Peck the ground like a chicken – or soar like an eagle

That’s paraphrasing Preciosa S. Soliven’s piece, AN EDUCATOR’S REACTION TO ‘AMBISYON NATIN 2040’ – A WAKE-UP CALL TO THE TROUBLED SOUL OF OUR NATION (PART 1), The Philippine Star. 7th Sep 2017.

“We must learn to fly, to reach the heights. We fly high like the Philippine Eagle or remain chickens just pecking the ground.”

Enter: Ateneo Center for Economic Research and Development’s briefing, “Moving On and Moving Up: Bold New Directions for the Philippine Economy.”

“The challenge brought about by the pandemic has made it more apparent for the new administration to craft good fiscal policies that will enable the country to attain economic recovery while promoting fiscal sustainability in the medium term.”

In other words, we’re still at the same old, same old: fiscal and monetary interventions.

The debate between technocrats and leadership comes to mind.

As the blog often raises, logical yet linear and incremental thinking would be apt for technocrats. But leadership must be steps ahead. Peck the ground like a chicken – or soar like an eagle.

That means forward, lateral, and creative thinking.

Recall that in 2014, our economic managers, with the support of the “economic community,” celebrated what we call a “manufacturing uptick.”

And several times, the blog recalled why that was a fallacy. We are a service-consumption economy – courtesy of the OFW remittances and call centers – far from an industrial-investment economy.

It is not about “moving on and moving up.” It is about becoming an Asian Tiger. Peck the ground like a chicken – or soar like an eagle.

Consider: How different is the above-referenced briefing from the output we generated from AmBisyon Natin and Arangkada? And can we add the scores of industry road maps?

They are too academic and lack sensitivity to real-world consequences. Juan de la Cruz suffers from abject poverty and learning poverty.

Let’s say that one more time – and ask ourselves if it has sunk in yet: Juan de la Cruz suffers from abject poverty and learning poverty.

The University of Oxford captures the challenge, “From Poverty to Prosperity: Understanding Economic Development. It examines the vital role government plays in economic development, analyzing the political, social, and economic factors that elevate any society from poverty to prosperity. It will help people understand how their community and country can flourish, wherever they are in the world.”

Value paternalism at our peril.

In other words, beyond “moving on and moving up” is a more significant challenge that must headline our national conversation.

Our value of paternalism explains the narcissism of Juan de la Cruz.

“We used to boast that the Filipino family was the “social security” of the country: whatever went wrong, the family was always there to help each of us. We never seem to learn to stand on our feet because we are confident that the family will always be behind us to prop us up.

“We have been conditioned by our family experience to expect somebody to pick us up when we fail. But the boss is not our “itay” or “inay.” We are no longer children.” [Soliven, op. cit.]

That is why the blog never ceases to raise our caste system reflected in our instincts: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy; ours is a culture of impunity.

What must we value instead? Personal responsibility is imperative to pursue the common good. And if we turn that on its head, it is the mirror image of Christianity – that we are proud to profess, or at least the vast majority of us.

Yet, the common good remains abstract – we can’t determine what freedom, democracy, and the free market are.

The evidence? Our crab mentality. Please think of how aggressively we pursued parochialism and insularity. We even codified LGUs via the Mandanas law.

To add insult to injury, our economic managers want to “pass the buck” to the LGUs, undermining the common good.

Is it more complicated than that? We make things difficult – because we are a rudderless ship.

It’s about “principles” – not “rules.” [See above; the mirror image of Christianity.] Think of Christ against the scribes and Pharisees.

Let’s get back to LGUs. Indeed, they are not bad per se. Unfortunately, LGUs feed on logical yet linear and incremental thinking.

On the other hand, forward, lateral, and creative thinking is foreign to us.

Our challenge is to overcome inertia and dismantle the existing mindset.

That’s from Kurt Lewin’s three stages of change. Those familiar with the blog may recall who he is.

In other words, Juan de la Cruz must reinvent himself.

It will not be easy. Consider: We allowed ourselves – going decades – to sink into the abyss while our neighbors – one after the other – were moving up to first-world economies.

When we saw Singapore soar like an eagle, “they’re a tiny city-state” was our defense mechanism. What about China? Are they over a billion people? And more recently, Vietnam? What do we say?

“The first stage – of the change process – Lewin called “unfreezing.” It involves overcoming inertia and dismantling the existing “mindset.” It must be part of surviving—defense mechanisms set aside.”

Our problem – for the longest time – is that we never acknowledged that we have a severe threat – because of “pwede na ‘yan.”

Thanks to Juan de la Cruz: Between the OFW remittances and call centers, we generate over $50 billion. And to add insult to injury – if our economic managers are listening – we took credit for it. It’s unsurprising given our caste system: we defer to those above us and pull rank on those below us.

As we kept sinking, the knee jerk became our go-to impulse. How much did each voter receive to vote for BBM – and those before him? We call it “retail politics.”

Retail politics is another name for crab mentality – the common good be damned.

But then, our economic managers jumped onto the bandwagon, too – our monetary and fiscal interventions worked like magic: We delivered the World Bank-endorsed 6%-7% GDP growth. Yet, it was a “no-brainer”: See above; over $50 billion from remittances and call centers.

It’s hilarious – or insanity – take your pick.

Are we all championing one advocacy or another with one glaring exception? We are not even close to overcoming inertia and dismantling our existing mindset.

Why? It comes from our instincts, expressed in our caste system – that we take as a given, if not sacred: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy; ours is a culture of impunity.

The bottom line: Juan de la Cruz is the laughingstock of the region.

What to do?

Toss our defense mechanism – and that is better late than never.

And to overcome the inertia and dismantle our existing mindset, we must commit to getting from point A to point B.

We must abandon our (a) comfort zones – best described as logical yet linear and incremental thinking – and instead embrace (b) forward, lateral, and creative thinking.

Here’s a quote from earlier postings: Instead of setting a 6%-7% GDP growth target, we must set $200 billion in incremental exports. That will put us on equal footing with our neighbors given their bigger pies: Thailand is over two times, while Malaysia is more than thrice ours.

For example, we can follow the lead of Mr. Ramon Ang of San Miguel and Senator Sonny Angara.

Mr. Ang, beyond Bulacan airport, is looking at specific industries that, when pulled together with his infrastructure initiatives, will create an “ecosystem” that will mirror the “long-term value creation” metric of McKinsey. In other words, we must stop celebrating our economic smarts because of the over $50 billion we generate from OFW remittances and call centers.

Our challenge is not a cakewalk. So, we better benchmark.

Should we hold it right there?

To benchmark presupposes the bias to look outward, not inward. Between our caste system and insularity, we succumb to logical yet linear and incremental thinking. Is that why the word isn’t even in our lexicon?

When Japan Inc. pulled the rug from under the US because of their TQ or total quality mantra, one of the first lessons they shared with the rest of the world was to “steal shamelessly” from the best in class.

What they were saying was Benchmark, Benchmark, Benchmark.

For example, it is beyond citing references to bolster our argument in a dissertation. To school on the state-of-the-art, Toyota disassembled German automobiles.

That is how we can bridge the academic with the real world.

In other words, NEDA, DTI, think tanks, and legislators must dig as much as possible to understand why the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone is the best in class.

But then again, Bulacan is in Luzon. It is already generating the bulk of our GDP.

Isn’t that why we elected Duterte, to give Mindanao a fair chance?

And that is why we must do an honest-to-goodness benchmarking exercise, including figuring out how to distinguish the “vital few” from the “trivial many.”

For example, Pareto explains why China focused on Guangdong and Malaysia focused on KL.

The rapid journey from poverty to the prosperity of the Asian Tigers, China, and Vietnam is a study in Pareto.

In the case of Vietnam, two foreign investors and technology, Samsung and Apple, made it overtake PH’s GDP – despite our over 300 export processing zones.

Here’s a quote from a prior posting: “Lewin developed the “Force-field theory.” It provides a framework for looking at the factors ("forces") that influence a situation. And at forces that either drive the movement toward a goal (helping “forces”) or block movement toward a goal (hindering forces).

“Key to this approach was Lewin’s interest in “gestalt” – an organized whole perceived as more than the sum of its parts. The totality for an individual (their life space) derives from their perception of their reality, not an objective viewpoint.” [Wikipedia]

In other words, our perception of reality suffers from “cognitive bias” — irrespective of where we stand in the Philippine hierarchy.

Juan de la Cruz must reinvent himself.

We must abandon logical yet linear and incremental thinking and instead embrace forward and lateral and creative thinking.

Moreover, we must overcome inertia and dismantle our existing mindset.

We cannot keep falling into the trap of crab mentality.

We can value paternalism at our peril.

It explains the narcissism of Juan de la Cruz. And why we’re the laughingstock of the region.

Peck the ground like a chicken — or soar like an eagle.

Gising bayan!