Do dynasties deter development?

By: Cielito F. Habito - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 12:58 AM August 11, 2015

HAVE POLITICAL dynasties impeded inclusive growth and sustainable

development in our country? Evidence points to a direct association between the
presence of political dynasties, on the one hand, and higher levels of poverty and
deprivation in the Philippine context, on the other. The implication is that either
poverty paves the way for political dynasties, or political dynasties fail to reduce,
if not actually worsen, poverty.

Whichever way the causality runs, the observed correlation between the two
provokes serious doubts about the compatibility between dynasties and
development. This is especially so in a country where (1) political dynasties are
particularly more prevalent, (2) economic development has historically been
stunted at both national and local levels, in an otherwise economically dynamic
region of the world, (3) poverty has been so prevalent and persistent, much more
so than in comparable neighbors, and (4) inequality has been stark and has shown
little improvement, and even worsened, over past decades.

In his last State of the Nation Address, President Aquino opened the way for
renewed public discussion on this issue that the Philippine Constitution, in Article
II Section 26, expressly admonishes against: “The State shall guarantee equal
access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties
(underscoring supplied) as may be defined by law.” The Constitution further
mandates Congress to give highest priority to the enactment of measures that
“reduce political inequalities” and “diffuse political power for the common good,”
among other things (Article XIII, Section 1). The framers of the Charter must have
expected that the new Congress, elected after the 1986 Edsa uprising, would
promptly enact the requisite enabling law while a revolutionary mood still
prevailed. Otherwise, they would have realized that such law was unlikely to be
passed by a legislature where membership in political dynasties is in fact
prominent, even dominant.

Are political dynasties more prevalent and prominent in the Philippines? Studies
indicate so. The Asian Institute of Management (AIM) Policy Center tracked 6
percent of legislators in the United States to belong to dynasties; the rates are 10
percent in Argentina, 22 percent in Ireland, 33 percent in Japan, 40 percent in
Mexico, and 70 percent in the Philippines—yet another instance, sadly, of the
Philippines excelling in the wrong things.
Over time, the United States saw a decline in the proportion of dynastic legislators.
A 2009 study found that 11 percent of US legislators between 1789 and 1858 were
dynastic, but the proportion went down to only 7 percent after 1966 and, more
recently, to 6 percent. The reverse happened in the Philippines in the past three
decades. In the Eighth Congress (1987-1992), 62 percent of our legislators had
relatives in elective positions. This rose to 66 percent by the 12th Congress (1998-
2001), netting out party-list representatives that were introduced in the 11th
Congress. The same proportion went up to 75 percent in the 14th Congress, half-
jokingly described at the time as a “Montessori Congress” for the unusually large
number of legislators who were offspring of their predecessors. Interestingly, one
in every four sectoral representatives (14 of the 56 incumbent) is also dynastic,
undermining the professed objective of party-list representation, which is to
broaden representation in Congress and make it more inclusive.

That the Philippine record in poverty reduction and human development lags
behind in the region is well known. Asia has generally been more successful than
the rest of the world in translating economic growth into reduced poverty. The
Asian Development Bank found that developing countries worldwide saw poverty
decline by an average of 1.5 percent for every 1-percent growth in gross domestic
product in the past years. Within Asia, the corresponding average poverty
reduction was actually faster, at 2.0 percent. Strangely, the Philippines has a
perverse experience, especially in the past decade: Poverty incidence actually
went up, even in years when the economy’s growth speeded up. As such, we will
not achieve key poverty reduction targets under the United Nations’ Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) that were set for this year.

Do political dynasties have something to do with all this? Arsenio Balisacan and
Nobohiko Fuwa, in a 2003 study, explored the linkage between dynastic
concentration and the standard of living in Philippine provinces between 1988
and 1997. They found dynastic concentration to have a significantly negative
effect on the upliftment of local living standards, noting that lack of real political
competition had led to flawed policies.

A 2004 study by University of the Philippines economists on provincial MDG

performance found that highly dynastic provinces lagged in MDG targets relative
to others. The authors saw dynastic politics to have damaged the quality and
provision of public services, and the proper functioning of local markets. An AIM
study on the 15th Congress found that dynastic jurisdictions are associated with
lower standards of living, lower human development, and higher levels of
deprivation.
Democracy, international research upholds, helps improve the prospects for
inclusive economic growth by fostering better education and provision of other
public services, broadening access to opportunities, and creating disincentives for
corruption. Factors that weaken democracies and restrict political participation
can thus be expected to impede broad-based economic development. Dynastic
Philippines could well be Exhibit Number One.

***

E-mail: cielito.habito@gmail.com

https://opinion.inquirer.net/87517/do-dynasties-deter-development