THE GLOBALIZATION OF THE WORLD ECONOMIES

A world-system is a social system with boundaries, structures, member groups,

legitimation rules, and coherence. Its life is made up of opposing forces that hold it
together by tension and tear it apart as each group attempts to remold it to its benefit
indefinitely (Anon 2021). It possesses the properties of an organism in that it has a
lifespan during which its traits vary in some ways while remaining stable in others. In
terms of the internal logic of its operation, its structures can be defined as strong or
weak at different moments. World Systems Theory, like dependency theory, proposes
that wealthier countries benefit from and exploit the citizens of other countries. As
opposed to dependency theory (Thompson 2015). This model, on the other hand,
recognizes the little benefits experienced by low-status countries in the global system.
The thesis was developed by sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, who proposed that
how a country is integrated into the capitalist world system impacts how that country's
economic development occurs.
The world economic system, according to Wallerstein, is classified into three
sorts of countries: core, semi-periphery, and peripheral (Anon 2021). Core countries
(e.g., the United States, Japan, and Germany) are leading capitalist countries with high
levels of industrialization and urbanization. Core countries have high incomes and high
technology manufacturing patterns, as well as reduced levels of labor exploitation and
coercion. Peripheral countries (for example, most African countries and low-income
South American countries) rely on core countries for capital and are less industrialized
and urbanized. The developmental world-systems perception employs correlations
across various types of world-systems, as well as an evolutionary perspective on the
modern world-system since the 13th century, to perceive the nature of the current
world-historical period and the likelihood of various types of reorganization that could
occur within the next few decades (Chase-Dunn 2013).
Peripheral countries are often agrarian, with low literacy rates and infrequent
Internet connection. Semi-peripheral countries (for example, Taiwan, Mexico, Brazil,
India, Nigeria, and South Africa) are less developed than core countries but more
developed than peripheral countries. They are either the weaker members of
"advanced" regions or the leaders of former colonial regions (Anon 2017). Countries
have the ability to move up or down the global economic ladder. One of the most
important distinctions between World System Theory and Frank's Dependency Theory
is this. Numerous economies, including the BRICs, have transitioned from peripheral
to semi-peripheral status. Most countries, however, do not move up and remain on the
periphery, and the ex-colonial powers (the wealthy European countries) are unlikely to
fall out of the global order.
The core countries control the majority of the world's capital and technology, as
well as global trade and economic agreements. They are also cultural hubs, attracting
artists and intellectuals. In general, peripheral countries supply labor and supplies to
core countries. Semi-peripheral countries take advantage of peripheral countries, and
core countries take advantage of both semi-peripheral and peripheral countries. The
core countries obtain raw minerals at a low cost. They can also fix pricing for agricultural
items exported by peripheral countries regardless of market prices, causing small
farmers to abandon their fields since they cannot afford to pay for labor and fertilizer.
The rich in peripheral countries benefit from the labor of poor people as well as their
own commercial relationships with capitalists in core countries.
According with the World System Theory, the Philippines is a semi-periphery
country. In line with the Philippines' economic expansion, like semi-periphery
countries, both exploits the peripheral and is exploited by the core, acting as an
intermediary to speed up trade flow between the core and periphery. Semi-periphery
countries, like core countries, are largely affected by cumulative causation, while some
are affected by the backwash impact of adjacent countries with superior economies
and/or the ability to deal with negative externalities effectively.
The Philippines has the following characteristics that are similar to those of a
semi-periphery country (Anon 2016): (1)high potential growth; (2)surge in
development; (3)stagnating economy; (4)good infrastructure but firms and industries
are slowly leaving; (5)overcrowding; (6)lack of resources to support economy; and
(7)shift in industry type. The notion that semi-peripheral polities frequently contribute
to social change by enacting organizational and ideological structures that promote
their own upward mobility while also transforming the logics of social reproduction
and development. There is a general model of the reasons of technological evolution
and hierarchy within and between polities and linked networks of polities (world-
systems) according to Hall and Chase-Dunn. The most essential insight that emerges
from this theoretical viewpoint is that transformational changes are typically brought
about by the actions of individuals and organizations inside semi-peripheral polities in
relation to other polities in the same system. This is known as the "semi-peripheral
development hypothesis."
The Philippines underwent two colonial periods: the Spanish period, which
lasted from the time of Magellan until 1898, and the American period, which lasted
throughout the first four decades of the twentieth century. After the country obtained
commonwealth status under the framework of U.S. colonial authority in the mid-1930s,
the beginnings of a formally defined IR system arose. The formation of the Court of
Industrial Relations (CIR), which was tasked to hear both industrial and agrarian
disputes, was a critical early component of the system. Following the Japanese
conquest of the Philippines during World War II, the country gained independence.
Because of the significant rebuilding following the war, economic growth was
considerable in the immediate postwar years (Manila was considered the second most
damaged capital after Warsaw). Import and foreign-exchange regulations were
implemented, and companies imported semifinished products and industrial parts for
local assembly and distribution. There was also an increase in industrial conflicts during
the early postwar period; to address these problems, the state passed the Industrial
Peace Act of 1953, which was modeled largely on the NLRA in the United States and
was aimed to foster bilateral collective bargaining (Erickson et al. n.d.).
Unless the government and the people of the Philippines take steps to rectify their
current position, the Philippines will stay impoverished. This brings up the issue of
inequality between countries, which the Philippines is experiencing. This idea has
implications for the Philippines and its economy; if other countries maintain their
dominance, the peripheral countries will be left with nothing. Inequality continues to
worsen, resulting in a bias against wealthier countries. As a result, other (poor)
countries are left underdeveloped and suffering as a result of its terrible status. The
unjustified development of these powerful countries has resulted in an unfair strategy
in the global economy. Core countries may continue to wield authority, but
peripheral countries must stand on their own. To stimulate economic growth, the
government must focus on resolving the issue. As citizens of our country with strong
will and perseverance, we deserve to be treated fairly and to receive high-quality
results that demonstrate the government's competence.