“Willful blindness”

That’s from Margaret Heffernan’s latest book, “Why We Ignore the Obvious at Our Peril.” [http://www.mheffernan.com] “She argues that the biggest threats and dangers we face are the ones we don't see – not because they're secret or invisible, but because we're willfully blind. She examines the phenomenon . . . and asks: What makes us prefer ignorance? What are we so afraid of? And how can we change? Examining examples of willful blindness in the Catholic Church . . . Nazi Germany . . . and the dog-eat-dog world of subprime mortgage lenders, the book demonstrates how failing to see—or admit to ourselves . . . the issues and problems in plain sight can ruin . . . and bring down [institutions.]”

 

Indeed, how can we change? How can we change when our knee-jerk is: "wala tayong magagawa; ganyan talaga”? Not surprisingly, Rizal had to turn to the Filipino youth. To the Philippine Youth: Hold high the brow serene, O youth, where now you stand; Let the bright sheen Of your grace be seen, Fair hope of my fatherland!

 

Fast-forward to today. Francis hasn’t stopped airing his views about change: Pope, in New Interview, Vows to Change Vatican Mentality, The New York Times, 1st Oct 2013. “Pope Francis has promised to do everything in his power to change the Vatican's mentality, saying in an interview published on Tuesday that it was too focused on its own interests . . . In the long interview with the atheist editor of the left-leaning La Repubblica newspaper, he said too many previous popes in the Church's long history had been "narcissists" who let themselves been flattered by their "courtier" aides.”

 

"The (papal) court is the leprosy of the papacy," said Francis, who has brought a new style of openness, consultation and simplicity to the papacy. The interview, conducted last week in the pope's spartan residence in a Vatican guest house, appeared as he began a three-day, closed-door meeting with eight cardinals from around the world to help him reform the Vatican's troubled administration, known as the Curia.”

 

“There are some "courtiers" among the Curia's administrators, he said, but its main defect is that it is too inward-looking. “It looks after the interests of the Vatican, which are still, in large part temporal interests. This Vatican-centric vision neglects the world around it and I will do everything to change it," he said. . . . Francis said the eight cardinals he had chosen to make up his advisory board did not have selfish motives. “They are not courtiers but wise people who are inspired by my same feelings. This is the start of a Church with an organization that is not only vertical but also horizontal," he said.”

 

“Speaking of his personal faith, Francis said: "A Catholic God does not exist... "I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my master and my pastor, but God, the father ... is the light and the creator. This is my being . . . In the interview, the Argentine pope said that on the night fellow cardinals elected him in the Sistine Chapel on March 13, before formally accepting, he had asked to go to an adjoining room to be alone. "My head was completely empty and a great anxiety came over me. To make it go away and relax I closed my eyes and every thought went away, even that of not accepting, which the liturgical procedures permitted," he said . . . On September 19, Jesuit journals published a landmark interview with Francis in which he said the Catholic Church must shake off an obsession with teachings on abortion, contraception and homosexuality and become more merciful.”

 

Is Juan de la Cruz willfully blind or is he capable of change – especially when the elite class is calling the shots? How does he learn to be outward-looking? And how does he learn about a horizontal as opposed to a hierarchical system and structure? At every level of society we are expected to define patriotism – and even a booming economy – with deference to our cacique masters? And then we turn around to champion “inclusive growth” via our favorite CSR programs and/or charity efforts? Every high school kid, from Economics 101, knows that investment is fundamental; and we lag in investments especially compared to our neighbors – by design to protect our cacique masters? How and where will inclusive growth come from – more so that we are perpetuating subservience? Reads a Philippine Daily Inquirer (2nd Oct) article about our tycoons: "If only the government would show them back some love." And compare that to an ABC (2nd Oct) news item: "Major Microsoft investors want Bill Gates out as Chairman." And Gates is more than the wealthiest American, he is behind the office/business-productivity revolution that defied even quantum leap and in more ways than one generated wealth across continents and reduced poverty worldwide? What about our tycoons – they preserved, protected and defended oligarchy that turned us into investment and economic laggards? And we are all in bed with them?

Leadership. Leadership. Leadership.

That is what it would take if PHL is to successfully respond to the challenge – to reduce poverty – spelled out by Axel van Trotsenburg, World Bank’s vice president for East Asia and the Pacific of the World Bank. [Philippine Daily Inquirer, 26th Sept 2013] “[D]eep-seated issues . . . rooted in the long decades of policy distortions . . . weighed down agriculture and manufacturing in the last six decades. Agricultural productivity has remained depressed, manufacturing has failed to grow sustainably, and a low-productivity, low-skill services sector has emerged as the dominant sector of the economy. Lack of competition in key sectors, insecurity of property rights, complex regulations, and severe underinvestment by the government and the private sector have led to this growth pattern, which is not the norm in the East Asia region.”

 

While the issues are deep-seated, the WB vice president was kind and respectful of Juan de la Cruz: “After the 1986 Edsa Revolution, several industries, notably the telecommunications and airlines industries, were opened up to competition.” But that was then and this is now: “After two years of consultations and research, the Philippines Development Report (PDR) concludes that there’s no quick fix that can address the jobs challenge overnight. But based on the country’s experiences, reforms can be implemented, especially if the country’s leaders from the government (both the executive and legislative branches), private sector, labor, civil society can come together and work out a strong coalition for reform.”

 

And he has high hopes for President Aquino: “The Aquino administration has demonstrated that it is not afraid to try and tackle vested interests in areas that had previously been too sensitive to reform. Several reforms have successfully started, notably in public financial management, tax policy and administration, anticorruption, and social service delivery. The country now therefore has a great opportunity to deepen reforms to protect property rights, promote more competition, and simplify regulations, while sustainably ramping up public investments in infrastructure, education, and health.”

 

The fundamental challenge we face is the inherent assumptions Juan de la Cruz has had since Rizal said, over a hundred years ago, that our culture was backward, anti-progress, etc., etc. Unfortunately, that is not easy to take dispassionately? Padre Damaso is long gone but did he leave an indelible mark? Let’s start with patriotism. Is Singapore (or any of our neighbors, for that matter?) less patriotic than PHL for opening its economy and thus attracts investment and technology and beyond like a magnet? Is the average Singaporean destined to hell while Juan de la Cruz isn’t? Yet even Francis calls himself a sinner – and “has promised to do everything in his power to change the Vatican's mentality.” [NY Times, 1st Oct]

 

Poverty is the effect not the cause . . . with due respect to our best minds. Instead of recognizing that we blew it – making do with OFWs and BPOs – and doggedly pursuing industrialization, we like to demonstrate our concern for the poor – as in pork is necessary? But that doesn't change the equation: we don’t have the requisite foundation to build on a robust economy – and reduce poverty! Band-Aid treatment and window dressing smack of Padre Damaso? When ranking legislators could even conceive that pork was meant to stimulate the economy we know we're doomed. We're reading too much US-style politics when we're an underdeveloped economy. Stimulus in a developed economy works as a stop-gap but in an underdeveloped economy like ours it becomes permanent because the economy has no foundation to begin with. And it doesn't stop there. With ASEAN 2015 we talk about all "the trivial many" but not "the vital few," once again. Indeed we have our top ten exports to ASEAN countries but we know that 3 of our neighbors dominate 70% of regional trade; ergo, we're again down the abyss! As marketers know, the first fundamental or the first "P" is the right product or products!

 

Prayers are always called for but, as the Dane expatriate told us, we better learn to solve our problems. While the Malaysian said we must develop local leaders. Ergo: what is different from over a hundred years ago when Rizal took up the cudgels for Juan de la Cruz, are we no longer backward and anti-progress, etc., etc.? Or are we unwittingly still because we’re parochial and inward-looking? Can we learn something from Francis, who says of the Curia, “its main defect is that it is too inward-looking . . . A Catholic God does not exist...” [Pope, in New Interview, Vows to Change Vatican Mentality, New York Times, 1st Oct 2013]

Bottom-of-the-pyramid > farms-to-market roads > pork

That’s a simple way to illustrate why compassion can be misplaced. When we focus on the bottom-of-the-pyramid we could unwittingly be perpetuating our cacique culture. As the pork barrel scam clearly pointed out, everyone and his uncle would raise their hands “to help” the poor yet end up helping themselves. And why this blog talks about Pareto's 80-20 rule. (Clinton today may mean Hillary but “it’s still the economy, stupid!”) And it wasn’t surprising Francis would say that while John XXIII saw the “maximum dimension” he focused on the fewer impactful initiatives. Clearly Vatican II was an illustration of that. Ergo: the “vital few” is universal – and it applies even to the scribes and Pharisees? Will Juan de la Cruz ever get it?

 

And in the midst of poverty, we thought MNCs were evil out to exploit the masses? “Down with MNCs” (from my student days) came back when I read that a Philippine business icon was positive about 2015 – i.e., he expected their businesses to prosper even more with ASEAN’s bigger market. Yet Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand would run rings around us given they dominate 70% of ASEAN trade. Have we learned our lesson yet – i.e., not only the West and oligarchy could be MNCs?

 

My Eastern European friends have rapidly learned Western MNC skills especially because they're an FMCGC (fast-moving consumer goods company.) Poor countries like those in Eastern Europe mean families spend whatever little they've got mostly on food and consumer products. But some of these countries have less poverty than PHL. Thus one would shake his head reading about a Philippine bank equating sales of more cars to a good economy instead of saying “the business of the bank was good!” It had nothing to do with a prosperous economy; it had to do with human needs – and the "Dutch disease"! Our over $20 billion in OFW remittances support the economy and make our CB smelling like a rose. It’s called “sound economic fundamentals” – similar from before derivatives exploded? And why the WB and ADB wanted us to focus on manufacturing. Is it any wonder JP Morgan, for example, was to settle mortgage probes in the billions of dollars? [Disclosure: As a US market investor I've stopped reading bank reports long ago; straight to the recycling bins they'd go.]

 

Indeed, even at the bottom-of-the pyramid, people need to survive, and then some. And Maslow’s hierarchy of needs captures why they would sacrifice even a bit more to indulge on something more desirable. And my Eastern European friends today now would laugh with me as the iPhone 5S sold more than the cheaper 5C during the first weekend of its launch – that included China, not just the US. They would remember when I asked who among them had smartphones and designer jeans; and most of them did! Yet they claimed when I first arrived ten years ago that they were poor Bulgarians!

 

Figuring out the prognosis of the business in consumer goods is not rocket science – i.e., comparing consumption per capita and GDP per capita essentially defines the market potential when arrayed side-by-side in a universe of countries; and even pinpoints where to focus, i.e., Pareto’s 80-20 rule. Of course, my friends had to first learn and invest in product development and that marketing and R&D are Siamese twins; the key being to develop products across the value-addition chain to be able to compete in different markets – emerging, developing, developed.

 

What about the economy? First and foremost, an economy needs a strong foundation; not oligopoly, but infrastructure. When the requisite infrastructure is present foreign investors would have the confidence to bet and invest in manufacturing, in technology, in innovation, in education and training, in product and market development. Precisely what the world saw with the Asian tigers. It will not happen overnight – and there are no shortcuts. A clear vision, transparency, focus and discipline are a must. We can’t continue spiraling down the abyss – given our corrupt culture while proudly protecting our cacique masters and blocking foreign investment and technology and innovation and education and training and product and market development! We’ve been jostling for excuses especially “kuro-kuro” which may be fun while completely missing the common good, reducing poverty – i.e., our national income or GDP remains Third-World?

 

We’ve denounced MNCs instead of learning to be one too (and ASEAN is clearly a vehicle) because we’ve been in bed with oligarchy; one day we’re proud of them and the next, we’re angry? When we hear a business icon talk about the bottom-of-the-pyramid, it has nothing to do with a prosperous economy but a prosperous business. And India has seen it lately as their economy stalled again – while the Brahmins continued to prosper. The concepts of “an inclusive economy” and “bottom-of-the-pyramid” were developed by Indians. And it is not surprising given their hierarchical system and structure. But they still must address their weak economic foundation like we do in PHL.

