Is There a Philippinre Public Administration

IS THERE A PHILIPPINE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION?
OR BETTER STILL, FOR WHOM IS PHILIPPINE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION? 1 Alex Brillantes, Jr. and Maricel Fernandez 2
I Yes, there is a Philippine Public Administration Is there a Philippine public administration? A number of our colleagues asked us why we are asking that question again as we were planning this colloquium. Indeed that question had been asked 20 years ago, and answers have been provided us by eminent scholars of Public Administration such as Raul de Guzman and Onofre Corpuz. After two decades, we think it is worthwhile to revisit the issue and ask our colleagues once again to answer the question, “Is there a Philippine Public Administration?” This time around, we take the question a little further and ask an equally important second question, “If there is a Philippine Public Administration, then for whom does Philippine Public Administration exist?” Among the basic references we have been using in the general introductory course in Public Administration at both the graduate (PA 201) and undergraduate (PA 11) levels are essays by the aforementioned eminent scholars of Philippine Public Administration (Dr de Guzman and Dr Corpuz). These essays were published in a special issue of the Philippine Journal of Public Administration in 3 1986 (PJPA). While de Guzman and Corpuz both assert that there is a Philippine Public Administration, both also suggest that the question be properly contextualized. There is a Philippine Public Administration as far as there is an American, French and Thai public administration. There is a Philippine public administration as far as there are institutions of public administration addressing specific sectoral concerns. There is a Philippine public administration as far as it being a field of study is concerned. There is a Philippine public administration considering the massive role of the bureaucracy in Philippine public administration. There is a Philippine public administration when we consider its major institutions in education, politics and government. Yes we have basic public administration structures and processes. We have an executive branch with the bureaucracy at its core. We have a Philippine legislature. We have a Philippine judiciary. We have Philippine electoral processes and procedures. We have Philippine sub-national institutions and local governments, together with decentralization processes and procedures. It is within this context that we argue that indeed, we have a Philippine public administration characterized by the presence of administrative structures and processes operating within a unique Philippine context. The paper contextualizes the field of public administration by discussing the following: (a) the evolution of the field of public administration suggesting that there are only two major phases (traditional and modern phase); (b) the different fields of public administration; (c) selected major ongoing concerns of public administration in the Philippines (reorganization, decentralization and corruption). The paper also includes a brief discussion of an example of what is now considered as an emerging illustration of a home grown governance paradigm (Gawad Kalinga) as one that illustrates successful cooperation between government, business and civil society in the delivery of basic services, which after all is a core concern of modern public administration and good governance. The paper then ends by raising third order concerns as we address the question, “for whom is public 4 administration.” One has to make an evaluation – and a judgment call – as to whether the discipline of Philippine public administration has indeed responded - or failed to respond - to the unique calls and demands of the times. This will enable us to answer the question posed at the outset, “for whom is
A paper presented in the public colloquium on: “Is there a Philippine Public Administration: A Timeless Issue,” held on June 26-27, 2008 at the UP National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP NCPAG). 2 Professor and Dean, University of the Philippines, National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP NCPAG), and University Researcher (UP NCPAG) and former instructor of Saint Paul University Philippines, respectively. The assistance of Kate Asilo in the preparation of this paper is gratefully acknowledged. 3 Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 30:4, October 1986, pp 368-382. 4 This paper may also serve as a basic introduction to the theory and practice of public administration, zeroing in on selected and basic Philippine public administration issues and concerns.
1

1

public administration?” This is a question that ultimately must be addressed not only by those teaching public administration but also by those studying public administration as well. While this paper will not even pretend to answer that question, it will raise issues and concerns about the matter that may trigger further questions and debate.

II.

EVOLUTION OF THE FIELD OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

In order to properly appreciate the context of Philippine public administration, it may be helpful to retrace the history and evolution of the broad discipline and examine the various strands and influences that have influenced the theory and practice – the praxis - of public administration in the Philippines. We shall also examine the specific areas and fields of specialization of the field, taking cognizance of the many other emerging fields going beyond the traditional fields of public administration. The discipline of the field of public administration can be divided into two major phases: the traditional / classical phase from the late 1800s to the 1950s to the modern phase, from the 1950s to the present. The Modern phase can be further divided into the following sub-phases: development administration (1950s to the 60s), new public administration (1960s to the 70s), new public management and reinventing governance (1980s into the 90s) and finally public administration as governance (1990s into the present). The following is an indicative matrix that reflects the phases in the evolution of public administration.
Table 1. Phases in the Evolution of Public Administration

Phase Traditional / Classical Public Administration Modern Public Administration Development Administration (1950s to 1960s) New Public Administration (1970s) New Public Management (1980s to 1990s) Reinventing Government (1990s) PA as Governance (1990s to the present)

Indicative Period 1800s to 1950s 1950 to the present

Traditional / Classical Public Administration Public Administration can be traced back to human history. It has been suggested that it is as old as the ancient empires of China, India, Egypt, Greece, Rome and Mesopotomia. The institutionalization of administrative capacity for collective purposes is the foundation of public administration. Such arrangement, according to Caiden (1982), has existed in all societies. All societies are devoted to advancing the general welfare or the public interest. The idea that “public administration should not be considered administration of the public but administration for the public” has been practiced and expressed in the Code of Hammurabi, in Confucianism and in the funeral oration of Pericles. (Caiden 1982: 7) In other words, the idea of client-oriented public administration has its roots in ancient public administration. Caiden (1982) also noted that the genesis of Public Administration must have had originated from monarchial Europe where household officials were divided into two groups: one in charge of public affairs, i.e. the administration of justice, finance, training of armies, and the other is responsible for personal services. Rutgers (1998) supports this claim that (i.e. royal) administration had already th th been manifested way back in the mid 17 century and early 18 century in Prussia. F.K. Medikus (as cited in Rutgers 1998) likewise argued on the study of public administration and its positions amidst the sciences in the 18th century. He advocated “cameralism” and claimed that it should be treated as an autonomous field of study of great importance to the state. Cameral science is designed to prepare potential public officials for government service. This practice flourished in Europe until the 21st century but it was, in the long run, replaced by administrative law and legal studies.

2

Since this paper tries to trace the roots of Philippine Public Administration, it shall dwell on American theories and principles which admittedly influenced the direction and development of the formal study of the field of public administration in the Philippines, both at the levels of theory and practice. It will be recalled that public administration as academic field of study formally begun with the establishment by the Americans of the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) in the University of the Philippines (UP) in 1952. Hence, the close affinity of Philippine PA theory to American PA theory and practice can not be divorced. 1800s to 1950s If the roots of Public Administration as a distinct field of study have to be traced, the tendency is to draw on Woodrow Wilson’s 1887 classic essay, “The Study of Public Administration,” which was 5 written at the height of Progressive Movement in the US. It was in that essay that there was a serious claim that public administration should be a self-conscious, professional field. Wilson suggested the distinction between politics and administration i.e. administration should be politics-free and that “the field of administration is the field of business;” (Wilson 1953: 71) thus, establishing what became known as the “politics-administration” dichotomy. 6 Although Wilson set a demarcation line between politics and administration, Frank Goodnow (1900), the “Father of American Public Administration,” presented a more meticulous examination of politics-administration dichotomy in his book, “Politics and Administration” that “supplanted the traditional concern with the separation of powers among the various branches of the government.” (Shafritz and Hyde 1997: 2) Politicsadministration dichotomy has provoked long-running debates which persist until today. It may be argued though that, as far as the Philippine experience is concerned, the dichotomy is artificial and that in practice, power and partisan politics have had a disproportionate influence upon the workings of public administration in the Philippines. Max Weber (1946), a German sociologist who is known as the “Father of Modern Sociology,” made a lucid descriptive analysis of bureaucratic organizations. He presented some major variables or features of bureaucracy such as: hierarchy, division of labor, formally written rules and procedures, impersonality and neutrality; hence, providing a reference point in evaluating both the good and bad effects of bureaucratic structures. (Weber 1946 as cited in Shafritz and Hyde 1997) It was in 1926 that the first text in the field of public administration was written by Leonard D. 7 White. His book, Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, is one of the most influential texts in public administration to date. One of his assumptions was that administration is still an art. He, however, recognized the ideal of transforming it into a science. Interestingly, his work avoided the potential pitfalls of the politics-administration dichotomy but rather concentrated on emphasizing the managerial phase of administration. From Classical, Neo-Classical to Integrative/Modern Organization Theories Frederick Taylor, dubbed as the “Father of Scientific Management,” is best known for his “one best way approach” in accomplishing task. Classical organization theory evolved from this notion. Another popular manifestation of this approach was that of Luther Gulick’s POSDCORB 8 methodologies. Gulick and Urwick (1937 as cited in Shafrtiz and Hyde 1997) integrated the ideas of earlier theorists like Henri Fayol 9 into a comprehensive theory of administration. They believed that a single science of administration, which exceeds the boundaries of the private and the public sector, exists. The reasoning of the science of administration was largely borrowed from Fayol’s fourteen principles of organization. POSDCORB, however, was seen as less influential in post-war American government. Thereafter, Simon, Waldo and Appleby attacked the idea of POSDCORB. Simon (1946) in his book, “Administrative Behavior,” created a distinction between theoretical and practical science. He introduced more common principles in the literature of administration which highlighted
See Woodrow, Wilson. 1953. “The Study of Public Administration” in Ideas and Issues in Public Administration, ed. Dwight Waldo. New York: Mc Graw Hill Book, Co., Inc., 64-75. 6 Reyes (2003) emphasized however that aside from the Americans with the likes of Wilson, de Tocqueville, a Frenchman, who traveled the length and breadth of the US in the 1830s to observe America’s penal system, was one of the earliest voices to call for a more serious consideration of Public Administration as a “science of administration.” 7 th See Leonard D. White. 1997 “Introduction to the Study of Public Administration,” in Classics of Public Administration. 4 ed. Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde. US: Hardcourt Brace College Publishers. 44-50. (first printed in 1926) 8 POSDCORB was coined by Gulick with Urwick. It stands for the functions of management - planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting & budgeting. 9 Fayol was one of the most influential contributors of modern management. He proposed that there are five primary functions of management: (1) planning, (2) organizing, (3) commanding, (4) coordinating, and (5) controlling (Fayol, 1949, 1987).
5

3

administrative efficiency and specialization when he wrote the article,“The Proverbs of Administration.” (Simon 1946 as cited in Shafffritz and Hyde 1997; Stillman 1991) On the other hand, in 1945, Appleby, led a postwar attack on the concept of politics-administration dichotomy by drafting a convincing case that “public administration was not something apart from politics” but rather at the “center of political life.” (Stillman 1991: 123) In 1948, Dwight Waldo tried to establish the direction and thrust of Public Administration as a field of study in his book, “The Administrative State,” which hit the “gospel of efficiency” that dominated the administrative thinking prior to Word War II. 10 That same year, Sayre attacked public personnel administration as “the triumph over purpose.” (Shafritz and Hyde 1997: 74) In 1949, Selznick introduced the so-called “cooptative mechanism” where he defined “cooptation” as “the process of absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy determining structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stability or existence.” (Shafritz and Hyde 1997: 147) A contemporary of Goodnow was William Willoughby (1918). Willoughby stressed the role of the trilogy covering all three branches of government but he was more known for his budgetary reforms. He discussed the movements for budgetary reforms in the US in view of the budget as an instrument for democracy, as an instrument for correlating legislative and executive action, and as an instrument for securing administrative efficiency and economy. Mary Parker Follet (1926) also made some significant contribution to the discourse of Public Administration as one of the proponents of participatory management and the “law of situation” which can be attributed to the concept of contingency management. She illustrated the advantages of participatory management in her article, “The Giving of Orders. “ In the 1920s and early 1930s, Elton Mayo conducted the Hawthorne experiments on the theory of individuals within an organization which propelled the human relations school of management thought. Chester Barnard (1938) presented a more comprehensive theory of organizational behavior when he wrote the functions of the executive. He argued that for the executive to become more effective, he should maintain an equilibrium between the needs of the employees and the organization. Maslow (1943), on the other hand, focused on the hierarchical needs of the individual. His “theory of human motivation,” states that the human being has five sets of needs: physiological, safety, love or affiliation, esteem and ultimately, and self-actualization. His concepts were later explored and developed into more comprehensive theories and principles as advocated by other researches in organizational behavior and management, such as, Herzberg’s “motivation11 Argyris’ “personality versus organization and hygiene theory,” Mc Gregor’s “Theory X and Y,” Likert’s Systems 1 to 4, among others. (Shafritz and Hyde 1997) Modern Public Administration This paper suggests the indicative period of modern public administration in the 50s. The subphases include: (a) development administration; (b) new public administration; (c) new public management and reinventing government; and PA as governance. The discipline of public administration has been characterized as one with a continuing “identify crisis.” To a certain extent, it was that “identity crisis” that served as theme that led to the emergence of the New Public Administration movement in the 70s. Rutgers (1998) argued in “Paradigm lost: Crisis as Identify of the Study of Public Administration,” that public administration lacked an “epistemological identity.” In the Philippines, Reyes (2003) revisited the so-called “identity crisis” of public administration initially raised by various scholars of the discipline in his various writings. He contended that the crisis revolved around the imperative to define a public administration rooted to the development aspirations of the Philippines. The identity crisis, however, continues up to today in the Philippines. Development Administration (1950s to 1960s) Development Administration (DA) as a field of study emerged in 1950s and 1960s with the third world countries as the focal point. The term “third world” may be attributed to the French demographer and economic historian Alfred Sauvy, who at the height of the Cold War in 1952, used the term to distinguish developing countries outside the two power blocs; namely, the First World and
10 th

See Waldo’s conclusion in the Classics of Public Administration. 4 ed. Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde. (US: Hardcourt Brace College Publishers, 1997), 142-153. 11 At one point in the history of the evolution of management theories, there emerged what was referred to as “Theory Z” that was largely derived and based on the highly effective and efficient Japanese approach to management.

