Fenix, Dei Monica B.

PSC1104 Section
3
Reflection Paper 1
Whenever I hear the term “public administration” the first thing that comes to my mind is
it is for the citizens and their public interest. The article by Alex Brillantes, Jr. and Maricel
Fernandez, “Is there a Philippine Public Administration? Or Better Still, For Whom Is Philippine
Public Administration?” addressed numerous points that could help determine for whom the
Philippine Public Administration is, albeit it wasn’t answered directly. Upon reading the
material, my answer would be the same, it is supposed to be for the citizens and public interest.
Let us look at the development of public administration, specifically the two phases to
see whether it is really for the citizens and public interest. Traditional or Classical Public
Administration has rooted back to ancient times, it was suggested that it is as old as the ancient
Chinese, Indian, and Egyptian empire. The idea of the public administration is that public
administration not be considered as the administration of the public but administration for the
public, to tend for the public interest. It was practiced on the Code of Hammurabi and Caiden
(1982) stated that “all societies are devoted to advancing the general welfare or the public
interest.” I agree with this, the administration is not being administered by the public, it’s an
administration for the public to help, serve, and govern them. In addition to that, I discern that
both the administration and citizens must work together to have an effective governance.
The next phase is the Modern Public Administration, it consists of stages namely:
development administration, new public administration, new public management, and
reinventing government.
In summary, the focal point of the development administration is going through
reconstruction and social transformation of the society. New public administration called for
non-bureaucratic structures and client-oriented administration. This phase advocated non-neutral
administration, focusing both on good management and social equity as its goal and values to
achieve. Then, in new public management and reinventing government, according to Pollit, it is
the shift on “managerialist” movement where the goals and values focused on the economy. It
was further developed by Osborne and Gaebler in 1992, whereas the government will “work
better but costs less” in solving the economic problems. However, this was criticized by
Denhardt and Denhardt for it views people as “customers” rather than “citizens.” Addressing the
economic concerns is ideal, however, if it’s in terms of public administration, then it’s a
disagreeable aspect for public administration must see their clientele as citizens rather than
customers.
Traditional public administration has shown that it is for the citizens, however, it took a
turn on the modern public administration where instead of doing work for “citizens” it has turned
to “clients,” and the problems that were being addressed is more on the economy than the public
interest in general.
Now, in the Philippine context, it should be also for the citizens where both national and
local government is expected to give service and address the public interest in the return of their
taxes. However, there is a problem that would hinder it, corruption.
 Corruption is the misuse of public power for private profit. It would affect the system
negatively, citizens might show distrusts, and it will deter trade and investments. Ultimately, it
leads to poor quality of projects, policies, and programs. Take the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino
Program, where corruption is prevalent for the most of the appointed officials satisfies their self-
interest more than the public interest. It also makes the beneficiaries lazy, for instance, the
situation on Eastern Samar “Eastern Samar has idle lands that remain untilled because of the
absence of irrigation. Our poor farmers rely purely on rain, and how shocking that when rice
fields are ready for harvesting, 4Ps beneficiaries who used to plant and help in the farm are now
nowhere in sight.” (Docena-Asuelo, 2019). 4Ps is not only corrupted but also ineffective.
An example of an effective program is the Gawad Kalinga. It engages government, civil
society, and corporations to provide basic services on the poor. It does not simply provide money
like 4Ps, they provide projects for the eradication of poverty, education, gender equality, and
women empowerment, and more. How can it not be as a model program when it’s efficiently
engaging possible sources of funds and making effective projects?
In conclusion, upon learning from the article. Citizens should not be seen as clients, but at
the same time, we should cooperate with the Philippine Public Administration to execute good
governance. We shouldn’t settle for less as well because the administration is for the public. We
deserve more and provided with evidence, we should sue and eliminate such corrupted
politicians that deprives, not only the poor but every one of efficient and effective services from
the administration.

References aside from reading material

Docena-Asuelo, B. (2019, August 12). Political patronage through 4Ps. Retrieved September 04,
2020, from https://opinion.inquirer.net/123240/political-patronage-through-4ps