Name all the worst qualities of a failed state, and the Philippines has them.

So massive and complex are the problems bedeviling the country that no single administration in recent memory has dramatically addressed all of them at the same time.

No wonder then that it has languished far behind its ASEAN neighbors in terms of individual human development and national prosperity.

Go ahead. Reckon with the following: Weak agricultural productivity, high government debt, low public, private, and foreign investment, weak research and development spending, low spending on education, lackluster tourism sector, relatively high income inequality, high corruption, strong population growth, more episodes of financial crisis, and political uncertainty.

By the way, that’s not us talking but the International Monetary Fund, so you better believe it.

But to us, somehow all these can be summed up in two words: Wimpy leadership.

In a 25-page working paper, The Determinants of Economic Growth in the Philippines: A New Look, the IMF compared the Philippines to 23 emerging markets for the period 1965–2008 to analyze the factors behind per-capita GDP growth.

A previous study noted that in the 1950s, the Philippines had the second highest per capita GDP in Asia. Today, its Southeast Asian neighbors Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam were described as high performing economies targeting First World statuses even as Manila was operating on a low-growth trajectory.

“The Philippines’ mediocre performance in a number of indicators—particularly relative to its Asian couterparts—illuminates some of the existing pieces of the Philippine growth puzzle,” Willa Boots Tolo, author of the report and now a bank officer at the  Bangko Sentral, said.

It suggested that the Philippines lacked a sustained period of relatively strong economic reforms.

Tolo said that, in order to catch up with its East Asian counterparts, the Philippines would need to maintain macroeconomic stability, expand its fiscal space, and redirect public spending to agriculture, infrastructure, and research and development.

“Expansion of the fiscal space and thus scaling up spending on public investment requires raising tax revenue through both administrative and selective tax policy measures. This would include strengthening tax administration, reform in excise taxes, rationalization of fiscal incentives, and addressing exemptions in value-added taxation,” she said.

‘The study said better irrigation, access to fertilizers, farm-to-market roads, and storage facilities could support development in the agricultural sector.

The government’s focus on public-private partnerships for traditional and non-traditional infrastructure investments would also maximize the returns to development, while srengthening the focus of education on the sciences in all levels would encourage future researchers and scientists who would be instrumental in nation building.