4

the Second World respectively. (Chilcote 1984) Nef and Dwivedi (1981) on the other hand, attributed the concept of DA to Goswami in 1955 and later popularized by Riggs and Weidner. They coined the term “development administration” to refer to developing countries which are largely found in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. These developing countries endeavored to make concerted efforts in order to be recognized as “emerging nations” and to resurrect themselves after World War II. In the context of “emerging nation,” Landau (1970) described DA as the engineering of social change. Likewise, according to Ilchman (1970), these countries were “concerned with increasing the capacity of the state to produce goods and services to meet and induce changing demands.” (Ilchman 1970: 136) Gant (1979) on the other hand, defined DA as not merely addressing state functions such as public service delivery and enforcement of laws but the inducement and management of change to pursue development aspirations. These developing countries were in urgent need to implement fundamental 12 reforms in their politico-administrative machinery. Khator, however, argued that DA was built upon several critical assumptions that: (1) development needs are the most important needs of developing countries, (2) the development needs of developing and developed countries are inherently different, (3) development can be administered, (4) developmental know-hows are transferable; and (5) the political, social, and cultural context of development can be easily altered. (Khator 1998: 1778) Likewise, Fred Riggs, in his “Frontiers of Development,” identified two foci in development administration: development of administration and the administration of development. Most development administration scholars focused more on the latter and it subsequently became synonymous to the administration of development in third world countries. (Khator 1998) Given the situations above, DA maybe considered as “management of innovation” because it was aimed at helping countries that are undergoing reconstruction and social transformation. In the Philippines, The term “development administration” was used to suggest that it may be an appropriate framework to examine the State’s experience as it tries to rebuild its institutions within a democratic framework, as it struggles to new economic, political and social challenges, and as it adapts to the trends and demands of globalization. Additionally, DA principles have been among the major themes that ran through the various lectures and writings of Raul De Guzman, who together with OD Corpuz (1986) initially addressed the question: “Is there a Philippine Pa?” Since the idea was to steer developing countries for economic development and social progress, the term DA became closely associated to foreign aid and western models of development. 13 These Western countries provide grants and aids to developing countries for nation-building, economic development, institutional strengthening, and people participation in development. As to administrative reform, which is one of the core values of DA, De Guzman (1986) described and analyzed the structural and behavioral characteristics of the Philippine public bureaucracy and argued that the “implementation of administrative reform should have two major dimensions: reforming the structures of the bureaucracy and reforming the behavior of those in the bureaucracy.” (De Guzman 1986 as cited in Brillantes 1994: 8) Development administration has always been one of the central features of the various long and medium term Philippine Development Plans since the seventies. The paradigm for bureaucratic reform continues to evolve in various intellectual and practical debates but government continues its work amidst all these. Until recently, all Philippine development plans since the seventies had a 14 specific chapter devoted solely to development administration. New Public Administration (late 1960s to 1970s) The term “New Public Administration” or New PA may have emerged from the Minnowbrook Conference in 1968 in Syracuse University. The conference was the brainchild and inspiration of
See Alex Brillantes 1995. “Development Administration in the Philippines” for an in-depth discussion of development administration in the Philippines, in Conquering Politico-Administrative Frontiers, Essays in Honor of Raul P. de Guzman, edited by Ledevina Carino. 13 Note that Development Administration is popularized in developing countries like the Philippines although the conceptual foundations of the term were Western in nature influenced largely by scientific management and administrative reform. 14 In the Philippines, the formal introduction of Public Administration as a field of study essentially began when the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) was established in the University of the Philippines in 1952 through an agreement between UP and University of Michigan as an offshoot of Bell Mission’s recommendation to improve the Philippine Government. The Institute served as a training ground for civil servants and as a research arm. Later, it offered degree programs for Public Administration. From College of Public Administration, it was renamed in 1998 as National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG). Schools of Public Administration (SPA) were then propagated throughout the country. Propelled by NCPAG, these academic institutions have grouped themselves into an Association of Schools of Public Administration in the Philippines, ASPAP, Inc. The Philippine Journal of Public Administration (PJPA), a quarterly publication of international stature, which was established in 1957 documents rich literatures of Public Administration in the Philippines.
12

5

Dwight Waldo who brought together young public administrators and scholars to discuss important issues and varying perspectives on public administration. The conference created a hullabaloo. One of its controversies is that it had rejected the classical theories of public administration and instead offered new principles. For instance, Frederickson in his essay, “Towards a New Public Administration,” adds social equity to the classic definition of public administration. Conventional or classic public administration sought to only answer inquiries on efficiency and effectiveness like: how can the government offer better services with available resources (efficiency) or how can we maintain our level of services while spending less money (economy)? In introducing the principles of New PA, he adds the question: “Does this service enhance social equity?” (Frederickson 1971) Moreover, the Minnowbrook conferees also questioned the relevance of traditional public administration to existing deprivation with an era of fast-paced technological advancement in the backdrop. Frederickson argued that, disparities existed because public administration focused less on social purposes or values of government policies and programs and more on the economy and efficiency of execution. The value-free and neutral stance of traditional PA has alienated the less privileged and deprived groups in the society. New PA’s proponents, likewise, advocated that public administrators should not be neutral; they should be committed to both good management and social equity as values to be achieved. New PA then called for client-oriented administration, non-bureaucratic structures, participatory decision-making, decentralized administration and advocate-administrators. (Frederickson 1971; Nigro and Nigro 1989) With the above contentions, it can be said that the theme of New PA is “change” and the challenge is for the public administrators is their capacity to accept change. Now the question is: Is New PA relevant? The same question was asked by Pilar (1993) in his article “Relevance of New PA in Philippine Public Administration. 15 He argued that New PA is relevant while there is no indigenous model of public administration. “The relevance of New PA maybe regarded from in terms of their compatibility with the context or the environment, as well as the convergence between the content and intent of new PA with the goals, purposes, and aspirations of the country.” (Pilar 1993: 145) The principle of New PA is compatible with the environment of the Philippine PA, although it was conceived during the time that the US was in chaotic and unpredictable environment amidst prosperity. Such situation is different in the Philippines considering that not only it grappled with advancement but it struggled to pull itself out of poverty which is a major concern of the government up to this date. New PA created the need to stimulate change: meeting the needs of the society through the government’s development programs and projects, and addressing social equity and justice. It must be emphasized though, that the core questions raised by New PA are also embedded in our second order question, “for whom is PA?” It is indeed critical to define the ultimate targets and partners of public administration structures, institutions and processes. In other words, who is the “public” in public administration? New Public Management and Reinventing Government (1980s to 1990s) In the 1980s and early 90s, as if there was a collective assault on the organization questioning conventional and traditional ways of doing things – both in the private and public sectors various strategies and modalities underscoring the imperative for fundamental internal and external reform in the organization emerged. They ranged from being more “client” or “customer” oriented, to the decentralization of authority to being more “business oriented” especially for those in government. The new public management (NPM) movement was apparently practiced by the European countries in the late 1907s and 1980s but was essentially launched several luminaries such as Christopher Hood (1991), Christopher Pollitt (1990), and Michael Barzeley (1992), among others in early 90s. Similar movements such as reinventing government and reengineering also emerged around the same time. This section introduces NPM, reinventing government and reengineering government. When did these ideas emerge? What were their key features? And were these really more of the same? The New Public Management (NPM) movement has started in the late 1970s in UK under the Thatcher government; however aside from England, NPM has also long been practiced by the other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) mostly AngloSaxon countries like New Zealand, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, and Canada in the 1980s.
15

See Nestor, Pilar. 1993. “Relevance of New PA in Philippine Public Administration.” In Philippine Journal of Public Administration for an in-depth discussion of New PA in the Philippines.

6

The idea of NPM became more popular and has stimulated academic and political interests worldwide when Christopher Hood coined the term in his 1991 article entitled, “A Public Management for all Seasons.” (Hood 1991) The best example of the NPM practice can be seen in New Zealand’s administrative reforms. Their government privatized substantial public functions, redeveloped their personnel system in order to be more performance-oriented, instituted new processes of productivity measures, and reengineered departmental systems to reflect government’s commitment. (Boston 1996; as cited in Denhardt 2004: 136-137) In the US, during the administration of US President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, this concept was reflected in their “National Performance Review” which has urged the federal government to improve its performance. This has also led the foundation of the praxis of reengineering government led by the Clinton-Gore administration. Parenthetically, NPM was justified by Lynn (1996) in his article, “Public Management as Art, Science, and Profession.” Moreover, NPM according to Pollitt is a shift into a “managerialist” movement. He then identified five core beliefs of managerialism: (1) the main route to social progress lies in the achievement of continuing increases in economically defined productivity; (2) such productivity increase will mainly come from the application of ever more sophisticated technologies; (3) the application of these technologies can only be achieved with a labor force disciplined in accordance with the productivity ideal; (4) management is a separate and distinct organizational function and one that plays the crucial role in planning, implementing and measuring the necessary improvements in productivity; and (5) to perform this crucial role, managers must be granted reasonable “room to maneuver” (i.e. right to manage”). (Pollitt, 1990: 2-3 as cited in Denhardt 2000: 148) The ideas of “new public management” and “reinventing government” were essentially born out of the continuing search for solutions to economic problems in 1970s and to produce a government that “works better but costs less.” (Denhart 2004: 136) The idea of “reinventing government” was advanced by Osborne and Gaebler in 1992. Their concept of NPM was sparked by the use of business model prescriptions for government i.e. using private sector innovation, resources, and organizational ideas to improve the public sector. Reinventing Government provided ten principles through which public entrepreneurs might bring about massive governmental reform principles that has remained at the core of the new public management. These are the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Catalytic government: steering rather than rowing Community-owned government: empowering rather than serving Competitive government: injecting competition into service delivery Mission-driven government: transforming rule-driven organizations Results-oriented government: funding outcomes, not inputs Customer-driven government: meeting the needs of the customer not their bureaucracy Enterprising government rather than spending Anticipatory government: prevention rather than cure Decentralized government: from hierarchy to participation and teamwork Market-oriented government: leveraging change through the market (Osborne and Gaebler 1992: 35-282) 16

Among the criticisms of this model, however, was its emphasis on people as "customers" or “clients” rather than "citizens" and that customers were placed as “end-product” users of government rather than as “means” of the policy making process. Denhardt and Denhardt (2003) likewise offer a synthesis of the ideas that are opposed to NPM presented by Osborne and Gaebler. Their model for governance expands the traditional role of the public administrator as a lone arbiter of public interest rather, “the public administrator is seen as a key actor within the larger system of governance.” (Denhardt and Denhardt 2003: 81) Following the Reinventing Government, they divided their argument into seven principles, namely, (1) serve citizens, not customers (2) seek the public interest, (3) value citizenship over entrepreneurship, (4) think strategically, act democratically , (5) recognize that accountability is not simple, (6) serve rather than steer, and (6) value people, not just productivity. Another similar movement was “reengineering organizations.” This term was coined by Michael Hammer (1990) in an article published by the Harvard Business Review. Reengineering offers an approach for improving performance, effectiveness, and efficiency of organizations regardless of the sector in which they operate. According to Hammer and Champy (1993),
16

Cf Denhardt 2004: 137-138 for an in-depth discussion of each principle.

