Public Administration Brillantes

8/10/2019 Public Administration Brillantes

1/37

1

IS THERE A PHILIPPINE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION?OR BETTER STILL, FOR WHOMIS PHILIPPINE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION?1

Alex Bril lantes, Jr. and Maricel Fernandez2

I

Yes, there is a Philippine Public Administration

Is there a Philippine public administration? A number of our colleagues asked us why we areasking that question again as we were planning this colloquium. Indeed that question had beenasked 20 years ago, and answers have been provided us by eminent scholars of PublicAdministration such as Raul de Guzman and Onofre Corpuz. After two decades, we think it isworthwhile to revisit the issue and ask our colleagues once again to answer the question, Is there aPhilippine Public Administration? This time around, we take the question a little further and ask anequally important second question, If there is a Philippine Public Administration, then forwhom doesPhilippine Public Administration exist?

Among the basic references we have been using in the general introductory course in PublicAdministration at both the graduate (PA 201) and undergraduate (PA 11) levels are essays by theaforementioned 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 in1986 (PJPA).

3While de Guzman and Corpuz both assert that there is a Philippine Public

Administration, both also suggest that the question be properly contextualized.

There isa Philippine Public Administration as far as there is an American, French and Thaipublic administration. There is a Philippine public administration as far as there are institutions ofpublic administration addressing specific sectoral concerns. There is a Philippine public administrationas far as it being a field of study is concerned. There is a Philippine public administration consideringthe massive role of the bureaucracy in Philippine public administration. There is a Philippine publicadministration when we consider its major institutions in education, politics and government.

Yes we have basic public administration structures and processes. We have an executivebranch with the bureaucracy at its core. We have a Philippine legislature. We have a Philippinejudiciary. We have Philippine electoral processes and procedures. We have Philippine sub-nationalinstitutions and local governments, together with decentralization processes and procedures. It iswithin this context that we argue that indeed, we have a Philippine public administration characterizedby the presence of administrative structures and processes operating within a unique Philippinecontext.

The paper contextualizes the field of public administration by discussing the following: (a) theevolution 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 majorongoing 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 anemerging illustration of a home grown governance paradigm (Gawad Kalinga)as one that illustratessuccessful cooperation between government, business and civil society in the delivery of basicservices, which after all is a core concern of modern public administration and good governance. Thepaper then ends by raising third order concerns as we address the question, for whom is publicadministration.

4

One has to make an evaluation and a judgment call as to whether the discipline ofPhilippine public administration has indeed responded - or failed to respond - to the unique calls anddemands of the times. This will enable us to answer the question posed at the outset, for whom is

1A paper presented in the public colloquium on: Is there a Philippine Public Administration: A Timeless Issue, held on June26-27, 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. Theassistance of Kate Asilo in the preparation of this paper is gratefully acknowledged.3Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 30:4, October 1986, pp 368-382.4This 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.


2/37

2

public administration? This is a question that ultimately must be addressed not only by thoseteaching public administration but also by those studying public administration as well. While thispaper will not even pretend to answer that question, it will raise issues and concerns about the matterthat 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 helpfulto retrace the history and evolution of the broad discipline and examine the various strands andinfluences that have influenced the theory and practice the praxis - of public administration in thePhilippines. We shall also examine the specific areas and fields of specialization of the field, takingcognizance of the many other emerging fields going beyond the traditional fields of publicadministration.

The discipline of the field of public administration can be divided into two major phases: thetraditional / classical phase from the late 1800s to the 1950s to the modern phase, from the 1950s tothe present. The Modern phase can be further divided into the following sub-phases: developmentadministration (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 asgovernance (1990s into the present). The following is an indicative matrix that reflects the phases inthe evolution of public administration.

Table 1. Phases in the Evolution of Public Administration

Phase Indicative Period

Traditional / Classical Public Administration 1800s to 1950s

Modern Public Adminis tration

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)

1950 to the present

Traditional / Classical Public Administration

Public Administration can be traced back to human history. It has been suggested that it is asold as the ancient empires of China, India, Egypt, Greece, Rome and Mesopotomia. Theinstitutionalization of administrative capacity for collective purposes is the foundation of publicadministration. 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 publicadministration should not be considered administration ofthe public but administration for the publichas been practiced and expressed in the Code of Hammurabi, in Confucianism and in the funeraloration of Pericles. (Caiden 1982: 7) In other words, the idea of client-oriented public administrationhas its roots in ancient public administration.

Caiden (1982) also noted that the genesis of Public Administration must have had originatedfrom monarchial Europe where household officials were divided into two groups: one in charge ofpublic affairs, i.e. the administration of justice, finance, training of armies, and the other is responsiblefor personal services. Rutgers (1998) supports this claim that (i.e. royal) administration had alreadybeen manifested way back in the mid 17

thcentury and early 18

thcentury in Prussia. F.K. Medikus (as

cited in Rutgers 1998) likewise argued on the study of public administration and its positions amidstthe sciences in the 18

thcentury. 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 toprepare potential public officials for government service. This practice flourished in Europe until the21

stcentury but it was, in the long run, replaced by administrative law and legal studies.


3/37

3

Since this paper tries to trace the roots of Philippine Public Administration, it shall dwell onAmerican theories and principles which admittedly influenced the direction and development of theformal study of the field of public administration in the Philippines, both at the levels of theory andpractice. It will be recalled that public administration as academic field of study formally begun with theestablishment by the Americans of the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) in the University of thePhilippines (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 tendencyis to draw on Woodrow Wilsons 1887 classic essay, The Study of Public Administration, which waswritten at the height of Progressive Movement in the US.

5 It was in that essay that there was a

serious claim that public administration should be a self-conscious, professional field. Wilsonsuggested the distinction between politics and administration i.e. administration should be politics-freeand that the field of administration is the field of business; (Wilson 1953: 71) thus, establishing whatbecame known as the politics-administration dichotomy.

6 Although Wilson set a demarcation line

between politics and administration, Frank Goodnow (1900), the Father of American PublicAdministration, presented a more meticulous examination of politics-administration dichotomy in his

book, Politics and Administration that supplanted the traditional concern with the separation ofpowers among the various branches of the government. (Shafritz and Hyde 1997: 2) Politics-administration dichotomy has provoked long-running debates which persist until today. It may beargued though that, as far as the Philippine experience is concerned, the dichotomy is artificial andthat in practice, power and partisan politics have had a disproportionate influence upon the workingsof 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 variablesor 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 badeffects 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.White. His book, Introduction to the Study of Public Administration,

7 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 thepotential pitfalls of the politics-administration dichotomy but rather concentrated on emphasizing themanagerial 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 onebest way approach in accomplishing task. Classical organization theory evolved from this notion.Another popular manifestation of this approach was that of Luther Gulicks POSDCORBmethodologies.

8Gulick and Urwick (1937 as cited in Shafrtiz and Hyde 1997) integrated the ideas of

earlier theorists like Henri Fayol9into a comprehensive theory of administration. They believed that asingle 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 Fayols fourteenprinciples of organization. POSDCORB, however, was seen as less influential in post-war Americangovernment. Thereafter, Simon, Waldo and Appleby attacked the idea of POSDCORB. Simon(1946) in his book, Administrative Behavior, created a distinction between theoretical and practicalscience. He introduced more common principles in the literature of administration which highlighted

5See 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., 64-75.6Reyes (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 Americas penal system, was one of the earliest voices to callfor a more serious consideration of Public Administration as a science of administration.7

See Leonard D. White. 1997 Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, in Classics of Public Administration. 4

th

ed.Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde. US: Hardcourt Brace College Publishers. 44-50. (first printed in 1926)8POSDCORB was coined by Gulick with Urwick. It stands for the functions of management - planning, organizing, staffing,directing, coordinating, reporting & budgeting.9Fayol 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).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Fayolhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Fayol


4/37

4

administrative efficiency and specialization when he wrote the article,The Proverbs ofAdministration. (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 draftinga convincing case that public administration was not something apart from politics but rather at thecenter of political life. (Stillman 1991: 123)

In 1948, Dwight Waldo tried to establish the direction and thrust of Public Administration as afield of study in his book, The Administrative State, which hit the gospel of efficiency thatdominated the administrative thinking prior to Word War II.

10That 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 theprocess of absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy determining structure of anorganization 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 ofthe trilogy covering all three branches of government but he was more known for his budgetaryreforms. He discussed the movements for budgetary reforms in the US in view of the budget as aninstrument for democracy, as an instrument for correlating legislative and executive action, and as aninstrument 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 ofparticipatory management and the law of situation which can be attributed to the concept ofcontingency 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 Hawthorneexperiments on the theory of individuals within an organization which propelled the human relationsschool of management thought. Chester Barnard (1938) presented a more comprehensive theory oforganizational behavior when he wrote the functions of the executive. He argued that for the executiveto become more effective, he should maintain an equilibrium between the needs of the employeesand the organization. Maslow (1943), on the other hand, focused on the hierarchical needs of theindividual. 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 conceptswere later explored and developed into more comprehensive theories and principles as advocated byother researches in organizational behavior and management, such as, Herzbergs motivation-

hygiene theory, Mc Gregors Theory X and Y,11

Argyris personality versus organization andLikerts Systems 1 to 4, among others. (Shafritz and Hyde 1997)

Modern Public Adminis tration

This paper suggests the indicative period of modern public administration in the 50s. The sub-phases include: (a) development administration; (b) new public administration; (c) new publicmanagement and reinventing government; and PA as governance.

The discipline of public administration has been characterized as one with a continuingidentify crisis. To a certain extent, it was that identity crisis that served as theme that led to theemergence of the New Public Administration movement in the 70s. Rutgers (1998) argued inParadigm lost: Crisis as Identify of the Study of Public Administration, that public administrationlacked an epistemological identity. In the Philippines, Reyes (2003) revisited the so-called identitycrisis of public administration initially raised by various scholars of the discipline in his variouswritings. He contended that the crisis revolved around the imperative to define a public administrationrooted to the development aspirations of the Philippines. The identity crisis, however, continues up totoday in the Philippines.

Development Administration (1950s to 1960s)

Development Administration (DA) as a field of study emerged in 1950s and 1960s with thethird world countries as the focal point. The term third world may be attributed to the Frenchdemographer and economic historian Alfred Sauvy, who at the height of the Cold War in 1952, usedthe term to distinguish developing countries outside the two power blocs; namely, the First World and

10See Waldos conclusion in the Classics of Public Administration. 4

thed. 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 thatwas largely derived and based on the highly effective and efficient Japanese approach to management.


5/37

5

the Second World respectively. (Chilcote 1984) Nef and Dwivedi (1981) on the other hand, attributedthe concept of DA to Goswami in 1955 and later popularized by Riggs and Weidner. They coined theterm 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 orderto be recognized as emerging nations and to resurrect themselves after World War II. In the contextof 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 thestate 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 publicservice delivery and enforcement of laws but the inducement and management of change to pursuedevelopment aspirations. These developing countries were in urgent need to implement fundamentalreforms in their politico-administrative machinery.

12

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 needsof 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 ofdevelopment can be easily altered. (Khator 1998: 1778) Likewise, Fred Riggs, in his Frontiers ofDevelopment, identified two foci in development administration: development of administration and

the administration of development. Most development administration scholars focused more on thelatter and it subsequently became synonymous to the administration of development in third worldcountries. (Khator 1998)

Given the situations above, DA maybe considered as management of innovation because itwas 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 bean appropriate framework to examine the States experience as it tries to rebuild its institutions withina democratic framework, as it struggles to new economic, political and social challenges, and as itadapts to the trends and demands of globalization. Additionally, DA principles have been among themajor themes that ran through the various lectures and writings of Raul De Guzman, who togetherwith 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 DAbecame closely associated to foreign aid and western models of development.13

These Westerncountries provide grants and aids to developing countries for nation-building, economic development,institutional strengthening, and people participation in development. As to administrative reform, whichis one of the core values of DA, De Guzman (1986) described and analyzed the structural andbehavioral characteristics of the Philippine public bureaucracy and argued that the implementation ofadministrative reform should have two major dimensions: reforming the structures of the bureaucracyand reforming the behavior of those in the bureaucracy. (De Guzman 1986 as cited in Brillantes1994: 8) Development administration has always been one of the central features of the various longand medium term Philippine Development Plans since the seventies. The paradigm for bureaucraticreform continues to evolve in various intellectual and practical debates but government continues itswork amidst all these. Until recently, all Philippine development plans since the seventies had aspecific chapter devoted solely to development administration.

14

New Public Administration (late 1960s to 1970s)

The term New Public Administration or New PA may have emerged from the MinnowbrookConference in 1968 in Syracuse University. The conference was the brainchild and inspiration of

12See 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 , editedby Ledevina Carino.13

Note that Development Administration is popularized in developing countries like the Philippines although the conceptualfoundations 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 ofPublic Administration (IPA) was established in the University of the Phil ippines in 1952 through an agreement between UP andUniversity of Michigan as an offshoot of Bell Missions 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, theseacademic 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 wasestablished in 1957 documents rich literatures of Public Administration in the Philippines.


6/37

6

Dwight Waldo who brought together young public administrators and scholars to discuss importantissues and varying perspectives on public administration. The conference created a hullabaloo. Oneof its controversies is that it had rejected the classical theories of public administration and insteadoffered new principles. For instance, Frederickson in his essay, Towards a New PublicAdministration, adds social equity to the classic definition of public administration. Conventional orclassic 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 maintainour 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, theMinnowbrook conferees also questioned the relevance of traditional public administration to existingdeprivation with an era of fast-paced technological advancement in the backdrop. Fredericksonargued that, disparities existed because public administration focused less on social purposes orvalues 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 deprivedgroups in the society. New PAs proponents, likewise, advocated that public administrators should notbe neutral; they should be committed to both good management and social equity as values to beachieved. 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 acceptchange.

Now the question is: Is New PA relevant?

The same question was asked by Pilar (1993) in his article Relevance of New PA inPhilippine 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 theircompatibility with the context or the environment, as well as the convergence between the contentand intent of new PA with the goals, purposes, and aspirations of the country. (Pilar 1993: 145) Theprinciple of New PA is compatible with the environment of the Philippine PA, although it wasconceived 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 thegovernments development programs and projects, and addressing social equity and justice. It mustbe emphasized though, that the core questions raised by New PA are also embedded in our secondorder question, for whom is PA? It is indeed critical to define the ultimate targets and partners ofpublic administration structures, institutions and processes. In other words, who is the public inpublic 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 organizationquestioning 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, tothe decentralization of authority to being more business oriented especially for those in government.

The new public management (NPM) movement was apparently practiced by the Europeancountries in the late 1907s and 1980s but was essentially launched several luminaries such asChristopher Hood (1991), Christopher Pollitt (1990), and Michael Barzeley (1992), among others inearly 90s. Similar movements such as reinventing government and reengineering also emergedaround the same time. This section introduces NPM, reinventing government and reengineeringgovernment. When did these ideas emerge? What were their key features? And were these reallymore of the same?

The New Public Management (NPM) movement has started in the late 1970s in UK under theThatcher 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 Anglo-Saxon countries like New Zealand, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, and Canada in the 1980s.

15See Nestor, Pilar. 1993. Relevance of New PA in Philippine Public Administration. In Philippine Journal of Public

Administrationfor an in-depth discussion of New PA in the Philippines.


7/37

7

The idea of NPM became more popular and has stimulated academic and political interests worldwidewhen Christopher Hood coined the term in his 1991 article entitled, A Public Management for allSeasons. (Hood 1991)

The best example of the NPM practice can be seen in New Zealands 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, andreengineered departmental systems to reflect governments commitment. (Boston 1996; as cited inDenhardt 2004: 136-137) In the US, during the administration of US President Bill Clinton and VicePresident Al Gore, this concept was reflected in their National Performance Review which has urgedthe federal government to improve its performance. This has also led the foundation of the praxis ofreengineering government led by the Clinton-Gore administration. Parenthetically, NPM was justifiedby 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 thenidentified five core beliefs of managerialism: (1) the main route to social progress lies in theachievement of continuing increases in economically defined productivity; (2) such productivityincrease will mainly come from the application of ever more sophisticated technologies; (3) theapplication 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 onethat plays the crucial role in planning, implementing and measuring the necessary improvements inproductivity; and (5) to perform this crucial role, managers must be granted reasonable room tomaneuver (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 bornout of the continuing search for solutions to economic problems in 1970s and to produce agovernment that works better but costs less. (Denhart 2004: 136) The idea of reinventinggovernment was advanced by Osborne and Gaebler in 1992. Their concept of NPM was sparked bythe 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 tenprinciples through which public entrepreneurs might bring about massive governmental reformprinciples that has remained at the core of the new public management. These are the following:

1. Catalytic government: steering rather than rowing2. Community-owned government: empowering rather than serving3. Competitive government: injecting competition into service delivery4. Mission-driven government: transforming rule-driven organizations5. Results-oriented government: funding outcomes, not inputs6. Customer-driven government: meeting the needs of the customer not their bureaucracy7. Enterprising government rather than spending8. Anticipatory government: prevention rather than cure9. Decentralized government: from hierarchy to participation and teamwork10. 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" orclients rather than "citizens" and that customers were placed as end-product users of governmentrather than as means of the policy making process. Denhardt and Denhardt (2003) likewise offer asynthesis of the ideas that are opposed to NPM presented by Osborne and Gaebler. Their model forgovernance expands the traditional role of the public administrator as a lone arbiter of public interestrather, 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 theirargument 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) recognizethat 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 byMichael Hammer (1990) in an article published by the Harvard Business Review. Reengineering

offers an approach for improving performance, effectiveness, and efficiency of organizationsregardless of the sector in which they operate. According to Hammer and Champy (1993),

16Cf Denhardt 2004: 137-138 for an in-depth discussion of each principle.


8/37

8

reengineering is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achievedramatic 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 ofreengineering 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 toensure that each step in the process adds value.

Questioning whether the process is necessary and what it is intended to achieve, given the over-allmission of the organization.

Systematic searching for radical changes for the purpose of effecting major improvements orbreakthroughs 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 anattempt 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 aninnovation that sought to refurbish the operation of an organizations operation, management systemand structure, to improve its efficiency, effectiveness, and competitive ability and ultimately improveservice delivery. Re-engineering seems to be an effective way to upgrade the services of ourgovernmental agencies, however, it continues to hurdle obstacles and challenges in applying theformula 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 ofother 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 bydonors, reformers and pundits alike. (Frechette 2000: 25) Governance entails a larger scope and hasa 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 institutionalizationof a system through which citizens, institutions, organizations, and groups in a society articulate theirinterests, exercise their rights, and mediate their differences in pursuit of the collective good. (ADB1995 as cited in ADB 2005: 1) UNDP describes it as the exercise of political, economic andadministrative authority to manage a nations 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)

Cario (2000), in her reflections on the term governance, identified actors and factors thatpushed 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 shouldalso be recognized. She then identified the factors or processes that pushed for governance andsome of these are: the quest for growth and development, the environmental movement, globalizationand consolidating peace. These are practically the same values or virtues found in the UN Charter.Likewise, governance promotes the virtues of decentralization, participation, responsiveness andaccountability among others.

From governance, the concept of good governance has emerged and became prominentin international aid circles around 1989 or 1990. It served as a general guiding principle for donoragencies to demand that recipient governments adhere to proper administrative processes in thehandling 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, inhis inaugural speech in the 1

st 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 andexperiences, 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


9/37

9

of charity will set us on the path to prosperityWe are fully engaged in efforts to improve governancearound the worldgood governance is indispensable for building peaceful, prosperous and democraticsocieties. (Annan 1997)

Annan concluded that good governance is perhaps the single most important factor ineradicating poverty and promoting development. (Annan 1997)

An ADB document (2005) affirmed that good governance is synonymous with sounddevelopment management. They then identified some key principles of development which may beconsidered as elements of good governance. These are: accountability, participation, predictability,and transparency. The table below shows the basic elements of good governance and its keydimensions.

Table 2. Key Dimensions and Specific Areas of Actions

Basic Elements of Good Governance Key Dimensions Specific Areas of Action

1. Accountability means making publicofficials answerable for governmentbehavior and responsive to the entityfrom which they derive authority

Establishing criteria to measureperformance of public officialsInstitutionalizing mechanisms to ensurethat standards are met.

Public Sector Management

Public Enterprise Management

Public Financial Management

Civil Service Reform

2. Participation refers to enhancing

peoples access to and influence onpublic policy processes

Undertaking development for and by the

people

Participation of beneficiaries and

affected groups Interface between government and

the private sector

Decentralization of public andservice delivery functions(empowerment of LocalGovernments)

Cooperation with Non-GovernmentOrganizations

3. Predictabilityrefers to the existence oflaws, regulations and policies to regulatesociety and the fair and consistentapplication of these

Establishing and sustaining appropriatelegal and institutional arrangementsObserving and upholding the rule of lawMaintaining consistency of publicpolicies

Law and Development

Legal Frameworks for PrivateSector Development

4. Transparency refers to the availabilityof Information to the general public and

clear government rules, regulations, anddecisions

Ensuring access to accurate and timelyinformation about the economy and

government policies

Disclosure of Information

Source: ADB, 2005

III. FIELDS OF SPECIALIZATION OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

This section discusses the various traditional subfields of public administration including theemerging fields in response to a rapidly changing environment. However, even before going into thesub-fields of public administration, it is imperative to recognize the public administration, itself, hasbeen 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 brieflydiscussed below.

Political Theory

Political theory is a study and analysis of political ideas of significant political thinkers. It isalso 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 thisfield 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 thepolitical institutions, law, order, liberty, justice, and the quality of life into concrete historical

circumstances.


10/37

10

International Relations and Politics

As a subfield of political science, international relations have zeroed in on the relationsbetween and among nation states and how such relations are defined. Power has always beentraditionally considered a factor in the determination of international relations and politics. The role ofinternational 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, inshaping the power relations is an aspect that is also addressed in the study of international relationsand politics.A

Political science is the study of foreign policymaking andComparative Politics

Comparative politics is a study of contemporary politics and political trends in selectedcountries and regions around the world and then comparing and critically analyzing the variety ofways that these countries have chosen to shape their political institutions and processes, assess thecosts and benefits of their choices and address common problems, including the challenges ofglobalization, with an eye toward identifying processes, practices, and policies which might beexportable ideas for countries to borrow from one another.

Public Administration

Public Administration as a discipline emerged out of a broader discipline which is PoliticalScience. Reyes (1993: 22) considers it as a child of political science that is mature enough to betreated 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. Publicadministration is both a field of study, or a discipline, and a field of practice, or an occupation. There ismuch disagreement about whether the study of public administration can properly be called adiscipline, largely because it is often viewed asa subfield of the two disciplines of Political Scienceand administrative science (or administration).

17

In Canada the study of public administration has evolved primarily as a subfield of politicalscience. Knowledge of the machinery of government and of the political and legal environment inwhich public administrators work is essential in understanding the political system. Also, publicadministrators play an important role by providing policy advice to elected politicians and by activeinvolvement in the making, enforcement and adjudication of laws and regulations. As a subfield ofadministrative science, public administration is part of the generic process of administration. Thebroad field of administration is divided into public, business, hospital, educational and other forms ofadministration. The similarities between these forms of administration are considered to be greaterthan their differences. (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com)

In the Philippines, though, Public Administration did not evolve out of the discipline of politicalscience. More specifically, public administration as an academic field of study was essentially theresult 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 asub-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 sectormanagement and spatial information management. The following discusses each of these subfields:

17Drawn from the Canadian Encyclopedia, available at http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com

18Cario (2007) in her paper, From Traditional Public Administration to the Governance Tradition: Research in NCPAG, 1995-

2002, In Public Administration Plus Governance Assessing the Past, Addressing the Future, talked about the researchinterests of Filipino scholars in different fields of public administration: traditional public administration; personneladministration, 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, publicpolicy and program administration were also offered and research in the governance tradition like democracy and bureaucracy,citizen participation, decentralization etc.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/


11/37

11

Organization and Management

Organization and Management is one of the oldest subfields of public administration. Itbasically focuses on sub-areas like organization theory and practice, dynamics of organization,decision-making in administration, leadership and other sub-areas. It particularly discusses thetheories, 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 qualitymanagement (TQM),

19which has largely contributed to public administration reforms.

Public Personnel Administration

Public administration consists of administrative processes. It involves people, its mostimportant element, therefore public personnel administration is an equally important field. In here, thedefinition of personnel management as the recruitment, selection, development, utilization of, andaccommodation to human resources by organizations (French 1990) is explored. Specifically, itdiscusses 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 thedevelopments and current trends in personnel administration.

In the traditional public administration, organization and management and personneladministration were emphasized as salient features of study in public administration. Personneladministration has widened its scope and evolved into human resource management or humanresource development. The inspiration that not only these two fields complement but supplementeach 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. Withthe emergence of the field of public administration, much interest has been directed towards fiscaladministration. Again, this subfield of public administration covers a wide range of issues and topicsaffecting government operations like taxation, public expenditures and borrowing, resource allocation,

revenue administration, auditing and intergovernmental relations. As Briones (1996) puts it, publicfiscal administration embraces the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policies anddecisions on taxation and revenue administration; resource allocation, budgeting, and publicexpenditure; public borrowing and debt management; and accounting and auditing. Through theyears, many researches were devoted on these topics and issues; the government has alsointroduced reforms like reforms in tax administration, value added tax (VAT), expanded value addedtax (E-VAT), procurement reforms, the medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF), accountingreforms, re-engineering the bureaucracy program (REBP), transforming local finance, and manyothers.

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 aprocess, is one of the widely researched topics in promoting development and democratic governance.Administrative organizations and operations of local governments; the structure and processes ofregional administration are likewise discussed. In particular, local government administration mayalso include topics on theoretical and empirical perspectives of local government and regionaladministration, community and institutional development, local government systems/procedure,intergovernmental dynamics, local public finance or local fiscal administration, local economicpromotion, local and regional development planning, local government innovations and many others.

19TQM was adopted by Japan and US to improve their production in a competitive market vis a vis cost effective strategies withthe ultimate goal of improving customer satisfaction. See Mangahas and Leyesa 2003. Improving Government Administrationthrough TQM and Mariano TQM and Philippine Local Government Units. in Introduction to Public Administration: A Reader.


12/37

12

New Sub-fields of Public Admini stration

As the field evolved, and in response to the changing demands of the time, new sub-fieldsemerged. 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 longago, 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 andapproaches of public policy its impact as well as evaluation of public programs and projects. Othersignificant concepts, principles and techniques for systematic analysis and decision - making in publicpolicy and management are also considered in policy analysis. Dye (1995) said that certaintheoretical approaches and models have been introduced in studying public policy which includeinstitutional, process, group, elite, rational, incremental, game theory, public choice and systemsmodel.

Public Enterprise Management

Privatization is one of the foci of this area of public administration. Other topics include thenature and processes of public enterprises; the relationship between the government and the publicenterprise sector; issues on managerial autonomy, public accountability, corporate socialresponsibility and the role of the state in the economy. In the graduate level, courses include financialmanagement of public enterprise and management of public enterprises.

Voluntary Sector Management

Voluntary Sector Management is another emerging field of Public Administration. Inrecognition of the growing voluntary sector in the Philippines, UP NCPAG has pioneered in offeringVoluntary Sector Management (VSM) as a field of specialization. This field has developed expertisethrough the years through its institutional linkage with UP Pahinungod with Dr. Ledivina Cario as itsfounding director. Voluntary sector management can be referred to similar terms such as voluntarysector, third sector, non-profit organizations, non-governmental organizations, and civil societyorganizations.

Spatial Information Management

In delivering public goods and services efficiently and effectively, it is very important that wewill be aided with support tools enabling the use of all kinds of spatial data/information. With the studyand utilization of geographic information system (GIS), data/information can be processedimmediately and can be transported easily. This technology is currently used by many governmentagencies and corporations; thus the introduction and popularization of some technology terms ingovernment such as e-government, e-commerce, geo-visualization, e-finance, among others. Othersystems 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. Ithas reached wider dimensions of governance, from political, economic, social, cultural aspects ofpublic management. In the executive branch, for instance, it has retained traditional functions such asO and M (management functions like planning, organizing) and personnel management but exploredpossibilities in organizational development, fiscal administration (budgeting, accounting, auditing) andpublic policy and program administration which is concerned with the processes and analysis of publicpolicy.

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


13/37


14/37

14

should not enter into. Efficiency is achieved through answering the question: What do we want todo? Through the methods of rationalization of service delivery support systems, organizationalstructure, and right staffing; the government then could provide an individual agency performance.The principle of affordabilitystates that expenditures must be based on allowable existing resources.Therefore, the necessary rationalization will have to go together with the kind of economic situationthe 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 learnto respect the bureaucracy and recognize that a professional core of public servants is a majorpartner 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 bepursued because there is really a need to rationalize how the government funds itself, and howgovernment gets its job done. (DGF 2005: 11) After all, the budget we use to support governmentsoperation 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 forBetter Governance Program of the Estrada administration. PCEG was likewise reactivated upon theArroyos assumption to office. It serves as the ad-hoc body that shall be the focal point ofadministrative reforms in the civil service. In October 4, 2004, the Department of Budget andManagement (DBM) and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) pursued the Rationalization Program asmandated in EO 366. According to DBM, EO 366 directs all departments/agencies of the executivebranch to conduct a strategic review of their operations and organizations for purposes of focusinggovernment purposes on its vital functions and channeling government resources to these core publicfunctions, and improving the efficiency of government services, within affordable levels, and in themost accountable manner. (See table 3 for the status of the rationalization program as of April 2008).DBMs task, according to David (as cited in DGF 2005), is to look at a two-track approach in ensuringthe 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 thegovernment.

