BWorld 204, Mining attractiveness index and the Philippines

* This is my column in BusinessWorld last April 12, 2018.

There are two similarities between the mining industry and Boracay.

The first is that both have small contributions to GDP, and the second is that both can be closed by the Duterte government for six months without any compensation to affected enterprises including environment-compliant ones. Mining companies and Boracay establishments show the face of business uncertainties in the country.

Mining production is 0.6% of GDP while Boracay production of services is 0.1% of GDP, an amount that is “very insignificant” according to the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA).

By extension, the six-month closure Boracay island will adversely affect only a few number of businesses and jobs. That’s a very flawed argument.

Meanwhile, last April 9, President Duterte told mining companies: “I’m going to give you six months from now. Six months. I do not want to see any bald [areas]. I want [to see] the trees as tall as me by six months. Without the replacement of those trees, consider your permit revoked. Better pack up your things. You can go and that would be closed permanently.”

In early 2017, the former DENR secretary who was rejected by the Commission on Appointment (CA) issued a ban on open pit mining. That ban has not been lifted until now even though the Mining Industry Coordinating Council (MICC) has already recommended ending the ban.

The continuing investment uncertainties in Philippine mining are partly discussed by the Fraser Institute’s “Survey of Mining Companies 2017” report. Fraser is a famous free market think tank in Canada while the survey is an annual study of mining and exploration companies around the world with the goal of assessing how mineral endowments and public policies like taxation and regulations affect exploration and extraction investment.

In the 2016 Report, 104 jurisdictions were covered while it was 91 for 2017.

These 91 jurisdictions are: 13 states in the US, 12 states in Canada, 9 states in Argentina, 7 states in Australia; 15 countries each in Africa and Latin America/Caribbean, 12 countries in Europe, and 8 countries in Asia-Oceania.

These numbers show the investment attractiveness of the 91 places. The index is constructed by combining the Best Practices Mineral Potential index (which rates regions based on their geologic attractiveness) and the Policy Perception Index (which measures the effects of government policies like taxation and regulations on exploration investment (see table).

Fraser noted that “The 10 least attractive jurisdictions for investment based on the PPI rankings are (starting with the worst) Venezuela, Chubut, Zimbabwe, Guatemala, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), China, Philippines, Indonesia, Bolivia, and Ecuador.”

While rich countries in the world like Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Canada, USA, and Australia have business-friendly mining policies as indicated in the table, poorer countries like the Philippines have business-unfriendly policies in the sector. And this can be a good explanation among many other factors why many poor countries remain poor.

Nature has given the Philippines and other now poor countries good natural and mineral endowments. Their governments though have given these countries bad policies and extortionary regulations. All the fears of “mineral depletion,” “unmitigated surface soil destruction” and other concerns did not happen in these rich countries. Why?

The rule of law. Investments and environmental laws are strictly enforced and followed by all players, big and small, local and foreign.

It is not “nature preservation and environmental conservation” that determine sustainable mining and job creation. Rather, it is the rule of law. This is the essence of government raison d’etre or reason for existence.

------------------

See also:
BWorld 192, Cobalt mining and TRAIN, March 16, 2018
BWorld 196, Mining tax and TRAIN, March 20, 2018
BWorld 201, Expanded environmental rights and anti-coal drama, April 05, 2018 
BWorld 202, Tourism, casinos, and Boracay, April 08, 2018 
BWorld 203, TRAIN, inflation and PPP, April 10, 2018

BWorld 94, Economic freedom, taxes and tariffs in Asia

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last December 01, 2016.

Human prosperity is not possible if there is no economic freedom, if people do not have the freedom to own private property and have freedom to trade. Misery is the result if people live under political dictatorships and bear the effects of the state’s economic central planning.

These, among others, were the topics discussed in the two-day Economic Freedom Network Asia (EFN Asia) Conference 2016 last Nov. 22-23, 2016 at Dusit Hotel, Makati City. The event’s theme was “Economic freedom and human rights in business,” primarily sponsored by EFN Asia and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF).

The event also launched the results of the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) 2016 Report by Fraser Institute in Canada. The EFW index is measured by getting the scores (0 to 10, zero is totally unfree and 10 is full economic freedom) of countries covering five criteria: (1) Size of government, (2) Legal system and property rights, (3) Sound money, (4) Freedom to trade internationally, and (5) Regulation.

Countries with big governments and high taxes get low scores in the first measure while nations with highly corrupt legal systems and unstable property rights protection will receive low ratings in the second, and so on. The composite score of the five criteria covered is generated and countries are ranked from highest to lowest (see table).

The numbers on the right show the following.

One, for many years now, Hong Kong and Singapore are recognized as the two freest economies in the world. Their governments are strong in enforcing the rule of law and protecting property rights, have low income tax rates, zero or near-zero tariff rates. They may have many non-tariff barriers (NTBs) but that is for another paper.

Two, many ASEAN countries are in the middle tier in global ranks out of 157 countries covered. Outliers are Singapore which is high up there, and Vietnam and Myanmar which are among the bottom-ranking countries.

Three, the Philippines and other ASEAN countries’ score and global ranking do not significantly move up or down and I think there are flaws in the scoring made by Fraser. Here’s why.

In sub-area “Freedom to own foreign currency bank accounts,” the Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam got 0 (out of 10). Similarly, these four countries also posted low scores in criteria 3, Sound Money. I think foreigners and foreign corporations can own forex bank accounts here in the Philippines, also in Malaysia, so why did Fraser give a score of 0?

In sub-area “Capital controls,” the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam scored only 0.77 while Indonesia and Thailand scored 1.54 (again, out of 10) such that their scores under Area 4, Freedom to Trade Internationally, are again low.

Perhaps the capital control that Fraser refers here is the maximum amount of Pesos (about P10,000) and dollars ($10,000) that Filipinos and foreigners can bring in or out when they travel abroad. But many travelers hardly use big cash for their transactions, they use credit and debit cards. People can also send huge amounts of money anytime via banks or money couriers from abroad to the Philippines and vice versa, without capital control limits.

Since countries’ global ranks are separated only by one or two decimal places, significant low score in Areas 3 and 4 in this case would mean overall low score. As a result, the Philippines’ overall score of 7.01 made it rank 80th while Taiwan’s score of 7.65 made it ranked 23rd. A difference in score of 0.64 already spells a huge difference of 67 places in global ranking.

Fraser should either check its data properly or adjust the scoring.

Instead of 0 or 10 for “freedom to own forex account,” “capital control” and other sub-areas, it may adjust the score to 0 or 4 or 5. This will reduce the distortion in overall score and hence, in global ranking.

Nonetheless, Fraser is doing a good job in promoting the philosophy of economic freedom, free trade, rule of law, low taxes and limited government. Its annual EFW report is being cited in various international studies and helps guide civil society and corporate leaders, government and public policy makers in instituting reforms towards a freer, more prosperous world.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET. Both institutes are members of EFN Asia.

---------------

See also:

BWorld 91, Free trade means faster growth in manufacturing, November 14, 2016

BWorld 92, Climate action and Asian energy realities, November 19, 2016 

BWorld 93, ASEAN multinationals, December 02, 2016

BWorld 88, Economic freedom and human rights

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last October 18, 2016

Economic freedom is the ability and privilege of people to engage in various social and economic activities without unnecessary restrictions and prohibitions. Such freedom is guided by voluntary exchange, open markets, personal choice and accountability, and clearly defined private property rights.

People are economically free if they can choose to buy or not buy certain goods and services from various sellers, when they are not forced and coerced to buy something expensive and/or poor quality. Freedom is not absolute though and free people have no freedom to harm other people nor destroy, burn or steal their private properties.

Human rights include the right to life, right to private property, and right to liberty and security of person. Thus, even a person who has committed a wrong act should be given due process to defend him/herself from false or exaggerated accusations. Murders of individuals based on flimsy or unsubstantiated accusations like what is happening in a number of instances in the on-going war on drugs are deprivations of those people’s human rights.

Combining these two concepts is very important for people to live with freedom and dignity.

