By now, the biggies, led by US President Barack Obama and #APEChotties Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto have left the country. And we are back to our pre-Apec summit concerns.
Some quarters claim big success because our government was able to secure bilateral agreements that could be beneficial to us in the future. They say that the P10 billion spent was well worth it because of such gains.
But let us go back to the basics: did Juan and Juana have a chance to really understand what the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation is, and what it stands for? Did people know why they had to walk for several hours, why their wages are cut because of work suspension and restrictions brought about by hosting this grand meeting in Manila? It came and it went, but what did we learn besides the fact that most heads of Apec members were in the country for a few days? I doubt if many of us now have a better understanding of what just happened.
Apec, as the name implies is an association not of countries, but of economies. Governments are quick to say that this aggrupation does not tackle political issues and solely deals with economic and trade concerns. As if the two are mutually exclusive. This is the reason why, according to them, the West Philippine Sea problem could not be an official Apec concern. But I am getting ahead of my story.
Apec is composed of 21 member economies: Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, United States of America, People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Mexico, Papua New Guinea, Chile, Peru, Russian Federation, Vietnam, and Taiwan (although China claims this as its province).
Such a coming together of these economies could have been a good idea if not for a very fundamental concern—the neoliberal development paradigm Apec (and the world at large) pursues. Neoliberalism, often referred to as globalization is the advanced form of capitalism aided by the rapid technological advances in the fields of communication and transportation.
This neoliberal economic model sees the entire world as a barrier-free marketplace of goods and services. “Free trade” reigns supreme here. Neoliberalism promised progress and economic advancement by advocating for producers to stick to their “comparative advantage”, or producing only goods and services that they are already good at. This is the way to compete, so says neoliberalism.
Free trade sneers at protectionism. Thus, countries can be flooded by goods from other countries produced and marketed at much cheaper price than one’s own. This is what happened to us.
The neoliberal economic model works better for developed countries the products and services of which are dictated by the sellers—themselves. Examples of this may be machinery, computers and mobile phones which have become indispensable in our lives. Some parts of these products are made in our country but assembled elsewhere and we import these at prices determined by the sellers. Buyers can hardly negotiate.
On the other hand, on the losing side of the bargain are developing countries that are without the capital and/or technology to produce high end products. Take the case of the Philippines. Our products and/or services are marketed at the buyers’ price. Our comparative advantage significantly lies in the produce of our land and water, and our people—our workers. Because our harvest easily spoil, and because the labor we send out are mostly unskilled or semi-skilled, we export them at the buyer’s price. We are not able to negotiate from a position of strength.
Our comparative advantage does not enable us to compete in this globalized market.
Neoliberalism, particularly the removal of protection for our industries killed many of our former flagship industries like textile and leather. Why manufacture when our products will not be able to compete against cheap imported goods, for instance, from China, that floods our markets?
The absence of protection and government support are likewise the reasons why apples, oranges, and grapes are cheaper than our own fruits, and why the best of our harvest is reserved for foreign markets.
Neoliberal policies also resulted in significant changes in employment and livelihood activities. Outside of our unofficial labor export policy (that has affected at least 10 million workers and perhaps the same number of families), flexibility in employment was also “invented”. This flexibility in employment involves less number of days or hours of work resulting of course in less wages; as well as contractualization. All forms of flexibilization of employment are detrimental to workers and their rights.
The death of our manufacturing industry has resulted in massive loss of jobs. Amid the absence of other employment opportunities, these unemployed joined the burgeoning informal economy. At present, estimates of workers in the informal economy (WIE) run to 25 million workers, a lot more than those formally employed. Yet, these workers, mostly poor, are outside of the ambit of the law’s protection.
From the first Apec Summit in the Philippines almost 20 years ago, poverty has remained significant. Neoliberal policies have not worked for our people. Looking at the bigger picture, the reverse is true, neoliberalism failed us. The official declaration of Apec 2015 reasserted its adherence to free trade. As we have experienced, this is not what we need.
Thus, despite the bilateral agreements reached outside of the formal Apec summit, the event itself, because of its continuous pursuit of neoliberalism, will continue to fail us.
We need trade to be fair. We need to put people, not markets at the center of our economic and development paradigm. Markets should serve people and not the other way around.
We need production for self-sufficiency, whether it be in terms of food or goods and services we use. We need our workers, formal and informal, protected and their rights upheld. We need our industries to be reinvigorated and supported. We need government to invest in improving our people’s education and skills. We need gainful employment and livelihood activities.
These will not be had via free trade. FAIR, not free trade is what we need.
@bethangsioco on Twitter
Elizabeth Angsioco on FaceBook
