Do dynasties deter development?

By: Cielito F. Habito - @inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 12:58 AM August 11, 2015

HAVE POLITICAL dynasties impeded inclusive growth and sustainable development in our
country? Evidence points to a direct association between the presence of political dynasties, on the
one hand, and higher levels of poverty and deprivation in the Philippine context, on the other. The
implication is that either poverty paves the way for political dynasties, or political dynasties fail to
reduce, if not actually worsen, poverty.

Whichever way the causality runs, the observed correlation between the two provokes serious
doubts about the compatibility between dynasties and development. This is especially so in a
country where (1) political dynasties are particularly more prevalent, (2) economic development
has historically been stunted at both national and local levels, in an otherwise economically
dynamic region of the world, (3) poverty has been so prevalent and persistent, much more so than
in comparable neighbors, and (4) inequality has been stark and has shown little improvement, and
even worsened, over past decades.

In his last State of the Nation Address, President Aquino opened the way for renewed public
discussion on this issue that the Philippine Constitution, in Article II Section 26, expressly
admonishes against: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service
and prohibit political dynasties (underscoring supplied) as may be defined by law.” The
Constitution further mandates Congress to give highest priority to the enactment of measures that
“reduce political inequalities” and “diffuse political power for the common good,” among other
things (Article XIII, Section 1). The framers of the Charter must have expected that the new
Congress, elected after the 1986 Edsa uprising, would promptly enact the requisite enabling law
while a revolutionary mood still prevailed. Otherwise, they would have realized that such law was
unlikely to be passed by a legislature where membership in political dynasties is in fact prominent,
even dominant.

Are political dynasties more prevalent and prominent in the Philippines? Studies indicate so. The
Asian Institute of Management (AIM) Policy Center tracked 6 percent of legislators in the United
States to belong to dynasties; the rates are 10 percent in Argentina, 22 percent in Ireland, 33
percent in Japan, 40 percent in Mexico, and 70 percent in the Philippines—yet another instance,
sadly, of the Philippines excelling in the wrong things.

Over time, the United States saw a decline in the proportion of dynastic legislators. A 2009 study
found that 11 percent of US legislators between 1789 and 1858 were dynastic, but the proportion
went down to only 7 percent after 1966 and, more recently, to 6 percent. The reverse happened in
the Philippines in the past three decades. In the Eighth Congress (1987-1992), 62 percent of our
legislators had relatives in elective positions. This rose to 66 percent by the 12th Congress (1998-
2001), netting out party-list representatives that were introduced in the 11th Congress. The same
proportion went up to 75 percent in the 14th Congress, half-jokingly described at the time as a
“Montessori Congress” for the unusually large number of legislators who were offspring of their
predecessors. Interestingly, one in every four sectoral representatives (14 of the 56 incumbent) is
also dynastic, undermining the professed objective of party-list representation, which is to broaden
representation in Congress and make it more inclusive.

That the Philippine record in poverty reduction and human development lags behind in the region
is well known. Asia has generally been more successful than the rest of the world in translating
economic growth into reduced poverty. The Asian Development Bank found that developing
countries worldwide saw poverty decline by an average of 1.5 percent for every 1-percent growth
in gross domestic product in the past years. Within Asia, the corresponding average poverty
reduction was actually faster, at 2.0 percent. Strangely, the Philippines has a perverse experience,
especially in the past decade: Poverty incidence actually went up, even in years when the
economy’s growth speeded up. As such, we will not achieve key poverty reduction targets under
the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that were set for this year.

Do political dynasties have something to do with all this? Arsenio Balisacan and Nobohiko Fuwa,
in a 2003 study, explored the linkage between dynastic concentration and the standard of living in
Philippine provinces between 1988 and 1997. They found dynastic concentration to have a
significantly negative effect on the upliftment of local living standards, noting that lack of real
political competition had led to flawed policies.

A 2004 study by University of the Philippines economists on provincial MDG performance found
that highly dynastic provinces lagged in MDG targets relative to others. The authors saw dynastic
politics to have damaged the quality and provision of public services, and the proper functioning
of local markets. An AIM study on the 15th Congress found that dynastic jurisdictions are
associated with lower standards of living, lower human development, and higher levels of
deprivation.

Democracy, international research upholds, helps improve the prospects for inclusive economic
growth by fostering better education and provision of other public services, broadening access to
opportunities, and creating disincentives for corruption. Factors that weaken democracies and
restrict political participation can thus be expected to impede broad-based economic development.
Dynastic Philippines could well be Exhibit Number One.

***

E-mail: cielito.habito@gmail.com

https://opinion.inquirer.net/87517/do-dynasties-deter-development