Friday, August 21, 2009
Interregime and intraregime uncertainties negatively affect the Philippine economy because for one, political instability is seen by investors as a business risk; they will establish business to earn money, not to lose it. Therefore, investment will run low. Two, a government turnover might have the incoming administration neglect the outgoing regime’s pro-development programs, hence the discontinuation of economic policies. Three, elections are costly and are budget-deficit promoter since most likely, public funds are distributed (thus depleted) more frequently to ensure political and electoral loyalty. Fourth, political cronies get favored by certain administrations and their naked interests may be first served before the welfare of the countrymen. Corollary to this, the increased number of curried favors for the advantaged families and political friends opens the door for their bribing the government officials and these officials going susceptible to graft and corruption.
Emmanuel De Dios sees corruption as an interregime uncertainty that causes our ailing economy while Walden Bello views it as the wrong hypothesis for the poverty in the country. The former believes that the widespread corruption scares away investors, leaving the country underdeveloped while the latter asserts that corruption is not the root of poverty, as even the world’s superpower is not spared from corruption, as may be gleaned from Enron and Worldcom scandals. The two agree only on the point that the interregime rule of the elite promotes their vested interest instead of sustaining national development. However, that is their only tangency because De Dios blames corruption for the lack of investors and the eventual poverty whereas Bello finds no correlation between corruption and poverty.