Sometime in mid-November 2001, I had a debate with Mr. Nicanor Perlas in the KOMPIL yahoogroups/ Mr Perlas was a known environmental and civil society organizations (CSOs) leader in the country then. He ran for President in the 2010 national elections as an independent, with no established political party to support him. He lost naturally, along with other candidates from small and non-established political parties.
The debate started with his critique of then NEDA Deputy Director General (DDG) Popo Lotilla over certain decisions of the Philippine Agenda (PA) 21. Since the focus of this paper is on the theoretical debate on the role of civil society, I removed discussions that focused on details of the debate then. I copy-pasted Mr. Perlas’ postings in pilipinasforum yahoogroups and that’s where a friend, Ozone Azanza was able to read and made counter-arguments against his points.
Here are the snipped exchanges:
--------
Dear Mr. Perlas,
You said,
the PCSD and PA21 take, head on, the challenge of globalization in the framing of its agenda, policies, and programs. In this way, the Philippines has a powerful alternative to the neo-liberal, radical free market approach of the World Bank, IMF, and WTO, an approach the NEDA is beholden to, an approach that is starting to collapse rapidly worldwide.
You said,
the PCSD and PA21 take, head on, the challenge of globalization in the framing of its agenda, policies, and programs. In this way, the Philippines has a powerful alternative to the neo-liberal, radical free market approach of the World Bank, IMF, and WTO, an approach the NEDA is beholden to, an approach that is starting to collapse rapidly worldwide.
The beneficiary of liberal flows of capital and international NGO funds consider free market as "an approach collapsing rapidly worldwide.”
In a number of papers and discussions, Mr. Perlas defines civil society as "an institution to challenge the totalitarianism of the state and the market". To which I don’t really buy. For me,
a. Markets - individual producers and traders, individual firms and consumers, from prehistoric times to the present - make the world go round.
b. State - an invention to correct market failures, address harmful "externalities", provide "public goods".
c. Civil society - an invention to correct state failures and inefficiencies, later lambast market's self-correcting mechanisms (such as de-monopolization of industries through deregulation & more competition).
Thus, I find the PCSD's composition - 16 from govt., 9 from civil society, 2 from labor (hence, 2 more for civil society), 2 from business - rather weird. The government bureaucrats and many self-styled civil society leaders outvoting business who provide jobs, who produce & trade the goods and services that give sustenance to the other 2 groups. And this set-up is almost "ideal, second to none", according to Mr. Perlas.
-Nonoy Oplas
I agree with you, Noy. There may really be some extreme positions that the civil society group of Mr. Perlas would want Deputy Director General (DDG) Popo Lotilla to endorse to the Office of the President. And of course, the good DDG would not be anybody's lap dog. As one of the only two real recognized experts in international law (the other would be Commie Haydee Yorac?) of course he would have to view things bearing the Philipines' various commitments in the international arena. The problem with SOME civil society groups/watchdogs is they act like kalesa horses. They can see well up ahead, but their peripheral visions are restricted. In a globalized market setting, nations can not be saddled by NIMBYism and other restrictive tendencies. The world is changing, and we have to change with it.
-Ozone Azanza
In a number of papers and discussions, Mr. Perlas defines civil society as "an institution to challenge the totalitarianism of the state and the market". To which I don’t really buy. For me,
a. Markets - individual producers and traders, individual firms and consumers, from prehistoric times to the present - make the world go round.
b. State - an invention to correct market failures, address harmful "externalities", provide "public goods".
c. Civil society - an invention to correct state failures and inefficiencies, later lambast market's self-correcting mechanisms (such as de-monopolization of industries through deregulation & more competition).
Thus, I find the PCSD's composition - 16 from govt., 9 from civil society, 2 from labor (hence, 2 more for civil society), 2 from business - rather weird. The government bureaucrats and many self-styled civil society leaders outvoting business who provide jobs, who produce & trade the goods and services that give sustenance to the other 2 groups. And this set-up is almost "ideal, second to none", according to Mr. Perlas.