Fatalism and/or insanity

Do we believe that a few points gained (coming from such a low base) in our competitiveness ranking would translate to economic development – i.e., that we would be an inclusive, developed and a model economy? While the Jesuits preach that Christ is in everything, there must be time that is dedicated for work (of course we know the chapter and verse and the song too?) or faith without works doesn’t compute? I learned it after being a lazy student for the longest time to the frustration of my parents. Translation: we are doomed if even our best minds buy into Pinoy fatalism and, worse, conclude that our economy is breaking out and is to takeoff and soar? For example, we will miss our much ballyhooed export target and the similarly hyped rice self-sufficiency. [And in the meantime, and for the umpteenth time, the World Bank and the ADB are urging us to pursue economic and industry reforms. That means beyond the sense of urgency we need the sense of closure so that challenges don’t pile up? Or is that what “que sera, sera” is? “Filipinos not only tend to avoid conflict, but problems as well,” says an expat, a Dane.] Yet one major daily has been heaping accolades on those press releases without vetting them as in "where is the beef” or, simply, who will do what, when, where, why and how? That is insulting, not patriotic – i.e., folks from ex-Soviet satellites could give us an earful! Or is that Padre Damaso redux?

 

Was Rizal right about our backwardness – and being anti-progress, etc., etc.? How deep in the abyss are we? We won’t recognize it if we’ve ignored what is going on with our neighbors, much less with the rest of the world? It is not surprising that Cardinal Tagle has put his finger into our culture – we don’t hold the keys to heaven nor want to be the modern-day scribes and Pharisees? Francis and John XXIII must both have such courage and conviction to go against backwardness? It’s laughable how some quarters worry that Francis has thrown out the window all safeguards implicit in hierarchy; for example, calling people directly on their cellphones could open the papacy to impersonators. Transparency needs no such safeguards. Didn't our mothers say that honesty is the best policy? 

 

And I am reminded of the time that I had to read the riot act to the management team of a subsidiary in my old MNC company: “From here on forward, every employee in this subsidiary must be connected to the company’s email system, full stop! [And that was before the age of Yahoo or Google or even AOL.] Communication is fundamental in a functioning enterprise.” I was simply dumbfounded when an employee called my hotel room to request a meeting about something that ought to be out in the open – not uncommon and in fact normal to us Pinoys? And then I realized that the subsidiary was stunting open communication. Fast forward: many years later I would break into a grin every time my Eastern European friends would be quizzing one another, including the big boss. Translation: they’ve developed an egalitarian environment such that the best thinking and ideas would percolate to the top.

 

From basic infrastructure like power . . . to a vibrant industrial base . . . we are lagging the world! And we will, even after a hundred years, until we overcome our subservience to hierarchy? Or why church secrecy, for example, is abhorrent? And so for a hundred more years we would remain underdeveloped – because we value secrecy and hierarchy over transparency? Ergo: oligarchy, political patronage and corruption are in our DNA? And so we can’t but be fatalistic? Or is it insanity as Einstein pronounced – to be doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome?

 

In fairness, I am reminded of the Monsignor in our New York suburban parish. [May he rest in peace!] One Sunday he had a word with me: I understand your daughter is going to an Ivy League school – they are very liberal . . . I don’t have to tell you . . . And my response: between the home, her school and the church, I am confident that she is ready for college, wherever. He not only acquiesced; the following year and the next, my daughter was invited to speak to the students at her former high school to talk about how to be admitted in an Ivy. And while she was the first from that all-girls Catholic school to go to an Ivy League school, more followed suit. (It was taken for granted that graduates would move on to a Jesuit college in the state or elsewhere.) The Monsignor was an efficient church administrator and the parish, thanks to the system he institutionalized, has been a model of financial viability; and, more importantly, a true church to the community. He was a friend to most everyone and would visit homes and break bread with families. And just like many of us, he had his favorite Italian restaurant, and had his particular taste of Italian wine. He even introduced my family to Key West (Florida): You want peace and quiet in your holiday, try Key West.

