Recent tensions between the Philippines and China have ignited concerns about potential economic repercussions, but a London-based think tank, Capital Economics, suggests that any fallout is likely to be limited.
In the wake of a collision near the disputed West Philippine Sea, Gareth Leather, senior Asia economist at Capital Economics, highlights the Philippines’ relatively detached economic integration with China. This article delves into the think tank’s analysis, examining the potential economic consequences and assessing the Philippines’ position amidst the evolving geopolitical landscape.
Limited Economic Impact:
According to Gareth Leather, a deterioration in ties between Manila and Beijing is unlikely to result in a significant economic problem for the Philippines. Unlike some other nations in the region, the Philippines is not deeply entwined with China’s economy. Leather emphasizes that any potential economic rift may impact trade and tourism but is expected to be limited in scope.
Trade Impact:
Exports to China constitute just 2.7 percent of the Philippines’ GDP, making it one of the lowest ratios in the region. Leather notes that the Philippines exports relatively few products that align with China’s buying patterns, reducing the potential for a substantial impact on the trade front. While a deterioration in relations could affect trade ties, the overall economic damage is anticipated to be constrained.
Tourism Consequences:
Tourism, another potential economic sector at risk, is also expected to face limited repercussions. Even before the pandemic, spending by Chinese visitors accounted for only 0.4 percent of the Philippines’ GDP. Although a decline in Chinese tourist arrivals could impact the tourism sector, Leather suggests that this represents a relatively small portion of the overall economy.
Changing Investment Dynamics:
The strained relations have already influenced investment ties between the two nations. The Philippines withdrew several applications for Chinese funding for major infrastructure projects, signaling a shift in its approach. The previous Duterte administration had set aside territorial claims in the disputed sea in exchange for Chinese investments, but the current administration under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has adopted a different stance, distancing the Philippines from China and aligning more closely with the United States.
Opportunities Amidst Strife:
Gareth Leather points out that the broader geopolitical rift between the West and China offers opportunities for countries that can adapt their economies to evolving global supply chains. While Vietnam and India have been the primary beneficiaries thus far, Leather suggests that the Philippines, with its low-wage economy situated near existing supply chains, is well-positioned to capitalize on this shift.
Conclusion:
As tensions persist in the Philippines-China relationship, the economic implications remain a topic of scrutiny. Capital Economics’ assessment provides a nuanced perspective, emphasizing the limited economic impact on the Philippines. While challenges may arise in trade and tourism, the overall outlook suggests that the Philippines’ economic resilience and strategic positioning could enable it to navigate these tensions and even capitalize on shifting global dynamics. The evolving geopolitical landscape underscores the importance of adaptability and strategic foresight for nations seeking to thrive amidst uncertainty.
