APEC Week Traffic Advisory

[grover2014]

Not really, among the ASEAN countries we were the least affected compared to the emerging ASEAN countries who were seriously affected by the 97 Asian Financial Crises. I was a grad student at that time and was quite active in attending the seminar series for working papers (pre-publication). The Asian Financial Crises was a hot topic but there was little debate on the issue of the Philippines being seriously affected. I remember Thailand, South Korea and to a lesser extent Malaysia were seriously affected. The Koreans even donated gold and jewelry and there was a discussion if Filipinos would do the same if the Philippines were placed in the same dire condition. Malaysia had a slightly different problem since it was not willing to float its currency. Yes, I am afraid we can't use the 97 crises as basis for underachieving.

[shadow]

APEC is essentially an annual photo-op. There is an opportunity to showcase what the country has to offer but it is probably more meaningful for countries into "heavy industry" like China or South Korea. As for the 10 billion pesos, it makes one wonder why Clark or Subic were not chosen as sites if we were willing to spend to host the summit. People keep saying that hosting the APEC offers opportunity for long term gains. We successfully hosted the APEC before but did we ever realize the said long term gains, I think not.

We already cited, theorized couple of reasons why they didn't held APEC in Subic or Clark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Luap]

APEC is essentially an annual photo-op. There is an opportunity to showcase what the country has to offer but it is probably more meaningful for countries into "heavy industry" like China or South Korea. As for the 10 billion pesos, it makes one wonder why Clark or Subic were not chosen as sites if we were willing to spend to host the summit. People keep saying that hosting the APEC offers opportunity for long term gains. We successfully hosted the APEC before but did we ever realize the said long term gains, I think not.

Exactamento. Walang kinalaman ang APEC hosting dun sa mga pldeges hehehehe. Lalong lalo na yung pledge ni Obama. To be able for us to gain from APEC marami pang dapat ayusin ang government. Pero in fairness naman ke Pnot, isa sa mga very important na batas na naipasa is yung competition law. Isa yan sa mga requirements para mapadali ang ating pag sali sa Trade Pacific Partnership which may lead to more FDIs.

[grover2014]

To be fair people were warned that road would be closed and traffic was to be expected. So in a sense, we can't say that we were not forewarned. What I don't agree with is the argument that hosting the APEC will lead to economic gains. The APEC is not a policy making body. Its different with summits like the OPEC since decisions are made that could have serious implications. We can use the APEC to showcase what we can offer unfortunately BPOs are not exactly a big ticket item at that level.

[Juan Martinez]

APEC is essentially an annual photo-op. There is an opportunity to showcase what the country has to offer but it is probably more meaningful for countries into "heavy industry" like China or South Korea. As for the 10 billion pesos, it makes one wonder why Clark or Subic were not chosen as sites if we were willing to spend to host the summit. People keep saying that hosting the APEC offers opportunity for long term gains. We successfully hosted the APEC before but did we ever realize the said long term gains, I think not.

so you're saying we spent 10B more or less for a photo op, right? like saying, o canada, japan andito pala kayo pa-picture tayo kay US, is that it, right?

[minicarph]

so you're saying we spent 10B more or less for a photo op, right? like saying, o canada, japan andito pala kayo pa-picture tayo kay US, is that it, right?

Pang - Facebook

[grover2014]

*Juan Martinez

Lets put it this way, the hosting of the summit rotates every year across member countries and naturally there are costs to hosting the summit and not all of these costs are pecuniary which is why you have all these complaints. I can't recall of a case when a designated host country declined its turn since obviously there is the loss of face. Aside from the prestige, joining the APEC provides access to the "network" for arriving at trade agreements. The question of benefits from APEC membership depends on how this access is used and this is were all this benefits thing becomes a bit tricky. APEC is not like ASEAN, EU or NAFTA or even remotely like the WTO. In the case of the first three, membership allows the member country access to binding trade agreements while in the latter binding rules supposedly provides a conducive trade environment. As an example there are gains from ASEAN membership since imports are cheaper within the trading bloc. There are however no binding trade agreements in APEC at least not of the same nature as in ASEAN, membership in APEC facilitates arriving at trade agreements which a country has to work towards obtaining the needed trade agreements.

