Disconnect between higher education and national development
In recent years, higher education has been seen as a forger of human capital development; to be specific, a means to create high-skilled labor. However, even with the current state of the Philippines, there exists a paradox on the relationship between higher education and national development. Despite the attempts of the state to provide strategic road maps and bridges between the two, the disconnect is evident and should be addressed.
Labor export, failed industrialization
The country has sought opportunities for Filipinos to work overseas due to various diplomatic ties established by the Marcos regime in the 1970s. Succeeding administrations have continued this strategy on labor export, calling overseas Filipino workers modern-day heroes for sending home foreign currencies at the expense of leaving one’s family.
Despite progressive efforts by lawmakers to democratize access to higher education with such laws as the Unified Student Financial Assistance System for Tertiary Education (Republic Act No. 10687) and the free tuition fee law (RA 10931), professionals and graduates tend to leave the country for greener pastures abroad. The obvious reason is the lack of opportunities here. But why is there a continuous lack of opportunities to begin with?
One of the biggest issues often swept under the rug when discussing national development is the failure of the state to industrialize. The country had its chance during the early years of the Marcos regime in the 1960s when the options include either going for export-oriented industrialization—where the state relies on international trade and comparative advantage—or with import-substitution industrialization, where it can utilize its resources to build its national and local industries.
The choice was the former, which provided trade opportunities and partnerships between states for economic development. Opportunities to liberalize the economy and the boom of neoliberalism helped the attempt to do export-oriented industrialization. However, there was a lack of industries in creating export goods. This is where the latter comes into play since this mode of industrialization focuses on the empowerment of sectors by building their industries as substitutes.
But the state failed to achieve the full potential of Philippine industrialization due to mismanagement and corruption. Consequently, the succeeding administrations proceeded with deregulation efforts through various means. As a result, local empowerment for launching industrialization has remained weak.
Contrary to the argument that the Philippines is an agricultural country, data show that we are instead a service-oriented country. According to the Philippine Statistics Authority, the gross domestic product contribution for the fourth quarter of 2023 for the agricultural sector is only 9 percent; for the industry sector, it’s 29.8 percent, and services, 61.2 percent. Hence, even if education opportunities were democratized, the problem still lies on the role of the state and various sectors in ensuring that opportunities for local employment and empowerment are diversified.
Rethinking national development strategy
The national development strategy of the Philippines continues to support the idea of labor export and protecting migrant workers who bring in huge remittances to the country. In 2023 alone, the total amount of remittances reached $33.5 billion or at least P1.9 trillion. This is at the expense of separated families since local opportunities to ensure their respective households’ well-being through social mobility and other means are scarce. The country thus remains a low-middle-income country, lagging behind its neighbors where industrialization and local empowerment have been prioritized.
Juniesy Estanislao has a master of arts degree in Philippine Studies from the University of the Philippines, Diliman.
