Graham - your otherwise excellent article has overlooked one of the most profound influences on the Philippines at present: the Catholic Church. The influence of the Church and its involvement in day to day politics has had and is continuing to have a major drag on the democratic processes needed to change the country for the better.

How is the Catholic Church involved to such a profound degree? First, Filipino people are told that the use of condoms is a sin, so the country's birth rate is among the highest in the world. The country's population is due to double by the year 2025, exacerbating already serious problems of land shortages, lack of health and other services, and conflicts over land use, such as mining which is one industry potentially able to help the national economy.

Second, it takes huge amounts of money to get elected a member of the national Parliament in the Philippines and only the wealthy families who received favours from the original Spanish conquerers several hundred years ago and were allocted large areas of land have the ability to 'buy' their way into Parliament. The Chruch is not prepared to antagonise these good Catholic families, so the status quo remains, poverty is rife and intelligent young men who look to their future not surprisingly see armed rebellion as possibly their only hope.

Bernie,
So politics in the Phillipines is much the same as Australia, in a changing world it is reassureing to know that at least one thing remains static, you must be wealthy to enter parliament.

Dear Shonga,
Trivialising an important issue shouldn't reduce its importance. When I visited the Philippines in 2003 as the guest of several NGOs, I was repeatedly told that the standard procedure for national (as opposed to provincial or municipal) political candidates was to pay the equivalent of A$10 to $20 to a voter to encourage his or her support. To someone living in poverty, this was a very large amount of money. However, so I was told, the 'bribe' wouldn't guarantee a vote in favour of the candidate making the payment; it would only ensure that the particular candidate would be 'considered' by the person receiving the money when it came time to cast their vote.
But can we focus on the main point of my first post: that the Catholic Church must accept much of the blame for many of the on-going problems in the Philippines.
By the way, I was a state member of Parliament for 8 years and I can assure you that I and probably 70% of all other state MPs were far from wealthy people, even if your perceptions suggest otherwise

This is an interesting overview of a country that is too often ignored. However, I believe that it misrepresents the symptoms of the country's malaise as causes.

To be sure, a weak state beholden to rent-seeking oligarchs is part of the explanation. Governments are paralysed by the US-style 'separation of powers' and an obstructionist Senate.

Yet it is interesting that Indonesia and Thailand, for example, have been able to attain respectable economic growth in spite of enormous corruption, military rule and the occasional bout of political paralysis.

I think it is more useful to look at the nature of the Filipino oligarchs themselves, rather than the simple inequality of wealth. To be sure, Ferdinand Marcos fostered Chinese ‘crony capitalists’ as part of his support base. However, the country’s traditional elites, most of them descendants of the Spanish colonisers, have derived their wealth and political influence from rural estates, property development and rent-seeking deals in import substituting industries. Historically, their only experience with exporting was through the galleon trade with Mexico and Spain.

In contrast, development-focused states in Asia, whether authoritarian or democratic, have fostered export-oriented industries. These are often run by ethnic-Chinese entrepreneurs with family networks spanning other nations in the region and beyond. Their wealth could be ‘squeezed’ by the military or a ruling party from time to time, and certain interests could be granted domestic monopolies. But at no time could the exporting ‘milk cow’ be exploited too hard, lest it cause capital flight and loss of confidence.

Without a core of export oriented industries and a class of internationally oriented elites, the Philippines effectively has no engine for sustained growth.

Bernie,
I have been to the Phillipines and witnessed the coruption first hand, all government officials I dealt with wanted a "tip" to perform any task asked of them. Living in abject poverty I didn't blame them for doing so.

Democracy is unknown there, their form of it is not democracy, ordinary people live 3 families to a house, while the rich occupy palacious mansions. Economic development should be relatively easy as workers are only paid starvation wages. As I stated earlier, much in common with this country without unions.

While I find this author's post both interesting and well-written, I agree with Chris Winslow's comments. The basic weakness in the Phillipines economy stems from the strangle-hold on economic resources that a small elite have succeeded in maintaining.

That they have done so despite the political and social changes that have occurred since the demise of President Marcos provides an indication of the strength of their grasp.

Economic growth in any country with such a concentration of resources in the hands of very few may only occur if they more actively engage in economic activities with foreign enterprises( trade, joint-venture investment, etc) or realise that they must permit an increase in the number of economic entities capable of engaging in economic activity by permitting a more equitable distribution of resources, or access to them, and to opportunities, and then permit that to occur.

Sadly, oligopolistic cliques invariably fail to realise that they can derive greater economic rewards from holding less of a much larger pie than virtually all of a small pie. In this instance, feudalism prevails.