Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Final History of Economic Thought Research Paper

Final History of Economic Thought Research Paper

Ratings: (0)|Views: 33|Likes:

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, History
Published by: Mark Martin C. Celino on Sep 20, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/01/2013

pdf

text

original

 
UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMASFACULTY OF ARTS AND LETTERS2ECONOMICS2
 
Government or National (Management),Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility)and Civil and Community (Participatory) Modelto Sustainability Economics
 
Forest and Mineral Resources Sectors in the Philippines
 
Mark Martin CelinoJohn Christian CeñalArvin MatiasAngelo Vincent OmosKarl Alen Yu9/29/2011
NEDA’s framework, the Medium
-term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) has been adopted by theAquino administration as the basis of economic development and industrialization of the country for thenext six (6) years. However, analysis of the present situation of the Philippine ecosystems in relation with theoverall economic undertakings of the past and present regimes proves the insufficiency of the developmentmodel towards attaining long-term and sustained economic growth. Hence, this research aims to promotethe involvement of national interests over the vast natural resources of the country. The result of thisresearch is a sectoral plan recommendation of a Government or National (Management), Corporate orInstitutional (Responsibility) and Civil or Community (Participatory) model to sustainability directions. This isthe recommendation of a Nationalization Programme towards a Sustainable Development Framework in theForests and Mineral Resources Sectors of the Philippines, which is a strengthening of the presentsustainability development efforts of the government, community and corporate arm. It seeks to underlinethe Sustainability development framework in the Philippine ecosystems and socio-economic context.
 
 
Government or National (Management), Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil andCommunity (Participatory) Model to Sustainability Economics
1
I.
 
NEDA Philippine Development Plan
The Medium-term Philippine Development Plan is designed to provide a strategic plan that will be
used as a basis for the country‟s economic programs for the duration of the present administration‟s term.
This plan sets goals that are projected to be achieved by the end of the term. The present Medium-termdevelopment plan is from years 2011 to 2016 under the present Aquino Administration.The general objectives of this plan are the following:1.
 
 A high, sustained and broad-based economic growth of 7-8 percent each year;2.
 
Rapid economic expansion that takes into account the country‟s large population, geographical
differences, and social complexity;3.
 
 A high economic growth thata.
 
creates employment and draws the vast majority of the population into the economic andsocial mainstream;b.
 
reduces mass poverty; andc.
 
allows the pursuit of the other Millennium Development Goals (MDG).
Reaction to the Medium
 –
Term Philippine Development Plan and to the IBON Article
 As a reaction to the objectives of the plan, it is understood that their aims are for the well-being of the society. Anything that is aimed for the betterment of the country is good. But though their goals may beagreeable to the society, it does not equate that the society will agree with the programs they would alignwith these aims. The aims are most of the time good, but the question is, how will they be able to achievethese aims without endangering the other sectors? It is very easy to generate goals for the country. Toenvision a well-developed society is not hard, but to get there is the difficult part. There are challenges alongthe road of development. There are many temptations that should be avoided. To achieve the goals of development would require us responsibility, focus, perseverance, and gratitude. We have gone far as acountry but we are not even close to being a well-develop country. According to the Philippine Civil Society, the Medium-Term Development Plan constructed by theNational Economic Development Authority (NEDA) has its five major components as its framework comprisedof macroeconomic stability, governance, infrastructure, food security and health. They consideredmacroeconomics as the mother framework of the entire development plan. But throughout the considerableeffort of the officials of NEDA in including the concerns of Filipino people in the implementation of Philippine Agenda 21 to the development plan of 2011-2016, it seems that making macroeconomics as the motherframework serves as a hindrance to mobilize sustainable development in the mainstream economy of the
Philippines. The Philippine Agenda 21 serves as the country‟s path for sustainable economic development; this
agenda is responsible for the betterment of each individuals, families, households and communities. This is a
plan concerning the nation‟s ecosystem comprised of coastal, freshwater, upland, lowland, and urban as well
as the ecosystems that interacts to the various land and lifescapes found therein. The advocacy is strictlyimbued with respect to the empowerment of various social groups that manage economy, critical resources,culture and society, politics and governance in accordance with foreign relations. The instance of sterilizationof the integration of sustainable development to the Medium-Term Development Plan of 2011-2016 has anenormous negative effect for the common good of people and environment.The immense pursuit of some personalities in NEDA for making macroeconomics as the motherframework of the entire plan is quite doubtful. The general objectives of maintaining macroeconomic stabilityare strictly concerned with the following: increasing of tax effort to at least 16 percent of GDP, increasing of the fiscal space and attain sustainable revenue and spending path, and the adjustment of the excise tax onalcohol, tobacco products and petroleum. The main idea is evident, some officials of the said institution istrying to have insurance for their own fiscal concerns as stated above. By the time the excessive value addedtax will come to implementation, it will cause additional pain to the income of several employed Filipinos thatalready experiencing depleting condition together with the entire society. This clearly shows thatmacroeconomics (as the mother framework) is not in favor for the interest of the Filipino majority; otherwise,it reflects to the deceptive interest of few personalities behind the economic plan.In conclusion, the specific framework of the plan must be integrated in accordance with theobjectives of the Philippine Agenda 21 together with the implementing of sustainable development framework to the mainstream economy of the country. It will be a good stepping stone for the betterment of Filipino
 
Government or National (Management), Corporate and Institutional (Responsibility) and Civil andCommunity (Participatory) Model to Sustainability Economics
2
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.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->