ph gdp and gnp rates- a dummy's tool box

1 | In partial completion of IR 204 Labor and the Economy class of Prof. CABEGIN, PhD.

Submitted by Alfredo V. Primicias III [email protected]

0925-5259824

1) Analyze the level of nominal GDP (GDP at current prices) and nominal GNP. What

explains the difference between GDP and GNP? Are there periods where GDP is lower

than GNP? Why so? When did GNP surpass GDP and what factors determine the higher

GNP?

“The Philippines has a tremendous range of assets to draw upon for its development. Perhaps

the greatest asset of the Philippines is its people,”1 whose composition may be of anyone who is

a government servant, a traditional politician, a popular actor, a health worker, a university

scholar and professor or an OFW—each one trying to contribute to the PH economy. The World

Bank (2006) has identified the following as contributing factors2 to PH’s unique economic unit:

1.1 Most bio-diverse country

30% of the country’s total land area is made of mineral resources. Oil, gas and

geothermal production are substantial to fabricate for commercial use.

1.2 Vibrant private sector

The PH economy has strong export sector, liberal domestic and foreign investment

systems, and world class managerial talents.

1.3 Active Civil society

After the Marcos regime, movements from civil society to have a more transparent

democracy have ushered several reforms in public policy.

Unfortunately, despite the above formidable reasons, World Bank admits that the “overall

development outcomes over the last decades have fallen short of potential. As a result of a weak

state and its limited ability to provide public goods and services, the PH has been unable to

achieve its development potential.3” In fact the United Nations (2004) said that nearly 26M

Filipinos live below the annual per- capita poverty threshold of P11, 605.00. Unemployment has

increased to 10.2% during the 3rd

Q of 2002 while underemployment is at 15.3%. And nearly,

“half of the working population is engaged in informal sector jobs that are low in productivity

and pay.”4

This representation echoed the BBC or Boom- Bust Cycle theory of De Dios (2001) as a

sequence of growth followed by sharp downturns. “The PH has episodes of growth that are

relatively brief with low average levels, while downturns have been severe and recovery periods

extended.”5 He further provided RSH or Real- Structural Hypothesis as a way to measure

evidences of growth or downturns and relate these to BBC. He explained that poor foreign

investments is one of the reasons (please see Table 1.1)6.

1 2, Country Assistance Strategy for the PH 2006- 2008, The World Bank Group. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. Page 13. 4 Page 14, The UN Development Assistance Framework in the PH, 2005- 2009. 5 Page 21, de Dios E.S., The PH Economy: Alternatives for the 21

st Century, UP Press, 2001.

6 Ibid. Pages 22- 33.

mailto:[email protected]



0925-5259824

Table 1.1

1970 -4

1980 -2.8

1984 -36.7

1985 -31.8

1991 -17.3

He rationalized that better foreign investments came almost before or after a presidential

election. This is based on the observation that aggressive investment plans, combined with

import- dependence, finds a natural limit in the weak (structural) capacity to earn foreign

exchange leading to period of low growth and large price adjustments (depreciation).

On the other hand, NEDA’s (National Economic and Development Authority) Socio Economic

Report 2002 positioned the Philippine economy as the “firmest growth in the post- Asian crisis

period.”7 The report further stated that the “growth was supported by policies that encouraged

healthy domestic and foreign demand; a low inflationary environment as induced by prudent

monetary policy.”8

Table 1.2 courtesy of NEDA

Furthermore, another NEDA report Confronting the Global Economic Crisis9 further added

reasons for the country’s stronger macroeconomic fundamentals:

Gross domestic product (GDP) adjusted for inflation grew above historical averages at 6.4 percent, 5.0 percent, 5.4 percent, and 7.2 percent from 2004 to 2007, respectively.

Gross national product (GNP) steadily grew by 6.9 percent in 2004, 5.4 percent in 2005,

5.5 percent in 2006, and 8.0 percent in 2007.

7 Page 1, Chapter 1, Socio Economic Report 2002, National Economic Development Authority. 8 Ibid. Page 1. 9 http://www.neda.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Updated_MTPDP-2004-to-2010.pdf

3.7

4.8

3.4

5.2

3.4

4.4

3.2

4.6

1999 2000 2001 2002

Arroyo

GNP GDP


http://www.neda.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Updated_MTPDP-2004-to-2010.pdf



0925-5259824

Economic growth slowed down to 4.6 percent in terms of GDP and 5.9 percent in terms of GNP in the first three quarters of 2008 amidst combined effects of the weakness in the

global economy and soaring oil and food prices.