-Nonoy Oplas
I agree with you, Noy. There may really be some extreme positions that the civil society group of Mr. Perlas would want Deputy Director General (DDG) Popo Lotilla to endorse to the Office of the President. And of course, the good DDG would not be anybody's lap dog. As one of the only two real recognized experts in international law (the other would be Commie Haydee Yorac?) of course he would have to view things bearing the Philipines' various commitments in the international arena. The problem with SOME civil society groups/watchdogs is they act like kalesa horses. They can see well up ahead, but their peripheral visions are restricted. In a globalized market setting, nations can not be saddled by NIMBYism and other restrictive tendencies. The world is changing, and we have to change with it.
-Ozone Azanza
Dear Mr. Oplas,
Thanks for sharing your critique of my article. I was looking forward to a constructive criticism. Unfortunately your theoretical concerns are not up-to-date and are further tainted with slanderous ad hominem and misinformation that they greatly reduce whatever value of your contribution may have had potentially. I will now quickly respond to illustrate what I mean.
In all our writings, the question is not about running away from globalization, but in determining what kind of globalization shall we have and shaping it accordingly. (See, among others, my book on this subject, Shaping Globalization: Civil Society, Cultural Power, Threefolding.)
Your Comment. “The beneficiary of liberal flows of capital and international NGO
funds consider free market as "an approach collapsing rapidly worldwide.”
My response. Looks like you may be stuck with the hey-day of cowboy capitalism, aka neo-liberal economics. Things have not been the same, especially starting the Asian finanical crisis, Battle of Seattle, among others. Out of the hundreds of possible indicators, I will take two. The editor of Foreign Policy wrote an article: "Washington Consensus or Confusion?" questioning the primacy and effectiveness of the neo-liberal "free market" concept. A senior official in the World Bank recently personally told me that the WB is starting to seriously question the Washington Consensus after many years of promoting it and giving us the kind of destructive globalization we have today.
Your comment: “a. Markets - individual producers and traders, individual firms and consumers, from prehistoric times to the present - make the world go round.”
A trite expression which is not only historically inaccurate but fails to distinguish between the different kinds of markets that may exist. In the early stages of human civilization, culture and politics made the world go round. The imagined world of "free market" of neo-liberal economics only exist in theory, in the books, that is why it is so destructive in reality. (See Paul Omnerod's book, The Death of Economics. Omnerod is no amateur. For many years, he was head of econometric research for the Economist, arguably the bible of "free market" ideologues.) Furthermore, when one critiques the "free market", one does not endorse the communist state as a substitute for the "free market" Both are equally repressive especially of the poor. And there are other kinds of markets, aside from the "free market" and the state-controlled market.
Your comment: "b. State - an invention to correct market failures, address harmful "externalities", provide "public goods".
My response. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Better to have real markets that have minimal externalities. This statement also acknowledges market imperfections, one of the key reasons for the increasing acceptance of institutional economics as a better and more comprehensive theory than neo-liberal economics.
Your comments. “c. Civil society - an invention to correct state failures and inefficiencies, later lambast market's self-correcting mechanisms (such as de-monopolization of industries through deregulation & more competition).”
My response. Your articulation shows that you are not familiar at all at the voluminous literature that has sprung up around the question of "civil society" especially in the last decades. Civil society does not exist just for the market. To balance out market imperatives is only one of its functions. As the vast literature on the new social movements show, civil society is a cultural phenomena and has other tasks aside from a mere focus on economics.
The market is not the be all and end all of society. The form of economic reductionism that displays itself in your thinking is one of the fundamental causes why 50 years of so-called "economic development" using "free market" principles has failed in so many aspects. It is not a question on whether we live in an economic society. It is a question of how we live in a society with a market economy that not only achieves economic objectives but also does it in such a way that it does not compromise ecological, human, and social values and objectives. PA 21 provides the framework to achieve this, not neo-liberal economics.
