Talk:Economy of the Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economy of the Philippines article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Attention

I reckon that its about time this page be as updated as the other articles of the other countries. Its already 2005, and the 2004 numbers of the economic indicators are already out. I would want to update them myself, but there is just too many. Alot of the details in the article are also out of date, help anyone???

I was hoping that we can reorganize with ff. sections:

  • Background,
  • Agriculture and Fishing,
  • Commerce,
  • Communication,
  • Currency,
  • Energy,
  • Forestry,
  • Labor
  • Manufacturing,
  • Mining,
  • Transportation

Statistics already embedded in each section, uhm help?!?

Somebody with the information should add

  • Outsourcing

Italic text==Comment== I think you put the wrong caption about the rice paddies. The Philippines is a rice importer. It imports rice from Vietnam. Yes, it used to be our biggest agricultural export but now, we don't have enough rice output to meet domestic demand. If I'm not mistaken, coconut products are the largest agricultural exports. Please check the National Statistical Coordination Board website at http://www.nscb.gov.ph

I suggest that you add a section for Tourism because it is making progress due to the agressive marketing campaign of the Department of Tourism. You may want to put photos of the majestic tourist destinations in the country.

The country actually has enough supply of rice for the year 2006. They are only importing to beef up their rice stocks in case of unusual weather phenomenon such as the El Nino.

below the poverty line- the latest data of poverty line is 26% way year 2003. should you guys have data for 2006 or at least 2005?


This article fails to recognize the protectionist policies which the Philippine elites had imposed on the country. The Filipino elites especially the Nacionalista Party had ruined Philippine economy from the beginning. Even the Americans permitted these elites(illustrados) to dominate the economy during American colonial period. The 1987 Constitution is a restatement of Pinoy elites domination. The 1987 constitution specifies that majority of businesses should be 60% Filipino owned. Guess who will be those Filipinos-the elites? This is the main reason why the bulk of most foreign direct investments in Asian region have bypassed Philippines since the 1980's. Major foreign multinationals prefers to be majority owners especially when a large investment money is involved. Of course, Philippine govt can always make exception to the 60/40 rule for a fee. The end result is continued poverty where 1/3 of the population lives on less than $2.00 per day. Until Philippines ends it protectionist policies, Philippines would remain the Sick Man of Asia and purveyor of global workers.


See... http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n2_v26/ai_15473461-The human costs of protectionism

http://countrystudies.us/philippines/17.htm, America failed to change the illustrados

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/FJ02Ae01.html 134 families that control Philippines

Also, this article is so Pro-Philippines. It seems that it was written by a Philippine govt employee. There is no mention of poverty or corruption. The brain drain is not even addressed.

[edit] Chaos!

The table below is probably not entirely accurate, due either to problems I've introduced in putting it together or to updated info at cited sources overtaking outdated info citing those sources. Even so, I think this is pretty close, and I think that it points up a real editorial problem.

Wikipedia articles have a lot of entropy, and it's necessary to wage a constant battle against increases in disorder. However, in this case it looks as if things have probably started out in a disordered state.

Would it be possible to come to some sort of consensus in the community of people interested in maintaining the wikipedia pages represented by the table columns about what figures from which sources should be used for this sort of thing and to put the consensus figure in the "to be used" column of this table? If so, a notice that this is being done could be placed in the affected pages (AFAIK, just two articles and one template), which could be updated with sync'd-up and cite-supported figures once this is finished. Also, once this is finished, that "to be used" list could be saved somewhere and used to re-synchronize pages which drift and to track what pages need updating when supporting source content is updated.

Comments? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Item Statistics section
of this page		 this page
infobox		 Philippines page
infobox		 To be used
(with cite)
GDP (PPP) $508.1 billion (2006 est.)[al] $453 billion (2006)[a42] $466.632 billion (2006)[bl]
GDP - real growth rate 6.9 % (2007 est.)[c1] 5.3% (2006)[d1]
{{failed verification}}		 19.1% (calculated from 2005 & 2006 figures: (117.562-98.718)/98.718)[b2]

(not shown, seems unreasonable)
GDP (PPP per capita) $5,700 (2006 est.)[a2] $4,923 (2006)[d2]
{{failed verification}}		 $5,365.287 (2006)[b3]
GDP composition by sector agriculture: 14.5%
industry: 32.3%
services: 53.2%
(2003 est.)[a3]
Household income or consumption by percentage share lowest 10%: 1.7%
highest 10%: 38.4%
(2000)[a4]
Population below poverty line 24.7% (2003)a
6.4% (2007)a5
Household income or consumption by percentage share lowest 10%: 1.7%
highest 10%: 38.4%
(2000)[a6]
Inflation rate (consumer prices) 2.7%(2007)[a7]
Labour force 35.79 million (2006)[a8]
41.93 million (2007)[a9]		 36.64 million (2006)[d3]
{{failed verification}}
Labour force by occupation agriculture 33%
industry 30%
services 37%
(2007 est.)[a10]		 services (48%)
agriculture (36%)
industry (16%)
(2004)[d4]
{{failed verification}}
Unemployment rate 10.4% (2003)[a11]
7.9% (2007)[a{12]		 8.4% (2006)
(2004)[d5]
{{failed verification}}
Gini 46.6 (undisplayed)[a34] 44.5 (2003)[d1]
Budget revenues: $19.53 billion

expenditures: $20.74 billion
(2006 est.)
[a13]

