This is a re-posted opinion piece.
MANILA, Philippines — There are about 2,190 days in a six-year presidential term. The first 100 days usually become focal points of interest of media and other observers following a tradition rooted in the United States, starting with the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The US faced severe economic crises then and the newly elected President Roosevelt promised to put things on the right track within his first 100 days in office. Thus, the birth of the first 100 days’ media mania.
Well, P-Noy’s first 100 days are now up and the surge of first 100 days commentary floweth over. I am not partaking thereof. There’s more than enough stuff on that already and I lean toward the view that excessive importance given to the first 100 days risks the maintenance of a short-term, quick-fix mentality that ultimately becomes self-deceiving. We have big problems to fix, institutions to build or rebuild, values to revisit and reinvigorate, an appropriate niche in the global economic landscape to establish. And we need to rid ourselves of a penchant for hoping for a political Messiah to solve all our woes. P-Noy has repeatedly stressed that we are all in this together, that his would not be a presidency burdened by either Messianic delusion or self-importance, and that the operational mode of governance would be an honest day’s work on behalf of the nation and its people rather than a continuing circus of flamboyance, photo ops and political machination.
These provide a welcome moral tone for the P-Noy administration’s leadership, but tone is not enough. It must be accompanied by vision. In other words, we may be happy to be led by P-Noy, but toward what? At a meeting with business leaders, both local and foreign, prior to P-Noy’s US visit, the President and his economic managers provided a glimpse of the administration’s strategy for the next 2,000 days which hopefully will result in the sort of positive change in our country’s future that in his own words will provide a minimum of (good) governance that will be at such a level that any administration subsequently will be hard pressed to go on a different tack. The vision presented at that meeting is of a Philippines enjoying a high-growth economy (sustained at 7 to 8 percent starting 2011), leading to markedly lower levels of poverty and higher levels of employment, and establishing its niche within a competitive global economy in the key areas identified as its competitive strengths. This would be accompanied by incessant and determined efforts to eradicate a mindset and culture of graft and corruption, a reliance on healthy partnerships with the private sector, and the building of much needed infrastructure.
The six identified key areas are tourism, BPO-IT services, electronics, mining, housing and agribusiness. I think this list reflects a realistic assessment of the Philippines’ competitive positioning, leaning as it does more toward the Philippines as a mainly services- rather than manufacturing-based economy. However, each of these key areas must overcome serious constraints for each to proceed toward its respective promised land.The key constraint to tourism is the absence of a beneficial open skies policy, the passage of which had been thwarted time and again in the past by strong protectionist lobbying on behalf of Philippine Airlines, leaving the government unable to decide whether its priority was protecting PAL or promoting tourism. Suffice it to say that without a sensible open skies policy, we can kiss the tourism dream goodbye.
As for BPO-IT services, including electronics, it is now common knowledge that this is a potential boom sector for the Philippines. The government estimates that as much as about three million square meters of additional office space would be needed to accommodate this industry in the next six years. Clearly, demand is strong. The constraint is supply i.e., the numbers of qualified Filipinos that the country can produce each year to meet demand. Here, the major areas to address are the need for a quantum increase in appropriate educational courses and facilities and an even more dynamic program of strengthening our English language advantage.
Mining needs a review of the Mining Act’s implementing rules and regulations, as well as intensified government-led promotion of continuous dialogue and education among major industry participants, local governments and church leaders.
Housing at the minimum would need rationalization of the numbers and functions of the many (perhaps too many) public entities involved in housing and the rise of appropriate housing financial instruments as vital parts of the domestic capital market.
Finally, agri-business will remain a pipe-dream without a revisiting of the country’s land reform strategy that needs to begin to provide as much emphasis on productivity as it does on ownership. Smaller holdings resulting from redistribution should be enabled to consolidate to result in economies of scale that are basic building blocks toward a vibrant agri-business sector.
Can the P-Noy era pull it off? Well, Indonesia jumped 10 ranks up in just the last year (from 54 to 44) in the Global Competitiveness rankings, with better leadership and effective implementation of sound economic strategies. We currently rank 85. Has even matching Indonesia become a tall order for us? I hope not!
Roberto F. de Ocampo is a former finance secretary and was Finance Minister of the Year in 1995, 1996 and 1997.
==============================================================================
By: Roberto F. de Ocampo
Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer, Oct. 9, 2010
To view the original article, click here.
Comment here