The operative word in this discussion is binding trade agreements that accrue from membership. In the case of ASEAN benfits accrue from membership. It is different with APEC since the member country has "work" towards getting the favorable trade agreements. Now has the Philippines made use of opportunities accruing from APEC, we perhaps I have not been reading the papers that well, please correct me.

Now does this mean that the Philippines should withdraw from APEC, well my opinion is definitely no, just imagine the loss of face. I think its really a question of our making the best use of APEC membership, I mean just look at the profile of member countries, almost all have left the Philippines behind (I am not sure about PNG). If you don't believe me, just look at the state of our internet backbone. Don't be too caught up with the GDP growth rate figures, look at the levels as well.

By the way in economics, you always compare benefits with the full costs including externalities. I think estimating the cost of traffic brought about by holding the APEC in Manila would make for an interesting study. The World Bank recently came out with estimates of the cost of traffic in NCR so doing at study on APEC induced traffic would be interesting.

So Juan Martinez sir, I hope that this answers your question of whether what we had was a 10 billion photo-op. The thing is way back in '96 the APEC was held in Subic, with the proper preparation something similar could have been done so please forgive the angry mob, I mean as rationale creatures they should have known better but the situation could have been avoided altogether.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*Juan Martinez

Lets put it this way, the hosting of the summit rotates every year across member countries and naturally there are costs to hosting the summit and not all of these costs are pecuniary which is why you have all these complaints. I can't recall of a case when a designated host country declined its turn since obviously there is the loss of face. Aside from the prestige, joining the APEC provides access to the "network" for arriving at trade agreements. The question of benefits from APEC membership depends on how this access is used and this is were all this benefits thing becomes a bit tricky. APEC is not like ASEAN, EU or NAFTA or even remotely like the WTO. In the case of the first three, membership allows the member country access to binding trade agreements while in the latter binding rules supposedly provides a conducive trade environment. As an example there are gains from ASEAN membership since imports are cheaper within the trading bloc. There are however no binding trade agreements in APEC at least not of the same nature as in ASEAN, membership in APEC facilitates arriving at trade agreements which a country has to work towards obtaining the needed trade agreements.

The operative word in this discussion is binding trade agreements that accrue from membership. In the case of ASEAN benfits accrue from membership. It is different with APEC since the member country has "work" towards getting the favorable trade agreements. Now has the Philippines made use of opportunities accruing from APEC, we perhaps I have not been reading the papers that well, please correct me.

Now does this mean that the Philippines should withdraw from APEC, well my opinion is definitely no, just imagine the loss of face. I think its really a question of our making the best use of APEC membership, I mean just look at the profile of member countries, almost all have left the Philippines behind (I am not sure about PNG). If you don't believe me, just look at the state of our internet backbone. Don't be too caught up with the GDP growth rate figures, look at the levels as well.

By the way in economics, you always compare benefits with the full costs including externalities. I think estimating the cost of traffic brought about by holding the APEC in Manila would make for an interesting study. The World Bank recently came out with estimates of the cost of traffic in NCR so doing at study on APEC induced traffic would be interesting.

So Juan Martinez sir, I hope that this answers your question of whether what we had was a 10 billion photo-op. The thing is way back in '96 the APEC was held in Subic, with the proper preparation something similar could have been done so please forgive the angry mob, I mean as rationale creatures they should have known better but the situation could have been avoided altogether.

[jut703]

Eto napansin ko lang ah, yung mga walang ibang ginawa kundi magcomplain sa social media, at the end of the day wala namang nagbabago sa buhay nila. The same negativity that they throw at the government seemingly reflects on their own lives.

Yung mga pragmatic na mas pinipiling tanggapin kung anong meron and make the most out of it, sila yung mas successful regardless kung sino pang nakaupo. In other words, kung lahat tayo ganito, kasing bigtime na tayo lahat ni Shadow. [emoji16]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grover2014]

*Dalek

I am not complaining. I just said that we should not expect too much from hosting the APEC. Shadow is misinformed if he thinks that the 97 financial crises seriously affected our economic development. Although I am not a macroeconomist as my area is regulation and public finance, there is little debate among economists as to what we can expect from hosting the APEC. I haven't read the discussion on why the summit was not held in Clark or Subic but if you at the sites of the previous conferences. you can see that its been held in Cancun and Bali.