And these two concepts will be tackled in a big international conference by the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia on the theme, “Economic freedom and human rights in business” this coming Nov. 22-23 at Dusit Thani Manila Hotel, Makati City. The conference is jointly organized by EFN Asia Economic Freedom Network Asia (EFN Asia) and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF), supported by four local organizations, the Philippine Commission on Human Rights (CHR), Philippine Economic Society (PES), Ateneo Human Rights Center (AHRC), and Bloomberg TV Philippines.

Among the key speakers and major resource persons in this event will be Siegfried Herzog, head of Regional Office, FNF South East and East Asia; Ms. Rosemarie Edillon, president of PES; Markus Loening, former German Federal Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid, and Vice-President Leni Robredo.

Other speakers will be Wan Saiful Wan Jan, CEO of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS), Malaysia; Chito Gascon, chairperson of CHR; Franz Jessen, ambassador and head of Delegation of the European Union to the Philippines; Nicholas Sallnow-Smith, chairman of the Lion Rock Institute, Hong Kong; and Peter Perfecto, executive director of the Makati Business Club (MBC).

So, how economically free are the people of the Philippines and big nations of the ASEAN? How free or unfree are they from heavy regulations that tend to restrict entry into markets and interfere with the freedom to engage in voluntary exchange?

The Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) 2016 report give scores to countries (0 most unfree, 10 most free) based on five criteria and areas: (1) Size of government, (2) Legal system and property rights, (3) Sound money, (4) Freedom to trade internationally, and (5) Regulations. Then they are ranked from the most free to the least free economies.

For this short paper, only the performance in Area 5 will be tackled and in particular, sub-areas on labor regulations and business regulations.

The Philippines has a modest score in both labor and business regulations, meaning not yet choked by those multiple bureaucracies and permits. In particular, the country has a good score in labor hiring regulations and enforcement of the minimum wage, but it has a low score in hiring and firing of employees.

From some existing policy debates in the Philippines today, we can apply the principles of economic freedom and human rights on these issues.

(1) On labor contracting including endo, being hired for short-term labor contracting is a privilege, a human right for new job entrants and the unskilled. It is much better than being rejected and not hired by employers because of the high cost of hiring new additional workers and the threat of government harassment for firing the un- or less-experienced, less skilled people.

(2) On a nationwide minimum wage and abolition of regional wage disparities, this one-size-fits-all policy will make hiring people in the provinces become more expensive, and, as a result, there will be fewer hiring of lesser-skilled, lesser-experienced people. There are now more machines and robots available that can slowly replace more laborers.

(3) On entrepreneurship, it is a privilege and human right for the more hard-working, more ambitious people and they should not be deprived or discouraged to try that route because of heavy government regulations, bureaucratism, and taxation.

Increased market dynamism and fewer government regulations and taxation are the keys to ensuring economic freedom and protection of human rights.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers and a SEANET Fellow. Both organizations are members of EFN Asia.

---------------

See also:
BWorld 81, Property rights are human rights, September 30, 2016

BWorld 86, Philippine industrial policy, October 15, 2016 

BWorld 87, Economic, fiscal and energy policies of the Duterte administration, October 17, 2016

BWorld 28, Economic freedom in Asia

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last November 25, 2015.

Humanity’s material progress and cultural development is made possible largely due to the freedom of people to initiate innovations that did not exist before and their freedom to buy and sell extra output and services produced by themselves and other people.

In short, economic freedom and freedom to trade are among the cornerstones of human progress. Remove this freedom and innovation and ingenuity will largely be curtailed and human misery and underdevelopment will result.

These are other related issues were tackled in the two-day Economic Freedom Network Asia (EFN Asia) Conferences 2015, here at Taj Tashi hotel in Thimpu, capital city of Bhutan. The event’s theme is “Economic freedom as a way to happiness” and the main sponsors are EFN Asia, QED Group, and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF).

QED is a private, independent think tank and consulting firm based in Thimphu while FNF is a German political foundation tasked to help conduct economic and political education around the globe about the merits of classical liberalism, lean state, and increased market competition.

EFN Asia was born in 1998 during a conference in Manila discussing how more economic freedom and less government interventions could have anticipated and minimized the financial turmoil that occurred during the “Asian financial crisis” of 1997-1998. Since then, EFN Asia conferences are held yearly in different big cities in the region.

How is economic freedom measured and quantified? Which countries are the most free and least free in economic innovation? What are the implications of such scoring and ranking in economic freedom of countries and economies?

These and related questions are answered by the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) annual reports, produced by Fraser Institute in Canada, in partnership with FNF (Germany).

The EFW is measured by getting the scores (0 to 10, zero is totally unfree and 10 is full economic freedom) of countries covered on five areas: (1) Size of government, (2) Legal system and property rights, (3) Sound money, (4) Freedom to trade internationally, and (5) Regulation.

As a result, countries with big governments and high taxes get low scores in area (1); countries with highly corrupt legal systems and unstable property rights protection will get low scores in area (2); countries that have high inflation rates and make it difficult for their citizens to own and use other currencies will get low scores in area (3); countries that have low import tariffs, have few non-tariff barriers will get high scores in area (4); and countries with less restrictions and regulations in credit, hiring of labor and few business permits and compliance costs will get high scores in area (5).

The composite score for the five areas covered is generated and countries are ranked from highest to lowest. For Asia, here are some results. (See table)

For many years now, Hong Kong and Singapore are recognized as the two freest economies in the world. They have small and few taxes, their governments enforce the rule of law, and protect property rights. Since they have low or zero import tariff, it is easy and less costly for their exporters and importers to buy and sell goods abroad, and so on. Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea try to follow these policies set by the two freest economies.

The Philippines has been ranking modestly in the 60th to 70th positions in the three years above. It gets high scores in area (1) as it does not have too many transfers and subsidies, have few government enterprises. But the Philippines gets low score in area (2) with scores of only 3 to 4 in sub-areas Judicial independence and impartial courts, other sub-areas.

That presents a big challenge for the Philippine government (and other Asian governments too) and civil society organizations -- nongovernment organizations, media, academe, professional organizations, church groups, and so on: Control or minimize corruption and bribery by having rule of law: the law applies equally; no one is exempted and no one can grant an exemption to penalties set by the laws.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc., and a Fellow of the South East Asia Network for Development (SEANET). Both think tanks are members of EFN Asia.

-----------

See also:
BWorld 24, Traffic and Newton's 3 laws of motion, November 12, 2015 
BWorld 25, Feed in tariff means expensive electricity, November 14, 2015 
BWorld 26, IPRI 2015 in APEC economies, November 19, 2015 

BWorld 27, The rich getting richer, the poor getting middle class, November 21, 2015

EFN Asia 52, The 5 fishbowls of economic freedom in Asia, November 20, 2015 

EFN Asia 53, Successful Conference 2015 has ended, November 25, 2015

Business 360-30, Freedom to trade in South and East Asia

* This is my article in Business 360, published in Kathmandu, October 2015 issue.

Freedom to Trade in South and East Asia

The freedom to sell one’s extra output and services, and the freedom to buy other people’s goods and services, is part of human nature. Humanity’s economic, social and cultural advancement from the primitive to modern times was made possible only with their freedom to trade and freedom of entrepreneurship and innovation.

There are various measurements of freedom to trade of countries today. One of which is Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) annual reports.

The EFW is composed of five areas: (1) Size of government, (2) Legal system and property rights, (3) Sound money, (4) Freedom to trade internationally, and (5) Regulation.  And area 4 is composed of four sub-areas, shown in the tables below.

The EFW employs a scoring system of 0 to 10, where zero is totally unfree and 10 means there is full economic freedom.  Thus, high revenues from trade taxes, high tariff, wide variations and deviation of tariff rates mean low score. And more regulatory barriers, more NTBs also mean low score, low degrees of economic freedom for entrepreneurs.

In South Asia, Nepal and Bangladesh have scored better than India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Nepal in particular scored 122^nd out of 157 countries. It ranked high in sub-areas (a), and average or mean tariff rate with just 12.2 percent, but it scored low in sub-areas (b) regulatory trade barriers and in (d) controls  of  movement of capital and people.

India ranked high in revenues from trade taxes and mean tariff rate, but was pulled down by big standard deviation of tariff rates, and controls of movement of goods and people.

