“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!
No comments:
Post a Comment