a) there has been 3% per capita growth, every single year, for the past five years
b) there has been an average of 3% growth on average, over the past five years

and if either a or b, in no other five-year period “in recorded history” for the Philippines, can there be said to have been something similar?

which makes me wonder:

1. when did philippine economic history begin to be recorded?
2. when did per capita economic growth begin to be recorded?
3. and has that growth never exceeded 3% for any arbitrarily-chosen five year chunk?
==================================

ANSWER:

letter b

computation:

Using cvj’s statistics from 1986 to 2005 with 1985 as base year for deflated prices:

average growth rate from 2001-2005
2001 base year
2002 2.34
2003 2.73
2004 4.05
2005 2.88

average 3.0

GMA

average growth rate from 1996-2000

1996 base year
1997- 2.86
1998-(2.73)
1999- 1.21
2000- 5.95

average rate 1.82

Ramos-Estrada

1991 base year
1992 (2.2)
1993 (0.38)
1994 1.89
1995 2.2

average growth rate 1.51 per cent

Ramos Administration

1986- base year

1987- 1.86
1988- 3.68
1989- 3.63
1990-(3.14)

Aquino
average growth rate 1.51

Therefore Magno is right.

Erm cvj, Looking at the averages, I think the housewife did not beat the economist.

De Dios is correct if the basis of computation is between from 2001 to 2005.

The growth rate per year is as follow:

2001 base year
2002 2.4
2003 2.7
2004 4.05
2005 2.88
Total 12.03
divided by four Not five years since 2001 is the base year. Change is counted beginning 2002.

so if 12.03 is divided by four, you will 3.001 per cent.

GNP is not only a measure of tangible products but intangible as well which are called services. Consultancy services are a part of them.

“didn’t help the younger bush tho… “

I disagree. The younger Bush got what the elder one couldn’t get, a precious second term.

And now, understandably this lame-duck administration has not visibly demonstrated sufficient motivation to defend the current economic gains, which are a lot better than the first term – in productivity, housing ownership, tradition-shattering indices and employment/unemployment figures, etc.

While in the meantime, the critics have done a better job of dampening all these before the public.

“Growth and resiliency are because of OFW economics. No imported raw materials, no power requirements, no green houses gases. If money is remitted through banking system, OFW earnings is similar to profits of an OPEC member producing 1 million barrel per day.”

I thought the above quote from a commenter gave a good look at OFW remittances. Let me offer some additional comments.

While indeed OFW remittances are considered part of GNP, it is also easy to see that there technically is no product or production involved here. I believe it was for this reason that when I was still working in the local banking industry there, these remittances were described and categorized by CB authorities as “foreign exchange invisibles” because they were not covered with documentation (such as drafts and L/Cs) to show the transaction trails. Invisibles we assumed because the country collectively really did nothing concrete to bring about the inward remittances. Now, it is a huge thing, comprising at times to 10% of the total.

Re its analogy to oil production, while similar may also be different. Extracting oil from the ground and preparing it for transport requires human and financial inputs that become part of the product’s costs. But OFW remittances do not approximate such inputs in a similar manner. But true that a good block of those human resources now responsible for the remittances were born, raised and educated by the home country, for which both local human and financial resources were also expended.

BTW, some reports suggest that only about 85% or so of inward remittances go through the local financial systems and thus counted. And add to that, the unaccounted economic values of millions of balikbayan boxes sent annually.

I personally witnessed an old FilAm couple transact in a local bank here. They were scheduled for a trip back and wanted their withdrawal of about $30,000 to be given to them in cash of $100 denomination. When nosy me asked about the dangers, I was dismissed with the reply that they had done it before.

And didn’t a Gen. Garcia’s wife and sons do a similar thing, only in reverse?