1524

Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol. LII Nos.
2-4 (April- October 2008)

FOR WHOM IS PHILIPPINE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION? 245
Is There A Philippine Public

Administration? Or Better Still,
For Whom Is Philippine Public
Administration?
ALEX B. B RILLANTES, JR. AND MARICEL T. F ERNANDEZ*
This article traces the evolution of public administration,

suggesting that there are only two major phases: traditional and
modern. The fields of public administration are discussed
taking cognizance of the many other emerging fields going
beyond its traditional fields, namely, voluntary sector
management and information technology. Selected major
ongoing concerns of public administration which include
reorganization, decentralization and corruption in the
Philippines are also considered. The article also briefly
discusses an example of what is now taken as an emerging
illustration of a home-grown governance paradigm, the "Gawad
Kalinga" as illustrative of a successful partnership and
cooperation between government, business and civil society in
the delivery of basic services, which after all is a core concern of
modern public administration and good governance. The article
ends by raising third order concerns and challenges as it tries to
address the question, “For whom is Philippine public
administration?”
Is there a Philippine public administration? A number of colleagues

wonder why the same question is again asked when the National College
of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG) is planning a public
colloquium for the purpose of revisiting the same question. Indeed, that
question had been asked more than 20 years ago, and answers have been
provided by eminent scholars of Public Administration such as Raul P. de
Guzman (1986) and Onofre D. Corpuz (1986). After two decades, it is
worthwhile to revisit the issue and ask once again, “Is there a Philippine
Public Administration?” This time around, however, the question is taken
a little further by asking an equally important second question, “If there is
a Philippine Public Administration, then for whom does Philippine Public
Administration exist?”
* Professor and Dean, National College of Public Administration and Governance
(NCPAG), University of the Philippines Diliman, and University Researcher (NCPAG)
and former instructor of Saint Paul University Philippines, respectively.
The assistance of Kate Asilo in the preparation of this article and of Paulyn
Bautista (with her insights and contribution in developing the section on Gawad
Kalinga) is gratefully acknowledged.
245
2008
246 PHILIPPINE JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Among the basic references we use in the general introductory

course in Public Administration at both the graduate (PA 201) and
undergraduate (PA 11) levels are essays by the aforementioned eminent
scholars of Philippine Public Administration (Dr. de Guzman and Dr.
Corpuz). These essays were published in a special issue of the Philippine
Journal of Public Administration (PJPA) in 1986. While de Guzman and
Corpuz both assert that there is a Philippine Public Administration (PPA),
both also suggest that the question be properly contextualized.
There is a Philippine Public Administration as there is also an

American, French and Thai public administration. There is a Philippine
public administration as there are institutions of public administration
addressing specific sectoral concerns. There is a Philippine public
administration as a field of study. There is a Philippine public
administration considering the massive role of the bureaucracy in
Philippine public administration. There is a Philippine public
administration as regards major institutions in education, politics and
government.
Yes, there are basic public administration structures and processes.

There exists an executive branch with the bureaucracy at its core, a
Philippine legislature, and a Philippine judiciary. There are Philippine
electoral processes and procedures. There are Philippine subnational
institutions and local governments, together with decentralization
processes and procedures. Within this context, we can arguably affirm that
indeed, there is a Philippine public administration characterized by the
presence of administrative structures and processes operating within a
unique Philippine context.
This article contextualizes the field of public administration by

discussing the following: (a) the evolution of the field of public
administration suggesting that there are only two major phases
(traditional and modern phase); (b) the different fields of public
administration; (c) selected major ongoing concerns of public
administration in the Philippines (reorganization, decentralization and
corruption). The article also includes a brief discussion of an example of
what is now considered as an emerging illustration of a home grown
governance paradigm (Gawad Kalinga) as one that illustrates successful
cooperation between government, business and civil society in the delivery
of basic services, which after all is a core concern of modern public
administration and good governance. The article then ends by raising
third order concerns as it tries to address the question, “For whom is
public administration?” 1
April-October
One has to make an evaluation – and a judgment call – as to whether

the discipline of Philippine public administration has indeed responded or
failed to respond – to the unique calls and demands of the times. This will
eventually answer the question posed at the outset, “For whom is public
administration?” This is a question ultimately addressed not only by those
teaching public administration but also by practitioners of public
administration as well. While this article will not even pretend to answer
that question, it will raise issues and concerns about the matter that may
trigger further questions and debate.
Evolution of the Field of Public Administration
In order to properly appreciate the context of Philippine public

administration, it may be helpful to retrace the history and evolution of
the broad discipline and examine the various strands and influences that
have influenced the theory and practice – the praxis – of public
administration in the Philippines. The specific areas and fields of
specialization of the field shall be examined, taking cognizance of the
many other emerging fields going beyond the traditional fields of public
administration.
The discipline of public administration can be divided into two major

phases: the traditional / classical phase from the late 1800s to the 1950s,
and the modern phase from the 1950s to the present. The modern phase
can be further divided into the following subphases: development
administration (1950s to the 60s), new public administration (1960s to the
70s), new public management and reinventing governance (1980s into the
90s), and finally public administration as governance (1990s into the
present). Table 1 is an indicative matrix that reflects the phases in the
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 Administration (1950 to the present)
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
2008
Traditional / Classical Public Administration
Public Administration can be traced back to human history. It has

been suggested that it is as old as the ancient empires of China, India,
Egypt, Greece, Rome and Mesopotomia. The institutionalization of
administrative capacity for collective purposes is the foundation of public
administration. Such arrangement, according to Caiden (1982), has
existed in all societies. All societies are devoted to advancing the general
welfare or the public interest. The idea that “public administration should
not be considered administration of the public but administration for the
public” was practiced and expressed in the Code of Hammurabi, in
Confucianism and in the funeral oration of Pericles (Caiden 1982: 7). In
other words, the idea of client-oriented public administration has its roots
in ancient public administration.
Caiden (1982) also noted that the genesis of Public Administration

must have originated from monarchical Europe where household officials
were divided into two groups: one in charge of public affairs, i.e. the
administration of justice, finance, training of armies, and the other
responsible for personal services. Rutgers (1998) supports this claim that
royal administration had already been manifested way back in the mid 17 th
century and early 18 th century in Prussia. F.K. Medikus (as cited in
Rutgers 1998) likewise argued about the study of public administration and
its positions amidst the sciences in the 18 th century. He advocated
“cameralism” and claimed that it should be treated as an autonomous field
of study of great importance to the state. 2 This practice flourished in
Europe until the 21 st century but it was, in the long run, replaced by
administrative law and legal studies.
Since this article tries to trace the roots of Philippine Public

Administration, it shall dwell on American theories and principles which
admittedly influenced the direction and development of the formal study of
the field of public administration in the Philippines, both at the levels of
theory and practice. It will be recalled that public administration as an
academic field of study formally began with the establishment by
American academics of the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) in the
University of the Philippines (UP) in 1952; hence, the close affinity of
Philippine PA theory to American PA theory and practice can not be
ignored.
1800s to 1950s
If the roots of Public Administration as a distinct field of study have

to be traced, the tendency is to draw on Woodrow Wilson’s 1887 classic
April-October
essay, “The Study of Administration.” 3 In that essay there was a serious

claim that public administration should be a self-conscious, professional
field. Wilson suggested the distinction between politics and
administration, i.e., administration should be politics-free and that “the
field of administration is the field of business” (Wilson 1953: 71). Thus,
establishing what became known as the “politics-administration”
dichotomy. 4 Although Wilson set a demarcation line between politics and
administration, Frank Goodnow (1900), the “Father of American Public
Administration,” presented a more meticulous examination of politics-
administration dichotomy in his book, Politics and Administration, that
“supplanted the traditional concern with the separation of powers among
the various branches of the government.” (Shafritz and Hyde 1997: 2)
Politics-administration dichotomy has provoked long-running debates
which persist until today. It may be argued though that, as far as the
Philippine experience is concerned, the dichotomy is artificial and that in
practice, power and partisan politics have had a disproportionate influence
upon the workings of public administration in the country.
Moreover, Max Weber (1946), a German sociologist who is known as

the “Father of Modern Sociology,” made a clear descriptive analysis of
bureaucratic organizations. He introduced some major variables or
features of bureaucracy, which include hierarchy, division of labor,
formally written rules and procedures, impersonality and neutrality.
(Weber 1946 as cited in Shafritz and Hyde 1997), or these features have
become a reference point in evaluating both the good and bad effects of
bureaucratic structures In 1926, the first textbook in the field of public
administration, which became one of the most influential textbooks in
public administration to date, is the Introduction to the Study of Public
Administration written by Leonard D. White.5 In the book, White (1926 as
cited in Shafritz and Hyde 1997) assumes that administration is still an art
although he recognized the ideal of transforming it into a science.
Interestingly, his work avoided the potential pitfalls of the politics-
administration dichotomy but rather concentrated on emphasizing the
managerial phase of administration.
From Classical, Neo-Classical to

Integrative/Modern Organization Theories
Frederick Taylor, the “Father of Scientific Management,” is best

known for his “one best way approach” in accomplishing tasks (Taylor 1912
as reprinted in Shafritz and Hyde 1997). Classical organization theory
evolved from this notion. Another popular manifestation of this approach
was that of Luther Gulick’s POSDCORB. 6 Gulick and Urwick integrated
2008
the ideas of earlier theorists like Henri Fayol 7 into a comprehensive

theory of administration. They believed that a single science of
administration that exceeds the boundaries of the private and the public
sector exists (Gulick and Urwick 1937 as reprinted in Shafrtiz and Hyde
1997). The reasoning of the science of administration was largely borrowed
from Fayol’s fourteen principles of organization. POSDCORB, however,
was seen as less influential in postwar American government. Thereafter,
Simon, Waldo and Appleby attacked the idea of POSDCORB (Shafritz and
Hyde 1997).
Simon (1947) in his book Administrative Behavior, made a distinction

between theoretical and practical science (Simon 1947). He introduced
more common principles in the literature of administration which
highlighted administrative efficiency and specialization when he wrote the
article, “The Proverbs of Administration” (Simon 1946 as reprinted in
Shafffritz and Hyde 1997; Stillman 1991). On the other hand, in 1945,
Appleby led a postwar attack on the concept of politics-administration
dichotomy by drafting a convincing case that “public administration was
not something apart from politics” but rather at the “center of political
life” (Stillman 1991: 123).
In 1948, Dwight Waldo tried to establish the direction and thrust of

Public Administration as a field of study in his book, The Administrative
State, which hit the “gospel of efficiency” that dominated the
administrative thinking prior to Word War II. 8 That same year, Sayre
attacked public personnel administration as “the triumph over purpose”
(Shafritz and Hyde 1997: 74). In 1949, Selznick introduced the so-called
“cooptative mechanism” where he defined “cooptation” as “the process of
absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy-determining
structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stability
or existence” (Shafritz and Hyde 1997: 147).
William Willoughby (1918), a contemporary of Goodnow, advocated

the role of the trilogy (the three branches of government) but he was more
known for his work on budgetary reforms. He discussed the movements
for budgetary reforms in the US in view of the budget as an instrument
for democracy, as an instrument for correlating legislative and executive
action, and as an instrument for securing administrative efficiency and
economy (Willoughby 1918 as reprinted in Shafritz and Hyde 1997). Mary
Parker Follet (1926) also made significant contributions to the discourse of
Public Administration as one of the proponents of participatory
management and the “law of situation” which can be attributed to the
concept of contingency management. She illustrated the advantages of
participatory management in her article, “The Giving of Orders" (Follett
1926 as reprinted in Shafritz and Hyde 1997).
April-October
Between 1927 and 1932, Elton Mayo, together with Fritz

Roethlisberger, conducted the Hawthorne experiments on the theory of
individuals within an organization which propelled the human relations
school of management thought. Their studies show that human behavior
and interpersonal relations are important subjects for organizational
analysis (Tompkins 2005). Chester Barnard (1938) presented a more
comprehensive theory of organizational behavior when he wrote on the
functions of the executive. He argued that for the executive to become
more effective, he should maintain an equilibrium between the needs of
the employees and the organization. Maslow (1943), on the other hand,
focused on the hierarchical needs of the individual. His “theory of human
motivation” states that the human being has five sets of needs:
physiological, safety, love or affiliation, esteem, and ultimately, self-
actualization. These concepts were later explored and developed into more
comprehensive theories and principles as advocated by several
organizational theorists and behaviorists such as, Herzberg’s “motivation-
hygiene theory,” McGregor’s “Theory X and Y,” 9 Argyris’ “personality
versus organization" and Likert’s Systems 1 to 4, among others (Shafritz
and Hyde 1997).
Modern Public Administration
This part of the article suggests the indicative period of modern

public administration in the 1950s. The subphases include: (a)
development administration; (b) new public administration; (c) new public
management and reinventing government; and (d) PA as governance.
The discipline of public administration has been characterized as one

with a continuing “identify crisis.” To a certain extent, it was that
“identity crisis” that served as a theme that led to the emergence of the
New Public Administration movement in the 70s. Rutgers (1998) argued in
“Paradigm Lost: Crisis as Identity of the Study of Public Administration,”
that public administration lacked an “epistemological identity.” In the
Philippines, Reyes (1993) revisited in his various writings, the so-called
“identity crisis” of public administration initially raised by various scholars
of the discipline. He contended that the crisis revolved around the
imperative to define a public administration rooted in the development
aspirations of the Philippines. The identity crisis, however, prevails until
today in the country.
Development Administration (1950s to 1960s)
Development Administration (DA) as a field of study emerged in the

1950s and the 1960s with the Third World countries as the focal point. The
2008
term “Third World” may be attributed to the French demographer and

economic historian Alfred Sauvy, who at the height of the Cold War in
1952, used the term to distinguish developing countries outside the two
power blocs: the capitalist and communist societies, namely, the First
World and the Second World (Chilcote 1984). Nef and Dwivedi (1981) on
the other hand, attributed the concept of DA to Goswami in 1955, later
popularized by Riggs (1970) and Weidner (1970). They coined the term
“development administration” to refer to "developing countries which are
largely found in Asia, Latin America, and Africa." These developing
countries endeavored to make concerted efforts in order to be recognized
as “emerging nations” and to resurrect themselves after World War II. In
the context of “emerging nation,” Landau (1970) described DA as the
engineering of social change. Likewise, according to Ilchman, these
countries were “concerned with increasing the capacity of the state to
produce goods and services to meet and induce changing demands”
(Ilchman 1970: 136).
Gant (1979), on the other hand, defined DA as not merely addressing

