Transcript
2008 245 FOR WHOM IS PHILIPPINE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION?*Professor and Dean, National College of Public Administration and Governance(NCPAG), University of the Philippines Diliman, and University Researcher (NCPAG)and former instructor of Saint Paul University Philippines, respectively.The assistance of Kate Asilo in the preparation of this article and of PaulynBautista (with her insights and contribution in developing the section on GawadKalinga) is gratefully acknowledged. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol. LII Nos. 2-4 (April- October 2008) Is There A Philippine Public Administration? Or Better Still, For Whom Is Philippine Public Administration? A LEX B. B RILLANTES , J R . AND M ARICEL T. F ERNANDEZ * This article traces the evolution of public administration,suggesting that there are only two major phases: traditional andmodern. The fields of public administration are discussedtaking cognizance of the many other emerging fields goingbeyond its traditional fields, namely, voluntary sectormanagement and information technology. Selected majorongoing concerns of public administration which includereorganization, decentralization and corruption in the Philippines are also considered. The article also brieflydiscusses an example of what is now taken as an emergingillustration of a home-grown governance paradigm, the Gawad Kalinga as illustrative of a successful partnership andcooperation between government, business and civil society inthe delivery of basic services, which after all is a core concern of modern public administration and good governance. The article ends by raising third order concerns and challenges as it tries toaddress the question, “For whom is Philippine publicadministration?” Is there a Philippine public administration? A number of colleagueswonder why the same question is again asked when the National Collegeof Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG) is planning a publiccolloquium for the purpose of revisiting the same question. Indeed, thatquestion had been asked more than 20 years ago, and answers have beenprovided by eminent scholars of Public Administration such as Raul P. deGuzman (1986) and Onofre D. Corpuz (1986). After two decades, it isworthwhile to revisit the issue and ask once again, “Is there a Philippine Public Administration?” This time around, however, the question is takena little further by asking an equally important second question, “ If there isa Philippine Public Administration, then for whom does Philippine Public Administration exist? ” 245 April-October PHILIPPINE JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 246 Among the basic references we use in the general introductorycourse in Public Administration at both the graduate (PA 201) andundergraduate (PA 11) levels are essays by the aforementioned eminentscholars of Philippine Public Administration (Dr. de Guzman and Dr.Corpuz). These essays were published in a special issue of the P hilippine Journal of Public Administration ( PJPA ) in 1986. While de Guzman andCorpuz both assert that there is a Philippine Public Administration (PPA),both also suggest that the question be properly contextualized.There is a Philippine Public Administration as there is also an American, French and Thai public administration. There is a Philippine public administration as there are institutions of public administrationaddressing specific sectoral concerns. There is a Philippine publicadministration as a field of study. There is a Philippine publicadministration considering the massive role of the bureaucracy inPhilippine public administration. There is a Philippine publicadministration as regards major institutions in education, politics andgovernment. Yes, there are basic public administration structures and processes.There exists an executive branch with the bureaucracy at its core, aPhilippine legislature, and a Philippine judiciary. There are Philippineelectoral processes and procedures. There are Philippine subnationalinstitutions and local governments, together with decentralizationprocesses and procedures. Within this context, we can arguably affirm thatindeed, there is a Philippine public administration characterized by thepresence of administrative structures and processes operating within aunique Philippine context.This article contextualizes the field of public administration bydiscussing the following: (a) the evolution of the field of publicadministration suggesting that there are only two major phases(traditional and modern phase); (b) the different fields of publicadministration; (c) selected major ongoing concerns of publicadministration in the Philippines (reorganization, decentralization andcorruption). The article also includes a brief discussion of an example of what is now considered as an emerging illustration of a home growngovernance paradigm ( Gawad Kalinga) as one that illustrates successfulcooperation between government, business and civil society in the deliveryof basic services, which after all is a core concern of modern publicadministration and good governance. The article then ends by raisingthird order concerns as it tries to address the question, “For whom ispublic administration?” 