IS GOVERNMENT POWER STOOD OVER BY BIG CORPORATIONS?

A Perspective on Corporations' Dominance Over Governments and its Implication in the Philippine Context and Setting

Do corporations run the world? YES.

In politics, we may say that their influence is undoubtedly apparent. Policies that are passed onto Congress may most likely serve the interests of the legislators themselves because most members of the legislative body come from the corporate ranks or somewhat related to influential business clans in their respective districts. However, there still remains, to some extent, a limitation to the rights of corporations regarding their operations and business influences. They are still subject to rules and regulations of the government.

In terms of dominance and control over world trade and influences on economic and even political policies, they do run the world. Its political influence has already been said above. On the economic aspect, global economy is being largely controlled by the dominant leaders of giant economies whether in terms of national wealth per se or specific giant corporations which are even larger than some countries' economy. And although there are bodies formed to regulate international trade and commerce such as the World Bank, World Trade Organization and other UN monetary bodies, and proposed structural adjustments for trade and tariffs, transnational corporations are still influential and somehow manipulative of these bodies. I have nothing against WB, WTO and UN bodies. In fact, they have good suggestions that have benefited countries in their economic state. BUT these are formed to regulate and mediate on multi-concerns. They should not be biased.

Corporations may argue that their business concerns complement that of the country in which it operates and that their success is shared by its people. This may be right in some areas of contention. But they should also take into consideration their treatment to their workers, the labor sector through unions that have been busted in most countries because of the pro-corporate policies that these countries implement. On environmental concerns, do they comply with all environmental policies on pollution and protection? On the socio-environmental aspect, do they sometimes violate people's right to use their own raw resources? This chain of factors should be taken into consideration by these corporations before they argue that they really are in service for the people. They operate business for profit and not invest for public concern alone. Yes, they serve the needs of consumers from clothes to fuel to groceries to credits and so on BUT at the end of the day, they still get what they invested in overflowing profits.

In the Philippines, private corporations seem to be powerful and influential in the political floor. Almost similar to the case of "big tobacco, big pharmaceuticals, big oil" and so on, giant corporations in the country pose strong and earnest role and influence on national policies and the market (especially in the latter). But good thing, whereas in industrialized countries where privatization, liberalization, radicalization and other pro-corporate actions happen like it's the trend of the state, the Philippine government still has control over corporations and can regulate rates and prices. On the effect of transnational corporations in the economy, bare enough, they "co-operate" with other Philippine corporations although obviously, they are more competent given their international marketability, financial capacity for operations and promotions and of course, their advertisements play significant part. In the country, Unilever, Nestle, Colgate-Palmolive are household names overriding even "local” conglomerates. They contribute to the Philippine economy BUT this may also pose a foreign-dependent economy thus breaking the leg for national pursuance of making national industries. What does the Philippine government do regarding these concerns? Apparently, it tolerates foreign investment and the rampant use of national resources for TNCs' advantage for production. Adam Smith, in his "Wealth of Nations" saw corporations, as much as governments, as instruments for suppressing the competitive forces of the market, and his condemnation of them was uncompromising (Korten, 1995). This trend of giving prioritization to corporate interests over general welfare implies that corporations are indeed influential even on these matters. What does the government do on this? Again, this is a picture of tolerance "for economic survival's sake".

The nation itself is a corporation. It has legal mandate, population, domain and corporate name. In itself, competition may be healthy or imbalanced. But when corporations tend to dominate the national government, it implies weakness in building a project on nationhood. The national government should stand on its role as the distributor of public wealth and services. Corporations, on the other hand, are still and should be under government supervision and regulation as to maintain and protect public interests. Nevertheless, they are given rights to operate as much as they want under laws and regulations. There should be harmonious co-existence and mutual progress, meaning without the expense of the violating the other's rights. You may attest that I am suggesting an ideal yet impossible picture of national government/international governance-corporations relationship. But that is how a project of nationhood could be made possible. That may also be one way to prevent the wanton actions of powerful corporations. In this way, national interest (a factor in the project of nationhood) may be pursued. Unless one "give way for the sake of the other" in mutual terms, the said dilemma will continue to create conflicts between forces.

The authority of a nation over the affairs and concerns of the people should always be observed and upheld and not disregarded. The general welfare of the citizens should always be one of the top concerns and priorities of governments along with progress and development. And so, when corporations tend to dominate and devour citizens' concerns and rights to basic services, these governments should stand to its role of intervening for the cause of its citizens. Business corporations indeed contribute to the economic progress of a nation as a corporation (in its real sense). But they have limitations. They are latently taking hold of the global market and economy and even surpassing their limits over international law. This should not be tolerated.


Sources and related links:
Email debate: Do corporations rule?, BBC's Who Runs Your World? series.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Korten/RiseCorpPower_WCRW.html