State functions, such as, public service delivery and enforcement of laws
but the inducement and management of change to pursue development
aspirations. Developing countries were in urgent need to implement
fundamental reforms in their politico-administrative machinery. 10
Khator, however, argued that DA was built upon several critical

assumptions: (1) development needs are the most important needs of
developing countries, (2) the development needs of developing and
developed countries are inherently different, (3) development can be
administered, (4) developmental know-hows are transferable, and (5) the
political, social, and cultural context of development can be easily altered
(Khator 1998: 1778). Likewise, Fred Riggs, in his “Frontiers of
Development,” identified two foci of development administration:
development of administration and the administration of development.
Most development administration scholars focused more on the latter and
it subsequently became synonymous to the administration of development
in Third World countries (Khator 1998). Given the situations above, DA
may be considered as the “management of innovation” because it was
aimed at helping countries that are undergoing reconstruction and social
transformation.
In the Philippines, the term “development administration” was used

to suggest that it may be an appropriate framework to examine the State’s
experience as it tries to rebuild its institutions within a democratic
framework, as it struggles with new economic, political and social
challenges, and as it adapts to the trends and demands of globalization.
Additionally, DA principles have been among the major themes that ran
April-October
through the various lectures and writings of de Guzman, who together

with OD Corpuz (1986) initially addressed the question: “Is there a
Philippine PA?”
Since the idea was to steer developing countries to economic

development and social progress, the term "DA" became closely associated
with foreign aid and western models of development. 11 Western countries
provide grants and aids to developing countries for nation-building,
economic development, institutional strengthening, and people
participation in development. As to administrative reform, which is one of
the core values of DA, de Guzman (1986) described and analyzed the
structural and behavioral characteristics of the Philippine public
bureaucracy and argued that the implementation of administrative reform
should have two major dimensions: reforming the structures of the
bureaucracy and reforming the behavior of those in the bureaucracy (de
Guzman 1986 as cited in Brillantes 1995: 145).
Development administration has always been one of the central

features of the various long-term and medium-term Philippine
Development Plans since the seventies. The paradigm for bureaucratic
reform continues to evolve in various intellectual and practical debates
but government continues its work amidst all these. Until recently, all
Philippine development plans since the seventies had a specific chapter
devoted solely to development administration.12
New Public Administration (late 1960s to 1970s)
The term “New Public Administration” [or "New PA"] emerged from
the Minnowbrook Conference in 1968 in Syracuse University. The
conference was the brainchild of Dwight Waldo who brought together
young public administrators and scholars to discuss important issues and
varying perspectives on public administration. The conference stirred
controversies like the issue on rejecting the classical theories of public
administration and rather introducing new principles. For instance,
Frederickson in his essay, “Towards a New Public Administration,” adds
social equity to the classic definition of public administration.
Conventional or classic public administration sought only to answer
inquiries on efficiency and effectiveness like: how can the government
offer better services with available resources (efficiency) or how can the
government offer better services while spending less money (economy)? In
introducing the principles of New PA, he adds the question: “Does this
service enhance social equity?” (Frederickson 1971) Moreover, the
Minnowbrook conferees also questioned the relevance of traditional public
administration to existing deprivation to an era of fast-paced technological
2008
advancement in the backdrop. Frederickson (1971) argued that disparities

existed because public administration focused less on social purposes or
values of government policies and programs and more on the economy and
efficiency of execution. The value-free and neutral stance of traditional
PA has alienated the less privileged and deprived groups in the society.
New PA’s proponents, likewise, advocated that public administrators
should not be neutral; they should be committed to both good
management and social equity as values to be achieved. New PA then
called for a client-oriented administration, non-bureaucratic structures,
participatory decisionmaking, decentralized administration and advocate-
administrators (Frederickson 1971; Nigro and Nigro 1989). With the above
contentions, it can be said that the theme of New PA is “change” and the
challenge is for the public administrators is their capacity to accept
"change."
Now the question is: Is New PA relevant?
The same question was asked by Pilar (1993) in his paper, “Relevance
of New PA in Philippine Public Administration.” 13 He argued that New PA
is relevant while there exists no other indigenous model of public
administration. “The relevance of New PA may be regarded... in terms of
their compatibility with the context or the environment, as well as the
convergence between the content and intent of new PA with the goals,
purposes, and aspirations of the country” (Pilar 1993: 145). The principle of
New PA is compatible with the environment of Philippine PA, although it
was conceived during the time that the US was in chaotic and
unpredictable environment amidst prosperity. Such situation is different
in the Philippines considering that it not only grappled with development
but it struggled to pull itself out of poverty which is a major concern of the
government up to this date. New PA created the need to stimulate
change: meeting the needs of the society through the government’s
development programs and projects, and addressing social equity and
justice. It must be emphasized though, that the core questions raised by
New PA are also embedded in the second question, “for whom is PA?” It is
indeed critical to define the ultimate targets and partners of public
administration structures, institutions and processes. In other words, who
is the “public” in public administration?
New Public Management and

Reinventing Government (1980s to 1990s)
This section introduces New Public Management (NPM), reinventing

government and reengineering government. When did these ideas
emerge? What were their key features? And were these really more of the
same?
April-October
The new public management (NPM) movement had long been

practiced by the European countries in the late 1970s and 1980s but the
term NPM was essentially launched by several luminaries such as
Christopher Hood (1991), Christopher Pollitt (1990), and Michael Barzeley
(1992), among others in the early 1990s. Similar movements such as
reinventing government and reengineering also emerged around the same
time.
In the UK, NPM movement started in the late 1970s under the
Thatcher government. NPM has also long been practiced by the members
of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
like New Zealand, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, and Canada in
the 1980s. However, the idea of NPM became more popular and stimulated
academic and political interests worldwide when Hood (1991) coined the
term in his 1991 article entitled, “A Public Management for all Seasons.”
One of the best examples of the NPM praxis can be seen in New
Zealand’s administrative reforms. Their government privatized
substantial public functions, redeveloped their personnel system to
become more performance-oriented, instituted new processes of
productivity measures, and reengineered departmental systems to reflect
government’s commitment (Denhardt 2004: 136-137 citing Boston 1996).
In the US, during the administration of US President Bill Clinton and Vice
President Al Gore, this concept was reflected in their “National
Performance Review” which urged the federal government to improve its
performance and led to the foundation of the praxis of reengineering
government. Parenthetically, NPM was justified by Lynn (1996) in his
article, “Public Management as Art, Science, and Profession.”
Moreover, NPM according to Pollitt is a shift to a “managerialist”

movement. He then identified five core beliefs of managerialism: (1) the
main route to social progress lies in the achievement of continuing
increases in economically defined productivity; (2) such productivity
increase will mainly come from the application of ever more sophisticated
technologies; (3) the application of these technologies can only be achieved
with a labor force disciplined in accordance with the productivity ideal; (4)
management is a separate and distinct organizational function and one
that plays the crucial role in planning, implementing and measuring the
necessary improvements in productivity; and (5) to perform this crucial
role, managers must be granted reasonable “room to maneuver” (i.e., right
to manage”) (Pollitt 1990: 2-3 as cited in Denhardt 2000: 148).
The ideas of “new public management” and “reinventing government”

were essentially born out of the continuing search for solutions to
economic problems in the 1970s and to produce a government that “works
2008
better but costs less” (Denhardt 2004: 136). The idea of “reinventing
government” was advanced by Osborne and Gaebler in 1992. Their
concept of NPM was sparked by the use of business model prescriptions for
government, i.e., using private sector innovation, resources, and
organizational ideas to improve the public sector. Reinventing
Government provided ten principles through which public entrepreneurs
might bring about massive governmental reform principles that have
remained at the core of the new public management. These are the
following: (1) catalytic government: steering rather than rowing;
(2) community-owned government: empowering rather than serving;
(3) competitive government: injecting competition into service delivery;
(4) mission-driven government: transforming rule-driven organizations;
(5) results-oriented government: funding outcomes, not input;
(6) customer-driven government: meeting the needs of the customer not
their bureaucracy; (7) enterprising government rather than spending;
(8) anticipatory government: prevention rather than cure; (9) decentralized
government: from hierarchy to participation and teamwork; and
(10) market-oriented government: leveraging change through the market
(Osborne and Gaebler 1992). 14
Among the criticisms of this model, however, was its emphasis on

people as “customers” or “clients” rather than “citizens” and that
customers were placed as “end-product” users of government rather than
as “means” of the policymaking process. Denhardt and Denhardt (2003)
likewise offer a synthesis of the ideas that are opposed to NPM presented
by Osborne and Gaebler (1992). Their model for governance expands the
traditional role of the public administrator as a lone arbiter of public
interest, rather, “the public administrator is seen as a key actor within
the larger system of governance” (Denhardt and Denhardt 2003: 81).
Following "Reinventing Government," they divided their argument into
seven principles, namely, (1) serve citizens, not customers (2) seek the
public interest, (3) value citizenship over entrepreneurship, (4) think
strategically, act democratically, (5) recognize that accountability is not
simple, (6) serve rather than steer, and (6) value people, not just
productivity (Denhardt and Denhardt 2003).
Another similar movement was “reengineering organizations.” This

term was coined by Michael Hammer (1990) in an article published by the
Harvard Business Review. Reengineering offers an approach for
improving performance, effectiveness, and efficiency of organizations
regardless of the sector in which they operate. According to Hammer and
Champy, “reengineering is the fundamental rethinking and radical
redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in
critical contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality,
April-October
service, and speed” (Hammer and Champy 1993 as cited in Halachmi 1995:
330). The tenets of reengineering include the following:
• Searching for radical improvement in business processes enabled

by exploiting the powers of information technology.
• Breaking away from the antiquated ways and processes of business
operations and starting with a clean slate.
• Viewing (and reviewing) the fundamental business processes from
cross-functional perspective to ensure that each step in the process
adds value.
• Questioning whether the process is necessary and what it is
intended to achieve, given the overall mission of the organization.
• Systematic searching for radical changes for the purpose of
effecting major improvements or breakthroughs in business
processes when an incremental approach will not work anymore.
• Reducing, if not eliminating, paper documentation that enters the
process at different stages, with an attempt to capture the data
once, at the source.
• Focusing on and developing around processes and outcomes, not
tasks or organizational functions.
• Focusing on the customer or client, in a results-oriented and team
based approach (Halachmi 1995: 331).
Reengineering, or the so-called "business process reengineering"

(BPR), was essentially an innovation that sought to refurbish the
organization’s operation, management system and structure, to improve
its efficiency, effectiveness, and competitive ability and ultimately improve
service delivery. Reengineering seems to be an effective way to upgrade
the services of governmental agencies; however, it continues to hurdle
obstacles and challenges in applying the formula such as fiscal constraints
and the traditional thinking of political leaders.
PA as Governance (the 1990s into the 2000s)
The many failed development interventions in the 1950s into the

1990s spurred the introduction of other development reforms and there
emerged the “governance” paradigm which was introduced and advocated
by multilateral organizations, like the United Nations (UN), the World
Bank (WB), and the Asian Development Bank (ADB). According to
Frechette, the word “governance” suddenly “has become something of a
mantra uttered by donors, reformers and pundits alike” (Frechette 2000:
25).
2008
"Governance" entails a larger scope and has a wider meaning.

Though the term “governance” has been used to refer mostly to
“government,” when correctly used, “governance” really goes beyond
government. The Asian Development Bank defines it as the
"institutionalization of a system through which citizens, institutions,
organizations, and groups in a society articulate their interests, exercise
their rights, and mediate their differences in pursuit of the collective
good" (ADB 1995 as cited in ADB 2005: 1). On the other hand, the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) describes "governance" as “the
exercise of political, economic and administrative authority to manage a
nation’s affairs. It embraces all of the methods–good and bad–that
societies use to distribute power and manage public resources and
problems” (UNDP 1997: 9).
Cariño (2000), in her reflections on the term “governance,” identified

several actors and factors that pushed for governance. She acknowledges
that governance is not the sole responsibility of the government per se but
the role of the market and civil society are of equal importance and should
be recognized. She then identified the factors or processes that pushed for
governance: the quest for growth and development, the environmental
movement, globalization and consolidating peace (Cariño 2000). These are
practically the same values or virtues found in the UN Charter.
Governance promotes the virtues of decentralization, participation,
responsiveness and accountability among others.
From “governance,” the concept of “good governance” emerged and

became prominent in international aid circles in the 1990s. This serves as
a general guiding principle for donor agencies to demand that recipient
governments adhere to proper administrative processes in the handling of
development assistance and put in place effective policy instruments
towards that end (Doornbos 2003). They believe that when there is good
governance, there is sustainable development. Kofi Annan, in his
inaugural speech in the 1 st International Conference on Governance for
Sustainable Growth and Equity in the United Nations, New York, on 28-30
July 1997 affirmed this statement when he said:
Good governance and sustainable development are indivisible.

That is the lesson of all our efforts and experiences, from Africa
to Asia to Latin America. Without good governance – without the
rule of law, predictable administration, legitimate power, and
responsive regulation — no amount of funding, no amount of
charity will set us on the path to prosperity…We are fully
engaged in efforts to improve governance around the
world…good governance is indispensable for building peaceful,
prosperous and democratic societies (Annan 1997).
April-October
Annan concluded that “good governance is perhaps the single most

important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development”
(Annan 1997).
An ADB document (2005) also affirmed that good governance is

synonymous with sound development management. It identified some key
principles of development which may be considered as elements of good
governance such as accountability, participation, predictability, and
transparency. Table 2 shows these basic elements of good governance and
their key dimensions.
Table 2. Basic Elements of Good Governance
Basic Elements of Good Governance Key Dimensions Specific Areas of Action

1. Accountability means making public Establishing criteria to measure • Public Sector Management
officials answerable for performance of public officials • Public Enterprise
government behavior and Institutionalizing mechanisms to Management
responsive to the entity from ensure that standards are • Public Financial
which they derive authority met Management
• Civil Service Reform
2. Participation refers to enhancing Undertaking development for and • Participation of
people’s access to and influence on by the people beneficiaries and affected
public policy processes groups
• Interface between
government and the private
sector
• Decentralization of public
and service delivery
functions (empowerment of
Local Governments)
• Cooperation with Non-
Government Organizations
3. Predictability refers to the existence Establishing and sustaining • Law and Development
of laws, regulations and policies to appropriate legal and • Legal Frameworks for
regulate society and the fair and institutional arrangements Private Sector Development
consistent application of these Observing and upholding the rule
of law
Maintaining consistency of public
policies
4. Transparency refers to the availability Ensuring access to accurate and • Disclosure of Information
of Information to the general timely information about the
public and clear government rules, economy and government
regulations, and decisions policies
Source: ADB 2005 as cited in ADB 1995.
2008
Fields of Specialization of Public Administration
This section discusses the various traditional subfields of public

administration including the emerging fields in response to a rapidly
changing environment. However, even before going into the subfields of
public administration, it is imperative to recognize that public
administration, itself, has been considered as a subfield of political
science.
Traditional Subfields of Political Science
The following have been considered as the traditional subfields of

political science: political theory; international relations and politics;
comparative politics; and public administration. These are briefly
discussed below.
Political Theory
Political theory is the study and analysis of political ideas of

significant political thinkers. It is also a search for knowledge of political
thoughts of various historical periods, namely, Ancient, Medieval/
Christian, and Modern period. Among the major philosophers and
theorists explored in this field of political science are Plato, Aristotle,
Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and
many other political thinkers. It is recognized that their political ideas
shaped the political institutions, law, order, liberty, justice, and the
quality of life into concrete historical circumstances.
International Relations and Politics
As a subfield of political science, international relations deals with

the relations between and among nation states and how such relations are
defined. Power has always been traditionally considered a factor in the
determination of international relations and politics. The role of
international organizations such as the UN, including other multilateral
bodies like the World Bank, the IMF, and closer to home, the ADB, in
shaping the power relations is an aspect that is also addressed in the study
of international relations and politics.
Comparative Politics
Comparative politics is the study of contemporary politics and

political trends in the different countries around the world. It compares
and critically analyzes the variety of ways that these countries have
chosen to shape their political institutions and processes, assess the costs
April-October
and benefits of their choices and address common problems, including the
challenges of globalization. All these with an eye toward identifying
processes, practices, and policies which might be “exportable” ideas for
countries to borrow from one another.
Public Administration
Public Administration as a discipline emerged out of a broader

discipline which is Political Science. Reyes considers it as a “child of
political science that is mature enough to be treated separately or
independently of its mother” (Reyes 1993: 22).
There is one school of thought that public administration has no

generally accepted definition. The scope of the discipline is so great and so
debatable that it is easier to explain than define. Public administration is
a field of study, or a discipline, or a field of practice, or an occupation.
There is much disagreement about whether the study of public
administration can properly be called a discipline, largely because it is
often viewed as a subfield of the two disciplines of Political Science and
Administrative Science (or Administration).15
In Canada, the study of public administration has evolved primarily

as a subfield of political science. Knowledge of the machinery of
government and of the political and legal environment in which public
administrators work is essential in understanding the political system.
Also, public administrators play an important role by providing policy
advice to elected politicians and by active involvement in the making,
enforcement and adjudication of laws and regulations. As a subfield of
administrative science, public administration is part of the generic process
of administration. The broad field of administration is divided into public,
business, hospital, educational and other forms of administration. The
similarities between these forms of administration are considered to be
greater than their differences. 16
In the Philippines, though, Public Administration did not evolve out

of the discipline of political science. More specifically, public
administration as an academic field of study was essentially the result of
the establishment of the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) at the
University of the Philippines, and in one sense did not follow the
conventional path in the emergence of public administration traditionally
evolving independently as a subfield of political science. 17
2008
Subfields of Public Administration
Traditionally, the discipline of public administration itself has the

following subfields: organization and management, public personnel
administration, local government administration, and public fiscal
administration. The following discusses each of these subfields:
Organization and Management
Organization and Management is one of the oldest subfields of public

administration. It basically focuses on sub-areas like organization theory
and practice, dynamics of organization, decisionmaking in administration,
leadership and other sub-areas. It discusses the theories, processes and
techniques involved in the organization and management of the national
government and its agencies. It also explores modern management
techniques such as reinventing, reengineering and other improvement
methods in organization and management like total quality management
(TQM), 18 which has largely contributed to public administration reforms.
Public Personnel Administration
Public administration consists of administrative processes. It

involves people, its most important element, therefore public personnel
administration is an equally important field. In here, the definition of
personnel management as “the recruitment, selection, development,
utilization of, and accommodation to human resources by organizations”
(French 1978: 3) is explored. Specifically, it discusses the evolution of
public personnel administration, arrangements of the personnel system,
general attributes of personnel functions in the public sector, and
developments and current trends in personnel administration.
In the traditional public administration, organization and

management and personnel administration were emphasized as salient
features of the study in public administration. Personnel administration
has widened its scope and evolved into human resource management or
human resource development. These two fields not only complement but
supplement each other and are now put together into what is now called
“Organization Studies.”
Public Fiscal Administration
With the emergence of the field of public administration, much

interest has been directed towards fiscal administration. Again, this
subfield of public administration covers a wide range of issues and topics
April-October
affecting government operations like taxation, public expenditures and

borrowing, resource allocation, revenue administration, auditing and
intergovernmental relations (Briones 1996). Public fiscal administration
embraces "the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policies and
decisions on taxation and revenue administration; resource allocation,
budgeting, and public expenditure; public borrowing and debt
management; and accounting and auditing” (Briones 1996: 2). Through
the years, many researches were devoted to these topics and issues; the
government has also introduced reforms such as in tax administration,
value added tax (VAT), expanded value added tax (E-VAT), procurement
reforms, the medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF), accounting
reforms, reengineering the bureaucracy program (REBP), transforming
local finance, and many others.
Local Government Administration
This is another distinct subfield of public administration. In studying

local government administration, the concept of "decentralization" is
taken into account. Decentralization, as a process, is one of the widely
researched topics in promoting development and democratic governance.
Administrative organizations and operations of local governments, and
the structure and processes of regional administration are likewise
discussed. In particular, local government administration may include
topics on theoretical and empirical perspectives of local government and
regional administration, community and institutional development, local
government systems/procedures, intergovernmental dynamics, local public
finance or local fiscal administration, local economic promotion, local and
regional development planning, local government innovations and many
others.
New Subfields of Public Administration
As the field evolved, and in response to the changing demands of the

time, new subfields emerged. These include the following:
Policy Analysis and Program Administration
The postwar years saw the emergence of public policy as a subfield of

public administration. In the US, interest in policy studies started in the
1950s. In the Philippines, however, it started in the 1970s in the then
College of Public Administration of the University of the Philippines.
Generally, policy studies focus on the content of public policy, its
processes, models, theories and approaches, its impact on as well as
2008
evaluation of public programs and projects. Other significant concepts,

principles and techniques for systematic analysis and decision making in
public policy and management are also considered in policy analysis. Dye
(1995) said that certain theoretical approaches and models have been
introduced in studying public policy which include institutional, process,
group, elite, rational, incremental, game theory, public choice and systems
model.
Public Enterprise Management (PEM)
Privatization is one of the foci of this area of public administration.

Other topics include the nature and processes of public enterprises; the
relationship between the government and the public enterprise sector;
issues on managerial autonomy, public accountability, corporate social
responsibility and the role of the state in the economy. At the graduate
level, courses include management of public enterprise and financial
management.
Voluntary Sector Management (VSM)
Voluntary Sector Management (VSM) is another emerging field of

Public Administration. In recognition of the growing voluntary sector in
the Philippines, the UP NCPAG pioneered the offering of VSM as a field of
specialization. This field has developed expertise through the years
through its institutional linkage with the UP Pahinungod with Dr.
Ledivina V. Cariño as its founding director. VSM can also be referred to
as “voluntary sector," “third sector,” “non-profit organizations,” “non-
governmental organizations,” and “civil society organizations.”
Spatial Information Management (SIM)
With the aid of support tools, all kinds of spatial data or information
are utilized in delivering public goods and services efficiently and
effectively. With the study and utilization of geographic information
system (GIS), data/information can be processed immediately and
transported easily. This technology is currently used by many
government agencies and corporations. Thus, the introduction and
popularization of some technology terms in government such as e-
government, e-commerce, geo-visualization, e-finance, among others.
Other systems are also introduced in SIM like global positioning systems
and remote sensing.
Public administration indeed has evolved both as a scholarly

discipline and as a profession. It has reached wider dimensions of
April-October
governance, from political, economic, social, cultural aspects of public

management. In the executive branch, for instance, it has retained
traditional functions such as O and M (management functions like
planning, organizing) and personnel management and also explored
possibilities in organizational development, fiscal administration
(budgeting, accounting, auditing) and public policy and program
administration (processes and analysis of public policy).
Major Concerns in the 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 corruption and promoting
accountability in government. 19 This section discusses each of these areas
and thrusts.
Reorganizing the Bureaucracy
The praxis of public administration in the Philippines has always

been rooted in the imperative for reform. The following discussion
considers two major targets of reform over the years, the civil service
and the local governments. More specifically, Philippine public
administration has always seen reorganization as central to the entire
initiative in the continuing search and design for more responsive
structures and processes. Indeed, among the initial initiatives of any
Philippine presidents – from Roxas in the 1940s to Arroyo in 2002, upon
assumption to office – is the policy to reorganize the bureaucracy.
Presidential Decree No 1. enacted by Marcos upon the declaration of

martial law was the Integrated Reorganization Plan (IRP). It promised
"the most extensive and wrenching effort at administrative reform in the
country’s history through decentralizing and reducing the bureaucracy,
and standardizing departmental organization. The IRP also sought to
introduce structural changes and reforms to strengthen the merit system
as well as professionalize the civil service system" (ADB 2005: 11). Endriga
(2001) described the bureaucracy under the Marcos administration as
being more subservient than at any other time in Philippine history. The
government then was restructured according to the will of Marcos and it
has been shielded from public scrutiny and criticism, in effect,
perpetuating irresponsible acts.
2008
To restore government integrity and public confidence,

reorganization reforms were introduced by President Aquino, essentially
with the creation of the Presidential Commission on Public Ethics and
Accountability and the Presidential Commission on Good Governance
(PCGG). Civil society organizations (CSOs) became more active in
decisionmaking and program implementation of the government. To
downsize the bloated government, one of the steps undertaken by her
administration was the removal of thousands of civil servants from their
positions. Although the said step was justified, ironically, the number of
civil servants and political appointees in the government increased.
Moreover, pubic agencies and offices grew which caused the extended and
fragmented government structure (ADB 2005).
Reorganization efforts were minimal during the tenures of Ramos

and Estrada. Ramos simply focused on the praxis of NPM with the end
goal of reengineering the bureaucracy. His flagship program, the
Philippines 2000, was envisioned to make the country globally competitive
by pursuing the thrusts of deregulation, market liberalization, and
privatization. He focused on setting the guiding principles in reorganizing
and improving government operations, divesting government-owned and
controlled corporations (GOCCs), promoting decentralization and local
governance, and pushing the attrition law. 20 The reengineering plan,
however, has remained a plan with the Congress not laying down the legal
framework of streamlining the bureaucracy.
Under the Estrada administration, the Rationalization Program of

2001 through Presidential Committee on Effective Governance (PCEG) was
introduced. Executive Order No. 165, “Directing the Formulation of an
Institutional Strengthening and Streamlining Program for the Executive
Branch,” laid down the “Reengineering the Bureaucracy for Better
Governance Program.” The program aimed to strengthen and streamline
the bureaucracy particularly the executive branch, the GOCCs, and the
state universities and colleges (SUCs).
What prompted the government in pushing for the rationalization

program despite some criticisms and even cynicism particularly from the
skeptics? Katrina David, former CSC Chair, in her talk in the Diliman
Governance Forum (DGF) held at UP NCPAG, offered four guiding
principles of the rationalization program: first, to make the government do
the right things (efficiency); second, to do the things in the right or best
way (effectiveness); third, to be able to do the right things in the right way
within affordable levels (affordability); and fourth, to be able to achieve
these in the most accountable, transparent manner as possible
(accountability). David further stressed that effectiveness means there is
a need to focus on government efforts on its vital and core functions. This
April-October
is indeed a good strategy in achieving medium-term goals and avoiding

expenditures and time use that the government should not enter into.
Efficiency is sought with the question: “What do we want to do?” Through
the methods of rationalization of service delivery support systems,
organizational structure, and right staffing, the government then could
provide individual agency performance. The principle of affordability
states that expenditures must be based on allowable existing resources.
Therefore, the necessary rationalization will have to go together with the
kind of economic situation the government agencies are in, with
consideration of 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 2005a).
On the part of the CSC, its mandate can only be fully realized once
the elected officials learn to respect the bureaucracy and recognize that a
professional core of public servants is a major partner in good governance.
It must be noted that ordinary civil servants are still nation-builders.
David adds that notwithstanding the fiscal crisis the country is now facing,
the program still has to be pursued because there is really a need to
“rationalize how the government funds itself, and how government gets its
job done”(DGF 2005a: 11). After all, the budget used to support
government’s operation comes from the taxpayers and this has to be
complemented by efficient, effective, affordable and accountable service
from the civil servants.
The Macapagal-Arroyo Administration continued the initiative 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 has adopted the “Reengineering the
Bureaucracy for Better Governance Program” of the Estrada
administration. PCEG was likewise reactivated upon Arroyo’s assumption
to office. It serves as the ad hoc body that shall be the focal point of
administrative reforms in the civil service. On 4 October 2004, the
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) pursued the Rationalization Program as mandated in
EO 366.
According to DBM, EO 366 directs all departments/agencies of the

executive branch to conduct a strategic review of their operations and
organizations for purposes of focusing government purposes on its vital
functions and channeling government resources to these core public
functions, and improving the efficiency of government services, within
affordable levels, and in the most accountable manner. (See table 3 for the
status of the rationalization program as of April 2008.) DBM’s task,
according to David, is to look at a two-track approach in ensuring the
2008
effective delivery of government service. The first track of reengineering

the bureaucracy is through legislative measures and the second track is
the administrative rationalization of the government (DGF 2005a).
The Rationalization Program
Table 3 shows that four years after the implementation of EO 366 in

2004, only 17 out of 26 department agencies of the government, 27 OEOS/
other government agencies, and only 36 out of more than 100 GOCCs in
the country had submitted their rationalization plans. Out of the 80
submitted rational plans, only two department-level and nine GOCCs plans
were approved. Three department plans had been evaluated but not yet
approved. Out of the 44 plans (complete and partial submission) under
evaluation, only those of eight departments and 19 GOCCs had completed
their submission. Only those of three departments and four GOCCs had
made partial submission. Some plans were returned for revision, one
from a department and four from GOCCs. DBM is expecting submissions
from three departments and 24 GOCCs.
Table 3: Overall Status of the Implementation of the

Rationalization Program (Net of Entities Exempted)
As of 30 April 2008
Status Depts OEOs/Other GOCCs Total No. %

Agencies
A. Plans Submitted to 17 27 36 80 75%
DBM
1. Approved 2 16 9 27 25%
1.1 attached agencies
2. Evaluation Completed but 5∗ 5∗
not yet approved
3. Under evaluation 3 - - 3 3%
3.1 complete submission 8 10 19 37 34%
3.2 partial submission 3 - 4 7 7%
4. Plans returned for 1 1 4 6 5%
revision
A. Plans for Submission to 3 1 24 28 26%

DBM
Total 20 28 60 108 100%
*rationalization plan not counted individually; part of mother department's overall Plan.
Source: DBM 2008
April-October
Options for Affected Personnel
In the process of reviewing agency operations and organizations,

some functions/units may be found redundant, overlapping or duplicating
with others. Employees are then given two options: (1) to remain in
government service and be placed in other government agencies needing
personnel, or (2) avail themselves of retirement/separation benefits, if
qualified, plus the applicable incentive. As of April 2008, 2,170 regular
positions (87 percent or 1,888 funded and 13 percent or 282 unfunded
items) and 1,137 contractual/casual positions (86 percent of these or 978
contractual items and 14 percent or 159 casual items) had been abolished,
which in effect, generated P422M (P379M explicit and P43M implicit).
These savings were plowed back to the concerned department agencies to
beef up their funds for 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 opted to
retire while 6 percent or 111 employees opted to be transferred to other
agencies such as DOH-managed hospitals, DepEd-supervised schools,
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), Land Transportation
Office (LTO), National Statistics Office (NSO) and the Philippine National
Police (PNP). Benefits paid for those who retired amounted to P160M.
(See Table 4 for the summary.)
Table 4. Options for Affected Personnel

No of regular position s abolished 2170 positions
No. of Con tractual/Casual Position s abolish ed Fu nded: 1, 888 ( 87%) Un fun ded: 282 (13%)
1,137 position s
Total PS Savings Generated Con tractual: 978 items Casu al: 159 items
(86%) (14%)
Explicit (fun ded item s): Implicit (u n fu nded
P379 M items): P43M
No. of Person nel who opted to retire 1,667 (94%)
Benefits Paid P160 M
No. of Person nel who opted to be placed in 111 (6%)
oth er agen cies ∗
Total of retired an d tran sferred person n el 1,778
Data provided by DBM.
*DOH-managed hospitals, DepEd Supervised Schools, BJMP, LTO, NSO, and PNP.
2008
The Growth of the Philippine Bureaucracy
Table 5 shows that as of 2004, a total of 1,475,699 personnel were

employed in national government agencies (NGAs), government-owned
and controlled corporations (GOCCs), and local government units (LGUs).
About 67.86 percent of the 1,475,699 total number of government
employees are assigned to NGAs and only 25.09 percent to the LGUs. The
GOCCs registered the lowest complement at 7.04 percent of the total
number of government workforce. As to the distribution of personnel by
regions, the National Capital Region (NCR) comprises the biggest pie with
29.63 percent of the total number of workforce from all subdivisions
followed by regions 4 and 6 with 10.64 percent and 7.48 percent
respectively. The Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) has the lowest
complement with only 2.18 percent of the total number of employees.
As for the distribution of employees from NGAs, 32 percent of

1,001,495 employees are concentrated in the NCR. Very few personnel are
recorded in the CAR with only 2.03 percent and CARAGA (2.47 percent).
As to the distribution of GOCCs, the biggest slice is in the NCR with 67.61
percent and the lowest number of personnel comes from the Autonomous
Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) with only 0.18 percent of the total of
103,977 employees from GOCCs.
As for the distribution of employees in LGUs, Region 4 registered the

highest complement at about 14.95 percent of 370,227 total number of
employees in LGUs. The NCR only has 12.56 percent; thus, showing that
Region 4 exceeded the NCR with 2.39 percent employees. Again, the
ARMM listed the lowest number of local government personnel with only
2.24 percent of the total number of LGU personnel in the country.
It must be pointed out that figures show that the bureaucracy is

now really bloated as it is maldistributed. Most numbers of employees
come from the national government agencies and are concentrated in the
NCR. Areas which need the services more have only a small number of
public servants.
April-October
Table 5. Number of Government Personnel

by Major Subdivision and Region: 2004
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 3.85
NCR 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
Source: CSC 2004. The computation of percentages is provided by the authors.
Table 6 shows the distribution of government personnel according to

branch of service by ten years from 1964 to 2004. Additionally, the
distribution of government personnel shows that that most of them are in
national government agencies (NGAs), followed by the LGUs and the
GOCCs, respectively. There were no available data from GOCCs in 1964
and 1974 since it was only in 1973 that the personnel in government
corporations were absorbed into the regular civil service (De Guzman,
Brillantes, and Pacho 1988). As shown in the table, the number of
employees from the NGAs and LGUs scales up every ten years while the
number of workforce in GOCCs substantially decreases. (See figure 1) In
1994, from 134, 453 employees in GOCCs, it dropped to 112,858, thereby
eliminating 21,595 employees. In 2004, GOCC employees were further
reduced to 104, 977; thus, losing another 8,881 employees. 20
2008
Table 6: Distribution of Personnel According

to Branch of Service 21
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
Source: De Guzman, Brillantes and Pacho 1988; CSC 2004.
As illustrated in Figure 1, over the years, it has become a

fashionable observation that the Philippine bureaucracy has been bloated.
In 1964, there were only 272,845 civil servants. Its growth is attributed
to the increased demands of public service delivery due to the increase in
population resulting in the expansion of government functions and
responsibilities.
Figure 1. Distribution of Personnel According to Branch of Service
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000 Total
800,000 NGA
600,000 GOCC
LGU
400,000
200,000
0
1964 1974 1984 1994 2004
April-October
Table 7. Number of Civil Servants as a Percentage

of the Population in Selected Countries 22
Number of
Number of Civil Ratio of Civil
Country Civil Population Servants as a Servants and
Servants Percentage of Population
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% 1:48
France 4,925,100 64,473,140 7.63% 1:13
United 2,700,000 304,095,000 0.88% 1:112
States
India 8,000,000 1,132,910,000 0.70% 1:141
Sources:
Population of the countries: http://en.wikipedia.org
Number of civil servants in the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand: http://www. unpan1.un.org
Number of civil servants in France: http://web.worldbank.org
Number of civil servants in the United States: http://www.federaljobs.net.
In 2004, the ratio of civil servants to the population of the Philippines

is relatively low compared to other countries; however, compared to India
with one employee to 141 persons, the Philippines had one civil servant
for 60 persons. France, on the other hand, had the lowest number with
only 13 persons to one government employee. As seen in Figure 2, with a
considerably low population of 64,473,140, France had 7.63 percent, or
4,925,100 civil servants; Thailand fairly did well with 1 is to 48.
Figure 2. Number of Civil Servants as a Percentage of Population
Civil Servants as % of Population
9.00%
8.00% 7.63%
7.00%
6.00%
5.00%
4.00%
3.00%
2.05%
2.00% 1.63%
1.28%
0.88% 0.70%
1.00%
0.00%
Philippines Singapore Thailand France US India
Note: The authors drew figure 2 based on the data presented in table 7..
2008
The attempt to reorganize, reengineer, and restructure the

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

••Structures
Objectives & strategies
••Processes
Structures
& procedures
••Resources
Processes & procedures
••Communications
Resources
Individuals ••Information
Communications
systems Better
••Performance
Information systems
measures Quality of
••Accountabilities
Performance measures Services
••Linkages
Accountabilities
& networks
••Coordination
Linkages & networks
Coordination
••Knowledge Improved
••Skills
Knowledge Living
••Attitudes
Skills
Attitudes
Conditions
Source: Astillero and Mangahas 2002
April-October
Decentralizing the Bureaucracy
A second major initiative that can be observed in the continuing

attempt to design and develop a more responsive Philippine public
administration is the effort to continuously decentralize the bureaucracy,
culminating with the enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991.
Operationalizing the Notion of Decentralization
In any discussion of decentralization, it is critical that to have

relatively common terms of references in the usage of the term. This is
to be able to have a more meaningful and useful analysis of the process.
Decentralization in the Philippines could be operationalized through three
modalities: deconcentration, devolution and debureaucratization.
Deconcentration is a limited form of decentralization since

decisionmaking remains at the center with lower levels of government –in
this case the field offices of the national government agencies -largely
limited to transmitting orders and implementing decisions of centrally
based authorities. Deconcentration is also referred to as administrative
decentralization.
Devolution is political decentralization which essentially involves the

transfer of powers and responsibilities from national government agencies
to local governments as provided for in the Local Government Code. In
Section 16 of the Code or the General Welfare Clause, these include the
responsibility for the delivery of basic services; including health,
agriculture, social services and environment. Together with the transfer
of responsibilities was the transfer of personnel to the local governments.
Close to 70,000 national personnel were transferred to the local
governments during the initial years of devolution.
The third type of decentralization is referred to as

“debureaucratization” which harnesses the capacities of the private sector
and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the delivery of services
through various modalities including contracting out, private-public
partnership, and joint ventures, among other things. This modality of
partnership is also provided for in Section 17 of the Local Government
Code where partnerships with the private sector, NGOs and POs are
recognized and even encouraged for an improved delivery of services.
2008
Historical Background of Decentralization
The Local Government in the Philippine Islands, written in 1926 by

former President Jose P. Laurel, recalled the idea that local autonomy
was existent even before the arrival of the Spaniards. The local villages or
the barangays were then considered autonomous territorial and political
units headed by a datu, panginoo, or pangulo.
The Spanish colonizers enacted the “Maura Law” in 1893. The law
established tribunales municipales and juntas provinciales. However, the
system of government remained centralized, characterized by the
“retention of rights and prerogatives by the principal class, the straight
laced centralization of powers, the continued intervention of the church in
State affairs, the limited franchise granted, the inadequate election
devised and enforced, and the defective financial system instituted”
(Brillantes 2003 citing Laurel 1986: 1).
Decentralization in the Malolos Constitution has been described as

“the most ample decentralization” for local governments and for more
popular and direct election of local officials. However, local governments
were still subject to regulation based on several principles, including the
“determination of their powers in matter of taxes, in order that the
provincial and municipal taxation may never be antagonistic to the system
of taxation of the State” (Malolos Constitution Title XI, Art. II, Para. 5 as
cited in Brillantes 1987: 134).
The trend during the time of the American military occupation was
towards centralization wherein all local governments were placed under
military control primarily for security purposes, inspite of the rhetoric in
favor of local autonomy.
During the Commonwealth period, local governments were placed

under the general supervision of the President. Specifically, Art.VII,
Section 11 of the 1935 Constitution provided that “the President shall …
exercise general supervision over all local governments.” This is in stark
contrast to the preceding sentence which provided that the President shall
exercise “control” over all executive departments, bureaus and offices.
According to Ocampo and Panganiban (1987), the use of the term
“supervision” instead of “control” was a “compromise concept substituted
for a stronger guarantee of autonomy sought by some constitutional
convention delegates" (Brillantes 1987: 134-135).
The first local autonomy act enacted in 1959 was Republic Act No.
2264, “An Act Amending the Laws Governing Local Governments by
Increasing their Autonomy and Reorganizing Provincial Governments.”
April-October
The Act vested in the city and municipal governments greater fiscal,
planning and regulatory powers. It likewise gave the cities and
municipalities the powers to adopt zoning and planning ordinances.
Moreover, it granted the provincial, city and municipal governments the
authority to undertake and carry out any public works projects which the
local government itself finances.
Another landmark legislation on local autonomy in the Philippines is

Republic Act No. 2370, entitled “An Act Granting Autonomy to the Barrios
of the Philippines” or otherwise known as the Barrio Charter Act. This law
was principally sponsored by Senator Raul Manglapus in 1959. The barrios
then became quasi-municipal corporations exercising autonomy, among
other things, through their taxing powers. Barrios were to be governed by
an elective barrio council that exercised powers to enact barrio
ordinances.
Less than a decade later, the Decentralization Act of 1967 (RA 5185)
was enacted. The Act increased the financial resources of local
governments and broadened their decisionmaking powers over
administrative matters (Brillantes 2003).
During Martial Law from 1972, the lawmaking powers and the
administration and implementation of laws were concentrated in the
hands of Ferdinand Marcos. The national and local elections were
suspended and Marcos arrogated unto himself the power to appoint local
officials who shall exercise functions under his authoritative control. Two
years after the 1978 election of the national legislature, local elections
were held though never considered truly reflective of the people’s will
because of the dictatorship. The Government then was characterized as
being highly centralized still under the Marcos administration. The
system ran counter to the specific provision of the 1973 Constitution
advocating the promotion of local autonomy.
The Local Government Code of 1983 (Batas Pambansa Bilang 337)

was promulgated in early February. It reiterated the policy of the State in
the 1973 Constitution and to “guarantee and promote the local
government units to ensure their fullest development as self-reliant
communities and make them effective partners in the pursuit of national
development and progress.” Notwithstanding the Code, the measures to
decentralize government remained as administrative formalisms. Powers
continued to be concentrated in Manila with local units heavily dependent
upon central government. Although the Marcos regime was unsuccessful
in effecting political decentralization and the devolution of powers to
specific political units covering a specific area, the administration can be
2008
credited for its efforts at administrative decentralization of the regional

units of the national line ministries to decongest the central government
of many administrative functions.
In accordance with Article II Section 25 of the 1987 Constitution

which provides that “the State shall ensure the autonomy of local
governments,” RA 7160 or the Local Government Code of 1991 was
promulgated. The Code transferred the responsibility for the delivery of
basic services to the local government units, including appropriate
personnel, assets, equipment, programs and projects. Local autonomy
would now mean less reliance on the national government, including
“allotments” made by the national government, and increased reliance on
internally generated resources, or resources jointly generated with other
institutions, whether other local government units or private institutions.
Major Features of the Local Government Code
The Local Government Code of 1991 radically transformed the nature

of power relationships between the central government and the thousands
of local governments in the countryside through the devolution process.
Devolution to local government units as mentioned earlier involves the
responsibility for the delivery of various aspects of basic services that
earlier were the responsibility of the national government, such as:
health, social services, environment, public works, education, tourism,
telecommunications services, housing projects, and investment support. It
also covers the responsibility for the enforcement of certain regulatory
powers, such as the reclassification of agricultural lands; enforcement of
environmental laws; inspection of food products and quarantine;
enforcement of national building code; operation of tricycles; processing
and approval of subdivision plans; and establishment of cockpits and
holding of cockfights.
With the implementation of the Code, financial resources are also

decentralized. There are increased financial resources available to local
governments by (1) broadening their taxing powers, (2) providing them
with a specific share from the national wealth exploited in their area, and
(3) increasing their share of the national taxes. Moreover, the Code
provides the foundation for the development and evolution of more
entrepreneurial-oriented local governments (e.g. build-operate-transfer
(BOT) arrangements with the private sector, bond flotation, loans from
local private institutions).
April-October
The Master Plan for the sustainable implementation of the Local

Government Code of 1991 involves three phases. Phase One or the Change-
Over Phase (1992-1993) concerned the transfer to LGUs of devolved
functions, with the corresponding assets and personnel. In Phase Two or
the Transitional Phase (1994-1996), the national government agencies
(NGAs) and the LGUs institutionalized their adjustments to the
decentralized schemes introduced by the Code. The last phase is the
Stabilization Phase (1997 onwards) wherein it is assumed that the LGUs
would have built adequate capacities in managing local affairs, and the
NGAs would provide constant support and technical assistance to LGUs.
Innovations in Decentralization and

Local Governance
The National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) recorded that, as

of March 2008, there were 41,995 barangays, 136 cities, 1,495
municipalities, and 81 provinces in the Philippines. Although the impact
of decentralization was not readily apparent, many of these LGUs have
demonstrated good local governance practices. Table 8 presents a
summary of these major breakthroughs culled from various local
government achievements brought about by decentralization in the
Philippines. (cf. annex 1 for the list of best practices according to sectoral
areas.)
Decentralization as a framework of governance serves as a tool in

building the capacities of both government and non-government actors in
engaging each other in managing societal affairs. Good and best practices
in local governance have proven this claim. The Local Government Code
has given impetus to, not only the local government itself, but the rest of
the stakeholders in governance: the business sector and the civil society,
to play vital roles in processes of local governance such as local
development planning and implementation, local resource generation,
local economic promotion, environmental management, thus, establishing
a multi-stakeholders collaboration of local development efforts. With the
Code providing them the legal and institutional infrastructure, these
exemplars of local governance have also demonstrated that an aggregation
of different local government units is practicable. Inter-local cooperation
and convergence make LGUs stronger and more productive and efficient.
This synergy of the different actors of local governance, whether from
vertical and horizontal relationship, manifests the real essence of the
process of democratization. Decentralization has, indeed, increased the
democratic space of the civil society with the LGUs embracing them in
participating in local governance.
2008
Table 8. 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 City
Dingras, Ilocos Norte
Acquiring a Complete Equipment Pool Muñoz, Nueva Ecija
Floating Bonds for Low Cost Housing Victorias, Negros Occidental
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
Talahib Handicraft Jones, Isabela
Inter-local cooperation: MIGEDZI – Metro-Iloilo Guimaras Economic Development Iloilo and Guimaras
Council (formerly MIDC)
GPook (poverty reduction program, population, health and environment program) Concepcion, Iloilo
and LGLA
Bond Flotation for Tourism Development: the Boracay-Aklan Provincial Bond Caticlan, Aklan
(Jetty Port and Passenger Terminal in Caticlan)
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, Laguna
Innovating Tax Administration Measures Quezon City
Source: Brillantes 2003; Galing Pook website
Decentralization has provided a democratized milieu where LGUs are
able to transform themselves into self-reliant communities and be more
autonomous in managing their own affairs. The Local Government Code
has endowed an enabling environment that has allowed these LGUs to
flourish, utilize, and maximize their taxing powers as well as corporate or
entrepreneurial powers.
Decentralization has been fuelled by efforts to apply the principles of

self-government: efficiency, autonomy, subsidiarity and proximity.
Sometimes given their supremacy, however, national government
agencies instead of acting as a partner, tend to serve as an impediment to
any local development efforts. There are also cases where national
government policies instead of promoting development, impinge on the
territorial jurisdiction of local governments and adversely impact on local
communities. In the name of democratic governance, the national
government may guide local governments and provide policies and
technical expertise but they must recognize that in the principle of
April-October
subsidiarity, the decentralized entity - the LGU, is the nearest to the

people; therefore, they should be left on their own. On the other hand,
LGUs, in order to work smoothly with the national government, should
align their development plans with those of the national government’s
policies but ensure that local development needs are met. Thus, the
central/national government and the LGUs should not regard each other
as competitors in service delivery but as active partners in governing.
Best practices in different areas of local governance should be

replicated and further "mainstreamed” in order to realize the full essence
of decentralization. Mainstreaming can only be achieved through
innovativeness, ingenuity, and resources and most importantly through
the leadership and the openness of the local chief executive to change.
Addressing Corruption
Finally, continuing and ongoing initiatives to come up with more

responsive public administration structures and processes are the ongoing
efforts to address the ever pervasive problem of corruption. Corruption or
the “misuse of public power for private profit” inhibits growth and
development, distorts access to services for poor communities, undermines
public confidence in the government’s will and capacity to serve the public,
deters trade and investments, reduces revenues, increases costs, and
propagates wasteful allocation and use of scarce resources. Various sectors
of the society are doing their best to come up with an antidote to combat
corruption and to enhance government efficiency, effectiveness and
accountability. It is noteworthy that many institutions have been set up
and several laws enacted to fight graft and corruption in the country.
Negative consequences of corruption to institutions are prevalent

through favoring vested or selfish interests of a person or entity. Officials
and employees of the government tend to neglect the very purpose of civil
servants which is to serve the public interest with utmost fidelity.
Tolerating corruption encourages negative and poor bureaucratic behavior
in the service. In effect, it ruins public trust and confidence in
government. With regard to public personnel, corruption undermines the
merit and fitness system and inhibits civil servant from upholding
integrity. Moreover, corruption leads to poor quality of programs, projects
and services, and ineffective, inefficient and unaccountable administration.
Corruption benefits only a few and deprives the rest of the citizenry.
Among the social costs of corruption are undermining the rule of law and
violating political legitimacy. Disadvantaged people are deprived of fair
treatment which increases poverty because corrupt practices jeopardize
the welfare of the people.
2008
Opportunities that exist to tackle corruption include (1) ensuring the

presence of a legislative framework to check corruption, (2) supporting
active and vigilant civil society groups, (3) protecting free media
(4) forming nationally accredited citizens’ watch groups, (5) stepping up
public demands for more accountability in government, (6) promoting
ongoing initiatives to involve people in the fight against corruption, and
(7) accepting support from international development agencies (ADB 2005).
Martinez disclosed that present hindrances to such measures include
(1) dispersed population and unfavorable geographical composition, (2) lack
of government credibility, (3) uninformed and apathetic population,
(4) strong corrupt element, and (5) institutional weaknesses (Martinez
1999).
The Republic of the Philippines-United Nations Development

