The 1991 Local Government Code of the Philippines brought about a far-reaching transfer of authority and resources to its local governments. Despite bringing benefits to the nation as a whole, and to the individual local governments, devolution has also had some negative consequences. Although regional disparities were present in the country prior to devolution, their recent rise has coincided with the implementation of devolution. Regional disparities are analyzed in relation to general macroeconomic policies and trends, such as industrial policy and increased trade, and particular socioeconomic features of the Philippines, such as the significance of investments and migration. These policies and trends, coupled with faulty transfer systems and differing levels of efficiency and capacity, suggest that devolution is hampering the pursuit of regional equity. Hence it is concluded that, although many factors are resonsible for the spatial inequities, devolution in its present form plays a direct and interactive part in preserving and/or promoting regional disparities in the country.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbuevaJ, 1997, “Philippine democratization and the consolidation of democracy since the 1986 Revolution: An overview of the main issues, trends, and prospects”, in Democratization: Philippine Perspectives Ed. MirandaF, (University of the Philippines Press, Quezon City) pp 1–82.
2.
AkaiNSakataM, 2002, “Fiscal decentralization contributes to economic growth: Evidence from state-level cross-section data for the United States”Journal of Urban Economics5293–108.
3.
AzfarOKähkönenSLanyiAMeagherPRuthefordD, 1999, “Decentralisation governance and public services: The impact of institutional arrangements”, WP 255, Centre for Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
4.
AzizAArnoldD, 1996Decentralised Governance in Asian Countries (Sage, New Delhi).
5.
BalisacanAPerniaE, 2002, “Probing beneath cross-national averages: Poverty, inequality, and growth in the Philippines”, WP 7 ERD, Asian Development Bank, Manila.
6.
BrillantesAJr, 1996, “Local governance and decentralisation: The Philippine experience”, in Decentralised Governance in Asian Countries Eds AzizAArnoldD, (Sage, New Delhi) pp 197–215.
7.
BrillantesAJr, 1997, “Local governments in a democratizing polity: Trends and prospects”, in Democratization: Philippine Perspectives Ed. MirandaF, (University of the Philippines Press, Quezon City) pp 83–114.
8.
BrillantesAJr, 1998, “Decentralized democratic governance under the local government code: A governmental perspective”Philippine Journal of Public Administration42(1–2) 38–57.
9.
BulosanL, 2000, “Eight years of tracking decentralization in the Philippines: A meta-synopsis of the ten rapid field appraisals on decentralization”, unpublished summary report, Associates in Regional Development, Governance and Local Democracy Project, US Agency for International Development, PNB Financial Center, Pasay City, Manila.
10.
CapunoJ, 2002, “Philippines”, in Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers in Asia: Current Practice and Challenges for the Future Eds SmokePKimY H, Asian Development Bank, Manila, pp 219–282.
11.
CapunoJManuelTSalvadorB, 2001, “Estimating the IRA, centrally provided local public goods and services and other central fiscal transfers”, report submitted to the National Economic and Development Authority, Pasig City, Manila.
12.
ChalkN, 2001, “Tax incentives in the Philippines: A regional perspective”, WP 01/181, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
13.
CheshireP CGordonI, 1998, “Territorial competition: Some lessons for policy”Annals of Regional Science32321–346.
14.
CorveraA, 2004, “Are Filipinos ready for charter change”The Philippine Star 13 August.
15.
DavoodiHZouH, 1998, “Fiscal decentralization and economic growth: A cross-country study”Journal of Urban Economics43244–257.
16.
De DiosEDioknoBEsguerraEFabellaRGochoco-BautistaM SMedallaFMonsodSPerniaEResideRJrSicatGTanE, 2004, “The deepening crisis: The real score on deficits and the public debt”, DP 2004-09, School of Economics, University of the Philippines, Manila.
17.
DeMelloL, 2000, “Fiscal decentralization and intergovernmental fiscal relations: A cross-country analysis”World Development28365–380.
18.
DollarDKraayA, 2004, “Trade, growth, and poverty”The Economic Journal114493F22–F49.
GersonP, 1998, “Poverty, income distribution, and economic policy in the Phillipines”, WP 98/20, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
21.
CanaletaC GilArzozP PascualGárateM, 2004, “Regional economic disparities and decentralisation”Urban Studies4171–94.
22.
GuevaraM, 2000, “Decentralization and economic development: The Philippine experience”Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics4197–109.
23.
GuevaraMGraciaJFigueroaEspanoM, 1995, “A study of the internal revenue allotments to local governments”, study conducted for the Associates in Rural Development, US Agency for International Development, PNB Financial Center, Pasay City, Manila.
24.
HendersonCSilvaJ, 2002, “‘The Philippines’ call center industry”, policy paper, Asian Institute of Management Policy Center, Manila.
25.
HillH, 2002, “Spatial disparities in developing East Asia: A survey”Asian Pacific Economic Literature16(1) 10–35.
26.
International Monetary Fund, various years Government Finance StatisticsInternational Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
27.
IshamJKähkönenS, 1999, “What determines the effectiveness of community-based water projects? Evidence from Central Java, Indonesia on demand responsiveness, service rules, and social capital”, mimeo, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
28.
KimYSmokeP, 2002, “The role and challenges of intergovernmental transfers in Asia”, in Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers in Asia: Current Practice and Challenges for the Future Eds KimYSmokeP, Asian Development Bank, Manila, pp 1–19.
29.
KrugmanP, 1991Geography and Trade (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).
30.
LitvackJAhmadJBirdR, 1998, “Rethinking decentralisation in developing countries”Sector Studies Series 21491 (World Bank, Washington, DC).
31.
LounganiP, 2000, “Equity, growth, and economic policies”, in Philippines: Toward Sustainable and Rapid Growth OP 187, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC, pp 108–115.
32.
MaJ, 1997, “Intergovernmental fiscal transfers in nine countries: Lessons for developing countries”, Policy Research WP 1822, World Bank, Washington, DC.
33.
Macapagal-ArroyoG, President of the Republic of the Philippines, 2001, speech during the 1st Philippine Local Governance Congress, Department of Interior and Local Government, Manila, http://www.opnet.ops.gov.ph/speech-2001oct10.htm.
34.
MakabentaM, 2002, “FDI location and special economic zones in the Philippines”Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies14(1) 59–77.
35.
MarkusenA, 1994, “American federalism and regional policy”International Regional Science Review163–15.
36.
Martínez-VázquezJMcNabR M, 2003, “Fiscal decentralization and economic growth”World Development311597–1616.
37.
MercadoR, 2002, “Regional development in the Philippines: A review of experience, state of the art and agenda for research and action”, DP 2002–03, Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Manila.
National Statistics Coordination Board, 2002Philippine Statistical YearbookNational Statistics Coordination Board, Republic of the Philippines, Manila.
40.
OatesW, 1972Fiscal Federalism (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York).
41.
OtsukaKCordovaVDavidC, 1992, “Green revolution, land reform, and household income distribution in the Philippines”Economic Development and Cultural Change40719–741.
42.
PaluzieE, 2001, “Trade policy and regional inequalities”Papers in Regional Science80(1) 67–86.
RoddenJ, 2002, “The dilemma of fiscal federalism: Grants and fiscal performance around the world”American Journal of Political Science46670–687.
48.
RoddenJ, 2003, “Bailouts and perverse incentives in the Brazilian states”, in Fiscal Decentralization and the Challenge of Hard Budget Constraints Eds RoddenJEskelandGLitvackJ, (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 213–248.
49.
Rodriguez-PoseABwireA, 2004, “The economic (in)efficiency of devolution”Environment and Planning A361907–1928.
50.
Rodriguez-PoseAGillN, 2003, “The global trend towards devolution and its implications”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy21333–351.
51.
Rodriguez-PoseAGillN, 2004a, “Is there a global linkk between regional disparities and devolution?”Environment and Planning A362097–2117.
52.
Rodriguez-PoseAGillN, 2004b, “Reassessing relations between the centre and the states: The challenge for the Brazilian administration”Regional Studies38833–844.
53.
RoodS, 1997, “Researching decentralized governance”, in Democratization: Philippine Perspectives Ed. MirandaF, (University of the Philippines Press, Quezon City) pp 303–324.
54.
SarelM, 1997, “How macroeconomic factors affect income distribution: The cross-country evidence”, WP 97/152, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.
55.
SchroederLSmokeP, 2002, “Intergovernmental fiscal transfers: Concepts, international practice and policy issues”, in Intergovernmental Fiscal Transfers in Asia: Current Practice and Challenges for the Future Eds KimY HSmokeP, Asian Development Bank, Manila, pp 20–59.
56.
SenA, 1999, “Economic policy and equity: An overview”, in Economic Policy & Equity Eds TanziVChuKGuptaS, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC, pp 28–43.
57.
ShahA, 1994, “The reform of intergovernmental fiscal relations in developing and emerging market economies”, Policy and Research Series 23, World Bank, Washington, DC.
58.
SummersL, 1999, “Equity in a global economy”, in Economic Policy and Equity Eds TanziVChuKGuptaS, (International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC).
59.
TieboutC, 1956, “A pure theory of local expenditures”Journal of Political Economy64416–424.
World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Government of the Philippines, 2003Improving Government Performance: Discipline, Efficiency and Equity in Managing Public Resources: A Public Expenditure, Procurement and Financial Management Review (World Bank, Washington, DC).
62.
ZhangTZhouH F, 2001, “The growth impact of intersectoral and intergovernmental allocation of public expenditure: With applications to China and India”China Economic Review1258–81.
