What do Filipino experts think about Australia’s development program? To find out, the Lab spoke to 40+ top development and foreign policy experts. Here’s what we found.
A short guide to the Pulse Check x Philippines for policymakers
There are a number of big disruptions underway, and these will drastically affect development in every country.
You have 100 points. Allocate your points according to which of the below disruptions are most critical to address in your country.
Things like: the impact on livelihoods, infrastructure and people’s quality of life as the climate changes, the global push to reach net zero and beyond, biodiversity health and resource usage, disaster resilience
Things like: competing powers and their impact on things like trade and economic growth.
Things like: the rapidly growing digital and data economy, and the rise of artificial intelligence and advanced autonomous systems.
Things like: shifting demographics across age, education and healthcare, and rising inequality, gender equality, disability inclusion.
Things like: rapidly changing markets, trade conditions, stability and resilience to shocks, changing job opportunities and emerging industries.
Things like: shifting international norms and state structures, effective functions of the state, and disruptions to the international rules based order.
Things like: global stability and instability, internal conflict, humanitarian crises, external interference, maritime disputes.
A changing climate and natural environment was named the biggest disruption shaping the Philippines, with many participants citing high levels of geographical vulnerability and low levels of disaster readiness as key factors in their decision. Participants highlighted some specific vulnerabilities, including in infrastructure, agriculture and livelihoods, community and local-level government resiliency. They also pointed to the disproportionate impacts of climate change on the poorest and most marginalised communities in the country and the risk that poses for conflict, instability, and deepening inequality.
Interestingly, one participant suggested that dealing with the disruption of climate change and natural disasters is already “current state” in the Philippines, and so might not be the greatest relative new disruption to address.
Rising or persistent inequality and access to quality healthcare, education and social services were a few of the factors behind participants identifying the rapid changes to the collective human experience as the second biggest disruption shaping development in the Philippines right now.
For many participants, it was the combination of disruptions such as rising inequality and climate change that was most pressing:
“Inequality is a major disruptor and state structures have a big role to play to address it, with due consideration to imminent negative impacts of climate change”
Others highlighted the potential impacts of rapid digitisation on inequality.
When awarding points to this category, many participants cited the potential impacts of great power competition within the region as the greatest potential geopolitical risk to development:
“Geopolitical tensions over the South China Sea and Taiwan can erupt into a hot conflict that could prove to be destructive and destabilizing”
A number of participants highlighted the increased risks to the Philippines’ economic development should tensions escalate to conflict and disrupt trade routes. Others focussed on the risk to human security.
One participant’s view was that while geopolitical tensions could be a major disruption, it differs from climate change, which is increasingly irreversible. In their view ongoing “actions or interventions” could still have the power to “eliminate the threat arising from geopolitical tensions and conflicts.”
In a very close fourth place, participants identified the disrupting forces of conflict and instability as shaping development in the Philippines. They saw value in focusing efforts on mitigating conflict at the local, regional and international level. Domestically, this looked like working on cyber security, election-related violence, and extremism. Regionally, it was navigating maritime tensions and great power competition.
Looking further abroad, one participant highlighted the importance of increasing protections for the high volume of Filipino migrant workers overseas who are extremely vulnerable to the impacts of certain global conflicts.
We know that to achieve social and economic development, an effective and accountable state is critical - and this is something that Australia is committed to working with partners on.
You have 100 points. Allocate your points according to where you would focus efforts to enhance social and economic development in your country, using the State Effectiveness Framework.
For example, commercial policy, private sector development, intervention by the state when the market experiences failure or crisis.
For example, a balanced security environment, when police, military and other security institutions are bound by the law and guidelines.
For example, public utilities - including water, electricity and roads.
For example, strong adherence to both formal and informal rules, high levels of predictability and stability of the enforcement of rules, and governance arrangements.
For example, investment in the citizens of a state through education and public health.
For example, strong and transparent forms of public financial management, effective public borrowing, and fiscal management.
For example, addressing barriers to equal opportunities through citizens rights which cut across gender, race, ethnicity, religion, class and location.
For example, state assets (including natural resources [water, land, the environment, extractives] and other intangible benefits [licenses and permits]).
For example, preparedness for disasters, state resiliency against crises such as drought, famine, and catastrophic weather.
For example, public sector management, uniform rules and guidelines, strong reforms to prevent corruption.
When it came to enhancing state effectiveness, focusing efforts on human capital development came out as the top priority. Many participants backed this primarily for investment in education and public health, with one specific call to focus on women and girls’ sexual and reproductive health.
There were also a number of participants who spoke to the value of investing in human capital for the dividends they believed it would pay in maintaining civic space and increasing the quality of citizen engagement in elections. Many suggested that investing in greater civic engagement in elections, and working on mis- and disinformation were absolutely crucial.
Participants also highlighted the importance of investing in human capitalas a means to achieve domestic economic growth, and to remain competitive within the international labour market.
Participants placed governance and citizen engagement in second and third place, respectively. When speaking about investment in good governance, many participants were quick to point to elite leadership as a critical factor in the Philippines’ development trajectory:
“…it is imperative that we have good leaders who would address the country's major concerns. The Philippines has this governance which does not benefit a majority of the population…”
More broadly, participants spoke to the need to focus efforts on tackling corruption, “patronage politics,” and the influence of “dynastic ruling elites.”
When it came to citizen engagement, many participants highlighted the need to uphold freedom of association and expression, enhance civic participation in decision making, and protect the rights and the lives of journalists, activists and lawyers holding decision makers to account.
A number of participants wanted to focus efforts on economic reform and growth to drive state effectiveness, but this didn’t always translate to points for market engagement. Some emphasised that investing in other things first, like human capital, governance, infrastructure, and rule of law were crucial to “competing in global markets” and attracting “foreign direct investments.”
Many saw it as a given that to “ensure social and economic development” you needed to pursue “transparency and accountability” from the government first.
Australia's new development policy wants to foster connection between your country and ours. How is this best done within development?
You have 100 points. Allocate your points according to where you think efforts are best placed to bring our countries together through development cooperation.
Support from Australia to back your country's aspirations on things like gender equality, health assistance, rural development and education.
Support from Australia to back your country's aspirations on things like trade, market growth, regulatory reform, small-to-medium enterprise (SME) development and development finance.
Support from Australia to back your country's aspirations on things like peace and security, effective governance, food security, digital and cyber security, law and justice.
Support from Australia to back your country's aspirations on things like remittances, labour mobility, job creation, social and economic policy reform.
Support from Australia to back your country's aspirations on things like scholarships, policy dialogue, cultural exchange and institutional partnerships.
Support from Australia to back your country's aspirations on things like climate adaptation and mitigation, global health crises, transnational crime, joint cooperation in regional and multilateral fora, unregulated migration flows and major demographic changes.
In first place, participants called for Australia to back the Philippines’ aspirations in gender equality, public health, rural development, and education. Broadly speaking, the most points were allocated here for two main reasons. Firstly, because Australia should stick to what it’s good at:
“Australia is one of the strongest champions for gender equality in the region.”
“[This is a] combination of Philippines' development needs and Australia's comparative advantage.”
And secondly, because of the long-term development impact that focusing on social capital can deliver:
“Education and public health are key to the country's development.”
“Poverty alleviation will promote development, equity and peace.”
The “complexity of emerging risks” coming down the line in the Philippines meant that stability and security and shared challenges were in respective second and third place for this cohort. Participants felt connections with Australia on shared challenges and security would only be possible if connecting for social capital “is nurtured and harnessed” first.
The high level of vulnerability of the Philippines to climate change, and regional and domestic conflict were a few of the contributing factors. To connect here, some participants called for more work on resilience-building and sharing technical expertise, others for directing targeted support to some of the country’s most marginalised or conflict-prone regions.
At the other end of the line-up, connection for investment was not a priority for these experts. Nonetheless, a small number of participants expressed support for Australia working on economic growth to increase livelihood opportunities, security, and stability.
Some participants emphasised the need for more innovative technical support and access to finance for start-ups and micro, small and medium enterprises. For others this support looked like addressing barriers to foreign direct investment, skills building, or greater labour mobility initiatives.
Australia works with your country through development cooperation in a variety of ways. What would you like to see here?
Australia's bilateral ODA allocation to the Philippines for FY 2023-2024 is $89.9 million. You have 100 points. How would you re-allocate Australia's bilateral funding to the Philippines across these categories using your 100 points?
Including policy and research to support economic growth, emerging industries and job markets, banking and financial services.
Including transport and storage, larger water, communications.
Including agriculture, fisheries and forestry, industry and mining and mineral resources.
Including policy and enabling markets.
Including governance programming, policy reforms, civil society strengthening, social protection measure and infrastructure.
Including support for feminist organisations and movements, support for disability organisations and services.
Including basic, secondary and higher education and scholarships.
Including basic health, infrastructure and basic water and sanitation.
Including climate mitigation and adaptation, energy infrastructure, environmental protection and management.
Including emergency response, disaster prevention and preparedness .
