Some Perspectives from Growth Economics
Michael M. Alba
Abstract
Michael M. Alba
Abstract
Why has the living standard of the Philippines relative to that of the U.S. not risen unlike its Asian neighbors? Using data on national income accounts and the workforce from the Penn World Table (version 6.1) and years of schooling from Barro and Lee (2000) as well as a simple neoclassical model and some empirical methods of analysis employed in growth economics, this paper submits three interconnected answers: The country has been stuck in a low-growth trajectory. It is headed for a low steady-state level of output per worker, which explains its slow rate of long-term growth. Most significantly, its total factor productivity, at 20.9 percent of that of the U.S., is horrendously low, which explains its low convergence point. Improving its TFP is thus the key to solving the country’s low living standard.
1. Introduction
At the turn of the 19th century, Las Islas Filipinas appeared bright with promise as a nation-in-waiting, a nation aborning. True, the 1896 revolution against Spain had not been a sterling campaign: At the Tejeros convention, members of the Magdaló faction of the Katipunan had conspired against the well-meaning and perhaps naïve Andres Bonifacio to get General Emilio Aguinaldo elected President of the revolutionary government; to add insult to injury, the Supremo’s fitness to be Secretary of the Interior had been questioned due to his lack of education; and he and his brother had subsequently been arrested and executed for treason and sedition on orders of the General. For his part, Aguinaldo had proved to be a leader who valued loyalty more than competence, which demoralized his officer corps and caused indiscipline among the ranks. In the meantime, the Spanish forces, reinforced by matériel and personnel from the home country, had rallied to drive the Filipino militia out of Cavite. And so the revolution had ended in an uneasy peace with the signing of the Pact of Biak na Bato.
Still, the two-decade long propaganda movement (1872–1892), which had been ignited by the martyrdom of the Filipino priests, Frs. Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, and had reached its zenith with the publication of the two novels of Jose Rizal, had in due course given birth to a Filipino identity and consciousness that, by 1898, aspired for nothing less than national independence.
Thus, throughout the first half of the 20th century—through the American colonial period and the Japanese occupation—and ∗ Economics Department, De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, Manila 1004, Philippines. Please send comments to michael.alba@gmail.com. I am grateful to participants of seminars at the Economics Department, De La Salle University, and the School of Economics, University of the Philippines, Diliman, as well as of forums of Action for Economic Reforms in Bacolod City, Dumaguete City, Puerto Princesa, and Metro Manila for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. earlier than many other colonies, the Archipelago had been inspired, occupied, and sustained by the singular idea of nationhood.
In stark contrast, the Philippines that was delivered into the 21st century had a darker hue, a more somber outlook—sullied by episodes of crises of the last fifty years:
The import and foreign exchange controls starting in the 1950s had induced rent-seeking and spurred uncompetitive import-substituting industrialization among oligarchic families through the 1960s; the martial law period of the 1970s had rent the moral fabric of the nation; the politically tumultuous and unstable years of the 1980s had been sporadically pockmarked by failed coup attempts; the severe shortage of electric power generating capacity of the early 1990s and the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s had caused painful dislocations and economic downturns; and the politically and socially divisive impeachment campaigns against Presidents Joseph Estrada and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in the first years of the 2000s still cast long and interweaving shadows on the affairs of the nation at this writing.
The soul-searching, plaintive question, then, that Pinoy-philes have been asking is, Why has this happened to a nation so full of promise, to a people who believed— believe(!)—themselves to be so particularly blessed? In searching for answers, instead of delving into economic history, this essay takes an altogether different tack. It sets out to obtain a fresh look at the Philippine economy by adopting the comparative approach and long-term lens of the relatively new discipline of growth economics, using its models and tools of analysis. In addition, it interprets the data in the light of recent findings in and perspectives of modern development economics.
Arguably, this new approach confers certain advantages that complement traditional historical treatments and the more customary short- and medium-term economic analyses. First, the comparative perspective of growth economics affords learning from the experiences of other countries. Second, applying the parsimony of Occam’s razor (the mixed metaphors notwithstanding), the long-term focus of growth economics concentrates the analysis on the time-persistent factors. Third, the interpretation of results is informed by a more enlightened, more sober understanding of the development process. According to this new perspective, development is not by any means an inevitable process, but only a possibility: As a country may grow, just as likely may it stagnate. Moreover, development is understood not so much as a process of factor accumulation (i.e., of amassing more capital), but of organizational change that enables a country to solve coordination problems that hamper efficiency and equity. And the Washington Consensus notwithstanding, it is readily acknowledged that there are no surefire formulas for success: Some policies may work for some countries, others may work for some time periods, but no set of policies work for all countries or over all time periods. In lieu of the emphasis on policies (e.g., macroeconomic management), social institutions (as circumscribed by culture and history as well as geographic, climatic, and environmental conditions) are considered the deep determinants of economic growth and development.
Accordingly, the rest of the essay is organized as follows: In the next section, the choice of the (operational) variable(s) of interest is explained at some length. Section 3 then presents two snapshots of the distribution of country living standards—in 1960 and 2000—to set the backdrop of the analysis in terms of world developments. Engaging the main question of the paper, the fourth section addresses why the Philippines has remained relatively poor going into the 21st century. It submits three interconnected answers: First, the country has been stuck in a low-growth trajectory. Second, it is headed for a low steady-state level of output per worker, which also explains its slow rate of long-term growth. Third, its total factor productivity (i.e., the efficiency with which inputs are combined to produce output) is horrendously low. In the fifth section, the deeper question—why the Philippines has the wrong attributes for long-term growth—is explored. The hypothesis of an answer provided: poor social infrastructure stemming from Filipino culture and history. The sixth and final section reflects briefly on whether there is still hope for the future, given the chains of history and our flaws as a people.
2. The Variable(s) of Interest
Following many studies in growth economics, e.g., Hall and Jones (1996, 1997, and 1999), Jones (1997 and 2002), and Klenow and Rodríguez-Clare (1997), this paper uses as its variable of interest either the level or the growth rate of the relative living standard, measured as the ratio of a country’s GDP per worker relative to that of the U.S.—a choice that bears some extended explaining.
GDP per worker, rather than the more standard per capita GDP, is taken as the indicator of average (national) welfare to address a downward bias against developing countries inherent in the latter variable. The argument, advanced in Jones (1997), is that since nonmarket production, which is usually of considerable size in developing countries, is not included in the measurement of GDP, using the working-age rather than the entire population as the denominator of the welfare measure roughly corrects for the undervaluation of aggregate output in poor economies.
For analytical convenience, the paper’s focus is on relative rather than absolute living standards, so that GDP per worker of each country is expressed as a fraction of the GDP per worker of a reference country. This is to set the analysis in the context of what is referred to in the literature as the (conditional) convergence hypothesis. First proposed by Gerschenkron (1952) and Abramovitz (1986), the (conditional) convergence hypothesis maintains that (under certain conditions—in particular, that economies tend to the same steady-state rate of growth) there is catch-up growth, i.e., “backward” countries grow faster than their wealthier counterparts, which enables them to close the gap in living standards. As formulated in growth models, the phenomenon can be decomposed into a growth process and the terminal point to which growth tends: (a) the principle of transition dynamics, which states that an economy’s growth rate is faster, the farther below it is from its steady-state rate of growth, and (b) the steady-state level towards which a country’s output per worker is converging—in particular whether or not it is the high living standard of the developed countries (at which both output and the work force are growing at the rate of the technological frontier).
Happily, using the relative living standard indicator also has the benefit of scaling down the range of values of the variable to be more or less in the unit interval, so long as the reference country is persistently among the wealthiest in the distribution. The magnitudes are then easily interpreted as percentages of the reference country living standard.
The U.S. is used as the reference country for three reasons: First, the growth rate of the U.S. has been stable since the 1870s, which suggests that the U.S. is close to its steady-state growth rate. Second, the U.S. has been consistently among the richest countries in the world. Indeed, it has ranked as the third wealthiest country, if not higher, since 1960. Third, the U.S. is arguably very near, if not actually on, the technological frontier. As pointed out in Jones (1997 and 2000), these three reasons imply that using the U.S. as the reference country does not distort the world distribution of relative living standards and its evolution.
3. The World Distribution of Relative Living Standards, 1960 and 2000 Figure 1 presents the kernel densities1 of relative living standards in 1960 and 2000, using GDP per worker data from the Penn World Table version 6.1 of Heston, Summers, and Aten (2002).2 Three features of the graphs deserve comment. First, the density functions of both years are widely dispersed, with the range of values spanning almost the entire length of the unit interval. This implies that the huge gap in living standards between rich and poor countries persists even after 40 years. Second, the densities are skewed to the right, which means that in 1960 as in 2000 there were proportionately more poor than rich countries. Third, the density for 2000 has a lower peak on the left and a small hump on the right. This indicates that the proportion of poor countries has declined in 2000 and that some countries that were poor in 1960 have gradually approached the U.S. living standard.
