Beyond talking to ourselves

Benchmark. Benchmark. Benchmark. “WHICH Asian country has roared ahead over the past quarter-century, with millions of its people escaping poverty? And which Asian economy, still mainly rural, will be the continent’s next dynamo? Most would probably respond ‘China’ to the first question and ‘India’ to the second. But these answers would overlook a country that, in any other part of the world, would stand out for its past success and future promise.” [The other Asian tiger, Vietnam's economy, The Economist, 6th Aug 2016]

The following have all the right words – and indeed have the best of intentions. But how do they differ from how we heard teachings before? What if education is not a top-down process or is not spoon-feeding? Education is the training of the mind to think, so says Einstein?

“DTI encourages firms to support MSME through Inclusive Business,” Bernie Magkilat, Manila Bulletin, 5th Aug 2016. “The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has encouraged chief executives of big companies to develop and promote the involvement of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) in the ASEAN region’s production network and supply chain.”

What can we learn from Vietnam? “Vietnam dramatically simplified its trade rules in the 1990s. Trade now accounts for roughly 150% of GDP, more than any other country at its income level. The government barred officials from forcing foreigners to buy inputs domestically. Contrast that with local-content rules in Indonesia. Foreign firms have flocked to Vietnam and make about two-thirds of Vietnamese exports.

“Allied to openness is flexibility. The government has encouraged competition among its 63 provinces. Ho Chi Minh City has forged ahead with industrial parks, Danang has gone high-tech and the north is scooping up manufacturers as they exit China. The result is a diversified economy able to withstand shocks, including a property bust in 2011.”

Can we get pass the first hurdle of the Vietnam model, that is, “bar officials from forcing foreigners to buy inputs domestically.” Or do we see it as anathema to “inclusiveness”? What about the next, “encourage competition among its 63 provinces”? Or does that run counter to “the bias against Imperial Manila” – that is the justification for federalism?

What do we need beyond exhorting the business community to come together and become an integrated supply chain? Consider: our biggest enterprises are the product of our “Pinoy kasi” business model – nurtured by our parochial, hierarchical and paternalistic instincts and glorified by our system of political patronage, cronyism and oligarchy. A true success model must foster the common good and good governance, not cronyism. If once war-torn Vietnam is not to leave us in the dust.

“At the same time Vietnam, like China, has been clear-minded about the direction it must take. Perhaps most important has been a focus on education. Vietnamese 15-year-olds do as well in maths and sciences as their German peers. Vietnam spends more on schools than most countries at a similar level of development, and focuses on the basics: boosting enrolment and training teachers. The investment is pivotal to making the most of trade opportunities. Factories may be more automated, but the machines still need operators. Workers must be literate, numerate and able to handle complex instructions. Vietnam is producing the right skills. Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia lag behind, despite being wealthier.”

What about education? Consider: we need to “learn” about community – not the parochial or regional kind – but the bigger global community. If education is the training of the mind to think, then federalism – as an “community” option – needs to be internalized not lectured. [Likewise, democracy and the rule of law isn’t realized via the barrel of a gun. We don’t want to undo whatever freedom and democracy we have under our belt? Does President Duterte know the endgame of the war on drugs? Great leadership begins with the end in mind. Remember Marcos? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? We must grow up if we are to be equal to the task – of self-government.]

What about global competitiveness – which is the next critical test of the Vietnam model? For example, the Americans and the Brits are struggling to register more exports than imports after the West lost manufacturing to China. And more so when technology/automation translated to less employment. Yet the Japanese and the Germans seem to keep their economies on an even keel because they are able to exploit the bigger global market via their world-class products.

And so we have to wonder if our parochial and hierarchical instincts are a barrier to innovation and global competitiveness? Recall how under the Soviet system – because of centralized planning – products and prices were dictated from the top while the empire was isolated from the rest of the world. In the Philippines, bosses would dictate the mantra – of low-quality and low-prices – given our bias for inclusion?

