De La Salle University - Manila

2401 Taft Avenue, 1004 Manila, Philippines

A research paper about

“The Removal of US Military Bases and its

Effect on the Philippine economic growth”

In partial fulfilment of the requirements in

Political Economy (POLITEC)

Submitted by:

Espiritu, Maria Nikka N.

Guzman, Anne Clarisse A.

Submitted to:

Mr. Antonio Pedro

POLITEC professor

September 3,2010

The Emergence of US Military Bases

In what way did the removal of the US Bases in the Philippines affect the

country's economic growth? This question has been addressed with various answers –

some of which are explicitly contradictory. This paper looks into the validity of those

arguments that aims to answer the central question. The arguments would be compared

and among these, an adjudication on which argument is most viable would be made.

The establishment of the US bases in different countries all over the world was

grounded on the geopolitical theory proposed by Alfred Thayer Mahan is his book, The

Influence of Sea Power Upon History. It was a seemingly staid tract, but it was to bring

about profound changes upon the world less than a century later (Paez, 1985). Alfred

Thayer Mahan was a United States Navy flag officer who introduced the concept of sea

power which earned him the recognition of being the most important American strategist

of the nineteenth century. His proposed theory succinctly argues that a nation must

expand or else it will reach a point of decline. It must gain power over strategic areas

around the world in order to gain access to markets and raw materials. To achieve this

objective, military power and a strong navy is necessary. In 1898, the United States

began to concretize the Mahan principle. In 1898, George Dewey, commander of the

U.S. Far Eastern squadron, crushed the Spanish Armada at Manila Bay which paved

way to their success of colonizing the Philippines. By the virtue of the Treaty of Paris on

December 10, 1898, the United States purchased the Philippines for US$20 million. The

Americans saw the Philippines as their only path in order to get to the richest markets in

Asia, particularly, China.

What had appeared as mere political and economic objectives carried military

implications. It was highly essential – and, to say the least, desirable, for Washington to

gain a territorial foothold in the Western Pacific. Naval power had to be established and

strengthened in this part of the world. For this purpose, the Philippines was “admirably

located” and was “generally so regarded.” Inevitable therefore, for so long as it was

2

perceived that the Philippines was significant to the promotion of American interests, it

figured prominently in American strategic calculations (Paez, 1985).

Since 1933, the United States had straightforwardly expressed its intention to

establish military bases in the Philippines. The longest relationship that lasted between

the United States of America and a Southeast Asian country has been the US military

involvement in the Philippines. On March 14, 1947, an agreement was signed by the

Republic of the Philippines and the United States in view of the mutual interest of the

two governments in matters of common defense. This is also due to the desire of the

Philippine government to obtain assistance in the training and amelioration of its armed

forces and the acquisition of military equipment and supplies at the time immediately

following the official proclamation of Philippine independence. The Philippines was a

newly-born republic during this period and was strongly in need of aid in terms of

national defense. The president of the United States committed to the rendering of

military assistance to the Republic of the Philippines aiming towards the establishment

and maintenance of national security and towards the formation of a basis for

participation by that government in such a defensive military operations as the future

may require, and to attain these ends, the governments of the Philippines and the

United States have reached into an agreement. For almost a century, the US military

was able to utilize two major bases in the Philippines: the Clark Air Force Base in

Pampanga and the Subic Naval Station in Olongapo City. The former became the

headquarters of the 13th Air Force and the latter became a forward station for the

Seventh Fleet. It took a strong anti-nuclear, anti-imperialist mass mobilization and a

majority vote in the Philippine legislature to finally put an end on the long US military

occupation. What deemed to be focused on issues of national security inevitably

rendered some economic implications.

When former senator Benigno Aquino Jr.'s widow, Corazon Aquino came to

power, she initially ordered the withdrawal of the US bases. The 1987 Constitution

stated that after the expiration of the bases treaty on September 16, 1991, foreign

military bases, troops or facilities, shall not be allowed in the country unless a new treaty

3

was ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate. However, in 1991 when the bases treaty

was supposed to expire, Cory Aquino broke her electoral promise and promoted the

retention of the US military bases. This pushed for a mass mobilization on September

16, 1991 as the Senate voted 12-11 to reject the new treaty.

The question of how the removal of US military bases in the Philippines is

important because its search for the viable answer gives light to the ongoing debate as

to whether the Philippine government did the right thing of sending away the American

military troops and closing down US military facilities in the Philippines. Moreover, this

research could be beneficial in further studies which involve the US bases in other parts

of the world.

Review of Related Literature

Previous studies have been undertaken regarding the impact of the US bases on

Philippine economy. In 1991, politicians and experts have debated over whether the

military bases agreement should be renewed. Pro-base arguments would revolve

around the decrease of employment rates, loan agreements, and even foreign

investments in the country if the bases are removed. Pilar R. Jimenez (1988) outlined

both the advantages and disadvantages of having the US bases here in the Philippines.

The advantages were mostly directed towards the surrounding area of the bases which

are the cities of Olongapo and Angeles. These advantages include the provision of jobs,

medical assistance, financial assistance, school supplies and the enhancement of

national security. It was said that the bases contributed 30-95% in the annual revenue

through taxes and fees from businesses that are being supported by the bases. Most of

the disadvantages that were mentioned were about the social conditions which the

bases had created. Example included the increased number of prostitutions, accidental

killings, and cases of sexually transmitted diseases. The Background on the Bases (a

publication of the US embassy) reiterates the amount of dollars that the US bases have

directly contributed the economy of the country. It said that over 350 million dollars is

spent by the US military in the Philippines annually. The US bases also employed

42,000 Filipinos in 1985, and spent 380 million dollars on them. These figures increased

4

in 1987, wherein the number of employed Filipinos became 68,500 and so US spending

increased to 500 million dollars as well. The economic impact brought about by the US

bases on the economies of Olongapo and Angeles were discussed by Gaerlan (1988).

Despite the projected severity of these arguments, the base treaty was not

renewed and the Subic naval base was officially closed in September 16, 1991.The

Clark Airbase was closed a year earlier due the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The impact of

this event on the local economies of Olongapo city was examined by Cordero (1993)

wherein he says that the removal of US hurt the businesses in Olongapo city, especially

those relying on the consumption of the US military soldiers. On the other hand, Charlie

Lindsey (1989) claims that the contribution of the US bases to the Philippine economy is

not as significant as it was in 1966. Its contribution to the Philippine economy decreased

by half in 1986 wherein it was only 1.43%. Lindsey directly falsifies the figures claimed

by the US embassy in their publication, Background of the Bases, later on argues that

the influence of the US bases on Philippine economy is continuously declining. Garcia

(1988) argues that removal of the bases would result to an increase in economic growth

due to the possible alternatives that may be implemented to the US bases after they

have left. According to him, the economic conversion of the US bases will result to

economic growth.

The contradicting figures and arguments that are being presented by these

authors make it difficult for us to determine which one is really accurate. With the

presence, of various contradictions, we found it significant to test which of these causal

paths were actually true. These causal paths will be further discussed in the

methodology.

Methodology

The results of the debate regarding the US bases and the Philippine economy

was not clearly resolved, mainly because of the highly contrasting arguments that have

been present before and after 1991 about the impact of the withdrawal of the US bases.

5

In this research paper we will be testing 2 causal paths. First is whether the removal of

US bases resulted to a decline in economic growth, and second whether it resulted to

an increase in economic development. The causal mechanisms that will be tested are

based upon the existing theories regarding the impact of US bases on Philippine

economy.

The data which we will be using in order to test these two paths would be coming

from National and International institutions (ADB, NSO, etc) in order to avoid the

obtainment of biased figures. We chose to compare the years 1980 – 1995, because of

the availability of data and to show the real status of GNP and employment before and

after the removal of bases. Besides these two, we will also be looking into the number

of foreign investments in the country during these years. In testing these causal paths

we would be verifying if their causal mechanisms are valid, and if they actually affected

the outcome of the dependent variable. Also we are going to find out whether one of

these two really took effect after the removal of the bases, or both of them are invalid.

Data

Unemployment

When the US bases were still present in the country, the Americans have

claimed that they are second largest employer of Filipino workers in the country. If this

is true, then their removal would have a huge economic impact on the country’s

economy. Unemployment is part of our first causal path, and it serves as a causal

mechanism which links the removal of bases to economic decline in the country. Our

data on unemployment rates would be coming from the figures presented by NSO from

years 1980 – 1995 as well as the underemployment rates.

6

Foreign Aid and Investments

It has been argued that the removal of the US bases would affect the number or

foreign investments and foreign aid in the country for the main reason that the US bases

will no longer be present to “oversee” the movement of government. The US pays a

substantial amount of money for the “rent” of its bases. In 1988 alone, the US agreed to

pay the Philippines $962 million in exchange for the retention of its bases in the

Philippines for another 2 years. It was also claimed that transnational corporations,

especially those from the US may be threatened by the removal of the US bases since

the bases also served as the “stabilizing factor” for them to feel secure regarding their

investments. The capacity to borrow would also be looked into to see if the presence of

US bases had an impact on it. The data for foreign aid would be provided by. The rates

of foreign investment will be provided by the Institute of International Finance. Our debt

accumulation (excluding the growing interest rates) would also be looked into in order to

demonstrate the borrowing capacity of the country.

Economic Conversion

By economic conversion, we mean that the former US bases would be used for

capital accumulation of the country. These former US bases were transformed into

facilities that catered to public goods. To demonstrate its effect on the economy, GNP

rates would be looked into. Exports and imports would also be considered to see if the

removal of the US bases had effects on the country’s trade. The data on GNP would be

provided by the NSO while the data on trade would be provided by the Philippine

Statistical yearbook of 1999.

Testing the Hypotheses and Results

A.

7

A lot of pro- base arguments have centered on the idea that the removal of the

bases would result to a decline in the economy of the Philippines because of three basic

reasons. First is that the US bases employs 68,000 Filipino workers, and their removal

would result to an increased rate in unemployment. But this number is not even 1% of

the total labour force of the country. Therefore it is misleading to claim that the removal

of bases has such a significant impact on the employment rates in the country. These

numbers had an effect on the local economies of the cities that catered to the military

bases but it is too little to have significance on the country as a whole. As seen in Figure

1, there has been a steady increase in the labour force of the country since 1985. (See

Appendix, table 5 for exact amount of labor force)

Figure 1:

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 19950

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

Line Graph on Philippine Labor Force (1985-1995)

Labor force

*Source – World Bank (2010)

From the years 1991 (removal of bases) to 1992, there has been a decrease in

unemployment and underemployment rates.(See appendix, table 1 for unemployment and

underemployment rates).This data then further proves that the removal of US bases did

not have a negative impact on the country’s employment rates. (The sudden increase of

unemployment rates from 1990 – 1991 may have been caused by the moving of

8

corporations to other countries due to the daily brownouts that had plagued the

country’s business and the public sectors.)

On the issue of foreign aid and investments we looked into the number of foreign

investments, amount of foreign aid and the country’s amount of debt before and after

the removal of the US bases. It has been established that foreign aid and borrowing

helps in the capital accumulation of a country. The presence of US bases was an

excuse for the US to provide assistance to the Filipinos (Simbulan, 1988). Some

politicians argued that the removal of the bases may have an impact on the aid that we

receive from US as well as the borrowing capacity of the country since it would be more

difficult for the US congress to approve loans knowing that the US bases would not be

there to oversee the country’s spending (Villalba, 1990). To prove or disprove this claim

we looked into the debt accumulation of the Philippines, with consideration to its interest

rates.

