The Challenge to the Successor Generation 

by Nicanor Perlas

(For three days, from January 13-15, 2000, a very unusual gathering took place. One hundred fifty (150) young leaders of Philippine society - from business tycoons, to media moguls, to artistic superstars, civil society movers, brilliant politicians, widely respected scholars, gathered together. They met to discuss the fate and future of the Philippines in the age of globalization in the 21^st century. This presentation was one of several that provided the substance for the free-wheeling discussions that took place.)

We have seen that globalization deeply affects the values and structure of Philippine society. It is therefore important for the successor generation to pay attention to a remarkable event that already affects and will continue to affect how we think about and shape globalization to benefit Philippine society.

I refer to the WTO debacle in Seattle as a result of conflicting images and values about the world. The collapse of the WTO agenda in Seattle marks the decline of one era and the beginning of a new social dynamic in the world.

 This event marks the end of what Newsweek in its 17 January 2000 issue calls the “globalization machismo” – the logic and value that views ethical, social, and ecological dislocations as the inevitable price of unleashing the unfettered free market. It is highly symptomatic and significant that this article is written by Claude Smadja, the managing director of World Economic Forum (WEF). As we know, WEF is the forum of the winners of globalization.

 The WTO debacle also marks the historic emergence of a third global force, civil society, as a global cultural power, that is able to hold its own against the most sophisticated political and economic powers of the world and, is able to articulate a different set of values and direction for the planet.

 I would like to expound on both these points as both have central importance for understanding the values that will shape the destiny and role of the Philippines in the community of nations in the 21st century.

The End of the “Globalization Machismo”

The central value of the dominant form of globalization today is the value of the “competitive” or the “free market”.  Much can be said for a “free market”. But it is quite a different thing to push for a “free market above all” – above family, above community, above poverty, above justice, above love, above spirit.

 Even before the WTO debacle in Seattle, one of the unexpected casualties of the Asian financial crisis was the prevailing paradigm of neo-liberal economics. This is the framework that underpins many current government policies and those of global institutions like the WTO, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In this case, the “free market” of financial capital and services, instead of brining peace and prosperity, shattered more than 20 years of economic progress, albeit uneven, in East and Southeast Asia. 

Not surprisingly, an increasing number of mainstream economists including those who once were totally dedicated to the neo-liberal economic paradigm, are beginning to question blind liberalization, especially the blind liberalization of financial markets.

 A Harvard economist, Dani Rodrik, for example, has shown in a comprehensive study of over 100 countries, that liberalization does not automatically lead to economic growth, much less societal development and progress. Many African countries, for example, have experienced declining real per capita income as a result of blind liberalization.

 Kindly note the qualifier, “blind”. Liberalization may be necessary in many instances, but it is not sufficient for sustainable and humane development.

 All these point to what Cielito Habito and Timothy Ong have already elaborated on – there are more things to life than a “competitive market”. There are other dimensions and considerations in development. There needs to be a societal framework and a set of institutions to ensure the appropriate and justified working of an open market economy.  

Think of the following. Can you as investors remain in an area riddled with graft and corruption? Can you feel safe in an area with your investments if there is no peace and order? Can we have sustainable business operations if we are surrounded by a sea of poverty? Can we have a good business climate when asset reform problems force the poor to criminality and insurgency? Can we depend on a continued return on our shares if the operations of business continue to do serious damage to the environment? What about education and a quality work force?

  All these indicate that economic performance is heavily dependent on the vitality of institutions outside the economy – the institutions of political, cultural, and social life as well as institutions that ensure the integrity of nature. The economy dies if society around it dies.

 It is therefore not surprising that two recent Nobel Prize awards in economics have gone to two prominent articulators of a new kind of economics – institutional economics. Their message is loud and clear and is increasing being heard. Markets are important but they need the support of the appropriate institutions to function properly. A vibrant culture and a just polity is essential for an efficient economy.

 These considerations lead me to the first challenge that I would like to address this successor generation. Do we have the courage, the boldness, and the creativity to transform the doctrine and values of the “competitive market” so as to usher in the era of the compassionate market where the soul and spirit of people and nature really matter?

The Rise of Global Civil Society

The answer to this question leads us to the heart of the second phenomenon that is now visible after the WTO debacle in Seattle.

 The search for a compassionate economy is at the heart of the rebellion of global civil society. Over 100 million people around the world are joining all sorts of non-profit organizations, NGOs, church groups, media, academe, environmental organizations, artist groups, and so on, in search of a different economy, in search of a different society, in search of a different world. Global civil society is mobilizing over $1 trillion in resources to realize its vision of a different world. They have built institutions some of which are larger and more powerful than UN agencies.

 Civil society has two broad tasks. First, civil society defends cultural space – the space of society’s identity, meaning, ethics, creativity, compassion, and comprehensive excellence. Civil society mobilizes cultural power to defend this space. Thus when global trade agreements force us to live in an economy instead of a society, then you get a phenomenon like the “Battle in Seattle”. Or when giant corporations like Monsanto push their weight around and force people to eat genetically engineered food products, then civil society can easily mobilize a global resistance to Monsanto. This actually happened, resulting in the decline of Monsanto stocks and the projected shutdown of Monsanto’s biotech division.

 Dear friends, as long as totalitarian tendencies exist in the State and the Market, so long will there be strife in society as civil society mobilizes itself to act as a countervailing force against these tendencies.

 Civil society, however, has also a constructive role to play. As the bearer of the constructive forces of culture in society, civil society ultimately longs for constructive engagement with business and government. It recognizes and appreciates the important and legitimate role that an honest and just government plays. In addition, it also appreciates the important task of business in providing for human needs through a socially and ecologically oriented open market economy. Civil society can bring to bear its role in creating natural and social capital in the future activities of this country.

 All these leads to the next key question for this successor generation: Do we have the wisdom, the foresight, and the innovative spirit to ensure that civil society will have a key, constructive role to play, together with business and government, in shaping the future direction and values of this country? Or will we muddle through and be forced to mutually respect each other through conflict?

The Global Importance of Philippine Agenda 21 As A Unique Response to the Two Challenges

Fortunately, the Philippines has been able to make a very important beginning in responding to the two challenges above. The Philippines is becoming known in the world as the first country to seriously embark on a process of threefolding stakeholdership as a means to achieve a more compassionate economy within the context of sustainable development. This achievement is connected with the creation of Philippine Agenda 21 or PA21.

 Threefolding stakeholdership is a participatory activity involving civil society representing culture, government representing polity, and business representing the economy. In a threefolding stakeholdership, development approaches have more chances of working since the development perspective encompasses all dimensions of society.

 In 1996 our country, through the Philippine Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD), crafted Philippine Agenda 21 (PA21), a framework for sustainable development for the 21^st century. PA21 built upon Filipino excellence as the basis for meeting the world. In the same year, when the Philippines was chair of the Meeting of Leaders of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation or APEC, our country told the world that it would follow its own framework of liberalization as envisioned in PA21. Through PA21, the Philippines said that liberalization is important but only if it leads to sustainable development.

 This global reputation of excellence in sustainable development policies has been further strengthened with a Philippine innovation at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD). In 1998 the Philippines, as Chair of the UNCSD, introduced the threefolding stakeholdership approach to the annual meeting of over 150 ministers active in the work of the UNCSD. This innovation is still being practiced today at the UNCSD.

 There is no more time to further develop this theme of the global impact of Philippine leadership in sustainable development. What is important to note is that we have what it takes in the Philippines to respond to the two challenges for the successor generation highlighted above. PA21 is an example that shows we can create a different world if the creative forces of civil society, government, business come together and craft their common vision of the world.

 I am confident that this successor generation can create a different framework of and set of values for the world like PA21 and ground it in action. When we do this, we will create the beginning of a new world – one that is more creative, just, effective, free, and compassionate.