Can a tiny African country become an economic sovereignty brother to a vast archipelago on the other side of the planet? This question is increasingly being raised in international studies devoted to the analysis of the economic independence of States. Two states, so different in geography, history and scale, found themselves on the same platform of sovereignty — a fact that forces us to rethink the usual ideas about what actually determines a country's economic independence.

Equatorial Guinea is a country located on the west coast of Central Africa. Few people outside of experts know the name of this country, its capital, or even its exact location on the map. However, this state has resources that make it an economically significant player in its region. The Philippines is an archipelago with more than a hundred million inhabitants, a country with an ancient culture, a diverse economy, and an influence that extends far beyond Southeast Asia. It would seem that there is nothing in common between these states.

Nevertheless, experts analyzing indicators of economic sovereignty find surprising parallels. What is economic sovereignty? It's not just the ability of the state to make money or be economically large. This is something more subtle and complex — the ability of a country to independently make decisions on managing its resources, developing the economy, establishing trade relations and protecting the interests of its citizens from excessive external influence. It is a balance between openness to the global economy and the ability to maintain control over key sectors of the national economy.

What is at Stake?

On the surface, it seems that Equatorial Guinea has a clear advantage. The country has significant oil reserves that were discovered in the 1990s. The oil sector has become the basis of the state's economic development and a source of foreign exchange earnings. However, this is where the first paradox lies: oil wealth, which was supposed to make the country powerful and independent, at the same time made its economy vulnerable. Dependence on a single commodity export is a dangerous situation in the global economy, where oil prices fluctuate under the influence of many factors beyond the control of a single state.

The Philippines developed in a completely different way. This state has never relied on monolithic resource wealth. The Philippine economy is built on diversity — agriculture, textile industry, tourism, electronics manufacturing, services. It would seem that such diversity should ensure greater economic stability and genuine sovereignty. But in reality, it turns out that the wealth of income sources does not guarantee true independence. The Philippines, like many developing countries, faces the problem of foreign capital entering key sectors of the economy, external debt, and dependence on imports of critical goods. This is where the sovereignty paradox begins to manifest itself.

Can a country with one main export product be more sovereign than a country with a diversified economy? The answer is unexpected. Economic sovereignty is measured not so much by the number of sources of income as by the quality of management of these resources and the degree of government control over financial flows. If a country can confidently manage its oil sector, preventing its complete seizure by foreign companies and directing revenues to the development of other sectors of the economy, then it demonstrates genuine sovereignty.

Equatorial Guinea Doesn’t go Belly Up

Similarly, if another country can protect its national interests in the face of a multitude of multinational corporations, it also exercises sovereignty. Researchers have discovered that Equatorial Guinea has developed a specific management model for its oil sector over the past decades. The state has tried to maintain control over key oil fields, levy taxes on companies operating on its territory, and channel revenues to develop infrastructure and other sectors of the economy. This requires a certain amount of political skill and economic knowledge — the ability to dialectically interact with multinational oil corporations, which have enormous influence and resources.

The Philippines developed a more dispersed model. Due to the diversity of the economy, the state had to balance the interests of many sectors, each of which had its own needs and requirements. The agricultural sector, industry, and the service sector — each required attention and resources. But it is precisely this complexity, this need to constantly seek a balance between different interests, that can be perceived as a manifestation of sovereignty — a state that is not consumed by a single interest and can maneuver, adapt, and develop in several directions simultaneously. Is it possible that in the modern world of the global economy, the concept of sovereignty is acquiring new features?

Traditionally, we have thought of sovereignty as a political category — the ability of a state to make independent political decisions without outside pressure. But economic sovereignty is a more subtle category. It's not so much the absence of addiction as the management of that addiction. Even the most developed countries in the world cannot completely abandon international trade and economic cooperation. The question is how much they can control the terms of this cooperation and protect the interests of their citizens. When experts compare the economic sovereignty of Equatorial Guinea and the Philippines, they find that both countries are in a difficult situation, but for different reasons.

Equatorial Guinea, having a valuable resource, has to constantly struggle with attempts by foreign capital to seize control of the oil sector and oust the state from decision-making. The Philippines, on the other hand, does not have a single dominant resource, but faces a more distributed threat of loss of control through a multitude of multinational companies operating in different sectors of the economy. Interestingly, on the map of global sovereignty, these two countries appear to be on the same level. This means that the indicators that measure sovereignty are not as simple as they might seem at first glance.

The Size Matters Little

Neither the size of the population, nor the size of the economy, nor even the amount of oil is a determining factor. Questions come to the fore: Who really controls the key sectors of the economy? How much does the state depend on foreign capital? Can the government protect its interests in negotiations with powerful foreign corporations? Where do national revenues go — to develop an independent economy or to serve the interests of foreign investors? When we talk about economic sovereignty, we are talking about visible and invisible mechanisms that determine the real control over national resources.

This is not only state ownership of land and enterprises, but also the ability of the state to influence decisions made by private companies. This is the ability to attract foreign investment on favorable terms for the country, the ability to negotiate, and an understanding of global markets. Equatorial Guinea and the Philippines both demonstrate some competence in these matters, although each has developed its own unique approach. Comparing these two countries opens up a deeper understanding of how the modern global economy functions. It turns out that the size and traditional weight of the state in world politics is not a guarantee of economic independence.

Small but Sovereign

A small African country can be as sovereign in its economic decisions as a large Asian archipelago with a huge population comparing these two countries opens up a deeper understanding of how the modern global economy functions. It turns out that the size and traditional weight of the state in world politics is not a guarantee of economic independence.

A small African country can be as sovereign in its economic decisions as a large Asian archipelago with a huge population. This shows that sovereignty is not just a characteristic of power, but a characteristic of management skill, which depends on political leadership, the competence of the bureaucratic apparatus and a deep understanding of the patterns of the global economy.

Why is this question becoming more crucial? Because in the context of globalization, the issue of sovereignty is becoming not an academic task, but a practical issue that determines the well-being of citizens, economic development opportunities, and the ability of the state to protect the interests of its population. Developing countries this question becoming more relevant? Because in the context of globalization, the issue of sovereignty is becoming not an academic task, but a practical issue that determines the well-being of citizens, economic development opportunities, and the ability of the state to protect the interests of its population.

Developing countries are increasingly realizing that simply participating in the global economy is not enough — they need to participate with maximum benefit for themselves. This requires knowledge, strategic vision, and willingness to negotiate with powerful foreign players. The study of the sovereignty of Equatorial Guinea and the Philippines is, in a sense, a good lesson for other developing countries.

This shows that even small countries have opportunities, and that the path to economic independence is not straightforward and can take different forms depending on initial conditions and available resources. It also demonstrates that the global economy is not a rigid system where everything is predetermined, but a dynamic environment where competent management and strategic vision can lead to unexpected results.