BIGAY, Maria Helena R.

BUNQUIN, Ma. Angelica Z.

CEMBRANO, Elisa Angela T.

GELACIO, Winzelle Rose L.

SABAOAN, Angela Louise T.

BA POLITICAL SCIENCE 4
 INTRODUCTION

According to Sumudavanija, there are 3 dimensional model which the state

should consider; security, participation and development. Security is defined as the
general stability of state overtime; it is also the product of the process of
institutionalization of state. Participation is a right held by all people to engage in society
and in the decisions of the government that impact their lives. Participation is thus a
political endeavor that challenges oppression and discrimination, in particular of the
poorest and most marginalized people. While development is defined as the systematic
use of scientific and technical knowledge to meet specific objectives or requirements or
the process of adding improvements to a parcel of land, such as grading, subdivisions,
drainage, access, roads, utilities.

These three can really be seen as main factors that should be considered by any
other investor planning to invest large sum of money to a particular country. This
analysis was conducted in order to find out how much of a risk is it to invest in the pearl
of the orient seas, the Philippines, and to find out if foreign investors might take a risk in
investing in our country.

PROBLEM/s

What is the capacity of the government to handle political risk factors as

perceived by political investors in SLU in terms of: (1) security? , (2) development? , and
(3) participation?

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

It was a combination of a both a quantitative and a qualitative research. Group

Analysis is a tool that was used, for analysing, intervening and training. This is achieved
by bringing together various protagonists who all tackle the same problem, based on the
analysis of concrete situations experienced by the participants, whilst respecting all
directives in this field.

This research specifically used the Delphi Analysis Technique, a forecasting

method based on the results of questionnaires sent to a panel of experts and we had 10
experts from SLU. This research conducted two rounds of the asking of the quantitative
survey questions and the qualitative survey questions.
Treatment of Data
For the quantitative part, the researchers made use of the median and
interquartile range to find if there will be consensus among their answers. They were
also asked a single question that would specifically find out the factor that they think is
the most important feature to be considered before investing in a state.

RESULTS and DISCUSSIONS

TABLE 1

Median and Quartile Deviations of Assessments Across Two Rounds

FACTORS/ INDICATORS MEDIAN RANGE

R1 R2 R1 R2
a.) SECURITY
1. National Integration 0.6 0.9 0.82 0.47
2. Regime Legitimacy 0.8 0.9 0.62 0.22
3. Law and Order 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.4
4. Provision of Minimum 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.4
Services
5. Government Aggression 0.6 0.5 0.45 0.5
b.) DEVELOPMENT
1. Strength of the Economy 0.6 0.6 0.45 0.2
2. Attitudes to Development 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.3
3. Legal/Administrative 0.6 0.6 0.67 0.5
Structures
4. Monetary/Fiscal Policies 0.7 0.7 0.85 0.3
5. Provision of Economic 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.4
Overhead
6. Government Revenues and 0.7 0.7 0.45 0.3
and Expenditures
c.) PARTICIPATION
1. Political Discrimination 0.6 0.6 0.69 0.3
2. Opinion Climate 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.25
3. Response to Participatory 0.6 0.7 0.65 0.4
Demands
4. Distribution of Resources 0.7 0.8 0.54 0.25
5. Socio-economic Mobility 0.95 0.99 0.69 0.09

The table above shows the median and the quartile deviations of all the
responses of the ten participants about factors that are under each of the dimension of
the states, namely security, development and participation, in a span of two rounds.
 From the table above, we can simply see that majority of the answers are within
the bounds of the probabilities 0.5 to 0.7; in their representations, having an even
chance to a likelihood of having possessed these factors. There is only one factor that
had a highly probable consensus of an extremely likely (0.9), factor four under security,
the provision of minimum services. The reason may be that as Filipinos themselves,
personally, there is a satisfaction in the services being felt by the participants.

The other factor that got the highest probable consensus of a 0.95, for round 1
and 0.99 for round two, translated into an extremely high probability of consensus of
having seen this factor as not a risk, is the socio-economic mobility of the state.

The researchers also saw this through their answer on the single question that
was asked of them. In the socio-economic mobility eight of the participants said that the
Philippine government provides enough opportunities to different groups in the country.
One participant shared one of her perception about the socio economic mobility of the
Philippines, she said that as for the present the Philippines gave more employment
opportunities and that individual chances of acquiring education in any level were
equalize. Like for instances, there is a development of small-scale industries to expand
self-employment opportunities, development of industries related to local productions or
economic activities such as fruits or vegetable processing in places where these are
produced in large quantities. And a provision of vocational short-term courses in the
provinces for the out-of-school population and of special program, for skills development
among farm workers

According to the table as well, the lowest probability was the factor under
security, which is the law and order, having a 0.5 (even chance- which is still a good
sign), probability on the second round from a 0.7 probability on the first round.

