A shared culture is a shared renaissance

By Rosette Correa

From Manila’s sprawling barangays to Mexico City’s colonias populares, poverty in the Philippines and Mexico is more than a statistic; it is a shared symptom of intertwined histories. Both nations inherited deep land inequality and patronclient politics from three centuries of Spanish rule, then watched modern elites entrench those patterns through corruption, underfunded schools, and dependence on remittances. Yet within the hardship lie almost mirror-image cultural tapestries: extended families that absorb economic shocks, fiestas that weld neighborhoods together, and a Catholic moral imagination that still paints hope as communal duty rather than individual triumph.

These parallels—kinship solidarity, faithinfused resilience, and a living tradition of grassroots self – help—offer the raw material for change. The path forward is not another topdown megaproject; it is the scaling of what both societies already do in miniature: rotating savings groups (cundinas or paluwagan), cooperative farming, parish-based microscholarships, and migrant networks that invest in hometown enterprises instead of consumer imports.

There are common causes of poverty in Mexico and the Philippines, which of course begins with their colonial legacy. Spain colonized both countries for over 300 years and it created elite landowning classes and deep social stratification and led to the marginalization of indigenous peoples and poor rural populations. From this, both peoples suffer from inequitable distribution of land and wealth. Feudal-like systems persisted after independence: haciendas in Mexico and latifundia or encomienda systems in the Philippines.

From its colonial history to its current ails, both countries have rural poor who  often lack access to land or productive resources. Corruption and weak governance, political patronage, nepotism, and corruption have limited public services and economic development. Development projects often fail to reach the poorest communities. High rates of informal work mean many people have unstable, low-paying jobs without benefits. Lack of industrial diversification makes both economies vulnerable to global shocks.

Limited access to quality education and healthcare perpetuates intergenerational poverty. Public education and healthcare systems are underfunded and often unequal, especially in rural areas.

Finally, a significant portion of the economy in both countries relies on overseas workers’ remittances. This creates brain drain and makes domestic economies dependent on foreign labor markets.

While we can all say we are aware of these ailments, perhaps it is best to look at what beneficial commonalities these two peoples have that can generate a brighter future, which both are socially and spiritually guided by and adhere to especially in times of difficulties.

Sociological and anthropological experts, however, have seen cultural commonalities that can allow progress to happen. Families in both cultures are tight-knit and often intergenerational. This can be a source of support in the absence of formal welfare but may also reinforce dependency and discourage mobility.

Catholicism and religious influence have carried both nations deeper into their culture and citizenship beyond life in these lands. Both are predominantly Catholic due to Spanish colonization and religion plays a major role in values, festivals, social norms, and community life. Sociologists argue that religious fatalism (“God will provide”) can both comfort and limit ambition or protest against injustice.

Postcolonial theorists point to a “colonial mentality” — the tendency to favor Western ideals or authority over indigenous heritage. There’s also rich cultural hybridity — blending indigenous, Spanish, and (in the Philippines) American elements. This hybridity shapes identity and may complicate national cohesion. In connection to this, in politics and daily life, many people depend on patrons (e.g., political figures, landlords, bosses) for access to resources.

These patron-client networks perpetuate inequality by trading loyalty for favors, undermining democratic development.

Ultimately, migration is seen as a pathway out of poverty in both societies. Families idealize OFWs (Overseas Filipino Workers) or migrants to the U.S., and this expectation can put pressure on youth to leave home instead of building locally. According to Immanuel Wallerstein,

both nations are often treated as peripheral economies in the global capitalist system, exporting labor and raw materials while importing manufactured goods.

While people see poverty in both Mexico and the Philippines as a result of deep historical roots, structural inequality, global economic forces, and cultural patterns shaped by colonialism and religion, sociologists and anthropologists point to shared colonial legacies, religious worldviews, and family-based social structures as measures of cultural stability, and they admit that while these may shape both the persistence of poverty, it also leads to the resilience of these communities.

When policymakers choose to amplify, rather than replace, these cultural strengths—protecting collective land rights, funding bilingual rural schools, rewarding remittancebacked coops and digital entrepreneurship—the shared legacy of colonial fracture can become a shared renaissance. The archipelago and the peninsula may yet write a new chapter, together.