Macro Analysis of the 2014 Proposed Budget (by Prof. Leonor Briones)

Professor Emeritus Leonor Magtolis Briones

Former National TreasurerLead Convenor, Social Watch Philippines

Importance of the Budget in Importance of the Budget in National DevelopmentNational DevelopmentThe Philippines is facing many challenges, the most

serious of which are poverty, climate change, health and education, and unemployment.

The budget is the most powerful instrument of the government in responding to these problems.

It can be an instrument for the redistribution of income groups to fund services and create jobs for the poor.

The budget can be used to provide education and health services, as well as training and capacity building and fund projects to create employment.

The budget can be used to stabilize the economy and control inflation.

Importance of the Role of the Importance of the Role of the Congress in the BudgetCongress in the BudgetThe need to ask questions on the analysis of the

government on the performance of the economy, its policies, thrusts and priorities

The need to ask questions on what is explicitly stated, and also the more implicit or what is not there

The need to engage the executive on longstanding issues on citizens participation, special purpose funds, etc.

The need to demand accountability from the government

Importance of the Role of the Importance of the Role of the Congress in the BudgetCongress in the Budget

The Budget is an instrument of fiscal policy which includes policies on revenues, expenditures and borrowing

The Budget as part of fiscal policy has three functions:◦Allocation function◦Distribution function◦Stabilization function◦To these three functions, I add the

Development function

Macroeconomic AssumptionsMacroeconomic Assumptions

PARAMETERS 2012 Actual

2013Adjusted

2014Projected

Real GNI Growth %Real GDP Growth %Inflation %364-Day T-bill Rate %FOREX (P/US $)Unemployment Rate %

6.56.83.22.0

42.257.0

5.9 – 6.96.0 – 7.03.0 – 5.01.0 – 3.0

41.0 - 43.06.8

6.2-7.26.5 – 7.53.0 – 5.02.0 – 4.0

41.0 – 43.06.7

Source: DBM BESF based on BSP, NEDA, NSCB data

If attainable, will projected GDP and GNI growth rates beget job creation?

Economic Performance (2012 & Q1 2013)Economic Performance (2012 & Q1 2013)

Sector 2012 (Actual) 2013

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 FY Q1

Supply side Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry

1.1 0.6 4.4 4.9 2.8 3.3

Industry 5.3 5.8 7.1 8.9 6.8 10.9

Services 8.4 7.7 8.0 6.5 7.6 7.0

Demand side

Household Consumption

6.9 6.6 6.7 6.2 6.6 5.1

Government Consumption

21.3 7.2 12.3 9.5 12.2 13.2

Capital Formation -31.3 3.6 6.2 9.5 -3.2 47.7

Imports -1.9 8.3 7.0 8.0 5.3 1.6

Exports 9.8 10.8 6.2 8.6 8.9 -7.0

Gross Domestic Product 6.5 6.3 7.3 7.1 6.8 7.8

Gross National Income 5.7 6.5 7.3 6.4 6.5 7.1

Source: National Accounts of the Philippines, National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB)

Agriculture, Hunting, Forestry & Agriculture, Hunting, Forestry & Fishing (Growth rates in %)Fishing (Growth rates in %)

2012 Annual 2013

Q1 Q4 2011 2012 Q1

AHFF 1.1 4.9 2.6 2.8 3.3

Palay -1.1 10.2 5.9 8.0 4.5

Corn 5.4 1.6 9.5 6.3 11.4

Coconut/copra 5.7 1.5 -1.7 3.9 0.3

Sugarcane -6.5 18.4 59.7 -8.7 3.1

Banana 2.0 -3.0 0.7 0.7 -6.2

Mango -6.0 3.4 -4.9 -1.6 4.4

Pineapple 5.9 11.2 3.2 7.1 5.8

Coffee 8.9 -3.1 -5.7 -0.8 -10.8

Cassava -2.7 -0.3 5.1 -0.7 0.1

Rubber 7.7 0.5 7.5 4.6 -0.2Source: National Accounts of the Philippines, NSCB

Agriculture, Hunting, Forestry & Agriculture, Hunting, Forestry & Fishing (Growth rates in %)Fishing (Growth rates in %)

2012 Annual 2013

Q1 Q4 2011 2012 Q1

AHFF 1.1 4.9 2.6 2.8 3.3

Other crops 1.7 2.4 -3.9 1.5 4.1

Livestock 3.1 1.7 2.0 1.1 0.3

Poultry 7.1 4.3 4.4 4.6 2.8

Agri. activities 1.6 4.0 3.2 2.0 2.9

Forestry 42.6 11.4 58.3 -6.4 11.9

Fishing -3.8 3.4 -4.3 -0.4 5.5

Source: National Accounts of the Philippines, NSCB

Industry (Growth rates in %)Industry (Growth rates in %)

2012 Annual 2013

Q1 Q4 2011 2012 Q1

Industry 5.3 8.9 1.8 6.8 10.9

Mining and Quarrying

-1.7 2.8 7.0 2.2 -17.0

Manufacturing 6.0 5.5 4.7 5.4 9.7

Construction 1.5 29.9 -9.8 15.7 32.5

Electric Gas & Water Supply

8.5 3.4 0.6 5.1 0.1


Services (Growth rates in %)Services (Growth rates in %)

2012 Annual 2013

Q1 Q4 2011 2012 Q1

Services 8.4 6.5 4.9 7.6 7.0

Transport, Storage and Communication

9.7 4.4 4.3 8.1 3.5

Trade 7.8 6.6 3.3 7.5 5.6

Financial Intermediation

8.7 8.8 5.2 8.2 13.9

Real Estate, Renting and Business Activities

7.8 6.5 8.4 7.5 6.3

Public Administration, Defense and Social Security

4.5 8.2 1.9 6.1 8.0

Other Services 10.4 5.8 5.6 7.7 7.6


Expenditure (Growth rates in %)Expenditure (Growth rates in %)

2012 Annual 2013

Q1 Q4 2011 2012 Q1

Household CFE 6.9 6.2 6.3 6.1 5.1

Govt CFE 21.3 9.5 1.0 11.8 13.2

Construction -1.2 30.4 -6.2 13.7 33.7

Durable Equipment 4.5 14.1 5.2 5.7 9.4

Breeding Stock & Orchard Dev't

1.3 1.0 -0.3 1.4 2.0

Intellectual Property Products

31.7 31.4 11.8 16.9 10.4

Exports of Goods 9.9 11.9 -6.0 8.4 -8.4

Exports of Services 9.1 -0.6 4.0 9.8 -2.1

Imports of Goods -5.9 6.8 0.4 2.6 -0.9

Imports of Services 16.7 12.0 -0.7 11.1 11.1


Construction (Growth rates in %)Construction (Growth rates in %)

2012 Annual 2013

Q1 Q4 2011 2012 Q1

Construction

-1.2 30.4 -6.2 13.7 33.7

Public 60.9 16.2 -31.8 32.4 45.6

Private -9.7 35.2 4.5 8.6 30.7


Implications for the 2014 BudgetImplications for the 2014 BudgetIf we want the national budget to tackle

problems of poverty, hunger and unemployment, it has to focus on the sectors where the poorest are and where unemployment is highest.

While the GDP for the first quarter of the year is impressive and well within the macroeconomic assumptions, the distribution of such GDP deserves a closer look.

The 2014 budget should address the gaps and distributional issues of the GDP to ensure that economic growth is enjoyed by all.

PovertyPoverty

SWS: On average, 5 out of 10 Filipinos consider themselves as poor (Q2 2013)NSCB: 2 out of 10 (22%) Filipino families are poor (NSCB Refined Poverty, 2012)

Source: Social Weather Stations, accessed at <http://www.sws.org.ph> on August 5, 2013

Poverty remained “practically Poverty remained “practically unchanged”unchanged”

Source: 2012 Poverty Statistics, National Statistical Coordination Board

HungerHunger


Number of Filipinos suffering from hunger is on the rise despite robust growth

UnemploymentUnemployment

Unemployment slightly increases in Q1 2013, and how about underemployment?

Source: Social Weather Stations, accessed at <http://www.sws.org.ph> on May 7, 2013

Age Distribution of UnemploymentAge Distribution of Unemployment

Source: Social Weather Stations, accessed at <http://www.sws.org.ph> on April 24, 2013

Most of the unemployed persons are youth!

Gender Distribution of UnemploymentGender Distribution of Unemployment

Source: Social Weather Stations, accessed at <http://www.sws.org.ph> on April 24, 2013

Most of the unemployed persons are women!

Higher underemployment rateHigher underemployment rate

Source: Labor Force Survey, National Statistics Office

Income Distribution: Income Distribution: Income Inequality Persists Income Inequality Persists

INCOME DECILE1st Sem2006

1st Sem2009

1st Sem2012

PERCENTAGE POINT CHANGE

1st Sem 2006-2009

1st Sem 2009-2012

1ST TO 3RD 10.3 11.1 10.9 0.8 (0.2)

FIRST 2.5 2.7 2.7 0.2 0.0

SECOND 3.5 3.8 3.8 0.3 (0.1)

THIRD 4.3 4.6 4.5 0.3 (0.1)

4TH TO 7TH 28.5 28.8 28.9 0.3 0.1

FOURTH 5.2 5.4 5.4 0.2 0.0

FIFTH 6.2 6.3 6.4 0.1 0.1

SIXTH 7.6 7.7 7.7 0.1 0.0

SEVENTH 9.5 9.4 9.4 (0.1) 0.0

8TH TO 10TH 61.4 60.4 60.0 (1.0) (0.3)

EIGHTH 12.1 11.9 12.0 (0.2) 0.2

NINTH 16.6 16.1 16.0 (0.4) (0.1)

TENTH 32.7 32.4 32.0 (0.3) (0.4)

6%

50%


Total income of Top 20% is approx 8 Total income of Top 20% is approx 8 times of total income of Bottom 20%times of total income of Bottom 20%

INCOME DECILE1st Sem2006

1st Sem2009

1st Sem2012

PERCENTAGE POINT CHANGE

1st Sem 2006-2009

1st Sem 2009-2012

Ratio of Top 30% over Bottom 30%

5.97 5.45 5.50 (0.52) 0.05


8.21 7.44 7.50 (0.77) 0.06


13.12 12.06 12.07 (1.05) 0.01

8 times


The Macroeconomic Picture and the The Macroeconomic Picture and the 2014 Budget2014 BudgetWhile growth is expected in 2013 and 2014, risks and

challenges remain.

Social picture gives much cause for concern. Poverty, hunger and unemployment remain intractable problems.

The national budget is a powerful tool to address these problems. Government and expenditure policies, if used to finance appropriate programs and projects to address these economic and social threats, can be a powerful tool for improving people’s lives.

PARTICULARSPARTICULARS 2012 2012 ActualActual

2013 2013 AdjustedAdjusted

2014 2014 ProposedProposed

Levels in Billion Pesos Revenues Disbursements Surplus/(Deficit) Obligation Budget

Per cent of GDP Revenues Disbursements Surplus/(Deficit) Obligation Budget

Growth Rate Revenues Disbursements Surplus/(Deficit)* Obligation Budget

1,534.91,777.8(242.8)1,816.0

14.516.8(2.3)17.0

12.914.1

(19.0)14.9

1,745.91,983.9(238.0)2,005.9

14.716.7(2.0)16.9

13.711.6(1.1)10.5

2,018.12,284.3(266.2)2,268.0

16.118.1(2.0)17.0

15.615.1

(11.9)13.1

GDP (DBCC-Approved as of Feb. 15)Deficit Financing Mix (%) Foreign DomesticDebt to GDP Ratio (%)

10,673.9

14.0**86.0**

50.2***

11,899.3

14.086.048.0

13,307.3

19.081.046.2

Notes: *A positive growth rate indicates an improvement in the fiscal balance **Actual as of Nov 2012 ***Actual as of Oct 2012Source: DBM NBM116 & BESF 2014 based on DBM, DOF, and NEDA data

Fiscal ProgramFiscal Program

Sources of Revenue

Sources of Tax Revenues, FY 2014

*Includes new measure for BIR Sin Tax Reforms 2012Source: FY 2014 BESF, primarily from the Department of Finance

Revenue ProgramRevenue Program

Amount (in million pesos)

Net Income Taxes853,200

Tax on Property5,291

Taxes on Domestic Goods and Services613,331

Taxes in International Trade and Transactions408,096

Total1,879,918

Amount (in million pesos) Growth rate (%)

2012 2013 2014 2012-2013 2013-2014

Tax Revenues 1,361,073 1,607,870 1,879,918 18.13 16.92

Non-tax Revenues 165,511 135,987 136,133 (17.84) 0.11

Privatization 8,348 2,000 2,000 (76.04) 0.0

Total 1,534,932 1,745,857 2,018,051 13.74 15.59

National Government FinancingNational Government FinancingFY 2012 to FY 2014 (in million pesos)FY 2012 to FY 2014 (in million pesos)