7

“reengineering is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service, and speed.” (Hammer and Champy 1993 as cited in Halachmi 1995: 330). The tenets of reengineering include the following:
• Searching for radical improvement in business processes enabled by exploiting the powers of information technology. • Breaking away from the antiquated ways and processes of business operations and starting with a clean slate. • Viewing (and reviewing) the fundamental business processes from cross-functional perspective to ensure that each step in the process adds value. • Questioning whether the process is necessary and what it is intended to achieve, given the over-all mission of the organization. • Systematic searching for radical changes for the purpose of effecting major improvements or breakthroughs in business processes when an incremental approach will not work anymore. • Reducing, if not eliminating, paper documentation that enters the process at different stages, with an attempt to capture the data once, at the source. • Focusing on and developing around processes and outcomes, not tasks or organizational functions. • Focusing on the customer or client, in a results-oriented & team-based approach.(Halachmi 1995: 331)

Re-engineering or the so called business process reengineering (BPR) was essentially an innovation that sought to refurbish the operation of an organization’s operation, management system and structure, to improve its efficiency, effectiveness, and competitive ability and ultimately improve service delivery. Re-engineering seems to be an effective way to upgrade the services of our governmental agencies, however, it continues to hurdle obstacles and challenges in applying the formula such as fiscal constraints and the traditional thinking of political leaders. PA as Governance (1990s into the 2000) The many failed development interventions in the 50s into the 90s spurred the introduction of other development reforms. The “governance” paradigm was introduced and advocated by the United Nations (UN), World Bank (WB), Asian Development Bank (ADB) and other international institutions. The word “governance” suddenly “has become something of a mantra in recent years, uttered by donors, reformers and pundits alike.” (Frechette 2000: 25) Governance entails a larger scope and has a wider meaning. Though the term “governance” has been used to refer mostly to “government,” when correctly used, “governance” really goes beyond government. It involves the institutionalization of a system through which citizens, institutions, organizations, and groups in a society articulate their interests, exercise their rights, and mediate their differences in pursuit of the collective good. (ADB 1995 as cited in ADB 2005: 1) UNDP describes it as “the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority to manage a nation’s affairs. It embraces all of the methods- good and bad – that societies use to distribute power and manage public resources and problems.” (UNDP 1997: 9) Cariño (2000), in her reflections on the term “governance,” identified actors and factors that pushed for governance. She acknowledges that governance is not the sole responsibility of the government per se but the role of the market and civil society are of equal importance too and should also be recognized. She then identified the factors or processes that pushed for governance and some of these are: the quest for growth and development, the environmental movement, globalization and consolidating peace. These are practically the same values or virtues found in the UN Charter. Likewise, governance promotes the virtues of decentralization, participation, responsiveness and accountability among others. From “governance”, the concept of “good governance” has emerged and became prominent in international aid circles around 1989 or 1990. It served as a general guiding principle for donor agencies to demand that recipient governments adhere to proper administrative processes in the handling of development assistance and put in place effective policy instruments towards that end. (Doornbos 2003) When there is good governance, there is sustainable development. Kofi Annan, in st his inaugural speech in the 1 International Conference on Governance for Sustainable Growth and Equity in United Nations, New York, in July 28-30, 1997 affirms this when he said that:
“Good governance and sustainable development are indivisible. That is the lesson of all our efforts and experiences, from Africa to Asia to Latin America. Without good governance – without the rule of law, predictable administration, legitimate power, and responsive regulation -- no amount of funding, no amount

8

of charity will set us on the path to prosperity…We are fully engaged in efforts to improve governance around the world…good governance is indispensable for building peaceful, prosperous and democratic societies.” (Annan 1997)

Annan concluded that “good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development.” (Annan 1997) An ADB document (2005) affirmed that good governance is synonymous with sound development management. They then identified some key principles of development which may be considered as elements of good governance. These are: accountability, participation, predictability, and transparency. The table below shows the basic elements of good governance and its key dimensions.
Table 2. Key Dimensions and Specific Areas of Actions
Basic Elements of Good Governance 1. Accountability means making public officials answerable for government behavior and responsive to the entity from which they derive authority 2. Participation refers to enhancing people’s access to and influence on public policy processes Key Dimensions Establishing criteria to measure performance of public officials Institutionalizing mechanisms to ensure that standards are met. Undertaking development for and by the people • • • • • • • Specific Areas of Action Public Sector Management Public Enterprise Management Public Financial Management Civil Service Reform Participation of beneficiaries and affected groups Interface between government and the private sector Decentralization of public and service delivery functions (empowerment of Local Governments) Cooperation with Non-Government Organizations Law and Development Legal Frameworks for Private Sector Development

• 3. Predictability refers to the existence of laws, regulations and policies to regulate society and the fair and consistent application of these 4. Transparency refers to the availability of Information to the general public and clear government rules, regulations, and decisions Source: ADB, 2005 Establishing and sustaining appropriate legal and institutional arrangements Observing and upholding the rule of law Maintaining consistency of public policies Ensuring access to accurate and timely information about the economy and government policies • •

•

Disclosure of Information

III.

FIELDS OF SPECIALIZATION OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

This section discusses the various traditional subfields of public administration including the emerging fields in response to a rapidly changing environment. However, even before going into the sub-fields of public administration, it is imperative to recognize the public administration, itself, has been considered as a sub-field of political science. Traditional Sub-fields of Political Science The following have been considered as the traditional sub-fields of political science: political theory, international relations and politics; comparative politics; public administration. These are briefly discussed below. Political Theory Political theory is a study and analysis of political ideas of significant political thinkers. It is also a search of knowledge of political thoughts of various historical periods, namely, Ancient, Medieval/Christian, and Modern period. Among the major philosophers and theorists explored in this field of political science are Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and many other political thinkers. It is recognized that their political ideas shaped the political institutions, law, order, liberty, justice, and the quality of life into concrete historical circumstances.

9

International Relations and Politics As a subfield of political science, international relations have zeroed in on the relations between and among nation states and how such relations are defined. Power has always been traditionally considered a factor in the determination of international relations and politics. The role of international organizations such as the United Nations, including other multilateral bodies such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and closer to home, the Asian Development Bank, in shaping the power relations is an aspect that is also addressed in the study of international relations and politics. A Political science is the study of foreign policymaking and Comparative Politics Comparative politics is a study of contemporary politics and political trends in selected countries and regions around the world and then comparing and critically analyzing the variety of ways that these countries have chosen to shape their political institutions and processes, assess the costs and benefits of their choices and address common problems, including the challenges of globalization, with an eye toward identifying processes, practices, and policies which might be “exportable” ideas for countries to borrow from one another. Public Administration Public Administration as a discipline emerged out of a broader discipline which is Political Science. Reyes (1993: 22) considers it as a “child of political science” that is mature enough to be treated separately or independently of its mother.” There is one school of thought that public administration has no generally accepted definition. The scope of the discipline is so great and so debatable that it is easier to explain than define. Public administration is both a field of study, or a discipline, and a field of practice, or an occupation. There is much disagreement about whether the study of public administration can properly be called a discipline, largely because it is often viewed as a subfield of the two disciplines of Political Science 17 and administrative science (or administration). In Canada the study of public administration has evolved primarily as a subfield of political science. Knowledge of the machinery of government and of the political and legal environment in which public administrators work is essential in understanding the political system. Also, public administrators play an important role by providing policy advice to elected politicians and by active involvement in the making, enforcement and adjudication of laws and regulations. As a subfield of administrative science, public administration is part of the generic process of administration. The broad field of administration is divided into public, business, hospital, educational and other forms of administration. The similarities between these forms of administration are considered to be greater than their differences. (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com) In the Philippines, though, Public Administration did not evolve out of the discipline of political science. More specifically, public administration as an academic field of study was essentially the result of the establishment of the Institute of Public Administration (IPA), and in one sense did not follow the conventional path in the emergence of public administration traditionally considered as a sub-field of political science. 18 Traditionally, the discipline of public administration itself has had the following sub-fields: organization and management; public personnel administration; local government administration; policy analysis and program administration; public enterprise management; voluntary sector management and spatial information management. The following discusses each of these subfields:

Drawn from the Canadian Encyclopedia, available at http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com Cariño (2007) in her paper, “From Traditional Public Administration to the Governance Tradition: Research in NCPAG, 19952002,” In Public Administration Plus Governance Assessing the Past, Addressing the Future,” talked about the research interests of Filipino scholars in different fields of public administration: traditional public administration; personnel administration, organization and management, fiscal administration, agency studies and the Philippine Administrative system; new public administration, which includes ethics and accountability, public service values, alternative delivery systems, public policy and program administration were also offered and research in the governance tradition like democracy and bureaucracy, citizen participation, decentralization etc.
18

17

10

Organization and Management Organization and Management is one of the oldest subfields of public administration. It basically focuses on sub-areas like organization theory and practice, dynamics of organization, decision-making in administration, leadership and other sub-areas. It particularly discusses the theories, processes and techniques involved in the organization and management of the national government and its agencies. It also explores modern management techniques such as reinventing, reengineering and other improvement methods in organization and management like total quality management (TQM), 19which has largely contributed to public administration reforms. Public Personnel Administration Public administration consists of administrative processes. It involves people, its most important element, therefore public personnel administration is an equally important field. In here, the definition of personnel management as “the recruitment, selection, development, utilization of, and accommodation to human resources by organizations” (French 1990) is explored. Specifically, it discusses on the evolution of public personnel administration, arrangements of the personnel system, and general attributes of personnel functions in the public sector. It is also concerned with the developments and current trends in personnel administration. In the traditional public administration, organization and management and personnel administration were emphasized as salient features of study in public administration. Personnel administration has widened its scope and evolved into human resource management or human resource development. The inspiration that not only these two fields complement but supplement each other put them together into what is now called “Organization Studies.” Public Fiscal Administration Public finance belongs to the branch of economics but that was during the earlier times. With the emergence of the field of public administration, much interest has been directed towards fiscal administration. Again, this subfield of public administration covers a wide range of issues and topics affecting government operations like taxation, public expenditures and borrowing, resource allocation, revenue administration, auditing and intergovernmental relations. As Briones (1996) puts it, “public fiscal administration embraces the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policies and decisions on taxation and revenue administration; resource allocation, budgeting, and public expenditure; public borrowing and debt management; and accounting and auditing.” Through the years, many researches were devoted on these topics and issues; the government has also introduced reforms like reforms in tax administration, value added tax (VAT), expanded value added tax (E-VAT), procurement reforms, the medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF), accounting reforms, re-engineering the bureaucracy program (REBP), transforming local finance, and many others. Local Government Administration This is another distinct subfield of public administration. In studying local government administration, the concepts of decentralization are taken into account. Decentralization, as a process, is one of the widely researched topics in promoting development and democratic governance. Administrative organizations and operations of local governments; the structure and processes of regional administration are likewise discussed. In particular, local government administration may also include topics on theoretical and empirical perspectives of local government and regional administration, community and institutional development, local government systems/procedure, intergovernmental dynamics, local public finance or local fiscal administration, local economic promotion, local and regional development planning, local government innovations and many others.

TQM was adopted by Japan and US to improve their production in a competitive market vis a vis cost effective strategies with the ultimate goal of improving customer satisfaction. See Mangahas and Leyesa 2003. “Improving Government Administration through TQM” and Mariano “TQM and Philippine Local Government Units.” in Introduction to Public Administration: A Reader.

19

11

New Sub-fields of Public Administration As the field evolved, and in response to the changing demands of the time, new sub-fields emerged. These included the following: Policy Analysis and Program Administration The post-war years saw the emergence of public policy as a subfield of public administration. In the US, interest in policy studies started in 1950s. In the Philippines, however, it started not to long ago, in 1970s in the then Institute of Public Administration in the University of the Philippines. Generally, policy studies can focus on the content of public policy, its processes, models, theories and approaches of public policy its impact as well as evaluation of public programs and projects. Other significant concepts, principles and techniques for systematic analysis and decision - making in public policy and management are also considered in policy analysis. Dye (1995) said that certain theoretical approaches and models have been introduced in studying public policy which include institutional, process, group, elite, rational, incremental, game theory, public choice and systems model. Public Enterprise Management Privatization is one of the foci of this area of public administration. Other topics include the nature and processes of public enterprises; the relationship between the government and the public enterprise sector; issues on managerial autonomy, public accountability, corporate social responsibility and the role of the state in the economy. In the graduate level, courses include financial management of public enterprise and management of public enterprises. Voluntary Sector Management Voluntary Sector Management is another emerging field of Public Administration. In recognition of the growing voluntary sector in the Philippines, UP NCPAG has pioneered in offering Voluntary Sector Management (VSM) as a field of specialization. This field has developed expertise through the years through its institutional linkage with UP Pahinungod with Dr. Ledivina Cariño as its founding director. Voluntary sector management can be referred to similar terms such as “voluntary sector, “third sector”, “non-profit organizations,” “non-governmental organizations,” and “civil society organizations.” Spatial Information Management In delivering public goods and services efficiently and effectively, it is very important that we will be aided with support tools enabling the use of all kinds of spatial data/information. With the study and utilization of geographic information system (GIS), data/information can be processed immediately and can be transported easily. This technology is currently used by many government agencies and corporations; thus the introduction and popularization of some technology terms in government such as e-government, e-commerce, geo-visualization, e-finance, among others. Other systems are also introduced in SIM like global positioning systems and remote sensing. Public administration indeed has evolved both as a scholarly discipline and as a profession. It has reached wider dimensions of governance, from political, economic, social, cultural aspects of public management. In the executive branch, for instance, it has retained traditional functions such as O and M (management functions like planning, organizing) and personnel management but explored possibilities in organizational development, fiscal administration (budgeting, accounting, auditing) and public policy and program administration which is concerned with the processes and analysis of public policy. IV. MAJOR CONCERNS IN PHILIPPINE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PRAXIS: REORGANIZATION DECENTRALIZATION AND CORRUPTION

