Another point why transport groups expressed opposition to modernization is the factor of financial capital. They argue that capital is inadequate and that they do not have the ability to raise the needed requirement imposed by the government in order to modernize services.

This is the second point – deficient financial base for capital. I don’t believe much on this reason. The lack of the mindset by the public transport groups to modernize resulted also on the low prioritization of resources to improve the quality of services. It is safe to say that they lack prioritization, because they hold financial resources almost on a daily basis.

If this is considered a weakness, then collectivizing will boost their legitimacy, integrity and marketability for financing support. 

The individual members of transport groups may be considered as a poor in our society, but as an organization, and as a sector of our societyin general, transport federations is not a marginalized organization. They operate enterprises like carinderia, kapehan, jeepney repairs, selling of jeepney parts, document facilitation for franchise applications, renewal of annual registration, and even informal micro-finance lending for its members.

Their enterprise ventures may appear informal, but nevertheless it is an (economic) activity that provide them the financial flexibility to spend for the activities or augment budget deficits of the organization.

They may not be filthy rich or affluent, but they are not poor in a sense that they have a collective control on money (economic power). Their economic power is translated into an influence (political power) on our leaders and the sectors that also thrive because of their economic activity.

Probably it will be helpful for the group to prioritize resources for investment geared towards improvement of services instead of unloading all of their income on a year-end event with a lavish Christmas Party. Why can’t they channel their resources on efforts that will strengthen their organization and modernize? Why can’t they strategize on how to grab the opportunity offered by modernization as a way out of poverty among individual members?

Third point, poor attitude and neglect for self-regulation. Transport groups cries foul when government enforces new policies which aims to improve regulation on their operations. But they do not exercise self-regulation among their ranks to ensure that they do not cause inconvenience or abuse the privilege extended on them by the government in the form of franchise and certificate of public convenience.

Take for instance the case of taxi services at the Iloilo International Airport under the Association of Taxi Operators in Panay (ATOP). Taxi drivers has regularly violate the use of automated meters and they instead impose overcharged tariffs by making an excuse that they are plying outside the route and that airport authorities are charging them with an extra fee upon entry at the airport.

On the other hand, your head will spin if you start to enumerate the issues regarding jeepney operations in the city under the supervision of various transport groups. Assessing the attitude of their members on the road will make you realize that government’s modernization program also requires values reconstruction, re-regulation of policies, and retooling of jeepney operators and drivers so that the public can benefit from modernization of transport services.

There is nobody to blame regarding the lack of readiness by some of the transport groups to modernize but themselves, if not their leaders.

Transport groups have to be mindful that the wave of modernization brings creative destruction. Modernization is not only shaped by the introduction of new technology; it is coupled by ideas that encourage new ways of managing it. Hence, modernization will unfold no matter the resistance.

Inventions of new technology, innovations, financial capital and human resource are among factors that drive modernization. The multi-component nature of modernization makes it realizable in the long run considering that its application is not highly dependent on a single sector.

Authors Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinsons in the book: Why Nations Fail has expounded on the concept called creative destructionfrom economist Joseph Schumpeter.

Schumpeter said that “economic growth and technological change are accompanied by creative destruction, a process which the old is replaced by the new. New sectors attract resources away from the old ones. New firms take business away from established ones. New technologies make existing skills and machines obsolete.”

“The process of economic growth and the inclusive institutions upon which it is based,” added Schumpeter, “create losers as well as winners in the political arena and in the economic marketplace.”   

“Fear of creative destruction is often at the root of the opposition to inclusive economic and political institutions,” Schumpeter emphasized.

“Growth thus moves forward,” according to Acemoglu and Robinsons, “only if not blocked by the economic losers who anticipate that their economic privileges will be lost and by the political losers who fear that their political power will be eroded.” 

If your transport group finds delight on the old by resisting the new, then the commuters do not deserve losers whose aim is to preserve their economic privileges at the expense of public interest and convenience. ###