A fundamental question hangs over the Philippines: are the current administration’s efforts to address declining business confidence truly transformative, or merely superficial adjustments? The erosion of trust isn’t a temporary dip; it’s a stark indictment of a state perceived as failing to combat corruption and uphold good governance.
Without integrity in public institutions, vital resources are consistently diverted from essential areas like infrastructure, innovation, healthcare, and education. Durable economic growth simply isn’t possible when corruption remains unchecked, eroding the foundations of a thriving nation.
Recent announcements of “big, bold reforms” have been met with skepticism. The core issue isn’t the intention behind these reforms, but whether they represent a genuine departure from past failures or simply a repetition of unfulfilled promises.
Various agencies have pledged modernization initiatives, aiming to attract investment and accelerate digital transformation. Streamlining procedures and reducing bureaucratic hurdles are welcome steps, yet they should have been standard practice for decades, not last-minute efforts in the twilight of a presidential term.
These initiatives, however, miss the central problem. A pervasive sense of unease among investors stems from a single, potent force: corruption. The real challenge lies in addressing a critical triad – weak transparency, selective enforcement, and uncertain accountability – which collectively undermine trust far more than administrative delays.
Systemic corruption diverts funds from crucial investments in research, development, and infrastructure, resulting in slower growth, diminished efficiency, and a weakening of the Philippines’ regional standing. The consequences are far-reaching and deeply damaging.
Consider the restoration of funds to the automotive industry program – does this truly address decades of manufacturing decline? Or visa-free entry for tourists when basic infrastructure and services remain inadequate? These are procedural fixes to institutional problems.
The contrast is striking. Vietnam is actively reshaping its state structure, streamlining governance, and cutting bureaucratic layers. The Philippines, meanwhile, focuses on easing visa restrictions and creating single windows for imports – reforms that address symptoms, not the disease.
Despite respectable GDP growth, many Filipinos haven’t experienced a corresponding improvement in their quality of life. Inflation persists, prices remain unaffordable, and jobs often lack security. The economy feels stable, yet vulnerable to future shocks.
The current reforms won’t dismantle the Philippines’ reliance on consumption driven by remittances and outsourcing. A weak industrial base, fragmented policies, limited processing of raw materials, and unpredictable investment rules continue to hinder sustained progress – issues repeatedly highlighted by international institutions.
Indonesia and Vietnam offer a compelling alternative. They prioritize investment over consumption, with gross investment exceeding 30% of GDP compared to the Philippines’ roughly 23%. They focus on resource-based and export-oriented manufacturing, fostering investor confidence and attracting significant foreign investment.
Indonesia and Vietnam *make* more; the Philippines *spends* more. This fundamental difference underscores the urgency for a more profound shift in strategy.
True, game-changing reform requires a bolder vision. As articulated by Mark Carney, the world is undergoing a “rupture of the world order,” demanding decisive action from middle powers.
Carney’s prescription is clear: prioritize sovereignty, territorial integrity, and human rights, while recognizing diverging interests and embracing incremental progress. Crucially, this requires concrete action, not just rhetoric.
Canada, for example, dismantled internal trade barriers, fast-tracked investments in key sectors, and diversified its trade partnerships – structural breaks that fundamentally altered its economic landscape.
The Philippine response, however, remains largely procedural. The core crisis is a breakdown of public trust in the state’s ability to enforce rules and deliver justice. Focusing solely on streamlining processes and easing visa requirements misses the mark entirely.
President Marcos’ call for accountability during a recent address hinted at a potential turning point, but without sustained enforcement and institutional support, it remained a fleeting moment.
Too often, proposed reforms echo recommendations made for over a decade by international financial institutions – better planning, improved budgeting, technical assistance. These are necessary, but not transformative.
The danger lies in participating in rituals we no longer believe in, a “living within a lie” that perpetuates the status quo. True reform demands visibly breaking with practices that undermine the state, enforcing accountability without exception, and building institutions that endure beyond individual leadership.
Until reform transcends mere ritual and becomes a genuine rupture, the Philippines risks continuing to grow on paper while falling further behind in reality. The future hinges on a commitment to action, not just slogans.