Your comments. “Thus, I find the PCSD's composition … rather weird. The government bureaucrats and many self-styled civil societyleaders outvoting business who provide jobs…”
My response. Again, your ignorance of the PCSD process shows itself. The decision-making process in the PCSD is consensual. This is precisely the reason why the actions of Mr. Lotilla was so destructive, because it basically undermined this process which took many years to forge. If business does not want to get outvoted, then the PCSD cannot come to a consensus decision. In the specific case in question, all business representatives supported the proposed EO and MO. They were not outvoted according to your imaginary process.
PA21 takes a balanced approach to the concerns of the market and the other concerns of larger societies. In this sense, PA21 is against the neoliberal economic approach which makes the fictitious "free market" the king of society and everything else has to adjust to it.
Incidentally, Mr. Lotilla approved PA21 and so did former President Ramos, originially a firm believer of the "free market" until he started seeing, late in his career, that all kinds of undesirable forms of growth are also being spawned by the "free market". Mr. Ramos also characterized PA21 as one of the most consultative documents in the history of policy making in the Philippines. Sure enough it took 18 months for the PCSD and Mr. Ramos to approve it since PA21 dared to challenge the central assumptions of economic development in the Philippines, the neo-liberal doctrine….
So, Mr. Nonoy Oplas, the problem lies somewhere else.
Your supporter, Azanza’s comment. “The problem with SOME civil society groups/ watchdogs is they act like kalesa horses. They can see well up ahead, but their peripheral visions are restricted.”
My response. This is a perfect description of neo-liberal economics and its supporters. It can only see things very narrowly construed and tries to fit complex social reality into its very limited framework PA21 is a much broader and more comprehensive framework than the neo-liberal framework that a significant number in NEDA adhere to.
Azanza's comment: “ In a globalized market setting, nations can not be saddled by NIMBYism and other restrictive tendencies.The world is changing, and we have to change with it.”
My response. Yes, this is fine especially when, because of one's economic and political clout, one has stacked the deck against the interest of emerging and developing economies. The US and the EU promised us, among others, that they would reduce their subsidies for agriculture once the WTO Agreement on Agriculture was implemented. Well, several years later, these subsidies did not decline. In fact, they have increased to the level of $350 billion. I do not know about you. But I am concerned about the lives of millions of farmers (rice, corn, coconut, garlic, onion, rubber, and so on) that have been and continue to be affected by unfair trade practices. We are not talking here about sealing the Philippines from the world. We are talking here of making trade more equitable, mutual beneficial, environmentally enhancing and socially just.
I hope this clarifies matters. Regards.
-- Nicanor Perlas
Dear Mr. Perlas,
Points well taken. Some quick response here. In particular:
Looks like you may be stuck with the hey-day of cowboy capitalism, aka neo-liberal economics. Things have not been the same, especially starting the Asian finanical crisis, Battle of Seattle, among others.
The ills of this country and other economies, Mr. Perlas, is not with competitive markets, but overly-regulated and many state-sponsored monopolies. Example, the national food authority (NFA) monopoly. Late 90s, (a) direct subisidy P1.3 billion/year on average; (b) foregone revenue, not paying customs duties when importing rice, P4 billion/year on average; (c) commercial loans (paid by the national govt.) around P2.6 billion/year on average. Total subsidy = P8 billion/year on average. For what?
Philippine rice 2-3x more expensive than Thai and Vietnamese rice. As of August 2001, Manila price was P16.53/kilo; for same quality, Vietnamese rice P6.36/kilo, Thailand rice P7.54/kilo (Tolentino, de la Pena, et. al., Oct. 2001, "101 facts about rice in the Phils."). By simple rice trade protectionism, the state & certain sectors of Phil. society deprives millions of Filipino poor, many of whom are jobless, to have access to cheaper rice.
A trite expression (re markets) which is not only historically inaccurate but fails to distinguish between the different kinds of markets that may exist. In the early stages of human civilization, culture and politics made the world go round. The imagined world of "free market" of neo-liberal economics only exist in theory, in the books, that is why it is so destructive in reality.
Back to political theory. Even social contract theoreticians Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau were talking of "state of nature", of absence of state & politics in the beginning of human civilization. The "greedy nature of man" (Hobbes) or "humanistic nature of man" (Locke) give rise to the need to have a state through a social contract, where people have to surrender a portion of their individual freedoms to an imposing state to have order in society. In economics, there were only individual producers, traders, merchants and consumers long before firms and monopolies and oligopolies came up. Even Marxian theory of mode of production starts with a "primitive communal" mode, where states and landlords and capitalists (& civil society) were non-existent yet. The market, not politics, Mr. Perlas, made the world go round.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Better to have real markets that have minimal externalities. This statement also acknowledges market imperfections, one of the key reasons for the increasing acceptance of institutional economics as a better and more comprehensive theory than neo-liberal economics.
Hey man, it's classical, liberal economics that's the first to recognize of "market failures" or market imperfections. Hence, neo-liberal economics recognizes the role of govt., in cases of "externalities", of "public goods". That's why I say govt. "is an invention to correct market failures". But, market failure is only a necessary but not sufficient condition for govt. intervention. Because while govt. provides "public goods", govt. also introduces its own inefficiencies and distortions. Back to NFA monopoly; or Nasutra & Cocofed monopoly; or PAL, PLDT, Napocor monopolies then.
Civil society does not exist just for the market. To balance out market imperatives is only one of its functions. As the vast literature on the new social movements show, civil society is a cultural phenomena and has other tasks aside from a mere focus on economics.
I said civil society "is an invention to correct state failures, later lambast market's self-correcting mechanisms". My problem with some (not all) civil society groups, is when they lobby to retain state monopolies, like opposing the privatization of Napocor (responsible for P16 billion/year subsidy on average yet power rate here is very expensive), opposing the privatization of NFA's marketing functions (it can retain its regulatory function, no problem), opposing rice trade liberalization (though at the moment, we're already importing 15% of our annual domestic demand), opposing privatization or deregulation of SSS & GSIS monopolies in private and public pension funds. The people - the power and rice consumers & producers, the ordinary employees, want a break from lack of choices imposed by state monopolies or state-sponsored private monopolies. But some groups - though for some noble reasons – oppose such consumer freedom.
The market is not the be all and end all of society. The form of economic reductionism that displays itself in your thinking is one of the fundamental causes why 50 years of so-called "economic development" using "free market" principles has failed in so many aspects.
On the contrary, Mr. Perlas, many economies have remained underdeveloped because free market principles have been spurned with impunity by state monopoly capitalism, by state-sponsored monopolies. Again, was PAL monopoly then "free market"? Was NSC (national steel corp.) monopoly "free market"? Was PLDT monopoly "free market"? Is current NFA monopoly "free market"?
Are less liberal economies like the Phils, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Pakistan, India, etc. more developed than neo-liberal economies like HK, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea? And watch, socialist China and Vietnam are hugging liberal economic policies (sa tagalog, kapitalismo) than many civil society groups would recognize.
Your anti-market framework will further perpetuate monopolies & underdevelopment in this country without your realizing it. And speaking of market-based instruments to solve environmental problems, we'll have more of that, later.
Best regards too.
-- Nonoy Oplas
Points well taken. Some quick response here. In particular:
Looks like you may be stuck with the hey-day of cowboy capitalism, aka neo-liberal economics. Things have not been the same, especially starting the Asian finanical crisis, Battle of Seattle, among others.
The ills of this country and other economies, Mr. Perlas, is not with competitive markets, but overly-regulated and many state-sponsored monopolies. Example, the national food authority (NFA) monopoly. Late 90s, (a) direct subisidy P1.3 billion/year on average; (b) foregone revenue, not paying customs duties when importing rice, P4 billion/year on average; (c) commercial loans (paid by the national govt.) around P2.6 billion/year on average. Total subsidy = P8 billion/year on average. For what?
Philippine rice 2-3x more expensive than Thai and Vietnamese rice. As of August 2001, Manila price was P16.53/kilo; for same quality, Vietnamese rice P6.36/kilo, Thailand rice P7.54/kilo (Tolentino, de la Pena, et. al., Oct. 2001, "101 facts about rice in the Phils."). By simple rice trade protectionism, the state & certain sectors of Phil. society deprives millions of Filipino poor, many of whom are jobless, to have access to cheaper rice.
A trite expression (re markets) which is not only historically inaccurate but fails to distinguish between the different kinds of markets that may exist. In the early stages of human civilization, culture and politics made the world go round. The imagined world of "free market" of neo-liberal economics only exist in theory, in the books, that is why it is so destructive in reality.
Back to political theory. Even social contract theoreticians Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau were talking of "state of nature", of absence of state & politics in the beginning of human civilization. The "greedy nature of man" (Hobbes) or "humanistic nature of man" (Locke) give rise to the need to have a state through a social contract, where people have to surrender a portion of their individual freedoms to an imposing state to have order in society. In economics, there were only individual producers, traders, merchants and consumers long before firms and monopolies and oligopolies came up. Even Marxian theory of mode of production starts with a "primitive communal" mode, where states and landlords and capitalists (& civil society) were non-existent yet. The market, not politics, Mr. Perlas, made the world go round.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Better to have real markets that have minimal externalities. This statement also acknowledges market imperfections, one of the key reasons for the increasing acceptance of institutional economics as a better and more comprehensive theory than neo-liberal economics.
Hey man, it's classical, liberal economics that's the first to recognize of "market failures" or market imperfections. Hence, neo-liberal economics recognizes the role of govt., in cases of "externalities", of "public goods". That's why I say govt. "is an invention to correct market failures". But, market failure is only a necessary but not sufficient condition for govt. intervention. Because while govt. provides "public goods", govt. also introduces its own inefficiencies and distortions. Back to NFA monopoly; or Nasutra & Cocofed monopoly; or PAL, PLDT, Napocor monopolies then.
Civil society does not exist just for the market. To balance out market imperatives is only one of its functions. As the vast literature on the new social movements show, civil society is a cultural phenomena and has other tasks aside from a mere focus on economics.
I said civil society "is an invention to correct state failures, later lambast market's self-correcting mechanisms". My problem with some (not all) civil society groups, is when they lobby to retain state monopolies, like opposing the privatization of Napocor (responsible for P16 billion/year subsidy on average yet power rate here is very expensive), opposing the privatization of NFA's marketing functions (it can retain its regulatory function, no problem), opposing rice trade liberalization (though at the moment, we're already importing 15% of our annual domestic demand), opposing privatization or deregulation of SSS & GSIS monopolies in private and public pension funds. The people - the power and rice consumers & producers, the ordinary employees, want a break from lack of choices imposed by state monopolies or state-sponsored private monopolies. But some groups - though for some noble reasons – oppose such consumer freedom.
The market is not the be all and end all of society. The form of economic reductionism that displays itself in your thinking is one of the fundamental causes why 50 years of so-called "economic development" using "free market" principles has failed in so many aspects.
On the contrary, Mr. Perlas, many economies have remained underdeveloped because free market principles have been spurned with impunity by state monopoly capitalism, by state-sponsored monopolies. Again, was PAL monopoly then "free market"? Was NSC (national steel corp.) monopoly "free market"? Was PLDT monopoly "free market"? Is current NFA monopoly "free market"?
Are less liberal economies like the Phils, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Pakistan, India, etc. more developed than neo-liberal economies like HK, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea? And watch, socialist China and Vietnam are hugging liberal economic policies (sa tagalog, kapitalismo) than many civil society groups would recognize.
Your anti-market framework will further perpetuate monopolies & underdevelopment in this country without your realizing it. And speaking of market-based instruments to solve environmental problems, we'll have more of that, later.
Best regards too.
-- Nonoy Oplas
Perlas said: “You are surely out of your water.”
My comment. No, I think you are. You and your theoretical three-folding concept. I have read your papers and I find them rather in the rank of those discourses of development economists who rely on descriptive theorizing because of their inability to put their thoughts in rationale, mathematical models. Like those high development theorists who descriptively argued for economies of scale but did not know how to put them in a functional model.
