Notes: Poverty and Development – Part 4

As a development worker working and traveling in developing countries, I noticed one common and disturbing theme: POVERTY. For me, poverty is THE development issue. It has been a perennial problem that majority of the world’s population faces. But the lack of impact of development efforts on developing countries, despite the years and the billions of dollars spent on programs makes me wonder if development programs helping poor countries as intended or are they fostering dependency on international aid, corruption within the government and consequently, furthering poverty and underdevelopment? This has led me to one major question: what have we not done right?

This is the last part of my effort at examining the historical development trends and progress, with a focus on the Philippines.

WHAT HAVE WE NOT DONE RIGHT?
It is needless to say that capitalism prioritizes profit over everything else. Thus, it is only natural that capitalist-led development further encourages materialism and colonial mentality among Filipinos. Land conversions to give way to urbanization and industrialization went unchecked at the expense of food availability and environmental sustainability.

Despite warnings against natural resources depletion and degradation, indiscriminate logging and fishing for profit continues to destroy the ecological balance of upland, lowland and coastal ecosystems, leading to floods, soil erosion, siltation and endangerment, even extinction, of biological species. In their desire to join the export band wagon deemed to be more profitable, more farmers have turned to cash crop production oriented towards markets abroad, leaving the needs of the local people unmet and the local market weak.

The grassroots cooperatives, credit and livelihood programs implemented with funds from international donors were aimed at alleviating the financial situation of families and communities. Yet, development interventions somehow forgot to include the financial institutions’ regard for small debtors in the equation.

Despite evidence that poor people can also be responsible debtors as evidenced in the high repayment rates of credit programs, banks and other institutional lenders still ignore these people’s requests for loans to either start or expand a business. Poor people are left to the mercy of loan sharks who demand excessively high interest rates on loans which eventually lead debtors to either close and sell their businesses and other properties, or plunge them deeper in debt, or both.

The drive towards increasing access to education for all children indeed resulted to high literacy rate. But as illustrated earlier, this was not complemented with an increase in employment and business opportunities. The Philippine education system is basically employment-oriented, specifically urban employment. It fails to encourage rural occupation, environmental concern, entrepreneurship and diversification of capital.

Instead, it encourages Filipinos to put all their eggs in one basket – employment. It promotes the idea that employment, especially in multinational/international corporations within the country, or any other employment outside the country is the only way to ensure an income and bring them out of poverty. The swelling number of middle class comprised mostly of OFWs and professionals are helpless in the face of unemployment despite having some savings. This lack of initiative to invest in the country is further aggravated by the government’s ineptitude to encourage investment and promote business opportunities for the middle class.

Materialism and commercialism, both prerequisites and by-products of capitalism have bred greed and undermined positive Filipino values and traditions. Wealth became the sole measure of a man’s worth regardless of its source or the means by which it was acquired. Corruption in all levels and across all branches of the government is rampant. OFWs see each other as competitors for employment, leading to widespread distrust, skepticism, cynicism and conflict among Filipinos abroad. The Filipino value of putting the family’s needs and interests first still remains. Yet, the traditional values and practices of community cooperation (bayanihan), altruism and nationalism (pagmamalasakit sa kapwa at sa bansa), and even protection of the environment (pangangalaga sa kalikasan) are slowly deteriorating.

Donor-driven capitalist-led development in the Philippines for more than half a century has only made Philippine development highly dependent on external funding and markets. It has failed to ensure the sustainability of development. It has somehow made development as the goal in itself instead of treating it as an evolutionary process that needs to be sustained.

And this is what we have not done right in all the years and efforts on development in the Philippines. What makes it more alarming is that this is still the kind of development that is being pursued in all developing and underdeveloped countries by international development movers from the capitalist nations.

This is the last part of the Notes on Poverty and Development post. I would like to clarify that these are just my views, and mine alone. You are welcome to comment on the topic and issues discussed herein...

Notes: Poverty and Development – Part 3

As a development worker working and traveling in developing countries, I noticed one common and disturbing theme: POVERTY. For me, poverty is THE development issue. It has been a perennial problem that majority of the world’s population faces. But the lack of impact of development efforts on developing countries, despite the years and the billions of dollars spent on programs makes me wonder if development programs helping poor countries as intended or are they fostering dependency on international aid, corruption within the government and consequently, furthering poverty and underdevelopment? This has led me to one major question: what have we not done right?

This is the third part of my effort at examining the historical development trends and progress, with a focus on the Philippines.

THE PHILIPPINE BRAIN DRAIN
The government’s inability to utilize local resources, knowledge and skills for the development of the country is starkly evident in the education-employment situation. The high literacy rate of the Philippines did not produce the long term impact on development as expected.

It is notable that government-run public schools offer free elementary and secondary education to all Filipino children, resulting to the high literacy rate. Only a fraction of high school graduates proceeds to the next level because college or university education is very expensive. Even subsidized state colleges and universities are still too expensive for poor people to afford.

But Filipinos value education so much that poor people would go to some lengths, such as selling or borrowing (as collateral) on their meager properties (land, house, livestock, others) just to send their children to college and university. Thus, there are still a considerable number of university graduates every year who need jobs that the government is unable to provide.

This surplus of skilled labor consequently led to the Philippine “brain drain” phenomenon as more and more Filipinos seek employment abroad. The low salary rates in the country pushed even those who already hold jobs to seek employment in other countries that offer higher wages, even if it meant having to work at a much lower level than their qualifications or previous positions. Coming from the biggest English-speaking nation in Asia, with relatively cheap labor, Filipinos were the preferred choice in non-English-speaking countries.

The first to go were the teachers, midwives, accountants and secretaries to work as domestic helpers initially in neighboring rich countries like Hong Kong and Singapore. The geographical coverage eventually included Saudi Arabia and other gulf countries as the type of work also expanded to include other service-related employment, such as nursing, entertainment, hotel, restaurant and construction, among others. The recent batch of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) was mostly comprised of medical practitioners in response to the increase in the demand for health care workers in Europe and the USA.

As gender equality spread in developed nations in the west during the last quarter of the 20th century, more jobs became available to women. Nursing, which was predominantly a female occupation became the least preferred work as women in these countries chose less demanding jobs with higher pay. Registration in nursing schools dropped, consequently leading to inadequate labor supply in hospitals and other health care institutions. Thus, by the start of the 21st century when European countries and the US found themselves needing more health care service providers to cater to the baby boomers of the 60’s, they were forced to look for labor supply outside their own territories.

Having a surplus of nurses, the Philippines became one of the first, if not the biggest supplier of health care service providers to these countries. The English language skill of Filipinos, coupled with other Filipinos characteristics and values have boosted the demand for Filipino health care workers. Enrollment in nursing and health care courses in colleges and universities increased. New training institutes specifically offering short courses on health care sprung around the country. Some of these short courses are bundled with promises of immediate employment abroad after completion of the course.

The salaries of these health workers in Europe and the US are higher than employment wages and income from professional practice in the Philippines. This encourages licensed doctors and qualified professionals from other fields (education, engineering, accounting, etc.) to go back to school to study either the four-year nursing course (for those who can afford the time and tuition) or the short health care courses.

The migration of skilled workers caused more problems other than the brain drain. It has divided families, leaving children with at least only one parent (sometimes even none). Many of the husbands and wives left behind have become dependent on their spouse’s remittances. The absence of the spouse led husbands to seek other women and wives other men. The children experienced emotional issues, resulting to delinquency and other social problems. A number of husbands and wives are known to squander their spouse’s income on alcohol, gambling and luxury items. Thus, many OFWs find that they have no savings when they come home, pushing them to work abroad again. And this becomes the OFW cycle that traps them.

The brain drain phenomenon however, also had positive outcomes especially at the national and household levels. Overseas jobs have absorbed a considerable percentage of unemployed Filipinos. The remittances of OFWs comprise a sizable percentage of the GDP. It has lifted many families from poverty, allowing them to buy properties and send children to good schools.

Yet, the positive gains from the brain drain are precariously anchored on the economies of other countries. The current economic recession in Europe and the US has already affected much of the world’s economies, including Japan, one of major export markets (along with the US) of Philippine products. Being export-oriented (labor and products), the Philippines is expected to be gravely hit. The rising industry of customer service call centers in the country, which has somehow slackened the brain drain, is also expected to take a beating. These companies are mainly US and Europe-owned. As the recession continues, the companies will be forced to shrink their customer service employees in an effort to save the business from total collapse and bankruptcy.

The effects of the recession are already being felt. Many OFWs, along with call center employees find themselves unemployed. Those in cash crop production have to contend with the shrinking export market. At present, employment rate is increasing and there is a surge of OFW returnees who lost their jobs and consequently leading to a drop in remittances. All of these only prove the superficiality of Philippine development.

Please wait for the last part of this 4-part post...

Notes: Poverty and Development – Part 1

As a development worker and tourist in developing countries, I noticed one common and disturbing theme: POVERTY. For me, poverty is THE development issue. It has been a perennial problem that majority of the world’s population faces. Billions of dollars have been spent on thousands of various poverty interventions. Countless seminars, fora, conferences and conventions have been held to discuss poverty and come up with workable solutions. Technological innovations have focused on increasing food production.

Despite all these efforts, poverty still remains as a huge problem in itself, as well as both a major cause and consequence of other issues that underdeveloped and developing nations struggle with. This apparent lack of impact of development initiatives on world poverty has prompted many development stakeholders to ask why, including me. It makes me wonder if development programs helping poor countries as intended or are they fostering dependency on international aid, corruption within the government and consequently, furthering poverty and underdevelopment. So, what have we not done right?

ACROSS THE YEARS
Development paradigms, approaches and interventions have evolved throughout the years. These are intricately intertwined with political-economic discourses. The first paradigm equated development with economic progress. It proposed that poverty can only be addressed through economic-oriented interventions.

With this, the socialist-communist perspective argued that only by revolutionizing the political-economy of the country can true development prosper -- by eliminating inequality, poverty will be addressed. From the other end of the political-economic spectrum, the capitalists believed that strengthening the economy is the only way to development and address poverty.

The cold war brought on not only the arms race, but also a development race. As capitalist nations tried to prevent the spread of socialism-communism to the rest of the world, development funding and interventions naturally poured in from them into the underdeveloped and developing countries. They believed that effects of economic progress will trickle down to poor countries and communities.

However, as time passed and very little change was perceived in the poverty situation of the beneficiary-nations, development planners and managers realized that economic progress, while an important prerequisite to development, is not the only aspect that needs to be addressed.

Acknowledging the cyclic nature of poverty, development initiatives moved to encompass education and health among others. This resulted to a more comprehensive measure of development. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP), considered as a reliable measure was then replaced by the Human Development Index (HDI). In line with the new encompassing approach, the HDI includes indicators on education and health, along with economic indicators like income and employment.

While equality, human rights and people’s participation are considered integral to democracy, these were yet to be realized in a capitalist-led development. Thus, as the socialist-communist nations pursued their brand of development with the same ideals of equality and empowerment, and gaining new allies along the way, development planners and managers from the rich capitalist nations had to reconsider their approaches. Equality, human rights and empowerment moved from the political sphere into the development arena.

A whole new development paradigm took shape by the last quarter of the 20th century. From the top-to-bottom approach typical of capitalism, interventions moved on to the bottom-to-top participatory approach. The focus changed from economic-centered empowerment to general political empowerment. The scope covers not only economic progress but a more holistic development that includes environmental sustainability as well. And finally, the method changed from being curative problem-oriented to preventive awareness-raising and capacity-building.

This is still the development paradigm that shapes the current development approaches and interventions. Yet, as I have noted earlier, poverty still remains, if not increasingly becoming the biggest development problem in the world. This brings us back to the question of “why.”

Please wait for Part 2 of this 4-part post...