On upper-middle-income status and clear views

After nearly four decades of being classified as a lower-middle-income economy, the Philippines is finally elevated by the World Bank to upper-middle-income country (UMIC) status. The country’s Gross National Income (GNI) per capita reached $4,850, surpassing the established threshold of $4,636. On the surface, this news appears to be a sweet victory worthy of celebration in major newspapers and press releases of government economic managers.

But within the context of development communication—a discipline that looks beyond mere figures to focus on tangible changes in people’s lives—this news presents a significant communication challenge. How do we report a macroeconomic achievement without appearing insensitive to the hardships experienced by the ordinary Filipino? “Lugmok na kami, ganyan pa iuulat ninyo?” the disadvantaged Filipinos may continue to complain.

We must therefore reconcile three distinct analytical perspectives in a bid to craft a meaningful narrative: the Marcos Jr. administration’s optimism, the critical analysis of academics, and the strategic warnings of think tanks and independent researchers.

Let us begin with the official stance as articulated by NEDA Director-General and DEPDev Secretary Arsenio Balisacan. He hails this development as proof of the national economy’s resilience and broad-based expansion, even in the wake of past adversities and the current learning crisis. From this perspective, the elevation to UMIC status serves as a crucial economic benchmark that sends a positive signal to foreign investors and boosts market confidence. Such a message is significant in terms of national morale, demonstrating that the country’s economic policies have a clear direction.

But there is wisdom in not resting on our laurels as I fully agree with economist Dr. Cielito Habito when he said that the country’s UMIC hinges solely on the numbers. If the government fails to address its internal problems, this “wealth” could simply cause the country’s economy to collapse again.

The youthful economist Dr. JC Punongbayan offers a much-needed reality check. As a critical voice, he consistently reminds us that GNI or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) does not automatically translate to a bountiful table for everyone. GNI per capita is a simple arithmetic calculation, dividing the country’s total income by its total population. It fails to account for the vast wealth gap between the rich and the poor in the country.

If we have unbridled enthusiasm reporting this news without mentioning stagnant real wages, insufficient education and health investments, and the almost always unabated burden of inflation on basic commodities, public trust in key agencies will suffer a serious rift.

And bridging that gap is the role of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

PIDS research shows that while the overall poverty rate is declining, a significant number of Filipinos remain in the “vulnerable” category. These are families who, in an instant—due to a severe typhoon, the illness of a breadwinner, or job loss—could easily fall back below the poverty line. Furthermore, PIDS warns of the risk of the so-called “middle-income trap” where a country reaches a middle-income level but fails to advance to high-income status due to low productivity and lack of innovation which, according to former Bangko Sentral  Deputy Governor for the Monetary and Economics Sector Diwa Guinigundo, is the peak of development.

This is where the role of communicators, many of whom are development advocates too, becomes crucial, especially when they naturally and professionally collaborate with economists. The “language of ivory towers” prevails time and again, with economists providing us with their narrative in the language of graphs, coefficients, and econometric models that the public often fails to understand. On the other hand, the communications field tends to rush or oversimplify complex data, leading to misinterpretation or false hope at times.

Effectively conveying this information to the public requires a dynamic, two-way relationship. A communicator is not merely a translator but a strategist. They must help the economist find the human face behind the numbers. For instance, when Balisacan speaks of “broad-based expansion,” the communicator needs to ask: “How does this translate into the number of new regular jobs outside Metro Manila?” Similarly, when PIDS warns of “vulnerability,” it is the communicator’s role to craft stories and visual anchors that illustrate how a middle-income family could fall back into poverty due to a serious illness.

Moreover, economists must learn to listen to communicators to understand the pulse, emotions, and culture of the masses. Economics is not merely the science of financial wealth; it is the science of human behavior. If economists do not engage with communication experts, their excellent policy recommendations will remain confined to books, never embraced or supported by the public as their own advocacy. This is also in view of the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which provides that the State “shall free the people from poverty” and, of course, the United Nations’ “(ending) poverty in all its forms everywhere” by 2030 as part the Sustainable Development Goals mandate.

Effective communication in this regard requires radical transparency. Acknowledging shortcomings, such as the findings of PIDS or the critiques raised by Habito and Punongbayan, does not signal government weakness; rather, it demonstrates maturity. 

When reports openly reveal that many sectors still require assistance, it creates space for the participation of the private sector, civil society organizations, and local communities.

Reporting on the current state of the Philippine economy should not devolve into a debate over whether we are developed or still poor. The reality is that both conditions coexist. The country is progressing as a whole, yet many individuals are still being left behind. 

The challenge for us—through the collaboration of economists and communicators—is to craft a narrative that celebrates the nation’s achievements while boldly highlighting the gaps that need to be filled. We should not treat the upper-middle-income status as our destiny. We need to journey over land and seas together and have clear views of Mt. Apo and Mayon Volcano; meaning, we are willing and able to climb them, thrusting upon the greatness of our race.

COMMUNICATION IN THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL

“Everybody should understand that ‘grave threats’ is a crime of communication and not a crime of physical action. The actus reus is the oral statement and the mens rea is the criminal intent. Hence no need to prove that there was an assassin that was actually engaged. That is a distraction.” 

So says former law dean and TV personality Mel Sta. Maria. 

He continues: “Basta binantaan mo ang isang tao: ‘Papatayin kita ng palakol na nasa cabinet ko’. Hindi pwedeng sabihing walang banta kasi hindi napatunayang yung palakol ay nasa cabinet.”

Best wishes, DDS.