IS THERE A PHILIPPINE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION? OR BETTER STILL, FOR WHOM IS PHILIPPINE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION? 1 Alex Brillantes, Jr. and Maricel Fernandez 2 I Yes, there is a Philippine Public Administration Is there a Philippine public administration? A number of our colleagues asked us why we are asking that question again as we were planning this colloquium. Indeed that question had been asked 20 years ago, and answers have been provided us by eminent scholars of Public Administration such as Raul de Guzman and Onofre Corpuz.
After two decades, we think it is worthwhile to revisit the issue and ask our colleagues once again to answer the question, “Is there a Philippine Public Administration? ” This time around, we take the question a little further and ask an equally important second question, “If there is a Philippine Public Administration, then for whom does Philippine Public Administration exist? Among the basic references we have been using in the general introductory course in Public Administration at both the graduate (PA 201) and undergraduate (PA 11) levels are essays by the aforementioned eminent scholars of Philippine Public Administration (Dr de Guzman and Dr Corpuz). These essays were published in a special issue of the Philippine Journal of Public Administration in 3 1986 (PJPA). While de Guzman and Corpuz both assert that there is a Philippine Public Administration, both also suggest that the question be properly contextualized.
There is a Philippine Public Administration as far as there is an American, French and Thai public administration. There is a Philippine public administration as far as there are institutions of public administration addressing specific sectoral concerns. There is a Philippine public administration as far as it being a field of study is concerned. There is a Philippine public administration considering the massive role of the bureaucracy in Philippine public administration.
There is a Philippine public administration when we consider its major institutions in education, politics and government. Yes we have basic public administration structures and processes. We have an executive branch with the bureaucracy at its core. We have a Philippine legislature. We have a Philippine judiciary. We have Philippine electoral processes and procedures. We have Philippine sub-national institutions and local governments, together with decentralization processes and procedures. It is within this context that we argue that indeed, we have a Philippine public dministration characterized by the presence of administrative structures and processes operating within a unique Philippine context. The paper contextualizes the field of public administration by discussing the following: (a) the evolution of the field of public administration suggesting that there are only two major phases (traditional and modern phase); (b) the different fields of public administration; (c) selected major ongoing concerns of public administration in the Philippines (reorganization, decentralization and corruption).
The paper also includes a brief discussion of an example of what is now considered as an emerging illustration of a home grown governance paradigm (Gawad Kalinga) as one that illustrates successful cooperation between government, business and civil society in the delivery of basic services, which after all is a core concern of modern public administration and good governance. The paper then ends by raising third order concerns as we address the question, “for whom is public 4 administration. One has to make an evaluation – and a judgment call – as to whether the discipline of Philippine public administration has indeed responded – or failed to respond – to the unique calls and demands of the times. This will enable us to answer the question posed at the outset, “for whom is A paper presented in the public colloquium on: “Is there a Philippine Public Administration: A Timeless Issue,” held on June 26-27, 2008 at the UP National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP NCPAG). Professor and Dean, University of the Philippines, National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP NCPAG), and University Researcher (UP NCPAG) and former instructor of Saint Paul University Philippines, respectively. The assistance of Kate Asilo in the preparation of this paper is gratefully acknowledged. 3 Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 30:4, October 1986, pp 368-382. This paper may also serve as a basic introduction to the theory and practice of public administration, zeroing in on selected and basic Philippine public administration issues and concerns. 1 1 public administration? ” This is a question that ultimately must be addressed not only by those teaching public administration but also by those studying public administration as well. While this paper will not even pretend to answer that question, it will raise issues and concerns about the matter that may trigger further questions and debate. II.
EVOLUTION OF THE FIELD OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION In order to properly appreciate the context of Philippine public administration, it may be helpful to retrace the history and evolution of the broad discipline and examine the various strands and influences that have influenced the theory and practice – the praxis – of public administration in the Philippines. We shall also examine the specific areas and fields of specialization of the field, taking cognizance of the many other emerging fields going beyond the traditional fields of public administration.
The discipline of the field of public administration can be divided into two major phases: the traditional / classical phase from the late 1800s to the 1950s to the modern phase, from the 1950s to the present. The Modern phase can be further divided into the following sub-phases: development administration (1950s to the 60s), new public administration (1960s to the 70s), new public management and reinventing governance (1980s into the 90s) and finally public administration as governance (1990s into the present). The following is an indicative matrix that reflects the phases in the evolution of public administration.
Table 1. Phases in the Evolution of Public Administration Phase Traditional / Classical Public Administration Modern Public Administration Development Administration (1950s to 1960s) New Public Administration (1970s) New Public Management (1980s to 1990s) Reinventing Government (1990s) PA as Governance (1990s to the present) Indicative Period 1800s to 1950s 1950 to the present Traditional / Classical Public Administration Public Administration can be traced back to human history. It has been suggested that it is as old as the ncient empires of China, India, Egypt, Greece, Rome and Mesopotomia. The institutionalization of administrative capacity for collective purposes is the foundation of public administration. Such arrangement, according to Caiden (1982), has existed in all societies. All societies are devoted to advancing the general welfare or the public interest. The idea that “public administration should not be considered administration of the public but administration for the public” has been practiced and expressed in the Code of Hammurabi, in Confucianism and in the funeral oration of Pericles. Caiden 1982: 7) In other words, the idea of client-oriented public administration has its roots in ancient public administration. Caiden (1982) also noted that the genesis of Public Administration must have had originated from monarchial Europe where household officials were divided into two groups: one in charge of public affairs, i. e. the administration of justice, finance, training of armies, and the other is responsible for personal services. Rutgers (1998) supports this claim that (i. e. royal) administration had already th th been manifested way back in the mid 17 century and early 18 century in Prussia.
