Protectionist tendencies hobble investment despite globalization


    We Filipinos pride in our cultural hospitality, but we also like our economy closed; and protectionist tendencies still run below our surface show of welcome for most everyone and everything exotic. In an East Asia that achieved a veritable miracle of growth through export promotion, we have plodded along, during these last six decades, on the opposing strategy of import-substituting industrialization (ISI).

    Import substitution is a common strategy for industrializing less-developed economies. At its best, it grows home markets—nurtures infant industries—and educates workpeople in the disciplines of industrialism.

    Ideally, ISI even sets off the obligatory social revolution that eventually shifts the effective location of internal political authority from the factional bosses and oligarchic landowners—the old-order caciques—to a new class of modernizing entrepreneurs and industrialists.

    But, in the weak Philippine state, import-substitution—which the government took up in the post-Independence period—gave rise only to industrial-scale smuggling, corruption of the civil service—and crony capitalism.

    Weak Philippine state unequal to challenges of ISI strategy
    Historically, our self-seeking elite has used the rhetoric of economic nationalism to justify monopoly profits for its import-substituting industries under a regime of controls that penalized peasant agriculture, kept down workers’ wages and condemned the entire economy to near-stagnation.

    In our country, protectionism has been what John Stuart Mill said it would be: “an organized pillage of the many by the few.” Until now, protectionism chokes the flow of foreign capital, technology and managerial skills into the economy.

    Infant industries that never grew up
    ISI produced only a few new industrialists who defined their political interests as separate and distinct from those of the landowning families. For the most part, it produced “landlord-capitalists” whose profits continued to depend on political connections, protected markets and state subsidies.

    “Infant industries”—fattened by import controls on most consumer goods—never matured. Retail prices at their peak rose four times above global averages—making smuggling irresistible.

    Worst of all, import substitution lacking strong central authority preserved the dominance of the politically powerful landowning families—who used their political capital to transfer their assets from landowning to industry.

    In the World Bank’s view, these powerful vested interests came eventually to capture policymaking and to shape economic policy—“to protect and enhance their privileged position, often to the detriment of national well-being.”

    This view sums up pithily our national situation until now.

    Protectionism going against world trend
    Unusual for elites in the new countries, it is well-off urban Filipino men who tend to oppose open trade. The higher his economic class, the more protectionist the Filipino male apparently tends to be. It is Filipino women who are more likely to support open trade policies. So are rural Filipinos in general.

    Two analysts of the NEDA think tank, PIDS, using data from the 2003 International Social Survey Program, correlated individual responses to a question about limiting foreign imports. They found the replies from the Philippines going against the world norm.

    The more protectionist the Filipino male tends to be the higher his economic class because, the PIDS scholars suggest, as the owners of businesses, they have been the prime beneficiaries of protectionist policies.

    Managers of national businesses and high professionals too tend to be protectionist. So do public officials as a class, since the regulated economy enhances their influence, as well as facilitates rent seeking.

    Filipino women are more agreeable to open trade. The PIDS analysts suggest this may result from greater job opportunities in export industries (such as call centers and electronics assembly) that globalization is opening up to them. As the managers of family finances, Filipinas may also appreciate the lower costs and greater variety of imported goods offered by the open economy.

    Protectionism started out by being ‘anti-Chinese’
    Protectionist sentiment may be only one expression of our inward-looking nationalism. Resentment of American bullying in our bilateral relations—coupled with a recognition of our utter dependence on them—had produced self-doubt and turned nationalism inward, to cultural authenticity and economic preferences for nationals.

    Like the Central Americans, middle-class Filipinos are intensely “nationalistic,” particularly in relation to the United States, as a consequence of their vulnerability to its interventions and influence.

    Beginning in 1914, an ephemeral third party to the perennial Quezon-Osmena rivalry inserted the issue of economic nationalism into the political debate. The teaching caught on: to “Filipinize” the economy, generations of policymakers have risked even economic setbacks.

    The Commonwealth government chartered banks, textile and flour mills; utilities, railroads, and even factories making shoes, iron and cement—to keep them in Filipino hands.

    Anti-Chinese economic measures starting in the 1930s (they included retail-trade nationalization in 1955) put many Filipinos out of work. But “[i]t is useless to amass wealth which is not ours to dispose of,” reasoned the industrialist Salvador Araneta in justifying the law.

    Economic provisions in the 1935 Constitution and retained in the 1987 Charter binds the Philippine state to a protectionist policy—uniquely in the region. The economist Gerardo P. Sicat notes that, in our neighbor-states, all economic legislation is ordinary law—allowing governments the utmost flexibility.

    In public investment we’re 20 years behind our near-neighbors
    Right now, our country has the lowest level of foreign direct investment among comparative Southeast Asian economies. We’re some 20 years behind Indonesia, and even more years behind Thailand and Malaysia in infrastructure level.

    During the decade 2000-2009, Singapore received $177 billion in foreign direct investment; Thailand $65B; Malaysia $43 B; Vietnam $35B; Indonesia $28 B; and the Philippines $16 billion.

    The arithmetic tells us why foreign investment is so crucial to the home economy. If we are to begin reducing our poverty, we must grow continuously—at least over these next 10-12 years—by a minimum 7%. And if we are to grow by 7%, we need to invest at least 30% of our gross domestic product (GDP), as our neighbors do. But we save on the average only 19% of GDP—the lowest rate among comparative Asean economies.

    In 2000, that financing gap was equivalent to about US$ 8.4 billion. Usually, countries could bridge this gap by public and private borrowing—but, in our case, the gap was too great—since foreign direct investment (FDI) in that year was only $1.3 billion. In 2005, we attracted barely 1 percent of the net FDI that entered emerging Asia.

    We must redefine our nationalism
    Until now, the stereotypes of an era long gone influence our intellectual approach to foreign investment and economic liberalization; to opening our economy to the opportunities—and risks—of globalization.

    Our economy still is heavily regulated and inward-looking (that is why we’re forced to export people instead of products); at every level of government, public authority still is much used for private benefit.

    If our country is to catch the new wave of growth building up in East Asia, we must speed up market-opening and reduce the costs of doing business.

    To blame all our ills on outside forces—on the CIA, on multinational industry, on the international lending institutions—rather than on the defects of our own political and social structures—is to yield to impotence.

    The best reply to the impositions of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank—against which our intellectuals rail endlessly—is for us to so strengthen our economy such that it need not submit to their strictures.

    We must redefine our nationalism to make it responsive to the new ideologies and technologies reshaping the world.

    We need leadership: we as a people need to be convinced to alter a basic national policy: to take up a positive view of our relationship with a globalizing world—we cannot stop the world because we want to get off.

    We need to create for ourselves a more rounded kind of nationalism—a forward-looking nationalism focused on the effort to account for ourselves as a people—and to claim our place of dignity in the global community.


    Please follow our commenting guidelines.


    1. Amnata Pundit on

      The assumption is FDI will result in National Industrial Development. So why were the developed countries of Asia like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong able to develop world class industries owned by their nationals? What crucial role, if any, did FDIs play in the development of these countries? Empirical data have shown that there is enough local capital sloshing around in our economy, so it seems the problem is misallocation of capital, not lack of it. Will these foreign investors merely exploit the local market- after all there is that very tempting $20+ Billion a year of OFW remittances- or will they produce goods for sale to other countries? From our decades of experience, these foreigners always engage predominantly in the former not the latter. PROPER CAPITAL ALLOCATION is always a daunting challenge for the national leadership when the allocations do not conform to the plans of the agents of imperialism ( yes they’re still around, believe it or not) like the World Bank and IMF who are fronting for the international lending mafia whose interests are not fully served unless you are a PERPETUAL BORROWER of their funds that they merely print out of thin air. RESOLVE is what we need, not foreign investments.

    2. genesisbughaw on


      This article appears in the July 11, 2014 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
      Bubble About To Break
      $2 Quadrillion Barrier
      After a period of relative stagnation from 2008 to 2012, the British Empire’s global speculative bubble took off like a rocket in early 2013, and is currently hyperinflating at a rate of over 20% per year. This translates into total global financial assets reaching somewhere in the range of $1.90-1.95 quadrillion as of June 2014, on a trajectory of breaking the $2 quadrillion barrier imminently. Nearly 90% of those global assets are financial derivatives—that is, totally speculative assets with no backing whatsoever in real production…
      for more please visit:

      Sir , this is the big difference.
      The globalized slavish system of the cannibals, it’s all about enslavement of Mankind potential to fully realized his/her mission of existence. At worst, the system is megalomaniac and genocidal.

      There’s real development and real production that is credit and nuclear driven.

      Take the case of Egypt, People’s money were invested in great physical infrastructure project.

      The New Paradigm Special Rebroadcast: In honor of Egypt’s New Suez Canal
      In honor of the opening of the New Suez Canal on August 6, the almost-completed expansion of the Panama Canal, and the planned cooperation between Egypt and Nicaragua on the Nicaragua Interoceanic Grand Canal, we are rebroadcasting The Kra Canal and the Development of Southeast Asia, on the other major canal project in the world, crossing through the Isthmus of Kra in Thailand.

      This report is the blueprint for the peaceful future of our planet.
      Civilization has reached a cross-road, where the threat of war has returned in a manner unforeseen just months ago, but where the prospects for a new paradigm of global cooperation towards genuine development have also reached a potential breakthrough.
      For more please click:

      Senate Glass-Steagall Move Creates Potential ‘New Era for Mankind’

      Nuclear Power Marches Forward in BRICS Countries

      Our future is with NEW ALLIANCE-THE BRICS.and this is where we have to open our creative MINDS(noosphere field).

    3. genesisbughaw on

      In the context of knowledge sharing:
      A Christmas Message
      December 25, 2012 • 1:29PM
      By Kesha Rogers
      part of which reads;
      “Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.” –John F. Kennedy, UNGA speech, Sept. 25, 1961
      …Human beings are not merely sophisticated animals, doomed to wage war against the universe for our own brief existence. The few, thinking adults among us, comprehend that we are unique beings, made indeed in the living image of our Creator, with the mandate to master the laws of creation for the betterment of nations throughout the planet and our posterity. Those unique personalities who strive to advance the common aims of mankind, by living up to this nature, continue to advise and assist us in this great cause, of fulfilling the great task set forth for us, two thousand and twelve years ago…”
      For more please visit:
      http://larouchepac.com/node/ 24944

      `The Universe Does Not
      Belong to the Devil’

      Ziegler Demands People Act to End “Cannibalistic” World Order
      October 10, 2014 • 8:13AM
      part of which reads;
      “Jean Ziegler, the spirited Vice President of the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Advisory Committee who was just named head of the Council’s committee to investigate the crimes of the vulture funds, bluntly characterizes the trans-Atlantic system as “a ‘cannibalistic order’ … an absurd and deadly order” resulting from “the world tyranny of globalized capital, of an oligarchy made up of transnational companies, whose sole principle is maximizing profits, and which concentrate political and economic power in their hands.” ..
      for more please visit:

      What we must do with due respect are the following;
      -Repeal Mining Act of 1995;
      -Repeal or improve the E-Pira Law, and for equal distribution of wealth, let’s call for Constitutional Convention that will frame the American System of Federalism.
      We cannot stop changes but we have power to change the course.

      And by the way,
      Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder

    4. majority of Filipinos do not have to be poor. the country is rich in natural resources, even with constant visits of typhoons and prone to earthquakes the wealth of natural resources outweight the number of natural calamities that beset the country. the problem is the natural resources are mismanaged and poorly planned. Just look at Japan, Taiwan and Singapore. these countries almost have no natural resources other than their hard work and inginuinity and creativity and they are one of the most wealthy nations in the pacific and southeast asia. Japan especially is frequently hit by destructive earthquakes. So why then is the Philippines cannot copy them? Maybe Filipino government executives should consult the Japanese, Taiwanese and Singaporeans on how to make the county prosper. From land reform to building more infrastructures, agriculture, and governing. Had the Filipinos know how to manage their natural resources then they too will be one of the most wealthy and prosperous country in southeast asia.

    5. Jose T. Gabionza on

      I agree with this observation 100% and I strongly believe that our collective leadership also knows this. But WHY do you think they are scared to act and open up. Are they hostages of someone or something bigger than them? Or are they just truly and deeply selfish and cannot go beyond their SELF INTEREST.