The praxis of Philippine public administration has always included three major areas of concerns. These are: reorganization, decentralization and the ever present challenge of addressing

12

corruption and promoting accountability in government. 20 This section discusses each of these areas and thrusts. Reorganizing the Bureaucracy The praxis of public administration in the Philippines has always been rooted in the imperative for reform. This following discusses two major targets of reform over the years. These are the civil service and the local governments. More specifically, Philippine public administration has always seen reorganization as central to the entire initiative in the continuing search and design for more responsive structures and process. Indeed, among the initial initiatives of any president – from Roxas in the 40’s to Arroyo in 2002, upon assumption to office, is the declaration to reorganize the bureaucracy. The first decree (Presidential Decree No 1) enacted by Marcos upon the declaration of martial law was the Integrated Reorganization Plan (IRP). It “promised the most extensive and wrenching effort at administrative reform in the country’s history through decentralizing and reducing the bureaucracy, and standardizing departmental organization. The IRP also sought to introduce structural changes and reforms to strengthen the merit system as well as professionalize the civil service system. “(ADB 2005: 11) Endriga (2001) described the bureaucracy under the Marcos administration as being more subservient than at any other time in Philippine history. The government then was restructured according to the will of Marcos and it has been shielded from public scrutiny and criticism; thus the perpetuation of irresponsible acts. To restore government integrity and public confidence, reorganization reforms were introduced by President Aquino, essentially with the creation of Presidential Commission on Public Ethics and Accountability and the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG). Civil society organizations (CSOs) became more active in participating in decision-making and program implementation of the government. To downsize the bloated government, one of the steps undertaken by her administration was the removal of thousands of civil servants from their positions. Although the said step was justified, ironically, the number of civil servants and political appointees in the government increased; thus, blurring the principles of merit and fitness of the civil service. Moreover, pubic agencies and offices grew which caused the extended and fragmented government structure. (ADB 2005) Reorganization efforts were minimal during the tenures of Ramos and Estrada. Ramos simply focused on the praxis of NPM with the end goal of reengineering the bureaucracy. His flagship program, the Philippines 2000, was envisioned to make the country globally competitive by pursuing the thrusts of deregulation, market liberalization, and privatization. He focused on setting the guiding principles in reorganizing and improving government operations, divesting government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs), promoting decentralization and local governance, and pushing on the attrition law. The reengineering plan, however, remained a plan with the Congress not laying down the legal framework for his aspiration of streamlining the bureaucracy. Under Estrada administration, the Rationalization Program of 2001 through Presidential Committee on Effective Governance (PCEG) was introduced. Executive Order No. 165 or “Directing the Formulation of an Institutional Strengthening and Streamlining Program for the Executive Branch,” laid down the “Re-Engineering the Bureaucracy for Better Governance Program.” The program aims to strengthen and streamline the bureaucracy particularly the executive branch, the GOCCs, and the state universities and colleges (SUCs). What prompted the government in pushing for the rationalization program despite some criticisms and even cynicisms particularly from the skeptics? David offered four reasons: first, to make the government do the right things (efficiency); second, to do the things in the right or best way (effectiveness); third, to be able to do the right things in the right way within affordable levels (affordability); and fourth, to be able to achieve these in the most accountable, transparent manner as possible (accountability). These served as the four guiding principles of the Rationalization Program. David further expounds on these principles and said that effectiveness means that there is a need to focus on government efforts on its vital and core functions. This is indeed a good strategy to achieve medium-term strategies and to avoid expenditures and time to those functions that the government
There are of course other targets of reform as far as the overall goal to promote better and more responsive structures of government are concerned. These include the judiciary and the congress.
20

13

should not enter into. Efficiency is achieved through answering the question: “What do we want to do?” Through the methods of rationalization of service delivery support systems, organizational structure, and right staffing; the government then could provide an individual agency performance. The principle of affordability states that expenditures must be based on allowable existing resources. Therefore, the necessary rationalization will have to go together with the kind of economic situation the government agencies are in, with consideration on how much they can afford. To assure accountability, the method of reporting that should be practiced by the government must be clear, observable and verifiable. (DGF 2005) On the part of the CSC, its mandate can only be fully realized once the elected officials learn to respect the bureaucracy and recognize that a professional core of public servants is a major partner in good governance. It must be noted that ordinary civil servants are still nation-builders. David adds that notwithstanding the fiscal crisis the country is now facing, the program still has to be pursued because there is really a need to “rationalize how the government funds itself, and how government gets its job done.” (DGF 2005: 11) After all, the budget we use to support government’s operation comes from the taxpayers and this has to be complemented by an efficient, effective, affordable and accountable service from the civil servants. The Macapagal-Arroyo administration continued the program to streamline the bureaucracy, but as yet has no overall agenda for reform. In the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) 2001-2004, the present administration had adopted the “Reengineering the Bureaucracy for Better Governance Program” of the Estrada administration. PCEG was likewise reactivated upon the Arroyo’s assumption to office. It serves as the ad-hoc body that shall be the focal point of administrative reforms in the civil service. In October 4, 2004, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) pursued the Rationalization Program as mandated in EO 366. According to DBM, EO 366 directs all departments/agencies of the executive branch to conduct a strategic review of their operations and organizations for purposes of focusing government purposes on its vital functions and channeling government resources to these core public functions, and improving the efficiency of government services, within affordable levels, and in the most accountable manner. (See table 3 for the status of the rationalization program as of April 2008). DBM’s task, according to David (as cited in DGF 2005), is to look at a two-track approach in ensuring the effective delivery of government service. The first track of reengineering the bureaucracy is through legislative measures and the second track is the administrative rationalization of the government. The Rationalization Program The table below shows that four years after the implementation of EO 366, only 17 out of 26 department agencies of the government, 27 OEOS/other government agencies, and only 36 out of more than 100 GOCCs in the country have submitted their rationalization plans. Out of the 80 submitted rational plans, only two department-level offices and nine GOCCs were approved; three departments have been evaluated but were not yet approved. Out of the 44 plans, (complete and partial submission) that are under evaluation, eight departments and 19 GOCCs have completed their submission while three departments and four from the GOCCs have made partial submission. Moreover, there were plans returned for revision; one from the department and four from the GOCCs. DBM is expecting submissions from three departments and 24 GOCCs.
Table 3. Overall Status of the Implementation of the Rationalization Program ((Net of Entities Exempted), As of 30 April 2008)
Status
A. Plans Submitted to DBM 1. Approved 1.1 attached agencies 2. Evaluation Completed but not yet approved 3. Under evaluation 3.1 complete submission 3.2 partial submission 4. Plans returned for revision B. Plans for Submission to DBM Total Source: DBM, 2008
∗ ∗

Depts
17 2 5∗ 3 8 3 1 3 20

OEOs/Other Agencies
27 16 10 1 1 28

GOCCs
36 9 19 4 4 24 60

Total No.
80 27 5∗ 3 37 7 6 28 108

%
75% 25% 3% 34% 7% 5% 26% 100%

rationalization plan not counted individually; part of mother department’s overall Plan. rationalization plan not counted individually; part of mother department’s overall Plan.

14

Options for Affected Personnel 21 In the process of reviewing agency operations and organizations, some functions/units may be found redundant, overlapping or duplicating with others. Employees are then given two options: (1) to remain in government service and be placed in other government agencies needing personnel or (2) avail of retirement/separation benefits, if qualified, plus the applicable incentive. As of April 2008, 2,170 regular positions (87% or 1,888 funded and 13% or 282 unfunded items) and 1,137 contractual/casual positions (86% of these or 978 contractual items and 14% or 159 casual items) have been abolished, which in effect, generated P422M (P379M explicit and P43M implicit). These savings were plowed back to the concerned department agencies to beef up their funds for their purposes like maintenance and other operating expenses and capital outlay. On the other hand, 1,778 employees were affected by the Rationalization Program. Ninetyfour percent (94%) or 1,667 have opted to retire while 6% or 111 employees have opted to be placed to other agencies such as DOH-managed hospitals, DepEd-supervised schools, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), Land Transportation Office (LTO), National Statistics Office (NSO) and Philippine National Police (PNP). Benefits paid for those who retired amounted to P160M. (see matrix below for the summary)
No of regular positions abolished No. of Contractual/Casual Positions abolished Total PS Savings Generated No. of Personnel who opted to retire Benefits Paid No. of Personnel who opted to be placed to other agencies ∗ Total of retired and transferred personnel 2170 positions Funded: 1, 888 ( 87%) 1,137 positions Contractual: 978 items (86%)
Explicit (funded items): P379 M

Unfunded: 282 (13%) Casual: 159 items (14%)
Implicit (unfunded items): P43M

1,667 (94%) P160 M 111 (6%) 1,778

The Growth of the Philippine Bureaucracy The table below shows that as of 2004, a total of 1,475,699 personnel were employed in national government agencies (NGAs), government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs), and local government units (LGUs). About 67.86% of 1,475,699 total number of government employees are assigned to NGAs and only 25.09% to the LGUs. The GOCCs registered the lowest complement at 7.04 % of the total number of government workforce. As to the distribution of personnel by regions, National Capital Region (NCR) comprises the biggest pie with 29.63% of the total number of workforce from all subdivisions followed by regions 4 and 6 with 10.64% and 7.48% respectively. Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) has the lowest complement with only 2.18 percent of the total number of employees. As to the distribution of employees from NGAs, 32% of 1,001,495 employees are concentrated in NCR. Very few personnel are recorded in CAR with only 2.03% and CARAGA (2.47%). As to the distribution of GOCCs, the biggest slice is in NCR with 67.61% and the lowest number of personnel comes from the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with only 0.18% of the total of 103,977 employees from GOCCs. As to the distribution of employees in LGUs, Region 4 registered the highest complement at about 14.95 % of 370,227 total number of employees in LGUs. NCR only has 12.56%; thus showing that Region 4 exceeded NCR with 2.39 % employees. Again, ARMM listed the lowest number of local government personnel with only 2.24% of the total number of LGU personnel in the country. . Perhaps, it must be pointed out that figures will show that the bureaucracy is now really bloated as it is maldistributed. Most numbers of employees come from the national government agencies and are concentrated in NCR. Areas which need the services more have only a few number of public servants.

21

∗

Data taken from DBM, 2008 DOH-managed hospitals, DepEd-supervised schools, BJMP. LTO, NSO and PNP.

15

Table 4. Number of Government Personnel by Major Subdivision and Region: 2004 22

Region
Philippines 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CARAGA NCR CAR ARMM

Total
1,475,699 78,104 50,302 97,937 156993 75298 110369 81314 68766 48293 59904 49503 47135 40075 437243 32237 42226

%
100% 5.29 3.41 6.64 10.64 5.10 7.48 5.51 4.66 3.27 4.06 3.35 3.19 2.72 29.63 2.18 2.86

NGA
1,001,495 53,332 31,443 56,599 96725 54650 74197 51283 45763 33858 38348 34132 31893 24721 320429 20363 33759

%
67.86% 5.33 3.14 5.65 9.66 5.46 7.41 5.12 4.57 3.38 3.83 3.41 3.18 2.47 32.00 2.03 3.37

GOCC
103,977 1,876 2,639 7516 4931 1397 2604 2954 1856 1093 1953 1238 1910 1089 70302 431 188

%
7.04 % 1.80 2.54 7.23 4.74 1.34 2.50 2.84 1.79 1.05 1.88 1.19 1.84 1.05 67.61 0.41 0.18

LGU
370,227 22,896 16,220 33822 55337 19251 33568 27077 21147 13342 19603 14133 13332 14265 46512 11443 8279

%
25.09% 6.18 4.38 9.14 14.95 5.20 9.07 7.31 5.71 3.60 5.29 3.82 3.60 3.85 12.56 3.09 2.24

Table 5 shows the distribution of government personnel according to branch of service in an interval of ten years starting from the year 1964 up to 2004. Additionally, if we look at the distribution, we will see that most of them are in national government agencies, followed by the LGUs and the GOCCs respectively. There were no available data from GOCCs in 1964 and 1974 since it was only in 1973 that the personnel in government corporations were absorbed into the regular civil service. (De Guzman, Brillantes, and Pacho 1988) We also noticed that every ten years, the number of employees from the NGAs and LGUs scales up one notch while the number of workforce in GOCCs alarmingly decreases every ten years. (See figure 1). There was a noticeable increase in the number of employees from NGAs and LGUs while there was a substantial decrease in GOCCs. In 1994, from 134, 453 employees in GOCCs, it dropped to 112,858 thereby eliminating 21,595 employees from the GOCCs. In 2004, GOCC employees were further reduced into 104, 977; thus, losing another 8,881 employees.
Table 5. Distribution of Personnel According to Branch of Service 23

Year 1964 1974 1984 1994 2004

Total 272,845 280,167 991,445 1,225,676 1,475,699

NGA 201,401 194,735 667,114 796,795 1,001,495

GOCC ----134,453 112,858 103,977

LGU 71,444 85,432 189,878 316,023 370,227

As illustrated in Figure 1, over the years, it has become a fashionable observation that the Philippine bureaucracy has been a bloated one. In 1964, there were only 272,845 civil servants. Its growth is relatively attributed to the increase of demands of public service delivery due to the increase in population; hence, the expansion of government functions and responsibilities.

Data derived from the 2004 Inventory of Government Personnel by the Civil Service Commission. The computation of percentages is provided by the authors. 23 Data for the year 1964, 1974 and 1984 are derived from The Bureaucracy, in Government and Politics of the Philippines, edited by Raul P. de Guzman and Mila A. Reforma, 1988, Oxford University Press. The data excludes employees from schools, state colleges and universities.

22

16

Figure 1. Distribution of Personnel According to Branch of Service

1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 1964 1974 1984 1994 2004 Total NGA GOCC LGU

Table 6. Number of Civil Servants as a Percentage of the Population in Selected Countries 24
Number of Civil Servants 1,475,699 60,000 1,296,688 4,925,100 2,700,000 8,000,000 Population 88,574,614 4,681,000 63,038,247 64,473,140 304,095,000 1,132,910,000 Number of Civil Servants as a Percentage of Population 1.63% 1.28% 2.05% 7.63% 0.88% 0.70% Ratio of Civil Servants and Population 1:60 1:78 1:48 1:13 1:112 1:141

Country Philippines Singapore Thailand France United States India

Compared to other countries, the ratio of civil servants to the population of the Philippines is relatively low. However, compared to India with one employee to 141 persons, in the Philippines, one civil servant is complemented with 60 persons. France, on the other hand, has the lowest number with only 13 persons to one government employee. As seen on figure 2, with a considerably low population of 64,473,140, they have 7.63% or 4,925,100 civil servants. Thailand fairly does well with 1 is to 48.
Figure 2. Number of Civil Servants as a Percentage of Population
Civil Servants as % of Population
9.00% 8.00% 7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% Philippines Singapore Thailand France US India 1.63% 1.28% 2.05% 0.88% 0.70% 7.63%

Population of the countries are derived from the data presented in http://en.wikipedia.org; number of civil servants as a percentage of the population as computed by the authors; number of Civil Servants in the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand are from www. unpan1.un.org “Figures on the Number of Civil Servants: Compendium of Information on Selected ASEAN Civil Service Systems. (2004)”; data of civil servants in France from http://web.worldbank.org; United States number of civil servants from http://www.federaljobs.net.

24

17

The attempt to reorganize, reorganize, reengineer, and restructure the bureaucracy is evident in the programs and projects of the different administrations. However, each administration is faced with tremendous challenges of overlapping functions, lack of acceptance and commitment by affected entities, red-tape and corruption inherited from past administrations. It becomes a cycle and the great challenge for the present administration is how to surpass these problems and how to face tougher challenges, “given the pressures of the growing trend toward greater civil society and private participation in the management of state affairs, the demands of globalization and the paradigm shift of the government’s role from command and control into facilitation and flexibility. “ (ADB 2005: 12) The rationalization program has also stirred controversies. Some say it failed but at the end of the day, there has to be someone who is going to provide solutions. The government is expected to do that; however, it cannot do the job in isolation. It has to consider the comments and suggestions of others. (DGF 2005) Indeed, the government, the civil society, and the business sector should work together to achieve the overall goal of the government. There is a need to strengthen institutions to capacitate the stakeholders in mainstreaming good governance and in effecting public administration reforms or civil service reforms. Mainstreaming good governance requires building capacity of individuals and institutions and creating the appropriate policy environment to institutionalize the principles of participation, transparency, accountability and predictability in the delivery of public goods and services that will promote better quality service, improved capacity and better quality of life in the long term. (See figure 3 below)
Figure 3. Capacity-Development Framework

Policy and Institutional

• Legal framework • Policies • Objectives & strategies • Structures • Processes & procedures • Resources • Communications • Information systems • Performance measures • Accountabilities • Knowledge • Skills • Attitudes

Improved Capacities

Organization

Individuals

Better Quality of Services

Improved Living Conditions

Source: Mangahas and Astillero 2002

Decentralizing the Bureaucracy A second major initiative that can be observed in the continuing attempt to design and develop a more responsive Philippine public administration is the effort to continuously decentralize the bureaucracy, culminating of with the enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991.

Operationalizing the Notion of Decentralization

18

In any discussion of decentralization, it is critical that we have relatively common terms of references in the usage of the term “decentralization” so as to be able to have a more meaningful and useful analysis of the process. Decentralization in the Philippines could be operationalized through three modalities: deconcentration, devolution and debureaucratization. Deconcentration is a limited form of decentralization since decision-making remains at the center with lower levels of government –in this case the filed offices of the national government agencies -largely limited to transmitting orders and implementing decisions of centrally based authorities. Deconcentration is also referred to as administrative decentralization. Devolution is political decentralization which essentially involves the transfer of powers and responsibilities from national government agencies to local governments as provided for in the Local Government Code. As provided for in Section 16 of the Code or the General Welfare Clause, these include the responsibility for the delivery of basic services; including health, agriculture, social services and environment. Together with the transfer of responsibilities was the transfer of personnel to the local governments. It will be recalled that close to 70,000 national personnel were transferred (“devolved”) to the local governments during the initial years of devolution. The third type of decentralization has been referred to as “debureaucratization” that involves the harnessing of the private sector and non-governmental organizations in the delivery of services through various modalities including contracting out, private-public partnership, and joint ventures, among other things. This modality of partnership is also provided for in Section 17 of the Local Government Code where partnerships with the private sector, NGOs and POs are recognized and even encouraged for the improved delivery of services. Historical Background of Decentralization The Local Government in the Philippine Islands, written in 1926 by then President Jose P. Laurel, reveals the idea that local autonomy was existent even before the arrival of the Spaniards. The local villages or the barangays were then considered as autonomous territorial and political units headed by a datu, panginoo, or pangulo. The Spanish colonizers enacted the “Maura Law” in 1893. The law included the establishment of tribunals municipals and juntas provincials. However, the system of Government remained centralized characterized by the “retention of rights and prerogatives by the principal class, the straight laced centralization of powers, the continued intervention of the church in State affairs, the limited franchise granted, the inadequate election devised and enforced, and the defected financial system instituted.” (Brillantes 2003) Decentralization in the Malolos Constitution has been described as “the most ample decentralization” for local governments and for more popular and direct election of local officials. However, local governments were still subject to regulation based on several principles, including the “determination in their powers matter of taxes, in order that the provincial and municipal taxation may never be antagonistic to the system of taxation of the State.” (Brillantes 1987) The trend during the time of the American occupation was towards centralization wherein all local governments were placed under military control primarily for control and security purposes, inspite of the rhetoric in favor of local autonomy. During the Commonwealth, local governments were placed under the general supervision of the President. Specifically, Art.VII, Section 11 of the 1945 Constitution provided that “The President shall … exercise general supervision over all local governments.” This is in mark contrast to the preceding sentence which provided that the President shall exercise “control” over all executive departments, bureaus and offices. According to Ocampo and Panganiban (1985, 1998), the use of the term “supervision” instead of “control” was a “compromise concept substituted for a stronger guarantee of autonomy sought by some constitutional convention delegates. (Brillantes 1987) The first local autonomy act was Republic Act No. 2264, entitled “An Act Amending the Laws Governing Local Governments by Increasing their Autonomy and Reorganizing Provincial Governments.” The Act vested in the city and municipal governments greater fiscal, planning and regulatory powers. It likewise gave the cities and municipalities powers to adopt zoning and planning

19

ordinances. Moreover, it granted the authority to provincial, city and municipal governments the authority to undertake and carry out any public works projects which the local government itself finances. Another landmark legislation with regard to local autonomy in the Philippines is Republic Act No. 2370, entitled “An Act Granting Autonomy to the Barrios of the Philippines” or otherwise known as the Barrio Charter Act. This law was passed in 1959 which was principally sponsored by Senator Raul Manglapus. The barrios then became quasi-municipal corporations exercising autonomy, among other things, through their taxing powers. Barrios were to be governed by an elective barrio council that included powers to enact barrio ordinances. During the time of Martial Law which started in 1972, the law-making powers and the administration and implementation of laws were concentrated in the hands of Ferdinand Marcos. Moreover, the national and local elections were suspended and Marcos placed unto himself the power to appoint local officials who shall exercise functions under the President’s authoritative control. Two years after the 1978 election of the national legislature, local elections were held though never considered truly reflective of the people’s will because of the dictatorship. The Government then is characterized being highly centralized under Marcos’ administration. The system runs counter to the specific provision of the 1973 Constitution advocating the promotion of local autonomy. The Local Government Code of 1983 was promulgated in early February of the same year which reiterates the policy of the State in the 1973 Constitution and that is to “guarantee and promote the local government units to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities and make them effective partners in the pursuit of national development and progress.” Notwithstanding the enactment of the Code, the measures to decentralize government remained merely as administrative formalisms. Powers continued to be concentrated in Manila with local units heavily dependent upon central government. Although the Marcos regime was unsuccessful in effecting political decentralization which focuses on the devolution of powers to specific political units covering a specific area, the administration can be credited for its efforts at administrative decentralization when it emphasized the role of the regional units of the national line ministries to decongest the central government of many administrative functions. In accordance with Article II, Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution which provides that “The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments”, RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 was promulgated. The Code transferred the responsibility for the delivery of basic services to the local government units, including appropriate personnel, assets, equipment, programs and projects. The local autonomy would now mean less reliance in national government, including “allotments” made by the national government, and increased reliance on internally generated resources, or resources jointly generated with other institutions, be they other local government units or private institutions. Major Features of the Local Government Code The Local Government Code of 1991 radically transformed the nature of power relationships between the central government and the thousands of local governments in the countryside, through the devolution process. Devolution to local government units involves the responsibility for the delivery of various aspects of basic services that earlier were the responsibility of the national government, such as: health, social services, environment, public works, education, tourism, telecommunications services, housing projects, and investment support. It also covers the responsibility for the enforcement of certain regulatory powers, such as the reclassification of agricultural lands; enforcement of environmental laws; inspection of food products and quarantine; enforcement of national building code; operation of tricycles; processing and approval of subdivision plans; and establishment of cockpits and holding of cockfights. With the implementation of the Code, financial resources are also decentralized. There had been an increased financial resources available to local governments by (1) broadening their taxing powers; (2) providing them with a specific share from the national wealth exploited in their area, and (3) increasing their share from the national taxes. Moreover, the Code provides for the foundation for the development and evolution of more entrepreneurial-oriented local governments (e.g. buildoperate-transfer (BOT) arrangements with the private sector, bond floatation, obtain loans from local private institutions).

20

The Master Plan for the sustainable implementation of the Local Government Code of 1991 involves three phases. Phase One or the Change-Over Phase (1992-1993) concerns the transfer to LGUs of devolved functions, with the corresponding assets and personnel. In Phase Two or the Transitional Phase (1994-1996), the national government agencies (NGAs) and the LGUs shall institutionalize their adjustments to the decentralized schemes introduced by the Code. And the last phase is the Stabilization Phase (1997 onwards) wherein it is assumed that the LGUs would have built adequate capacities in managing local affairs, and the NGAs would provide constant support and technical assistance to LGUs. Innovations in Decentralization and Local Governance The National Statistical Coordination Board recorded that, as of March 2008, there are already 41,995 barangays, 136 cities, 1495 municipalities, and 81 provinces in the Philippines. Many of these local government units are paving the way in the practice of good local governance and decentralization. The seventeen years of the devolution have had high and low points. Although the impact of decentralization did not take off immediately, we may already list a lot of major breakthroughs in local governments. The following are some of the cases of best practices brought about by decentralization in the Philippines and which are culled from various local government achievements. 25
Table 7. Cases of Best Practices in the Philippines Sample Best Practice Cases Taking Care of People and Environment Saving the Marikina River Build-Operate Transfer Acquiring a Complete Equipment Pool Floating Bonds for Low Cost Housing Improving the Productivity Lote Para sa Mahirap: Land Banking Eco-Walk for the Environment Health Insurance Project Carabao and Tractor Pool Talahib Handicraft Inter-local cooperation: MIGEDZI – Metro-Iloilo Guimaras Economic Development Council (formerly MIDC) GPook (poverty reduction program, population health and environment program) and LGLA Bond Flotation for Tourism Development: the Boracay-Aklan Provincial Bond (Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal in Caticlan) Charging user fees for health services Implementing a fiscal management system Tax mapping, Computerization and GIS in Real Property Taxation Innovating Tax Administration Measures Local Government Unit Negros Oriental Marikina City Mandaluyong City Dingras, Ilocos Norte Muñoz, Nueva Ecija Victorias, Negros Occidental Naga City San Carlos City Baguio City Guimaras Province Puerto Princesa Jones, Isabela Iloilo and Guimaras Concepcion, Iloilo Caticlan, Aklan Malalag, Davao del Sur Gingoog City Santa Rosa, Laguna Quezon City

Decentralization as a framework of governance serves as a tool in building the capacities of both government and non-government actors in engaging each in managing societal affairs. The cases on best practices have proven this claim. The Local Government Code has given impetus to, not only the local government itself, but the rest of the stakeholders in governance: the business sector and the civil society, to play vital roles in processes of local governance such as; local development planning and implementation, local resource generation, local economic promotion, environmental management; thus, establishing a multi-stakeholders collaboration of local development efforts. With the Code providing them the legal and institutional infrastructure, these exemplars of local governance have also demonstrated that an aggregation of different local government units is practicable. Inter-local cooperation and convergence make LGUs stronger and more productive and efficient. This synergy of the different actors of local governance, whether from vertical and horizontal relationship, manifests the real essence of the process of democratization.
25

See annex 1 for the list of best practices according to sectoral areas.

21

Many of the local communities in the roster of “best practices” in local governance have demonstrated promising partnerships with the NGOs and the private sectors. Decentralization has indeed increased the democratic space of the civil society and embraced them in participating in local governance. Decentralization has provided a democratized milieu where LGUs are able to transform themselves into self-reliant communities and be more autonomous in managing their own affairs. The Local Government Code has endowed an enabling environment that has allowed these LGUs to flourish, utilize, and maximize their powers such as the authority to exercise taxing powers as well as corporate or entrepreneurial powers. Decentralization has been fuelled by efforts to apply the principles of self-government: efficiency, autonomy, subsidiarity and proximity. Sometimes, given their supremacy, national government agencies instead of becoming a partner, tend to serve as an impediment to any local development efforts. There are also cases where national government policies instead of promoting development, impinge on the territorial jurisdiction of local governments and adversely impact local communities. In the name of democratic governance, national government may guide local governments and provide policies and technical expertise but they must recognize that in the principle of subsidiarity, the decentralized entity - the LGU, is the nearest to the people; therefore, they should be left on their own. LGU’s, in order to work smoothly with the national government, should align their development plans along with the national government’s policies but focus more on what development needs are to be met in their community. Thus, the central/national government and the LGUs should not look at each other as competitors in service delivery but as active partners in governing. Best practices on different areas of local governance should be replicated but it will be more apt that these best practices are not only replicated but be further "mainstreamed.” Mainstreaming is not an easy task. Its attainability requires not only innovativeness, ingenuity, resources but also the leadership and the candidness of the local chief executive to accept change.

Addressing Corruption Finally, continuing and ongoing initiatives to come up with more responsive public administration structures and processes are ongoing efforts to address the ever pervasive problem of corruption. Corruption or the “misuse of public power for private profit” inhibits growth and development, distorts access to services for poor communities, undermines public confidence in the government’s will and capacity to serve the public, deters trade and investments, reduces revenues, increases costs, and propagates wasteful allocation and use of scarce resources. Various sectors of the society are doing their best to combat corruption, enhance government efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. It is noteworthy to state that institutions have been set up and several laws were enacted to fight against graft and corruption. Negative consequences of corruption to institutions are prevalent through favoring vested or selfish interests of a person or entity. Officials and employees of the government tend to neglect the very purpose of civil servants and that is to serve the public interest with utmost fidelity. Tolerating corruption encourages negative and poor bureaucratic behavior of anyone in the service. In effect, it ruins public trust and confidence in the government. With regard to public personnel, corruption undermines merit and fitness system and inhibits civil servant motivation to uphold integrity. Moreover, corruption leads to poor quality of programs, projects and services, and ineffective, inefficient and unaccountable administration. Corruption benefits only few and deprives the rest of the people. Among the social costs of corruption include undermining the rule of law and violating political legitimacy. Disadvantaged people are deprived of fair treatment which increases poverty and that corrupt practices jeopardize the welfare of the people. Opportunities that exist to tackle corruption include (i) ensuring the presence of a legislative framework to check corruption, (ii) supporting active and vigilant civil society groups, (iii) protecting a free media, (iv) forming nationally accredited citizens’ watch group, (v) increasing public demands for more accountability in government, (vi) promoting ongoing initiatives to involve people in the fight

22

against corruption, and (vii) accepting support from international development agencies. 26 Martinez 27 disclosed that present threats to such measures include (i) dispersed population and unfavorable geographical composition, (ii) government credibility that is lacking, (iii) uninformed and apathetic population, (iv) corrupt element resistance, and (v) institutional weaknesses. The Republic of the Philippines-United Nations Development Programme of 2002 presented initiatives and desired strategic directions that underscore an anticorruption framework. The agenda involves strengthening and sustaining institutional capacities of government agencies for sound development management and oversight of the public sector by responsible citizens and civil society groups. Also, the framework stresses enhancing civil society’s capacity to effectively engage the public sector in strengthening institutional integrity, transparency, and accountability. The methods may include prevention of corruption practices, prosecution of corruption cases and imposition of stricter penalties, and promotion of a culture with corruption-intolerant sensitivity. The Philippines has numerous laws addressing graft and corruption, defining the prohibited and punishable acts, laying down specific penalties imposed for every breach thereof, and identifying the agencies responsible in the implementation of the said laws. The promulgated laws date back to 1955. Article XI of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and the Section on Bribery which includes Corruption of Public Officials (Art. 212) of the Revised Penal Code are the three main laws defining and penalizing corruption in the country. Table 8 presents a summary list of related laws, presidential decrees and proclamations, and other regulations on corruption prevention.
Table 8. List of Laws Related to Graft and Corruption
28

26
27 28

As reported in the Philippines: Country Governance Assessment by the Asian Development Bank, 2005. In Strategies of Corruption Prevention in the Philippines: Mobilizing Civil Society, 1999. This table is drawn from Asian Development Bank 2005: 18-19.

23

Government efforts to promote corporate governance and prevent private sector corruption are further strengthened by the joint initiatives of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Central Bank), and Anti-Money Laundering Council. Table 10 presents the different government agencies involved in the fight against corruption. (Refer to Annex 2 for the list of Philippine Anti-Corruption Agencies.)

Philippine government agencies, particularly those that are tasked to combat corruption, need to cooperate with each other and effectively work as a team; otherwise the fight against corruption would not be a success. Gawad Kalinga: Model of Philippine Public Administration and Governance 29 The Gawad Kalinga (GK) movement can be considered as “an alternative solution to the blatant problem of poverty not just in the Philippines but in the world. Guided by its motto, “less for self, more for others, enough for all,” GK envisioned a Philippines that is a slum-free, squatter-free nation through a simple strategy of providing land for the landless, homes for the homeless, food for the hungry and as a result providing dignity and peace for every Filipino. Gawad Kalinga, which means “to give care,” was established in 1995 to rehabilitate juvenile gang members and help out-ofschool youth in Bagong Silang, Caloocan City, then the biggest squatters’ relocation area in the Philippines. This endeavor has now evolved into a movement for nation-building. Together with its partners, Gawad Kalinga is now leading in the transformation of poverty stricken areas into progressive communities with the goal of building 700,000 homes in 7,000 in 7 years (2003-2010). To date GK is in over 900 communities all over the Philippines and in other developing countries”. (www.gawadkalinga.org) Seen through the lens of Public Administration, Gawad Kalinga may be described as a distinctly Filipino invention that effectively delivers basic services to Filipinos living in poverty by engaging cooperation between government, business and civil society. This description highlights three important characteristics of Gawad Kalinga that embody key concepts in new public administration, reinvented government and governance: enhancement of social equity as a key question (Frederickson 1971) effective delivery of services as a core concept (Osborne and Gaebler 1992); and cooperation between government, business and civil society as a key principle (Carino 2000)

We are grateful to Ms Paulyn Bautista for her insights and contribution in developing this section on Gawad Kalinga and public administration.

29

24

These three characteristics may further be explored towards establishing GK as a model of Philippine Public Administration and governance in view of three key dimensions presented below: Characteristics of GK vis-à-vis New Public Administration, Reinvented Public Administration and Governance Effective delivery of services as a core concept Cooperation between government, business and civil society Enhancement of social equity as a key question Key Dimensions of GK as Model of Philippine PA GK as an Emerging Model for Development GK as a Converging Point for Partnership GK as a Template for Good Governance

Figure 4 illustrates the GK Governance Paradigm in view of these key dimensions. Figure 4: GK Governance Paradigm

Public administration and governance
Government The Millennium Development Goals

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Civil Society
GK Programs GK as an Emerging Model of Development GK as a Converging Point for Partnership GK as a Template for Good Governance

Business

Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Achieve universal primary education Promote gender equality and empower women Reduce child mortality Improve maternal health Eradication of HIV, malaria and other diseases Ensure environmental sustainability Develop a global partnership for development

GK as an Emerging Model of Development: GK’s Program and the MDGs

Gawad Kalinga brings together complimentary resources of government, business and civil society towards its ultimate objective to address poverty. GK engages in seven component programs: shelter and site development (GK Tatag), community health (Gawad Kalusugan), education / child and youth development (sibol, sagip and siga), productivity / livelihood (Gawad kabuhayan), community organizing and empowerment (kapitbahayan), culture and tourism (Mabuhay) and environment (Green Kalinga). Through these programs, GK is actually undertaking magnanimous efforts and accomplishing great milestones in the global partnership for development that aims to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat AIDS, HIV, malaria, ensure environment, sustainability, achieve universal primary education, and promote gender equality. Collectively referred to as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), these eight goals have become a central concern of public administration and governance worldwide. A clear correspondence between the MDGs and the Programs of Gawad Kalinga succinctly presents GK as a model of sustainable human development. Table 11 presents the GK Programs vis-à-vis the MDGs. The Child & Youth Development program can be aligned to the MDG goal to achieve universal primary education as well as to promote gender equality, a goal likewise addressed by the values-formation foundation of all GK communities. The “sibol” program, which means “to grow,” provides value based education for pre-school children, aged three to six years old. A support program for children of elementary age, from seven to 13 years old through academic tutorials, sports and creative workshops and values formation is called sagip, which means “to save a life.” The formative needs of teenagers from 13-18 are covered by the siga program which means “to light,” also granting scholarships to deserving students. Furthermore a strong youth rehabilitation program for juvenile delinquents provides various activities and

25

counseling sessions to help them transform their lives without institutional rehabilitation. They are then integrated into the social mainstream and are gainfully employed.
Table 9. Programs of Gawad Kalinga and the MDGs
• • • • • • • • • • • • MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS eradicate extreme poverty and hunger reduce child mortality improve maternal health combat AIDS, HIV, malaria ensure environment sustainability achieve universal primary education promote gender equality develop a global partnership for development GAWAD KALINGA PROGRAMS Bayan-anihan/ Gawad Kabuhayan (Productivity / Livelihood) Gawad Kalusugan (Community Health)

Green Kalinga (Environment) Sibol, Sagip and Siga (Education / Child and Youth Development

• Mabuhay (Culture and Tourism) • GK Tatag (Community Infrastructure / Shelter and Site Development) • Kapitbahayan (Community Organizing and Empowerment)

