- •Public Administration And Public Policy
- •Contents
- •Acknowledgments
- •About The Authors
- •Comments On Purpose and Methods
- •Contents
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 Culture
- •1.3 Colonial Legacies
- •1.3.1 British Colonial Legacy
- •1.3.2 Latin Legacy
- •1.3.3 American Legacy
- •1.4 Decentralization
- •1.5 Ethics
- •1.5.1 Types of Corruption
- •1.5.2 Ethics Management
- •1.6 Performance Management
- •1.6.2 Structural Changes
- •1.6.3 New Public Management
- •1.7 Civil Service
- •1.7.1 Size
- •1.7.2 Recruitment and Selection
- •1.7.3 Pay and Performance
- •1.7.4 Training
- •1.8 Conclusion
- •Contents
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2 Historical Developments and Legacies
- •2.2.1.1 First Legacy: The Tradition of King as Leader
- •2.2.1.2 Second Legacy: A Tradition of Authoritarian Rule, Centralization, and Big Government
- •2.2.1.3 Third Legacy: Traditions of Hierarchy and Clientelism
- •2.2.1.4 Fourth Legacy: A Tradition of Reconciliation
- •2.2.2.1 First Legacy: The Tradition of Bureaucratic Elites as a Privileged Group
- •2.2.2.2 Second Legacy: A Tradition of Authoritarian Rule, Centralization, and Big Government
- •2.2.2.3 Third Legacy: The Practice of Staging Military Coups
- •2.2.2.4 Fourth Legacy: A Tradition for Military Elites to be Loyal to the King
- •2.2.3.1 First Legacy: Elected Politicians as the New Political Boss
- •2.2.3.2 Second Legacy: Frequent and Unpredictable Changes of Political Bosses
- •2.2.3.3 Third Legacy: Politicians from the Provinces Becoming Bosses
- •2.2.3.4 Fourth Legacy: The Problem with the Credibility of Politicians
- •2.2.4.1 First Emerging Legacy: Big Businessmen in Power
- •2.2.4.2 Second Emerging Legacy: Super CEO Authoritarian Rule, Centralization, and Big Government
- •2.2.4.3 Third Emerging Legacy: Government must Serve Big Business Interests
- •2.2.5.1 Emerging Legacy: The Clash between Governance Values and Thai Realities
- •2.2.5.2 Traits of Governmental Culture Produced by the Five Masters
- •2.3 Uniqueness of the Thai Political Context
- •2.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •Appendix A
- •Contents
- •3.1 Thailand Administrative Structure
- •3.2 History of Decentralization in Thailand
- •3.2.1 Thailand as a Centralized State
- •3.2.2 Towards Decentralization
- •3.3 The Politics of Decentralization in Thailand
- •3.3.2 Shrinking Political Power of the Military and Bureaucracy
- •3.4 Drafting the TAO Law 199421
- •3.5 Impacts of the Decentralization Reform on Local Government in Thailand: Ongoing Challenges
- •3.5.1 Strong Executive System
- •3.5.2 Thai Local Political System
- •3.5.3 Fiscal Decentralization
- •3.5.4 Transferred Responsibilities
- •3.5.5 Limited Spending on Personnel
- •3.5.6 New Local Government Personnel System
- •3.6 Local Governments Reaching Out to Local Community
- •3.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2 Corruption: General Situation in Thailand
- •4.2.1 Transparency International and its Corruption Perception Index
- •4.2.2 Types of Corruption
- •4.3 A Deeper Look at Corruption in Thailand
- •4.3.1 Vanishing Moral Lessons
- •4.3.4 High Premium on Political Stability
- •4.4 Existing State Mechanisms to Fight Corruption
- •4.4.2 Constraints and Limitations of Public Agencies
- •4.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2 History of Performance Management
- •5.2.1 National Economic and Social Development Plans
- •5.2.2 Master Plan of Government Administrative Reform
- •5.3 Performance Management Reform: A Move Toward High Performance Organizations
- •5.3.1 Organization Restructuring to Increase Autonomy
- •5.3.2 Process Improvement through Information Technology
- •5.3.3 Knowledge Management Toward Learning Organizations
- •5.3.4 Performance Agreement
- •5.3.5 Challenges and Lessons Learned
- •5.3.5.1 Organizational Restructuring
- •5.3.5.2 Process Improvement through Information Technology
- •5.3.5.3 Knowledge Management
- •5.3.5.4 Performance Agreement
- •5.4.4 Outcome of Budgeting Reform: The Budget Process in Thailand
- •5.4.5 Conclusion
- •5.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •6.1.1 Civil Service Personnel
- •6.1.2 Development of the Civil Service Human Resource System
- •6.1.3 Problems of Civil Service Human Resource
- •6.2 Recruitment and Selection
- •6.2.1 Main Feature
- •6.2.2 Challenges of Recruitment and Selection
- •6.3.1 Main Feature
- •6.4.1 Main Feature
- •6.4.2 Salary Management
- •6.4.2.2 Performance Management and Salary Increase
- •6.4.3 Position Allowance
- •6.4.5 National Compensation Committee
- •6.4.6 Retirement and Pension
- •6.4.7 Challenges in Compensation
- •6.5 Training and Development
- •6.5.1 Main Feature
- •6.5.2 Challenges of Training and Development in the Civil Service
- •6.6 Discipline and Merit Protection
- •6.6.1 Main Feature
- •6.6.2 Challenges of Discipline
- •6.7 Conclusion
- •References
- •English References
- •Contents
- •7.1 Introduction
- •7.2 Setting and Context
- •7.3 Malayan Union and the Birth of the United Malays National Organization
- •7.4 Post Independence, New Economic Policy, and Malay Dominance
- •7.5 Centralization of Executive Powers under Mahathir
- •7.6 Administrative Values
- •7.6.1 Close Ties with the Political Party
- •7.6.2 Laws that Promote Secrecy, Continuing Concerns with Corruption
- •7.6.3 Politics over Performance
- •7.6.4 Increasing Islamization of the Civil Service
- •7.7 Ethnic Politics and Reforms
- •7.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2 System of Government in Malaysia
- •8.5 Community Relations and Emerging Recentralization
- •8.6 Process Toward Recentralization and Weakening Decentralization
- •8.7 Reinforcing Centralization
- •8.8 Restructuring and Impact on Decentralization
- •8.9 Where to Decentralization?
- •8.10 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.2 Ethics and Corruption in Malaysia: General Observations
- •9.2.1 Factors of Corruption
- •9.3 Recent Corruption Scandals
- •9.3.1 Cases Involving Bureaucrats and Executives
- •9.3.2 Procurement Issues
- •9.4 Efforts to Address Corruption and Instill Ethics
- •9.4.1.1 Educational Strategy
- •9.4.1.2 Preventive Strategy
- •9.4.1.3 Punitive Strategy
- •9.4.2 Public Accounts Committee and Public Complaints Bureau
- •9.5 Other Efforts
- •9.6 Assessment and Recommendations
- •9.7 Conclusions
- •References
- •Contents
- •10.1 History of Performance Management in the Administrative System
- •10.1.1 Policy Frameworks
- •10.1.2 Organizational Structures
- •10.1.2.1 Values and Work Ethic
- •10.1.2.2 Administrative Devices
- •10.1.2.3 Performance, Financial, and Budgetary Reporting
- •10.2 Performance Management Reforms in the Past Ten Years
- •10.2.1 Electronic Government
- •10.2.2 Public Service Delivery System
- •10.2.3 Other Management Reforms
- •10.3 Assessment of Performance Management Reforms
- •10.4 Analysis and Recommendations
- •10.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Malaysian Civil Service
- •11.2.1 Public Service Department
- •11.2.2 Public Service Commission
- •11.2.3 Recruitment and Selection
- •11.2.4 Malaysian Administrative Modernization and Management Planning Unit
- •11.2.5 Administrative and Diplomatic Service
- •11.4 Civil Service Pension Scheme
- •11.5 Civil Service Neutrality
- •11.6 Civil Service Culture
- •11.7 Reform in the Malaysian Civil Service
- •11.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.2.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.2.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.3.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.3.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.4.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.4.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.5.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.5.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.6.1 Context and Driving Force of Development
- •12.6.2 Major Institutional Development
- •12.7 Public Administration and Society
- •12.7.1 Public Accountability and Participation
- •12.7.2 Administrative Values
- •12.8 Societal and Political Challenge over Bureaucratic Dominance
- •12.9 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •13.1 Introduction
- •13.3 Constitutional Framework of the Basic Law
- •13.4 Changing Relations between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
- •13.4.1 Constitutional Dimension
- •13.4.1.1 Contending Interpretations over the Basic Law
- •13.4.1.3 New Constitutional Order in the Making
- •13.4.2 Political Dimension
- •13.4.2.3 Contention over Political Reform
- •13.4.3 The Economic Dimension
- •13.4.3.1 Expanding Intergovernmental Links
- •13.4.3.2 Fostering Closer Economic Partnership and Financial Relations
- •13.4.3.3 Seeking Cooperation and Coordination in Regional and National Development
- •13.4.4 External Dimension
- •13.5 Challenges and Prospects in the Relations between the Central Government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
- •References
- •Contents
- •14.1 Honesty, Integrity, and Adherence to the Law
- •14.2 Accountability, Openness, and Political Neutrality
- •14.2.1 Accountability
- •14.2.2 Openness
- •14.2.3 Political Neutrality
- •14.3 Impartiality and Service to the Community
- •14.4 Conclusions
- •References
- •Contents
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.2 Brief Overview of Performance Management in Hong Kong
- •15.3.1 Measuring and Assessing Performance
- •15.3.2 Adoption of Performance Pledges
- •15.3.3 Linking Budget to Performance
- •15.3.4 Relating Rewards to Performance
- •15.4 Assessment of Outcomes of Performance Management Reforms
- •15.4.1 Are Departments Properly Measuring their Performance?
- •15.4.2 Are Budget Decisions Based on Performance Results?
- •15.4.5 Overall Evaluation
- •15.5 Measurability of Performance
- •15.6 Ownership of, and Responsibility for, Performance
- •15.7 The Politics of Performance
- •15.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •16.1 Introduction
- •16.2 Structure of the Public Sector
- •16.2.1 Core Government
- •16.2.2 Hybrid Agencies
- •16.2.4 Private Businesses that Deliver Public Services
- •16.3 Administrative Values
- •16.4 Politicians and Bureaucrats
- •16.5 Management Tools and their Reform
- •16.5.1 Selection
- •16.5.2 Performance Management
- •16.5.3 Compensation
- •16.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •17.1 Introduction
- •17.2 The Philippines: A Brief Background
- •17.4 Philippine Bureaucracy during the Spanish Colonial Regime
- •17.6 American Colonial Regime and the Philippine Commonwealth
- •17.8 Independence Period and the Establishment of the Institute of Public Administration
- •17.9 Administrative Values in the Philippines
- •17.11 Conclusions
- •References
- •Contents
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.2 Toward a Genuine Local Autonomy and Decentralization in the Philippines
- •18.2.1 Evolution of Local Autonomy
- •18.2.2 Government Structure and the Local Government System
- •18.2.3 Devolution under the Local Government Code of 1991
- •18.2.4 Local Government Finance
- •18.2.5 Local Government Bureaucracy and Personnel
- •18.3 Review of the Local Government Code of 1991 and its Implementation
- •18.3.1 Gains and Successes of Decentralization
- •18.3.2 Assessing the Impact of Decentralization
- •18.3.2.1 Overall Policy Design
- •18.3.2.2 Administrative and Political Issues
- •18.3.2.2.1 Central and Sub-National Role in Devolution
- •18.3.2.2.3 High Budget for Personnel at the Local Level
- •18.3.2.2.4 Political Capture by the Elite
- •18.3.2.3 Fiscal Decentralization Issues
- •18.3.2.3.1 Macroeconomic Stability
- •18.3.2.3.2 Policy Design Issues of the Internal Revenue Allotment
- •18.3.2.3.4 Disruptive Effect of the Creation of New Local Government Units
- •18.3.2.3.5 Disparate Planning, Unhealthy Competition, and Corruption
- •18.4 Local Governance Reforms, Capacity Building, and Research Agenda
- •18.4.1 Financial Resources and Reforming the Internal Revenue Allotment
- •18.4.3 Government Functions and Powers
- •18.4.6 Local Government Performance Measurement
- •18.4.7 Capacity Building
- •18.4.8 People Participation
- •18.4.9 Political Concerns
- •18.4.10 Federalism
- •18.5 Conclusions and the Way Forward
- •References
- •Annexes
- •Contents
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.2 Control
- •19.2.1 Laws that Break Up the Alignment of Forces to Minimize State Capture
- •19.2.2 Executive Measures that Optimize Deterrence
- •19.2.3 Initiatives that Close Regulatory Gaps
- •19.2.4 Collateral Measures on Electoral Reform
- •19.3 Guidance
- •19.3.1 Leadership that Casts a Wide Net over Corrupt Acts
