Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Philippine debt (1)


Published on

Published in: Economy & Finance, Business

Philippine debt (1)

  2. 2. HISTORY In 1961, Diosdado Macapagal departed from the nationalist policies of predecessor Carlos Garcia and he embraced free enterprise and opened doors to free investment. In return, the United States, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank offered the government huge loans. It was thought that the foreign capital could be a catalyst for development. This was however our entry into the debt trap.
  3. 3.  When Ferdinand Marcos became president in 1965, he continued Macapagals economic liberization policies. And the outcome was that the debt rose from 277.7 million dollars to 840.2 million by the end of his term. When Marcos imposed martial law, the trend toward economic liberalization accelerated. And he borrowed from outside to finance deficit and nationalists like Tañada, Recto, Garcia, and Diokno did not even oppose ths decision. Almost 20 years after Marcos regime, his successors were still not able to rescue the country from debts and rather only increased it. It went from 28 billion dollars to 69 billion dollars.The biggest borrowings were during the Arroyo administration which was bigger than the borrowings of Ramos and Erap combined and this was only in a span of three years.
  4. 4. External Debt, 1982- 90n.a.--not available. 1In billions of United States dollars.2In percentages; GNP--gross national product.3In percentages.4As of June. Ratio of Debt Outstanding Ratio of DebtYear Debt Service1 Service to Debt1 to GNP2 Exports31982 24.54 3.50 62.5 42.51983 24.36 3.02 71.5 36.31984 24.38 2.30 77.2 33.41985 26.92 2.57 83.5 32.01986 28.37 3.04 94.1 34.51987 30.03 3.61 87.8 38.51988 29.16 3.48 74.8 31.51989 28.92 3.38 65.2 26.31990 26.974 2.35 57.9 n.a.
  6. 6. THE FOREIGN DEBT EXPERIENCES The foreign debt experiences through the Marcos (1966-85), Aquino (1986-91), Ramos (1992-97), Estrada (1998-2000) and Arroyo (2001-present) administrations have then correspondingly varied There is first of all the situation such as during the Marcos dictatorship when foreign debt soared at unprecedented rates from 1966 to 1985. Foreign debt of just US$599 million in 1965 increased forty-four-fold over 20 years at an average annual amount of US$1.3 billion a year to reach US$26.4 billion by the end of 1985. Borrowing was heavily concentrated in the post-oil shock period of the 1970s. The Aquino government took over in the wake of the "debt crisis" which started in Latin America in 1982 that, among others, greatly constricted global lending. Thus the average accumulation during the Aquino government was only US$591 million per year or less than half that during the Marcos period.
  7. 7. THE FOREIGN DEBT EXPERIENCES The Ramos administration was in contrast a period of rapid increases in foreign borrowing at an annual average ofUS$2.2 billion. This rate in nominal terms even far surpassed that of the Marcos administration. In large part this reflectedthe so-called "emergent market" syndrome in the 1990s in which a handful of Southern countries - especially in East andSoutheast Asia - were seen as particularly profitable outlets for surplus finance capital. In East Asia and the Pacific alone,total net resource flows soared from US$27 billion in 1990 to US$128 billion in 1997; this included an increase in theamount going to the Philippines from US$895 million in 1992 to US$5.2 billion in 1996. This momentum was maintainedcoming into the Estrada administration. Foreign debt rose at a historically high rate of US$2.7 billion per year, over ninetenthsof which was public debt and then largely in just the first two years of the Estrada term.
  8. 8. FOREIGN DEBT SERVICEThe foreign debt service burden from 2001-2005 has consequently beenthe heaviest in Philippine history whether measured in absolute terms, inper capita or in its ratio to gross domestic product (GDP). Put anotherway, the 2001-2005 period has seen the most severe drain on nationalresources in its history with attendant adverse implications on economicperformance and development. For the purposes of seeing the immediatedrain on the Philippine economy, the debt service burden which measuresactual payments is more appropriate than the debt stock which mainlyreflects the sum of outstanding claims reaching into the future.
  9. 9. WHY IS SUCH A LARGE AMOUNTALLOCATED FOR IT IN THE NATIONALBUDGET? Almost 1/3 or more of the national budget goes to interest payments on the debt of the government. The country owes a lot of money from creditors. As figures indicate, the debt continues to snowball. There is no evidence that it will ever significantly decrease in the near future. The proof of the pudding is that the money saved for debt service balloons every year. The government borrows to pay the money that we borrowed and this has been a practice for many years. To keep the government afloat and service its debt, it resorts to borrowing from foreign and local creditors.
  10. 10. REFERENCES aphy/philippines_geography_external_debt.html _interstitial=1&u=%2Fjournal%2Fitem TA%20final.pdf