Do you think one's constitution is a big hindrance to economic growth?

[aioc]

Our 1987 Constitution revised our 1945 Constitution after the Philippine government ended Marcos's dictatorial rule in 1986, but since then, we have never achieved the economic growth we hoped for over 4 generations, and we still lag economically.

There have been many attempts to revise the 1987 Constitution, but strong opposition always wins because opponents fear current politicians will change provisions that would extend their terms and allow a dynasty.

One of the provisions in the 1987 Constitution that the business sectors want to change is foreign and land ownership; if you are a foreigner who wants to set up a business here, you need a local business partner, and you can only own 40% of the business, and no foreigner is allowed to own land.

This is the reason why foreigners are having second thoughts or are hesitant to do business here because of these restrictions,

Do you think these provisions in a constitution are a big deterrent to economic growth, and do you have similar provisions in your country's constitution?

[Juse14]

Of course, the Constitution will be very problematic, especially in the investment climate in your country, if the restrictive rules still remain unchanged.
From your explanation alone is actually enough to know the essence of this problem, so I think the government in your country does need to evaluate the law to be more friendly to outside businesspeople.
Just imagine that 60% is in the hands of the natives, they will surely find it very difficult to move and expand their business in your country.

Such as more friendly rules, requiring partners, friendly taxes and also employment that must be dominated by local labor, this will increase the growth of employment as well as economic turnover in your country.

[coin-investor]

Just imagine that 60% is in the hands of the natives, they will surely find it very difficult to move and expand their business in your country.

That's the reality here in our country: a foreigner with $10 million to invest will need to find partners with investment capacity who can match his investment and fill the 60%. With only a handful of millionaires here, he has few options; he cannot find a partner that he desires because of a lack of funds.

Some dubious foreigner will resort to creating dummies for his business, and when caught, corrupt officials will make him their cash cow so he can keep running a business that benefits locals.

[Bluedrem]

When the policy makers of a country decide on various policies in the public interest, leaving aside personal interests, then the prosperity of that country can be desired. But currently, in different countries of the world, policy makers formulate various policies considering their personal interests, where the common people face economic destruction instead of enjoying benefits, whereas it was supposed to be that the policy decisions would work in the public interest of that country.
As you said, even if various things are changed in your country, this is what happens, that is, the people are still not able to achieve economic prosperity. But no matter how many changes are made to the rules, if there is no mention of the prosperity of the common people, it is of no use.

[MArsland]

With restrictions like this, any country is bound to get obstacles in economic growth. Because it will be very inflexible when you want to attract foreign investors into the country. I agree that the 1987 Philippine Constitution should be revised but before that the structure of the government should be overhauled. This problem will be solved if the root is properly repaired. When power continues to be maintained by means of the dynastic system, until any development for the economic sector that prospers the people will not be realized. Political power, business networks and bureaucracy reinforce each other so that they will always have a way to stay rich, until it gets to the point where public anger is the final peak. This can lead to chaos or some kind of coup. The Philippines needs a Power Change.

[stompix]

One of the provisions in the 1987 Constitution that the business sectors want to change is foreign and land ownership; if you are a foreigner who wants to set up a business here, you need a local business partner, and you can only own 40% of the business, and no foreigner is allowed to own land.

Still way better than in South Africa, you should look up Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act 53 of 2003
designed "to help" black people or rather to actually punish white people, managed to turn the entire country into a shithole!
Or the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act 5 of 2000, in which basically as you're a black-owned company, you can offer the government twice as expensive goods the government will buy from you rather than from a non conformant white lead company  

As long as you have economic growth (wiki gives me over 5% over the last years) it's still good, the problems will arise once you hit 1-2% and your per capita GDP is still at the bottom, then one might start thinking about radically changing laws, and I think everyone is scared of changing that, thinking it will trigger a buyout from Chinese investors.
So, you want investors, or you want half of your land to be owned by foreigners? Cause they come in the same package!

When the policy makers of a country decide on various policies in the public interest, leaving aside personal interests, then the prosperity of that country can be desired. But currently, in different countries of the world, policy makers formulate various policies considering their personal interests, where the common people face economic destruction instead of enjoying benefits, whereas it was supposed to be that the policy decisions would work in the public interest of that country.

What a load of useless garbage!

[Hamza2424]

Do you think these provisions in a constitution are a big deterrent to economic growth, and do you have similar provisions in your country's constitution?

This law can be a huge problem for foreign investors, but still, I think it is for the best of your people, not just yours. There are many other countries like this. Even Saudi Arabia was like this, but their 2030 vision changed this rule. So under MISA, you don't require any partner. You can buy and start your own business as you want.

This has opened several opportunities for foreigners there. People have started their own small businesses and are bringing their cultural products there, as food and other items can have huge demand there, not just from their nationals, but people living there from your own country can love to buy all these things. In my view, Saudi Arabia is an untouched market in this way, but finding the reason for a gap like this is important. Otherwise, you will find it out the hard way.

Anyway, I was saying rules like this can be bad for investors, but at least the local partners get to show the world how trusted they can be, and they are not all the same. There are still many foreign investors there. Maybe as a citizen, you can approach a few who have money and want to expand. It is an opportunity. Maybe the laziness of the nationals is the reason why the economy is going down even having this option, but I read the foreign have a way around this as well. There are also other rules that PSA has regulated.