Figure 2:

Marcos (1966-85) Aquino(1986-91) Ramos(1992-97)$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

Bar graph of Foreign debts in US$ billion

Levels of foreign debt

*Source – BSP & ADB

This graph shows a decrease in foreign debt after Marcos, during the Aquino

administration. This decrease was due to the 25% debt service payments during the

9

Aquino administration. But it is seen that in the succeeding administration debt

accumulation had ballooned. This debunks the argument that the borrowing capacity of

the president declined due to the removal of the US bases.

We also examined if the lessened amount of foreign aid that the US paid the

country during the presence of US military bases lead to an economic decline. The GNP

in 1992 slightly increased (see appendix, table 3 for GNP, and GNP per capita rates).

Despite the increased amount of rental from 1985 to 1991 (see appendix, table 2), the

economy of the country still plummeted. This then implies that the rental payment of US

bases doesn’t have a significant effect on the economy of the Philippines. Another side

which some politicians took was the issue on foreign investments. According to them

foreign investments would be threatened if the bases were removed because these

bases give them security and act as a “stabilizing factor”. We test this claim by looking

at the amount of foreign investments that had entered the country before and after the

removal of the US military bases.

Figure 3:

*Source – Institute of International Finance

The flow of foreign investments seemed to stable during the transition of 1991-1992.

But a severe decrease in the investments in the middle of 1992 has negatively affected

the GNP of the country. This sudden decrease in foreign investments may have been

due to interconnected factors, one of them being the removal of the US bases.

10

Transnational corporations have also conveyed their worries regarding the removal of

the US bases. “For their part, the Transnational Corporations, especially from the U.S.,

Japan and the NICs like Hong Kong and Singapore expressed grave concern about

their current and future investments should the U.S. Bases Treaty be rejected by the

Philippine senate. Many expressed doubts that their investments would be secure

without a strong stabilizing factor like the U.S. military presence.” (Villalba, 1988).

Other factors include the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo and the shortages in power supply

which resulted to a daily rotating brownout.

B.

The maintenance of the US military bases in the Philippines has generated the

question of which faction actually gains benefits in the American military presence. This

exhaustively shows how security issues yielded economic impacts. One argument that

supports the retention of the military bases is that the said bases contributed to the

economic boon experienced by the Philippines. The bases reportedly pump an

estimated US$260 million a year (1977 figure) directly into the Philippine economy with

the total contribution, including the secondary benefits, said to be considerably higher.

This contribution is placed at about 5% of the Philippine GNP (Paez, 1985).

Despite the overwhelming amount of cash inflow from the US military bases to

the Philippine economy, critics of the US military in the Philippines pointed out that the

figures presented by the US government needs a closer examination. The figures

presented included base spending on US goods and services. In reality, the actual

amount of money being received by the Philippine economy constitutes merely a

fraction of the given yearly figures. Most of the appropriations for the bases were spent

for the maintenance and repair of the facilities which do not entail contract servicing by

Filipino firms, and most purchases of consumption goods by base personnel are made

at tax-free PX commissions. Therefore, the sources of income at military bases are

mostly from off-base housing facilities, for entertainment and recreation services, and

11

the employment of a few Filipinos in the base. Therefore, US base expenditures are

mainly concentrated on consumption rather than on capital investment and thus do not

contribute to Philippine production.

Paez (1985) presented a case in Sangley point, the US facility in Cavite. Before it

was turned over to the Armed Forces of the Philippines, there have been rumors that

the city's economy would deteriorate and the base-workers would end up unemployed.

This case never actually happened. Sangley point absorbed the discharged Filipino

workers. This did not render any negative effect on the city's economy. It showed

otherwise. Before, the Americans hardly purchased the consumption goods from the

local market of Cavite but instead buy their desired products. The transfer of the facility

back to the Filipinos is a step towards a better economy because since the possession

of the facility was given back to the Philippines, it will create market motivation for the

base personnel to buy personal needs from the Cavite City market.

The Filipinos who support the withdrawal of US military bases recognize the fact

that the Philippines may experience short-term dislocations. They are more in favor of

transforming the base sites into economically productive areas. The base sites are

actually potential agricultural land. About 60% of the Clark and Subic base area are

actually arable.

By extending arable lands for American military use, the Philippines has been

losing the opportunity of producing about 8 400 000 cavans of husked rice (based on

the conservative production estimate of 35 cavans per acre, two harvests yearly) At the

cost of US$13 per cavan (1978 market price), the Philippines lost an estimated possible

earning if US$109 million. (Paez, 1985).

What the people want to do with the base is called Economic conversion. It refers

to the process by which the military bases are transformed from a primarily defense-

oriented site to one that creates productive and profitable jobs for dignified communities

(Garcia, 1988). The whole point of economic conversion is to say that there is life after

12

the bases. The participation and cooperation coming from the people in the military

base is important. They help provide a meaningful and successful economic conversion

which is acceptable in majority of the communities. It is also an essential step towards a

more self-reliant and authentic national development.

Garcia (1985) highlighted some lessons that have been learned from the

experience of the withdrawal of the US military bases in Cavite in 1971. In the first

place, the largely unilateral withdrawal of the United States from Sangley Point which

took place under unfavorable circumstances did not necessarily result in an economic

dead-end for the immediately affected community.

Second, in the event of the withdrawal, the following five factors must be

considered:

1. The participation of the people in the deliberation regarding economic

conversion

2. The coordination between economic planning and preparations for a

transition program to facilitate adjustment

3. The priority for labor-intensive economic alternatives;

4. An appropriate time-frame within which to provide skills training in the light

of re-employment possibilities; and

5. A comprehensive financing scheme which will involve the private sector,

the national government and “fair assistance” from the United States as

may be agreed upon.

Although the bases played a significant role in Philippine economy, it must not be

overemphasized for the reason that it does not deserve to. It has generated a number of

employment opportunities but it has also raised the number of incidences associated

with prostitution, child abandonment, drug dealing, crime, black marketing or smuggling

and corruption.

13

The negative social behavior and values arising from the activities which occur in

places that surround the base leaves an absolute moral consequence on the local

population, especially the youth. In addition, Filipinos who work at the base and those

who live in the surrounding areas face the threats of dangerous chemicals that could be

fatal for their health. It was also claimed that the establishment of US military bases also

paved way for the spread of AIDS in the Philippines, associated with the rampant spread

of prostitution.

As early as 1975, long before the withdrawal of the US military bases, the

Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) had already conducted a study

on the possible ways of converting the Subic Naval Base and the Clark Air Base for

non-military use. According to this study, more benefits from the base could be

extracted once it goes into the possession of the Philippine government and the private

sector. This leads to the creation of an agro-industrial development strategy for the

region.

The conversion of the bases as economic growth centers are in line with the

vision of the National Economic and Development Authority which called for the creation

of an industrial scenario attractive to private investors and the promotion of industries

which would develop inherent regional resources and economic potential. The

withdrawal of the US military bases positively affected the economic growth of the

Philippines and increased the level of trade with the United States given that after the

military bases were abolished, these bases were declared to remain as free ports.

These free ports provided tax incentives to foreign investors which also supported the

trade in the country.

The economic conversion supports the argument that the withdrawal of US

military bases has led to positive effects on the Philippine economy. Since the

abolishment of the bases in 1991, there might have been a decline in the level of foreign

investment and GNP (See Appendix) but this was in the short-term context which was

actually anticipated by the Filipino people, especially those who reside in areas around

14

the abolished bases. However, this was heavily compensated by the significant

increase in GNP starting 1993, decline in the level of unemployment and increase levels

of trade. This was eventually followed by the level foreign investment which improved at

around 1993 and even resulted in a “foreign investment boom” in 1994 (See Appendix).

This appears to be a resemblance of the J-curve as discussed by Hellman (1998).

Conclusion

Despite the existence of various supporting claims for the argument that the

Philippines' economic growth rate would decrease upon the withdrawal of US military

bases, there seemed to be no compelling evidence to underpin the vindication. The

abolishment of the bases also did not have a significant level of unemployment of the

country because only a rough estimate of one percent of the country's entire

employment was associated with the US military bases. The number of people who

became jobless after the removal of the bases was limited to those situated near the

said bases. This may also be looked at as a positive result of the abolition of the bases

since it ended the hazards imposed on the lives of the base workers and residents

around the base who were constantly exposed to the chemicals being used in the

facilities. These people were also able to get another job when the Philippine

government decided to convert the bases into industrial sites. Moreover, there has been

no effect on the Philippines' capacity to borrow money as evidenced in the increasing

debt service during the administration after the discontinuation of US military services.

But on the mechanism of foreign investments, there seem to be a slight connection

between the sudden decline of foreign investments to the removal of the US bases

given the expressed concerns of the foreign investors. Because of this we considered

foreign investments, as a factor that influenced the decrease in GNP, but concluded that

the decrease in foreign investments was not only caused by the removal of bases but

by other interconnected factors as well.

On the contrary, it was during the revocation of the US bases in the Philippines

where the country was able to experience a gradual growth in its economy. We do not

15

neglect the fact that the economy was down for a brief period of time immediately after

the removal of the bases but it was a very minor incident and was more limited to the

areas surrounding what used to be the sites of the US bases. It could also be directed

to the series of brownouts which occurred during the Aquino administration that led to

the withdrawal of various foreign companies situated in the Philippines due to their

difficulty to function and generate income with fluctuating power. Eventually, it was

compensated by the long-term augmentation of the Philippine economy when Fidel V.

Ramos became the president of the Republic of the Philippines. The free ports which

was established after the removal of bases encouraged investments and supported

local and international trade. The Philippine government's possession of the base sites

enabled economic conversion which facilitated more production and more job

opportunities especially for those whose employment were directly affected by the

termination of the bases. Therefore, the overall impact created by the removal of the US

bases was positive given that it entitled the Philippine government the authority to utilize

its territory. This created more venues for utilization which is geared towards the welfare

of the Filipino people.

So we return to the question, how the removal of US bases affected the economy

of the Philippines. Our findings have shown that some of the causal mechanisms used

to claim the connection between the decline of Phil. Economy and the removal of bases

were invalid. Included here are US aid and unemployment. But the removal of the US

bases was a contributing factor to the decline of foreign investment in the country.

There was a short term loss for the Philippines after the withdrawal of the bases but the

economy eventually got back on its feet with the help of the economic conversion of the

former military bases. This conversion was a step towards the economic development in

the country. In the end, the country was able to reap more benefits from the withdrawal

of the military bases. This proves that Philippine economy is not dependent on the

presence of US intervention alone.

16

Appendix of Figures.

I. Underemployment and Unemployment Rates in the Philippines (1980-1995)

Year Unemployment Underemployment

1980 7.9 20.7

1981 8.8 22.8

1982 9.6 25.8

1983 10.4 29.1

1984 10.4 30.5

1985 12.5 20.4

1986 11.8 23.0

1987 11.2 23.1

1988 9.5 21.3

1989 9.1 21.1

1990 8.4 22.4

1991 10.5 22.5

1992 9.8 20

1993 9.3 21.7

1994 9.5 21.4

1995 9.3 19.8

*Source – NSO

II. Rental Payment from the US (1979 – 1991)

Time Period Rental payment (in US dollars)

1979 – 1982 $ 500 million

1983 – 1988 $ 900 million

1989 – 1991 $ 962 million (“rental” of bases)

17

III. GNP and GNP per Capita (1980 – 1995)

Year GNP GNP per capita

1980 4.63 1.86

1981 3.24 0.70

1982 2.84 0.33

1983 1.44 -1.06

1984 -8.72 -10.92

1985 -7.06 -9.31

1986 4.15 1.68

1987 5.10 2.61

1988 7.16 4.67

1989 5.73 3.31

1990 4.53 2.19

1991 0.23 -1.99

1992 0.62 -1.54

1993 2.12 -1.16

1994 5.25 2.75

1995 4.96 3.02

*Source – NSO

IV. Value of US-Philippine Trade in US dollars (1989 – 1995)

Year Exports Imports Balance

1989 1,979,273 2,945,612 (966,339)

1990 2,365,532 3,094,588 (729,056)

1991 2,462,278 3,143,653 (681,375)

1992 2,620,204 3,831,548 (1,211,344)

1993 3,522,267 4,371,159 (848,892)

1994 3,941,268 5,143,260 (1,201,992)

1995 5,014,293 6,159,655 (1,145,362)

*Source – Philippine Statistical Yearbook (1999)

18

V. Labor Force (1985 – 1995)

Year Number of People

1985 20,729,698

1986 21,658,316

1987 22,576,248

1988 22,576,248

1989 23,436,092

1990 24,099,597

1991 24,771,832

1992 25,648,642

1993 26,186,154

1994 26,894,754

1995 28,086,519

*Source – World Bank (2010)

VI. Foreign Debt Accumulation (Marcos- Ramos)

US$ million Marcos Aquino Ramos

1966-85 1986-91 1992-97

Foreign debt at end of period

26,389 29,933 42,972

Accumulation during entire term

25,790 3,544 13,039

Average annual accumulation

1,290 591 2,173

Public foreign debt at end of period

19,259 24,550 26,708

Accumulation during entire term

- 5,291 2,158

Average annual accumulation

- 882 360

Private foreign debt at end of period

7,130 5,382 16,263

Accumulation during entire term

- (1,748) 10,881

19

Average annual accumulation

- (291) 1,814

*Source- Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)

VII. Debt Service Burden (Marcos – Ramos)

Marcos Aquino Ramos

1981-85 1986-91 1992-97

Value (US$ million) 13,661 17,774 27,465

Average annual DSB (US$ million)

2,732 2,962 4,578

Average annual per capita (US$)

52.80 50.17 67.67

Average annual DSB to GDP (%)

8.1 7.8 6.9

*Source - Asian Development Bank (ADB)

References:

20

African Forum and Network on Debt and Development, Initials.

(2007). Illegitimate debt & underdevelopment in the philippines.

Retrieved last August 29, 2010 from http://www.afrodad.org

/downloads/Phillipines%20FTA%20final.pdf

Agreement between the government of the republic of the philippines

and the government of the united states of america on military

assistance to the philippines.. (n.d.). Retrieved on August 30, 2010

from http://www.yonip.com/main/articles/1947.html

Balboa, J. & Medalla, E.(February 2006). Deliberating a Philippine-US Free Trade

Agreement: Issues, Challenges and Prospects. Philippine Institute for

Development Studies Publications.

Caranza, R. (September 2002). The day the impossible happened. Retrieved last

August 31,2010 from Bulatlat: http://bulatlat.com/news/2-32/2-32-bases.html.

Cordero, J. (1993). Mga epekto ng paglisan ng mga base militar ng Estados Unidos sa

mga negosyante ng Olongapo at ang kanilang mga paraan ng pag-aagapay.

DLSU thesis.

Gaerlan, J. (1988). The economic impact of the U.S. military bases in the Philippine on

the local economy of Angeles City and Olongapo City. DLSU thesis.

Garcia, E., & Nemenzo, F. (1988). The Sovereign quest : freedom

from foreign military bases. Quezon City: Claretian

Publications.

Jimenez, P. (1988). Social benefits and costs: people's perceptions of the U.S. military

21

bases in the Philippines. Manila : Research Center, De La Salle University.

Lindsey, C. (1989). The economics of the US military bases in the Philippines. Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies, Vol 5, No 1, p. 45-58.

Paez, P.A. (1985). The Bases factor: realpolitik of rp-us relations.

Center for Strategic and International Studies of the Philippines.

Simbulan, R. (1988). The bases of our insecurity: A study of the US military bases in the

Philippines. Quezon City : BALAI Fellowship.

Villalba, N. (1991). Philippines: A subjective view of the Philippine bases issue.

Retrieved August 31, 2010 from

http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/1991vol01no01/1984/.

World Bank. (nd). Indicators for Philippines. Retrieved September 2,2010 from

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/philippines/indicators/.

22