Show me three-folding development models that work mathematically and I will believe you. Who was it who said that since mathematics is an exact science, eventually, even history will have to be expressed in mathematical terms.
Perlas said: “This is the problem of speculative comments. And since this is not the issue, whatever Lotilla's international legal expertise is, it has no bearing on the issue. Besides as we have seen above, for all his legal expertise, he forgot, in the case cited above on SIAD, a major consensual decision of the PCSD.
My comment. Again it is the issue. His expertise has a bearing. There are covenants to be followed when a country commits itself in an international agreement. Whether you like it or not, we are in the WTO. And I may agree with you that the WTO tried to implement rules that are threats to the environment (but have been scrapped in Seattle already), but i will not agree that we blatantly disregard our WTO commitments just because civil society groups are breathing down our necks. Hey, you guys seem to monopolize the PCSD arena as you have the majority votes. BUT, you should not frown upon the role of NEDA and DDG Lotilla as your fiscalizer, a funny reversal of roles huh? You should be willing to hear out the views of others, and not use your purported "global" influence (because of 7 books and hundreds of articles that are all discourse and no mathematical models) and media savvy to put a good man down.
-- Ozone Azanza
--------
My comment. No, I think you are. You and your theoretical three-folding concept. I have read your papers and I find them rather in the rank of those discourses of development economists who rely on descriptive theorizing because of their inability to put their thoughts in rationale, mathematical models. Like those high development theorists who descriptively argued for economies of scale but did not know how to put them in a functional model.
Show me three-folding development models that work mathematically and I will believe you. Who was it who said that since mathematics is an exact science, eventually, even history will have to be expressed in mathematical terms.
Perlas said: “This is the problem of speculative comments. And since this is not the issue, whatever Lotilla's international legal expertise is, it has no bearing on the issue. Besides as we have seen above, for all his legal expertise, he forgot, in the case cited above on SIAD, a major consensual decision of the PCSD.
My comment. Again it is the issue. His expertise has a bearing. There are covenants to be followed when a country commits itself in an international agreement. Whether you like it or not, we are in the WTO. And I may agree with you that the WTO tried to implement rules that are threats to the environment (but have been scrapped in Seattle already), but i will not agree that we blatantly disregard our WTO commitments just because civil society groups are breathing down our necks. Hey, you guys seem to monopolize the PCSD arena as you have the majority votes. BUT, you should not frown upon the role of NEDA and DDG Lotilla as your fiscalizer, a funny reversal of roles huh? You should be willing to hear out the views of others, and not use your purported "global" influence (because of 7 books and hundreds of articles that are all discourse and no mathematical models) and media savvy to put a good man down.
-- Ozone Azanza
--------
If I were to rewrite now my counter-arguments to Mr. Perlas 10 years ago, I would have written this way:
The role of civil society is to encourage and empower individuals and citizens to take on more personal and parental/guardian responsibilities in running their own lives. The principle of subsidiarity says that things that can be done better by the lower level of social organs or entities should not be given to higher social organs, The most basic and lowest social organ in society is the individual. Hence, things that can be done by the individual should not be given to the government, local or national government, or multilateral and inter-governmental bodies. Like reminding people not to over-drink or over-smoke or over-eat, otherwise they will have bad health outcome someday, even if government will provide free hospitalization and free medicines, to the personally irresponsible people.
This makes the principle of subsidiarity a very poverful, even ideologically subversive philosophy to the state and lovers of big governments.
------
See also:
CSOs and State 6: Stichting Kapatiran and Books for the Barrios, December 07, 2008
CSOs and State 7: Public School Library with Minimal Government, BftB, June 29, 2009
CSOs and State 8: Gawad Kalinga, Health NGOs and Taxes, September 19, 2009
CSOs and State 7: Public School Library with Minimal Government, BftB, June 29, 2009
CSOs and State 8: Gawad Kalinga, Health NGOs and Taxes, September 19, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment