|
In the
Asian crisis of 1997, the Philippines managed to
insulate itself from the worst ravages of the crash
because of the key reforms instituted by the Ramos
administration to integrate the Philippines into the
global economy.
The key
policies of liberalization, privatization and
deregulation spurred economic development at the time,
and then helped erect defenses during the crisis.
International business commentators were quite impressed
by how resilient the country turned out to be in the
wake of the general devastation. It weathered the
economic storm in a much better shape than Thailand,
Indonesia and other Asean members.
In 2001,
the year President Arroyo acceded to the presidency, an
ongoing global recession and the events of 9/11 created
an economic environment that was highly problematic for
the Philippine economy. Yet, the country weathered the
year in better shape than most of its neighbors, and
there were signs of new interest from foreign investors.
In the six years since, the country averaged 5-percent
growth in GDP, with last year’s growth of 7.3 percent as
the highest in three decades.
We would
do well to remember this record of resiliency as we
confront the challenge posed to the nation by soaring
food and fuel prices. Although a sense of emergency
hovers over the nation and the world, the sky is not
falling on our heads. The economy and the nation have
real strengths that can cushion us from the worst of the
global recession. And there are reassuring signs that we
will not only cope, but the economy will continue to
grow—albeit more modestly.
The
report on Monday that the government kept its
first-semester budget deficit at about P18 billion—only
half of the programmed ceiling—despite the food and fuel
price crises is encouraging. Two points stand out in the
report:
First,
revenue collection improved during the first semester.
And
second, our fiscal managers were concerned that the
various agencies of the government have not been able to
absorb additional funding to help perk up domestic
growth. In other words, the problem is not lack of
funds, but projects to spend on.
When the
President decided that the government would no longer
aim for a zero budget deficit this year, it was for the
specific objective of cushioning the impact of high
consumer prices on the most vulnerable among our people.
The government has the resources to provide subsidies to
the needy during these trying times. And just as
important, it has the funds to put into infrastructure
and social and economic programs that will boost
economic growth this year and next year.
Inflation for now is our biggest worry, as it hit a
14-year high of 11.4 percent in June. But Bangko Sentral
Governor Amando Tetangco Jr. believes the problem should
ease before the end of the year, and the country should
fully recover by next year.
If
you’re wondering why skyrocketing oil prices—with talk
of crude hitting $200 a barrel by the end of the
year—are not taking the bottom out of the economy, here
are a few reasons:
1. It’s
not just the price of crude oil that has soared to
record levels this year; the prices of other commodities
have hit peak levels, as well. This is the difference
between this oil-price shock and the shock of 1974.
Higher commodity prices across-the-board are also
benefiting the exports of the Philippines and other
countries. So our import bill is not as crushing.
2. Oil
is not as all-pervasive in our economy as many believe.
It affects mainly transport. Most of our electricity
needs are fueled by other sources of energy, such as
hydropower and geothermal energy.
3. The
general prognosis of experts is that oil prices should
come down during the second half of the year, though not
to the same level as last year. The bubble is simply
unsustainable. Demand will ease and supply will rise
following the basic law of economics.
In this
light, I’m convinced that the efforts of Congress in the
coming regular session would be better focused not on
stop-gap measures like suspending the E-VAT or portions
of it, but on measures that will strengthen key sectors
of the economy, such as transport, agriculture,
rationalization of tax incentives and infrastructure
modernization. Such measures do not merely apply band
aid to the problem, but a real and lasting solution.
Destroying the question
The
philosopher Susan Sontag once wrote, “The only
interesting answer is that which destroys the question.”
Her words come to mind as I contemplate how the oil
crisis will play out in the months and years to come. If
we’re lucky, something like what happened in
telecommunications could happen in the world of energy.
Back in
1992, I remember how grim the state of Philippine
telecommunications looked. Ninety percent of Filipinos
had no phones. And those who had a phone couldn’t get a
dial tone. The situation looked beyond solution.
Then
mobile telephony was introduced in the country. Almost
overnight, we got linked to one another. Today, some 50
million of us have either mobile phones or fixed lines—a
ratio of one fixed line to nine mobiles. We may have
many problems as a nation, but telecommunications is no
longer one of them.
What
happened?
What
happened is that we Filipinos leapfrogged into the
future in telecommunications. Instead of plodding to
build fixed telephone systems to service the entire
country (which was the original scheme of the Ramos
telecoms program), mobile telephony enabled us to jump
into the future. So dramatic was the change on our lives
that we actually exceeded many western nations in the
advanced uses of mobile-phone technology. We literally
taught the world how to text messages.
I
think the same thing will happen to our oil nightmare.
Sooner than we think, new technologies are going to be
invented and will enable mankind to leap over its
dependence on petroleum. Oil will become a dinosaur in
the energy industry. Like mobile phones, the answer will
destroy the question. |