Why the Philippines rates among the worst bureaucracies in Asia
March 13, 2002 | 12:00am
The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC), a survey of expatriate businessmen, recently rated the Philippines among the worst and most frustrating bureaucracies in Asia. From best to worst: Singapore (3.10), Hong Kong (3.64), South Korea (5.50), Taiwan (6.17), Malaysia and Japan (7.00), Thailand (7.89), China (8.00), Vietnam (8.13), the Philippines (8.18), Indonesia (9.33) and India (9.50).
The PERC survey cites low pay as the culprit for inefficiency and corruption. However, the overwhelming frustration that is oftentimes experienced goes beyond that. Instead, one cannot help but become bewildered and frustrated over why national policy that is good for nation and its interpretation by institutions are not in sync. Why is it that working with the bureaucracy feels a lot like "trying to wake up someone who is pretending to be asleep"?
I recently had the opportunity to listen to perhaps the most enlightening analysis on why our institutions do not work. Professor Romy Neri, who teaches financial management and economics at the Asian Institute of Management, describes the Philippines as an oligarchic state dominated by an elite that influences appointments to government institutions and bureaucracies at deeper levels than most other Asian countries. The number of about 4,000 political appointees made each time a new administration takes over every six years inevitably results in a lack of continuity of direction and policy. (See graph of political appointees.)
Drawing from a matrix by Dr. Paul Hutchcroft, Department of Political Science, University of Winsconsin-Madison, Prof. Neri paints Philippine "booty capitalism" as a propensity towards patronage and corruption through election financing to control levels of government bureaucracy. A vicious cycle ensues. Individual appointees who might tend to give foremost consideration to the vested interest of his sponsor over institutional or national policy creates weak institutions. The high degree of arbitrariness creates "policy distortions" which in turn encourages more corruption that adds to the cost of doing business.
The "predictability of outcome" is inevitably low because the individual bureaucrat actually does not hold enough power to deliver. This in turn discourages investments in job-creating enterprises, a recipe that ensures poor delivery of basic services and a level of poverty that forces people to hook onto a patron. So the cycle begins again.
A friend challenged the thesis with this question: Why do Filipinos living in places like Guam perform so well? I can now more clearly conclude that the weakness lies in institutional structure, not in Filipino character per se, which needs to be strengthened if we are to prosper. How do we achieve this when we are faced with a condition where "government has been historically unresponsive and distant, while smaller units like the family, extended kin, or ethnic groups are more concrete sources of benefits and social insurance"? (OD Corpus, 1965) Prof. Neri emphasizes that sustained economic growth will depend on improving the quality of the bureaucracy. He advocates, among other needs, political reform through an institutionalized, programmatic and funded political party system, legislation to allow Filipinos living overseas (middle class and out of the range of corruption) to vote , the restructuring of the practice of appointees in government positions, and the strengthening of key institutions (especially the justice system) and the Philippine National Police.
Needless to say, there is a great need for "government to provide clear strategic directions and for all of us to get our act together: government, business, labor, civil society and rural sectors." (Neri) However, "no matter how sound the policy agenda may be at the national level, there is little hope of coherently sustaining such an agenda without careful and sustained nurturing of the country’s political and institutional foundations." (Hutchcroft and Emmanuel de Dios, School of Economics, University of the Philippines)
The answer may rest in the "oligarchic elite." Windfall derived from sustaining the bad habits of political patronage cannot be compared to the benefits of long-term prosperity that follows when the system works. Or we may begin at home or in our own businesses. Think of how often employees make decisions based on what they perceive the boss wants, rather that what is appropriate action strengthening the institution, empowering the individual and practicing positive values are the way to go.
Thanks so much for your comments at dorisho@attglobal.net.
The PERC survey cites low pay as the culprit for inefficiency and corruption. However, the overwhelming frustration that is oftentimes experienced goes beyond that. Instead, one cannot help but become bewildered and frustrated over why national policy that is good for nation and its interpretation by institutions are not in sync. Why is it that working with the bureaucracy feels a lot like "trying to wake up someone who is pretending to be asleep"?
I recently had the opportunity to listen to perhaps the most enlightening analysis on why our institutions do not work. Professor Romy Neri, who teaches financial management and economics at the Asian Institute of Management, describes the Philippines as an oligarchic state dominated by an elite that influences appointments to government institutions and bureaucracies at deeper levels than most other Asian countries. The number of about 4,000 political appointees made each time a new administration takes over every six years inevitably results in a lack of continuity of direction and policy. (See graph of political appointees.)
Drawing from a matrix by Dr. Paul Hutchcroft, Department of Political Science, University of Winsconsin-Madison, Prof. Neri paints Philippine "booty capitalism" as a propensity towards patronage and corruption through election financing to control levels of government bureaucracy. A vicious cycle ensues. Individual appointees who might tend to give foremost consideration to the vested interest of his sponsor over institutional or national policy creates weak institutions. The high degree of arbitrariness creates "policy distortions" which in turn encourages more corruption that adds to the cost of doing business.
The "predictability of outcome" is inevitably low because the individual bureaucrat actually does not hold enough power to deliver. This in turn discourages investments in job-creating enterprises, a recipe that ensures poor delivery of basic services and a level of poverty that forces people to hook onto a patron. So the cycle begins again.
A friend challenged the thesis with this question: Why do Filipinos living in places like Guam perform so well? I can now more clearly conclude that the weakness lies in institutional structure, not in Filipino character per se, which needs to be strengthened if we are to prosper. How do we achieve this when we are faced with a condition where "government has been historically unresponsive and distant, while smaller units like the family, extended kin, or ethnic groups are more concrete sources of benefits and social insurance"? (OD Corpus, 1965) Prof. Neri emphasizes that sustained economic growth will depend on improving the quality of the bureaucracy. He advocates, among other needs, political reform through an institutionalized, programmatic and funded political party system, legislation to allow Filipinos living overseas (middle class and out of the range of corruption) to vote , the restructuring of the practice of appointees in government positions, and the strengthening of key institutions (especially the justice system) and the Philippine National Police.
Needless to say, there is a great need for "government to provide clear strategic directions and for all of us to get our act together: government, business, labor, civil society and rural sectors." (Neri) However, "no matter how sound the policy agenda may be at the national level, there is little hope of coherently sustaining such an agenda without careful and sustained nurturing of the country’s political and institutional foundations." (Hutchcroft and Emmanuel de Dios, School of Economics, University of the Philippines)
The answer may rest in the "oligarchic elite." Windfall derived from sustaining the bad habits of political patronage cannot be compared to the benefits of long-term prosperity that follows when the system works. Or we may begin at home or in our own businesses. Think of how often employees make decisions based on what they perceive the boss wants, rather that what is appropriate action strengthening the institution, empowering the individual and practicing positive values are the way to go.
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
