The Anatomy of Philippine Stagflation: BSP Rate Hikes, Record External Deficits, and Fiscal Expansion (Part 3)

 

What we have here is the Keynesian error that inflation cannot emerge while widespread excess capacity exists. Underpinning this error are two dangerous fallacies: The first error treats inflation as a case of rising prices. In fact, rising prices are a symptom of inflation and one that is not always present if we think of prices in absolute terms. The second error treats capital as homogeneous. What this means is that Treasury and Reserve officials are arguing that stagflation is impossible. Mainstream economists have never grasped the fact that it is the heterogeneous nature of capital that makes stagflation possible—Gerard Jackson 

The Anatomy of Philippine Stagflation: BSP Rate Hikes, Record External Deficits, and Fiscal Expansion (Part 3) 

In this issue

I. The Stagflation Trap Tightens

II. The BSP’s Rate Hike and the Return of Monetary Tightening

III. The Record Balance-of-Payments Deficit

IV. The Yield Curve’s Warning Signal

V. Liquidity Is Not Confidence

VI. Fiscal Expansion and the Demand Leak

VII. Inflation Is Being Politically Managed

VIII. Mounting Social Stress Signals

IX. The Emerging Policy Trap

X. Conclusion: Stagflation 3.0: Cure is Worse than the Disease 

The Anatomy of Philippine Stagflation: BSP Rate Hikes, Record External Deficits, and Fiscal Expansion (Part 3) 

Rate hikes, fiscal expansion, and politically managed inflation are pushing the Philippine economy deeper into a stagflationary policy trap.

I. The Stagflation Trap Tightens 

In two earlier essays—“Stagflation Is Already Here—Emergency Policies Are Now Entrenching It” and “Stagflation by Design: Policy Contradictions and the Return of the Pandemic Rescue Playbook”—we argued that the Philippines was drifting toward policy configurations that increasingly reinforces the feedback loop between inflation and weakening growth. 

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’s (BSP) rate hike, the country’s record first-quarter balance-of-payments deficit, and widening fiscal pressures all point to the same underlying tension: policymakers are attempting to stabilize inflation, manage external vulnerabilities, sustain growth, and preserve financial stability in the banking and credit system simultaneously. 

This last constraint is often understated but central. 

Monetary policy in practice does not operate in a binary space between inflation and growth. 

It also operates through the credit channel: low interest rates support liquidity, asset valuations, and leveraged expansion, while higher rates trigger repricing of risk, debt service stress, and potential balance sheet compression. 

In this sense, policy is not only balancing macroeconomic objectives—it is also managing the fragility created by prolonged credit expansion—now worsened by supply dislocation. 

This is why tightening cycles are rarely clean. 

Higher rates are used to defend the currency and anchor inflation expectations, but they also risk exposing leverage accumulated during extended periods of low rates and accommodative liquidity conditions. 

Conversely, prolonged easing supports growth and asset markets but increases internal and external vulnerability through accumulated malinvestments and artificial inflation inertia. 

The result is not a simple trade-off between inflation and growth, but a multi-layered constraint between: 

• price stability
• external balance
• growth momentum
• financial system stability 

Instead of resolving these tensions, policy actions across fiscal, monetary, and regulatory fronts are increasingly interacting in ways that amplify them. 

This article—the third installment in the stagflation series—examines how those pressures are now converging across three fronts: 

• monetary tightening
• external financing stress
• administrative management of inflation 

Together, they reveal an economy gradually slipping into a policy trap. 

II. The BSP’s Rate Hike and the Return of Monetary Tightening 

The BSP’s decision to raise policy rates marks a significant pivot after nearly two years of easing and liquidity support.

While the move is formally framed as an inflation response, its immediate macro function is increasingly linked to exchange rate stabilization under external pressure. 

This distinction matters.

Figure 1

Inflation pressures had already been building before the Iran war’s oil shock—adding a new external impulse. (Figure 1, upper window) 

After the record 60.748 closing at the end of March, the USDPHP reached an intraday all-time high of 60.8, then closed at 60.7 per dollar last April 24—the second highest, possibly due to BSP interventions. 

All this shows that at this threshold, the policy constraint is no longer just price stability. It becomes external financing stability. 

A weakening peso increases the domestic cost of:

• imported fuel
• food inputs
• industrial commodities 

But more importantly, it raises the cost of servicing external obligations and financing import dependence, particularly in energy. 

This puts the central bank in a constrained position. 

Higher interest rates are used to:

• defend the currency by narrowing interest differentials
• reduce capital outflow pressure
• stabilize expectations in FX markets 

But these same rate increases risk tightening domestic credit conditions in an economy already facing weak external demand and rising import costs. 

The BSP therefore faces a dual transmission problem: 

• defend the peso to contain imported inflation
• avoid over-tightening that weakens domestic growth and financial stability 

The fact that the BSP is tightening policy while imposing regulatory relief for banks reflects this intensifying tension between external stabilization and internal fragility management. 

And it is not only the central bank responding to these pressures. 

Citing risks related to the Middle East conflict and global energy uncertainty, a major domestic bank—Bank of the Philippine Islands—recently indicated that it has begun tightening consumer credit standards. 

While framed as a precaution against external shocks, the move may also reflect mounting stress within household balance sheets, particularly after credit-card non-performing loans reached record highs as of December 2025— reinforcing what we describe as the Wile E. Coyote “denominator effect” dynamic. (Figure 1, lower image) 

This is no longer a pure inflation cycle. It is increasingly a balance-of-payments-sensitive monetary tightening regime. 

III. The Record Balance-of-Payments Deficit 

The external sector is now the primary amplifier of domestic macro stress.

Figure 2

The Philippines recorded a record first-quarter balance-of-payments (BoP) deficit, reflecting sustained net dollar outflows. (Figure 2, topmost pane) 

At its core, the balance of payments measures whether the country is accumulating or depleting foreign currency buffers. A deficit signals persistent dollar leakage. 

The immediate drivers are familiar:

• rising energy import costs and persistent trade deficits
• weaker portfolio inflows amid higher global interest rates
• capital outflows and elevated external debt repayments 

But the more important mechanism is how the system actually finances external shocks. 

Energy and oil price spikes do not simply show up as higher import bills. They are absorbed through a layered financing structure: external borrowing, portfolio inflows into government securities, and—crucially—drawdowns of foreign reserves. 

Gross International Reserves (GIR) function as the first shock absorber, temporarily covering imbalances before adjustment shows up in the exchange rate. This buffer, however, is not neutral. The BSP reported that GIR fell by over USD 6.6 billion in March 2026 to USD 106.6 billion—the largest monthly decline since at least 2012—driven partly by valuation effects from gold prices, but also by intervention pressures and external payment financing needs. (Figure 2, middle and lowest graphs) 

This is where recent bond market dynamics and index-related inflows become relevant: they operate less as signals of confidence and more as temporary financing channels for external imbalances that the reserve buffer alone cannot fully absorb. 

The result is sustained pressure on the peso. 

Exchange rate movements reflect underlying imbalances—particularly when dollar inflows are insufficient to cover import demand and debt-related outflows—while also serving as the primary adjustment mechanism. 

That adjustment then feeds directly into domestic inflation, given the Philippines’ structural dependence on imports for:

• fuel and energy inputs
• food commodities
• intermediate industrial goods
• consumer goods 

The causal chain is therefore not simply: 

BoP deficit → peso depreciation → inflation 

but, more comprehensively, can be framed as: 

external shock (energy) → higher import bill and financing needs → increased reliance on borrowing, portfolio inflows, and reserve drawdowns → depletion of GIR buffers → widening BoP deficit → FX market pressure → peso depreciation → imported inflation → monetary tightening

At that point, monetary policy is no longer setting conditions independently. It is reacting to external financing constraints embedded in the energy import structure of the economy. 

In effect, economic growth itself becomes constrained by the availability of external financing. When an economy relies heavily on imported energy and persistent trade deficits, expansion requires a steady inflow of foreign capital or reserve drawdowns to finance those gaps. Once those inflows weaken, growth becomes limited not by domestic capacity alone, but by the system’s ability to secure foreign currency. 

IV. The Yield Curve’s Warning Signal 

Financial markets reacted immediately to the rate hike. 

Figure 3

Philippine government bond yields spiked at the belly of the curve, producing a bearish flattening. 

In practical terms:

• mid-term yields rose sharply, reflecting inflation risk and policy tightening expectations
• long-term yields rose less, suggesting markets expect weaker growth and eventual policy easing or constraint 

This pattern is not neutral.

A bearish flattening typically emerges when investors believe tightening will compress economic activity faster than it resolves inflation pressures. 

But in the current context, the signal is more specific than a standard cycle interpretation. 

The yield curve now reflects a system where three constraints are converging simultaneously:

• monetary tightening aimed at defending inflation credibility and the currency
• widening fiscal deficits increasing sovereign issuance and duration pressure
• external financing stress amplifying currency risk and imported inflation 

In that sense, the curve is not simply pricing slower growth. 

It is pricing policy collision with structural imbalances. 

When fiscal expansion, external deficits, and monetary tightening operate simultaneously, bond markets begin to shift from pricing inflation expectations to pricing sustainability constraints—particularly the ability of the system to finance itself without continuous external support. 

This is the point where yield curves begin to reflect not just cyclical tightening, but the kind of debt and financing sustainability concerns highlighted in the work of Reinhart and Rogoff on emerging market stress episodes. 

In this environment, the BSP’s rate hike may still anchor short-term inflation expectations, but the curve suggests markets are increasingly focused on the medium-term interaction between fiscal expansion, inflation, external vulnerability, and growth deceleration. 

The message is therefore not only that tightening may slow growth. 

It is that policy tightening is occurring inside a system where fiscal and external constraints are already binding. 

V. Liquidity Is Not Confidence 

One development that risks obscuring these structural weaknesses is the Philippines’ expected inclusion in a major emerging-market bond index administered by JPMorgan Chase. 

Index inclusion is widely celebrated by authorities as a vote of investor confidence. 

But the mechanics are more prosaic. 

Funds that track such indices must purchase Philippine bonds once the country enters the benchmark. The resulting inflows are technical reallocations, not necessarily discretionary investment decisions based on improving fundamentals. 

In other words, passive flows can create liquidity without signaling confidence. 

In some cases, they can even mask underlying fragility by making it easier for governments to finance deficits. 

Indeed, the Philippines’ inclusion appears to have followed a liquidity surge rather than a return surge. 

Based on ADB data, secondary-market trading volume in Philippine government securities jumped more than 60% in 2025, while foreign holdings climbed to around 4.9%—roughly returning to 2019 levels. (Figure 3, middle and lowest charts) 

Yet despite heavy positioning during the Treasury rally, bond investors have seen limited gains. 

Liquidity arrived—but returns did not. 

That distinction matters. 

Markets can become liquid for many reasons—index rebalancing, regulatory shifts, or global liquidity spillovers—but sustained investor confidence usually reveals itself through returns, not merely trading volume. 

Meanwhile, the macro backdrop tells a different story. 

Fitch Ratings recently revised the Philippines’ sovereign outlook from stable to negative, citing the country’s exposure to energy price shocks and rising external vulnerabilities. 

A negative outlook does not immediately change the country’s investment-grade rating. But it signals growing concern about medium-term macroeconomic risks. 

If fiscal deficits continue widening while the balance-of-payments gap expands, the inflows triggered by index inclusion may end up financing deeper imbalances rather than resolving them. 

And if stagflation pressures intensify, the same liquidity that entered mechanically could leave just as mechanically.  

In that scenario, investors who mistook liquidity for confidence may discover that liquidity works both ways. 

VI. Fiscal Expansion and the Demand Leak 

Fiscal dynamics form the third pillar of the stagflation risk. 

Government spending continues to support domestic demand, but part of that demand inevitably leaks into imports—particularly energy and capital goods. 

The macro mechanism is straightforward:

• Fiscal expansion boosts domestic spending.
• Higher spending increases imports.
• Imports widen the trade deficit.
• The trade deficit worsens the balance-of-payments gap.
• Currency depreciation raises inflation. 