Programme of 2002 presented initiatives and desired strategic directions
in an anticorruption framework. The agenda involves strengthening and
sustaining institutional capacities of government agencies for sound
development management and oversight of the public sector by
responsible citizens and civil society groups. Also, the framework stresses
enhancing civil society’s capacity to effectively engage the public sector in
strengthening institutional integrity, transparency, and accountability.
The methods may include prevention of corruption practices, prosecution
of corruption cases and imposition of stricter penalties, and promotion of a
culture with corruption-intolerant sensitivity.
The Philippines has numerous laws addressing graft and corruption,

defining the prohibited and punishable acts, laying down specific penalties
imposed for every breach thereof, and identifying the agencies responsible
in the implementation of the said laws. The promulgated laws date back
to 1955. Article XI of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, Republic Act 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, and the Section on Bribery which includes
Corruption of Public Officials (Art. 212) of the Revised Penal Code are the
three main laws defining and penalizing corruption in the country. (See
Annex 2 for the summary list of related laws, presidential decrees and
proclamations, and other regulations on corruption prevention).
Government efforts to promote corporate governance and prevent

private sector corruption are further strengthened by the joint initiatives
of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
(Central Bank), and Anti-Money Laundering Council. Annex 3 presents the
different government agencies involved in the fight against corruption.
(Refer to Annex 3 for the list of Philippine Anti-Corruption Agencies.)
April-October
Gawad Kalinga (GK): Model of Philippine Public

Administration and Governance
"Less for self, more for others, enough for all." This is the motto
that a GK volunteer tries to enliven as he envisions a slum-free, squatter-
free nation through a simple strategy of providing land for the landless,
homes for the homeless, food for the hungry and ultimately providing
dignity and peace for every Filipino. But what is Gawad Kalinga? "Gawad
Kalinga" which means "to give care" is a revolutionary program initiated
by the Couples for Christ (CFC) in 1995 with the end goal of rehabilitating
juvenile gang members and out-of-school youth in Bagong Silang, Caloocan
City, then the biggest squatters’ relocation area in the Philippines. From
then on, the GK community metamorphosed into a model community and
has been replicated in 900 communities all over the country. Such
initiative has now evolved into a movement for nation-building and is now
transforming other poverty stricken areas into progressive communities
with the end goal of building 700,000 homes in 7,000 communities in 7
years (2003-2010). 23
Seen through the lens of public administration, GK may be described

as a distinctly Filipino invention that effectively delivers basic services to
Filipinos living in poverty by engaging cooperation between government,
business and civil society.
This description highlights three important characteristics of GK that

embody key concepts in New Public Administration, Reinventing
government, and Governance: enhancement of social equity as a key
question (Frederickson 1971), effective delivery of services as a core
concept (Osborne and Gaebler 1992), and cooperation between
government, business and civil society as a key principle (Cariño 2000).
These three characteristics may further be explored towards

establishing GK as a model of Philippine Public Administration and
governance in view of three key dimensions presented in Table 9.
Table 9. GK as Model of Philippine PA
Characteristics of GK vis-à-vis New Public

Key Dimensions of GK as Model of
Administration, Reinventing Public
Philippine PA
Administration, and Governance
GK as an Emerging Model for
Effective delivery of services as a core concept
Development
Cooperation between government, business and GK as a Converging Point for
civil society Partnership
Enhancement of social equity as a key question GK as a Template for Good Governance
2008
Figure 4 illustrates the GK Governance Paradigm in view of these

ker dimensions
Figure 4. GK Governance Paradigm
P u bl i c a d m i n i s t ra t i o n a n d g o v e rn a n c e
Th e Millen n iu m Developm en t
Goa ls
S TAT E/
P U BLIC
S E CTOR
E r a dica t e ext r em e pover t y a n d h u n ger

CIVIL Ach ieve u n iver sa l pr im a r y edu ca t ion
B US INE S S S OCIET Y P r om ot e gen der equ a lit y a n d em power
S ECTOR wom en
Redu ce ch ild m or t a lit y
I m pr ove ma t er n a l h ea lt h
E r a dica t ion of HI V, m a la r ia a n d ot h er
disea ses
E n su r e en vir on m en t a l su st a in a bilit y
GK P ro g ra m s Develop a globa l pa r t n er sh ip for
G K a s a n Em er g i n g Mod el of Dev el op m en t developm en t
G K a s a Con v er g i n g P oi n t for P a r t n er s h i p
G K a s a T em p l a t e for G ood Gov er n a n c e
GK as an Emerging Model of Development:

GK’s Program and the MDGs
GK has brought together complementary resources of government,

business and civil society towards its ultimate objective to address
poverty. GK engages in seven component programs: shelter and site
development (GK tatag), community health (gawad kalusugan), education
/child and youth development (sibol, sagip at siga), productivity/ livelihood
(gawad kabuhayan), community organizing and empowerment
(kapitbahayan), culture and tourism (mabuhay) and environment (green
kalinga). Through these programs, GK is actually undertaking
magnanimous efforts and accomplishing great milestones in the global
partnership for development that aims to eradicate extreme poverty and
hunger, reduce child mortality, improve maternal health, combat AIDS,
HIV, malaria, ensure environment sustainability, achieve universal
primary education, and promote gender equality. Collectively referred to
as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 24, these eight goals have
become a central concern of public administration and governance
worldwide. Table 10 shows a clear correspondence between the MDGs and
the programs of GK and succinctly presents GK as a model of sustainable
human development.
April-October
Table 10. Programs of Gawad Kalinga and the MDGs
Millennium Development Goals Gawad Kalinga Programs
• eradicate extreme poverty and Bayan-anihan/ Gawad Kabuhayan (Productivity / Livelihood)

hunger
• reduce child mortality Gawad Kalusugan (Community Health)
• improve maternal health
• combat AIDS, HIV, malaria
• ensure environment sustainability Green Kalinga (Environment)
• achieve universal primary education Sibol, Sagip at Siga (Education / Child and Youth
• promote gender equality Development
• develop a global partnership for • Mabuhay (Culture and Tourism)

development • GK Tatag (Community Infrastructure / Shelter and Site
Development)
• Kapitbahayan (Community Organizing and
Empowerment)
The Child and Youth Development Program can be aligned to the

MDG goal to achieve universal primary education as well as to promote
gender equality, a goal likewise addressed by the values-formation
foundation of all GK communities. GK's “sibol” program, which means “to
grow,” provides value based education for pre-school children, aged three
to six years old. A support program for children of elementary age, from
seven to 13 years old through academic tutorials, sports and creative
workshops and values formation is called sagip which means “to save a
life.” The formative needs of teenagers from 13 to 18 years are covered by
the siga program which means “to light,” grants scholarships to deserving
students. Furthermore, a strong youth rehabilitation program for juvenile
delinquents provides various activities and counseling sessions to help
them transform their lives without institutional rehabilitation. They are
then integrated into the social mainstream and are gainfully employed.
The Health Program (Gawad Kalusugan) responds to goals three and

four of the MDG, the promotion of gender equality and reducing child
mortality. In GK, the health profile of every family in a GK community is
carefully monitored by a volunteer team of doctors and paramedical
practitioners. Most GK areas now have a clinic. Malnutrition especially
among children is addressed and arrested not just through feeding
programs but also through parent education, especially for the women, on
proper nutrition and hygiene.
2008
GK is pro-poor. Its productivity program (Bayanihan and Gawad

Kabuhayan) or “to give livelihood” is a response to MDG goal 1– to
eradicate extreme poverty. Through this program, beneficiaries are
provided start-up capital and materials for microfinance and
microenterprise, and then given assistance in the marketing of products.
Food self sufficiency is highly encouraged by teaching technology for
backyard farming, urban agriculture and poultry-raising.
GK is pro-environment. It addresses MDG goal seven- to ensure

environmental sustainability. It empowers the poor to become caretakers
of the environment instead of being exploiters. GK teams, in partnership
with environment groups and government agencies, which provide
expertise and resources in these projects, have been conducting activities
like tree-planting and seedlings production and educating the poor in solid
waste management.
GK fosters partnership with various stakeholders. This is aligned

with MDG goal eight – to develop global partnerships. GK has mobilized
partners from government, socio-civic groups, churches and parishes,
media, the academe and others to provide volunteer services for its
various programs, giving individuals and groups an opportunity to live out
the spirit of bayanihan or camaraderie. Also, in a GK community/village,
values formation and community empowerment are conducted. Every GK
community is organized into a kapitbahayan or neighborhood association,
to inculcate stewardship and ensure accountability, and cooperation and
unity. Guidelines for community living are decided upon by the members,
and new leaders who espouse the values of the association emerge. Peace
is achieved not by force but by mutual adherence to an agreed set of
values. This new culture is the key to the community’s sustainability, and
sets the community on the road to self reliance.
GK Programs as a Convergence Point for Partnership
GK has become a vehicle for convergence for all sectors and its
model of governance is now being replicated in all levels of Philippine
society. GK exemplifies a governance paradigm based on cooperation and
partnership among business (corporate foundations), government (LGUs,
national government agencies, legislators) and civil society (non-
government organizations and academic institutions). The initiative is not
merely an act of philanthropy, but an investment (business), not merely
humanitarian, but developmental-oriented (civil society), and not simply
an act of dole-out but of empowerment (civil society).
April-October
Exemplified by multistakeholdership, GK is consistent with Article

62 of the Local Government Code of 1991, laying down the direct
involvement of POs, NGOs and the private sector in the plans, programs,
projects or activities of LGUs. This approach promotes the pooling of
resources and talents, an opportunity that LGUs, hard pressed to meet the
many competing priorities of their constituents should explore. On the
other hand, mobilizing LGU commitment and resources in order to house
the poor will generate considerable impact and empower marginalized
communities to meaningfully transform themselves (Local Government
Support Program [LGSP] 2005). GK partners with the Home Development
Mutual Fund (HDMF), popularly known as PAG-IBIG, a major funding
source that the LGU, as well as other GK partners can tap. HDMF
“extends housing finance to formally employed community members who
have no capacity to build their own homes without external assistance”
(LGSP 2005: 26).
GK’s partnership with various academic institutions is congruent

with the “town and gown” approach to development, where academia is
enriched by praxis which benefits the community. The NCPAG as one of
the hubs of GK activities may take the lead role in networking and in
strengthening social capital. Members of the Association of Schools of
Public Administration in the Philippines (ASPAP) may also be utilized for
capacity development and local empowerment through various modes of
interventions such as development of a curriculum and preparation of
modules on good governance which incorporate the GK development
model, conduct of joint training programs and workshops with various
stakeholders, collaborative research among different institutions, and
documentation of good and best practices of governance.
Furthermore, GK has established an organized network of support

from international organizations, such as the ANCOP which is composed
of a growing roster of international organizations covering countries like
the US, Canada, Denmark, Spain, Switzerland, Australia. ANCOP offices
have been set up in 20 donor areas abroad as the official international
representatives of GK.
The “Kalinga Luzon” and “Kalinga Pilipinas” concepts have stirred

the imagination of other sectors. "Kawal Kalinga" is being proposed by the
Department of National Defense (DND) as well. Kawal Kalinga seeks to
implement GK programs in several military areas and camps to provide
decent homes for enlisted men. Provincial governments and multisectoral
partners in Cebu and Malabon will likewise launch Kalinga Cebu and
Kalinga Malabon. A trend is born and the poor and marginalized in
Philippine society have found a powerful opportunity for growth and real
change through the GK movement.” 25
2008
GK’s partnership with its stakeholders is grounded on trust. This

model has been described as indigenous and fundamental. While GK is a
faith-based initiative, it is nonetheless a working model of development
that can be complemented with research, training, and extension work.
The initiative has gone beyond providing roof for the homeless. Research
by various student groups, such as that by the Civic Welfare Training
Service (CWTS) students of the UP School of Economics presents how GK
is transforming people’s lifestyles, arousing hope and aspirations,
resulting in greater self-reliance (lower, if not eradicated, incidence of
scavenging and mendicancy among GK residents), disciplined habits (lower
spending on vices, such as, alcohol and gambling and greater spending on
food) and improved health (less incidence of disease, less spending on
medicines).
GK shuns politics while working with politicians. It successfully

draws out Filipino ingenuity and generosity. Perhaps as pointed out
earlier, the secret formula of GK success is genuine leadership founded on
trust. As GK founder Tony Meloto enthused in an interview with the
Philippine Daily Inquirer:
The leadership here enjoys public trust. We are nonpartisan but

we always like to work with national and local leaders who
believe in the vision of Gawad Kalinga which is simple: To bring
the Philippines out of the Third World; to make it a First World
nation (Philippine Daily Inquirer 2008).
GK as a Template for Good Governance
GK can be considered an excellent paradigm of good governance.

Good governance revolves around the values of transparency,
accountability, participation, rule of law, equity and social justice,
sustainability and continuity while GK revolves around the values of
“Bayanihan” (becoming a hero to one another and addressing the root
cause of poverty – not simply the absence of money but an absence of
shared values, sense of community and higher purpose). Massive
mobilization of GK partners and volunteers beginning with ‘padugo’ or ‘to
bleed for a cause’ which means devoting one’s own time and resources to
initiate work within the community without expecting outside funding or
support) and “patriotism in action” not just a work with the poor but more
importantly a work of nation building that began as a simple but a daring
initiative of the Couples for Christ (CFC) that has grown into a multi-
sectoral, and interfaith partnership driven by the same faith-based spirit
and vision.
April-October
GK practices are now being adopted by various sectors and as such

can be described as having become a template for good governance. The
new initiative being developed by the leadership of the House of
Representatives, aptly called Kalinga Pilipinas, will call on all members of
the House to each give P10 million of their annual Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF) to building communities via the GK approach
(Philippine Daily Inquirer 2008). While voluntary in nature, the proposed
House resolution is being matched with an Executive Order from the
President so that the transfer of funds from the DBM to GK will be smooth
and unhampered by red tape (www.balita.com).
GK as a Global Model for Development
GK has become a global model for development, building 100,000

homes all over Philippines and reaching as far as Papua New Guinea,
Indonesia and Cambodia, and will soon extend to East Timor, India,
Nigeria and Nicaragua.
The President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines

(CBCP), Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, describes GK as the new kind of
“people power” the country needs. According to Tony Meloto, Filipinos
abroad are coming home to help rebuild their motherland.
Many Filipino doctors and other health professionals in North
America are supporting us by adopting GK communities.
Corporate executives who have retired are volunteering their
expertise; some even give up their promising careers to work
with GK full time. Ateneo University and the University of the
Philippines are putting up the GK Institute for the training of
volunteers, caretaker teams and the local government unit
(LGU) partners for township development (Philippine Daily
Inquirer 2007a).
These communities are in various stages of development of which

there are three: start up, build up and showcase.
These three stages of Gawad Kalinga Community Development may

be seen and evaluated through two global lenses: first, in view of Mahbub
Ul Haq’s Core Pillars of Sustainable Human Development, and second, in
view of the innovative, entrepreneurial principles of Osborne and
Gaebler’s Reinventing Public Administration. This congruence concretely
illustrates the possibilities of objectively studying and establishing the
effectiveness of the GK model through the lens of Public Adminsitration.
Table 11 (next page) presents confluences between GK’s Stages of
Community Development, Haq’s Pillars of Sustainable Human
Development (1995) and Osborne and Gaebler’s Innovative,
Entrepreneurial Principle of Public Administration (1992).
2008
The possibilities for creating an objective public administration

template by which to evaluate how GK flourishes as a model for
governance may be anchored on its capacity to engage strategic
cooperation between government, business and civil society (through its
social network), effective delivery of services, and enhancing social equity
through its culture.
Table 11. The Pillars of Sustainable Human Development and the

Innovative, Entrepreneurial Principles of Reinventing Public
Administration vis-à-vis the Stages of GK Community Development
Sustainable Human Innovative, Entrepreneurial Principles Of

Stages Of Gawad Kalinga Community
Development New Public Administration
Development
(UNDP) (Gaebler And Osborne)
Equity • promote competition between service Stage 1
providers • Secured Land
• A caretaker Person/ Team
• redefine clients as customers and offer • Beneficiaries agreed to start (“KB
choices Enrollment”)
• prefer market mechanisms to bureaucratic
mechanisms
• focus not only on providing public service

but in catalyzing all sectors
Empowerment • driven by goals, missions rather than Stage 2
rules and regulations • Partnerships in place
• Start-up / Build-up of at least 1 of the 5 Basic
• empower citizens by pushing control out Programs
of the bureaucracy into the community 1. Community Infrastructures (formerly
“Shelter”)
• decentralize authority, embrace 2. CYD – Child and Youth Development
participatory management 3. Health
4. Productivity
5. Environment incoroporated in the 4
programs
• “KB Build-up” (Ongoing and Formation of KB
– Kapitbahayan)
Productivity • put energies into earning money, not just
spending
Sustainability • measure the performance of agencies Stage 3
focusing on outcomes rather than inputs • Formed KB Governance Team
• Showcase at least 1 of the 7 Programs
• prevent problems before they emerge 1. Community infrastructure
2. Child and Youth Development
3. Gawad Kalusugan (Community Health)
4. Bayan-anihan (Productivity)
5. Mabuhay (Culture and Tourism)
6. Kapitbahayan (Community Empowerment)
7. Green Kalinga (Environment)
• Mabuhay Program running (Tourism/
Culture)
April-October
GK has by far succeeded in collapsing the social divide by being

non-discriminatory and thus serving as a converging point for all sectors
of society. It has achieved unprecedented milestones in providing land for
the landless, homes for the homeless and food for the hungry. It
concretely animates the indigenous principle in the “sweat equity” concept
which has brought out the productive and creative side of people while
promoting a sense of belonging and unity. Furthermore, it has revived
the indigenous practice of “bayanihan” or volunteerism.
The presentations of selected local and national government

leaders, as well as workshop outputs from mayors, vice-mayors and city
government representatives in the GK Township Development Summit
collaboratively convened by UP NCPAG and Ateneo de Manila on August
26 and 27, 2007, concretely describe the effectiveness of GK as a
governance model. They illustrated how GK has effectively responded to
the problems and concerns of the small communities in the LGUs and
enhanced the capacity of national government to deliver what the poorest
Filipinos need. Furthermore, GK is reaching the poor and the
underprivileged in other parts of the world. Seen in this light, and
through the lens of the New Public Administration, Reinventing Public
Administration and Governance, GK is indeed a Filipino ingenuity that is
slowly progressing into a global template of good governance and
development.
Having examined GK through the lenses of the new public

administration, reinventing public administration and governance, does
GK respond to the following questions? Does GK enhance social equity?
Does it effectively deliver services? Does is it engage cooperation between
government, business and civil society? Is Gawad Kalinga an exemplar of
Philippine Public Administration?
Given that GK facilitates the effectiveness of government in

delivering service; enhances the investment of business; and engages the
creativity, capacity and values of civil society; who benefits from the
Gawad Kalinga Public Administration?
Indeed, Gawad Kalinga as a model of good governance and public

administration needs to be seriousy considered and continuously studied.
2008
Challenges: Indeed for Whom is Public Administration?
The discipline of public administration in the Philippines has been

a rapidly changing and growing one. Given the history and evolution of the
field of public administration, a number of challenges have to be
addressed:
First and foremost, for whom has the field of public administration
been developed? Has Philippine public administration been simply reacting
and following the lead of the international public administration
community? Or do we need to develop and design local and Philippine-
based fields, or could these be incorporated into existing fields? A good
example would be another emerging field, perhaps, an indigenous form of
governance?
Additionally, how have public administration structures, systems

and institutions in the Philippines responded to the broader questions of
promoting accountability, transparency and participation?
What has been the role of information, communication and

technology in making public administration more responsive to the
stakeholders who really matter?
How have public administrative structures, processes and

institutions responded to the ever pressing problem of poverty?
What has been the impact of globalization and the response of PA

structures, institutions and processes in the development and evolution of
Philippine public administration?
How can we address the problem of maldistribution where those

who have less in life should have more in governance and public
administration?
And how can we develop indigenous PA practices – like GK? How

can we replicate and further mainstream good practices of governance and
development in a venue of cooperation, trust, and partnership with
various stakeholders?
And how has the teaching, research and publication of public

administration responded to the above?
The above are only some of the emerging issues and challenges
pertaining to the evolution of the discipline of public administration in the
Philippines. These questions may serve as guide questions in our
April-October
continuing quest not only to answer the question, “Is there a Philippine
Public Administration?” but more importantly, “For Whom is Public
Administration?” The article provided a discussion of the evolution of the
field of public administration, in general, and zeroed in on the Philippines
in particular. It also included a discussion of what may be considered as
emerging illustration of an indigenous governance paradigm in the
Philippines – Gawad Kalinga - that combines partnership between
government, business and civil society upon which, after all, public
administration and good governance are founded.
Endnotes
1
This article 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
Cameral science is designed to prepare potential public officials for government
service.
3
See Woodrow Wilson. 1953. “The Study of Administration” in Dwight Waldo, ed.
Ideas and Issues in Public Administration. New York: Mc Graw Hill Book, Co., Inc., 64-
75.
4
Reyes (2003) emphasized however that aside from the Americans with the likes
of Wilson, a Frenchman named de Tocqueville, who traveled the length and breadth of
the US in the 1830s to observe America’s penal system, was one of the earliest voices to
call for a more serious consideration of Public Administration as a “science of
administration.”
5
See Leonard D. White. 1997. “Introduction to the Study of Public
Administration,” in Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde. Classics of Public
Administration. 4th ed. US: Hardcourt Brace College Publishers. 44-50. (first printed in
1926)
6
POSDCORB was coined by Gulick with Urwick. It stands for the functions of
management - planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting &
budgeting.
7
Fayol was one of the most influential contributors of modern management. He
proposed five primary functions of management: (1) planning, (2) organizing, (3)
commanding, (4) coordinating, and (5) controlling (Fayol 1949).
8
See Waldo’s conclusion in Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde. 1997. Classics of
Public Administration. 4th ed. US: Hardcourt Brace College Publishers: 142-153
9
At one point in the history of the evolution of management theories, there
emerged what was referred to as “Theory Z” that was largely derived from and based on
the highly effective and efficient Japanese approach to management.
10
See Brillantes 1995. “Development Administration in the Philippines” for an
in-depth discussion of development administration in the Philippines, in Ledevina V.
Cariño. Conquering Politico-Administrative Frontiers, Essays in Honor of Raul P. de
Guzman.
2008
11
Note that Development Administration is popularized in developing countries
like the Philippines although the conceptual foundations of the term were Western in
nature influenced largely by scientific management and administrative reform.
12
In the Philippines, the formal introduction of Public Administration as a field of
study essentially began when the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) was
established in the University of the Philippines in 1952 through an agreement between
UP and University of Michigan as an offshoot of Bell Mission’s recommendation to
improve the Philippine Government. The Institute served as a training ground for civil
servants and as a research arm. Later, it offered degree programs for Public
Administration. From College of Public Administration, it was renamed in 1998 as
National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG). Schools of Public
Administration (SPA) were then established throughout the country. Propelled by
NCPAG, these academic institutions have grouped themselves into an Association of
Schools of Public Administration in the Philippines, ASPAP, Inc. The Philippine
Journal of Public Administration (PJPA), a quarterly publication of international
stature, which was established in 1957, documents rich literatures of Public
Administration in the Philippines.
13
See Nestor N. Pilar. 1993. “Relevance of New PA in Philippine Public
Administration.” In Philippine Journal of Public Administration for an in-depth
discussion of New PA in the Philippines.
14
Cf Robert Denhardt. 2004. Theories of Public Organization. 4 th Ed. Australia:
Thomson/Wadsworth: 137-138 for an in-depth discussion of each principle.
15
Drawn from the Canadian Encyclopedia, available at http://
www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com
16
Ibid.
17
Cariño (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 research
interests of Filipino scholars in different fields of public administration: (1) traditional
public administration; personnel administration, organization and management, fiscal
administration, agency studies and the Philippine administrative system; (2) new public
administration, which includes ethics and accountability, public service values,
alternative delivery systems, public policy and program administration, were also
offered, as also (3) research in the governance tradition like democracy and
bureaucracy, citizen participation, decentralization, etc.
18
TQM was adopted by Japan and US to improve their production in a competitive
market vis-a-vis cost effective strategies with the ultimate goal of improving customer
satisfaction. See Mangahas and Leyesa 2003 and Mariano 2003. “Improving
Government Administration through TQM” and Mariano “TQM and Philippine Local
Government Units.” in Introduction to Public Administration: A Reader.
19
There are of course other targets of reform as far as the overall goal to promote
better and more responsive structures of government is concerned. These include the
judiciary and the Congress.
20
"Attrition" means the "reduction of personnel as a result of resignation,
retirement, dismissal in accordance with existing laws, death or transfer to another
office." The attrition law or RA 7430 was issued by President Ramos on 15 April 1992
which mandates the Civil Service Commission to audit all government agencies to
April-October
determine optimum utilization of personnel. The audit reports shall determine whether
an agency is overstaffed or understaffed and recomment its minimum and maximum
personnel requirements.
21
Data for the year 1964, 1974 and 1984 are derived from de Guzman, Brillantes
and Pacho 1988 while data for 2004 are derived from the Civil Service Commission. The
data exclude employees from state colleges and universities.
22
Population of the countries are derived from the data presented in http://
en.wikipedia.org; number of civil servants as a percentage of the population as computed
by the authors; number of Civil Servants in the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand are
from www. unpan1.un.org “Figures on the Number of Civil Servants: Compendium of
Information on Selected ASEAN Civil Service Systems. (2004)”; data of civil servants in
France from http://web.worldbank.org; United States number of civil servants from
http://www.federaljobs.net.
23
Drawn from www.gawadkalinga.org. To date, GK is in over 900 communities
all over the Philippines and in other developing countries. GK, indeed, can be considered
as an alternative solution to the blatant problem of poverty not just in the Philippines
but in the world.
24
MDG stands for Millennium Development Goals - a set of time-bound and
measurable goals and targets for combating poverty, hunger, diseases, illiteracy,
environmental degradation and discrimination against women. It consists of 8 goals, 18
targets and 48 indicators, covering the period 1990 to 2015. These goals were set in
September 2000, Member states of the United Nations (UN) gathered at the Millennium
Summit to affirm commitments toward reducing poverty and the worst forms of human
deprivation. The Summit adopted the UN Millennium Declaration, which embodies
specific targets and milestones in eliminating extreme poverty worldwide. A total of 189
countries, including the Philippines committed themselves to making the right to
development a reality for everyone (www.nscb.gov.ph).
25
This part is drawn from www.balita.org.
References
Annan, Kofi
1997 Inaugural Speech. First International Conference on Governance for
Sustainable Growth and Equity in United Nations. New York. July 28-
30.
Appleby, Paul
1945 Government is Different. in Big Democracy. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf Inc. Reprinted in Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde, eds. 1997.
Classics of. Public Administration.
Asian Development Bank

2005 Country Governance Assessment. Manila, Philippines: ADB.
1995 Governance : Sound Development Management. Manila, Philippines:

ADB.
2008
Astillero, Noel and Joel V. Mangahas

2002 Assessment of Capacity Building Needs of Biodiversity Areas
Management Board in the Philippines. Department of Environment
and Natural Resources and United Nations Development Programme.
Barnard, Chester I.
1938 The Functions of the Executives. Cambridge, Ma : Harvard University
Press.
Barzelay, Michael and Babak J Armajani

1992 Breaking through Bureaucracy: A New Vision for Managing in
Government. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 337

1983 An Act Enacting A Local Government Code. February 10.
Bissessar, Ann Marie, ed.

2007 Rethinking the Reform Question. UK: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.
Brillantes, Alex B. Jr.
2007 Public Governance: Whose Responsibility? Innovations and Excellence
in Local Governance: The Critical Role of Partnerships.
2004 Decentralization Imperatives: Lessons from some Asian Countries.

Public Policy VIII (1) (January-June): 1-27.
2003 Innovations and Excellence: Understanding Local Governments in the

Philippines. Quezon City: Center for Local and Regional Governance,
National College of Public Administration and Governance, University
of the Philippines.
1995 Development Administration in the Philippines. In Ledivina V. Cariño,

ed. Conquering Politico-Administrative Frontiers, Essays in Honor of
Raul P. de Guzman. Quezon City: UP College of Public Administration.
1987 Decentralization in the Philippines.. Philippine Journal of Public

Administration Vol. 31 (2). Quezon City: UP College of Public
Administration.
Briones, Leonor M.
1996 Philippine Public Fiscal Administration. Vol.1. Mandaluyong City:
Fiscal Administration Foundation, Inc.
Caiden, Gerald E.
1982 Public Administration. 2 nd Ed. CA: University of Southern California,
School of Public Administration.
Cariño, Ledevina V.
2007 From Traditional Public Administration to the Governance Tradition:
Research in NCPAG, 1995-2002. In Public Administration Plus
Governance Assessing the Past, Addressing the Future. Quezon City:
UP National College of Public Administration and Governance.
2000 The Concept of Governance. From Government to Governance.

Quezon City: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration
(EROPA): 1-16.
April-October
1995 Conquering Politico-Administrative Frontiers, Essays in Honor of

Raul P. De Guzman, ed. Quezon City: UP College of Public
Administration.
Chilcote, Ronald H.
1984 Theories of Development and Underdevelopment. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, Inc.
Civil Service Commission

2004 Inventory of Government Personnel. Available online at http://
www.csc.gov.ph/cscweb/2004IGP_stat.pdf. (Retrieved 08 May 2008)
De Guzman, Raul P.
1986 Is There a Philippine Public Administration? In the Philippine Journal
of Public Administration 30 (4) October.
De Guzman, Raul P., Alex B. Brillantes and Arturo Pacho

1988 The Bureaucracy. Government and Politics of the Philippines. Oxford.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Denhardt, Janet V. and Robert B. Denhardt

2003 The New Public Service: Serving, not Steering. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk.
Translated from the French ed. (Dunod) by Constance Stors. With a
foreword by L. Urwick.
Denhardt, Robert B.
2004 Theories of Public Organization. 4 th Ed. Australia: Thomson/
Wadsworth.
2000 The Policy Emphasis and the New Public Management. In Theories of
Public Organization. 3 rd ed. Fort Worth: Hardcourt Brace College
Publishers.
Department of Budget and Management

2008 A Report on the Overall Status of the Rationalization Program. Manila,
Philippines.
Diliman Governance Forum

2005a Reinventing, Reengineering and Reorganizing the Bureaucracy in the
Philippines: Why We Should be More Hopeful. Working Paper Series
No. 1. Quezon City: UP-NCPAG. March.
2005b Combating Corruption in the Philippines: Are we Plundering Our

Chances or Doing it Better? Diliman Governance Forum Working
Paper Series No. 2. Quezon City: UP-NCPAG. July.
Doornbos, Martin R.
2003 Good Governance: The Metamorphosis of a Policy Metaphor. Journal
of International Affairs, 57 (1). New York: Trustees of Columbia
University.
Dye, Thomas R.
1995 Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.
2008
Endriga, Jose N.
2001 The National Civil Service System of the Philippines. In John P. Burns
and Bidhya Bowornwathana, eds. Civil Service Systems in Asia.
United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Executive Order No. 112

1986 Placing All Budget Officers of Provinces, Cities and Municipalities
Under the Administrative Control and Technical Supervision of The
Ministry of Budget and Management. 4 December. Manila, Philippines.

2004 Directing A Strategic Review of the Operations and Organizations of
the Executive Branch and Providing Options and Incentives for
Government Employees Who May Be Affected by the Rationalization of
the Functions and Agencies of the Executive Branch. 4 October.
Manila, Philippines.

2005 Directing The Department Of Interior And Local Government To
Conduct A Strategic Review On The Continuing Decentralization And
Devolution Of Services And Functions Of National Government To
Local Government Units In Support Of The Rationalization Program Of
The Functions And Agencies Of The Executive Branch. 5 July. Manila,
Philippines.

2001 Directing the Formulation of an Institutional Strengthening and
Streamlining Program for the Executive Branch.
Fayol, Henri
1949 General and Industrial Management. London. Pitman Publishing
Company. Reprinted in Shafritz and Hyde 1997.
Follett, Mary Parker

1926 Scientific Foundations of Business Administration. In HC Metcalf, ed.
The Williams and Wilkins Co. Reprinted in Shafritz and Hyde 1997.
Fréchette, Louise
2000 Good Governance at National and Global Levels. From Government to
Governance: Reflections on the 1999 World Conference on Governance.
Quezon City: Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration.
Frederickson, George H.
1996 Comparing the Reinventing Government Movement with the New
Public Administration. Public Administration Review, 56 (3) (May-
June): 263-270. American Society for Public Administration: Blackwell
Publishing.
1971 Toward a New Public Administration. In Frank Marini, ed. Toward a

New Public Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective. Scranton,
PA: Chandler Publishing Co.
French, Wendell L.
1978 The Personnel Management Process. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
April-October
Galing Pook Foundation

2001 Kaban Galing: The Philippine Case Bank on Innovation and Exemplary
Practics in Local Governance.
Gant, George F.
1979 Development Administration, Concepts, Goals, Methods. Wisconsin:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Goodnow, Frank J.
1900 Politics and Administration: A Study in Government. New York:
Russell and Rusell. 17-26. Reprinted in Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C.
Hyde, eds. 1997. Classics of Public Administration.
Gulick, Luther L.
1937 Notes on the Theory of Organization. In L. Gulick and L. Urwick, eds.
Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public
Administration. 3-13.
Halachmi, Arie
1995 Reengineering and Public Management: Some Issues and
Considerations. In Christopher Pollitt and Geert Bouckaert, eds.
Quality Improvement in European Public Services: Concepts, Cases and
Commentary. London, England and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Hammer, Michael A.
1990 Reengineering Work: Don't Automate, Obliterate. Harvard Business
Review. July-August. Harvard Business Publishing. available at http:/
/harvardbusinessonline.hbsp.harvard.edu/hbrol/en/. Accessed on 02
June 2008)
Hammer, Michael A. and James A. Champy

1993 Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution.
New York: Harper Business.
Haq, Mahbub Ul
1995 Reflections on Human Development. New York: Oxford University
Pres
Hood, Christopher C.
1991 A Public Management for All Seasons. Public Administration 69 (1):
3-20.
Ilchman, Warren F.
1970 New Time in Old Clocks: Productivity, Development and Comparative
Public Administration. In Dwight Waldo, ed. Temporal Dimensions of
Development Administration. Kingsport: Duke University Press.
Khator, Renu
1998 The New Paradigm: From Development Administration to Sustainable
Development Administration. International Journal of Public
Administration, 21 (12).
Landau, Martin
1970 Development Administration and Administration Theory. In Edward D.
Weldner, ed. Development Administration in Asia. Tenesssee: Duke
University Press.
2008
Laurel, Jose P.
1926 Local Government in the Philippine Islands. Manila: La Pilarica Press.
Lijphart, Arend
1971 Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. American Political
Science Review, 65( 3): 682. Accessed in http://www.jstor.org on 20 May
2008.
Local Government Support Program (LGSP)

2005 Transformation Partnerships: A Replication Guide for Building LGU-
Initiated Gawad Kalinga Communities. Manila: Local Government
Resource Center (LGRC) Philippines-Canada Local Government
Support Program.
Lynn, Laurence E.
1996 Public Management as Art, Science, and Profession. Chatham, NJ:
Chatham House.
Malolos Constitution
1898 Malos Constitution Political Constitution. Barasoain, Malolos, Bulacan.
20 January.
Mangahas, Joel V. and Ma. Daryl L. Leyesa

2003 Improving Government Administration through TQM. In Bautista et
al., eds. Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A
Reader. Second Ed. Quezon City: National College of Public
Administration and Governance.
Mariano, Vicente D.
2003 Total Quality Management and Philippine Local Government Units. In
Bautista et al., eds. Introduction to Public Administration in the
Philippines: A Reader. Second Ed. Quezon City: National College of
Public Administration and Governance.
Martinez, Rommel L.
1999 Strategies of Corruption Prevention in the Philippines: Mobilizing Civil
Society. Working Papers. Asia Pacific School of Economics and
Management and Australian National University.
Maslow, Abraham H.
1943 A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (July): 373-
396.
Montelibano, Jose Ma.

2008 Glimpses: Of Heroism. Philippine Daily Inquirer. http://
o p i n i o n . i n q u i r e r . n e t / v i e w p o i n t s / c o l u m n s
view_article.php?article_id=134012. 2 May.
Nef, Jorge and O.P. Dwivedi

1981 Development Theory and Administration: A Fence Around an Empty
Lot? Indian Journal of Public Administration, 27 (1) (January-March).
Nigro, Felix A. and Lloyd G. Nigro

1989 Modern Public Administration. New York: Harper and Row Publishers,
Inc.
April-October
Ocampo, Romeo B. and Elena M. Panganiban

1998 The Philippine Local Government System. History, Politics, and
Finance. Manila: Local Government Center.
1987 The Philippines. In Chung Si-Ahn, ed. The Local Political System in
Asia. Seoul: National University Press.
Ortiz, Juanito S.
1996 The Barangays of the Philippines. Quezon City: Hiyas Press.
Osborne, David E.
1992 Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is
Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
Osborne, David E. and Ted A. Gaebler

1992 Reinventing Government. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Co., Inc.
Pilar, Nestor N.
1993 Relevance of the New PA in Philippine Public Administration.” In
Bautista et al., eds. Introduction to Public Administration in the
Philippines: A Reader. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press
and the College of Public Administration, University of the Philippines.
Philippine Daily Inquirer

2008 Gawad Kalinga takes Panlilio as Partner in Lifting the Poor. 6
January. Also available at: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/
regions/view_article.php?article_id=110740. Retrieved on 20 May 2008.
2007a Gawad Kalinga Goes Worldwide. Accessible on http:

archive.inquirer.net/view.php?db=1&story_id=51429. Retrieved on 08
June 2008.
2007b Filipino of the Year: Antonio Meloto. Also available at worldhttp://

newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view_article.ph). 18
January. Retrieved on 20 May 2008.
Philippines, Republic of
1987 The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Manila,
Philippines.
1973 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Manila, Philippines.
1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Manila, Philippines.
1930 The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. Act No. 3815
Pollitt, Christopher
1990 Managerialism and the Public Service. Oxford. Blackwell.
Presidential Decree No. 1.

1972 Reorganizing the Executive Branch of the National Government.
24 September. Manila, Philippines.
Republic Act 2264

1959 An Act Amending the Laws Governing Local Government by Increasing
their Autonomy and Reorganizing Provincial Governments. 19 June.
2008
Republic Act 2370

1959 An Act Granting Autonomy to the Barrios of the Philippines. Barrio
Charter Act.
Republic Act 3019

1960 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 17 August.
Republic Act 7160

1991 The Local Government Code of 1991. October 10.
Republic Act 7430

1992 An Act Providing For Optimum Utilization Of Personnel In
Government Service Through A System Of Attrition, Providing
Penalties For Violation Thereof, And For Other Purposes. Manila,
Philippines. 15 April.
Reyes, Danilo R.
2003 The Study of Public Administration in Perspective: A Passing Review of
the Development of the Discipline. In Bautista et al., eds. Introduction
to Public Administration: A Reader. 2nd edition. Quezon City: UP
National College of Public Administration and Governance.
1993 The Identity Crisis in Public Administration Revisited: Some

Definitional Issues and the Philippine Setting. In Bautista et al., eds.
Introduction to Public Administration: A Reader. 1st Edition. Quezon
City: UP College of Public Administration.
Riggs, Fred W.
1970 Frontiers of Development Administration. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Rutgers, Mark R.
1998 Paradigm Lost: Crisis as Identity of the Study of Public Administration.
The International Review of Administrative Sciences. London,
Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi, Vol. 64.
Shafritz Jay M. and Albert C. Hyde

1997 The Classics of Public Administration. 4 th ed. Fort Worth, TX:
Hardcourt Brace College Publishers.
Simon, Herbert A.
1947 Administrative Behavior; A Study of Decisionmaking Processes in
Administrative Organization. New York: Macmillan Co.
1946 The Proverbs of Administration. Public Administration Review.

Washington D.C.: American Society for Public Administration (ASPA).
Stillman II, Richard J.

1992 Preface to Public Administration: A Search for Themes and Direction.
New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc.
Taylor, Frederick F.
1912 Scientific Management. Excerpt from: Testimony before the U.S.
House of Representatives. 25 January.
April-October
Tillah, Mirshariff C.
2005 Globalization, Redemocratization and the Philippine Democracy.
Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Discussion Paper No.
2005-09.
Tompkins, Jonathan R.
2005 Organization Theory and Public Management. Belmont, CA.: Thomson
Learning Inc.
United Nations Development Programme

1997 Reconceptualizing Governance. Discussion Paper Series No. 2. New
York.
United Nations Development Programme and Republic of the Philippines

2002 Portfolio on Enabling Environment: Poverty Reduction through Good
Governance. Manila, Philippines.
Waldo, Dwight
1948 The Administrative State: Conclusion. The Administrative State: A
Study of the Political Theory of American Public Administration. 2 nd
Ed. New York: Holmes and Meier.
Weber, Max
1946 Essay in Sociology edited and translated by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright
Mills. Oxford University Press.
Weidner, Edward W., ed.

1970 Development Administration in Asia. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
White, Leonard D.
1997 Introduction to the Study of Administration. In Jay M Shaffritz and
Albert C. Hyde. Classics of Public Administration. 4th ed. US:
Hardcourt Brace College. 44-50. (first printed in 1926).
Willoughby, William F.
1918 The Movement for Budgetary Reform in the States. New York: D
Appleton and Co. for the Institute for Government Research.
Wilson, Woodrow
1953 The Study of Public Administration. In Waldo, Dwight, ed. Ideas and
Issues in Public Administration. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.,
Inc.
World Bank
2001 Combating Corruption in the Philippines. An Update. 30 September.
Philippine Country Management Office, East-Asia and the Pacific
Regional Office.
2008
Internet Sites
http://www.balita.com
http://www.gawadkalinga.org/
http://www.tag.org.ph
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.
http://www.csc.gov.ph/cscweb/2004IGP_stat.pdf.
http://www.nscb.gov.ph
http://www.cfc-de.org/news.php
http://en.wikipedia.org
http://web.worldbank.org
http://www.federaljobs.net.
http://unpan1.un.org
http://opinion.inquirer.net/viewpoints/columns/view_article.php?article_id=134012
http://www.csc.gov.ph/cscweb/2004IGP_stat.pdf.
http://www.jstor.org.
April-October
Annex 1. List of Best Practices According to Sectoral Areas

S e c t o r a l Are a s B e s t P ra c ti c e Lo c a l Go v e r n m e n t U n i t
Loca l Resou r ce Bon ds Vict or ia , N egr os Occid en t a l
G en er a t ion
Bu ilt -Op er a t e Tr a n sfe r Din gr a s, I locos N or t e
Ma n d a lu yon g Cit y
I n fr a s t r u ct u r e Mu n oz, N u eva E cija
Refor m in g the Rea l P r op er t y Ta x P r ovin ce of N u eva E cija
S ys t em
“P a glilin gk od Abot -K a m a y” Ma gsa ysa y, Da va o
E n vir on m e n t a l E n vir on m en t a l Ma n a gem en t P r oject Ba is Cit y
Ma n a gem en t
Wa t er sh ed P r ot ect ion Ma a sin , I loilo
Refor est a t ion P la n Met r o I loilo Wa t er Dist r ict
E n vir on m en t a l a wa r e n ess p r ogr a m Ba gu io Cit y
for ch ild r en (E co-wa lk )
Coa st a l Ma n a gem en t (Kon t r a Ka la t P r ovin ce of Ba t a a n
s a D a ga t )
S olid Wa st e Ma n a gem e n t S yst em Ca r m on a , Ca vit e
”Ba lik K a lik a sa b, Ba lik Am a n g
P a br ik a ” (BI KBAB)
”Tr ee Resou r ces for E d u ca t ion , P r ovin ce of N u eva Visca ya
E n t er p r ise a n d for Lega cy”
S olid Wa s t e Ma n a gem en t P r ogr a m Lin a m on , Da va o del N or t e
“Ba su r a -At r a s, Lin a m on Aba n t e sa
Ka la m boa n (BALAK)”
S ocia l Welfa r e a n d P r im a r y H e a lt h Ca r e (P H C) S u r iga o Cit y
H ea lt h S er vices
(P r im a r y H e a lt h Ca r e P r ogr a m )
Cou n t er I n s u r gen cy S t r a t egy P r ovin ce of N egr os Or ien t a l
Com m u n it y P r im a r y H osp it a l
Com m u n it y H ea lt h Volu n t eer Du m a r a o, Ca p iz
p r ogr a m
MBN Ap p r oa ch t o Develop m en t P r ovin ce of Da va o
H ou sin g Low cost h ou sin g P u er t o P r in cesa
H ou sin g t h r ou gh bon d flot a t ion Lega sp i Cit y a n d Vict or ia s
I n t e r -Loca l Coop er a t ion I n t egr a t ed P la n n in g (M et r o N a ga N a ga Cit y
a n d P a r t n er sh ip Cou n cil)
Cen t r a l P a n a y E con om ic U n ion Ca p iz a n d Ak la n
I lla n a Ba y Region a l Allia n ce 9
P eop le's P a r t icip a t ion Volu n t e er ism P r ogr a m Olon ga po Cit y
a n d E m p owe r m en t "P eop le's Con gr ess" Du m a r a o, Ca p iz
Con st it u en t Resp on sive Gover n a n ce Ma lolos, Bu la ca n
"P eop le E m p ower m en t P r ogr a m ” N a ga Cit y
E m pow er m en t of P er son s wit h P r ovin ce of N u eva Visca ya
Disa bilit y
P r od u ct ivit y Loca l Gover n m en t P r od u ct ivit y N a ga Cit y
I m p r ovem en t t h r ou gh IT
"Tr ip a r t it e I n d u st r ia l P ea ce Cou n cil Ma n d a u e Cit y, Cebu
Ma n a gem en t I n n ova t ion s (TI P C)”
"Re or ga n iza t ion P r ogr a m ” Goa , Ca m a r in es S u r
Ba r a n ga y Ta lyer (S h op in E ver y Ma r ik in a Cit y
Livelih ood Ge n er a t ion Villa ge ) P r ogr a m
Livelih ood gen er a t ion t h r ou gh Gu a gu a , P a m p a n ga
sa m p a gu it a
Ba ya n ih a n Ba n k in g P r ogr a m P a sa y Cit y
Source: Brillantes 2003
2008
Annex 2. List of Laws Related to Graft and Corruption

1946-1971
•Republic Act (RA) 1379 (1955). This act declared forfeiture in favor of the state any property found to have been unlawfully
acquired by any public officer or employee, and provided for the proceedings.
•RA 3019 (1960). This act provided for the repression of certain acts of public officers and private persons alike, which constitute
graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto, also known as Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act.
•RA 6028 (1969). This act provided for the promotion of higher standards of efficiency and justice in the administration of laws as
well as to better secure the right of the people to petition the government for redress of grievances, creating the office of the
citizen’s counselor.
1972-1986
•Presidential Decree (P.D.) 6 (1972). This decree amended certain rules on discipline of government officials and employees.
•PD 46 (1972). This decree made it punishable for public officials and employees to receive and for private persons to give gifts on
any occasion including Christmas.
•PD 677 (1975). This decree amended Section 7 of RA 3019 (as amended).
•PD 749 (1975). This decree granted immunity from prosecution to givers of bribes and other gifts and to their accomplices in
bribery and other graft cases against public officers.
•PD 807 (1975). This decree provided for the organization of the Civil Service commission, in accordance with provisions of the
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines (repealed under President Aquino’s administration).
•PD 1606 (1978). This decree revised PD 1486 (creating a special court to be known as Sandiganbayan – the main antigraft court
that adjudicates criminal cases filed against high-ranking government officials.
1987-present
•1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Article XI, Accountability of Public Officers; Article II, Section 27 and
Section 28 policy of the State to maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures
against graft and corruption; and Article III, Section 7, provides for the right of people to have access to public information.
•1987 Administrative Code (Executive Order (EO) No. 292). This code instituted the administrative code of the Philippines.
•EO 243 (1987). This order created OMB and restated its composition, powers, functions, and other salient features in the 1987
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.
•RA 6713 (1989). This act provided for the functional and structural organization of OMB and delineated its powers and functions.
•RA 7055 (1991). This act strengthened civilian supremacy over the military by returning to the civil courts the jurisdiction over
certain offenses involving members of the armed forces, other persons subject to military law, and members of the Philippine
National Police.
•RA 7080 (1991). This act defined and penalized the crime of plunder.
•RA 8249 (1997). This act further defined the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, amending PD 1606 (as amended).
•Proclamation 189 (1999). This proclamation declared war against graft and corruption and authorized the Philippine Jaycee
Senate, through the Graft Free Philippines Foundations, Inc., to institutionalize public awareness of clean, efficient, and honest
governance.
•EO 12 (2001). This order created the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission and provided for its powers, duties, and functions and
for other purposes to investigate complaints or hear administrative cases filed against presidential appointees.
•EO 25 (2001). This order established the Governance Advisory Council to encourage more active involvement of the business
sector in curbing graft and corruption.
•Code of Corporate Governance (2002). This code further provided to actively promote corporate governance reforms aimed to raise
investor confidence, develop capital market, and help achieve high sustained growth for the corporate sector and the economy.
•Code of Judicial Conduct (1989). This code provided for the appropriate conduct of judges in performing their duties; otherwise
known as the Code of Judicial Conduct.
•RA 9160 (2001). This act defined the crime of money laundering and provided for the penalties of such act.
•RA 9184 (2002). This act provided for the modernization, standardization, and regulation of procurement activities of the
Government, also known as the Government Procurement Reform Act.
•EO 38 (2001). This order recognized and extended the life of the Special Task Force created under EO 156 dated 7 October 1999
entitled “Creating a Special Task Force to Review, Investigate and Gather Evidence Necessary to Successfully Prosecute
Irregularities Committed at the Bureau of Internal Revenue, Bureau of Customs and Other Government Offices or Agencies,
government-owned and controlled corporations, and government financial institutions, and required the use of the Government
electronic procurement system.
•EO 72 (2002). This order rationalized the agencies under or attached to the Office of the President.
•EO 109 (2002). This order streamlined the rules and procedures on the review and approval of all contracts of departments,
bureaus, offices, and agencies of the Government including government-owned and controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
•EO No. 114 (2002). This order restructured the Bureau of Internal Revenue toward a Taxpayers’ Focused Organization.
•EO No. 251 (2003). This order required the Bureau of Internal Revenue to furnish OMB with income tax return filed.
•RA 9184 (2003) This act amended RA 9160 (Anti-Money Laundering Act).
Source: http://www.tag,org.ph/phillaw
April-October
Annex 3. Philippine Government Anti-Corruption Agencies

Ag e n c y Ma n da te
Office of t h e Om bu dsm a n In vest iga t es a n d pr osecu t es. Adju dica t es a dm in ist r a t ive ca ses a n d
Lega l St a t u s: Con st it u t ion a l t a kes cr im in a l ca ses t o cou r t or Sa n diga n ba ya n , depen din g on a
E st a blish ed: 1986 gover n m en t officia ls’ r a n k
Com mission on Au dit Con du ct s in depen den t a u dit s of gover n m en t a gen cies a n d r efer s
Lega l St a t u s: Con st it u t ion a l fin a n cia l ir r egu la r it ies discover ed in a u dit s t o Office of t h e
E st a blish ed: 1986 Ombu dsm a n (OMB)
Civil Ser vice Com m ission Pla ys pr even t ive r ole in set t in g st a n da r ds a n d n or m s for civil ser vice
Lega l St a t u s: Con st it u t ion a l a ppoin t men t s a n d pu n it ive r ole for m et in g ou t pen a lt ies a n d
E st a blish ed: 1986 pu n ish m en t s for viola t ion s.
Sa n diga n ba ya n As m a in a n t i-gr a ft cou r t , a dju dica t es cr im in a l ca ses br ou gh t t o it by
Lega l St a t u s: Con st it u t ion a l OMB. Dea ls on ly wit h ca ses br ou gh t a ga in st h igh -r a n kin g officia ls.
E st a blish ed: 1986
J u dicia r y (h ea ded by t h e Su pr em e Cou r t ) Adju dica t es la w in a ll a r ea s.
Lega l St a t u s: Con st it u t ion a l
Depa r t m en t of J u st ice Act s a s Gover n m en t ’s pr im a r y cr im in a l pr osecu t ion a r m.
Lega l St a t u s: E xecu t ive Br a n ch
Depa r t m en t of Bu dget Over sees r efor m s in pr ocu r em en t syst em s, t a x a n d expen dit u r e
Lega l St a t u s: E xecu t ive Br a n ch ma n a gemen t , bu r ea u cr a cy st r ea m lin in g, a n d civil ser vice.
Com mission on E lect ion s Ta sked wit h pr om ot in g fr ee, or der ly, h onest , pea cefu l, a n d cr edible
elect ion s a n d h a n dlin g expedit iou sly ever y a ct ion br ou gh t befor e it .
P r esiden t ia l Comm ission on Good Gover n a n ce Assign ed a t it s in cept ion wit h r ecover in g ill-got t en wea lt h fr om t h e
Lega l St a t u s: E xecu t ive Or der No. 1 Ma r cos fa m ily. Now a lso t a sked wit h sim ila r r ecover y fr om
E st a blish ed F ebr u a r y 1986 Pr esiden t E st r a da .
Ba n gko Sen t r a l n g P ilipin a s Per for m s cen t r a l ba n kin g fu n ct ion s. Repla ced old cen t r a l ba n k
Lega l St a t u s: Con st it u t ion a l (New Cen t r a l cr ea t ed in 1946.
Ba n kin g Act )
Secu r it ies a n d E xch a n ge Com mission Over sees r egist r a t ion of secu r it ies, eva lu a t ion of fin an cia l con dit ion
Lega l St a t u s: Com m on wea lt h Act No. 83 a n d oper a t ion s of a pplica n t s for secu r it y issu es, a n d su per vision of
(Secu r it ies Act ) st ock a n d bon d br oker s a n d st ock exch a n ges. Ta sked wit h
E st a blish ed: Oct ober 1936 st r en gt h en in g cor por a t e gover n a n ce.
In t er -Agen cy An t i-Gr a ft Coor din a t in g Cou n cil Sh a r es in for m a t ion a n d r esou r ces t o en h a n ce coor din a t ion of it s
Lega l St a t u s: E xect u ive Or der No. 79 mem ber s’ a ct ivit ies: Civil Ser vice Com m ission (CSC), Com mission on
E st a blish ed: Au gu st 1999 Au dit (COA), Depa r t m en t of J u st ice (DOJ ), Na t ion a l Bu r ea u of
In vest iga t ion (NBI), Office of t h e Om bu dsm a n (OMB), a n d
Pr esiden t ia l Com mission Aga in st Gr a ft a n d Cor r u pt ion . (P AGC)
Na t ion a l Bu r ea u of In vest iga t ion Ga t h er s eviden ce for pr oba ble ca u se, con du ct s h ea r in gs a n d files
Lega l St a t u s: E xecu t ive Or der No. 94 a ppr opr ia t e ch a r ges.
E st a blish ed: Oct ober 1947
P r esiden t ia l Comm ission on E ffect ive Gover n a n ce For m u la t es pu blic sect or in st it u t ion a l st r en gt h en in g a n d
Lega l St a t u s: E xecu t ive Or der No. 165 st r ea m lin in g a gen da . Ch a ir ed by execu t ive secr et a r y, vice-ch a ir ed by
E st a blish ed: Oct ober 1999 DBM, Mem ber s in clu de h ea ds of CSC, COA, DOF, NE DA, a n d
Pr esiden t ia l Ma n a gemen t St a ff.
P r esiden t ia l Comm ission on E ffect ive Gover n a n ce In vest iga t es viola t ion of a n t i-gr a ft la ws by pr esiden t ia l su ba ppoin t ies
Lega l St a t u s: E xecu t ive Or der No. 12 a n d ca n r ecom men d su spen sion of in dividu a l t o pr esiden t s. (Sa m e
E st a blish ed: Apr il 2001 ma n da t e a s t h e Ra m os a dmin ist r a t ion ’s P r esiden t ia l Com m ission
a ga in st Gr a ft a n d Cor r u pt ion , wh ich it su per seded.) Also su per seded
t h e E st r a da a dmin ist r a t ion ’s Na t ion a l An t icor r u pt ion Com mission .
Gover n a n ce Advisor y Cou n cil Advises pr esiden t s in for m u la t ion gover n a n ce r efor m a gen da s.
Lega l St a t u s: E xecu t ive Or der No. 25 Con sist s of pr iva t e sect or a ppoin t ees.
E st a blish ed: Apr il 2001
An t i-Mon ey La u n der in g Cou n cil Con sist s of gover n or of Ba n gko Sen t r a l n g Pilipin a s, com mission er of
Lega l St a t u s: Repu blic Act No. 9160 In su r a n ce Comm ission , a n d ch a ir m a n of Secu r it ies a n d E xch a n ge
E st a blish ed: Sept em ber 2001 Com m ission . Receives r epor t s on cover ed t r a n sa ct ion s a n d ca n
fr eeze su spiciou s a ccou n t s 15 da ys wit h ou t r esou r ce t o cou r t s.
Source: World Bank 2001 as cited in ADB 2005
2008

1524

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1524

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol. LII Nos.

2-4 (April- October 2008)

Is There A Philippine Public

This article traces the evolution of public administration,

Is there a Philippine public administration? A number of colleagues

Among the basic references we use in the general introductory

There is a Philippine Public Administration as there is also an

Yes, there are basic public administration structures and processes.

This article contextualizes the field of public administration by

One has to make an evaluation – and a judgment call – as to whether

Evolution of the Field of Public Administration

In order to properly appreciate the context of Philippine public

The discipline of public administration can be divided into two major

Table 1. Phases in the Evolution of Public Administration

Phase Indicative Period

Traditional / Classical Public Administration 1800s to 1950s

Traditional / Classical Public Administration

Public Administration can be traced back to human history. It has

Caiden (1982) also noted that the genesis of Public Administration

Since this article tries to trace the roots of Philippine Public

If the roots of Public Administration as a distinct field of study have

essay, “The Study of Administration.” 3 In that essay there was a serious

Moreover, Max Weber (1946), a German sociologist who is known as

From Classical, Neo-Classical to

Frederick Taylor, the “Father of Scientific Management,” is best

the ideas of earlier theorists like Henri Fayol 7 into a comprehensive

Simon (1947) in his book Administrative Behavior, made a distinction

In 1948, Dwight Waldo tried to establish the direction and thrust of

William Willoughby (1918), a contemporary of Goodnow, advocated

Between 1927 and 1932, Elton Mayo, together with Fritz

Modern Public Administration

This part of the article suggests the indicative period of modern

The discipline of public administration has been characterized as one

Development Administration (1950s to 1960s)

Development Administration (DA) as a field of study emerged in the

term “Third World” may be attributed to the French demographer and

Gant (1979), on the other hand, defined DA as not merely addressing

Khator, however, argued that DA was built upon several critical

In the Philippines, the term “development administration” was used

through the various lectures and writings of de Guzman, who together

Since the idea was to steer developing countries to economic

Development administration has always been one of the central

New Public Administration (late 1960s to 1970s)

advancement in the backdrop. Frederickson (1971) argued that disparities

Now the question is: Is New PA relevant?

New Public Management and

This section introduces New Public Management (NPM), reinventing

The new public management (NPM) movement had long been

Moreover, NPM according to Pollitt is a shift to a “managerialist”

The ideas of “new public management” and “reinventing government”

Among the criticisms of this model, however, was its emphasis on

Another similar movement was “reengineering organizations.” This

• Searching for radical improvement in business processes enabled

Reengineering, or the so-called "business process reengineering"

PA as Governance (the 1990s into the 2000s)

The many failed development interventions in the 1950s into the

"Governance" entails a larger scope and has a wider meaning.

Cariño (2000), in her reflections on the term “governance,” identified

From “governance,” the concept of “good governance” emerged and

Good governance and sustainable development are indivisible.

Annan concluded that “good governance is perhaps the single most

An ADB document (2005) also affirmed that good governance is

Table 2. Basic Elements of Good Governance