Infrastructure Development: Experience and Policy Options for the Future

their origin during Marcos’ long dictatorial rule. Ramos had the advantage of a fiscal surplus, no doubt helped by large margins generated from the sale and privatization of government assets.

Average real GDP growth was at 2% during Marcos, 3% during Aquino, and Ramos and Estrada both at 4%. The average inflation during Marcos’ administration was 15.98%.

Aquino brought it down to some extent to 11.12% which is still high. However, the large fiscal deficits incurred in the Marcos administration should be taken into consideration.

Ramos brought down inflation to 7.98% while Estrada cut it down to 5.51%.

The experience shows how critical it is to have sustained economic growth and a strong fiscal position if the necessary growth enhancing and equity-improving infrastructure were to be built and maintained. Infrastructure spending financed by borrowing does not appear to be sustainable. Fiscal deficits and high inflation would put infrastructure development at a tailspin and arrest further growth.

The percentage of all-weather roads over total roads was lowest during Marcos’ term.

Unpaved roads were 86% of the total road network (macadam, 80% and earth, 6%) while concrete and asphalt combined make up for only 15%. In the Aquino administration, allweather road was at 64% while Ramos increased it to 84%. By this time, paved roads composed 20% of all-weather roads and unpaved, 80%, respectively. In Estrada’s term, allweather road reacheds 88% with paved and unpaved roads making up 21% and 79% respectively.

In rail transport, no significant improvement is indicated Marcos except for the construction of the light rail system (LRT under Marcos and MRT-Phase I under Estrada) in Metro Manila. This indicates the urban-bias of rail transport which is relevant for densely populated areas. The road transport system has given effective competition to rail transport because of its relatively cheaper construction and maintenance requirements in addition to greater flexibility in use.

A comment one can perhaps make on this issue is the trade-off between putting up more rail lines in urban areas such as Metro Manila and constructing more efficient, all-weather roads in the countryside, especially in areas with large agro-industrial potential. A more efficient road system that connects countryside areas to the major urban centers will stimulate growth in the inner areas, decongest the urban centers and alleviate poverty in the countryside. The rail or commuter lines can come at a later stage of development. In short, the emphasis should first be on the development of all weather roads in the countryside or rural areas and their connectivity with the main highways or arteries, e.g., Pan-Philippine Highway. This calls for closer analysis by researchers and policy analysts.

The number of airports, on the other hand, has fluctuated from 87 in the Marcos administration to 92 during Ramos’ term across the twenty-five year study. The fluctuation in number may be explained by the difficulty the country had with operating and maintaining airports in areas where the traffic density and the scale of commerce do not justify their existence. In other words, it may not be both financially and economically feasible to operate and maintain many of these airports. There is a need to rationalize the number of airports considering: (a) the large investments associated with the building, maintenance, operation 74