F. K. Medikus (as cited in Rutgers 1998) likewise argued on the study of public administration and its positions amidst the sciences in the 18th century. He advocated “cameralism” and claimed that it should be treated as an autonomous field of study of great importance to the state. Cameral science is designed to prepare potential public officials for government service. This practice flourished in Europe until the 21st century but it was, in the long run, replaced by administrative law and legal studies. 2
Since this paper tries to trace the roots of Philippine Public Administration, it shall dwell on American theories and principles which admittedly influenced the direction and development of the formal study of the field of public administration in the Philippines, both at the levels of theory and practice. It will be recalled that public administration as academic field of study formally begun with the establishment by the Americans of the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) in the University of the Philippines (UP) in 1952. Hence, the close affinity of Philippine PA heory to American PA theory and practice can not be divorced. 1800s to 1950s If the roots of Public Administration as a distinct field of study have to be traced, the tendency is to draw on Woodrow Wilson’s 1887 classic essay, “The Study of Public Administration,” which was 5 written at the height of Progressive Movement in the US. It was in that essay that there was a serious claim that public administration should be a self-conscious, professional field. Wilson suggested the distinction between politics and administration i. e. dministration should be politics-free and that “the field of administration is the field of business;” (Wilson 1953: 71) thus, establishing what became known as the “politics-administration” dichotomy. 6 Although Wilson set a demarcation line between politics and administration, Frank Goodnow (1900), the “Father of American Public Administration,” presented a more meticulous examination of politics-administration dichotomy in his book, “Politics and Administration” that “supplanted the traditional concern with the separation of powers among the various branches of the government. (Shafritz and Hyde 1997: 2) Politicsadministration dichotomy has provoked long-running debates which persist until today. It may be argued though that, as far as the Philippine experience is concerned, the dichotomy is artificial and that in practice, power and partisan politics have had a disproportionate influence upon the workings of public administration in the Philippines. Max Weber (1946), a German sociologist who is known as the “Father of Modern Sociology,” made a lucid descriptive analysis of bureaucratic organizations.
He presented some major variables or features of bureaucracy such as: hierarchy, division of labor, formally written rules and procedures, impersonality and neutrality; hence, providing a reference point in evaluating both the good and bad effects of bureaucratic structures. (Weber 1946 as cited in Shafritz and Hyde 1997) It was in 1926 that the first text in the field of public administration was written by Leonard D. 7 White. His book, Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, is one of the most influential texts in public administration to date.
One of his assumptions was that administration is still an art. He, however, recognized the ideal of transforming it into a science. Interestingly, his work avoided the potential pitfalls of the politics-administration dichotomy but rather concentrated on emphasizing the managerial phase of administration. From Classical, Neo-Classical to Integrative/Modern Organization Theories Frederick Taylor, dubbed as the “Father of Scientific Management,” is best known for his “one best way approach” in accomplishing task.
Classical organization theory evolved from this notion. Another popular manifestation of this approach was that of Luther Gulick’s POSDCORB 8 methodologies. Gulick and Urwick (1937 as cited in Shafrtiz and Hyde 1997) integrated the ideas of earlier theorists like Henri Fayol 9 into a comprehensive theory of administration. They believed that a single science of administration, which exceeds the boundaries of the private and the public sector, exists. The reasoning of the science of administration was largely borrowed from Fayol’s fourteen principles of organization.
POSDCORB, however, was seen as less influential in post-war American government. Thereafter, Simon, Waldo and Appleby attacked the idea of POSDCORB. Simon (1946) in his book, “Administrative Behavior,” created a distinction between theoretical and practical science. He introduced more common principles in the literature of administration which highlighted See Woodrow, Wilson. 1953. “The Study of Public Administration” in Ideas and Issues in Public Administration, ed. Dwight Waldo. New York: Mc Graw Hill Book, Co. , Inc. , 64-75. Reyes (2003) emphasized however that aside from the Americans with the likes of Wilson, de Tocqueville, a Frenchman, who traveled the length and breadth of the US in the 1830s to observe America’s penal system, was one of the earliest voices to call for a more serious consideration of Public Administration as a “science of administration. ” 7 th See Leonard D. White. 1997 “Introduction to the Study of Public Administration,” in Classics of Public Administration. 4 ed. Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde. US: Hardcourt Brace College Publishers. 4-50. (first printed in 1926) 8 POSDCORB was coined by Gulick with Urwick. It stands for the functions of management – planning, organizing, staffing, directing, coordinating, reporting & budgeting. 9 Fayol was one of the most influential contributors of modern management. He proposed that there are five primary functions of management: (1) planning, (2) organizing, (3) commanding, (4) coordinating, and (5) controlling (Fayol, 1949, 1987). 5 3 administrative efficiency and specialization when he wrote the article,“The Proverbs of Administration. (Simon 1946 as cited in Shafffritz and Hyde 1997; Stillman 1991) On the other hand, in 1945, Appleby, led a postwar attack on the concept of politics-administration dichotomy by drafting a convincing case that “public administration was not something apart from politics” but rather at the “center of political life. ” (Stillman 1991: 123) In 1948, Dwight Waldo tried to establish the direction and thrust of Public Administration as a field of study in his book, “The Administrative State,” which hit the “gospel of efficiency” that dominated the administrative thinking prior to Word War II. 0 That same year, Sayre attacked public personnel administration as “the triumph over purpose. ” (Shafritz and Hyde 1997: 74) In 1949, Selznick introduced the so-called “cooptative mechanism” where he defined “cooptation” as “the process of absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy determining structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stability or existence. ” (Shafritz and Hyde 1997: 147) A contemporary of Goodnow was William Willoughby (1918). Willoughby stressed the role of the trilogy covering all three branches of government but he was more known for his budgetary reforms.
