Petropolitik, Sapian and China - Fourth in a Continuing Series

Cory and Ramos Cabinet deliberations on GATT/WTO involved many economic concepts that Ms. Flores laid the foundations for. GATT/WTO was discussed on my first attendance in a Cory Cabinet Meeting, and Jose Concepcion (JoeCon), former Trade and Industry Sectary in Cory Cabinet, owner of Condura, Cosmos Bottling, General Milling, etc., tripped on my right foot and almost crashed on former Defense Secretary Renato De Villa. I was terrified, my first Cabinet and I caused an accident. But people I sat next to assured me that it was not my fault - Lucille Peralta (now Ortille, and Director General of the Cabinet Coordinating Committee on Housing and Urban Planning), also from Roxas City, and Mary Ann Z. Fernandez (now Assistant Commissioner of Civil Service Commission) told me JoeCon was looking up on screen while briskly walking down the hall.  Corridor of power is always cramped, so seats around the Cabinet Meetings are always crowded. Seating was arranged in two rings - the inner circle which is the president and cabinet members, and the outer circle composed of lesser bishops and acolytes like myself. State Dining Room is cold and dark when giant Swarovski chandeliers are dimmed for PowerPoints. Only Imelda’s sconces would light the old rose velvet carpet while people seated on the outer circle would obstruct most steps of the way. Talk about cordon sanitaire.

Anyway, this was not the case in the brightly lit and well-appointed National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Board Room in Pasig, thanks to Toto “Tayho” Guijaro. The president and Cabinet also convene as Joint Cabinet-NEDA Board a few times a year to update the National Development Plan, and they meet in Pasig once in a while. In NEDA sa Pasig, I always see Toto Tayho because he does the electro-systems for NEDA Board Sub-Committee on Human Resources and NEDA Board/Cabinet that I both attend. I’m sure, Toto Tayho, bombarded by economics everyday, would remember the lectures of Ms. Flores. Our batch was the first to graduate under the nationalized high school. Unfortunately, it was the last batch Ms. Flores would teach. That very next school year, she moved to then Panay State Polytechnic College (PSPC). Lucky them.

Further exploration on China’s economic boom needs us to look into just a little bit of GATT and history. Ms. Flores taught us that Industrial Revolution, which started in Britain between late 1700s and early 1800s, was characterized by increased production due to mechanization (e.g., steam engines - factories and railways). Mechanization allowed mass production that created surplus products. Countries needed to sell surplus products to other countries (dumping). But other countries have the same industries and were creating the same products. So, each country tried to protect its domestic industries, and a period called Protectionist Era ensued. Nations established trade barriers, raised import taxes and tariffs, to make it very difficult to import and export outside of national boundaries. Trade wars ensued - dumping of surpluses to, or raising tariffs against unfriendly nations. Countries like Britain, U.S. and France (Allied) were lucky. Their colonies acted both as exclusive markets for their surpluses and source of cheap raw materials. Other industrializing countries like Japan, Italy and Germany (Axis) did not have colonies. Axis powers had to either have colonies or just fade away. Many summed up World War II as an attempt by Axis powers to re-divide the world and gain colonies for themselves. At that time, China was an agrarian economy trying to survive its own Cultural Revolution.

In 1944, GATT, a trade treaty involving many nations, was established. Its purpose was to facilitate free trade by encouraging member-nations to reduce tariffs and remove trade barriers. This would avoid trade wars and the need to maintain colonies (i.e., the Philippines was then allowed to become independent). Under GATT, each one had a list of sectors, industries or specific products they want to open to international competition. Taxes for those specified sectors or products are either lowered significantly or removed altogether. Since then, GATT worked on the sidelines until the emergence of European Community in the late ’80s. At that time, trade blocs, treaties involving many nations, in many regions of the world started to proliferate. By early 90s, there were APEC, Uruguayan Round, NAFTA, AFTA, BIMP/EAGA and dozens others. Trade blocs reminded some economists of Protectionist Era.

Therefore, GATT had to be reinvented. This time, it would have to include China. The world could not wait to sell 1.3 billion more bottles and cans of Coca-Cola and McDonald’s burgers.  And China itself, wary of being alone after the downfall of USSR and its Eastern European allies, and tempted by outward forces of its modernizing economy, had to jump into the bandwagon. Western companies, led by American investors, raced their way to China to manufacture everything from slippers to ICs. This proliferated the market with too much China products and created higher demands for petroleum.

Negative implications for Sapian: First, China has drawn in foreign investments that would have otherwise been invested in the Philippines that, directly, either employ some Sapianons, or benefit Sapianon businessmen, or indirectly, bring in money into the domestic economy and trickle down to Sapian in form of taxes or increased buying power/demand for Sapian fishery products. Second, flood the Philippine market with cheaper Chinese goods, competing with our local industries - especially with GATT - losing our fledging manufacturing businesses and jobs. Third, highly industrialized China makes it more influential in geopolitics to the detriment of our security, including losing our claim to the disputed, natural gas rich 200-mile EEZ off Palawan. Fourth, China is developing backbone industries like steel, chemicals, etc., is reckless with environment and could upset South Asian environmental health (e.g., nuclear waste, industrial dust, acid rain, etc.). Fifth and most importantly, China, consuming more oil, offsets supply equilibrium, creating shortage, increasing prices, and causing more instability in volatile Middle East (e.g., giving Saddam rockets, bribing Iran with $70 billion, and possibly, some bits of nuclear technology). Increased prices slow down the Philippine economy, as it pays more power bills, lower Peso value because more dollar is paid for oil imports, less tax collections because of lowered profits, less foreign investments because of less anticipation of profits, and so on.   

On the positive side for Sapian: First, abundance of made in China products, as said earlier, makes it easier for us to buy products that used to be difficult and expensive to acquire. Second, China would attempt to expand its political and economic clout among its neighbors and invest in the Philippines, such as in agro-industry. This should be our last opportunity to dove-tail on global trade. Third, since the continued affluence of China’s economy is dependent on its goodwill, it would not do much to offset South Asia security - although the 200-mile EEZ is now irretrievably lost.

Petropolitik, Sapian and China - Second in a Continuing Series

Everywhere we go today, we see a proliferation of products made in China; from the simplest plastic implements to some of the most complex microprocessors.

To explain China’s voracious demand for energy, lets examine its recent economic growth. Since 2000, China’s exports tripled to over $593 trillion. Government statistics report an employment rate of nearly 97%. This industrial progress over a short period of time is unprecedented in history even in the magnitude of post World War II reconstruction. A recent report indicates that of the world’s 50 worst polluted cities (i.e., most industrially active), the top 20 are in China.

China’s great industrial transformation has put so much stress on global oil supply and distribution. China, Japan, and a dozen other countries, including the Philippines, compete over limited petroleum distribution capacity in the Far East. In 2000, China’s oil consumption was about 4 million barrels everyday, and oil price then was less than $22/barrel. Today, China’s consumption has grown to over 7 million everyday - or about 1/3 of the total world oil demand. China is now the second largest oil consumer (after the U.S.), and third largest importer (after U.S. and Japan). China will add 5 million cars every year starting this year. A comparison, the Philippine oil consumption is merely 312,000 barrels per day.

Supply is increasing in arithmetical rate while demand increase in geometric proportion. Saudi Arabia is frantically pumping its wells double time to stabilize prices. But China’s growing demand and cold cash would quickly absorb the buffer supply. OPEC members, in cohort with oil cartels, seem to enjoy the world attention to volatile Middle East and ripples by Venezuela and Bolivia that even an isolated kidnapping in Nigeria would bring them billions in windfall income.

But China could not live on oil alone. It also needs food to feed its army of factory workers and emerging industrialists Since we missed economic take off many times, we may have been destined to be the food producers. In fact, we have our comparative advantages over China. One of them, their coastline is only 14,500 kilometers - we have 36,000. Reason why China permanently encroach into our 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone.

A few weeks ago, my former boss, Demetrio Ignacio, now Undersecretary of Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), participated in a signing ceremony for an agreement with Fuhua Agricultural Group of China. Fuhua is investing $5 billion for a food industrial park and in planting one million hectares of hybrid corn in Camarines Sur, Lanao del Norte, Isabela, Occidental Mindoro, Tarlac and Nueva Ecija. http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/be/be003383.htm

We need more export-oriented agro-industrial projects like this. It’s the only way to offset our widening trade deficit and to brace up for the oil crisis that is yet to come. Oil situation would worsen by the day as high gas prices would cause inflation. But who knows, inflation, among other adverse economic implications like higher interest rates and minimum wages, would increase production cost in developed countries. The recourse would be to move factories to countries with cheaper labor, as long as they are not very corrupt, has political stability, uninterrupted electricity, and guarantee no labor strikes.

Petropolitik, Sapian and China

The recent upsurge in world petroleum prices brought uncertainty to the global economy and brought stark reminders of the oil crisis of the 70s. In 1981, Ms. Ligaya Ofalla-Oro gave me an oratorical piece at a Sapian National High School contest. The topic was on oil crisis. It was surreal for me; all I had was a bicycle. Sapian then, while closely entwined with global petropolitik, did not have strong demand for gasoline.

In any event, it is worth to revisit. The oil crisis three decades ago was a showdown between the cartelized Western transnational oil companies and oil producing autocracies united under the then newly formed Organization of Oil Producing Countries (OPEC). OPEC, including the former USSR, brandished its newfound power at the height of Cold War, primarily against the United States, the largest petroleum trader and consumer. The induced shortage due to lowered supply was to assert OPEC power - a purely political theme.

At that time, impact on Sapian was muted. The highway system was in sad state so very few invested on vehicles even in Poblacion. Traffic of public transport plying Bilao-Damayan-Roxas City was probably less than one every hour. As such, per capital petroleum consumption, diesel at that, had been negligible. So no one really cared much about oil prices more than whines from commuters. Capiz Electric Cooperative (CAPELCO) had only installed power transmission lines so consumers did not really have any historical sense of increasing prices. The first flicker of incandescent was enough consolation. Probably, the worst impact may have been upon fisherfolks using motorzied boats, but gas burden may have quickly dissipated in upstream pricing of their abundant catch. In fact, it was the early start of the future boom on fishery export to Iloilo and Manila. At the whole, Sapian was isolated from the petroleum crisis, so I mumbled my oil crisis piece with pure detachment from the issue.

Thirty years hence, oil crisis came back with a vengeance. This time, it is the same assertion by OPEC autocracies, but it comes with genuine economic supply-demand dimension - the enormous demand by China. In this sense, crisis has metamorphosed from a basically artificial political pressure in the ’70s to one that’s a real economic pressure to supply and demand. China is a cash economy, in fact, a debt-free, highly liquid economy, with the state having infinite power over economic fundamentals. For all practical purposes, China is able and willing to pay any cost to sustain its industrial transformation. Naturally, oil producers and traders, even with the best of their intentions, would have to give in. In short, all pipelines now lead to China.

Sapian, 30 years later, has a gas demand of its own. The improved road system has encouraged ownership of vehicles. Although impact on mobility could be cushioned off by readily available public transport network, transportation costs would have to take its toll. Power connections to the farthest households in the Municipality integrate most Sapianons to bunker fuel demand. Cost of production would markedly increase in agriculture and fisheries, including aqua culture, because practically all input are imported. Increases to our prices to offset the cost of production make our products less competitive than, say, Thailand or Vietnam. The Philippines does not have any control over oil supply and production and the government has very little macroeconomic control mechanisms (e.g., interest rates, taxes, etc.) - so much underground economy. Since buying power in Sapian can only stretch so far, the immediate observable result would be cuts in non-essentials, diminished general local demand, and reduced production, and net a economic slowdown.

Thirty years hence, Mrs. Ligaya Oro’s piece is more relevant than ever. In fact, it is a stark reminder at the onset of what could be a greater economic challenge for Sapian and the world for years to come. So, next, we will discuss more about the challenges and opportunities for Sapian in the midst of the brewing oil shortage and the industrializing China.