The primacy placed on governance is not surprising for these non-government Pulse Check participants. Some participants saw a role for Australia to back open civic space and media freedom, others wanted it to work alongside public institutions to build resilience when responding to external shocks. Many emphasised the need to concentrate work in the geographic areas of greatest need.
Experts who wanted a larger governance allocation did so in the firm belief that it lays the foundation for broader social and economic development:
“Governance is key to ensure that all other areas are properly addressed.”
“I gave the highest score to governance because it would impact all the categories if support [is] done correctly.”
Given the powerful emphasis on human capital as the number one priority for an effective state in Question Two, it is unsurprising to see education get this volume of points. Respondents backed education for its impact on social mobility, social cohesion, and the long-term resilience of Filipino society.
Some participants saw a clear opportunity for Australia to focus its efforts on supporting education, and identified that this could differentiate Australia from other donors.
Much like in responses to Question One, participants were keen to see strong investment in climate adaptation, but many participants wanted to emphasise that support for disaster resilience and recovery are still what’s front of mind. For some, this meant better support at local levels:
“The Philippines needs support in capacitating local government units in disaster resilience.”
Nonetheless, there was acknowledgment that supporting the Philippines on preparedness and adaptability is key:
“To achieve resilience, the focus should be more on better preparedness tha[n] a reactive approach”
While few participants wanted to see Australia dedicate more ODA towards infrastructure, economic services, and trade, some did speak to the role of economic governance in ensuring more sustainable growth for the Philippines, especially if it yields a shift away from reliance on aid:
“…if there's positive impact on economic growth from economic services, there's less need for the other areas. The Philippines, on its own, can finance spending on social, education, and health services”.
Alongside what is included in Australia's development cooperation with your country, we're interested in your views on how Australia delivers assistance.
You have 100 points. Allocate your points according to where you think Australia should focus to become a great development partner to your country.
Working in selective sectors where Australia can best assist your country, and doing it well. Perhaps operating in a less visible way, and much more impact-oriented.
Working at the forefront of development challenges and working with partners to get ahead of big, new challenges to development. Developing specific capabilities in response to development disruptions decades ahead.
Working with partners to leverage Australian expertise, and knowledge, and working with your country's knowledge ecosystem to solve the most difficult development challenges.
Connected to your communities, not just your Government. Australia as a whole-of-nation partner that connects across different levels: for example universities, businesses, and organisations. Squarely focused on delivering development outcomes for people and communities.
Working to back Australia's development partner's aspirations through things like ASEAN, multilateral arenas, and through bilateral arrangements.
To be a great development partner, participants underscored the importance of Australia being locally-led, and investing in relationships not just with government, but across a mix of local stakeholders. To many, this meant putting more work in at the grassroots for a more “profound and direct impact.”
Participants didn’t just see this as crucial to achieving development impact, but also to sustaining stronger and more resilient ties with the Philippines. This kind of deeper “social solidarity” was seen as foundational to achieving “sustained connections through changes” and as a “soft approach” that can generate trust across other areas of bilateral engagement.
Participants were clear that Australia should continue to be a dependable partner who can leverage niche expertise to areas of greatest need. By doing so, “Australia can play to its strengths and differentiate itself.”
While some ventured recommendations on which areas Australia should focus on…
“Gender equality, human capital development and human rights is something that is unique to Australia.”
…others weren’t specific, but emphasised that Australia’s limited ODA allocation should deliver as much development impact as possible:
"Focus on areas where the Philippines is in dire need of help, on projects that will benefit many generations of Filipinos."
In third place, a number of participants saw the value in Australia trying to increasingly leave more traditional or “old strategies” behind and come up with “new ideas” to tackle major upcoming disruptions like de-globalisation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
Little suggestion was made that Australia already has this capability. One participant felt this could be a useful aspiration and something “that can be built towards.”
A number of participants were keen to emphasise that being a great partner means convincing local leaders their country’s development priorities come first, and Australia’s regional interests second. This meant that even when considering Australia’s role in supporting the Philippines within regional fora, some allocated points to people partner, focused and niche partner, and modern development leader as well as – or instead of – to regional architecture supporter. Being a genuine development partner starts with connecting at home:
“Being primarily both a development leader and niche partner implies that Australia is pursuing partnerships that are increasingly and genuinely locally-led rather than skewed towards Australia's geo-political interest.”
A select few saw the value in Australia’s regional engagement as a means to back ASEAN centrality, or navigate geopolitical tensions:
“By supporting the ASEAN architecture and mechanisms, Australia supports the strength of the [ASEAN] peoples.”