He discussed the movements for budgetary reforms in the US in view of the budget as an instrument for democracy, as an instrument for correlating legislative and executive action, and as an instrument for securing administrative efficiency and economy. Mary Parker Follet (1926) also made some significant contribution to the discourse of Public Administration as one of the proponents of participatory management and the “law of situation” which can be attributed to the concept of contingency management. She illustrated the advantages of participatory management in her article, “The Giving of Orders. In the 1920s and early 1930s, Elton Mayo conducted the Hawthorne experiments on the theory of individuals within an organization which propelled the human relations school of management thought. Chester Barnard (1938) presented a more comprehensive theory of organizational behavior when he wrote the functions of the executive. He argued that for the executive to become more effective, he should maintain an equilibrium between the needs of the employees and the organization. Maslow (1943), on the other hand, focused on the hierarchical needs of the individual.
His “theory of human motivation,” states that the human being has five sets of needs: physiological, safety, love or affiliation, esteem and ultimately, and self-actualization. His concepts were later explored and developed into more comprehensive theories and principles as advocated by other researches in organizational behavior and management, such as, Herzberg’s “motivation11 Argyris’ “personality versus organization and hygiene theory,” Mc Gregor’s “Theory X and Y,” Likert’s Systems 1 to 4, among others. Shafritz and Hyde 1997) Modern Public Administration This paper suggests the indicative period of modern public administration in the 50s. The subphases include: (a) development administration; (b) new public administration; (c) new public management and reinventing government; and PA as governance. The discipline of public administration has been characterized as one with a continuing “identify crisis. ” To a certain extent, it was that “identity crisis” that served as theme that led to the emergence of the New Public Administration movement in the 70s.
Rutgers (1998) argued in “Paradigm lost: Crisis as Identify of the Study of Public Administration,” that public administration lacked an “epistemological identity. ” In the Philippines, Reyes (2003) revisited the so-called “identity crisis” of public administration initially raised by various scholars of the discipline in his various writings. He contended that the crisis revolved around the imperative to define a public administration rooted to the development aspirations of the Philippines.
The identity crisis, however, continues up to today in the Philippines. Development Administration (1950s to 1960s) Development Administration (DA) as a field of study emerged in 1950s and 1960s with the third world countries as the focal point. The term “third world” may be attributed to the French demographer and economic historian Alfred Sauvy, who at the height of the Cold War in 1952, used the term to distinguish developing countries outside the two power blocs; namely, the First World and 10 th
See Waldo’s conclusion in the Classics of Public Administration. 4 ed. Jay M. Shafritz and Albert C. Hyde. (US: Hardcourt Brace College Publishers, 1997), 142-153. 11 At one point in the history of the evolution of management theories, there emerged what was referred to as “Theory Z” that was largely derived and based on the highly effective and efficient Japanese approach to management. 4 the Second World respectively. Chilcote 1984) Nef and Dwivedi (1981) on the other hand, attributed the concept of DA to Goswami in 1955 and later popularized by Riggs and Weidner. They coined the term “development administration” to refer to developing countries which are largely found in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. These developing countries endeavored to make concerted efforts in order to be recognized as “emerging nations” and to resurrect themselves after World War II.
In the context of “emerging nation,” Landau (1970) described DA as the engineering of social change. Likewise, according to Ilchman (1970), these countries were “concerned with increasing the capacity of the state to produce goods and services to meet and induce changing demands. ” (Ilchman 1970: 136) Gant (1979) on the other hand, defined DA as not merely addressing state functions such as public service delivery and enforcement of laws but the inducement and management of change to pursue development aspirations.
These developing countries were in urgent need to implement fundamental 12 reforms in their politico-administrative machinery. Khator, however, argued that DA was built upon several critical assumptions that: (1) development needs are the most important needs of developing countries, (2) the development needs of developing and developed countries are inherently different, (3) development can be administered, (4) developmental know-hows are transferable; and (5) the political, social, and cultural context of development can be easily altered. Khator 1998: 1778) Likewise, Fred Riggs, in his “Frontiers of Development,” identified two foci in development administration: development of administration and the administration of development. Most development administration scholars focused more on the latter and it subsequently became synonymous to the administration of development in third world countries. (Khator 1998) Given the situations above, DA maybe considered as “management of innovation” because it was aimed at helping countries that are undergoing reconstruction and social transformation.
In the Philippines, The term “development administration” was used to suggest that it may be an appropriate framework to examine the State’s experience as it tries to rebuild its institutions within a democratic framework, as it struggles to new economic, political and social challenges, and as it adapts to the trends and demands of globalization. Additionally, DA principles have been mong the major themes that ran through the various lectures and writings of Raul De Guzman, who together with OD Corpuz (1986) initially addressed the question: “Is there a Philippine Pa? ” Since the idea was to steer developing countries for economic development and social progress, the term DA became closely associated to foreign aid and western models of development. 13 These Western countries provide grants and aids to developing countries for nation-building, economic development, institutional strengthening, and people participation in development.
As to administrative reform, which is one of the core values of DA, De Guzman (1986) described and analyzed the structural and behavioral characteristics of the Philippine public bureaucracy and argued that the “implementation of administrative reform should have two major dimensions: reforming the structures of the bureaucracy and reforming the behavior of those in the bureaucracy. ” (De Guzman 1986 as cited in Brillantes 1994: 8) Development administration has always been one of the central features of the various long and medium term Philippine Development Plans since the seventies.