This last point is an encouraging development. A problem with Figure 1, however, is that the winners (and losers) in growth performance between 1960 and 2000 cannot be easily and systematically identified. Addressing this issue, Figure 2 plots the countries’ 2000 relative living standards against their 1960 values.3 Countries represented on points above (below) the 45-degree line can then be identified as winners (losers), having improved on (deteriorated from) their 1960 rankings.
Unfortunately for the Philippines, its point on the scatter diagram falls just below the 45-degree line, suggesting that it is one of the underperforming countries, because its GDP per worker did not grow as fast as the technological frontier (as represented by the growth rate of the U.S. GDP per worker).
An inference that Jones (1997 and 2002) makes about the evolving world distribution of relative living standards is that countries whose relative living standards exceed 0.15 (i.e., they are not in the bottom 30 percent of the distribution) will converge
1 A kernel density is a smoothed histogram in the sense that the class range, which is represented by the width of a bar, has been narrowed to a point. The relative frequency of each point (in the range of the continuous random variable) is estimated by running a kernel function (of a given window- or bandwidth) through the entire range, such that a higher weight is assigned to a particular observation in the sample, the closer its value is to the point whose relative frequency is being estimated.
2 This means that GDP is expressed in 1996 U.S. dollars using purchasing power parity exchange rates, which has the effect of raising the value of developing country outputs, since prices for nontradable goods and services tend to be lower in poor countries.
3 See Appendix Table 1 to decipher the three-letter country codes. to a high living standard in the far future, whereas countries with relative living standards below 0.15 are more likely to see their GDPs headed towards low-level steady states. If true, the implications for the Philippines are serious, since it is right at the border of the two sets of countries. If it gets its act together, it may yet join the high performers; if not, it will plod as a relatively poor country far into the future (its performance between 1960 and 2000 being suggestive).
An important point that may be drawn from Figures 1 and 2, which has already been mentioned, is that economic growth is not an inexorable process: Over time, a country’s relative living standard may improve or worsen. Table 1 provides examples of growth miracles and growth disasters in the period 1960–2000. Some of the growth miracles are countries in East and Southeast Asia, such as Hong Kong, South Korea, Malaysia, and Thailand. Amazingly, Hong Kong’s living standard went from 18.9 percent of the U.S. living standard in 1960 to 80.9 percent in 2000, and South Korea’s improved from 14.8 percent to 57.1 percent.
As impressive as the feats of the growth miracles were, however, just as tragic were the meltdowns of the growth disasters. A case in point is Venezuela: One of the richest countries in the world in 1960 with 83.5 percent of the U.S. living standard, by 2000, its living standard had declined to only 27.5 percent of that of the U.S. Another is Zambia, whose living standard worsened from 11.0 percent of the U.S. living standard in 1960 to 4.1 percent in 2000.
In the case of the Philippines, the living standard declined from 17.4 percent of the U.S. level in 1960 to 13.0 percent in 2000, making the country a minor growth failure, particularly when viewed in the wake of its high-performing neighbors. This point stands out in greater relief when the relative living standards of the ASEAN-5 (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) and Taiwan are tracked between 1960 and 2000, as is done in Figure 3. In 1960 the Philippines ranked a close third, after Singapore and Malaysia, but by 2000 was dead last—with the 2000 relative living standard even lower than its 1960 level, the country having been unable to grow faster than the technological frontier. Even more telling is the indication that the decline started in the early 1980s and has not been reversed ever since, through successive terms of democratically-elected administrations.
A possible reason for this deterioration over the last 15 years or so may be inferred from Easterly (2002)4: What Sah (2005) calls “diffused and demographically widespread corruption” may have become more prevalent in the post-Marcos era, as the dismantling of the dictatorship’s monopoly on extortion may have given way to a tragedy-of-the-commons outcome. As pointed out in Ong (2003), the difference in corruption during and after Marcos’s time was that, from being the purview of a favored few, viz., the relatives and cronies of the First Family, it became a line anyone with the gumption could engage in. If this was indeed the case, the deadweight losses of corruption might have increased many-fold after the mid-1980s, which in turn might be a primary cause of the poor long-term growth performance of the Philippine economy since then.
4 Suggestively, Easterly (2002) begins his chapter on corruption with the following quote from Mark Twain: “There is no native criminal class in America, except for Congress.”
1. Introduction
At the turn of the 19th century, Las Islas Filipinas appeared bright with promise as a nation-in-waiting, a nation aborning. True, the 1896 revolution against Spain had not been a sterling campaign: At the Tejeros convention, members of the Magdaló faction of the Katipunan had conspired against the well-meaning and perhaps naïve Andres Bonifacio to get General Emilio Aguinaldo elected President of the revolutionary government; to add insult to injury, the Supremo’s fitness to be Secretary of the Interior had been questioned due to his lack of education; and he and his brother had subsequently been arrested and executed for treason and sedition on orders of the General. For his part, Aguinaldo had proved to be a leader who valued loyalty more than competence, which demoralized his officer corps and caused indiscipline among the ranks. In the meantime, the Spanish forces, reinforced by matériel and personnel from the home country, had rallied to drive the Filipino militia out of Cavite. And so the revolution had ended in an uneasy peace with the signing of the Pact of Biak na Bato.
Still, the two-decade long propaganda movement (1872–1892), which had been ignited by the martyrdom of the Filipino priests, Frs. Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, and had reached its zenith with the publication of the two novels of Jose Rizal, had in due course given birth to a Filipino identity and consciousness that, by 1898, aspired for nothing less than national independence.
Thus, throughout the first half of the 20th century—through the American colonial period and the Japanese occupation—and ∗ Economics Department, De La Salle University, 2401 Taft Avenue, Manila 1004, Philippines. Please send comments to michael.alba@gmail.com. I am grateful to participants of seminars at the Economics Department, De La Salle University, and the School of Economics, University of the Philippines, Diliman, as well as of forums of Action for Economic Reforms in Bacolod City, Dumaguete City, Puerto Princesa, and Metro Manila for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. earlier than many other colonies, the Archipelago had been inspired, occupied, and sustained by the singular idea of nationhood.
In stark contrast, the Philippines that was delivered into the 21st century had a darker hue, a more somber outlook—sullied by episodes of crises of the last fifty years:
The import and foreign exchange controls starting in the 1950s had induced rent-seeking and spurred uncompetitive import-substituting industrialization among oligarchic families through the 1960s; the martial law period of the 1970s had rent the moral fabric of the nation; the politically tumultuous and unstable years of the 1980s had been sporadically pockmarked by failed coup attempts; the severe shortage of electric power generating capacity of the early 1990s and the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s had caused painful dislocations and economic downturns; and the politically and socially divisive impeachment campaigns against Presidents Joseph Estrada and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in the first years of the 2000s still cast long and interweaving shadows on the affairs of the nation at this writing.
The soul-searching, plaintive question, then, that Pinoy-philes have been asking is, Why has this happened to a nation so full of promise, to a people who believed— believe(!)—themselves to be so particularly blessed? In searching for answers, instead of delving into economic history, this essay takes an altogether different tack. It sets out to obtain a fresh look at the Philippine economy by adopting the comparative approach and long-term lens of the relatively new discipline of growth economics, using its models and tools of analysis. In addition, it interprets the data in the light of recent findings in and perspectives of modern development economics.
Arguably, this new approach confers certain advantages that complement traditional historical treatments and the more customary short- and medium-term economic analyses. First, the comparative perspective of growth economics affords learning from the experiences of other countries. Second, applying the parsimony of Occam’s razor (the mixed metaphors notwithstanding), the long-term focus of growth economics concentrates the analysis on the time-persistent factors. Third, the interpretation of results is informed by a more enlightened, more sober understanding of the development process. According to this new perspective, development is not by any means an inevitable process, but only a possibility: As a country may grow, just as likely may it stagnate. Moreover, development is understood not so much as a process of factor accumulation (i.e., of amassing more capital), but of organizational change that enables a country to solve coordination problems that hamper efficiency and equity. And the Washington Consensus notwithstanding, it is readily acknowledged that there are no surefire formulas for success: Some policies may work for some countries, others may work for some time periods, but no set of policies work for all countries or over all time periods. In lieu of the emphasis on policies (e.g., macroeconomic management), social institutions (as circumscribed by culture and history as well as geographic, climatic, and environmental conditions) are considered the deep determinants of economic growth and development.