And we romanticize it as “marketing to the bottom of the pyramid.” With due respect to the Indian guru that coined the terminology, India is a hierarchical system and structure with over a billion people. And that makes for a humongous market. But doesn’t translate – and respond – to the imperative of globally competitive products. The evidence? Nokia focused on the bottom of the pyramid and created cheap cell phones for the Indian and Chinese markets – and where is Nokia now? And Procter & Gamble too, in China.

Competition is about respecting the next guy, whether rich or poor. It is about human need. And Maslow gave the world a peek into that intimate realm. It is not about consumerism but progress and development – modernity, if you will – and the wellbeing of man. One can sail the Atlantic at leisure like the good old days but flying the 787 Dreamliner is the way to go when time is of the essence.

And consider the law of averages if not Pareto’s 80-20 rule. What to do with our MSMEs when they account for over 99% of enterprises and employ over two-thirds of the labor force yet deliver only a third (or a bit more) of economic output?

Not all MSMEs can be geared for global competition. And an accelerated program – like the “QBO Innovation Hub for startups and technology innovation entrepreneurs” – is a step in the right direction. [IdeaSpace, DTI launch new innovation hub, Bernie Magkilat, Manila Bulletin, 9th Aug 2016].

Because we need a true best-practice model sooner than later for the rest of PH industry to emulate. It is not about credit access or shared services per se. They must be made available, indeed. Yet the key remains: we must rapidly be schooled on developing globally competitive products – that respond to human needs. [Consider: “Exports drop for 15th straight month in June,” The Philippine Star, 11th Aug 2016.]

And that has to be against the backdrop of the building blocks of an economy – that is, beyond industry, and for industry to sprout, we must have a fix on power and infrastructure. “‘To build industry, we must first address our enabling infrastructure – roads, utilities, power, water, communication and ports. If we want to be competitive, we start with local governance.’ The newly installed Butuan city Mayor Ronnie Vicente Lagnada . . . also cited the importance of creating domestic Eco zones in the region to upgrade its industries.” [DTI urges Mindanao farmers to move up the value chain, Bernie Magkilat, Manila Bulletin, 5th Aug 2016]

Indeed, global competitiveness is not a cakewalk. Yet it is imperative that we get education the sooner the better. It is a huge challenge. That even one of the world’s most innovative and competitive companies grapples with it.

“Can Procter & Gamble Find Its Aim Again? It’s been a humbling decade for the consumer products giant. Now leaner and more focused, with its third CEO in three years, can the king of brands regain its relevance after years of subpar returns?

“On the ninth and 10th floors of Procter & Gamble’s Cincinnati headquarters, in a secure area that few are permitted to enter, sits the company’s Retail Innovation Center. The “I,” as it’s known, is slick and highly digital. P&G’s top executives believe it contains the ingredients of the company’s coming turnaround.

“The center, which existed at another location for years but was revamped and moved in 2015, aims to tell P&G’s story to its major customers. There are video case studies of disrupters, from Uber to Airbnb. There are mocked-up shelves of both P&G’s and competitors’ products and rooms set up to show P&G items in their intended habitats (such as a baby’s room with a diaper table in a suburban home and a laundry setup in an apartment). One room is being prepared for a feminine-care presentation, with lingerie, pads, and tampons demonstrating various levels of absorbency. This is serious business.

“An enormous screen in the first room allows users to click on stories showing how new technologies and marketing strategies are used. It’s mesmerizing. But there’s something odd: None of the hundreds of examples are P&G’s own innovations. That’s by design, say its creators, who want visiting customers from the likes of Walmart and Target to be startled by the pace of change, and then move on to learn more about what P&G is doing to change the consumer business. It uses big data to create customized analytics for every customer. The goal: convince people that P&G is modern, fresh, and ready to compete in this new and uncertain world.

