Making Filipinnovation Technonationalistic
By Lualhati Madlangawa Guererro
On the occasion of the death of Professor Roger Posadas, this note is ought to say that today's Filipinnovation should be aligned with Technonationalist goals in making Science and Technology closer to the people and its aspirations.
 |
| Dr. Roger Posadas, PhD |
Today, the Philippines stand at a crossroads where the forces of innovation and industrialization are not just shaping its current setting but also defining its future. For these two powerful drivers of progress have transformed societies, economies, and lives in ways that were once the realm of science fiction.
Looking back at the aspirations of the past, the Philippines has wished development that provides opportunities and fulfills societal wants and needs. It had looked at the examples of both east and west and having chances of proving its own direction only to be hindered by interests dismissing such ventures as some lofty ideals.
That even in this current setting it is not surprised that whilst accepting such terms like "innovation", "digitalisation", "development", "efficiency", "technology", among others, these are but words meant to consolidate the status quo rather than to blossom people's aspirations. In fact, the national policy on science and technology is seen by many as a showcase. For be it the monorail to that of its hybrid electric trains (both road and rail), and its recent microsatellite launch, everything's presented to the people is poorly received if not responded with skepticism. Furthermore, established views like globalisation downplays the need for localised development- even to the extent of dismissing as having "regrettable outcomes in the name of good" such as industrialisation, and the even promotion and cultivation of localised knowledge and technology to create a localised setting for innovation.
Some years past, the government talks about a concept called "Filipinnovation." At first, it sounds promising that would make the country promote to the world more than the usual tourist destinations and its festivals as it showcases the Filipino's capability to create new and sustainable means to steer an inclusive economic growth.
Obviously, Filipinnovation represents an attempt to merge Filipino ingenuity and technological advancement. Driven by a desire to address local challenges with homegrown solutions, Filipinnovation highlights the need for local talent, homegrown idea, and the cultivation of local expertise and creativity for the benefit of the people and sustained development.
But in this current situation, Filipinnovation cannot be truly "Filipinnovative" without a sound industrialisation and utilisation of local resources to really empower homegrown talents, inventors, scientists, and various sectors alike to further advance a truly innovative and creative setting.
For sure critics may dismiss this venture as ideal, especially when the country is too tied with neoliberal policies especially globalization. But with recent events such as the COVID19 pandemic, and with other neighbouring countries adopting semiprotectionist measures, it seems that the country should seriously rethink about continuing "established" views- that includes revisiting past ventures that may also provide opportunities for current and future developments. And this involve industrialisation and the innovative utilization of local resources for local needs.
Speaking of revisiting past ventures, individuals like Salvador Araneta showed that the country can able to utilize its own resources and providing local alternatives to the extent of facing heavy pressure from outside entities. Araneta had to face challenges as the Americans imposed heavy pressure on the Central Bank of the Philippines not to grant his Republic Flour Mills the required dollar allocation. Obviously, the Americans and local compradores disagree on a venture that would disrupt the established setting- that even someone made article on how stupid the Filipinos were to think the would succeed despite the fact that wheat is not grown in the Philippines. But Araneta's desire of a flour mill was more than just having a flour mill alone- he desired for a progressive country that can stand on its own economically- and that involves a long term task of industrialising and promoting sound innovative and creative means of development.
 |
| Salvador Araneta |
According to Araneta, industrialisation must be rapid and self-generating. Looking at the examples of other countries that undergone industrialisation, he said that the country could be achieved development by establishing key industries, namely the steel industry, shipbuilding, water resources, chemical and fermentation industries, as well as machine and tool industries. These ventures may sound too ideal in a local setting such as the Philippines, with critics dismissing the idea as stupid as they favour keeping the country agricultural and import-dependent while staying afloat on foreign investments and the dominance of foreign-owned establishments. But imagine how countries like Germany, France, and Japan recovered after World War II in record time because their reconstruction was self-generated and because they started building their basic industries? They did have support from the west courtesy of Marshall Plan and other related recovery programs, but the existence of a local manufacturing base, and having enough labour power made reconstruction easier for these countries and easily able to invest further on innovative and creative ways, modes, and means to sustain and develop new products and services.
Furthermore, industrialisation would imply that the nation must take the initiative to protect these divinely bestowed resources, including its soil, water, and forests, as well as its labor force, which consists of both brains and sinew. Why would other countries want to extract these and profit from it? The folk does not receive the income earned from resource extraction which depletes the region's mineral resources nor from agriculture which doesn't even fed its people. Instead, the profits either go to other countries and nationals or end up in the hands of financiers who claim to be "investing" and therefore reaping its "return of investments", not the people who toil in hazardous conditions to produce those goods. Again, call it political in this note that talks about innovation, but the country's need for innovation is not reinforced with the pressing need for industrialisation as to making the nation really utilise its resources for its own benefit.
Quite disrupting during those times the idea of undergoing industrialisation for again the country's agricultural and commercial setting has benefited local and foreign entities. Various presidents talked about national development, even promoting science and technology as any other campaign promises and statements during yearly "State of the Nation Address", but as national policies be complacent on an established foreign diktat does it really benefited people? Supporters of the establishment may've insisted that the country has undergone industrialisation, but this "industrialisation" was and is limited to consumer goods and assembly-line products. Attempts to pursue heavy industry such as integrated steelmaking and shipbuilding remained on the backbencher despite numerous promises to revive it. As what Ramon Jacinto said some years ago: "Our industrial backwardness has huge adverse implications. It results in massive domestic joblessness. Buying imported goods supports jobs abroad rather than in the country. Exporting our raw minerals and agricultural resources for processing in other countries creates jobs in those countries rather than here."
Hence, Filipinnovation should become technonationalistic in order to make a country's innovative setting really benefiting the Filipino. True that the country has its capacity to be innovative, but with the absence of a robust, integrated Filipino industrial sector has kept local science and technology backward, depending on foreign goods and services, and preventing the country from benefiting its own natural resources. It is not surprising that in the establishment's viewpoint "Filipinnovation" is simply "Unlock Filipino Potential to Unleash Philippine Progress", but in the absence of strong foundations, such venture to utilise Filipino potential is but half-baked. Right was the late professor Posadas that the country's absence of industry and complacent to an unfair established diktat doesn't blossom local science and technology regardless of numerous researches and "creations" provided by local scientists and engineers.
What more to see an establishment treating terms like "innovation" as to consolidate rather than to disrupt the status quo. "Digitalisation" for instance, the Philippines really needs it as means to reinforce efficiency and hasten innovation in implementing ideas into realities resulting to improved production and distribution of goods and services; but those terms, without having reinforced by programs meant to benefit and uplift the folk and community makes such ideas crucial for the country's success meaningless- let alone "benefited" the status quo and its ruling class. The establishment speaks evenly of those terms yet policies remained tied to that of entrenched interests, be it the local oligarch to that of a foreign interest-seeker. How could this note say so? Thus note wouldn't be surprised if in pursuing something such as "digitalisation" without addressing important ones is simply "skipping" an important process that would foster development and creativity through utilisation of its resources the nation has. True that in digitalisation as a greatest, powerful tool in increasing productivity and efficiency in the workplace and in society, is it also really for the people? Or simply to consolidate the status quo?
Today's order in the Philippines has included "innovation" and "creativity" in promoting efficiency and development- but obviously, mostly to reinforce the status quo and its antiquity, which is really contrary to the attributes of Innovation as challenging the status quo and opening doors to new possibilities improving people's lives and communities. That, as big landlords with existing feudal production relations, adopting capitalist-style "efficiency" has reinforced feudal oppression because the country relies on capital goods imports that are paid for by exporting certain agricultural crops, mineral ores, semi-finished products, and even cheap labor. It is hardly unexpected that "efficiency," whether in management or the use of law for the ruling class against the masses, has escalated repression, as has the use of the knout in the past.
Back to the main topic, local innovation under this current neoliberal setup makes the country depend much on the whims of the International market. Those preaching about “development” yet clinging on to the current economic norms of neoliberalism and globalisation made the country “staying on its own place” than truly having a place in the sun and enjoying its benefit. In countries like “people’s” China would say that technology and industry has to be tied to national interest.
According to an article from the London School of Economics, China has a two-pronged approach to achieving global technological leadership: (1) in the short term, utilise ‘mercantilist’ strategies and policies to close the technological gap between China and her competitors; and (2) in the long term, invest heavily in a multifaceted restructuring and development of its domestic innovation ecosystem. This venture is driven by Technonationalism, which can be understood as an ideology that “links technological innovation and capabilities directly to a nation’s national security, economic prosperity and social stability.” This idea would say that in pursuit of making the fruits of local Science and Technology be closer to the people, it becomes necessary for a nation to undertake an arduous task including that of reverse engineering and requiring transfer of technology from foreign firms operating in the country.
Of course, these policies are in staunch opposition to the current liberal international order which advocates free market principles, and have recently led to increased international scrutiny. The United States even advocating for a coalition of “like-minded nations” to force China to comply with its WTO commitments and to contest China’s innovation-mercantilist strategies. If one may ask, should the world conform to a single policy in the economy such as neoliberalism and globalisation? Does being a self-reliant or self-sustaining country makes one a pariah? People failed to understand that being self-reliant or having its economy tied to local needs doesn't mean isolationism.
Perhaps this post-pandemic scenario means a struggle between keeping or changing the entire economic system. Given this context would say that China’s venture into technonationalism, of strategically decoupling from its own competitors is also an attempt to counter that of the United States and institutions like the World Trade Organization. But come to think of this: whereas China wants to set an example, then why not the Philippines as well? No offence but China’s experience in development shouldn’t be downplayed but instead to be seen as an example of development regardless of the issues. But the Philippines, a country being averse to sound industrialisation and to local technology sourcing or technology transfers from domestic research and development laboratories cannot simply depend on outside aid on the long term, and with its resources would say that there’s an opportunity for a nation to sustain- it simply needs a policy that requires know how and effort from the grassroots than relying on outsiders with its flowery promises in exchange for economic dependence. As a consequence, according to the late professor Posadas: “the Philippine economy has remained a mere importer and consumer of industrial and high technologies and has not yet learned to become a producer and exporter of advanced technologies.”
Thus, it makes Industrialisation necessary to utilise resources and labour power, and in it create an atmosphere of innovation one of which is to lessen dependency on foreign materiel in favour of localised technologies. For sure neoliberalists tend to disagree this venture whilst at the same time preaching about emphasising science, technology, and the knowledge economy, dismissing developmentalism as idyllic and passe in favour of being dictated by banksters through organisations like the World Trade Organisation whose promises meant compromises favouring entrenched interests. And although true that the country for now needs foreign investments, appropriating foreign based knowledge and skill for local needs, reality has made a supposed “newly industrialised country” heavily dependent on foreign assistance, investment “just to keep afloat the economy” even it requires unjust policies like commercialisation, privatisation, and deregulation of services instead of promoting a sound socioeconomic program to create a real atmosphere for innovation and development.
Also to think that neoliberalists also cite China and Vietnam, these countries “opened up” not merely to integrate to the International Market altogether but to accommodate foreign investment (and be subjected to regulations and interventions) to the extent of promoting joint ventures and adopting market reforms as means to advance productive forces with the state acts as a residual claimant on the profits generated by enterprises that are operated independent of government management (citing James Meade through Cui Zhiyuan), thus, it made market economy rather subordinated to the socialist system and its vision.
In citing examples from other countries and by heeding people's clamour for genuine national development would say that the idea of unleashing Filipino potential should be more than just unleashing but making Filipinnovation itself transformed into an instrument of Technonational revitalization as it taps scientists, engineers, inventors, MSMEs and communities as active contributors such as in research and development in the basic and applied sciences; upgrading existing indigenous technologies; adapting technology advances in other countries and ensuring an adequate supply of skilled and competent scientific and technical human resources, while allowing foreign firms and capital to enter provided it is aligned to national goals and in respect to workers' rights and welfare as well as the environment.
As the country moves forward, the intersection of innovation and industrialisation will be crucial for national development. Innovation without industrialisation remains an idea regardless of the works given, while industrialisation without innovation risks becoming obsolete the institutions that should cater the needs of the nation and its people. True that the people wished for a future that benefits from the creativity of its compatriots, and thus needs to ensure that industries are not just efficient but also adaptable, leveraging new technologies to meet the needs of a rapidly changing society.