The paradigm for bureaucratic reform continues to evolve in various intellectual and practical debates but government continues its work amidst all these. Until recently, all Philippine development plans since the seventies had a 14 specific chapter devoted solely to development administration. New Public Administration (late 1960s to 1970s) The term “New Public Administration” or New PA may have emerged from the Minnowbrook Conference in 1968 in Syracuse University. The conference was the brainchild and inspiration of See Alex Brillantes 1995. Development Administration in the Philippines” for an in-depth discussion of development administration in the Philippines, in Conquering Politico-Administrative Frontiers, Essays in Honor of Raul P. de Guzman, edited by Ledevina Carino. 13 Note that Development Administration is popularized in developing countries like the Philippines although the conceptual foundations of the term were Western in nature influenced largely by scientific management and administrative reform. 4 In the Philippines, the formal introduction of Public Administration as a field of study essentially began when the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) was established in the University of the Philippines in 1952 through an agreement between UP and University of Michigan as an offshoot of Bell Mission’s recommendation to improve the Philippine Government. The Institute served as a training ground for civil servants and as a research arm. Later, it offered degree programs for Public Administration.
From College of Public Administration, it was renamed in 1998 as National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG). Schools of Public Administration (SPA) were then propagated throughout the country. Propelled by NCPAG, these academic institutions have grouped themselves into an Association of Schools of Public Administration in the Philippines, ASPAP, Inc. The Philippine Journal of Public Administration (PJPA), a quarterly publication of international stature, which was established in 1957 documents rich literatures of Public Administration in the Philippines. 2 5 Dwight Waldo who brought together young public administrators and scholars to discuss important issues and varying perspectives on public administration. The conference created a hullabaloo. One of its controversies is that it had rejected the classical theories of public administration and instead offered new principles. For instance, Frederickson in his essay, “Towards a New Public Administration,” adds social equity to the classic definition of public administration.
Conventional or classic public administration sought to only answer inquiries on efficiency and effectiveness like: how can the government offer better services with available resources (efficiency) or how can we maintain our level of services while spending less money (economy)? In introducing the principles of New PA, he adds the question: “Does this service enhance social equity? ” (Frederickson 1971) Moreover, the Minnowbrook conferees also questioned the relevance of traditional public administration to existing deprivation with an era of fast-paced technological advancement in the backdrop.
Frederickson argued that, disparities existed because public administration focused less on social purposes or values of government policies and programs and more on the economy and efficiency of execution. The value-free and neutral stance of traditional PA has alienated the less privileged and deprived groups in the society. New PA’s proponents, likewise, advocated that public administrators should not be neutral; they should be committed to both good management and social equity as values to be achieved.
New PA then called for client-oriented administration, non-bureaucratic structures, participatory decision-making, decentralized administration and advocate-administrators. (Frederickson 1971; Nigro and Nigro 1989) With the above contentions, it can be said that the theme of New PA is “change” and the challenge is for the public administrators is their capacity to accept change. Now the question is: Is New PA relevant? The same question was asked by Pilar (1993) in his article “Relevance of New PA in Philippine Public Administration. 5 He argued that New PA is relevant while there is no indigenous model of public administration. “The relevance of New PA maybe regarded from in terms of their compatibility with the context or the environment, as well as the convergence between the content and intent of new PA with the goals, purposes, and aspirations of the country. ” (Pilar 1993: 145) The principle of New PA is compatible with the environment of the Philippine PA, although it was conceived during the time that the US was in chaotic and unpredictable environment amidst prosperity.
Such situation is different in the Philippines considering that not only it grappled with advancement but it struggled to pull itself out of poverty which is a major concern of the government up to this date. New PA created the need to stimulate change: meeting the needs of the society through the government’s development programs and projects, and addressing social equity and justice. It must be emphasized though, that the core questions raised by New PA are also embedded in our second order question, “for whom is PA? It is indeed critical to define the ultimate targets and partners of public administration structures, institutions and processes. In other words, who is the “public” in public administration? New Public Management and Reinventing Government (1980s to 1990s) In the 1980s and early 90s, as if there was a collective assault on the organization questioning conventional and traditional ways of doing things – both in the private and public sectors various strategies and modalities underscoring the imperative for fundamental internal and external reform in the organization emerged.
They ranged from being more “client” or “customer” oriented, to the decentralization of authority to being more “business oriented” especially for those in government. The new public management (NPM) movement was apparently practiced by the European countries in the late 1907s and 1980s but was essentially launched several luminaries such as Christopher Hood (1991), Christopher Pollitt (1990), and Michael Barzeley (1992), among others in early 90s. Similar movements such as reinventing government and reengineering also emerged around the same time.
This section introduces NPM, reinventing government and reengineering government. When did these ideas emerge? What were their key features? And were these really more of the same? The New Public Management (NPM) movement has started in the late 1970s in UK under the Thatcher government; however aside from England, NPM has also long been practiced by the other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) mostly AngloSaxon countries like New Zealand, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, and Canada in the 1980s. 5 See Nestor, Pilar. 1993. “Relevance of New PA in Philippine Public Administration. ” In Philippine Journal of Public Administration for an in-depth discussion of New PA in the Philippines. 6 The idea of NPM became more popular and has stimulated academic and political interests worldwide when Christopher Hood coined the term in his 1991 article entitled, “A Public Management for all Seasons. ” (Hood 1991) The best example of the NPM practice can be seen in New Zealand’s administrative reforms.
Their government privatized substantial public functions, redeveloped their personnel system in order to be more performance-oriented, instituted new processes of productivity measures, and reengineered departmental systems to reflect government’s commitment. (Boston 1996; as cited in Denhardt 2004: 136-137) In the US, during the administration of US President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, this concept was reflected in their “National Performance Review” which has urged the federal government to improve its performance.
This has also led the foundation of the praxis of reengineering government led by the Clinton-Gore administration. Parenthetically, NPM was justified by Lynn (1996) in his article, “Public Management as Art, Science, and Profession. ” Moreover, NPM according to Pollitt is a shift into a “managerialist” movement. He then identified five core beliefs of managerialism: (1) the main route to social progress lies in the achievement of continuing increases in economically efined 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. . right to manage”). (Pollitt, 1990: 2-3 as cited in Denhardt 2000: 148) The ideas of “new public management” and “reinventing government” were essentially born out of the continuing search for solutions to economic problems in 1970s and to produce a government that “works better but costs less. ” (Denhart 2004: 136) The idea of “reinventing government” was advanced by Osborne and Gaebler in 1992.
