This article examines the devolution of social welfare services in the Philippines, focusing on its ideological underpinnings and implications for social welfare. It argues that the devolution resulted in a policy environment that allows for varying levels of social support across municipalities and, consequently, the fragmentation of Filipino citizenship.
AmornvivatS. (2004) ‘Fiscal Decentralization: The Case of Thailand’, International symposium on Fiscal Decentralization in Asia Revisited, 20–21 February, Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo.
2.
Asia Development Consultants (1997) Delivery of Social Welfare Services After the Devolution and Factors Affecting This. Manila: Asia Development Consultants.
3.
Asian Development Bank, United Kingdom Department for International Development and World Bank (2004) Devolution in Pakistan. Islamabad: Asian Development Bank, United Kingdom Department for International Development and World Bank.
4.
BautistaV.A. (2001) ‘Challenges to Sustaining Primary Health Care in the Philippines’, Public Policy 5(2): 87–127.
5.
BorlagdanS.GabroninoG.TraemaA. (1993) ‘Health Service Delivery: Issues, Problems and Prospects of Devolution’, Philippine Journal of Public Administration37(1): 42–55.
6.
BrillantesA. (1998a) ‘Decentralized Democratic Governance Under the Local Government Code: A Governmental Perspective’, Philippine Journal of Public Administration42(1&2): 38–57.
7.
BrillantesA. (1998b) ‘Global Forces and Local Government in the Philippines: Challenges and Responses’, Philippine Journal of Public Administration42(3&4): 321–9.
8.
BrodjonegoroB. (2004) ‘Three Years of Fiscal Decentralization in Indonesia: Its Impact on Regional Economic Development and Fiscal Sustainability’, International Symposium on Fiscal Decentralization in Asia Revisited, 20–21 February, Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo.
9.
CarsonE.WadhamB. (2001) ‘Regionalism and Contractualism: When Principles Collide’, Just Policy24: 3–11.
10.
ChristensenT.LægreidP., eds (2002) New Public Management: The Transformation of Ideas and Practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.
11.
Congressional Commission on Health (1993) Health for All: A Legislative Agenda. Manila: The Philippine Congress.
12.
CuaresmaJ.C. (1997) ‘Transforming Local Finance’, Philippine Journal of Public Administration41(1–4): 239–76.
13.
De LeonC.A.G. (1998) ‘Devolution of Social Services: Issues and Concerns’, Philippine Journal of Social Work1: 19–24.
14.
Del PradoG.DiwaB.EstabilloV.B.LorenzoF.M.SantosB.SiaI.C. (1999) ‘Public Service Reforms and Their Impact on Health Sector Personnel in the Philippines’, in Public Sector Reforms and Their Impact on Health Sector Personnel: Case Studies on Cameroon, Colombia, Jordan, Philippines, Poland, Uganda, pp. 152–83. Geneva: International Labour Organization and World Health Organization.
15.
IglesiasG.U. (1986) ‘Empowerment and Local Government Autonomy’, Philippine Journal of Public Administration30(3): 278–85.
16.
IlagoS.A. (1997) ‘Local Government Transformation: Glimpses from the Local Finance Literature Under the 1991 Local Government Code’, Philippine Journal of Public Administration41(1–4): 229–38.
17.
McBrideS.McNuttK. (2007) ‘Devolution and Neoliberalism in the Canadian Welfare State: Ideology, National and International Conditioning Frameworks, and Policy Change in British Columbia’, Global Social Policy7(2): 177–201.
18.
MagnoC. (2001) ‘The Devolution of Agricultural and Health Services’, in Social Watch – Philippines 2001 Report, pp. 34–48. Quezon City: Social Watch – Philippines.
19.
MooneyG.ScottG.WilliamsC. (2006) ‘Introduction: Rethinking Social Policy through Devolution’, Critical Social Policy26(3): 483–97.
20.
PadillaP.L. (1998) ‘Decentralization to Enhance Sustainable and Equitable Socioeconomic Development’, Philippine Journal of Public Administration47(1&2): 83–95.
21.
PimentelA.Q.Jr (1993) The Local Government Code of 1991: The Key to National Development. Manila: Cacho Publishing.
22.
PobladorN.S. (2000) ‘Devolution and Public Sector Governance: A Critical Reappraisal’, Philippine Journal of Public Administration44(3&4): 105–26.
23.
Rodríguez-PoseA.BwireA. (2004) ‘The Economic (In)efficiency of Devolution’, Environment and Planning A36: 1907–28.
24.
Rodríguez-PoseA.GillN. (2003) ‘The Global Trend towards Devolution and its Implications’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy21(3): 333–51.
25.
Rodríguez-PoseA.GillN. (2004) ‘Is There a Global Link between Regional Disparities and Devolution?’, Environment and Planning A36: 2097–117.
26.
SchneiderR.L.NettingF.E. (1999) ‘Influencing Social Policy in a Time of Devolution: Upholding Social Work’s Great Tradition’, Social Work44(4): 349–57.
27.
SilvaJ.A. (2005) ‘Devolution and Regional Disparities in the Philippines: Is There a Connection?’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy23(3): 399–417.
28.
Spies-ButcherB. (2002) ‘Tracing the Rational Choice Origins of Social Capital: Is Social Capital a Neo-liberal “Trojan Horse”?’, Australian Journal of Social Issues37(2): 173–92.
29.
TapalesP.D. (1992) ‘Devolution and Empowerment: LGC 1991 and Local Autonomy in the Philippines’, Philippine Journal of Public Administration36(2): 101–14.
30.
WoodsK.J. (2004) ‘Political Devolution and the Health Services in Great Britain’, International Journal of Health Services34(2): 323–39.