Culturally speaking – from two expatriates

Call it coincidence. I was reviewing my notes before flying to Tallinn (Estonia) to make a presentation to the European culture-management community about culture in an organization – how it is created and maintained – and in the news was the “Asia CEO Forum’s Leadership Summit about Filipino idiosyncrasies.” [Manila Bulletin, 16th Sept 2013] For many years at my old MNC company, I was the de facto Asian desk. And the Malaysian expatriate who spoke about their success in PHL being sensitive to Pinoy culture reminded me of my own introduction to Malaysia. Like in most of Asia, relationships are the first imperative – and the Malaysian expat’s instincts I thought were true to form. The challenge is with Westerners. Yet it is dangerous to generalize. For example, the most culture-sensitive I would remember in the expatriate community were a Dane and an Australian. Yet there were also a Dane and an Australian that couldn’t figure out the Asian culture.

 

“Filipinos not only tend to avoid conflict, but problems as well. Problems are there to be solved, but some Filipinos may think that if they just leave it alone, it will go away. But I tend to think that the first mistake is often the cheapest so let’s try to get straight to it and get it resolved,” said the Dane in the Manila Bulletin article. And from the Malaysian: “We have to create a sustainable talent pool here in the Philippines. In my own opinion, the Philippines is favorable today because of the cheap labor, but one day, maybe 15 years from now, that would not be the case. To make this place sustainable, we need to bring research and development to the country. We need to be engaged in that sector of the business. To make that happen, we need to develop local leaders.”

 

What I shared with the Europeans: It is important for an organization and its people, irrespective of nationality or culture, “to sign up to the enterprise’s reason for being." And that presupposes treating everyone as an equal – otherwise, why engage them about the object of the exercise? The problem with some organizations, including local PHL firms and even MNCs, is they don’t want to share that with the people. And it sends the signal that the enterprise is a “command and control” environment. The one characteristic of a well-known MNC that we came to know about (through the people that left them and joined my friends in Eastern Europe), for example, was their “mantra of execution.” They didn’t realize that despite the efforts they put behind training and developing their people, there was no clarity in the organization’s reason for being. It was assumed that everyone knew the drill. Yet apparently people felt more like robots. (In contrast, working with my friends, these people found meaning at work.)

 

And the reason for that could be secrecy rules; for example, some don’t want to talk about the profit motive, among others. But successful enterprises are such precisely because they are a sustainable economic activity. And which is why even in ex-socialist Eastern Europe, people had to understand the “whys” of the profit motive – and that secrecy doesn't rule. And that means beyond the drive for profit is the sensitivity and commitment to transparency and integrity; and that means being a good corporate citizen within and without, being ethical and responsible, giving not simply taking. (I understood that even Europeans may not be unequivocal about transparency as a French-Canadian and a French-Dutch, from academe, approached me in Tallinn awed that my Bulgarian friends responded to the challenge posed before them.)

 

Once the organization’s reason for being is crystal clear, then it is imperative to reinforce the egalitarian footing of the enterprise: the business goals are understood, shared and owned by the organization and its people. And so commitment and motivation is internalized by everyone, and that assumes that it is a marketplace of ideas: who will do what, when, where, why and how – including “what’s in it for me.” People come together to spell those out being an honest-to-goodness team environment. And which is why, for example, the Balanced Scorecard became a global phenomenon – it facilitates goal alignment. (Disclosure: I opted against it because the process could overshadow “the object of the exercise,” i.e., we had to find a simpler way to institutionalize the process.)

 

Culture management is among the soft and the hard elements found in successful enterprises – which is also true for infrastructure, i.e., it is not only hard but soft as well. And that is why the expats in the summit touched on problem solving and leadership. We Pinoys can’t be all soft. Subservience by definition emboldens the powerful! Put another way, in a democracy we will always get the leadership that we deserve!