Source: Fraser Institute, EFW 2015 Report,

http://www.freetheworld.com/2015/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2015.pdf

To serve as comparison, four ASEAN countries are also studied. The 10 countries in the ASEAN generally have low tariff rates, with scores of 8 to almost 10 (Singapore and Brunei). This is a reflection of the accelerated trade liberalization in goods in the region.

There are problems of course, like having wide variations and high standard deviations in tariff rates, like Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam; they scored below 6.

The 9 countries above except Singapore and Malaysia scored below 6, rather low, in NTBs. EFW used data from the WEF’s Global Competitiveness Report, survey on NTBs.

ASEAN countries generally have low tariff rates, with scores of 8 to almost 10 (Singapore and Brunei). This is a reflection of the accelerated trade liberalization in goods in the region.

But there are problems too, like having wide variations and high standard deviations in tariff rates, like Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam; they scored below 6. EFW used data from the WEF’s Global Competitiveness Report, survey on NTBs.

Possible lesson for Asian economies, continue reducing import tariff rates….

-----------

See also:

Business 360-26, Nepal earthquake and lessons from it, July 12, 2015
Business 360-27, Public health in Asia, July 18, 2015 

Business 360-28, FDIs in South and East Asia, August 22, 2015 

Business 360-29, Low oil prices and energy development in South Asia, October 25, 2015

Free Trade 54, Eco-protectionism at APEC 2015 meeting, September 28, 2015 

Free Trade 55, TPP Agreement, finally, October 06, 2015

Business 360 15: How to Improve Economic Freedom in Asia

* This is my article for Business 360, a monthly magazine in Kathmandu, January 2014 issue.
----------

Economic freedom essentially means individual liberty, the freedom of an individual to voluntarily exchange various goods and services in various markets, as a seller or buyer, as a producer or consumer, the individual has various choices whom to buy and sell and to whom not to buy or sell. The individual is also protected from aggression and coercion by bullies who will rob them the fruit of their hard work.

Sadly, this kind of economic freedom is deprived to many people in Asia. Their freedom to put up a business is often restricted by various government regulations and bureaucracies. For those who manage to officially put up legitimate businesses, they have to pass to the consumers the cost of various regulations, taxes and mandatory fees.

The Fraser Institute, a free market think tank in Canada, produces the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) annual reports. These reports are presented in various countries around the world, including the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia annual conferences.

The EFW is composed of five main areas: (1) Size of government (its annual consumption, state enterprises, income tax rates), (2) Legal system and property rights (judicial independence, impartial courts, legal enforcement of contracts, reliability of the police, etc.), (3) Sound money (money growth, inflation, freedom to own foreign currency account), (4) Freedom to trade internationally (tariff rates, trade regulations, black market exchange rate, control of people and goods movement), and (5) Regulations (credit, labor, business incl. cost of tax compliance).

A score is given in each area and sub-areas for each country to indicate degree of economic freedom. Thus, high government spending and taxes means low score in area one, weak enforcement of private property rights means low score in area two, and so on.

Table 1 shows Below is a summary table of the scores of selected countries in Asia over the last 15 years. Has economic freedom in our continent improved or regressed over these years?

As of the EFW 2013 Report, half of the 21 Asian countries ranked 75^th or better out of 152 countries covered worldwide. The other half ranked 80^th or lower.

In what areas do many Asian countries score low, meaning in what areas their governments need to improve to give their citizens more economic freedom?

The next table will show this. Not included in this list are outliers Hong Kong, Singapore and Myanmar. The first two scored high in all areas while the latter scored low in all areas.

Many countries in Asia need to improve the enforcement of the rule of law, they need to relax the various restrictions in sound money, international trade, and business regulations.

Economic freedom and individual liberty are ends by themselves. They are not means to certain other objectives like national sovereignty or forced equality in society. Governments, politicians, business and civil society leaders in Asia should learn to appreciate more the value of individual freedom and individual responsibility.

