Among the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the Philippines has been considered a laggard performer in socio-economic development. Although many development social scientists have often pointed out its vast potential (in terms of natural and human resources), the sad reality is that in the last thirty-years, the country has been described as on the verge of take-off but never quite taking off. Promise has not borne fruit in actual progress. The progress has been slow, erratic, and insufficient to make the economy match the better performers of the region.

Many explanations have been given for this poor performance. In James Fallows' article in the Atlantic Monthly (1987), he described the Philippines as “a damaged culture”, an apt though hardly diplomatic remark, especially for a foreigner to make. It seems, to use the language of the Bible, that there was initial damage or “original sin” which was inflicted on the society which makes cultural cohesiveness very difficult to attain. A kinder remark has been made by a Japanese anthropologist (Kikuchi 1991) who characterizes Philippine culture as not having been sufficiently “crystallized” to make the necessary movement towards unity, nationhood and following this self-identity, rapid development.

Actually, Filipinos in this generation have been their own worst critics, blaming “politics” for the ills of society without quite defining what they mean by “politics”. The euphoria following the dismantling of the Marcos dictatorship in 1986 was soon followed by disappointment and disenchantment, so much so, that many of the country's talented have been leaving in hundreds. In the 1950s and the 1960s, it was mostly members of the less affluent socioeconomic classes, who saw little opportunity for advancement, who left. The past twenty years, however, it has likewise been the affluent, some of the best and the brightest, who have migrated, seeing no future for the fulfillment of their talents in contemporary Philippine society.