The Rationalization Program

The table below shows that four years after the implementation of EO 366, only 17 out of 26department agencies of the government, 27 OEOS/other government agencies, and only 36 out ofmore than 100 GOCCs in the country have submitted their rationalization plans. Out of the 80submitted rational plans, only two department-level offices and nine GOCCs were approved; threedepartments have been evaluated but were not yet approved. Out of the 44 plans, (complete andpartial submission) that are under evaluation, eight departments and 19 GOCCs have completed theirsubmission 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 o f 30 Apr il 2008)

Status Depts OEOs/Other Agencies GOCCs Total No. %

A. Plans Submitted to DBM1. Approved

1.1 attached agencies2. Evaluation Completed but not yet approved3. Under evaluation

3.1 complete submission3.2 partial submission

4. Plans returned for revision

17

2

53831

27

16

-10-1

36

9

-1944

80

27

53

3776

75%

25%

3%34%7%5%

B. Plans for Submission to DBM 3 1 24 28 26%

Total 20 28 60 108 100%Source: DBM, 2008

rationalization plan not counted individually; part of mother departments overall Plan.rationalization plan not counted individually; part of mother departments overall Plan.


15/37

15

Options for Affected Personnel21

In the process of reviewing agency operations and organizations, some functions/units maybe 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 personnelor (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 1,137contractual/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). Thesesavings were plowed back to the concerned department agencies to beef up their funds for theirpurposes like maintenance and other operating expenses and capital outlay.

On the other hand, 1,778 employees were affected by the Rationalization Program. Ninety-four percent (94%) or 1,667 have opted to retire while 6% or 111 employees have opted to be placedto other agencies such as DOH-managed hospitals, DepEd-supervised schools, Bureau of JailManagement 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 2170 positionsFunded: 1, 888 ( 87%) Unfunded: 282 (13%)No. of Contractual/Casual Positions abolished

1,137 positions

Contractual: 978 items (86%) Casual: 159 items (14%)Total PS Savings GeneratedExplicit (funded items): P379 M Implicit (unfunded items): P43M

No. of Personnel who opted to retire 1,667 (94%)

Benefits Paid P160 M

No. of Personnel who opted to be placed to other agencies 111 (6%)

Total of retired and transferred personnel 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 innational 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 employeesare assigned to NGAs and only 25.09% to the LGUs. The GOCCs registered the lowest complementat 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 ofworkforce 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 totalnumber of employees.

As to the distribution of employees from NGAs, 32% of 1,001,495 employees areconcentrated 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 lowestnumber of personnel comes from the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with only0.18% of the total of 103,977 employees from GOCCs.

As to the distribution of employees in LGUs, Region 4 registered the highest complement atabout 14.95 % of 370,227 total number of employees in LGUs. NCR only has 12.56%; thus showingthat Region 4 exceeded NCR with 2.39 % employees. Again, ARMM listed the lowest number of localgovernment 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 reallybloated as it is maldistributed. Most numbers of employees come from the national governmentagencies and are concentrated in NCR. Areas which need the services more have only a few numberof public servants.

21Data taken from DBM, 2008

DOH-managed hospitals, DepEd-supervised schools, BJMP. LTO, NSO and PNP.


16/37

16

Table 4. Number of Government Personnel by Major Subdivision and Region: 200422

Region Total % NGA % GOCC % LGU %

Philippines 1,475,699 100% 1,001,495 67.86% 103,977 7.04 % 370,227 25.09%

1 78,104 5.29 53,332 5.33 1,876 1.80 22,896 6.18

2 50,302 3.41 31,443 3.14 2,639 2.54 16,220 4.38

3 97,937 6.64 56,599 5.65 7516 7.23 33822 9.14

4 156993 10.64 96725 9.66 4931 4.74 55337 14.95

5 75298 5.10 54650 5.46 1397 1.34 19251 5.20

6 110369 7.48 74197 7.41 2604 2.50 33568 9.07

7 81314 5.51 51283 5.12 2954 2.84 27077 7.31

8 68766 4.66 45763 4.57 1856 1.79 21147 5.71

9 48293 3.27 33858 3.38 1093 1.05 13342 3.60

10 59904 4.06 38348 3.83 1953 1.88 19603 5.29

11 49503 3.35 34132 3.41 1238 1.19 14133 3.82

12 47135 3.19 31893 3.18 1910 1.84 13332 3.60

CARAGA 40075 2.72 24721 2.47 1089 1.05 14265 3.85NCR 437243 29.63 320429 32.00 70302 67.61 46512 12.56

CAR 32237 2.18 20363 2.03 431 0.41 11443 3.09

ARMM 42226 2.86 33759 3.37 188 0.18 8279 2.24

Table 5 shows the distribution of government personnel according to branch of service in aninterval 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 theGOCCs respectively. There were no available data from GOCCs in 1964 and 1974 since it was onlyin 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 ofemployees 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 numberof employees from NGAs and LGUs while there was a substantial decrease in GOCCs. In 1994, from134, 453 employees in GOCCs, it dropped to 112,858 thereby eliminating 21,595 employees from theGOCCs. In 2004, GOCC employees were further reduced into 104, 977; thus, losing another 8,881employees.

Table 5. Distribut ion of Personnel According to Branch of Service23

Year Total NGA GOCC LGU

1964 272,845 201,401 --- 71,444

1974 280,167 194,735 --- 85,432

1984 991,445 667,114 134,453 189,878

1994 1,225,676 796,795 112,858 316,023

2004 1,475,699 1,001,495 103,977 370,227

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

22Data 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.


17/37

17

Figure 1. Distribut ion of Personnel According to Branch of Service

0200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1964 1974 1984 1994 2004

Total

NGA

GOCC

LGU

Table 6. Number of Civil Servants as a Percentage of the Population in Selected Count ries24

CountryNumber of

CivilServants

PopulationNumber of Civil

Servants as a Percentageof Population

Ratio of Civil Servantsand Population

Philippines 1,475,699 88,574,614 1.63% 1:60

Singapore 60,000 4,681,000 1.28% 1:78

Thailand 1,296,688 63,038,247 2.05% 1:48France 4,925,100 64,473,140 7.63% 1:13

United States 2,700,000 304,095,000 0.88% 1:112

India 8,000,000 1,132,910,000 0.70% 1:141

Compared to other countries, the ratio of civil servants to the population of the Philippines isrelatively low. However, compared to India with one employee to 141 persons, in the Philippines, onecivil servant is complemented with 60 persons. France, on the other hand, has the lowest numberwith only 13 persons to one government employee. As seen on figure 2, with a considerably lowpopulation of 64,473,140, they have 7.63% or 4,925,100 civil servants. Thailand fairly does well with1 is to 48.

Figure 2. Number of Civi l Servants as a Percentage of Population

Civil Servants as % of Population

1.63%1.28%

2.05%

7.63%

0.88% 0.70%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%

Philippines Singapore Thailand France US India

24Population of the countries are derived from the data presented in http://en.wikipedia.org; number of civil servants as apercentage of the population as computed by the authors; number of Civil Servants in the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand

are from www. unpan1.un.orgFigures on the Number of Civil Servants: Compendium of Information on Selected ASEANCivil Service Systems. (2004); data of civil servants in France from http://web.worldbank.org; United States number of civilservants from http://www.federaljobs.net.


18/37

18

The attempt to reorganize, reorganize, reengineer, and restructure the bureaucracy is evidentin the programs and projects of the different administrations. However, each administration is facedwith tremendous challenges of overlapping functions, lack of acceptance and commitment by affectedentities, red-tape and corruption inherited from past administrations. It becomes a cycle and the greatchallenge for the present administration is how to surpass these problems and how to face tougherchallenges, 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 shiftof the governments 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 theday, there has to be someone who is going to provide solutions. The government is expected to dothat; however, it cannot do the job in isolation. It has to consider the comments and suggestions ofothers. (DGF 2005)

Indeed, the government, the civil society, and the business sector should work together toachieve the overall goal of the government. There is a need to strengthen institutions to capacitatethe stakeholders in mainstreaming good governance and in effecting public administration reforms orcivil service reforms. Mainstreaming good governance requires building capacity of individuals andinstitutions and creating the appropriate policy environment to institutionalize the principles ofparticipation, 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 longterm. (See figure 3 below)

Figure 3. Capacity-Development Framework

Source: Mangahas and Astillero 2002

Decentralizing the Bureaucracy

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

Operationalizing the Notion of Decentralization

Individuals

Organization

Policy and InstitutionalLegal framework

Policies

Objectives & strategies

Structures

Processes & procedures

Resources

Communications

Information systems

Performance measures

Accountabilities

Knowledge

Skills

At ti tudes

ImprovedCapacities

BetterQuality ofServices

Improved

LivingConditions


19/37

19

In any discussion of decentralization, it is critical that we have relatively common terms ofreferences in the usage of the term decentralization so as to be able to have a more meaningful anduseful analysis of the process. Decentralization in the Philippines could be operationalized throughthree modalities: deconcentration, devolution and debureaucratization.

Deconcentration is a limited form of decentralization since decision-making remains at thecenter with lower levels of government in this case the filed offices of the national governmentagencies -largely limited to transmitting orders and implementing decisions of centrally basedauthorities. Deconcentration is also referred to as administrative decentralization.

Devolution is political decentralization which essentially involves the transfer of powers andresponsibilities from national government agencies to local governments as provided for in the LocalGovernment Code. As provided for in Section 16 of the Code or the General Welfare Clause, theseinclude the responsibility for the delivery of basic services; including health, agriculture, socialservices and environment. Together with the transfer of responsibilities was the transfer of personnelto 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 involvesthe harnessing of the private sector and non-governmental organizations in the delivery of servicesthrough 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 LocalGovernment Code where partnerships with the private sector, NGOs and POs are recognized andeven 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 unitsheaded by a datu, panginoo, or pangulo.

The Spanish colonizers enacted the Maura Law in 1893. The law included the establishmentof tribunals municipals and juntas provincials. However, the system of Government remainedcentralized characterized by the retention of rights and prerogatives by the principal class, thestraight laced centralization of powers, the continued intervention of the church in State affairs, thelimited franchise granted, the inadequate election devised and enforced, and the defected financialsystem instituted. (Brillantes 2003)

Decentralization in the Malolos Constitution has been described as the most ampledecentralization 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 thedetermination in their powers matter of taxes, in order that the provincial and municipal taxation maynever 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 alllocal 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 ofthe President. Specifically, Art.VII, Section 11 of the 1945 Constitution provided that The Presidentshall exercise general supervision over all local governments. This is in mark contrast to thepreceding sentence which provided that the President shall exercise control over all executivedepartments, bureaus and offices. According to Ocampo and Panganiban (1985, 1998), the use of theterm supervision instead of control was a compromise concept substituted for a strongerguarantee 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 LawsGoverning Local Governments by Increasing their Autonomy and Reorganizing ProvincialGovernments. The Act vested in the city and municipal governments greater fiscal, planning andregulatory powers. It likewise gave the cities and municipalities powers to adopt zoning and planning


20/37

20

ordinances. Moreover, it granted the authority to provincial, city and municipal governments theauthority to undertake and carry out any public works projects which the local government itselffinances.

Another landmark legislation with regard to local autonomy in the Philippines is Republic ActNo. 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 RaulManglapus. The barrios then became quasi-municipal corporations exercising autonomy, amongother things, through their taxing powers. Barrios were to be governed by an elective barrio councilthat included powers to enact barrio ordinances.

During the time of Martial Law which started in 1972, the law-making powers and theadministration 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 powerto appoint local officials who shall exercise functions under the Presidents authoritative control. Twoyears after the 1978 election of the national legislature, local elections were held though neverconsidered truly reflective of the peoples will because of the dictatorship. The Government then ischaracterized being highly centralized under Marcos administration. The system runs counter to thespecific 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 yearwhich reiterates the policy of the State in the 1973 Constitution and that is to guarantee and promotethe local government units to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant communities and makethem effective partners in the pursuit of national development and progress. Notwithstanding theenactment of the Code, the measures to decentralize government remained merely as administrativeformalisms. Powers continued to be concentrated in Manila with local units heavily dependent uponcentral government. Although the Marcos regime was unsuccessful in effecting politicaldecentralization which focuses on the devolution of powers to specific political units covering aspecific area, the administration can be credited for its efforts at administrative decentralization whenit emphasized the role of the regional units of the national line ministries to decongest the centralgovernment of many administrative functions.

In accordance with Article II, Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution which provides that TheState shall ensure the autonomy of local governments, RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of1991 was promulgated. The Code transferred the responsibility for the delivery of basic services tothe local government units, including appropriate personnel, assets, equipment, programs andprojects. The local autonomy would now mean less reliance in national government, includingallotments made by the national government, and increased reliance on internally generatedresources, or resources jointly generated with other institutions, be they other local government unitsor 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, throughthe devolution process. Devolution to local government units involves the responsibility for the deliveryof various aspects of basic services that earlier were the responsibility of the national government,such as: health, social services, environment, public works, education, tourism, telecommunicationsservices, housing projects, and investment support. It also covers the responsibility for theenforcement of certain regulatory powers, such as the reclassification of agricultural lands;enforcement of environmental laws; inspection of food products and quarantine; enforcement ofnational building code; operation of tricycles; processing and approval of subdivision plans; andestablishment of cockpits and holding of cockfights.

With the implementation of the Code, financial resources are also decentralized. There hadbeen an increased financial resources available to local governments by (1) broadening their taxingpowers; (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 forthe development and evolution of more entrepreneurial-oriented local governments (e.g. build-operate-transfer (BOT) arrangements with the private sector, bond floatation, obtain loans from localprivate institutions).


21/37

21

The Master Plan for the sustainable implementation of the Local Government Code of 1991involves three phases. Phase One or the Change-Over Phase(1992-1993) concerns the transfer toLGUs of devolved functions, with the corresponding assets and personnel. In Phase Two or theTransitional Phase (1994-1996), the national government agencies (NGAs) and the LGUs shallinstitutionalize 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 havebuilt adequate capacities in managing local affairs, and the NGAs would provide constant support andtechnical assistance to LGUs.

Innovations in Decentralization and Local Governance

The National Statistical Coordination Board recorded that, as of March 2008, there arealready 41,995 barangays, 136 cities, 1495 municipalities, and 81 provinces in the Philippines. Manyof these local government units are paving the way in the practice of good local governance anddecentralization. The seventeen years of the devolution have had high and low points. Although theimpact of decentralization did not take off immediately, we may already list a lot of majorbreakthroughs 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 governmentachievements.

25

Table 7. Cases of Best Practices in the Philippines

Sample Best Practice Cases Local Government Unit

Taking Care of People and Environment Negros Oriental

Saving the Marikina River Marikina City

Build-Operate Transfer Mandaluyong CityDingras, Ilocos Norte

Acquiring a Complete Equipment Pool Muoz, Nueva Ecija

Floating Bonds for Low Cost Housing Victorias, NegrosOccidental

Improving the Productivity Naga City

Lote Para sa Mahirap: Land Banking San Carlos City

Eco-Walk for the Environment Baguio City

Health Insurance Project Guimaras Province

Carabao and Tractor Pool Puerto Princesa

TalahibHandicraft Jones, Isabela

Inter-local cooperation: MIGEDZI Metro-Iloilo Guimaras EconomicDevelopment Council (formerly MIDC)

Iloilo and Guimaras

GPook (poverty reduction program, population health and environmentprogram) and LGLA

Concepcion, Iloilo

Bond Flotation for Tourism Development: the Boracay-Aklan Provincial Bond(Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal in Caticlan)

Caticlan, Aklan

Charging user fees for health services Malalag, Davao del Sur

Implementing a fiscal management system Gingoog City

Tax mapping, Computerization and GIS in Real Property Taxation Santa Rosa, LagunaInnovating Tax Administration Measures Quezon City

Decentralization as a framework of governance serves as a tool in building the capacities ofboth government and non-government actors in engaging each in managing societal affairs. Thecases 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 businesssector and the civil society, to play vital roles in processes of local governance such as; localdevelopment planning and implementation, local resource generation, local economic promotion,environmental management; thus, establishing a multi-stakeholders collaboration of localdevelopment efforts. With the Code providing them the legal and institutional infrastructure, theseexemplars of local governance have also demonstrated that an aggregation of different localgovernment 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 fromvertical and horizontal relationship, manifests the real essence of the process of democratization.

25See annex 1 for the list of best practices according to sectoral areas.


22/37


23/37

23

against corruption, and (vii) accepting support from international development agencies.26

Martinez27

disclosed that present threats to such measures include (i) dispersed population and unfavorablegeographical composition, (ii) government credibility that is lacking, (iii) uninformed and apatheticpopulation, (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 agendainvolves strengthening and sustaining institutional capacities of government agencies for sounddevelopment management and oversight of the public sector by responsible citizens and civil societygroups. Also, the framework stresses enhancing civil societys capacity to effectively engage thepublic sector in strengthening institutional integrity, transparency, and accountability. The methodsmay include prevention of corruption practices, prosecution of corruption cases and imposition ofstricter penalties, and promotion of a culture with corruption-intolerant sensitivity.

The Philippines has numerous laws addressing graft and corruption, defining the prohibitedand punishable acts, laying down specific penalties imposed for every breach thereof, and identifyingthe agencie

Documents

Public Administration Brillantes