[minicarph]

Dame naman haka haka sa APEC, basta ako ngaun nag-order na ang cash sa credit card, bibile na ako ng the new MacBook 2 years to pay, bahala na Ambon ng APEC para mabayaran ko to

Next year, aasikasuhin ko na car loan ko sa HRV or Nissan Juke. Still bahala na si APEC, pag improve lives ng Pinoy, eh di may business, may pambayad sa loan

Pag palpak ang APEC, kinukubdisyun ko na Utak ko sa hirap,

Dapat kase ready ang katawan nyo kumain Lang ng isang jolly hotdog for the whole day

[grover2014]

*minicarph

There isn't much likelihood that the APEC will fail since by design most if not all the trade agreements have been worked out before the summit. Photo-op lang kasi ang APEC. If you are looking for a summit has more serious policy implications then that would be the G7 although I think they call it the G7 plus these days, sorry no longer updated since I don't dabble with macro these days.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*minicarph

There isn't much likelihood that the APEC will fail since by design most if not all the trade agreements have been worked out before the summit. Photo-op lang kasi ang APEC. If you are looking for a summit has more serious policy implications then that would be the G7 although I think they call it the G7 plus these days, sorry no longer updated since I don't dabble with macro these days.

[minicarph]

In 2017, food prices and crops will drop. Everything will drop, real estate (well not much), cars, etc.

Coz yun naman talaga effect ng low fuel, 2 years after.

Yan lang hintay natin plus all those APEC promises, sigurado na angat ng Pilipinas. Bska makabili pa ako bmw

[dreamur]

APEC or not people who who see the government as the reason for their failures will always complain.

[shadow]

It's true that we were not really affected by the Asian crisis, arguably but what I'm trying to say is the "long term" effect that we were supposed to get from the first APEC held here was derailed due to that's Asian crisis environment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[grover2014]

You are right sir in the sense that all countries, and not just in the Pacific rim, were affected by the 97 crisis in terms of medium term planning however as to the question of were there substantial structural effects on the Philippine economy. Well, that was the subject of the debate and the consensus was limited impact ( I don't know if there are published research papers but there are at least at the working paper level just don't know in what journals these were published).

The countries most affected were the Asian tiger economies as they had to do restructuring of medium and long term plans - SK and Thailand. the odd man out was Malaysia which stood its ground and did not float (depreciate) it currency. A friend of mine was with the Malaysian economic planning bureau and it turned out he had the last laugh on us as look at Malaysia now (of course we don't have their petro dollars).

As Mr. Juan Martinez was a bit adamant in asking for an explicit answer, my (explicit) answer to your query is no we did not have to do major restructuring and no the 97 crisis did not set us back significantly (granted at the individual level there were people seriously affected - those who denominated their loan in dollars but these were miniscule at the macroeconomic level). In reference to the Asian tiger economies, they quickly got over the setback and again look at were they are now, SK cars compete even with the Jap cars.

Sorry for the rather long reply

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You are right sir in the sense that all countries, and not just in the Pacific rim, were affected by the 97 crisis in terms of medium term planning however as to the question of were there substantial structural effects on the Philippine economy. Well, that was the subject of the debate and the consensus was limited impact ( I don't know if there are published research papers but there are at least at the working paper level just don't know in what journals these were published).

The countries most affected were the Asian tiger economies as they had to do restructuring of medium and long term plans - SK and Thailand. the odd man out was Malaysia which stood its ground and did not float (depreciate) it currency. A friend of mine was with the Malaysian economic planning bureau and it turned out he had the last laugh on us as look at Malaysia now (of course we don't have their petro dollars).

As Mr. Juan Martinez was a bit adamant in asking for an explicit answer, my (explicit) answer to your query is no we did not have to do major restructuring and no the 97 crisis did not set us back significantly (granted at the individual level there were people seriously affected - those who denominated their loan in dollars but these were miniscule at the macroeconomic level). In reference to the Asian tiger economies, they quickly got over the setback and again look at were they are now, SK cars compete even with the Jap cars.

Sorry for the rather long reply

[Juan Martinez]

i will wait for my answer until hell freezes over

[_Cathy_]

APEC Summit in Manila is over so I am closing the thread.

Thank you badkuk for opening this informative thread