IN the academic world, the late Gelia Castillo is considered the “queen” of rural sociology. Her extensive work on analyzing the dynamics of rural society made a lasting impact on our knowledge of rural folk.
In agricultural economics, the uncontested guru in the country is Cristina David. Her insightful analyses of how the process of agricultural development is triggered and promoted have enriched our knowledge of the Philippine agricultural economy.
I am lucky, proud and privileged, together with my wife, Lourdes, to have been mentored by these two great women of UP Los Baños early in our careers. But we are not alone as a generation of young scholars benefited from their mentorship as they generously shared and passed on their wisdom to us.
Last Nov. 6, we held a festschrift (celebratory publication of writings) in honor of David. The event was jointly sponsored by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture and the UN Development Program. Preparations for the event were held in strict confidentiality as it was meant to be a surprise tribute.
Those who attended were a “who’s who” list in the field of agricultural economics, both here and abroad, clearly manifesting the extensive intellectual influence and legacy of David. Among the local experts who participated were the present National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Secretary Arsenio Balisacan, who gave a summary of David’s works expanding four decades, and former NEDA secretary Cielito Habito.
Also present were Aniceto Orbeta, PIDS president; Roehl Briones, senior fellow of PIDS; Arlene Inocencio, economics professor at De La Salle University; Majah-Leah Ravago, Development Academy of the Philippines president; Mario Lamberte, former PIDS president; Karl Jandoc, chairman of the Department of Economics; Liborio Cabanilla, former dean of the College of Economics and Management, UPLB; Lourdes Adriano, former ADB advisor; myself, former vice-chancellor of UPLB; and many more that I cannot enumerate due to space constraints.
As for the foreign experts in the field of agricultural economics, in attendance were Keijiro Otsuka of Kobe University and formerly of the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington; Jikun Huang, director of the China Center for Agricultural Policy; James Roumasset of the University of Hawaii; Justin Lin, professor and dean of Peking University; Kym Anderson, professor of economics at the University of Adelaide and Australian National University; and Pavit Ramachandran, country director of the ADB for the Philippines.
Otsuka and Huang served as the main speakers in the event. The former discussed the topic “Rice Green Revolution in Asia and Africa” while the latter dwelt on the issue of “Rural Transformation in China and Other Developing Countries.” David served as advisor for both Otsuka and Huang in their doctoral dissertations.
David’s early works expounded on the trigger and causes of agricultural development in the Philippines, particularly that of the rice sector. Thus, Otsuka’s presentation touched on the key lessons derived in boosting rice productivity in Asia. He mentioned that the two factors that played a critical role in significantly raising palay productivity in the Philippines were the introduction of “miracle” (hybrid) seeds and the application of fertilizers in favorable areas (presence of irrigation). The same factors seem to be in operation in Africa’s rice lands.
However, he argued that a more sustainable way of increasing productivity was by increasing investments in research and development combined with the introduction of modern farm technology.
Huang, meanwhile, gave a comprehensive presentation of the dynamics of the structural transformation of China’s agricultural sector. He is the best person to expound on this since he is considered as one of the architects of this agricultural transformation in China.
Huang provided a simple formula for the transformation process: IPI, which stands for “institution, policy and investment.” He argued that the process of reform and development could not properly proceed without the proper institutions to guide the transformation. This means that good governance is indispensable and this can only be attained if the bureaucracy is manned by highly qualified managers and scientists.
The absence of good governance will deprive the system of the correct policy directions to take. With a flawed policy framework, investments might pour in but allocated in the wrong priorities or activities.
He noted that the features of a successful agricultural transformation were: agricultural productivity that surpasses population growth rate; a shift to the cultivation of high-value crops; a significant increase in farmers income due to the crop shifts; and greater demand for the use of modern farming technology that is not seen as labor-displacing but as a means of attaining greater efficiency and productivity.
What was depressing was when Huang shared his slides on the agricultural performance of other developing countries in the region. He characterized the Philippines, together with Bangladesh and Pakistan, as having exhibited the slowest and lowest agricultural transformation during the last two decades.
As for Lin, regarded as one of the architects of neo-structuralism (a school of thought that emphasizes the crucial role of the state in the development process, contrary to the neoclassicist prescription of allowing the free market to determine resource allocation), he reiterated his thesis that the proper role of government was to support and invest in activities where the country had a comparative advantage. By doing this, this would lead to sustained, higher and accelerated growth for the country.
The reunion of experts in the field of agricultural economics undeniably revealed that we are not short of ideas that will trigger and promote Philippine agricultural development. What is missing are leaders who understand the dynamics of the agricultural economy, both domestic and international. Leaders who have the guts to do what is right in the face of powerful vested interest groups in the sector whose main agenda is to promote their self-interest regardless of the adverse impact on the overall economy and the millions of Filipino consumers.
It was glaringly clear in the presentation of Huang that the Philippine agricultural sector does not have the appropriate institution to promote its development. Good governance is missing. Top-notch scientists and analysts are not hired nor their opinions sought because of fear that they might just upset the existing status quo.
During the time of Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., when agriculture was under the leadership of Arturo Tanco, the latter created an office — unknown to many — of top-notch agricultural scientists to advise him on the proper direction and activities to promote the growth of the sector. Tanco humbly declared that while he knew management and operations, he needed the experts’ help in determining whether proposed programs and projects were technically and economically viable.
The successful “Masagana 99” rice production program in the 1970s was a product of the close collaboration with good managers and top-notch scientists. Unfortunately, we do not have the benefit of such a collaboration in our current agricultural system.
Be the first to comment