I received a promotional email for an entrepreneurship seminar which comes with a column from Brian Quebengco entitled “Championing Philippine Ideas: The Rise of Silicon Valley in the Philippines”
Mr. Quebengco writes, (no link included in the email),
It is not an evolution that we need, nor is it a revolution. Rather, what we need is a transformation. Since the glory days of Semi Conductors and the Filipino entrepreneurs that championed them, we have evolved a great deal up to our present state. And as we are witnessing right now, a revolution in technology and communication has made the world flat. But what is lacking, and I feel the most important, is for us, the individual Filipino, to transform our attitude and ways to give rise to the Filipino Entrepreneur. We don't need mechanisms, infrastructures, or even the presence of a strong venture capital community to do this. In my own view, business is about people first, and everything else second. That transformation must and can only start with the individual Filipino.
He further says entrepreneurs should be individually motivated which should permeate to culture and subsequently to infrastructure. And from this he advocates the promotion of “a new kind of Enterpreneur”, one who will “challenge the global arena”.
I am delighted that there are local experts advocating entrepreneurship which functions as the cornerstone for any market economy.
However, I would suggest that any “new kind of entrepreneur” hardly matches the operational concept of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurs are those who allocate factors of production (labor, capital goods and natural resources) in the service of consumers. (Mises wiki)
Further, entrepreneurs employ “discovery” or “alertness” to profit opportunities in scanning the market horizon which can bring about innovation, better quality of goods or services or cheaper prices. (Israel M. Kirzner)
So aside from Silicon Valley which he seems to see as a paradigm to emulate, homegrown entrepreneurs are the balut vendors, carinderia operators, laundry services and etc… to the bigwig who compete internationally like Jollibee, San Miguel Brewery and others.
Each of them offers specific goods or services to serve their consumers in return for profit opportunities. These voluntary exchanges constitute the free markets.
What I am trying to say is that the marketplace hardly operates on “new” entrepreneurs founded on “new attitudes” but rather on individual specialization.
As the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, (bold emphasis mine)
The selection of the market does not establish social orders, castes, or classes in the Marxian sense. Nor do the entrepreneurs and promoters form an integrated social class. Each individual is free to become a promoter if he relies upon his own ability to anticipate future market conditions better than his fellow citizens and if his attempts to act at his own peril and on his own responsibility are approved by the consumers. One enters the ranks of the promoters by spontaneously pushing forward and thus submitting to the trial to which the market subjects, without respect for persons, everybody who wants to become a promoter or to remain in this eminent position. Everybody has the opportunity to take his chance. A newcomer does not need to wait for an invitation or encouragement from anyone. He must leap forward on his own account and must himself know how to provide the means needed.
It must be understood too that the entrepreneurship ethos is also hardly acquired from formal educational training.
Again from von Mises, (highlights added)
In order to succeed in business a man does not need a degree from a school of business administration. These schools train the subalterns for routine jobs. They certainly do not train entrepreneurs. An entrepreneur cannot be trained. A man becomes an entrepreneur in seizing an opportunity and filling the gap. No special education is required for such a display of keen judgment, foresight, and energy. The most successful businessmen were often uneducated when measured by the scholastic standards of the teaching profession. But they were equal to their social function of adjusting production to the most urgent demand. Because of these merits the consumers chose them for business leadership.
There is NO holy grail to successful entrepreneurship, as it takes sustained “keen judgment, foresight, and energy” to compete in the marketplace, even in the global arena.
What needs to be transformed is NOT the individual attitude towards entrepreneurship but rather the Filipinos’ seeming dependence on political means of dispensing economic opportunities.
In the environment where...
-taxes are high,
-red tapes are byzantine,
-bureaucracy is bloated
-regulatory compliance costs are numerous, time consuming and burdensome,
-corruption is rampant,
-competition is restricted,
-economic opportunities are distributed as political concessions (subsidies, monopolies, private-public partnership, cartel, and etc.)
-redistribution programs are plentiful (which essentially transfers productive resources to non-productive activities and at worst, induces people toward entitlements and subsequently takes away the drive for entrepreneurship)
-and many more,
...so even if most Filipinos would want to become entrepreneurs they can’t. That’ because the Philippine government (regardless of who is in power) prevents them from doing so. The cost of doing business or the risk premium is prohibitive enough to require high hurdle rates for entrepreneurs to generate decent returns.
All these signify as the Filipinos’ aversion to free markets which is what genuinely inhibits the Filipino entrepreneurial discovery process from taking hold.
