Culture is the representation of the mode of thinking of the national leaders and the people. Politics, on the other hand, is the expression of such mode of thinking, which can be seen in the manner state and economic policies are created and implemented. Therefore, while economy may be most visible base, one that serves as the gauge whether the country is moving forward or not, it is actually the superstructure of politics and culture that promotes and protects it. However, economy, the base, is the reflection of political and cultural realities too. The superstructure and the base have a dialectical relationship.
Because of the diversity in the political and cultural conditions of each country, following a particular economic growth model does not always produce the desired results. Despite the success of the East Asian model, which Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan have become renowned for, not all countries in East and Southeast Asia absolutely imitate its standards and procedures. Again, this is because of the difference of the political and cultural conditions of each. Essentially the East Asian model suggests the establishment of a strong state first and foremost as the requirement for economic growth. The Philippines, ever since it was granted independence by the United States, has been making an effort in making itself as a strong republic. At the same time, it has been opening itself to foreign trade and investments at degrees oftentimes even much higher than its now industrialized and financially stable neighbors in East and Southeast Asia. While it tries to emulate the ‘dragon economies’ in the arena of governmental functions, it has, however, failed to realize economic strategies that bear the hallmarks of the East Asian model. As a result, the Philippine state has only become stronger at the expense of the people’s civil and political rights but the economy has not achieved any significant level of progress. It used