The Health Program (Gawad Kalusugan) responds to goals three and four of the MDG, the promotion of gender equality and reducing child mortality. In GK, the health profile of every family in a GK community is carefully monitored by a volunteer team of doctors and paramedical practitioners. Most GK areas now have a clinic. Malnutrition especially among children is addressed and arrested not just through feeding programs but also through parent education, especially for the women, on proper nutrition and hygiene. GK is pro-poor. Its productivity program (Bayanihan and Gawad Kabuhayan) “to give livelihood”) is a response to goal 1 of MDG (to eradicate extreme poverty). Through this program, beneficiaries are provided start-up capital and materials for microfinance and micro-enterprise, and then given assistance in the marketing of products. Food self sufficiency is highly encouraged by teaching technology for backyard farming, urban agriculture and poultry-raising. GK is pro-environment, addressing MDG goal seven, to ensure environmental sustainability. It empowers the poor to become caretakers of the environment instead of being exploiters. GK teams, in partnership with environment groups and government agencies, who provide expertise and resources in these projects, have been conducting activities like tree-planting and seedlings production and educating the poor in solid waste management. GK’s partnership with various stakeholders is aligned with goal eight of the MDG, developing global partnerships. GK mobilizes partners from government, socio-civic groups, churches and parishes, media, the academe and others to provide volunteer services for the various programs, giving individuals and groups an opportunity to live out the spirit of bayanihan. In a GK community/village, values formation and community empowerment are conducted. Every GK community is organized into a kapitbahayan or neighborhood association, to inculcate stewardship and ensure accountability, cooperation and unity. Guidelines for community living are decided upon by the members, and new leaders who espouse the values of the association emerge. Peace is achieved not by force, but by mutual adherence to an agreed set of values. This new culture is the key to the community’s sustainability, and sets the community on the road to self reliance. GK Programs as a Convergence Point for Partnership GK has become a vehicle for convergence for all sectors and its model of governance is now being replicated in all levels of Philippine society. GK exemplifies a governance paradigm based on cooperation and partnership among business (corporate foundations), government (LGUs, national government agencies, legislators) and civil society (non-government organizations and academic institutions). The initiative is not merely an act of philanthropy, but an investment (business), not merely humanitarian, but developmental-oriented (civil society), and not simply an act of dole-out but of empowerment (civil society). Exemplified by multi-stakeholdership, GK is consistent with Article 62 of the Local Government Code of 1991, laying down the direct involvement of POs, NGOs and the private sector in the plans, programs, projects or activities of LGUs. This approach promotes the pooling of resources and talents, an opportunity that LGUs, hard pressed to meet the many competing priorities of their constituents should explore. On the other hand, mobilizing LGU commitment and resources in order to house the poor will generate considerable impact and empower marginalized communities to meaningfully transform

26

themselves. (LGSP 2005) GK partners with the Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF), popularly known as PAG-IBIG, a major funding source that the LGU, as well as other GK partners can tap. HDMF “extends housing finance to formally employed community members who have no capacity to build their own homes without external assistance.” (LGSP 2005: 26) GK’s partnership with various academic institutions is congruent with the “town and gown” approach to development, where academia is enriched by praxis and benefits the community. The National College of Public Administration (NCPAG) as one of the hubs of GK activities may take the lead role in networking and in strengthening social capital which can be of great help to GK’s mission. Members of the Association of Schools of Public Administration in the Philippines (ASPAP,Inc.) may also be tapped for capacity development and local empowerment through various modes of interventions such as development of a curriculum and preparation of modules on good governance which incorporates the GK development model, conduct of joint training programs and workshops with various stakeholders, collaborative research among different institutions, and documentation of good and best practices of governance. Furthermore, GK has established an organized network of support from international organizations. One such network is ANCOP, composed of a growing roster of international organizations covering countries like the US, Canada, Denmark, Spain, Switzerland, Australia. ANCOP offices have been set up in 20 donor areas abroad as the official international representatives of Gawad Kalinga. “The “Kalinga Luzon” and “Kalinga Pilipinas” concepts have stirred the imagination of other sectors as well, and Kawal Kalinga is being proposed by the Department of National Defense. Kawal Kalinga seeks the Gawad Kalinga program to be implemented in several military areas and camps so that decent homes for enlisted men can be built in peaceful and beautiful communities. Provincial governments and multisectoral partners in Cebu and Malabon will launch Kalinga Cebu and Kalinga Malabon. A trend is born and the poor and marginalized in Philippine society have found a powerful opportunity for growth and real change in the Gawad Kalinga movement.” (www. balita.com) GK’s partnership with its stakeholders is grounded on trust. This model has been described as indigenous and fundamental. While GK is a faith-based initiative, it is nonetheless a working model of development that can complement with research, training, and extension work. The initiative has gone beyond providing roof for the homeless. Research by various student groups, such as that by the Civic Welfare Training Service students of the UP School of Economics presents how GK is transforming people 's lifestyles, giving hope and aspirations, resulting in greater self-reliance (lower, if not eradicated, incidence of scavenging and mendicancy among GK residents), disciplined habits (lower spending on vices such as alcohol and gambling and greater spending on food) and improved health (less incidence of disease, less spending on medicines). GK shuns politics while working with politicians. It successfully draws out Filipino ingenuity and generosity. Perhaps the secret formula of GK success is genuine leadership founded on trust. As GK founder Tony Meloto enthused in an interview with the Philippine Daily Inquirer: “The leadership here enjoys public trust. We are nonpartisan but we always like to work with national and local leaders who believe in the vision of Gawad Kalinga which is simple: To bring the Philippines out of the Third World; to make it a First World nation." (Philippine Daily Inquirer 2008) GK as a Template for Good Governance Gawad Kalinga (GK) can be considered an excellent paradigm of good governance. Good governance revolves around the values of transparency, accountability, participation, rule of law, equity and social justice, sustainability and continuity. GK revolves around the values of “Bayanihan” (becoming a hero to one another and addressing the root cause of poverty – not simply the absence of money but an absence of shared values, sense of community and higher purpose), . “Massive Mobilization of GK Partners & Volunteers” (beginning with ‘padugo’- or ‘to bleed for the cause’ which means devoting one’s own time and resources to initiate work within the community without expecting outside funding or support) and “Patriotism in Action” not just a work with the poor but more importantly a work of nation building that began as a simple but a daring initiative of the Couples for Christ (CFC) that has grown into a multi-sectoral, and interfaith partnership driven by the same faith-based spirit and vision. GK practices are now being adopted by various sectors and as such can be described as having become a template for good governance. The new initiative being developed by the leadership of the House of Representatives, aptly called Kalinga Pilipinas, will call on all members of the House to each give P10 million of their annual PDAF to building communities via the GK approach (Montelibano). While voluntary in nature, the proposed House resolution is being matched with an Executive Order from the

27

President so that the transfer of funds from the DBM to GK will be smooth and unhampered by red tape. (www.balita.com) GK as a Global Model for Development Gawad Kalinga has become a global model for development in the sense that it has extended to Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and Cambodia, and will soon extend to East Timor, India, Nigeria and Nicaragua. Furthermore, Filipinos abroad are coming home to help rebuild their motherland. The President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, describes GK as the new kind of “people power” the country needs.
“Many Filipino doctors and other health professionals in North America are supporting us by adopting GK communities. Corporate executives who have retired are volunteering their expertise; some even give up their promising careers to work with GK full time. Ateneo University and the University of the Philippines are putting up the GK Institute for the training of volunteers, caretaker teams and the local government unit (LGU) partners for township development.” Meloto enthused. (http://www.cfc-de.org)

GK has built more than 100,000 homes all over the Philippines and in Southeast Asian countries such as Cambodia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. More than 1,000 GK communities have been built in 350 towns and cities. ((http://www.cfc-de.org) These communities are in various stages of development of which there are three: start up, build up and showcase. These three stages of Gawad Kalinga Community Development may be seen and evaluated through two global lenses: first, in view of Mahbub Ul Haq’s Core Pillars of Sustainable Human Development, and second, in view of the innovative, entrepreneurial principles of Osborne and Gaebler’s Reinvented Public Administration. This congruence concretely illustrates the possibilities of objectively studying and establishing the effectiveness of the GK model through the lens of Public Adminsitration. Table 10 presents confluences between GK’s Stages of Community Development, Haq’s Pillars of Sustainable Human Development and Osborne and Gaebler’s Innovative, Entrepreneurial Principle of Public Administration.
Table 10. The Pillars of Sustainable Human Development and the Innovative, Entrepreneurial Principles of Reinvented Public Administration vis-à-vis the Stages of Gawad Kaliga Community Development
SUSTAINABLE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT (UNDP) Equity INNOVATIVE, ENTREPRENEURIAL PRINCIPLES OF NEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (Gaebler and Osborne) promote competition between service providers redefine clients as customers and offer choices prefer market mechanisms to bureaucratic mechanisms focus not only on providing public service but in catalyzing all sectors driven by goals, missions rather than rules and regulations empower citizens by pushing control out of the bureaucracy into the community decentralize authority, embrace participatory management STAGES OF GAWAD KALINGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Stage 1 • Secured Land • A caretaker Person/ Team • Beneficiaries agreed to start (“KB Enrollment”)

• • •

Empowerment

• • •

Stage 2 • Partnerships in place • Start-up / Build-up of at least 1 of the 5 Basic Programs 1. Community Infrastructures (formerly “Shelter”) 2. CYD – Child and Youth Development 3. Health 4. Productivity 5. Environment incoroporated in the 4 programs • “KB Build-up” (Ongoing and Formation of KB – Kapitbahayan)

Productivity Sustainability

• • •

put energies into earning money, not just spending measure the performance of agencies focusing on outcomes rather than inputs prevent problems before they emerge

Stage 3 • Formed KB Governance Team • Showcase of at least 1 of the 7 Programs 1. community infrastructure 2. Child and Youth Development 3. Gawad Kalusugan (Community Health) 4. Bayan-anihan (Productivity) 5. Mabuhay (Culture and Tourism) 6. Kapitbahayan (Community Empowerment) 7. Green Kalinga (Environment) • Mabuhay Program running (Tourism/ Culture)

28

The possibilities for creating an objective Public Administration template by which to evaluate how GK flourishes and continues to shine may be anchored on its capacity to engage strategic cooperation between government, business and civil society through its social network, effective delivery of service through its programs and enhancing social equity through its culture. GK has by far succeeded in collapsing the social divide by being non-discriminatory and thus serving as a converging point for all sectors of society. It has achieved unprecedented milestones in providing land for the landless, homes for the homeless and food for the hungry. It concretely animates the indigenous principle in the “sweat equity” concept which has brought out the productive and creative side of people while promoting a sense of belonging and unity. Furthermore, it has revived the indigenous practice of “bayanihan” or volunteerism. It has been said many times over that GK showcases the best of the Filipino in the Philippines and abroad. Many dimensions of GK community life present possible areas of study to determine exactly how the best of Filipino culture manifests in this development model. Nevertheless, warmth, volunteerism and hospitality are indigenous Filipino cultural traits clearly manifested in GK villages. The presentations of selected local and national government leaders as well as workshop outputs from mayors, vice-mayors and city government representatives in the GK Township Development Summit collaboratively convened by UP and Ateneo concretely describe the effectiveness of GK as a governance model. They have illustrated how GK has effectively responded to the problems and concerns of the small communities in the LGUs and enhanced the capacity of national government to deliver what the poorest Filipinos need. Furthermore, GK is reaching the poor and the underprivileged in other parts of the world. Seen in this light, and through the lens of the New Public Administration, Reinvented Public Administration and Governance, GK is indeed a Filipino ingenuity that is slowly progressing into a global template of good governance and development. Having examined GK through the lenses of the new public administration, reinvented public administration and governance, we may now ask the same questions raised at the beginning of this discourse in view of GK:Does GK enhance social equity? Does it effectively deliver services? Does is it engage cooperation between government, business and civil society? Is Gawad Kalinga Philippine Public Administration? Given that GK facilitates the effectiveness of government in delivering service; enhances the investment of business; and engages the creativity, capacity and values of civil society; who benefits from the Gawad Kalinga Public Administration? Indeed Gawad Kalinga as a model of good governance and public administration needs to be seriousy considered and continuously studied.

V CHALLENGES: INDEED FOR WHOM IS PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION? The discipline of public administration in the Philippines has been a rapidly changing and growing one. . Given the history and evolution of the field of public administration, a number of challenges have to be addressed: First and foremost, for whom have the fields of public administration been developed? Has Philippine public administration been simply reacting and following the lead of the international public administration community? Or do we need to develop and design local and Philippine-based fields, or could these be incorporated into existing fields? A good example would be another emerging field, indigenous forms of governance? Additionally, how have public administration structures, systems and institutions in the Philippines responded to the broader questions of promoting accountability, transparency and participation? What has been role of information, communication and technology is making public administration more responsive to the stakeholders who really matter? How have public administrative structures, processes and institutions responded to the ever pressing problem of poverty?

29

What have been the impact of globalization and the response of PA structures, institutions and processes in the development and evolution of a Philippine public administration? How can we address the problem on maldistribution where those who have less in life should have more in governance and public administration? And how can we develop indigenous PA practices – like GK? How can we replicate and further mainstream good practices of governance and development in a venue of cooperation, trust, and partnership with various stakeholders? And how has the teaching, research and publication of public administration responded to the above? The above are only some of the emerging issues and challenges pertaining to the evolution of the discipline of public administration in the Philippines. These questions may serve guide questions are our continuing quest not only to answer the question, “Is there a Philippine Public Administration?” but more importantly, “For Whom is Public Administration.” The essay provided a discussion of the evolution of the field of public administration, in general, and zeroed in on the Philippines in particular. It also included a discussion of what may be considered as emerging illustration of an indigenous governance paradigm in the Philippines – Gawad Kalinga - one that combines partnership between government, business and civil society. For after all, public administration and good governance is founded on partnership between and among government, business and civil society.

