Impacts of the APEC Conference

Implications and Backlash for the Tech Industry from the APEC Conference

November 30, 2015

Brienna French – Primary Article Contributor

Cameron Torrens – Team Leader following the Philippines

Keywords: APEC, Philippines, Transportation network, Manila protest, Global Economy

The annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit was held in the Philippines for the second time. APEC encourages its 21 members to work cooperatively to create new technologies, mutually share technological ideas, and further economic growth. Ideally, the technology industries within the member nations of APEC must cooperatively engage to realize economic growth, further industrial development, and improve the Asia Pacific business climate.

During the summit the government closed the major roads of Manila to ease the flow of traffic. This resulted in citizens receiving a two-day holiday. This exacerbates an already existing problem as even when road are open, transportation within the city is very difficult. There are six major points of traffic congestion in Manila that are a result of poor intercity transportation, an unequal distribution of electricity grids that clusters many businesses into certain areas, and a massive population of 22 million. Although methods of transportation have diversified, the situation for Manila has continued to worsen over recent years resulting in extraordinary travel times particularly during rush hour. This hinders business in Manila, as travel time for workers is unpredictable and often results in reduced productivity.

It is very difficult for firms to function effectively while the city is in gridlock. To mitigate this nuisance, a business could implement unusual hours of operation, making commuting easier. Additionally, corporations could allocate the necessary resources so that employees can work from home. However, this would only be possible for employees that are not in physical production or services. The best way to improve the effectiveness of investments in Manila in the long-term is to lobby the necessary transportation organizations, as well as government officials, to enact new policies that would adequately develop the transportation network throughout Manila.

Many Filipino citizens protested against APEC claiming that its capitalist nature benefits rich countries and hinders poorer countries. The protest was generally respectful, similar to most Filipino protests. However, authorities enhanced their security measures, especially in terms of crowd control, due to the recent terror attacks in Paris. This also relates to the technology industry, as Filipino citizens are willing to protest against a corporation if they pose as a direct threat to the local economy, use unfair labour practices, or rapidly exploit key resources. It is relatively easy for employees to take action against their employers through activities such as protests or labour lawsuits, which are burdens for a firm operating in the Philippines. Companies must be vigilant and proactive to address employee concerns as soon as they develop. If employee concerns escalate, companies are well advised to allocate funds specifically to fight cases in court. This has become more of an option in the Philippines as the impacts of corruption on court cases have reduced and have allowed for more favourable judicial decisions for international corporations in recent years.

Looking back on the summit, it is uncertain whether the issues brought to the forefront during the summit with regards to the protests and the gridlocked transportation networks will be addressed in the short-term. While there was no immediate or direct harm to corporations from the protests, protests of similar nature could pose future challenges. The Philippines is still a great area for short-term and long-term investment, especially in the technology sector, if corporations are proactively engaging and addressing employee concerns. This should also include helping in the process of reducing the duration of their commute.