Of ideology, the academic, and the “real world.”

Scanning our media scene, do we recognize the elements of ideology, the academic, or the real world?

Consider these two articles: (a) Think tank urges more focus on domestic industry, agri; skeptical about FDI impact and (b) Liberalize agriculture to allow crucial imports – NEDA chief.

Since Vietnam is the latest neighbor to overtake us, here are two exciting agriculture-related pieces: (a) Rice production in Vietnam and (b) Vietnam Food Association Charter.

Rice production in Vietnam.

“Rice growing in Mekong Delta has an ancient history traced to the Khmer regime of the 18th century. It was taken over by the Vietnamese. However, the Cambodians still consider this area “Kampuchea Krom or Lower Cambodia,” unable to forget that they owned this area in the past. Cambodia even attacked Vietnam in 1978 to take control of the Mekong Delta. But the latter defeated them decisively. This delta was the last part of present-day Vietnam annexed from Cambodia.

“Its present status under the Vietnamese is, however, a large swathe of green carpet of rice paddy. This development dates back to the French, who colonized Vietnam in the middle of the 19th century with the primary objective of exporting rice grown in the delta to meet the enormous costs of colonization. They developed a maze of the canal system in the delta to grow three rice crops in a year.

“During World War II, when the Japanese occupied Vietnam and exploited the rich delta by exporting rice to their country, it denied nearly several million Vietnamese of their essential staple.

“At the end of the Vietnamese war in 1975, the country faced acute hardships. Communist Party members of the national party were at a low rung and entrusted with managerial responsibility for developing the Mekong delta in South Vietnam. And the Communist regime established cooperative farming through communes.

“The government also supplied the farmers with seed, fertilizer, and other essentials. As this helped the poor farmers, it was popularly called “the iron rice bowl” – this allegory was to convey that “no one would get rich by this system, there was a promise that every person would be cared for by the government; a system where no one would fall through the cracks.”

“Thus, all the rice-growing delta fields became the state property. People wanting to buy and carry rice from the delta got 80 kilograms allocation, subject to strict monitoring at police check posts. Devastating floods and insect infestation of large fields further aggravated this condition.

“Realizing the folly of State Control, the Government of Vietnam, in 1986, allowed the farmers “to grow and sell their rice.” Sure enough, farmers received incentives to grow rice in the delta, and Vietnam became one of the leading exporters of rice. Then came the Wetland Development initiative, including the most significant Land Law (1994) that gave rights to the farmers and accelerated growth of the Mekong Delta and increased income to the people.” [Wikipedia]

Vietnam Food Association Charter.

“It is a social and occupational organization of Vietnam enterprises from all economic sectors operating in the field of production, processing, and trading food, agricultural products, and other products processed from food; voluntarily joining together to establish the Association to co-ordinate food trading activities to ensure business efficiency for the protection of legitimate interests of its members.

“The Association shall contribute to boosting production development, building material, and technical facilities for the improvement  of product quality and business efficiency of the food commodity industry and ensuring food security in compliance with the policies of the State.” [ABOUT US - Vietnam Food Association (vietfood.org.vn)]

Do we see how Vietnamese farmers understand the “common good”? Said differently, they don’t suffer from the crab mentality.

Should we stop and ponder?

Can we expect Juan de la Cruz to embrace the common good and toss the values of hierarchy and paternalism? And develop a hardy mindset – to hold dearly the challenge we face and commit to overcoming them while recognizing that we have no control over others and that the onus to change is on us.

Do we see that colonization was not all bad for the Vietnamese? The French developed a maze of the canal system in the delta to grow three rice crops in a year. Then think of the OFW phenomenon – today a significant leg of the Philippine economy – and the Filipino facility for the English language courtesy of the [medium of instruction left by the] Americans.

Here’s a quote from an earlier posting: “Recall how often the blog raised the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone ecosystem (in Guangdong, China) as the best practice model to attract foreign money and technology. And all that Vietnam did was replicate the China experience and find a partner in Samsung.

“Why does the blog keep distinguishing “analysis” and “analytics”? Please recall the article, “The 50-year ‘disease’ in Philippine agriculture.” Yet, from rice tariffication, and we now want to do the rest of the agri products to address shortages. That is how “analysis” looks. On the other hand, the Vietnamese learned “analytics” from the Asian Tigers, which they translated to “ecosystem.” Consider: The operations of Samsung entail a vast ecosystem. And not to forget that Vietnam is a top rice exporter like Thailand. The agri ecosystem of both countries is something we want to learn. It is beyond liberalizing the agriculture sector.”

Liberalizing the agriculture sector is not why Vietnam is a significant rice exporter. Instead, they live by the imperative of an ecosystem, and the Vietnam Food Association is an excellent example. Can we Filipinos toss the crab mentality?

What else has Vietnam exploited to be a world-class rice producer? And this should make us Filipinos cry because we should have been the first to benefit from rice R&D. 

If our economic managers are listening, tariffication is too technocratic yet won’t make the Philippines a world-class rice producer like Vietnam. 

Between being academic and ideological would instead consign us to the cellar. 

On the other hand, Vietnam has exploited IRRI. “The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), headquartered in the Philippines, has significantly enhanced the knowledge base of rice farming in Vietnam. Their research efforts have continually aimed to grow rice faster with higher yields. That has boosted the confidence level of Vietnamese scientists who hope their country will one day be the rice producer to feed the world. The IRRI has trained and worked with Vietnamese scientists since 1970. The scientists trained by IRRI now hold key positions in rice research institutions, universities, and government organizations.”

But let’s go back to the think tank urging us to focus on domestic industry and agri, but skeptical about FDIs.

Here’s a quote from an earlier posting: “2017 was a year of great significance for both the Vietnamese economy and Samsung Vietnam. Vietnam’s export turnover for the first time in history reached more than 214 billion USD, and Samsung Vietnam’s export turnover also achieved a breakthrough with more than 54 billion USD for the first time.

“Samsung Vietnam contributes more than 25% to the total export turnover of Vietnam. This miraculous figure is 150 times higher than Samsung Vietnam’s total export turnover in 2009 ($350 million) when SEV began production.

“As of June 2018, Samsung has reached the milestone of 1 billion high-tech innovative products manufactured in Vietnam. The 1 billion products include smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, and other essential mobile phone products.

“The Samsung Bac Ninh factory produced more than 625 million products, and Samsung Thai Nguyen made more than 431 million. Vietnam is currently the second largest smartphone export in the world after China, and Samsung plays a significant role in this achievement.”

The bottom line: Vietnam overtook us in 2020 when their export revenues reached almost $260 billion against our close to $80 billion. Moreover, they put poverty in the rearview mirror.

But let’s hear the think tank: “More countries are closing than opening over the last decade because they are protecting their economies (from a possible recession).”

And given the rising far-right extremism, characterized by protectionism, IBON Foundation has all the right to be true to its ideology.

Those familiar with the blog know I chose (as a volunteer development worker) to represent freedom, democracy, and the free market in Eastern Europe. And while my former Fortune 500 company obtained a blue passport for me – given my role in the company with over 200 markets or countries – I opted not to exercise the right to vote.

Recall this quote from a recent posting: “Business” is the most trusted element in society. The reason is that people have given up on politicians who seem to be out for themselves and gridlocked. Most top-ranking politicians are in their 70s and 80s and unfamiliar with what people need.”

Recall, too, that as a practitioner and not an academic, I speak from real-world experiences. For example, the 21st-century demands “innovation and global competitiveness.” And that is not surprising because we are a subset of this universe in constant motion and expansion.

Countries cannot produce everything they need, i.e., interdependence is the law of nature. And like a broken record, the blog never fails to speak to the photosynthesis phenomenon.

But that is not an academic assertion. Let’s take a peek at the business of my Eastern European friends. 

And I mean a peek because I am doing this here in the Philippines, logging in to our intranet, which I do every day wherever I am. And I can see what is going on. But I don’t do analysis. I do analytics. Everyone in the company does “analysis,” but I keep them in dynamic mode.

As noted below, I am talking about how the prior year ended and how this year will play out. Why? To keep their eye on the future, what they are doing today, as was the prior year, must build on what they must be.

[But to Filipinos, we better keep an eye on Vietnam because they want to be the world’s top rice producer. And tariffication and ideology can’t be our response. And more fundamentally, we must know where we want to be. For example, we want to be a first-world economy and nation. That is what we want to figure out. And if we’re going to become such a wealthy nation, we don’t have to reinvent the wheel and be bogged down by ideological debates. All we need is to “learn it all” from our neighbors. We must overcome the “know it all” hubris. Consider: We are the laughingstock stock of the region; hubris can’t be in our consciousness.]

Firstly, my Eastern European friends were born and raised as socialists under Soviet rule. Yet, instead of the promised utopia, the Soviets left them the poorest European country. And hence the wife’s first reaction when we arrived was unsurprising, “What are we doing in this godforsaken place?”

They are into making and selling day-to-day consumer products, not high-technology devices, and I have assisted them for the last twenty years.

Question: Don’t day-to-day consumer products risk being shut out in the global market because locals can quickly produce them?

We Filipinos may feel that way, given that innovation and global competitiveness are foreign to us.

Can we accept that reality, or does national pride compel us to be in denial? But recall that our mantra is to cater to the bottom of the pyramid, given our values of hierarchy and paternalism, shooting ourselves in the foot, unable to run astride with our neighbors that begged for foreign money and technology and catapulted them to first-world economies and nations.

Consider the state of the business of these friends: They have 18 brands they market in several countries. Four represent 79% of the company: three regional and one global brand.

Last year’s total sales revenues rose 27%, and this year will be up 35%. The number two brand is the global brand which accounts for 17% of the business. In 2022, its revenues were up 40% from sales in 70 countries; this year, it will grow 47%.

Seven of the top ten markets are in Eastern Europe, and the balance is in the West: Germany, the US, and the UK.

Noteworthy is a fast-growing global brand. In 2022, its sales grew by 143%; this year, it will be up 195%.

But what is it about “innovation and global competitiveness” demanded by the 21st century?

It is understanding the human need – even for day-to-day consumer products – and figuring out the best-in-class metrics. It means employing forward, lateral, and creative thinking continually. In other words, the enterprise, consistent with the dynamism of this universe, must constantly be elevating the brand to attain the best-in-class metrics.

Still, adhering to Pareto and the imperative to prioritize is a must. And that is why among the 18 brands, the enterprise focuses on the top four and the next two most promising ones.

Question: How come these Eastern European friends who grew up behind the “iron curtain” confidently reach out to the rest of the world? Twenty years ago, they weren’t a profitable going concern, yet today are giant killers.

They’ve turned their back on the utopia promised by their Soviet masters and chose to pursue freedom, democracy confidently, and the free market — because they know the future is in their hands. It’s called a “hardy mindset,” familiar to those who read the blog.

Scanning our media scene, do we recognize the elements of ideology, the academic, or the real world?

Given that we are a subset set of this universe in constant motion and expansion, on the one hand, and on the other, ideology and the academic world, when they are static, may pull us away from the “real world.”

And that is why the blog has challenged our worldview over the last fourteen years.

Consider: Juan de la Cruz moved from the basket case of Asia to the perennial regional laggard. And between being ideological and academic could consign us to the cellar.

But then again, the Philippine caste system reinforces our values of hierarchy and paternalism, and they would explain why poverty and hunger have defined Juan de la Cruz.

Gising bayan! 

From “know it all” to “learn it all.”

This posting will highlight a podcast by McKinsey & Company, “Author Talks: Bill George sets a course for “true north,” 15th Sep 2022, about his new book, True North: Leading Authentically in Today’s Workplace. George is a Harvard professor and former Medtronic CEO. [Here’s the link to the podcast: [https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-on-books/author-talks-bill-george-sets-a-course-for-true-north?cid=app]]

“In the Edelman Trust Barometer today, business is the most trusted element in society. The reason is that people have given up on politicians who seem to be out for themselves and gridlocked. Most top-ranking politicians are in their 70s and 80s and unfamiliar with what people need. I think people are looking to businesses to help solve problems like climate change, healthcare, income inequality, food shortages, and supply chain.

“Government is not set up to deal with those things. They can pass laws but can’t address them, so everyone’s looking to business. That’s the challenge for today’s leaders: if they don’t address today’s problems, they won’t be good leaders, I can tell you.

“In my book, I feature whom I consider role models of the new way of leading, many of whom are baby boomers. They are the ones that emerging leaders seek.

“Let’s take Satya Nadella at Microsoft: he transformed that company. Mary Barra brought General Motors out of bankruptcy and is making it into a new company. Hubert Joly was very committed to “purpose” at Best Buy, and now his successor, Corie Barry, is doing a great job. These are the forerunner leaders. Those kinds of leaders influence the younger leaders who are coming along, which I also feature in the book. We need role models. We need quality role models. We don’t need people who are just out for themselves.”

Here’s a soundbite that stuck with me; how Nadella transformed Microsoft, “From know it all to learn it all.”

“Hunger” is an embarrassing subject. Whereas the Government now has monthly surveys on unemployment and underemployment and has promised to update its poverty figures every two years instead of every three, it has hardly any numbers on hunger.

“Econometric modeling of hunger at the UP School of Statistics (UPSS). Using the SWS quarterly data, [UPSS] researchers Dennis S. Mapa, Fatima C. Han, and Kristina Claire O. Estrada showed that an increase in food prices in one quarter would raise hunger for five subsequent quarters. In contrast, an increase in underemployment would raise it for two quarters (Hunger incidence in the Philippines: facts, determinants, and challenges,” paper for a forum of the National Academy of Science and Technology, 2/10/2010).

“I think the [UPSS] econometricians examined the gross domestic product and other potential determinants and found little correlation. I hope they will update their analysis with data after 2010, including the pandemic time. (Mapa has been head of the Philippine Statistics Authority since 2019, by the way).

“The lengthy hump in hunger was generally unnoticed by development analysts, perhaps because it did not affect the financial sector. It remains a perennial problem.” [“The perennial problem of hunger,” Mahar Mangahas, SOCIAL CLIMATE, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 21st Jan 2023.]

Then consider: “The 50-year ‘disease’ in Philippine agriculture,” Ramon L. Clarete, Introspective, BusinessWorld, 15th Jan 2023. “High food prices may be a fluke, as the farming sector goes through the ravages of extreme weather, losing productivity in the process. But this unfavorable situation has been with us through the years. Agriculture growth has gradually tanked in the past half a century, so much so that its record has become an insignificant statistic in the country’s gross domestic product accounting.”

Unsurprisingly, Juan de la Cruz went from the basket case of Asia to the perennial regional laggard.

“If there is one factor hindering the Philippines from catching up with its dynamic neighbors in the ASEAN, the outdated mindset has remained with us from the last century. ‘Customer orientation’ has long been the crux in business operations, and clearly understood that failure to internalize this culture will result in a loss to competition and eventually the replacement of the boss.” [The 21st-century mindset, Cesar B. Bautista, Mapping the future, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 10th May 2015]

It’s worth repeating that the [UPSS] econometricians examined the gross domestic product and other potential [hunger] determinants and found little correlation with them.

Let’s hold it right there.

Here’s a quote from an earlier posting: “Over the last fourteen years, the blog has raised several bodies of knowledge to challenge our worldview. And they are not from an academic but a practitioner. 

“We need to develop a hardy mindset.

“We can’t be both Juan Tamad and Bondying rolled into one. What is a hardy mindset? It embraces (1) the challenge one faces and (2) the commitment to overcome it while (3) recognizing that one has no control over others but themselves. In other words, the onus to change is on Juan de la Cruz.

“We must distinguish (a) logical yet linear and incremental thinking and (b) forward, lateral, and creative thinking.

“The blog has been critical of our economic managers, legislators, and think tanks. Like Laos, we delivered the global metric of a 6%-7% GDP growth rate for over a decade. Yet, both countries remained underdeveloped.

“And we know that we are standing on the shoulders of Juan de la Cruz – to the tune of over $50 billion. Our economy is driven by what they bring in via OFW remittances and call centers.

Said differently, BSP has “excess funds” because of said remittances. It does not come from the economy per se. Our trade balance is underwater because our meager export receipts can’t cover our imports.

How much will Maharlika add to GDP growth because it will fund infrastructure and social programs? A fraction of a percent? 

“Why are our economic managers, legislators, and think tanks not figuring out what else we must develop income stream-wise?”

Because of hubris, we have been reinventing the wheel because we are “economically savvy,” and our neighbors aren’t. See below; Vietnam’s export machinery dwarfs our over 400 export zones.

Should we learn how Nadella transformed Microsoft, “From know it all to learn it all”?

Here’s something from Davos: “Marcos gets pledges but investment analysts unimpressed,” BusinessWorld, 20th Jan 2023.

“Terry L. Ridon, a public investment analyst, said the commitment from Morgan Stanley to build a Manila office does not constitute a commitment to undertake foreign direct investment (FDI) in the Philippines. The investment bank’s primary business involves not FDIs but portfolio investments.

“The president does not need to go to Davos if only to convince DP World to expand its operations in the country, i.e., judge the president’s trip on the total cost of funding the delegation against existing investment pledges originating from the WEF itself.

“Mr. Marcos’ office should have been more forthright in presenting the trip as nothing more than a speaking tour to manage public expectations. The public can see news out of Davos that the trip has essentially been a speaking engagement for the president to promote the country to the world.

“Foreign investment commitments should have already been perfected by government negotiators before the Philippine leader’s foreign trips, adding that the trips should only serve as a venue for the formal signing of diplomatic or economic agreements.

“The Philippines faces growth risks from elevated inflation, rising borrowing costs, and a global recession. The World Bank expects the economy to slow to 5.4% this year from an estimated 7.2% last year.”

If our economic managers are listening, whose heads must now roll? We can fool Juan de la Cruz, but the global community isn’t naïve!

What about political patronage and oligarchy blocking efforts to make us a competitive market for FDIs? It’s not the over 400 export zones under PEZA. They confirm our crab mentality and expand the opportunity for smugglers. 

But our economic managers, who must know better, better exercise horizontal leadership and demonstrate the pursuit of the common good.

The challenge to our economic managers, legislators, and think tanks is to move from “know it all” to “learn it all.”

To match the dynamism of our neighbors, we in the Philippine elite and chattering classes must “learn it all” too, from psychology to philosophy to physics, economics to theology. It’s called cross-discipline thinking, the key to unlocking forward, lateral, and creative thinking demanded by the 21st century.

Look at all the initiatives we proudly pursued to create jobs and address poverty and inclusion. Yet, none would correlate and directly generate substantial income streams. 

Logical yet linear and incremental thinking makes us proud that we grew GDP by 6%-7% over a decade while we remained underdeveloped – and the laughingstock of the region.

Recall how the blog would distinguish “analysis” from “analytics.” Here’s what “analysis” would look like: “The [UPSS] econometricians examined the gross domestic product and other potential determinants and found little correlation with them.

Recall how we celebrated green shoots and the manufacturing uptick in 2015. In other words, aren’t we doing what they call an “after-action review” in the military?

How many of these shortsighted analyses have we promoted through the media that were proven to be such shortsighted? We are in the “real world,” not the classroom.

The Maharlika Investment Fund is the latest fiasco. [See above; how much will Maharlika add to GDP growth?] Worse, this insanity has gone overboard if not “criminal.” Consider the hypothesis that OFW remittances would make up for the absence of industrialization. 

And Maharlika is the added insult to injury. In other words, hubris is beyond the pale.

We are still pushing fiscal and monetary interventions that brought about millions of hungry and poor Filipinos.

Messrs. Diokno and Balisacan would be out the door if they committed such blunders in the private sector.

Enter “analytics.” Think of the concept of sets and subsets. We cannot correlate “analysis” being a subset to its more substantial set, “analytics,” if we can’t do forward, lateral, and creative thinking.

See above; investment analysts weren’t impressed by the Maharlika Investment Fund.

In other words, our economic managers can’t delve beyond fiscal interventions because we have no experience outside classical economics. “Beg for Western money and technology” was the mantra of the Asian Tigers because they saw that leapfrogging industrialization would accelerate their journey from poverty to prosperity. Unsurprisingly, they became the most significant exporters, to the amazement of the West and the rest of the world.

Let’s drill that down. 

Vietnam is the latest example. But before we replay the Vietnam example, let’s pause and ponder.

Question: How do we leapfrog industrialization? We have Arangkada, AmBisyon, and the scores of industry road maps. But why can’t we move forward?

Recall the force field theory: Exploit the driving forces and right the restraining ones.

Consider: BOI reported adopting the Pareto principle to focus on “big ticket” items. That was after Mr. Ramon Ang shared his Bulacan initiative, which would generate $200 billion in export revenues beyond the Bulacan airport. And as the blog raised, we can include agribusiness under the Bulacan umbrella.

Those are multifaceted challenges. And recall the elements of cognitive development. Beyond binary thinking, there is multiplicity and relativism — the imperative of context.

