Assessing the Impact of Globalization on the Philippines
Words Counter: 1,533
Introduction
In today's globalized world, it is expected that even developing nations like the
Philippines will become more connected to the global stage. Globalization takes
different forms, with Economic and Political Globalization being the most noticeable.
Some argue that Globalization can benefit developing countries by addressing their
economic challenges and fostering interdependence among nations, particularly in the
economic and political realms. However, like any complex issue, these integrations
have both advantages and disadvantages. In this essay, I will explore the question of
whether these economic and political connections have a positive or negative impact on
the Philippines. By the end of this essay, I will express my belief that currently, these
integrations do more harm than good to the country.
Reason #1
Economic integration can have negative effects on local markets and cultures by
promoting a colonial mindset. Economic integration refers to agreements between
countries that often involve free trade and coordination of economic policies. While it is
intended to benefit all parties involved, it is closely tied to the Filipino colonial mentality.
The Filipino community has faced discrimination from both foreigners and fellow
Filipinos for generations. Economic integration, coupled with our history of colonialism,
exacerbates this toxic mindset. This makes Filipinos easily influenced by Western
trends, as our participation in economic integration relies more on foreign investments
and imports than on exporting our own products. Consequently, the market is
dominated by imported goods, making it challenging for local businesses to compete.
For example, foreign brands dominate the beauty and beverage sectors. According to
the Kantar Brand Footprint 2021 report, the leading brands in the Philippines' beverage
industry are Nescafe, Kopiko, and Coca-Cola. Meanwhile, the top brands in the health
and beauty sector include Palmolive, Safeguard, and Sunsilk. Notably, none of these
brands are locally originated. Furthermore, the prevailing colonial mindset, exacerbated
by ongoing economic integration, weakens cultural traditions, potentially harming the
nation's future due to a lack of strong national pride among its citizens.
Counterargument #1
Economic integration boosts markets by expanding them and increasing the
availability of goods and services. When trade barriers are reduced, it becomes easier
for big companies to enter a country, import products, and set up operations. As a
result, the local market grows to include foreign goods. This leads to rapid economic
growth, known as the expansion phase in the economic cycle. For instance, when
Korean beverages and food are introduced locally, or when Filipinos buy Americanmade cosmetics, it is a clear result of economic integration making foreign products
accessible to local consumers.
Reason #2
The Philippines relies heavily on foreign investors and remittances, making it
primarily a receiver in international partnerships, rather than a core player. This situation
is reminiscent of the Matthew Effect, where “the rich tend to get richer and the poor get
poorer.” However, research by Robert W. Jackman suggests that when wealthier
countries invest in developing nations like the Philippines, a modified Matthew Effect
occurs. In this scenario, both the core and the periphery experience growth, albeit at
different rates. While such investments have limitations, they do contribute positively to
the economic development of the periphery. In the case of the Philippines, our heavy
dependence on these investments, coupled with our reliance on services and
remittances, leaves our economy vulnerable. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted this
vulnerability, causing a significant economic downturn in 2020, the first in over two
decades, and one of the most severe contractions among ASEAN nations in that year
(Mendoza, 2021).
Counterargument #2
Economic integration fosters economic freedom by generating job and
investment prospects. When foreign brands and companies invest in a nation, it leads to
a higher need for local workers, which in turn bolsters local employment rates.
Furthermore, such global connections highlight the dedication and skills of the Filipino
workforce abroad, resulting in an increased demand for Filipino employees due to their
favorable attributes. Economic integration also encourages Foreign Direct Investments
(FDIs). The Philippines emerges as an attractive destination for foreign investors,
thanks to its status as one of the fastest-growing economies globally, despite being a
developing country. Moreover, the nation's abundance of valuable resources makes it
an ideal choice for wealthier countries seeking lucrative investments. For instance,
Benefit Cosmetics, a makeup brand that initially had no presence in the Philippines,
noticed the demand for its products in the country. In response, they established local
branches, creating job opportunities for Filipino applicants"
Reason #3
Political integration can be problematic for developing nations. It involves
countries agreeing to follow specific rules without forming a single authority. This can
lead to power struggles, where nations try to gain advantages by flexing their influence
or abusing their authority. This can be a vulnerability for countries like the Philippines
when dealing with more influential nations like China. In disputes like the one between
China and the Philippines, the odds are stacked against the Philippines due to China's
territorial and overall power dominance. China's influence in international bodies like the
UN (United Nations), where they are part of the influential Veto 5, can also affect
decision-making, even though the UN claims to be impartial.
Counterargument #3
Political integration can benefit developing nations. It simplifies nation-to-nation
agreements and interactions, which is particularly advantageous for countries in the
process of development, such as the Philippines. According to the World Bank Group,
foreign direct investments (FDIs) offer several advantages to developing nations,
including the creation of better-paying jobs, increased economic productivity, the
introduction of advanced information and techniques, and support for local businesses.
An example of political integration in relation to trade is the World Trade Organization
(WTO), responsible for facilitating and managing global trade. Importantly, the WTO has
specific provisions to assist developing countries, like the Philippines, in bolstering their
economies.
Reason #4
In the realm of political integration, we see the emergence of dominance, and this
is not favorable for those with less influence. Much like how scholars often link the start
of globalization to the aftermath of World War 2, the onset of US dominance also traces
back to that time. When the Soviet Union vanished from the global stage in 1991, the
era of dominance had already commenced. Today, we can readily witness signs of this
dominance. For instance, in the context of political integration, where international
organizations were established to foster connections between nations and maintain
global order, the United States stands out as a major contributor, if not the most
significant one. It also plays a vital role in supplying consumer goods worldwide. In a
way, it is fair to assert that the US serves as the backbone of global politics and the
economy. Some argue that dominance has become irrelevant in today's globalized
political landscape due to the presence of international bodies like the UN and NATO,
which aim to oversee and manage such situations. Yet, we often overlook that even
within the UN, the most prominent intergovernmental organization, a form of dominance
exists, primarily held by the five veto-wielding powers in the UN Security Council.
Dominance functions as a tool to influence the less powerful to adopt certain ideals and
structures that primarily benefit the powerful. In this scenario, those under its sway
become instruments for the economic or political advancement of the dominant entity,
but the nation itself often experiences more drawbacks than advantages.
Counterargument #4
Hegemony fosters political interdependence among nations, aiding developing
countries in enhancing their economic and security prospects. This type of political
interconnection not only bolsters a nation's economy but also strengthens its security.
Developing nations stand to gain more from such interdependency compared to already
powerful countries. When powerful nations form alliances with developing ones, it often
leads to economic advantages and mutual economic growth. In a scenario of political
hegemony, the dominant powers possess the financial resources to engage in
transactions with various nations, including the Philippines. If a country faces risks or
threats, its partner nations are likely to offer support due to their interconnected
economies. This concept aligns with the Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention,
which suggests that economic interdependence between countries can prevent conflicts
and foster greater international engagement. Becoming a dominant power necessitates
building interdependence with numerous other nations, making it challenging for others
to oppose them and causing their influence to soar. While the hegemon may benefit the
most in such situations, the partnered countries also enjoy significant advantages.
Conclusion
After extensive research and discussions, these integrations have more drawbacks than
benefits. They may provide some superficial advantages, but they also make the
Philippines overly reliant on other nations. While the country's economy is growing, it
risks losing its sovereignty, potentially falling under the influence of powerful global
players. Looking at the bigger picture, it is hard to deny that the country could face an
economic crisis if major foreign investors decide to withdraw their support. Alternatively,
it may become subject to manipulation by stronger nations. In my view, the short-term
gains in the economy do not outweigh the long-term risks. Actions that offer immediate
benefits but harm in the future are destructive. However, completely abstaining from
globalization and integration is not feasible, as it would hinder the country's
development. Instead, we should focus on proactive measures once we address our
internal issues. In conclusion, this essay argues that economic and political integration
does more harm than good for the Philippines.