Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Asian Journal of Public Administration Vol
Asian Journal of Public Administration Vol
Introduction
Development administration is an emerging interdisciplinary field of scholarly research.
Although some academics argue that the practice of development administration could be traced
as far back as the history of man on this planet, the available literature indicates that the
integrated and systematic study of this field began to flourish only after World War II. This was
a period in history when most nations, rich and poor, initiated systematic programmes of
economic development and social and political change. Being a multidisciplinary field, the study
of development administration has evolved with conceptual influences from a variety of
established disciplines (for example, economics, geography, management, sociology,
psychology, political science, health, biology, and engineering). An analysis of development
administration theory has revolved over three rather distinct approaches — each with its own
theoretical underpinnings and each with its own concepts of success and failure. Since
development administration is closely tied to concepts of political economy, both economists and
political scientists have played a role in defining the scope and focus of this process.
This article concludes with some conceptual and practical constraints on which present and
future public health care managers and providers should reflect.
According to these same development writers, the establishment of an active state and a system
of centralised planning is needed to overcome the dysfunctions associated with "late
industrialisation."
Because most Third World countries lack an industrialised sector relative to the advanced
developed countries, it is believed that a strong state apparatus is needed to protect the interests
of the indigenous capitalist class. Indeed, a large part of the industrialisation process would be
carried out and financed by the state itself. Yet in the case of most Third World societies, the
state was perceived to be more an instrument of foreign capital and its local surrogates.
2. Dependency perspective
Andre Gunder Frank, Johan Galtung, Enzo Faletto, Paul Baran, and Fernando Cardoso argued
for a Neomarxist perspective for stimulating development. Frank's research findings on Latin
America emboldened him to argue against Sen and the other mainstream development
economists along the following lines: underdevelopment and undevelopment are two different
concepts because the presently developed countries were never underdeveloped, though they
may have been undeveloped; underdevelopment is not an internal condition; the mainstream
thesis of a dualist society put forward by Arthur Lewis and stages of linear economic growth
proposed by Walt Whitman Rostow and Harrod-Domar are false; - contemporary
underdevelopment is in large part a product of past and continuing economic, political, and
social relations between the underdeveloped satellite and the developed metropolitan countries;
and satellites have been observed to develop faster when their ties with the metropole (highly
developed countries) are weakest.5
Frank concluded that development would be most effective if the satellite "delinks" itself from
the metropole. For Frank, the mechanics of how to effectively delink is the main issue in each
Third World nation because each of them has different degrees of political, economic, and social
links with the metropole. Compared to Frank's Neomarxist prescription, a classical Marxist
would probably see domestic social revolution as the initial step to delinking. Despite their
differences, it seems that development economists from the mainstream, Neomarxist, and
classical Marxist perspectives all agree that a centrally planned economic system is necessary to
propel development.
3. Administrative Synthesis
In the 1960s, the goal of development administration all over the world was based upon planned
economic growth.6 In separate studies, Montgomery and Milne noted that if development was to
occur it was supposed to be manifested as planned changes in the economy (in agriculture or
industry, or the capital infrastructure supporting either one) and, to a lesser extent, in the social
services of the nation-state (especially education and public health). 7 Several authors followed
with their own parallel arguments on the need for a centrally planned development
administration. Friedman argued that planned change should include two components: the
implementation of programmes designed to bring about modernity; and changes within an
administrative system which would increase its capacity to implement such programmes.
Inayatullah argued that development administiation is supposed to be carried out with a heavy
emphasis on planning by public authorities in order to succeed in attaining socio-economic goals
and nation-building. One of the leading authorities during the 1960s, Fred Riggs argued that
long-term development changes are the result of collective decisions organised in a cohesive
plan and implemented through a western-oriented system of administration. According to G.
Starling, development planners used this capital accumulation-based economic growth plan to
survey current economic conditions and the social situation; to evaluate preceding plans; to state
new objectives, estimates of growth, suggested measures to raise growth rate; and produce a
revised programme of government expenditures.
Predominant Management System
As implied by the discussion above, the most common development management system
prescribed by development experts to complement this economic objective was the utilisation of
strong centralised control and supervision over all development endeavours through the nation-
state's administrative bureaucracy. The centralisation of goveminent refers to the dominant role
taken by the central, as opposed to the local, administrative units (for example, municipalities
and village communities). Centralisation manifests itself in the governmental bureaucracy
adopting the roles of revenue collector, distributor of financial aid to local units, creator of
standards to be followed by local governments, and implementor of services throughout its
territorial jurisdiction by means of central government officials. Strong executive leadership
frequently complements these centralisation traits.
Development administrators believed that using this centralised management system would
enable countries, which had just gained independence from their colonial masters, to harness
their scarce resources towards the goal of acquiring much needed capital. In addition,
centralisation of control was prescribed by international financial institutions as part of their
assistance package towards modernisation. Policy-makers in these international financial
institutions thought comprehensive national planning orchestrated by the state would direct the
resource-allocation of the country into appropriate investment areas. Some of the investment
areas they had in mind were: export-oriented industrialisation, import-substitution
industrialisation, agricultural exports, and raw materials export.13
Centralisation in the Philippines
A centrally planned economic system was already in place in the Philippines as early as the
1600s. The Spaniards were the first to establish an administrative system that unified the
Philippine Islands. Through the traditional hacienda system, the Spaniards established massive
plantations that produced coffee, sugar, and spices for consumption in Europe. Spain utilised this
economic system to exploit the resources of the Philippines until the late 1800s. After losing the
Spanish-American War, Spain was forced to cede the Philippines to the United States under the
Treaty of Paris in 1898. The Americans continued the concept of a centrally planned economic
system, focusing however on their own interests. The Americans saw the Philippines as a source
of raw materials and a market for American- finished products. In addition, the Philippines was
established as a base for penetrating the growing Asian markets in China, Japan, India, and the
Middle East. The United States lost the Philippines to Japan during the Second World War.
Under the Japanese, the centrally oriented economic system in the Philippines was again used to
channel much needed resources to another nation. On July 4,1946, in accordance with the
provisions of the Tydings-McDuffie Independence Act, the Philippines was granted
independence by the United States of America. Filipino administrators found themselves faced
with responsibilities far greater than they had envisioned. The Second World War had left the
Philippines with severe economic and physical destruction. Within months after the declaration
of independence, Filipinos found themselves requesting development assistance from the United
States. In 1950, the Philippines asked the United States to send a survey mission "to recommend
measures that will enable the Philippines to become and to remain self-supporting." 14 In response
to this request, the American government sent a team of elite consultants headed by Daniel Bell.
The Bell mission provided a very dismal picture of the economic and political realities of the
Philippines. The Bell mission made numerous recommendations in response to this post-War
situation.
Following the logic of the current thought on administrative reform, they recommended the
revival and enhancement of the centralised administrative system, which was established before
the granting of independence. The Bell mission noted that the Philippines inherited from their
American colonisers a "reasonably well-organised administration and a well-trained civil
service," but the war and the disarray that followed made it difficult to restore the administrative
efficiency it used to enjoy.15 A centralised administrative bureaucracy recommended by the Bell
mission would facilitate the political and economic rebuilding of the country. Based on these
recommendations, the Philippines adapted a planned economy heavily geared towards the
exportation of agricultural products and raw materials. The trade-off for development financing
to the Philippines was the establishment of American military bases in selected strategic
locations around the country.
Politically, the Philippines responded to the Bell mission recommendations by establishing the
Government Survey and Reorganisation Committee (GSRC) under the Philippine Republic Act
No. 997.
The GSRC was tasked with the recentralisation of the administrative bureaucracy based on the
specifications it had before the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. The GSRC conducted
evaluations and made organisational adjustments to government agencies pertaining to
agriculture and natural resources, commerce and industry, economic planning, education and
culture, health, labour, public works and communications, revenue system and statistics, and
allied research. This marriage between centralisation and planned development was clearly
manifested in the high priority given to the reorganisation of the National Economic Council, the
central planning body of the Philippine government. The prescriptions of development experts
for reforming the Philippine administrative system clearly reflected the dominant trend in
American public administration, which was the creation of a Weberian notion of bureaucracy. In
addition, the GSRC subdivided the country into eight geographic regions: Region I (Dagupan
City); Region II (Tuguegarao, Cagayan); Region III (Manila); Region IV (Naga City); Region V
(Iloilo City); Region VI (Cebu City); Region VII (Zamboanga City); and Region VIII (Davao
City).
The guiding principles of the National Economic Council were used as the main blueprint for
development planning in the various regional development bodies that were created. These
regional development entities were the Mindanao Development Authority and the Central Luzon
Cagayan Valley Authority (both organised in 1961); the Hundred Islands Conservation and
Development Authority (1963); the Panay Development Authority (1964); the San Juanico
Straits Tourist Development Authority (1964); the Mountain Provinces Development Authority
(1964); the Mindoro Development Board, the Bicol Development Company, and the
Catanduanes Development Authority (1965); and the Laguna Lake Development Authority
(1966). Each was highly centralised and structured to reflect the logic of modern public
administration theory. The recommendations for the establishment of a reorganised central
administrative structure affected all government departments including the Department of
Health. Based on this planned development model prescribed by the Bell mission and adapted
into law by the Philippine legislature, the Department of Health established a system of hospital-
based health care administered by and accountable to the head office in Manila. A major part of
this centralisation plan was the creation of Presidential Sanitary Divisions which sought to
extend the administrative grasp of policy-makers to a number of presidentially selected rural
areas. Manila-trained public health professionals were quick to reject local health systems in the
rural areas as primitive and ineffective — labelling traditional village-level healers as "quacks"
who often did more harm than good through their "herbal concoctions and cures." The
Department of Health presented alternatives to the traditional health system by dispatching
medical professionals who prescribed drugs manufactured in the West. Unfortunately, as the
population grew, the demand for health services also expanded. The Department of Health then
found itself unable to keep up with the demand for more medical professionals and western
medicine because people with even minor ailments travelled great distances demanding to see a
doctor in the government hospital. On top of bedside duties, public health professionals in this
centralised health care system were also laden with administrative responsibilities like planning,
budgeting, and personnel management. In the late 1950s, Presidential Sanitary Divisions were
slowly replaced and renamed Rural Health Units (RHU). Rural Health Units were established in
every municipality. The Department of Health introduced the health team approach in each Rural
Health Unit. Distinct but complimentary roles were assigned to a Rural Health Unit team
composed of a public health doctor, a public health nurse, and para professionals (for example,
midwives and sanitary health inspectors). This new system authorised public health nurses and
paraprofessionals to deal with simple cases requiring immediate attention and to educate the
community on healthy habits and practices.
The public health physician was required to deal only with the most demanding and difficult
cases aside from his administrative duties. Further consolidation of the Department of Health's
control over the administration of rural health care services was implemented in the
reorganisation of 1958. Instead of creating more autonomous units, the reorganisation of 1958
increased the centralised power of the health bureaucracy by adding more national-level staff and
administrative, regulatory, and advisory bodies. The full implementation of the reorganisation
plan was completed in the 1960s. Instead of decentralising its administrative responsibilities, the
reorganisation of 1958 further consolidated the supervisory and administrative powers of the
Department of Health through bureaucracy-related structural changes, that is, creation of new
units and removal of offices with duplicating functions.With the exception of the creation of
regional offices, these organisational reforms only reinforced the central planning function of the
Manila-based health bureaucracy. These offices also created additional bureaucratic conditions
for field operations to pass through. Some of the reforms were changes only in agency name but
did not affect the service-delivery and operation-effectiveness of the office, e.g., the Bureau of
Research and Laboratories was renamed the Public Health Research Laboratories — same dog,
new collar. Even the creation of regional offices was not enough to bring health care service
planning and implementation closer to the people in the village communities. The main
beneficiaries of these reforms were politicians and bureaucrats who were able to use the newly
created positions in the Manila office as political rewards. Additional organisational changes
between 1958 and 1969 again reinforced the centralisation of planning and administration in the
Department of Health.
As in the case of previous reforms, organisational changes during this centralised development
period streamlined the planning operations of the bureaucracy but showed only symbolic concern
for field operations. They remained oriented towards the prescriptions of public administration
for the use of an effective centralised Weberian bureaucracy.
Development experts believed that a solution to the dysfunctions associated with planned
development through a highly centralised administrative system is to decentralise the
bureaucracy. The problem of implementing plans through a centralised development approach
has led to a call for a more decentralised administrative approach to development administration.
In one of his studies, Dennis Rondinelli summarised a plethora of arguments for a more
decentralised approach to planning and implementation, including:
1. Decentralisation affords greater authority for development planning and management to
officials who are working in the field and hence closer to the problems.
2. Decentralisation cuts through the enormous amounts of red tape and the highly structured
procedures.
3. Decentralisation allows greater representation of various political, religious, ethnic, and tribal
groups in development decisionmaking.
4. Decentralisation increases administrative capability among local governments and private
institutions in the regions and provinces; and
5. Decentralisation institutionalises the participation of citizens in development planning and
management.
In order to increase the likelihood of implementation, development experts of the 1970s
concentrated their decentralisation approach on prescribing ways and means aimed at reorienting
the structure and function of the governmental bureaucracy as evidenced by Rondinelli's
enumeration above. This type of decentralisation was the same response provided by American
public administrators during the debureaucratisation efforts of the United States in the 1930s and
1940s.27 A major reorientation of the structural and functional prescriptions was supposed to
make the administrative system more effective in implementing development plans especially at
the community level. The reoriented organisational structure should allow participation in the
decision-making process by field personnel and target beneficiaries. This was assumed to be the
key to successful implementation. There are basically four major types of structural
reorientations advanced in the decentralisation literature: deconcentration, delelation, devolution,
and privatisation.28 The first three pertain to different types of structural bureaucratic reforms
used to decentralise whereas the fourth refers to non-governmental alternative delivery systems
(for example, PVOs, NGOs, IGOs). It was argued that the use of nongovernmental entities helps
alleviate some of the lesource inadequacies of the governmental bureaucracy. These non-
traditional, nonhierarchial, non-governmental entities were expected by development experts to
increase the prospects of project and programme implementation because of their simple and flat
organisational structure, which was conducive to beneficiary involvement in the decision-making
procedure.
The Integrated Reorganisation Plan received critical reviews from members of Congress and
government administrators despite representation from the academic, private, and government
sectors. Bureaucrats objected because the merging and abolition of overlapping and redundant
positions would displace many of them. Legislators were afraid that the number of political
appointments which they could use as political rewards would be reduced. Upon the declaration
of Martial Law on September 21, 1972, President Marcos abolished the Philippine national
legislature. With the abolition of Congress, President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1,
the first major administrative reform measure under martial law. Presidential Decree No. 1
mandated a review of theIntegrated Reorganisation Plan for implementation during the martial
law period.
The 1972 Reorganisation Plans impact was felt mostly at the regional level. Under this
reorganisation plan, regional health offices were established in the newly created regional
subdivisions of the country. Each region had a designated regional center in the twelve major
cities of the Philippines. According to Alex Brillantes, "the Inter-Agency Committee that made
the subdivision proposals tried to define relative homogeneous areas, capable of stimulating and
sustaining efforts, not only on the basis of administrative consideration, but also with respect to
geographic, economic, and cultural factors."The reorganisation plan also authorised the regional
directors, in line with the policy of decentralisation and within the jurisdiction of the regional
office, to take final action on matters pertaining to substantive and administrative functions of
the agency. In an effort to decentralise their administrative and resource control over village
community-level units, the Department of Health in the late 1970s and early 1980s introduced
the following programmes: the Restructured Rural Health Care Delivery System (RRHCDS); the
Medical Care Program; the Rural Health Practice Programme; the Community Medicine Focus
of Medical and Nursing Schools; and the Community-Based Health Programme.
1. Restructured Rural Health Care Delivery System (RRHCDS)
The RRHCDS was implemented in 1975 as part of a World Bank Population Programme. The
most significant contribution of the RRHCDS Programme was the creation of Barangay Health
Stations (BHS). Barangay Health Stations are the first line of health care available at the village
community-level. They are staffed by a government-trained midwife and other barangay health
workers. Through the financial support of the RRHCDS, the health structures housing the BHS
were also constructed.