----------- 

See also:
Business 360 11: Avoiding Middle Income Trap, September 19, 2013 
Business 360 12: Optimum Size of Government, October 13, 2013 
Business 360 13: US Government Shutdown and Lessons for Asia, November 28, 2013 
Business 360 14: Middle Income Trap and Economic Freedom, January 02, 2014

EFN Asia 32: Day 2 of Conference 2013 in Bangkok, November 09, 2013

Human Freedom, 2013 Report

* This is my article today in thelobbyist.biz,  

----------

The freedom from summary execution or abduction, or being imprisoned or physically attacked for expressing one’s view, is often absent in the consideration many global economic freedom or competitiveness annual reports. In these reports, the Philippines never ranked high worldwide. 

This week, an important report was released, Towards a Worldwide Index of Human Freedom,  January 08, 2013. It is a joint project of three big think tanks advocating more individual freedom and limited government – Fraser Institute in Canada, Liberales Institut in Germany, and Cato Institute in the US. It has a big and ambitious goal, to produce the world’s first comprehensive and conceptually consistent index of human freedom, composed of personal freedom and economic freedom.

Freedom is defined in the “negative” – the absence of barriers or coercion that prevent individuals from acting as they might wish. While government is the main source of external coercion, like people can not start any business unless  they get permits from various local and national agencies and pay various taxes and fees, other sources of coercion were also identified. Below are the factors in constructing personal freedom index.

Table 1. Structure of the Personal Freedom Index

 

Source: Ian Vasquez and Tanja Stumberger, Chapter 3, An Index of Freedom in the World, Towards a Worldwide Index of Human Freedom, January 08, 2013

It is amazing how the authors have gathered such kind of data where a global comparison among many countries can be made. Check the link above how those concepts are defined, where the data were lifted, and how scores were made.

There were 123 countries included in this new report. The data used for personal freedom are from 2008 while data for economic freedom are from 2010-11. Here is the result.

Table 2. Freedom Index and Sub-Indexes

Source: same as above.

Generally, countries that have high scores in economic freedom also have high scores in personal freedom, at least for those in the top 10 or top 20. Singapore though is a big exception.  While it is #2 worldwide in economic freedom next to Hong Kong, it ranked very low on personal freedom with a score of only 6.6, should put in the 70+ in global rank. This report will definitely make the Singapore government unhappy.

Many big European economies like Spain, Germany, France and Italy have high scores in personal freedom but low score in economic freedom, reflecting their heavy business bureaucracies and taxes, that consequently pulled down their overall freedom index.

The Philippines is #67 overall. It ranked low in I. Security and Safety with a score of 5.6, and III.Expression, 6.3. But it ranked high in II. Movement with 8.6, and IV. Relationship Freedoms. Reports of extra-judicial killings, torture, political imprisonment and disappearances during the past administration significantly pulled down the country’s score in I.

There are at least two good news for the Philippines in this report. One, its average score in the three indexes is slightly higher than the global average. Meaning we have more personal and economic freedom compared to many people and countries around the world.

Two, compared to other major Asian neighbors, we have high degree of personal freedom, much higher than those in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, India and China. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia are among the Asian countries that were not included in the report yet.

As mentioned, the information on personal freedom were lifted from 2008 data. Future reports that will reflect 2010 and succeeding years of the current administration would generally produce higher score for the country.

The bad news is that economic freedom remains rather restricted in the country until now. The local and national governments here tend to think that entrepreneurship and job creation is a potentially criminal thing to do, so they imposed plenty of business permits, taxes and fees, that sap significant time and resources of entrepreneurs and investors. This is on top of a very protectionist Constitution that prevents foreign competition to many local business elites and oligarchies.

We hope that the Philippine government, local and national, will heed this type of international comparison. They add to either optimism or pessimism of Filipinos and foreigners alike, seeing where the Philippines ranks compared to other countries around the world. The government should learn to reduce business bureaucracies, reduce the itch for more taxes, permits and fees, and  focus on going after real criminals that bully and victimize the average citizens.

Over the short to medium term, the paranoia against foreign competition in many aspects of the country’s economy should be lifted via constitutional change.

See also:
Rule of Law 13: Freedom Barometer 2011, March 23, 2012
Rule of Law 13: Freedom Barometer 2011, August 16, 2012
Pol. Ideology 38: Central Planning vs. Free Market, October 30, 2012