“But the sheer number of disruptive ideas depicted from outfits other than P&G underscores the fact that the $78.8-billion-in-sales company has had so few of them of late. It’s unexpected, considering the unparalleled innovation history of P&G.” [Jennifer Reingold,Fortune, 15th Jun 2016]

The “mindset change towards entrepreneurial attitude” espoused by the DTI is well and good. But as marketers know full well, marketing starts with the first “P” which is the product. We need state-of-the-art technologies – and contemporary marketing expertise – if we are to be synonymous to innovation and be globally competitive. “Simply put, without effective technology transfer, we will not have true agriculture development. Let us learn from our own cacao experience.” [Technology transfer, agriculture development and cacao, Ernesto M. Ordoñez,  Philippine Daily Inquirer, 10th Aug 2016]

“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]

The genie is out of the bottle: History/Modernity 101

“From the discovery of the wheel to the launch of the World Wide Web, key advancements have changed the way the human species lives.” [Top Ten Greatest Inventions that Changed the World, Lydia Smith, www.ibtimes.co.uk, 29th Sep 2014] 

What happened to the good old days? Man didn’t even need “clothing” until he was driven out of Eden? “Paper was invented in ancient China . . . Earlier materials used [papyrus, parchment, palm leaves] were expensive and in short supply, but paper [from wood, rags] could be processed everywhere and provided a cheaper alternative . . .” [Smith, op. cit.]

“Paper . . . is the biggest casualty of the decade. With most communication now conducted online . . . paper is now on serious life support . . . after a 2,000-year reign.” [21 Things That Became Obsolete This Decade, Bianca Male, Business Insider, 11th Dec 2009]

Should we turn back the hands of time? A friend tells the wife and writer that she’s traveling to the Philippines to visit their call-center service provider and get the latest batch they hired up to speed. “We have a US-domestic operation but prefer the Philippines. Our graduates won’t do call-center nor the night-shift. And the Philippine time zone is just perfect – and we get college-educated people at lower costs.” [If we don’t value insularity in the BPO industry, why don’t we go beyond? Confused or what?]

An Australian friend recently spent a week in the UK. “Globalization is good for you and me. But I met people that aren’t meant to be expatriates and felt Brexit is the only option for them.” Is globalization bad for the average Joe – which explains the Trump phenomenon, and the like? What about the big guys?

“Yahoo’s Sale to Verizon Ends an Era for a Web Pioneer,” Vindu Goel and Michael J. de la Merced, The New York Times, 24th Jul 2016. “Yahoo was the front door to the web for an early generation of internet users.

“But the internet is an unforgiving place for yesterday’s great idea . . . The board . . . has agreed to sell Yahoo’s core internet operations and land holdings to Verizon Communications for $4.8 billion . . . After the sale, Yahoo shareholders will be left with about $41 billion in investments in . . . Alibaba, Yahoo Japan and a small portfolio of patents. That compares with Yahoo’s peak value of more than $125 billion.

“Founded in 1994, Yahoo was one of the last independently operated pioneers of the web . . . Started as a directory of websites, the company was soon doing much more, offering searches, email, shopping and news . . . In the end, the company was done in by Google and Facebook . . . that figured out that survival required a continuous process of reinvention and staying ahead of the next big thing. Yahoo, which flirted with buying both companies . . . watched its fortunes sink as users moved on to apps and social networks.”

“From the iPhone to the Garmin, advancements and gadgets introduced this decade changed the whole world. They've affected how we live, do business, acquire information, and connect with others . . . In the process, a few things that once were considered social mainstays are now either obsolete or well on their way.” [Male, op. cit.]

Should we turn back the hands of time? Imagine if we never knew about the Top Ten Greatest Inventions that Changed the World: (1) Compass; (2) Internal combustion engine; (3) Computer; (4) Penicillin; (5) Wheel; (6) World Wide Web; (7) Light bulb; (8) Contraception; (9) Telephone; (10) Paper. [Smith, op. cit.]

And imagine old Europe. “The European Union is set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbors, which culminated in the Second World War. As of 1950, the European Coal and Steel Community begins to unite European countries economically and politically in order to secure lasting peace. The six founding countries are Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The 1950s are dominated by a cold war between east and west. Protests in Hungary against the Communist regime are put down by Soviet tanks in 1956. In 1957, the Treaty of Rome creates the European Economic Community (EEC), or ‘Common Market’.

“The 1960s is a good period for the economy, helped by the fact that EU countries stop charging custom duties when they trade with each other. They also agree joint control over food production, so that everybody now has enough to eat – and soon there is even surplus agricultural produce. May 1968 becomes famous for student riots in Paris, and many changes in society and behavior become associated with the so-called ’68-generation’.

“Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom join the European Union on 1 January 1973, raising the number of Member States to nine. The short, yet brutal, Arab-Israeli war of October 1973 results in an energy crisis and economic problems in Europe. The last right-wing dictatorships in Europe come to an end with the overthrow of the Salazar regime in Portugal in 1974 and the death of General Franco of Spain in 1975. The EU regional policy starts to transfer huge sums of money to create jobs and infrastructure in poorer areas. The European Parliament increases its influence in EU affairs and in 1979 all citizens can, for the first time, elect their members directly. The fight against pollution intensifies in the 1970s.

“The Polish trade union, Solidarność, and its leader Lech Walesa, become household names across Europe and the world following the Gdansk shipyard strikes in the summer of 1980. In 1981, Greece becomes the 10th member of the EU, and Spain and Portugal follow five years later. In 1986 the Single European Act is signed. This is a treaty which provides the basis for a vast six-year program aimed at sorting out the problems with the free flow of trade across EU borders and thus creates the ‘Single Market’. There is major political upheaval when, on 9 November 1989, the Berlin Wall is pulled down and the border between East and West Germany is opened for the first time in 28 years. This leads to the reunification of Germany, when both East and West Germany are united in October 1990.

“With the collapse of communism across central and eastern Europe, Europeans become closer neighbors. In 1993 the Single Market is completed with the 'four freedoms' of: movement of goods, services, people and money. The 1990s is also the decade of two treaties: the ‘Maastricht’ Treaty on European Union in 1993 and the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999. People are concerned about how to protect the environment and also how Europeans can act together when it comes to security and defense matters. In 1995 the EU gains three more new members: Austria, Finland and Sweden. A small village in Luxembourg gives its name to the ‘Schengen’ agreements that gradually allow people to travel without having their passports checked at the borders. Millions of young people study in other countries with EU support.

“The euro is now the new currency for many Europeans. 11 September 2001 becomes synonymous with the 'War on Terror' after hijacked airliners are flown into buildings in New York and Washington. EU countries begin to work much more closely together to fight crime. The political divisions between east and west Europe are finally declared healed when no fewer than 10 new countries join the EU in 2004, followed by Bulgaria and Romania in 2007. A financial crisis hits the global economy in September 2008. The Treaty of Lisbon is ratified by all EU countries before entering into force in 2009. It provides the EU with modern institutions and more efficient working methods.

“The global economic crisis strikes hard in Europe. The EU helps several countries to confront their difficulties and establishes the 'Banking Union' to ensure safer and more reliable banks. Croatia becomes the 28th member of the EU in 2013. Climate change is still high on the agenda and leaders agree to reduce harmful emissions. European elections are held in 2014 and more Euro sceptics are elected into the European Parliament. A new security policy is established in the wake of the annexation of Crimea by Russia. Religious extremism increases in the Middle East and various countries and regions around the world, leading to unrest and wars which result in many people fleeing their homes and seeking refuge in Europe. The EU is not only faced with the dilemma of how to take care of them, but also finds itself the target of several terrorist attacks.” [The history of the European Union, http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/index_en.htm]

And history repeats. That is, man despite his inherent capacity (i.e., the image and likeness of The Creator) retreats into his shell when threatened. And threats could come from wherever. Thus the dichotomy, e.g., globalization means big opportunity that comes with big competition – and threats that must be managed. That is, “Man is the measure of all things.” [Protagoras]

“In 1940, as the United States debated whether to enter World War II, British spies disseminated rumors to discredit prominent American isolationists and worked to promote politicians who favored intervention.” [Donald Trump’s Appeal to Russia Shocks Foreign Policy Experts, Max Fisher, The Interpreter, The New York Times, 28th Jul 2016]

And what about today? “Support for Brexit was strongest among pensioners, around 60% of whom voted to Leave. Those who did so in order to limit migration may find, too late, that they were the ones who needed it most.

“One in 20 people employed in adult social care—which includes old folks’ homes and social work, for instance—is EU-born, a total of about 75,000 people. The sector is already acutely understaffed: last year there were 70,000 unfilled vacancies.” [Somebody call a doctor, Brexit and public services, The Economist, 30th Jul 2016].