 Revenues: $19.44 billion (2006)

Expenses: 21.38 billion (2006)
[a35]
Industrial production growth rate 0.1% (2003 est.)[a14]
Electricity
production		 45,210 GWh (2001)[a15]
Electricity
production by source		 fossil fuel: 70.12%
hydro: 10.75%
nuclear: 0%

geothermal: 19.13%
(1998)[a16]
Electricity consumption: 42,040 GWh
exports: 0 kWh
imports: 0 kWh
(2001)[a17]
Exports $47.2 billion (2006 est.)[a18] $44.2 billion (2006)[a37]
Exports
partners		 United States 20.1%, Japan 15.9%, Hong Kong 8.5%, Netherlands 8.1%, Taiwan 6.9%, Malaysia 6.8%, Singapore 6.7%, China 5.9% (2003)[a19] United States 18%
Japan 17.5%
China 9.9%
Netherlands 9.8%
Hong Kong 8.1%
Singapore 6.6%
Malaysia 6%
Taiwan 4.6% (2006)[a37]
Imports $51.6 billion (2006 est.)[a20]
Import
partners		 Japan 20.4%, US 19.8%, Singapore 6.8%, South Korea 6.4%, Taiwan 5%, China 4.8%, Hong Kong 4.3% (2003)[a21] United States 19.2%, Japan 17%, Singapore 7.9%, Taiwan 7.5%, China 6.3%, South Korea 4.8%, Saudi Arabia 4.6%, Hong Kong 4.1% (2006)[a39]
Debt - external $56.16 billion (2003)[a22] $316.65 billion (69.9% of GDP)[a40]
Economic aid - recipient ODA commitments, $1.2 billion (2002)[a23] ODA, $2.0 billion (2002)[a41]
Exchange rates
Philippine pesos (P) per US$1		 41.40 (2007)[a23],

49.28 (2006)[a24], 53.10 (2005)[a25], 56.052 (2004)[a26], 54.203 (2003)[a27], 40.427 (January 2000)[a28], 39.089 (1999)[a29], 40.893 (1998)[a30], 29.471 (1997)[a31], 26.216 (1996)[a32], 25.714 (1995)[a33]

a 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38 39  40  41  42  No supporting source cited

b 1  2  3  Report for selected subjects (Philippines), International Monetary Fund, 2006, <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=65&pr.y=8&sy=2005&ey=2008&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=566&s=NGDP_RPCH%2CNGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CPPPEX%2CPCPI%2CPCPIPCH%2CPCPIE%2CPCPIEPCH%2CLP&grp=0&a=>. Retrieved on 2007-12-12 


c 1 Rosemarie Francisco, writing on Yahoo Business[unreliable source?]

d 1  2  3  4  5  CIA Factbook

[edit] Software section removed

I've removed the Software subsection, which read as follows:

"====Software====
One of the software houses established in the country is Trend Micro, a small anti virus software maker with its main product PC-Cillin. The company develops its "cures" for viruses in Eastwood City, Libis, Quezon City." (citing Eastwood City Cyberpark Operating Firms, Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), <http://www.peza.gov.ph/firms/eastwood.htm>. Retrieved on 2007-12-11 

This might or might not be link spam, but it's not a very notable bit of info in terms of the national economy. Also, the impression given that this is a Philippine company appears to be false. The Trend Micro article opens as follows:

"Trend Micro (TYO: 4704) is a global company, headquartered in Tokyo, that develops software to protect against computer viruses. Steve Chang, a Taiwanese, the founder and former CEO of the company, started the company in California in 1988. Its headquarters are in Tokyo. In 2004 Chang passed leadership to Eva Chen, co-founder of Trend Micro. She was CTO from 1996 to 2004. One of her best known developments is Trend Micro InterScan VirusWall."

That article goes on to say:

"... they have a global virus/worm response center, called TrendLabs. Its offices are located in Philippines, Taiwan, Japan, China, France, Germany, Ireland, USA, Dubai, Australia & New Zealand."

If foreign firms with offices and fsacilities in the Philippines are to be highlighted, there are probably many more notable cases. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typo...

I guess a major wank failure would result in less growth.