Problem-solving and leadership

“Filipinos not only tend to avoid conflict, but problems as well.” That came from a Dane at the “Asia CEO Forum’s Leadership Summit about Filipino idiosyncrasies.” [Manila Bulletin, Tricia V. Morente, 16th Sept 2013] “To make this place sustainable, we need to bring research and development to the country. We need to be engaged in that sector of the business. To make that happen, we need to develop local leaders.” And that’s from a Malaysian.

 

Problem-solving and leadership. Reflecting on them a bit, that was precisely the culture shock that hit me when my old MNC company moved me to the headquarters. And I didn't automatically get it. I remembered back in PHL we always were proud of “being resilient.” I finally realized that it was a euphemism for our instinct of inaction? And even the OFW and BPO phenomena happened because we didn’t want to pursue industrialization since it demanded opening up our economy to foreign investments and that would mean stepping on the toes of our cacique masters – our definition of patriotism? We like to write our own rules and so about morality, we would denounce in the strongest terms divorce, contraception and abortion but be in bed with oligarchy – to which Francis was critical because of his Latin American experience, while embracing a divorcee, for example, and describing himself as "I am a sinner"? Or to Rizal much earlier, we were backward, anti-progress, etc., etc.? And the proof is all around us?

 

We couldn’t or wouldn’t or shouldn’t act because we would be stepping on someone else’s toes? But we’re just being compassionate – and/or subservient to hierarchy? In short, is it simply the human condition – of taking the path of least resistance? The bottom line: We are economic laggards owing to our pathetic levels of investment, technology, innovation, education, product and market development – and the ultimate reward being underdevelopment?

 

Thus the only option left is fatalism because we’ve run away from problem-solving? And consequently we’re not developing leadership in Juan de la Cruz because followership comes hand in glove with our instincts? And so while we supply the greatest numbers of seafarers to the world, the Pinoy ship captain is the exception not the rule? And when we hear that the wealthiest Filipinos are the Chinoys, our knee-jerk is “man does not live by bread alone”? ‘Pinoy abilidad’ could make anything sound good, but it is not about setting higher goals?

 

It is a worldwide phenomenon that minorities in a country are motivated to excel because the cards are stacked against them. But that doesn’t mean the rest ought to just claim happiness? That is truly stretching Greek philosophy and yet we’d rather claim that we are among if not the happiest people on earth? Who cares if the world has reduced poverty and we can’t? As a consultant from Denmark explained, "We were reported to be the happiest people yet we have the highest suicide rate. It is about all those "freebies" that come with our socialist system, which we in fact pay for in higher taxes. But there must be a big bunch of freeloaders that give us the good rating and enough of those that give us the dreadful image. And Denmark’s population is less than 6 million." While a French-Canadian psychology guru offered, "the goal of our efforts must be the betterment of man."

 

With due respect, President Aquino’s credibility to the outside world may have gained sympathy but it has yet to win investors – because investment is not just soft, it is likewise hard, like the imperative of healthy returns. And so while we are riveted on the pork scam, we like to think that President Aquino’s “daang matuwid” per se would win the day? In a grade school experiment we first planted mongo seeds before we saw the sprouts? Put another way, some hypotheses or arguments that we may hold dear don't hold water? We need mass and weight to power a select few industry sectors and be globally competitive; unfortunately, we don’t see crab mentality when we spread resources thinly? And consequently we get feeble outcomes? And why in this blog Pareto's 80-20 rule is a recurring theme.

 

When I presented the case study of my Eastern European friends to the European culture-management community during their recent conference, I warned them upfront that the secret (in the former being named one of the EU’s best and fastest growing companies) was really very simple. During the conference we heard lots of theories and on the final day of the conference my goal was to demonstrate how a few select themes had delivered results – or what in this day and age Google calls analytics. But before the days of computing and communication, it was simply expressed as "separating the wheat from the chaff."

Mission accomplished – the war or the economy?

