I read the recent entries of in FilipinoVoices.com on the possibility Jun Lozada and Governor Panlilio might embark on blogging, with interest. I disagree with many of the assumptions Rom makes in Too Much. To wit: that there is anything particularly different between Philippine political blogs and those overseas; that the public tired of NBN-ZTE (my understanding is that when those Shenzen photos surfaced, Internet traffic spiked for Inquirer.net, and back to pre-Holy Week levels where they’d remained in the doldrums until then); that Ed Panlilio won by force of charisma (he has little of that; it was a revolt on the part of the traditional upper and middle classes of Pampanga, and a victory was barely eked out in the face of the mobilization of the poor, who, despite decades of Panlilio’s involvement with them, still gravitated to the Pineda machine); though I agree Lozada’s run of out anything new to say
I think Benj is wildly off the mark in The Worst-Case Scenario: The Cyber Crackdown. The infrastructure simply isn’t in place, either for regulating or monitoring content a la China (see the analysis of Chinese methods in my conference notes), or simply pulling the plug, a la Burma. Though China does provide the key to understanding how governments will tackle the Internet, not because domestic public opinion matters, but rather, in an effort to damage foreign public opinion. The Chinese government supposedly prefers to apply influence on potential critics to get them to engage in self-censorship, rather than provide ammunition to critical foreign observers by actually throwing bloggers in jail (though it’s done that, but perhaps more to make an initial point).
I’d think that in pragmatically allocating resources to neutralize critics, our government would make the Internet the least of its priorities, not because its an inconsequential field of battle, but rather, because it’s easier to neutralize. The way the government latched on to Bong Austero is a case in point. Whatever he meant or intended became irrelevant: his e-mail, having been produced by a private person helped give the impression that a middle-class constituency was mobilizing, spontaneously, to defend the administration. It was broadcast and repurposed and the buzz his e-mail created gained him a column.
The Internet is a wide field and blogs are just part of the landscape: there’s YouTube, where political messages are broadcast; there’s message boards and groups, where many of the older generation and even a significant chunk of the younger but politically-inclined citizenry is active (a couple of weeks ago I had a round table with some student leaders and the ones from UP told me about how the Peyups message board played a significant role in raising issues that affected the recent student council elections); there’s the passing-on of e-mail, too from person to person; there’s the online news sites, and then blogs; there’s even online broadcast of radio content, particularly effective for Filipinos overseas who tune in to keep tabs on what’s going on at home.
Here, the advantages of incumbency and of managing media scientifically have been magnified, and not reduced. The principle at work, as far as neutralizing critics is concerned, is similar to using chaff to discombobulate the radar signals of the enemy in warfare. If the enemy latches on an issue, simply scramble it by drowning it out in a flood of competing messages; and if that fails, you’re better off launching, say, a denial-of-service attack on an offending website. On the other hand, for the purposes of an offensive or counteroffensive, the Internet is simply yet another platform for amplifying the Message Of The Day -and it can be done relatively cheaply, and efficiently. The message of the day will be seized upon by the genuinely convinced, too. A paid propagandist has an advantage over the committed, but amateur, partisan: there are no ethical concerns to worry about, no effort required to demonstrate respect or even tolerance for contesting claims.
Still, Marocharim brings up the point that interests me the most in Back to Basics. The question of the future of political writing on the newfangled Interweb -particularly for those holding political office. One dominant view of online communication is that it is a conversation; and that a conversation is highly personal, and is less effective when institutional; that it must be characterized by authenticity: which is why the disciplining and clarifying benefits of rhetoric are hotly contested, too. Perhaps, on a person-to-person basis, rhetoric is counter-productive; but in dealing with entire populations, or even segments of those populations, it is essential. Political leaders, particularly in national positions must now balance communicating with segments while those segments, at least for now, continue to believe they constitute a whole: one whose component parts, the citizenry, shares basic values (recall my past reference to Joseph Lane’s reference to Pericles to understand the ongoing American primaries campaign).
The question of authenticity -that bloggers possess it, politicians by their very nature are incapable of it- and the counter-culture self-identification of bloggers as somehow superior even when engaged in political partisanship, is at the heart of whether politician-bloggers should be welcome to, or resisted, when it comes to planting their flags in the blogosphere. Will the politician post manufactured content, in contrast to, say, the more authentic content of even politically-committed bloggers?
James Fallows, journalist-blogger, and incidentally, also a former speechwriter, in tackling criticisms of Barak Obama’s rhetorical gifts, dissects this question:
Several people have written back to say: Well, maybe he just has better speechwriters! And: Since you (me) used to work as a speechwriter (for Jimmy Carter), shouldn’t you be particularly sensitive to this point?
Answer, to the second question: No. And it’s precisely because I have worked is this field that my answer to the first question is: I don’t care who originally came up with these phrases or drafted the speech.
If a public figure’s basic quality of mind or ability to express himself is in question, as frankly is the case with President George W. Bush, then it might be worth investigating whether the words he is uttering actually reflect his underlying outlook and comprehension.
No sane person wonders this about Obama. By himself, long before he had a staff for such help, he wrote one very good book, Dreams from My Father. By all accounts he has written other crucial speeches, including the one about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, all on his own.
