Elitist politics and economics—the real Aquino legacy

Toward the end of its six years in office, the Aquino administration boasted of its “legacy of inclusive growth.” Indeed, for its neoliberal thrusts, the previous administration may have achieved certain economic outcomes.

But for the Filipino people, an unprecedented jobs crisis, the use of public funds to guarantee private profits, an even wider gap between rich and poor, and economic subservience to foreign dictates highlight Aquino’s brand of government and economics. This is what the past administration has left behind and passed on to the next presidency.

Throughout President Benigno Aquino’s term, the Philippines, time and again, has been hailed as one of Asia’s fastest-growing economies. The 5.9-percent average growth rate in the past five years is undeniably strong looking compared to those of past administrations, notwithstanding a slowdown in the beginning of 2015.

Foreign direct investments (FDI) in the country, which are believed to deliver employment and growth, have risen through the years under Aquino Official employment figures indicate an increase from 93.6 percent in April 2015 to 93.9 percent to April 2016. Government also recently reported having lifted 1 million poor Filipinos from poverty.

These so-called achievements build up the image of the Philippines as the poster-child of neoliberal economics where the role of the free market in the control and use of resources, utilities and industries are given prominence.

International financial institutions and credit agencies have periodically commended the Philippines economy’s stability amid global currents. Recently, NICE Investor Services raised the country’s investment grade from BBB- to BBB based on improved transparency, expanded infrastructure and social overhead capitals in the form of public private partnerships (PPPs).

During the last Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec), high-level meetings held in the Philippines in November 2015, the Philippines was regarded among others as a model in disaster risk reduction, promoting micro, small and medium enterprises, maximizing the blue economy and human capital development.

The people’s worsening conditions, however, belie the Aquino administration’s claims of inclusive growth. Growth mostly happened in sectors with heavy oligarch and foreign-company investments, such as in real estate, construction, business process outsourcing, and financial intermediation.

Farmers and workers could have benefited from growth in the production sectors but these have shrunk further under the previous administration, with agriculture’s share in the economy down to 9 percent and with manufacturing still on about the same level as it was decades ago, as of early 2016.

Even if FDI increased and employment grew, jobs creation fell from 1.1 million in 2011 to just 638,000 in 2015. There has also been a 543,000 addition to the number of unemployed Filipinos in the same period, showing that there are now more temporary, low-paying and insecure jobs in the business-biased economy.

Moreover, 63 percent of the total employed are non-regular, agency-hired, informal sector, or unpaid family workers.

Wages have also been very insufficient: the P481 National Capital Region minimum wage, which is the highest across all regions, make less than half of the P1,093 family living wage or the amount needed by a family of six for subsistence.

Aquino vetoed proposed increases in nurses’ salaries and the elderly’s pensions.

Despite almost P300 billion being spent on conditional cash transfers or the Pamilyang Pantawid Pilipino program (4Ps) from 2011-2016, the number of Filipinos in extreme poverty remains unchanged at 27 million, as of the first half of 2015.

More than one of 3 Filipinos live on just P125 or less per day which has become more difficult with the increasing cost of basic goods and services from food to transportation, education and health.

The Aquino administration continued a sham land-reform program that further fortified large landowners’ landholdings, converted agricultural land to commercial purposes, including big and foreign corporate plantations and financialized land distribution.

This has further entrenched tillers’ landlessness and poverty and ruined prospects for food security.

Aquino’s defiance of the Supreme Court decision to distribute the Cojuangco-Aquino-owned Hacienda Luisita to farmers remains the stark example of land non-distribution under the past administration.

It also upheld a plunderous and destructive mining policy and merely sought greater government shares from mining revenues while more big local and foreign companies coveted resource-rich land. popular clamor.

Under Aquino, social services and utilities were further commodified, instead of delivering the people’s basic needs. Because low-cost housing is a component of real-estate business, it remains unaffordable to many homeless Filipinos.

Instead of strengthening the public-school system to make education accessible to all, the Aquino administration allocated billions to private education and pushed K-to-12 to train cheap labor for the global market while allowing thousands of private schools to increase tuition.

That PhilHealth coverage has reportedly grown to 93 million Filipinos does not guarantee to wipe out the huge out-of-pocket expenses shelled out even by indigent patients.

Despite protests, Aquino allowed public hospitals like the Philippine Orthopedic Hospital and the Fabella Hospital, patients of which were mostly indigent, to be closed down.

At the end of Aquino’s term, majority of the Filipino people remain at the margins of apparent growth and international acclaim for the Philippines’ purportedly sound economics and governance. IBON FOUNDATION