3 results
4 - Accumulation at the Margins? Mineral Brokerage and Chinese Investments in Philippine Mining
- from SECTION I - From Capital to Labour Mobility
-
- By Alvin A. Camba, Binghamton University.
- Edited by Preet S. Aulakh, York University, Toronto, Philip F. Kelly, York University, Toronto
-
- Book:
- Mobilities of Labour and Capital in Asia
- Published online:
- 24 December 2019
- Print publication:
- 06 February 2020, pp 72-97
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The chapter examines how previous historical migrations, which resulted in diverse Filipino-Chinese communities, facilitated the dynamics and articulations of the People's Republic of China's (PRC) foreign direct investment (FDI) in the Philippine mining sector. In the early 2000s, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (2001–2010) set aside the Philippines’ territorial claims in the South China Sea in order to strengthen bilateral ties, culminating in more than 20 major investments from Chinese state-oriented enterprises (SOEs) and an increase in smaller private investments across a wide variety of sectors in the Philippines. Private Chinese investors began forming mining companies with Filipino partners in order to take advantage of the Philippines’ emerging mineral economy. However, Benigno Aquino III's (2010–2016) stand on the South China Sea led to the deterioration of Philippine–China relations, reversing the previous administrative policy of encouraging Chinese investments. Ironically, his term experienced an upturn in activities from numerous Chinese-funded artisanal andsmall-scale mining (ASM) firms, which was paradoxical because national political rhetoric and state preference were discursively against Chinese capital. Despite this, Philippine media and civil society organizations reported the rise of illegal ASM funded by Chinese investors. From the perspective of officials in the Aquino administration, the unsanctioned Chinese mineral extraction was part of China's imperial activities in the South China Sea, one with foundations in the unquenched yearning for South East Asia's strategic resources and juridically sanctioned territories. Indeed, Walden Bello, a former congressman during Aquino's term, said that he ‘received reports of the rise of illegal Chinese mining activities during Aquino, which was an irony because the increasing international conflict [between the Philippines and China]’.
What accounts for the rise of Chinese ASM during the Aquino administration? I present two interrelated but distinct points on the Philippine mining sector and Chinese FDI from a political economy approach in concert with ethnographic research on three Chinese mining companies in one Philippine province. First, I examine the successive eras of state authoritarianism (1965–1985) and neoliberalism (1986-onwards) to explain the emergence of ASM in the Philippines. I show how the historical evolution of the Philippine and Chinese economies led to a confluence of factors that resulted in the proliferation of Chinese-funded ASM mining. The crisis of the Philippine mining economy and the neoliberal transition institutionalized the position of regional–local elites to greatly manage the mining sector.
6 - The Direction, Patterns, and Practices of Chinese Investments in Philippine Mining
-
- By Alvin A. Camba, doctoral candidate in Sociology at Johns Hopkins University.
- Edited by Jason Morris-Jung
-
- Book:
- In China's Backyard
- Published by:
- ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
- Published online:
- 04 July 2018
- Print publication:
- 13 December 2017, pp 129-153
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The literature on Chinese overseas foreign direct investment (FDI) in theGlobal South has generally pursued a global approach or state-to-stateanalysis. However, these overlook changes at the local level as Chinese FDI hasrekindled the emergence of historical tensions among groups, local strugglesfor control, and anxieties toward globalization in the twenty-first century. Thus,this gap presents an opportunity to analyse China's engagements at multiplelevels with a variety of regional actors across different scales, places, andcontexts. This chapter shows how the patterns and practices of Chineseinvestments in Philippine mining differ from conventional multinationalmining investments. First is the method of production. Multinational miningcompanies focus on large-scale mining (LSM), but Chinese investments tendto gravitate towards artisanal small-scale mining (ASM) to evade scrutinyfrom national authorities and hostile reactions associated with currentterritorial disputes between the two countries. Second is the method ofaccumulation. While multinationals use capital-intensive, ASM capitalizeson labour-intensive extraction, community-centred and house-driven support.And last are the host country linkages. While multinational mining companiesneed the support of national government agencies to pursue resourceextraction, Chinese mining relies more on connections with overseas Chinesecommunities in the Philippines to access subnational political elites, such asregional politicians, governors, and local officials.
Introduction
This chapter shows how the patterns and practices of Chinese investments in Philippine mining differ from conventional multinational mining investments. While Ching Kwan Lee has previously argued that there are different practices between Chinese and multinational mining companies in Zambia, the author suggests that Chinese investment in the Philippine mining sector presents an analogous case. First is the method of production. Multinational mining companies focus on large-scale mining (LSM), but Chinese investments tend to gravitate towards artisanal small-scale mining (ASM) to evade scrutiny from national authorities and hostile reactions associated with current territorial disputes between the two countries. Second is the method of accumulation. While multinationals use capital-intensive infrastructure and formalized ways of pursuing extraction, ASM capitalizes on multiple methods and ways: labour-intensive extraction, communitycentred and house-driven support, and flexible infrastructure. And last are the host country linkages. While multinational mining companies need the support of national government agencies to pursue resource extraction, Chinese mining relies more on connections with overseas Chinese communities in the Philippines to access subnational political elites, such as regional politicians, governors, and local officials.
3 - Neoliberalism, Resource Governance and the Everyday Politics of Protests in the Philippines
- from Part II - From Development to Multiple Modernities
-
- By Jewellord T. Nem Singh, University of Tokyo, Alvin A. Camba, Johns Hopkins University
- Edited by Juanita Elias, University of Warwick, Lena Rethel, University of Warwick
-
- Book:
- The Everyday Political Economy of Southeast Asia
- Published online:
- 05 August 2016
- Print publication:
- 18 August 2016, pp 49-71
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
I have challenged the mining industry to provide evidence of at least one case of a town that developed through large-scale mining. Up until now, they cannot provide a concrete example.
Danny AriasThe quote above vividly captures the recent conflicts on the role of mining and social development in the Philippines. Danny Arias, responsible for linking local communities to national campaigns against large-scale mining, contests the possibilities of transnational investments bringing long-term economic development to a country characterized by challenging geographies for mineral extraction, political violence and a history of socioenvironmental disasters. Importantly, his critique opens up an important intellectual space for academic research that places questions of rights, agency and political mobilization as key organizing concepts in understanding why the ‘logic of globalization’ is neither inevitable nor necessarily desirable. As the pace of neoliberal reforms intensifies in the region, ordinary people – especially those with limited material and political resources – make justice claims in very difficult circumstances, sometimes not always successfully, in order to alter the configuration of global and local power structures.
Danny Arias's position reflects two important countervailing ideas about neoliberalism and development in Southeast Asia, which we will develop in this chapter. First, Arias's critique reflects the contestation of a neoliberal model of mining management expressed specifically by local political actors sidelined in national political debates. Market reforms in the natural resources sector involved designing complex privatization and liberalization policies. The consolidation of a national anti-mining movement indicates the strength of resistance against foreign direct investment (FDI)-led, large-scale mining (as opposed to mining per se). The movement links the diverse efforts of activists, community leaders and the Catholic Church to think about alternative policy paradigms in the mining industry. Civil society actors question the promise of mining-led development, particularly the government's strategy of attracting transnational investments as a way of spurring growth and raising the contribution of mining to the country's exports, revenues and potential for technological development. In addition to the national movement, local communities and regional elites have also challenged the normative commitment of the government towards private capital participation through a nuanced critique of large-scale mining. These actors have come to constitute a somewhat unified political voice against neoliberalism as a development paradigm.