So once we have this indication of his basic abilities and outlook, it really shouldn’t matter whether he applies them in every speech he makes. Indeed it would be a misuse of his time and talents to do so. No important political leader can personally perform a lot of the tasks that are carried out in his or her name. The test is whether he can motivate, lead, and manage teams of people to perform in the way, and at the level, he would do himself — if he had a million hours in each day rather than 24. (This is the leadership version of “give someone a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach someone to fish… and soon the oceans will be empty.” Oops, that’s a different point.)
If Obama personally wrote both the 2006 and the 2008 commencement speeches, great. To me it suggests that he’s getting better. If he wrote the old one and an assistant wrote the new one, great too. It shows that he is able to have even better work produced in his name. In a way, the second would be more reassuring, as a guide to possible performance in office.
I’ve said before that politics is primarily about communication: a politician either has the ability to communicate, or doesn’t; rhetorical gifts are a definite plus but their absence isn’t a fatal liabilty; but as I pointed out above, the politician’s dilemma is to communicate in general and particular with limited time and resources, and widely-varying expectations and even assumptions on the part of the various audiences. As with so many other activities, the benefits of highly-focused communications has to be balanced with its costs when it comes to equally necessary wide-scale or wholesale communications.
The only member of Congress I can think of who has a genuinely readable blog is Congressman Ruffy Biazon. From what I’ve heard, the entries are actually his: but is the time and thought he puts into it, worth it, politically?
The only national candidates seriously attempting blogging are Adel Tamano and Danton Remoto (with the up-to-now token participation of Gilbert Remulla, JV Ejercito, and TG Guingona) in The Opposite of Apathy, an interesting experiment that still has to gain its sea-legs. Previously, Mong Palatino experienced the shortcomings of online campaigning in 2004, but it isn’t clear if those shortcomings were due to flawed assumptions (that there is a youth vote, for one), flawed messages (can his ideology compete when it comes to the kind of audiences plugged into the world wide web?) or other handicaps (the efforts of the administration to neutralize the Left by hook or by crook, whether by outright liquidation or institutional subversion through the Comelec, etc.).
My own suspicion is that the blogosphere is politically valuable if -and only if- politicians recognize that it’s an effective venue for courting the Middle Class, with an eye to engaging then mobilizing its members. It is not the venue for mass, or wholesale politics, where TV and radio reign supreme; it is the place for retail politics, and for providing access to a limited portion of the electorate -citizens interested in policy debates, regardless of economic status.
The problem, of course, is that the Middle Class has little to offer the politicians, and particularly so, come 2010: the middle class proved itself as manageable as the masses from 2005 onwards, and having neutralized itself with 2010 as its consuelo de bobo, it will truly have proven itself bobo at least as having an impact in 2010 is concerned; but potentially very significant in 2013 and then 2016, because other factors will then start having an impact (but more on that some other time).
Numbers-wise, they (the middle) are inconsequential and would only matter if they donated generously to campaigns, but they don’t. Not being invested, either in terms of time or money, in the candidacies competing for the mass vote, and the mass vote proving itself susceptible to being marshaled by old veterans (the churches, the labor and other movements, the local machines) or managed by institutional intervention (at the Comelec and in the counting), the candidates have no reason to take middle class advocacy into consideration. Not because politicians don’t care, per se, but in a fight that requires the most efficient allocation of resources, there’s little reason to allocate them to cultivating the middle class.
Case in point: if stuart-santiago says, don’t vote for politicians who do product endorsements, what will it achieve? It will validate the assumptions of the politicians when they undertook those endorsements. They won’t lose or win on the basis of a boycott on the basis of their endorsements. And those who do win despite such a boycott will only serve to entrench the practice. An advocacy of a boycott would only be effective if done -now, prior to elections- by boycotting the products they endorse. A mass-based approach to an issue raised and ventilated (and most effectively wielded) by the middle and upper classes is self-defeating. It’s not that it’s the wrong fight -just the wrong target, considering those expected to do the fighting.
So, let me suggest that the middle class’s salvation, politically, is if campaigning for its heart and mind is done on line: because the middle is actually so broad (what, A to C? but only on line do A to C actually meld together, effectively). That is because appealing to Middle Class values (not very different, for now, to those of the upper class in whose image they have been raised and trained) in the mass media immediately alienates the masses; but online it can be done consistently and with less of a chance it will lose mass votes. The politician who devotes energy and resources to cultivating the middle online just might discover getting real bang for the buck -because, if the middle is properly courted online, it might actually mobilize; then the kind of middle and upper class revolt seen in Pampanga might actually have a chance to be replicated in national politics.
But failing that, what the blogosphere is trying to work out, is a larger conflict, one History Unfolding discussed recently:
The most fundamental conflict in western civilization, in my opinion, is probably between reason and emotion. A year or two ago I purchased a most interesting-looking book, The Closing of the Western Mind by Charles Freeman, dealing with the gradual erosion of reason and the triumph of Christian faith between the fourth century B. C. and the seventh century A. D. ,,, the very title raises the issue of whether this could happen again – not a frivolous question in an era in which faith is rivaling reason in struggles to establish an orthodox view of how and when the human race came into being. In fact, surveying the last few centuries, I suspect that the empire of reason has passed its peak. On the other hand, that may not be altogether a bad thing either. Human beings may have some capacity for rational thought, but they cannot rid themselves of their feelings, and attempts to proclaim the supremacy of reason in human affairs have repeatedly led to disaster. What we need is that precious and most elusive of modern outcomes, an equilibrium – and it must be found fairly soon.
Though David Kaiser in his entry has a different time frame, his concerns, to my mind, can be connected with a belief earlier brought up by one of my favorite historians, John Lukacs. In At the End of an Age he says that our present age, the Modern Age (which began in the 1500’s and superseded the previous Middle Ages) is passing:
To list the evidences of the ending of the Modern Age would fill an enormous book. Here I must try to sum up -or better, to suggest- some of them.
The progressive spreading of democracy has marked the history of mankind, certainly during the past two hundred years but in many ways throughout the entire Modern Age. This progress was usually gradual, at times revolutionary, and not always clearly visible on the surface of world events. How long this democratic age will last no one can tell. What “democracy” really means is another difficult question. But there is a larger consideration. We are living through one of the greatest changes in the entire history of mankind, because until relatively recently history was largely (though never exclusively) “made” by minorities, while increasingly it is “made” by majorities. (In reality it is not so much made by majorities as it is made in the name of majorities.) At any rate, this has become the age of popular sovereignty (at least for a while). History has moved from the aristocratic to the democratic era -a passage occurring mostly during the Modern Age, and one that may transcend even the great accepted (Western) scheme of Ancient and Middle and Modern times.
This spread of democracy was the vision of Alexis de Tocqueville; it is present throughout his writings, most clearly in the second volume of Democracy in America, where his very method of description was to summarily juxtapose and contrast how society, politics, arts, and even more, mores and manners, formed differently in aristocratic ages before the developing democratic times. And within this very large vision there was a historically more limited one: Tocqueville’s recognition, more than a century ago, that this had been and still was a gradual process: with aristocracy declining and democracy rising, the existence of some kind of aristocratic order was still necessary to maintain some of the freedoms of otherwise increasingly democratic societies… Nearly 175 years later, at the end of the Modern Age, much of this is past. Still the Modern Age was marked by the coexistence of aristocracy and democracy, something which has now come to an end.
“Aristocracy” ought not be categorically defined as the rule of kings and/or noblemen. “Democracy” also means something more than the rule of “the people,” more, indeed, than mere popular sovereignty. Bust especially in Europe, between the highest and the lowest classes (or between the rulers and the ruled) there was another, rather particular, class in the middle: the so-called bourgeois class or classes…
And he says that as the Modern Age now undergoes its terminal decline, it should more accurately be known as the Bourgeois Age. In a most lyrical passage, he distills what that Age has been all about:
The Bourgeois Age was the Age of the State; the Age of Money; the Age of Industry; the Age of the Cities; the Age of Privacy; the Age of the Family; the Age of Schooling; the Age of the Book; the Age of Representation; the Age of Science; and the age of an evolving historical consciousness. Except for the last two, all of these primacies are now fading and declining fast.
Indeed! The challenges to, crumbling of, and increasing certainty that all these Ages of have passed -of the state, of money, of industry, the city, of privacy, of family, of schooling, the book, and representation- are played out in this blog nearly day-to-day; just as the debate over which should be exalted, reason or emotion, periodically re-erupts here…
But this clash between Reason and Emotion, as Kaiser sees it, or the passing of the Modern Age, as Lukacs put it, in either case is being played out in blogosphere, too, between those whose references are to a longer framework of time (the Internet Age being the latest evolution of the Modern Age, for example, a view I subscribe to in my attitude to blogging being the latest reincarnation of the Era of the Pamphleteers: see the latter part of my May 7, 2008 blog entry) and those for whom the present Age has vanquished all that’s come before (the Internet as the successor to the Modern Age, though not necessarily a Postmodern Age, as expressed by big mango in Are You a Member of Generation V (for Virtual)? ).
To return where I started: it’s folly (and fallacious) to think a present or future tyranny would be a carbon copy of past tyrannies; tyrants and tyrannies evolve and they thrive when their victims think that so long as the old ways aren’t repeated, exactly, then they are free.
Manolo:
We normally posts in blogs or have blogs to let others know our point of view.
But I think blogging does another important job…it allows us to feel the public pulse.
I am surprised how local/foreign readers actively participate in blog polls.
It is certainly not scientific but a blog poll is a good venue to know what folks are thinking and saying about key issues and personalities.
EQ
I don’t think we need to be too fussed about whether one class of bloggers or another are to be welcomed or resisted nor be to quick to presume ourselves to know who is “authentic” or “phony”. The “InterWeb” is an almost perfect darwinian environment. Those that remain relevant, innovative, insightful, and original will more likely prevail.
As mlq3 mentioned, blogs are just one form of application for using the Web. Just like individual blogs within the application domain evolve, compete, and die; applications also have their heyday and declines.
When I first began online activities back in 2000, it was mainly message forums like PinoyExchange that lorded over as a medium for exchanging ideas. Blogs are dominant today. And there seems to be a coming wave of micro-posting technologies like twitter which accomodates micro-chatter.
Where to next? It seems as mobile devices improve the reliability and economics of their connectivity to the Net, the future seems to be one where bigger and bigger chunks of the wired elite’s consciousness (even the most trivial parts of it) get broadcast online.