“Britain's vote in June to leave the EU has brought economic uncertainty to the fore . . . one survey of business activity recorded its sharpest drop in 20 years . . . Brexit and a weaker pound make for a weaker share price; Qatar Airways raises its equity to 20% in British Airways' parent, IAG.  [The Economist, 6th Aug 2016]

“Bank of England wields stimulus ‘sledgehammer’ to beat Brexit blues – cut interest rate to a record-low 0.25 percent.” [Reuters, 4th Aug 2016]. And leaves little elbow room but print money in future. In the meantime, Japan and Germany – while losing manufacturing jobs given China and, as importantly, automation like peers in the West – export more than import to keep their economies on an even keel.

“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]

 “As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

 “Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]

What is the national agenda?

Among others, the Duterte administration is: (a) pursuing the drug war; (b) gearing up to fix Metro Manila traffic; (c) fast-tracking infrastructure; (d) poised to lower taxes; (d) focusing on MSMEs; (e) setting the stage to open the economy; (f) keen to move to a federal from the current unitary system; etc., etc. One needs the granting of emergency powers to the president to be able to act with dispatch; and a couple need constitutional change.

They may be the right agenda items. But where are we really? Do we know and in fact acknowledge where we are that we could figure out where we want to be, and how we will get there?

We recognize that despite being one of the fastest growing economies we remain the regional laggard and are faced with persistent poverty. But let’s dissect that.

And start with what we proudly call a consumption-driven economy. Simply, it is the outcome (or the effect) of OFW remittances (being the cause) and more recently the BPO industry. But now we know they can’t lift us to developed-country status. [On the other hand, our neighbors are well on their way if they’re not there yet because of their focus on industry/manufacturing given its greater multiplier or knock on effect on economic output than services.]

The phenomenon is not a mystery: good enough is never good enough. Except to Juan Tamad, “pwede na ‘yan”? Instead of figuring out the why, we made the assumption – and took it as valid – that our consumption-driven economy is not inclusive. Because we created more billionaires than at any time in our post-war history yet persistent poverty confronts us.

From “good enough is never good enough” . . . we jumped to . . . “it’s not inclusive.” It is not inclusive because . . . it wasn’t good enough to begin with! Did we take cause and effect for granted? Not surprisingly, we find ourselves enduring la-la land – like a ship adrift? Benchmark. Benchmark. Benchmark. 

And given poverty is more acute in the provinces, inclusion must have a bias against Metro Manila in favor of the rural areas? And we traced such neglect to poor governance that in response, the previous Aquino administration pursued “daang matuwid.”

Yet we’re still in a black hole? Where does poor governance begin? Why did we banish three presidents? But being compassionate, two, Estrada and Macapagal-Arroyo, have been resurrected while the Marcos name has multiplied into a dynasty – the common denominator of all three. Ergo: ours is culture of impunity, not the rule of law.

But the rule of law doesn’t mean more laws. In fact, international institutions have challenged us to simplify our rules and regulations and laws and statutes.

Still, we enacted into law the party-list system and now want to move forward with federalism? That is, we believe that if we are to attain inclusion, what better way than “direct democracy”? Direct democracy will be the counterweight to political patronage and dynasties and cronyism and oligarchy?

But where are we really? “From 2004 to 2013, there was a 47-percent increase of Philippine dynasties. Provinces began with ‘slight’ dynasties. By 2013, the dynasties became ‘fatter.’ A dynasty is fat if there are multiple family members occupying various elected offices in the province during the same term, the ‘sabay-sabay’ variety. The fattest dynasties or those with the most number of family members in elective office are seen to be concentrated in the poorest regions of the country.

“Poverty breeds strong patron-client relationships. Voters vote according to utang na loob (debt of gratitude). It is not just meaningful choice that is taken away from the voter. Dynasties are hotbeds of corruption. They also undermine the rule of law.

[Consider]: ‘After one representative was found guilty of murdering the sons of his political rival, his seat in the House was taken over by his wife, ensuring that the family name remained relevant long enough for him to seek reelection after the appellate court cleared him of all charges.’