Accordingly, the rest of the essay is organized as follows: In the next section, the choice of the (operational) variable(s) of interest is explained at some length. Section 3 then presents two snapshots of the distribution of country living standards—in 1960 and 2000—to set the backdrop of the analysis in terms of world developments. Engaging the main question of the paper, the fourth section addresses why the Philippines has remained relatively poor going into the 21st century. It submits three interconnected answers: First, the country has been stuck in a low-growth trajectory. Second, it is headed for a low steady-state level of output per worker, which also explains its slow rate of long-term growth. Third, its total factor productivity (i.e., the efficiency with which inputs are combined to produce output) is horrendously low. In the fifth section, the deeper question—why the Philippines has the wrong attributes for long-term growth—is explored. The hypothesis of an answer provided: poor social infrastructure stemming from Filipino culture and history. The sixth and final section reflects briefly on whether there is still hope for the future, given the chains of history and our flaws as a people.
2. The Variable(s) of Interest
Following many studies in growth economics, e.g., Hall and Jones (1996, 1997, and 1999), Jones (1997 and 2002), and Klenow and Rodríguez-Clare (1997), this paper uses as its variable of interest either the level or the growth rate of the relative living standard, measured as the ratio of a country’s GDP per worker relative to that of the U.S.—a choice that bears some extended explaining.
GDP per worker, rather than the more standard per capita GDP, is taken as the indicator of average (national) welfare to address a downward bias against developing countries inherent in the latter variable. The argument, advanced in Jones (1997), is that since nonmarket production, which is usually of considerable size in developing countries, is not included in the measurement of GDP, using the working-age rather than the entire population as the denominator of the welfare measure roughly corrects for the undervaluation of aggregate output in poor economies.
For analytical convenience, the paper’s focus is on relative rather than absolute living standards, so that GDP per worker of each country is expressed as a fraction of the GDP per worker of a reference country. This is to set the analysis in the context of what is referred to in the literature as the (conditional) convergence hypothesis. First proposed by Gerschenkron (1952) and Abramovitz (1986), the (conditional) convergence hypothesis maintains that (under certain conditions—in particular, that economies tend to the same steady-state rate of growth) there is catch-up growth, i.e., “backward” countries grow faster than their wealthier counterparts, which enables them to close the gap in living standards. As formulated in growth models, the phenomenon can be decomposed into a growth process and the terminal point to which growth tends: (a) the principle of transition dynamics, which states that an economy’s growth rate is faster, the farther below it is from its steady-state rate of growth, and (b) the steady-state level towards which a country’s output per worker is converging—in particular whether or not it is the high living standard of the developed countries (at which both output and the work force are growing at the rate of the technological frontier).
Happily, using the relative living standard indicator also has the benefit of scaling down the range of values of the variable to be more or less in the unit interval, so long as the reference country is persistently among the wealthiest in the distribution. The magnitudes are then easily interpreted as percentages of the reference country living standard.
The U.S. is used as the reference country for three reasons: First, the growth rate of the U.S. has been stable since the 1870s, which suggests that the U.S. is close to its steady-state growth rate. Second, the U.S. has been consistently among the richest countries in the world. Indeed, it has ranked as the third wealthiest country, if not higher, since 1960. Third, the U.S. is arguably very near, if not actually on, the technological frontier. As pointed out in Jones (1997 and 2000), these three reasons imply that using the U.S. as the reference country does not distort the world distribution of relative living standards and its evolution.
3. The World Distribution of Relative Living Standards, 1960 and 2000 Figure 1 presents the kernel densities1 of relative living standards in 1960 and 2000, using GDP per worker data from the Penn World Table version 6.1 of Heston, Summers, and Aten (2002).2 Three features of the graphs deserve comment. First, the density functions of both years are widely dispersed, with the range of values spanning almost the entire length of the unit interval. This implies that the huge gap in living standards between rich and poor countries persists even after 40 years. Second, the densities are skewed to the right, which means that in 1960 as in 2000 there were proportionately more poor than rich countries. Third, the density for 2000 has a lower peak on the left and a small hump on the right. This indicates that the proportion of poor countries has declined in 2000 and that some countries that were poor in 1960 have gradually approached the U.S. living standard.
This last point is an encouraging development. A problem with Figure 1, however, is that the winners (and losers) in growth performance between 1960 and 2000 cannot be easily and systematically identified. Addressing this issue, Figure 2 plots the countries’ 2000 relative living standards against their 1960 values.3 Countries represented on points above (below) the 45-degree line can then be identified as winners (losers), having improved on (deteriorated from) their 1960 rankings.
Unfortunately for the Philippines, its point on the scatter diagram falls just below the 45-degree line, suggesting that it is one of the underperforming countries, because its GDP per worker did not grow as fast as the technological frontier (as represented by the growth rate of the U.S. GDP per worker).
An inference that Jones (1997 and 2002) makes about the evolving world distribution of relative living standards is that countries whose relative living standards exceed 0.15 (i.e., they are not in the bottom 30 percent of the distribution) will converge
1 A kernel density is a smoothed histogram in the sense that the class range, which is represented by the width of a bar, has been narrowed to a point. The relative frequency of each point (in the range of the continuous random variable) is estimated by running a kernel function (of a given window- or bandwidth) through the entire range, such that a higher weight is assigned to a particular observation in the sample, the closer its value is to the point whose relative frequency is being estimated.
2 This means that GDP is expressed in 1996 U.S. dollars using purchasing power parity exchange rates, which has the effect of raising the value of developing country outputs, since prices for nontradable goods and services tend to be lower in poor countries.
3 See Appendix Table 1 to decipher the three-letter country codes. to a high living standard in the far future, whereas countries with relative living standards below 0.15 are more likely to see their GDPs headed towards low-level steady states. If true, the implications for the Philippines are serious, since it is right at the border of the two sets of countries. If it gets its act together, it may yet join the high performers; if not, it will plod as a relatively poor country far into the future (its performance between 1960 and 2000 being suggestive).
An important point that may be drawn from Figures 1 and 2, which has already been mentioned, is that economic growth is not an inexorable process: Over time, a country’s relative living standard may improve or worsen. Table 1 provides examples of growth miracles and growth disasters in the period 1960–2000. Some of the growth miracles are countries in East and Southeast Asia, such as Hong Kong, South Korea, Malaysia, and Thailand. Amazingly, Hong Kong’s living standard went from 18.9 percent of the U.S. living standard in 1960 to 80.9 percent in 2000, and South Korea’s improved from 14.8 percent to 57.1 percent.
As impressive as the feats of the growth miracles were, however, just as tragic were the meltdowns of the growth disasters. A case in point is Venezuela: One of the richest countries in the world in 1960 with 83.5 percent of the U.S. living standard, by 2000, its living standard had declined to only 27.5 percent of that of the U.S. Another is Zambia, whose living standard worsened from 11.0 percent of the U.S. living standard in 1960 to 4.1 percent in 2000.
In the case of the Philippines, the living standard declined from 17.4 percent of the U.S. level in 1960 to 13.0 percent in 2000, making the country a minor growth failure, particularly when viewed in the wake of its high-performing neighbors. This point stands out in greater relief when the relative living standards of the ASEAN-5 (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) and Taiwan are tracked between 1960 and 2000, as is done in Figure 3. In 1960 the Philippines ranked a close third, after Singapore and Malaysia, but by 2000 was dead last—with the 2000 relative living standard even lower than its 1960 level, the country having been unable to grow faster than the technological frontier. Even more telling is the indication that the decline started in the early 1980s and has not been reversed ever since, through successive terms of democratically-elected administrations.
A possible reason for this deterioration over the last 15 years or so may be inferred from Easterly (2002)4: What Sah (2005) calls “diffused and demographically widespread corruption” may have become more prevalent in the post-Marcos era, as the dismantling of the dictatorship’s monopoly on extortion may have given way to a tragedy-of-the-commons outcome. As pointed out in Ong (2003), the difference in corruption during and after Marcos’s time was that, from being the purview of a favored few, viz., the relatives and cronies of the First Family, it became a line anyone with the gumption could engage in. If this was indeed the case, the deadweight losses of corruption might have increased many-fold after the mid-1980s, which in turn might be a primary cause of the poor long-term growth performance of the Philippine economy since then.
4 Suggestively, Easterly (2002) begins his chapter on corruption with the following quote from Mark Twain: “There is no native criminal class in America, except for Congress.”
Source: http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/respub/dp/pdf/DP2007-01.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment