The Concept of Isomorphic Mimicry: A Grand Scheme of Deception in Philippine Political Development
In the Philippines, there is this seeming banal preference among politicos to gauge political development, legacy, or even success thereof in the lens of infrastructural aesthetics; that is infrastructures that are deliberately modernly looking yet have questionable practicability or sustainability.
In the parlance of national administration policies, we had the dominantly debt-financed “Build, Build, Build” during the stint of Duterte which is being reiterated with just minor additions in the moniker under Marcos Jr.’s “Build, Build More”.
In the aspect of generality, a manifestation of this is the fetish of the government to showcase high-rise buildings, city skylines, several big malls, elaborate bridges, and many others as determinants of development, particularly of economy and politics, instead of authentic development in the micro-level of people or societal development.
In the parlance within political science, this manifests the concept of “Isomorphic Mimicry”; that is to mimic or to copy the outputs or the outward form (i.e. policies, infrastructures, practices, etc.) of specially from modernized-developed countries (i.e. Singapore-like Cebu with Melbourne Features).
There should be no doubt that infrastructural development is among the roles or functions that the government should spearhead for the welfare of the people. However, the heavy emphasis to the point of rendering it as policy preference compromises other aspects of development that are much more imperative and timely needed to the people (i.e. government service efficiency and capability, wealth redistribution, social and healthcare services, labor and occupational aspects, and etc.).
Furthermore, to focus on isomorphic mimicry vis-a-vis infrastructural aesthetics as image of political development can incur “capability traps” towards the government. While they may enjoy the illusion of development as manifested by building of a myriad of infrastructures. However, this does not necessitate that a government is now indeed capable and efficient. A government can hide behind the veil of infrastructural aesthetics yet remains marred with corruption, patronage, bureaucratic red tape, and many other dismal practices within such institution.
Finally, other than isomorphic mimicry and capability trap, in the light of apogee of Neoliberalism as preferred macroeconomic policy in the country, indeed the question of “Who benefit such?” resonates more than ever.