“Politicians regale us with political gobbledygook when arguing for dynasties.” [Con-ass will create even fatter dynasties, Antonio Montalvan II, Kris-Crossing Mindanao, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 1st Aug 2016]

The bottom line: We have a problem with self-government. And that speaks volumes. What if we try character-building? Because if we don’t have the maturity for self-government, it will get worse before it gets better for Juan de la Cruz. There is no free lunch – and there’s no two ways about it. And we better get serious. Character education is what we need first and foremost.

“The measure of a man’s character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out.” [Thomas Babington Macauley (1800-1859), British historian and Whig politician; wrote extensively, his books on British history have been hailed as literary masterpieces; Wikipedia]

And in Rizal’s words, “Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.”

And a system like federalism can be beaten and is no panacea – to the challenge of non-inclusion – in the same manner that we can’t legislate integrity? Try the rule of law – but it presupposes character?

Given ours is a state of underdevelopment that comes with persistent poverty, we better learn from our neighbors and erect a three-legged stool – of agriculture and industry beyond services.

And granted that we’ve had a decent track record in classical economic interventions, i.e., fiscal and monetary policies expressed in tax incentives, tax reforms, interest rate and money supply management, among others . . .

Still, there is the dark side to our economic and political history. Our hierarchical system and structure (best exemplified by the elite class) has captured the nation’s cockpit – which in part explains why we had to unseat three presidents? That is to say, hierarchy, political patronage and dynasties, cronyism and oligarchy weave the fabric of poor governance as we know it?

The elite class is not boneheaded. They know that power, infrastructure and industry are the building blocks of an economy. And which explains why power, infrastructure and industry have long been held hostage to the detriment of Juan de la Cruz? 

Now we find ourselves deeper in the black hole, muddling through the supposed solutions to overcome what we consider our destiny: a fast growing economy that has remained the regional laggard, dogged by persistent poverty?

What will it take for us to break away from these shackles so that we are not at the mercy of the elite class? What if the Duterte administration gets the nation’s attention and focus on power, infrastructure and industry?

But is that the national agenda? Or is it to move to a federal system? Let’s test if that is the answer – to make the economy inclusive and address persistent poverty. Consider: given our underdevelopment if there must be a bias, it must be to aggressively drive the economy – and generate wealth not the politics that is the milking cow to many. And we will have a bigger challenge – i.e., dynasties and good governance – if in fact we moved to a federal system. Because it feeds on our parochial and hierarchical and paternalistic instincts – and easily undermines the common good.

We’ve heard from “balikbayans” that have lived through the system and from what we learned we’d rather be in the Philippines where the quality of life is better. Why? The honor system, egalitarian, paddle your own canoe, the common good. Those are among the mandatories of the system – if not Western-style democracy, which we have a problem with?

For example: “Approximately 70 percent of our legislators come from political dynasties. Forty percent of them have ties to legislators as far as three Congresses prior . . . 77 percent of legislators between the ages 26 and 40 are also dynastic, indicating that the malaise has metastasized to the second and third generations of political dynasties in the Philippines. Contrast that to the last US Congress where only 6 percent of members belonged to dynasties.

“Dynasties restrict choice . . . [O]ne family fielded a staggering 80 of its family members in the 2013 elections. Nancy Binay must be reminded that in the Philippines, votes are sold to the highest bidder—the fatter the dynasty, the bigger the amount for vote-buying. When suffrage is for sale, the voice of the people is not the voice of God. No rocket scientist is needed to figure that out.

“In fact, political dynasties devalue suffrage because they work against political inclusiveness. When power is concentrated in one family, political accountability becomes the next casualty. Corruption and then impunity lie not far behind.

“The study made by the AIM Policy Center . . . shows the correlation of political dynasties and their inimical effects on social development. Dynastic politicians tend to be more affluent than non-dynastic politicians; legislators who belong to political dynasties also win by wider margins relative to those who are not clan members (more public money to steal and buy votes with?); on average they can be found on jurisdictions that have relatively higher inequality and poverty levels.” [Montalvan, op. cit.]

