A Rentier-state Critique Applied

A Rentier-state Critique Applied

Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™

October 27, 2026

 

 

Habang busy ang mga tao sa mga iba't ibang issue, naibenta na ng gobyerno ang CBK Hydroelectric Power Plant, Government Shares ng NLEX, at The Atrium of Makati. Plano pa nilang ibenta ang Food Terminal Inc. Complex (Taguig), Mile Long Complex (Makati), Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, Government Shares ng SLEX, at MRT-3. Dati Build, Build, Build. Ngayon Balde, Benta, Maleta. 

 

Public records and reporting as of late 2024–2025):

- CBK Hydroelectric Power Plant (Caliraya-Botocan-Kalayaan cascade, Laguna): Long under private operation via IPP contracts; residual government interests or related assets have been subject to privatization/restructuring discussions under successive administrations.

- NLEX (North Luzon Expressway) government shares: Significant residual equity held by the national government (via PNCC or related entities) has been progressively monetized or restructured through joint ventures and share sales over the past decade.

- The Atrium of Makati: A commercial property previously linked to government or GOCC holdings; disposal or long-term lease arrangements have been reported in asset-rationalization programs.

- Food Terminal Inc. (FTI) Complex, Taguig: Large government-owned industrial/agricultural complex; portions have been under redevelopment or disposition plans for years (mixed public-private models).

- Mile Long Complex, Makati: Government-linked commercial property; subject to disposition or redevelopment proposals.

- Bataan Nuclear Power Plant: Completed in the 1980s but never commercially operated; repeatedly floated for rehabilitation, conversion, or outright sale/transfer under multiple administrations (including recent revival talks under the Marcos Jr. government).

- SLEX (South Luzon Expressway) government shares: Similar residual equity positions as NLEX; progressive private-sector participation and share rationalization.

- MRT-3: Government-owned metro line; operational concessions, rehabilitation contracts, and equity discussions have been ongoing; full privatization has been floated but not consummated in the form of outright sale of the core system.

These items sit within a longer Philippine policy continuum of asset privatization and public-private partnerships that predates the current administration (rooted in the 1980s–1990s liberalization wave, Aquino-era PPP expansions, Duterte-era infrastructure push, and Marcos Jr.-era fiscal consolidation). “Build, Build, Build” was the Duterte branding for accelerated infrastructure; the current administration has continued many projects while simultaneously pursuing balance-sheet optimization through asset sales and concessions.

The closing slogan “Dati Build, Build, Build. Ngayon Balde, Benta, Maleta” is a deliberate phonetic and semantic inversion: balde (bucket / to scoop), benta (sale), maleta (suitcase). It frames the shift as extraction, disposal, and departure rather than construction.

 

A summative conclusion of the premise

The post advances a classic political-economy diagnosis of fiscalized statecraft under conditions of public distraction. Its core premise is that the Philippine state, while the citizenry’s attention is fragmented across secondary controversies, is executing a secondary wave of public-asset monetization—converting residual equity, real property, and strategic infrastructure into immediate liquidity or private control. This is presented not as technocratic efficiency but as a qualitative rupture: from accumulationist developmentalism (“Build, Build, Build”) to extractive liquidation (“Balde, Benta, Maleta”).

The formulation belongs to the long genealogy of rentier-state critiques in postcolonial Southeast Asia. The state is portrayed as having exhausted the easy political capital of visible construction and now resorting to the sale of the very assets that earlier regimes had either built or retained as national patrimony. The list itself is carefully curated: hydroelectric capacity (energy sovereignty), expressway equity (toll-road cash flows), commercial real estate in prime districts (Makati/Taguig land rents), a mothballed nuclear plant (technological and symbolic sovereignty), and a mass-transit system (urban mobility commons). Each item is a node in the circuit of public wealth that can be privatized without requiring new taxation—a classic mechanism of austerity politics in capital-scarce, middle-income democracies.

The rhetorical structure is dialectical: thesis (public distraction), antithesis (stealth privatization), synthesis (the ironic inversion of the developmental slogan). The premise therefore does not merely catalog transactions; it asserts a temporal and moral inversion—that the same state that once measured legitimacy by the volume of concrete poured now measures fiscal health by the volume of assets transferred. Whether the individual sales are commercially rational or even necessary under debt and fiscal constraints is secondary to the post’s deeper claim: that the contemporary Philippine state has shifted its mode of accumulation from productive expansion to residual liquidation, and that this shift is being executed under the cover of political noise.

In short, the premise is a compressed allegory of post-developmental statecraft: when the capacity (or political will) to build further is constrained, the remaining public estate itself becomes the commodity.

 

The rentier-state critique is a political-economy framework that analyzes how a state’s primary source of revenue shapes its relationship with society, its institutional development, and its long-term economic trajectory.

Classic Formulation

The concept emerged in the 1970s–1980s from the study of oil-exporting states in the Middle East and North Africa (notably the work of Hossein Mahdavy, Hazem Beblawi, and Giacomo Luciani). A *rentier state* is defined as one that derives a large share of its fiscal resources from external “rents”—unearned or semi-earned income that does not require broad domestic productive effort. Classic examples include oil and gas revenues, mineral royalties, strategic transit fees, or large foreign aid flows.

Because these rents flow directly to the state (or to a narrow elite controlling the state), several structural consequences follow:

- Fiscal independence from citizens: The state does not need to tax the population heavily. The classic democratic linkage—“no taxation without representation”—is inverted into “no taxation, therefore limited representation or accountability.”

- Patronage and distributive politics: Revenue is distributed through subsidies, public-sector employment, transfers, and clientelist networks rather than through productive investment or institutional capacity-building.

-  Weak productive economy: The economy becomes skewed toward the rent-generating sector (Dutch disease), while manufacturing, agriculture, and other tradable sectors stagnate.

- Authoritarian resilience or limited democracy: Rulers can buy political quietude without needing to bargain with organized social groups over tax policy or public goods.

-   Vulnerability to price shocks: When external rents collapse, the entire political and fiscal order is destabilized.

 

Analytical Core

At its deepest level, the critique is about the *origin of state revenue* and what that origin does to the state’s incentives. When revenue comes from society (broad-based taxation of labor and capital), the state is compelled to foster productive activity, maintain legitimacy through performance, and negotiate with taxpayers. When revenue comes from external or residual rents, the state can treat society as a residual claimant rather than the source of its power.

Extensions Beyond Oil

Scholars later applied the framework more broadly:

- To mineral-rich African and Latin American states.

- To aid-dependent states.

- To states that live off financial rents, land rents, or the privatization of previously accumulated public assets.

In the Southeast Asian and Philippine context, the critique is often adapted to describe a *post-developmental* or *residual-rentier* pattern. After periods of state-led industrialization or infrastructure accumulation, governments may shift toward monetizing the remaining public estate—selling equity in utilities, expressways, real estate, or strategic facilities. These asset sales generate one-time or recurring fiscal inflows that function analogously to natural-resource rents: they reduce the immediate need for tax reform or productivity-enhancing reforms, while transferring control of key economic nodes to private actors (often with political connections).

Normative Thrust of the Critique

The rentier-state critique is not merely descriptive. It carries a strong normative edge: reliance on rents tends to produce states that are simultaneously *strong* in their distributive capacity and *weak* in their developmental and accountable capacity. Over time, this can lock a country into a low-accountability, low-productivity equilibrium in which political survival depends on the continued flow of rents rather than on broad-based economic dynamism or institutional quality.

In short, the rentier-state critique diagnoses a pathology of state formation in which the ease of extracting unearned or residual income corrodes the harder, longer-term work of building a productive, accountable, and reciprocal relationship between state and society.

 

The Circular Premise of Residual Rentierism

The Philippine sequence—from the developmental slogan “Build, Build, Build” to the liquidatory formula “Balde, Benta, Maleta”—is not a linear degeneration but the visible arc of a closed political-economic circuit. The deduced premise is this: under conditions of chronic capital scarcity and fragmented popular attention, the postcolonial state enters an infinite loop of residual rentierism. Public assets are accumulated under the legitimating sign of national construction; once residualized, they are monetized as fiscal rents; the proceeds sustain distributive patronage and short-term solvency; the resulting depletion of the public estate then necessitates a renewed rhetoric of construction, restarting the cycle. What appears as policy oscillation is in fact a self-reproducing loop in which the state’s capacity to extract value from its own earlier investments continually regenerates the conditions for further extraction.

This is not the ecological circular economy of regenerative material flows. It is its inverted political twin: a circular economy of depletion and re-enchantment, in which the commons are periodically re-enchanted as “nation-building” only so that they may later be disenchanted as disposable residual assets.

Ontological Structure of the Loop

The circuit rests on three interlocking moments.

First, the moment of accumulation under the developmental sign. Infrastructure, utilities, and strategic real estate are framed as embodiments of collective futurity. The state’s legitimacy is measured by the volume of concrete poured and the length of roads opened. This phase generates both physical capital and symbolic capital: the public comes to regard these assets as patrimony rather than mere fiscal instruments.

Second, the moment of *residualization and monetization*. Once the political capital of construction is exhausted or fiscal pressures intensify, the same assets are reclassified as “non-core,” “underutilized,” or “inefficiently held.” Equity stakes, long-term concessions, and outright sales convert residual public wealth into immediate liquidity. Because the assets were originally legitimated as national, their privatization can be presented as technocratic optimization rather than alienation of the commons. The rent extracted is not classical oil rent but *historical rent*—value crystallized from earlier public investment and political mobilization.

Third, the moment of re-legitimation through scarcity. The depletion of the public estate eventually produces visible deficits—congested transport, energy shortfalls, urban land scarcity—which are then met with a renewed developmental rhetoric. New “build” programs are announced, often requiring fresh public outlays or new private partners who themselves may later become sellers or concessionaires. The loop closes: the crisis generated by prior liquidation becomes the warrant for a new round of accumulation that will, in time, itself become residual and available for monetization.

The loop is infinite because each phase generates the conditions of possibility for the next. Construction creates residualizable assets; residualization generates fiscal and political rents that postpone structural reform; postponed reform eventually produces scarcity that demands further construction. No external shock is required to keep the circuit turning; the internal logic of residual rentierism is self-sustaining.

Philosophical Architecture

At the level of political ontology, the loop instantiates a peculiar form of *bad infinity* in the Hegelian sense: an endless repetition that never sublates into a higher determination. The state never achieves genuine autonomy from rent because the very act of converting residual assets into revenue continually recreates dependence on residual assets. Productive taxation of a broadened economic base—the classic exit from rentierism—remains permanently deferred, for such taxation would require a reciprocal social contract that residual rentierism systematically undermines.

In Foucauldian terms, the circuit is a technology of governmentality that manages the population through alternating regimes of visibility. During the “build” phase, the state renders itself spectacularly present through infrastructure. During the “benta” phase, it renders the same infrastructure administratively invisible—reclassified as balance-sheet items, tender documents, and private contracts—while popular attention is occupied elsewhere. The distraction noted in the original post is not accidental; it is a necessary condition for the smooth operation of the residualization moment.

From a postcolonial vantage, the loop recapitulates a deeper historical pattern: the perpetual conversion of collective political energy into alienable economic form. The developmental state of the mid-to-late twentieth century sought to nationalize the conditions of production; the residual-rentier state of the twenty-first century nationalizes only long enough to prepare the conditions for re-privatization. Sovereignty is exercised most fully at the moment of its partial alienation.

Collation of Adjacent Formations

The Philippine instance is not singular. Parallel circuits appear wherever developmental states confront fiscal constraint after an initial wave of public accumulation: the progressive concessioning of Latin American utilities, the staged privatization of residual equity in certain East Asian infrastructure vehicles, the long-term leasing of strategic urban land in various Global South cities. In each case the same temporal structure obtains—construction under the sign of the nation, residualization under the sign of efficiency, re-legitimation under the sign of renewed scarcity.

What distinguishes the residual-rentier loop from classical resource rentierism is that the “resource” is not geological but historical. It is the sediment of prior political will and public investment. This makes the loop more insidious: it consumes not only nature’s free gifts but the accumulated results of collective effort, thereby exhausting both material and symbolic reserves of nationhood.

Summative Conclusion

The circular premise of residual rentierism reveals a state that has discovered how to live indefinitely off the capitalization of its own past. It builds in order to sell, sells in order to sustain the political conditions that allow it to build again, and in the process never exits the orbit of rent. The slogan inversion from “Build, Build, Build” to “Balde, Benta, Maleta” is therefore not merely satirical; it is diagnostic of a closed system whose only movement is rotation.

Philosophically, the loop constitutes a form of temporal enclosure. Future-oriented developmental time is repeatedly folded back into the present as fiscal opportunity. The public estate is never allowed to mature into a durable commons; it is kept in a permanent state of residuality, always available for the next extraction. In this sense the infinite loop is also a form of political entropy: each cycle dissipates a portion of the collective capacity for long-horizon institutional and productive development, while regenerating the short-horizon logic of rent.

The ultimate implication is sobering. A state trapped in residual rentierism does not merely fail to develop; it actively develops the conditions of its own perpetual non-development. The circle continues not because alternatives are unimaginable, but because the circuit itself continually reconstitutes the incentives, the fiscal necessities, and the attentional deficits that make the next turn appear inevitable. What began as a pragmatic response to capital scarcity becomes, through repetition, an ontological condition of the state form itself.

 

There is no single, universally standardized academic term that perfectly names the exact infinite loop described earlier. However, several closely related and established concepts capture different aspects of it.

Closest Established Terms

1. **Privatization and Nationalization Cycles**  

   This is the most direct formal term in the academic literature. Economists (notably Chang, Hevia, and Loayza) have modeled repeated, cyclical shifts between public ownership (nationalization) and private ownership (privatization) of strategic assets, especially in resource-rich or infrastructure-heavy economies. These cycles are driven by changing commodity prices, fiscal pressures, equality–efficiency trade-offs, and political incentives. The pattern is recognized as recurrent rather than one-off.

2. **Asset Recycling (or Asset Monetization / Capital Recycling)**  

   This is the dominant contemporary policy term. Governments monetize existing (“brownfield”) public assets—through long-term leases, concessions, or partial sales—and reinvest the proceeds into new infrastructure. Official frameworks (World Bank, India’s National Monetization Pipeline, Australian and Canadian programs) explicitly describe it as a continuous or virtuous cycle: develop → operate → monetize → reinvest → develop again. In critical political-economy readings, the same mechanism appears as the residual-rentier loop.

3. **Rent-Seeking Cycles (in Privatization)**  

   Some public-choice and political-economy analyses treat waves of privatization as phases within broader rent-seeking cycles, in which interest groups compete over the creation, transfer, and dissipation of rents attached to public assets and infrastructure.

Relation to the Residual-Rentier Loop

The synthetic concept developed in the previous analysis—**residual rentierism** or the **residual-rentier cycle**—combines elements of the above:

- It draws on classical and “late” **rentier-state theory** (the state living off unearned or residual income rather than broad-based productive taxation).

- It incorporates the observed **privatization–nationalization** oscillation.

- It maps onto the practical mechanism of **asset recycling**, but interprets the loop critically: as a self-reinforcing circuit of accumulation under a developmental banner, residualization and monetization for fiscal rents, and renewed scarcity that restarts the developmental rhetoric.

In short, the most precise existing labels are **privatization and nationalization cycles** (academic) and **asset recycling / asset monetization cycle** (policy). The framing of an *infinite residual-rentier loop* remains a synthetic diagnostic that highlights the self-reproducing, historically layered character of the process when residual public assets themselves become the primary source of rent.

About the Author... 

Amiel Gerald A. Roldan (born 1972, Mandaluyong City, Philippines) is a multidisciplinary Filipino visual artist, printmaker, painter, independent curator, researcher, writer, and cultural worker whose practice has unfolded since the mid-to-late 1990s. He is not primarily defined by discrete artworks but by sustained engagement with the full ecology of Philippine contemporary art: production, exhibition-making, documentation, pedagogy, criticism, artist development, and the often-invisible labor that sustains cultural infrastructure.

Educated in Studio Painting (BA Fine Arts and Certificate of Fine Arts) at the University of the Philippines Diliman (roughly 1993–1998), Roldan’s practice quickly expanded beyond painting into printmaking, photography, installation, writing, and curatorial work. Early recognition included an Honourable Mention from the Art Association of the Philippines (1995) and international print exhibitions: the 1996 Japan-Asia Print Exhibition at the Fukuoka Prefectural Museum and the 4th Triennial Mondiale d’Estampes Petit Format in Chamalières, France (1998). His prints from this period addressed socially charged subjects, including HIV/AIDS work beginning around 1995, and titles such as Mga OCWs Galing Pinas, Karaoke Queen, Mga Tinikling Dancers ng Pinas, Wealth, Liberate, Permanence, and Abundance. These works treat printmaking as a vehicle for social commentary, cultural documentation, and reflection on Filipino identity, marginality, labor, and everyday experience.

A pivotal chapter came with the 2003–2004 Asian Cultural Council (ACC) Starr Foundation Fellowship. Roldan spent approximately ten months in the United States, working in association with the International Studio and Curatorial Program (ISCP) in New York—where he was among the early Filipino participants—and the Experimental Printmaking Institute in Pennsylvania. He also held a Chashama studio residency in Tribeca. The fellowship enabled observation of contemporary practices, dialogue with international artists and curators, and production of new work that linked local concerns with global contexts. More recently, his piece Bridges Beyond Borders (representing cultural collaboration and exchange) was selected as visual identity for the ACC Global Alumni Network, underscoring a two-way circulation of ideas rather than one-directional “representation” of the Philippines abroad.

Key contributions to Philippine art can be understood across interconnected dimensions:

1. Printmaking as socially engaged practice — Roldan has consistently used the medium for questions of identity, migration, popular culture, inequality, and Filipino lived experience, situating the print within a tradition that functions simultaneously as aesthetic object, document, and argument.

2. Artist-curator continuum — He has organized and curated exhibitions, documented practices, and supported artist development with institutions and spaces including Hiraya Gallery, Jorge B. Vargas Museum, Kulay Diwa Art Galleries (where he served in curatorial/directorial roles), Cultural Center of the Philippines, NCCA-related projects, Imahica Art, Gallerie Anna, and others. He has collaborated with figures such as Roberto Chabet, Brenda Fajardo, and international artists (e.g., from Studio One in Canberra, as well as practitioners from Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and Korea). More recently he has worked as program/marketing director and consultant curator for art fairs and spaces (including involvement with Manila Bang Show 2024 and MOCAF 2024). For Roldan these activities are not peripheral administration but forms of creative and intellectual labor.

3. Independent curatorial culture — He founded or leads Independent Curatorial Manila (ICM), conceived as an independent/voluntary curatorial service and guide for emerging Filipino artists. This reflects a commitment to pathways outside strictly institutional structures in an ecosystem heavily reliant on informal networks, galleries, independent spaces, and personal relationships.

4. International exchange and cultural memory — Beyond the ACC fellowship, his practice emphasizes postcolonial discourse, cultural memory, social inequality, politics, religion, faith, denial, courage, and everyday Filipino life. Writing, research, archiving, and annotation form integral parts of the work; recent reflective essays (including “Cultural Workers: Not Creative?” associated with a 2025 group exhibition at ILOMOCA) explicitly challenge hierarchies that privilege object-making over documentation, facilitation, pedagogy, marketing, and infrastructure-building.

5. Art as research and infrastructure — Roldan’s trajectory is circular rather than linear: artist → researcher → curator → writer → organizer → archivist → facilitator → artist. Making exhibitions possible, mentoring, documenting overlooked histories, building counter-archives, and writing critically about the conditions of art production are treated as artistic acts in their own right. This challenges romantic notions of the solitary artist and reframes the cultural worker as central to the art ecology.

Works are held in collections including the Singapore National Gallery / Singapore Museum, Luciano Benetton Collection (Imago Mundi / Venice), Rockefeller-related holdings, Lisa H. Mackie Collection, Philippine Department of Health collection, and the Experimental Printmaking Institute. Solo exhibitions include Memoirs of Pipay (Hiraya Gallery, 1996/2000), Pasintabi (Kulay Diwa, early 2000s), and Creating Identities (UP CFA Corridor Gallery, 2014), among others; group shows span Philippine institutions and international print platforms.

In one concise framing: Amiel Gerald Roldan is an artist-curator-cultural worker whose practice connects art-making with memory, social inquiry, international dialogue, independent curation, and the construction of cultural infrastructure. His potential legacy resides equally in the artworks produced, the ideas articulated in writing and reflection, and the often-invisible relational and organizational labor that helps other artists and artworks circulate. In a Philippine contemporary art field shaped by limited institutional resources and dense interpersonal networks, that third dimension—the work of making the ecology function—may prove among the most consequential.

Recent group show at ILOMOCA

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16qUTDdEMD 

https://www.linkedin.com/safety/go?messageThreadUrn=urn%3Ali%3AmessageThreadUrn%3A&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressenza.com%2F2025%2F05%2Fcultural-workers-not-creative-ilomoca-may-16-2025%2F&trk=flagship-messaging-android

Chashama at 40 Worth Open Studios  

https://chashama.org/event/40-worth-open-studios-phase-1/

Asian Cultural Council Alumni Global Network 

https://alumni.asianculturalcouncil.org/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAPlR6NjbGNrA-VG_2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHoy6hXUptbaQi5LdFAHcNWqhwblxYv_wRDZyf06-O7Yjv73hEGOOlphX0cPZ_aem_sK6989WBcpBEFLsQqr0kdg

Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ started Independent Curatorial Manila™ as a nonprofit philanthropy while working for institutions simultaneously early on.   

The Independent Curatorial Manila™ or ICM™   is a curatorial services and guide for emerging artists in the Philippines. It is an independent/voluntary services entity and aims to remain so. Selection is through proposal and a prerogative temporarily. Contact above for inquiries.  

https://www.instagram.com/tv/ChiTnSEl1VN/?stkn=MWhwZmV2ZWxvYjA1NA==

 

Language  

Login

Create connection,

Value conversation.

For you

Who we are

Meet the team

ICM culture

How to apply

Stories

Contact us

Language 

Manage your cookie preferences

Privacy & Cookie Policies

Terms of use

Global code of conduct & ethics

All rights reserved Amiel Gerald Roldan® 2026

***

 Disclaimer:

This work is my original writing unless otherwise cited; any errors or omissions are my responsibility.The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any organization or institution.

Furthermore, the commentary reflects my personal interpretation of publicly available data and is offered as fair comment on matters of public interest. It does not allege criminal liability or wrongdoing by any individual.