Growth on its own is not the ‘royal road’ to the MDGs – the link between the two is distribution. The key is setting in train a political process that will lead governments and the private sector to distribute the assets, opportunities and benefits of growth more fairly, supporting human development outcomes and in turn, the achievement of the MDGs.

- ODI Briefing Paper on Economic Growth and the MDGs 

With all the talk of GDP growth rates in the news recently I think it’s important to bring up one key point: Growth matters for shit if it’s not inclusive and does not reduce poverty. If our focus is on growth for the sake of growth then the economic future of the Philippines will look little different from the last 25 years (or especially, the last nine years under GMA).

In a developing nation such as ours high GDP rates have been fool’s gold since most of the benefits have only circulated among a select slice of the economic spectrum. Our recent economic history is a classic case of the rich getting richer, while the poor stagnate. Sure, high GDP rates bring in hot money and foreign investment, but where exactly do the benefits of that accrue? Industries like call centers may bring jobs into the country, and help combat unemployment, but where exactly is the labor pool for that drawn? If anything, the recent rhetoric about inclusive growth is welcome; only so long as the structural inefficiencies that prevent it are addressed.

Economic discussions centered on achieving MDGs (which are all about reducing poverty and social development) has been fixed on creating inclusive and deep GDP growth. The fact is our growth has not necessarily achieved any large-scale reduction in poverty rates (which by the way, occurred with the lowest GDP growth rate in a few years). Poverty reduction has stagnated, with only small percentage points in terms of ‘self-rated’ poverty showing any improvement. But when we look at measures, such as the number of impoverished at the national line, the numbers show little change. According to World Bank numbers the poverty headcount ration in 2000 was 33%, in 2003 24.9%, in 2006 26.4%, and in 2009 26.5% (the latest).

Not encouraging.

Anonymous asked: Can you tell something about yourself? Are you a journalist?

No, not a journalist. Unfortunately, I can’t count myself among the ranks of those guys and the amazing job they do. Nor am I a historian (just love history).

I do a lot of foundation work though, which touches on culture and history.

Anonymous asked: what got you interested in history?

History is fun. And I know that sounds odd to say (since when did old books and dusty libraries become fun?), but it’s the truth. 

Unfortunately, the study of history (because of how it’s presented) is usually seen as boring or old-fashioned, or something along those lines. The simple fact is without understanding our history (whether personal or national) we will not understand who we are.

The study of history is at its heart a creative endeavor. You need imagination to figure out how to piece all the little evidentiary bits together to create a story; you need imagination to be able how to present that story in a way that makes it come alive.

That’s a really long-winded way of saying, I was lucky when I was a kid. Someone made history interesting for me by asking questions and making me go find the answers. That has always been the fun part of the study of history for me, finding answers and asking questions.

That and libraries are quiet.

Anonymous asked: The essay begins with sentence, "National strength can be built on character." What does Quezon want to say?

We should all be characters.

Dibs on Bugs Bunny.

todaysdocument:

Another ignominious chapter in Poe’s abortive military career, the Trial of Cadet Edgar Allen Poe:

Poe arrived at West Point in June 1830 and submitted himself to the rigors and regimens of the Academy. There were long days filled with study and military drills. The food was poor, the quarters crowded and spartan, and discipline rigid. Poe did well academically but was soon undone by continuing quarrels with his foster father and money problems. During his first term, he decided to leave West Point but could not resign without the consent of his foster father. When Allen did not consent, Poe set out to get himself court-martialed and dismissed. He neglected his studies and failed to report for parades, roll-calls, and guard duty. On January 28, 1831, he was court-martialed. These papers from the trial list charges against Cadet Poe: gross neglect of duty and absence from his “academical duties;” on March 6, 1831, he was dismissed from West Point by sentence of court-martial.

mlq3:

from Manuel L. Quezon III: The Daily Dose

As much as I appreciate an organization such as Rappler and what it is attempting to achieve, its focus on breaking stories down according to ‘mood meters’ is kind of misguided. It actually also acts as another pointed commentary on public discourse in the Philippines.

This ‘crowd-sourcing’ of emotional responses does little to further discussion, it has the unfortunate by-product of reducing discourse to almost unimportant binary considerations. Is everyone happy? Is everyone saaaad? How many are happy? How many are saaaaad? How are we feeling today?

Look, how people feel should be far less important than what they think about an issue, or a story. Yet it is the emotions that our media loves to exploit, it is their baser feelings on which they thrive. Feelings drive clicks, reblogs, comments, views, and subscriptions. Tony Judt, in his book Ill Fares the Land, commented on this global degeneration of public discourse: “Demagogues tell the crowd what to think; when their phrases are echoed back to them, they boldly announce that they are merely relaying popular sentiment…professional politicians now claim to listen to vox populi in the form of instant phone-in votes and popularity polls on everything from immigration policy to pedophilia. Twittering back to their audiences its own fears and prejudices, they are relieved of the burden of leadership or initiative.”  

The fact that we can draw a comparison between journalists and crowd-leveraging politicians is not necessarily a good thing (ok, it’s never a good thing). Journalism is as much a socially and culturally important calling as government service. It is an awesome responsibility, this vast trust that is imbued in the words of a journalist, that should not be abused. Nor reduced for purposes of segregation and emotion-mongering.

