Firecrackers and Social Signalling

Many Filipinos greet the New Year with a bang-literally.

During New Year’s eve, they turn the streets into virtual war zones, despite all the years of gory casualties from one moment’s fun.

And this comes despite repeated government intervention by prohibiting and or regulating the manufacture sale and use and media’s bombardment to show harmful effects of such activity.

Many Filipinos fondness for firecrackers, despite its high risks, I see as the following;

-It represents a form of informal traditionalism. It is somewhat like fiesta where New Year is annually commemorated but unlike fiesta where the means of celebration is not entirely accepted by the community.

-Exploding firecrackers could be seen as a form of sublime status signalling aimed at drawing upon public’s attention. The dominance of male usage enhances this ‘masculinity’ or ‘machismo’ syndrome.

-This activity can also serve as an expression of socio-political opinion, which had been used as signs to protest against the Marcos regime or even as opiate- an avenue to vent personal frustrations for some. In short, in my opinion, there are many psychological factors behind its persistence and not limited to a single dominant variable.

-With respect to social signals, I don’t share the view that firecrackers are representative of the flawed mentality particularly symptomatic on the ‘poor’. To what category defines poor? Will people earning $2 a day (moderate poverty as defined by World Bank) really sacrifice or exchange subsistence (food) for firecrackers? This defies logic.

The fact that the $16 million firecracker industry has reportedly been constantly growing reveals that such allegation is unfounded. The industry won’t and can’t grow if it had depended on the ‘poor’.

Alternatively, this means that it is the middleclass and the rich that has continually financed the industry’s growth.

As a side note, the local firecracker industry has turned international, with a local outfit partly hosting the World Pyro Olympics. The internationalization of the industry means a growing market for its ‘quality’ products abroad.

-It isn’t capitalism fault too. Some maliciously argue that manufacturers are out there to find new markets to sell. This is grossly misleading.

The fact that firecrackers have long been a part of this society (here is an article which links to the Pinoy ethos to Chinese origins), and the fact that government has repeatedly imposed different forms of restrictions (from bans to selective regulation) to the supply-side which has failed to curb the growth of the industry means that the supply side have only caught up with existing demand and not the other way around.

To repeat for emphasis, supply caught up with extant demand. As to whether demand constitutes as psychological or cultural or social expressions is actually beside the point. The fact is there has been demand for firecrackers.

Instead, what bans have nurtured have been an underground movement which has only weakened product quality and contributed to the statistics of injuries.

Some have used the Davao prohibition as a regulatory success story, which apparently many statists sees as a matter of implementing 'political will'.

Well, I am unsure of the veracity of the claims to the success story (to what degree is the success- 100% or absolute compliance???)

Yet even if true, Davao’s micro dynamics (1.3 million population 2007 census) would certainly be different with the NCR (11.5 million 2007 census) and with the rest of the nation.

Importantly, where Metro Manila is the political capital of the Philippines this implies that as home of lawmakers and equally lawbreakers (those who think they are above the law-mostly through patron-client relations), such diversity and inequality in the distribution of political power may translate to complexities in the implementation of such regulations.

One must be reminded that it does NOT take only political will (again strictly a supply side view) from political leaders but likewise the conformity of the populace with the regulation (demand side).

As 1923 Pultizer Prize William Allen White (1868-1944) wrote to his anxious friend, ``You can have no wise laws nor free enforcement of wise laws unless there is free expression of the wisdom of the people -- and, alas, their folly with it. But if there is freedom, folly will die of its own poison, and the wisdom will survive."

So people either choose to comply with laws (or regulations) or they don't. Think People Power Revolution. And that's the demand side which the opinion makers frequently forget to account for.

Have a wonderful 2011!