Shaking Monopoly, Moving Beyond "Kung Walang Corrupt, Walang Mahirap"

Sunday, 03 July 2011 22:21

Written by Dr. Edna E. A. Co

I am a member of the Movement for Good Governance (MGG). MGG is a loose coalition of individuals, organizations, and citizens’ groups who come together around various issues of governance. Some members of the MGG have now been appointed to posts in government and hope that some reforms could be done within. Others remain as independent thinkers, movers, and doers around good governance. L ast week, a small bunch of MGG kindred spirits braved Falcon’s fury in Metro Manila and met to discuss about a rapid assessment on PNoy’s first year of administration.

Among many other things that flowed in my head during those intense discussions ( how could a meeting not be so engaging and intense with Mareng Winnie Monsod chairing the discussion?), was the persistent question of whether we are indeed as a nation moving toward change? Or whether we are continuing the saga of monopoly, elite few, and many unfinished symphonies of change, one of which is rural development and agrarian reform. Let me flesh out some thoughts here:

The globalization of information and the upsurge of new technologies virtually make all information, connections, including distant relationships easily free flowing. We now enjoy the benefits of wide interconnection, thanks to information technology. However, the excitement has diffused our attention and diverted us from fundamental issues some years or decades back. For example, whilst we have moved from a monopoly of the telephone and communication systems in the 1970s or earlier, has the field really become a level playing one? Has monopoly really been broken? Has competition genuinely posted greater benefits to most Filipino clients and consumers? Or has monopoly only taken new shape and turn?

The Constitution inscribes an anti monopoly provision such as in Article XII Sections 19 and 22. Section 19 says:” The state shall regulate or prohibit monopolies when the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition shall be allowed”.

What have our policies done to break monopolies? Or better yet, what have our policies got to do about striking down or prevent monopolies before these could even flourish? Perhaps it is good to do a mapping of our laws, statutes and even executive policies to see which ones work or don’t work toward anti-monopoly, a principle that the constitution upholds.

Some thoughts during our MGG discussion was that it may make sense to look at monopoly and the elite few and their role in shaping governance. I wish to link the issue of monopoly and the elite few to poverty and underdevelopment of the country. Have a look at poverty and underdevelopment in rural areas. One of the policy gaps of the PNoy administration is rural development. Ironically, the core program of the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) has a huge number of beneficiaries from the rural areas and this indicates that rural poverty and agricultural development should be given attention. Have a look at roads, infrastructure, and other facilities in the rural areas and one gets the impression that what we had some 40 decades or more ago, are still what we get in the rural areas. Not only that. Most rural poor are the seats of power of a few families. The correlation between monopolies and poverty is real.

Breaking monopolies and elite rule is something to revisit and something for this administration to address. After a year, the administration should certainly now consider rural development and agriculture among its priorities. Or better yet, it should look at monopolies and elite rule in the rural and agricultural sectors. The administration’s other favorite flagship program beside the CCT is public private partnership (PPP). PPP should be located within an anti monopoly framework.

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites