Revenue, profit and productivity

It’s encouraging that the JFC (Joint Foreign Chambers) are continuing to share the meat of their proposal or the so-called seven big winners – being specific about the level of foreign direct investment ($75 billion) and the 10 million jobs they will generate over 10 years. It would help if they continue to share more details for the edification of the various sectors of society. (But shouldn’t we be plucking a low-hanging fruit, as a knee-jerk?)

If we are to start on solid footing in pursuit of the JFC initiative, we need to be of one mind – that as a nation we value and welcome foreign investment? Because if we don’t, once the ‘rubber hits the road’ we would find ourselves conflicted and in a dilemma? We can’t afford to be of two minds or two hearts in this endeavor – which we’ve manifested over many decades, i.e., on the one hand we welcome foreign investment on the other we unwittingly manifest our unease (that even Filipino entrepreneurs in Vietnam find that country more attractive to investors than the Philippines)? As Pacquiao would most likely say, a punch couldn’t be lacking in conviction? And global competition as an economic endeavor is much bigger than Pacquiao – because the lives of millions of Filipinos are on the line?

For instance, take infrastructure: our tycoons have tossed their hats into this arena – even if they don’t have the expertise other than invoking love of country (Rockefeller loved his country too, but he wasn’t allowed to own it)? Yet, of late, our airport and harbor have been in the news for all the wrong reasons – we have yet to raise them to world-class standards! Infrastructure is always controversy-prone as we saw in the World Bank investigation of our WB-funded road projects. To attract foreign investment in infrastructure, we can’t afford to be less than above-board. What if foreigners are the ones cozying with influence peddlers, then that is not the foreign investor that we need. What we need are those that will raise our competitiveness and thus elevate our economic output or GDP?

In short, crony capitalism must not stand in the way of any major effort to bring in $75 billion worth of foreign direct investment. It is easier said than done given our brand of nationalism and patriotism – i.e., we rail against oligarchy yet we condone it? But international rating agencies can be more critical – or why they downgraded San Miguel following its Petron investment, i.e., what is San Miguel up to? To simply say they want greater returns on their portfolio doesn’t say much – everybody does! The key is: what value-added are they bringing to Petron? Flexing one’s muscle may look good in a small country but in the global arena strategic intent must translate to and yield competitive advantage – i.e., to generate greater returns, but we don’t have a Gorbachev to say so?

We can’t reinvent the road to development: revenue, profit and productivity drive a competitive, sustainable economy – founded on enormous investment and competitiveness? We can’t squeeze blood from stone – with a GDP per person of $3,300 there is no way Filipino “abilidad” can squeeze 10X more from our economic model, and be a developed economy? We can’t generate sufficient investment at levels comparable to the Asian tigers even if we pool all our resources together in the name of patriotism, or despite crony capitalism – Filipino wealth invested overseas is less than $6B, i.e., we have no muscle to flex?

We can’t be tied down to the ‘benefit of the few’ – we have to be tied to ‘the common good’. Our hierarchical culture (i.e., lopsided economic structure) is not dedicated to the common good? Almsgiving does not equate to addressing poverty?

Economic development comes from rising economic output – i.e., revenue, profit and productivity. And they occur when there is enormous investment that elevates a nation’s competitiveness to world-class levels?