In effect, fiscal stimulus partially leaks into the external sector and returns as inflation through the exchange rate. Monetary tightening must then offset not only domestic demand pressures but also external price transmission through the peso. 

Recent fiscal data confirm that this dynamic is already unfolding. 

March 2026 expenditures reached Php 654.8 billion, the second-largest March spending level on record and the largest outside December, traditionally the peak disbursement month.

Figure 4

Despite a seemingly modest 5.23% year-on-year increase, the government still posted a Php 349.7 billion deficit, the third-largest monthly deficit historically and the largest outside December. (Figure 4, topmost visual) 

For Q1 2026, total expenditures reached Php 1.49 trillion, up 3.2% year-on-year and the largest first-quarter spending level on record. The deficit for the quarter reached Php 355.5 billion, the second-largest first-quarter deficit historically, even though headline narratives emphasized that the deficit had “narrowed” relative to last year. (Figure 4, middle diagram) 

A closer look at revenues reveals additional fragility. 

Total revenues rose 9.25% in March and 13.74% in Q1, but this growth was heavily skewed toward non-tax revenues, which jumped 45.5% in March and more than doubled (149%) in Q1. 

Much of this increase reflects early dividend remittances from Government-Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs)—a timing maneuver rather than evidence of strengthening economic activity. 

As a result, non-tax revenues accounted for roughly 14.6% of total collections, the second-highest share since 2020 when emergency pandemic measures inflated similar inflows. (Figure 4, lowest image)

Figure 5

By contrast, the core signal of economic momentum—tax revenues—showed clear weakness.

Q1 tax collections grew only 4.04% year-on-year, the slowest pace since the pandemic recovery year of 2021 and comparable to the subdued 4.21% growth recorded in 2023. (Figure 5, upper pane) 

In other words, fiscal revenues are increasingly being supported by extraordinary transfers rather than organic economic expansion. 

Meanwhile, spending pressures are likely to intensify. 

The 2026 national budget totals Php 6.793 trillion. With Php 1.49 trillion already disbursed in Q1, roughly 22% of the annual program has been spent. 

This leaves Php 5.30 trillion to be disbursed over the remaining nine months of the year—equivalent to an average of roughly Php 589 billion per month, implying materially higher spending ahead. 

Several forces could accelerate that pace: 

• emergency energy spending amid global supply risks
• catch-up infrastructure disbursements after a slow start to the year
• election-cycle fiscal pressures
• seven consecutive years of spending allocation exceeding enacted budgets (Figure 5, middle graph) 

Debt servicing is already reflecting the cumulative impact of these dynamics.

Total debt servicing—interest and amortization combined—soared 115.6% year-on-year in Q1 to Php 737.4 billion, marking the second-largest quarterly debt service burden since 2024. (Figure 5, lowest chart) 

This increase reflects the combined effects of:

• higher borrowing levels
• elevated global interest rates
• weaker peso conditions
• the compounding impact of repeated deficits 

As fiscal spending accelerates through the remainder of the year, additional borrowing will likely intensify this trend. 

All told, the fiscal accounts reveal a pattern consistent with stagflationary stress: 

• slowing tax revenue growth pointing to weaker economic momentum
• rising programmed public spending, alongside emergency spending increases responding to energy shocks and slowing economic momentum
• increasing debt service tightening fiscal constraints 

The result is a familiar macroeconomic configuration: weakening growth alongside expanding deficits and rising public debt. 

And because much of that fiscal stimulus ultimately leaks into imports, the adjustment returns through the exchange rate—feeding the very inflation pressures the central bank is now attempting to contain. 

VII. Inflation Is Being Politically Managed 

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the current environment is how authorities are attempting to manage rising costs. 

Instead of relying primarily on monetary policy, the government has increasingly turned to administrative interventions across sectors.

Examples include: 

• price caps on essential food items such as canned sardines—even as producers warn that sardine prices will soon rise
• pressure on oil companies to implement fuel rollbacks
• regulatory threats that the state could intervene or even take over segments of the petroleum industry for non-compliance
• sustained fare suppression for domestic transport operators 

Yet policy treatment is far from uniform. 

Aviation regulators recently allowed airlines to raise fuel surcharges, pushing up ticket prices. Meanwhile, land transport operators remain subject to fare suppression even as fuel and operating costs climb. 

The result is an asymmetric price system. 

Some sectors are allowed to pass on costs. Others are forced to absorb them. 

Such asymmetry reveals that inflation is increasingly being managed politically rather than economically. 

Sectors with concentrated market power or stronger institutional leverage are allowed to adjust prices, while politically sensitive sectors—particularly those affecting mass consumers—are subjected to administrative controls. 

The result reflects a familiar political-economy pattern: concentrated benefits and dispersed costs, a dynamic long observed in the work of economist Mancur Olson. 

At the same time, price caps and administrative rollbacks distort the information function of markets. Prices cease to transmit signals about scarcity, costs, and demand conditions. Instead, they become political variables. 

As Friedrich Hayek argued, when price signals are suppressed, economic coordination deteriorates. 

Producers respond by cutting output, delaying investment, or reducing quantity (shrinkflation)—or quality adjustments (skimpflation) that eventually reappear as shortages or service deterioration. 

Recent reports of domestic carriers cutting routes after prolonged fare suppression illustrate how supply eventually adjusts when prices cannot. 

Ironically, the policy contradictions are now visible even in official inflation projections.

Figure 6

The BSP itself now expects inflation pressures to rise toward around 6.3% in 2026, despite the growing use of price caps and administrative interventions. (Figure 6, topmost image) 

With inflation averaging just 2.83% in Q1, the BSP’s 6.3% inflation outlook for 2026 implies roughly 7.5% inflation over the remaining nine months of the year. For example, sardine producers have already warned about price increases despite the DTI’s implicit price cap. 

In other words, the authorities appear to be tightening monetary policy while simultaneously acknowledging that inflation will remain elevated. 

As a side note, an average inflation rate of around 7.5% over the remaining nine months would reinforce our earlier prognostication of a third wave in the inflation cycle. (Figure 6, middle chart) 

That is to say, if inflation is expected to rise even under expanding price controls, the implication is difficult to ignore: the controls are not suppressing inflation—they are merely redistributing it across sectors and over time. 

What disappears from official price indices today often reappears tomorrow in the form of higher subsidies or balance sheet transfers, deteriorating service quality, or supply shortages.

Inflation, in this sense, is not being eliminated. It is being reallocated.  

Blunt truth: Price controls inevitably fail. 

VIII. Mounting Social Stress Signals 

The macroeconomic pressures described above are no longer confined to fiscal accounts, bond markets, or exchange rates. 

They are increasingly visible at the household or even at the grassroots levels. 

A recent SWS survey on perceived quality of life suggests a spike in the share of Filipinos reporting worsening financial conditions, potentially reflecting the cumulative impact of rising living costs, stagnant real incomes, eroding savings and weakening economic momentum. This trend has been gradually rising since 2018. (Figure 6, lowest image) 

At the same time, localized crises are multiplying. 

Within a span of roughly two weeks, three separate state-of-calamity declarations were issued: first in Cagayan de Oro, then in the City of Baguio, and most recently the Cagayan Valley region. Officials attribute these emergencies to a mix of drought conditions, energy costs, and disruptions to local livelihoods. 

But the clustering of such declarations raises a broader macroeconomic question. 

Natural shocks occur regularly in the Philippines. What appears to be changing is the economy’s ability to absorb them. 

When food prices surge, fuel costs rise, or weather shocks disrupt production, the system increasingly responds with emergency fiscal transfers, price interventions, and regulatory measures. Each episode becomes another localized crisis requiring state intervention. 

This deepening reliance on interventions suggests that the country’s economic shock absorbers—household savings, business buffers, and fiscal space—are eroding.

In a healthy expansion, localized shocks remain contained. In a fragile macro environment, they propagate outward. 

Seen in this context, the recent wave of calamity declarations may be less a series of isolated events than symptoms of a broader stagflationary environment: rising costs colliding with weakening growth. 

If that trajectory continues, the risk is not only persistent inflation but also a gradual drift toward recessionary conditions, where policy interventions attempt to cushion economic stress but worsen underlying imbalances. 

IX. The Emerging Policy Trap 

Overall, the week’s developments reveal a difficult macroeconomic configuration. 

The Philippines is confronting simultaneous and deepening pressures from three fronts:

• inflation driven by energy costs and currency depreciation
• fiscal deficits sustaining domestic demand
• external imbalances weakening the peso 

These forces are not independent. They interact in ways that constrain policy choices and reflect a self-reinforcing macroeconomic feedback loop. 

Large fiscal deficits sustain spending and credit expansion, but they also widen the country’s savings-investment gap. That gap must be financed through external borrowing and capital inflows. When those inflows weaken—as reflected in the record balance-of-payments deficit—pressure shifts directly onto the currency. 

Peso depreciation then feeds back into the domestic economy through imported inflation, particularly in energy and food. 

At that point, policymakers face increasingly uncomfortable and complex trade-offs with intertemporal and unintended consequences. 

• Higher interest rates may provisionally stabilize the currency but risk slowing already fragile growth.
• Fiscal support may momentarily sustain activity but widens external imbalances and inflation pressures.
• Administrative price controls may temporarily suppress headline inflation but distort supply and investment decisions. 

Each intervention therefore displaces stress elsewhere in the system—often with unintended consequences. 

What emerges is not a single policy mistake but a policy trap—a configuration where the available tools begin to undermine one another. 

Economist Hyman Minsky observed that prolonged periods of credit-supported stability often evolve into fragile financial structures. When shocks arrive, policymakers attempt to stabilize the system through further intervention, but each intervention can deepen the underlying imbalance. 

The result is a system that becomes increasingly dependent on policy management even as the effectiveness of those policies declines—effectively the law of diminishing returns at work. 

X. Conclusion: Stagflation 3.0: Cure is Worse than the Disease 

While earlier inflation episodes in the Philippines were largely associated with supply disruptions, concealed beneath the headlines were the fiscal, credit, and liquidity effects reinforcing them.

Yet the current environment appears structurally different.

The pressures now emerging reflect deeper forces:

•  persistent and deepening fiscal deficits
•  chronic external imbalances
•  currency weakness feeding imported inflation
•  populist policy interventions increasingly shaping price signals across sectors

 These dynamics are precisely what this Stagflation 3.0 series seeks to examine. 

Although we have long discussed the historical rhyme of Philippine CPI cycles, the term here does not describe a chronological phase of inflation. Rather, it refers to a series of analyses examining how current policy responses—fiscal expansion, administrative controls, and reactive monetary tightening—interact with structural imbalances in the Philippine economy. 

Viewed through this lens, the emerging risk is not simply higher inflation or slower growth. It is the interaction of both—stagflation. 

• Rising costs erode household purchasing power, leading to demand destruction.
• Slowing growth weakens investment and employment. 

Policy responses attempt to cushion these pressures but simultaneously constrain the policy space available to address them. 

In such an environment, macroeconomic management gradually shifts from preventing imbalances to managing their consequences—worsening socio-economic maladjustments. 

The cure becomes worse than the disease. 

And that dynamic may ultimately define the conditions this series describes as Stagflation 3.0.

 

Stagflation Is Already Here—Emergency Policies Are Now Entrenching It

 

No government or central bank will admit that rising inflation in essential goods is a direct consequence of financial and fiscal repression, and economic history always shows us that their reaction to rising discontent will be more financial repression and economic intervention—Daniel Lacalle

Stagflation Is Already Here—Emergency Policies Are Now Entrenching It

I. The Narrative Lag

II. Stagflation Is Not Just an Oil Story

III. The Deeper Mechanism: Policy-Driven Stagflation

IV. The Monetary Backdrop: Inflationary Pressure Pre-dated the Shock

V. The Philippine Parallel

VI. The Structure of Production: Why Disruptions Spread

VII. What a Binding Price Ceiling Looks Like in Real Time

VIII. The Transmission Phase: Downstream Sectors Feel the Strain

IX. The February Labor “Improvement” That May Not Last

X. Policy Responses Are Expanding

XI. Energy Supply Chains: Why the Shock Is Larger Than Oil

XII. Financial Markets Are Beginning to Reflect the Stress

XIII. Geopolitical Reordering and the Return of the War Economy

XIV. The Stages of Stagflation: A Historical Pattern

XV. The Political Economy of Entrenched Stagflation

XVI. Conclusion: The Adjustment That Has Been Delayed

Stagflation Is Already Here—Emergency Policies Are Now Entrenching It 

Rising costs, suppressed prices, and supply withdrawal are spreading distortions across the Philippine economy’s production structure. 

I. The Narrative Lag 

Public discourse continues to frame stagflation as a future risk—typically linked to external shocks such as oil price spikes—or, at times, dismisses it altogether. 

Yet across the Philippines, emerging patterns suggest something more immediate: stagflation is not impending; it is already taking shape and diffusing across sectors. 

Rising fuel costs are the visible catalyst, now transmitting through transport, agriculture, fisheries, tourism, retail and so forth. However, the deeper issue is not energy prices per se. 

It lies in the interaction between supply shocks and policies that suppress the price signals necessary for adjustment—policies increasingly institutionalized under Executive Order No. 110. 

When input costs rise but output prices are constrained, markets cannot equilibrate. Instead of correcting imbalances, the system propagates and amplifies them. Apparent stability becomes artificial and temporary. 

Eventually, these suppressed pressures re-emerge. And when supply simultaneously contracts across multiple sectors, the outcome is no longer simple inflation. 

It is stagflation. 

Recent geopolitical developments further complicate this outlook. The number of armed conflicts worldwide has risen sharply over the past two decades, accompanied by increasing geopolitical tensions and a renewed expansion of defense spending across many economies. This environment increasingly resembles the early stages of past periods in which geopolitical rivalry, fiscal expansion, and supply disruptions interacted with monetary accommodation to generate sustained inflationary pressures. For economies deeply integrated into global trade, energy, and security networks, these dynamics form part of the broader backdrop against which domestic stagflationary risks must be evaluated. 

II. Stagflation Is Not Just an Oil Story 

The dominant narrative equates stagflation with energy crises. This is analytically incomplete. 

There are well-documented cases of stagflation occurring even in the absence of major oil shocks. As economist Frank Shostak argues, stagflation typically arises from the interaction of monetary expansion and supply disruptions, not from relative price changes alone. 

An increase in oil prices, by itself, reallocates spending rather than increasing it in aggregate. If the money supply remains unchanged, higher expenditure on energy necessarily reduces expenditure elsewhere. Under such conditions, relative prices shift, but generalized inflation does not automatically follow. 

Broad-based and sustained inflation requires monetary accommodation. Without it, price increases in one sector are offset by contractions in others. 

This distinction is critical. 

III. The Deeper Mechanism: Policy-Driven Stagflation 

International experience reinforces this point. Economies such as Argentina, Turkey, and Brazil have repeatedly exhibited a common pattern: 

• Fiscal dominance constraining monetary policy
• Liquidity expansion creating a fiscal–monetary trap
• Supply-side rigidities limiting output response
• Price suppression and exchange-rate management delaying adjustment 

These mechanisms do not merely coincide with stagflation—they produce it. 

They allow inflationary pressures to build while simultaneously weakening productive capacity. Growth slows, yet prices continue to rise. 

IV. The Monetary Backdrop: Inflationary Pressure Pre-dated the Shock 

The current energy shock did not arrive in a monetary vacuum.

Figure 1

Even before geopolitical tensions escalated, liquidity conditions in the Philippines were already accommodative. Data from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) indicated that domestic liquidity and credit growth remained elevated as of February, despite signs of slowing economic momentum. 

Inflation dynamics reinforce this point. Headline CPI spiraled from 2.4% in February to 4.1% in March, but the uptrend had already been in motion—prices had been increasing for three consecutive months following the November 2025 trough of 1.5%. More tellingly, broad money (M3) growth had reaccelerated from roughly 5% in May 2025 doubling to 10.3% by February 2026. The U.S. WTI crude benchmark reinforced the upward trend. (Figure 1, upper and lower graphs) 

In other words, the economy entered the energy shock with inflationary pressure already embedded in the system. 

The March CPI spike reinforces our projection that a THIRD wave of inflation is now underway. 

At the same time, financial conditions reflected a policy environment leaning more on liquidity support than on productive expansion. Credit growth persisted, but its distribution remained uneven—tilted toward consumption, real estate, and sovereign-linked financing rather than broad-based investment in productive sectors. 

Under such conditions, supply disruptions do not result in simple relative price adjustments. Instead, they interact with existing liquidity and fiscal support, amplifying imbalances. 

The result is the classic stagflationary configuration: rising costs alongside weakening supply response. 

The war did not create these pressures. 

It exposed and accelerated them. 

V. The Philippine Parallel 

The Philippines is beginning to exhibit early signs of a similar dynamic. 

Fuel subsidies and price interventions may cushion short-term volatility, but they also dampen the transmission of price signals, delaying necessary adjustments in both consumption and production. In a system already characterized by elevated liquidity, such interventions do not merely stabilize—they compound existing distortions. 

When cost pressures are absorbed administratively while liquidity conditions remain accommodative, the adjustment process is deferred rather than resolved. 

The trajectory that follows is familiar:

• Distortions accumulate beneath the surface
• Supply responses weaken as incentives are misaligned
• Inflationary pressures persist, even as real activity softens 

In this context, rising fuel costs are not the root cause but the trigger—interacting with a policy environment that suppresses signals, sustains liquidity, and ultimately amplifies underlying imbalances. 

VI. The Structure of Production: Why Disruptions Spread 

To understand how these pressures propagate, it is useful to revisit the structure-of-production framework developed by Carl Menger. 

Menger emphasized that production is not a collection of isolated activities, but a layered structure of interdependent stages. He distinguished between: 

• Higher-order goods — inputs such as fuel, logistics, machinery, and intermediate materials
• Lower-order goods — final goods and services consumed directly, including food, transport, and tourism 

Disruptions at the level of higher-order goods do not remain contained. They cascade through the production chain, with effects transmitted gradually depending on inventory buffers, contractual rigidities, and the willingness of firms to absorb rising costs. 

That lag, however, is finite. 

When input costs rise while downstream prices are suppressed, producers face a narrowing set of options:

• absorb sustained losses
• scale back production
• or exit the market altogether 

Over time, the first becomes unsustainable and the second insufficient. The third becomes increasingly rational. 

What follows is not an immediate price spike, but a progressive weakening of supply capacity—a contraction that eventually surfaces as both rising prices and reduced output. 

This is precisely the dynamic now beginning to emerge in the Philippines. 

VII. What a Binding Price Ceiling Looks Like in Real Time 

The clearest evidence of distortion appears where regulated prices collide with rising costs.

These are the sectors where supply withdrawal begins—not as theory, but as observable behavior. 

a. Transport 

In Region I, nearly half of public utility vehicles reportedly halted operations as fuel costs surged while fares remained constrained. When operating costs exceed regulated fares, continued operation implies sustained losses. The predictable outcome is reduced service availability, alongside higher logistics costs that transmit directly into the price of goods and basic services. 

b. Fishing 

Fuel costs have similarly forced about half of the fishers across Luzon to suspend voyages. Comparable dynamics have been observed in other economies, including Thailand and Mumbai India, where fuel shocks—when not accompanied by price adjustment—have temporarily reduced or halted fishing activity. 

c. Agriculture

In several regions, farmers are beginning to scale back or abandon harvests as fertilizer, fuel, and transport costs rise faster than farm-gate prices. When input costs outpace realizable output prices, production becomes economically unviable. 

This does not only translate into higher food prices. It signals the early formation of a food stress dynamic, where supply contraction and forced consumption substitution reinforce each other across staple goods—raising the risk of an emerging food crisis. 

These developments are not isolated disruptions.

Figure 2

They represent the real-time manifestation of a binding price ceiling interacting with supply shocks. (Figure 2, upper window) 

Entrenchment begins not when prices rise, but when producers cease to respond to them. 

VIII. The Transmission Phase: Downstream Sectors Feel the Strain 

Once upstream production weakens, downstream sectors inevitably absorb the impact. 

Tourism—highly sensitive to both transport costs and discretionary income—is already being materially affected in key destinations such as Baguio (-50%), Boracay (-31%), Eastern Visayas (-15%), and Hundred Islands National Park (-24%). These declines reflect both rising travel costs and tightening household budgets under persistent price pressure. 

Baguio just declared a state of calamity. (Figure 2, lower image) 

Rising transport and input costs are compressing demand even as operating expenses continue to increase, producing simultaneous pressure on both revenue and margins. 

Cracks in the retail market are becoming increasingly pronounced. Chains such as Marks & Spencer and No Brand have begun scaling back/closing operations in the country. While these decisions predate the current shock, they remain indicative of underlying demand fragility and structural margin compression already present in the system.

Figure 3

This fragility is rooted in developing macroeconomic conditions: slowing real GDP growth, declining per capita income momentum, and an investment structure shaped by prolonged low interest rates and sustained credit expansion. Capital formation has been unevenly directed—toward consumption, real estate, and yield-seeking activities—rather than productivity-enhancing sectors. (Figure 3, topmost and middle visuals) 

The crowding-out effects from pandemic-era deficit spending further reinforced these distortions. Sovereign borrowing absorbed a significant portion of available financial resources, reducing the space for private sector investment. This did not only displace capital allocation but also raised the relative cost of funding for productive enterprises, shifting incentives away from long-gestation, productivity-enhancing investment toward short-term consumption and asset-based positioning. 

Pandemic-era deficits also contributed to a more centralized allocation of economic resources, increasing the degree of political discretion over investment direction and effectively shifting capital allocation decisions away from decentralized market signals toward administrative and fiscal channels. (Figure 3, lowest chart) 

All of these reflect not merely contemporary crowding-out and low-rate-driven misallocation, but a record savings–investment gap/imbalance that has been decades in the making. 

The recent corruption scandal highlights how such misallocation, diversion, and capital consumption processes have become structurally embedded 

In brief, these concurrent developments magnify the repercussions of existing imbalances. 

The result is an economy with limited buffer to cost shocks. 

What matters is not any single development in isolation, but their synchronization under a common pressure: rising input costs moving through a system already constrained by policy distortions, uneven capital allocation, and weakened supply responsiveness. 

In this phase, the effects of earlier imbalances are no longer latent. 

They become visible—simultaneously—in output, prices, and market participation. 

IX. The February Labor “Improvement” That May Not Last 

These sectoral weaknesses are now beginning to transmit into labor market conditions, albeit with a lag. 

At first glance, the February labor report appeared reassuring. Headline employment “improved” and the unemployment rate edged lower (jobless rates eased from 5.8% in January to 5.1% in March.  On the surface, the data suggested that the labor market remained resilient despite (pre-war) rising cost pressures.

Figure 4 

But a closer look raises questions about whether this improvement represents a durable trend—or merely a statistical pause before broader economic strains surface. 

In stagflationary environments, firms initially attempt to absorb rising costs through reduced margins, shorter operating hours, and productivity adjustments in order to preserve employment levels. However, as cost pressures persist alongside weakening demand conditions, adjustment inevitably shifts into the labor market: hiring slows, job quality deteriorates, and informalization increases. Losses spur retrenchment. 

Retail and tourism fragility reinforce this transmission channel.  

Forthcoming increases in minimum wages should also serve as hindrance to the labor market growth. 

External labor dynamics add another layer of vulnerability. Reports of rising overseas worker repatriation suggest that global labor demand conditions may also be softening. For an economy such as the Philippines, which is heavily reliant on overseas employment and remittance inflows, even marginal shifts in external labor absorption can propagate quickly into domestic consumption, liquidity conditions, and household financial stability. 

Taken together, these developments indicate that February’s earlier employment “improvement” may represent a temporary statistical noise rather than a structural recovery. 