Their concept of NPM was sparked by the use of business model prescriptions for government i. e. using private sector innovation, resources, and organizational ideas to improve the public sector. Reinventing Government provided ten principles through which public entrepreneurs might bring about massive governmental reform principles that has remained at the core of the new public management. These are the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Catalytic government: steering rather than rowing Community-owned government: empowering rather than serving Competitive government: injecting competition into service delivery Mission-driven government: transforming rule-driven organizations Results-oriented government: funding outcomes, not inputs Customer-driven government: meeting the needs of the customer not their bureaucracy Enterprising government rather than spending Anticipatory government: prevention rather than cure Decentralized government: from hierarchy to participation and teamwork Market-oriented government: leveraging change through the market (Osborne and Gaebler 1992: 35-282) 16 Among the criticisms of this model, however, was its emphasis on people as “customers” or “clients” rather than “citizens” and that customers were placed as “end-product” users of government rather than as “means” of the policy making process. Denhardt and Denhardt (2003) likewise offer a synthesis of the ideas that are opposed to NPM presented by Osborne and Gaebler. Their model for governance expands the traditional role of the public administrator as a lone arbiter of public interest rather, “the public administrator is seen as a key actor within the larger system of governance. (Denhardt and Denhardt 2003: 81) Following the Reinventing Government, they divided their argument into seven principles, namely, (1) serve citizens, not customers (2) seek the public interest, (3) value citizenship over entrepreneurship, (4) think strategically, act democratically , (5) recognize that accountability is not simple, (6) serve rather than steer, and (6) value people, not just productivity. Another similar movement was “reengineering organizations. ” This term was coined by Michael Hammer (1990) in an article published by the Harvard Business Review. Reengineering offers an approach for improving performance, effectiveness, and efficiency of organizations regardless of the sector in which they operate. According to Hammer and Champy (1993), 16 Cf Denhardt 2004: 137-138 for an in-depth discussion of each principle. 7 reengineering is the fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical contemporary measures of performance, such as cost, quality, service, and speed. ” (Hammer and Champy 1993 as cited in Halachmi 1995: 330). The tenets of reengineering include the following: • Searching for radical improvement in business processes enabled by exploiting the powers of information technology. • Breaking away from the antiquated ways and processes of business operations and starting with a clean slate. • Viewing (and reviewing) the fundamental business processes from cross-functional perspective to ensure that each step in the process adds value. Questioning whether the process is necessary and what it is intended to achieve, given the over-all mission of the organization. • Systematic searching for radical changes for the purpose of effecting major improvements or breakthroughs in business processes when an incremental approach will not work anymore. • Reducing, if not eliminating, paper documentation that enters the process at different stages, with an attempt to capture the data once, at the source. • Focusing on and developing around processes and outcomes, not tasks or organizational functions. • Focusing on the customer or client, in a results-oriented & team-based approach. (Halachmi 1995: 331)
Re-engineering or the so called business process reengineering (BPR) was essentially an innovation that sought to refurbish the operation of an organization’s operation, management system and structure, to improve its efficiency, effectiveness, and competitive ability and ultimately improve service delivery. Re-engineering seems to be an effective way to upgrade the services of our governmental agencies, however, it continues to hurdle obstacles and challenges in applying the formula such as fiscal constraints and the traditional thinking of political leaders. PA as Governance (1990s into the 2000) The many failed development interventions in the 50s into the 90s spurred the introduction of other development reforms. The “governance” paradigm was introduced and advocated by the United Nations (UN), World Bank (WB), Asian Development Bank (ADB) and other international institutions.
The word “governance” suddenly “has become something of a mantra in recent years, uttered by donors, reformers and pundits alike. ” (Frechette 2000: 25) Governance entails a larger scope and has a wider meaning. Though the term “governance” has been used to refer mostly to “government,” when correctly used, “governance” really goes beyond government. It involves the institutionalization of a system through which citizens, institutions, organizations, and groups in a society articulate their interests, exercise their rights, and mediate their differences in pursuit of the collective good. (ADB 1995 as cited in ADB 2005: 1) UNDP describes it as “the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority to manage a nation’s affairs.
It embraces all of the methods- good and bad – that societies use to distribute power and manage public resources and problems. ” (UNDP 1997: 9) Carino (2000), in her reflections on the term “governance,” identified actors and factors that pushed for governance. She acknowledges that governance is not the sole responsibility of the government per se but the role of the market and civil society are of equal importance too and should also be recognized. She then identified the factors or processes that pushed for governance and some of these are: the quest for growth and development, the environmental movement, globalization and consolidating peace.
These are practically the same values or virtues found in the UN Charter. Likewise, governance promotes the virtues of decentralization, participation, responsiveness and accountability among others. From “governance”, the concept of “good governance” has emerged and became prominent in international aid circles around 1989 or 1990. It served as a general guiding principle for donor agencies to demand that recipient governments adhere to proper administrative processes in the handling of development assistance and put in place effective policy instruments towards that end. (Doornbos 2003) When there is good governance, there is sustainable development.
