Reject Pax Silica: A Strategy for Philippine Industrial Sovereignty
 |
| Artist's conceptual rendering of Pax Silica Complex presented by the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (Source: RTVM) |
“It will bring quality jobs to our people, accelerate our industrial competitiveness, and revitalize our economy,” President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said when he introduced the proposed Pax Silica Industrial Hub during his fifth State of the Nation Address on July 27, 2026. Marcos described the project as an artificial-intelligence-centered industrial ecosystem and an advanced manufacturing and logistics component of the Luzon Economic Corridor (Marcos, 2026).
The promise is appealing because it addresses genuine Philippine economic weaknesses. The country possesses a large and experienced industrial workforce, but much of its manufacturing remains dependent on imported machinery, foreign intellectual property and decisions made by multinational corporations. Its electronics sector generates a large share of merchandise exports, yet activity remains concentrated in stages such as assembly, testing and packaging. Mineral resources are extracted domestically, while much of their refining and downstream industrial use occurs elsewhere. Overseas employment, remittances, business-process outsourcing, retail and real estate continue to compensate for the weakness of domestic productive accumulation.
Against that background, a 1,620-hectare complex containing semiconductor facilities, mineral-processing plants, artificial-intelligence infrastructure, research laboratories and logistics installations appears to offer an overdue transition from extraction and externally oriented services toward advanced production. The Board of Investments has presented the proposed Golden Node as a means of placing the Philippines closer to the center of the global AI supply chain, while the Bases Conversion and Development Authority has estimated that the estate could attract between $40 billion and $70 billion in investment and directly create at least 130,000 jobs when fully developed (Board of Investments [BOI], 2026a; Presidential Communications Office [PCO], 2026).
The issue, however, is not whether advanced factories are preferable to exporting unprocessed ore, or whether semiconductor employment is preferable to permanent dependence on low-productivity work. They plainly are. The issue is whether the institutional design of Pax Silica would allow the Philippines to accumulate ownership, technological authority and productive capabilities—or whether it would principally make Philippine territory a strategically useful location within an industrial system directed from abroad.
That distinction is fundamental. Investment is not synonymous with industrialization. Production occurring within national territory is not the same as national control over production. Participation in a global value chain does not necessarily mean that a country possesses the authority to determine its position within that chain.
Pax Silica is not a Philippine industrial strategy that happens to include American investment. It is a United States-led economic-security initiative within which the Philippines is being assigned an important production role. The U.S. Department of State calls Pax Silica its flagship initiative on artificial intelligence and supply-chain security. Its declared scope extends across the “minerals-to-models” system: critical minerals, energy, advanced manufacturing, semiconductors, data infrastructure and artificial intelligence. The initiative is designed to organize states, capital and technology around supply chains regarded as secure and trusted by Washington (U.S. Department of State, 2025a, 2026a).
That is not an incidental description. It identifies the project’s governing purpose. Pax Silica was conceived in response to the growing treatment of semiconductors, computing capacity, energy and minerals as strategic assets in the technological competition between the United States and China. It may generate commercial opportunities for participating countries, but its architecture begins with the security requirements of an American-led network.
The Philippines should reject the Golden Node in its present coalition-bound form. It should replace it with two mutually reinforcing policies. The first is ASEAN-centered strategic autonomy, under which Manila accepts technology, capital and trade from the United States, Japan, China, South Korea, Europe and other partners without assigning a critical national-security zone to one exclusive coalition. The second is domestic-first industrialization, under which minerals, energy, infrastructure and technical capability are directed first toward the productive requirements of the Philippine economy.
This is not an argument for autarky. The Philippines cannot independently produce every machine, chemical, software platform and industrial process required by an advanced economy. Foreign technology, investment and access to international markets will remain necessary.
The difference concerns sequencing and control. A national industrial strategy should begin by identifying what the Philippine economy must produce, which capabilities Filipino institutions must acquire and which industries domestic companies should eventually control. Foreign capital should then be selected and disciplined according to those objectives.
Pax Silica reverses that sequence. It begins with the requirements of an international coalition and asks what Philippine territory, resources and labor can contribute to them.
An International Supply Chain Is Not a National Industrial Policy
For the ordinary Filipino, Pax Silica is best understood not as a single factory, corporation or investment fund but as an international organization of the production systems required for artificial intelligence. Those systems begin with mines, electricity and industrial materials; continue through semiconductor design, wafer fabrication, assembly, testing, packaging, data centers and advanced manufacturing; and culminate in computing platforms, software and end-use technologies.
The Philippine Golden Node would be a physical production district within that larger system. Depending on the companies eventually recruited, it could include mineral-processing facilities, semiconductor assembly and packaging plants, electronics factories, data centers, laboratories, warehouses, dedicated power installations and supporting urban infrastructure.
BCDA has said that the development would be manufacturing-led rather than principally a data-center estate. Public discussions, however, still describe a preliminary project whose final combination of industries, locators, financing and supporting infrastructure has not been settled. Expressions of interest may indicate commercial curiosity, but they are not equivalent to binding capital commitments.
The distinction between projection and commitment matters. A company visit does not establish a factory. A memorandum does not guarantee technology transfer. A projected position is not yet a job with wages, training and security of tenure.
Nor should gross investment figures be confused with domestic economic value. A multibillion-dollar semiconductor plant may depend heavily on imported machinery, foreign engineering services and overseas financing. Its output may be recorded as Philippine production even when substantial portions of its value are paid abroad through imported components, royalties, interest, software licenses, management charges and profit repatriation.
A proper public assessment should therefore ask not only how much investment enters the estate but how much productive capability remains in the country. It should measure Filipino wages, taxes actually paid after incentives, domestic procurement, local equity, research expenditure, patents, engineering authority and the number of Philippine-controlled companies capable of supplying or competing with foreign locators.
The more spectacular the projection, the greater the need for a public balance sheet.
The government’s case is not wholly implausible. The Philippines already possesses an established semiconductor workforce. New Clark City is located near Clark International Airport, Subic Bay and existing electronics operations. The country has nickel, copper and other industrial resources. Filipino engineers are familiar with multinational production systems, while the technical diaspora provides a large reserve of knowledge and experience.
A concentrated industrial estate could reduce coordination costs and generate economies that isolated plants cannot. Semiconductor production depends on dense relationships among materials suppliers, equipment manufacturers, designers, assembly firms, universities, logistics companies and customers. Clusters can create cumulative effects as one investment attracts another.
But clustering is not automatically national industrialization. An enclave may also contain a dense network of foreign firms whose strongest relationships are with one another and with overseas headquarters rather than with the surrounding domestic economy.
The key question is therefore the direction of integration. Will foreign locators be integrated into Philippine research, finance, procurement and final-product manufacturing? Or will Philippine labor, minerals and infrastructure merely be integrated more efficiently into an externally commanded network?
The buildings might look identical under either arrangement. Their developmental effects would be very different.
Legal Sovereignty and Economic Extraterritoriality
The first major controversy surrounding the Golden Node involved reports that the United States had requested the application of American legal principles and protections resembling diplomatic immunity for personnel operating within the estate.
BCDA President Joshua Bingcang said the Philippine side rejected the request and would grant no special arrangement to the United States. U.S. Undersecretary of State Jacob Helberg later said his remarks had been taken out of context and denied that diplomatic immunity had been the American objective. The publicly released Pax Silica declaration and BCDA proposal letter did not themselves establish American jurisdiction or diplomatic immunity, although a separate supplemental agreement governing the final operating terms had not yet been concluded (Bases Conversion and Development Authority [BCDA], 2026; Chi, 2026).
BCDA’s proposal included a two-year rent-free lease period described as a Philippine in-kind contribution. Rental rates from the third year onward remained subject to negotiation. Permanent improvements were proposed to revert to the Philippine government when the agreement ended without renewal. Personnel arrangements were to be negotiated consistently with Philippine law (BCDA, 2026).
In the absence of a signed extraterritorial agreement, Pax Silica should not be described as American territory. The Philippine government has expressly rejected such an arrangement.
The controversy nevertheless revealed how the negotiations were initially framed. Questions involving investor protection and the legal treatment of foreign personnel emerged before Filipinos had been provided with a definitive list of industries, locators, public costs and performance obligations.
A semiconductor manufacturer, data-center operator or mineral processor remains a commercial enterprise. It may receive fiscal incentives, streamlined customs procedures and a long-term lease, but it should remain accountable to Philippine courts, labor law, environmental rules, taxation and criminal jurisdiction.
Formal legal sovereignty, however, is only one dimension of sovereignty. An estate may remain completely subject to Philippine law while its productive decisions are made abroad. An overseas headquarters may determine the designs, machinery, software, suppliers, capital expenditure, production volume, customers and disposition of profits. Philippine agencies may regulate the physical estate without exercising meaningful influence over what is produced or where the output is sold.
This is a form of economic extraterritoriality rather than legal extraterritoriality. Philippine land, minerals, labor, water and electricity are integrated into an externally directed productive network. The flag and legal code remain Philippine, but the strategic direction of production does not.
The Security Question Requires Precision
Some opponents have characterized Pax Silica as an American weapons-production enclave. The available public evidence does not establish that claim.
BCDA says the proposed estate will be commercial and will not host defense-related activities. No publicly identified agreement shows that an American or Israeli company has been authorized to manufacture missiles, ammunition or weapons systems in New Clark City. Criticism should distinguish a possible strategic evolution from an already approved arms-production plan.
The more credible concern arises from the dual-use character of the industries involved. Semiconductors, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, communications equipment, robotics and mineral processing have extensive civilian applications, but they are also indispensable to modern military systems. The U.S. defense establishment relies heavily on commercial semiconductor supply chains for radar, sensors, communications and other mission systems (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2024).
Filipino and Israeli officials have discussed cooperation under Pax Silica involving critical minerals, mineral processing, semiconductors, artificial intelligence, advanced computing and cybersecurity. These discussions do not prove that Israeli weapons companies will manufacture in Clark, but they confirm that the project forms part of a strategic technology network rather than a politically neutral industrial-estate program (BOI, 2026b).
A commercially registered semiconductor company may supply components used in both household electronics and military communications. A data center may host ordinary business systems while also supporting defense-related computation. A mineral processor may supply battery or electronics manufacturers serving both civilian and military customers.
The relevant question is therefore not whether every factory will manufacture weapons. It is whether the zone may become materially integrated into American or Israeli defense and intelligence supply chains despite being formally described as commercial.
There is no sound basis for predicting that China would physically attack New Clark City merely because American-aligned technology companies operate there. The more immediate risks would probably involve cyberespionage, technology theft, commercial coercion, sabotage or disruption of supplies.
Nevertheless, strategic infrastructure does not remain politically neutral during a major confrontation. Concentrating mineral processing, computing, semiconductor production, energy and logistics inside an estate identified with one coalition would make the Philippines more exposed to the consequences of that coalition’s conflicts.
The country should not build such a concentration first and determine its security doctrine later.
The Palantir Connection
Helberg’s professional background is relevant, but it should not be overstated. Before entering the U.S. government, he served as senior adviser to the chief executive of Palantir Technologies. That documented connection does not prove that Pax Silica is a Palantir project, that Palantir will operate inside the Golden Node or that every supporter of the initiative belongs to a coherent Palantir faction (U.S. Department of State, 2025b).
It does help illuminate the strategic outlook surrounding the initiative: one in which commercial technology, national security, data integration and geopolitical power are increasingly treated as parts of a single system.
Palantir is a major data-analysis contractor serving defense, intelligence, policing and immigration agencies. It is also controversial among privacy, civil-liberties and migrant-rights organizations. Amnesty International has raised concerns regarding the use of Palantir-supported systems in immigration enforcement and the possible implications for privacy, expression, due process and nondiscrimination (Amnesty International, 2025).
The relevance to Pax Silica is institutional rather than conspiratorial. A technology initiative promoted by officials who view commercial data systems, artificial intelligence, defense and economic security as closely connected should not be evaluated as though it were an ordinary export estate.
The concern is not that Palantir secretly owns Pax Silica. It is that the project’s governing philosophy may progressively subordinate commercial infrastructure to the strategic requirements of a foreign security coalition.
The False Choice Between China and Pax Silica
It is understandable that many Filipinos may regard Pax Silica as a lesser evil compared with the country’s dependence on China-centered mineral supply chains. China accounted for approximately 66 percent of Philippine nickel exports in 2025. Such concentration exposes Philippine producers to the import policies, industrial cycles and geopolitical calculations of one external market (Philippine News Agency [PNA], 2026a).
The criticism should be stated accurately. The concentration of exports does not establish that most Philippine mines are directly Chinese-owned. The more important problem is that extraction has been heavily organized around demand from Chinese processors and manufacturers. The Philippines supplies ore while much of the refining, equipment production and downstream manufacturing takes place elsewhere.
Diversifying buyers is sensible. Domestic processing is also preferable to exporting unrefined ore. It can retain additional value, create technical employment and generate demand for engineers, chemists, maintenance workers and logistics services.
But diversification is not the same as sovereignty, and additional processing is not automatically industrialization.
Under Pax Silica, Philippine nickel may be converted into an intermediate chemical product in Central Luzon rather than exported directly as ore. Semiconductors may be assembled, tested or packaged in New Clark City before being incorporated into foreign-designed goods. These activities are more technically sophisticated than mining alone and could produce better wages.
Nevertheless, the plants may remain foreign-owned. Their machinery may be imported, their production systems licensed, their patents held abroad, their suppliers selected by overseas headquarters and their output committed to external customers. More production would take place in the Philippines, but the country might still exercise little authority over the complete chain.
The Philippines would no longer export raw minerals alone. It would export those minerals together with the Filipino labor, electricity, water and public infrastructure used to process them.
The choice is therefore not necessarily between crude extraction for China and sovereign industrialization under the United States. It may be a choice between exporting raw materials into a China-centered system and exporting semi-processed materials and intermediate components into an American-centered system.
The destination changes. The Philippine function may remain externally assigned.
Resource Extraction in a More Advanced Form
The government presents Pax Silica as a means of moving the Philippines from resource extraction into higher-value manufacturing. The objective is reasonable. The assumption that additional processing necessarily transforms the economic relationship is not.
A mineral does not cease to participate in an extractive system merely because it undergoes another industrial process before export. If Philippine nickel is converted into an intermediate compound and then shipped to a foreign battery manufacturer, the country retains more value than it would from exporting raw ore. But if the machinery, technology, financing and final market remain foreign-controlled, the decisive accumulation still occurs elsewhere.
The same applies to electronics. A chip assembled or packaged in Clark may be recorded as a Philippine export even though its design originated abroad, its production equipment was imported and its final integration into a branded device will occur elsewhere. The export statistic records the territorial location of one operation. It does not determine who commands the complete system.
IBON Foundation has repeatedly made this distinction in its criticism of Pax Silica. Its analysis argues that decades of foreign-oriented semiconductor and economic-zone development have produced substantial exports without proportionate technological transfer, domestic ownership or movement into more commanding stages of production. In IBON’s account, the proposed project risks extending a model in which the country supplies resources, infrastructure and labor while foreign firms retain the technology, financing and final markets (IBON Foundation, 2026a; Jarabe, 2026; Piedad, 2026).
IBON’s rhetoric is more confrontational than that normally found in business commentary, and some of its individual labor and investment claims require comparison with official or independent data. Its central structural question is nevertheless legitimate: after more than five decades of electronics exports, how much independent technological and corporate capacity has the Philippines accumulated?
The phrase “moving up the value chain” provides an incomplete answer. A country may move from one stage of a foreign-controlled chain into a more technically demanding stage without acquiring authority over the chain itself.
Better jobs, training and greater domestic value added are genuine gains. They are not substitutes for ownership, research, product design, equipment production and control over final markets.
The proper test is whether Philippine processing will feed industries required by the domestic economy. Will nickel and copper supply locally controlled grid equipment, railways, electric public transportation, shipbuilding, agricultural machinery, medical devices and telecommunications systems? Will semiconductor operations support Filipino firms producing industrial controls, power electronics and final goods? Or will their output be committed principally to overseas product lines and allied supply contracts?
Pax Silica is explicitly designed around global supply-chain requirements. The government has not yet demonstrated how those requirements will be subordinated to Philippine development.
The Philippine Semiconductor Record
The Philippines is not a newcomer to semiconductors. Fairchild, Intel, Texas Instruments and other multinational companies established back-end manufacturing operations beginning in the 1970s. Electronics subsequently became the country’s largest merchandise-export sector, and Filipino engineers and technicians accumulated substantial experience in assembly, testing and packaging.
The record is not one of complete failure. The country has locally owned firms in assembly, electronics manufacturing and integrated-circuit design. The OECD identifies companies including Automated Technology Philippines, Cirtek, Fastech, Integrated Micro-Electronics, ESi Labs and Xinyx. It ranked the Philippines as one of the world’s leading chip exporters and described the country as an important participant in assembly, testing and packaging (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2024).
The structural problem is the depth of this ecosystem relative to the scale of its exports. Philippine activity remains concentrated in downstream assembly, testing and packaging. At the time of the OECD’s study, the country had no front-end semiconductor fabrication facility, while domestic capability in specialized equipment, materials and other upstream functions remained limited. Foreign investors accounted for a large majority of the capital of major semiconductor establishments. The report also identified electricity and logistics costs as important constraints and concluded that the country was not strengthening its position in semiconductor value chains as much as its early participation might suggest (OECD, 2024).
This is not an industry without Filipino capability. It is an industry whose domestic capabilities remain narrower than the scale of its exports implies.
Intel’s closure of its Cavite assembly-and-test facility in 2009 demonstrated the vulnerability of productive capacity governed by a multinational corporation’s global strategy. The plant generated employment, exports and technical experience for decades, but the decision to consolidate older facilities did not belong to Philippine workers, suppliers or policymakers.
The lesson is not that Intel’s investment produced no benefit. It is that a plant can operate productively for decades without becoming a national industrial system.
The meaningful measure of industrial development is what survives when a multinational restructures: domestic suppliers, patents, laboratories, design houses, equipment manufacturers and firms capable of continuing production through their own customer relationships.
Pax Silica may expand the existing semiconductor economy. It does not automatically correct the institutional weakness revealed by that history.
Taiwan and South Korea Were Not Export Enclaves
Defenders of Pax Silica may cite Taiwan and South Korea as evidence that export orientation and integration into global supply chains can produce industrialization. The comparison is useful only when the institutions supporting their development are included.
South Korea did not industrialize principally by inviting foreign companies into tax-privileged estates. Its government used planning, directed credit, import regulation, export targets, public investment and selective protection to build Korean-controlled firms capable of manufacturing and marketing increasingly complex goods. Exports provided foreign exchange, scale and competitive discipline, but the underlying objective was the accumulation of productive capability within national enterprises (Westphal, 1990).
The Korean system produced serious problems, including concentrated corporate power, preferential financing and close relations between state agencies and the chaebol. Nevertheless, export expansion strengthened companies headquartered in Korea and accumulated engineering, management, branding and marketing capability under domestic control. Korea did not permanently accept the role of subcontractor for foreign brands.
Taiwan’s semiconductor experience provides an even more direct comparison. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company was not established simply because foreign corporations required a less expensive production location. It emerged from a deliberate state-backed effort to acquire semiconductor technology, train engineers and establish domestic manufacturing capability.
Taiwan’s Industrial Technology Research Institute obtained foreign technology, created demonstration facilities and developed engineering teams. When TSMC was established in 1987, ITRI transferred fabrication facilities, equipment, technology and personnel to the new company. TSMC’s regulatory filings describe its creation as a joint venture among the government of the Republic of China, Philips and other private investors (Industrial Technology Research Institute [ITRI], n.d.; Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited [TSMC], 2001).
TSMC was globally oriented from the beginning. It was not established merely to supply Taiwan’s domestic market. The important distinction is that international demand was used to build a Taiwanese-headquartered corporation, a domestic research system, an engineering workforce, a supplier ecosystem and a center of technological decision-making located substantially within Taiwan.
That is fundamentally different from inviting a foreign parent corporation to operate a subsidiary whose strategic decisions remain overseas.
A Philippine equivalent would not consist merely of attracting TSMC, Intel or Samsung to build another plant in Clark. It would require a Philippine research institution capable of acquiring and developing semiconductor technology, domestic public and private equity in strategic companies, shared prototype facilities and long-term financing for Filipino suppliers and design firms.
The lesson from Taiwan and Korea is not that exports automatically produce industrialization. It is that international markets can support industrialization when the state uses them to construct firms and institutions that it can progressively own and direct.
Pax Silica begins with the requirements of an international coalition. Taiwan and South Korea began with the construction of national capability.
Europe’s semiconductor policy offers a broader comparison than Germany alone. The continent is attempting to reverse decades of declining manufacturing weight while reducing dependence on American and Asian suppliers. The European Chips Act seeks not merely to attract factories but to strengthen research, design, production, advanced packaging, skills and crisis-response capabilities across the European Union. Its stated ambition is to increase Europe’s share of global semiconductor production and reinforce technological sovereignty (European Commission, 2026a).
The strategy is neither a complete success nor a single coherent model. It combines supranational planning, national subsidies, foreign anchor investors, domestic companies, public research institutes and regional clusters. Member states also compete with one another for investment, while expensive energy, shortages of engineers, permitting delays and corporate bargaining power complicate implementation.
For the Philippines, the value of Europe’s experience lies precisely in these contradictions. Europe shows that foreign semiconductor investment can contribute to national and regional capability, but only when it is embedded in institutions that possess research capacity, equipment manufacturers, industrial customers, financing and negotiating power. It also demonstrates that large subsidies do not guarantee that a multinational will remain.
- Germany: Corporate Optionality and Industrial Integration
Intel’s proposed Magdeburg complex illustrates the danger of organizing regional policy around the expectations of one multinational corporation. In 2023, Intel and the German government announced plans for more than €30 billion in investment for two advanced wafer-fabrication plants. The project was promoted as the largest foreign direct investment in German history and the center of a new European semiconductor corridor. Intel anticipated approximately 3,000 permanent positions, thousands of construction jobs and a wider supplier ecosystem (Intel Corporation, 2023).
The political language resembled that now surrounding Pax Silica. The project would generate skilled employment, stimulate suppliers, improve resilience and strengthen technological sovereignty. German institutions began planning land, infrastructure, workforce development and substantial public assistance around the promised investment.
In July 2025, however, Intel announced that it would no longer proceed with the proposed German and Polish projects. Chief Executive Lip-Bu Tan acknowledged that the company had invested too much, too soon, without sufficient demand and said that future factory expansion would be tied more closely to confirmed customer commitments (Intel Corporation, 2025).
The cancellation did not mean that Germany had already distributed every contemplated subsidy. It nevertheless demonstrated an important asymmetry. The host government may reorganize regional planning, reserve land, prepare infrastructure and create political expectations, while the multinational retains the option to postpone, reduce or abandon its investment when corporate strategy changes.
This is directly relevant to Pax Silica. The Philippine government should not organize electricity, water, transportation, education and land policy around nonbinding expressions of interest. Before public infrastructure is committed, anchor investors should make enforceable capital commitments, provide performance guarantees and accept clawback provisions covering public expenditure if they cancel or substantially reduce their projects.
Germany’s European Semiconductor Manufacturing Company project in Dresden presents a different model. TSMC owns 70 percent of the joint venture, while Bosch, Infineon and NXP—companies already embedded in European automotive and industrial production—each own 10 percent. Germany is providing up to €5 billion in aid toward an investment exceeding €10 billion. The facility is intended to manufacture chips for European industrial and automotive customers, while the participating European firms bring existing research, design, production and market relationships into the project (European Commission, 2024a).
The Dresden facility remains foreign-led and heavily subsidized. It does not make Europe independent of TSMC or guarantee complete technology transfer. Its advantage over a detached export enclave is that European companies possess equity and are positioned to use the output within industries headquartered in the region. The plant enters an existing industrial system composed of vehicle manufacturers, machinery companies, chemical firms, research institutes and semiconductor producers.
The comparison between Magdeburg and Dresden yields two different lessons. Magdeburg shows the fragility of a development strategy centered on a single foreign promise. Dresden shows that foreign investment becomes more developmentally useful when domestic or regional companies possess equity, established customers, technological capability and bargaining power.
The Philippines should not merely ask which foreign semiconductor company is willing to build in Clark. It should ask which Filipino institutions and companies will own part of the productive asset, absorb its technology and connect its output to Philippine transportation, energy, communications, medical and industrial-equipment requirements.
- France: Public Aid in Exchange for Public Obligations
France offers a further lesson: public subsidies can be attached to explicit obligations extending beyond employment and factory construction.
The French government supported a €7.4-billion semiconductor project involving STMicroelectronics and GlobalFoundries at Crolles. The facility was intended to manufacture energy-efficient chips for automobiles, communications, aerospace, security and defense. The European Commission approved the aid partly because the project would introduce technologies and production processes not previously available at industrial scale in Europe (European Commission, 2023).
More significant than the project’s size were the conditions attached to public support. The companies agreed to give priority to designated European orders during supply shortages, continue investing in later generations of relevant technology and make production-scale testing and development capacity available to small and medium-sized companies and other third parties. The agreement also included a mechanism through which unexpectedly high profits could generate additional returns for the French state (European Commission, 2023).
These requirements demonstrate that public aid need not be treated as an unconditional gift intended only to make an investment location more attractive. The state can purchase public capabilities and strategic rights.
Applied to the Philippines, comparable conditions would mean that a publicly supported semiconductor or mineral-processing facility could be required to reserve capacity for domestic infrastructure during emergencies, provide laboratory and pilot-line access to Filipino companies, train local engineers in process development rather than operation alone, and continue investing in successive technological generations. Exceptional profits generated partly through public land, subsidies or guaranteed utilities could trigger higher public returns, equity conversion or reinvestment obligations.
The French case also shows the importance of connecting production to existing domestic research and industrial institutions. The Crolles project builds upon technology developed through earlier European microelectronics programs and is situated within the Grenoble semiconductor cluster, which includes STMicroelectronics, Soitec, the public research organization CEA-Leti, universities and specialized suppliers. The factory is not expected to generate an ecosystem from nothing. It expands an ecosystem constructed over decades through public research and industrial policy.
For Manila, the implication is clear. A foreign plant cannot substitute for a Philippine research and supplier system. Public support for production must be accompanied by investment in institutions capable of understanding, adapting and commercializing the technologies being introduced.
- The Netherlands and Belgium: Own a Strategic Capability
The Netherlands provides perhaps Europe’s strongest demonstration that technological sovereignty comes from controlling a difficult and indispensable capability rather than hosting the largest number of factories.
ASML, headquartered in Veldhoven, supplies lithography systems required for advanced semiconductor production. Its position was not created by offering an empty industrial estate to foreign locators. It developed through sustained cooperation among private companies, universities, public research, specialized suppliers and European technology programs. ASML remains a center of engineering, system integration and manufacturing within a dense Dutch high-technology cluster, while working with an extensive network of suppliers and research partners (ASML, 2026a, 2026b).
The Dutch ecosystem illustrates the value of specialization. A relatively small country does not need to control every stage of semiconductor production to exercise strategic influence. It can concentrate resources on technologies in which domestic companies and research institutions can establish difficult-to-reproduce advantages.
The Dutch government’s semiconductor strategy accordingly emphasizes knowledge, public-private research, talent and the preservation of strategic positions in equipment and semiconductor technology. Its objective is not merely to increase the number of foreign-owned fabrication plants but to strengthen capabilities that make Dutch firms indispensable to the wider global system (Government of the Netherlands, 2026).
Belgium’s Imec provides a related example. Imec is a research institution that works with universities, equipment manufacturers, materials companies and chip producers on advanced semiconductor processes. Its joint High-NA extreme-ultraviolet lithography laboratory with ASML gives semiconductor firms and suppliers access to a prototype production environment before the technology enters broad commercial use (ASML & Imec, 2024).
Institutions of this kind allow European engineers, start-ups and suppliers to participate in technological development rather than wait for finished production systems to be imported from abroad. They reduce the separation between laboratory research and industrial manufacturing.
A Philippine technology policy should draw the same conclusion. The country does not need to begin by attempting to build the most advanced fabrication plant in the world. It should identify fields in which existing Philippine capability can be developed into strategic specialization: advanced packaging, power electronics, testing equipment, sensors, maritime electronics, industrial software or semiconductor systems for energy and transportation.
A Philippine counterpart to ITRI or Imec would operate shared pilot lines, clean rooms and prototype facilities accessible to universities, start-ups and domestic manufacturers. Its purpose would not be to provide inexpensive research services to foreign locators but to create technologies and companies capable of remaining in the Philippines.
The Dutch and Belgian experience therefore provides a different measure of industrial success. The relevant question is not only how many chips are manufactured within the territory, but whether domestic institutions possess knowledge without which the wider industry cannot easily function.
- Ireland: The Benefits and Limits of Foreign Investment
Ireland offers a comparison closer to the development model historically followed by the Philippines. It used foreign direct investment, education, membership in a large regional market and an active investment-promotion agency to attract high-technology manufacturers and research operations.
Intel established manufacturing in Ireland in 1989 and later invested heavily in its Leixlip campus. Fab 34 represented an investment of approximately €17 billion and introduced Intel’s extreme-ultraviolet-based manufacturing process at commercial scale in Europe. Ireland also hosts semiconductor design, research and manufacturing operations involving Analog Devices, AMD, Infineon, Qualcomm and other companies (IDA Ireland, 2023, 2024).
The Irish experience demonstrates that foreign investment can become more valuable over time when a host country maintains policy continuity, develops skills, supports research collaboration and encourages companies to move from basic operations into advanced manufacturing and research. Analog Devices’ Irish research operations, for example, became an important component of its European innovation system (IDA Ireland, 2022).
This is considerably more substantial than an economic zone limited to low-value assembly. Ireland has accumulated engineers, managers, research institutions and experience operating advanced plants. Foreign corporations have repeatedly reinvested rather than using the country solely as a temporary low-cost location.
Yet Ireland also reveals the continuing limits of a multinational-centered strategy. The principal productive assets and intellectual property remain largely under foreign corporate ownership, and final investment decisions are made according to global corporate strategies. A host country can improve its position inside a multinational network without acquiring full authority over that network.
Ireland’s experience should therefore be interpreted neither as a failure nor as proof that foreign direct investment automatically creates sovereignty. It shows that a host economy can negotiate a more advanced and durable position through education, research, reinvestment and institutional competence. It also shows why foreign investment should be supplemented by domestically headquartered companies, public research institutions and national sources of patient capital.
For the Philippines, the comparison is particularly relevant. Manila has often reproduced the initial stage of the Irish model—tax incentives, export zones and foreign manufacturers—without consistently developing the later stages of research intensity, supplier upgrading and institutional continuity. Pax Silica risks repeating the attraction of the initial investment while assuming that the more important capabilities will follow automatically.
- Italy and the Regional Division of Capability
Italy further demonstrates that a regional industrial strategy does not require every participating state to reproduce the entire semiconductor chain. European Chips Act projects in Italy include silicon-carbide production and advanced-packaging activity. These projects occupy particular technological positions within a wider European production and research system rather than operating as isolated estates (European Commission, 2026a).
This principle is relevant to ASEAN. The Philippines need not manufacture every machine, chemical and semiconductor domestically. It can specialize in areas connected to its existing capabilities while coordinating with neighboring economies possessing complementary strengths.
The difference between productive specialization and subordinate dependence lies in how specialization is organized. A country exercises strategic specialization when its own companies, workers and research institutions accumulate knowledge and bargaining power in the chosen field. It remains subordinate when foreign corporations assign it a narrow function that can be relocated once wages, subsidies or geopolitical conditions change.
Europe’s attempt to distribute fabrication, packaging, equipment, research and materials across several countries is imperfect and frequently distorted by competition for subsidies. It nevertheless offers a better principle than the creation of a foreign-commanded Philippine enclave: build complementary capabilities among states and institutions while ensuring that each participating economy retains assets, knowledge and companies of its own.
What Europe Does Not Prove
Europe’s semiconductor strategy should not be romanticized. Its programs depend on very large subsidies, and governments with greater fiscal capacity can outbid smaller economies. National leaders sometimes present foreign projects as technological sovereignty even when essential technology remains controlled abroad. Competition among European states may duplicate facilities or transfer public funds to companies that might have invested somewhere in the region regardless.
Europe also faces high energy costs, shortages of specialized labor and slow permitting. Intel’s withdrawal from Magdeburg shows that even wealthy governments cannot eliminate commercial risk. Export restrictions involving Dutch semiconductor equipment demonstrate that ownership of strategic technology may also subject a smaller state to pressure from larger allies and trading partners (Government of the Netherlands, 2024, 2025).
Technological sovereignty is therefore not achieved merely by declaring a strategic sector or providing subsidies. It requires domestic firms, public research, a skilled workforce, reliable infrastructure and institutions capable of imposing conditions on investors.
Nor should the Philippines attempt to imitate European spending levels. European governments can mobilize resources far beyond Philippine fiscal capacity. The useful lesson is not the amount of subsidy but what the subsidy is designed to purchase.
Public support in Europe has increasingly been tied to first-of-a-kind technology, supply commitments, continuing research, access for smaller companies, industrial customers and ecosystem development. These requirements are imperfect and unevenly enforced, but they establish an important principle: public money should create public capabilities.
Taken together, the European cases yield several lessons for Philippine industrial policy.
Germany shows that a foreign anchor investor can withdraw despite years of government preparation, and that joint ventures with domestic industrial companies are more valuable than detached wholly foreign-owned plants. France demonstrates that subsidies can be conditioned on priority supply, continued research, access for smaller firms and public participation in unexpected gains. The Netherlands and Belgium show that research institutions, specialized suppliers and ownership of a critical technology can provide more strategic power than the territorial presence of a large factory. Ireland shows that foreign direct investment can produce increasingly sophisticated manufacturing and research when supported by skills and institutional continuity, but that multinational ownership still limits national authority. Italy shows that countries can specialize in complementary technologies within a regional industrial framework rather than attempt to reproduce every stage independently.
The common European lesson is that a semiconductor plant is most valuable when embedded in an industrial system that the host economy already possesses or is deliberately constructing.
Pax Silica, by contrast, begins with an estate and assumes that the system will emerge around it.
The Philippines should reverse that order. It should first build public research, domestic capital, reliable electricity, transportation, industrial procurement and Filipino-controlled companies. Foreign plants can then enter an ecosystem whose direction is set by Philippine institutions rather than substitute for the absence of such an ecosystem.
If government nevertheless commits public resources to foreign semiconductor or mineral-processing projects, minimum conditions should reflect the strongest European precedents: enforceable capital schedules; repayment and clawback provisions for cancellation; Filipino public or private equity; guaranteed access to facilities for domestic companies and universities; obligations to fund subsequent technological generations; emergency domestic-supply rights; profit-sharing when public support produces exceptional returns; and measurable supplier-development requirements.
Europe’s experience does not show that foreign investment is incompatible with industrial sovereignty. It shows that foreign investment becomes compatible with sovereignty only when the host possesses the institutions, companies and negotiating capacity to discipline it.
The Industrial Version of the Service-Economy Trap
Pax Silica is politically attractive because a clean room, laboratory or semiconductor plant appears to represent the opposite of a service-dependent economy. Yet externally controlled manufacturing can reproduce several of the same structural weaknesses.
In business-process outsourcing, Filipino labor performs services for a foreign client that controls the customer relationship, software platform and commercial market. In enclave manufacturing, Filipino labor is embodied in an intermediate physical product whose design, financing and final market may likewise be controlled abroad.
Industrial production is more capital-intensive and can create greater technical learning. It should not be equated mechanically with call-center work. But both arrangements may leave the country dependent on decisions made at foreign headquarters.
The worker exchanges the headset for a clean-room suit while the economy continues to provide labor and infrastructure without commanding the complete commercial system.
IBON’s analysis describes Philippine economic zones as locations for import-dependent and export-oriented segments of transnational production, while research, product design and high-value technological functions remain insufficiently developed domestically. It proposes instead a coherent industrial policy based on public investment, technological upgrading and stronger relationships between agriculture and manufacturing (Piedad, 2026).
The problem is not the existence of a large service sector. Modern industrial economies also possess large service sectors. Their logistics, finance, insurance, engineering, software, research and wholesale activities are closely connected to domestic production.
Japan, South Korea and China did not abandon manufacturing as their service sectors expanded. Services grew around increasingly complex industrial systems. Norway used petroleum income not merely to finance consumption but to accumulate public financial assets and support domestic energy, maritime and engineering capability. Denmark’s strength rests not on an oil-fund model but on the interaction of advanced services with shipping, pharmaceuticals, food processing, machinery and renewable-energy industries.
The important distinction is not between manufacturing and services as statistical categories. It is between services that support domestic productive accumulation and services directed principally toward external clients and imported consumption.
Pax Silica reflects the shortcut mentality that has shaped Philippine development policy for decades. It assumes the country can move from incomplete electrification, fragmented transportation and shallow domestic manufacturing directly into data centers and an AI-centered export complex.
But data centers are not an alternative to basic infrastructure. They are among its most electricity- and water-intensive users.