30

References
Annan, Kofi 1997 Inaugural Speech. First International Conference in Governance for Sustainable Growth and Equity in United Nations. New York. July 28-30.

Asian Development Bank 2005 Country Governance Assessment. Manila, Philippines: ADB. 1995 Appleby, Paul 1945 Governance : Sound Development Management, Manila, Philippines: ADB.

”Government is Different” in Big Democracy. Alfred A. Knopf Inc.

Barnard, Chester 1938 The Functions of the Executives. Cambridge, Ma : Harvard University Press.

Barzelay, Michael and Babak J Armajani 1992 Breaking through Bureaucracy: A New Vision for Managing in Government. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bissessar, Ann Marie (ed) 2007 Rethinking the Reform Question. UK: Cambridge Scholar Publishing. Brillantes, Alex B Jr. 2007 Public Governance: Whose Responsibility? Innovations and Excellence in Local Governance: The Critical Role of Partnerships. 2004 “Decentralization Imperatives: Lessons from some Asian Countries.” Public Policy VIII (1) (January-June) 1-27. 2003 Innovations and Excellence: Understanding Local Governments in the Philippines. Quezon City: Center for Local and Regional Governance, National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines.

1995
1987

“Development Administration in the Philippines” in Ledivina Carino ed. Conquering Politico-Administrative Frontiers, Essays in Honor of Raul P. de Guzman.
“Decentralization in the Philippines.” Philippine Journal of the Public Administration Vol. 31 (2). Quezon City: UP National College of Public Administration and Governance.

Briones, Leonor M. 1996 Philippine Public Fiscal Administration Vol.1. Mandaluyong City: Fiscal Administration Foundation, Inc. Caiden, Gerald E. 1982 Public Administration. 2nd Ed. CA: University of Southern California, School of Public Administration. Cariño, Ledevina V.

2007

“From Traditional Public Administration to the Governance Tradition: Research in NCPAG, 1995-2002,” Public Administration Plus Governance Assessing the Past, Addressing the Future. Quezon City: UP National College of Public Administration and Governance.
“The Concept of Governance” From Government to Governance. Quezon City: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration (EROPA.) 1-16. (ed) Conquering Politico-Administrative Frontiers, Essays in Honor of Raul P. De Guzman. Quezon City: UP College of Public Administration and the University of the Philippines Press.

2000

1995

Chilcote, Ronald H 1984 Theories of Development and Underdevelopment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.

31

Civil Service Commission 2004. Inventory of Government Personnel. Available online at http://www.csc.gov.ph/cscweb/2004IGP_stat.pdf. David, Karina 2005

“Combating Corruption in the Philippines: Are we Plundering Our Chances or Doing it Better?” Diliman Governance Forum Working Paper Series No. 2, July.

De Guzman, Raul P. 1986 Is There a Philippine Public Administration” in the Philippine Journal of Public Administration 30 (4) October. De Guzman, Raul P., Alex Brillantes and Arturo Pacho 1988 “The Bureaucracy” Government and Politics of the Philippines. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press,. Denhardt, Janet and Robert Denhardt 2003 The New Public Service: Serving, not Steering. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk. Translated from the French ed. (Dunod) by Constance Stors. With a foreword by L. Urwick. Denhardt, Robert B.

2004
2000

Theories of Public Organization 4th Ed. Australia : Thomson/Wadsworth.

“The Policy Emphasis and the New Public Management.” In Theories of Public Organization. 3rd ed. FortWorth: Hardcourt Brace College Publishers.

Department of Budget and Management 2008 “A Report on the Overall Status of the Rationalization Program.” Manila, Philippines. Diliman Governance Forum 2005 “Reinventing, Reengineering and Reorganizing the Bureaucracy in the Philippines: Why We Should be More Hopeful?” Working Paper Series No. 1, March. Doornbos, Martin 2003 “Good Governance: The Metamorphosis of a Policy Metaphor.” Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 57. Dye, Thomas 1995

Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Endriga, Jose N. 2001 “The National Civil Service System of the Philippines,” in John P. Burns and Bidhya Bowornwathana (eds). Civil Service Systems in Asia. United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Fayol, Henri 1949

General and Industrial Management. London. Pitman Publishing Company.

Follett, Mary Parker 1926 “Scientific Foundations of Business Administration.” in HC Metcalf ed. The Williams and Wilkins Co. Frechet, Louise 2000 “Good Governance at National and Global Levels.” From Government to Governance: Reflections on the 1999 World Conference on Governance. Quezon City: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration (EROPA). Frederickson, George H. 1996 “Comparing the Reinventing Government Movement with the New Public Administration.” IPublic Administration Review, Vol 56, No 3 (May-June), American Society for Public Administration: Blackwell Publishing. 263-270. 1971 “Toward a New Public Administration” in Frank Marini ed. Toward a New Public Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective. Scranton: Chandler Publishing Co.

32

Gant, George F. 1979 Development Administration, Concepts, Goals, Methods. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
Goodnow, Frank 1900 Politics and Administration: A Study in Government. New York: Russell and Rusell. 17-26

Gulick Luther 1937

“Notes on the Theory of Organization” in L. Gulick and L. Urwick eds., Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration. 3-13.

Halachmi, Arie 1995

“Re-engineering and Public Management: Some Issues and Considerations.” In Christopher Pollitt and Geert Bouckaert eds. Quality Improvement in European Public Services: Concepts, Cases and Commentary.. London, England and Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications Ltd.

Hammer, Michael and James Champy 1993 Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. New York: Harper Business Hood, Christopher 1991 A Public Management for All Seasons. Public Administration Vol 69/1. 3-20. Ilchman, Warren F. 1970 “New Time in Old Clocks: Productivity, Development and Comparative Public Administration. In Dwight Waldo, ed. Temporal Dimensions of Development Administration. Kingsport: Duke University Press. Landau, Martin 1970

Development Administration and Administration Theory. In Edward D. Weldner, ed. Development Administration in Asia. Tenesssee: Duke University Press.

Local Government Support Program 2005 Transformation Partnerships: A Replication Guide for Building LGU-Initiated Gawad Kalinga Communities. Manila: Local Government Resource Center (LGRC) PhilippinesCanada Local Government Support Program. Lynn, Laurence E. Public Management as Art, Science, and Profession. Chatham NJ: Chatham House. 1996 Lijphart, Arend 1971 "Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method", in American Political Science Review, vol. 65, no. 3, p. 682. (accessed in http://www.jstor.org) Khator, Renuy 1998.

“The New Paradigm: From Development Administration to Sustainable Development Administration.” In International Journal of Public Administration., Vol 21, (12).

Mangahas, Joel and Noel Astillero 2002 Assessment of Capacity Building Needs of Biodiversity Areas Management Board in the Philippines. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and United Nations Development Programme. Martinez, Rommel 1999 Strategies of Corruption Prevention in the Philippines: Mobilizing Civil Society. Working Papers: Asia Pacific School of Economics and Management, Australian National University. Maslow, Abraham 1943 “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review 50. July. . 373-396. Nef, J and O.P. Dwivedi 1991 “Development Theory and Administration: A Fence Around an Empty Lot?” in Indian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 27, No. 1. (January-March).

33

Nestor, Pilar 1992 “Relevance of New PA in Philippine Public Administration.” In Philippine Journal of Public Administration of New PA in the Philippines Nigro, Felix A and Lloyd Nigro G. 1989 Modern Public Administration, New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc. Ocampo, Romeo B. and Elena M. Panganiban 1998 “The Philippine Local Government System. History, Politics, and Finance” in Local Government in the Philippines: A Book of Readings Volume 1.edited by Tapales et al. UP National College of Administration Center for Local and Regional Governance. Orejas, Tonette 2008 (PDI) Gawad Kalinga takes Panlilio as partner in lifting poor. Philippine Daily Inquirer. January 06. Osborne, David 1992 Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. Pilar, Nestor 1993 “Relevance of the New PA in Philippine Public Administration.” In Bautista et al. (eds) Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader. Philippines, Republic of 1987 The 1987 Constitution Philippine Daily Inquirer 2007 Filipino of the Year: Antonio Meloto. Also available at worldhttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.ph) January 18. Pollitt, Christopher 1990 Managerialism and the Public Service. Oxford. Blackwell. RA 7160 1991 Reyes, Danilo R. 2003 “The Study of Public Administration in Perspective: A Passing Review of the Development of the Discipline” in Introduction to Public Administration: A Reader. “The Identity Crisis in Public Administration Revisited: Some Definitional Issues and the Philippine Setting.” In Introduction to Public Administration: A Reader. The Local Government Code of 1991.

1993

Rutgers, Mark R. 1998 “Paradigm Lost: Crisis as Identity of the Study of Public Administration” in the International Review of Administrative Sciences. London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi, Vol. 64. Shafritz Jay M. and Albert C. Hyde 1997 The Classics of Public Administration. 4th ed. Simon, Herbert A. 1946 “The Proverbs of Administration” Public Administration Review. American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) Washington, D.C. Stillman, Richard 1992 Preface to Public Administration: A Search for Themes and Direction. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc. Tillah, Mirshariff 2005 “Globalization, Redemocratization and the Philippine Democracy.” Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Discussion Paper No. 2005-09.

34

United Nations Development Programme 1997 Reconceptualizing Governance. Discussion Paper Series No. 2. New York. Waldo, Dwight 1948 “The Administrative State: Conclusion.” The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory of American Public Administration. 2nd Ed. New York: Holmes and Meier. Weber, Max 1946

Essay in Sociology edited and translated by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. Oxford University Press

Willoughby, William F. 1918 The Movement for Budgetary Reform in the States. New York: D Appleton and Co. for the Institute for Government Research. Woodrow, Wilson 1953 “The Study of Public Administration” in Ideas and Issues in Public Administration, ed. Dwight Waldo. New York: Mc Graw Hill Book, Co., Inc.

Internet Sites http://www.balita.com http://www.gawadkalinga.org/ http://www.tag.org.ph http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index. http://www.nscb.gov.ph http://www.cfc-de.org/news.php http://en.wikipedia.org http://web.worldbank.org http://www.federaljobs.net. Http://unpan1.un.org

35

Annex 1. List of Best Practices of LGUs in Sectoral Areas 30 Sectoral Areas Best Practice Local Resource Generation Bonds Built-Operate Transfer Infrastructure Reforming the Real Property Tax System “Paglilingkod Abot-Kamay” Environmental Management Project Watershed Protection Reforestation Plan Environmental awareness program for children (Eco-walk) Coastal Management (Kontra Kalat sa Dagat) Solid Waste Management System ”Balik Kalikasab, Balik Amang Pabrika” (BIKBAB) ”Tree Resources for Education, Enterprise and for Legacy Solid Waste Management Program “Basura-Atras, Linamon Abante sa Kalamboan (BALAK) Social Welfare and Health Services Primary Health Care (PHC) (Primary Health Care Program Counter Insurgency Strategy (Community Primary Hospital Community Health Volunteer program MBN Approach to Development Low cost housing Housing through bond flotation Integrated Planning (Metro Naga Council) Central Panay Economic Union Illana Bay Regional Alliance 9 Volunteerism Program "People 's Congress" Constituent Responsive Governance "People Empowerment Program Empowerment of Persons with Disability Local Government Productivity through IT "Tripartite Industrial Peace Council (TIPC) "Reorganization Program Barangay Talyer (Shop in Every Village) Program Livelihood generation through sampaguita Bayanihan Banking Program

Local Government Unit Victoria, Negros Occidental Dingras, Ilocos Norte Mandaluyong City Munoz, Nueva Ecija Province of Nueva Ecija Magsaysay, Davao Bais City Maasin, Iloilo Metro Iloilo Water District Baguio City Province of Bataan Carmona, Cavite

Environmental Management

Province of Nueva Viscaya Linamon, Davao del Norte

Surigao City Province of Negros Oriental Dumarao, Capiz Province of Davao Puerto Princesa Legaspi City and Victorias Naga City Capiz and Aklan Olongapo City Dumarao, Capiz Malolos, Bulacan Naga City Province of Nueva Viscaya Naga City Mandaue City, Cebu Goa, Camarines Sur Marikina City Guagua, Pampanga Pasay City

Housing Inter-Local Cooperation and Partnership

People 's Participation and Empowerment

Productivity Improvement and Management Innovations

Livelihood Generation

30

Drawn from Brillantes 2003.

36

Annex 2. Philippine Government Anti-Corruption Agencies 31

31

Drawn from ADB 2005: 22.

37

References: Asian Development Bank 2005 Country Governance Assessment. Manila, Philippines: ADB. 1995 Appleby, Paul 1945 Governance : Sound Development Management, Manila, Philippines: ADB. 2007 “From Traditional Public Administration to the Governance Tradition: Research in NCPAG, 1995-2002,” Public Administration Plus Governance Assessing the Past, Addressing the Future