Frank H. Golay

Entrepreneurship and Economic Development in the Philippines

The Philippine people, for better or for worse, have ? made a relatively unambiguous decision to organize their economy on the basis of private initiative. Central to any analysis of Philippine economic development is the fact that the Philippine economy is essentially an enterprise economy in which economic activity by the individual is rewarded liberally. This is not to say that competition is a dominant feature of such an economy, but to stress the role of individualism in organization of production. The entrepreneurial-type of economy is largely a legacy of American colonial rule, but during the past decade and a half of Philippine independence, evidence has steadily accumulated that the Filipinos intend to retain the essential features of this type of economic organization. Consequently, economic growth in the Philippines will be critically dependent upon the quality and quantity of entrepreneurship. A significant number of individuals must emerge in response to entrepreneurial incentives?individuals motivated to produce rather than to consume. Only if adequate entrepreneur? ship appears is such an economy likely to produce eco? nomic growth sufficiently rapid to offset the social ten? sions inherent in the gross inequalities on which such a system is based. The Philippine economy has sustained rapid expansion throughout the post-war period. Prewar levels of aggregate output were regained by the end of 1950 and the following years have witnessed steady progress. Post? war Philippine economic growth has shown remarkable stability in the face of moderate export price fluctuations and the traditional dependence of the Philippine economy on primary production and trade has been rapid y reduced. The period following 1950 has been one of stability in Philippine price indexes and the growth in real product probably has corresponded closely to growth in money income. In the eight years follow? ing 1950, national income increased by approximately 56 percent (from 5.9 to 9.2 billion pesos). Estimated per capita income rose from 297 pesos in 1950 to 400 pesos in 1958, an increase of 35 percent. By these tests, the Philippine economy has performed remarkably well. Mor over, economic expansion in the postwar period has been widely distributed. In the eight years following 1950, income generated in agriculture, lorestry and fisheries increased by 859 million pesos (34 percent). The increase in physical volume of agricultural pro? duction was somewhat greater than the expansion in income originating in agriculture because of declines in pri s of agricultural commodities. In the eight years following 1950, agricultural production in real terms expanded by 51 percent.

Commercial Policy and Economic Nationalism

I. Theory of economic policy and processes of economic growth, 574. — II. Factors in appraising the developmental content of economic policy, 577. — III. Commercial policy in postwar Southeast Asia, 579. — IV. Conclusion, 586.

Presidential Address: Cause for Concern in the Philippines

This paper focuses on the administration of Ferdinand Marcos, President of the Philippine Islands, 1965–1986, with particular emphasis on economic policy, fiscal abuse and monopolization during a period of martial law. The paper traces the resultant grave social consequences for the impoverished country, the consternation of the international banking community, and the eventual election to the presidency of Corazon Aquino in February, 1986.

Southeast Asia: An Economist's Viewpoint:

Assessment of the role of Southeast Asia in American higher education will depend upon the frame of reference. Rapid expansion in area and language courses, in staff and students, and in research results has occurred over the two postwar decades. On the other hand, when assessed in terms of the national interest in area and language skills, the gap between needs and resources has not been reduced over this period. Further expansion and qualitative improvement in this important enterprise will be restrained by the basic lack of integration within the area, which complicates scholarship; by the difficulties confronting the isolated scholar seeking to maintain his commitment to study of the area; and by the dis tance, isolation, and relative smallness of the countries. Econo mists have tended to remain aloof from area- and language- specialization as the theoretical orientation of their discipline, the ready availability of processed aggregative statistical data, and the limited role assigned economists in outside participa tion in processes of modernization have combined to minimize the usefulness of area- and language-training to economists.