366 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
Non-career |
Coterminus |
executive |
10% |
.5% |
|
Elective |
|
19% |
|
Contractual |
|
8% |
|
Casual
63%
Figure 18.5 Distribution of non-career LGU personnel by type of appointment, 2008. Source: Basic data from CSC.
Brillantes, Llanto, Alm and Sosmena (2009: 5) conducted an in-depth study and comprehensive review of decentralization commissioned by the DILG with support from ADB. They maintained that, despite the criticisms against and set-backs of decentralization, “it is not an exaggeration to say that the LGC has unleashed the potentials in the countryside encouraging frontline LGUs to take the lead in local development processes in partnership with other key stakeholders including the NGAs, local businesses and civil society and NGOs.”
The key success factors of decentralization in the Philippines are an enabling policy framework, strong leadership at the local level, improved access to financial resources, stronger interlocal government partnerships, wider participation with civil society institutions, and the broader role of leagues of local governments (Brillantes, Llanto, Alm and Sosmena 2009: 65).
18.3.2 Assessing the Impact of Decentralization
The LGC has been implemented for more than 17 years and has provided the enabling policy framework for a genuine decentralization program in the Philippines. Academics and observers have noted “mixed” results since its implementation in 1992—its effects on delivery of devolved services, poverty reduction, fiscal balance, economic growth, government size, and governance (Miral 2009; Mangahas 2008; Diokno 2003, 2007; Balisacan and Hill 2007; Manasan 2004, 2007; Brillantes 2003).
Balisacan and Hall (2007) rightfully characterized decentralization in the Philippines as “neither a complete success nor a failure.” Economic models and performance measures are still works in progress, and there are significant constraints on information sources in the Philippines. The results on causality or effects of decentralization on improved governance, service delivery, economic growth, and poverty reduction are neither definitive nor conclusive. In addition, cases of success stories across local governments in the Philippines are being documented; however, the importance of effective local leadership must be pointed out (Tiu Sonco 2009).
An assessment of the progress of decentralization described decentralization under the LGC as such: (i) mixed results, modest gains in devolved services including health, agriculture, and social services; (ii) improved context and initiative for participation in local governance, but token participation in some areas of local; (iii) national sectoral planning has not been fused with local planning; (vi) improving conditions for local finance, but policy design flaws need correction; and (v) policy implementation did not escape the political process, but firm policy support shores up decentralization
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Decentralization and Local Governance in the Philippines 367
(Ilago 2007). See Annex 18.2 for some details of the assessment indicating the positive and negative effects of the LGC over the past 17 years of implementation.
The variations of the rationale, meanings, and dimensions of decentralization—de-concentra- tion, delegation and devolution; political, fiscal, administrative, and market decentralization—as well as the structures and characteristics, size and number of sub-national governments, and the lack of adequate data of each country make it difficult to set a standardized framework to compare decentralization experiences.
In this chapter, decentralization may be reviewed by looking into (1) the overall policy design of decentralization under the LGC vis-à-vis the economic and political rationale of decentralization; and (2) the implementation of the LGC using the administrative, political, and fiscal dimensions of decentralization. Administrative decentralization considers what functions to decentralize from central to sub-national, in which sectors, and in which regions. Political decentralization looks into the devolution of powers to democratically elected local officials and formal/informal processes for citizen participation in development and policy making at the local government level. Fiscal decentralization deals with the revenue responsibilities and expenditure assignments to local government, and the redistribution, stabilization, and allocation function of the central government (Fritzen and Ong 2007; Smoke 2006; Brillantes 2004; Prud’homme 1995).
18.3.2.1 Overall Policy Design
The LGC of 1991 may have not fully rationalized the importance of the economic function of decentralization. It may be argued that decentralization was largely based on a political motivation to move control of government functions away from the central government or leadership—espe- cially after the long history of centralism and the 20-year dictatorship under Marcos—and to bring the government closer to the people. It may indeed be true for the Philippines that political considerations for decentralization came first, and fi xing of the technicalities should be pursued.
Brillantes, Llanto, Alm and Sosmena (forthcoming 2009) noted that the Philippines “had many of the characteristics of a country that typically pursues decentralization as an economic policy, but it had chosen to remain a highly centralized, a unitary state.”
Although the LGC features the idea of “bringing development of the countryside,” it needs to further provide the appropriate fiscal arrangements that would promote distribution equity, allocative efficiency, and pursue the development function of the central government at the local level. The capacity of local governments to raise revenues at optimal levels may be considered as implementation lag, which can be addressed by continuing capacity building activities. Attaining local fiscal independence (also referred to as fiscal federalism) is the ultimate policy objective of fiscal decentralization; however, it is only achievable to a certain degree, particularly in richer localities—with higher per capita income, more people, better infrastructure, higher investments, and available employment opportunities, etc.—with better tax bases and relatively developed or vibrant local market economies.
Within this context, Panadero9 (2006) developed and introduced a new framework for decentralization to further rationalize LGC by matching the prescribed devolved functions with the devolution objectives and broad development outcomes—economic, governance, autonomy, and capacities.
The following section discusses some of the critical assessment pertaining to the implementation of decentralization in view of the need for a more desirable policy design of decentralization in the Philippines.
9Austere Panadero is currently undersecretary (vice-minister) of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG).
©2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC