The defeat in the recent presidential election of the candidate designated by President Noy Aquino to be his successor has again placed in focus one of the key issues underlying the theory and practice of economic development. That issue is continuity.
By the time it bows out on June 30, 2016, the Aquino administration will have been in office for the Constitutionally-mandated six-year period. It had taken over the reins of power from an administration of President Gloria Arroyo, which had been in office for nine and a half years (2001-2010), the longest presidential tenure since 1986. Six weeks from now, a new administration will take over the functions and responsibilities of the Aquino administration.
This will mean the installation of—to use the language of transportation—a new crew. Given the absence in this country of a permanent-civil-service culture, that will mean the replacement of virtually all officials who had anything to do with policymaking in the outgoing administration, from Cabinet department heads down to bureau directors. That is discontinuous and disruptive.
The going out of the current administration and the coming in of the newly elected one will mean all sorts of physical movements—personnel, offices and equipment. That, too, is discontinuous and disruptive.
Most important of all, the virtually wholesale replacement of an incumbent administration by a new set of people produces changes— sometimes total changes—in policies, programs and operating styles. This is discontinuous and highly disruptive.
Examples abound from the days immediately following the presumptive election of Rodrigo Duterte as president of the Philippines. The examples relate to both people and policies.
One example from the realm of social policy relates to the K-to-12 program. President-elect Duterte has indicated doubt about maintaining the program, which will become fully operational in the coming school year. A repeal or watering down of the long-aborning program would be discontinuous and highly disruptive.
Although one of the areas of high achievement of the Aquino administration has been the management of the financial sector—indeed one of the economists apparently close to the incoming administration has acknowledged this—still the appointment of a new secretary of Finance entails massive disruption. This is particularly true if the newly appointed official has no deep experience with fiscal and tax management.
Another example that bears citing relates to the making and implementation of policies relating to the nation’s physical infrastructure. The president-elect has spoken about the need for redirection of those policies – for example, the shift in emphasis from heavy spending on urban areas to increased spending on the countryside. All objective observers of the Department of Public Works and Highways are agreed that outgoing Rogelio Singson did a fine (translation: competent and no-nonsense) job as DPWH head. Yet, as a result of the operation of our system of government, Singson will shortly leave office. Whether the newly appointed secretary will be as good as Singson, we don’t know. What we know is that the incoming DPWH administration, by bringing new personnel, programs and operating procedures into the department, will embody discontinuity and disruption.
Do things have to be like this? Must there be discontinuity and disruption every six years? True, the Constitution limits a Chief Executive to six years in office. But if the wheel isn’t broke at the end of that period, does it have to be fixed? Sadly, on May 9 thirty-eight percent of Filipino voters answered these questions with a Yes.
Students of government and economic development continue to debate whether six years in office is an inadequate period for a good president of the Philippines. They cite as an example President Fidel Ramos, who in six years was able to restore economic stability, improve the Philippine economy’s performance and introduce major economic reforms. Because of the Constitutional limitation and the election of a president belonging to another political party, FVR’s performance and economic policies were discontinued when he left office. Disruption ensued.
This country is committed to the democratic, non-command form of government. Despite the brief dalliance of some voters with Bongbong Marcos, the Filipinos value their freedom and rights. Still, it bears noting that the East Asian countries that achieved developed-country status during the last half of the 20th century —South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore—were able to do so under authoritarian forms of government. There were no changes of national administration every six (four prior to 1986) years. Planning for 10 years and above was possible.
Is there a correlation between this country’s change-every-six-years form of government and its mediocre economic performance during the period since the end of World War II? That, surely, is obvious.
So, here comes the Duterte administration. Goodbye continuity. Hello, disruption.
E-mail: [email protected]
