No other best time

IN WELFARE economics, there is this question of, “what if the projects that we think we need today are after all those that the future generations may not want?” If this happens, most of the efforts for development done today may not be contributory to the comforts of the coming generation.

The debate hovers on the principles of sustainability. It looks at the justice and equity principle whereby the present generation employs the use of the current resources in the guise objective implementer of things fundamentally needed by generations to come.

Thus we use the principle of Ricardian Equivalence where which, as an economist, would readily tell that peso worth spent today must be able to compensate and add to the benefit to the coming generation, the future generations will pay for the loans made today.

The government, with its unique position, as having the ability to spend first to earn income for the economy and with its ability to “write money of the air” need to do impressive and high-impact pump prime programs and projects.

So what criteria are used in decision-making over things that will have intergenerational effects; the current generation spends while the future generation pays. It is usually done through the process of justification.

A program or project may be a source of debate today because of its low contribution to current needs, or may be less important of today’s measurement but looking at the horizon of the longer future; the effects will be farreaching. Such is the call for federalism of today.

Some may ask, why to pursue federalism when it does not translate to food on the table, does not lead to addressing chronic poverty, hunger, inequality, insurgency. It is a mere systemic change that will allow a few people to get hold and concentrate powers. However, most of the social problems can well be traced to the system of governance that is heaped with inefficiency, abundant with neglect and empathy to the greater majority. We have a system that breeds the widening gap between the rich and the poor.

The unitary system of the country need to be re-arranged; need be re-configured to bring the government near and responsive to its people. It is giving the impression of the Tiebout effects of public service where people will congregate to a geographic place that expresses similar public demand. In this manner, the government, as an agent to produce the public demand and to deliver the public service, will be efficient, responsive, and less reactive.

President Duterte had been saying the need to change the constitution. Either way, if it is for federalism or some provisions of the Constitution, yet the order of the day is for the local governments to have a bigger budget share, more economic support to them. The economic provisions must work for the growth of the rural areas as well; investment opportunities need not be narrow.

Again and again, all these points to the need for federalism or to whatever it’s called — Concom member Atty. Antonio Arellano asked “if federalism is the answer, what is the question?” to which he narrated in the long list the socioeconomic and political woes that we experience, and he said that the “opportunity to get this answer is now, there is no other best time but now!” And for all intents, this is a decision of today that will have generous effects on the coming generations.

All views, opinions and expressions made in this article are those of the author and do not reflect his organization.