|
A
6.9-percent GDP growth rate, the highest quarterly
growth in the last 17 years in the country’s history, is
certainly good news. Never mind that our neighbors
China,
Vietnam
and India have raised the bar to the 7-percent to
11-percent growth band in the last several years. An
almost 7-percent growth in GDP for a country with barely
a $1,000 per capita GDP is actually quite ordinary.
But
let’s drink to that pretty new and higher number, if
only because for years now we have been used to being
thrashed by the world’s number crunchers, including
those from multilateral institutions who kept on telling
the international community we “lack global
competitiveness,” have “poor infrastructure,” or we have
less “economic freedom.”
But this
new number may actually give us a hint that good things
could happen if only some elements are present, like
higher public spending, to compliment people’s
expenditures.
On
hindsight, this encouraging figure could actually be
just an unusual bleep in the economic screen. We just
had a midterm election and, certainly, politicians may
have started throwing out money around as early as
January to beef up their electoral chances. We have a
construction ban on election season; the ruling party
may have tried to ratchet up spending to put some spine
to its hopelessly limp Senate lineup. That is clearly
shown in government’s pump-priming activities that
caused a 16.9-percent growth in public construction.
Looking
at the rest of the numbers, however, it appears that the
numbers do look real. As usual, personal consumption
explained much of the growth figures. The people
purchased more food, clothes, shoes, tobacco and spent
more for fuels and light.
And
where did they get the money? As usual, the rising
personal spending came from the dollars sent in by
overseas Filipinos. The number of deployed workers
actually went down, but the money coming in is rising
since we are increasingly responding to jobs that
require greater skills and brainpower (like engineers
and medical professionals).
Exports
also maintained their double-digit growth, apparently
because of the continuing robust demand for electronics
and semiconductors.
Also,
despite the super typhoons, the farm sector did look
stable, and the increased productivity from the fishery
sector may also have helped a lot. Manufacturing also
remained stable, while mining recovered.
All
these factors translated to more money being transacted
through banks, money being spent in malls and sari-sari
stores, more cash being burned in cellular phones and
Internet games, and more money being used to buy
vehicles.
No
wonder the services sector grew by more than 9 percent,
contributing 4.4 percentage points to the 6.9-percent
growth rate. Industry contributed 1.9 percent and the
farm sector 0.8 percentage points.
Now that
we have praised ourselves with this new growth figure,
we need to ask whether or not the service-driven economy
is the most desirable growth path for us. Growth per se
is good; an expanding pie somehow means that more and
more people got the crumbs. But crumbs are crumbs and
they are not going to create adequate nourishment for
the broader sectors of the economy.
Consider
these facts: interest rates are low (read: capital is
cheap) and the peso has been “strong” (read: imported
machines, technology, packaging products and equipment
are cheap). And yet, durable equipment has not been
rising. That could be interpreted to mean that business
organizations are not investing in new machines and are
not refurbishing their offices. Isn’t that a sign of a
wait-and-see attitude? If it is, investor confidence,
therefore, is not yet fully restored.
The real
reason probably lies in the structure of the economy,
i.e. its being a service-driven one. Service companies,
business-process outsourcing (BPOs) for instance,
usually don’t import huge machines, nor do they build
factories. That means they are not likely to hire
workers en masse the way a factory, requiring thousands
of skilled and unskilled workers, would. Do we ever
wonder why despite all the decent growth we achieved in
the last three years, we can’t seem to address
joblessness? That’s the reason.
The
counterpoint seems to be that the services economy
actually creates jobs fast, since setting up a service
company like a BPO doesn’t require so much capital
infusion. All that is required is a nice building with
reliable broadband Internet connection and voilà!
hundreds of call-center agents or software programmers
are hired.
That’s
true in the case of the country’s cyberservices
industry. But the one thing that is ignored in this
debate is the fact that the services sector has the
tendency to hire call-center agents, accountants,
medical transcribers, lawyers and software engineers
first before they get janitors, street sweepers and
errand boys. The ideal thing to do is to provide jobs
for both accountants and the like, as well as janitors,
street sweepers, farmers and factory workers.
India
should provide a clear example to us.
India
is far ahead of the Philippines in terms of
service-driven growth. Bangalore, Chennai and Delhi are
full of information-technology campuses that glittered
like urban utopias.
A few
blocks from these campuses are stark manifestations of
the continuing poverty, inequality and the perennial
failure of the public sector to provide much-needed
social services and urban infrastructure. Indians are
aware of this and are actually looking at China’s
manufacturing-driven growth with great envy.
The
point here is that our service-driven growth is good,
but we should start looking beyond that to spread the
benefits of an expanding economy beyond the upper strata
of society.
Romulo
Neri, director general of the National Economic and
Development Authority, actually acknowledged these
limitations and has outlined crucial reforms and
expenditure programs to boost both the farms and
factories.
We
wonder whether or not government has actually done
something to address the bureaucracy’s absorptive
capacity, as well as its tendency to waste public money
to graft and corruption. It’s something that mass media
and the general public should watch for as we approach
the second half of 2007.
Yes, the
people are watching. |