52 Phil JPub Admin 139

DATE DOWNLOADED: Thu Feb 20 20:28:33 2020
SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline
Citations:
Bluebook 20th ed.

Ledivina V. Carino, State, Market and Civil Society in Philippine Public
Administration, 52 Phil. J. Pub. Admin. 139 (2008).
ALWD 6th ed.

Ledivina V. Carino, State, Market and Civil Society in Philippine Public
Administration, 52 Phil. J. Pub. Admin. 139 (2008).
APA 6th ed.

Carino, L. V. (2008). State, market and civil society in philippine public
administration. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 52(2-4), 139-166.
Chicago 7th ed.

Ledivina V. Carino, "State, Market and Civil Society in Philippine Public
Administration," Philippine Journal of Public Administration 52, no. 2-4
(April-October 2008): 139-166
McGill Guide 9th ed.

Ledivina V Carino, "State, Market and Civil Society in Philippine Public
Administration" (2008) 52:2-4 Philippine J of Public Administration 139.
MLA 8th ed.

Carino, Ledivina V. "State, Market and Civil Society in Philippine Public
Administration." Philippine Journal of Public Administration, vol. 52, no. 2-4,
April-October 2008, p. 139-166. HeinOnline.
OSCOLA 4th ed.

Ledivina V Carino, 'State, Market and Civil Society in Philippine Public
Administration' (2008) 52 Phil J Pub Admin 139
-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and
Conditions of the license agreement available at
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your license, please use:
Copyright Information
Philippine Journal of Public Administration, Vol. LII Nos. 2-4 (April-October 2008)
State, Market and Civil Society

in Philippine Public Administration
LEDIVINA V. CARIiO*
The author critically limns the roles of the state, market

and civil society in the development of the discipline of Public
Administration (PA) and how these roles can help PA move
forward. Doing this, she takes the reader on a time trip, from
the 1880s of Woodrow Wilson to the present, navigating four
streams, namely, Traditional Public Administration (TPA),
Development Administration (Dev Ad), New Public Administra-
tion (New PA), and Public Administration and Governance
(PAG). The article explores the voyages essayed by the meaning
of the word "public" in "public administration." This little
exploration (the a,,thor's own words), shunning proclamation of
both great worth and contribution of her work, offers five
lessons. All five have to do with the impact of state, market and
civil society on the theories and concepts of Philippine Public
Administration (PPA).
Introduction
The discipline of Public Administration and Governance (PAG) claims

that it has moved beyond the state, and now encompasses market and civil
society in its embrace. Unlike Traditional Public Administration (TPA)
that focuses on governmental management, PAG - which incorporates the
"governance paradigm" - is concerned with managing the affairs of society,
giving to each domain the role that it can do best. Setting aside the fact
that what each can best do is not settled even in the normative PA
theories, this article will attempt two things: first, to depict the roles that
each domain has played in the development of the discipline, and second,
to show how understanding those roles can help better in moving
Philippine Public Administration (PPA) forward.
* University Professor Emeritus, University of the Philippines National College of

Public Administration and Governance, and Vice President, National Academy of Science
and Technology.
Paper prepared for the Public Colloquium on "Is There a Philippine Public
Administration?," National College of Public Administration and Governance, University
of the Philippines Diliman, 26 June 2008.
139
2008
140 PHILIPPINE JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
To reach these objectives, I shall analyze the roles of these domains

in the various streams of Public Administration and how they reflect in
our understanding the modifier "public" in its name. These allow for
rough historical markers and provide a means of distilling a host of
concepts and theories that have illumined the art and science of this field
of study over time.
The Streams of Philippine Public Administration
PPA has navigated on four streams: Traditional Public

Administration (TPA), Development Administration (DevAd), New Public
Administration (New PA), and Public Administration and Governance
(PAG). 1 A stream designates a particular set of convergent concepts and
approaches in the teaching, research and practice of Public
Administration. When dominant at a particular time, it would be
recognized as "mainstream" even though flows of other streams may join
it as backdrop, assumptions or factors in the environment rather than as
core objects of study. In the review of fifty years of research in the
National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG), it
emerged that internal management and development issues were clearly
the focus in the TPA and DevAd years. Nevertheless, research on
democracy and politics occurred although not as prevalent as under New
PA.
As the scope and focus of PPA, have changed, so has the

understanding of the term "public" in '"public administration." The
meaning has undergone transformation from the "public" as "government,"
to the "public" as "a particular kind of goods and services," and now to the
"public" as focus of, and participant in protecting the general welfare. The
careers of these concepts have somewhat converged, such that the public
was understood as government under TPA and DevAd, the "public" in
"public goods" gained prominence under New PA, and the PAG views the
"public" as the people.
A Note on Limitations. This analysis comprehends mainly how