Happy Birthday again. Hehe
mlq3,
a blog by lozada? why not? the web space is limitless enough to accommodate all thoughts, including both the sublime and the ludicrous, reality and fantasy, the valuable and the trash. at the end of the day, it’s all about the quality of the message and the credibility of the messenger. in the free market of ideas, sophisticated minds, regardless of partisanship, will be able to separate the chaff from the grain, the knock-off from the authentic, the gem from the garbage.
i don’t think emotion could ever supplant reason in weighing “truth” in human affairs. right reason is incompatible with evil while emotion could generate the basest of human instinct. one is not justified doing a dastardly act just because it thrills him. neither is a fiend justified in ravishing a young girl just because he couldn’t control his beastly emotion. it’s the kind of newfangled faux doctrine that poses grave danger to impressionable, gullible mind and, ultimately, to society in general – a total breakdown of morality, the law and public order.
contrary to your hypothesis, i think the middle class, though relatively fewer they may be, constitutes a buffer between the oligarch/big business, on one hand, and the teeming masses, on the other. while not all members of the middle class espouse the same political beliefs, they are the ones who initiate and maintain intelligent and meaningful discourse that help put real issues in proper perspectives from which, hopefully, right reason can prevail.
What frustrates me about this whole Jun Lozada blog launching issue is that all the blog entries (and press releases) who discuss the launching but have (so far) not pointed to his URL.
Well, we didn’t want to preempt it. hehe. I’ll ad the link now.
I agree with mlq3’s words above (plus others who said the same thought) the Philippine middle class is inconsequential. “Massive power” is something Pinas middle class seem to have — Q3 did write that the middle class does not offer much in number of votes or in campaign contributions.
The more astute politician will then focus their resources on nurturing the elite among the middle class, so “no” to public school or university teachers, but “yes” to the Randy David’s and other university teachers with extra-reach because they have media exposure. “No” to the seminarians, but “yes” to bishops because the bishops (who “teach the teachers”/the other priests”) do have reach. “No” to OFW’s, but maybe “yes” to TootsOple once she establishes herself as a credible spokesperson for the OFW employee population. A reasonable strategy is to nurture that very small number from the middle class whose reach extends into the bottom 40% (for the simple reason that “bottom-40%” still represents 40% of the votes).
but upn, in terms of “reach”, isn’t the blog some sort of equalizer that affords a level playing field for the “elite among the middle class” and the not-so-elite? i maintain that it’s not so much the author’s name, academic credential or accomplishments that are crucial to an idea as its reasonableness and persuasiveness. i, for one, don’t care if an opinion comes from mlq3, randy david or upn any more than i care if it makes sense to me or not.
some typos, and the correct thoughts are;
(1) “…massive power is something PInas middle class DOES NOT seem to have.”
(2) the more astute POPULIST politicians will then focus their resources on nurturing … the small number from the middle class whose reach extends into bottom 40%….
———–
To Bencard : the POPULIST politician will seek positive mention from the POPULIST blogger. So if candidate-C3P0 wants to be viewed as an authoritarian-but-Economics-is-“king” leader-ala-Park-Chung-Hee (of right) or Hugo Chavez (of left), then maybe he’ll want positive mention from Bong Austero who already has a following, him and his “…prepared to lose our freedoms and our rights just to move this country forward”.
——–
Now, how does one “… get to have a following… get to extend one’s reach into a population-segment or percentile?”. As you mention, the blog is one of the “cheap” venues for the technically-inclined, “cheap” to mean ease of entry. It is then up to this person (in the thoughts that she or he presents, his/her persuasiveness, his/her persistence and tenacity) that determines whether the leadership mantle he/she earns.
… that determines what kind of leadership mantle (if any) he/she earns.
Got it, thanks Benj and the rest of the BK crew!
About Middle Class:
“The problem, of course, is that the Middle Class has little to offer the politicians, and particularly so, come 2010”
In my opinion, our politicians may not know how to create middle class. Employment creates jobs including high paying jobs( middle class).
India uses its large population to create demand for goods and services and was the basis for economic growth.
http://india.targetgenx.com/2008/05/30/middle-class-economy-driver-of-india/
China’s manufacturing industries created high paying jobs as well as employing the unemployed.
The power to create middle class underlies the changes in political power that occur both internationally and domestically , and political power underlies the creation of that wealth; further, political power can be used to either encourage the creation of wealth or lead to its
decay or even destruction, as in unemployment.
Leytenian, the key to creating a larger middle class is to address the problem of inequality, hence the need to take away political and economic power from a few families. Taking off from our discussion in the previous thread…
http://www.quezon.ph/1802/corporate-drama/#comment-813506
…i think the roadblock to creating a bigger middle class have always been the Oligarchs. OTOH, as shown by the example of India, they could also be a big part of the solution if they focus more on real productive businesses as opposed to purely rent-seeking via political connections.
As it is, our government is relying on a strategy of trickle down [aka ramdam na ramdam]. An obstacle to convincing the Oligarchs to do what is right is the self-identification of the middle class with the Upper class as mentioned by Manolo above.
“China’s manufacturing industries created high paying jobs as well as employing the unemployed”
I have not read the link yet,but the purpose of shifting to China was the cheap labor, meaning low salaries.but if you mean it has caused many “upgrades” in the way of living of the population, for me this means good bye to cheap labor, and a new venue for sweat shops.
KG, i guess the hope of China’s Communist Party by then would be that the growth of China will be self-sustaining because of the size of their domestic market. Indeed, i was told that the reason why a lot of banks (engaged in private banking) are setting up shop in the region is because of the anticipated 1 Trillion USD investible funds in the hands of Chinese citizens.
A bigger threat to continued growth is the rising level of inequality especially in rural China:
http://www.economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/11/inequality_and_.html
cvg
“i think the roadblock to creating a bigger middle class have always been the Oligarchs. ”
agree
( from cut and paste) but the Philippines never realized its potential. Instead of opening the door to foreign investors with the money and the wherewithal to make something of its resources, the Philippines wrapped itself in the cloak of protectionism. Under the guise of nationalism–the country had achieved independence in 1946–the Philippines passed a series of laws limiting what they called “alien” (foreign) involvement in the economy. It started with a limit imposed on alien-owned market stalls in Manila and soon covered everything from access to credit to quotas on imports.
“The government’s continuing support of protectionist policies in the face of such abject failures is the reason why Max Soliven, editor of The Philippine Star and the country’s most popular columnist, blasts the Filipino First philosophy as “the pirate flag of convenience for vested interests.”
“Every big foreign investment project,” says Soliven, “is slandered as ‘a scam’ or labeled ‘imperialist exploitation,’ and thus those two cabals of conspiracy, the Old Rich and the nouveau riche, manage to fight off and repel ‘the enemy.'” Filipino First, says Soliven, should really be called “Filipino Last and Always.”
As far back as the early 1960s there were voices raised in warning. In 1962 the president of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce, Alfonso Catalang, went on television to say that Filipino First was shooting the country in the foot.
The Far Eastern Economic Review, warned that “Filipino politicians seem to favor securing foreign loans instead of inviting foreign capital to come in.”
The direct result of such choices were the bloated Philippine monopolies that still stand before us today, protected from foreign competition and unresponsive to the needs of the country.
Although myriad regulations restrict foreigners doing business in the Philippines–foreign banks, for example, have not been permitted to open new branches since 1948–the most effective way of keeping them out has been a law limiting the amount any foreigner can own in a business to 40 percent. At the start of his reign, President Marcos made some moves to open up the economy, but instead of busting the monopolies he merely put his own buddies in charge of them. Nor did things improve with the People Power revolution of Cory Aquino.
so who are the true oligarch in our country? policymakers? or the rent seeking oligarch with property rights? ( if this is the case) who are the regulators.
CVG,
regarding china’s Inequality and Economic Growth:
rural areas lack the financial support: An expert in the finance and capital markets, Professor Chen Zhiwu （陳志æ¦）teaches at the Yale School of Management and complimented Huang Yasheng’s comments. Professor Chen stressed out inequality caused by state ownership and the role of the state in a balanced approached of economic development..
http://www.asiaquarterly.com/content/view/159/1/
infrastructure such as educational systems,roads, water supply and other basic economic needs are still not in place.
In our country…at least in my province ( rural area). the issue there is about maintaining current infrastructures and upgrading some of the healthcare system and educational facilities that will enhance the understanding and learning abilities of our children… check this link. “Sindangan has won and is the number one public elementary school in the Philippines based on the results of the latest National Achievement Test (NAT). The Department of Education (DepEd) conducts the annual NAT to measure the readiness of grade six students for high school. ”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiESpZevAig&feature=related
i’m just being optimistic.
Leytenian,
“but the Philippines never realized its potential. Instead of opening the door to foreign investors with the money and the wherewithal to make something of its resources, the Philippines wrapped itself in the cloak of protectionism.”
So it really depends on the links, yesterday your link was authored by Walden Bello, a staunch advocate of protectionism and has not many good things to say about trade liberalization. I am not saying it is a bad thing,but we are not newspapers who must report balanced views,nor are we economists who keeps on saying on the other hand.it is nioe to see two sides of a coin,but from the same person?.. I don’t think so.(i do that too, so it takes one to know one)
Leytenian, the ‘protectionist’ policies that the Philippines pursued during the 1950’s is what resulted in our period of highest GDP growth. Weren’t those supposed to be the good times?
The fact is our neighbors pursued a similar protectionist policy but combined them with export orientation). I blogged about how South Korea pursued a twin strategy of import substitution and export promotion here:
http://www.cvjugo.blogspot.com/2007/03/export-promotion-vs-import-substitution.html
The flaw in Soliven’s thinking is that he believed that import substitution and export promotion were mutually exclusive alternatives. Even India which you cite as an example pursued a highly protectionist policy for much of its history. That is why they now have big players like Tata, Reliance and Infosys. Had their government not favored them early on, then India would not have such National leaders.
The missing ingredient which sets us apart from our neighbors is land reform followed by industrial policy. Whether communist (China and Vietnam) or Capitalist (Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) breaking up the landed oligarchy was the first order of business. This had the effect of (1) increasing the purchasing power of the masses which in turn (2) provided a domestic market that makes industrialization possible. They were then able to start a virtuous circle. Quite the opposite is happening here.
Even in the United States where you are, there had to be a Civil War between the Industrial North and the Agricultural South. Over here, the landed and industrial oligarchy are the same families or are otherwise in cahoots.
I only hope that these personalities who will venture into blogging, like Jun Lozada and Ed Panlilio, will be able to sustain their blogging activity and not waste all the buzz mileage they are getting now.
CVJ,
Inequality in China:
In the recent earthquake, I saw in the news that the poor farmers laments being bypassed by ambulances who proceeded to the city instead.Of course unless their Tv still works thay would understand that the city was more damged. I am just acknowledging that indeed their is inequality.
We saw in this blog, an entry entitled: market stalinism, that in a certain city a walmart super store is not so super comparedc to their super store.
I remember one of our first conversations in this blog about two years ago was the 80 million give or take poor in china and India although mine was just a mere observation,you were quick to point on the per capita/gdp of both to validate or invalidate my view.
Those were the days,It is a very entirely different picture now.
Speaking of banks, I know since your in singapore,you will acknowledge that singapore saved citigroup,but it was a royal from the UAE who infused the final blood transfusion. I wonder if those banks in Dubai will all move to China,or maintain their presence in both.
Leytenian, thanks for both links! I agree the youtube documentary is a cause for optimism.
As Bencard said.
The Web is a big place. They’re free to start blogging and just as equally free to stop blogging when they want to.
Who cares?
I believe you were referring to this discussion:
http://www.quezon.ph/1085/four-points-for-discussion/#comment-232270
I mentioned that there were still 200 million poor in China (who live on less than one dollar a day) as of 2005, which is half the figure of 1990.
How so?
I’m not sure about the Dubai banks, but i know that the local Singapore banks (like DBS) are setting up shop in China.
Hi CVG,
“So it really depends on the links, yesterday your link was authored by Walden Bello, a staunch advocate of protectionism and has not many good things to say about trade liberalization.”
this link was about numbers in terms of philippines policy for investments.
today, my point is more on policymaking, and who are the true oligarch that affects the creation of middle class within our country. anyway… smart filipinos leave the country as OFW’s ( true middle class). As what manolo said:
The problem, of course, is that the Middle Class has little to offer the politicians, and particularly so, come 2010″
Leytenian, i think your response (at 11:36am) is for Karl (‘KG’).
to leytenian: your constant focus on education as an engine for economic growth for Pinas is shared by a number of developmental economists. As to your question about “… who are the oligarchs”, you may be surprised to know that metro-Manila population (and especially metro-Manila students), along with the OFW’s, are “oligarchic” in the sense that their influence on government policy is to the detriment of the very poor. In particular, the World Bank has reported:
Because the poor are better endowed with labor than with physical capital, public expenditures on education and health can exert an important influence on poverty and income distribution. Unfortunately, public investment in human capital in the Philippines was both low and inefficiently allocated for many years and thus had a limited effect on poverty and inequality. Historically, public education in the Philippines has been underfunded relative to other ASEAN countries; central government expenditures on education, both as a percentage of GDP and as a percentage of total government spending, were significantly lower than in Malaysia and Thailand, for example. Moreover, the distribution of education spending among levels of schooling is skewed toward secondary and tertiary education. The government now subsidizes a greater share of education expenses at the university level (78 percent) than at the primary level (69 percent). While participation rates in primary schools are high, they drop sharply by age 13 for lower-income pupils in urban areas, and by age 11 for those in rural areas. Scores on achievement tests and data on the number of textbooks per student raise concerns about the quality of education received by low-income students, particularly in rural areas. If spending were reallocated toward primary education, the quality would improve significantly and a greater proportion of lower-income students might remain in school, especially in rural areas.
Spending on health and nutrition in the Philippines is also relatively low by ASEAN standards, and the composition of expenditure is biased toward higher-income consumers. Per capita spending on health care tends to be higher, and access to primary health care stations better, in urban areas than in rural onesâ€â€Metropolitan Manila, which has the lowest poverty incidence (about 8 percent) in the country, is particularly favored. In addition, expenditure has concentrated on expensive, tertiary-level care, which lower-income families cannot afford; between 1981 and 1990, the share of total health care expenditures captured by preventive care fell from 35 percent to 14 percent, while the share of curative care rose from 55 percent to 65 percent. This distribution of expenditure is not out of line with international averages: the World Bank’s World Development Report 1993 calculated that the average developing country government spent two-thirds of its health care budget on secondary and tertiary care in 1990. However, the report also noted that an optimal allocation of health care spending would be less than one-third going to secondary and tertiary care, with the bulk going to primary care, whose impact (in terms of reducing mortality rates) is much greater.
—————
Now maybe this is happening as a form of triage — metro-Manila is a more productive engine than the rural, especially the agricultural and fishery sectors of the economy.
The same World Bank report states:
Low agricultural productivity remains a drag on growth, partly because some agricultural tariffs have been maintained at the maximum level permitted by World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements, even though tariffs were dramatically lowered in almost all other sectors during the early and mid-1990s. While real GDP growth has averaged 5 percent annually since 1994, growth in the agriculture, fishing, and forestry sectors has averaged less than half this rate.
So maybe you can suggest to Gloria Arroyo to launch a ramdam na ramdam na ang pagiging Oligarch PR campaign in Metro Manila and among OFWs.
my apology CVG..
Up N student:”Unfortunately, public investment in human capital in the Philippines was both low and inefficiently allocated for many years and thus had a limited effect on poverty and inequality”
agree… we used up to 70% to pay debt service and 30% towards (sacrificing_ social services. my quetion now: is our economy controlled by IMF world bank or local lenders policy of our debt service that we really need to pay at 70% of what we have. i have previously commented about negotiating our interest rates or defer payments to principal. This negotiation might help our economy into a cash flow position to finance more budget towads social services.
the lenders cannot put us all to jail if we don’t pay. (LOL) this might weakens the power of the other oligarchs. no money no honey… are we really liable to pay odious debts. debts incurred to fund projects that involves corruption. banks have the responsibility to assess the credibility of its creditor. therefore, if the borrower defaults, both must re-negotiate the terms.
cvj, I think on the theory part, what needs to be done is clear. How to do it without bloodshed, that’s the problem. We don’t seem to have the stomach for it so we plod along hoping perhaps nature will do its part.
For example, we are quite agreed that concentration of too much of the nation’s wealth in the hands of so few suppresses the maximum potential of our resources. But how do we go about breaking that up? Imagine yourself being the President; how, without provoking suspicion you and your friends are after those resources yourselves? how, without inviting the full force of the combined resources of the rich you are bound to antagonize? how, in an atmosphere of free-for-all democracy?
A more liberal attitude towards foreign investment could do the job, I suppose. Give them competition. The 40-60 restriction in the Constitution only serves to preserve the stranglehold of the oligarchy.
“How so?”CVJ
Sorry malabo’ not a different picture on our exchanges and being blogging friends, I reread my comment mukhang it lead to that impression.
I have to apologize if that is the case.
I was thinking based on my preumption that there are less poor after two years,but again that is just a guess, I was just thinking that it is better there compared to two to three years ago in terms of per capita/gdp.Based on the development,but then again the news only is centered on the cities.
My bad!
Leytenian,
Ako yun hindi si CVJ, J ha not G
Mas nagconcentrate kasi ako sa link more than on what you said on the comment thread,kaya naguluhan ako.
Thanks for the clarification.
CVJ,
The link you pointed to was november 2006, I know we go further back. I googled it pero yung link na binigay mo lang ang lumitaw.
Anyways ang layo ng hula ko +- 80 million compared to 200 million kahit me +- pa yon ang layo pa din
Eto yun oh:
Thanks for the reinforcing points,Cath Cath…
I often wonder if growth is enough,China and India has still a number of poor people(+- 80 million each) who earn less than a dollar.
In India,Those who are lucky enough to have an office job,want to get promoted in insstant,then eventually resign if un satisfied,and we still can see in the news,the poorest of the poor still roam arond the streets,some leaving their fate to Karma….In China, as you have pointed out Cath,many farmers are still poor,and development has not reached them,and yes Cath,many are thrown awy from their homes because of the Beijing Olympics.So,why do have to emulate China……we don’t.
November 6th, 2006 at 5:31 am
cvj :
Karl, in India (with an estimated total population of 1 billion), today there are 260 million who live on less than one dollar a day (the benchmark for ‘extreme poverty’). Its GDP has been growing at an average of 7% since 1994 which has reduced poverty level by about 10%.
China (with an estimated total population of 1.3Billion) has 16% of its population living on less than 1 dollar a day (around 200 million). According to the UNDP, this is half of the figure in 1990. It’s GDP has been growing at an average of 8.2% from 1975 to 2003.
Vietnam (with a population of 84 Million) has been growing at 7.2% GDP per year for the past ten years, and has reduced the percentage of people living on 1 USD a day from 51% of the population (in 1990) to 8% today. (Kudos to their Natdem rulers.)
By contrast, the percentage of Filipinos living on less than 1 dollar a day (as of year 2000) is 15.5% or 12 million people. Our GDP has been expanding at an average of 1.2% from 1990 to 2003 or 0.3% from 1975 to 2003.
[Sources: World Bank, CIA Factbook, UNDP Human Development Index 2005]
November 6th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
cvj :
Here’s one link that provides a nice summary of year to year changes in extreme poverty (less than 1 dollar a day) and poverty (2 dollar a day):
http://devdata.worldbank.org/wdi2005/Table2_5.htm
CVJ,
Siguro dito ko binase,sorry na OC ako ngayon eh.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPGI/Resources/342674-1092157888460/493860-1192739384563/10412-07_p143-152.pdf
“for interventions related to poverty. It has more than US$2 billion in annual funding. Dur-
ing this period, the government introduced several large-scale programs focused on reduc-
ing rural poverty, and the number of the rural poor fell from 125 million to 80 million. In
1994, in the third stage, China launched the ambitious 8–7 Poverty Reduction Plan to erad-
icate absolute poverty. The plan called for amassing the manpower, materials, and financial
resources necessary to help the remaining 80 million poor in China exit poverty within seven
years (8–7). The number of poor fell from 80 million in 1994 to about 58 million in 1997.
Despite the successful government effort in poverty reduction, more than 30 million
people are still poor in China today. Rapid economic growth has been a major factor in
China’s success in reducing poverty. However, the progress has been most notable when
growth has been concentrated in the agricultural sector and in poorer regionsâ€Â
Karl, thanks for the links. It seems that the study you linked to used the National Poverty Line while the one i referenced used the International Poverty Line (in the link you provided at 4:34 pm above) which accounts for the differences of 80 Million vs. 200 Million poor.
The ideal scenario would be if reform would come from the Oligarchs themselves along the lines of Abe Margallo’s Bayanihan Pact. As i commented before, the best possible reason for a Mar Roxas / Noynoy Aquino candidacy in 2010 would be for them, as representatives of the Oligarchs, to engineer a soft-landing that would prevent the long feared social explosion.
Another scenario would be for the people to elect a genuinely pro-poor President, i.e. what Erap pretended to be. Latin America is undergoing such an experiment right now with their electoral revolutions that brought Chavez and Morales to power.
Or maybe the above are just wishful thinking and it would eventually take a soldiers’ revolt to do away with the present Oligarchy.