In such environments, labor markets typically lag real economic deterioration: employment initially appears stable even as underlying business conditions weaken beneath the surface. Over time, however, this lag resolves through reduced hiring, declining hours, and weakening job security. 

The result is a familiar stagflationary configuration: rising living costs alongside weakening labor conditions and employment quality. 

X. Policy Responses Are Expanding 

Rather than addressing underlying supply constraints, policy responses have increasingly focused on suppressing visible price adjustments. 

Recent measures illustrate this pattern. 

The Department of Trade and Industry reached an agreement with meat producers to delay price increases until the end of April. 

The Department of Health likewise reached arrangements with pharmaceutical firms to avoid medicine price increases—functioning effectively as negotiated price restraint mechanisms rather than pure market outcomes. 

Energy authorities, meanwhile, have warned oil firms against alleged “anti-competitive behavior,” at times framing price movements through cartel narratives. However, such cartel interpretations are better understood as policy-conditioned outcomes rather than purely market-generated coordination, particularly given the limited number of players in the industry and the regulatory structure governing pass-through pricing. 

More broadly, the policy stance has shifted in sequence rather than consistency. Authorities initially denied the presence of a systemic crisis, but subsequently imposed a ‘state of emergency’ once pressures became more visible. 

In parallel, emergency measures have been floated in public discourse—including fuel rationing and even temporary energy lockdown-type measures—despite public denials of such scenarios. 

As Bismarck’s oft-cited dictum suggests, policy signals are sometimes inferred more from what is denied publicly than what is formally declared. In this sense, the sequencing may reflect a form of preparatory signaling or conditioning toward prospective policy tools in the event that conditions deteriorate further. 

Fiscal responses have also expanded significantly. Free-lunch populism has prompted the government to allocate approximately Php 238 billion in subsidies and related support measures to cushion households and affected sectors. Within this framework, fuel subsidies for public utility vehicles have recently been extended. 

At the same time, structural intervention in the transport sector has intensified through the jeepney servicing and consolidation program, under which operators and drivers are mandated to continue providing services while receiving subsidized compensation. 

The state is increasingly assuming coordinating functions in route allocation, dispatch systems, and operational restructuring of jeepney services, effectively centralizing what was previously a decentralized operator-driven system—officially framed as temporary, but carrying the risk of extending state coordination capacity over time, and potentially creating a policy window through which long-desired transport modernization programs could be advanced. 

The temporary suspension of WESM operations also raises the possibility of broader shifts in market structure, including partial re-nationalization dynamics in parts of the energy and transport-linked system. 

Such episodes align with what economic historians describe as a ‘ratchet effect,’ as theorized by Robert Higgs: temporary expansions of state control and intervention during periods of perceived crisis often persist in modified form even after the shock subsides, gradually shifting baseline institutional arrangements. 

While these measures aim to contain visible inflation, price suppression mechanisms rarely eliminate underlying inflationary pressure. Instead, they displace it toward producers, inventories, and fiscal balance sheets, transforming visible price adjustment into structural inflation accumulation across the production system. 

XI. Energy Supply Chains: Why the Shock Is Larger Than Oil 

Even if geopolitical tensions ease, the structural vulnerability remains. 

First, recent diplomatic developments in the Middle East may prove temporary. Historical precedent suggests that ceasefire arrangements in the region have often been fragile, particularly when major powers remain indirectly engaged in the conflict environment. The United States and Israel struck Iran at the end of February, even while negotiations were ongoing. 

Second, as former U.S. budget director David Stockman has argued, modern energy systems are not defined solely by crude oil prices but by interconnected refining, logistics, and distribution networks. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and petrochemical supply chains, in particular, rely on tightly coupled processing infrastructure. 

Disruptions in these networks propagate far beyond fuel markets, affecting agriculture (fertilizer production), logistics (transport cost structures), manufacturing (input pricing), and services (operating costs). 

Energy shocks, therefore, do not remain confined to headline fuel prices.

They transmit through the entire structure of production, amplifying cost pressures across the economy—even in sectors not directly linked to energy consumption. 

XII. Financial Markets Are Beginning to Reflect the Stress 

Financial indicators are now starting to mirror these real-economy strains. 

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas recently reported a decline in gross international reserves (GIR) last March amid lower gold prices, foreign investment outflows and pressure on the peso. 

Figure 5

Although the BSP’s headline reserve buffer still appears comfortable, a closer look at composition tells a different story. Non-gold reserves—essentially the liquid foreign-currency assets used to stabilize the peso and finance imports—have declined markedly since late 2024. Rising gold valuations have helped cushion the headline GIR figure, but valuation gains are not equivalent to fresh external inflows. This compositional shift suggests that reserve resilience may be weaker than the aggregate figure implies. (Figure 5, topmost diagram) 

Meanwhile, S&P Global Ratings lowered the Philippines’ outlook from positive to stable, citing risks to fiscal and external positions linked to persistent energy-related pressures. 

Credit ratings rarely lead markets; more often, they echo or confirm stresses already developing beneath the surface. While not explicitly stated, recent movements in Philippine credit default swaps (CDS), along with a bearish flattening of the yield curve and rising yields across maturities, may have contributed to the revised outlook, reflecting increasing market sensitivity to external and fiscal pressures. (Figure 5, middle and lowest charts) 

This evolving bond market dynamic suggests investors are recalibrating their expectations—demanding higher risk premia while simultaneously pricing in weaker forward growth. 

Historically, such curve behavior often reflects a policy environment in which monetary conditions remain accommodative while structural growth prospects deteriorate. In this sense, the yield curve may be signaling the same tension visible in the real economy: rising inflation pressures interacting with slowing productive momentum. 

XIII. Geopolitical Reordering and the Return of the War Economy 

In examining the broader stagflationary risks facing the global economy, it is difficult to ignore a parallel structural shift: the gradual return of what economists historically describe as a war economy. 

