The Philippine ICT Industry and the Middle Income Trap

  • Ferdinand C. MaquitoEmail author
Part of the New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives book series (NFRSASIPER, volume 17)


This chapter constitutes a macroanalysis of the Philippine Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector, which has come to be a critical part of the country’s economic development. It investigates the role of this sector in relation to the (lower) Middle Income Trap (MIT), which is considered as a major factor for the generally poor performance of the Philippines since the end of the world war. The analysis focuses on two structural phenomena that have been associated with the MIT: early deindustrialization and product trap. To this end, the ICT sector is divided into the soft portion corresponding to the services sector and the hard portion corresponding to the manufacturing sector. The soft portion analysis uses the three Kaldorian laws to investigate whether or not the early deindustrialization is premature (bad) or precocious (good). The hard portion analysis uses product space proximity and input-output tables to assess the nature of the product trap in the Philippines. The general conclusion is that there is a need for a strategic look at the ICT sector, especially with regards to the very real possibility that the ICT industry poses the risks of slowing down the growth of the Philippines through premature deindustrialization and a product trap.


Philippines Middle income trap Product trap Early deindustrialization Kaldor/Kaldorian law 


  1. Atesoglu H (1993) Manufacturing and economic growth in the United States. Appl Econ 25(1):67–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bairam E (1991) Economic growth and Kaldor’s law: the case of Turkey, 1925–78. Appl Econ 23(8):1277–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Behesti M, Sadighnia R (2006) Testing Kaldor’s engine of growth hypothesis in Iran’s economy. Q Iran Econ Res 28:39–60Google Scholar
  4. Bernat G (1996) Does manufacturing matter? A spatial econometric view of Kaldor’s laws. J Reg Sci 36(3):463–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diaz Bautista A (2003) Mexico’s industrial engine of growth: cointegration and causality. Momento Economico 126:34–41Google Scholar
  6. Drakopoulos S, Theodossiou I (1991) Kaldorian approach to Greek economic growth. Appl Econ 23(10):1683–1689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Felipe J (1998) The role of the manufacturing sector in Southeast Asian development: a test of Kaldor’s first law. J Post Keynesian Econ 20(3):463–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Felipe J, Abdon A, Kumar U (2012) Tracking the, middle-income trap: what is it, who is in it, and why. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, ManilaGoogle Scholar
  9. Felipe J, Kumar U, Galope R (2014) Middle-income transitions: trap or myth? Asian Development Bank Economics Working Paper Series 421Google Scholar
  10. Fingleton B, McCombie JSL (1998) Increasing returns and economic growth: some evidence for manufacturing from the European Union regions. Oxf Econ Pap 50(1):89–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gill I, Kharas H (2007) An East Asian renaissance: ideas for economic growth. World Bank Publications, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansen J, Zhang J (1996) A Kaldorian approach to regional economic growth in China. Appl Econ 28(6):679–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harris R, Lau E (1998) Verdoorn’s law and increasing returns to scale in the UK regions, 1968–91: some new estimates based on the cointegration approach. Oxf Econ Pap 50(2):201–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harris R, Liu A (1999) Verdoorn’s law and increasing returns to scale: country estimates based on the cointegration approach. Appl Econ Lett 6(1):29–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hidalgo CA, Klinger B, Barabási A, Hausmann R (2007) The product space conditions the development of nations. Science 317(5837):482–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ILO Website, Key indicators of the labour market database. International Labour OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  17. JETRO (2012) Firipin no denshi sangyo: shijou chousa houkokusho (Manira hatsu) (Philippine electronics industry: market survey report (from Manila)). Accessed 10 Oct 2015
  18. Knell M (2004) Structural change and the Kaldor-Verdoorn law in the 1990s. Rev Econ Ind 105:71–83Google Scholar
  19. Leon-Ledesma M (2000) Economic growth and Verdoorn’s law in the Spanish regions, 1962–91. Int Rev Appl Econ 14(1):55–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Necmi S (2000) Kaldor’s growth analysis revisited. Appl Econ 31(5):653–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Philippine Statistics Authority (2007) Understanding the business process outsourcing (BPO) industry in the Philippines, posted November 9. Accessed 10 Aug 2015
  22. Pons-Novell EJ, Viladecans-Marsal E (1999) Kaldor’s laws and spatial dependence: evidence for European regions. Reg Stud 33(5):443–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rowthorn R, Rawasmamy R (1999) Growth, trade, and industrialization. IMF Staff Papers 46Google Scholar
  24. Rowthorn R, Wells J (1987) De-industrialization and foreign trade. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Santiago E (2011) The Philippine ICT: the green IT. Presented in Asia Green IT Forum organized by Green IT Promotion Council on October 27, Seoul. Accessed 10 Aug 2015
  26. Tregenna F (2011) Manufacturing productivity, deindustrialization, and reindustrialization. UNU-WIDER Working Paper, 2011/57 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  27. UNCTAD (2003) Trade and development report: capital accumulation, growth, and structural change. United Nations, New York/GenevaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wells H, Thirlwall PA (2003) Testing Kaldor’s laws across the countries of Africa. Afr Dev Rev 15(2–3):89–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. World Bank (1993) The East Asian miracle: economic growth and public policy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsTemple UniversityTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Sekiguchi Global Research AssociationTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations