry list to (1) Strengthen the healthcare system; (2) Modernize and boost agriculture; (3) Promote manufacturing through sound industrial policy; (4) Accelerate Industry 4.0 adoption and digitization; (5) Advance renewable energy source; (6) Prepare for a blended and hybrid educational system; (7) Build a proactive social protection system.” [“An economic growth and development agenda for the next administration,” Dr. Fernando T. Aldaba, BusinessMirror, 21st Oct 2021]

Let’s hold it right there.

Where do we need our economics disciplines and think tanks given the above challenge to the next president?

For example, what homework can they offer the next president to speak with confidence to Bill Gates, the CEO of Apple, Samsung, and Warren Buffett, and ask: Why can’t we get businesses the size of Samsung Vietnam and Apple AirPods Vietnam into the Philippines? What must we do fast so that you will invest in the Philippines as much as you would elsewhere?

In other words, there is a way to leapfrog policy-making – which we are not good at given where we stand, although the BOI is a decades-old institution.

What else? What foreign partners must our eight top companies seek that will build on the agenda of replicating the success of Vietnam in luring Samsung smartphones and Apple AirPods? In other words, we need both investment and technology, and we have no time to accumulate capital and learn the technology.

And what else? Which industry roadmaps will we work on add to the above efforts and prioritize, including generating substantial revenues? Where does agribusiness enter? And the biggest MSMEs?

When we have a good handle on the must-have income streams, we shall be in a better position to map or trace backward the requisite infrastructure, including power and water supply. Every critical undertaking is a subset of a more substantial one. Recall an ecosystem, best exemplified by the photosynthesis phenomenon.

That will not be a cakewalk, but we have to start somewhere to internalize the science of “thinking,” i.e., forward- and lateral thinking instead of logical yet linear thinking.

That is the hypothesis that our economic disciplines and think tanks can build on.

And in particular, that is the broad stroke approach to fine-tune “AmBisyon Natin: 2040.”

Let’s hold it right there.

The blog is raising a challenge to the economic disciplines and “think tanks,” including “economic managers.”

And the challenge is: How do we leverage the science of “thinking” in the pursuit of the discipline’s reason for being?

Recall that it is about forward- and lateral thinking instead of logical yet linear and incremental thinking.

The discipline is in a unique position to influence the nation’s president. But how does it approach the challenge?

It is to live out the science of thinking and get into the head of the president.

In other words, the president is not a freshman student to work on and defend a dissertation at the end of the president’s term.

The president must fix real-world problems from day one. And the president must leverage the science of thinking. But the discipline, again, can’t treat the president as a student.

See above; dismal investment record. That is the real-world problem the president faces on day one.

In the academic world, the president will call the economic managers and the head of BOI to figure out how we can reverse a dismal investment record. If we know the bureaucracy, the response will not be soon enough to be helpful. For example, we must amend the Constitution.

Yet, the president of the Philippines can put a call to Bill Gates, the CEO of Apple and Samsung, and Warren Buffett, and they will pick up the call. They don’t get a call from a president despite their standing in the world community.

And these people do what we want them to do, invest in a market or country.

The president does not need a dissertation from the economic managers.

Recall how my old MNC-company decided to invest in China. 

I was not about to present a dissertation that would go all the way up to the policy committee of the board of directors. All I used was one chart with a few bullet points.

Why? I got into the head of the president and the real-world challenge he faced.

It also works in doing the dissertation of the Ph.D. I mentored. I will only assist you if you commit to bringing the final product to a real-world challenge. How? She had to get into the head of the consumer, of people.

That no product will be competitive and marketable if it does not respect the hierarchy of human needs. It is not about comparative advantage, and it is about competitive advantage.

Translation: A nation consumed in its inward focus and parochial and insular can’t be competitive globally — whether in attracting investment and technology or exporting products.

And who pays the price? Not us — the Philippine elite and chattering classes — but Juan de la Cruz.

We can no longer keep to old and failed paradigms.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.

Gising bayan!

Sturdy mindset

How do we teach ourselves – my generation and Juan de la Cruz, too – new tricks?

Consider: “We – the Baby Boomers and Generation X – failed to accomplish [for the Philippines] to achieve the status of an advanced economy.” [“2050 take me there,” (Part 4), Bernardo M. Villegas, The Human Side of Economics, BusinessWorld, 19th Oct 2021]

That’s why the blog is recycling the above title, “Sturdy mindset.”

Those familiar with the blog will remember the 3C’s of a sturdy mindset: Challenge, Commitment, Control.

What science says is that a sturdy mindset is crucial if we are to overcome life’s challenges.

First off, we must accept the challenge. And then make a personal commitment to step up to the plate. Control is trickier because it says that we have no control over others; we can only control ourselves.

And that’s doubly hard in a caste system like ours, and we assume we control those lower in the hierarchy.

Of course, in US politics, polarization makes progress brutal. One side can’t control the other and so why not just hate them.

Let’s digress a bit to build on “hating those from opposing tribes.”

Recall that US politics completely turned me off. And so when a family friend invited us to hear a mayoral candidate in our suburban New York town, his spiel was to intrigue me:

“He is unaffiliated. He is not beholden to either side. He is not a politician. I grew up with him in this town. He is a famous sports personality and has managed world-caliber teams, including Japanese. As important, he has organized and successfully run businesses too. He can build teams, consensus and is a change agent. Every undertaking he pursued was supposedly a ‘mission impossible.’ Think of the Japanese embracing an American manager.” 

And he conveyed more when he spoke to a group of neighbors over cocktails:

“I grew up with my mother telling me not to hate anyone. How can even young Americans hate people they don’t know because they are either a Red or a Blue?

“It’s a long shot. But aren’t we going to be proud if we can upend polarization in America? Do you know that when people realized who I am, they came to endorse me? The Republican candidate even pulled out of the race and supported me. We know ours is a Democratic bastion, and to win, you must be a Democrat. But I always embrace the impossible.

“I challenged my Democratic opponent to sign a pact that we shall only debate issues; no negative campaigning. She did not immediately sign the agreement, and on the day she signed it, she threw a couple of negative ads against me. But I take things in stride; I cannot hate anyone.

[There was a question about why an old-dilapidated bridge has remained so for ages.] “Do you know why? There has been an approved appropriation to fix that bridge for over ten years, but both sides can’t agree on the purpose and design.

“My term starts on 1st Dec, and the first thing I will do is speak to both sides of the aisle. I am neither of you, and you cannot hate me. But you and I are here running our town because we want this town to move forward, which is our reason for being. And I want to make sure the media gets that and reports that instead of adding fuel to the political divide.

“And so everyone will be focused on making progress for this town, not hating each other.”

Isn’t that a great example of the 3C’s of a hardy mindset? He (1) accepts the challenge of his town; (2) commits to step up to the plate; and (3) recognizes that he “controls” only himself that he must not hate anyone.

Consider: Because of the survival instinct, humans would point the finger away from ourselves. How many would blame their parents for their failings in life? What about the case of Juan de la Cruz? Our colonizers lorded it over us.

And while we like to give credit to the Catholic Church for our positives, the reality is that our caste system mirrors that of the Church.

“In her autobiography, Dorothy Day (1897–1980; the Church has opened the cause for her possible canonization, which was accepted by the Holy See for investigation. For that reason, the Church refers to her with the title of Servant of God) paraphrased theologian Romano Guardini by lamenting, ‘the Church is the Cross on which Christ died.’ Doesn’t that hurt? And yet, maybe it’s true. In many ways, the institutional Church does not seem to believe its own Gospel.

“It wasn’t always this way, but starting in 313 CE, Christianity gradually became the imperial religion of the Roman Empire. It was mostly top-down and hierarchical for the next 1700 years. As the ‘imperial mind’ took over, religion had less to do with Jesus’ teachings on nonviolence, inclusivity, forgiveness, and simplicity. Instead, it became fully complicit in the world of domination, power, war, and greed itself.

“Lay theologian and educator Verna Dozier (1917–2006) highlights some of the significant shifts that took place when Christianity became an imperial religion:

“It is hard for us to understand what happened to the people of God under Constantine. Indeed the Church got a breathing space from persecution. Constantine dreamed of restoring the ancient glory of the empire, and he believed that Christianity was the way. Constantine himself was not changed; the Church was. It became the imperial Church. Christian worship began to be influenced by imperial protocol. Incense, the sign of respect for the emperor, began to appear in Christian churches. Ministers began dressing in more luxurious garments, processions and choirs developed, and eventually, the congregation became less active in the worship.

“More important than any of this, however, was the kind of theology that developed. The Gospel of good news to the poor now saw riches and pomp as signs of divine favor. The coming kingdom of God was no longer a fundamental theme. In the view of Eusebius [c. 260–c. 340; the father of church history], Constantine and his successors fulfilled the plan of God. Beyond the current political order, all that Christians can hope for is their transference into the heavenly kingdom.” [Richard Rohr’s Daily Meditation, Center for Action and Contemplation, 17th Oct 2021]

The bottom line: Before Big Bad Wolf America conquered us, the Church already resided in Juan de la Cruz. Unsurprisingly, Rizal called us out for loving and embracing tyranny.

Yet, as the Vietnamese demonstrated, nothing can stop them from moving forward as a nation. And so, Vietnam is the latest Asian Tiger. It’s sickening to keep hearing that the US military dropped more bombs on Vietnam than all the wars combined.

But how do we wake up Juan Tamad or Bondying or Padre Damaso?

Recall our instincts: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.

If Juan de la Cruz does not have our capacity to navigate the binary and relative thinking continuum, doesn’t it fall upon us – the Philippine elite and chattering classes – to demonstrate a hardy mindset: Challenge, Commitment, Control?

That’s why the blog keeps raising the following:

“Democracy comes with the imperative of leadership, a critical element in self-government that presupposes personal responsibility and an egalitarian ethos.

“An egalitarian ethos is a virtue, and paternalism is not. That explains why we love tyranny and submit to it.

“To recap: The $200 billion in additional GDP [we must seek] comes from mapping back from the concept of traversing poverty to prosperity rapidly.

“Why? To leapfrog the economic output of our neighbors and match their ability to invest in education, health care – to name just two.

[Consider: We want to raise the (percentage) tax revenues allocated to education, but an equation has two sides. Even if we match Thailand and Malaysia, given our national income per capita, Thailand will still invest over two times more and Malaysia over three times more. That represents how much wealthier their GDP is per capita-wise, and my mother cannot figure that out. What is surprising is that even our quants indulge in this insanity. And that is what we’re doing as we get deeper into propping up LGUs. LGUs need money, but the crab mentality is not the answer.

[Or take Davao or Bhutan as best-practice models so that we don’t think about national income. That is worse than insanity. Recall that I called out the CFO of my old MNC-company for falling into the trap of Wall Street metrics, i.e., ratios. That is too academic, which comes in handy in the absence of experience – as in “cognitive development.”

[Or take democracy as the culprit behind our poverty. That is worse than the worst. Why not talk about the Asian Tigers. What is their common denominator? Begging for Western money and technology; not this or that “ism.”

[Because we’re the Philippine elite, we want to talk about a sophisticated nation like America. But America is in its post-industrialization age. We can’t even get “Arangkada” going. We keep comparing apples and oranges. Why? Because we are Juan Tamad, Bondying, and Padre Damaso rolled into one?]

“And if we drill down on the $200 billion, that must be the aggregate revenues we want from (1) FDIs and foreign technology; (2) the eight top companies; (3) the priority industries from the scores of roadmaps we are working on, and that will include agribusiness and the top MSMEs.

“In all cases, the exercise will mirror the agenda of the newly elected president: To preside over Philippine Inc. by doggedly pursuing commercial success, innovation and be a paragon of good governance, not a culture of impunity.

“For example, export products – agri or not – must satisfy the competitiveness and marketability metrics (aka “outcome” — see above; Theory of Change). Even Steve Jobs did his homework by figuring out how innovative companies can create a continual portfolio of winning products globally.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

How do we teach ourselves – my generation and Juan de la Cruz, too – new tricks?

Consider: “We – the Baby Boomers and Generation X – failed to accomplish [for the Philippines] to achieve the status of an advanced economy.” [“2050 take me there,” (Part 4), Bernardo M. Villegas, The Human Side of Economics, BusinessWorld, 19th Oct 2021]

That’s why the blog is recycling the above title, “Sturdy mindset.”

Those familiar with the blog will remember the 3C’s of a sturdy mindset: Challenge, Commitment, Control.

What science says is that a sturdy mindset is crucial if we are to overcome life's challenges.

First off, we must accept the challenge. And then make a personal commitment to step up to the plate. Control is trickier because it says that we have no control over others; we can only control ourselves.

And that’s doubly hard in a caste system like ours, and we assume we control those lower in the hierarchy.

Gising bayan!

We cannot solve our problems.

Why?

Enter, Einstein: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.

And we in the Philippine elite and chattering classes are offended by that? It comes from our caste system. And so, our subconscious whispers: “Rank has its privileges, stupid!”

And we rationalize it by defining “paternalism” as a virtue. And in the process, we reinforce our values of hierarchy and paternalism.

And it explains why we can’t internalize freedom and democracy. And so, we take it as a foreign or Western concept.

Democracy comes with the imperative of leadership, a critical element in self-government that presupposes personal responsibility and an egalitarian ethos.

An egalitarian ethos is a virtue, and paternalism is not. That explains why we love tyranny and submit to it.

Consider: We like to quote St. Francis, the patron saint of the environment – which is a significant worry for us being an archipelago. Never mind that we denuded our forests. What we are glossing over is that St. Francis preached “the oneness of creation.” That a blade of grass is a word of God, and we are one with all living things, human and otherwise. In a word, interdependence – as in the photosynthesis phenomenon.

And that brings us back to the character of creation and this universe: dynamism and interdependence.

Then consider our instincts: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.

Let’s push the envelope. Our instincts also explain our inferiority complex vis-à-vis America. We look up to them as above us in the hierarchy. And our expectations are they must respond accordingly: demonstrate paternalism.

But that goes back to our confusion about (a) freedom and democracy and (b) leadership and tyranny.

The blog has raised it many times: Why would wealthy Germany host several US military bases?

And it comes down to “cognitive development.” The Germans can navigate the binary and relative thinking continuum, and Juan de la Cruz cannot. Why? Because we lack the experience in development – as in nation-building.

On the other hand, our neighbors were not shy to beg for Western money and technology. They understood the character of this universe: dynamism and interdependence.

Let’s hold it right there.

The blog keeps raising “cognitive development” because it explains why we can’t wrap our heads around “benchmarking,” for example. Benchmarking is fundamental to R&D too. 

And why does the blog speak to Padre Damaso?

Can we move beyond binary thinking?

Can we reconcile “innovation” and the hierarchy of human needs? That is the challenge if we will ever figure out the instincts of a genius like Steve Jobs. 

Recall how the blog defined the next president: The next president must preside over Philippine Inc. by doggedly pursuing commercial success, innovation and be a paragon of good governance, not a culture of impunity.

The bottom line: Even if Juan de la Cruz shares our values and instincts, we in the Philippine elite and chattering classes are in the best position to edify Juan de la Cruz.

How? “Cognitive development” is a function of experience. We are more exposed to the world than Juan de la Cruz.

And I am reminded of my Eastern European friends and what I said to them when the wife and I first came: Freedom and the free market is not about rules but principles.

Let’s hold it there for a moment – and take this quote from an earlier posting:

“How will that (i.e., freedom and the free market is not about rules but principles) translate to the challenges we face in agribusiness, for example?

“We must redefine the DA’s reason for being? ‘Design’ and pursue Philippine agriculture to be a commercial success, i.e., it is beyond a livelihood or poverty program. Even Steve Jobs did his homework by figuring out how innovative companies can create a continual portfolio of winning products globally.”

But in agribusiness, countries subsidize their farmers. And that, again, comes from binary thinking – because agri subsidies are not the be-all and end-all.

Beyond subsidies, export products – agri or not – must always satisfy the competitiveness and marketability metrics (aka “outcome” — see below; Theory of Change). For example, the blog can speak to Italian wine. An Italian friend periodically offers wine directly from their vineyard in Montepulciano. And the delivered cost to my home in Connecticut is the same as the friend’s selling price because he enjoys local subsidies equal to shipping charges.

But, and it’s a big but, if Italian wines aren’t competitive and marketable, that subsidy doesn’t mean a hoot – because I can buy great wines in the New York metro area at competitive prices.

What is the lesson for us Filipinos? We are so inward-focused and peddle our products via roadshows with no respect for the hierarchy of human needs. How much money do we throw on these roadshows? In the West, that is called a boondoggle. And then we blame the rest of the world?

It comes back to our instincts: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.

Rent-seeking’s evil is beyond the pale; it is so insidious that everyone expects treatment like an oligarchy. Translation: We are a “perfect storm” – i.e., Juan Tamad, Bondying, and Padre Damaso rolled into one. Gising bayan!

And finally, we are reading about principles even in Washington DC: “Rational Republicans are losing the GOP civil war. And the only near-term way to battle pro-Trump extremists is for all of us to team up on crucial races and overarching political goals with our longtime political opponents: the Democratic Party.

“But we agree on something more foundational — democracy. We cannot tolerate the continued hijacking of a major U.S. political party by those who seek to tear down our Republic’s guardrails or who are willing to put one man’s interests ahead of the country. We cannot tolerate the leaders of the GOP — in 2022 or the presidential election in 2024 — refusing to accept the results of elections or undermining the certification of those results should they lose.

“To that end, concerned conservatives must join forces with Democrats on the most essential near-term imperative: blocking Republican leaders from regaining control of the US House of Representatives.’ [“We Are Republicans With a Plea: Elect Democrats in 2022,” Miles Taylor and Christine Todd Whitman, The New York Times, 11th Oct 2021.]

Let’s pause and turn to what we read in the media.

For example (1) “Rodrigo Duterte may pass on his job to his daughter,” The Economist, 16th Oct 2021; (2) “Sara, the game-changer,” Artemio V. Panganiban, WITH DUE RESPECT, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 17th Oct 2021; (3) “A path to hope,” Elfren S. Cruz, BREAKTHROUGH, The Philippine Star, 17th Oct 2021; (4) “Robredo wants conditional stimulus package for MSMEs, small businesses amid pandemic,” Philstar.com, 17th Oct 2021; (5) “Ping pushes emergency employment, food terminals,” Cecille Suerte Felipe, The Philippine Star, 17th Oct 2021; (6) “Legarda calls for effective implementation of the Magna Carta of the Poor to eradicate poverty,” Philstar.com, 17th Oct 2021.

Enter, Einstein: We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.

And here’s a letter to the editor, The Economist, 16th Oct 2021: “I enjoyed your article on philanthropy (‘Shifting foundations,’ 18th Sept). However, you made a fundamental category error in describing Bill Gates’s approach to dispensing grants as ‘hyper-efficient, outcomes-oriented. Following the established conventions of impact measurement, in this case, the widely used Theory of Change Model, the examples you gave are of outputs, not outcomes. The former is technocratic and fails to account for the real changes, negative as well as positive, brought about by philanthropy.” [Alex Nicholls, Professor of social entrepreneurship, Said Business School, University of Oxford]

Recall this quote from a recent posting: “The industrialization gap between us and Vietnam spells the failings of all our poverty efforts. Put another way, we must ‘design’ and pursue agriculture to be a commercial success, not a poverty or livelihood program.

“And that is why the blog keeps raising the distinctions between analysis and analytics. There are two sides to an equation; that focusing on activity as inputs and productivity will miss the outcome as in competitiveness and marketability. And they come from logical yet linear and incremental thinking.”

Those familiar with the blog may recall that decades ago, I was one of the “change agents” hired by my old MNC-company into its ten most significant subsidiaries, including the Philippines. 

And that’s why the blog can speak to “outcomes versus inputs” matter-of-factly. And that’s where we struggle in the Philippines because of a lack of development experience.

In other words, what the blog has been saying for at least a dozen years doesn’t get traction being way out-of-the-box. That’s why a previous posting asked the question, “Is dynamism in our DNA?”

Unsurprisingly, we are the regional laggard, and we can’t wrap our heads around the magic behind the Asian Tigers, China, and Vietnam.

And so, following the above reference to “Theory of Change,” we will speak to the subject.

Please recall that the blog has referenced other models of change over the years to pique the interest of Juan de la Cruz. For example, “Design Thinking” and Force-field theory. Or the Oxford University course, From poverty to prosperity: Understanding economic development.

If they have one thing in common, nation-building is not one-dimensional, and neither is problem-solving. Or innovation.

Let’s get some breathing room before we proceed:

“Theory of Change: It is a methodology for planning, participation, and evaluation to promote social change. Theory of Change defines long-term goals and then maps backward to identify necessary preconditions.

“Theory of Change explains the process of change by outlining causal linkages in an initiative, i.e., its shorter-term, intermediate, and longer-term outcomes.

“The identified changes are mapped – as the ‘outcomes pathway’ – showing each outcome in logical relationship to all the others and chronological flow. The links between outcomes are explained, e.g., why one outcome is a prerequisite for another.

“The innovation of Theory of Change lies (1) in making the distinction between desired and actual outcomes and (2) in requiring stakeholders to model their desired outcomes before they decide on forms of intervention to achieve those outcomes.” [Wikipedia]

Let’s highlight the following: Theory of Change (a) defines long-term goals and then (b) maps backward to identify necessary preconditions.

And then consider what Steve Jobs acknowledged, “In the absence of experience, you cannot connect the dots” – which was how he defined creativity. And it presupposes forward- and lateral thinking.

In other words, you cannot (a) map backward or connect the dots if you cannot (b) forward-think and (c) synthesize, and (d) define your long-term goals as a simple concept.

That’s a mouthful. Let’s pause to ponder.

See below; we will do a simple exercise.

Consider: I have been a practitioner for decades; my Eastern European friends met the theory almost 20 years ago. And guess what? I learned a lot from them. Good teachers learn from their students.

Learning is dynamic – like the character of this universe: dynamism and interdependence.

And here’s a good starting point:

That’s why the blog has criticized our approach to GDP growth, i.e., setting a 6-7% rate as nirvana.

But what are we saying? What is our long-term goal – which we can describe as a concept? [Recall what one critic said about President Cory; she was not a conceptual thinker.]

What we want is: To traverse poverty to prosperity rapidly. [That is an example of a “concept” that is an “outcome.”]

Not brag about a 6%-7% GDP growth. 

That is “output,” not “outcome.” We are still the regional laggard despite delivering such growth over several years.

That is not conceptual thinking, either. [Translation: Cory is not the root of our underdevelopment.]

And if we map [the “outcome” of “rapid prosperity”] backward, we will recognize the need to beg for foreign money and technology.

And so, we want to get Bill Gates, the CEO of Apple, Samsung, and Warren Buffett, and ask the question: Why can’t we get businesses the size of Samsung Vietnam and Apple AirPods Vietnam into the Philippines?

What must we do and do fast? Because we want a quantum leap in GDP – i.e., by an incremental $200 billion, to leapfrog the economic output of our neighbors. And we shall be able to put poverty in the rearview mirror – as our neighbors did.

Do we think Bill Gates or Warren Buffett would give an ear to Marcos or Duterte? As VP Robredo said during the Rotary Club meeting, we must first establish a “trust” environment before FDIs will even come.

To recap: The $200 billion in additional GDP comes from mapping back from the concept of traversing poverty to prosperity rapidly. Why? To leapfrog the economic output of our neighbors and match their ability to invest in education, health care – to name just two.

And if we drill down on the $200 billion, that must be the aggregate revenues we want from (1) FDIs and foreign technology; (2) the eight top companies; (3) the priority industries from the scores of roadmaps we are working on, and that will include agribusiness and the top MSMEs.

In all cases, the exercise will mirror the agenda of the newly elected president: To preside over Philippine Inc. by doggedly pursuing commercial success, innovation and be a paragon of good governance, not a culture of impunity.

For example, export products – agri or not – must satisfy the competitiveness and marketability metrics (aka “outcome” — see above; Theory of Change). Even Steve Jobs did his homework by figuring out how innovative companies can create a continual portfolio of winning products globally.

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.

And we in the Philippine elite and chattering classes are offended by that? It comes from our caste system. And so, our subconscious whispers: “Rank has its privileges, stupid!”

And we rationalize it by defining “paternalism” as a virtue. And in the process, we reinforce our values of hierarchy and paternalism.

And it explains why we can’t internalize freedom and democracy. And so, we take it as a foreign or Western concept.

Democracy comes with the imperative of leadership, a critical element in self-government that presupposes personal responsibility and an egalitarian ethos.

An egalitarian ethos is a virtue, and paternalism is not. That explains why we love tyranny and submit to it.

Gising bayan!