National Income Accounts in Philippine Economic

Title History: A Preliminary Report on Data Gathering and

Research Trends

Author(s) Nagano, Yoshiko

Citation

Issue Date 2007-07

Type Technical Report

Text Version publisher

URL http://hdl.handle.net/10086/14326

Right

Hitotsubashi University Repository

 Hi-Stat

Discussion Paper Series

No.220

National Income Accounts in Philippine Economic History:

A Preliminary Report on Data Gathering and Research Trends

Yoshiko Nagano

July 2007

Hitotsubashi University Research Unit

for Statistical Analysis in Social Sciences
A 21st-Century COE Program

Institute of Economic Research

Hitotsubashi University
Kunitachi, Tokyo, 186-8603 Japan
http://hi-stat.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/
 National Income Accounts in Philippine Economic History:
A Preliminary Report on Data Gathering and Research Trends

Yoshiko Nagano
Faculty of Human Sciences
Kanagawa University, Yokohama

Abstract: This paper aims to lay down the foundation for a research project compiling the
historical statistics of the Philippine economy, as part of the Research Unit for Statistical
Analysis in Social Science (2003-2008), the Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi
University, Tokyo. First, I detail what we have accomplished in the gathering of historical data
on the Philippines, mainly from US university libraries and archives. Second, I share what I
worked on for part of the research on Philippine foreign trade. Third, a brief review is made of
research studies on Philippine national income accounts in Philippine economic history. Fourth,
I discuss, tentatively, some historical factors that need to be considered for an accurate estimate
of Philippine national income accounts.
 Introduction

This paper aims to lay down the foundation for a research project compiling the
historical statistics of the Philippine economy, as part of the Research Unit for Statistical
Analysis in Social Science (2003-2008), the Institute of Economic Research,
Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo. The task assigned to us involved the compilation of
Philippine historical statistics covering one hundred years, throughout the twentieth
century, for the purpose of estimating national income accounts.
This paper has four sections. In section 1, I detail what we have accomplished in the
gathering of historical data on the Philippines, mainly from US university libraries and
archives. In section 2, I share what I worked on for part of the research on Philippine
foreign trade, particularly a critical discussion of “intra-Asian trade.” The topic of
“intra-Asian trade,” although not part of the main thrust of this project, is included in
this paper for its significance to the conduct of this research project, in light of
discussions of Asian economic history in Japan during the late 1990s. In section 3, I
briefly review available research studies on Philippine national income accounts in
Philippine economic history. In section 4, I discuss, tentatively, some historical factors
that need to be considered for accurately estimating Philippine national income
accounts.

I In Search of Philippine Historical Statistics

As a team member of the Asian Historical Statistics Project (1995-2000) headed by

Professor Konosuke Odaka, the Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi
University, I was designated to gather basic historical economic statistics on the
Philippines covering the American colonial period. In Japan, some universities house a

1
certain number of valuable collections on the Philippines; however, up to the time the
Asian Historical Statistics Project of Hitotsubashi University commenced, absolutely no
systematic gathering of Philippine historical economic statistics for the American
colonial period has been seriously attempted. For two years in 1996-97, I conducted
research on such Philippine statistical data, mainly in the United States, with some
additional research undertaken in Spain and the Philippines. At the time, electronic
communications technology was just beginning to prevail, although still very much
limited in capacity, so the collection of microfilmed data from US libraries and archives
continued to carry lots of difficulties. I myself visited Washington DC in April 1996 to
facilitate microfilm processing procedures and acquisitions.
These reference guides proved to be most useful for locating the material: Daniel F.
Doeppers comp., Union Catalogue of Selected Bureau Reports and Other Official
Serials of the Philippines, 1908-1941 (Center for Southeast Asian Studies, University of
Wisconsin-Madison, 1988); National Union Catalog: Pre-1956 Imprints, Vol. 455
(Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1976); and Richard S. Maxell comp., Record of
the Bureau of Insular Affairs: National Archives Inventory Record Group 350
(Washington, DC: US National Archives, 1971).
Table 1 of this paper lists historical statistical sources that are now located, in
microform, in the library of the Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University
(this listing covers the trade statistics of the late nineteenth century, to be discussed in
the next section). In the course of my research, what I would call “the structure of
Philippine historical economic statistics during the American colonial period” emerged
out of and shaped my encounters with the archival data. This structure consists in the
following three discernible strata, constellating both published and unpublished
material.
The first stratum consists in basic economic statistical material compiled from the
Census of 1903, the Census of 1918, and the Census of 1939, as well as collected
volumes of annual statistical reports (No. 6 in Table 1), almost all of which were
systematically published form the end of the 1910s. If the censuses can contribute
cross-sectional data for various industrial sectors, then the annual statistical reports,

