Renaissance and reforms

HAVING worked for the past two decades on numerous nongovernment developmental projects, aimed at facilitating reforms — legislative, policy, process, plan or regulatory — in key sectors of the Philippines, has made me both hopeful and jaded in equal parts about the value of public administration and governance in the country. Hopeful, because in each new project I joined, a new slate of developmental challenges to be solved and partners to work with signal a renaissance of sorts, a renewal of fate for the target sectors and institutions; there is palpable energy coming from the belief of potential down-the-line benefits for the country in general. But jaded, in that I’ve also seen how the lack of cooperation and political will on the government’s side too, compromised the sustainability of the reforms that were engendered. The cynicism lingers, becomes a “lesson learned” to be revisited for the next round.

My experiences have given me firsthand opportunities to be an active player — as advocate, technical specialist, communicator or manager of reform processes, and also to observe the ways in which external donor technical assistance is sought, received, resisted, ignored, wasted or optimized by the public sector side. The reforms that are recommended by the external development players are what might be considered as fundamental, critical and transformative — essential, for making the leap from the archaic, inefficient and corrupt ways of doing things to more relevant, accountable and productivity-inducing systems. The bottom line, of course, is to unleash the economy from what are perceived as the shackles that inhibit the entry of new players and investments in imperfect markets and to maximize the return on government’s limited resources, which had been sunk on otherwise futile corporations or losing propositions. If things went as outlined, the well-intentioned external initiatives, matched by government effort and commitment, would have been all good, potentially creating more jobs, raising incomes and improving quality of life.

The sad fact, however, is that reform regimes are cyclical and fickle, following the flow of the “influentials” embedded in each new government administration. For those of us working in the development advocacy profession, we never quite know if reforms that had been instituted in the past stand a chance of actually seeing the light of day, their impacts reaching the grassroots in the next cycle. Impressive jargon used in reform processes have become all too familiar yet perhaps remain elusive in reality, especially from the ordinary Filipino’s perspective: deregulation, liberalization, restructuring, devolution, codification, globalization, privatization, competition. Are they just highfalutin icing on the renaissance cakes of each administration or imperatives that deserve more than just an annotation at each “state of the nation” address?

As an economist I have so much respect for the analysts and authors behind the legislative and executive reforms that we had seen in at least the last four presidential regimes. Instruments of reforms are not easy to craft, much more pass into actual law, and obtain a budget for rollout. Simple research quickly reveals the flavor of the reform menu from the last four and current presidents, whose tours of duty represent segments of renaissance:

– Ex-president Joseph Estrada’s years are associated with laws that “liberalized the securities market; granted a host of incentives to multinational firms establishing their regional hubs in the country; dismantled 40 years of state protectionism over the country’s retail trade industry; and opened up the local banking industry to foreign players.”

– Ex-president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is credited for having “instituted policies and measures geared toward economic stability and building a strong republic; pushed an economic strategy built on ‘free market’ policies of globalization— removing trade barriers, taking away investment controls, privatizing public utilities and social services, deregulation, and continued debt payments.”

– Ex-president Benigno Aquino 3rd is recognized as having “strengthened the country’s macroeconomic fundamentals, which enabled the Philippines to bag its first investment grade rating, expand GDP and lift millions out of poverty during his term.”

– Ex-president Rodrigo Duterte “initiated liberal economic reforms, including reforming the country’s tax system; established freedom of information under the executive branch to eliminate corruption and red tape; and liberalized rice imports with the Rice Tariffication Law.”

– Incumbent President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., whose transformation from a so-called dictator’s son to the unifying leader of the new republic, who will redeem his family’s corruption-tainted name has promised “to prioritize pandemic recovery and the economy, to aid the farm sector, de-congest the capital Manila’s roads, push renewables and continue fighting a longrunning communist insurgency.”

Over time, this country has seen a series of rebirths and reforms with each new government administration, but each time, I’m unable to grasp that sense of “continuity.” It’s as if we keep going back to age one and stop at age six; like it’s groundhog’s day every six years. Reforms tend to cycle back and forth too. On a personal note, I identify each transition into a new project as my own rebirth too. Despite being half-time jaundiced (more as a precautionary attitude), I prefer to begin each new work assignment with a clean slate. As a development management practitioner in the Philippines, it is never only about the job for me. In my intrinsic nationalistic spirit, I maintain the attitude that transitions are good and each changing of the guards is a chance for renewal of the country. I look forward to seeing what reforms the Marcosian Renaissance era brings.

Arlene P. Donaire completed her MPA at the Harvard Kennedy School (1999) and MA Economics at UP Diliman (1988). She has worked for over two decades as a development manager and technical adviser on various donor-assisted projects addressing governance, policy, and regulatory reform challenges in the environment, energy, and infrastructure sectors of the Philippines. She is currently deputy chief of a five-year project on regulatory reforms support for Philippine national development.