MERGED: RP among most restrictive in foreign investments?

[boom_box]

Business as usual japun sa PH..
Good news kau ni sa mga local companies.. haha

PHL tops 'worst countries' for doing business in Asia – CNBC

[hexo]

yes. and here's another reason why.

http://business.inquirer.net/29325/l...s-up-exporters

then i guess it's time for the philippines to invest in renewable energy.

[gareb]

There is little to no incentive for local monopolies to innovate since markets are basically guaranteed and protected under law.

the solution is not to open up the constitution but for proper regulation. if the oligarchs complain, then nationalize industries and have the public sector take over.

if our main concern really is how the oligarchs in this country are behaving, we should not prescribe an outside force to wipe them all out, together with all the struggling SME's out there. we should instead prescribe something that will level the playing-field for the small business to operate.

[miyay]

then i guess it's time for the philippines to invest in renewable energy.

very expensive but good in the long run

[ian_1983]

World’s Worst Countries for Business





As the U.S. and Europe grapple with slowing growth, more businesses are turning attention to emerging markets for expansion and profits. Foreign direct investment (FDI) into countries such as Brazil, Russia, and Indonesia are at record highs, with Brazil attracting $48.4 billion dollars in 2010, an increase of 87 percent over 2009.

While it's difficult to resist the growth opportunities provided by emerging markets, running a successful business in many of these countries is far from easy.

We put together a list of the 10 most difficult countries to do business in from 50 of the world's largest economies. Our top 10 rankings are based on the World Bank's "Ease of Doing Business" study, which includes 183 countries.

The rankings take into account 10 leading indicators, such as the ease of starting a business, getting construction permits, paying taxes, and investor protection laws, to name a few.

The 2010 FDI data are from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), while the GDP numbers are from the World Bank.

Our list includes some economic superpowers, as well as some minnows.

4. Philippines

2010 GDP: $199.6 billion
2010 FDI: $1.7 billion

The Philippines is the lowest ranked Asian country on the list of the most difficult places to do business in. It attracted just 2.5 percent of the $76.5 billion of foreign direct investment that flowed to the 10 members of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2010.

Despite having massive untapped mineral wealth, a key geographical location between Southeast and North Asia and a large, growing English-speaking population, the country has fallen behind its neighbors in economic growth.

Foreign businesses are wary of the Philippine's unstable legal system, violence, and bureaucracy. Its ease of doing business ranking from the World Bank fell a further two spots this year from 2010. The country also ranks among the lowest when it comes to starting a business, and resolving insolvency, with the latter taking more than five and half years, compared with an average one year and seven months in OECD countries.

Last month, Philippine President Benigno Aquino made trips to the U.S., China, and Japan to push for investments, as well as to send a message that things are changing in the country, after two previous administrations were dogged by corruption allegations. Aquino's trip to China resulted in $7 billion to $9 billion of potential investments.

The Philippines also jumped 10 places to 75th in the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness index this year.

Again, nothing to be surprise.

[amingb]

Again ang atong Export Plunge 27% the lowest in 2 1/2 years .... the best jud ning Admin ni Pnoy ....

[Joseph20102011]

Tan-awa ninyo mga Anti-Constitutional Reform people ang kining table (tan-awa sa ubos ug i-click ang table aron makita ninyo ang high resolution aron tin-aw alang kaninyo), klaro pa kaayo sa alas dose sa udto na sa gawas sa Pilipinas pwede ang mga langyaw na investors na makatag-iya ug 100% sa ilang mga negosyo ug yuta na dili na kinahanglan pa ug lokal na partner samtang dinhi sa Pilipinas kay dili ug ang mga langyaw kinahanglan pa mukuha pa ug dummy or “local partner” kuno ug gikinahanglan na ang 60% sa inisyal nilang puhunan mapunta sa mga dummies kay mao ang gisulti sa Article XII sa 1987 Constitution.

Tungod sa atong Constitutionally-restrictive provisions sa atong Batakang Balaod dili parehas sa ubang nasod na ang mga restrictions gibutang ra sa ilang ordinary law or statute dili sa ilang tagsa-tagsa na Constitution mao bisag unsang orasa sa atong mga silingang kanasuran sa Asya pwede maka-restrict o maka-relax vice-versa sa ilang mga tagsa-tagsa ka mga foreign ownership restrictions through a legislation kaysa sa ato na kinahanglan pa musubay pa sa Constitution ug ang pag-amend sa Constitution takes time and money whereas if we cede the jurisdiction of setting foreign ownership restrictions to our lawmakers in Congress it would be have more flexibility with the global economic cycle, ang mga langyaw na investors magduha-duha ug invest sa atong nasod ug ang resulta, walay trabaho sa uban atong mga kaisuonan dinhi sa atong nasod ug ang uban pa mapugos ug abroad aron lang makatrabaho ug mapabuhi ang ilang nahibiling nilang pamilya sa dinhi sa atong nasod bahala na kung ang ubang mga OFWs mga katabang sa balay o kaha worst case pa sa uban, prostitusyon ang trabaho.

Ang akong pangutana kaninyo mga Anti-Constitutional Reform people:

Under sa recent 60/40 provisions sa Article XII, Section 10 sa 1987 Cory Constitution, ang mga foreign investors kinahanglan pa mangita ug dummies na Filipino citizens aron makasulod ug makabutang ug negosyo sa Pilipinas. Sakto ba na? Kinsay boang na foreign investors ang mo-anhi sa ato? Ila ang kwarta, pero ang mga Filipino dummies ang gadala. Kasagaran pa gilimbong ug gibiyaan ang mga foreign investors na mao jud untay tag-iya sa mga nawung ug kwarta na Filipino dummies.

Dili na ta angay pa mag-paiwit sa ubang nasod. Allow anyone foreign or local to set-up their businesses freely as long as they never threaten the safety of the community. Any restrictions to foreign investment ownership shall be in discretion of the Congress not being stipulated to our Constitution.

So allow 100% foreign ownership equity, stop your negative hysteria against foreigners because not all foreigners coming here in the Philippines have bad intentions to our country but their intention is to invest in our economy to provide more job opportunities to our compatriots!

If the Filipinos allowed to own a business and land in the United States, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Japan, Singapore, China, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, and others, why not the foreigners allow to own a business and land to provide jobs to our citizens?

[gareb]

thanks for pointing out the "60/40 law" when it comes to foreign business dealing within the country.

let me give a brief backgound on that constitutional provision. the 1987 Constitution, specifically Article XII, was framed in the spirit of nationalism, as a response to the abuses of foreign powers in the past;

"The lesson of the Parity Amendment, which for 27 years (1947-1974) gave Americans and corporations owned by them the same rights in regard to the “disposition, exploitation, and development, and utilization” of our natural resources and the operation of public utilities in this country, is too recent to be forgotten." - Vicente V. Mendoza - Retired Supreme Court Justice

reviewing Article XII, neoliberals would easily be able to lable it as "protectionist" as it is pretty clear that it is against the privatization of our natural resources in favor of foreign entities, against deregulation and decontrol of key industries, and against trade liberalization that might pose as unfair competition against local enterprises.

this is the framework of how the national economic agenda was suppose to be built on "industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform".

sadly these things never came to be. agricultural development in the countryside has far outpaced urban development, and genuine agrarian reform has never been realized.

essentially in these aspects, the 1987 Constutitution failed, not because of the provisions that it holds, but because of them not being properly implemented, among with other provisions of the Constitution.

and it gets worse.

[gareb]

neoliberals would complain that the 1987 Constitution is "protectionist" and that it is the main roadblock that prevents us from running at par with the Asian tigers, as it protects the entrenched oligarchy that dominates our political and economic lives.

this is essentially an unintended effect of the 1987 Constitution which could have been prevented had the Constitution been implemented to its full effect. obviously, since these certain portions of the Constitution was inimical towards the interests of the "powers-that-be", these were held at bay. (e.g. Article II, Section 26 on the existence of political dynasties; Section 28 on full public disclosure and transparency, etc.)

those that complain of the Constitution being "protectionist" fail to see time and time again, the degree of trade liberalization through cheap imports the Philippine economy has undergone for the past decade, which has caused not a few local business and industries to shrink or even to just close shop, spiking unemployment rates. (e.g. Marikina shoe industry, etc.). it has even come to a point that a law maker said in effect that "liberalization killed the manufacturing industry".

another area that is curiously not mentioned is the booming of the BPO sector under the Foreign Investments Act of 1991 (RA 7042, amended by RA 8179), allowing foreign companies 100% ownership. one just has to work in the BPO sector to realize some of the demeaning conditions its labor force is in.

add to that the dubious Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942), which once had its constitutionality challenged under Article XII, which essentially allowed mining firms to control the entire operations 100%, to the extent, as one economist points out, we get "zero share from mining wealth"

this does not even include the deregulation, privatization and decontrol of public assets and utilities:

• planned privatization of the NFA - The plan to privatize the NFA almost led to zero-budget for its local palay procurement in 2011 - Ibon.org
• deregulated oil and energy industry - Big Three's profits more than combined income of country's poorest families - Ibon.org
• privatized water industry - water rates go up by as high as 449% (Maynilad) to 845% (Manila Water) since the MWSS privatization in 1997 - Ibon.org

all of these are the earmarks of trade liberalization. still they say it's "restrictive"? ridiculous.

at this point, it is now clear to see that such "protectionist" provisions of the constitution, have been circumvented again and again to the detriment of the people. the true spirit of the 1987 has never been realized being frustrated by the machinations of neoliberals (who aim to open up the economy under any pretext and take advantage of our resources) and the oligarchy (who wants to protect its vast interests).

if these "protectionist" provisions are being circumvented again and again by neoliberals anyway, why remove them? because they need more avenues to invest their excess capital on our resources and our public utilities, as per GATT-WTO (Uruguay Round). "eliminating oligarchy" is just to disguise the entire thing.

the crafters of the 1987 Constitution understood that we will be entering the global arena in the "position of weakness" and therefore had to protect our fledgling industries and reinforce our national economy using our own natural resources before we can compete head to head globally; hence the 60/40 provision. we are suppose to slowly rise on our own two feet, with just a little help from foreign investments and technology.

obviously, this was not the case. the Constitution was cherry-picked by the oligarchy, taking advantage of provisions in-line with its interest, and disregarding the rest, creating the dire conditions that we are in now with some of us being forced to go abroad for work, propping up the economy with our foreign exchange remittances. neoliberals instituted ruinous deregulations among different sectors, urged privatizations of public assets and liberalized trade driving our infant industries to the brink of death.

with squalor and unemployment, thinking that the Constitution "protects" oligarchs, we deem to amend it, letting foreign competition in to supposedly put and end to the oligarchy's grip on our collective throats. this is without thinking that the aim of competition is to eliminate its competitor, and in lieu of the oligarchs, we would have an economy held hostage by multi-national and trans-national companies who can very well destroy the entire economy by pulling out its business at the first sign of a dip in the stocks.

[iKlien]

thus, it doesn't need to be removed nor changed. Instead, it needs amendments, editions, review, and STRICT implementation in a way that those who are in the position won't be able to abuse such in order for the constitution to be effective.