2
rough as they are, should yield the additional data necessary to link them by means of a
time series.
The second stratum consists in sector-specific annual statistical reports (Nos. 2 to 5
in Table 1) published by official agencies. They are government publications providing
detailed data on finance, public expenditures, trade, agriculture, labor and wages
summarized in such statistical reports (No. 6 in Table 1).
The third stratum consists in unpublished sources (No. 1 in Table 1), including
original statistical material from official agencies not covered by Nos. 2 to 6 in Table 1.
In particular, the microfilm copies of the “Manuscript Reports of the Governor-General
of the Philippines, 1916-1935” proved easy to use because a table of contents is
separately prepared, listing by title the documents contained in all the volumes.
In the Newsletter of the Asian Historical Statistics Project, I had previously
maintained that “we should be able to build a base of Philippine historical economic
statistics of the American colonial period by extracting and synthesizing the economic
statistics obtainable from these three strata. This task is something like the one [where,]
while bearing in mind the nature of colonial administrative system, we…re-construct
the characteristics of the gathering process of economic statistics of the Philippines [for]
that period” (Nagano 1998a, 12).
Due to my involvement in other research projects, I was unable to persist in such a
task for quite a time. But toward the resumption of such a project, the first thing
requiring to be done is a review of specific books and papers in the related literature.
This will be done in detail in sections 3 and 4. In the section that follows, I first discuss
the historical statistics of Philippine foreign trade, particularly for the late nineteenth
century.

3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1: The Philippine Historical Economic Statistics Collection

(Library of the Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University)

(Source: Nagano 1998a, 12)

1. Unpublished materials

* Manuscript Reports of the Governor-General of the Philippines, 1916 -1935

(US National Archives) .

* Manuscript Reports of the U.S. Commissioner to the Philippine Islands, 1936-1940

(US National Archives).

2. Finance and Public Expenditures

*Annual Report of the Bank Commissioner, 1929-1940 (US Library of Congress).

*Annual Report of the Secretary of Finance, 1936-1938 (Stanford University).

*Annual Report of the Treasurer, 1911, 1920-1938, 1940 (Stanford University).

*Annual Report of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, 1906-1908, 1915-1939, 1949-1953

(Center for Research Libraries, Chicago)

3. Trade

*Annual Report of the Bureau of Customs, 1901-1909, 1910-1913, 1915-1940

(US Library of Congress).

*Balanza general del comercio de las Islas Filipinas, 1851; Cuadro general del comercio

exterior de Filipinas, 1856; Balanza general del comercio de las Islas Filipinas, 1861;

Estadistica general del comercio exterior de las Islas Filipinas, 1881-1882, 1885-1894

(US Library of Congress).

*Balanza general del comercio de las Islas Filipinas, 1854-1855, 1858; Balanza mercantile del

comercio de las Islas Filipinas, 1859-1860, 1863-1864; Estadistica mercantile del comercio
exterior de las Islas Filipinas, 1866-67,1873-74, 1876-80 (Philippine National Archives).
*Balanza general del comercio de las Islas Filipinas, 1857, 1862, 1865; Estadistica mercantile del

comercio exterior de las Islas Filipinas, 1866, 1875, 1883, 1884 (Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid).

4. Agriculture

4
 *Philippine Agricultural Review, 1908-1929 (Stanford University).

*Philippine Journal of Agriculture, 1930-1941 (US Library of Congress).

*Annual Report of the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce, 1936 (Yale University).

5. Labor and Wages

*Labor: Quarterly Bulletin of Bureau of Labor, Mar. 1921; Annual Report of the Department of

The Interior and Labor, 1993; Annual Report of the Secretary of Labor, Nov. 1935-Dec. 1936;
Labor Bulletin, May 1938-July/Aug.1941 (US National Archives).
* Labor: Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor, 1919-1929; Bureau of Civil Service Report, 1902-1930;

Annual Report of the Commissioner of Civil Service, 1935/1936

(University of California-Berkeley).

6. Annual Statistical Material Collections

* Statistical Bulletin of the Philippine Islands, 1919-1929 (US Library of Congress).

* Philippine Statistical Review, 1934-1937 (University of Wisconsin-Madison).

* Bulletin of Philippine Statistics, 1938-39 (US Library of Congress).

* Statistical Handbook of the Philippine Islands, 1932 (University of Wisconsin-Madison).

