governance indicators in the philippine: a user’s guide indicators in the philippine: ... its...

Governance Indicators in the Philippine: A User’s Guide

(2)

GOVERNANCE INDICATORS SOURCES IN THE PHILIPPINES: A USERS’ GUIDE

PREFACE

This Users’ Guide provides basic information on various institutions engaged in establishing and identifying governance indicators generally used in the Philippines. It does not prescribe or endorse any indicator or any one set of indicators, but briefly catalogues the institutions and agencies in the Philippines that serve as sources of information that can serve as indicators of governance in the country.

The Guide also presents and assembles, whenever available and allowable, data on the institutions generating possible governance indicators information, their location and contact numbers, how they generate data, how the indicators they use are determined and measured, and the frequency by which these are released. The Guide essentially follows the pattern established by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the European Commission which released a similar publication in 2004 entitled “Governance Indicators: A Users’ Guide.” This publication identifies various institutions operating internationally that provide and generate indicators sources, and serve as a handy manual for those interested in finding data on indicators sources. In embarking on this Project, which basically represents a country focus on the Philippines, we hope that better consolidation of data and information on governance dynamics could be enhanced and made readily available in the country for those engaged in policy-making, research and data-gathering, and similar initiatives towards strengthening and understanding governance processes and dynamics in the Philippines. To provide quick historical, geographic and demographic information on the Philippines for foreign users, we have incorporated a brief background on the Philippines.

Admittedly, the present collection does not cover and encompass the totality of organizations in the public, private and non-profit sectors in the Philippines that provide and generate indicators. There may be some institutions that may not have been included in this Guide, particularly those operating at the regional and local levels, and which may not have consistently and periodically released findings and studies. Still, the Guide provides a respectable list of institutions nationwide and which may be accessed freely. It must be emphasized that this Guide is a joint effort between the National College of Public Administration and Governance of the University of the Philippines and the National Statistical Coordination Board of the Republic of the Philippines with assistance from the UNDP and the Oslo Governance Center. For this reason, we thank the many individuals and organizations who unselfishly cooperated and contributed to the completion of this Guide.

We hope that this modest and preliminary effort will serve as an initiative to generate similar other country indicators-source guides in other countries, particularly in the Third World where issues and problems of governance continue to persist today. With this effort, it is hoped that a better understanding and appreciation of the state of governance world-wide could be made. We also hope that the present work will contribute towards the forging of better and generally acceptable indicators and measures in the governance process.


(3)

HOW TO USE THE GUIDE

The Guide essentially uses the same format used by the United Nations Development Programme and the European Commission publication entitled “Governance Indicators: A Users’ Guide (2004). In adopting this format, this guide hopes to establish this standard of providing data and information to policy makers, government officials, business entities, academic institutions, researchers and other users as to how indicator sources may be obtained. Since the objective of this Guide is to provide focus on indicator sources and practices in the Philippines, it somehow deviates from the UNDP-EC format by incorporating a brief discussion on the Philippine country profile. This is to mainly provide some basic and useful “fast facts” on the Philippines to users who may not be familiar with the country.

It is hoped that in doing this, the Guide user may be given a passing narrative on the country, its history, system of government, and some quick demographic data that may be useful in appreciating the issues and dynamics of governance in the country. It is likewise hoped that similar other initiatives in the preparation of Governance Indicators’ Guides in other countries may also be “localized” to help unfamiliar users appreciate country nuances and idiosyncrasies. Admittedly, there would be issues and, therefore, practices and indicators of governance, which may be peculiar and pertinent in the conduct of governance in particular societies.

The Guide, therefore, takes the user into the following sections: 1. A Country Profile on the Philippines 2. Governance Concepts and the Need for Indicators in the Philippines

3. The Structure of Data in Identifying Indicators and Indicators Sources in the

Philippines

4. A Digest of Governance Indicators Sources in the Philippines

5. Profiles and Information on Institutions Generating Governance Indicators in the Philippines

As in the UNDP-EC Guide, this manual is aimed at the non-specialist user. Limited

background knowledge is, therefore, required to use the Guide. In this sense, Governance concepts are provided to allow the user appreciation of governance principles while basic data on the country are included, again, to give the user some useful, yet limited degree, of familiarity on the country.

The Guide has also steered away from elaborate and extensive explanations on the use

of statistics and statistical techniques in generating governance data as may be employed by institutions engaged in activities and project that monitor the state of governance in the country.

Much of the data included in the guide are publicly available information on the

Philippines and can be located in the websites of the institutions and producers which is also listed in the source guide.


(4)

The Source Guide incorporates data and information coming from various sectors, from

the public sector, private and business groups, academic institutions to non-government organizations. It again follows the format of the UNDP-EC publication.

As in the UNDP-EC Guide, the choice of indicators sources included and listed in this

Guide followed the following criteria: o Have a clear Governance data aspect o Have data available

o Open to national comparisons

o Provide some information on their methodology o Available on the Internet with Websites, and in English

o Sources requiring payment for access were not included Additionally, the Guide paid attention and selected institutions and organizations

generating and releasing indicators sources that have “high profile values,” with “considerable impact” on governance-related decisions i.e., they are known to be used and observed by decision-makers in the public, business and non-profit sectors.

In trying to generate data and information, a significant problem was also recognized

early on during the research in the preparation of this Guide. There are some institutions and organizations in the Philippines that do not release or issue out data regularly at periodic intervals, i.e., quarterly, annually or biennially.

This means that these institutions would sporadically release indicator measuring data

on and off, but would be dormant for some time, and may again be activated suddenly. It may also be cited that some are generated mainly to benefit some political interests, which this Guide has recognized as not “legitimate.”

The reason for this, it can be assumed, is that efforts would be based on the availability

of funding or even organization. This is peculiar in organizations based in local communities or even among some academic institutions which, while competent and committed towards embarking on projects that measure governance at the community or even at the national level, may be constrained by the availability of resources, definitely, a common feature in Third World settings.

It must also be pointed out that there maybe some fly-by-night or spontaneous

organizations that are made to generate indicator data for the purpose of advancing or enhancing some political or business interests. These maybe interest or issue-specific groups that produce data or conduct surveys purportedly to gather and influence governance practices but are mainly made to strengthen support specific causes and advocacies.

At best, they can be specious, and can be treated as initiatives of certain pressure or

lobby groups established for the purpose of some political, economic, social or other vested


(5)

interests. This Guide has deemed it not necessary to include such groups, which may be deemed in the final analysis as not “legitimate” producers of governance indicators.

In instances like these, the criteria employed, other than those already cited earlier, is

the credibility and reliability of the institution behind the project.


(6)

THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: A COUNTRY PROFILE

The Philippines is an archipelagic country located in Southeast Asia and bounded by the China Sea to the West, the Celebes Sea to the South, the Philippine Sea to the east, and separated from Taiwan in the North. Indonesia and Malaysia are its neighbors to the north-west.

Found just below Taiwan and about 530 kilometers at its Northern tip from the nearest

coast of China, the Philippines has over 7,000 islands and an area of about 300,000 square kilometers (115,800 square miles).

The country has an irregular coastline spanning to about 10,850 statute miles, roughly

twice as long as that of continental United States and is endowed with a landscape characterized by coastal mangroves, fertile plains, tropical jungles, rugged mountains drained by small river systems, and active volcanoes. (Cariño, 1988; Agoncillo, 1977).

Figure 1. Map of Southeast Asia


(7)

Figure 2. Map of the Philippines


(8)

With an estimated population of about 85.2 million in 2005, and is projected to double in 29 years. The people are predominantly of the Malay stock but are also composed of other ethnic races, mainly those of Chinese origins and ancestry.

Majority of the people are Roman Catholic but there is also a considerable Muslim minority, as well as other Christian denominations. The Philippines may as well be considered as the first Republican state in Asia, having promulgated what may be regarded as the first democratic constitution in the region.

Following a successful revolution against Spain in 1896, after more than three hundred years of colonization, the Philippines declared independence in June 12, 1898. It then proceeded to ratify a Constitution in 1899 based on republican ideals.

This fledgling Republic was however frustrated when the islands were ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Paris after the Spanish-American War. The Americans gained control of the Philippines after a brief Filipino-American War and instituted a colonial government in 1900.

During the American colonial regime, the country established a system of government

and a political structure that followed the American government. Much of its institutions, such as its bureaucracy, the educational system and various aspects of culture and practices, reflect American influence even today.

In preparation for self-rule, the Philippine Commonwealth was established in 1935, and

paved the way for the adoption and ratification of a Constitution and a national election following a presidential framework. The Philippine Constitution of 1935 adopted the presidential system and structure of government, closely patterned after American principles, such as the separation of branches among three co-equal branches, check and balances and similar other ideals.

In 1942, the Philippines was occupied by Japan which also established a puppet

government. The Philippines gained independence on July 4, 1946 after World War II and, accordingly, reorganized its government. It then proceeded to re-establish the democratic framework of government under the 1935 Constitution that was framed and ratified during the Commonwealth period.

In 1946, the country held its first national election after the war and, subsequently,

pursued a presidential system of government roughly patterned after the American model, characterized, among others, by a bicameral congress, an independent judiciary, a president elected at large in a national election, and a bill of rights that guaranteed basic freedoms and civil liberties. A system of local governments was also put in place.

In 1972, however, President Ferdinand Marcos, after being elected for two terms as

President in national elections, was disallowed to seek a third term under the Constitution. Taking advantage of the turmoil of growing activism and dissent against his regime, and compounded by communist and secessionist movements in the country, Marcos declared martial law, and went on to abolish the bicameral congress to place the country under authoritarian rule. Marcos imposed a one-man rule, legislating by decrees, and assuming vast, uncontrolled executive and military powers.


(9)

To justify his rule, Marcos however sought to install a system of “constitutional authoritarianism” where a constitution was adopted to legitimize his rule.

In 1973, a constitution was ratified under questionable circumstances and which

promptly instituted a parliamentary system of government, with a unicameral assembly under a Prime Minister. This 1973 Constitution maintained the Office of the President as head of government and which Marcos continued to assume, to continue to retain legislative and executive powers.

Marcos was however deposed in 1986 with a successful bloodless people’s power

revolution which resulted in the revival of the unitary presidential system of government, a bicameral congress, an independent judiciary and a system of local governments that were supposed to be guaranteed local autonomy. This was provided in the 1987 Constitution ratified and adopted in that year by the Filipino people in a plebiscite.

Unlike its American model, however, the President is elected directly at large in a

national election by the number of qualified voters every six years without reelection. Presently, the Philippines continues to operate within this framework even if there are

initiatives for a radical overhaul of the present 1987 Constitution seeking, among others, for the adoption of a federal parliamentary system of government. With an estimated 40 percent of its population in what can be considered as falling within the poverty level, the Philippines today continues to confront several political, economic and social challenges that demand good and responsible governance.


(10)

GOVERNANCE ISSUES IN THE PHILIPPINES

Like many developing societies, the Philippines continues to experience various problems and challenges in its political, economic and social affairs. While the political system has maintained strong adherence to democracy even with a passing episode of authoritarianism during the Marcos era, conflict and tension in the political and economic life persist.

A long-festering communist rebel movement continues to infest pocket areas in the countryside, while secessionist movements, chiefly in the South, remain active. As such, there is a significant number of communities that are not reached by government services, and remain to be habitually neglected. Poverty persists as unemployment and declining livelihood opportunities remain formidable challenges. The government has also been hard put in addressing an unbridled population growth reaching as much as 2.5 percent per annum and where population control programs have encountered stiff resistance in this dominantly Catholic society where the Church exercises much influence.

Unemployment rate has registered to two digit levels, although inflation has been somehow contained. Peace and order problems continue to challenge government authorities, as incidents of ambushes and killings, robbery, kidnapping and similar criminal acts persist with growing impunity. Scandal and accounts of graft and corruption in government continue to be pervasive issues. In the face of all these, the government has maintained some semblance of order and stability, but the crisis remains. Sporadic incidents of protests rallies and citizens assemblies have surfaced continuously but have been roundly dispersed, sometimes violently, by the police. In 2005, the legitimacy of the President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was challenged when accusations of cheating and manipulating the elections were hurled against her. Calls for resignation against Mrs. Arroyo were soon aired by various sectors which Mrs. Arroyo rejected. Congressional investigations were also launched against Mrs. Arroyo and her allies on allegations of electoral fraud and misuse of government funds, but these were all stymied when Cabinet Officials were prevented from participating in the hearings.

An impeachment complaint filed at the House of Representative failed to muster enough votes to indict Mrs. Arroyo, but opposition partisans, supported by some civil society organizations, filed the complaint again in 2006 after the one year ban mandated by the Constitution expired on the filing of impeachment complaints against impeachable officials. The impeachment complaint again failed when majority members of the House of Representatives decided to throw out the complaint. There are also continuing initiatives to amend the present Philippine Constitution ratified in 1987 from a presidential, unitary system to a parliamentary, federal form. While there is a growing movement towards revising the existing Charter backed by the Government, an equally strong opposition has also emerged.


(11)

While there are indications of growth and economic activities, the country continues to suffer from a huge foreign and domestic public debt, aggravated by a widening public deficit brought about, among others, by a weak and sometimes corrupt tax collection system. In 2005, additional taxes were legislated, authorizing the government to impose new taxes in the form of expanded and reformed value-added taxes (E-Vat and R-Vat), as well as the so-called “sin” taxes which brought about the indexation of excise taxes on liquor and cigarettes. Like many developing countries therefore, the Philippines has encountered numerous difficulties and challenges in the political, economic and social and administrative dimensions that make good governance a compelling agenda. This is particularly so in the continuing and enduring efforts towards instituting far-ranging and relevant reforms. In a fairly recent World Bank study on governance indicators involving 175 countries released in 2002, the Philippines scored relatively low ratings in the indicators used, namely accountability, political stability, rule of law, regulatory quality, voice and accountability, and control of corruption (World bank, 2002, as cited in ADB, 2005: 12-13). As part of the data-gathering activities in the preparation of this Guide, a seminar-workshop was undertaken in May, 2006 for selected mid-level Philippine government officials on the issue of problems, issues and concerns they generally encountered or believe to often encounter in ensuring good governance in the performance of their functions.

Fig. 3 shows the listing of these responses. The responses were varied and revealing, although candid and straight-forward bereft, of any political color. The responses ranged from problems of dissemination of information and awareness, budget concerns, not-rights based, inconsistency, reliability and accuracy, and transparency, timeliness and validity, among others. While couched in general terms with no specific reference alluded to any person or institution, these provide insight on the issues that need to be overcome. An important response that must be cited here is the acknowledgement of the participants of the non-convergence of indicator system and lack of harmonization, possibly of indicator measures or determinants. Some participants also cited the absence of government benchmarks.


(12)

Figure 3. Problems, Issues and Concerns in the Philippine Indicators System

Workshop question: What are the issues, problems, concerns or challenges of Governance Indicators Systems in the country and its possible solutions?

Dissemination of information and awareness Budget concerns as regard to monitoring of impact Imputing weights on different aspects Not rights-based Inconsistency in practical application Lack of familiarity with methodology Reliability and accuracy Credibility, impartiality and objectivity Sustainability Acceptability and accessibility Transparency, timeliness and validity Multiplicity of indicators systems Non-convergence of indicator system/lack of harmonization Absence of governance benchmarks


(13)

GOVERNANCE CONCEPTS

Governance and governance practices have become among the more compelling agenda of societies in both developed and developing nations in the new millennium. The conduct of governance and its processes during the past two decades have become significant and important denominators of efficiency in the dynamics of nation states and in the management of public and international affairs.

