This book present in among of us because anxiety’s Temario C Rivera about his country that is the Philippines. After World War II the Philippine had to be the most promising record of economic growth in Southeast Asia. Yet the Philippines is one of countries which bad performance of economic growth in Southeast Asia. “Why has the process of industrialization been such a protracted and problematic one for the Philippines when the country seemed to have enjoyed and initial edge in this route to modernity compared with most of its Asian neighbors in the postwar years?” (p. Preface book) says Temario C. Rivera on his book.
Temario, C Rivera through this book told us historical landlords and capitalist in the Philippines regarding class, family and state in holding of manufacturing. He was starting to identify manufacturing sector by Import-substitution industrialization (ISI) in 1950 – 1962. There are 3 categories in ISI according to Rivera, which are Landed, capitalist, Non-landed capitalist and Chinese-Filipino capitalist. These actors gave vast influence in terms of ISI in the country. But Landed families had economic and political power to influence and domination manufacturing sector. It is obviously when we compared with the others actors.
In my opinion, the Philippines deteriorated the economic growth at the time because the pragmatism of landed families. In this book, we can see that the explanation’s Rivera regarding domination ISI by the landed.
As seen in their authority of the manufacturing sector, the continuing economic and political power of the landed families in the formative years of ISI combined with a weak state to present a formidable institutional obstacle to industrialization. With their interests as land-based profiteers, on the one hand, and oligopolistic manufactures, on the other, the landed capitalist weakened the initial social constituency for industrial growth under the ISI regime. For instance, while taking advantage of the opportunities offered by import substitution in the 1950s, the landed exporting class, as a whole, also mounted the strongest local opposition to exchange controls, which had earlier paved the way for the adoption of ISI. Moreover, as the main opponents of major redistributive policies like reform, which, if successful, might have raised mass incomes, and created a strong domestic market for manufactured goods, the landed capitalist further undermined the basis for sustained industrial growth. (p. 125).
On the others word, we can say as long as one pattern or trend gave many profit to landed families, the landed families that will go there absolutely. They just were thinking that on how to get a lot of money without thinking about nation in the future. Profit oriented.
However, During American period in the Philippine that there are plenty advantages that American have and also the Philippines have. Beginning of Payne Aldrich Tariff Law in 1909 mentioned Free Trade Policy between the Philippines and the United State. The U.S gave local merchant elites access to tariff-free the U.S markets. On the other, Bell Trade Act (Philippines Trade Act of 1946) provided continuing the U.S control over the currency and exchange rate policy of its former colony. Fortunately, this agreement is not long period, Bell Trade Act replaced by Laurel-Langley Agreement that is gradual tariff rise in favour of Philippine goods in which formally ended the U.S control over the Philippines currency and dropped the prohibition on the Philippines from imposing an export tariff. In Parity amendment, the Philippines administration gave the U.S citizens the same rights as Filipinos in the ownership and exploitation of all natural resources and operation of public utilities. This condition was still pursuing until post colonial the end. When the Philippines were the American period, this period was characterized by the bulk of investment going to export-oriented industries and the economy during this period was still largely agrarian.
On the chapter three, Temario C. Rivera pointed out at that time, the landed families not only diversified into ISI manufacturing but also constituted its dominant segment. He gave examples that the consept “comprador bourgeoisie” which has been used as a catchall phrase to describe and denigrate the leading elements of the bourgeoisie not only fail to take into account the international differentiation of the manufacturing bourgeoisie that are landed, non-landed, and the Chinese Filipinos. It also fail to capture the unique implications of the landed character of its dominant segment, particularly the contradictory set of interest inherent in this culture.
During the Marcos administration the non-landed have many advantages from protections by government through their reliance on the state and history personal and working ties with elite political families in this state apparatus. Obviously that this point is that the indicators increase the number of Marcos cronies. Accordingly, while being the most vocal proponents of protectionism for ISI industries, they are also the most vulnerable targets of trade and tariffs reforms.
However Chinese-Filipino had relatively fewer linkages with native elites and state. They realized that it is unfriendly with them. As the result they tend to firms that their business base on their families. Chinese-Filipino had limited sphere to improve their ability in the country because of discrimination. They do not allowed join or participate in many sectors such as government’s bureaucratic, direct political, political connections, and access to state fund and licenses.
Lack of distribution of power and unequal right between one sector other sector. The country cannot avoid from fact that The Philippine entered to trap that is a vicious cycle. It was to be the big barrier by the country to achieve a strong internal market like Japan and South Korea.
This book mentioned that there are 2 option in order to achieve industrial growth and to create economic growth that are a redistribution of assets and resources primarily through agrarian reform to expand and build dynamic internal market, and a decisive shift to export orientation such as what took place in the NIEs of East Asia and the ASEAN. Unfortunately, for the first option was failed because was foreclosed by the resilient power of the landed capitalist class as shown by its continuing control of the legislature. And for the second option that is judging by the experience of the NIEs, a crucial factor in this project is the strategic guidance and intervention by a relatively strong develop mentalist state. Again unfortunately, in the Philippines experience, this component has been absence. Furthermore, it still apart that gave negative input with affirmation’s industrial growth that were the problematic nature of foreign investment and a weak state. In this sense, we can see the practice of Laurel-Langley agreement.
The last section on this book, Marion C. Rivera says clearly there is two main factors caused the failure of industrial growth in the Philippines. Firstly is after postwar the Philippines was being a weak state. Meaning that the Philippines had no autonomous to manage their future by their self. The Philippines was still received that plenty intervention from the U.S and international organization such as IMF (International Monetary Fund) and World Bank (WB). Secondly is refers to a situation under Marcos administration. The country received many financial aids. Aside financial aid also had exports crops. Yet the government failure to arrange these opportunities in order to achieve the welfare states. However, much of these resources ended up financing unproductive projects, inefficient government enterprises, and predatory crony firms, instead of promoting the accumulation of industrial capital.
Personally Temario C. Rivera is giving advice on how to learn from history in order to build nation better in the future. Particularly to know well how to manage differences in our society to achieve that aim together.
No comments:
Post a Comment