Until we can undo the fabric of poor governance – hierarchy, political patronage and dynasties, cronyism and oligarchy – the nation shall be hostage to the forces responsible for our stunted development.

“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]

How do we connect the dots?

Consider the following articles about: (a) Pope Francis; (b) a Vision for the future; (c) Philippine agriculture; and (d) All-out support to MSMEs. How do we connect the dots?

“Not by might, nor by power. . .” [Zechariah 4:6]. “Richard Rohr's Daily Meditation,” 22nd Jul 2016. “Perfectionism discourages honest self-knowledge and basic humility . . . We grow spiritually much more by doing it wrong than by doing it right. God doesn't love you because you are good. God loves you because God is good!”

Perfection is not of this world. In other words, a hierarchical system and structure – given its inherent pretensions – is egregious. Not surprisingly, “The Vatican is striking back at conservative critics of Pope Francis’s landmark document on family life, ratcheting up its defense of the pope with new vigor . . .” [Vatican defends pope’s family document, Associated Press, Business Mirror, 23rd Jul 2016]

If we are to connect the dots, we must turn things on their heads – and “begin with the end in mind”? It is encouraging that “The Chamber of Commerce of the Philippine Islands, the original and oldest chamber, tracing its roots to 1886, has adopted the “History Builds the Future: 2030: Five Pillars.” PILLAR I: The Filipino and Education; PILLAR II: Philippine Government; PILLAR III: Infrastructure and Environment; PILLAR IV: Philippine Business; PILLAR V: The Economy.

“As the Duterte administration copes to alleviate the daily struggle of the Filipino, it needs to inspire our countrymen to overcome by visualizing what their future could be.” [Vision for the future: 2030, Melito Salazar Jr., Manila Bulletin, 17th Jul 2016]

How do we flesh up these pillars? For example: “Rural poverty and lack of productivity in Philippine agriculture trace their roots to many causes but the most serious shortcomings are: 1) the problems associated with small, fragmented farm holdings, 2) insufficient linkages of primary producers to markets, 3) lack of product diversification and value adding (processing) especially at the village level, and 4) failure to fully exploit the potential of our vast fisheries and aquatic resources.

“If we were to modernize our agriculture, to make it more productive, competitive, equitable and sustainable, these four major limitations must be addressed.” [Strategic directions for Philippine agriculture (Part I), Dr. Emil Javier, 23rd Jul 2016]

What about the broader industry, can it be more productive, competitive, equitable and sustainable? “The government is bent to give all-out support to micro enterprises in the country with the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) seeking to at least double its 2017 budget, half of which will go to the micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) while at the same time tapping the big private companies to embrace their small brothers become part their overall value chain.

“If we want to do more, double employment, we have to get close to double our budget to R6 billion,” [DTI Secretary Ramon Lopez] said.” [DTI pledges all-out support to MSMEs, Bernie Magkilat, Manila Bulletin, 23rd Jul 2016]

What is the premise of the initiative? “To do more.” Logical yet classic incremental thinking? What if we begin with the end in mind? And seek to attain a virtuous circle while challenging our mindset?

To do more – or even double employment – sounds good, yet “What the Philippines needs is not more jobs but better jobs … The quality of jobs being created was not meeting aspirations of young people entering labor market,’ said Jan Rutkowski, lead economist at the World Bank . . . The scarcity of ‘good jobs’ reflects the structure of the Philippine economy, where low value-added activities predominate. This is partly due to constraints in the investment climate and the high cost of doing business in the formal sector.” [WB cautions vs scrapping contractual work practice, Ben O. de Vera, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 18th Jun 2016]

We need a new paradigm – not more of the same? But what? “Indeed government must bridge the gap to address the needs of the poor, but it would take the combined effort of other sectors in society for economic gains to dramatically impact the bottom of the pyramid.

“It is also important to note that the Philippines’ economic growth has been largely consumer-driven. Tech luminary Dado Banatao . . . alluded to the need to shift from a consumer-driven to a creator economy. He pointed out that innovation and entrepreneurship are the new foundations for economic development and the means to open up opportunities for a wider cross-section of society.

[As an aside, we keep forgetting that OFW remittances, the source of our consumption-driven economy, grew by over 7% the last several years – and would explain why we were approximating China’s growth. And so it stands to reason why the Duterte administration vetoed the new office building plans for the Finance Department and NEDA?]

“Banatao added that growth rests primarily on the private sector’s ability to innovate and invest, as well as to create a generation of entrepreneurs who can respond to both local and global needs. Attaining the dream of inclusive growth means that the private sector cannot simply function on a ‘business as usual’ mode.

“A new mindset. A country such as the Philippines should be able to have the mindset of building ecosystems around sectors that can deliver on inclusive growth. Building ecosystems naturally start by taking a serious look at the challenges faced by SMEs (small and medium enterprises) today, such as resilience, equal opportunities for women, access to finance, and capacity-building.

“Furthermore, beyond addressing immediate challenges, a long-term view must be taken in building such ecosystems.” [Change via innovation and entrepreneurship, Jikyeong Kang, inquirerdotnet, 25th Jul 2016; Dr. Jikyeong Kang is president and dean of the Asian Institute of Management]

We take it as a given that Juan de la Cruz is about populism and compassion and inclusion? But developments in neuroscience have revealed that such consciousness without the benefit of empirical evidence is a fallacy. And what is the evidence? We’ve remained underdeveloped and the regional laggard despite: (a) the windfall from OFW remittances; and (b) our focus on poverty, e.g., CCT?

We may be proud of our consciousness – of compassion and inclusion – yet it hasn’t satisfied the needs of Juan de la Cruz? Nor will it deliver his future? And because we take our assumptions as valid, we succumb to “crab mentality” time and time again – paying a heavy price?

For instance, we still don’t have a good handle on: (a) power; (b) infrastructure; and (c) industry. And they are the building blocks of an economy. But we don’t think “building blocks” – and “think less, think better”? We like to be “holistic” yet calling something “holistic” without connecting the dots into an ecosystem doesn’t make it so.

There are 100 to 300 billion (if not 500 billion) galaxies in the universe yet we appreciate the ecosystem of our solar system depicted by the sun and the 8 planets – that simplified something truly complex for the layperson, including children. But as far as nation-building is concerned, we are “sabog,” neither here nor there? And have yet to figure out that the 7 industry winners from the JFC would be a good starting point to get industrialization going?  

Pareto’s 80-20 rule is an econometric model derived through academic rigor. And more to the point, once we’ve delivered on these building blocks we can move up to the next level. There is no perfect plan. Yet it pays to be crystal clear about “where we want to be” – e.g., to be a developed nation? And to be focused like a laser? It is the magic behind big data and analytics or the separation of the wheat from the chaff.  

Because a developed nation is a wealthy nation – and can afford a more robust safety net. Safety nets don’t deliver wealth. But wealth delivers not only safety nets but prosperity as well. The evidence? The Asian Tigers. Sadly, being in underdeveloped and reactive mode for decades, to be forward-looking and proactive is yet to become instinctive to us?

The writer’s Eastern European friends would articulate the point more profoundly given the dark ages they lived through under socialism – and communist rule. Consider: there was no homelessness nor joblessness. Jobs were assigned by the commissars who had unbridled power. There were no pay levels. Consumer products in local stores were uniformly priced at the equivalent of 50 euro cents. Yet there was no sense of accomplishment and motivation.

It was the reverse. For their self-respect, they would not put in a fair day's work and beat the system. In a town of 80,000 (the wife and the writer's introduction to Eastern Europe) they would be self-sufficient. It was the same size town as their suburban New York town. But there was the strong sense that they were frozen in time.  

There was such ugliness and eeriness when they would describe a communist apartment building, for example. Or how badly and poorly made were the trucks coming out of the local factory. Self-sufficient yet underdeveloped. [It was a mirage and unreal that the system collapsed under its own weight.] There was even a local brewery. Yet when the Danish Tuborg beer acquired the business, the difference in the quality of the facility and the products would be night and day. The underlying factor? Tuborg is a world-class and a globally competitive product. 

In the case of PH, would our hierarchical system structure get in the way of progress and development – as before – given rank and its privileges, including omnipotence?

“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]