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>
