Economy, as I see, is a manifestation of a state’s primal need to survive. On the other hand, the government is created by those who believe in a unified approach in success. Yet another form of that primordial instinct to survive. Hence, by this basic transitivity, the government and its state’s economy is chained. Chained in the manner that the government, must, swiftly pull it’s economy to a long-term success and stable development. If so, then totalitarian would be the ideal government when economic development is concerned. If we follow such premise we arrive to something realizable given the preceding facts. True, if we’re dealing with a simple world with discrete truths and consequences with one factor as the government. But in reality, the government’s existence is only at its society’s mercy and that the economy is constituted with other factors. In the Philippines’ case its government plays as the guide, ideally, for private economies or individual market players that constitute to the whole of the country’s economy.
Growth and development is for and by the people. Growth in economic terms is the increase in the absolute value of real output measured by national income accounts. In the other hand, economic development is characterized by stable and increasing growth that usually inhibits socio-political changes. Hence, we can say that both ends of the so called development change is by far different in terms of growth, its peoples’ lifestyle and society itself. The question is, how can we develop? By the preceding facts, we can say that development is attained through growth which in part described by macroeconomic processes. Hence, the ’success’ of a state is defined by the state itself, that is, the people, its territory, sovereignty and its government. Here we can at least peek why governments such that of Russia, Romania, Czechoslovakia crumble grotesquely. Maybe, total control over a state in general violates the core foundation of growth and development, the people. Although totalitarianism is for equity, why do states in such governments slowly decapitate over time being left by democratic governments with free markets? By these facts and by trend, I say that free market is a prerequisite in development but not necessarily democracy.
Now that we have established the general role of the government, let us dissect its more specific jobs. Basically, the government’s task complements that of the people and its society’s. The society is self evolving and the government’s job is to stimulate and guide that evolution to development. This is absolutely true in the Philippines case given that we are comprised of a pyramid of groups and individuals constituting our baranggays, barrios, municipalities, labor unions, educational institutions, corporations etc. These entities are the major actors in this drama called economy by the government as the director to reach the end which is progress. The Philippine government’s answer to the problem of economic governance is the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA). NEDA was created for the purpose of having one planning head to assert problems of policy duplication and inconsistencies. But NEDA’s efforts are nothing if the voices of the people that constitutes the society is neglected. Indicative planning comes to action where individual market players including low-end producers discuss and share their idea of what the objectives should be for a strengthened economic future. This French way of development is adopted by our country for the historical lack of communication between the government planners and private entrepreneurs.
Yet, the innate social problem of equality and equity still lingers and plays a heavy burden in economic development. The income difference between the rich and poor is inherently oceans apart and yet to be resolved. Though we may say that the economic growth that the current Philippine regime boasts has increased the average income of its labor force, it still hasn’t changed the skewered statistics of large income standard deviation. In consequence, the poor is denied of a number of goods and services because of their low income. Following such argument, businesses are not able to thrive in places of low income distribution. If one should argue that the poor or at least the lower economic half of the Philippines is unable to climb the ladder is because they choose not to be competitive, he/she is impartially correct. It is true that the most basic rule of survival is to compete but the inevitability of failure is more likely to the poor majority. If to compete is to enter business, where will the poor get their capital? And if capital is not a problem, how about the taxes that larger businesses throw to smaller ones and to the people as a whole? At least we see that taxation which was devised to foster economic equity is doing its job quite well, sarcasm intended. If to compete is to strive for a better job, how can one earn sufficient income if the education that the government offer for free is the lowest in the country? And if to compete is to at least buy the most basic needs, where will they get the money? All of these questions are not answered by the society itself. It is not a part of that self evolving mechanism. It is the job of the government to provide answers to these questions. Even if true answers are not realizable and non-existent, there are always approximations.
By the year 1997, majority of East-Asian countries suffered from what was called the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. The crisis was marked start when the Thai government floated its currency, bhat, following a burden of foreign debt. Although the presence of such crisis was known and felt by that time, reasons were not clear. But the fact that the Philippines, together with its neighboring countries, suffered a considerable decline in economic growth and national income accounts by 1997, we cannot extract the ‘true’ growth of our country just by comparing it to succeeding and current economic state. In other terms, the contemporary GDP/GNP growth of our country is not out of the ordinary because we are basically reviving, if not just revived, from the crisis. Compared to South Korea that, together with Thailand, suffered greatly from the 1997 crisis has recovered indifferently better than the Philippines. With respect to our society and the national income accounts of 1997 and 2007, our country has grown fairly well. But relative to other economies, we’re doing quite poor. Following these facts, we can say that GNP, GDP, GDP per capita and other income accounts are just really numbers that is freely given meaning depending on the perspective. Hence, these accounts can be used to blind people and to cover faults of crashing economies.
Numerous government policies have already been issued and presented. Most of it, if not all, are authored by well-educated people. Better education, free-enterprise-based stability, agricultural modernization, comprehensive human development and other policies have been laid down since the start of the new century. Still, the question is why can’t we feel the change? What the government fails to see is that our country is different from that of America, Japan or UK. That we have been deeply bruised by humiliation and stripped-off of self-reliance and confidence. How can we compete if we are not competitive in the first place? The government stimulates us by amplifying our dependency on others, pushing us out of the state, disintegrating our hopes to our country. Even if they flood us with macro policies in education, which the youth cries out for quality, if they do not promote nationalism and believe for one’s self, our country will really be just a human factory for developed economies. The government should foster its society’s culture and use it as a tool to communicate with its people. A tool to unite the different ethno-linguistic groups of our nation. The problem why we cannot have a successful nation as a whole is that we do not know what really is our nation. Different culture is not a problem, the problem is that we do not have one concrete unifying entity that believes on our talents and understands our weaknesses. Yes it should be the government, but the government is ever busy to how the Philippines should be seen fine from the outside, disregarding the immense wound in the inside. I am not a social scientist nor an economist to formulate some empirical policy to manifest what I write. What I have here is an abstract idea of what the Philippine government should be realizing that it is not impossible. Self-reliance, confidence and nationalism.
Society, economy and politics is inseparable. They constitute to what we call our nation. The idea of a government, unlike what we usually perceive, is not a static uniform social entity that is patterned exclusively with each other – different states. Hence, we cannot compare two governments by how they resolve one matter but should be compared by the ends. But society should also play its part by fostering its creation, which is the government, in times when it fails to care for the former. Funny, true, because in our country’s case it is more likely that an infinite loop is created. Exactly my point, self-reliance is inevitably the break.