For the final question, this result also showed. All of the participant in the
interview were asked about the law and order of the Philippines and in the findings six
of them answered that the law and order of the Philippines is a joke in which the
Philippine government don’t take seriously the issues or problems in the country
involving crimes. One of the participants whole heartedly shared his experience about
the negligence of the government in Davao City. “Take Davao City for instance. All this
time I thought that the city was a model for what following the “rule of law”  could do. It
turns out, to my disappointment that Davaoeños rely on hired mercenaries or vigilantes
— and not the local authorities as I previously thought— to maintain “peace”  and
“order”. He said. The participant also added that these so-called vigilantes have been
dubbed the “Davao Death Squads” or DDS, in which Rodrigo Duterte even stated once
that, “Here in Davao, you can’t go out alive. You can go out, but inside a coffin. Is that
what you call extra-judicial killing? Then I will just bring a drug lord to a judge and kill
him there that will no longer be extra-judicial.”
 The answers under the development area, as we can see, is consistent from the
first round up to the second round. For example, the 0.6 (between an even chance and
a likely) probability consistencyof the factor regarding economy strength and legal
structures. This may mean probably that the economy of the Philippines is well known
among the experts, and have a similar point of view about it.

The participants in the interview were asked about the trend of the economy in
the Philippines and came up with the following answers. Eight of the participants
claimed that domestic economy will perform better this year than last year. The
participants are hopeful due to a boost on some sectors of the industry coming from
huge election spending, although there are still external factors that could continue to
pull exports down. One of the paticipants who agreed said that “Election fund will boost
our economy, It is most welcome by the people and retailers”. While eight participants
had claimed that there would be a positive impact on business there are two
participants that claimed that there wouldn’t be much difference from the previous
years. For it will only favor a few sectors including big businesses and will only have
minimal benefit for those involved in small businesses. Participant 9 even said that it will
only entertain those who are already here for a while, unlike us newbies. And lastly
participant said that he would even cut down on his employees in order to prevent
overspending and that it would for the better.

There was also a discussion on the distribution of the resources, seven of them
said that the government immediately respond to the needs of the people, which reflects
as well on the answers from the table, having a high probability 0.8 or a somewhat likely
not a risk factor. Although two of the participants take the Tacloban case during the
Yolanda typhoon as an example and which one of them said that food packs given to
towns, cities or villages should be distributed immediately to residents of these areas
who survived Yolanda, not the day after the goods had been received.

TABLE 2

Summary of Analysis of the Different Factors

Factors Consensus Factors Consensus

National Integration CONSENSUS Monetary/Fiscal CONSENSUS
Policies
Regime Legitimacy CONSENSUS Provision of Economic CONSENSUS
Overhead
Law and Order CONSENSUS Government CONSENSUS
Revenues and and
Expenditures
Provision of Minimum CONSENSUS Political CONSENSUS
Services Discrimination
 Government Aggression NO Opinion Climate CONSENSUS
CONSENSUS
Strength of the Economy CONSENSUS Response to CONSENSUS
Participatory
Demands
Attitudes to Development CONSENSUS Distribution of CONSENSUS
Resources
Legal/Administrative CONSENSUS Socio-economic CONSENSUS
Structures Mobility

According to the table above, the only factor that got a variety of different
answers for two consecutive rounds is the factor under the dimension of security of the
state, which is government aggression. The other 15 factors all had a consensus with
probabilities ranging from 0.5 (even chance) to 0.9 (Somewhat likely), and as a
summarized result, from the table below, all the three dimensions, in average, had a
consensus. Each falling between the 0.6-0.7 probabilities, Participation with the highest
probability of 0.76, followed by a 0.7 from Security and last is the 0.63 probability under
the Developmental dimension.

Table 3

Average Median and Quartile Deviations of Assessments Across Two Rounds

FACTORS/ INDICATORS MEDIAN RANGE

R1 R2 R1 R2
1. Security 0.72 0.7 0.6 0.40
4
2. Development 0.62 0.63 0.6 0.33
0
3. Participation 0.67 0.76 0.5 0.26
9

CONCLUSION

Holistically, Philippines is somewhat likely capable of handling political risks that

can affect the increase of local and foreign investors entering into in our state. It is still a
low guarantee, but at the very least, Philippines is still capable to manage the flow of
investors that are coming in and out of the country. Philippines can provide a slightly
stable arena for the business-minded people to perform economic activities within.