Useful Machines: Neoliberalism in the Philippine education system
Useful Machines: Neoliberalism in the Philippine education system
(submitted as the final requirement for my Eng 13 class, 2nd Sem A.Y. 2020-2021)
In 2001, economists Akerlof, Spence, and Stiglitz won the Nobel Prize in Economics Sciences for their proposal of the Asymmetric Information Theory. This theory suggests that one party (sellers) may possess more information than the other party (buyers), hence having the edge to skew the price of goods sold. Information imbalance can lead to market failure. Now that we are all moving towards a globalized society and with globalization and open market, countries are becoming neoliberal-oriented. Given this internationally acclaimed theory, is it still good to set the market as the main basis in policy and law making? Neoliberalism may be promising even to our education system, but at what cost?
In 1776, British economist and the renowned “Father of Capitalism” Adam Smith suggested in his book entitled “The Wealth of Nations” that to attain maximum economic efficiency, all forms of government intervention and tariff barriers must be removed. This idea has been passed to generations despite John Maynard Keynes’ opposition to this belief. Keynes states that government intervention through increasing its demand is essential for an economy to grow. In 1938, the term "neoliberalism" was proposed to describe the concept of "the priority of the price mechanism, free enterprise, the system of competition, and a strong and impartial state" at the Colloque Walter Lippmann, a conference of intellectuals organized in Paris in August 1938 by French philosopher Louis Rougier. In the early 1980s, the Reagan administration and the Thatcher government initiated a series of neoliberal economic policies to combat the chronic stagflation that plagued both the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1970s. Up until the 2008 financial crisis, neoliberal policies dominated American and British politics (Harvey, 2005).
In the Philippines, Keynesian Developmentalism, which was supposed to promote the role of the state as the strategic factor on the road to development, was compromised by the Marcos dictatorship and took part in the flourishing of neoliberalism since there was no credible alternative besides neoliberalism itself. The publication of the anti-Marcos White Paper University of the Philippines School of Economics also played a factor on the rise of neoliberalism in the country (Bello, 2009)
As I-Fang Lee (2018) asserts that the role of education in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Korea has the common theme in their reform policies and discourses of investing in children and their education as human capital for the nation’s future. On the other side, policymaking in the education sectors of Pakistan, India, and Malaysia focuses on the importance of liberalization’s economic effects and the exigence upon the action of state elites and the domestic incentive they face (Thachil, 2009).
To be able to keep up with globalization, the Philippines is trying to utilize education as its main driver of economic growth (Saguiped, 2016). Through debt dependency, neoliberalism limits government intervention through rationalizing public spending and allowing the private sector to invest in delivery of social services such as education. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund have imposed priority on debt servicing rather than government spending for social services provision (del Rosario-Malonzo, 2007).
In this essay, three points about the dangers of integrating a neoliberal education in our society are presented.
First, neoliberalism built a divide between natural science and liberal arts as education became a matter of profitability. There has been a discrimination between the fields of natural sciences and liberal arts. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum wrote in her book entitled “Not For Profit”, Indian parents take pride in a child who studies in an institution for technology and management but are ashamed of a child who studies literature or philosophy. The K to 12 program established a system where the demands of the global market have made everyone focus on scientific and technical skills as the key proficiencies. The humanities and the arts are perceived as useless courses (Nussbaum, 2010). In 2007, a paper published by the UP Diliman School of Economics proposed that to attain a better system for tertiary education, higher education should just be offered for those with the highest intellectual ability and positive traits. Education is not for all (Tan, 2007). Improving the education system through limiting investment to supporting bright students only implies that these students are only perceived as human capital that would continue to build the economy in the future.
Second, in a neoliberal economic system, the students are being seen as mere commodities in the free market that will serve as a mechanism for building the economy. From the perspective of the government, the economics of education is to systematically train the students to participate in the global arena as highly trained, English-speaking, cheap and docile, that will form a labor force catering to the demands of the international market conforming to the neoliberal ideals (del Rosario-Malonzo, 2007). The correspondence in structure, processes, and social relations between the school and the workplace implies that schooling prepares students for their roles as workers under capitalism (Bowles & Gintis, 2001). Patrick (2013) argues that it is not just knowledge that is reduced to utilitarian value, but the student as the embodiment of that knowledge. In this way, the student as a person is commodified within the system. Commodification happens when neoliberal education accounts the learners as an investment for the human capital for economic purposes rather than human persons that are studying for their self-growth and holism.
Third, Neoliberalism poses a threat to our democracy. As studying of the natural sciences is given more emphasis than the liberal arts, neoliberal education discourages critical thinking that is essential in building a democratic nation. (Nussbaum, 2010). San Juan (2016) calls neoliberal education the “pedagogy of the oppressed”. He also asserts that institutionalizing this kind of education in the Philippines will perpetuate oppression and dehumanizing realities of the citizens living under neoliberal capitalism. It is indeed alarming that preparing students for the main reason of future employment under profitable conditions seems to disregard the essence of education to train them as proactive citizens that will shape the democratic country in the future. When everyone is just thinking about schooling as a mere ticket for economic growth, individual profitability, and nothing else, our democracy is in peril. We need citizens who will be critical and wise upon building up a nation that serves the interests of the masses.
To cite Philosopher Martha Nussbaum again, “If this trend continues, nations all over the world will soon be producing generations of useful machines, rather than complete citizens who can think for themselves, criticize tradition, and understand the significance of another person’s sufferings and achievements. The future of the world’s democracies hangs in the balance.” We, as human beings, are more than catalysts of economic progress. We are more than just human capital supply to the demands of international economies. We are more than just “useful machines” that are programmed to serve the agenda of the elites and the capitalists. We are sentient and rational beings that are coexisting together that should strive for the greater good. We are not reducible into being labelled as mere economic actors, human capital, and commodified learners. We must aspire to be more critical, wiser, political citizens of our nation.
While the hegemonic ideology of neoliberalism is the prevailing orientation of our education system, let us not forget that there are always better approaches to building a system that is more humane and inclusive. The Human Development Paradigm encourages cultivating everyone’s unique capabilities. These capabilities in whatever aspect they may specialize must be respected by laws and institutions. They are free to develop their holism and could contribute to society to the extent of their capabilities. This model is committed to democracy as respecting one’s agency to decide for themself is an essential part of valuing human dignity (Nussbaum, 2010). Also, there is the Pragmatic Theory of Education which promotes the need for a pragmatic relationship between school and society because what is needed by society should be taught in school and the lessons taught in school are needed in society (Dewey, 1915).
References
Akerlof, G., Spence, M., & Stiglitz, J. (2001). Markets with asymmetric information. Committee,
Nobel Prize.
Bello, W. (2009). Neoliberalism as hegemonic ideology in the Philippines: Rise, apogee, and crisis. Philippine Sociological Review, 57, 9–19.
Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books.
Del Rosario-Malonzo, J.Economics of Philippine Education: Serving the Global Market. MULA TORE PATUNGONG PALENGKE, 81.
Dewey, J. (1915). The school and society. University of Chicago Press.
Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-928326-2.
Lee, I. F. (2018). (Re) Landscaping early childhood education in East Asia: A neoliberal economic and political imaginary. Policy Futures in Education, 16(1), 53-65.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities (Vol. 2). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Patrick, F. (2013). Neoliberalism, the Knowledge Economy, and the Learner: Challenging the Inevitability of the Commodified Self as an Outcome of Education. ISRN Education, 2013, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/108705
Saguiped, P. L. (2016). Neoliberal Globalization in the Philippines: Its Effects on Higher Education and the Country’s Attempt to Shift to a Global Education System and to a More Knowledge-Based Economy. https://www.academia.edu/30338066/Neoliberal_Globalization_in_the_Philippines_Its_Effects_on_Higher_Education_and_the_country_s_attempt_to_Shift_to_a_Global_Education_System_and_to_a_More_Knowledge_Based_Economy.
San Juan, D. M. (2016). Neoliberal restructuring of education in the Philippines: Dependency, labor, privatization, critical pedagogy, and the K to 12 system. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 16(1), 80-110.
Tan, E. A. (2012). What’s wrong with the Philippine higher education?. Philippine Review of economics, 48(1), 147-184.
Thachil, T. (2009). Neoliberalism's two faces in Asia: Globalization, educational policies, and religious schooling in India, Pakistan, and Malaysia. Comparative Politics, 41(4), 473-494.
3 notes
·
View notes