A country that cannot resolve the foundational systems on which advanced computing depends is not skipping stages. It is constructing a technologically impressive enclave above an unfinished economy.
The Public Balance Sheet: Power, Water and Land
Pax Silica would require more than privately financed factory buildings. It would depend on public land, transport connections, electricity generation, transmission infrastructure, water systems, worker training, environmental regulation and government guarantees.
The possible electricity requirement remains extraordinarily uncertain. Philippine officials have discussed demand ranging from tens of megawatts to several thousand megawatts, depending on the eventual tenants. A project near the upper end of that range would require generation, transmission, substations, storage and reserve capacity on the scale of a regional power system (PNA, 2026b).
Dedicated generation may prevent the direct diversion of existing electricity, but it does not eliminate public costs. New plants still require land, transmission corridors, regulatory approvals, fuel or renewable resources, backup capacity and possibly government guarantees.
Power supplied to the estate should therefore be additional and financed primarily by the companies whose operations require it. Public guarantees, regulated charges and tax advantages should be disclosed so that Filipino households and existing businesses do not quietly subsidize uninterrupted electricity for multinational corporations.
Water requirements are also substantial. BCDA has discussed daily demand reaching tens of millions of liters and proposed surface-water infrastructure rather than reliance on groundwater extraction (PCO, 2026).
The proposal is more concrete than a general assurance of sustainability, but it still requires independent hydrological review. Surface water is not socially or ecologically unclaimed merely because it is not pumped from an aquifer. Collection may affect watersheds, downstream communities and agricultural users, particularly during dry periods.
The final assessment must distinguish among industries. Semiconductor packaging, wafer fabrication, data centers and mineral processing have different water requirements and wastewater profiles. A meaningful environmental review cannot be completed before the estate’s industrial composition has been established.
Land title likewise does not resolve every social issue. BCDA says the proposed site is public land titled to the agency and already designated for development. That is legally significant, but communities may cultivate, traverse or depend on land formally classified as part of a state estate. Infrastructure can alter water access, transport routes, livelihoods and neighboring land values even when no factory is placed directly on a household’s parcel.
The government should therefore publish a consolidated public balance sheet before concluding a long-term agreement. It should include the value of the land, rent concessions, fiscal incentives, roads, electricity systems, water infrastructure, training programs, security expenditures, environmental liabilities and government guarantees.
These contributions should be compared with enforceable returns: capital actually invested, taxes eventually paid, Filipino wages, domestic procurement, research expenditure, technology licensed, patents created, local equity accumulated and Philippine companies admitted into more advanced stages of production.
Foreign companies will calculate their expected returns from Philippine participation with precision. The Republic should do the same.
What Should Replace Pax Silica?
If the Golden Node is rejected, Manila should not respond by closing the economy or waiting until Filipino companies can independently reproduce every technology. It should use the comparative advantages the country already possesses—semiconductor assembly, maritime geography, shipping expertise, mineral resources, English-language capability and a large technical diaspora—and vertically integrate them into nationally useful productive systems.
At the same time, the country should complete three foundational tasks that have remained unfinished for generations: reliable and affordable electrification, an integrated archipelagic transportation system and durable mass housing connected to employment and public transport.
These objectives are less glamorous than an artificial-intelligence estate. They are also the material foundations without which a serious AI or semiconductor industry cannot exist.
A disciplined ten-year program, divided into two binding five-year phases, could complete universal household electricity access, establish reliable regional power systems and deliver major railway, maritime, housing and industrial corridors. It would not eliminate every national backlog within a decade. It could create enough physical and institutional momentum to make reversal difficult.
The Philippines has produced many development plans. The recurrent failure has been the absence of continuity, implementation capacity and an unapologetic commitment to timetables.
- First Task: Reliable National Electrification
The Philippine electricity problem is no longer simply the complete absence of connections. It includes communities that remain unserved or underserved, high electricity prices, uneven reliability, weak island grids and dependence on imported fuel.
The Department of Energy’s electrification plans continue to identify off-grid and underserved areas requiring grid extensions, stand-alone systems or microgrids. Connection also does not necessarily mean dependable or affordable power. Philippine residential and industrial tariffs remain high relative to several neighboring economies (Department of Energy [DOE], 2025; World Bank, 2025).
Reliable electricity is not merely a social service attached to industrialization. It is one of industrialization’s fundamental inputs.
The state should therefore treat universal, affordable and reliable power as its first industrial project. This requires indigenous renewable generation, geothermal development, grid-scale storage, stronger transmission, resilient regional systems, island microgrids and modernized distribution.
The country’s geography does not necessarily require one physically unified grid at any cost. It justifies a combination of interconnected regional grids, microgrids and distributed generation. What matters is that households, farms, ports, hospitals, schools and industrial areas receive dependable electricity at prices compatible with productive development.
The fact that government can contemplate dedicated power on the scale discussed for Pax Silica demonstrates that the constraint is not purely technical. It is also political. Extraordinary coordination appears possible when foreign investors are involved, while universal productive electrification remains gradual and fragmented.
The correct sequence is to strengthen the national electricity system first. Advanced factories can then connect to a system developed for the country as a whole rather than operate inside a privileged island of reliability surrounded by a more expensive and vulnerable economy.
- Second Task: An Archipelagic Transport System
An archipelagic railway should not be understood as one uninterrupted track physically joining every island. It should be an integrated rail-maritime network: railway spines on the major islands connected to ports, roll-on/roll-off routes, ferries, airports, logistics centers and urban mass transit.
The Philippine Development Plan recorded only four operational railway lines with a combined length of 76.9 kilometers at the beginning of the current planning period. Major projects have since entered construction or development, but the country remains far from having a national passenger and freight system (National Economic and Development Authority [NEDA], 2022).
The objective should be regional rail corridors in Luzon, Panay, Negros, Cebu and Mindanao integrated with modern ports and scheduled maritime services. Rail should connect industrial districts not only to export terminals but also to farms, mines, population centers and domestic markets.
Such a system would do more than improve passenger convenience. It would lower logistics costs, enlarge the effective domestic market and make it easier for Philippine manufacturers to serve customers outside their immediate regions. It would also make farm clustering, storage and food processing more viable by connecting producers with wholesale markets and urban demand.
Transportation planning should integrate freight rail, commuter systems, ports, housing and land use instead of treating each project as an isolated concession.
The country’s maritime and diaspora experience should be incorporated into this program. Filipino seafarers, engineers, construction professionals and logistics workers already participate in sophisticated systems abroad. Return fellowships, professional-transfer programs and productive investment instruments could turn the diaspora from a source of remittances into a distributed reserve of technological and managerial knowledge.
- Third Task: Housing Connected to Economic Life
The official Philippine housing requirement has long been estimated at more than 6.5 million units. But the problem is not merely a shortage of structures. Housing built without transportation, employment, water, schools, clinics and commercial services may provide a formal unit while imposing an economically unsustainable daily life on its occupants (Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development [DHSUD], 2023).
Mass housing should therefore be treated as an industrial and urban-development program rather than a real-estate afterthought.
Public housing should be built around existing or planned railways, ports, industrial districts, universities and employment centers. It should use durable standardized components produced by Philippine cement, steel, glass, electrical-equipment, furniture and appliance manufacturers.
This would convert housing expenditure into industrial demand. Rather than subsidizing isolated land development and mortgages alone, the state would use mass construction to support materials industries, train workers and create scale for prefabrication, energy-efficient buildings and locally designed urban systems.
Transit-oriented development seeks to concentrate jobs, housing and services around public transportation. International experience indicates that this approach can improve accessibility, productivity and urban livability when transportation and land-use planning are integrated (World Bank, 2017).
Housing built in the middle of nowhere does not solve the housing problem. It transfers part of the cost from the housing budget to the family’s transportation expenses and lost time. A worker who spends several hours traveling from a remote relocation site to employment has not been fully housed in an economic sense.
- Land Reform Through Cooperative Scale
Domestic-first industrialization also requires a revision of agrarian policy. This should not mean reversing land redistribution or rebuilding landlord estates. Secure tenure remains essential.
The problem is that the subdivision of agricultural land into very small, economically isolated holdings may obstruct mechanization, irrigation planning, storage, processing and collective marketing. The alternative is not corporate reconcentration but voluntary cooperative scale.
Farmers should retain ownership or secure tenure while pooling selected operations through cooperatives, block farming, machinery associations, producer companies and water-user organizations. The purpose is to give smallholders access to the scale required for modern production without stripping them of land or bargaining power.
The World Bank has found that clustering small farmers into cooperatives and other producer organizations can improve incomes and market access. Cooperative organization, however, is not sufficient by itself. It must be supported by irrigation, machinery, credit, storage, cold chains, agricultural research and reliable markets. Participation should remain voluntary, transparent and protected from political capture (World Bank, 2021).
Land reform should move beyond the distribution of titles as its principal measure of success. It should develop farmer-owned enterprises capable of buying machinery, operating mills and processing plants, negotiating input prices and supplying public institutions.
Agriculture should also become part of industrial policy. The country should manufacture irrigation equipment, dryers, milling machines, cold-storage systems, fertilizers, transport equipment and food-processing machinery.
Agriculture is not the sector that industrialization leaves behind. Properly understood, it is one of industrialization’s largest potential domestic markets.
- Vertically Integrating Existing Advantages
The Philippines does not begin from zero. The central task is to connect strengths that are currently dispersed or subordinated to foreign demand.
In semiconductors, the country should use its experience in assembly, testing and packaging as the foundation for movement into advanced packaging, power electronics, sensors, testing equipment, industrial software and integrated-circuit design. Immediately attempting to reproduce the world’s most advanced fabrication plants would be financially unrealistic. Building adjacent capabilities is not.
Shared clean rooms, prototype facilities and testing laboratories should be accessible to universities and Filipino companies. Government procurement of telecommunications systems, railway electronics, grid equipment, medical devices and agricultural technology can provide early markets for domestic designs.
The OECD itself recommends a long-term national semiconductor strategy, improved logistics and electricity, stronger public and private research, access to technological infrastructure, industry-university collaboration and greater use of the Filipino diaspora (OECD, 2024).
In shipping, the Philippines should move from supplying seafarers to constructing and repairing more of the vessels they operate. Maritime labor expertise should be connected to domestic shipyards, marine engineering, navigation software, port equipment, ferries and coastwise logistics.
In mining, the objective should be progression from ore extraction into metallurgy, industrial chemicals, electrical equipment, battery materials and machinery. Processing should support Philippine grid expansion, public transportation, shipbuilding, telecommunications and construction rather than be committed almost entirely to foreign customers.
The technical diaspora should be mobilized through return programs, research appointments, industrial bonds, matching investment funds and professional exchanges. Overseas Filipinos need credible vehicles for investing in productive enterprises rather than being directed predominantly toward property and consumption.
These sectors should reinforce one another. Domestic mining can supply electricity and transportation projects. Reliable power can support machinery and semiconductor production. An integrated transportation system can lower costs for agriculture and industry. Mass housing can create demand for domestic materials and appliances. Cooperatives can supply food-processing companies and urban markets.
That is vertical integration at the level of the national economy.
ASEAN Hedging and Strategic Autonomy
Rejecting Pax Silica does not require a return to China-centered mineral dependence. A third course is available: diversified engagement without exclusive alignment.
The constitutional foundation is clear. Article II, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution requires an independent foreign policy in which national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest and self-determination are paramount. Section 19 directs the state to develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos (Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 1987).
These provisions do not prohibit foreign investment. They require government to determine the role of foreign capital according to Philippine objectives.
In international-relations scholarship, hedging refers to insurance-seeking behavior under conditions of high uncertainty and high stakes. Rather than fully balancing against one power or bandwagoning with another, a smaller state diversifies relationships, avoids irreversible dependence and preserves fallback positions (Kuik, 2021).
Hedging should not mean passivity or moral equivalence. The Philippines can defend its rights in the West Philippine Sea, resist Chinese coercion and maintain its defense relationship with the United States while refusing to place its mineral and industrial policy inside a Washington-led coalition.
It can accept American investment without granting exclusive access. It can consider Chinese investment in screened civilian projects without compromising maritime claims. It can acquire Japanese, Korean and European technology without allowing any one state to dominate strategic infrastructure.
The ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific offers an institutional vocabulary for this position. It emphasizes ASEAN centrality, inclusivity, respect for sovereignty and cooperation rather than zero-sum rivalry. ASEAN’s post-2025 vision similarly calls for resilience, connectivity, technological advancement and broad external partnerships (Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN], 2019, 2025).
The governing principle should be straightforward: cooperate with many, depend completely on none.
An ASEAN Critical Technologies and Minerals Framework
Instead of assigning New Clark City to Pax Silica, Manila should propose an ASEAN Critical Technologies and Minerals Framework.
The framework would not require a centralized regional planning bureaucracy. It could begin as a set of compatible standards and joint projects among willing member states, supported through ASEAN Plus Three and separate partnerships with the United States, Europe, India and Australia.
ASEAN governments could coordinate mineral traceability, environmental rules, strategic reserves, recycling, research funding and emergency supply. They could identify complementary industrial functions without permanently assigning each member state a subordinate place in an external power’s production hierarchy.
Indonesia and the Philippines could cooperate on nickel, metallurgy and battery materials. Malaysia and Singapore could contribute semiconductor design, fabrication services, finance and logistics. Thailand and Vietnam could provide automotive, electronics and machinery capacity. Regional research funds could support laboratories and technology licenses accessible to companies from several ASEAN economies.
External partners would compete to provide technology and capital within an ASEAN-led system. Japanese firms could participate in precision machinery, robotics and materials science. South Korean firms could contribute semiconductor, battery, shipbuilding and heavy-industrial technologies. American companies could provide chip design, software, aerospace and advanced computing. Chinese companies could participate in mineral processing, transportation, renewable energy and telecommunications under strict competition, cybersecurity and national-security rules.
Diversification would not eliminate foreign influence. It would improve bargaining power. An investor demanding excessive legal protection, exclusive access to minerals or weak domestic-content rules could be replaced by another partner.
ASEAN is not presently capable of replacing national industrial policy. Its consensus procedures, political differences and uneven development impose serious limitations. It can nevertheless provide diplomatic cover, common standards, pooled research and a larger market through which individual states preserve greater autonomy.
A Philippine ITRI and Public-Private Industrial Companies
The Philippines needs an institution comparable in ambition, though not necessarily identical in structure, to Taiwan’s ITRI.
Existing universities and government science agencies perform valuable work, but public industrial research remains fragmented and chronically underfunded. A Philippine Industrial Technology and Research Institute should be tasked specifically with acquiring foreign technology, developing prototypes, training engineers, operating shared pilot facilities and spinning off commercial companies.
It should not become another agency that produces studies without industrial authority. It would require multiyear financing, specialized laboratories, international recruitment, flexible procurement and the ability to acquire equity in companies emerging from publicly funded research.
A semiconductor program could begin with advanced packaging, sensors, power electronics, testing equipment and chip design rather than attempting immediately to reproduce leading-edge fabrication. Shared facilities should be accessible to universities and Filipino companies instead of being monopolized by multinational locators.
The public sector should also become an intelligent industrial customer. Government procurement of transportation electronics, energy systems, communications equipment, medical devices, agricultural machinery and housing components can provide early demand for domestic companies.
Domestic firms receiving public finance, protection or procurement must be disciplined by performance targets. Filipino ownership must not become a subsidy for oligarchy. Assistance should depend on investment, innovation, labor standards, environmental compliance and eventual competitiveness.
Domestic-first industrialization is not the replacement of a foreign corporation with a local rent-seeker. It is the construction of companies capable of learning, producing and competing.
Historical Industrialization Without Historical Repression
A deliberately provocative comparison can be made with Meiji Japan, Bismarckian Germany, the France of Napoleon III and Soviet industrialization under Stalin. These cases involved radically different institutions, political systems and human consequences. None should be copied literally.
The Soviet Experience: Planning and Development as Policy
The Soviet experience demonstrated with unusual clarity how development could be treated as a deliberate function of state policy rather than as the incidental outcome of private investment and market exchange. Electrification, industrialization, agricultural reorganization, mass literacy, technical education, public health and scientific research were conceived as interconnected parts of a national project. The objective was not merely to increase output, but to overcome inherited backwardness by mobilizing labour, capital, technology and administrative capacity toward a defined transformation of the productive structure.
Lenin expressed this conception most memorably when he declared that “Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country.” Electrification was not regarded simply as another infrastructure program. It was the technical foundation upon which industry, transport, communications and mechanized agriculture could be constructed. Lenin insisted that political decrees alone could not produce socialism: without the reconstruction of industry on the basis of modern technology, socialist construction would lack an independent material foundation. The electrification program therefore had to become an “all-over plan covering many years,” coordinating the activities of the state, scientific institutions, industrial enterprises and regional authorities around a single developmental objective (Lenin, 1920a).
This conception was already apparent in Lenin’s 1918 instructions for scientific and technical planning. He called for the systematic study of Russia’s productive resources, the rational geographical distribution of industry, the concentration of production where appropriate, national access to essential raw materials and “special attention to the electrification of industry and transport.” Development, in this formulation, required the state to coordinate projects that private investors might otherwise undertake separately, unevenly or not at all. Power stations, mines, railways, machine-building plants and agricultural modernization had to be planned as complementary components of one economic system rather than as isolated commercial ventures (Lenin, 1918).
The Soviet project also recognized that machinery and infrastructure were insufficient without the cultivation of human capabilities. Lenin urged the government to “bring more engineers and agronomists to the fore” and to transform political institutions into bodies capable of measuring economic results and learning the practical work of development (Lenin, 1920b). He similarly told the Communist Youth League that its central task could be summarized in one word: “learn.” Modern industry, he argued, required literacy, science, technical education and the assimilation of accumulated human knowledge. What would now be described as investment in human capital was therefore treated as an essential part of economic construction rather than merely as a social benefit added after growth had occurred (Lenin, 1920b; Lenin, 1920c).
Lenin also linked socialism to a broader cultural transformation. The organization of peasants into cooperatives, he argued, required a sufficiently high standard of education, administration and material development. Social transformation could not be secured merely by changing formal ownership; it required what he called a “cultural revolution,” supported by literacy, organizational capacity and an adequate productive base (Lenin, 1923). In this sense, Soviet development was intended to produce not only factories and power stations but also the trained workers, teachers, doctors, engineers, administrators and scientists capable of operating a modern economy.
Under Stalin, this developmental logic became more urgent, centralized and coercive. Stalin presented accelerated industrialization as a matter of national survival: “We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this distance in ten years.” Backwardness, in this interpretation, left the Soviet Union economically dependent and militarily vulnerable. The state therefore had to compress into a decade a transformation that had taken older industrial powers several generations to accomplish. Heavy industry, machine-building, energy, transport and military production were privileged because they were understood as the sectors capable of reproducing and expanding the remainder of the economy (Stalin, 1931).
Collectivization formed part of this strategy because the Soviet leadership wanted to increase state control over agricultural surpluses, consolidate fragmented farms and facilitate mechanization. Stalin described collective farms as the “principal base for the employment of machinery and tractors in agriculture” (Stalin, 1929). In theory, larger agricultural units could support mechanization, release labour for the cities and provide grain for a rapidly growing industrial workforce.
The central feature of the Soviet model was consequently the enforced mobilization of resources for rapid structural transformation and national independence. Consumption was subordinated to accumulation; agricultural surpluses were redirected toward urban industry; state credit was concentrated in priority sectors; and scientific, educational and administrative institutions were reorganized around the requirements of economic construction. The state invested in activities that generated few immediate profits but possessed large strategic consequences: steel, electricity, transport, machine tools, technical education and research.
This demonstrated an important developmental principle. A poor and predominantly agrarian country could not necessarily rely upon scattered market incentives to create an integrated industrial system. Private capital might concentrate on commerce, raw-material exports, luxury consumption or activities promising quick returns, while neglecting power generation, basic industry, scientific research and nationwide education. State planning made it possible to direct investment toward complementary long-term projects and, as Stalin later explained, to rely upon the country’s internal resources rather than dependence on foreign lenders or colonial extraction.
The American School: Cultivating, Protecting Industry as Self-Determination
However, another historical tradition more directly relevant to a constitutional republic: the American School of political economy associated with Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay and later systematized into a broader theory of national productive power by Friedrich List.
In his 1791 Report on the Subject of Manufactures, Hamilton argued that the newly independent United States should develop manufacturing partly to avoid dependence on foreign countries for military and other essential supplies. He also maintained that domestic manufacturing would enlarge the market for agriculture, diversify employment and increase the nation’s general stock of productive labor (Hamilton, 1791).
Henry Clay later organized related ideas into the American System. Its elements included protective tariffs for developing industries, a national financial institution and federally supported roads, canals and other internal improvements. The program was intended to connect the productive regions of the country and reduce economic subordination to established British manufacturing (U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Historian, 1824).
Friedrich List, who lived in the United States during the 1820s, later distinguished a nation’s immediate exchange values from its longer-term productive powers: knowledge, institutions, infrastructure, machinery, technical skills and the capacity for coordinated production. A developing country, in his view, could rationally accept some short-term costs in order to acquire the productive capabilities necessary for future welfare and independence (List, 1841/1909).
Hamilton, Clay and List did not employ the modern postcolonial vocabulary of self-determination. Their argument nevertheless rested on a closely related material proposition: formal political independence remains incomplete when a country depends on more powerful foreign economies for essential manufactures, transportation, credit and technology.
Productive capacity, in this sense, is a condition of substantive sovereignty. General welfare cannot be secured by consumption and commerce alone. It requires the ability to organize domestic production and connect it to the needs of the national community.
The American School also corrects the claim that state-led industrialization must necessarily imitate Soviet central planning. Hamiltonian and Clayite development was articulated within a constitutional republic, albeit one marked by slavery, restricted suffrage and profound social exclusions. Its lasting contribution is not a model to be copied mechanically, but the recognition that public authority may legitimately coordinate finance, infrastructure and industrial development when fragmented private decisions cannot create the productive system required by the country as a whole.
The other historical cases reinforce the same narrower conclusion. Meiji Japan imported technology, expanded technical education, built transportation and communications systems and established state enterprises before transferring many activities to domestic private companies. Nineteenth-century Germany used banks, railways, technical institutions and state coordination to compress industrial development. Napoleon III’s France expanded credit, railways, public works and urban infrastructure. Soviet planning demonstrated that an agrarian economy could construct heavy industry rapidly, although it did so through coercion and suffering that must be rejected rather than romanticized (Allen, 2003; Gerschenkron, 1962).
The common lesson is neither protectionism for its own sake nor unlimited state control. It is that late industrialization requires sequencing, institutional construction and continuity. Governments must build the enabling systems—electricity, transportation, credit, research, technical education and domestic markets—through which public and private enterprises acquire increasingly complex capabilities.
Industrial protection should therefore be conditional and temporary rather than a permanent shelter for politically connected companies. Public credit should finance productive investment rather than speculation. State enterprises and public-private ventures should be evaluated according to technological learning, domestic linkages and their ability eventually to compete.
National development cannot become a pretext for oligarchic privilege any more than it can justify authoritarian repression.
The Philippine establishment has repeatedly tried to avoid this institutional discipline. It prefers investment announcements to production timetables, export estates to national coordination and private concessions to patient public planning. It is attracted to data centers and artificial intelligence because they appear to offer entry into the technological frontier without first completing electrification, transportation, housing, agricultural modernization and domestic manufacturing.
That is the recurring shortcut: the belief that the Philippines can skip the rudiments and proceed directly to the showcase project.
Hamilton, Clay and List would have recognized the error. A country does not obtain economic independence by importing a finished industrial system and renting it a site. It obtains independence by developing the productive powers that allow its own institutions and enterprises progressively to understand, reproduce and direct that system.
A Ten-Year Industrial Timetable
A credible alternative to Pax Silica should be expressed through measurable commitments rather than general aspirations.
During the first five years, government should complete remaining household electricity connections, improve reliability, expand indigenous generation and storage and begin major transmission and microgrid projects. It should establish transportation institutions capable of executing integrated railway and maritime corridors rather than isolated projects.
Transit-oriented public housing should begin in major metropolitan and industrial regions. Housing procurement should support Philippine cement, steel, glass, electrical-equipment, furniture and appliance production.
A Philippine industrial-technology institute should open shared facilities for semiconductor packaging, power electronics, sensors, agricultural machinery and marine engineering. Agrarian policy should expand voluntary clustering, block farming and farmer-owned processing enterprises around irrigation systems and agrarian-reform communities.
During the second five years, operating railway and maritime corridors should be extended, domestic mineral processing deepened and a larger proportion of grid, transportation and housing equipment produced locally. Semiconductor companies should move further into design, advanced packaging, testing equipment and power electronics.
Foreign investors would remain part of this program. But they would participate as technology and capital partners within a Philippine timetable rather than becoming the authors of that timetable.
Government should publish annual physical targets: households receiving reliable electricity, megawatts of dependable capacity, kilometers of railway completed, port turnaround times, housing units occupied near transportation, hectares under voluntary cooperative operations, domestic-procurement shares, patents developed and Filipino companies entering new industrial stages.
Industrial policy would cease to be measured primarily through investment pledges and gross export figures.
Common Rules for All Foreign Capital
Investors from the United States, China, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Europe and elsewhere should operate under the same basic conditions.
Projects involving strategic minerals, semiconductors, electricity, telecommunications or data infrastructure should include meaningful Filipino public or private equity where economically feasible. Representation should extend beyond nominal shareholding to board participation, technical management and engineering authority.
Domestic-procurement obligations should increase over time. They should cover machinery parts, chemicals, software, engineering, maintenance and substantive industrial inputs rather than merely construction, catering and security.
Research commitments should be contractual. Investors receiving public support should establish laboratories with Philippine universities, finance postgraduate technical education and provide access to equipment and production processes. Publicly subsidized research should generate Philippine licensing rights, joint intellectual property or equity claims.
Strategic facilities should reserve part of their output or capacity for domestic requirements during shortages and emergencies. A publicly supported factory should not be contractually incapable of supplying the Philippine economy because its entire production has been promised abroad.
Tax holidays, discounted leases and infrastructure support should be conditional. They should be reduced or withdrawn when companies fail to meet investment, employment, research, localization, labor or environmental targets.
These requirements may cause some investors to locate elsewhere. That should not automatically be considered a failure. Investment that depends on cheap labor, weak domestic linkages, unpriced ecological costs and unrestricted profit extraction may increase gross exports without creating sufficient national value.
Build the Country Before the Enclave
Pax Silica offers a seductive vision: artificial intelligence, clean rooms, data infrastructure, advanced factories and processed minerals replacing the familiar economy of raw-material exports, labor migration and outsourced services.
Its weakness is not that these technologies are undesirable. It is that the initiative begins from the industrial and security requirements of an external coalition.
The Philippine alternative should begin with national requirements. It should begin with reliable and affordable electricity for every community and productive enterprise. It should build an archipelagic rail, port and maritime system capable of creating a unified domestic market. It should construct durable housing around employment and public transportation rather than on isolated peripheral land. It should preserve land reform while providing farmers with cooperative scale, machinery and processing capacity.
It should connect semiconductor assembly to design and equipment; seafaring to shipbuilding and logistics; mining to metallurgy and national infrastructure; agriculture to machinery and food processing; and the diaspora to research, investment and technological return.
These tasks are not preliminary distractions from an artificial-intelligence economy. They are the material foundations of one.
The Philippines should not accept the false choice between exporting raw ore into a China-centered industrial system and exporting semi-processed minerals and electronic components into an American-centered one. It should trade with both, cooperate with Japan and South Korea, bargain through ASEAN and build capabilities that remain under Philippine authority.
Pax Silica represents the establishment’s continuing affection for shortcuts. It promises the visible symbols of advanced industry without requiring the state to complete the foundational systems that make industry nationally transformative.
The country does not need another serviced compound built principally for global demand. It needs a developmental state capable of setting priorities, meeting timetables and using foreign partnerships without becoming subordinate to them.
Philippine industrial policy should remain open to the world but commanded at home.
Only then will the country’s minerals, labor and strategic location cease to be advantages enjoyed primarily by others.
***
References
Amnesty International. (2025, August 21). USA/global: Tech made by Palantir and Babel Street pose surveillance threats to pro-Palestine student protesters and migrants. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/08/usa-global-tech-made-by-palantir-and-babel-street-pose-surveillance-threats-to-pro-palestine-student-protestors-migrants/
ASML. (2026a). ASML 2025 annual report. https://www.asml.com/en/investors/annual-report/2025
ASML. (2026b). Innovation ecosystem. https://www.asml.com/en/company/sustainability/innovation-ecosystem
ASML, & imec. (2024, June 3). ASML and imec open joint High NA EUV Lithography Lab offering an early development platform to the leading-edge semiconductor ecosystem. https://www.asml.com/news/press-releases/2024/asml-imec-opening-high-na-euv-lithography-lab
Association of Southeast Asian Nations. (2019). ASEAN outlook on the Indo-Pacific. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ASEAN-Outlook-on-the-Indo-Pacific_FINAL_22062019.pdf
Association of Southeast Asian Nations. (2025). ASEAN 2045: Our shared future. https://asean.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ASEAN-2045-Our-Shared-Future.pdf
Bases Conversion and Development Authority. (2026, April 9). Letter to the U.S. Department of State regarding the Pax Silica proposal [Letter]. https://boi.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/BCDA-Letter-to-US-Dept-of-State-re-Pax-Silica-Proposal_.pdf
Board of Investments. (2026a, April 20). Philippines, US partner in first-ever AI-native industrial acceleration. https://boi.gov.ph/philippines-us-partner-in-first-ever-ai-native-industrial-acceleration/
Board of Investments. (2026b, May 4). Philippines-Israel deepen strategic cooperation on critical minerals and AI development under Pax Silica, to forge framework. https://boi.gov.ph/philippines-israel-deepen-strategic-cooperation-on-critical-minerals-and-ai-development-under-pax-silica-to-forge-framework/
Chi, C. (2026, May 26). US official says immunity for Pax Silica Clark hub “taken out of context.” Philstar.com. https://www.philstar.com/business/2026/05/26/2530687/us-official-says-immunity-pax-silica-clark-hub-taken-out-context
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, art. II, §§ 7, 19 (1987).
Department of Energy. (2025). Missionary Electrification Development Plan 2024–2028. https://doe.gov.ph/articles/2515482--missionary-electrification-development-plan-medp-2024-2028
Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development. (2023). The Shelter: Official quarterly publication of the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development. https://dhsud.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/Publication/shelter/The%20Shelter%20March%20Issue%20updated%20as%20of%20071923%20-%20replace%20the%20old%20file.pdf
European Commission. (2023, April 28). State aid: Commission approves French measure to support STMicroelectronics and GlobalFoundries in building a new chip manufacturing facility. https://france.representation.ec.europa.eu/informations-et-evenements/informations/la-commission-autorise-une-mesure-francaise-visant-aider-stmicroelectronics-et-globalfoundries-2023-04-28_en
European Commission. (2024a, August 20). Commission approves €5 billion German State aid measure to support ESMC in setting up a new semiconductor manufacturing facility. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-approves-eu5-billion-german-state-aid-measure-support-esmc-setting-new-semiconductor
European Commission. (2026a). European Chips Act. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/european-chips-act
Gerschenkron, A. (1962). Economic backwardness in historical perspective. Harvard University Press.
Government of the Netherlands. (2024, September 6). The Netherlands expands export control measure for advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment. https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2024/09/06/the-netherlands-expands-export-control-measure-advanced-semiconductor-manufacturing-equipment
Government of the Netherlands. (2025, January 15). Export controls on advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment to be tightened. https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2025/01/15/klever-export-controls-on-advanced-semiconductor-manufacturing-equipment-to-be-tightened
Government of the Netherlands. (2026). National semiconductor vision 2035: Ambitions for the Dutch semiconductor industry. https://www.government.nl/documents/2026/04/01/national-semiconductor-vision-2035---ambitions-for-the-dutch-semiconductor-industry
Hamilton, A. (1791, December 5). Report on the subject of manufactures. Founders Online, National Archives. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-10-02-0001-0007
IBON Foundation. (2026, May 14). Will Pax Silica industrialize the Philippines? https://www.ibon.org/will-pax-silica-industrialize-the-ph/
IDA Ireland. (2022, March 9). Analog Devices announces investment of €630 million in semiconductor R&D and manufacturing facility. https://www.idaireland.com/latest-news/press-release/analog-devices-announces-investment-of-630-million-in-semiconductor-r-d-and-manufacturing-facility
IDA Ireland. (2023, September 29). IDA Ireland welcomes Intel’s Fab 34. https://www.idaireland.com/latest-news/press-release/ida-welcome-intel%E2%80%99s-fab-34
IDA Ireland. (2024, June 24). Inside the rise of the semiconductor industry. https://www.idaireland.com/latest-news/insights/chips-with-everything-ireland%E2%80%99s-semiconductor-story
Industrial Technology Research Institute. (n.d.). Developing semiconductors from scratch: Taiwan’s semiconductor industry hall of fame. https://50th.itri.org.tw/en/history/semiconductors/2/
Intel Corporation. (2023, June 19). Intel, German government agree on increased scope for wafer fabrication site in Magdeburg. https://newsroom.intel.com/corporate/intel-german-government-agree-magdeburg
Intel Corporation. (2025, July 24). Steps in the right direction. https://newsroom.intel.com/corporate/lip-bu-tan-steps-in-the-right-direction
Jarabe, L. G. (2026, June 27). Jobs and Pax Silica: The song remains the same. IBON Foundation. https://www.ibon.org/jobs-and-pax-silica/
Kuik, C.-C. (2021). Getting hedging right: A small-state perspective. China International Strategy Review, 3(2), 300–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42533-021-00089-5
Lenin, V. I. (1918). Draft plan of scientific and technical work. In Collected works.
Lenin, V. I. (1920a, November 21). Our foreign and domestic position and Party tasks: Speech delivered to the Moscow Gubernia Conference of the R.C.P.(B.).
Lenin, V. I. (1920b, December 29). Eighth All-Russia Congress of Soviets: Report on the work of the Council of People’s Commissars.
Lenin, V. I. (1920c, October 2). The tasks of the Youth Leagues. In Collected works (Vol. 31).
Lenin, V. I. (1923, January 6). On cooperation. In Collected works (Vol. 33).
List, F. (1909). The national system of political economy (S. S. Lloyd, Trans.). Longmans, Green, and Co. (Original work published 1841)
Marcos, F. R., Jr. (2026, July 27). Fifth State of the Nation Address of His Excellency Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., President of the Philippines, to the Congress of the Philippines [Speech transcript]. Presidential Communications Office.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2024). Strategies to enable assured access to semiconductors for the Department of Defense. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27624
National Economic and Development Authority. (2022). Philippine Development Plan 2023–2028: Chapter 12—Expand and upgrade infrastructure. https://pdp.neda.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Chapter-12.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2024). Promoting the growth of the semiconductor ecosystem in the Philippines. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/01497fea-en
Philippine News Agency. (2026a, March 26). PH nickel sector seen to expand role in global supply chains. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1271834
Philippine News Agency. (2026b, July 28). DOE drafting circular for Pax Silica power requirement. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1280533
Piedad, M. (2026, April 23). The curious case of Philippine manufacturing. IBON Foundation. https://www.ibon.org/the-curious-case-of-ph-manufacturing/
Presidential Communications Office. (2026, July 23). BCDA says Pax Silica project could generate over 130,000 high-quality jobs. Philippine Information Agency. https://pia.gov.ph/news/bcda-says-pax-silica-project-could-generate-over-130000-high-quality-jobs/
Stalin, J. V. (1929, December 27). Concerning questions of agrarian policy in the U.S.S.R.
Stalin, J. V. (1931, February 4). The tasks of business executives.
Stalin, J. V. (1933, January 7). The results of the first Five-Year Plan.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited. (2001). Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000. https://investor.tsmc.com/sites/ir/sec-filings/20F-2000.pdf
U.S. Department of State. (2025a, December 11). Pax Silica initiative. https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/12/pax-silica-initiative
U.S. Department of State. (2025b). Jacob Helberg. https://www.state.gov/biographies/jacob-helberg
U.S. Department of State. (2026a). Pax Silica. https://www.state.gov/pax-silica
U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Historian. (1824, March 30–31). The 1824 “American System” speech by Speaker Henry Clay of Kentucky. https://history.house.gov/HistoricalHighlight/Detail/36803
Westphal, L. E. (1990). Industrial policy in an export-propelled economy: Lessons from South Korea’s experience. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(3), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.4.3.41
World Bank. (2017). Transforming the urban space through transit-oriented development: The 3V approach. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/transport/publication/transforming-the-urban-space-through-transit-oriented-development-the-3v-approach
World Bank. (2021, December 3). Strong producer organizations key to a vibrant farming sector. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2021/12/03/strong-producer-organizations-key-to-a-vibrant-farming-sector
World Bank. (2025). Philippines first energy transition and climate resilience development policy loan. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099031025103522782/pdf/BOSIB-9d7c5271-5bf1-4f52-9622-889d8db8bf82.pdf