The Filipino crab mentality is incompatible with “self-government.”

If we can’t recognize where we are, we can’t figure out where we want to be, much less how to get there.

And the crab mentality comes from our instincts, expressed in the Philippine caste system.

In other words, “self-government” presupposes the “common good.”

Where are we with AmBisyon? With Arangkada? Whatever happened to the scores of industry road maps that we proudly created?

Why can’t we embrace and run with the common good?

Consider: We are prouder of the Mandanas law because it builds on our value of LGUs and the party-list system.

Unsurprisingly, our economic managers have the following to say: Our LGUs must take on more of the initiatives formerly done by the central government. 

I want to cry. I would hear something like this from young brand managers – still “wet behind the ears” – but not from more senior managers – who can see the “bigger” canvas.

Then think of the comprehensive agrarian reform program, the 4Ps, the OFW phenomenon, and call centers.

We are Christian-like and must address poverty via job creation and “inclusion.”

We are prouder still that we satisfy the global yardstick of 6%-7% GDP growth.

Our economic managers, legislators, and “think tanks” reinforce the Philippine caste system. 

Why? Because it values the “ivory tower” too. And the model is Western, which we admire. But as the blog points out, the model assumes that these Western economies have already traversed the journey from agriculture to industry. And it explains why the US, for example, overtook the UK following WWII.

And that was not lost on Asian leaders like Lee and Mahathir: Beg for Western money and technology.

News item: “PHL urged to focus economic policy on keeping middle class prosperous. Income inequality did not begin to decline until 2012. It is still high: the top 1% of earners together capture 17% of national income, with only 14% shared by the bottom 50%.

“It’s no longer just economics. We must open our eyes and focus on a bigger canvas, not just economic indicators. Still, most social, political, and other inequality indicators frustrate our efforts to build social cohesion and unite people around certain reforms.”

And whom do we keep company? “The government of Laos, one of the few remaining one-party communist states, began decentralizing control and encouraging private enterprise in 1986. Economic growth averaged more than 6% per year from 1988-2008. Laos’ development has more recently been amongst the fastest in Asia, averaging more than 7% per year for most of the last decade.

“Nevertheless, Laos remains a country with an underdeveloped infrastructure, particularly in rural areas. It has a basic but improving road system and limited external and internal land-line telecommunications. Electricity is available to 83% of the population. Agriculture, dominated by rice cultivation in lowland areas, accounts for about 20% of the GDP and 73% of total employment. Recently, the country has faced a persistent current account deficit, including falling foreign currency reserves and growing public debt.”

How do we shift paradigms? First, we must recognize that our caste system, including our value of the “ivory tower,” will explain why we have sunk deeper into the abyss.

The 21st-century lingo – of critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, and communication – is foreign to us.

But we must not be surprised, given we pigeon-holed Juan de la Cruz in his rank.

We take it as a given that the only way to drive the economy is to keep to the 6%-7% metric. That is why we celebrated the third-quarter GDP growth.

If we can shift paradigms, we will find a different world. Sadly, we’re centuries behind.

Consider: “While the WB paper is an edifying read, it has a limited past perspective, thereby ignoring the population factor, which has made a crucial difference in the current state of the country vis-à-vis its ASEAN neighbors that used to trail it. The Philippines initiated a population management-cum-family planning (PM-FP) program in 1970, along with other ASEAN countries. However, while the others sustained their programs over time without letup, the Philippines was constrained to jettison its program in the late ‘70s on orders of President Marcos Sr., who acceded for political expediency to the demands of the Catholic Church hierarchy.” [“Poverty and inequality in the Philippines,” Ernesto M. Pernia, The Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2nd Dec 2022]

What say you? If the WB paper has a limited perspective, doesn’t the above article fall into the same trap?

The Philippine economy relies on the OFW phenomenon and call centers. Period. Full stop.

Translation: Our neighbors left us behind because they begged for Western money and technology and are today the world’s most significant exporters.

Here’s a quote from a prior posting: Begin with the end in mind – to clear the cobwebs in our heads. How do we shift paradigms? Think of the seven habits of highly effective people by Stephen Covey. For example, Be Proactive.

And the rest goes: Put first things first; Think win-win; Seek first to understand, then to be understood; Synergize; Sharpen the saw – or continuous improvement.

We must open our eyes and focus on a “bigger” canvas, not just economic indicators.

For example, the giant canvas exceeds the 6%-7% GDP growth metric. We must be a first-world economy and nation. Recall what Lee Kuan Yew said. From the third to the first world: The Singapore story.

Can we turn things on their heads? How do we open our eyes and focus on a giant canvas?

Those familiar with the blog may know that it often speaks to the modern math concept of sets and subsets.

That is how to recognize best that we are a subset of a dynamic universe in constant motion and expansion. It is not rocket science; we learned it from the photosynthesis phenomenon in grade school.

Beyond dynamism, the universe teaches us about the “common good” – or “self-government.”

Sadly, the Filipino crab mentality is incompatible with self-government.

How do we turn things on their heads?

Recall the Ang Bulacan airport project that includes an economic zone targeted to generate $200 billion in exports — to match our neighbors.

That gives us a better perspective of where we want to be instead of the 6%-7% GDP growth metric.

Moreover, it will facilitate prioritizing initiatives with the extra plus of creating an “ecosystem” – that will connect the dots and not fall flat on our faces.

Keep the $200 billion in exports in mind and then read the following: “If there are large corporate groups that are now considering getting into palm oil production, especially in Mindanao, there is even more reason for those contemplating large-scale corporate farming to invest in coconuts to take advantage of the growing demand worldwide for the numerous food products manufactured from this crop such as coconut water, coconut milk, coconut sugar, shredded organic coconut, virgin coconut oil (VCO), coco jam, and many others, not to mention the non-food derivatives like coconut charcoal, coir, and husks for biothermal uses.

“There are a few models of small coconut farmers organized by a large corporate enterprise such as Cardinal Agri Products in Brookes Point, Palawan, not far from Lionheart Farms, and Axelum Resources Corp. in Medina, Misamis Oriental. The ultimate result is that they can consolidate the products of thousands of small farmers and help them improve productivity at the farm level and transform their coconuts into food items that fetch more value than copra or coconut oil.” [“Hope for coconut farmers: What the President can do,” Bernardo M. Villegas, Human Side of Economics, BusinessWorld, 29th Nov 2022]

That is a step in the right direction. But how much are we going to generate from the initiative? 

For example, I googled Axelum and was impressed by the quality of the company and its business. For 2022, its revenues could be $125 million. That is not bad.

But let’s return to the Ang initiative that will generate $200 billion.

Recall the challenge the blog posed: We must not only put the BOI in the crosshairs to match the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone or the Samsung Vietnam partnership. We must also rack our brains to get Juan de la Cruz the basics of water, food, and electricity. Not because that is easy but because it is hard. Think of the Kennedy moonshot speech.

In other words, we must shift paradigms away from erecting over 400 export processing zones — that could only do $80 billion — and figure out how to generate rapidly $200 billion in exports. Samsung Vietnam does $50 billion by itself.

“With the liberalization of Foreign Direct Investments, there should be a concerted effort to replicate the success story of Lionheart Farms.

“He [BBM] can focus much of his effort to attract foreign investors to large-scale investments in agribusiness, replicating our success stories with the likes of Del Monte and Dole in the past. I find it providential that the President chose to be Secretary of Agriculture.

“Increasing agricultural productivity requires very close coordination among several government departments like the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). More often than not, these departments act as islands and have very little coordination with their respective policies and programs.” [Villegas, op. cit.]

Coconut is not the wrong industry to pursue. Still, given our need to rapidly overcome Juan de la Cruz’s abject poverty and learning poverty, we must prioritize export industries consistent with the Ang initiative, i.e., we want incremental exports of $200 billion.

If we find that overwhelming, recall that neither China nor Vietnam had the infrastructure to attract billions in export partners. We can add India to the mix. I represented my old Fortune 500 company when we invested in these countries. The infrastructure was abysmal, but they could fast-track the effort because they had a clear view of the “bigger canvas.”

In other words, we cannot keep raising self-imposed barriers to move the Philippines from third to the first world.

Let’s get back to the economic managers.

Beyond the role of the Philippine President to aggressively attract Western money and technology, the economic managers will have to learn “horizontal leadership” if they want to succeed in selling the idea that nation-building – or, more specifically, economic development – is their portfolio.

Recall the blog’s discussion on innovation being beyond R&D. The brand manager is in the best position to pull the different pieces together, which is why they must learn “horizontal leadership.” Why? Because the hierarchy of human needs – from physiological to self-actualization, e.g., prosperity – is the bedrock of innovation. And brand managers must be committed to thoroughly internalizing these needs because innovation is not for innovation’s sake but to respond to a human “need.” That’s why Steve Jobs proved to be a better innovator than his peers.

Recall the blog’s discussion on the character of the 21st century, i.e., innovation and global competitiveness.

In other words, we better be the epitome of innovation and global competitiveness so that the Philippines does not keep company with Laos. And our economic managers must commit to internalizing the hierarchy of Juan de la Cruz’s needs – from physiological to self-actualization, e.g., prosperity, as exemplified by a first-world economy.

That brings us to a continuum: the basics of water, food, and electricity at the physiological level to prosperity reflected in the characteristics of a first-world nation. And we don’t have to reinvent the wheel: Beg for foreign money and technology – so that we replicate the journey of Singapore as articulated by Lee.

We must not only put the BOI in the crosshairs to match the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone – the center of the China economic miracle – or the Samsung Vietnam partnership. We must also rack our brains to get Juan de la Cruz the basics of water, food, and electricity. Not because that is easy but because it is hard. Think of the Kennedy moonshot speech.

That is what our economic managers must be able to articulate: They will have to learn “horizontal leadership” if they want to succeed in selling the idea that nation-building – or, more specifically, economic development – is their portfolio. Recall that horizontal leadership is an expression of “self-government,” which is fundamental to freedom, democracy, and free enterprise.

Then recall the characteristics of a hardy mindset. Commitment: To be involved with others and to experience a sense of purpose and meaning; how ordinary people can do extraordinary things.

Challenge: To appreciate that change rather than stability is the norm, new or difficult situations are learning opportunities, and the importance of “thinking outside the box.”

Control. Focus on situations where we influence, not where we have little if any, control; you have control only over yourself; you must be the one to change. Develop a problem-solving attitude; why can you not succeed in your efforts?

The bottom line: The Filipino crab mentality is incompatible with “self-government.”

If we can’t recognize where we are, we can’t figure out where we want to be, much less how to get there.

And the crab mentality comes from our instincts, expressed in the Philippine caste system.

Yet, no one wants to talk about it: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy; ours is a culture of impunity.

Gising bayan!