The image of the swagger displayed by George W. Bush aboard an aircraft carrier would come back when President Aquino declared that he was in-charge of the Zamboanga armed conflict? Meanwhile President Ramos, schooled as a soldier, expressed concern about "collateral damage" – as contemporary wars have in fact taught the world. On the other hand, President Aquino must be commended for taking the leadership role when leadership is demanded. Thus, the world has applauded his "daang matuwid," as in "kung walang 'corrupt' walang mahirap." He indeed put his finger on the heart of our being economic laggards. In contrast to Ramos, Aquino was schooled as an economist. The challenge is how to push the envelope? He has talked about "the Philippines is back in business" and that oligopoly is not the way to a level playing field, and that competition elicits the best in people, in enterprises and in economies.

 

If the president could be away from Malacañang to personally direct an armed conflict, he could likewise personally direct our economic development efforts, including addressing oligopoly? And he could start by giving the orders to prioritize, plan and accelerate the execution of infrastructure projects, with power at the top of the priority list? Beyond saying "yayaman lang diyan si MVP" (translates to: awarding them that infrastructure project will only enrich MVP), he ought to put a stop to oligopoly? For example, by amending the "negative list" and thus create room for foreign investment and technology. Speaking from both sides of our mouth has sent the wrong signal to foreign investment for the longest time? We need clarity in our thinking and consistency in our pronouncements and actuations? It's not easy and will demand from Juan de la Cruz to embrace transparency instead of cheerleading and reinforcing subservience to our cacique masters? It wasn't easy for China either to meld communism with capitalism?

 

If we were able to open the doors to foreign gambling's suspicious characters, should we then pause and consider if in fact the multiplier effect of manufacturing investments especially driven by technology will be greater than gambling, because the latter has a pretty low value-addition? Gambling on Sentosa Island in Singapore came about only after industrialization was clearly in place, making Singapore a First-World economy; and so that locals would no longer take their gambling monies to neighboring countries? Translation: we seem to copy the wrong model instead of the right economic model? Yet didn’t we elect two economists in the recent past?

Moreover, the president could take charge and dialogue with the JFC (they represent foreign investments that we claim we want to attract) in order to confirm or update their 7 industry winners and, as importantly, pull out all the stops and get these industries off the drawing board sooner than later – and usher what we sorely need, a vibrant industrial base? We need “mass and weight” in investment levels if we are to attain competitive advantage in whatever set of industry winners we identify and define. We need some quick hits and wins – because we need at least a generation to approximate a developed economy, and indeed that brings despair. But we can't keep our head stuck in the sand because of crab mentality? Our mental model is in lockstep with conglomerates where a CEO could run 50 companies; but given that we're an oligopoly we've demonstrated no real concern about regional much less global competition? Unsurprisingly, we've institutionalized political patronage and kept our economy closed and restrictive to foreign investment and by extension technology? Ergo: PHL is the least competitive within ASEAN, and its people the poorest. And with due respect, social programs are not the simple answer! Remember Clinton? It’s still the economy!

 

How do we deal with the 50 industries that are working on their road maps? What is our understanding of “an economy that has a level playing field”? For example, these industries must demonstrate that they have the ability to compete beyond our shores. And that starts with the right products – it is not about seeking government support in organizing foreign roadshows with products that are not targeted to specific consumers or customers, because they have not been defined to match a competitive and winning product promise; and thus such products are guaranteed losers. On the other hand, the right products have (a) committed competitive levels of investment, (b) tapped into state-of-the-art technology, (c) geared to move up the value-addition chain and reinforced by the organization’s innovation culture in order to sustain competitiveness, and (d) in place is the requisite market development infrastructure.

 

Two expatriates said that we Pinoys: (a) avoid not only conflicts but also problems, and (b) must develop leaders. President Aquino could then demonstrate both leadership and problem-solving in one fell swoop? Or we could instead demonstrate that we are indeed all talk and no action? For example, we need big tickets items like incremental exports of over $100 billion. But we have yet to internalize the 80-20 rule; so we’ve been pushing a zillion things (i.e., our “bida culture”) without “the end in view” thus have missed the bottom line for decades, i.e., our GDP per person remains woeful!