We keep barking at the wrong tree . . .

. . . Our competitiveness dilemma – rooted in denial?

As we continue to debate where we stand economically as a nation, it is not surprising that there are those who are unwittingly prescribing a cure that unfortunately had brought us where we are today: and that is, with the supposed failure of the global economy, we ought to become an island unto ourselves.

On the other hand, the Japanese have finally learned that it is a two-way street: they cannot be open when they are driving exports yet closed for most everything else, e.g., they could use more migrants to mitigate their ageing population. And so they booted out the ruling party that had preserved the status quo for decades – they had to make someone account for their plummeting living standard.

Those who advocate being an island unto ourselves apparently have seen what it’s like outside the country. And they don’t like the quality of life in the developed world – señoritos are the exceptions? Seriously, they believe that every time our leaders had pursued reforms like opening our market, we had to pay a heavy price. But that is a truly narrow view of the world and is reflective of a parochial mindset – the list of countries more competitive and more open than we are is rather long?

The reality is – even in this day and age – we have industries that are crying to be protected: This is the 21st century and we still have industries that cannot stand on their own two feet? Or why in global competitiveness we are ranked below the median!

Of course there are farmers in the West – the US and Western Europe – that still cannot stand on their own two feet, and are protected by politicians opting to pander than to lead. Big guys and bullies will always be big guys and bullies. Life is not fair – as Adam and Eve must have thought. But despite its unfairness, countries that played it smart were able to overcome the imperfections of the global community. And we don’t have to go very far: Asian tigers have demonstrated that irrespective of the challenge – including the 1997 Asian financial crisis and the 2008 global financial meltdown – these neighbors displayed agility and robust economies.

We cannot argue simply and point to the imperfections of the world. We have to grow up and accept the reality that where we failed . . . others succeeded, warts and all – if we want a meaningful and productive self-examination? Nor can a silver bullet come from outside – because we have to dig deep into ourselves to find it?

On the other hand, we seem embarrassed by our ranking in global competitiveness – that we are treating the measures like a punch list of must-dos? In the spirit of nation-building, Ateneo or La Salle or Jollibee or Splash could share how they nurture competitiveness? We need to internalize two complementing imperatives: (a) we cannot continue to sub-optimize and marginalize our human resources by exporting maids and seamen, instead of exporting higher value-added products and services; and (b) industry must, in the first place, optimize capital by generating higher value-added product ideas and/or services targeted to the bigger market or, say, region of 600 million people like Malaysia does, beyond the 90 million Filipinos? The business section of our dailies should have a regular column on these imperatives rather than applauding monopolist tendencies!

These pillars of our economy (capital and human resources) are the critical building blocks where it is imperative that we inject competitiveness? Our failing marks against the competitiveness yardsticks are merely symptoms of what really ails us?

In the meantime hunger to 27-30 million Filipinos is real. The writer has used Fortune 500 as an example (early on) because in that environment problems are fixed or they pay dearly.