Overnight, governance principles have evolved as defining standards by which

relationships between governments and their citizens, between rulers and ruled, between the governors and the governed, are measured and understood. For the most part, governance practices have emerged today as determinants of a country’s adherence to established democratic principles and ideals and, consequently, its respect for basic freedoms and human rights.

But what is governance and how is it distinguished from the more familiar term of

“government?” In recent years, there has been a proliferation of definitions and literature as to what

governance is and how it is supposed to work or be observed (UNDP, 1997a; UNDP, 1997b; Pierre, 2000a; Pierre, 2000b; Hirst, 2000; Rhodes, 2000; Hubbard, 2001; Bevir, Rhodes and Weller, 2003; UNDP, 2004).

The literature can be somewhat confusing, as governance, on one hand may mean “the

empirical manifestations of state adaptation to its external environment as it emerges in the late twentieth century.” On the other hand, it is also denoted as “a conceptual or theoretical representation of co-ordination of social systems and, for the most part, the role of the state in that process” (Pierre, 2000b: 3). The label “governance,” while widely used, can also be “elastic” (Bevir, Rhodes and Weller, 2003:14).

Conceivably, there may be variations and varying interpretations by which governance is to be understood in different societies and cultures. Historical backgrounds and experiences, traditions, patterns of norms, conducts and behavior, as well as varying political and social practices may result in differing appreciation of the term. As some scholars on the subject would point out, ‘governance’ as applied to British government may mean something different to ‘governance’ in France (Bevir, Rhodes and Weller, 2003:14).

The word has been used, in many instances, as “a blanket term to signify a change in the meaning of government,” which alternatively, focus on the degree and extent of public intervention and the use of markets, quasi-markets and non-government institutions and resources to deliver public services (March and Olsen, 1989 and Jorgensen, 1993, as cited in Rhodes, 2000: 55)

Governance has also been offered as a “preferred shorthand phrase for encapsulating

the changing form and role of the state in advanced industrial societies and a key facet of these changes is public sector reform” (Bevir, Rhodes and Weller, 2003:13).


(14)

HOW GOVERNANCE EVOLVED

Governance is regarded as having shaped as a “locution” of “enlightened members of [the] international technocracy who recognize, after a decade of economic liberalism in the 1980s, that market forces and private interests require regulation and restraint, but…are reluctant to accept a new and major extension of the powers of the state” (Hirst, 2000: 13, ital. supplied).

In the same token, governance has also been used as a new variant of the policy-

making and the management processes of public affairs which engender the active participation and involvement of “civil society” which has grown to distrust the state.

The perception that the state, captured by commercial interests, and/or corrupt

politicians and supported by unaccountable bureaucracies, has increasingly persisted so as to demand new contours and frameworks to reform government processes and practices (Hirst, 2000: 13). While governance has been alternately used to signify a variety of meanings even in the corporate sector, the term has been associated with reforms in government, particularly in public administration.

Traditional public administration and contemporary governments have been rooted in the

practice and observance of the compelling values of efficiency, effectiveness and economy in the management of public affairs. These have been generally regarded and accepted as the “3 E’s” of government and of public administration.

In recent years, however, the management of public affairs and the structure and

processes of governments and their bureaucracies have increasingly highlighted the significance of the overarching values of responsibility, responsiveness and representativeness. These are now encased in what has been termed as the 3 R’s of public administration and governance practice and are considered as compelling values that must be maximized to support and complement the traditional, but institution focused ideals of the 3 E’s.

In fact, governance may as well be a “catch-all” term to cover various activities in the

relationships of citizens with each other, and with their governments, as well as the accountability of leaders in the management of societies. GOVERNANCE DEFINED

Governance has thus been defined and interpreted in various ways even if the spirit or substance of various interpretations of the term remains the same.

The UNDP defines governance as “the system of values, policies and institutions by

which a society manages its economic, political and social affairs through interactions within and among the state, civil society and private sector” (UNDP, 2004 as cited in UNDP-EC,2004:3).

Governance is thus viewed as the means by which “society organizes itself to make and implement decisions” within a climate of “mutual understanding, agreement and action.” In this sense, governance comprises the mechanisms and processes by which citizens express their interests, mediate differences and assume and exercise legal rights and obligations (UNDP, 2004 as cited in UNDP-EC, 2004:3).


(15)

On the other hand, the European Commission maintains that “governance concerns the state’s ability to serve its citizens” and encompasses those “rules, processes, and behaviours by which interests are articulated, resources are managed and power is exercised in society.” (Communication on Governance and Development, 2003, as cited in UNDP-EC, 2004:3).

Similarly, the World Bank has defined governance as “the traditions and institutions by

which authority in a country is exercised for the common good,” which “includes, (i) the process by which those in authority are selected, monitored and replaced, (ii) the capacity of the government to effectively manage its resources and implement sound policies, and (iii) the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them.” (World Bank Institute website, 2004, as cited in UNDP-EC, 2004:3).

Bereft of its nuances and ramifications, an earlier UNDP discussion paper defines

governance “as the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority to manage a nation’s affairs. It refers to the “complex mechanisms, processes, relationships and institutions through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their rights and obligations and mediate their differences. The UNDP also describes governance as transcending the state but to include civil society organizations and the private sector “because all three are involved in most activities promoting sustainable human development” (UNDP, 1997a: 9).

Governance has also been described as “the process of policy making through active

and cohesive discussion among policy makers who are interconnected through a broad range of networks” (Kooiman, 2003 and World Bank, 1994, as cited in Kim, et.al., 2005:647.).

It is however emphasized that the aspiration is not just governance but the requisites for

good governance. The process must anchor on the ideals and principles of multiple stakeholdership where government is only one of the actors involved because it is marked by dialogues and consensus in the management of common and societal affairs (Kim, et. Al. 2005).

From this description, therefore, is carved the prescription for good and sound

governance where, again, as the UNDP suggests, would bring an environment where public resources are managed effectively, problems resolved efficiently, and issues are threshed out within a climate of public participation, accountability and transparency (UNDP, 1997a: 9).

Good governance can be seen as occurring when there exists an effective political

framework that is conducive to private economic action, the efficiency of stable regimes, the triumph of the rule of law, the presence of an efficient state administration adapted to the roles that government can actually perform, and a vigorous and dynamic civil society independent of the state (Hirst, 2000:14).

This issue becomes remarkable in third world setting such as the Philippines where

problems of poverty, resource mobilization, conflict, graft and corruption, and other attendant political, economic and social instabilities and discontinuities, appear to stifle or stymie the practice of good and sound governance.

In such an environment, good governance, as a compelling agenda, has been

increasingly advocated, but the problem remains, as in other societies: when is there good governance and when is there none? How is good governance measured and determined?


(16)

DIMENSIONS OF GOVERNANCE

There has been a generous amount of materials that seeks to identify the characteristics of good governance, when good governance is present in a society, and when it is not (UNDP, 1997a; UNDP, 1997b; Brillantes, 2000; Bevir, Rhodes and Weller, 2003; Kooiman, 2003; Pierre, 2000a; Kim, 2005).

A steady stream of efforts during the past two decades has been initiated to identify what

constitutes good governance, what characteristics accompany it, how it is derived and promoted. Some of these initiatives have broken down a working typology that would help classify governance characteristics and criteria by breaking governance into “domains.”

In the typology devised by the UNDP (1997a:9-10), four types have been suggested,

namely, Economic governance, which covers processes of policy-making and decision-making

that directly or indirectly affect a country’s economic activities or it relationships with other economies;

Political governance, which refers to decision and policy processes and

implementation of a legitimate and authoritative state representing, among others, the “the interests of a pluralist polity” that allow citizens to freely elect their representatives;

Administrative governance, which reflects a system of policy implementation

undertaken through “an efficient, independent, accountable and open public sector; and, Systemic governance which encompasses the processes and structures of society that

guide political and socio-economic relationships to protect cultural and religious beliefs and values, and to create and maintain an environment of health, freedom, security and with the opportunity to exercise personal capabilities that lead to a better life for all people”

The Philippines has roughly adopted this framework as shown in Figure 4, Framework

for the Development of Governance Indicators, although it has not incorporated the systemic governance classification. A brief description of advocacies is reflected in each of the domains of political, economic and administrative governance.

Figure 4. Framework for the Development of Governance Indicators

(Next Page)


(17)

PRIMARY ACTORS OF GOVERNANCE

CivilSociety

BusinessSector

ProductiveSector

Government/Public Sector

As guided by the following governance

principles:

Transparency

Accountability

Participatory

Leadership

General Organization and Management

Intergovernmental Organization

Rule of Law

Rights-based

Sustainability

Gender-sensitive

Effectiveness

MAJOR AREAS OF GOVERNANCE

ECONOMIC POLITICAL ADMINISTRATIVE

Figure 4. Framework for the Development of Governance Indicators

Source: Brillantes, Alex, Jr. innovations and Excellence, 2005 and National Statistical Coordination Board

Accordingly, in support of this classification, a listing of governance performance criteria are also listed and accompanied by an indicative checklist intended to describe how each criterion can be fulfilled or determined.

Figure 5, Governance Performance Criterion and Indicative Checklist below lists ten

criteria of governance, namely, Transparency; participation; accountability; general organization and management; intergovernmental relations; rule of law; continuity in the implementation of


(18)

programs, predictability and sustainability, preference for the poor; and effective responsive provision of basic services.

Accompanying this set of criteria is an indicative checklist which suggests how these

criteria are to be applied and operationalized.

Figure 5. Governance Performance Criterion and Indicative Checklist

Governance Performance

Criterion Indicative Checklist

1.Transparency Presence of a management information system. Accomplishment reports are clearly posted and

measured against stated targets. Reports of cashflows published. Use of computer technology in preparation of socio-

economic profile. Creation of a municipal information office. Openness to participation of media. Presence of community data board and spot map

(e.g., MBN survey) and updated regularly. Publication of a municipal news magazine/

newsletter. Accessibility of officials to media through regularly

press conferences. Conduct of regular citizens assemblies, especially

at the barangay level. 2.Participation Public consultations conducted.

Functioning local development council. Performance monitoring and evaluation committee

institutionalized with technical NGO members. Presence of programs and activities with clear

private sector / NGO / civil society participation. Beneficiaries are always involved and consulted in

programs, processes. 3.Accountability Presence of performance measurement and

appraisal system. Public accountability operationalized through Ethics

and Accountability Law and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

Presence of local ombudsman, grievance and other committees

Use of Performance Audit. Audit report of the COA posted in conspicuous

places. Assets and liabilities well accounted for. Extent of COA disallowance and suspensions. Complete and available financial reports.


(19)



4. Leadership Presence of Clear and Consistent Vision clearly articulated by the LCE

Participation in activities of the Leagues of LGUs Ability to network with NGAs and LGUs and donor

institutions Attainment of planned targets in spite of constraints. Ability of LCE to harness civil society and business

sector for support. 5.General Organization and Management

Presence of a Clear Organizational Structure Performance evaluation periodically conducted. Staff meetings / department meetings conducted

regularly. Presence of Local Government Profile Presence of a Master Development Plan with

quantifiable and measureable targets. Devolved employees absorbed properly. Delegated tasks clearly stated. Clear delineation of responsibilities between

executive and legislative. Visibility of SB members and other heads of offices

in municipal and barangay activities. Organization of committees to address intercultural

conflicts. 6.Inter-governmental Relations

Functioning coordinative mechanisms such as local development councils, local special bodies.

Presence of inter-LGU programs and projects. Memoranda of Agreement with other LGUs. Local NGA functionaries tapped by the LGU for

technical assistance. Presence of inter-LGU undertakings for economic

and commonly beneficial purposes with responsibilities of each level clearly defined.

Networking among officers and among personnel officers.

Adoption of convergence approach. 7. Rule of Law Ordinances periodically reviewed and updated.

Existence of legislative tracking mechanism. Establishment of work flow prominently posted for

guidance of all. Legal and cultural laws effectively implemented. Customary and ancestral laws, e.g., Shariah Law,

respected. Functioning People’s Law Enforcement Board

(PLEB). Availability of information and statistics re: crime

arrests and convictions, no of cases filed in court for traffic violation, etc.)


(20)



8. Continuity in the implementation of programs, predictability and sustainability

Continuing efforts to augment resources through short term and long terms grants and loans.

Continuous consultation with local constituents. Programs and projects subject to regular evaluation

and continuous enrichment. Development plan updated on a regular basis.

9. Preference for the Poor

Use of Poverty Mapping conducted and updated regularly.

Use of MBN Surveys in designing local programs and projects.

Provision of livelihood programs. Funds set aside for poverty alleviation projects. Presence of poverty alleviation programs such as

Lingap para sa mahirap, health insurance of indigents, senior citizens, etc.

10.Effective, responsive, provision of basic services

Services identified for devolution under the Code actually devolved.

Devolved services adequately funded. Equitable and rational distribution of basic services

among beneficiaries as evidence in the budget.

Source: Brillantes, 2005.

Obviously, there may be other criteria that can be added to this extended list, depending of course on the priorities and needs of a given society. These provide a set of general and descriptive standards supported by specific indicative performance targets that can be used or are being used in the Philippines to determine the application and operationalization of governance practices.

But, given these set of criteria and their indicative checklist, the challenge remains as to

how these can be measured objectively. It is for this reason that indicators would be necessary to provide an objective means of measuring governance activities based on some methodology and undertaken by independent producers.


(21)

THE NEED FOR GOVERNANCE INDICATORS

While good governance can be described subjectively in detail as to its components, peculiarities and characteristics, problems arise, however, as to how its can be determined and measured objectively.

When, for instance, is government transparency present, or practiced and upheld in a

society? When is people’s participation in policy-making and in the management of public affairs observed? When is a public policy a product of good governance and when is it not?

It is for this reason that governance indicators to test patterns and practices of

governance have become necessary to objectively identify governance performance. Essentially, an indicator is “a device for providing specific information on the state or condition of something.” It could be a measure, a gauge, guide, index, marker or benchmark, among others. (UNDP-EC: 2004:3)

A governance indicator, then, would serve as a measure or yardstick that suggest or

reflect the state of governance in a society or a country, and may be narrowed down to specific areas or concerns of governance, such as “electoral systems, corruption, human rights, public service delivery, civil society and gender equality” among others (UNDP-EC: 2004:3).

As such, these can be used as guides or benchmarks for policy-makers, political parties,

program implementors, business groups, civil society organizations, as well as researchers and international institutions to help determine sensitive policy decisions, investment potentials or people’s sentiments in terms of approval or disapproval over government actions.

As in the UNDP-EC Guide, the focus of this manual is on governance indicators in the Philippines and not on statistical data. Although the terms are almost used interchangeably, this Guide does not apply or adopt strict statistical tools in measuring governance indicators (UNDP-EC: 2004:3).

Instead, this Guide provides a listing or inventory of institutions in the public, private and

non-government sector in the Philippines where governance indicators are being produced regularly or periodically. It does not however provide a detailed discussion of the methodology employed by an indicator producer as to how it had generated and measured a given governance indicator report it has released or are releasing.


(22)

GUIDE METHODOLOGY In producing this Guide, information was generated from various institutions producing

and generating governance indicators in the Philippines. These institutions include those from the public, private and non-government sectors. This Guide has deemed it practicable to distinguish the sectors to allow the Guide user to identify and determine which institution would suit his requirements.

The information was generated from websites and interviews, and admittedly remains

limited to those that operate largely at the national level. The sources vary in the frequency of their releases but have gained nationwide recognition because they have consistently released information on various aspects of governance.

There are also institutions such as universities and colleges based at the regional and provincial levels that have been known to have devised and released governance indicators at the community level but these have been largely sporadic, owing perhaps to the limitations of funds and available resources. Some of these, however, are included in this Guide.

The Source Guide incorporated herein, provides the information of the indicators

sources and follows the UNDP-EC format. The Guide is shown below in Figure 6 as follows:

Figure 6. Source Guide

Name: Name of the data source Producer: The individual or organization that produced the data source Stated purpose: The purpose for which the information source was intended Funding source: The organization that funded the project Current usage: Where and how the data is currently being used Where to find it: The web address the dataset or database is located Type of data used: Describes the type of data that was used in the data source (expert

assessments, surveys, stories from news agencies, etc.) Coverage: Number of provinces, municipalities or barangays covered Time coverage: The years when the first and most recent data were collected and the

frequency with which data is collected. Contact details: The address at which the producer can be contacted Methodology: Explains how the data was collected and compiled, and includes

relevant information such as sources of data, data-gathering techniques, questionnaire design and coding

Example results: An example of the results or the probable results of the indicator source Source: United Nations Development Programme and Eurostat (2004) Governance Indicators: A User’s Guide


(23)

Unfortunately, the listing of indicators sources in the Philippines in this Guide does not, in some instances, provide the complete standard information indicated in the source guide. This is because some of the indicators sources have chosen not to provide some data for reasons of their own. Likewise, the Guide does not explain here the methodology used by the indicator source in generating data or information. Sample reports of some of the indicators sources are however included in this Guide to help the user assess the value of the information released by a given institution or organization.

Apparently, there would be other indicators sources, as had been said earlier, that may

not have been included in this listing, particularly at the regional and community levels in the Philippines. This is because, these have not been either reached at the time of research or because they have not released indicator reports regularly or continuously.

A total of 37 governance indicators and indicator sources that are generated and

released by public, business and non-profit organizations in the Philippines have been compiled in this Guide.

Those in the public sector have been further classified as to whether they belong to the

Executive, Legislative or Judiciary branches. A fourth classification was also included and this refers to indicators generated and released by independent constitutional bodies.

The listing represents indicator-generating sources that measure varying indicators of

governance such as environmental protection, human rights violations, people’s participation in public affairs, citizens’ access to basic services, poverty, and corruption, among others. Some of these tend to overlap and cut across various sectors.

The important point that needs to be emphasized is that these represent data and

information independently obtained out of systematic research or statistical surveys based on some accepted or acceptable methodology. They also present what can be considered as credible sources, mainly because data and information were secured by professionals.

Figure 7 below, Philippine Governance Indicators Survey Tools, classifies these

organizations and lists these indicators sources and the indicators they use.


(24)

Figure 7. Philippine Governance Indicators Survey Tools

NATIONAL GOVERNMENT Executive Legislative Judiciary Constitutional

House Senate 1. Coastal Resource Management Project

(CRMP) – DENR 2. Philippine Environmental Governance

Program (EcoGov) – DENR 3. Family Income and Expenditure Survey

(FIES) – NSCB 4. Human Development Index (HDI) –

NSCB 5. Integrated Rural Accessibility Planning

(IRAP) Procedure – DILG 6. Labor Cost Survey - DOLE 7. Local Government Performance

Measurement System (LGPMS) – DILG 8. Local Productivity and Performance

Measurement System (LPPMS) – DILG 9. Minimum Basic Needs Survey (MBN) –

DSWD 10. Medium Term Philippine Development

Plan (MTPDP) – NEDA 11. Occupational Wages Survey – DOLE 12. Philippine Labor Index - DOLE

CPBO SEPO 1. Performance Reporting System – COA

2. Ombudsman Watch – OMB

3. Rights-Based Approach – CHR

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Non-Profit Business Academe Development Agency 1. Community- Based

Monitoring System (CBMS) Network – MIMAP-Phil. PMO

2. Ibon Foundation 3. Philippine Center for

Investigative Journalism (PCIJ)

4. Public Integrity Index – CPI

5. Social Watch Philippines 6. Social Weather

Indicators – SWS 7. Tatak Synergeia –

Synergeia Foundation, Inc.

8. Transparent Accountable Governance - TAG

1. Makati Business Club’s Executive Outlook Survey – MBC

2. Ulat ng Bayan – Pulse Asia, Inc.

3. The Wallace Report – Wallace Business Forum, Inc.

1. Center for Local and Regional Governance – CLRG-NCPAG

2. Citizens Report Card Survey - DAP

3. GOFORDEV – PCPS

4. Governance Quality Index (GQI) - PIDS

5. Philippine Cities Competitiveness Ranking (PCCR) – AIM

6. Population and Development (POPDEV) Indicators and Database – PCPD

7. System on Competency Assessment for Local Governments (SCALOG) – LGA

1. Good Governance Report Card: Gender and Development (GAD) – TUGI-UN

2. Millennium Development Goals – UNDP

3. Performance Measurement at the Local Level – ADB

4. World Bank’s Combating Corruption – WB


(25)

Summary: Executive – 12 House – Senate – Judiciary – Constitutional – 3 Non-Profit – 8 Business – 3 Academe – 7 Development Agencies – 4 Total = 37

The information on these organization and institutions in accordance with the Guide framework on Fig. 6 are listed in the following pages.


(26)

EXECUTIVE


(27)

Coastal Resource Management Project (CRMP)

Producer: Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Stated purpose: To provide technical assistance and training to coastal

communities, local government units, non-governmental organizations, and national government agencies to promote improved management of coastal resource in the Philippines

Funding source: United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Current usage: CRMP develops strategic and innovative approaches to address

new paradigms in Coastal Resource Management in the Philippines while building on previously tested approaches, particularly those that were community-based.

Where to find it: http://www.oneocean.org/about_crmp/index.html

http://pdf.dec.org/pdf_docs/PDACD239.pdf Type of data used: Varied. Administrative data mostly. Coverage: Community-based coastal areas. The Project was initially

implemented in six learning areas: Olango Island, Cebu; San Vicente, Palawan; Malalag Bay, Davao del Sur; Negros Oriental; northwest Bohol; and Sarangani Province.

Time coverage: 1996-2004 Contact details: Coastal Resource Management Project - Philippines

5/F CIFC Towers, J. Luna cor. Humabon Sts. North Reclamation Area, Cebu City 6000, Philippines Tel: (63 32) 232-18-21 to 22; (63 32) 412-04-87 to 89 Toll-free Hotline: 1-800-1-888-1823 Fax: (63 32) 232-18-25 Email: [email protected]

Methodology: The first half of the project focused on building the momentum for

the spread of coastal resource management (CRM) from the core learning areas (i.e. Olango Island, Cebu and San Vicente, Palawan) by creating such a critical mass of leaders, bringing to a national scale the effort to create LGU awareness and demand for CRM services, and identifying and developing the CRM process, approaches, methodologies and tools to be adopted by the LGUs. In the second half, CRMP made remarkable progress in refining the approaches and tools developed and in promoting their adoption


(28)

among a network of partners nationwide. Example results: The number of LGUs allocating an annual budget for CRM and the

amount of these allocations increased over the eight years of project implementation. The project assisted in organizing or strengthening Municipal Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils (MFARMC) in all 29 learning area municipalities as well as in 90 expansion area LGUs. CRMP also assisted in organizing and strengthening barangay-level FARMCs (BFARMC) and Bantay Dagat, or coastal law enforcement groups. A total of 113 LGUs were implementing two or more CRM best practices by the end of 2003.


(29)

Philippine Environmental Governance Program (EcoGov)

Producer: Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Stated purpose: EcoGov aims to revitalize the economy by fostering improved

management of natural resources through good ecogovernance that provides key inputs to the long-term economic development of the country. Good ecogovernance stresses transparency in all transactions and decisions, accountability of national and local leaders and participatory decision making.

Funding source: United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Current usage: EcoGov program addresses critical threats to the Philippines’

coastal resources and forests, primarily over-fishing and use of destructive fishing practices, and illegal logging and conversion of natural resources. It also strengthens the ability of local governments and communities to implement integrated solid waste and water quality/resources management.

Where to find it: http://www.usaid-ph.gov/oee_envgov_ecogov.php

http://www.denr.gov.ph/ecogov http://ecogovproject.denr.gov.ph/files/ecogov%20leaflet.pdf

Type of data used: Assistance such as policy analysis and technical advice, hands-on

training, on-site technical assistance, and sponsorship of small meetings and workshops so that they will adopt sound policies, allocate resources and take actions in addressing critical environmental threats.

Coverage: National coverage

At least 60 percent of the level of effort will be in Mindanao, while Central Visayas and Northern Luzon will be allocated 25 percent and 15 percent, respectively.

Time coverage: EcoGov 1: June 2003 to November 2004

EcoGov 2: October 2004 to September 2009 Contact details: For more information, contact:

The EcoGovernance Program Department of Environment and Natural Resources Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City Telefax: (632) 927-68-96 For more information on EcoGov 2 contact: Contractor: Development Alternatives Inc.(DAI)


(30)

Ernesto Guiang, Ph.D.Chief of Party Unit-2401, Prestige Tower F. Ortigas Jr. Road (formerly Emerald Ave.) Ortigas Center,Pasig City. Tel. No.: (632) 637-87-79 Email: [email protected]

Methodology: EcoGov will provide assistance to individual and cluster local

government units (LGUs) on how to define and enforce accountability for the management of coastal and fishery resources. It will assist local governments reduce illegal logging and promote sustainable forest and forestlands management. Guided by locally developed forest land use plans, forests will be managed by a combination of community stewardship with individual property rights, joint venture and co-management, and private sector partnerships. Furthermore, EcoGov will assist urbanizing LGUs implement solid waste management plans.

Example results: The program is expected to have placed at least 100,000 hectares

of forest cover and at least 520 kilometers of coastlines brought under improved management; helped established at least 25 community-managed marine sanctuaries with over 250 hectares under effective protection and assisted at least 42 LGUs in divering 15% of waste stream from disposal facilities through waste recovery and recycling techniques.


(31)

Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES)

Producer: National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) Stated purpose: To gather data on family income and family living expenditures

and related information affecting income and expenditure levels and patterns in the Philippines

To determine the sources of income and income distribution, levels of living and spending patterns, and the degree of inequality among families

To provide benchmark information to update weights in the estimation of consumer price index.

Funding source: Philippine government Current usage: The gathered critical are used for decision-making of the government

and the private sector. Where to find it: http://www.nscb.gov.ph/stats/latest/2005/021805_NSO_fies03.asp Type of data used: Family income and expenditure survey result Coverage: Nationwide Time coverage: Released every three years since 1985 Contact details: National Statistical Coordination Board

2F Midland Buendia Bldg., 403 Gil Puyat Avenue Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines Telephone Nos.: 895-27-67/890-94-05/890-31-35 Fax Nos.: 890-94-08/890-31-35 E-mail: [email protected] URL: http://www.nscb.gov.ph

Methodology: The sampling design of the 2003 FIES uses the 2003 Master Sample

for Household Surveys. In this design, the country’s 17 administrative regions were defined based on Executive Orders 36 and 131.

For comparability of results, the 2000 FIES data in this release were generated using the new regional grouping. However, 2000 FIES estimates for Isabela City cannot be generated separately from Basilan as this city was not a domain in the sampling design used for the 2000 FIES. As such, Isabela City remained to be part of the


(32)

whole Basilan province under Region IX in 2000. In 2003, however, based on Executive Order 36, Isabela City, being a separate domain was grouped under Region IX while the rest of the province of Basilan (excluding Isabela City) is grouped under ARMM.

In 2000, Marawi City was a separate domain under Region XII. In 2003, with the use of the new master sample, Marawi City became part of ARMM together with the rest of Lanao del Sur.

To be able to compare the 2003 FIES estimates with the 2000 FIES results in real terms, the effects of inflation have to be removed. For comparative purposes, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is used to deflate the 2003 FIES estimates. The country’s CPI for 2003 is estimated at 113.8.

Example results: The National Statistics Office (NSO) has released the final results of

the 2003 Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES)

Family Income and Expenditure Survey (current prices)

Indicator 2003 2000 % increase

Total Income (in P1,000) 2,417,678,863 2,187,250,217 10.5

Total Expenditure (in P1,000) 2,023,353,939 1,791,132,882 13.0

Annual Average Income (in pesos) 148,616 145,121 2.4

Annual Average Expenditure (in pesos) 124,377 118,839 4.7

Annual Average Saving (in pesos) 24,239 26,282 -7.8

Number of Families (in ‘000) 16,268 15,702 3.6

The above table depicts an increase of 10.5 percent in the total income and 13.0 percent in the total expenditure from 2000 to 2003. Average income and expenditure also yielded growths of 2.4 and 4.7 percent, respectively.


(33)

Human Development Index (HDI)

Producer: National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) Stated purpose: Provide information on the human development performance of the

country and its provinces. Funding source: NSCB Current usage: Beneficial to planners and policy makers, in particular, and to the

public, in general. It can serve as a guide for planners in prioritizing their goals and in policy-setting as it provides information on the province’s strengths and weaknesses from the point of view of human development.

Where to find it: http://www.nscb.gov.ph/publication/social/social_hdi.asp Type of data used: Publication Coverage: Provinces of the Philippines Time coverage: Released every three years Contact details: Ms. Severa B. De Costo

National Statistical Coordination Board Telephone number: (632) 896-53-90 Email address: [email protected].

Methodology: The report provides information on the progress of human

development in the provinces of the country on three aspects of human development: 1) the aspect of health or longevity, as measured by life expectancy; 2) knowledge, as measured by enrolment and literacy rates; and 3) standard of living, as measured by the real per capita income.

Example results:

The country’s state of human development improved in 2000 as human development index stood at 0.656, or 0.027 points higher than the 1997 computed index of 0.629. All component indices grew in 2000 but the most remarkable progress was noted in income index.


(34)

The Philippine HDI, LEI, EI and II, 1994, 1997 and 2000

Difference Index 2000 1997 1994

2000-1997 1997-1994

HDI 0.656 0.629 0.627 0.027 0.002

LEI 0.732 0.717 0.707 0.015 0.010

EI 0.840 0.835 0.812 0.005 0.023

II 0.394 0.336 0.361 0.058 (0.025)

Note:

LEI - Life Expectancy Index

EI - Education Index

II - Income Index

Source: National Statistical Coordination Board

Bulacan, Highest Ranking in 2000 HDI

In 2000, Bulacan enjoyed the highest HDI at 0.760. It rose to the top rank in 2000 from ranking fourth in 1994 and 1997 and also recorded the biggest growth from 1997 to 2000 at 8.3 percent. Next in line was Bataan, 0.746; and Cavite, 0.735. Table 2 shows the top ranking provinces in 2000 along with their ranks in 1997 and 1994:

Table 2. The Top Ten Provinces in HDI, 2000

2000 1997 1994 Percent Change Province

HDI Rank HDI Rank HDI Rank 2000-1997 1997-1994

Bulacan 0.760 1 0.702 4 0.727 4 8.3 (3.4)

Bataan 0.746 2 0.727 1 0.653 8 2.6 11.3

Cavite 0.735 3 0.724 2 0.782 1 1.5 (7.4)

Rizal 0.733 4 0.693 5 0.730 3 5.8 (5.1)

Batanes 0.717 5 0.713 3 0.760 2 0.5 (6.2)

Laguna 0.709 6 0.676 7 0.721 5 4.8 (6.2)

Ilocos Norte 0.684 7 0.646 9 0.623 12 5.8 3.7

Batangas 0.683 8 0.684 6 0.672 6 (0.1) 1.8

Pampanga 0.665 9 0.648 8 0.664 7 2.6 (2.4)

Isabela 0.649 10 0.626 10 0.624 10 3.6 0.3


Sulu, Lagging in 2000 HDI

At the bottom end of the HDI ladder in 2000 was Sulu (Table 3), and was also the most lagging province in 1997 and 1994. Among the ten lagging provinces, Tawi-Tawi and Basilan experienced a worsening of their state of human development in 2000 as


(35)

Tawi-Tawi’s HDI declined by 9.3 percent from its index in 1997 and Basilan, by 3.3 percent. Also, of the bottom 10 provinces, 8 were in Mindanao; one in Visayas (Western Samar); and one in Luzon (Ifugao).

Table 3. The Bottom Ten Provinces, 2000

2000 1997 1994 Percent Change Province

HDI Rank HDI Rank HDI Rank 2000- 1997 1997- 1994

Sulu 0.351 77 0.336 77 0.357 76 4.3 (5.9)

Tawi-Tawi 0.390 76 0.430 74 0.387 75 (9.3) 11.1

Basilan 0.425 75 0.439 73 0.423 73 (3.3) 3.8

Ifugao 0.461 74 0.452 72 0.406 74 1.9 11.3

Maguindanao 0.461 73 0.416 75 0.449 71 10.8 (7.3)

Lanao del Sur 0.464 72 0.415 76 0.442 72 11.8 (6.1)

Agusan del Sur 0.482 71 0.482 70 0.459 70 - 5.0

Samar 0.511 70 0.493 67 0.462 67 3.6 6.7

Lanao del Norte 0.512 69 0.470 71 0.473 65 8.8 (0.6)

Sarangani 0.516 68 0.494 66 0.529 46 4.5 (6.6)


Note: The number of provinces in 1997 and 2000 was 77 due to the splitting of the province of Kalinga-Apayao into Kalinga and Apayao in 1997.


(36)

Integrated Rural Accessibility Planning (IRAP) Procedure

Producer: Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Stated purpose: To examine the rural households’ capacity to access basic goods,

services and facilities to facilitate the identification and prioritization of the rural development needs

Funding source: Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), International

Labour Organization (ILO), and Royal Government of Netherlands Current usage: The IRAP is used to assess the accessibility of basic facilities and

services to households. IRAP can also be used at the national level to identify provinces with the greater need for investments in specific social and economic sectors and to monitor progress in the overall economic and social development of the country. The Accessibility Indicators could give the possibility of setting realistic targets in each of the sectors (i.e. health, education, water) based on the national averages derived from the IRAP procedures.

Where to find it: http://www.dilg.gov.ph/irap

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/recon/eiip/download/ratp/ratp08.pdf

Type of data used: The Accessibility Indicator (AI), which is a numeric value that represents

the ease or difficulty in utilizing a specific service or facility Coverage: National, Provincial, Municipal, Barangay Time coverage: 2000-2002 Contact details: For more information contact:

Lurraine Baybay Villacorta ILO-IRAP Technical Assistance Team ILO Office 5/F NEDA sa Makati Building 106 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village Makati City Tel. Nos. (632) 892-06-11, 819-36-14 Fax: (632) 812-61-43 E-mail: [email protected]


(37)

Methodology: The IRAP procedure has been shown to be a planning technique which

aids planners and technical staff in identifying and prioritizing local investment opportunities. It is aided by the use of a computer-based information system which facilitate data encoding, processing, storage, retrieval and transmission. The diagram below illustrates the IRAP concept.

The IRAP concept focuses on the element of “Access”, which refers to the ability of people to reach and use facilities for the services they need. The relationship between the household and the facility can be described as the “Accessibility Indicator” (AI). AI is generally taken as a function of the number of households (persons) affected and the distance from the service facilities. Accessibility Indicator

No. of Households affected Distance (expressed in time)

Example results:


(38)

Labor Cost Survey

Producer: Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics Stated purpose: To compile statistics to measure the level and composition of labor

cost in the country. Funding source: National Government Current usage: To guide labor, management and government to arrive at rationale

policies and sound decisions in wage and salary administration and collective bargaining negotiations. Can also serve as a factor in determining viability of domestic industries and their competitiveness in international trade.

Where to find it: Philippine Industry Yearbook of Labor Statistics

Yearbook of Labor Statistics http://www.bles.dole.gov.ph http://www.manile-online.net/bles

Type of data used: Survey Coverage: National Time coverage: Every four years Contact details Teresa V. Peralta

Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics 3/F DOLE Bldg., Gen. Luna, Intramuros, Manila Tel. No.: 527-30-00 loc 310 Fax No.: 527-93-25 E-mail: [email protected]

Methodology: Survey covers non-agricultural establishments employing 20

persons or more. Inquires on costs incurred by employer relative to direct wages and salaries; remuneration for time not worked; bonuses and gratuities; payments in kind; cost of workers’ housing shouldered by employer; employer’s social security contributions; cost of training; cost of welfare services and other labor costs.

Example results: Annual labor cost per employee grew by 30.4 percent from

P139,934 in 1998 to P182,541 in 2002. Comprising almost three-fourths or 74.4 percent of this were expenditures on direct wages and salaries, notwithstanding a minimal 2.2 percentage points decline from its share in 1998. Bonuses and gratuities accounted for 10.5 percent of total labor cost, up from a share of 8.7 percent in 1998. Social security expenditures accounted for at least 9 percent of total in both years.


(39)

Local Government Performance Measurement System (LGPMS)

Producer: Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Stated purpose: A self-assessment indicators system that allows local government

units (LGUs) to determine their limitations and capabilities in the delivery of essential public services, it supports the development of local governments through improved use of financial and human resources. It also benchmarks local government performance against established standards and informs national policymakers on the state of development in local government units.

Funding source: Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Asian

Development Bank (ADB), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), CIDA-LGSP, and United Nation Development Program (UNDP)

Current usage: LGPMS allows end users to manage and manipulate data, analyze

LGU performance, and share information with other stakeholders. As a tool in measuring the performance of LGUs, it provides local government practitioners, policy/decision makers and program/project implementers of a reference document in the formulation and implementation of capability enhancement-oriented and service delivery improvement-focused initiatives.

Where to find it: http://www.blgs.gov.ph/lgpms Type of data used: General information about the local government, its major income

source(s), income and applicability areas, as well as other basic data.

Coverage: LGPMS is applicable for Provinces, Cities and Municipalities. Time coverage: Annual Contact details: LGPMS National Project Management Team

Bureau of Local Government Supervision 3/F A. Francisco Gold Condominium II Mapagmahal Sreet, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines Tel. No. (632) 925-11-53 or 925-03-77 (632) 928-91-81

Methodology: Self-assesses LGU performance by measuring multi-sectoral impact

and effectiveness/quality of services, facilities, projects, plans,


(40)

programs and policies, with emphasis on good governance and administration (including, among others, people participation, equity, service orientation, and human capital). LGPMS uses a Data Capture Form (DCF) which must be accomplished completely and accurately. General Information about the local government, its major income source(s), income and applicability areas, as well as other basic data is included in Part 1 of the DCF. Part 2 contains the LGPMS indicators and their corresponding performance elements. There are four types of indicators, namely List, Percentage, Value, and Exclusive List.

Example results: The results can be communicated through the State of Local

Governance Report, print and broadcast media, public meetings, and the internet. An example of a LGPMS result is shown in the table below.

Benchmark Summary Table

LGU Name: City A Legend: Below

Above

Year: 2003

Within

No

Data

Indicator Benchmark

Input Output Outcome Service Areas 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5

Below Within Above No

Data

1 Local Legislation 5 5 1 1 0 2 0 2 Transparency 3 5 5 0 1 2 0 3 Participation 5 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 0 4 Development Planning 1 5 1 3 2 1 1 0 5 Revenue Generation 1 5 5 5 3 1 2 1 3 0 6 Resource Allocation and Utilization 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 0 5 0 7 Financial Accountability 5 4 1 5 3 1 1 3 0 8 Customer Service 1 5 5 1 2 0 2 0 9 Human Resources 5 5 5 3 0 1 3 0

10 Health and Nutrition 3 5 5 1 5 5 5 3 1 2 3 2 5 0 11 Education 5 5 3 1 2 4 5 1 3 3 2 4 0 12 Housing and Basic Utilities 1 5 5 5 4 3 5 1 1 5 0 13 Peace, Security and Disaster Preparedness 1 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 1 0 8 0 14 Agriculture and Fisheries Development 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 9 0 15 Entrepreneurship, Business & Industry Promotion 3 5 4 4 5 4 5 0 1 6 0 16 Natural Resources Management 0 5 5 3 5 5 5 0 1 5 1 17 Waste Management and Pollution Control 2 1 1 0 5 5 5 3 1 4 1 3 1

Total 24 14 67 2


(41)

Local Productivity and Performance Measurement System (LPPMS)

Producer: Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Stated purpose: The ultimate objective of the LPPMS is to identify performance gaps

among the local government units (LGUs) so that appropriate interventions could be introduced.

Funding source: United Nation Development Program (UNDP) Current usage: The LPPMS was initially conceptualized as a monitoring mechanism

for the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). It was enhanced to serve as a management tool for the LGUs to evaluate their own performance.

Where to find it: http://www.dilg.gov.ph

http://www.worldbank.org Type of data used: State of Governance Report: Level of LGU performance and areas

for improvement that requires intervention from concerned government agencies. It makes use of indicators mostly derived from the Local Government Code.

Coverage: Local government units (LGUs) Time coverage: 1998-present Contact details: Director Rolando M. Acosta

Bureau of Local Government Supervision (BLGS) A. Francisco Gold Condominium II, EDSA cor. Mapagmahal St, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines 1100 Tel/Fax No.: (632) 928-91-81 Email: [email protected]

Methodology: Self-assesses LGU performance by measuring multi-sectoral impact

and presence/number of services, facilities, projects, plans, programs and policies, as well as good governance and administration. The LPPMS works with the subsequent framework:


(42)

LOGICAL INDICATORS FRAMEWORK

Inputs – the resources required to produce goods and services Process – the way an LGU manages its resources to produce goods

and services Outputs – the goods and services produced, the achievement of

which are within the control of LGUs Outcomes – the intermediate and high level results or impacts of

service delivery Example results: A city government’s performance is measured by different

indicators. For example, on development planning, the presence of planning policies and guidelines, updated annual investment program (AIP), annual development plan, comprehensive land use plan (CLUP), and a databank system are some of its indicators.


(43)

Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP)

Producer: National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) Stated purpose: Part I: Economic Growth and Job Creation.

To create wealth through the facilitation of investments in mining, oil and gas exploration, the re-launch of massive reclamation projects, and the development of the Clark-Subic corridor as the logistics center for the Asia-Pacific region. The legislative and administrative measures needed to make the public sector deficit more manageable. Part II: Energy. To cover energy independence and power sector reforms Part III: Social Justice and Delivery of Basic Needs. To Implement antipoverty program of government, achieve national harmony through automated elections, the peace process and healing the wounds of EDSA 1, 2 and 3. To answer the basic needs issues of peace and order, and the rule of law. Part IV: Education and Youth To accelerate the knowledge creation and transfer to promote technology-based entrepreneurship. To mainstream culture into the overarching goal of development and institutionalize culture in education and governance Part V: Anti-Corruption and Good Governance To promote anti-corruption strategies and good governance Expound the Philippine defense program, upgrade the capability of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, ensure the observance of cease-fires, and enhance the country’s ability to fight terrorism End Chapter: Constitutional Reform. To create more effective political institutions and more relevant and accountable political parties To encourage more liberal economic policies that would facilitate the entry of more investments and minimize judicial interference in economic decisions

Funding source: Philippine government Current usage: Serve as a blueprint of the current administration’s plans and

programs


(44)

Where to find it: http://www.ncc.gov.ph/files/mtpdpneda_preface.pdf

http://www.news.ops.gov.ph/mtpdp2004-2010.htm Type of data used: Regional Development Plans/Investment Programs and Publication of

rolling medium-term public investment programs Coverage: The Nation Time coverage: 2004-2010 Contact details: NEDA sa Pasig

Amber Avenue Pasig NCR +63 (2) 631 0945 to 64 www.neda.gov.ph

Methodology: Implement plans and programs within the term of the current

President of the Republic Example results: The successful implementation of the Plan would rest on the support

of all sectors of society - the Legislative, the Judiciary, the local government units, the business community, responsive civil organizations, the media, and all sectors of society. In the President’s words, everyone must share the responsibility of moving this country forward.


(45)

Minimum Basic Needs Survey (MBN)

Producer: Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) Stated purpose: To measure the extent of unmet basic needs in assessing

government programs on poverty alleviation Funding source: National Government Current usage: The survey assists LGUs in determining the basic profile and

economic status of households in each barangay. The MBN Survey allows the LGUs to identify the barangays which are lacking services and facilities, and barangays which need improvements in their existing services and facilities. The information is valuable to local governments towards adopting a responsive approach to development planning.

Where to find it: http://www.nso.gov.ph

http://www.nscb.gov.ph http://www.dswd.gov.ph

Type of data used: Poverty indicator surveys conducted by the Philippine National

Statistics Office (i.e. basic demographic profile, type of housing facilities, access and quality of services and facilities provided in the locality, and income status)

Coverage: Nationwide. Barangay level. Time coverage: Ramos Administration to present Contact details: Department of Social Welfare and Development

DSWD Bldg., Constitution Hills, Batasan Complex, Q.C., Philippines Tel. Nos. (632)931-81-01 to 931-81-07

Methodology: A survey on households in the barangay level is conducted to

identify basic demographic information (i.e. civil status, religion, mother tongue, occupation, educational attainment, etc.); type of housing facilities; access and quality of services and facilities provided in the locality (i.e. source and type o0f water, kind of drainage system, type of solid waste disposal; types of educational facilities, kinds of health service workers, kinds of professional services available, kinds of recreational facilities, types of telecommunications facilities, kinds of personal service facilities, types of commercial establishments, types of transportation


(46)

facilities); and income status (kinds of home appliances owned, number of vehicles owned).

Example results: The LGUs are able to prioritize programs and projects in

accordance with the data made available by the survey.


(47)

Occupational Wages Survey

Producer: Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics Stated purpose: To generate statistics for wage and salary administration and wage

determination in collective bargaining negotiations Funding source: National Government Current usage: Statistics on wage rates are useful economic indicators and are

inputs to wage, income, productivity and price policies, wage fixing and collective bargaining. Specifically, occupational wage rates can be used to measure wage differentials, wage inequality in typical low wage and high wage occupations and for international comparability. Industry data on basic pay and allowance can be used to measure wage differentials across industries, for investment decisions and as reference in periodic adjustments of minimum wages.

Where to find it: Philippine Industry Yearbook of Labor Statistics

Yearbook of Labor Statistics http://www.bles.dole.gov.ph http://www.manile-online.net/bles

Type of data used: Survey Coverage: National Time coverage: Every two years Contact details Teresa V. Peralta


Methodology: Survey covers non-agricultural establishments employing 50

persons or more. Data on wage rates of 168 occupations employing time-rate workers on full-time basis across 43 industries are collected. Survey also inquires on distribution of all time rate workers on full-time basis in 58 non-agricultural industries according to pre-determined basic pay and allowance intervals.

Example results: Mean wage rate across the selected occupations has increased

from P6,595 in 1997 to P10,161 in 2004. Median basic pay across industries covered has likewise improved from P5,534 to P7,542. However, results indicate that there are workers receiving less than the mandated minimum basic pay.


(48)

Philippine Labor Index

Producer: Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics Stated purpose: To measure the collective efforts/achievements of the Philippines in

decent work across time Funding source: National Government Current usage: The PLI is a guide for policy-makers, program planners and other

stakeholders to focus on labor and employment areas which need to be strengthened or allocated more resources. The index is also a complementary tool when related with other development indicators, such as GDP growth, poverty incidence and human development index to monitor the social and economic progress of the country particularly of its working population.

Where to find it: Not yet disseminated. Methodology for the PLI is awaiting approval

of the National Statistical Coordination Board Type of data used: Survey and administrative-based statistics Coverage: National Time coverage: Annual Contact details Teresa V. Peralta


Methodology: Index computed across 18 key indicators categorized according to

six conceptual dimensions of decent work, i.e. opportunities for work, freedom of choice of employment, productive work, equity in work, security at work, and representation at work. Index methodology based on shortfall or gap approach where benchmarks/goal posts are set for each component indicator. Higher index values indicate favorable conditions in labor and employment

Example results: The values for 2001-2004 placed the country in the medium

development stage (index of 0.50-0.79) using the HDI classification. A value below this range or above it situates a country in a low or developed stage, respectively.


(49)

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS


(50)

Ombudsman Watch

Producer: Transparency and Accountability Network (TAN) Stated purpose: Increase public awareness of and generate involvement in the

appointment process for the next Ombudsman, as well as the activities surrounding such appointment. Consistent with the foregoing, the following are the specific objectives of the project:

• To encourage and work for civil society participation in the appointment process to ensure transparency and accountability;

• To raise the level of public awareness about the appointment process and the activities surrounding the appointment process;

• To ensure a credible appointment process; and • To work towards the sustainability of civil society

participation in the Judicial and Bar Council nomination and selection process

Funding source: Transparency and Accountability Network (TAN) Current usage: Guide in the appointment process of the Ombudsman and activities

for such appointment Where to find it: http://ombwatch2005.foci.org.ph Type of data used: Report of insights and recommendations from all access points of

the program Coverage: Civil society groups and Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) Time coverage: 2005 Contact details: Rm. 205, Ateneo Center for Social Policy and

Public Affairs, Social Development Complex, Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City Telephone : 426-5927 Fax : 426-5999 Email : [email protected]

Methodology: This project embarks on activities that will promote transparency

and accountability in the selection process, and at the same time, encourage the participation of civil society and the general public in


(51)

the process by taking a good hard look on the candidates.

• Launch of the OMB Watch 2005 Project and Videoconference with TAN regional partners

• Development of the OMB Watch 2005 publication • Generating media mileage and involvement • Initiating talks with the JBC regarding sustaining civil society

participation in future OMB selection processes

Example results: A post-event assessment of the video conference provided the

following insights with regard to gaps in terms of the objectives identified above:

• There is a need to catch up with Mindanao civil society in order to engage them in the project as well as encourage their active participation in the selection process for the next Ombudsman.

• There is a need to follow through with the participants in Manila, Cebu, and Baguio with regard to their involvement in the selection process.

• There is a need to reclaim the participants’ enthusiasm dampened by the non-committal stance made by TAN.

• There is a need for TAN to review and commit to the terms stated in the Letter of Agreement with The Asia Foundation.

• There is a need to express what TAN is ready to do for and on behalf of the participants that they invited to the the video conference for the duration of the entire Ombudsman Project.


(52)

Performance Reporting System

Producer: Commission on Audit (COA) Stated purpose: The audit was conducted to assess the efficiency and effectiveness

of performance reporting system on the Product Standards Development and Promotion program of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) giving consideration to the sufficiency of performance indicators and the reliability, relevance and completeness of performance information.

Funding source: Philippine Government Current usage: Performance reports of government agencies are used by different

sectors. Internal users or the management use the report to assess and monitor the progress of a particular activity in relation to its intended outcome. External users are using the reports for different purposes. The DBM and legislative bodies need performance reports for budget allocation purposes. The Office of the President uses the reports for monitoring the performance of the agency officials and as an input in the President’s State of the Nation Address (SONA).

The NEDA uses the agency’s reports as basis for assessing the extent of implementation of socio-economic and development programs of the government. Other external users of reports are the general public and the media.

Where to find it: http://www.coa.gov.ph/COA_htm/GWSPA/2001-2002/PRS/BPS-

DTI_PRS01-02.htm Type of data used: Performance report Coverage: The audit covered the evaluation of performance reports rendered

by six (6) selected medium-sized government agencies for CYs 2001 and 2002 which include the DTI.

Time coverage: The audit was conducted from November 18, 2002 to March 31,

2003 in compliance with COA Office Orders Nos. 2002-518 and 518A dated November 15 and 25, 2002, respectively, and pursuant to Memorandum dated February 13, 2003.

Contact details: Email to [email protected] or [email protected] Methodology: The team considered the following key criteria in assessing the


(53)

effectiveness of the performance reporting system:

• Complete and informative reporting • Accurate and reliable reports • Timely submission of reports • Sufficient and appropriate performance indicators

To achieve the audit objectives, the team performed the following:

• Reviewed the existing performance reporting of the DTI and the BPS insofar as it relates to the Product Standards Development and Promotion program with emphasis on product testing and certification.

• Evaluated the following reports: • monthly, quarterly, semi-annual and annual reports

for CY 2001 and selected months of 2002 of the BPS Testing Center;

• 2001quarterly reports of the Certification Division; • 2001 BPS quarterly and year-end report; and • DTI published annual report for 2001.

• Conducted interviews with the staff involved in the preparation of the reports.

• Visited the BPS Testing Center to understand the flow of reports and to verify the validity of the data source.

Example results: The existing performance reporting system of the DTI insofar as the

Product Standards Development and Promotion program is concerned as implemented by the Bureau of Product Standards (BPS) needs improvement. This situation is partly due to insufficient performance indicators to measure the achievement of the objectives. The BPS’ primary objectives are to upgrade the quality of product standards and to protect and safeguard the welfare of the consumers.

The team noted that the reports merely enumerate selected activities and outputs accomplished during the period without relating such outputs to the program’s intended results or outcome. This hinders the conduct of an effective evaluation of the BPS’ performance. The report though, could be considered reliable and timely as the information contained therein are based on reconciled and verifiable accomplishment and submitted to the DTI on time.

Considering that reports are the windows of accomplishments and the agency’s performance is assessed based on what was reported, the BPS should consider improving the report contents to be reflective of the activities undertaken to attain its objectives. For this purpose, the team included in the report recommendations to address these concerns for consideration by the BPS and the DTI.


(54)

Rights-Based Approach (RBA)

Producer: Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Stated purpose: A mainstreaming process to link human rights to development,

specifically, aimed at creating enabling environment for poverty reduction linked with the nine (9) components of good governance (Electoral and Political Reforms, Right to Development, Judicial Reform, Anti-Corruption, Governance Review, Civil Service & Economic Management, Globalization and Corporate Citizenship, Decentralization & Local Governance)

Funding source: United Nation Development Program (UNDP) Current usage: RBA essentially integrates the norms, standards, and principles of

the international human rights system into plans, policies and processes of development

Where to find it: http://www.chr.gov.ph Type of data used: Human rights criteria and standards Coverage: Local councils, LGUs, leagues of local officials, government

agencies, non-government organizations and other members of the civil society

Time coverage: N/A Contact details: Commission on Human Rights

SAAC Building, Commonwealth Avenue UP Complex, Diliman, Quezon City Tel. Nos. (632) 928-70-98, (632) 925-3881, 928-70-99

Methodology: RBA works by facilitating convergence of human rights and

development using the following tools: (1) mainstreaming human rights indicators in the public resource management sectors; (2) mainstreaming human rights in national, sub-national, sectoral and agency levels; (3) mainstreaming human rights in budgeting process at the national level; and (4) mainstreaming human rights in local government units planning and budgeting.


(55)

Example results: The expected result of RBA is the total convergence of human rights into development. Total convergence means that human rights framework, principles/concepts of rights entitlements, state obligations, and normative content of every right are applied systematically and methodically to development and governance processes at the strategic development planning, policy and legislation, administrative functions, programs, and service-delivery levels.


(56)

NON-PROFIT


(57)

Community-Based Monitoring System (CBMS) Network

Producer: Micro Impacts of Macroeconomic Adjustment Policies (MIMAP)-

Philippines-Project Management Office Stated purpose:

The system is intended to address data requirements for development planning and monitoring at all geopolitical levels. This is deemed important especially with ongoing efforts in many countries to decentralize various government functions, including the provision of social services.

Funding source: International Development Research Centre (IDRC)-Canada Current usage: The information collected will be made available to the planning

bodies, program implementors and other interested organizations through data boards at all geopolitical level, computerized databanks at the municipal and provincial levels and publications. This aims to provide relevant inputs in formulating programs and policies. The information from the CBMS may be used at all geopolitical levels:

• To monitor regularly the welfare conditions of households and individuals

• To provide inputs to development plans and socio-economic profiles

• To provide the basis for resource allocation • To help identify target beneficiaries for programs and

projects • To provide inputs for program design, implementation and

monitoring Where to find it: http://www.pep-net.org/ Type of data used: Report on poverty indicators and data from the use of monitoring

tools Coverage: Provincial, municipal and barangay levels Time coverage: Started on November 1999 – reports to be released annually or

every after two years


(58)

Contact details: CBMS Coordinating Team,

Angelo King Institute for Economic and Business Studies Room I-1016 Angelo King International Center, Arellano Ave.cor. Estrada St., Malate, Manila 1004 Philippines Tel. #: (632) 526-2067 / 524-5333 Fax #: (632) 526-2067 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.pep-net.org

Methodology: The CBMS taps local personnel to do the data collection,

processing and analysis of the data. The key players at each geopolitical level include: Provincial Level: Provincial Planning and Development Office Municipal Level: Municipal Planning and Development Office Barangay Level: Barangay Development Council Community leaders and volunteers Health workers, nutrition scholars Teachers and students in some barangays The CBMS adopts a core set of indicators covering the different dimensions of poverty. These indicators have been chosen based on the multi-dimensional aspects of poverty and have been confined largely to output and impact indicators. Table 1 shows the 14 core indicators. These indicators are recommended to be collected annually or at most every 2 years. The system is flexible and can accommodate community-specific indicators to reflect the other concerns of the community. For instance, indicators related to environmental concerns are included in the CBMS system in Palawan. On the other hand, Camarines Norte has included indicators related to natural calamities in its indicator system.

Table 1. List of Core CBMS Indicators

BASIC NEEDS CORE INDICATORS A. Health 1 Proportion of child's deaths B. Nutrition 2 Malnutrition prevalence C. Shelter 3 Proportion of households living in

non-makeshift housing 4 Proportion of households who are not squatters

D. Water and Sanitation 5 Proportion of households with access to safe water supply 6 Proportion of households with access to sanitary toilet facilities

E. Education and Literacy 7 Literacy rate 8 Elementary participation rate 9 Secondary participation rate

F. Income

10 Proportion of households with income above the poverty threshold 11 Proportion of households with income above the food threshold 12 Proportion of households who


(59)

experienced food shortage Reyes and Valencia: Poverty Reduction, Decentralization and Community-Based Monitoring Systems

G. Employment 13 Employment rate H. Peace and Order 14 Proportion of persons who were

victims of crime Example results: The CBMS experience in the Philippines has been very positive.

Implemented province-wide in Palawan, it has been shown that it can provide the needed information to support planning and project implementation at the local levels. It is now being implemented also in Camarines Norte. Region IVB, through the NEDA Regional Office, consisting of the provinces of Mindoro Oriental, Mindoro Occidental, Marinduque, Romblon and Palawan, has expressed interest in doing it region-wide. At the national level, the CBMS work has led to the issuance by the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) of a memorandum circular advocating for the institutionalization of a community-based monitoring system and the adoption of the core indicators recommended by MIMAP-CBMS. Just before this issuance, the DILG issued a circular in December 2001 requiring all provinces and municipalities to identify a Local Poverty Reduction Action Officer (LPRAO). The LPRAOs are mandated to prepare poverty action plans. Consequently, they would need data in the different dimensions of poverty to be able to diagnose the poverty situation in their localities.


(60)

Ibon Foundation, Inc. (IBON)

Producer: Ibon Foundation, Inc. Stated purpose: To bring socio-economic knowledge and information to the greatest

number of Filipinos so that they may effectively participate in building a self-reliant and progressive Philippines, a nation that is sovereign and democratic.

Funding source: Ibon Foundation, Inc. Current usage: IBON undertakes the study of socio-economic issues that confront

Philippine society and the world today. It explores alternatives and promotes a new understanding of socio-economic issues that best serve the interests and aspirations of the Filipino people.

Where to find it: http://www.ibon.org/ Type of data used: Facts and figures, surveys, vital statistics Coverage: Nationwide Time coverage: Annually, quarterly Contact details: IBON Center

114 Timog Ave. Quezon City 1103 Philippines Tel. Nos.: +632 9277060; +632 9277061; +632 9277062 Fax: +632 9292496 Email: [email protected], [email protected]

Methodology: IBON has fully developed into a multi-center, multi-program capacity

building institution that provides research, education, publications, information work, and advocacy support. Aside from producing industry researches, databanking, popular publications, and seminars, IBON has strengthened its presence in the formal education sector, in providing non-formal education to people’s organizations, in conducting in-depth research and information services to all sectors of society, in mainstream media education, and in international networking.


(61)

Example results: Vital Signs, October 2006

Daily Cost Of Living*

(for a family of six, in Pesos)

October

2004 2005 2006

Philippines 494.00 528.80 557.20

NCR 588.29 640.82 678.54

Areas outside NCR

Agricultural 454.25 482.53 507.13

Non-Agricultural 477.93 507.68 533.56

* - Estimates of daily cost of living are inflated figures of the 2000 daily cost of living.

Source of basic data: National Statistics Office

Purchasing Power of the Peso

(in Peso; 2000 = 100)

October

2004 2005 2006

Philippines 0.81 0.76 0.72

NCR 0.81 0.75 0.70

Areas outside NCR

Agricultural 0.81 0.76 0.72


Source: National Statistics Office

Consumer Price Index

(2000 = 100)

October

2004 2005 2006

Philippines 123.5 132.2 139.3

NCR 123.2 134.2 142.1

Areas outside NCR

Agricultural 123.7 131.4 138.1



Inflation Rate

(in %)


(62)

2004 2005 2006

Philippines 7.7% 7.0% 5.4% NCR 6.8% 8.9% 5.9% Areas outside NCR

Agricultural 8.1% 6.2% 5.1% Non-Agricultural 8.1% 6.2% 5.1%



(63)

Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

Producer: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism Network Stated purpose: The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) is an

independent, nonprofit media agency that specializes in investigative reporting. It was founded in 1989 by nine Filipino journalists who realized, from their years on the beat and at the news desk, the need for newspapers and broadcast agencies to go beyond day-to-day reportage.

Funding source: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism Network Current usage: To promote investigative reporting on current issues in Philippine

society and on matters of large public interest. It does not intend to replace the work of individual newspapers or radio and television stations, but merely seeks to encourage the development of investigative journalism and to create a culture for it within the Philippine press.

Where to find it: http://www.pcij.org/ Type of data used: budget and audit reports, Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL)

of government officials, reports of campaign expenditures filed by candidates, news articles, provincial and community newspapers, regional publications, academic journals, video tapes, CD-ROMs, extensive collection of photographs, etc.

Coverage: Nationwide Time coverage: Regularly Contact details: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism

3/F Criselda II Bldg., 107-E Scout de Guia St. Bgy. Sacred Heart 1104 Quezon City Tels.: 4104768-69/4101383 loc.3 Email: [email protected]

Methodology: In-depth research and investigative journalism


(64)

Example results: Below is an excerpt from a PCIJ report. 2-4 MAY 2005

by AVIGAIL M. OLARTE and YVONNE T. CHUA

The PCIJ's latest investigation is a three-part series that exposes widespread corruption in the provision of health care. The investigation points the finger at local governments, to which healthcare services have been devolved by the Department of Health since 1993. This series explains that the discretion local officials now have to determine health budgets has resulted in the "decentralization of corruption."

While there are some bright spots, evidence gathered for this report suggests that a culture of waste, corruption and patronage pervades health care in many local governments. Doctors, suppliers and local officials and employees interviewed by the PCIJ estimate that kickbacks from the purchase of drugs given to local officials range from 10 to 70 percent of the contract price.

Moreover, local officials give low priority to health, preferring more visible public works projects that they can boast of during election time. The result: a system that can barely answer the needs of the poorest one-third of the population who rely on local-government-funded health care centers.

The series also looks at how such large-scale corruption has demoralized the ranks of doctors working for rural health units, causing many of them to flee in droves and opt for private practice instead. Health, the series asserts, has become politicized, with health services, including medicines, provided as a form of patronage. In some cases, mayors want to distribute the medicines themselves, so they would get personal credit for services paid for by taxpayers.


(65)

Public Integrity Index

Producer: Center for Public Integrity (CPI) Stated purpose: To measure and monitor the existence and effectiveness of

mechanisms that promote accountability and check abuses of power, as well as the access of citizens to their government

Funding source: Center for Public Integrity Current usage: Provides quantitative assessment of anti-corruption safeguards in

the country Where to find it: http://www/publicintegrity.org/ga/

http://globalintegrity.org Type of data used: Quantitative scorecards, expert assessment and supported by

peer review mechanism Coverage: Globally including the Philippines Time coverage: First data was collected in early 1990’s and the latest was

collected in 2003 Contact details: The Center for Public Integrity

910 17th St., NW, Suite Washington DC 20006 Tel. No.: (202) 466-13-00

Methodology: The Public Integrity Index is a new index generated from the

Integrity Indicator scores collected in the field in 25 countries. The Integrity Indicators are a unique instrument designed to provide a quantitative assessment of anti-corruption safeguards in a particular country. Carefully selected from a comprehensive review of the anti-corruption literature and other demographic governance sources, the Integrity Indicators are used to “score” the corruption conference attendance records, bibliographies, web searches, and personal contacts. The Integrity Indicators are scored directly by a lead social scientist. Scored questions come in two general types: “in law” and “in practice”. All scores used in the Public Integrity Index are on a scale of 0 to 100. Zero is the worst possible score; 100 is perfect.


(66)

Example results: The Philippines gets a "moderate" rating in the Public Integrity

Index, which tracks corruption, openness and accountability in 25 countries. This peer-reviewed country report includes a timeline covering corruption over the past one to two decades, a reporter's notebook on the culture of corruption and an assessment of the six main integrity categories. The integrity scorecard lists the full set of integrity indicators with scores, commentary and references.


(67)

Social Watch Philippines

Producer: Citizens’ groups in around 60 countries all over the world Stated purpose: Social Watch is an international network informed by national

citizens' groups aiming at following up the fulfillment of internationally agreed commitments on poverty eradication and equality. These national groups report, through the national Social Watch report, on the progress - or regression - towards these commitments and goals.

Funding source: Various institutions Current usage: Social Watch has geared its efforts to measure, through the use

of objective indicators, governments’ compliance with the targets set by the governments themselves at different international forums. This is to allow the citizens of the world to make accountable to their governments, the UN system and international organizations.

Where to find it: http://www.socialwatch.org/ Type of data used: Social development indicators which includes the following

areas:

1. Basic capabilities 2. Communication and Technology 3. Demography 4. Development assistance 5. Economy 6. Education 7. Employment 8. Environment 9. External debt 10. Gender 11. Health 12. Human development 13. Inequality 14. International agreements 15. Military expenditures 16. Nutrition 17. Poverty 18. Public expenditure 19. Reproductive health 20. Social expenditure

Coverage: Worldwide including the Philippines


(68)

Time coverage: Annual Contact details: Social Watch Philippines

Prof. Leonor M. Briones, Janet Carandang Lot 27, Block 7, Sugartowne, Batasan Hills, Quezon City 1126 Phone: 632 4265626 - 632 9261451 Fax: 632 4265626 - 632 4271158 E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Methodology: The data used is the most recent provided by recognized

international organizations. In the case of recent data found in “secondary sources”, the data that regularly showed the highest correspondence with data published by recognized sources is chosen. When the choice was between similar sources, the one that covered the most countries was chosen. In the case of information referring to an interval (e.g. 1990-1994) rather than a specific year, the criterion adopted was to give the data in the middle of the interval (e.g. 1992) as a means of calculating the rate of change. Measurement of the current situation of countries and the rate of change Each indicator covers three columns: the first shows the country’s initial situation, the second column shows the latest available data and the third and last column (titled “Progress or regression”) shows the rate of change. In order to assess the evolution of each indicator, two aspects were taken into account: initial and final levels and the rate of change of progress or regression. The situation a country is in accordance to each indicator is given by the latest available value for that indicator. Each country is assigned by a value from 1 to 4 (1 indicates worst situation and 4 indicates best situation) according to the distribution of values for each indicator and an average of these values is given for all the indicators in that area. In this way, a self-referential ranking is obtained, independent of the distance from the goals or from specific conceptually defined levels. To avoid giving a false impression of accuracy, the average values were rescaled to create four country categories:

Countries in better situation Countries above average Countries below average Countries in worse situation


(69)

The rate of change for each country is obtained by considering the variation in the values of the indicator over the time period within which the measurements are made. The quotient between the variation in the indicator and the time period reflects the rate of change for the item in question. The values for this rate of change have also been rescaled in sections (using a reference scale from 1 to 5) which are presented in the tables in the column “Progress or regression”. A series of symbols are used to illustrate the changes in order to make the information easier to read and to avoid the false impression of accuracy given by a numerical value. The categories defined in this rescaling are as follows:

Significant progress Slight progress || Stagnant Slight regression Significant regression

Example results: The succeeding table shows a sample of Social Watch’s

Philippine report: THE PRESENT SITUATION Food Security Morbility and mortality Reproductive health Environment Immunizations Education Information, science and technology Public expenditure Gender and education Gender gap in economic activity Women's Empowerment

Progress and setbacks by key indicators

Undernourishment

Literacy

Estimated low birth weight

Primary school enrolment ratio

Under-5 children malnutrition

Internet users

DPT Immunised 1-year-old children

Personal computers

Polio Immunised 1-year-old children

Telephone mainlines

Measles Immunised 1-year-old children

Information and communication technology expenditure

Tuberculosis Immunised 1-year-old children

Tertiary education enrolment ratio


(70)

Malaria

Literacy ratio gap

Tuberculosis

Net primary enrolment ratio gap

People living with HIV/AIDS

Net secondary enrolment ratio gap

Infant mortality

Gross tertiary enrolment ratio gap

Under-5 mortality

Women wage employment in non-agricultural sector

Women aged 15-49 attended at least once during pregnancy by skilled health personnel

Seats in parliament held by women

Births attended by skilled health personnel

Public health expenditure

Population with access to sanitation

Public education expenditure

Population with access to improved water sources

Total debt service

Children reaching 5th grade

Military expenditure


(71)

Social Weather Indicators

Producer: Social Weather Stations (SWS) Stated purpose: Social weather indicators have the main purpose of promoting the

broad Quality of Life of the greater number of the Filipino people in the context of a free democratic society. The general objective of these surveys is to provide an independent source of pertinent, accurate, timely and credible data on Philippine economic and social conditions.

Funding source: Social Weather Stations (SWS) Current usage: Often quoted in media reports, SWS generates and publicizes

alternative statistics to help put subject matter higher on the agenda of public and private policymakers. SWS data on regular topics like hunger, poverty and governance and on special topics such as corruption, the legal profession, domestic violence, and disadvantaged groups are consciously meant as Statistics for Advocacy, and not for mere academic study.

Where to find it: http://www.sws.org.ph Type of data used: Surveys Coverage: Economic and social conditions at the national and subnational level Time coverage: The survey is done every year and run quarterly Contact details: Social Weather Stations

#52 Malingap St. Sikatuna Village, Quezon City Tel. Nos. (632) 926-4309, 924-4456, 924-4458, 924-4465 Fax: (632) 920-2181

Methodology: The surveys include both regular time series, or items to be

monitored from survey to survey, and contemporary readings, or items to be modified from time to time. SWS has already shown trends in economic and social conditions because it has been monitoring items in its time series survey. Regular topics include self-rated poverty, quality of life gaining/losing and optimism/pessimism, crime victimization, satisfaction with the performance of government officials and institutions, public opinion on current issues and electoral prospects. The surveys use highly comparable questionnaire wordings and sampling methodology.

Example results: An example of a Social Weather Station survey result is shown in

the table below.


(72)


(73)

Tatak Synergeia

Producer: Synergeia Foundation, Inc. Stated purpose: Aims to transform basic education in collaboration with local

governments, parents and the private sector. It hopes to serve as a catalyst and resource for other individuals and organizations committed to improve access of Filipino students to quality basic education.

Funding source: Various Philippine business corporations, NGOs Current usage: Synergeia and its partners implement systemic programs to improve

the provision of basic education in more than 150 municipalities in the country. By engaging local governments, socio-civic groups, schools, teachers, parents and students, Synergeia’s programs serve as catalysts in mobilizing communities to recognize their collective responsibility in improving basic education.

Where to find it: http://www.synergeia.org.ph Type of data used: Student performance (i.e., dropout rate, achievement scores in

reading and math skills) Teachers’ performance (i.e., performance evaluation, verbal and

math ability tests) Governance in school (i.e., budget, policies) Governance of local school boards (i.e., meetings, budgeting) Community participation (i.e., PTA meetings)

Coverage: Local government units Time coverage: 2002-present Contact details: Synergeia Foundation

Rm. 203, Ateneo Professional Schools, Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center, Makati City 1200 Trunkline: 899-7691 ext. 2222, 2223, 2224 Direct Line: (632) 898-2913 Telefax: (632) 898-2617

Methodology: Synergeia thrives on unity from diversity. Its programs are run by

Project Management Teams (PMT) on-site. Generally, the PMT is headed by the Local Chief Executive (i.e. Governor or Mayor). The PMT is composed of representatives from the DEPED, parents, academic institutions, and the private sector. There are also cases where the Mayor is mentored by a local academic institution to strengthen program management, e.g. the program in Lipa City is co-managed by De La Salle of Lipa.


(74)

The Synergeia staff initiates, coordinates and monitors program implementation. The staff mentors local PMTs in planning, project implementation, and assessment. Training for teachers on the effective teaching of reading and mathematics was initially provided by the Philippine Normal University. Subsequent training programs are designed by PMTs in coordination with DEPED and local academic institutions.

Example results: The following are the significant improvements in education brought

about by Synergeia’s programs. 1. The gains achieved in the average reading scores of children

have been significant: Ajuy, Iloilo, from 35% to 50% Bulacan, from 71% to 79% Lipa City, from 25% to 54% Naga City, from 35.2% to 51.21% Negros Occidental, from 61.75% to 65.78% and its slow readers, from 53.84% to 72.60% Nueva Vizcaya, from 62% to 78%.

2. Proficiency levels in Mathematics have increased from 50% to 75% (in Bulacan).

3. Books and teacher guides can be produced at ¼ the central government cost. They can be written by teacher-leaders and relevant to the culture of the community.

4. A Local School Board budget can be enacted with strong community participation when a multi-sectoral assembly decides on where tax money should be spent.

5. Almost all children from targeted indigenous communities in Cotobato are enrolled in grade one. Dropout rate has dropped to 2%. Children and their parents from 27 disadvantaged communities have had access to books using the Mobile Library – a six-wheel truck converted into a library van.

6. More than a thousand school drop-outs from Cotobato are enrolled in the “Alternative Home Education Program”.


(75)

Transparent Accountable Governance (TAG)

Producer: The project is guided by a Project Steering Committee chaired

by the League of Cities, with membership from Makati Business Club and Mindanao Business Council, Transparency and Accountability Network, and Mindanao Coalition of Development NGOs, the Department of Interior and Local Government and the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, The Asia Foundation and the United States Agency for International Development.

Stated purpose: TAG is an attempt to summarize how, why and to what degree

corruption exists in Philippine society Funding source: United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Current usage: TAG takes a pro-active role in encouraging public debate on the

issue of corruption and on ways to counter it. The TAG website also presents the initiatives of both government and the private-sector in addressing corruption.

Where to find it: http://www.tag.org.ph/default.htm Type of data used: Public opinion survey research, investigative reports, case

studies, focus group discussions and briefings Coverage: Nationwide Time coverage: 1999-present (four quarterly nationwide surveys and in-depth

surveys of businesses) Contact details: http://www.tag.org.ph/feedback.htm Methodology: The TAG Project has continued to document perspectives

among various sectors of the business community and general public concerning corruption as it relates to doing business in the Philippines; identify and analyze key areas of corruption to quantify their economic costs; and focus business and public attention on how particular areas of corruption affect the conduct of business and economic growth in the Philippines.

Example results: The TAG project increased awareness on the cost of corruption,

increased transparency and accountability in government transactions and promoted tri-sectoral collaboration in support of good governance.


(76)

BUSINESS


(77)

Makati Business Club’s Executive Outlook Survey

Producer: Makati Business Club (MBC) Stated purpose: MBC is dedicated to addressing economic and social policy issues

which affect the development of the Philippines. The main thrust of the MBC is to foster and promote the role of the private business sector in national development efforts, both in the planning and the implementation of policy.

Funding source: Makati Business Club (MBC) Current usage: Measures business opinion and confidence on economic, corporate

and government performance. It also identifies the business sector’s perception of pressing issues and national problems.

Where to find it: http://www.mbc.com.ph/ Type of data used: Surveys from MBC business executives Coverage: Senior MBC business executives Time coverage: Semestral Contact details: Makati Business Club

Email: [email protected] Methodology: A survey is conducted semestrally among MBC business executives

to determine their views on the economy, business and government. Simple percent is used to measure performance.

Example results: An example of a survey result is shown below. Perception of Government Performance

How business rates the performance of government agencies over previous six months Percent (%) of respondents

Rank Agency July 2005

January 2006

July 2005

Jan 2006

Net Score Satisfied

Not satisfied

Net score

1 1 Bangko Sentral 80.8 91.5 4.2 87.32 2 Finance 61.7 80.8 13.8 67.0

6 3 Securities and Exchange Commission 41.5 66.0 23.4 42.6


(78)

3 4 Trade and Industry 58.5 64.9 26.6 38.311 5 Tourism 12.7 63.8 26.6 37.27 6 Foreign Affairs 34.1 61.7 27.7 34.08 7 NEDA 30.9 59.6 27.7 31.916 8 Supreme Court (1.1) 60.6 35.1 25.510 9 Health 16.0 52.1 35.1 17.0

12 10 Metro Manila Development Authority 10.7 54.3 40.4 13.9

13 11 Labor and Employment 5.3 51.1 40.4 10.714 12 Science and Technology 4.3 46.8 38.3 8.54 13 Budget and Management 53.2 46.8 39.4 7.4

9 14 Social Welfare and Development 26.6 44.7 41.5 3.2

5 15 Bureau of Internal Revenue 43.7 38.3 53.2 (14.9)

18 16 HUDCC (Housing) (12.8) 36.2 52.1 (15.9)12 17 Education 10.7 34.2 51.1 (16.9)

n.a. 18 Office of the Vice President n.a. 37.2 58.5 (21.3)

17 19 National Defense (5.3) 33.0 55.3 (22.3)21 20 Energy (25.5) 34.0 57.4 (23.4)13 21 Agriculture 5.3 30.8 57.4 (26.6)22 22 Garbage Collection (35.1) 28.7 58.5 (29.8)

19 23 Interior and Local Government 14.9 28.7 59.6 (30.9)

20 24 Armed Forces of the Philippines (21.3) 26.6 63.8 (37.2)

n.a. 25 Office of the President n.a. 28.7 69.1 (40.4)

15 26 Bureau of Customs 1.0 25.5 66.0 (40.5)22 27 Traffic Management (35.1) 25.5 68.1 (42.6)

24 28 Appeals and Lower Court System (42.6) 22.3 67.0 (44.7)

25 29 Transportation and Communications (44.7) 21.3 69.1 (47.8)

22 30 Philippine National Police (35.1) 20.2 70.2 (50.0)27 31 Justice (57.5) 20.2 72.3 (52.1)23 32 Agrarian Reform (38.3) 14.9 69.1 (54.2)

26 33 Environment and Natural Resources (45.8) 17.0 73.4 (56.4)

28 33 Public Workds and Highways (67.0) 17.0 73.4 (56.4)

30 34 Senate (79.8) 6.4 88.3 (81.9)29 35 Commission on Elections (78.7) 5.3 91.5 (86.2)31 35 House of Representatives (82.9) 5.3 91.5 (86.2)

No. of respondents: 94 Survey period: January 2005 ( 6 to 28 January); July 2005 (1 to 29 July) Totals may not add up to 100% due to rounding off or no response.


(79)

Ulat ng Bayan

Producer: Pulse Asia Incorporated Stated purpose: A proactive project that attempts to regularly, quickly and

systematically monitor Filipino socio-economic and political perceptions to give politicians and policymakers guidance in policy formulation and implementation.

Funding source: Pulse Asia Inc. Current usage: Monitors public opinion on the most critical national concerns: the

citizenry's quality of life, the state of the national economy, political governance, public safety, poverty and other national security issues.

Where to find it: http://pulseasia.newsmaker.ph Type of data used: Survey Coverage: Filipinos within the country, as well as in other parts of Asia Time coverage: Annual survey done in quarterly Contact details: PulseAsia, Inc.

Rm. 312, Phillippine Social Science Center Bldg., Commonwaelth Ave., Diliman, Quezon City Tel Nos. (632) 927-00-28 & 927-00-29 Fax: (632) 926-10-49

Methodology: Data is gathered using a multi-stage probability sample of at least

1,200 respondents 18 years old and above. Each area (NCR, Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao) has 300 randomly drawn respondents. Sex and urban-rural controls are provided for in accordance with demographic projections for 1999 based on the 1995 Census of Population of the National Statistics Office. A 95 percent level of significance and a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent is allowed at the national level and plus or minus 6 percent at the sub-national level.

Example results: The Table below is an example of a Pulse Asia February 2004 Ulat

ng Bayan findings on the perception of Filipinos on family planning.


(80)

POPULATION AND FAMILY PLANNING ISSUES

ON THE IMPORTANCE OF FAMILY PLANNING AND AGREEMENT / DISAGREEMENT WITH TEST STATEMENT:

“A fast increasing Philippine population hinders the development of our country”

February 16-20, 2004 / Philippines (Column Percent)

LOCATION CLASS

In your view, is it important or not important to have the ability to control your fertility or plan your family? This does not include abortion. (Base: Total Interviews, 100%)

N/C S W C/E

RP NCR LUZ LUZ VIS VIS MIN ABC D E

Important 97 99 98 96 95 97 98 98 97 97 Not important 3 1 2 4 5 3 2 2 3 3

A fast increasing Philippine population hinders the development of our country. Do you agree or disagree? (Base: Total Interviews, 100%)

Agree 71 77 71 72 70 67 69 74 72 68 Undecided 13 7 15 10 16 15 14 12 12 16 Disagree 16 16 14 18 14 18 17 14 16 17 Net Agreement* +55 +61 +57 +54 +56 +49 +52 +60 +56 +51

Q176. Sa inyong palagay, mahalaga ba o hindi na magkaroon kayo ng kakayahang pigilin ang inyong pag-aanak o planuhin ang inyong pamilya? Hindi po kasama dito ang pagpapalaglag. Q177. Ang mabilis na paglaki ng populasyon ng Pilipinas ay nakakapagpabaga sa pag-unlad ng ating bansa. Sang-ayon ba kayo o hindi?


(81)

The Wallace Report

Producer: Peter Wallace Stated purpose: Offers a brief comprehensive take on the most critical issue

at the moment Funding source: The Wallace Business Forum, Inc. and AYC Consultants,

Inc. Current usage: The Wallace Business Forum offers a single source for

being well-informed on the environment for business in the Philippines, and is considered the leading provider of objective, independent analysis, information and insights, interactively, on issues critical to success. Pioneered by Peter Wallace, he has been conducting political, economic and business analysis for Chief Executives of Multinational and major Filipino companies.

Where to find it: http://www.dataphil.com/wallacereport.htm Type of data used: The Wallace Business Forum, Inc. uses the following

decision-making tools: Country Risk Analysis Market Research Feasibility Studies Strategic Planning Investment Assistance Policy Research Peer-Group Discussion In-Company Briefings Conference Organization Personal Counseling Local Representation

Coverage: Nationwide Time coverage: 1982-present Contact details: The Wallace Business Forum, Inc.

14/F Sagittarius Building H.V. dela Costa Street Salcedo Village, Makati City Philippines Tel No. (632) 810-9606 Fax.: (632) 810-9610, (632) 810-8007


(82)

Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Methodology: Peter Wallace conducts political, economic and business

analysis for chief executives of multinational and major companies in the Philippines. His links into government, senior business groups, the academe and various political factions assure multinational companies of some of the best insights available today. Peter Wallace together with The Wallace Business Forum, Inc. and AYC Consultants, Inc. engage in numerous research and consulting services which include country risk analyses, strategic planning, feasibility studies, investment assistance (including selection of partners), market research, policy research and advocacy, and conferences and briefings.

Example results: The Table below shows an example of The Wallace Report.

SELECTED SONA 2001 ACCOMPLISHMENTS (Note: 80% of the SONA 2001 targets were annual or 3-year targets)

As of April 2004

Target Accomplishment Remarks Intensify efforts to promote SME’s, especially in the countryside

SME Unified Lending Opportunities for National Growth (SULONG) Program lending reached P28.8B benefiting 315,569 SME accounts as of February 2004. Signed into law the Barangay Microbusiness Enterprises (BMBE) Law in No. 2002: 1,206 firms have registered under BMBE as of Jan. ‘04

Under the Magna Carta for Small Enterprises, banks are mandated to set aside at least 6% of their loan portfolio for small enterprises and at least 2% for medium enterprises. Based on 2003 data, SME’s can potentially tap P214B in loanable funds from the banking sector.

Restore government guarantees for SME loans

Restored in August 2001. Some 440 loan accounts provided guarantees.

Set up an asset management company Special Purpose Vehicle Act (SPVA) signed into law in December 2002.

Transfer of NPA’s to SPV’s hasn’t occurred yet.

Implement the power sector reform law to reduce cost

Mandatory rate reduction of P0.30/kwh effective July 2001; reduction of PPC adjustment to P0.40/kwh.

Napocor is hemorrhaging due partly to PPCA reduction – debt now at P500B-P600B, which the national government has to absorb.

Review contracts with the Independent Power Producers (IPP’s)

Concluded re-negotiations with 20 of 35 IPP’s with savings of up to US$2.95B to the government

Unsettling of contracts could affect investor in power supply and other projects.

Establish the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM)

Test run of WESM held in December 2003.

WESM still not operational, it can’t solve structural problems like power supply shortages.


(83)

ACADEME


(84)

Center for Local and Regional Governance

Producer: Center for Local and Regional Governance (CLRG)

National College of Public Administration and Governance University of the Philippines

Stated purpose: To measure the performance of local government units and local

government leaders Funding source: National College of Public Administration and Governance and

Office of Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel Jr. Current usage: Used in evaluating the candidates for the Local Government

Leadership Awards Where to find it: Center for Local and Regional Governance

National College of Public Administration and Governance University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City Tel: (632) 925-74-22 Fax: (632) 928-39-14

Type of data used: Surveys. Consultative sessions. Coverage: Local government units nationwide Time coverage: Local Government Leadership Awards in 2003 Contact details: Dr. Alex B. Brillantes

Dean and Professor National College of Public Administration and Governance University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City Tel: (632) 928-38-61 Fax: (632) 926-14-32 Professor Simeon A. Ilago Director and Professor Center for Local and Regional Governance National College of Public Administration and Governance University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City Tel: (632) 925-74-22


(85)

Fax: (632) 928-39-14 Methodology: CLRG conducted several consultative sessions and surveys with

concerned local officials (mostly mayors throughout the country) on what they thought should constitute each indicator of good governance. Specific activities for each principle of good governance – e.g. transparency, accountability, etc. where then identified as potential indicators: Transparency, availability of reliable information (the provision of

appropriate, necessary and relevant information to stakeholders when needed and upon demand).

Participatory, partnerships with civil society. Provision of a voice

for all stakeholders in the formal and informal decision-making processes.

Accountability. Decision-makers are answerable for their actions

and violators penalized accordingly. Leadership. Provision of clear and strategic long term vision.

Vision and mission are owned by all and are arrived at consensually and in a participatory manner.

General organization and management. Existence of clear

organization and management institutions and processes characterized by absence or minimum of red tape.

Intergovernmental relations, i.e., vertical and horizontal,

including clustering. Presence of coordinative relationships (from simple sharing of information to activity sharing to clear delineation of hierarchy between and among national and local institutions, or among co-equal levels of local government.)

Rule of law, legal systems in place. Stable and legal framework

fairly and impartially enforced. Continuity in the implementation of programs, predictability and

sustainability. Appropriate programs and projects initiated by previous administrations are continued after proper evaluation.

Preference for the poor, availability of local poverty alleviation

programs. Manifest bias to address the pervading problem of poverty in the community.

Effective, responsive, provision of basic services. Basic

services, especially those identified under Section 17 of the Code, are provided.

Example results: To operationalize the abovementioned indicators of good


(86)

governance, CLRG have identified measurable characteristics per indicator that may also be used as an assessment tool by the local government to determine its state of governance.


(87)

Citizens Report Card Survey (Report Card Survey on Specific Services of Nine Cities in the National Capital Region)

Producer: Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) Stated purpose: To rate government performance on a particular function or set of

mandated functions that they have experienced and continue to affect them, regardless of their technical competence or knowledge about these functions.

Funding source: Asian Development Bank Current usage: This project is an attempt to adapt and pilot test the Report Card

Survey (RCS) in determining the state of the local government’s delivery of public services in nine (9) cities of Metro Manila.

Where to find it: http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Consultant/Report_Card_

Survey.pdf Type of data used: Level of citizens’ satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) Coverage: Quezon City, Pasig City , City of Manila, Makati City, Parañaque

City, Pasay City, Marikina City, Muntinlupa City and Mandaluyong City

Time coverage: June 12 to August 7, 2001 Contact details: Development Academy of the Philippines

DAP Building San Miguel Avenue Pasig NCR Tel. No. +63 (2) 631 21 53

Methodology: From the array of services that cities and municipalities provided,

seven (7) services were initially selected for inclusion in the survey agenda, namely: 1) garbage collection; traffic management; public (neighborhood) safety; public market management; permit issuance/licensing; water supply; and housing. From the listed services and survey objective, the Team formulated the survey agenda on which the field questionnaire was constructed. The questionnaire tests the suitability of using a seven-point scale in coding the clients’ response.

Example results: The adaptation and use of the RCS in the nine (9) cities can be


(88)

considered “successful,” not only by exhibiting the intended results but yielding other information and patterns of behavior of both client and service provider regarding the quality and delivery of “monopolized” public services. The use and potency of the RCS was perhaps demonstrated a mere two (2) weeks after the presentation of the Survey Team in Makati about the results. In a street corner in Mayapis, barangay San Antonio, a highly visible billboard on the city’s emergency numbers is now standing. For the manager or the expert, the Report Card opens an opportunity to question the assumptions and perspectives stemming from such immersion; and taking their clients’ level of satisfaction as a symptom, look at other “non traditional” factors that (positively or negatively) affect the level of organizational performance and effectiveness.


(89)

GOFORDEV Index

Producer: Philippine Center for Policy Studies (PCPS) Stated purpose: To develop a set of simple, valid and useful indicators that measures

the quality of governance at the municipality/city level, and to advocate the institutionalization of these indicators.

Funding source: Ford Foundation Current usage: GOFORDEV is used to evaluate the delivery of basic services and

identify budget priorities and policy thrusts. Moreover, it provides a venue for greater and more focused interactions between the people and the local officials.

Where to find it: http://www.e-works.com.ph/pcps/gofordev.asp Type of data used:

Data is generated through household surveys and public documents such as minutes of local consultative bodies and annual audited financial reports of local governments.

Coverage: GOFORDEV was first tested in twelve pilot areas in Bulacan and

Davao del Norte. Expansion occurred in 20 LGUs but expanded to 41. Any LGU, NGO or civil society organization may adopt the index.

Time coverage: First testing: 2001-2002

Expansion: 2003 Contact details: For more information contact:

Philippine Center for Policy Studies-Governance Project Room 327 and 328, School of Economics Bldg. University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City 1101 Tel. Nos. (632) 920-54-57 or 927-96-86 loc. 268, 269 or 259 Telefax No. (632) 920-54-58 Email: [email protected]

Methodology: Local partner organizations are trained by PCPS to generate

governance scores. The scores in GOFORDEV are based on household surveys and relevant fiscal and public documents. The data collected are then processed using the GOFORDEV Index encoding software. The software is a Windows-based program that calculates the scores, generates statistical tables, and prints the presentation materials.

Example results: Ranging from 0 to 100, the scores suggest how close the local

government is to practicing “good governance” which is obtained with


(90)

a score of 100. The Table below is an example of the scores in the GOFORDEV Index in 2003.

Cluster GOFORDEV Index

Development Needs Index

(DNI)

Development Orientation Index (DOI)

Participatory Development Index (PDI)

Bulacan Malolos City Obando Pulilan San Ildefonso Sta. Maria San Miguel Calumpit Guiginto

61

68

68

34

64

62

53

68

61

68

68

34

64

62

53

68

68

76

78

26

77

67

46

92

68

72

74

17

66

64

61

66


(91)

Governance Quality Index (GQI)

Producer: Rosario G. Manasan, Eduardo T. Gonzales, Romualdo B. Gaffud

and Philippine Institute for Development Studies Stated purpose: The primary objectives of this study are:

To develop measurable indicators of good governance at the local government level;

To test how applicable these indicators are in evaluating and monitoring LGU performance; and

To find out how these indicators can be integrated in a monitoring and evaluation system within the framework of Sustainable Human Development.

Funding source: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Current usage: The study attempts to develop a composite index of the quality of

governance at the local government level to be able to reduce the multiple facets of the governance concept into a small number of key observable dimensions. The GQI is currently used in evaluating the performance of Local Government Units (LGUs).

Where to find it: http://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/pjd/pidsjpd99-2governance.pdf Type of data used: LGU records, financial statements, other pertinent documents and

key informant interviews with local government officials and NGO representatives, experiential/attitudinal data (e.g., public opinion surveys)

Coverage: Local Government Units (LGUs) Time coverage: 1990-1998 Contact details: Philippine Institute for Development Studies

Neda sa Makati Bldg., 106 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City Tel. No. (632) 8161091 Fax: (632) 8939591 URL: http://www.pids.gov.ph

Methodology: The indicators were pilot-tested in three pre-selected local

government unit clusters chosen on the basis of their provincial level Human Development Index (HDI): (1) high HDI – Cavite province, Trece Martirez, and Noveleta; (2) medium HDI – Davao del Norte, Davao City and Mabini; (3) low HDI – Antique, San Jose and Hamtic.


(92)

In the first stage, two barangays (one urban barangay and one rural barangay) were drawn randomly from the different barangays in each pilot LGU. In the second stage, a sample of individual respondents was drawn randomly in each of the selected barangays. The questionnaire used for drawing out citizen’s perception/ satisfaction with service delivery and overall governance was patterned after the Social Weather Station (SWS) surveys. The overall governance quality index (GQI) constructed for this study was derived by consolidating (1) the composite indices for each of the three Strategic Objectives and (2) the composite indices for each of the Result Packages. The overall governance quality index as well as the composite indices for the Strategic Objectives and the Result Packages were aggregated by assigning equal weights for each of their respective components.

Example results: On the whole, the ranking of the governance quality index derived in

this study appears to be consistent with the ranking of the Human development Index (HDI). LGUs which register higher HDIs tend to perform better in terms of the overall governance index.


(93)

Philippine Cities Competitiveness Ranking (PCCR)

Producer: Asian Institute of Management (AIM) Stated purpose: To determine and gauge the competitiveness of selected local cities

as a place for living and doing business Funding source: The United States Agency for International Development (USAID),

the Asia Foundation, and the German Technical Cooperation Current usage: The PCCR is used to motivate local government leaders become

economic and development managers apart from their roles as providers of outstanding public goods and services. It is designed to impact these on local government leaders, as well as businesses and civil society, by promoting healthy competition among Philippine cities.

Where to find it: http://www.aim.edu/

http://www.policy.aim.edu/default.htm Type of data used: The PCCR utilized qualitative and quantitative criteria/statistics to

assess city competitiveness vis-à-vis the seven major drivers of competitiveness

Coverage: Selected local cities Time coverage: 1999-2005 Contact details: Asian Institute of Management

Eugenio Lopez Foundation Building Joseph R. McMicking Campus 123 Paseo de Roxas MCPO Box 2095 Makati City 1260 Philippines Tel. Nos. (632) 892-40-11 to 25 Fax: (632) 817-92-40 Email: [email protected]

Methodology: The PCCR ranks the competitiveness of the various cities using

seven major drivers of competitiveness adopted from the Swiss-based International Institute for Management Development in their World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY). These seven major drivers are as follows: cost of doing business, dynamism of local


(94)

economy, linkages and accessibility, human resources and training, infrastructure, responsiveness of local government to business needs and quality of life.

Example results: Based on the study, it was found out that interplay between the

various drivers was deemed necessary in becoming a competitive city. Foremost is the leadership value of the local government officials followed by the presence of a strong support system such as business alliances and responsive civil society. Other factors influencing the competitive nature of a city include: quality of human resources, presence of good infrastructure, and a stable peace and order situation.


(95)

Population and Development (POPDEV) Indicators and Database

Producer: Philippine Center for Population and Development (PCPD) Stated purpose: To provide sources and indicators on the pressing population issues

of the country Funding source: Philippine Center for Population and Development (PCPD) Current usage: The POPDEV indicators are use for local policy formulation,

planning, and monitoring; they are use in determining the level of development in the local governance; they also assesses socio-economic characteristics based on demographic information

Where to find it: http://www.pcpd.ph/popdev/framework.asp

http://www.popcom.gov.ph/pdf/5APPC11.pdf Type of data used: The usual type of data used are base on statistical reports, surveys,

and research studies conducted by various agencies and institutions Coverage: Local Government Units Time coverage: 1995-2020 Contact details: Philippine Center for Population and Development

2332 Chino Roces Avenue Extension 1630 Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines Tel.: (632) 843-7061; 728-8089 Fax: (632) 894-4596

Methodology: Local governments are encouraged to make available POPDEV

indicators database down to the community level to complement official statistics, which usually provide provincial data only. The database will become part of the NPDIS’ (National Population Database Information System) Demographic and Socio-Economic Indicator System Database. This will then be linked to other existing government databases such as DSWD’s MBN and ISSA’s REPROWATCH


(96)

Example results: Sources of Future Population Growth Framework

This framework analyzes future population growth in terms of the contributions of unwanted fertility, high desired family size, and population momentum. The analysis revealed that, of the increase in population of 37.1 million between 1995 and 2020, 5.8 million is due to unwanted fertility, 6.7 million to high desired family size, and 24.6 million to population momentum. By 2040, the increase in population over the 1995 level is 57.8 million, of which 9.3 million is due to unwanted fertility, 10.9 million to family size preference, and 37.6 million to population momentum. The analysis suggests the need for distinct policy responses to deal with the different sources of future population growth. First, with respect to population growth resulting from unwanted fertility, efforts are required to assist couples to achieve their fertility goals in ways that are safe, legal, affordable, and consistent with their moral convictions and religious beliefs. In the light of Philippine experience, a strengthened government-sponsored family planning program that is responsive to individual needs and that offers high-quality family planning and related health services should play a major role in these efforts. Second, with respect to population growth resulting from high desired family size, efforts are needed to modify fertility preferences of couples toward a small family-size norm. Here a broader set of policies is needed to create socioeconomic conditions that favor smaller family size and greater human capital investments per child. In the light of recent Philippine conditions, special attentions should be focused on child health and survival, education and gender quality. Finally, with respect to growth resulting from population momentum,


(97)

by far the largest source of future population growth, some reduction could still be achieved by reducing the length of generations through delayed age at marriage or childbearing and through birth spacing. Greater investments in human development, particularly in basic education and employment opportunities for women, should play a major role in delaying the age at marriage and childbearing. Moreover, a responsive and high-quality family planning program could make birth spacing effective.


(98)

DEVELOPMENT AGENCY


(99)

Good Governance Report Card: Gender and Development (GAD)

Producer: The Urban Governance Initiative (TUGI) – United Nations (UN) Stated purpose: To measure the quality of urban governance, using a report card, on

the basis of nine (9) core characteristics of good governance Funding source: United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Current usage: The Good Governance Report Card is an evaluation tool to be used

by local authorities, regional associations, members of civil society, relevant institutions of the central government and the private sector, and international development agencies to assess the level of good governance in a city.

Where to find it: http://www.tugi.org/reportcards/genderdevelopment.PDF

http://www.unhabitat.org/ Type of data used: Grading scale Coverage: Different cities and municipalities Time coverage: N/A Contact details: For further information contact:

The Urban Governance Initiative (TUGI) United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Wisma UN Kompleks Pejabat Damansara (Block C) Jalan Dungun, Damansara Heights, 50490 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel. No.: 60-3-2095 9122 Fax : 60-3-2093 2361 E-mail : [email protected]

Methodology: Identified interest groups (such as elected municipal councilors,

senior municipal officials, non governmental organizations, civil society groups, private businesses, religious organizations, and etc) of a pre-selected city are assessed and evaluated using the different indicators of good governance namely: participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation, equity, effectiveness and efficiency, accountability, and strategic vision. They are then scaled as either: very good, good, fair, poor, and very poor.


(100)

Example results: The results of the Report Card can be used to measure the

performance, problems and effectiveness of the political and administrative system of a city. Furthermore, the results can set the direction of the local urban governance, the impact of such governance in a short run, and its degree of democratic participation. The Report Card can also encourage greater participation, responsiveness and accountability, which is itself conducive to a better city.


(101)

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

Producer: United Nations Development Program (UNDP); National Economic

Development Authority (NEDA) Stated purpose: To comply with the millennium declaration of the United Nations (UN)

in addressing poverty and related issues Funding source: UNDP Philippines Current usage: Guide in achieving specific targets and milestones in eliminating

extreme poverty worldwide. Where to find it: http://www.undp.org.ph/mdg.htm

http://www.neda.gov.ph http://www.nscb.gov.ph

Type of data used: Progress report Coverage: Nationwide Time coverage: 2000-2015 Contact details: The United Nations Development Programme

30th Floor Yuchengco Tower RCBC Plaza 6819 Ayala Avenue cor. Sen. Gil J. Puyat Avenue Makati City 1226 Philippines Phone Numbers: (632) 9010100 Fax Numbers: (632) 9010200, (632) 9010280 Postal Address: P.O. Box 7285 Domestic Airport Post Office Locker Box, 1300 Domestic Road Pasay City, Philippines

Methodology: To help track progress in the attainment of the 8 goals and 18 targets

of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) over the period 1990-2015, experts from the United Nations Secretariat and International Monetary Fund (IMF), Overseas Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank identified and selected a set of time-bound and measurable indicators. Data series on the 48 MDG indicators are compiled to provide the basis for the preparation of progress reports by member states of the United Nations (UN) on the implementation of the UN Millennium Declaration.

Example results: The overall probability of attaining the targets remains high,

though dependent largely on the confluence of several factors,


(102)

among them: scaling up of current efforts on all target areas; more efficient synchronization and allocation of available limited resources, including mobilization of additional resources; and stronger advocacy for and enhanced capability to implement the MDGs at the local level.


(103)

Performance Measurement at the Local Level

Producer: Asian Development Bank (ADB) - Nathaniel Von Einsiedel,

consultant Stated purpose: To assist in furthering the objectives of decentralization and in

implementing the provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991 Funding source: Asian Development Bank (ADB) Current usage: Summarizes the situation of performance measurement at the local

level, and analyzes the level of usage and effectiveness of such indicator systems

Where to find it: www.adb.org/Documents/Studies/Performance-Measurement-

Local-Level/pmll-2.pdf Type of data used: Varied. Relevant studies, existing performance indicator systems

(PISs), survey questionnaires, field work reports, interviews, focus group discussions, and set of criteria to evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of systems used at the local level.

Coverage: Local government units (LGUs) Time coverage: Published: November 2005 Contact details: Asian Development Bank

Philippines Country Office (PhCO) 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel. No. + 632 683 1000 Fax: + 632 683 1030 Email: [email protected]

Methodology: The assessment involved the following tasks: (1) desk review of

relevant studies and particularly the existing performance indicator systems used or intended to be used by local governments; (2) conduct of survey questionnaires; (3) field visits; (4) interviews with selected representatives of national government agencies; (5) focus group discussions among Metro Manila Planning Officers; (6) interviews with Program Officers of the United Nations Development Program; and (7) use of a set of criteria to quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of systems used at the local level.


(104)

Example results: The results of the assessment are as follows: (i) the most commonly used PISs are those which have

been institutionalized and supported by national government;

(ii) there is widespread appreciation and understanding of the main purpose of PISs, but a significant number of LGUs feel that the PISs developed by national government are not exactly suited to local conditions and do not satisfy the political objectives of local elected officials;

(iii) high usage of PIS corresponds to LGUs’ high level of understanding on the significance of PIS;

(iv) PISs are generally believed to have considerable influence on improvements in service delivery and pro-poor objectives;

(v) PISs are generally perceived to be internal management tools, the results of which need not necessarily be disseminated to the public;

(vi) a significant number of LGU leaders do not extend adequate support to the proper conduct of PISs because of the above-cited political consideration;

(vii) performance information in the form and coverage expected have limited influence on voting behavior; and

(viii) limited assistance from concerned national government agencies to encourage and educate LGUs on the significance and use of the performance criteria has, in a way, caused the improper and/or inadequate use of PISs.


(105)

World Bank’s Combating Corruption in the Philippines

Producer: Rajashree Paralkar, Economist, World Bank Stated purpose: Reviews negative and positive developments related to the fight

against corruption in the Philippines. It aims to present a set of updated recommendations for consideration by the government and other anticorruption champions in the Philippines. It is not an analytical piece that assesses progress on anticorruption activities but rather a review of such activities in the Philippines during 2000-2001.

Funding source: Combination of public, private sector and foundations Current usage: Provides an update and report on the issues regarding the

prevalence of corruption in the Philippines and examined the key institutions engaged in combating this corruption. It also provided information on the government’s anticorruption strategy and plans and recommended a nine-point approach to fighting corruption.

Where to find it: Report available from The World Bank web site:

http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/anticorrupt/FlagshipCourse 2003/PhiliCombatCorruptUpdate.pdf Surveys available from the Social Weather Station web site: http://www.sws.org.ph

Type of data used: National and international surveys on perception of corruption Coverage: National Time coverage: Late-1999 to mid-2001 Contact details: Office Address: World Bank Office Manila

23/F The Taipan Place, F. Ortigas Jr. Road Ortigas Center, Pasig City Trunk Lines: (632) 917-3000, 637-5855 Fax: (632) 917-3050 Ms. Rajashree Paralkar Country Officer/Economist


(106)

Indonesia Country Unit at HQ Tel: 202-458-9050 Fax:202-522-1671 Email: [email protected]

Methodology: The report utilizes national and international surveys on corruption

to be able to recommend anticorruption plans and strategies. Example results: The key positive developments since late-1999 were as follows:

Public procurement reforms; Financial management reforms; Judicial sector reforms; Corporate governance reforms; Increased engagement of civil society; Comprehensive anticorruption framework and strategies; Increased donor support for anticorruption programs; New initiatives from the Office of the Ombudsman; and Inter-agency coordination.

Concrete progresses to combat corruption were the passing of the Anti-Money Laundering Bill, formation of the Governance Advisory Council and government’s extended support for a judicial reform program.


(107)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agoncillo, Teodoro A. and Milagros C. Guerrero. 1987. History of the Filipino People. (7th ed.). Quezon Vity: R.P. Garcia Publishing Co.

Bevir, Mark, R.A.W. Rhodes and Patrick Weller, 2003. “Traditions of Governance: Interpreting

the Changing Role of the Public Sector.” Public Administration. 81 (1), pp1-17.

Brillantes, Alex B. 2000. “Developing Indicators of Local Governance in the Philippines: Some Points for Discussion” Discussion paper presented at the East-West Center and East

West Center Association 2000 International Conference on Building an Asia Pacific Community: The East West Center in the 21st Century, Honolulu, Hawaii, July 4-8, 2000.

Cariño, Lediviña. 1988. Hirst, Paul. 2000. “Democracy and Governance.” in Jon Pierre. (ed.). Debating Governance.

New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 13-35. Hubbard, Ruth. 2001. “Societal leadership and good governance: strengthening learning, values

and consent.” International Review of Administrative Sciences. 67 (2) (June). pp. 229-236.

Jorgensen, Torben Beck. 1993. “Modes of Governance and Alternative Change.” In J. Kooiman

(ed.). Modern Governance. London: Sage. pp. 219-232. Kim, Pan Suk, et. al. 2005. “Toward Participatory and Transparent Governance: Report on the

Sixth Global Forum on Reinventing Government.” Public Administration Review. Vol. 65 No. 6 (November/December). pp. 646-654.

Kooiman, Jan. 2003. Governing as Governance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pierre, Jon. (ed.) 2000a. Debating Governance. New York: Oxford University Press. ________. 2000b. ‘Introduction: Understanding Governance.” in Jon Pierre. (ed.). Debating

Governance. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1- 10. Rhodes, R.A.W. 2000. “Governance and Public Administration.” in Jon Pierre. (ed.). Debating

Governance. New York: Oxford University Press pp. 54-90. Thynne. Ian. 2000. “The state and governance: issues and challenges in perspective.”

International Review of Administrative Sciences. 66 (2) (June). pp. 227-240. UNDP Strategy Note on Governance for Human development. 2004. _____________.1997a. Reconceptualising Governance (Discussion paper 2). UNDP: New

York. _____________. 1997b. Governance for sustainable human development. (January) UNDP:

New York.


(108)

Communication on Governance and Development. October 2003. World Bank. 1994. Governance: The Bank’s Experience. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. World Bank Institute website, 2004. ttp://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/


(109)