GLOBALIZATION AND ASIA

It is arguable to think that the Asian Continent relationship with globalization is

undeniably much more complex than it is as how it appears to be than how it should be. In
explaining the Asian Continent relationship with globalization, there are three perspectives:
externalist, generative, and alternative and amongst the three, externalist is the most I
personally agree upon.
Western nations pushed their way in and had a big impact on Asia's economic
significance. Asia's developing countries accounted for only one-sixth of global output just a
decade ago. However, Asia, excluding Australia, Japan, and New Zealand, now accounts for
about a quarter of global GDP in purchasing power parity terms, thanks to many countries in the
region following sound domestic economic policies, mobilizing large amounts of domestic
savings, and attracting substantial private capital inflows. Similarly, Asia's developing countries
have seen their proportion of global exports nearly double in the last decade, to around one-fifth
of the overall. These nations are also taking a larger part of industrial country exports, which
helped to mitigate the impact of successive industrial country recessions in the 1990s. Not only
for Asia, but for the world economy as a whole, these developments have been highly favorable.
Westerners brought new occurrences to the region, as well as a variety of modifications.
For example, cross-border capital flows, rapid technology transfer, and "real time"
communication and information flows, as well as the rise of new actors that challenge state
authority, such as non-governmental organizations (NGO's) and civic groups, and even financial
markets, have resulted in unprecedented economic interdependence. This is a result of the rise
of increasingly severe transnational problems – such as energy and environmental concerns,
large-scale migration flows, and organized crime networks. Moreover, it is an effect on the
emergence of an increasingly Western-dominated international culture, a trend that has sparked
concern about the erosion of national identity and traditional values in many Asian countries.
Some Asian countries, on the other hand, have liberalized and opened up their markets,
resulting in rapid economic growth.
Nonetheless, would it be better for Asia to detach from western influence? It has been
evident how western influence is beneficial for the economy but there are still arguments over its
pros and cons and the state of Filipinos up until this date and age. One of the benefits of
western economic influence on our economy is that new cultural values such as individuality,
liberalization, and lifestyle are presented to us. Despite the fact that the Philippines has over
120 languages spoken, we have managed to become closer to new foreign languages that
connected us to the rest of the globe. Furthermore, new concepts began to cross the shipping
and marketing divide. However, there are drawbacks to the numerous advantages, one of which
is the loss of one's own cultural identity. Few traditions and cultures were gradually forgotten as
time advanced with modernization because of the new idea of Western civilization. For instance,
pagmamano which has been replaced by other forms of giving respect such as “beso-beso” (a
greeting done cheek-to-cheek). Although respectful, it is not as remarkable as the original
pagmamano. Second, traditional games such as piko, patintero or tumbang-preso. These new
generation of kids would more likely prefer mobile games and using phones at such a young
age. Another one is harana or traditional courtship and paninilbihan, wherein a suitor does
chores for the girl’s family to prove his love for her. Therefore, with the new western influence,
Filipinos are Becoming used to western lifestyles, Becoming less in the exercise of their own
tradition and customs, and showing antipathy for their own cultural values. Therefore, Filipinos
should still maintain our own culture for prosperity in the course of time, not completely detach
from it; keep our culture and traditions, while using western influence to our own advantage.
Using it to broaden our horizons would ensure long-term development.
Another point to ponder is if Asians are capable of running their own continental power.
It's not impossible, but there are several factors to consider. Participation in the global economy
has undoubtedly come at a price. Greater openness to trade, foreign investors and visitors, and
outside knowledge have all contributed to Asia's loss of sovereignty. With a few exceptions –
such as Burma and North Korea – Asian states have chosen to pay these sacrifices in order to
benefit from globalization.
To begin, a scope battle must be identified: one between 'Asian' regionalism and
'Asia-Pacific' regionalism. Pacific or Asia-Pacific regionalism, in which the United States'
presence and strength are dominant, has been significant since the middle of the twentieth
century. It has, however, always had to fight with more specifically Asian types of regionalism
(often East Asian or South-East Asian). The growth of a China-centered Asian regionalism, as
well as the articulation of a far broader 'Indo-Pacific' vision—one that some view as the
foundation for some type of new regional association—have both been key developments in
recent years.
Regional integration, on the other hand, is seen as benefiting Asia by accelerating
economic growth, deepening integration with the global economy, and giving Asia a bigger voice
in global economic forums. Integration's potential costs, such as a wider economic divide
between rich and poor and a loss of national economic policy autonomy, are deemed to be far
outweighed by its benefits. Globalization's ability to fuel rapid economic growth – as well as
devastate economies practically instantly – means regional and global power balances can shift
more quickly than in the past. For example, the combination of strong Chinese economic growth
and prolonged stagnation in Japan might drastically alter Asia's political, economic, and military
power balance in a relatively short period of time.
Regional cooperation, when properly constituted and implemented, is a potent new
policy instrument in Asia's toolbox. It can assist Asia in addressing regional difficulties while also
strengthening the basis for its global leadership. An integrated Asia can link the competitive
strengths of its diverse economies to boost productivity and sustain the region's exceptional
growth; connect the region's capital markets to improve financial stability, lower capital costs,
and improve risk sharing opportunities; and cooperate in setting exchange rate and
macroeconomic policies to mitigate the effects of global and regional shocks and to facilitate the
global resolution.The opportunities are obvious, which is why regional integration should be
given top priority in national policy making. However, the difficulty of collaboration should not be
underestimated; it will necessitate trust, innovation, and compromise—as well as, most likely,
time. Policymakers at the highest levels appear to be dedicated to moving the regional agenda
ahead, but significant leadership and energy are required to accomplish outcomes.
An integrated Asia can generate productivity gains, new ideas, and competition that
boost economic growth and raise incomes globally; contribute to the efficiency and stability of
global financial markets by making Asian capital markets stronger and safer, and by maximizing
the productive use of Asian savings; diversify sources of global demand, assisting in the
stabilization of the world economy and mitigating the risks posed by global imbalances and
downturns in other major economies.
While Asian regionalism is primarily motivated by a desire to improve the welfare of the
region, it will not do so at the expense of development elsewhere. Long-term stability in Asia's
globalization could be expected with regional integration, which is seen as benefiting Asia
through faster economic growth, deeper integration with the global economy, and a stronger
Asian voice in global economic forums.