Kofi Annan, in st his inaugural speech in the 1 International Conference on Governance for Sustainable Growth and Equity in United Nations, New York, in July 28-30, 1997 affirms this when he said that: “Good governance and sustainable development are indivisible. That is the lesson of all our efforts and experiences, from Africa to Asia to Latin America. Without good governance – without the rule of law, predictable administration, legitimate power, and responsive regulation — no amount of funding, no amount 8 of charity will set us on the path to prosperity…We are fully engaged in efforts to improve governance around the world…good governance is indispensable for building peaceful, prosperous and democratic societies. ” (Annan 1997)
Annan concluded that “good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development. ” (Annan 1997) An ADB document (2005) affirmed that good governance is synonymous with sound development management. They then identified some key principles of development which may be considered as elements of good governance. These are: accountability, participation, predictability, and transparency. The table below shows the basic elements of good governance and its key dimensions. Table 2. Key Dimensions and Specific Areas of Actions Basic Elements of Good Governance 1. Accountability means making public officials answerable for government behavior and responsive to the entity from which they derive authority 2.
Participation refers to enhancing people’s access to and influence on public policy processes Key Dimensions Establishing criteria to measure performance of public officials Institutionalizing mechanisms to ensure that standards are met. Undertaking development for and by the people • • • • • • • Specific Areas of Action Public Sector Management Public Enterprise Management Public Financial Management Civil Service Reform Participation of beneficiaries and affected groups Interface between government and the private sector Decentralization of public and service delivery functions (empowerment of Local Governments) Cooperation with Non-Government Organizations Law and Development Legal Frameworks for Private Sector Development • 3. Predictability refers to the existence of laws, regulations and policies to regulate society and the fair and consistent application of these 4.
Transparency refers to the availability of Information to the general public and clear government rules, regulations, and decisions Source: ADB, 2005 Establishing and sustaining appropriate legal and institutional arrangements Observing and upholding the rule of law Maintaining consistency of public policies Ensuring access to accurate and timely information about the economy and government policies • • • Disclosure of Information III. FIELDS OF SPECIALIZATION OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION This section discusses the various traditional subfields of public administration including the emerging fields in response to a rapidly changing environment. However, even before going into the sub-fields of public administration, it is imperative to recognize the public administration, itself, has been considered as a sub-field of political science. Traditional Sub-fields of Political Science The following have been onsidered as the traditional sub-fields of political science: political theory, international relations and politics; comparative politics; public administration. These are briefly discussed below. Political Theory Political theory is a study and analysis of political ideas of significant political thinkers. It is also a search of knowledge of political thoughts of various historical periods, namely, Ancient, Medieval/Christian, and Modern period. Among the major philosophers and theorists explored in this field of political science are Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and many other political thinkers.
It is recognized that their political ideas shaped the political institutions, law, order, liberty, justice, and the quality of life into concrete historical circumstances. 9 International Relations and Politics As a subfield of political science, international relations have zeroed in on the relations between and among nation states and how such relations are defined. Power has always been traditionally considered a factor in the determination of international relations and politics. The role of international organizations such as the United Nations, including other multilateral bodies such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and closer to home, the Asian Development Bank, in shaping the power relations is an aspect that is also addressed in the study of international relations and politics.
A Political science is the study of foreign policymaking and Comparative Politics Comparative politics is a study of contemporary politics and political trends in selected countries and regions around the world and then comparing and critically analyzing the variety of ways that these countries have chosen to shape their political institutions and processes, assess the costs and benefits of their choices and address common problems, including the challenges of globalization, with an eye toward identifying processes, practices, and policies which might be “exportable” ideas for countries to borrow from one another. Public Administration Public Administration as a discipline emerged out of a broader discipline which is Political Science. Reyes (1993: 22) considers it as a “child of political science” that is mature enough to be treated separately or independently of its mother. ” There is one school of thought that public administration has no generally accepted definition.
The scope of the discipline is so great and so debatable that it is easier to explain than define. Public administration is both a field of study, or a discipline, and a field of practice, or an occupation. There is much disagreement about whether the study of public administration can properly be called a discipline, largely because it is often viewed as a subfield of the two disciplines of Political Science 17 and administrative science (or administration). In Canada the study of public administration has evolved primarily as a subfield of political science. Knowledge of the machinery of government and of the political and legal environment in which public administrators work is essential in understanding the political system.
Also, public administrators play an important role by providing policy advice to elected politicians and by active involvement in the making, enforcement and adjudication of laws and regulations. As a subfield of administrative science, public administration is part of the generic process of administration. The broad field of administration is divided into public, business, hospital, educational and other forms of administration. The similarities between these forms of administration are considered to be greater than their differences. (http://www. thecanadianencyclopedia. com) In the Philippines, though, Public Administration did not evolve out of the discipline of political science.
More specifically, public administration as an academic field of study was essentially the result of the establishment of the Institute of Public Administration (IPA), and in one sense did not follow the conventional path in the emergence of public administration traditionally considered as a sub-field of political science. 18 Traditionally, the discipline of public administration itself has had the following sub-fields: organization and management; public personnel administration; local government administration; policy analysis and program administration; public enterprise management; voluntary sector management and spatial information management. The following discusses each of these subfields: Drawn from the Canadian Encyclopedia, available at http://www. thecanadianencyclopedia. com Carino (2007) in her paper, “From
Traditional Public Administration to the Governance Tradition: Research in NCPAG, 19952002,” In Public Administration Plus Governance Assessing the Past, Addressing the Future,” talked about the research interests of Filipino scholars in different fields of public administration: traditional public administration; personnel administration, organization and management, fiscal administration, agency studies and the Philippine Administrative system; new public administration, which includes ethics and accountability, public service values, alternative delivery systems, public policy and program administration were also offered and research in the governance tradition like democracy and bureaucracy, citizen participation, decentralization etc. 18 17 10 Organization and Management Organization and Management is one of the oldest subfields of public administration. It basically focuses on sub-areas like organization theory and practice, dynamics of organization, decision-making in administration, leadership and other sub-areas. It particularly discusses the theories, processes and techniques involved in the organization and management of the national government and its agencies.