The Philippines registered a BOP (balance of payment) surplus of US$3.8 billion in

2006, a 56.4 percent increase from the 2005 BOP surplus of US$2.4 billion. For 2007, the

country’s BOP surplus more than doubled to a record high of US$8.6 billion, given the

reversal of the country’s capital and financial account balance, from a net outflow in

2006 to a net inflow.

The surplus is partly attributed to the strong surge in OFW remittances, growing at an annual average of 19.1 percent for the period 2004-2006. Total remittances in 2007 rose

by 13.2 percent to US$14.4 billion given the growing number of commercial banks and

local money transfer agents in countries with high concentration of Filipino overseas

workers.

Gross value added in the agriculture, fishery and forestry sector expanded by 5.2 percent in 2004, above the target set for the period.

In 2005 and 2006 however, production eased to 2.0 percent and 3.7 percent, respectively, falling short of the Plan targets for the period. Growth picked up to 4.9 percent in 2007,

surpassing the low-end target of 4.0 percent.

The government supported the agriculture sector through the Agriculture and Fisheries

Modernization Act (AFMA) and other programs such as the Ginintuang Masaganang Ani

(GMA) Rice and Corn Program, GMA Livestock and Poultry Program and GMA

Fisheries Program.

Fishery production continued to grow at an annual average of 6.9 percent in 2004-2007.

Landigin (2009) acknowledged that independent economists recognize that the economy grew

faster under Arroyo, yet would be fast to add that public policy on social welfare is

disappointingly low. However, there is consensus on a central point, “poverty incidence

worsened between 2003 and 2006, a surprising turn of event considering that GDP has been

growing faster.”10

UP economists Medalla and Jandoc ask, “why is it that if economic growth is

being correctly measured, many indicators and data sets are at odds with the supposedly high

economic growth? Moreover, we find that the Philippine growth patterns- shrinking growth of

domestic absorption, the exports and imports accompanying rising output growth- do not fit the

pattern in other Asian countries.”11

Finally, former socioeconomic planning secretary Dr Cielito Habito has this to say, “National

Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) chief Philip Medalla has pointed to glaring

inconsistencies in the GNP/GDP growth data of recent years. One of these is the way personal

consumption has been growing at five to six percent while average gross national income (GDP

adjusted for the terms of trade, or our exports/imports price ratio) has been declining. Medalla

declares playfully that these numbers suggest that we have either amazing consumers or amazing

10 Landigin, Roel. Faster Growth Under Arroyo: Reality or Statistical Illusion?, Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, July 25, 2009. 11 Excerpt from Landigin, Roel. Faster Growth Under Arroyo: Reality or Statistical Illusion?




0925-5259824

statistics — and he doesn’t hesitate to volunteer his judgment that it’s more likely the latter.

There are other major inconsistencies cited by other analysts, including the perceived

“disconnect” between the macro-level statistics and data on people’s general welfare. The data

have raised so many questions from the research community.”12

If indeed the official economic figures are accurate—the yardstick that is glaring to behold is

how we can translate this to our countrymen. Definitely, the Philippines, if compared with other

countries in the region, still has to rehabilitate its own painful level of poverty.

2) Analyze the level of nominal GDP (GDP at current prices) and real GDP (GDP at

constant prices) and rate of growth of real GDP. What drives the difference between real

and nominal GDP?

Investopedia describes the main difference as the adjustments of “real values for inflation, while

nominal values are not. As a result, nominal GDP will often appear higher than real GDP.”13

Real GDP offers a better perspective than nominal GDP when tracking economic production.

Nominal GDP, therefore, is defined as the “total economic output of a country.”14

This output is

measured at current price levels and currency values, without factoring in inflation. Nominal

values of GDP from various periods will differ due to changes in quantities of goods and services

and or changes in general price levels. As a result, taking price levels (or inflation) into account

is necessary when determining if we are really better or worse off when making comparisons

between different time periods. Therefore, analyzing the impact of price changes, GDP then is

the preferred price index because it does not focus on a fixed basket of goods and services and

automatically reflects changes in consumption patterns and introduction of new goods and

services.

World Bank reports that the GDP in the country was worth “US$272.02B billion in 2013,”15

representing 0.44 percent of the world economy. The nominal GDP as seen in the data is

increasing significantly over the years:

From 608,887 in 1986, it increased to 1,077,237 in 1990. This indicates that about 16% increase every year happened between 1986 and 1990. This continued until 2009.

From 1990, with a value of 1,077,237 it went up to 1,905,951 (1995), 3,580,714 (2000), 5,677,750 (2005), 8,026,143 (2009). On the surface, the level of nominal GDP went up,

but if we truly analyze the growth rate, the nominal GDP fluctuated instead. The real

GDP like the nominal GDP fluctuate as well but not that much compared to nominal

GDP.

12 http://pcij.org/stories/a-feel-good-economy/ 13 http://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/cfa-level-1/macroeconomics/nominal-real-gdp-deflator.asp 14 http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nominal_GDP_vs_Real_GDP 15 http://www.tradingeconomics.com/philippines/gdp


http://pcij.org/stories/a-feel-good-economy/

http://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/cfa-level-1/macroeconomics/nominal-real-gdp-deflator.asp

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nominal_GDP_vs_Real_GDP

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/philippines/gdp



0925-5259824

From 1986 until 2009, the growth rates of real GDP are 5.07%, 2.17%, 3.93%, 4.48%, and 4.27% respectively.

Based on these data, we use the nominal GDP figures to determine the total of the products and

services manufactured in a particular year.

Compute for the rate of growth of real and nominal GDP (Submit your computations in excel).

Do a comparative analysis of the two growth rates. Which sector (Agriculture, Industrial and

Services) was growing the least and which experienced highest growth? Examine rate of growth

of firms under the services and the industrial sectors and identify the fastest or the least growing

firms. What factors determine the growth or lack of it in these industries?

Both nominal GDP and real GDP fluctuate over the years. But if we examine the major industry

sectors (as we can see in the table Fig.1.A and Fig.1.B) it is Services that experienced the highest

growth over the years while the Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry are growing the least

especially on the forestry (except 2005- 2009 where it surpasses all sectors with a growth rate of

150.57 % as seen on Fig.1.B). Among the firms under Services, finance’s fluctuation didn’t deter

its growth potential both in growth rate and nominal GDP. Weak performance is found in

government services and transportation, communication and storage (Fig1.A and Fig.1.B).

Under the Industrial sector, construction is the one that is growing, while the least in growth is

manufacturing. Fluctuation and decreasing pattern describe both performances.

Industries experience cycles of economic growth and contraction based on many factors:

Interest Rates- Inflation and interest rates are linked, and frequently referenced in macroeconomics. Inflation refers to the rate at which prices for goods and services rises.

In general, as interest rates are lowered, more people have the ability to borrow more

money. The result is that consumers have more money to spend that will propel the

economy to grow. As more people spend more money, then more products and services

are consumed. The opposite holds true for rising interest rates. As interest rates are

increased, consumers tend to have less money to spend, or will try to save money until

favorable business environment returns. With less spending, the economy slows and

inflation can impact the growth of an industry.

Currency Strength- the value of the U.S. dollar in relation to the Philippine peso is

significant for local and foreign (operating in the country) companies even if these

companies do not import or export goods. I could still remember when the US$ was

stronger than the PhP particularly when the exchange rate was 1= 5, my US-based BPO

company was able to have a positive financial statement with lucrative net income.

However, when the US$ agains PhP became 1= 45, then our profit margins are becoming

narrower, and we had to implement a cost management program to better cope with this

stronger peso market. This is true because consumers now have a better selection to

purchase goods or services from other countries. A similar experience happened when I




0925-5259824

was working for a group of restaurants where ¼ of our raw materials and other non-

perishable items were to be purchased from our parent company in the US. Since the

US$ against PhP was 1=30 then we are able to make feasible sales and income

projections.

Government Intervention- government institutions like DTI, BOT, SEC mandate regulations to business operators. DENR and FDA implement standards that industries

must follow to ensure safety of consumers, employees and resources. As an HR

practitioner, DOLE, NLRC, SSS, PhilHealth, PagIBIG and BIR are just some the

government bureaus that help the company become more competent and relevant.

Environmental Control- Going green is no longer just a phase; it has become a lifestyle

where everyone must take a serious part. Moreover, if industries continue to waste

natural resources or destroy scarce natural resources then efforts of sustainability would

be next to impossible. Growth of an economy is connected with environmental effects

since raw materials for medicines, food, clothing and more are drawn from the

environment. In fact, World Bank has declared that, “The sustainable management of the

environment and natural resources is vital for economic growth and human wellbeing.

When managed wisely, renewable natural resources, watersheds and productive

landscapes and seascapes can provide the foundation for sustained inclusive growth and

poverty reduction by improving livelihoods, securing food, water and energy supplies,

increasing carbon storage and mitigating climate change risks.”16

16 http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/environment/overview


http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/environment/overview



0925-5259824

Fig1.A REAL GDPGROWTH RATE Industry Growth Rate

1986-1990

Growth Rate

1990- 1995

Growth

Rate1995-2000

Growth Rate

2000-2005

Growth Rate

2005- 2009

1. AGRI, FISHERY AND FORESTRY

2.48 1.46 2.17 3.71 2.95

a. Agriculture and fishery

3.16 2.20 2.24 3.74 2.97

b. Forestry -8.05 -24.64 -5.06 0.13 -1.09

2. INDUSTRY SECTOR 5.64 2.12 3.98 2.84 3.77

a. Mining and Quarrying

-2.58 -1.98 1.54 13.08 10.02

b. Manufacturing 5.86 2.02 3.14 4.33 1.75

c. Construction 10.04 1.23 7.67 -6.56 11.91

d. Electricity, Gas and Water

1.13 6.89 4.55 2.95 4.28

3. SERVICE SECTOR 6.06 2.57 4.74 6.03 5.11

a. Transportation, Communication & Storage

5.59 2.87 7.55 8.97 4.83

b. Trade 5.44 2.82 4.38 5.89 4.11

c. Finance 12.79 2.47 6.65 6.70 8.13

d. Ownership of Dwellings and Real Estate

4.86 1.74 2.01 3.17 4.25

e. Private Services

5.31 2.36 5.02 7.21 6.65

f. Government Services

6.13 2.73 3.08 2.11 3.57

-Highest among industry - Lowest among industry - Major industry

sector

-




0925-5259824

Fig.1.B NOMINAL GDP GROWTH RATE Industry

Growth Rate

1986-1990

Growth Rate

1990- 1995

Growth

Rate1995-

2000

Growth Rate

2000-2005

Growth Rate

2005- 2009

1. AGRI, FISHERY AND FORESTRY

12.79 11.80 3.94 7.53 9.92

a. Agriculture and fishery

13.57 12.44 3.93 7.62 5.08

b. Forestry -1.16 -14.24 4.72 -2.71 150.57

2. INDUSTRY SECTOR 15.24 10.48 15.09 9.26 7.29

a. Mining and Quarrying

4.18 0.17 6.03 25.32 11.19

b. Manufacturing 15.57 10.38 14.86 9.28 5.73

c. Construction 21.50 10.44 13.84 5.70 14.37

d. Electricity, Gas and Water

7.59 17.25 21.57 10.55 5.84

3. SERVICE SECTOR 16.79 13.44 15.91 10.46 9.90


11.59 10.83 19.78 15.13 6.06

b. Trade 15.18 11.12 16.65 10.49 9.92

c. Finance 22.87 12.96 19.06 12.28 13.00


14.85 16.17 20.66 10.91 12.09

e. Private Services 16.72 15.91 16.07 8.45 9.10

f. Government Services

23.87 14.84 3.70 4.84 8.47

-Highest among industry - Lowest among industry - Major industry sector

-




0925-5259824

3) Compute the changing percentage distribution of real GDP by major industry sectors

namely Agriculture, Industrial Sector and Service Sector (show computation in excel).

Analyze and discuss the changing sectoral composition of real GDP over time.

Fig.1.C Percentage Distribution of Real GDP by Major Industry Sector

Industry 1986 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009

% % % % % %

1. AGRI, FISHERY AND FORESTRY 24.64 22.30 21.55 19.78 19.06 18.11

a. Agriculture and fishery 22.91 21.29 21.32 19.64 18.95 18.02

b. Forestry 1.73 1.02 0.22 0.14 0.11 0.09

2. INDUSTRY SECTOR 34.69 35.46 35.38 35.46 32.76 32.13

a. Mining and Quarrying 2.08 1.54 1.25 1.11 1.65 2.05

b. Manufacturing 24.76 25.52 25.34 24.39 24.21 21.95

c. Construction 4.83 5.81 5.55 6.62 3.78 5.02

d. Electricity, Gas and Water 3.02 2.59 3.25 3.35 3.11 3.11

3. SERVICE SECTOR 40.67 42.24 43.07 44.76 48.17 49.75


5.59 5.70 5.90 7.01 8.65 8.84

b. Trade 14.70 14.91 15.39 15.72 16.80 16.70

c. Finance 3.13 4.16 4.22 4.80 5.33 6.17


5.61 5.57 5.46 4.97 4.66 4.66

e. Private Services 6.78 6.85 6.91 7.28 8.29 9.07

f. Government Services 4.85 5.05 5.19 4.98 4.44 4.32

Among the three main sectors, it is clear that agriculture displayed a constant decrease in the

percentage distribution of real GDP between 1986 and 2009. In contrast, service sector

dominates as it continuously to increase production between the same periods. This implies that

we, as an agricultural economy, are fast converting our industry landscape to become more




0925-5259824

service- oriented. Sadly, according to studies, one of the most pressing concerns is the rampant

renovation of our vast agricultural land into golf courses, residential subdivisions and

condominiums, retail and mega malls, and industrial parks or resorts. Also, small land-owners

find it more profitable to sell their land to developers in exchange for cash.

In the Industry sector, it is shown that the percentage distribution of GDP is unstable. The

percentage distribution is from

34.69% (1986)

35.46% (1990)

35.38% (1995)

34.46% (2000)

32.76 % (2005)

32.13% (2009)

This exposes that the growth rates of all major industrial sectors are marked with reductions due

to economic forces and volatility occurring specifically in the agriculture sector and industrial

sectors.

4) Compute the labor productivity over time and its implications on wages of workers in

major industry sectors (refer to the employment data for the same year and sector in the

previous email).

“The most crucial failure of Philippine development strategy lies in its employment record.” (Krugman et al. 1992) World Bank (2013) defined this as “the central policy challenge is how to accelerate inclusive

growth – the type that creates more and better jobs and reduces poverty.”17

Clearly, the effects

of economic progress have so far been elusive basically of our long history of policy distortions

that have slowed the growth of agriculture and manufacturing in the past decades. Instead of

rising agricultural productivity that could have paved the way for development of a vibrant

labour-intensive manufacturing sector and subsequently of a high-skill services sector, the

converse has taken place. Agricultural productivity has remained poor, manufacturing has failed

to grow, and as a consequence a low-productivity, low-skill services sector has emerged as the

pivotal feature of our economy. Lack of competition in key sectors, insecurity of property rights,

complex regulations, and severe underinvestment by the government and the private sector have

led to this growth pattern, which is not the norm in the East Asia region. More importantly, this

anomalous economic growth pattern has not provided good jobs to the majority of Filipinos and

has led to a substantial out-migration of many of its best and brightest people.

17 Philippine Development Report- Creating More and Better Jobs, World Bank PH Office, September 2013




0925-5259824

Similarly, for the past decades:18

A fourth of the potential entrants to the labor force get good jobs.

Of the 1.15 million potential entrants to the labor force, slightly less than half have

college degrees.

Of the 500,000 college graduates every year, 240,000 can be absorbed in the formal sector, such as business process outsourcing (BPO) (52,000) and manufacturing (20,000).

About 200,000 find jobs abroad, and around 60,000 will be unemployed or exit the labor force.

The remaining 650,000 entrants, of which around half have high school degrees, have no other option but to find or create work in the low-skill and low-pay informal sector.

Also, it is projected that:19

In 2016, around 12.4 million Filipinos would still be unemployed, underemployed, or

would have to work in the informal sector, where moving up the job ladder is difficult for

most people.

Addressing this jobs challenge requires meeting a dual challenge: expanding formal sector employment even faster while rapidly raising the incomes of those informally

employed.

Nevertheless, assessing successful employability can also mean differently particularly if we use

ILO’s (International Labor Organization) four objectives in ensuring Decent Work20

:

1. Creating Jobs

2. Guaranteeing Rights at Work

3. Extending Social Protection

4. Promoting Social Dialogue

Then on September 20, 2014 during the celebration of UP SOLAIR’s 60th

founding anniversary,

Dr Yuzuru Utsunomiya21

delivered a public lecture on Japanese Demographic Transition and

HRM Practice. Dr Utsunomiya defined his Demographic Dividend as “a period that ratio of

working- age generation by total population is on the increase. During the period, citizens in a

country can enjoy economic prosperity if they prepare for using the population.”22

In his

manuscript, Dr Utsunomiya described that the Japanese society is aging and as an aftermath the

demographic dividend ended in 1992. How different is Japan from the Philippines in terms of

industries? Japan’s industry has mainly been into manufacturing and cutting-edge technology of

electric instruments assembly, while the Philippines has mainly been on agriculture, then

manufacturing, and more recently on services. Somehow, his concept of demographic dividend

surely places the Philippines in an advantageous level.

18 Ibid. Page 5. 19 Ibid. Page 6. 20 http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/decent-work-agenda/lang--de/index.htm 21 Faculty of Economics, Nagasaki University, Japan 22 Page 1, written manuscript on Japanese Demographic Transition and HRM Practice, Dr. Yuzuru Utsunomiya.


http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/decent-work-agenda/lang--de/index.htm



0925-5259824

Overall, these statements clearly project a failed image by past administrations whose public

policies had slipped the mark in making better progress in developing employment factors and

industries to enhance utilization of an active and productive Filipino citizenry.

Fig.1

Labor Productivity

Industry 1986 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009 1. AGRI, FISHERY AND FORESTRY 57.48 70.76 70.85 93.54 99.54 118.63

2. INDUSTRY SECTOR 215.38 212.84 200.16 218.89 248.10 277.86

3. SERVICE SECTOR 78.22 80.56 77.55 75.28 76.59 78.47

Gross Domestic Product 591,423 720,690 802,224 972,960 1,211,452 1,432,115

Fig.1, shows the following:

2009 gained the highest among all other periods covered for (please refer to answer #1 for related topic)

o Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry

o Industry Sector

o Service Sector

o GDP

1986 had the lowest among all other periods covered for

o Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry

o GDP

There is a steady growth for the Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry sector

o Narrow increase between 1990 and 1995, 2000 and 2005

Service sector was highest in 1986 as compared to 1995, 2000 and 2005

In fact, in the past two decades, “the services sector remained to be the major engine of

economic growth, particularly in the modern marketing and financial services sector. The

services sector is a dominant source of employment and has increasingly absorbed labor for the

period 1991- 1997. This pattern was reversed between 2000 and 2006, particularly in the

community and personal services which account for the primary share of services employment.

By contrast, the agriculture sector, which took up a declining share of the employed labor force

between 1991 and 1996, has filled in the slack in the services sector for the period 2000-

2006.”23

23

Page 3. Stubborn Unemployment and Employment Vulnerability in the Midst of Economic Growth: The Philippine Case, Cabegin, Dacuycuy and Alba; Policy Brief- DLSU.




0925-5259824

In 1986 (post Marcos regime) agriculture has the highest number of employment among

industries with a value of 49.94%. However since then agriculture faced a consistent decline in

employment despite of Pres. Corazon Aquino’s determination to enact the Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform (where in contrast it was in Pres. Noynoy Aquino’s presidency where the

distribution of Hacienda Luisita occurred). Moreover, the loss in agriculture sector is gained in

the services sector- being the main employment driver of the economy: 36.71% in 1986, 39.73%

in 1990, 40.54% in 2005 and 51.44% in 2009. To mirror this is an illustration coming from the

NSCB (2012) and BSP (2013) that showed GDP contribution of three sectors between 2004 and

2009.

Finally, as expressed earlier, only when our economic architects and lawmakers fundamentally

recognize a sustainable economic program (from design to implementation) can we then make

sense of protection or regulatory functions of the government.

Other references:

1. The World Bank Group, 2006, “Country Assistance Strategy for the Philippines 2006-

2008.”

2. The United Nations, 2005, “The United Nations Development Assistance Framework in

the Philippines, 2005- 2009.”

3. D Canlas and S Fujisaki, 2001, “The PH Economy: Alternatives for the 21st Century,” UP

Press.

4. Sicat, G.P. “Philippine Macroeconomic Issues And Their Causes.”


ph gdp and gnp rates- a dummy's tool box

Economy & Finance

ph economy

economy class of

nominal gnp

level of nominal gdp

development potential

higher gnp

world bank group

world class managerial