THREATS
Although promising on their own, these projects will be heavily influenced by factors evolving outside the city’s boundaries. Any commitment that Manila makes towards resilient or sustainable goals in 2054 cannot be viewed or implemented void of national systemic considerations that lay the foundation for how the city functions. Many of these factors cannot be solely addressed on the city-level, but must be either combatted or maintained through widespread, national—and sometimes international—coordinated action.
Three major national trends impact the equitable implementation of sustainable development in Manila. These include:
-
Corruption
-
Income Inequality
-
Foreign Investment and Influence
This section aims to summarize the roots of each of these patterns and acknowledge their predicted impact on the proposed resilience measures. We hope to provide context for current city policy-makers, as well as recommendations for how to most effectively and equitably implement the proposed strategies given larger considerations.
Corruption
The Philippines is well-known for corruption and, in implementing any climate resilience measures, impacts of wider systemic corruption must be actively accounted for and combatted. Embezzlement of public funds, lack of public transparency, and the rigged electoral processes hinder the country’s—and, by extension, the city’s—ability to build efficient, equitable, and sustainable public infrastructure in the face of climate-driven disaster. Even if Manila’s city government commits to specific city-level sustainability projects, there exist minimal measures to ensure that public pesos directed towards the city end up funding those projects. Officials with oversight may only be in their positions due to familial ties, rather than dedication or skill, and therefore hold little reason to fulfill commitments to equitable processes.
In the early 2000s, the country took several steps to limit corruption, however, similar to anti-corruption measures in the 20th century, they had very little impact. In implementing nature-based and hard infrastructure resilience projects, Manila must also implement measures to limit corrupt influence and ensure the effectiveness of future projects.
National Foundations of Corruption:
Corruption in Manila and the Philippines is the byproduct of colonial rule and land injustice—shaping the country's physical landscape while it also shaped its ability to effectively manage that landscape. It is widely traced back to patterns during Spanish colonial rule, where embezzlement and power abuses were common among those in power, and both land and wealth were concentrated in the hands of the Spanish elite. When power was transferred to the United States after the Spanish-American War, the Americans not only continued this colonial legacy, but further engrained political corruption through a series of policies restricting land rights and voting access. They bought land with the promise of redistribution, but sold it at prices that only the rich could afford, therefore further cementing existing systems of inequitable land distribution and wealth that influence. Moreover, they then instituted election processes that only allowed for those holding land—one percent of the population—to participate in elections.
By concentrating wealth in the hands of a few and allowing those with wealth to entrench government positions, the US set the foundations for a corrupt government system that persists to this day. Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries—especially under the rule of Ferdinand Marcos, Rodrigo Duerte, and Bongbong Marcos—the Philippines has seen steady levels of intense corruption. A 2020 survey found that 86% of Filipinos thought that government corruption is a large issue and 19% of public service users have paid a bribe in the previous 12 months. Corruption continues to be an issue in public works projects, especially in the construction industry. In 2022, it ranked 116 of 180 countries on the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), which evaluates countries and territories based on their perceived level of public sector corruption.
For public dollars to be used to effectively foster a more-resilient Manila, public dollars must remain free from embezzlement, they must be allocated by politicians with clear intent, and they must be mobilized by politicians who residents trust.
In the early 21st century, the Filipino government implemented several measures to limit corruption, but they have remained only somewhat effective. Eight separate legal measures and thirteen separate government agencies are currently tasked with combating various types of corruption. However, despite these, the country's CPI score barely moved in the first two decades of this century. This is mainly attributed to the steep entrenchment of corruption in the government intended to oversee these measures.
Combating corruption in the proposed resilience measures will require the involvement of independent third parties, like Bruno’s Buildmasters, and long-term plans to both increase government transparency and democratic processes. Furthermore, careful consideration should be given to how these projects may serve as “Islands of Integrity” that can contribute to larger-scale anti-corruption efforts.
Inequality
Existing patterns of wealth inequality in Manila and the Philippines underlie all efforts at equitable climate resilience and adaptation, impacting resource distribution and access to decision-making. High levels of income inequality are directly correlated with heightened vulnerability to climate-related disasters as individuals are more likely to not only be exposed to climate change but are less likely to be able to cope and recover from damages due to lack of access to capital. As of the early 2000s, the Philippines had one of the highest income inequalities in East Asia and the Pacific. While the Filipino economy has significantly grown over the last three decades, this has not necessarily decreased existing wealth inequality, especially as increasing natural disasters have displaced many families and prevented the building of generational wealth.
Manila must implement physical city-level resilience measures in a manner that addresses the foundations and implications of existing income and wealth inequality. They must also pair resilience efforts with broader political mechanisms to decrease underlying inequalities. To implement resilience mechanisms without addressing these foundations and implications will continue to benefit those already possessing the resources necessary for adaptation, and ultimately harm national economic growth.
National Foundations of Income Inequality:
Income inequality is rooted in the same colonial systems that set the foundation for corruption in the Philippines, placing land access—and thereby access to material wealth—in the hands of the ruling elite. This emergence of long-term inequality from colonial land holding patterns has been documented across the globe. It is upheld by corrupt political processes whereby familial dynasties continue to shape political processes and concentrate wealth amongst those already in-power, rather than carrying through political interventions aimed at wealth and skill redistribution to those without power.
In their 2016 Ambisyon Natin 2040 Plan, the Philippines announced intentions to eliminate poverty and become a “middle-class society” by 2040. The national government did not implement any specific policy mechanisms, aside from a national survey of Filipinos, until 2030. One significant challenge in carrying out this plan has been the increased intensity of natural disasters due to climate change. Similar to how the COVID-19 pandemic reduced decades-long gains in poverty and inequality reduction in 2020, recent natural disasters like Typhoon Carpenter have reversed progress made by the plan’s proposed policies.
At the city-level, economic development continues to remain concentrated in areas with shiny skyscrapers and existing financial prosperity while lower-income informal neighborhoods and settlements remain largely without access to financial resources. Over a quarter of Manila residents reside in informal settlements, which are often neglected by city leaders, legally unable to receive funding or support from government systems due to their informality, and frequently wiped out by natural disasters. While new developments in Manila have placed climate resilience as a top priority and consideration, these developments continue to serve the same populations and continue to leave those living in informal settlements behind. Corrupt politicians, further weighed down by bureaucratic systems, lack the ability to implement projects that equitably distribute resources and prevent form unequal climate impacts.
Additionally, with the completion of New Clark City in 2050, many of the higher-income, ruling elite previously-located in Manila have moved to the nation’s new highly-resilient urban center. This has further fueled patterns of disinvestment and disregard towards Manila’s lower-income neighborhoods as investors prioritize New Clark instead of Manila. Although New Clark City provides a unique opportunity to relocate communities forced out of Manila by displacement due to natural disaster, without proper political interventions, it will first and foremost serve the already economically-privileged Manila residents. Resilience projects in Manila must protect at-risk neighborhoods who remain unable to relocate to New Clark City.
Foreign Investment
In addition to seeing massive economic growth over the past thirty years, Manila has also seen a serious increase in foreign investment and ownership of goods. This is the culmination of three decades of foreign ownership incentives, structural reforms, shifts in foreign relations, and suitable demographic development around the turn of the 21st century. While foreign investment and ownership has contributed to the national economic conditions allowing Manila to embark on broader resilience projects, it has also led to several challenges of national sovereignty that may prevent equitable implementation of these projects.
In implementing the proposed infrastructure projects, Manila must also consider the larger impacts and influences of foreign funding sources. Public-private partnerships that prioritize domestic funding sources, paired with national-level reforms of foreign investment incentives, will best prioritize domestic priorities and preserve national sovereignty.
Foundations for Foreign Influence
Predicting the economic development that has taken over the country over the past thirty years, the national government took several measures in the early 2020s to allow for increased foreign ownership and investment. Most significantly, these included amendments to the Foreign Investments Act, the Public Service Act, and the Retail Trade and Liberalization Act. The Philippines directly connected these to addressing climate and resilience challenges, as financial constraints had previously prevented the country from taking action on these fronts.
Lower capital requirement start-ups: Amendments to the Foreign Investments Act in 2022 severely increased the ability of foreign start-up companies to establish themselves in the Philippines. Over the past thirty years, the country has seen a significant increase in start-ups and overall innovation, including in the clean energy and sustainability sector. These start-ups have contributed to the country’s increasingly-privatized landscape of sustainability projects.
Foreign Investment in Public Services: In 2022, President Rodrgo Duterte made major amendments to the Public Service Act which removed the “public utility” classification from public services like airports, telecommunications, railways, and shipping allowing them to have 100% foreign ownership. Prior to the amendments, foreign ownership was limited to 40%.
With the amendments, foreign equity restrictions only apply to the following as they are deemed vital to national security—most of these would not be relevant in the proposed projects:
-
Electricity distribution;
-
Electricity transmission;
-
Seaports;
-
Water pipeline distribution and sewerage; and
-
Public utility vehicles.
Over the past thirty years, the Philippines has seen major foreign—primarily American—investment in public entities and public works projects. After exiting from the Belt and Road Initiative in 2023, the country significantly strengthened financial ties to American entities and the government has faced criticism from the UN Officer of the High Commissioner on Human Rights for encouraging neo-colonial practices, especially with the United States. While this has provided a significant increase in capital for public works, it has also introduced capitalist interests to Filipino development that has limited these service’s ability to develop in ways that serve the interests of local communities.