- •19.3.2 Limiting Monopoly and Discretion to Constrain Abuse of Power
- •19.3.3 Participatory Appraisal that Increases Agency Resistance against Misconduct
- •19.3.4 Steps that Encourage Public Vigilance and the Growth of Civil Society Watchdogs
- •19.3.5 Decentralized Guidance that eases Log Jams in Centralized Decision Making
- •19.4 Management
- •19.5 Creating Virtuous Circles in Public Ethics and Accountability
- •19.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •20.1 Introduction
- •20.2 Problems and Challenges Facing Bureaucracy in the Philippines Today
- •20.3 Past Reform Initiatives of the Philippine Public Administrative System
- •20.4.1 Rebuilding Institutions and Improving Performance
- •20.4.1.1 Size and Effectiveness of the Bureaucracy
- •20.4.1.2 Privatization
- •20.4.1.3 Addressing Corruption
- •20.4.1.5 Improving Work Processes
- •20.4.2 Performance Management Initiatives for the New Millennium
- •20.4.2.1 Financial Management
- •20.4.2.2 New Government Accounting System
- •20.4.2.3 Public Expenditure Management
- •20.4.2.4 Procurement Reforms
- •20.4.3 Human Resource Management
- •20.4.3.1 Organizing for Performance
- •20.4.3.2 Performance Evaluation
- •20.4.3.3 Rationalizing the Bureaucracy
- •20.4.3.4 Public Sector Compensation
- •20.4.3.5 Quality Management Systems
- •20.4.3.6 Local Government Initiatives
- •20.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •21.1 Introduction
- •21.2 Country Development Context
- •21.3 Evolution and Current State of the Philippine Civil Service System
- •21.3.1 Beginnings of a Modern Civil Service
- •21.3.2 Inventory of Government Personnel
- •21.3.3 Recruitment and Selection
- •21.3.6 Training and Development
- •21.3.7 Incentive Structure in the Bureaucracy
- •21.3.8 Filipino Culture
- •21.3.9 Bureaucratic Values and Performance Culture
- •21.3.10 Grievance and Redress System
- •21.4 Development Performance of the Philippine Civil Service
- •21.5 Key Development Challenges
- •21.5.1 Corruption
- •21.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •Annexes
- •Contents
- •22.1 Introduction
- •22.2 History
- •22.3 Major Reform Measures since the Handover
- •22.4 Analysis of the Reform Roadmap
- •22.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •23.1 Decentralization, Autonomy, and Democracy
- •23.3.1 From Recession to Take Off
- •23.3.2 Politics of Growth
- •23.3.3 Government Inertia
- •23.4 Autonomy as Collective Identity
- •23.4.3 Social Group Dynamics
- •23.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •Contents
- •24.1 Introduction
- •24.2 Functions and Performance of the Commission Against Corruption of Macao
- •24.2.1 Functions
- •24.2.2 Guidelines on the Professional Ethics and Conduct of Public Servants
- •24.2.3 Performance
- •24.2.4 Structure
- •24.2.5 Personnel Establishment
- •24.3 New Challenges
- •24.3.1 The Case of Ao Man Long
- •24.3.2 Dilemma of Sunshine Law
- •24.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •Appendix A
- •Contents
- •25.1 Introduction
- •25.2 Theoretical Basis of the Reform
- •25.3 Historical Background
- •25.4 Problems in the Civil Service Culture
- •25.5 Systemic Problems
- •25.6 Performance Management Reform
- •25.6.1 Performance Pledges
- •25.6.2 Employee Performance Assessment
- •25.7 Results and Problems
- •25.7.1 Performance Pledge
- •25.7.2 Employee Performance Assessment
- •25.8 Conclusion and Future Development
- •References
- •Contents
- •26.1 Introduction
- •26.2 Civil Service System
- •26.2.1 Types of Civil Servants
- •26.2.2 Bureaucratic Structure
- •26.2.4 Personnel Management
- •26.4 Civil Service Reform
- •26.5 Conclusion
- •References
Performance Management Reforms in the Philippines 417
National Power Corporation; the University of the Philippines’ Information Technology Training Institute and the Philippine General Hospital; the Philippine Economic Zone Authority; and the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory Group. Among the LGUs that have received ISO certification are the city governments of Angeles, Makati, San Fernando, and Puerto Princesa. The drive for quality improvement is spreading as more agencies are in the process of getting certified.
20.4.3.6 Local Government Initiatives
The Local Government Code of 1991 has empowered LGUs to engage in programs and activities that would promote local development and improvement in the lives of local residents. This heightened awareness for the need to develop a way of assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of LGUs in performing their functions. Among the instruments developed over the years are the Minimum Basic Needs approach (MBN), which measures the presence or absence of basic services and facilities and their impact on residents; the Local Productivity and Performance Measurement System (LPPMS), a self-assessment system that measures performance by measuring the multisectoral impact and presence of LGU services, facilities, programs, and projects (e.g., health, education, waste management); and the Local Governance Performance Management Systems (LGPMS), also a self-assessment of impact and services with emphasis on good governance. While the MBN is a profiling tool, the LPPMS and the LGPMS are combinations of input, output, and outcome indicators.
The LGPMS has a total of 46 input indicators, 51 output indicators, and 25 outcome indicators. It serves to benchmark local government performance against established standards and and provide national policy makers with vital information on the state of local development. The LGPMS website was not in operation in 2008 owing to a system malfunction, but is now operational and has better features. Basic facts and fi gures about a specific LGU are just a click away. It includes summaries of State of Local Governance Performance and some other quick statistics. More than just a database for profi ling, it has the capability of processing data electronically to interpret the LGPMS results. The Department of Interior and Local Government advocates the use of the LGPMS to strengthen the culture of performance management among LGUs.
20.5 Conclusion
Over the past decade, the introduction of PEM as the performance management framework at the national level and other initiatives at the agency level are linking individual, collective, and agency objectives to sectoral and national goals. The problem of developing indicators and measuring performance at the individual, agency, and LGU levels still needs further attention, but the shift to results-based management is gaining ground in the Philippines.
Performance management and good governance have parallel objectives—the attainment of development goals through efficient, effective, transparent, accountable, and participatory delivery of public goods and services. To be sure, there will continue to be new and more challenges in strengthening institutions, eliminating inefficiencies, and satisfying a public that has become increasingly activist. The recent economic crisis in the United States indicates that a “minimalist state” is not necessarily the desirable reform measure for government. NPM methods are proving useful in the Philippines for the moment, but the government must be open to discover new methodologies to achieve optimum results.
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
418 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
References
Abueva, J.V. (ed.). 1969. Perspectives in Government Reorganization. Manila: U.P. College of Public Administration.
———. 1970. “What Are We in Power For?: The Sociology of Graft and Corruption.” Philippine Sociological Review, Vol. 18, pp. 203–10.
Alfiler, Ma. Concepcion P. 1979. “Administrative Measures Against Bureaucratic Corruption: The Philippine Experience.” Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 22, pp. 321–49.
Boncodin, E.T. 2003. “Governance and Institutional Reforms in the Public Sector.” In Bautista, V.A., Alfiler, Ma. Concepcion A., Reyes, D.R. and Tapales P.D. (eds.). Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader (2nd edition). Quezon City: NCPAG, pp. 568–76.
———. 2004. Introducing Results-Based Approaches into Public Sector Management Processes: The Philippine Experience. Paper presented during the 2nd International Roundtable on Management for Development Results, Marrakech, Morocco, February 5, 2004.
Brillantes, A.B, Jr. 1993. “Decentralization in the Philippines: An Overview.” In Bautista, V.A., Alfiler, Ma. Concepcion A., Reyes, D.R. and Tapales P.D. (eds.). Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader (1st edition). Quezon City: NCPAG, pp. 368–81.
———. 2003. “Decentralized Democratic Governance Under the Local Government Code: A Governmental Perspective.” In Bautista, V.A., Alfiler, Ma. Concepcion A., Reyes, D.R. and Proserpina, D. Tapales (eds.). Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader (2nd edition). Quezon City: NCPAG, pp. 324–43.
Briones, L.M. 2003. “Fiscal and Monetary Policies as Constraints to Development.” In Bautista, V.A., Alfiler, Ma. Concepcion A., Reyes, D.R. and Tapales P.D. (eds.). Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader (2nd edition). Quezon City: NCPAG, pp. 554–67.
Carague, G.N. 2004. “The Management of Audit.” In Domingo, Ma. Oliva (ed.). The Civil Service Commission and the Commission on Audit: Self-Assessments and Alternative Views and Assessments (2001–1004). Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, pp. 46–58.
———. 2009. “Reinventing the Commission on Audit.” In Domingo, Ma. Oliva (ed.). The Leadership and Governance of Constitutional Commissions: Self-Assessments and Alternative Views and Assessments (2004–2007). Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, pp. 73–84.
Carino, L.V. (ed.). 1986. Bureaucratic Corruption in Asia: Causes, Consequences and Controls. Manila: University of the Philippines College of Public Administration.
Carlos, C.R. 2004. Towards Bureaucratic Reforms: Issues and Challenges. Makati City: Konrad Adenauer Foundation.
Civil Service Commission (CSC). 2007. “Installation of Performance Management System (PMS) in the Civil Service.” Memorandum Circular No. 07, s. 2007. (11 April 2007). Quezon City: Philippine Civil Service Commission.
Cola, R.M. 1993. “Reorganizing the Administrative System: Groundworking, Planning and Legislation.” In Bautista, V.A., Alfiler, Ma. Concepcion A., Reyes, D.R. and Tapales P.D. (eds.). Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader (1st edition). Quezon City: UP CPA, pp. 382–425.
David, K.C. 2004. “Rebuilding the Integrity of the Bureaucracy.” In Domingo, Ma. Oliva Z. (ed.). The Civil Service Commission and the Commission on Audit: Self-Assessments and Alternative Views and Assessments (2001–1004). Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, pp. 1–18.
———. 2009. “Rebuilding the Integrity of the Bureaucracy.” In Domingo, Ma. Oliva Z. (ed.). The Leadership and Governance of Constitutional Commissions: Self-Assessments and Alternative Views and Assessments (2004–2007). Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, pp. 1–21.
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) 2008. National Guidelines on Internal Control Systems.
Manila: Department of Budget and Management.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S. and Tinkler, J. 2006. “New Public Management is Dead—Long Live Digital-Era Governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 467–94. Originally published online on September 8, 2005.
Endriga, J.N. 1979. “Historical Notes on Graft and Corruption in the Philippines.” Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol. XXIII, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 241–54.
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Performance Management Reforms in the Philippines 419
Ewalt, J.A.G. 2001. “Theories of Governance and New Public Management: Links to Understanding Welfare Policy Implementation.” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association of Public Administration, Newark, NJ, March 12.
Executive Order 292 (The Philippine Administrative Code), 1987.
Fernandez, M.A.Z. 2004. “Managing the Fight Against Corruption through Partnerships among Government Agencies and with Civil Society: The Philippine Experience.” Asian Review of Public Administration, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 91–99.
Government of the Philippines, World Bank, and Asian Development Bank. 2003. Philippines: Improving Government Performance: Discipline, E ciency, and Equity in Managing Public Resources. Manila: Government of the Philippines, World Bank, and Asian Development Bank.
Haque, M.S. 2006. “Modernising Government: The Way Forward—An Analysis.” International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 72, pp. 319–25.
Heppell, M. 2008. Pacific Choice: Improving Government. Metro Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Hjern, B. and Porter, D. 1981 “Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative Analysis.” Organization Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 211–27.
Hood, C. and Peters, G. 2004. “The Middle Aging of New Public Management: Into the Age of Paradox?”
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 267–82.
Larbi, G.A. 1999. The New Public Management Approach and Crisis States. Nations Research Institute for Social Development Discussion (UNRISD) Paper No. 112. Geneva: USRISD. September.
Legaspi, P.E. 2006. “Reorganization as a Civil Service Reform in the Philippines.” Asian Review of Public Administration, Vol. 18, Nos. 1 & 2, pp. 127–55.
Light, P. 2005. The Four Pillars of High Performance: How Robust Organizations Achieve Extraordinary Results. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lynn, L.E., Jr. 1996. “The New Public Management: How to Transform a Theme into a Legacy.” Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 231–37.
Mangahas, J.V. 1993. “A Study of Size, Growth and Rationalization of the Bureaucracy.” Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol. XXXVII, No. 3, pp. 201–38.
Mathiasen, D. 1996. “The New Public Management and Its Critics.” Paper presented at the Conference on the New Public Management in International Perspective, St. Gallen, Switzerland, July 11–13.
Mendoza, M.F.V. 2003. “Privatization, the Role of the State and the Future of Governing.” In V.A. Bautista, Alfiler, Ma. Concepcion A., Reyes, D.R. and Tapales P.D. (eds.). Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader. NCPAG: Quezon City, pp. 614–42.
Monsod, T.C. “The Philippine Bureaucracy; Incentive Structures and Implications for Performance.” HDN Discussion Paper Series. PHDDR Issue: 208/2009 No. 4. Human Development Network.
National College of Public Administration and Governance. 2005. Reinventing, Reengineering and Reorganizing the Bureaucracy: Why Should We More Hopeful. Working Paper Series No. 1. National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines Diliman, March 2005.
National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). 2001. The Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan 2001–2004. Manila: National Economic and Development Authority.
———. 2004. The Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan 2004–2010. Manila: National Economic and Development Authority.
Office of the Ombudsman, Republic of the Philippines. 2004. Compilation of Laws on Graft and Corruption. Manila: Office of the Ombudsman.
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 1998. Public Expenditure Management Improvement in the Philippines: Efforts Initiated and the Envisioned Reforms.
Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. 1992. Reinventing Government: How The Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Penguin and Plume.
Peters, B.G. and Pierre, J. 1998. “Governance without Government? Rethinking Public Administration.”
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 223–243.
Presidential Committee on Streamlining the Bureaucracy (DBM). 1995. Re-engineering the Bureaucracy for Better Governance: Principles and Parameters. Manila: Department of Budget and Management.
Pollitt, C. 2001. “Integrating Financial Management and Performance Management.” OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 7–37
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
420 Public Administration in Southeast Asia
Pollitt, C. and Buckaert, G. 2003. “Evaluating Public Management Reforms: An International Perspective.” In Wollmann, Hellmut (ed.). Evaluation in Public Sector Reform: Concepts and Practice in International Perspective, Chapter 2. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
———. 2004. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Republic of the Philippines (RP). 1986. “Proclaiming and Launching a Program for the Expeditious Disposition and Privatization of Certain Government Corporations and/or the Assets thereof, and Creating the Committee on Privatization and the Asset Privatization Trust.” Proclamation No. 50. (December 15, 1986).
———.1989. “An Act Establishing a Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, to Uphold the Time-Honored Principle of Public Office being a Public Trust, Granting Incentives and Rewards for Exemplary Service, Enumerating Prohibited Acts and Transactions and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof and for Other Purposes.” Republic Act No. 6713. (February 20, 1989).
———.1991. “An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of the Philippines.” Republic Act No. 7160. (October 10, 1991).
———.1992. “An Act Providing for Optimum Utilization of Personnel in Government Service through a System of Attrition, Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof, and for Other Purposes .” Republic Act No. 7430. (April 15, 1992).
———.1999. “Directing the Formulation of an Institutional Strengthening and Streamlining Program for the Executive Branch.” Executive Order No. 165. (October 19, 1999).
———.2000. “Creating the National Anti-Corruption Commission and Abolishing the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption Created Under Executive Order 151, S. 1994, as Amended.”
Executive Order No. 268. (July 18, 2000).
———.2003. “An Act Providing for the Modernization, Standardization and Regulation of the Procurement Activities of the Government and for Other Purposes.” Republic Act No. 9184. (January 10, 2003).
———.2004. “Directing a Strategic Review of the Operations and Organizations of the Executive Branch and Providing Options and Incentives for Government Employees Who May be Affected by the Rationalization of the Functions and Agencies of the Executive Branch.” Executive Order No. 366. (October 4, 2004).
———.2007. “Institutionalizing the Structure, Mechanisms and Standards to Implement the Government Quality Management Program, Amending for the Purpose Administrative Order No 161, s. 2006.”
Executive Order No. 605. (February 23, 2007).
Republic Act 6713 (Code of Ethics and Standards), February, 1989 and the Civil Service Commission Implementing Guidelines, April 1989.
Reyes, D.R. 1982. “Control Processes and Red Tape in Philippine Bureaucracy: Notes on Administrative Inefficiency.” Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 26, Nos. 2 & 4, pp. 271–85.
———.1994. “Reinventing Government and Bureaucracy in the Philippines: Old Themes and a New Image?” Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 77–97.
———.1996. “Reinventing the Decentralization Equation: An Entrepreneurial Government at the Local Levels?” In Kurosawa, S., Fujiwara T. and Reforma M. (eds.). New Trends in Public Administration for the Asia-Pacific Region: Decentralization. Tokyo: Local Autonomy College and EROPA, pp. 255–70.
———.1998. “Public Sector Reengineering: Practice, Problems and Prospects.” Philippine Journal of Public Administration, XLII, No. 3, pp. 184–202.
———.2009. “Public Sector Reform and the Agenda of Good Governance: Lessons in Times of Adversity.” Paper presented at the 22nd General Assembly and Conference of the Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration, Inc. (EROPA), October 19–23, 2009, Seoul, Korea. (Forthcoming publication in the Asian Review for Public Administration).
Schiavo-Campo, S., de Tommaso, G. and Mukherjee, A. 1997. “Government Employment and Pay: A Global and Regional Perspective.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 1771. (May 1977). http://ssrn.com/abstract=623924.
Senate of the Philippines. 2005. “Reengineering the Bureaucracy: Issues and Problems.” Policy Insights. Senate Planning Office. PI-02-05 (April 2005).
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
Performance Management Reforms in the Philippines 421
———. 2007. Sustaining the Momentum Making Growth Work for the Poor: A Proposed Legislative Agenda for the 14th Congress. Senate Economic Planning Office, Senate of the Philippines. December.
Sta. Ana, F.S. III. 1996. “Reengineering the Bureaucracy, Philippine Style.” Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 40, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 217–30.
Sto. Tomas, P. 1992. “The Civil Service Commission: A Self-Assessment.” In Abueva, J.V. and Roman, E.R. (eds.). The Post-EDSA Constitutional Commissions: Self-Assessments and External Views and Assessments. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, pp. 5–22.
———. 2003. “The Philippine Bureaucracy: A Question of Numbers.” In Bautista, V.A. Alfiler, Ma. Concepcion A., Reyes, D.R. and Tapales P.D. (eds.). Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader (2nd edition). NCPAG: Quezon City, pp. 415–37.
Stoker, G. 1998. “Governance as Theory: Five Propositions.” International Social Science Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 17–28.
Terry, L. 1998. “Administrative Leadership, Neo-Managerialism, and the Public Management Movement.”
Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 194–200.
Tillah, M. 2005. “Globalization, Redemocratization and the Philippine Bureaucracy.” Discussion Paper Series No 2005-09. Makati, Philippines: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 1997. “Administrative Reform in Asia: The Philippine Experience.” In Administrative Reforms: Country Profiles of Five Asian Countries. ST/YCD/ SER.E/55. UNDESA.
Van de Walle, S. 2008. “What Services are Public? What Aspects of Performance are to be Ranked? The Case of ‘Services of General Interest.’” International Public Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 256–74.
Von Einsedel, N. 2006. Philippines: Performance Measurement at the Local Level (Final Report). Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Weick, K.E. and Sutcliffe, K.M. 2001. Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity. New York: Wiley.
World Economic Forum. Various. www.weforum.org.
Yamamoto, H. 2003. “New Public Management—Japan’s Practice.” IIPS Policy Paper 293E, January. Japan: Institute for International Policy Studies.
© 2011 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC