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!