* This is my article in BusinessWorld last January 5.
See also:
BWorld 115, Centralization and federalism, March 23, 2017
BWorld 171, Global vs national tax reforms, December 29, 2017
Repeated calls for federalism by the Duterte
administration actually point to more centralization of the national government
— the complete opposite of what they’re advocating.
Here are some examples.
1. National taxes have been rising, instead of declining,
which could have helped prepare federal states to have their own income and
value-added taxes, etc. Instead of lowering the top marginal income tax rate of
32%, it was even raised to 35%. Instead of reducing the VAT to 10% or 8% with
few exemptions, the 12% was retained but many sectors were also exempted.
2. Expanding the number of departments and bureaus
instead of reducing them. The Department of Transportation and Communication
(DoTC) has become two departments — the Department of Transportation (DoTr) and
the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT). Then there
are proposals to create a Department of Housing, Department of Fisheries. A
good federal set up is to abolish many existing departments (like NEDA, DA,
DENR, DoH, DoT, etc.) and allow the state governments to create their own
departments as they see fit, create, or expand local or state revenues to
finance these state departments.
3. Forcing national legislative franchising like buses
and taxi, instead of decentralized regional or provincial franchising. Speaker
Pantaleon Alvarez and other House leaders are behind the proposal.
4. Reversing integrated public private partnerships (PPP)
where government fiscal exposure is very limited to hybrid PPP where national
government budget and foreign borrowings (especially China ODA) is much bigger.
A meaningful federal set up will empower the state governments to deal with
local infrastructure like airports, seaports, provincial tollways and
inter-city MRT/LRT.
5. Centralized declaration of class suspensions. During
the anti-martial law rallies in Sept. 21, 2017, MalacaƱang declared a Luzon-wide
or nationwide class suspensions even if many provinces and cities did not even
have scheduled rallies. Then during the PISTON jeepney strike in Oct. 16-17,
2017, MalacaƱang declared nationwide class suspensions, even if many provinces
and cities did not even have planned jeep strike. President Duterte should have
allowed the mayors and governors to decide, saying something like “the national
government will step back from these decisions and it is up to the local
governments to decide what’s best for their people.”
Beyond federalism plans contradicted by more
centralization of powers and taxation, a long-term alternative would be for the
Philippines to split into many new countries and allow these new countries to
compete with one another in the field of taxation, governance, infrastructure,
trade, and tourism to attract more investors and visitors from around the
world. Peace and diplomacy will be retained as fellow ASEAN member-states as
well as various multilateral formations and the United Nations.
Many existing Philippine island-provinces are actually
comparable in size to existing countries and/or big territories (see table).
This is a far out view and may not be considered in the
current decade but would appear more viable through time. Singapore will not be
as dynamic and developed as it is now if it was just one of many states of
Malaysia.
Under the current activities of the Duterte
administration, there lies a danger that when federalism is finally enacted,
local entrepreneurs and job creators will be walloped with both high national
and high local taxes, fees, royalties and various mandatory spending. This will
be a good formula to encourage more corruption and black market business
operation, or get out of the country and do business elsewhere.
For the federalism plan to be more attractive to the
people, the national government should learn to step back, to tax less,
regulate less, bureaucratize less, build confidence among the people and
investors in the provinces that indeed they will be given more leeway, more
opportunities to craft their own political and economic identity.
---------------See also:
BWorld 115, Centralization and federalism, March 23, 2017
BWorld 171, Global vs national tax reforms, December 29, 2017
BWorld 176, Road trips and PPP projects, January 06, 2018
BWorld 177, On MMDA car towing and impounding, January 07, 2018
BWorld 178, Top 8 energy news of 2017, January 14, 2018
BWorld 178, Top 8 energy news of 2017, January 14, 2018
Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to Writer Beat? There is no fee; I’m simply trying to add more content divqersity for our community and I liked what you wrote. I’ll be sure to give you complete credit as the author. If "OK" please let me know via email.
ReplyDeleteAutumn
AutumnCote (at) WriterBeat (dot) com
OK.
ReplyDelete