The stagflationary episode of the 1970s did not arise solely from the oil embargo. It emerged from a broader combination of fiscal expansion, geopolitical conflict, and monetary transformation following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system. The suspension of dollar convertibility during the Nixon Shock effectively loosened the monetary constraints that had previously anchored the international financial system. This shift coincided with large-scale fiscal expenditures associated with the Vietnam War and domestic “guns and butter” policies in the United States. 

The subsequent 1973 Oil Crisis then transmitted these underlying monetary and fiscal pressures into global energy markets, transforming what might otherwise have been a relative price shock into a generalized inflationary episode.

Figure 6 

Recent developments suggest that elements of this broader geopolitical environment may be re-emerging. Data compiled by the International Monetary Fund indicate that the number of armed conflicts worldwide has risen sharply since the mid-2000s, reaching levels not observed in decades. (Figure 6) 

Measures of geopolitical risk have increased in tandem, while the share of countries allocating more than 2 percent of GDP to military spending has begun to climb again after declining during the post–Cold War period. 

Such developments do not automatically produce stagflation. However, they signal a structural shift in the global policy environment. Rising defense expenditures, strategic supply chain realignments, and heightened geopolitical rivalry all tend to increase fiscal demands while simultaneously disrupting trade, energy, and commodity flows. 

For economies integrated into global security networks, these pressures can have direct domestic implications. The Philippines, as a longstanding client state of the United States and host to several defense cooperation facilities, is not insulated from these dynamics. 

Increased defense commitments, strategic realignments in trade and energy flows, and the potential weaponization of financial and technological networks could all influence fiscal policy, investment allocation, and external financial conditions. 

While these developments alone do not determine the trajectory of Philippine inflation or growth, they form part of the broader global environment within which domestic stagflationary pressures may evolve. 

XIV. The Stages of Stagflation: A Historical Pattern 

Stagflation rarely emerges as a fully formed crisis overnight. Historical episodes—from the 1970s United States to more recent cases in Latin America and emerging markets—suggest that the process tends to unfold in stages. 

In the initial phase, inflation begins to rise while economic growth slows, typically following a combination of monetary accommodation and supply disruptions. Policymakers often interpret this period as temporary, responding with targeted subsidies, negotiated price restraint, or administrative coordination designed to cushion consumers from visible price increases. 

In the second phase, pressures begin to propagate more visibly through the production structure. Producers facing sustained input cost increases and constrained output prices start adjusting operations. Margins compress, inventories decline, and investment slows. Supply responses weaken as firms scale back production or exit markets entirely. Labor markets frequently appear stable during this stage, but job quality deteriorates, hiring slows, and working hours are reduced as businesses attempt to manage rising costs without immediate layoffs. 

Only in the later phase does the full stagflationary configuration emerge: persistent inflation combined with visibly weakening economic activity, deteriorating labor conditions, and widening fiscal intervention as governments attempt to stabilize prices and incomes simultaneously. 

The developments now visible in the Philippines—sectoral supply withdrawals in transport, fisheries, and agriculture, increasing reliance on subsidies and administrative coordination, and early financial stress signals—suggest that the economy may already be moving through the earlier stages of this historical pattern. 

XV. The Political Economy of Entrenched Stagflation 

Economic distortions rarely persist because policymakers misunderstand them. More often, they persist because they become politically useful. 

Once subsidies, price controls, and administrative coordination mechanisms are introduced, they generate new constituencies whose interests become tied to their continuation. Temporary interventions gradually evolve into institutional arrangements that are difficult to reverse. 

As political economist Mancur Olson argued, concentrated interest groups tend to organize effectively to protect benefits, while the broader public—bearing the dispersed costs—faces weaker incentives to mobilize. Policies that begin as crisis responses therefore often survive long after the original shock has passed. 

Fiscal incentives reinforce this tendency. Governments facing rising costs and slowing growth frequently prefer policies that postpone adjustment rather than those that impose immediate economic pain. As James Buchanan observed, democratic fiscal systems possess a structural bias toward deficit spending and monetary accommodation, particularly when the costs of such policies are distributed through inflation rather than explicit taxation. 

Under such conditions, stagflation can become not merely a cyclical outcome but an institutional equilibrium. Policies intended to suppress inflation in the short run—subsidies, administrative pricing agreements, and coordinated market interventions—gradually weaken the supply responses necessary to stabilize the economy. 

The result is a policy environment in which inflation persists, growth weakens, and intervention expands—reinforcing the very dynamics policymakers initially sought to prevent.

XVI. Conclusion: The Adjustment That Has Been Delayed 

While the developments described above do not yet constitute a full stagflationary crisis, they reveal the early stages of a process that historically unfolds in recognizable sequence. 

Inflationary pressures typically emerge first under conditions of monetary accommodation and fiscal expansion. When supply disruptions occur in such an environment, rising input costs begin to propagate through the production structure. If policy responses attempt to suppress the resulting price signals—through subsidies, negotiated price restraint, or administrative coordination—the adjustment process does not disappear. It simply shifts location. 

Instead of being resolved through market pricing, the pressure accumulates within the production system. Producers absorb losses, inventories are drawn down, and investment slows. Over time, supply responsiveness weakens as firms scale back operations or exit markets altogether. 

The resulting configuration reflects the interaction of liquidity expansion, fiscal subsidies, and supply disruptions within a system where price signals are increasingly constrained. Demand is sustained through transfers and credit support even as rising costs erode productive capacity. Under such conditions, inflationary pressure does not dissipate; it is displaced—reappearing later through shortages, reduced output, or both. 

Many of the mechanisms that historically generate stagflation are therefore already visible in the Philippine economy: rising input costs, sustained liquidity expansion, widening fiscal intervention, weakening supply responses, and increasing reliance on administrative price management. 

What appears today as temporary stability may instead represent the delayed adjustment of an economic system whose imbalances are already surfacing. 

This adjustment may also unfold within a broader global environment that increasingly resembles earlier stagflationary eras. Rising geopolitical tensions, expanding defense expenditures, and the gradual re-emergence of war-economy dynamics suggest that inflationary pressures may not be purely cyclical. 

Rather, they may reflect deeper structural shifts in the international system—shifts that interact with domestic policy distortions and amplify the economic stresses already visible across sectors.