Economic Nationalism or Economic Internationalism: Which Path Should the Philippines Adopt?
APPENDIX A. Economic Nationalism or Economic Internationalism: Which path should the Philippines adopt?
No complete realization of either is practicable. We must understand the real alternatives clearly. Therefore, the choice should not be between a complete suppression of international trade on the one hand and its complete freedom on the other. Rather we shall look at the restrictions present in status quo which walls our path to development. In the context of constitutional reform, the development of the country necessitates a more positive definition of economic nationalism. It is evident that our economic policy has longed emphasized economic nationalism. Based on our laws, our strand of economic nationalism emphasizes the fear of exploitation by foreigners. In fact, from the time of Quezon until present we have adopted a system of laws, starting with our Constitution, reserving to the state the role of providing cover and protection for the Filipino, defining his exclusive rights over others. For a long time now, we have constricted the degrees of economic freedom with which we should have maximized to solve poverty, and other challenges of our time. Our Constitution and other laws, such as Retail Nationalization Law, Anti-Dummy Law, Board of Investment, etc., work as barriers for development. There were times in our history when our leaders tried to amend these “barrier laws” and change our circle; however, as we always go back to the ultranationalism stance we have, we always stop the reconstruction of our economic development. Our economy has been always halfway to the development, impaired by the citizenship requirement in economic participation found in the Constitution and other subsisting laws; therefore, we must amend these provisions. If our nation continues to face an ever increasing task to overcome poverty, the blame for the severity of the challenge is not on foreigners, but on our leaders and us. To briefly historically
No complete realization of either is practicable. We must understand the real alternatives clearly. Therefore, the choice should not be between a complete suppression of international trade on the one hand and its complete freedom on the other. Rather we shall look at the restrictions present in status quo which walls our path to development. In the context of constitutional reform, the development of the country necessitates a more positive definition of economic nationalism. It is evident that our economic policy has longed emphasized economic nationalism. Based on our laws, our strand of economic nationalism emphasizes the fear of exploitation by foreigners. In fact, from the time of Quezon until present we have adopted a system of laws, starting with our Constitution, reserving to the state the role of providing cover and protection for the Filipino, defining his exclusive rights over others. For a long time now, we have constricted the degrees of economic freedom with which we should have maximized to solve poverty, and other challenges of our time. Our Constitution and other laws, such as Retail Nationalization Law, Anti-Dummy Law, Board of Investment, etc., work as barriers for development. There were times in our history when our leaders tried to amend these “barrier laws” and change our circle; however, as we always go back to the ultranationalism stance we have, we always stop the reconstruction of our economic development. Our economy has been always halfway to the development, impaired by the citizenship requirement in economic participation found in the Constitution and other subsisting laws; therefore, we must amend these provisions. If our nation continues to face an ever increasing task to overcome poverty, the blame for the severity of the challenge is not on foreigners, but on our leaders and us. To briefly historically