Political will

It is both top-down and bottom-up. From the top it is characterized by leadership; and from below it is a deep, intense commitment from the people. (It is the opposite of ‘que sera, sera’?) There now appears a brewing political will that as a country we want to be a developed nation – as President Aquino shared with the Singaporeans? Yet democracy is messy. And to mitigate the messiness, elected leaders are meant to reflect the will of the people.

President Aquino appears to exercise executive leadership, and there is a mechanism for him to work with the legislature, and with the judiciary too – without undermining the rule of law? As importantly, the administration’s investment-led economic growth program is supported by the private sector, including foreign investors. But it’s not a slam dunk? For example, stepping up infrastructure development means overcoming obstacles like corruption while ensuring transparency, tapping the right investors, the right builders and the right operators – and the imperative to make these projects viable, going-concerns. And in the case of power supply, there is the source-issue and the competing options, made more complex by Japan’s nuclear meltdown.

And in parallel we are pursuing strategic industries that would give the biggest bang for the buck because raising our revenues or GDP is a critical need – if we are to truly address poverty. (It doesn’t help the poor even if we want to redefine GDP, a classroom exercise!) And these industries, starting with the biggest exports – electronics – must likewise be globally competitive. Our local economy while seemingly robust doesn’t have the same potential as the global or even the regional market. And this is where our political will is challenged. And with OFW remittances driving the economy – and raising foreign exchange reserves and strengthening the peso – there is a view that says our economic fundamentals are strong, Bangko Sentral simply needs to raise the interest rate which it has done?

Yet in a globalized world, economies are sustained by competitiveness. Competitive economies are broad-based, driven by investments in technology and innovation; and talent, product and market development. Thus they generate the means to raise standards of living and ride economic cycles. We are over 90 million consumers and can power our consumption-driven industries. Yet our economy is lagging that of our neighbors – and we are faced with massive poverty? And in our scenario, it is not surprising that: (a) those concerned with poverty believe that our economy is not inclusive; and (b) others think market economy is the problem. Yet overriding them is the imperative for us to aggressively work hard to be a developed economy – i.e., the pie is too small, so says President Ramos? But it doesn’t mean we all have to be entrepreneurs – we need teachers and engineers and scientists and doctors and managers too!

The 5 biggest economies – the US, China, Japan, India and Germany – are all market economies. What got them to attain their revenue levels were their broad-based economies. And new economic powers like China and India have contributed to reducing global poverty. Yet more developed countries like the US have also to deal with poverty; although they have a different set of dynamics – e.g., cost-of-living and competition. To remain competitive, the US must be a truly knowledge-based economy, e.g., aerospace, ICT, biotech, etc. – beyond services and financial engineering . . . and the political will to fix the deficit. And we are a witness to the cost-index phenomenon: many South Koreans have moved to the Philippines, for instance, because of our lower cost-of-living; and for those entrepreneurially inclined, putting up a small business is a lot easier.

The US is not the model to benchmark our efforts against? Yet, it is important to recognize that Science & Technology is at the core of competitiveness – creating something tangible and of value? Ergo: we can’t skip manufacturing and just be a service economy? China and India, and even Indonesia – which is moving up fast – should be our model? And as our mothers would say, “If there’s a will there’s a way!” And what about pursuing a different system – i.e., not market economy? Then we can look at Eastern Europe? Simply put, to thrive in a market economy, we have to embrace not its ideology, e.g., what China has done, but its reality – of investments and their smart use?

Political will starts with being real. We can’t be more unreal than ever – moving from one fiasco to another: NAIA 3, ZTE, Laguna Lake rehab, Ro-Ro ports, etc.? And so the Inquirer blares: “PH lags in attracting foreign investors”