‘People are funny’

Which explains, according to a New York Times article (Oct 16^th), ‘the rise in popularity of behavioral economics, an effort to account for the slippery, indefinite nexus of money and humans’. And it continues: ‘The entire question of how emotion will change people’s behavior is pretty much outside the standard model of economics’.

The writer from early on has raised the impact of our culture on why we are where we are as an economy. Not that he is a behavioral economist – far from it – but having done business over 4 decades, and in many parts of the world, he is witness to how people could indeed be funny.

The writer, earlier in his career, benefited from the perceived sophistication of Filipinos given our access to developments in the West. And his task was to share these developments first with people in the region and later globally. The writer had watched in wonderment how in the region they scrupulously absorbed ideas apparently foreign to them; while Filipinos, on the other hand, demonstrated nonchalance – pride, indifference, lack of esprit de corps, whatever?

The writer is then the least surprised why we are where we are today as an economy; and why our neighbors are where they are! Sadly our attitudes haven’t changed all these years? Is our self-image fragile? Could we be objective and pursue something outside our comfort zone if it would do us good? For instance, in the 21^st century when the world including those unschooled in capitalism have embraced (e.g., aggressively tapping and driving investment) the fundamentals of the free market, we are still celebrating our OFWs; and the businesses that are flourishing because of them? Our OFWs live abnormal lives away from home, and despite best efforts won’t raise our GDP beyond third-world levels. Shouldn’t they be the object of our compassion – beyond facilitating their needs like remittances, they need an economy and industry that would let them take their lives back? They could relate to our ‘muchachos’ – at work practically 24/7 and away from family, i.e., ours is a señorito-muchacho culture?

Compassion seems to turn our sense of values upside down? For instance, how much do we feel compelled to protect an inefficient and unproductive industry, forgetting that the interest of the country is far greater than the interest of one sector? In the process, we have dispersed and dissipated scarce resources to the detriment of the greater good. Fundamental to economics is the optimum allocation of resources – and we have a well-developed economics discipline. Why? Our culture or ideology gets in the way? The writer has lived and worked with ex-socialists; and observed them adopt a system totally opposed to their up bring. Bottom line: there are fundamentals that can’t be overturned by compassion and/or ideology nor by ‘kuro-kuro’ – that we have yet to internalize, and why we are where we are as an economy, i.e., crab mentality?

The Aquino Administration ought to be encouraged given its apparent commitment to do good. But will culture undermine their efforts – i.e., why can’t they be straightforward about their value system? If the CEO of HP was dispensable, how could friends be above country – even Nixon and Clinton had to account for their follies?

We are embarking on a major industrialization initiative; and more complex choices between what’s good for one interest against others and country would collide. How would the administration handle these complexities? The simple answer or why successful institutions are thriving is because there is clarity in their value system. But given our instinct to personalize, do we miss the import of the greater good, and instead misread it as the absence of compassion – and being imposed upon, i.e., ‘suplado’?

The writer has raised the lesson of Eden before. Our faith has compassion at its core but not of the selfish kind – or Eden would still be around? The compassion (and the love) had come earlier – being made into the image and likeness of the Creator, i.e., we possess the capacity to excel?