It also explores modern management techniques such as reinventing, reengineering and other improvement methods in organization and management like total quality management (TQM), 19which has largely contributed to public administration reforms. Public Personnel Administration Public administration consists of administrative processes. It involves people, its most important element, therefore public personnel administration is an equally important field. In here, the definition of personnel management as “the recruitment, selection, development, utilization of, and accommodation to human resources by organizations” (French 1990) is explored. Specifically, it discusses on the evolution of public personnel administration, arrangements of the personnel system, and general attributes of personnel functions in the public sector.
It is also concerned with the developments and current trends in personnel administration. In the traditional public administration, organization and management and personnel administration were emphasized as salient features of study in public administration. Personnel administration has widened its scope and evolved into human resource management or human resource development. The inspiration that not only these two fields complement but supplement each other put them together into what is now called “Organization Studies. ” Public Fiscal Administration Public finance belongs to the branch of economics but that was during the earlier times.
With the emergence of the field of public administration, much interest has been directed towards fiscal administration. Again, this subfield of public administration covers a wide range of issues and topics affecting government operations like taxation, public expenditures and borrowing, resource allocation, revenue administration, auditing and intergovernmental relations. As Briones (1996) puts it, “public fiscal administration embraces the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policies and decisions on taxation and revenue administration; resource allocation, budgeting, and public expenditure; public borrowing and debt management; and accounting and auditing. Through the years, many researches were devoted on these topics and issues; the government has also introduced reforms like reforms in tax administration, value added tax (VAT), expanded value added tax (E-VAT), procurement reforms, the medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF), accounting reforms, re-engineering the bureaucracy program (REBP), transforming local finance, and many others. Local Government Administration This is another distinct subfield of public administration. In studying local government administration, the concepts of decentralization are taken into account. Decentralization, as a process, is one of the widely researched topics in promoting development and democratic governance. Administrative organizations and operations of local governments; the structure and processes of regional administration are likewise discussed.
In particular, local government administration may also include topics on theoretical and empirical perspectives of local government and regional administration, community and institutional development, local government systems/procedure, intergovernmental dynamics, local public finance or local fiscal administration, local economic promotion, local and regional development planning, local government innovations and many others. TQM was adopted by Japan and US to improve their production in a competitive market vis a vis cost effective strategies with the ultimate goal of improving customer satisfaction. See Mangahas and Leyesa 2003. “Improving Government Administration through TQM” and Mariano “TQM and Philippine Local Government Units. ” in Introduction to Public Administration: A Reader. 19 11 New Sub-fields of Public Administration As the field evolved, and in response to the changing demands of the time, new sub-fields emerged.
These included the following: Policy Analysis and Program Administration The post-war years saw the emergence of public policy as a subfield of public administration. In the US, interest in policy studies started in 1950s. In the Philippines, however, it started not to long ago, in 1970s in the then Institute of Public Administration in the University of the Philippines. Generally, policy studies can focus on the content of public policy, its processes, models, theories and approaches of public policy its impact as well as evaluation of public programs and projects. Other significant concepts, principles and techniques for systematic analysis and decision – making in public policy and management are also considered in policy analysis.
Dye (1995) said that certain theoretical approaches and models have been introduced in studying public policy which include institutional, process, group, elite, rational, incremental, game theory, public choice and systems model. Public Enterprise Management Privatization is one of the foci of this area of public administration. Other topics include the nature and processes of public enterprises; the relationship between the government and the public enterprise sector; issues on managerial autonomy, public accountability, corporate social responsibility and the role of the state in the economy. In the graduate level, courses include financial management of public enterprise and management of public enterprises. Voluntary Sector Management Voluntary Sector Management is another emerging field of Public Administration.
In recognition of the growing voluntary sector in the Philippines, UP NCPAG has pioneered in offering Voluntary Sector Management (VSM) as a field of specialization. This field has developed expertise through the years through its institutional linkage with UP Pahinungod with Dr. Ledivina Carino as its founding director. Voluntary sector management can be referred to similar terms such as “voluntary sector, “third sector”, “non-profit organizations,” “non-governmental organizations,” and “civil society organizations. ” Spatial Information Management In delivering public goods and services efficiently and effectively, it is very important that we will be aided with support tools enabling the use of all kinds of spatial data/information.
With the study and utilization of geographic information system (GIS), data/information can be processed immediately and can be transported easily. This technology is currently used by many government agencies and corporations; thus the introduction and popularization of some technology terms in government such as e-government, e-commerce, geo-visualization, e-finance, among others. Other systems are also introduced in SIM like global positioning systems and remote sensing. Public administration indeed has evolved both as a scholarly discipline and as a profession. It has reached wider dimensions of governance, from political, economic, social, cultural aspects of public management.
In the executive branch, for instance, it has retained traditional functions such as O and M (management functions like planning, organizing) and personnel management but explored possibilities in organizational development, fiscal administration (budgeting, accounting, auditing) and public policy and program administration which is concerned with the processes and analysis of public policy. IV. MAJOR CONCERNS IN PHILIPPINE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION PRAXIS: REORGANIZATION DECENTRALIZATION AND CORRUPTION The praxis of Philippine public administration has always included three major areas of concerns. These are: reorganization, decentralization and the ever present challenge of addressing 12 corruption and promoting accountability in government. 0 This section discusses each of these areas and thrusts. Reorganizing the Bureaucracy The praxis of public administration in the Philippines has always been rooted in the imperative for reform. This following discusses two major targets of reform over the years. These are the civil service and the local governments. More specifically, Philippine public administration has always seen reorganization as central to the entire initiative in the continuing search and design for more responsive structures and process. Indeed, among the initial initiatives of any president – from Roxas in the 40’s to Arroyo in 2002, upon assumption to office, is the declaration to reorganize the bureaucracy.
The first decree (Presidential Decree No 1) enacted by Marcos upon the declaration of martial law was the Integrated Reorganization Plan (IRP). It “promised the most extensive and wrenching effort at administrative reform in the country’s history through decentralizing and reducing the bureaucracy, and standardizing departmental organization. The IRP also sought to introduce structural changes and reforms to strengthen the merit system as well as professionalize the civil service system. “(ADB 2005: 11) Endriga (2001) described the bureaucracy under the Marcos administration as being more subservient than at any other time in Philippine history.
The government then was restructured according to the will of Marcos and it has been shielded from public scrutiny and criticism; thus the perpetuation of irresponsible acts. To restore government integrity and public confidence, reorganization reforms were introduced by President Aquino, essentially with the creation of Presidential Commission on Public Ethics and Accountability and the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG). Civil society organizations (CSOs) became more active in participating in decision-making and program implementation of the government. To downsize the bloated government, one of the steps undertaken by her administration was the removal of thousands of civil servants from their positions.
Although the said step was justified, ironically, the number of civil servants and political appointees in the government increased; thus, blurring the principles of merit and fitness of the civil service. Moreover, pubic agencies and offices grew which caused the extended and fragmented government structure. (ADB 2005) Reorganization efforts were minimal during the tenures of Ramos and Estrada. Ramos simply focused on the praxis of NPM with the end goal of reengineering the bureaucracy. His flagship program, the Philippines 2000, was envisioned to make the country globally competitive by pursuing the thrusts of deregulation, market liberalization, and privatization.
He focused on setting the guiding principles in reorganizing and improving government operations, divesting government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs), promoting decentralization and local governance, and pushing on the attrition law. The reengineering plan, however, remained a plan with the Congress not laying down the legal framework for his aspiration of streamlining the bureaucracy. Under Estrada administration, the Rationalization Program of 2001 through Presidential Committee on Effective Governance (PCEG) was introduced. Executive Order No. 165 or “Directing the Formulation of an Institutional Strengthening and Streamlining Program for the Executive Branch,” laid down the “Re-Engineering the Bureaucracy for Better Governance Program. The program aims to strengthen and streamline the bureaucracy particularly the executive branch, the GOCCs, and the state universities and colleges (SUCs). What prompted the government in pushing for the rationalization program despite some criticisms and even cynicisms particularly from the skeptics? David offered four reasons: first, to make the government do the right things (efficiency); second, to do the things in the right or best way (effectiveness); third, to be able to do the right things in the right way within affordable levels (affordability); and fourth, to be able to achieve these in the most accountable, transparent manner as possible (accountability). These served as the four guiding principles of the Rationalization Program.
David further expounds on these principles and said that effectiveness means that there is a need to focus on government efforts on its vital and core functions. This is indeed a good strategy to achieve medium-term strategies and to avoid expenditures and time to those functions that the government There are of course other targets of reform as far as the overall goal to promote better and more responsive structures of government are concerned. These include the judiciary and the congress. 20 13 should not enter into. Efficiency is achieved through answering the question: “What do we want to do? ” Through the methods of rationalization of service delivery support systems, organizational structure, and right staffing; the government then could provide an individual agency performance.
The principle of affordability states that expenditures must be based on allowable existing resources. Therefore, the necessary rationalization will have to go together with the kind of economic situation the government agencies are in, with consideration on how much they can afford. To assure accountability, the method of reporting that should be practiced by the government must be clear, observable and verifiable. (DGF 2005) On the part of the CSC, its mandate can only be fully realized once the elected officials learn to respect the bureaucracy and recognize that a professional core of public servants is a major partner in good governance. It must be noted that ordinary civil servants are still nation-builders.
David adds that notwithstanding the fiscal crisis the country is now facing, the program still has to be pursued because there is really a need to “rationalize how the government funds itself, and how government gets its job done. ” (DGF 2005: 11) After all, the budget we use to support government’s operation comes from the taxpayers and this has to be complemented by an efficient, effective, affordable and accountable service from the civil servants. The Macapagal-Arroyo administration continued the program to streamline the bureaucracy, but as yet has no overall agenda for reform. In the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) 2001-2004, the present administration had adopted the “Reengineering the Bureaucracy for Better Governance Program” of the Estrada administration. PCEG was likewise reactivated upon the Arroyo’s assumption to office.
It serves as the ad-hoc body that shall be the focal point of administrative reforms in the civil service. In October 4, 2004, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) pursued the Rationalization Program as mandated in EO 366. According to DBM, EO 366 directs all departments/agencies of the executive branch to conduct a strategic review of their operations and organizations for purposes of focusing government purposes on its vital functions and channeling government resources to these core public functions, and improving the efficiency of government services, within affordable levels, and in the most accountable manner. (See table 3 for the status of the rationalization program as of April 2008).
DBM’s task, according to David (as cited in DGF 2005), is to look at a two-track approach in ensuring the effective delivery of government service. The first track of reengineering the bureaucracy is through legislative measures and the second track is the administrative rationalization of the government. The Rationalization Program The table below shows that four years after the implementation of EO 366, only 17 out of 26 department agencies of the government, 27 OEOS/other government agencies, and only 36 out of more than 100 GOCCs in the country have submitted their rationalization plans. Out of the 80 submitted rational plans, only two department-level offices and nine GOCCs were approved; three departments have been evaluated but were not yet approved.
Out of the 44 plans, (complete and partial submission) that are under evaluation, eight departments and 19 GOCCs have completed their submission while three departments and four from the GOCCs have made partial submission. Moreover, there were plans returned for revision; one from the department and four from the GOCCs. DBM is expecting submissions from three departments and 24 GOCCs. Table 3. Overall Status of the Implementation of the Rationalization Program ((Net of Entities Exempted), As of 30 April 2008) Status A. Plans Submitted to DBM 1. Approved 1. 1 att