The bottom line: How do we pull them all together? Beyond the restrictive economic provisions of the Constitution, we have countless sets and subsets to align and harmonize. And it goes back to overcoming binary thinking.

And it takes a village, and the Philippine elite and chattering classes could be the nucleus to lead this multifaceted challenge.

But then, can the economic managers, legislators, and think tanks update their respective portfolios and show the way?

We can return to the Vietnam example to make the exercise more tangible.

“2017 was a year of great significance for both the Vietnamese economy and Samsung Vietnam. Vietnam’s export turnover for the first time in history reached more than 214 billion USD, and Samsung Vietnam’s export turnover also achieved a breakthrough with more than 54 billion USD for the first time.

“Samsung Vietnam contributes more than 25% to the total export turnover of Vietnam. This miraculous figure is 150 times higher than Samsung Vietnam’s total export turnover in 2009 ($350 million) when SEV began production.

“As of June 2018, Samsung has reached the milestone of 1 billion high-tech innovative products manufactured in Vietnam. The 1 billion products include smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, and other essential mobile phone products.

“The Samsung Bac Ninh factory produced more than 625 million products, and Samsung Thai Nguyen made more than 431 million. Vietnam is currently the second largest smartphone export in the world after China, and Samsung plays a significant role in this achievement. 

“In terms of infrastructure, Samsung has built four manufacturing centers in Vietnam and a newly developed R&D center. These manufacturing centers contain housing, schools, medical centers, and gyms to serve their employees. Other entities under the Samsung group have also invested heavily in their manufacturing facilities in the country.

“Samsung has also invested in infrastructure such as roads, electricity, and water networks in the areas near their manufacturing centers. These infrastructures not only serve Samsung’s facilities but they have a positive impact on the host city and its citizens as well.

“The operation of large electronics corporations like Samsung entails a huge ecosystem to support its production and business activities.” [The effect Samsung has on the economy of Vietnam (viettonkinconsulting.com)]

Recall how often the blog raised the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone ecosystem (in Guangdong, China) as the best practice model to attract foreign money and technology. And all that Vietnam did was replicate the China experience and find a partner in Samsung.

Let’s hold it right there.

Why does the blog keep distinguishing “analysis” and “analytics”? See above; the 50-year ‘disease’ in Philippine agriculture. Yet, from rice tariffication, we are doing the rest of the agri products to address shortages. That is how “analysis” looks. On the other hand, the Vietnamese learned “analytics” from the Asian Tigers, which they translated to “ecosystem.” See above; the operations of Samsung entail a vast ecosystem. And not to forget that Vietnam is a top rice exporter like Thailand. The agri ecosystem of both countries is something we want to learn. It is beyond liberalizing the agriculture sector.

The story’s moral: The Vietnamese embraced “learn it all” and not “know it all.”

And they are doing it in the field of education too. “Grounded on Lewin’s three-stage change model (1951) and an appreciation of the benefits of leadership theories and organizational change, this mixed-method case study sought to present stages in change implementation in an academic division of a Vietnamese university.” [“Implementing Lewin’s Change Theory for Institutional Improvements: A Vietnamese Case Study,” Tuyet Thi Tran and Franco Gandolfi, Journal of Management Research, Vol. 20, No. 4, October - December 2020, pp. 01-12]

What about Philippine education?

As with the economy, Philippine education is down the cellar. Yet, why the hubris?

When are we moving from “know it all” to “learn it all”?

“I think people are looking to business to help solve problems like climate change, healthcare, income inequality, food shortages, and supply chain.

“Government is not set up to deal with those things. They can pass laws but can’t address them, which is why everyone’s looking to business. That’s the challenge for today’s leaders: if they don’t address today’s problems, they won’t be good leaders, I can tell you.” [George, op. cit.]

In other words, should our economic managers merely bend to our politicians even when our “Government isn’t up to deal with our decades-old challenges, including hunger and poverty? They can pass laws but can’t address them, which is why everyone’s looking to business.

It’s called horizontal leadership.

And we in the Philippine elite and chattering classes better step up to the plate – or we won’t be good leaders too.

But first, we must shift from “know it all” to “learn it all.”

Sadly, it’s a tall order given our caste system: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy; ours is a culture of impunity.

Over the last fourteen years, the blog has raised several bodies of knowledge to challenge our worldview. And they are not from an academic but a practitioner. 

Gising bayan!

A Vietnamese case study

If we are still wondering why Vietnam overtook us, the referenced case study may be a microcosm of Vietnam’s commitment to leadership and change, including education.

Let’s hold it right there. And put this posting in context.

Please be aware that it is a long and exhaustive essay if only to give justice to the millions upon millions of hungry and poor Filipinos and pay for our hypocrisy in the Philippine elite and chattering classes.

Question: How can we embrace the status quo? The SWS 4Q survey says hunger is up from 11.3% to 11.8%, while 51% of Filipino families rated themselves poor. That roughly equates to over 13 million being hungry and over 51 million being poor. Consider that Australia’s population is less than 23 million, and Romania’s is less than 20.

We must ask the Philippine elite and chattering classes that question. And what are we doing?

But does the Oxfam 2023 Briefing Paper give us another excuse to sweep our shortcomings under the carpet?

How many will acknowledge our caste system? That we are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy; ours is a culture of impunity.

“We are living through an unprecedented moment of multiple crises. Tens of millions more people are facing hunger. Hundreds of millions more face impossible rises in the cost of basic goods or heating their homes. Poverty has increased for the first time in 25 years. At the same time, these multiple crises all have winners. The very richest have become dramatically richer, and corporate profits have hit record highs, driving an explosion of inequality. This report focuses on how taxing the rich is vital to addressing this unprecedented poly-crisis and skyrocketing inequality. The report lays out how much tax the richest should pay, and the practical, tried, and tested ways governments can raise such taxation. It shows us how taxing the rich can set us clearly on a path to a more equal, sustainable world free from poverty.” [Oxfam briefing paper]

How relevant is the Oxfam report to the Philippines?

Do we want to raise the taxes of the fifteen wealthiest Filipinos? What about eliminating the restrictive provisions of the Constitution?

We can do better on the “fiscal side,” but our fundamental problem remains unsolved. Recall the mantra in the private sector, “The fiscal side of the enterprise is not the driver of the enterprise.”

We are in the 21st century, characterized by innovation and global competitiveness.

It is delusional to see a future of nations becoming islands unto themselves. Even errant asteroids can go haywire and inflict damage on planet earth. Why is the rest of the world, except for autocratic countries protecting Ukraine from Russia? We are a subset of this universe in constant motion and expansion.

Interdependence is the law of nature, as manifested by the photosynthesis phenomenon.

Do we know where we are as a nation and economy? Do we know where we want to be? We like to prescribe solutions when we can’t figure out if we’re coming or going.

We have not answered the blog’s challenge for the last fourteen years. Consider: Deng Xiaoping and, more recently, Vietnam heeded the advice of Lee and Mahathir – and lifted their people from poverty. And these neighbors defied the Western development model by leapfrogging industrialization. That’s why the West coined the terminology Asian Tigers.

We can’t hide behind Oxfam. Period. Full stop.

That we Filipinos can’t step up to our challenge speaks volumes.

Over the last fourteen years, the blog has raised several bodies of knowledge to challenge our worldview. And they are not from an academic but a practitioner. 

We need to develop a hardy mindset.

We can’t be both Juan Tamad and Bondying rolled into one. What is a hardy mindset? It embraces (1) the challenge one faces and (2) the commitment to overcome it while (3) recognizing that one has no control over others but themselves. In other words, the onus to change is on Juan de la Cruz.

We must distinguish (a) logical yet linear and incremental thinking and (b) forward, lateral, and creative thinking.

The blog has been critical of our economic managers, legislators, and think tanks. Like Laos, we delivered the global metric of a 6%-7% GDP growth rate for over a decade. Yet, both countries remained underdeveloped.

And we know that we are standing on the shoulders of Juan de la Cruz – to the tune of over $50 billion. Our economy is driven by what they bring in via OFW remittances and call centers. Why are our economic managers, legislators, and think tanks not figuring out what else we must develop income stream-wise?

We must recognize that freedom, democracy, and the free market presuppose personal responsibility.

And that means exercising horizontal leadership. Our economic managers, legislators, and think tanks must show Juan de la Cruz the folly of an inward-looking bias. The converse of hierarchy and paternalism. And in sum, to learn and benchmark against our neighbors.

We must acknowledge that our neighbors, given their experience in development, can teach us the elements of cognitive development. That beyond binary thinking, there is multiplicity and relativism – the imperative of context?

We must recognize the distinctions between classical physics and quantum physics; and classical economics and behavioral economics because they amplify the elements of cognitive development.

We must relearn our faith, and Franciscan theology is a good starting point because it builds on the elements of cognitive development.

“Jesus was the first nondual religious teacher of the West, and one reason we have failed to understand so much of his teaching, much less follow it, is because we tried to understand it with dualistic minds.

“In his life and ministry, Jesus modeled and exemplified nonduality more than giving us any systematic teaching. Our inability to fully understand and follow him maybe because we can’t see ourselves non-dually.

“Until you put on wide-lens nondual glasses, you cannot see in any genuinely new way. You will process any new ideas with your old operating system.

“Dualistic thinking, or the “egoic operating system,” is our way of reading reality from the position of our small self. “What’s in it for me?” “How will I look if I do this?” That is the ego’s preferred way of seeing reality.

“The church has neglected its central work of teaching prayer and contemplation, allowing the language of institutional religion itself to remain dualistic and largely argumentative.

“We ended up confusing information with enlightenment, mind with soul, and thinking with experiencing—yet these are vastly different paths.

“The dualistic mind is essentially binary, either/or thinking. It knows by comparison, opposition, and differentiation. It uses descriptive words like good/evil, pretty/ugly, brilliant/stupid, not realizing there may be a hundred degrees between the two ends of each spectrum.

“Dualistic thinking works well for simplification and conversation, but not for the sake of truth or the immense subtlety of actual personal experience. Most of us settle for quick and easy answers instead of profound perceptions, which we leave to poets, philosophers, and prophets.

“The dualistic mind pulls everything down into some tit-for-tat system of false choices and too-simple contraries, which is what “fast food religion” teaches, usually without even knowing it. Without the contemplative and converted mind—honest and humble perception—much religion is dangerous.” [https://cac.org/daily-meditations/the-dualistic-mind-2017-01-29/]

But can Juan de la Cruz change?

Recall that the blog often spoke to Kurt Lewin’s works in change management.

“Kurt Lewin was a social scientist who researched learning and social conflict. Lewin’s first venture into change management started by studying field theory in 1921. Five years later, Lewin would begin a series of about 20 articles explaining field theory. He published Principles of Topological Psychology in 1936, which was Lewin’s most in-depth look at field theory.

“In 1934, Lewin proposed an action research-orientated psychology department at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Shortly after, Lewin moved to America and started other action research initiatives with children, homemakers, religious groups, racial intolerance, and leadership. During this time, Lewin became the first psychologist to study group dynamics.” [Wikipedia]

“Grounded on Lewin’s three-stage change model (1951) and an appreciation of the benefits of leadership theories and organizational change, this mixed-method case study sought to present stages in change implementation in an academic division of a Vietnamese university.

“In creating an effective working environment where lecturers collaborate in a constructive spirit to improve their teaching practices and learning outcomes, the authors recalled related theories to provide comprehensive guidance for their work. The study employed semi-structured interviews, class observations, and questionnaires to verify the results’ authenticity and validity.

“The study’s findings showed that university teachers can change their teaching quality and student preferences of their lecturers by investing more time preparing lectures and showing enthusiasm in the classroom. In this case study, the participants demonstrated a markedly higher level of job satisfaction and professional commitment when recognizing that they are needed and fully invested in themselves professionally.

“Based on the findings, specific policy and practice-related direction are provided to improve the quality of teaching in the academic division. Finally, the paper has implications for a better understanding of creating conducive learning environments for university students, in general, and English-learning students, in particular.” [“Implementing Lewin’s Change Theory for Institutional Improvements: A Vietnamese Case Study,” Tuyet Thi Tran and Franco Gandolfi, Journal of Management Research, Vol. 20, No. 4, October - December 2020, pp. 01-12]

In contrast, here’s an article about Philippine agriculture: “The 50-year ‘disease’ in Philippine agriculture,” Ramon L. Clarete, Introspective, BusinessWorld, 15th Jan 2023.

“We are all wondering why our agriculture sector has failed us, why we have become more food insecure as years passed. Red onions have recently been more expensive than beef or chicken. According to a news report, the former costs about P550 per kilo, while the latter costs about P485 a kilo.

“High food prices may be a fluke, as the farming sector goes through the ravages of extreme weather, losing productivity in the process. But this unfavorable situation has been with us through the years. Agriculture growth has gradually tanked in the past half a century, so much so that its record has become an insignificant statistic in the country’s gross domestic product accounting.”

Juan de la Cruz would wonder? Here’s a quote from an earlier posting: “Look at how we moved from the basket case of Asia to the perennial regional laggard.

“Then consider: Our economic managers are still exuding hubris instead of giving credit to Juan de la Cruz – for sacrificing and toiling overseas, away from families, despite the attendant social ills. [In the private sector, heads roll when an enterprise is the basket case or regional laggard.]

Let’s hear from world-renowned economist Nouriel Roubini: “Megathreats: The Ten Trends that Imperil Our Future, and How to Survive them.” [2002]

“Climate change, zoonotic diseases, technological disruption, population decline, inequality, and debt—the list of challenges we face is daunting. Can we stop these Megathreats? No. However, we sent a man to the moon, eradicated polio, and created the Internet. So, what is preventing us from dealing with these dangers?

“Part of the problem is that our current systems don’t incentivize long-term thinking. Instead, we are overly concerned with the short-term and frequently make decisions based on incomplete, biased information. If we can overcome these obstacles, there may be a way out. We have come a long way in the last 75 years, but if we don’t start working together, we could lose everything. Megathreats require mega solutions.”

This economist is not discussing supply and demand or fiscal and monetary interventions but criticizes knee-jerk and biased thinking. In other words, he is employing behavioral economics, not classical economics.

See above; the bodies of knowledge the blog has raised over the last fourteen years to challenge our worldview. They are to demonstrate how cross-discipline thinking characterizes the 21st century, from psychology to philosophy to physics, economics to theology. And if we want a crash course, the blog has repeatedly discussed “Design Thinking.”

Yet, it is not rocket science. It comes down to freedom, democracy, and the free market. It is called “personal responsibility,” expressed in “horizontal leadership,” not the reliance on hierarchy and paternalism that we value and why we are parochial and insular, yielding a culture of impunity.

Let’s get back to the above article by Prof. Clarete: “It is about time that private sector investors go into farming. One such model is to organize farmer-beneficiaries to contract with private investors and forms agricultural venture agreements (AVAs).

“What is essential is to develop a business model that allows the sector to capture scale economies, to realize an even application of technology, and facilitate access to product and credit markets.

“The way to move forward from where we are now is to remove the retention limit in the current agrarian reform law. In the House of Representatives, a proposed law on debt condonation in favor of farmer beneficiaries still retains a retention limit but increases it to 25 hectares. That is a good start. However, the Senate can introduce a better version of this bill by lifting the retention limit altogether.”

Can the Senate introduce a better version?

Sadly, our instincts that reflect our caste system would always get in the way. Think of the senator who has blocked efforts to rationalize land use. Her husband once ran for the presidency — but Juan de la Cruz saw through the hypocrisy — and railed against oligarchy for undermining the initiatives to eliminate the restrictive provisions of the Constitution. Yet they have blood on their hands too. It’s called a culture of impunity.

“In other words, in the most impoverished countries, there will be less support for social change in a country that arguably needs it the most. It explains the “system justification theory.”

“The Kurt Lewin’s 3-Step Change Model: Kurt Lewin, a German-American psychologist, developed this 3-step model to implement change. The model consists of three steps: (1) Unfreezing, (2) Changing, (3) Refreezing.

“The unfreezing stage destabilizes the equilibrium and unleashes some energy for change. The changing stage involves entering the change using collaboration and action research, and refreezing is the stabilizing stage, to set new policies and standards.” [Wikipedia]

“Grounded on Lewin’s three-stage change model (1951) and an appreciation of the benefits of leadership theories and organizational change, this mixed-method case study sought to present stages in change implementation in an academic division of a Vietnamese university.”

“As change management becomes more necessary in the business cycle of organizations, it is beginning to be taught as its academic discipline at universities. There are many universities with research units dedicated to studying organizational change.”

A business enterprise, or any undertaking for that matter, including economic development and nation-building, goes through cycles.

Yet, there will always be the challenge of “context,” given that undertakings are subsets of more significant sets.

And change is resisted because it can destabilize the equilibrium. In other words, the Philippine elite and chattering classes would be the first to fight change because it can upend our reliance on a hierarchy where rank has its privileges.

Recall that the family moved to New York in the 80s. It was when Japan Inc. exposed the shortcomings of the US education system. And just as other Fortune 500s did, my former company took matters into its own hands.

Is Vietnam doing better with a Vietnamese university embracing the challenge of leadership and change?

Sadly, we Filipinos are starting even farther behind. We are yet to move beyond logical yet linear and incremental thinking. And that explains why we’re stuck in the “fixed mindset” and can’t embrace a “growth mindset.”

And we are in the 21st century, defined by innovation and global competitiveness.

In other words, the challenge to humankind is beyond the economic or business cycle – because we are a subset of this universe in constant motion and expansion.

Even taxing the rich does not guarantee nirvana. Try Russia or North Korea or Syria or Venezuela, or Hungary.

Consider how the Vatican or US politics can’t escape “reality” – because it is beyond any human experience or system. In other words, “reality” is beyond conservative or progressive. It must be the pursuit of the “common good.” And it is not a binary thought.

Said differently, the mantra “rank has its privileges” is why Juan de la Cruz could only move from the Asian basket case to perennial regional laggard.

Question: How do we reconstruct the sets and subsets that inform economic development and nation-building?

If we take the Vietnam model, it starts with the “commitment to leadership and change.” Sadly, we Filipinos, to this day, have not internalized “leadership” given our values of hierarchy and paternalism.

We are in the 21st century. Take agriculture. It is a subset of a more significant set. It is beyond simply removing the retention limit in the current agrarian reform law. We must recognize that it demands “innovation and global competitiveness,” not because Silicon Valley said so.

We are a subset of this universe in constant motion and expansion.

In other words, human undertakings are a constant effort to build on earlier ones. Said differently, it is not about reinventing the wheel. And if we look beyond our shores, we see China moving from poverty to becoming the second-largest economy.

And how did they do it? Thanks to Deng, he heeded the advice of Lee and Mahathir: Beg for Western money and technology. And the latest to follow suit is our neighbor, Vietnam. And the common denominator our neighbors share is that they are the most significant exporters.

If we pursue the dots and connect them, these neighbors dwarf our export revenues by roughly $200 billion.

How do we connect the dots? Firstly, we must toss our parochialism and insularity. Then we must replicate their efforts to leave us in the dust export-wise. And the best practice model is the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone ecosystem.

It is not enough to preach that the private sector must go into farming. That is why the blog challenged the BOI to deconstruct the Pearl River Delta Economic zone and recreate a model we can “touch and feel.” In other words, the BOI must exploit the Ang Bulacan initiative. Ang envisions Bulacan, beyond the airport, to attract foreign money and technology and generate exports of $200 billion.

And recall that the blog referenced Axelum as the best practice model in pursuing coconut as an agri-industrial undertaking. And given that Calabarzon is less than 200 km away, we can replicate the Axelum model in Bulacan.

Moreover, given that Cagayan and Nueva Ecija are the most productive rice farms, we must figure out if we can replicate the effort in Bulacan, if not in other parts of the country. We don’t have to keep reinventing the wheel. We must learn to exploit best practice models by replicating them.

If we are still wondering why Vietnam overtook us, the referenced case study may be a microcosm of Vietnam’s commitment to leadership and change, including education.

Let’s hold it right there.

Question: How can we embrace the status quo? The SWS 4Q survey says hunger is up from 11.3% to 11.8%, while 51% of Filipino families rated themselves poor. That roughly equates to over 13 million being hungry and over 51 million being poor. Consider that Australia’s population is less than 23 million, and Romania’s is less than 20.

We must ask the Philippine elite and chattering classes that question. And what are we doing?

But does the Oxfam 2023 Briefing Paper give us another excuse to sweep our shortcomings under the carpet?

How many will acknowledge our caste system? That we are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy; ours is a culture of impunity.

How relevant is the Oxfam report to the Philippines?

We have not answered the blog’s challenge for the last fourteen years. Consider: Deng Xiaoping and, more recently, Vietnam heeded the advice of Lee and Mahathir – and lifted their people from poverty. And these neighbors defied the Western development model by leapfrogging industrialization. That’s why the West coined the terminology Asian Tigers.

We can’t hide behind Oxfam. Period. Full stop.

That we Filipinos can’t step up to our challenge speaks volumes.

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!