The modern public administration in the 50s include: (a) development administration; (b) new public administration; (c) new public management and reinventing government; and PA as governance (governance, good governance, e-governance).
Development Administration (DA) as a field of study emerged in 1950s and 1960s with the third world countries as the focal point. The term “third world” may be attributed to the French demographer and economic historian Alfred Sauvy, who at the height of the Cold War in 1952, used the term to distinguish developing the concept of DA to oswami in 1955 and later popularized by Riggs and Weidner. They coined the term “development administration” to refer to developing countries which are largely found in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. These developing countries endeavored to make concerted efforts in order to be recognized as “emerging nations” and to resurrect themselves after World War II. In the context of “emerging nation,” Landau (1970) described DA as the engineering of social change. Likewise, according to Ilchman (1970), these countries were “concerned with increasing the capacity of the state to produce goods and services to meet and induce changing demands.” (Ilchman 1970: 136) Gant (1979) on the other hand, defined DA as not merely addressing state functions such as public service delivery and enforcement of laws but the inducement and management of change to pursue development aspirations.
In the Philippines, The term “development administration” was used to suggest that it may be an appropriate framework to examine the State’s experience as it tries to rebuild its institutions within a democratic framework, as it struggles to new economic, political and social challenges, and as it adapts to the trends and demands of globalization. Additionally, DA principles have been among the major themes that ran through the various lectures and writings of Raul De Guzman, who together with OD Corpuz (1986) initially addressed the question: “Is there a Philippine Pa?” Since the idea was to steer developing countries for economic development and social progress, the term DA became closely associated to foreign aid and western models of development. 13 These Western countries provide grants and aids to developing countries for nation-building, economic development, institutional strengthening, and people participation in development. As to administrative reform, which is one of the core values of DA, De Guzman (1986) described and analyzed the structural and behavioral characteristics of the Philippine public bureaucracy and argued that the “implementation of administrative reform should have two major dimensions: reforming the structures of the bureaucracy and reforming the behavior of those in the bureaucracy.” (De Guzman 1986 as cited in Brillantes 1994: 8) Development administration has always been one of the central features of the various long and medium term Philippine Development Plans since the seventies.
The term “New Public Administration” or New PA may have emerged from the Minnowbrook Conference in 1968 in Syracuse University. The conference was the brainchild and inspiration of Dwight Waldo who brought together young public administrators and scholars to discuss important issues and varying perspectives on public administration. New PA’s proponents, likewise, advocated that public administrators should not be neutral; they should be committed to both good management and social equity as values to be achieved. New PA then called for client-oriented administration, non-bureaucratic structures, participatory decision-making, decentralized administration and advocate-administrators. (Frederickson 1971; Nigro and Nigro 1989) With the above contentions, it can be said that the theme of New PA is “change” and the challenge is for the public administrators is their capacity to accept change.
“ The relevance of New PA maybe regarded from in terms of their compatibility with the context or the environment, as well as the convergence between the content and intent of new PA with the goals, purposes, and aspirations of the country.” (Pilar 1993: 145) The principle of New PA is compatible with the environment of the Philippine PA, although it was conceived during the time that the US was in chaotic and unpredictable environment amidst prosperity. Such situation is different in the Philippines considering that not only it grappled with advancement but it struggled to pull itself out of poverty which is a major concern of the government up to this date. New PA created the need to stimulate change: meeting the needs of the society through the government’s development programs and projects, and addressing social equity and justice. It must be emphasized though, that the core questions raised by New PA are also embedded in our second order question, “for whom is PA?” It is indeed critical to define the ultimate targets and partners of public administration structures, institutions and processes. In other words, who is the “public” in public administration?
The ideas of “new public management” and “reinventing government” were essentially born out of the continuing search for solutions to economic problems in 1970s and to produce a government that “works better but costs less.” (Denhart 2004: 136) The idea of “reinventing government” was advanced by Osborne and Gaebler in 1992. The New Public Management is a concept articulated by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler in their 1992 book Reinventing Government . It applies the business customer service model to government. Citizens are seen as customers and the administrative role is streamlined by converting policy alternatives into market choices. This approach focuses on results and promotes competition inside and outside government. . Reinventing Government provided ten principles which might bring about governmental reform principles . These are the following: 1. Catalytic government: steering rather than rowing 2. Community-owned government: empowering rather than serving 3. Competitive government: injecting competition into service delivery 4. Mission-driven government: transforming rule-driven organizations 5. Results-oriented government: funding outcomes, not inputs 6. Customer-driven government: meeting the needs of the customer not their bureaucracy 7. Enterprising government rather than spending 8. Anticipatory government: prevention rather than cure 9. Decentralized government: from hierarchy to participation and teamwork 10. Market-oriented government: leveraging change through the market (Osborne and Gaebler 1992: 35-282)16 . the operating principles,which many adapted from the private sector, can revamp the way government functions,
Perceived Problems of Government • Too bureaucratic • Too big • Too inefficient, ineffective • Unaccountable, lack of transparency • corruption Core of “New Public Management” • Not what government ought to do. • But how to do it better • Sometimes advanced as the best solution to government’s key problems – Builds on principal-agent models and new- institutional economics Strategic Planning • From incremental to comprehensive look at government activities • How: devise a plan for future • Goal: produce consensus of government’s direction Incentives • From authority and control to markets and results • How: – Create semi-autonomous agencies – Write contracts to structure government work • Goal: replace top-down control with bottom-up focus on results Flexibility • From rule based to results based accountability • How: employee empowerment, market based incentives • Goal: free employees to do what they know is right Results • From focus on inputs to results • Defining results but how? – Outputs: government activity- service delivery – Outcome: impact of government activity • How: measure, reward results • Goal: fundamentally transform government’s operations
The “governance” paradigm was introduced and advocated by the United Nations (UN), World Bank (WB), Asian Development Bank (ADB) and other international institutions. The word “governance” suddenly “has become something of a mantra in recent years, uttered by donors, reformers and pundits alike.” (Frechette 2000: 25) Governance entails a larger scope and has a wider meaning. Though the term “governance” has been used to refer mostly to “government,” when correctly used, “governance” really goes beyond government. It involves the institutionalization of a system through which citizens, institutions, organizations, and groups in a society articulate their interests, exercise their rights, and mediate their differences in pursuit of the collective good. (ADB 1995 as cited in ADB 2005: 1) UNDP describes it as “the exercise of political, economic and administrative authority to manage a nation’s affairs. It embraces all of the methods- good and bad – that societies use to distribute power and manage public resources and problems.” (UNDP 1997: 9)
From “governance”, the concept of “good governance” has emerged and became Prominent in international aid circles around 1989 or 1990. It served as a general guiding principle for donor agencies to demand that recipient governments adhere to proper administrative processes in the handling of development assistance and put in place effective policy instruments towards that end. (Doornbos 2003) When there is good governance, there is sustainable development. Kofi Annan, in his inaugural speech in the 1st International Conference on Governance for Sustainable Growth and Equity in United Nations, New York, in July 28-30, 1997 affirms this when he said that: “ Good governance and sustainable development are indivisible. That is the lesson of all our efforts and Experiences, from Africa to Asia to Latin America. Without good governance – without the rule of law, predictable administration, legitimate power, and responsive regulation -- no amount of funding, no amount of charity will set us on the path to prosperity…We are fully engaged in efforts to improve governance around the world…good governance is indispensable for building peaceful, prosperous and democratic societies.” (Annan 1997) Annan concluded that “good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development.” (Annan 1997)
For many years, administrators have worked at incorporating information technology into internal and external processes. Online forms of providing information and obtaining input have developed. More recently, there is experimentation with social media. Example: eNGAS, PhilGEPS
An ADB document (2005) affirmed that good governance is synonymous with sound development management. They then identified some key principles of development which may be considered as elements of good governance. These are: accountability, participation, predictability, and transparency. The table below shows the basic elements of good governance and its key dimensions.
The form of government in the Republic of the Philippines. Historically, we have had no other form of government than the presidential one that has governed us since we recovered our independence from the United States of America in 1946. Indeed, even before we got back our independence, as a Commonwealth under the protection of the U.S., from 1935 until 1946, we had a president as the head of the government and of the State  . Earlier, as our forefathers fought for our freedom as a nation against the Spain, they also tried to institute a government that was headed by a president. Today, we find the presidential form of government hobbled by certain institutional weaknesses which will be discussed by the next group/ the group of XXXX.
Short Video Presentation on Past –Present Philippine Presidents which contributed to PA Before the start of Video statement: In 1935, the Philippine Commonwealth was established under the supervision of the Americans to prepare the islands for independence. A constitution was then framed and ratified, which established a presidential system under a unitary government with three co-equal branches of government, the executive, a bicameral legislature, and the judiciary. After the video statement: Public administration in the Philippines today is thus a product of the colonial era, adapted to the idiosyncrasies of indigenous cultural traditions, values, mores, and norms. From these, Filipino public administration practices and processes would evolve into a complex art of adaptation and improvisations that would reconcile the characteristics of Weberian models with that of Filipino values. It is a composite blending of influences and vestiges of past practices and processes derived from colonial times and at the same time made to apply to the vagaries of Filipino values and norms. The American system has been somewhat the dominant influence, insofar as the system, rules, structures, and formalities are concerned.
The praxis of Philippine public administration has always included three major areas of concerns. These are: reorganization, decentralization and the ever present challenge of addressing corruption and promoting accountability in government
The first decree (Presidential Decree No 1) enacted by Marcos upon the declaration of martial law was the Integrated Reorganization Plan (IRP). It “promised the most extensive and wrenching effort at administrative reform in the country’s history through decentralizing and reducing the bureaucracy, and standardizing departmental organization. The IRP also sought to introduce structural changes and reforms to strengthen the merit system as well as professionalize the civil service system. “(ADB 2005: 11) Endriga (2001) described the bureaucracy under the Marcos administration as being more subservient than at any other time in Philippine history. The government then was restructured according to the will of Marcos and it has been shielded from public scrutiny and criticism; thus the perpetuation of irresponsible acts.
To restore government integrity and public confidence, reorganization reforms were introduced by President Aquino, essentially with the creation of Presidential Commission on Public Ethics and Accountability and the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG). Civil society organizations (CSOs) became more active in participating in decision-making and program implementation of the government. To downsize the bloated government, one of the steps undertaken by her administration was the removal of thousands of civil servants from their positions. Although the said step was justified, ironically, the number of civil servants and political appointees in the government increased; thus, blurring the principles of merit and fitness of the civil service. Moreover, pubic agencies and offices grew which caused the extended and fragmented government structure. (ADB 2005) . The Aquino government also sought to decentralize the government and put into law a Local Government Code in 1991, a year before Aquino relinquished office. The code provided for greater local autonomy and to a large extent empowered local government units.
Ramos simply focused on the praxis of NPM with the end goal of reengineering the bureaucracy. His flagship program, the Philippines 2000, was envisioned to make the country globally competitive by pursuing the thrusts of deregulation, market liberalization, and privatization. He focused on setting the guiding principles in reorganizing and improving government operations, divesting government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs), promoting decentralization and local governance, and pushing on the attrition law. The reengineering plan, however, remained a plan with the Congress not laying down the legal framework for his aspiration of streamlining the bureaucracy.
Under Estrada administration, the Rationalization Program of 2001 through Presidential Committee on Effective Governance (PCEG) was introduced. Executive Order No. 165 or “Directing the Formulation of an Institutional Strengthening and Streamlining Program for the Executive Branch,” laid down the “Re-Engineering the Bureaucracy for Better Governance Program.” The program aims to strengthen and streamline the bureaucracy particularly the executive branch, the GOCCs, and the state universities and colleges (SUCs).
What prompted the government in pushing for the rationalization program despite some criticisms and even cynicisms particularly from the skeptics? David offered four reasons: first, to make the government do the right things (efficiency); second, to do the things in the right or best way (effectiveness); third, to be able to do the right things in the right way within affordable levels (affordability); and fourth, to be able to achieve these in the most accountable, transparent manner as possible (accountability). These served as the four guiding principles of the Rationalization Program. David further expounds on these principles and said that e ffectiveness means that there is a need to focus on government efforts on its vital and core functions. This is indeed a good strategy to achieve medium-term strategies and to avoid expenditures and time to those functions that the governmentshould not enter into. Efficiency is achieved through answering the question: “What do we want to do?” Through the methods of rationalization of service delivery support systems, organizational structure, and right staffing; the government then could provide an individual agency performance. The principle of affordability states that expenditures must be based on allowable existing resources. Therefore, the necessary rationalization will have to go together with the kind of economic situation the government agencies are in, with consideration on how much they can afford. To assure accountability, the method of reporting that should be practiced by the government must be clear, observable and verifiable. In October 4, 2004, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) pursued the Rationalization Program as mandated in EO 366. According to DBM, EO 366 directs all departments/agencies of the executive branch to conduct a strategic review of their operations and organizations for purposes of focusing government purposes on its vital functions and channeling government resources to these core public functions, and improving the efficiency of government services, within affordable levels, and in the most accountable manner. (See table 3 for the status of the rationalization program as of April 2008). DBM’s task, according to David (as cited in DGF 2005), is to look at a two-track approach in ensuring the effective delivery of government service. The first track of reengineering the bureaucracy is through legislative measures and the second track is the administrative rationalization of the government.
This report has briefly presented the history, evolution, and context of the development of public administration practice and study in the Philippines. It has endeavored to present a discussion of the shaping of Philippine bureaucracy and the various influences that guided it into its present form, from the pre-colonial era to the colonial periods up to the present. In order to provide a better apprecia- tion of the development of bureaucracy as an institution in the country, the form and context by which this development shaped has also been presented. The history of PA of the country was discussed to provide a brief, perhaps passing, appreciation of the country as a whole. The prevailing values and norms practiced by the bureaucracy in the Philippines were also discussed to account for what the public administration in the Philippines has become and the forces that shaped it into becoming the institution it is in its present form,
Trends in Public Administration v2
<ul><li>TRENDS IN </li></ul><ul><li>PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION </li></ul>
Overview of Trends in Public Administration Evolution of Paradigms Modern Phase Traditional/ Classic Phase Paradigm 1 :. Politics/ Administration Dichotomy, 1900 - 1926 <ul><li>Paradigm 2: . The Principles of Administration, 1926 -1937 </li></ul><ul><li>Period of Orthodoxy </li></ul><ul><li>Scientific Management </li></ul><ul><li>Bureacracy </li></ul><ul><li>POSDCORP </li></ul><ul><li>Administrative Behavior </li></ul>Paradigm 3 :. Public Administratrion as Political Science, 1950 - 1970 Paradigm 4 : Development Administration, 1950 - 1960 Paradigm 5 : New Public Administration, 1970 Paradigm 8 : From Government to Governance: 1990 - present Paradigm 6 : New Public Management, 1980 - 1990 Paradigm 7 : Reinventing Government, 1990
MODERN PHASE Paradigm 4: Development Administration 1950-1960
Paradigm 4: Development Administration 1950 - 1960 Philippine Context
Client oriented Non-Bureaucratic Participatory Decentralized Paradigm 5: New Public Administration 1960s to 19702
Paradigm 5: New Public Administration 1960s to 1970s Philippine Context
Source: Osborne and Gaebler 1992 MODERN PHASE 1980s to 1990s Paradigm 6 & 7: New Public Management and Reinventing Gov’t. 1. Catalytic Government 2. Community-owned Government 3. Competitive Government 4. Mission-driven Government 5. Results-oriented Government 6. Customer-driven Government 7. Enterprising Government 8. Anticipatory Government 9. Decentralized Government 10. Market-oriented Government
Source: Anwar, Shah New Public Management Basic Elements of New Public Management Strategies Paradigm 6 & 7: New Public Management and Reinventing Gov’t. Result Strategic Planning Flexibility Incentives
T he exercise of political, economic and administrative authority to manage a nation’s affair. It embraces all the methods- good and bad that societies use to distribute power and manage public resources and problems – UNDP 1997 Sound development management with four (4) key principles such as; accountability, participation, predictability and transparancy – ADB 2005 Integrating information technology, internal and external processes Paradigm 8 : From Government to Governance 1990 - present PRESENT Good Governance FUTURE E-Governance PAST Governance
T he exercise of political, economic and administrative authority to manage a nation’s affair. It embraces all the methods- good and bad that societies use to distribute power and manage public resources and problems – UNDP 1997 Advocate and introduced Paradigm 8 : From Government to Governance 1990 - present 1990 Governance
Sound development management with four (4) key principles such as; accountability, participation, predictability and transparancy – ADB 2005 Paradigm 8 : From Government to Governance 1990 - present PRESENT Good Governance
Integrating information technology, internal and external processes Paradigm 8 : From Government to Governance 1990 - present FUTURE E-Governance
The Philippines: a Brief Background Embedded video