Development Theories and Their Influence in Philippine Development Planning

Development Theories and Their Influence in Philippine Development Planning 

by Rodel C. Cuyco

All the development theories through the years have their share of influences in the development planning of the country. Either meagerly or vastly, these theories have influenced our government and political leaders in the performance of their duties being the chief planners and decision-makers of the country in the various stages of its elusive quest for development.

Examining closely these development theories on the basis as to how each of these have lead the country to would give us a perspective as to which of these have influenced most planning in the country, either positively or negatively.

Before delving into how these theories changed the complexion of planning and development in the country, it is important to know where our political leaders have come from. After all, planning and policy-making are basic to their functions.

We all know that the Spanish colonization of our country has led to the emergence of what we usually call the “elite few,” “ruling oligarchs” and political dynasties due to then and even until now extractive political and economic institutions. They have wielded so much power and dictated the direction of politics and economy in the country and perpetuated themselves in their privileged status in the succeeding decades encompassing various development theories within which planning operates.

Development theories are better explained in four strands of thought. First is the linear stages model which emerged in the 50’s and 60’s.  This is an economic theory of development in which the right quantity and mixture of saving, investment, and foreign aid were all that was necessary for a country to develop (Goulet,D.,2003:110). This was being reinforced by Rostow’s stages of development. During this period, the Philippines was a model of development and second only to Japan among East Asian economies. In the 1960s, when South Korea was a land of peasant, the Philippines was one of Asia's industrial powerhouses (Economic History of the Philippines,2017). Judging from this economic status of the country, it can be said that this model was able to positively influence the Philippine plan for development at least for a brief period.

Second, is the theory of structural change in the 70’s which is a development theory which focuses on the transformation of a country’s economy from, mainly, a subsistence agriculture to a modern, urbanized manufacturing and service economy. Third, was the international dependence revolution which also came about in the 70’s which “starts from the notion that resources flow from the ‘periphery’ of poor and underdeveloped states to a ‘core’ of wealthy countries, which leads to accumulation of wealth in the rich states at the expense of the poor states(Miravite,2017).” Unfortunately, no structural change took place. The country has even grown more dependent and held hostage by developed countries plunging it to more impoverishment in the 70’s and 80’s and beyond.

This dependence has continued to flourished with the popularization of neo-classical, (also referred to as neoliberal) free market counter revolution in the 80’s to the 90’s. Neo-classic theorists put their emphasis on the role played by free markets, open economies and privatization of the inefficient enterprises. One of the implications of this theory for developing countries were the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) which the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund wanted them to adapt. Policies of which include fiscal austerity; government spending; privatization; trade liberalization, currency devaluation, among others (Wallerstein, 2017).

These neoliberal policies have defined our Philippine Development Plans. Ever present in these plans are the policies of privatization and deregulation of basic services and goods like water, transportation, communication and oil industry. The fast-paced urbanization of the cities and the over-emphasis on import-driven economy due to trade liberalization at the expense of domestic economy especially of the agriculture sector have all led to development imbalances between rural and urban communities. Such imbalance and inequality have led to the emergence of a myriad of economic, socio-cultural and environmental problems which defined how we do planning in the country today.

Sad to say, these neoliberal policies are here to stay in our plans. It seems that it will continue to rear its ugly head in the recently released Philippine Development Plan for 2017-2022. According to Ibon Foundation, “the Philippines' experience with failed neoliberal policies is clear and consistent with similar failures in the rest of the world. The PDP 2017-2022 is too consistent with its predecessors and will just be the latest in a long line of failed development plans (Africa, 2017).” As in the previous PDPs, it perpetuates asset inequities and income imbalances; it is blind to the urgency of industrial development, and; it turns over vital social services and public utilities to profit-seeking private sector interests (Africa, 2017). These interests are being cascaded in our local plans as we follow vertical planning direction.

In response to this neo-liberal ideology, the concept of economic and environmental sustainability has been gaining adherents lately (Flores, 2017) especially that we are facing now the negative impacts of climate change. These concepts are now starting to gain grounds in our development planning process and have posed big challenge for our planners in the country. Having sustainability at the center of plans will herald the dawning of new development theories that is more pro-people and pro-environment.

References

Africa, Sonny, “Duterte's Development Plan: Recycled, Failed Economic Policies,”  Retrieved from http//www.rappler.com/views/imho/172601-duterte-development-plan-ignores-local-industry accessible-services. Accessed on August 26, 2017.

Development Theory. Retrieved from Wikipedia citing http://eugeniomiravete.com/papers/Infant_Industry_Argument_Miravete01.pdf. Accessed on August 26, 2017

Development Theory. Retrieved from Wikipedia citing http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Wallerstein/Presentation/Wallerstein.pdf  accessed at article. Accessed on August 26, 2017

Economic History of the Philippines. Retrieved from http://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Philippines/sub5_6g/entry-3916.html. Accessed on August 25, 2017

Flores, Nelson Forte, “Neo-liberalism in the Philippines.” February 15, 2014. Retrieved from http://manilastandard.net/opinion/columns/everyman/140637/neo-liberalism-in-the philippines.html. Accessed on August 26, 2017

Goulet, D. (2003). Chapter 4: Classical Theories of Development: A Comparative Analysis. In M. Todaro, & S. Smith, Economic Development (pp. 110 -144). Pearson. Retrieved from: http://www.aw-bc.com/info/todaro_smith/Chapter4.pdf

<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-4267074632853356"

     crossorigin="anonymous"></script>