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!