When our economists speak and write as they should?

Across the years, many economists in government fancied that they were technocrats, people who because of their technical skills help define public policy authoritatively. The fact is that most of them remained mere technicians, people with technical abilities serving primarily to rationalize whatever the authorities favor. No more than pliant handmaidens and ingratiating footmen in the domestic service of political lords, these techs are political lightweights and wield little clout in the design and implementation of national economic policies.

Had there been economic technocrats in the last thirty-seven years, the country’s present condition would probably have been much less daunting. Freer, more competitively-oriented, truly entrepreneurial markets would have developed and crony capitalism would be a minor tradition if it continued to exist. A central bank designed to keep banks from going bankrupt would not itself be overwhelmed by bankruptcy, "political banks" would not be part of an economist’s useful vocabulary, currency floats would not be the kind economists in this country recognize as a "dirty" float and public finance statistics – the public debt and budget deficits in particular – would not be the most formidable dimension of our official statistical system.

Definitely for worse rather than better, technocrats did not include economists in this country. Otherwise, professional economists would not sound so credible when they point out that their theories were never given a chance to prove themselves – either right or wrong — in the Philippine setting. (Some Filipino political scientists make the same lament when they try to explain how "democracy" – American or non-American – has had no operational meaning here so far, that the "democratic" institutions, structures and processes of Philippine society do not arise from people empowerment or popular soverignty but work instead to subvert it.)

Part of the reason why economists have not attained technocratic stature is their hesitation to cross the line between what they perceive to be the technical and the political. Economic analysis is technical and policymaking is political. Analytical expertise and political decision-making are distinct and layered competencies. Economists mostly confine themselves to the first and refuse to be drawn into the second. They will not be held responsible for whatever economic policy finally gets to be implemented; only the political authorities must suffer that accountability.

Until this unfortunate mindset gets to be significantly changed, the economist qua technocrat must be understood as being simply another Philippine illusion. Smart authorities who understand the value of an ego massage in keeping their subalterns reliably loyal may be expected to sustain this illusion as long as possible. It is in the national interest that economists stop being largely technicians and start playing a more active – one is tempted to say, highly proactive – role in the governance of this country.

Fortunately, some of the nation’s best economists appear to be increasingly aware of their profession’s traditionally self-inflicted handicap; they now analyze economic issues not only as level-headed technical experts – economists often with far too many on-the-one hand and on-the other-hand views — but also as troubled citizens of a none-too-strong republic probing distinctly human concerns, identifying clear preferences for urgent policy alternatives and initiating organizational and institutional responses to the perceived challenges of a society in crisis.

The Philippine Human Development Report 2002 is an excellent example of what this breed of economists can produce. Honest, unblinking economic analysis is brought to bear on the nation’s problematic population growth, uneven human resource development, lagging economic productivity and selected dimensions of economic and social imbalances – even outright inequities — conspire to bonsai if not quite abort Philippine human development.

Sufficient historical contexting, clear economic analyses, adequate skepticcism regarding the quality of official data on certain concerns, user-friendly technical presentations, facilitative international comparisons and serious — at times almost stern — but never shrill or strident advocacy make this report a gem for those who want to be educated about their nation’s pressing economic concerns. (Those who look for ideological inspiration may be disappointed despite a singular citation of Marx [1844] in the section discussing labor productivity and technology. More sanguine partisans may also want the authors to go beyond quintile and decile analysis when addressing specific social inequities. You can not please everyone.)

At this point, it is proper to toast the economists who produce this most timely and truly edifying report. I understand they refer to their senior economist as Professor Solita Collas-Monsod. Most Filipinos simply address her as Mareng Winnie. She could well be our first economist to be a technocrat. That will be part of Philippine human development too, circa 2004.