Particulars 2012 a/ 2013 2014

GROSS FOREIGN BORROWINGS 154,621 104,340 95,030

Net Foreign Borrowings 70,046 (3,442) 5,036

GROSS DOMESTIC BORROWINGS 798,527 630,691 620,011

Net Domestic Borrowings 468,126 303,288 269,074

NET FINANCING 538,172 299,846 274,110

TOTAL NET FINANCING REQUIREMENT 242,827 238,028 266,247

a/ Based on actual data reported in the Cash Operations Report (COR)Source: FY 2014 BESF, primarily from the Bureau of the Treasury

Debt trap. While government is planning to borrow a total of P715.041 Billion, it will only receive P274.110 Billion for both peso and foreign borrowings due to costs of borrowing and other charges.

Debt Servicing in the P2.268 T budget Debt Servicing in the P2.268 T budget does not reflect Principal Amortizationdoes not reflect Principal Amortization

NG Debt Service Expenditures

(in million pesos)2012 2013 2014

Interest Payments 312,800 332,209 352,652

Domestic 201,215 227,613 248,396

Foreign 115,585 104,597 104,256

Principal Amortization 416,974 435,185 440,931

Domestic 330,401 327,403 350,937

Foreign 86,573 107,782 89,994

GRAND TOTAL 729,774 767,394 793,583

Source: FY 2014 BESF, primarily from the Bureau of the Treasury

Expenditure ProgramExpenditure Program

Comparative Figures of 2012 and 2013 General Appropriations and the 2014 proposed budget (in Billion pesos)*

Sources: General Appropriations Act 2012 & 2013; National Expenditure Program (NEP): DBM, 2014; and BESF: DBM, 2014

* Section 1 of the draft General Appropriations Act clearly appropriates only PhP1,471,970,825,000 and does not include the PhP139,903,759 unprogrammed funds. Which is the correct number for the "New General Appropriations"? PhP1.612 trillion as claimed by NEP or PhP1.472 trillion as provided for in the draft General Appropriations Act?

Source: Budget of Expenditure and Sources of Financing: DBM, 20112-2014

Note: Net Lending amounts to PhP27.42B in 2012, PhP26.5B in 2013 and PhP24.95B for 2014. This is equivalent to percentage distribution of 1.5%, 1.32% and 1.1% in expenditure program by sector respectively.

Allocation by SectorAllocation by Sector

(In

Bil

lio

ns

of

Pes

os)

*Are Personal Services understated?


Allocation By General Expense Allocation By General Expense ClassClass

Allocation by RegionAllocation by Region


Where are the poor? Where are the poor? The 16 poorest provincesThe 16 poorest provinces

Lanao del Sur - 68.9% Apayao - 59.8% Eastern Samar -

59.4% Maguindanao - 57.8% Zamboanga del Norte

- 50.3% Davao Oriental - 48% Ifugao - 47.5% Sarangani - 46.5% Negros Oriental -

45.3%

Masbate - 44.2%North Cotabato - 43.9% Northern Samar - 43.7%Bukidnon - 43.3%Lanao del Norte - 42.5% Sultan Kudarat - 41.6%Cotabato City - 41.5%


*10 of the 16 poorest provinces are situated in Mindanao

Where are the poor?Where are the poor?

Luzon getting the biggest share in the regionalized portion of the national budget has long been a debate, questioning government intervention in addressing poverty especially in Visayas and Mindanao.

Source: Social Weather Stations, accessed at <http://www.sws.org.ph> on April 27 & August 5, 2013

Most Dramatic Rise in Poverty Most Dramatic Rise in Poverty Levels Levels Province 2009 2012Apayao 43.9 59.8Bukidnon 38.8 43.3Cotabato City 24.5 41.5Eastern Samar 46.7 59.4Ifugao 28.7 47.5Lanao del Sur 51.4 68.9Manguindanao 37.6 57.8North Cotabato 24.4 43.9


Where are the hungry?Where are the hungry?

While the chart shows that the hungry are in Balanced Luzon & NCR for the second quarter, the highest incidence of hunger for the first semester still points to Mindanao with 23.1%. Mindanao has averaged 26.3% hunger incidence the previous year, has peaked 30.3% during the third quarter of 2012 and holds the highest average hunger of 16.8% for the past 15 years.


