Government or National (Management), Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil andCommunity (Participatory) Model to Sustainability Economics
people if the macroeconomics as the mother framework will be replaced by the sustainable development. Theabovementioned issues and concerns of the entire society of the country must be given efficient attention inthe MTPDP 2011-2016. Aside from the replacement of the framework, the executive sector must have a brief discussion for the implementation of a national environmental plan of the Philippine government.The comments of the IBON Foundation to the Medium-term Philippine Development Plan of NEDA(National Economic and Development Authority) explained that there are inconsistent measures that areincluded in the MTPDP. According the IBON article (2011),
Such a plan however poses serious problems for the economy and t
he people. It misinterprets the country‟s underdevelopment and, by insisting on the discredited „free market‟ development model, will not result in higher growth nor reduce poverty. It avoids redistributing the country‟s resources and increasing the social
and economic power of the poor majority. If anything it even exaggerates private profit-seeking as a means to social development to justify diverting public resources for private gain. The plan has low ambition and is not decisive in addressing the countr
y‟s poverty, backwardness and underdevelopment.”
Their interpretation of the over-all concept of the MTPDP is credible because of what Filipinos havebeen experiencing in the past until the present time. The same concept of development has been practicedup to this time. As a country, we are spending so much but the wastes are larger. We continue to focus oneconomic development without bothering to resolve the problems of cultural and environmental degradation.The focus of the present economic framework remains on the privatization of capital. The free market thatthey say would develop us is also tearing us down. The free market system improves our macroeconomicsbut the micro remains down. The poor continue to thrive on little resources while the rich continue tocelebrate in abundance.
The IBON Foundation article also mentioned the ineffective “free market” system that has been
practiced through the years in the Philippines. It is ineffective for it only brought profit to the business of export sectors to which foreign investors were delighted. The rest of the country has not clearly feltdevelopment because from the beginning, they were already deprived of development since they belonged tothe lower class. Those who belong to the lower class would not feel the slight growth of the economy sincethey do not earn much and also, a growing economy does not equate to a growing income for employees.
According to the IBON Foundation (2011), “
They are apparently meant to be leading sectors of some sort forth
e economy but, as conceived, none of them pertain to Filipino industrialization or reducing the country‟s
dependence on foreign capital. If anything the main focus is simply to attract foreign investors to exploitcheap Filipino labor (skilled and unskille
d) and the country‟s natural resources (mineral and agricultural).” In
this statement of IBON Foundation, it becomes clear that there is an ineffective policy-making by thegovernment. The government continues to boast an increasing investment from foreign industries. They saythat Filipinos would have available jobs because of these investments. But do they even think of whathappens next? Their focus is only on the creation of jobs but not on the process of the work and how it iscompensated. This only shows that the government remains to be inefficient for it only works in the short-runnot in the long-run. The statement also points out the exploitation of our resources by the foreign investors.We have already been fooled by being unfairly compensated; ironically, we have also lost natural resourcesplus the danger we would face for destroying our environment. It may be a growth in the economy of thecountry but for the people, they suffer in poverty, they lose their share of resources in the world, then theycontinue to fall because of catastrophes.
According to the IBON Foundation, “So while the plan is replete with motherhood statements about
creating jobs and reducing poverty it methodically avoids the most important and decisive measures for doingthis. Creating jobs does not just mean giving free play for any business to make profits on the weak argumentthat they hire employees anyway. It also means deliberately encouraging Filipino-owned economic activitythat creates long-term jobs and builds the national economy. Reducing poverty does not just mean givingemergency cash transfers. It also means redistributing income, wealth and assets from those who have
accumulated these towards those who have been denied them.” The statement points out the ineffi
ciencies of the policy-making body of the country and the government departments concerned. They may have provided jobs for numerous Filipinos and have supported many citizens to engage in the local economy, but are the jobs provided stable or for the long-term or do they last only for a certain period and later on increase theunemployment again? Another question is, are these opportunities given by the government contributing tothe populace rather than wasting the opportunity because their businesses failed? The government should notonly give opportunities to the needy or the unemployed but also monitor them for the long-run and supportthem as they grow as a business. That will generally develop a local economy that is competitive enough inthe global market. In addition, Cash transfer programs may be helpful to the poor Filipino family. But it shouldbe properly carried out to the public. The government should secure the budget allocated to Cash Transfersfrom corruption. They should come up with plans that carefully monitor the distribution of this aiding programand also monitor how the budget will be used by the recipient of the aid so that the program will be effective.