Imperial Manila: How institutions and political geography disadvantage Philippine provinces

Abstract

Critics of Philippine democracy have pointed out that the unitary system employed since the country became a sovereign state in 1946 led to the prolonged underdevelopment of sub-national regions (provinces). Hence, policy makers have put forward the argument that a shift to a Federal system is necessary because of the imperial Manila syndrome. This is the notion that political, economic, and social underdevelopment is more prevalent the farther away a province is from the capital, Metro-Manila, which has been a longstanding theory of ‘core-periphery’ dynamics in political geography. Using sub-national data derived from Philippine provinces, the study finds that provinces farther away from Manila in terms of geodesic distance are indeed disadvantaged not only in terms of economic, poverty, and human development indicators, but also in terms of dependence on internal revenue allotments which inhibits local growth. Physical distance from the capital also decreases rural funds for provincial development. The implications suggest that a Federal arrangement can promote peripheral growth and development, but it certainly is not a panacea.