Top 12 Agencies, FY 2012-2014Dept. FY 2012 GAA

(‘000)

R a n k

FY 2013 GAA

(‘000)

R a n k

FY 2014Proposed

(‘000)

R a n k

DepEd 201,821,472 1 232,595,221 1 281,751,791 1

DPWH 109,833,405 2 155,517,533 2 200,265,553 2

DILG 92,879,820 4 91,164,442 3 99,595,064 3

DND 106,905,022 3 80,420,311 4 82,195,121 4

DOH 42,769,378 7 51,074,586 7 80,807,312 5

DSWD 48,722,175 6 56,333,858 6 78,876,694 6

DA 52,932,023 5 64,474,099 5 69,473,867 7

DOTC 33,242,378 8 34,185,121 8 45,161,306 8

SUCs 22,097,645 9 32,770,703 9 34,650,625 9

DENR 16,990,968 11 23,135,850 10 23,359,611 10

DAR 17,903,222 10 21,038,824 11 20,002,768 11

DFA 10,912,081 13 11,613,793 13 12,113,738 12Source: GAA, 2012-2013; NEP: DBM, 2014

Comparison of Agency Budget, Comparison of Agency Budget, SPFs, Unprogrammed Funds and SPFs, Unprogrammed Funds and Automatic Appropriations Automatic Appropriations

Budgets for Departments/Agencies account for around one-half of the budget.

Source: GAA 2012 & 2013; NEP & BESF: DBM, 2014

Proposed Special Purpose Funds for 2014Proposed Special Purpose Funds for 2014SPECIAL PURPOSE FUNDS GAA 2012 GAA 2013 2014 Proposed

Budgetary Support to Government Corporations

21,576,603,000 44,664,500,000 46,696,697,000

Allocation to Local Government Units

18,303,490,000 17,529,452,000 19,705,022,000

Calamity Fund 7,500,000,000 7,500,000,000 7,500,000,000

Contingent Fund 1,000,000,000 1,000,000,000 1,000,000,000

DepEd School Building Program

1,000,000,000 1,000,000,000 1,000,000,000

E-Government Fund 1,000,000,000 1,000,000,000 2,478,900,000

International Commitments Fund

2,683,248,000 2,636,723,000 4,815,644,000

Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund

109,296,738,000 69,089,206,000 80,713,614,000

Pension and Gratuity Fund (formerly Retirement Benefits Fund)

34,437,891,000 98,715,143,000 120,495,952,000

Source: GAA 2012 & 2013; National Expenditure Program: DBM, 2014


Proposed Special Purpose Funds for 2014Proposed Special Purpose Funds for 2014

1 The PhP22.4 Billion Priority Social and Economic Projects Fund proposed in the 2013 National Expenditure Program was later realigned to concerned agencies as a result of the campaign of ABI for the 2013 Budget.2 Tax Expenditures Fund of PhP26.9 Billion was NOT a budget item appropriated in the 2013 GAA but placed under the SPFs for 2013. However, this was only indicated in the 2014 Proposed Budget. 3 Inclusive of PhP2.072 Million Retirement and Life Insurance Premium

SPECIAL PURPOSE FUNDS

GAA 2012 GAA 2013 2014 Proposed

Priority Development Assistance Fund

24,890,000,000 24,790,000,000 25,240,000,000

PAMANA Fund 1,764,300,000 - -

Priority Social and Economic Projects Fund1

Feasibility Studies Fund

- - 400,000,000

Tax Expenditures Fund2

TOTAL 223,452,270,000 267,925,024,000 310,047,901,0003

UNPROGRAMMED FUNDS


Budgetary Support to GOCCs (Recording of Relent Loans in the 2014 NEP)

25,214,549,000 16,826,406,000 36,268,000

Support to Foreign-Assisted Projects

1,224,790,000 2,226,655,000 16,124,491,000

General Fund Adjustments 1,000,000,000 1,000,000,000 1,000,000,000

Support for Infrastructure Projects and Social Programs

26,000,000,000 23,000,000,000 56,349,000,000

Disaster Risk Reduction and Management

14,200,000,000 - -

Debt Management Program

85,182,506,000 60,363,130,000 25,000,000,000


Proposed Unprogrammed Funds for 2014Proposed Unprogrammed Funds for 2014

UNPROGRAMMED FUNDS


AFP Modernization Program

- 10,632,180,000 10,894,000,000

Risk Management Program

- - 30,000,000,000

Payment of Total Administrative Disability Pension

- 3,000,000,000 -

People’s Survival Fund - 500,000,000 500,000,000

TOTAL 152,821,845,000 117,548,371,000 139,903,759,000*


Proposed Unprogrammed Funds for 2014Proposed Unprogrammed Funds for 2014

* Details of the proposed amount for Unprogrammed Fund (UF) are not completely disclosed in 2014 National Expenditure Program. Special provisions would only identify Debt Management Program, Recording of Relent Loans and Risk Management Program. The complete listing of line items are instead indicated in the Details of Selected Programs/Projects for 2014.

Issues on Special Purpose Funds, Automatic Issues on Special Purpose Funds, Automatic Appropriations and Unprogrammed FundsAppropriations and Unprogrammed Funds

Lump sum appropriations have always been problematic

◦ since these are not as detailed as regular appropriations, they tend to be vulnerable to abuse.

◦ accountability is sometimes difficult to establish and documentation difficult

◦ in the Philippines, lump sum appropriations include special purpose funds, overall savings and unprogrammed funds

2009 COA Report on the SPFs2009 COA Report on the SPFs

In August 12, 2009 Audit Briefing for the Office of the House Speaker, COA reported that:

a. the DBM failed to submit to COA authority from the Executive to transfer regular appropriation to Special Purpose Fund

b. allotments exceeded appropriations for some Special Purpose Funds

c. pooled savings for 2007- Ph106.11 billion (net of transfer from one agency to another and from one Special Purpose Fund to another cannot be verified due to lack of supporting documents

2009 COA Report (cont.)2009 COA Report (cont.)

d. SAROs issued to DPWH chargeable to PDAF, a special purpose fund, contain appropriation code for regular programs/projects

e. regular appropriations of Ph554.06 million of the Department of Agriculture were transferred to Fisheries Modernization Program Fund but DBM did not submit the authority of the Executive to make such a transfer

f. allotments in 2008 exceeded appropriations in some SPF by Ph2.61 billion

2010 COA Report2010 COA Report

In its 2010 Annual Audit Report of the Department of Budget and Management, the Commission on Audit recommended that:

“DBM refrain from transferring one lump-sum fund/special purpose fund (SPF) to another, or utilizing the appropriation of one Fund for purposes of another Fund, otherwise, the intentions of the appropriation law would be circumvented.”

Issues on Lump Sum AppropriationsIssues on Lump Sum Appropriations

the issues raised on lump sum appropriations, specially special purpose funds remain the same

these lump sum appropriations are more

vulnerable considering the huge amounts involved

the practices identified in 2008 have not changed at all

More Transparency!More Transparency!

There is a need for the public to scrutinize the other side of the budget: the Special Purpose Funds and Unprogrammed Funds.

Some Findings on Some Findings on CCT Impact AssessmentCCT Impact Assessment

• Commissioned by DSWD and with support from the World Bank and AusAid

• No overall increase in per capita consumption among HH beneficiaries. The estimated per capita consumption per day was P46 in both program and non-program barangays

• Contrary to the design of the program in which the maximum benefit amount beneficiary HHs could receive is 23% of poor HHs per capita income, in reality the beneficiaries are receiving considerably smaller amounts (an average of P1,740 for the last bimonthly payment).

Although Pantawid areas seemed to have higher estimated per capita incomes and lower poverty rates in 2011 compared to non-Pantawid areas, these differences were not significant . No significant evidence of lowered poverty rates among HH beneficiaries

51

Local Impacts of CCTLocal Impacts of CCT

On the increased levels of spending for the conditional cash transfers (CCT):

An Oxford PhD dissertation study have shown the

large positive impact of the CCT program to incumbent vote shares

risks associated with strict poverty targeting.

Two worlds in a planetTwo worlds in a planet

1. The first world boasting of a 7.8 % GDP growth and considered the “fastest growing economy in Asia”

2. and the other world suffering from disasters, serious problems of hunger and rising criminality, etc.

There seems to be two worlds existing in the planet Philippines:

We in public administration are challenged to bridge the gap between these two worlds by using the budget as an instrumentality for reforms and not for partisan political gain.

Documents

Macro Analysis of the 2014 Proposed Budget (by Prof. Leonor Briones)