1 2008 247 FOR WHOM IS PHILIPPINE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION? One has to make an evaluation – and a judgment call – as to whetherthe discipline of Philippine public administration has indeed responded orfailed to respond – to the unique calls and demands of the times. This willeventually answer the question posed at the outset, “ For whom is publicadministration? ” This is a question ultimately addressed not only by thoseteaching public administration but also by practitioners of publicadministration as well. While this article will not even pretend to answerthat question, it will raise issues and concerns about the matter that maytrigger further questions and debate. Evolution of the Field of Public Administration In order to properly appreciate the context of Philippine publicadministration, it may be helpful to retrace the history and evolution of the broad discipline and examine the various strands and influences thathave influenced the theory and practice – the praxis – of publicadministration in the Philippines. The specific areas and fields of specialization of the field shall be examined, taking cognizance of themany other emerging fields going beyond the traditional fields of publicadministration.The discipline of public administration can be divided into two majorphases: the traditional / classical phase from the late 1800s to the 1950s,and the modern phase from the 1950s to the present. The modern phasecan be further divided into the following subphases: developmentadministration (1950s to the 60s), new public administration (1960s to the70s), new public management and reinventing governance (1980s into the90s), and finally public administration as governance (1990s into thepresent). Table 1 is an indicative matrix that reflects the phases in theevolution of public administration. Table 1. Phases in the Evolution of Public Administration (1950 to the present)1950s to 1960s1970s1980s to 1990s1990s1990s to the presentModern Public AdministrationDevelopment AdministrationNew Public AdministrationNew Public ManagementReinventing GovernmentPA as Governance1800s to 1950s Traditional / Classical Public AdministrationIndicative PeriodPhase (1950 to the present)1950s to 1960s1970s1980s to 1990s1990s1990s to the presentModern Public AdministrationDevelopment AdministrationNew Public AdministrationNew Public ManagementReinventing GovernmentPA as Governance1800s to 1950s Traditional / Classical Public AdministrationIndicative PeriodPhase April-October PHILIPPINE JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 248 Traditional / Classical Public Administration Public Administration can be traced back to human history. It hasbeen suggested that it is as old as the ancient empires of China, India,Egypt, Greece, Rome and Mesopotomia. The institutionalization of administrative capacity for collective purposes is the foundation of publicadministration. Such arrangement, according to Caiden (1982), hasexisted in all societies. All societies are devoted to advancing the generalwelfare or the public interest. The idea that “public administration shouldnot be considered administration of the public but administration for thepublic” was practiced and expressed in the Code of Hammurabi, inConfucianism and in the funeral oration of Pericles (Caiden 1982: 7). Inother words, the idea of client-oriented public administration has its rootsin ancient public administration.Caiden (1982) also noted that the genesis of Public Administrationmust have srcinated from monarchical Europe where household officialswere divided into two groups: one in charge of public affairs , i.e. theadministration of justice, finance, training of armies, and the otherresponsible for personal services . Rutgers (1998) supports this claim thatroyal administration had already been manifested way back in the mid 17 th century and early 18 th century in Prussia. F.K. Medikus (as cited inRutgers 1998) likewise argued about the study of public administration andits positions amidst the sciences in the 18 th century. He advocated“cameralism” and claimed that it should be treated as an autonomous fieldof study of great importance to the state. 2 This practice flourished inEurope until the 21 st century but it was, in the long run, replaced byadministrative law and legal studies.Since this article tries to trace the roots of Philippine Public Administration, it shall dwell on American theories and principles whichadmittedly influenced the direction and development of the formal study of the field of public administration in the Philippines, both at the levels of theory and practice. It will be recalled that public administration as anacademic field of study formally began with the establishment by American academics of the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) in theUniversity of the Philippines (UP) in 1952; hence, the close affinity of Philippine PA theory to American PA theory and practice can not beignored. 1800s to 1950s If the roots of Public Administration as a distinct field of study haveto be traced, the tendency is to draw on Woodrow Wilson’s 1887 classic
