How is IBON Foundation Viewing and/or Representing FDI in Their Articles?

Some time ago, I wrote about why I can't take IBON Foundation seriously. As the battle for economic charter change is on, I believe it's time to tackle them again. They're tweeting here and there. Okay, I'm no researcher or organization. However, it doesn't mean that I can't do some basic research, share the research of others, and read other books. Even an intellectually stupid person can actually make sense if they gather the best materials. I even recall someone I know who's not intelligent but he actually spoke well about career opportunities, in the very school where he wasn't performing well!

Trying to understand IBON's data presentation 

I would like to address how IBON Foundation presents FDI growth. They would say stuff such as the claim job creation weakened despite FDI growth. 

I was looking at IBON Foundation's claim (above) where it says that job creation allegedly weakened despite FDI inflows. Sure, they named sources but do they have any other sources to defend their claim? I even wonder what's their definition of FDI? Before, that I think I'd like to share this information that makes me wonder, "How is IBON Foundation viewing FDI?":

This chart by IBON is from an article they made, claiming that FDi hasn't done much to develop the Philippine economy. Again, what's their real solution anyway? I really am afraid but I think IBON is fond of misrepresenting data either on purpose or out of ignorance. They still insist on the myth that the first Marcos administration, run by the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., was supposedly non-protectionist. This is also written by none other than people running IBON themselves:

The Philippines actually has more foreign investment today than South Korea, Taiwan or China did in their respective periods of economic take-off – pretty much confirming that large amounts of foreign investment is neither necessary nor sufficient for development.

The largest part of FDI has historically been to manufacturing where there are no Constitutional restrictions – on average accounting for almost half (46%) of FDI into the country since the 1990s.

The stock of manufacturing FDI increased eight-fold from US$1.6 billion in 1990 to US$12.5 billion as of 2017, the latest year for which data is available.

For a start, even the UP School of Economics has this to say. Emmanuel S. De Dios wrote something that I can never come up with. There's something worth citing that would really help debunk the claim of the Marcos Sr. "open economy" policy:

It is instructive that neither Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, nor any major Asian country catastrophically experienced negative growth in the early 1980s. The Philippines was the exception, following instead the example of protectionist and over-borrowed Latin American countries. This suggests that there was nothing unavoidable about the crisis the Philippines suffered, and that it was the result instead of failed policies. In 1977 the Philippines’ total debt was all of $8.2 billion. Only five years later, in 1982, this had risen to $24.4 billion. Thailand’s debt in 1982 was still only half that amount. Thailand and other countries of the region thus avoided a debt crisis and ultimately went on to attract foreign direct investments in export-oriented industries in the now-familiar East Asian pattern. But no such thing happened under Ferdinand E. Marcos, notwithstanding the arguments and exhortations of people like Gerardo P. Sicat (who would cease to be active in the regime by 1980). By the early 1980s, the pattern would be set where foreign direct investments in neighboring countries regularly outstripped those in the Philippines. (The intermittent coups d’etat post-Marcos did us no favors either.)

All this should correct the common misconception that the country’s troubles stemmed entirely from conjunctural “political factors,” notably that it was caused by ex-Senator Benigno “Ninoy” S. Aquino, Jr.’s assassination. One might not even entirely blame the mere fact of authoritarianism itself — after all Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia at the time were also ruled by despots of some sort or other, yet suffered no crisis. Rather the Philippine debacle was linked to the misguided policies that were structurally linked and specific to Marcos-style authoritarianism. For all its technocratic rhetoric and rationale, the Marcos regime never took economic reform, liberalization, and export-oriented industrialization seriously; it remained a heavily protectionist and preferential regime (think the cronies and the failed major industrial projects). The availability of easy loans was well suited to the priorities of a regime that thought it could stoke growth without deep reform and slake the greed of Marcos and his cronies at the same time. In the end a corrupt regime fell victim to its own hubris.

Just this very entry from the UP School of Economics is there. Hopefully, more UP economics graduates will be advocates for FDI. I think the writer De Dios probably looks at Mahathir Mohamad as some kind of a despot. I'd agree that the late Suharto though was a despot. Mohamad was a guy who was described as a tough talker by Alex Magno of the Philippine Star. Back on the topic, the very article from the UP School of Economics makes me think that there's really possible confusion, misrepresentation, or a bad combination of both with how IBON represents its research data.

How IBON probably views FDI or what they want to make people think FDI is

Sometime in November 2023, I wrote about Filipinos misunderstanding what FDI means. There's the whole possibility of asking either mockingly or painstakingly something like, "What? Are we selling the Philippines to foreigners?" I try to explain that it's about letting MNCs operate in the Philippines without letting them find a partner. Based on the article I wrote about misunderstanding FDI--I had to cite what FDI really means. This is the meaning that I cited from Investopedia--something crybaby self-proclaimed socialists (or SJWs) like to berate as "some dark capitalist agenda":

Foreign direct investment (FDI) is an ownership stake in a foreign company or project made by an investor, company, or government from another country.

Generally, the term is used to describe a business decision to acquire a substantial stake in a foreign business or to buy it outright to expand operations to a new region. The term is usually not used to describe a stock investment in a foreign company alone. FDI is a key element in international economic integration because it creates stable and long-lasting links between economies.

In short, an FDI will work like this. I go to a shopping mall and find some FDIs here and there. Many mobile apps are produced by MNCs.That's why I wrote about the foolishness of wanting expensive luxury products for Christmas while going against FDI. Before that, I even wrote about the Filipino obsession with iPhones. I bought an iPad (on sale) on Lazada, which, by the way, is a Singaporean company. Maybe, many members from Migrante International are using the platform and don't realize it. That would be so funny if I told them Lazada's current headquarters is in Singapore. Yes, FDIs exist in the form of tenants such as Apple, Samsung, Sony, Huawei, McDonald's, Starbucks, Chatime, Sony, and the long list can go on. When I look at their stories, I see Filipinos are the ones employed to entertain Filipinos, not foreigners from their countries of origin.

Right now, I don't claim to have the answers. However, I do have every right to speculate on how IBON views FDI. I would like to evaluate their views on what FDI or foreign capital is:

1. From what I heard, the amount of OFWs dramatically increased during the first Marcos Administration. Right now, there are still OFW deployments. I believe IBON is trying to say that OFWs equals FDI. In short, they probably think that sending Filipinos abroad is a form of foreign investment. They probably also think that OFW remittances should be counted as FDI net inflows. 
2. If worse comes to worse, maybe the IBON Foundation probably believes that Filipino women dating foreigners is a form of FDI. Maybe, they count sugar daddy remittances as FDI inflows. 
   
3. They probably confuse and/or mispresent data of the Philippines' debts from abroad as FDI remittance too. This would be stupid since foreign debt is very different from foreign investment (read here).

It would be interesting if the IBON Foundation decided to try and take their arguments outside the Philippines. Maybe, they can start with challenging the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) from the National University of Singapore (NUS). Maybe, they can also challenge the economists of the University of Economics-Ho Chi Minh City (UEH) to defend their views. Right now, Vietnam is practicing Doi Moi which is key to developing their economy. The late LKY even documented in his book From Third World to First his meeting with the late Nguyen Duy Cong aka Doi Moi. Doi Moi, though a Communist, sought the advice of LKY. I could just imagine how they'd probably try to respond to the other team. 

Right now, I can't be sure what IBON thinks or how IBON represents FDI. One thing's for certain, whether I have an MBA or not is no longer relevant. I still feel maybe my MBA is no longer something to be proud of. Instead, I decided to think more outside the box. I think IBON is a classic case of being too theoretical. The lead economists of LKY's day even thought like IBON. Fortunately, LKY thought out of the box and other countries took his advice. I think IBON only chooses to think within a framework, even if said framework is faulty. In IBON's case, I say they think within the confines of a birdcage instead of soaring high to find better solutions.