ENDEAVOR
Two seminal works — Yuval Noah Harari’s “Nexus” and Malcolm Gladwell’s “Revenge of the Tipping Point” — offer profound insights into the complexities of our modern world. Harari explores humanity’s “network problem,” highlighting our failure to wisely wield the immense power we have amassed through vast systems of cooperation. Meanwhile, Gladwell delves into the “law of the very, very few,” underscoring how a handful of individuals can trigger massive, far-reaching consequences, whether in the spread of ideas, behaviors, or diseases.
These frameworks provide a lens through which we can examine the Philippine experience, particularly the enduring challenges of income inequality and systemic corruption. While our Southeast Asian neighbor Indonesia has managed to narrow the gap between rich and poor despite sharing similar issues of graft, the Philippines remains mired in stark inequality. How can Harari and Gladwell’s insights help us make sense of this?
Three key takeaways emerge that offer opportunities for reflection and action:
First, networks are only as strong as their foundations.
Harari’s “network problem” speaks directly to a critical Philippine issue: the misuse of our collective potential. Networks – whether social, economic, or political – are meant to amplify cooperation, productivity, and progress. In the Philippines, however, networks observably serve narrow, self-serving interests. Political clans, monopolistic business conglomerates, and corrupt bureaucracies have been perennially dominant; hence, the fruits of cooperation benefit the few while the majority languish in poverty.
While visiting typhoon-ravaged areas in January 2015, Pope Francis urged bishops, priests and religious in the Philippines to “combat the causes of the deeply rooted inequality and injustice which mar the Filipino society” as these injustices were “plainly contradicting the teaching of Christ.”
This misuse of networks is not just a moral failing; it is a structural one. For instance, despite the growing Philippine economy, laborers and small-scale entrepreneurs remain excluded from the benefits of growth due to weak support systems and exploitative practices. This contrasts with Indonesia’s efforts to integrate more people into its economy through programs aimed at rural development and inclusive urban growth.
The lesson here is simple but profound: networks must prioritize equitable foundations. Without fairness and inclusivity at their core, even the most advanced systems of cooperation will perpetuate inequality. Some sections of civil society have been demanding greater accountability from leaders who control these networks and insist on reforms that distribute opportunities and resources more justly – yet their voices seem to be falling on deaf ears.
Second, tipping points depend on influencers, with mixed consequences.
Gladwell’s “law of the very, very few” explains how a small number of individuals can create outsized impacts. A few power brokers – dynasties, tycoons, and entrenched elites – dominate the country’s political and economic trajectory, exerting significant influence over a broad spectrum of resource allocation, often to the detriment of the general welfare.
But the law of the very, very few is not inherently negative. Just as a few individuals can perpetuate inequality and corruption, a similarly small group of changemakers can ignite a transformation. Consider how figures like Jose Rizal and Andres Bonifacio galvanized the nation during the revolution against colonial rule. Their influence spread like wildfire, fueled by networks of cooperation that transcended class and geography.
In our own modest measure, the Manila Bulletin is recognizing newsmakers among the entrepreneurial youth who are carving niches of opportunity that hold vast potential for public welfare.
The challenge lies in cultivating new influencers who can act as tipping points for good. These could be reform-minded leaders, visionary entrepreneurs, or community organizers who work tirelessly to challenge the status quo. The key is for these influencers to harness modern networks — such as social media, grassroots movements, and global partnerships — to amplify their impact and rally others toward systemic change.
Third, the contagion of corruption must be stemmed with continuing public vigilance.
Gladwell’s exploration of epidemics reminds us that contagions are not limited to diseases like Covid-19; they also include social behaviors, such as corruption. In the Philippines, propagation is viral. It begins with a few “superspreaders” – powerful officials and their enablers — who normalize graft as part of the system. Over time, this behavior infects entire institutions, creating a culture where dishonesty becomes the norm, rather than the exception.
This contagion of corruption perpetuates inequality by diverting resources meant for public welfare into private pockets. It undermines trust in government, discourages foreign investment, and stifles grassroots entrepreneurship. While Indonesia shares a history of corruption, its leaders have taken deliberate steps in recent years to contain the spread, including the establishment of a robust anti-corruption commission.
The Corruption Eradication Commission of Indonesia (KPK) has been fairly successful in investigating and prosecuting corrupt public officials. According to its website, “in just five years it was able to reach a 100 percent conviction rate against top officials in all major branches of the Indonesian government, while the Philippine Ombudsman has scored only few convictions in its 20-year history.” What is the key difference? “Part of this success can be explained by considerable investigative powers given to KPK, which the Philippine Ombudsman does not hold.”
For the Philippines to combat this contagion, we must adopt both institutional and cultural approaches. On the institutional level, reforms should focus on transparency, stronger enforcement of anti-graft laws, and empowering watchdog agencies. Culturally, there needs to be a collective shift in mindset: corruption must be viewed not as an unavoidable norm but as an unacceptable aberration. Filipinos must refuse to tolerate even “petty” corruption, as these small acts collectively fuel the larger epidemic.
Ultimately, the fight against inequality and corruption begins with a shift in perspective. Filipinos must recognize the power of collective action, the importance of ethical leadership, and the role each individual plays in sustaining or disrupting the status quo. Whether it’s holding leaders accountable, refusing to participate in corrupt practices, or supporting initiatives that promote equity, every small act contributes to a larger movement.
As we reflect on the lessons from Harari and Gladwell, let us remember that networks and tipping points are not inherently good or bad — they are tools. It is up to us to use them wisely, to ensure that they serve not the interests of the few but the aspirations of the many. Only then can we hope to build a Philippines where progress is not a privilege but a shared reality.
Comments may be sent to [email protected]