Again, I like Rappler. I like what they are doing. I like the fact that they are owned by journalists who are attempting to hold themselves to the highest standards of journalistic ethics and integrity. I am just uncomfortable with this focus on the feelings of people. Primarily because the corollary is the attempt to elicit emotional responses as opposed to focusing on the stories themselves. Like Tony Judt, I worry that media is becoming more focused on reflecting the feelings and attitudes of the people as opposed to being leaders in crafting and challenging us to look at the issues of the day in new ways.

A couple of days Patricia Evangelista in her column wrote: “More than anything, the impeachment court is an attempt at accountability, to take account of men who are invincible for the sake of those who are not. The court’s power emanates not from the people, but from the court itself, from the faith of the public who live in fear and awe of gavels and robes. Once that faith is shaken, even the most formidable of justices cannot hand down decisions and expect to be believed.” Taken at face value, or in its most superficial of meanings, this statement makes sense. As does much of her column, which makes some good points. Respect is based on perception. But on a deeper level this is a ridiculous over-simplistic statement that belies the actual relationship between the Court, the Constitution, and the People. It misses an opportunity to elucidate and educate in favor of a rabble-rousing slickly reductive soundbite.

 John Dunn wrote: “When we speak or think of ourselves as living a democracy, what we have in mind is something far different. It is that our state, and the government which does so much to organize our lives, draws its legitimacy from us, and that we have the reasonable chance of being able to compel each of them to continue to do so.” The Court itself holds little power other than what the Constitution and thus the People grant to it. It is not about how citizens perceive the High Court (or the power contained within the Court), but how they understand its role within a country. The Power of the Supreme Court is handed down and delineated by the Philippine Constitution, that is basic Civics 101. It is the Constitution that gives agency to these entities; it is the Constitution that the Filipino supports. Actions like impeachment are mechanisms for the People to assert their authority over constitutionally empowered individuals. In its most basic component, impeachment is the avenue where-by the People, through their elected representatives, can weigh and study the merits of an individual continuing in government service. It is not a mechanism for constitutional retribution or judicial revenge. Government service is not a right, it is a privilege, especially when it comes to some of the highest positions in the land. What we are basically evaluating is whether someone is worthy of continuing to serve the Filipino people. It is the assertion of the Filipino people’s authority over a government they themselves empower with vast responsibilities. Responsibilities that touch on every aspect of a Filipino’s daily life. We forget, but the role of a Constitution and a Bill of Rights is not only to define the role of government, but to protect a people from the potential iniquities of those who are imbued with vast powers and authority (think of the Magna Carta).

Evangelista’s statement also reflects on on-going discursive issue in the Philippines: Our preference to reduce to issues to simplistic soundbites, Us vs Them; Transparency vs Impunity; Awe vs Derision. In the case of the impeachment, we not only get overwhelmed by legalese and details, we lose the import of the proceedings through reductive binary relationships. The mechanism of impeachment is more than transparency, it is more than accountability, it connects intrinsically to the role of the People in a country and the relationship between a citizenry and its government. Yet, the role of the People in this impeachment and the Constitution has been little touched on; other than a brief statement by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile in his opening remarks and a few statements by talking heads.

The public framing, by both media and the government, of the impeachment has been a concern. Though there have been attempts to do so, it seems to fail to connect the Filipino people to the proceedings and instead leaves us to agentless by-standers. A common refrain has been that the ‘poor’ can’t connect to the proceedings. Another misguided assertion that ignores the importance of a government cognizant of its role and responsibilities in providing service to the People.  As it is today, governance seems to operate at a distance from the people. Again, this is more than accountability, more than transparency, it is linked deeply to the role of government in the lives of Filipinos and how we relate to that government. But just as importantly, the way that the impeachment is being handled by journalists gives insight into the relationship between media and the Filipino people. Should journalists be educational? Should they attempt to provide deeper meaning to proceedings such as this?

In our system, media members have become public intellectuals. It is a burden that they must bear, a responsibility they should own up to. In this instance, I think Evangelista failed to live up to that responsibility. She took the slick simplistic way out. That does not mean that all media has, in fact I have been impressed with the quality of the coverage of the minutiae of the case. It is controversial issues such as this that allow us to see the quality of media. Unlike the Supreme Court, the Executive, or Legislative, media survives on the respect of the people. Their power is derived from their ability to remain ethical, cogent, and inspirational. Our clicks, our views, our subscriptions, are our votes. Much like politicians, media pandering for attention does little to educate, and far more to degrade discourse. That is a loss for the People too.

In the Philippines, a growing population of people has led to a sharp decline in fish, a vital part of the diet. To address the problem, one organization is making birth control more readily accessible to those wishing to keep their families small

In Philippines, Some See Birth Control as Path to Food Security - Report from PBS Newshour’s special report on Food For 9 Billion.

Video touches specifically on the issues of over-population in rural village and the impact on the local fishing industry.

Resident Jason Bostero explains why he and his wife Crisna chose to have only two children: “I am a farmer and fisherman. My income is just right to feed us three times a day. It’s really, really different when you have a small family.”

diariodefilipinas:

Cavite, Philippines - The rebellion is very much alive in Cavite. As Governor General Camilo de Polavieja prepares his offensive against the native rebels, Emilio Aguinaldo of Kawit has solidified his defense of the ground he has gained in his home province.

Since September last year, Aguinaldo…