“In developing countries, where group inequalities are most evident, there is a more excellent justification of the status quo. In the most impoverished areas of Bolivia, children (aged 10–15) who were members of low-status groups legitimized the Bolivian government as sufficiently meeting the needs of the people more so than children from high-status groups.
“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.” [Wikipedia]
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.]
In other words, our income streams come from the OFW remittances and call centers. Instead of taking transparency for granted, it behooves our economic managers and legislators to monitor for the benefit of Juan de la Cruz, where we are in the GPS.
Specifically, where are we income stream-wise? Where do we want to be, i.e., how are we creating other income streams given that we are not generating the required revenues as an economy and are standing on the shoulders of Juan de la Cruz?
It is called analytics. Investors won’t bet on a company that cannot demonstrate sustained growth and profitability in the private sector. The fiscal side of the enterprise is not the driver of the enterprise.
Let’s say it one more time, in the private sector, heads roll when the enterprise is the basket case or regional laggard. Hubris is out of place.
Recall how the blog defines our instincts, reflected in the Philippine 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.
“System-justifying beliefs serve a psychologically palliative function. It proposes that people have several underlying needs, which vary from individual to individual, which can be satisfied by the defense and justification of the status quo, even when the system may be disadvantageous to certain people.”
Rizal was not a psychologist, but over a century ago, he averred that we submit to tyranny because we love it. It’s called a defense mechanism.
“The need for order and stability, and thus resistance to change or alternatives, for example, can motivate individuals to see the status quo as good, legitimate, and even desirable.”
We even have the expression, “Walang basagan ng trip.” In other words, because of the need for “harmony,” we let the next person do their thing. You can do your thing, and I will do mine. Is that why it comes down to the crab mentality?
Yet, it’s not just Juan de la Cruz that justifies the status quo.
“According to system justification theory, people desire not only to hold favorable attitudes about themselves (ego-justification) and the groups to which they belong (group-justification.) They also hold positive attitudes about the overarching social structure they are entwined to and find themselves obligated to (system-justification).”
Recall that the wife rejected the offer of my former company to relocate to New York. We were in the Philippine establishment, and rank has its privileges.
But then we criticize the democratic system because it is a Western import. Of course, the Greeks invented it. Yet, no two democratic systems are alike because they are self-government.
Do we take self-government for granted because it demands personal responsibility? And personal responsibility is absent in a caste system?
The story of the Pilgrims reflects how “self-government” can come about. It’s a lesson in how humankind, even a small group of 41, can be the nucleus that would pave the way for today’s hegemon. As a Ukrainian friend intimated over the Christmas holidays, “Thanks to the Americans, we will win this war.”
Yet even Americans can’t afford to take “self-government” for granted. I am with my wife in Puerto Rico, taking a respite from the harsh winter, and why we missed the Philippines during the pandemic. The good news is that we will fly to Manila shortly.
If the Ukrainians, an ocean away and beyond, are thankful to the Americans, the Puerto Ricans haven’t recovered fully from successive hurricanes. Puerto Rico is a US territory with limited representation in Washington. The question of statehood is classic kicking the can down the road.
The Americans have more trials and tribulations to demonstrate that “self-government” is not a walk in the park.
“Some 100 people, seeking religious freedom in the New World, set sail from England on the Mayflower in September 1620. That November, the ship landed on the shores of Cape Cod in present-day Massachusetts. The scouting party found Plymouth Harbor, where they would form the first permanent settlement of Europeans in New England. These original settlers of Plymouth Colony are known as the Pilgrim Fathers or simply as the Pilgrims.
“The group that set out from Plymouth, in southwestern England, in September 1620 included 35 members of a radical Puritan faction known as the English Separatist Church. In 1607, after illegally breaking from the Church of England, the Separatists settled in the Netherlands, first in Amsterdam and later in the town of Leiden, where they remained for the next decade under the relatively lenient Dutch laws.
“Due to economic difficulties, as well as fears that they would lose their English language and heritage, they began to make plans to settle in the New World. Their intended destination was a region near the Hudson River, which at the time was part of the already established colony of Virginia. In 1620, the would-be settlers joined a London stock company that would finance their trip aboard the Mayflower, a three-masted merchant ship. A smaller vessel, the Speedwell, had initially accompanied the Mayflower and carried some of the travelers, but it proved unseaworthy and returned to port by September.
“Some of the most notable passengers on the Mayflower included Myles Standish, a professional soldier who would become the military leader of the new colony, and William Bradford, a leader of the Separatist congregation. Bradford was the author of “Of Plymouth Plantation,” his account of the Mayflower voyage and the founding of Plymouth Colony.
“Rough seas and storms prevented the Mayflower from reaching their initial destination in Virginia. After 65 days, the ship reached Cape Cod’s shores, anchoring on Provincetown Harbor in mid-November. Discord ensued before the would-be colonists even left the ship. The passengers who were not separatists–referred to as “strangers” by their more doctrinaire peers—argued the Virginia Company contract was void since the Mayflower had landed outside Virginia Company territory. William Bradford later wrote, “several strangers made discontented and mutinous speeches.”
“The Pilgrims knew they had to do something quickly; otherwise, every man, woman, and family would be for themselves. While still on board the ship, a group of 41 men signed the Mayflower Compact, in which they agreed to join together in a “civil body politic.” This document would become the foundation of the new colony's government. Signed on 11th Nov 1620, the Mayflower Compact was the first document to establish self-government in the New World.” [History.com]
Can we, in the Philippine elite and chattering classes, take inspiration from the 41 men that signed the Mayflower Compact and commit to embracing “self-government”?
In other words, how do we upend the Philippine caste system?
Consider: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy; our culture is impunity.
Let’s start with overturning parochialism and insularity.
Here’s a quote from an earlier posting: “Why does the blog beat the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone no end? Because unless our technocrats and economic managers embrace serious benchmarking against the economic miracles delivered by our neighbors, we will be left reinventing the wheel and throwing decades upon decades of progress.
“In other words, the Asian Tigers demonstrated to the world that rapid economic development cum nation-building is a reality, not a pipedream.
What about our reliance on political patronage and oligarchy? Given the context of our challenge, to be a first-world economy, we must move beyond binary thinking.
Again, from an earlier posting: “Ramon Ang’s Bulacan initiative, beyond the Bulacan airport, must mirror the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone ecosystem and generate “incremental” exports of $200 billion. That will pave the way for the Philippines to match the export revenues of our neighbors. And which is how Vietnam eliminated poverty.
“As the blog has raised, the BOI must be in the crosshairs to assume this challenge and toss our historical models in crafting investment incentives.
“And recall, the blog challenged the Philippine president to invite the most prominent investors, especially in technology like TMCC, Samsung, and Apple, personally and pick their brains on how the Philippines can match if not outdo the neighbors’ efforts. Mahathir did this by creating a tech advisory group that included Bill Gates.
“And last November, Zelensky of Ukraine signed an investment partnership with the CEO of BlackRock CEO Larry Fink. BlackRock is the world’s largest asset manager.
Consider: “We have over 400 export processing zones under the PEZA. Yet, we generate the most negligible export revenues. How many more export processing zones are we contemplating, given the NEDA 5-year development plan?
“Sadly, we can’t wrap our heads around Pareto and distinguish the “vital few” from the “trivial many.”
“What are we glossing over in the upbeat tenor of NEDA? For example, Vietnam overtook the Philippines’ GDP per capita in 2020. Moreover, they put poverty in the rearview mirror. How? By taking the playbook of the once Asian Tigers, “beg for foreign money and technology.”
“Yet, we are still forging along the same path reliant on the OFW remittances and call centers, including the 6.0 to 7.0 percent growth metric.
“In other words, we’re stuck in logical yet linear and incremental thinking. And that is despite decades of underperformance as an economy.”
Aside from NEDA, there is the Central Bank (BSP). What about the BSP?
“The BSP said it remains steadfast in its commitment to its primary mandate of sustaining price and financial stability and stands ready to take all necessary action to bring inflation to within the 2-4 percent government target band over the medium term.
“Governor Medalla has indicated his preference to maintain a 100 basis-point (one percentage point) differential with the Fed rate.
“This may be the most difficult time since I joined the Monetary Board more than a decade ago,” he told economic journalists in November.
“We are facing exceedingly tough challenges. There is the overly aggressive response of the US Fed [US Federal Reserve].
“Then, we also have the Ukraine-Russia conflict, which along with domestic supply issues, pushed up the prices of oil and non-oil commodities. That has pushed inflation to the center of mainstream consciousness.”
“These challenges are indeed tough, but the Philippines will pull through. We have done so in past crises and will do it again.” [“BSP will beat inflation,” Tony Lopez, Virtual Reality, manilastandard.net, 6th Jan 2023]
What are we missing from the above narrative? Where did the Philippines stand as an economy before the pandemic? See above; when and why did Vietnam overtake us?
Benchmark. Benchmark. Benchmark.
Why did our neighbors leave us in the dust one after the other? They embraced the imperative to benchmark.
In other words, progress does not have to start from square one each time. Given our caste system, looking outward is not our default impulse. Instead, do we like to keep reinventing the wheel, demonstrating hubris or insanity?
“System-justifying beliefs serve a psychologically palliative function. It proposes that people have several underlying needs, which vary from individual to individual, which can be satisfied by the defense and justification of the status quo, even when the system may be disadvantageous to certain people.”
“According to system justification theory, people desire not only to hold favorable attitudes about themselves (ego-justification) and the groups to which they belong (group-justification.) They also hold positive attitudes about the overarching social structure they are entwined to and find themselves obligated to (system-justification).”
And so we defer to those higher up in the hierarchy, like technocrats.
Here’s a quote from an earlier posting: “The Rice Tariffication Law came with much fanfare as a response to food security. Yet, it is another example of logical yet linear and incremental thinking that we associate with technocracy. It is, again, merely a tool and, at best, a stop-gap measure to protect Juan de la Cruz.”
Let’s hold it right there.
Why does the blog often speak to “tools” associated with technocracy?
Consider: “The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) is an international agricultural research and training organization with its headquarters in Los Baños, Laguna, in the Philippines, and offices in seventeen countries. IRRI is known for developing rice varieties that contributed to the Green Revolution in the 1960s, preempting Asia’s famine.
“The institute, established in 1960, aims to reduce poverty and hunger, improve the health of rice farmers and consumers, and ensure environmental sustainability of rice farming. It advances its mission through collaborative research, partnerships, and strengthening the national agricultural research and extension systems of the countries IRRI works in.”
If there is one enormous advantage – or tool – we have behind our rice industry, it is the IRRI.
Why did we fail to leverage such an outstanding tool? And then we expected the Rice Tariffication Law to be the answer to food security?
Let’s drill that down.
Look at the impulse demonstrated by Vietnam. They looked outward to IRRI and exploited it as a crucial resource to elevate the competitiveness of their rice industry. And Vietnam today is a significant exporter.
On the other hand, we ignored IRRI going decades yet proudly touted the Rice Tariffication Law.
Why does the blog keep raising the distinctions between the “real world and the academic world”?
Or why did my former Fortune 500 company buy technology outside when we had over a thousand scientists?
That is also why the blog is critical of the Philippine Competition Commission. It is an essential tool but toothless in an oligarchic economy.
Our actions reveal an inherent disadvantage, our instincts reflected in the Philippine caste system.
Why does the blog keep rehashing experiences with my former Fortune 500 company and Eastern European friends?
I came from a third-world economy and country, yet they even offered me citizenship. Why? They realized I was pursuing the “common good” – or the imperative of designing and assembling the requisite “ecosystem” to navigate mediocrity to excellence. They did not put hierarchy ahead of the common good.
In other words, the 21st century demands innovation and global competitiveness.
Let’s hold it right there.
As a third-world economy, we don’t appreciate that wealthy nations are middle-class economies because we associate wealth with gated communities, if not the elite. And those are the metrics that manifest the inequality in an oligarchic economy like ours. That is why we are resentful.
Wealthy nations are “developed economies” where innovations address human needs, thus raising people’s well-being. Yet, they don’t come gratis; otherwise, the undertaking won’t be sustainable.
And the more innovations raise people’s well-being, the more adherents they gain across nations and continents. The best example would be medical care and why the contemporary lifespan is more extended than generations ago.
Moreover, innovation today is democratizing knowledge.
And it goes full circle, i.e., innovation and global competitiveness democratize economic development and nation-building, with Vietnam as the latest example. Because they acquired this simple knowledge from the neighbors, they “beg for foreign money and technology.”
The bottom line: The pursuit of innovation and global competitiveness is the real-world expression of the common good. Yet, given the dynamism of this universe, the challenge won’t cease. Unsurprisingly, Covid mutated into another variant.
Conversely, “in developing countries, where group inequalities are most evident, there is a more excellent justification of the status quo.” Why? Because the values of hierarchy and paternalism sufficiently meet the needs of the people – and why we celebrate the 6%-7% GDP growth metric even when we’ve moved from the basket case of Asia to the perennial regional laggard.
Can we, in the Philippine elite and chattering classes, take inspiration from the 41 men that signed the Mayflower Compact and commit to embracing “self-government”?
In other words, how do we upend the Philippine caste system?
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.]
Gising bayan!
No comments:
Post a Comment