Having worked with multinationals all my life (and seeing the good that they have done), i used to think so as well, but i now realize that MNCs have their own priorities. MNCs go where they see potential, they usually don’t go out of their way to create that potential. That’s up to the locals. We cannot expect them to have loyalties to any country. For example, the experience of Mexico in trying to attract MNCs in Information Technology Manufacturers is instructive. After a while, most of them packed up and went to China.
So the question is, what did China (or India) do to attract MNCs? You’ll see that these countries’ respective local firms took the lead and the MNC’s just jumped in when they saw that the local firms were growing and/or making profits.
Besides, the issues of land reform, access to credit and capital flight cannot be fixed by bringing in the multinationals. In fact, multinationals entering the wrong industry can even worsen these problems.
simply pulling the plug is as easy as taking over the telco monopolies. much the same with monitoring content. control the service provider, control content.
and btw, some blogs are an island.
A little bit out of topic: lending practices affecting teachers in the provinces.
there are lenders in my province and probably until now remains to practice unlicensed activity in the lending businesses. Anyone heard of 5/6.it means if a teacher borrows 100 pesos, she will pay extra 20 pesos on interest alone. ( 100 has “5” 20 pesos and 6 is 120 pesos). trying to explain in simple mathematics.
a good example was my very own mother.( smiling). and my father was in the military (PC). my parents borrowed money with this unlicensed lender at 5/6… by the time i graduated from college, my mother couldn’t pay the interest of her debts. increasing family financial problems lead to selling and pawning my family’s land just to send my other two little brothers to college. If i did not left the country after college, my mother and maybe my whole family will be burried in debts. by the time my mother and father retired, their retirement money would not be enough to pay the debt service and probably no land to leave or any asset tol eave for their children. luckily… i paid it all.
In my opinion, this lending practices that still in existence today should be investigated and regulated and maybe penalized for fraud and unregulated lending practices. With the high unregulated interest rates, it limits the ability of our teachers to have more disposable income for other consumptions. Teachers in the province and any government employees are the true middle class at least in my province.
interest rates on any government employees should have been lowered with caps on how much they can borrow. Not sure what’s in Leyte now but there is an open demand for local banks to buy back these loans from unlicensed lenders and re -structure the loan at lower interest rates.The government can even impose a penalty to these unlicensed lenders and maybe even pardon some of the interest rates that our teachers are currently paying. More money left for our teachers, the higher probality of of them spending on other goods and services ,that will actually boost local economy and stimulate small businesses.
excuse my poor grammar.. no time for editing.
Please check out the blog of The Young Turks composed of Adel Tamano, JV Ejercito, Gilbert Remulla, TG Guingona, Danton Remoto and Erin Tanada at:
oppositeofapathy.wordpress.com
the Net has become too silent for me…
parched…
empty…
maybe someday i’ll again find an oasis.
but not today.
and not tomorrow.
So you are nailing down you hopes on Roxas and Noynoy.
Good luck, but from where I sit, I think they are unlikely to win.
But hey thats just me making a prediction.
In any case, your experience with mncs is in an atmosphere of the same restrictions. Just like you, I do not imagine any mnc coming in for some noble reasons other than to make profit. but i imagine that a more liberal attitude would allow an easier movement in or out, just like a buyer who could choose this or that and competition would at least keep the whole thing alive. as it is, what choice do you have: it’s just one gang of rich people who would likely resort to compromises to keep the whole cake to themselves. Napaguusapan din yan.
http://oppositeofapahy.wordpress.com
but cvj: Aren’t you being inconsistent? Roxas and Noynoy both have that nice oligarchic sweet rich name from old. Why these two? Why not put your support behind a person with the track record of a Hugo-Chavez or a Evo Morales?
sorry its:
http;//oppositeofapathy.wordpress.com
a reason as to why the next president (and next senators) should be the independently-wealthy like mar roxas, jamby madrigal, and the Lopezes:
(Below is cut-and-paste, words of jv ejercito:)
. . . . Sa ating sitwasyon, mahigit siguro 90 porsyento ng mga halal na opisyal ay hanap-buhay nila ang pulitika. Kung kaya’t ito na rin ang dahilan kung bakit sila ay nakikipagpatayan sa mga laban sa pulitika sapagka’t kabuhayan ang pinag-aawayan.
Ang inyong lingkod(jv ejercito) ay sinuwerte sa dahilang hindi ko hanap-buhay ang pulitika. Nagkataong ako ay isa ng matagumpay na negosyante bago sumabak sa pulitika. Sa madaling salita, hindi ko kailangan ang pulitika upang mabuhay, sapagka’t ako po ay may pinagkakakitaan sa aking mga negosyo.
Roxas and Noynoy, are they the hugo chavez or evo morales version of the philippines?
some project may be worth reading while we wait for the next blog. i am not promoting “this man” but we do need some innovative entrepreneur that address the needs of the poor and global issue. http://beta.ph.news.yahoo.com/star/20080523/tph-bamboo-school-design-541dfb4.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaB73B4k6lc&feature=user
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ArNo5P4iwEg&feature=related
In the short term, RP could benefit with a leader along the mold of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who could harness the personal interests of the oligarchs and competing clans and hew them to the national interest, still in the semblance (or facade) of democratic space.
In a way, former President Ramos had some similar success.
above the law:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid959009704?bclid=1350264326&bctid=1562738166
arroyo’s interview with IHT on politics, security, corruption and the economy.
i kinda like her responses.