Introduction Globalization is an unavoidable presence on the modern, linked international stage, having an impact on even developing countries like the Philippines. Economic and political globalization are the two main manifestations of this complicated phenomenon. Supporters claim that globalization offers potential solutions to the economic and financial problems that emerging nations confront. Additionally, it promotes international dependency, particularly in terms of political and economic collaboration. While these developments may appear advantageous on the surface, akin to any intricate issue, they carry both advantages and disadvantages. This essay seeks to explore whether economic and political integration ultimately inflicts more harm than good upon the Philippines. At the conclusion of this comprehensive analysis, I will substantiate my perspective, firmly asserting that presently, such integration exerts a more adverse impact on the Philippines. Reason #1 Economic integration, driven by a colonial mindset, can have detrimental repercussions on regional markets and cultures. Economic integration, characterized by agreements between nations often entailing free trade and coordinated economic policies, albeit well-intentioned, harkens back to the colonial era ingrained in the Filipino psyche. For decades, Filipinos have grappled with discrimination both from external entities and fellow Filipinos. This negative outlook is exacerbated by economic integration and our colonial history. As our participation in economic integration leans heavily on foreign investments and imports rather than promoting our own goods, Filipinos become susceptible to Western influence. Consequently, foreign products dominate the market, creating formidable challenges for local enterprises to compete. In sectors like beverages and cosmetics, international brands reign supreme. According to the Kantar Brand Footprint 2021 study, Coca-Cola, Kopiko, and Nescafe top the list of beverage brands in the Philippines. Similarly, Palmolive, Safeguard, and Sunsilk lead the health and beauty industry. Significantly, none of these brands boast regional uniqueness. Additionally, the escalating economic integration, stemming from the prevailing colonial mindset, erodes cultural traditions and jeopardizes the nation's future by eroding national pride. Counterargument #1 Economic integration plays a pivotal role in the amplification of market dynamics, effectively broadening the horizons of market reach and accessibility to a plethora of products and services, thereby imparting substantial benefits to the overall economy. At its core, trade liberalization acts as the catalyst for international investments and the facilitation of seamless cross-border business transactions, igniting the flames of market growth. As trade restrictions are pared down, the path is cleared for large multinational corporations to set foot in the Philippines, importing their goods and establishing branches with unprecedented ease. This phenomenon ushers in the inevitable expansion of the local market to accommodate a diverse array of imported products, ushering in what can aptly be termed as the "expansion phase" in the economic cycle. This surge in market expansion, marked by the availability of Korean beverages and cuisine, vividly underscores the profoundly positive repercussions of economic integration. Furthermore, it is imperative to acknowledge the pivotal role of economic integration in enhancing the accessibility of foreign products; this is exemplified by the effortless access to top-tier cosmetics hailing from the USA. Consequently, it is clear that economic integration is a powerful driver, ushering in an era of amplified market dynamics, an extensive array of choices for consumers,and, robustt and rapid economic growth for the nation. Reason #2 Foreign investments and remittances hold excessive importance in the Philippines, positioning the country as a recipient, or periphery, rather than a core player in international alliances. The Matthew effect, which posits that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, aligns with this notion. Robert W. Jackman's findings indicate that this phenomenon does not apply when prosperous nations channel their investments into emerging economies. Jackman argues that the core experiences accelerated growth compared to the periphery, consequently surpassing other nations facing analogous situations, albeit with a modified Matthew effect. The Philippines has increasingly depended on such investments, with a significant proportion of its economic expansion attributed to services and remittances. The nation's economy has reached a juncture where it encounters difficulties sustaining itself should foreign investors decide to disengage. This vulnerability was starkly exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the Philippines experienced its first economic contraction since 1999, one of the most severe among ASEAN nations that year (Mendoza, 2021). Counterargument #2 Economic integration plays a pivotal role in stimulating economic freedom within the Philippines, as it fosters a multitude of employment opportunities and serves as a magnet for investments. This phenomenon is particularly evident through the surging demand for labor spurred by the influx of global brands and businesses into the country. Furthermore, the nation's diplomatic connections on the international stage enhance the overseas employability of Filipino workers, further bolstering the economic landscape. Additionally, economic integration acts as a catalyst for foreign direct investments (FDIs), positioning the Philippines as an enticing destination for global investors seeking promising prospects. Remarkably, despite its status as a developing nation, the Philippines boasts one of the world's fastest-growing economies, making it an increasingly appealing prospect for wealthier nations eager to capitalize on burgeoning investment opportunities. The pivotal role of economic integration in job creation and investment attraction becomes even more pronounced when considering the necessity for local staffing whenever a corporation establishes a new branch, underscoring its profound impact on the country's economic growth and prosperity. Reason #3 Political integration proves detrimental for emerging nations due to inherent power struggles in the political arena. Political integration, entailing the amalgamation of political systems' elements, involves nations agreeing to adhere to specific laws and standards without establishing a single supreme authority. Within such systems lacking a central power, power struggles become inevitable. Power play, characterized by attempts to gain advantages through influence or the misuse of authority, poses a substantial threat to vulnerable nations like the Philippines. Realistically, the Philippines finds itself at a disadvantage in territorial conflicts with powerful nations such as China, which boasts superiority in both territory and influence, including its membership in the UN's influential Veto 5. Despite claims of impartiality, the UN's links with China undoubtedly influence its decisions. Counterargument #3 Political unity achieved through integration serves as a crucial catalyst for streamlining cooperation and fostering harmonious agreements among nations, ultimately presenting a myriad of advantages, particularly for emerging nations like the Philippines. As underscored by the World Bank Group, foreign direct investments (FDIs) hold immense potential for developing countries, ushering in a multitude of benefits such as the creation of higher-paying employment opportunities, an upsurge in economic productivity, the infusion of advanced knowledge and innovative techniques, and unwavering support for local businesses. Examining the realm of global trade, we find the World Trade Organization standing as a prime exemplar of political integration in the arena of commerce, vigilantly overseeing and facilitating international trade endeavors. Furthermore, it extends tailored privileges to developing nations, thoughtfully tailored to bolster the economies of countries like the Philippines, underscoring the invaluable role of political unity through integration in shaping a more prosperous and interconnected world. Reason #4 Hegemony, intertwined with political integration, tends to disadvantage weaker nations. US Hegemony, believed by many scholars to have ushered in globalization after World War II, has continued following the Soviet Union's decline in 1991. Hegemonic influence is palpable in various aspects of the modern world, including political integration efforts that establish international organizations to offer support and maintain global order. The US, one of the foremost providers of aid and consumer products, plays a pivotal role in this framework. Hegemony's subtle presence within the UN (United Nations), particularly through the five veto-wielding nations in the UN Security Council, illustrates its influence. Hegemony leverages its power to compel weaker nations to adopt specific ideologies and institutional frameworks, often benefiting the powerful while exposing the nation to more negative consequences than positive outcomes. Counterargument #4 Hegemony, a product of political integration, fosters political interdependence among nations, bolstering the economies and security of emerging nations. Political interdependence significantly benefits a nation's economic and national security, particularly for emerging nations like the Philippines. Political interdependence becomes mutually advantageous when powerful nations form alliances with emerging ones, leading to economic benefits for both sides. A dominating hegemon engages in extensive business with numerous nations, including the Philippines, thanks to their intertwined economies. This partnership makes it likely for partner nations to provide assistance when facing hazards or challenges, bolstering security. The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention, which underscores the role of economic interdependence in preventing conflicts, resonates with this idea. A nation's dominance hinges on its interdependence with numerous other nations, rendering it formidable and influential. While the hegemon stands to gain the most, partner nations also reap significant rewards. Conclusion After extensive examination and debate, it becomes apparent that these integrations, despite their superficial advantages, impose more harm than good due to the Philippines' growing reliance on other nations. The nation's economic expansion is accompanied by a relinquishment of sovereignty, potentially paving the way for neocolonialism by any of the present global hegemons. Considering the broader picture and long-term ramifications, the nation faces economic collapse if substantial foreign investors divest their holdings or succumbs to subjugation by more powerful forces. The nation's future takes precedence over its present economic status, and while disengaging from globalization's integrations is not a viable option, proactive measures can be undertaken, contingent upon addressing internal issues. This essay concludes that economic and political integration currently inflicts more harm than good upon the Philippines, given the totality of arguments and refutations presented.