* Yearbook of Philippine Statistics, 1940, 1946 (Yale University).

* Journal of Philippine Statistics, Vol. 1, No.1 (July 1941) (US National Archives).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II Compiling Historical Statistics on Philippine Foreign Trade

in the Late Nineteenth Century

As shown in Table 1, the Asian Historical Statistics Project also obtained source
materials on historical trade statistics of the Philippines during the late nineteenth
century in microfom (Nagano 1996).
Why compile Philippine trade statistics for the late nineteenth century for the Asian
Historical Statistics Project which is otherwise focused on the twentieth-century period?
One reason is that this period is the most interesting era in the history of Philippine

5
trade. From the middle of the sixteenth century to the end of the nineteenth, the
Philippines was a Spanish colony, then became an American colony (apart from the
period of Japanese occupation in 1942-45) until 1946, when political independence was
achieved. From the 1920s until the early 1970s, Philippine foreign trade was conducted
primarily with the United States (apart from a surge in cotton goods imports from Japan
in the 1930s). Thus, Philippine trade relations with the United States were very close
and those with nearby Asian countries were rather distant, so that the Philippines began
to be considered an exceptional case even within Southeast Asia. However, the
Philippines was closely integrated into the Southeast Asian trade zone (broadly defined
here to include China and India) prior to and during the late nineteenth century. This
background informs my pursuit of historical trade data for the period concerned,
information about which I later wrote and published some articles (Nagano 1998b;
Nagano 1998c: Nagano 2001). What eventually follows is a summary of my main
arguments in these previous works.
Much has been already written on the patterns of Philippine foreign trade from the
late nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century. Benito Legarda’s Ph.D. dissertation (1955),
finally published with great revision in 1999 (Legarda 1999), has served as an essential
study of nineteenth-century Philippine foreign trade. It has been widely accepted that
the United States gradually replaced the United Kingdom as the major trade partner of
the Philippines from the turn of the twentieth century, and that it had established its
position as the Philippines’s dominant trade partner by the early 1920s. Still, it is very
important to take into account the role that Asian countries played in Philippine foreign
trade from the late nineteenth century to the American period.
In the mid-1980s, the discussion of “intra-Asian trade” among China, Japan,
Southeast Asia and India was initiated by Kaoru Sugihara (1985) and has drawn close
attention in studies of Asian economic history in Japan and elsewhere (Latham 1994). In
this context, Philippine trade with Singapore and Hongkong in the early 1910s would
seem to be of only minor importance. In his book (1996), Kaoru Sugihara also states
that the Philippines occupied a minor position in “intra-Asian trade” during the first half
of the twentieth century, and could thereby be considered as an exception among

6
Southeast Asian countries. This view of Kaoru Sugihara was somehow changed later,
after my study was published (Sugihara 2001).
Was the Philippines only a marginal player in the “intra-Asian trade” from the
mid-nineteenth century to the American colonial period? To answer this question, I
reexamined the trade structure of the Philippines for the same half-century period,
focusing on its changing structure at the turn of the twentieth century.
By this study two things are pointed out. First, it is clear that after the opening of
Manila as an international port, the Philippines was incorporated within the sphere of
influence of the British Empire and through this process, the Philippines continued to
maintain its important relationship with Asian entrepôts such as Hongkong and
Singapore. In the original trade statistics for the late nineteenth century, Hongkong was
included in “China” or “British Asian colonies” and Singapore was included among
“British Asian colonies.” Such confusing classifications have made it extremely difficult
to depict the actual role of these entrepôts in Philippine trade in previous studies.
Second, trade with Hongkong and Singapore played a very important role in
maintaining the economic connection between the Philippines and other Asian countries
in the nineteenth century. Through these entrepôts, rice was imported from French
Indonchina (Cochine-China) and Thailand, while British cotton goods were imported
through Hongkong. In turn, export crops such as Manila hemp, sugar and tobacco were
shipped to the United Kingdom via Singapore. Based on these facts, I argued that the
larger part of the trade between the Philippines and Hongkong or Singapore, which
should be counted as part of what has been called “intra-Asian trade,” might be
characterized as the re-export of Philippine agricultural crops to the United Kingdom
and the re-import of British cotton goods to the Philippines in the late 19th century.
“Intra-Asian trade” grew with the late-nineteenth century expansion of the British
Empire in Asia. The Philippine component of “intra-Asian trade” naturally diminished
when Philippine trade was restructured under the U.S. colonial government in the first
half of the twentieth century.

7
 III Research on National Income Accounts in Philippine Economic History

As is widely known (Nagano 1980), Benito Legarda’s Ph.D. dissertation (1955) on

Philippine foreign trade in the late nineteenth century opened up a new terrain of
research in Philippine economic history. First, it served as the foundation for an
excellent study of the nineteenth century economic activities of Chinese and Chinese
mestizos by Edgar Wickberg (1965). Then in the 1970s and 1980s, various studies in
socio-economic history, mainly as local histories of the Philippines, were conducted by
American historians (Larkin 1972; McCoy & de Jesus, eds. 1982; Doeppers 1984;
Owen 1984) as well as Japanese scholars (Hayase 1984; Nagano 1986). In the 1990s, an
excellent study in historical demography came out (Doeppers & Xenos, eds. 1998),
even as some scholars are continuously engaged in this research area (Wong 1999;
Nagano 2003; Chiba 2007). There are also notable interventions in the field of
Philippine economic history by Filipino, American, Japanese and Australian economists
(Castro 1965; Estanislao 1974; Valdepeñas 1977; Ofreneo 1980; Corpuz 1989 & 1997;
Krinks 2002; Yoshihara 1985 & 1994 and Sicat 2003). Abelarde (1947) or Hartendorp
(1953; 1958; 1961) are important works on trade policies or the process of
industrialization.
Since the 1960s, numerous books have been published on the development of the
Philippine economy which discussed national income mostly on the basis of Philippine
government statistics (Baba 1961a; Golay 1961; Hooley 1968; Hicks 1971; Power, Sicat
& Mo-Huan Hsing 1971; ILO 1974; Encarnacion 1976; IBRD 1976; Oshima 1983;
Boyce 1993; de Dios & Fabella 1996; Canlas & Fujisaki 2001; Balisacan and Hill 2003).
In de Dios & Fabella (1996), one can find an excellent paper by Richard Hooley
analyzing Philippine trade structure from the 1830s to 1980s (Hooley 1996). Papers that
mainly discuss the Philippine national income accounts include Baba (1993; first ed.
1943); Baba (1961b); Nozawa (1999); and Hooley (2005).
Keinosuke Baba’s two papers (1993: first ed. 1943; 1961b) constitute partial but
pioneering work in the estimation of Philippine national income accounts. In the first

8
paper (Baba 1993: first ed. 1943), Baba estimated the national income accounts based
on what he termed the “nature of dual economies of Philippine economic society.” He
first examines the process of income formation by major agricultural industries like
those revolving around rice, sugar, coconut and tobacco. Then he estimates the
“intermediary income” emerging between “agricultural society” and “industrial society,”
or between “industrial society” and the “export market,” and comparing the percentages
of these “intermediary incomes” in the national income accounts. In the second paper
(Baba 1961b), he analyzes the distinctive features of the Philippine economy comparing
those that developed during the American colonial period and after independence. He
examines the estimate of the national income accounts for the period of 1922-38,
drawing from Andres V. Castillo’s “Supply and Behavior of Money in the Philippines”
(1940; mimeo) (for his estimate of national income accounts as well as foreign trade
statistics in the 1922-1938 period, please see Table 2). For the 1940s and 1950s, Baba
discussed the national income accounts estimated by the Central Bank in 1954.
Katsumi Nozawa’s article (1999) is an attempt to review the process by which the
Philippine government established its method of estimating the national income
accounts after independence. Nozawa states that, right after independence, the research
section of the Central Bank first estimated the national income accounts with the
assistance of the United Nations. In 1955, the Office of Statistical Coordination and
Standard (OSCAS) was created in the National Economic Council (NEC) and after
1957, OSCAS took charge of the estimate of national income for national economic
development planning. From 1973, this task was shouldered by the National Economic
Development Authority (NEDA) under the Marcos regime and, in 1987, it was further
transferred to the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) under the Aquino
administration. Nozawa also examines various estimates of national income accounts
like those by the research section of the Central Bank (1946-54), OSCAS (1946-67),
NEDA (1946-95) and NSCB (1946-95).

9
Table 2 National Income Accounts and Foreign Trade
(1000 pesos)
Year National Income Export (X) Import(M) X-M
Accounts (Y)
1922 645,650 191,167 180,395 10,772
1923 733,149 241,506 174,999 66,507
1924 801,001 270,689 216,022 54,667
1925 868,168 297,754 239,466 58,288
1926 865,942 273,769 238,598 35,171
1927 902,127 311,146 231,705 79,441
1928 898,987 310,109 269,314 40,795
1929 941,191 328,894 294,321 34,573
1930 872,544 266,354 246,166 20,188
1931 735,039 207,944 198,357 9,587
1932 673,228 190,676 158,790 31,886
1933 665,790 211,542 134,723 76,819
1934 766,700 220,807 167,214 53,593
1935 728,620 188,491 171,048 17,443
1936 871,875 272,896 202,252 70,644
1937 929,203 302,533 218,051 84,482
1938 1,028,681 231,591 265,216 -33,625
Source: Andres V. Castillo, "Supply and Behavior of
Money in the Philippines,“(mimeo), Manila,
1940.

10
 Richard Hooley’s paper (2005) is an excellent contribution to the detailed estimate
of Philippine GDP during the American colonial period. As stated clearly in his abstract,
agricultural modernization increased the productivity of rice and corn in the 1910s and
1920s, making the Philippine GNP growth rate much higher than those of other East and
Southeast Asian countries. However, in the 1920s, due to fiscal constraints,
infrastructures were not built up in the Philippines sufficiently. Then in the 1930s, the
peso was overvalued and, together with the slowdown of productivity, these factors
eventually made Philippine economic growth lag behind neighboring countries like
Japan, Korea and Taiwan. This Philippine experience of a downturn had important
consequences for economic development after independence. Hooley’s detailed study of
the Philippine GDP during the American period makes these main arguments with the
benefit of comparative perspectives on related developments in other neighboring
countries. Notably, his paper links the slow economic growth of the 1930s to the nature
of the transition to a new economy after Philippine independence. These features of
Hooley’s analysis and his GDP estimate of the Philippines during the American colonial
period might prove useful in understanding the nature of the Philippine economy from a
longer historical perspective, as well as through comparisons with other Asian countries.

IV Some Historical Factors for the Estimate of National Income Accounts

It is beyond doubt that Hooley’s 2005 paper marks a milestone in the historical study
of the Philippine national income accounts during the American colonial period. Its
usefulness for the long-term historical statistics project on the Philippines that we have
undertaken is certain. But given that the task of this research project is to compile
historical statistics on the Philippines for the twentieth century, we have to consider the
following fours factors in the continued pursuit of this project, in my view. First, we
need to have some historical accounting of when precisely the so-called “national
economy” as the economic unit was established in the Philippines. Second, the

11
periodization of Philippine economic change throughout the twentieth century should be
hypothesized or made more specific. Third, we should consider the obviously enormous
impact of some major historical events like wars on the Philippine economy itself.
Fourth, to examine the distinctive features of Philippine economy as one economic unit,
it is also important for us to know how regional economies are composed within the
Philippine economy to clarify the nature of linkages among various industrial sectors. I
offer some tentative observations in response to these four concerns in this concluding
section.
On the formation of a Philippine “national economy,” consider the concept of
“national economy” as drawn from the historical experiences of industrialized Europe,
North America, and Japan, all of whose economies developed with the phenomenal rise
of cotton industries since the middle of the nineteenth century. If this is our model, we
face the situation that such a type of “national economy” could have not been replicated
in the Philippines at all. Instead, and generally speaking, it can be observed that the
Philippine economy has grown and changed, with external factors as its driving forces
since the late nineteenth century, when export agricultural sectors emerged after the
opening of Manila as an international port.
Keeping this difference of Philippine economic formation in mind as a difficult
conceptual issue, we might have to explore some other or alternative approach to it.
From my own studies, it is clear that it was the period after World War I, as the
American colonial state (or modern state) was being established and consolidated in the
Philippines, which saw the wider spread of the fiscal, financial and economic policy of
a central government (Nagano 2006, 2). This periodizing hypothesis is drawn from my
examination of political history for my research on Philippine banking history,
particularly focusing on the financial crisis relating to the Philippine National Bank in
1919-22 (Nagano 2003). I am therefore proposing here tentatively that it might be after
World War I that the “national economy” as a single economic unit really began to form
in the Philippines, principally with the establishment and consolidation of the
framework of the American colonial state.
On the periodization of Philippine economic change throughout the twentieth

12
century, and given the tentative hypothesis that the “national economy” might have
begun to emerge in the Philippines after World War I, I am further proposing that the
period of 1901-1920 be incorporated into our conceptions of the late nineteenth century.
Such a periodizing argument results in what might be seen as three discrete historical
segments:

1. 1870-1920: the period of the formation of an export economy with a different

orientation during the late nineteenth century, following the opening of the
Panama Canal in 1914; the Philippine economy, together with other Southeast
Asian economies, was more strongly linked with North America in a trans-Pacific
circuit.
2. 1921-1965: during the American colonial period, the export economy flourished
in the Philippines in its strong relationship with the United States, its colonial
master. Even after independence in 1946, the United States held effective away
over the Philippine economy, under the “reciprocity” agreements between these
two countries.
3. 1966 to the present: under the Marcos government’s initiative, industrialization
took place through massive foreign investments. However, the Philippines lagged
behind the higher economic growths of ASEAN countries like Thailand or
Malaysia in the 1980s. Since then, to compensate for the failure of economic
policies, the Philippine government has promoted the policy of sending overseas
migrant workers to many countries. By 2005, their regular remittances reached 10
billion US dollars, almost 10% of the total GNP of the Philippines.

On some major historical events with enormous impact on the Philippine economy,
the tendency to approach the modern history and economy of the Philippines as mostly
separate compartments (true also for studies of other Asian countries) now needs to be
seriously reconsidered. While a few available studies have undertaken some analysis of
the economic impact of wars, for example, it is my view that the Philippine Revolution
(1896-98) and the succeeding Philippine-American War (1899-1902) as well as World

13
War II or Japanese occupation (1942-45) ought to be more seriously studied for their
economic reverberations. To cite just one estimate, 10% of the population of seven
million perished in the Philippines during the Philippine Revolution and the
Philippine-American War (Gates 1984, 364), a fact that should point to considerable
economic costs and displacements. As for the Japanese occupation, Geraldo Sicat’s
work is valuable and constitutes a good beginning (Sicat 2003).
On regional economies in the Philippines, the recent work by Peter Krink gives us a
balanced view in its general descriptions of the industrial and agricultural sectors in
various Philippine regions in the post-World War II period (Krinks 2002). Yoshihiro
Chiba’s Ph.D. dissertation has looked at the formational process of the Manila regional
economic zone during the American colonial period (Chiba 2007) but studies on this
topic have just begun. From my own tentative study of the domestic migration of the
1970s-1980s, it appears that the Philippine economy has been composed by a
multi-layered complex of regional economies that might be better seen, in turn, as
consisting in various regional economic units, set both by region or province (Nagano
2001). It is therefore possible that such a structure and its changing dynamics are really
much more complex than has been generally acknowledged.
All of these four historical factors should be considered thoroughly for our estimate
of the long-term national income accounts of the Philippines. When rightfully linked to
the various studies in Philippine economic history, they allow us to successfully explain
how the livelihood of the Filipino people has been dynamically affected and shaped by
some larger forces from within the country and without.

References:
Abelarde, Pedro E. 1947. American Tariff Policy toward the Philippines, 1898-1946.
New York: King’s Crown Press.
Baba, Keinosuke, ed. 1961a. The Finance and Capital Formation in the Philippines (in
Japanese), Tokyo: Institute of Developing Economies.
________. 1961b. “The Financial Side of the National Economy” (in Japanese), in The

14
 Finance and Capital Formation in the Philippines.
________. 1993. “An Analysis of Economic Strength of the Philippine Islands” (in

Japanese). A Research Report on the Philippines, ed. Japanese Research Commission

on the Philippine Islands (reprint: 1st ed. 1943), Tokyo: Ryukei Shosha. Introduction
by Yoshiko Nagano.
Balisacan, Arsenio M. & Hal Hill eds. 2003. The Philippine Economy: Development,
Policies, and Challenges. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Boyce, James K. 1993. The Philippines: The Political Economy of Growth and
Impoverishment in the Marcos Era. London: MacMillan.
Canlas, Dante B. & Shigeaki Fujisaki eds. 2001. The Philippine Economy Alternatives
for the 21st Century. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.
Castro, Amado. 1965. “Philippine-American Tariff and Trade Relations,” Philippine
Economic Journal. Vol. 4, No. 1.
Chiba, Yoshihiro. 2007. “A Study of Philippine Socio-Economic History: The Formation
of the Manila Regional Economic Zone during the American Colonial Period” (in
Japanese). Ph.D. Dissertation, Graduate School of Economics, Hokkaido University.
Corpuz, O. D. 1989. The Roots of the Filipino Nation. 2 vols. Quezon City: Aklahi
Foundation.
_______. 1997. An Economic History of the Philippines. Quezon City: University of
the Philippine Press.
de Dios, Emmanuel S. & Raul V. Fabella. 1996. Choice, Growth and Development:
Emerging and Enduring Issues. Quezon City: University of the Philippine Press.
Doeppers, Daniel F. 1984. Social Change in A Late Colonial Metropolis: Manila
1900-1941. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
_______ & Peter Xenos, eds. 1998. Population and History: The Demographic Origins

of the Modern Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Encarnacion, José Jr. et al. 1976. Philippine Economic Problems in Perspective.
Quezon City: School of Economics, University of the Philippines.
Estanislao, Jesus P. & Vaughn F. Montes. 1974. Philippine Economic Structure from the
20s to the 70s. Manila: Center for Research and Communication.

15
Gates, John M. 1984. “War-related Deaths in the Philippines, 1898-1902.” Pacific
Historical Review. Vol. 53.
Golay, Frank H. 1961. The Philippines: Public Policy and National Economic
Development. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Hartendorp, A. V. H. 1953. A Short History of Industry and Trade of the Philippines
from Pre-Spanish times to the End of the Roxas Administration. Manila: American
Chamber of Commerce.
_______. 1958. History of Industry and Trade of the Philippines: From Pre-Spanish

Times to the End of the Quirino Administration. Manila: American Chamber of

Commerce.
_______. 1961. History of Industry of Trade of the Philippines: The Magsaysay

Administration: A Critical Assessment. Manila: Philippine Education Company.

Hayase, Shinzo. 1984. “Tribes, Settlers, and Administrators on a Frontier: Economic
Development and Social Change in Davao, Southeastern Mindanao, The Philippines,
1899-1941.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Murdoch University.
Hicks, George L. & Geoffrey McNicoll. 1971. Trade and Growth in the Philippines: An
Open Dual Economy. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Hooley, Richard. 1968. “Long-Term Growth of the Philippine Economy, 1902-1961,”
The Philippine Economic Journal. Vol. 7, No. 1.
_______. 1996. “A Century of Philippine Foreign Trade: A Quantitative Analysis.” In

Choice, Growth and Development: Emerging and Enduring Issues, ed. Emmanuel S.
Dios & Raul V. Fabella Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.
_______. 2005. “American Economic Policy in the Philippines, 1902-1940: Exploring a

Dark Age in Colonial Statistics.” Journal of Asian Economics. Vol. 16.

Intal, Ponciano S., Jr. 2003. Essays on Philippine Colonial Economy: Balance of
Payments and Trade, 1870s to 1930s. Manila: De La Salle University Press.
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD). 1976. The
Philippines: Priorities and Prospects for Development (World Bank Country
Economic Report). Washington, DC.: The World Bank.
International Labor Office (ILO). 1974. Sharing in Development: A Program of

16
 Employment, Equity and Growth for the Philippines. Manila: National Economic and
Development Authority.
Kanbayashi, Ryo & Konosuke Odaka. 2000. Philippine Agricultural Statistics during
the Pre-war Period: 1902-1946 (in Japanese). Discussion Paper No. D99-21
(Hitotsubashi University Institute of Economic Research, Asian Historical Statistics
Project).
Krinks, Peter. 2002. The Economy of the Philippines: Elites, Inequalities and Economic
Restructuring. London and New York: Routledge.
Kuznets, Simon. 1968. Modern Economic Growth: Rate, Structure, and Spread. New
Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Larkin, John A. 1972. The Pampangans: Colonial Society in a Philippine Province.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Latham, A. J. H. 1994. “The Dynamics of Intra-Asian Trade, 1868-1913: The Great
Entrepôts of Singapore and Hong Kong.” In Japanese Industrialization and the Asian
Economy. eds. A.J. H. Latham and Heita Kawakatsu. London and New York:
Routledge.
Legarda, Benito J., Jr. 1955. “Foreign Trade, Economic Change, and Entrepreneurship
in the Nineteenth-Century Philippines.” Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University.
_______. 1999. After the Galleons: Foreign Trade, Economic Change and
Entrepreneurship in the Nineteenth-Century Philippines. Quezon City: Ateneo de
Manila University Press.
Maddison, Angus. 1995. Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992. Paris: OECD.
McCoy, Alfred W. & Ed. C. de Jesus, eds. 1982. Philippine Social History: Global
Trade and Local Transformations. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University.
Nagano, Yoshiko, 1980. “Trends and Directions of 19th Century Philippine
Historiography: Toward a Socio-economic Approach on Local History”(in Japanese),
Journal of Historical Studies (Rekishigakukenkyu), No. 479.
________. 1986. A Study of Philippine Economic History: Sugar Capital and Haciendas

(in Japanese). Tokyo: Keiso Shobo.

________. 1996. “Resource Guide: The Foreign Trade of the Philippines in the Latter

17
 Half of the 19th Century.” Newsletter of the Asian Historical Statistics Project
(Hitotsubashi University Institute of Economic Research). No. 3.
________. 1998a. “The Location and Composition of Philippine Historical Statistical

Materials.” Newsletter of the Asian Historical Statistics Project (Hitotsubashi

University Institute of Economic Research). No. 8.
________. 1998b. “Re-examining the Foreign Trade Structure of the Colonial

Philippines: With Special Reference to the ‘Intra-Asian Trade’” (in Japanese),

Discussion Paper No. D97-24 (Hitotsubashi University Institute of Economic
Research, Asian Historical Statistics Project).
________. 1998c. “Re-examining the Foreign Trade Structure of the Colonial

Philippines: With Special Reference to the ‘Intra-Asian Trade.’” Discussion Paper No.
D97-28 (Hitotsubashi University Institute of Economic Research, Asian Historical
Statistics Project
(http://www.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/COE/Japanese/discussionpapers/DP97.28/97_28.html).
________. 2001a. “Cities and Rural Areas in the Philippines” (in Japanese), Asian Cities:

Vol. 4 Manila, comp. Osaka City University Institute of Economic Research, ed. Toru
Nakanisi, Toru Kodama and Koichi Niizu. Tokyo: Nihon Hyoronsha.
________. 2001b. “Philippines: Manila Hemp and Sugar”(in Japanese), in Iwanami

Lecture Series: Southeast Asian History Vol. 6: Prosperity and Decline of Colonial
Economies , ed. Hiroyoshi Kano. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
________. 2001c. “Philippines and Intra-Asian Trade” (in Japanese), Ibid.

________. 2003. A Philippine Banking History: American Colonial State and Finance (in

Japanese). Tokyo: Ochanomizu Shobo.

________. 2006. “A Note on the Pre-war Philippine Census: 1903 Census and American

Rule” (in Japanese), Hitotsubashi University Research Unit for Statistical Analysis in
Social Science: A “21-st Century COE Program, Discussion Paper Series. No. 164
(http://hi-stat.ier.hit-u.ac.jp/research/discussion/2006/164.html）.
Nozawa, Katsumi. 1999. “History of the Philippine Statistical System,” Newsletter of
the Asian Historical Statistics Project (Hitotsubashi University Institute of
Economic Research), No. 13.

18
________. 2003. “Historical Perspective on the Philippine National Income Accounts” (in

Japanese), Journal of the Institute for Asian Studies (Asia University), No. 29.
Ofreneo, Rene E. 1980. Capitalism in Philippine Agriculture. Quezon City: Foundation
for Nationalist Studies.
Okuda, Hidenobu. 2000. Philippine Financial Reform: Its Historical Process and
Current Issues (in Japanese). Discussion Paper No. D99-34（Hitotsubashi University
Institute of Economic Research, Asian Historical Statistics Project.
Oshima, Harry. 1983. “Sector Sources of Philippine Postwar Growth: The Overall
Record in Comparative Perspective.” Journal of Philippine Development. Vol. 10,
No.1.
Owen, Norman G. 1984. Prosperity without Progress: Manila Hemp and Material Life
in the Colonial Philippines. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Power, John H., Gerald P. Sicat & Mo-Huan Hsing. 1971. The Philippines and Taiwan:
Industrialization and Trade Policies. London: Oxford University Press.
Sicat, Gerardo. 2003. “The Philippine Economy During the Japanese Occupation,
1941-1945.” Discussion Paper No. 0307. School of Economics, University of the
Philippines.
Sugihara, Kaoru. 1985. “Patterns and Development of Intra-Asian Trade, 1880-1913”(in
Japanese). The Socio-Economic History (Shakai-Keizai-Shigaku). Vol. 51, No. 1.
________. 1996. The Formation and Structure of Intra-Asian Trade (in Japanese). Kyoto:

Minerva Shobo.
________. 2001. “International Division of Labor and Colonial Economies in Southeast

Asia” (in Japanese). In Iwanami Lecture Series: Southeast Asian History Vol. 6:
Prosperity and Decline of Colonial Economies, ed. Hiroyoshi Kano. Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten.
Valdepeñas, Vicente B., Jr. & Germelino M. Bautista. 1977. The Emergence of the
Philippine Economy. Manila :Papyrus Press.
Wickberg, Edgar. 1965. Chinese in Philippine Life, 1850-1898. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press.
Wong Kwok-chu. 1999. The Chinese in the Philippine Economy 1898-1941. Quezon

19
 City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
Yoshihara, Kunio. 1985. Philippine Industrialization: Foreign and Domestic Capital.
Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.
________. 1994. The Nation and Economic Growth: The Philippines and Thailand.

Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.

20