NCPAG has waded in the Philippine PA streams. I took the College as
representative of the discipline by virtue of its pioneering status and
continued leadership in the Philippines, as well as my greater familiarity
with its achievements and drawbacks. Nevertheless, a lot of what is said
here is probably descriptive of the discipline in other PA schools, based on
what we learned in the recent evaluation of all PA graduate programs in
the Philippines (Carifho et al. 2004).
April-October
STATE, MARKET AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN PHILIPPINE PA 141
Table 1. The Convergence of PA Streams

and the Meaning of "Public"
Indicative US:1880s 1950s 1970s Mid-1980s

starting points Philippines: 1950s
Streams of PA Traditional PA Development New Public PA and
Administration Administration Governance
Meaning of As government As government As kind of goods As the focus of

"Public" and services service
Note: Summary of Textual Discussion
Traditional Public Administration
Traditional PA was what developed in the United States since the

time of Woodrow Wilson's seminal 1887 article, "The Study of
Administration." Wilson called for indigenizing public administration and
the Americanization of the then-prevailing paradigm (I used the term
advisedly) largely coming from the cameralistics of Europe. The latter
emphasized law and finance in governmental management, leading Wilson
to seek a focus on the Deed and not the Will. In the US, PA then moved
away from Law to become a branch of Political Science. It differed from
its mother field as it incorporated ideas from other disciplines, not only
philosophy and social science in which Political Science was centered, but
also engineering, economics and business, which were the roots of the
"administration" part of its name. Wilson did not use the word "public" as
he played midwife in the birth of the discipline, but his ideas on what it
should include went beyond simple governmental management to issues of
democracy and societal development that would be more emphasized in its
later usage. The advancement of democracy and public service were
clearly the aims of the study of administration that he and other political
scientists-turned-PA-scholars of his generation advocated. However, as it
developed, even though it remained within political science, American
Public Administration was treated as a vocational stepchild and was even
omitted from the four broad areas of political science in a 1962 report on
the discipline by the American Political Science Association (Caldwell
1965).
When the Bell Mission recommended the improvement of Philippine

government through, among others, the introduction of training and
2008
education in this field to the Philippine shores, "public" and

"administration" were already coupled. Courses on the introduction to the
field assumed a democratic government, and the civil service was expected
to be accountable to the people through political leadership; however, the
bulk of the courses were on how to manage the staff functions involving
personnel, funds, processes and structures. The involvement of civil
servants in politics was not the subject of attention, except in a course on
politics and administration where politics was the culprit, for even then
corruption had reared its ugly head. The idea of politics as the arena of
competing (but not necessarily illegitimate) interests and the values that
should animate the process were assumed rather than infused into the
discussions. Most of the disciplines were worried about how to improve
governmental management, and for that it leaned on a more developed
area of administration, that of business management.
Development Administration
In a sense the Philippines did not have a Traditional Public

Administration (TPA) period. TPA was what the University of Michigan
(TUM) technical assistance project brought and its curriculum was copied
(including a course on Federal and State Government in a country that, 55
years later, is still unitary); however, TUM was only the first project, and
its mandate was the same in Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, India and the
rest of the technical assistance projects that followed: to jumpstart in the
new states the process of economic development.
Development trumped democracy as a value for PA and it was what

was incorporated into individual syllabi and into the curriculum; thus, the
era of Development Administration can be traced as starting in the 1950s
also. In the West, a similar change in PA had taken place, but there, it
was tellingly called "Comparative Administration." The point cannot be
made any clearer: what was Development Administration to the
Philippines was to them a comparison of how the country was progressing
against their (usually, American) standard. As Jones put it:
The 1950s was a wonderful period. The 'American dream' was

the 'world dream' - and the best and quickest way to bring that
dream into reality was thru the mechanism of public
administration... The net result of all of this enthusiastic action
was a magic term and public administration experts were
magicians of a sort (Jones 1976: 99-100).
April-October
On the administration end, we had the techniques and methods of

Traditional PA. Development administration was realized in our limited
understanding of the "public" - as government trying to bring about
economic growth in the midst of rapid social change.
New Public Administration
"New Public Administration" was distinctly aimed at changing

American PA, still under TPA, to a discipline that could address the vast
problems affecting American society -poverty, inequality, neglect of
human rights, racism, global misadventures (the issue then was Vietnam).
Unlike comparative administration which was exported as Dev Ad, New
PA was not beamed at non-American communities, and the Philippines got
it by reading the literature and through connections with the global
scientific community, not through missionaries sent by the mother church
as in the 1950s. Nevertheless, New PA touched a responsive chord in the
country. In the 1970s, the country was under Martial Law, it was faced
with the issues of poverty, inequality, and the absence of freedoms. Worse,
the country was supposed to improve a government that did not even
admit the existence, let alone, the magnitude of those problems.
New PA brought philosophy back into PA -the literature blossomed

with the place of the values of social justice and freedom in the discipline
and even how they can be infused back into the curricula. Meanwhile,
many American institutes and departments of public administration had
transformed themselves as schools of public policy, recognizing that if they
continued to dichotomize politics and administration, their efforts can be
empty. This was not exactly part of New PA since the policy focus started
in the US in the 1950s (Ocampo 2003b). However, New PA moved forward
policy studies in the Philippines by its stress on goals and programs.
In 1978, the College has had a second round of technical assistance,

this time with Harvard University, to assist the College in incorporating
public policy into its curriculum (Ocampo 2003b). Committed to the
importance of administration, we did not join the bandwagon of becoming
a school of public policy (although Michigan did). Instead, what we
developed was Public Policy and Program Administration (PPPA),
incorporating both the formulation and implementation of public policy.
This was new in the discipline. Recall that Traditional PA focused on the
management of staff functions, in the vain hope that the proper
combination of inputs would produce better results. PPPA made us
consider the whole policy cycle, including both the uplifting and unsavory
aspects of politics. At the same time, it emphasized implementation of
2008
PHILIPPINE JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
programs as a major aspect of the cycle, something that was almost left to
chance in the era which stressed the management of input resources.
Program goals became a worthy area of study, and we became acquainted
not only with the types of implementation failure that are not due to lack
of resources, but also with theory failure, due to the disconnect between
programs and goals.
The study of public policy brought about our second understanding

of the meaning of "public." The "public" as government is centered on the
mechanism that delivers goods and services. The "public" that focuses on
products looks at why certain goods are subject to market failure and need
to be distributed in a different way. Using a concept borrowed from
economics, some goods are called "public" by reason of the indivisibility
and non-rivalrousness of their benefits and their significant externalities.
These goods are either largely delivered or sought to be delivered by
government, such as public health, infrastructure and utilities, or when
delivered by business firms are the subject of regulation, such as public
utilities. "Public goods" differ from "private goods" and they are not sold
in the open market or accessible to anyone able to pay; rather they can be
enjoyed by anyone whether they pay for them or not as long as they are in
the area of coverage.
The "public" in "public goods" gained significance in public

administration as it went beyond the simple management of input
resources -personnel, finance, structures and processes (organization and
management (0 and M)) -to tackle public policy. Dealing with its
formulation and implementation, Public Administration has to deal with
why and how the different goods and services of government produces
should be distributed. As already mentioned, a lot of public goods are
expected to come from government, since with indivisibility of benefits and
without the use of the price mechanism, taxation would seem to be the
best means to fund their provision. Where the private sector is willing to
provide them, because of the indivisibility of benefits, non-rivalrousness
and externalities, economic and social regulation are needed to make sure
the services reach all the people and not just those who can provide profits
for the provider.
April-October
Public Administration and Governance,

or the Governance Paradigm
By the 1980s, New PA was no longer new, but the discipline was still
not able to tell its practitioners and students how it can lead to the Good
Society (the preferred term of Abueva 1997). In the Philippines, the
Martial Law government could not contain the protests of a people,
emboldened by the sacrifice of Benigno S. Aquino, Jr., who did not find the
bread they exchanged for their freedom. Under such a situation,
government could not lead, despite having arrogated all power unto itself.
Business and civil society joined hands in not only demanding a share of
governance, but also and primarily in asking the state to overhaul itself,
starting with the replacement of its leader of two decades. The
Revolution's signal victory was to install people power not only for
changing leaders but also in the. day-to-day affairs of the state, in other
words, in public administration. The Constitution of 1987 and subsequent
landmark legislations and development plans gave flesh to this
transformation of the State.
The term "governance," and the introduction of a "governance

paradigm" came later, in the wake of other people power revolutions
throughout the world. The stronger nudge probably came from the
recognition, by the United Nations, the World Bank and other global
entities, that it was concentrated, unilateral, and unaccountable power
that was holding back human development, not the lack of finances or
know-how that used to be the main worry of technical assistance.
By then, the "public" in "public administration" was also being

redefined. The focus on the structure of government was clearly
insufficient. Looking at "public" in terms of the kind of goods being
delivered was more promising, but it misses the point of the people power
revolts. In the second meaning, the people can remain as passive
recipients of services, even if such services are delivered not by
government but by business firms or citizen groups. In the third meaning
of the public, the lens is focused on the people whose welfare is the reason
for public administration. But to make its meaning complete, the lens is
also focused on the people in their capacity as actors and participants in
governance. The new paradigm is governance for the public interest; it
clearly recognizes the people as part and parcel of both the act of
governance and of the delineation of the public interest.
2008
The Three Domains in Philippine

Public Administration
Philippine PA was governmental management from its inception

until the governance paradigm became mainstream. Even so, as an
intelligent field, it knew of and dealt with the other domains of society
from day one. This section describes how each domain has been
understood in each PA stream, and what it contributes to or detracts from,
the discipline.
Government and Public Administration
Public Administration began as a discipline focused on the

management of government operations. For a time, our diploma program
was even called the Certificate of Governmental Management, assumed
then to be a synonym for the formal name of the field.
"Government" was the referent of "public" when the discipline was

exported to the Philippine shores in 1952. The technical assistance
project that the University of Michigan undertook was part of the Bell
Report recommendations and was aimed at having the newly independent
state get to its feet. Even then, charges of corruption and inefficiency
were already being hurled at government, and training and education in
public administration was central to the solutions proposed to meet them.
This was not an esoteric part of technical assistance, because even in the
United States where PA was formally born, government was the main, if
not the only, focus of interest.
But what government was Philippine PA interested in? Note that I

am using the term "government" and not the term "state," because the
scope of Traditional PA and Development Administration was woefully
small. We learn in Introductory Political Science that the State has four
main characteristics: people, territory, sovereignty and monopoly of
violence and coercion. The government of concern at PA's birth dealt with
only a small part of the fourth. No, Philippine PA was not focused on the
control of force, but, as David Easton defined "political science" (of which
in the US, PA is a subfield), it is "the authoritative allocation of values in
a society" (Easton 1953). The government we studied was authoritative,
but we did not dare to grasp (in academic terms, that is) all the
authoritative power allocation. We ignored the legislative and judicial
branches and focused only on the executive branch and the constitutional
commissions. Even then,the entire executive branch was not included,
April-October
but only parts of its career civil service. By definition, the civil service
includes all elected officials and such special services as the foreign
service, the judiciary and the armed forces. The College has had students
from all these services, but hardly study their management and
operations. Under the first two PPA streams, this was hardly necessary,
since for the most part the performance of staff functions would be the
same regardless of the service or even branch of government.
That changed as we moved to New PA and became interested not

only in the input functions, but also in the policies and programs of
government. That would be even more important now as these substantive
areas are formulated, implemented and evaluated in-ideally- the full view
and determined participation of the people.
Since the 1970s 2 , the College has been in the forefront of research in
health, anti-poverty, population, elections, foreign debt, fiscal policy,
education and many other program areas. Among our newest are
telecommunications and spatial information policy and administration.
Every aspect of human life can be a concern of public policy and we can be
expected to have specialists in all of them. Nevertheless, we have huge
gaps in the range of public policy we have tackled. We have made inroads
into the legislature-largely consulting on the substance of policy-an
important achievement -but we have not been studied or provided training
for the administration of the legislature. We have left judicial
administration to the College of Law and the Supreme Court.
With the governance paradigm, Philippine PA now includes not only

the executive branch, but the legislature and also the judiciary. This is
evident in the UN Program on Fostering Democratic Governance which
also includes political parties, the leagues of local governments and many
civil society organizations. The irony is that when the UN Human
Development Report focused on "deepening democracy," it discussed the
contribution of all other institutions but the bureaucracy. The oversight
suggests that because of the way PA had drawn its scope in previous
streams, it might have defined itself out of democracy discussions. Wilson
may be turning in his grave.
Why is it significant to note that only a small slice of government

was taken up? Because if PPA is first of all governmental management,
then political institutions of the country should have been known, and how
they and not just the civil service may be built and strengthened to serve
the public good. It would also help to know where the State and the nation
are headed, what is the bureaucracy's role in the State (if we insist on
narrow scope), and then expand our view to its role in society. In the
2008
1990s, I tried to conduct a study of the civil service in terms of the

theories of the role of the state, and the democratic or authoritarian
milieu in which it is working (Carifio 1992). I found the Philippine civil
service as a weak institution vis-A-vis the political leadership, whether the
latter be democratic or authoritarian. It was also weak in comparison
with the civil service of other states. The strong bureaucracies were
those with a vision for the development of their nation and their role in it.
In some cases, a strong bureaucracy can bring a country to the wrong
direction. This is where the political leadership must wield its power and
maintain its accountability to the people. As you know, it is a dynamic
system, brimming with both conflict and consensus, and students must be
trained to take part in the vigorous debate of how the Philippines will
become the Good Society not with quick fixes, but with strong institutions.
There is one exception to the small slice of government that we have

bitten into. This is the area of local and regional governance. From the
beginning, and despite that unfortunate inclusion of Federal and State
Government in the curriculum, this area, even when called only "local
governments" was our most complete subject. We studied the staff
functions, following TPA/DevAd including local politics, electoral politics,
local policies and programs, and national-local relations. Since the 1990s,
moreover, the Center for Local and Regional Governance (CLRG) of the
College has made a strong thrust into training for local legislators.
Unfortunately, the students have not taken advantage of this strength in
the field to major on it in large enough numbers. Also, unfortunately, our
expertise in the field has not led to the development of strong local civil
services.
Business in Philippine PA
The involvement of the two other domains of society in Public

Administration preceded the acceptance of the governance paradigm in the
Philippines. Both have three kinds of interface with the discipline: as
source of theories and techniques of Public Administration and, in the
practice of PA, as providers of public goods and services, and as bearers of
interest in public policies and programs. The analysis of the latter two
may of course lead to new theories for the field.
Business Administration as Model for Philippine PA. Despite the

modifier "public," many theories of organization recognized in the
discipline are products of studies of private-sector organizations. These
theories include scientific management and administrative management,
some tenets of which should have been discarded after Herbert Simon
April-October
STATE, MARKET AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN PHILIPPINE PA
(1946) unmasked them as "proverbs" rather than products of scientific

discoveries. The human relations school was jumpstarted by the findings
of research from the Western Electric Company (Mayo 1933); however, it
was a controversial project at that time, and questions continue to be
raised on it up to now concerning its neglect of the relations of labor and
capital and in the society surrounding the company. The research, which
found that employees responded to attention more than the physical
conditions of employment, was done as the Great Depression loomed,
possibly making any job acceptable regardless of work conditions (see for
instance, Franke and Kaul 1978; Gillespie 1991). This fact has been
largely ignored in analyzing that research, showing that the interest was
only on the internal organization. Also there were studies in the
University of Chicago that showed different results (as different
conclusions were found by those who conducted re-analysis of the data of
the study). The Hawthorne experiments gave birth to a "policy science
too tied to managerial interests in cooperation and productivity increases"
(Burawoy 2007: 3). Such a neglect does not speak well of the adopting
discipline whose institutions have society-wide significance; however, it
does show how focused PA - and business and generic administration- was
on the internal administrative condition- and may have been carried away
by something other than disinterested science, at that (Marshall 1998).
In the Philippines, Public Administration started out as a cross

between Political Science and Business Administration. While the first
American directors and our early faculty were recruited from political
science and law, the first Filipino director was the dean of the College of
Business Administration. It would seem that some UP decisionmakers, as
well as the promoters of public administration in government, were
comfortable with the notion that the discipline of administration is
generic, and the differences of PA from business administration were
issues of application rather than theory.
This idea was especially influential in the 1970s when UP was

developing the management education programs of its regional units. At
that time, the Master of Management degree was instituted, with
business, public and educational management as mere areas of
specialization. The theory of Public Administration was subsumed under a
general course on the Theory and Practice of Management; the Ecology of
Administration and Human Behavior in Organization (HBO) were the
other core courses, presumed to be the same in all kinds of
administration. The Public Management specialization focused on the
institution of government, although the courses were largely given as
separate parts of the whole, with the usual emphasis on staff functions,
like personnel administration, fiscal administration, and organization and
2008
management. We did not pay too much attention then to Graham Allison's
important question: "Public and Private Management: Are They
Fundamentally Alike in All Unimportant Respects?" (Allison 1983: 72)
The interaction of PA with business firms is also significant in the

study of public enterprises, where it can serve as both model and point of
departure; however, despite strong faculty leadership of NCPAG (by
Professor Briones later joined by Dr. Mendoza), the subfield has hardly
taken off.
Business management as a model has been implicitly set aside under

New PA as it does not have much to say about poverty, social justice, and
participation; however, the private-sector view of management has come
back with a vengeance under New Public Management which uses
corporate governance as a model for dealing with the ills of government
operations. Reviving managerialism in PA, it is more positivist and
practical than New PA. Its emphasis on performance-motivated and-
oriented administration has been incorporated into the rhetoric of the
governance paradigm, its prescriptions for efficiency, effectiveness, and
results finding easy combination with the requirements of accountability
and the rule of law3 ; however, NPM by itself mutes the democratic and
values thrust of the new paradigm. The governance paradigm's stress on
citizenship is also in direct conflict with NPM's view of the people as
customers. Customers are private-interested persofis who buy services
they can afford. The power in this transaction usually lies with the service
suppliers (except in cases of buyers' markets). By contrast, citizens get
services as a matter of right. In addition, they are also private persons
with a public perspective, with interests in strengthening community
values, and with potential power to change public policy and political
leaders. Reengineering a service for customers would not necessarily be
the same approach to use in dealing with citizens.
Business as Providerof Public Goods. The second point of interaction

with business firms is in their involvement in the provision of public
goods. The provision of public goods, by their nature, does not lend itself
easily to the same techniques as the pursuit of profit, since their use and
effects cannot be limited only to those able or willing to pay for them.
Given the goals of society, public goods should be delivered even in areas
where most people do not have the ability to pay for them; however,
because usage is likely to be large (and therefore, there are a large
number of potential customers), business has found entry into these areas
as commercially viable, even if in the process they are subjected to
regulation. A business may be regulated as regards price rates, schedule
of delivery, geographic area of coverage, and other factors that in the free
April-October
market are usually subject only to the law of supply and demand. It is not
uncommon, for instance, for public utilities to be required to cover certain
"missionary routes" so they can serve poorer segments of society.
This interface of government and business was potentially a strong

suit in the Development Administration era of the College. At that time,
Law as a discipline was represented by three to four members of the
faculty, and Regulatory Administration was in the original curriculum;
however, the subject has rarely been offered since the 1960s.
New PA pushed the relevance of Regulation into the discipline as it

underscored the analysis of policies and programs according to their
contribution to the public interest. The function of regulation is part of
PPPA but it has tended to be overshadowed there by programs with direct
government delivery of services; thus, to a large extent, the government-
business connection has been confined to courses on PA and the Economic
Order/PA and Economic Development, an elective at the master's level
although required at both bachelor's and doctoral levels.
The relationship of government and business received an early boost

in 1973, when Gabriel U. Iglesias negotiated a professorial chair from San
Miguel Corporation, at a time when such donations were rare. Named in
honor of Don Andres Soriano, the late chair of the company, the Chair
focuses on government and business. It has been the most popular
professorial chair in NCPAG. It has been granted to several faculty
members as well as to such external luminaries as Augusto Caesar
Espiritu and Robert B. Stauffer. It has been used for the advancement of
policy studies in general, as well as specific policy areas where market and
state meet; however, there have been few takers in recent years despite
the increase of the monetary award.
The link of government and business was not revived until the 2000s
when regulatory governance became a prime subject of research. The
significance of environment as an issue, and the presence of faculty with
expertise in it can further make the interface of government and business
move to the core of PPA. Issues of regulation highlight not so much the
role of business as subordinate to government in running the affairs of
society, but also why it is not the major player: when dealing with
government and the public at large, they could be institutions whose
practices would not necessarily serve as models, as the first type of
interaction with business has been.
2008
A young movement in the domain of the market dawned in the 1990s

as many firms became animated not only by the profit motive but also by
their responsibility to society. Those who take part in corporate social
responsibility (CSR) interface not so much with the state as with the
larger society. Here is where business leaves mere customership and
becomes involved in issues of citizenship, within its own organizations as
well as among the users of its products and the larger society. CSR is
changing business administration also as moral sentiments emerge to join
the hidden hand as the domain's regulatory mechanism. The acceptance
of CSR suggests that BA may also be having its own redefinition of what
the business of business administration is supposed to be and is moving
closer to the latest sense of the public in PA.
Business as Interest-Bearers. Business also gets involved in

policymaking and other government operations. At its worst, it would be
the operationalization of Karl Marx's accusation of the State as simply the
executive committee of the bourgeosie. Here, private-sector tycoons would
be perceived as dictating the policies of the State which is powerless to
ignore it. US President Dwight Eisenhower decried the influence of the
military-industrial complex in his country as, in his time, Ferdinand E.
Marcos alsQ accused the oligarchs of unmitigated power (one of his excuses
for declaring Martial Law) in the Philippines.
At its best, this involvement would be firms expressing, and

advocating their interests in certain policy areas in open debate with other
sectors of society. Politics after all is an arena of struggle where sectors
of society may put forward their interests as values that contribute to the
overall public interest. In-between these extremes lies a wide area of
legitimate and illegitimate business participation. Prominent activities are
rent-seeking and corruption where certain firms use the market
mechanism to influence political and administrative decisionmaking. The
influence can overlay the entire policy process- from getting favorable
laws and franchises to using loopholes or resorting to actual violation of
laws covering contracts and procurement. Specific corporations-
sometimes entire industries- may so dominate the personnel and
processes of governance that regulatory capture replaces regulation.
NCPAG's foray into the illegitimate uses of power has tended to zero
in on the ills and weaknesses of governmental institutions. The activities
of the other powerful domain tend to be treated more lightly although its
capture not only of regulation but of legislation and other governmental
processes are well-documented in the Philippines (see, for instance,
Basilio 2005; Baylon 2005; Briones and Gamboa 2003; Coronel 1998; de
April-October
STATE, MARKET AND CIVIL SOCIETY IN PHILIPPINE PA
Dios 1999). The paradigm that includes the other domains in managing
societal affairs needs to analyze the underside of business more than ever
before.
Public Administration, Civil Society

and the Voluntary Sector
This section starts with a clarification of terms used in voluntary

sector management (VSM). Then it deals with how Philippine PA has
interacted with the voluntary sector, particularly the organizations in it
comprising civil society. Philippine PA relates with the voluntary sector
in the same ways it does with the market; however, the roles of these
organizations as interest bearers and as providers of public goods have
been recognized ahead of their potential as a model for PA; thus, the order
of discussion in this section differs from the earlier one.
Digression: Clarifying "Voluntary Sector," "Civil Society,"

and other Terms in Voluntary Sector Management
"Civil society" is a new name for an old phenomenon; political

philosophers as far apart in time as Aristotle and John Locke viewed it as
coterminous with the State, and it was only in the eighteenth century that
it was clearly separated from the State. Through the years, the term has
taken up various meanings, so that NCPAG, in recognizing it as a subfield,
decided to use "voluntary sector management" to give it a more precise
scope. VS as a term has not taken off in the Philippines and the trilogy of
domains is always given as "state, market, and civil society." This is
partly why I have used "civil society" rather than "voluntary sector" in the
title of this article. Also, as this digression section hopes to make clear,
except in their role as service provider, much of the intersection of the
voluntary sector with Philippine PA has been with that part of it that can
technically be referred to as "civil society."
The term "voluntary sector" has many advantages despite its

relative lack of usage in the Philippines. The most important advantages
for the purposes of this article are two factors. First, it stresses the
voluntarism inherent in the sector, underscoring its connection with
citizenship and an organization's conscious decision for involvement in
public affairs. Second, it subsumes the two types of organizations that lie
between the state and the market: non-profit institutions (NPIs) on the
one hand, and civil society on the other. Both types (that is, the entire
2008
voluntary sector) exhibit the following characteristics that Lester Salamon

and Helmut Anheier (1998) call the structural-operational definition of
nonprofit institutions only:
• Organized, meaning, institutionalized to some extent,

• Private, prudently defined as institutionally separate from
government,
* Self-governing, that is, equipped to control its own
activities,
" Non-profit distributing, or not returning surplus generated
to its owners or directors, and
* Voluntary, involving some meaningful degree of service
freely given and given for free.
NPIs are members of the voluntary sector which are largely

economic units, consuming and producing goods and services, providing
employment and facilities, and generating funds and resources for society.
Examples are non-profit hospitals, schools, broadcasting stations and other
organizations whose structure and operations are most like business
firms, except that they do not distribute profits to their founders, owners
or boards of directors. These are not the first example5 of VSOs that
people think about, but they legitimately belong to the sector and their
nonprofit status makes their contributions to society different from the
contributions of private firms.
More congruent to the popular mind's image is that part of the

voluntary sector that is civil society. Civil society is composed of VSOs
which are largely oriented to public policy and the state. Some of them
pursue a political agenda which makes them critics, sources of policy
ideas, and/or cooperators in government policies and programs. Others
provide public goods, some pointedly different from the government's and
implicitly or explicitly criticizing its practices, while others may focus on
areas the latter does not serve or reach. This is the meaning of civil
society that I use in this article. When I include the NPIs, I will use the
more inclusive term, voluntary sector.
When civil society organizations (CSOs) are composed of the citizens

who are the main beneficiaries of their activities, particularly the
individuals at the grassroots, they are called "people's organizations"
(POs). If composed of persons other than these, they are intermediary
associations and are called "non-governmental organizations" (NGOs).
April-October
"NGO" as a term was recognized by the United Nations only in the

1970s. "Civil society" of which they are a part gained new life in the late
1980s, after being in the forefront of political philosophy during the
Scottish Enlightenment and immediately after. The recent revival of the
term "civil society" was effected by citizens of Eastern Europe who wanted
to regain the power that was supposed to be theirs in a people's republic.
This is partly why the notion of civil society is very closely tied to
citizenship.
Civil Society as Interest-Bearers
The liberal theory of the role of the state has been assumed in
Public Administration, and with that the assumption of democracy as the
default type of government. Structurally, it also puts bureaucratic
institutions as subordinate to the political leadership. Under this theory,
organized citizens can bring ideas for policy and program into the state
where their interests would be considered and weighed for their
contributions to the public interest. This interface takes place outside the
usual realm of public administration - that is, in the legislature or if in
the executive branch, only in the political leadership. The bureaucracy is
supposed to be permeable by outside forces only through this leadership,
as overhead democracy warrants. Civil servants are supposed to be clothed
with Weber's formalistic impersonality. That is as far as theory goes.
In a Public Administration that puts the stress on internal

management, this clash of interests would only be noted when the public
policy has been promulgated and it is time for implementation.
Nevertheless, since NCPAG always has had a lot of political and other
social scientists around, there was a lot of breaking out of the narrow
confines of this theory. Thus, the interchanges of the civil service were
not recognized - as well as the political leaders in the executive and
legislative branches - with associations and firms. Following political
science parlance of the time, the organizations that interacted with the
state were called "interest groups." Their advocacy or criticism of policy is
identical to the work of what today would be called civil society
organizations including, as mentioned above, both non-government
organizations (NGOs) and People's Organizations (POs).
However, it should be noted that interest groups are different from

NGOs- they are not intermediary organizations representing their
beneficiaries to the state. Rather, they are membership organizations
representing themselves- much like today's POs; but they also differ
radically from POs.
2008
While we tend to think of POs as organizations of what is now called

"basic sectors," this is not the same constituency that most of the "interest
groups" served. Rather, these pre-Martial Law groups were composed of
middle-or upper-class people (much like the membership of many NGOs
now). They pushed forward the interests and perspectives of their
industry, their profession or their cause, not the social development of the
disadvantaged, marginalized and underserved, for which civil society is
now known;4 thus, when people's participation in governance is discussed,
the image in everyone's mind would probably not include the interest
groups of the Dev Ad period. Technically, however, the term "civil
society" would still embrace them, because the definition does not
evaluate the cause being propagated as a qualification for inclusion. It
bears reiteration that civil society includes all organizations of citizens
oriented to the state, whether they are for the status quo or for radical
social change, and whether their membership is predominantly from the
rich or from the poor. We study their governance, causes and impacts,
whether or not we agree with their choices.
I want to emphasize that interest-bearers from civil society have

always been around and they have affected governance since time
immemorial. The sea change in the kind of organizations we have
recognized as involved in PPA seems to be a product of four factors. First,
the process of redemocratization in society and the opening of democratic
space. Second, there has been a rise in the number and noise of those
representing the underprivileged. Moreover, they used to specialize in
opposing the state, but now complement and cooperate with it also; but
third are factors within the discipline itself. This refers to the change in
the scope of the field as everyone has become "enlightened" by new PA and
especially now as people become more concerned with the active
citizenship of all classes of society. The fourth reason acknowledges
changes in the government which were dubbed "people-powered" in 1986.
Whether truly people-powered or not, it has restructured its bureaucracy
so that NGO desks, management contracts with communities, and civil
society representation in many government councils is now commonplace.
These being said, it is also necessary to repeat the warning of Lester

Salamon (1994) that the voluntary sector is not necessarily clothed in pure
virtue. Our study of the voluntary sector in the Philippines reveals that
from time to time, it exhibits the following drawbacks:
Its claims to represent the people are often maTred by questions

of legitimacy and credibility, stemming from self-appointment
and incapacity to cover all the significant demands of the
citizenry. It is also plagued by lack of unity and of having all
April-October
positions represented by at least one organization in the sector.

Yet its ability to lie at the whole range of the spectrum has not
improved its tolerance and capacity to respect contrary opinions.
It has manifest inability to accept compromises, on the one hand,
and a tendency to represent narrow rather than the general
interest, on the other. Seeking to empower the people, it may
instead mire them in greater shackles of dependence. Decrying
government corruption, it eschews demands of accountability
when it becomes the actor in center stage (Carifio 2002: 293).
The Voluntary Sector as Service Providers. Both parts of the

voluntary sector provide public goods and services. From the 1980s
onwards, civil society organizations became prominent as structures
providing public goods, usually as competitors of government rather than
as their complements or collaborators. This coincided with the embrace of
New PA and the growing dissatisfaction with the Martial Law government.
Unlike private firms providing public goods, they did not seem to need
economic regulation because they were not selling their services or
providing unfair competition to other service providers. Moreover, they
were usually going into areas underserved or to people unreached by
regular government services; thus, from one view, especially that of the
Martial Law government, they were ripe for political regulation; but for
those studying Public Administration, they were providing an alternative
delivery system, one that like government did not depend on ability to
pay, and one that like the private sector seemed efficient and effective.
Effectiveness also expanded in that it meant better results in reaching the
poor, a theme in PA that would hold up a new meaning of public,
particularly for the post-Marcos governments. This was the emphasis on
the public as the focus if not the lifeblood of government.
However, the recognition of civil society as alternative delivery

systems is a late recognition of the voluntary sector's role in service
provision. It should be mentioned that the other half of the sector- the
NPIs- have been providing public goods since the start of the American
regime. American missionaries and philanthropists established hospitals,
orphanages, schools and other institutions on a not-for-profit basis. While
not exclusively for the poor, they were pointedly not only for the rich.
This was a sharp difference from the Spanish-era hospitals, for instance,
which opened their doors to those who could afford them, and gave only
prayers to the rest of the population (Kwantes 1989); however, the
difference in governance styles of these nonprofits from regular business
or government has been left unstudied by both business and public
administration.
2008
The Voluntary Sector as Source of Potential Models for PPA. While

the management of business firms has been held up as models from the
days of traditional PA right up to the incorporation of business reform into
the governance paradigm, the voluntary sector has not been seen as
providing lessons for Philippine PA. I can offer two explanations for this
attitude. First, it is because the identification of organizations as an actor
in PPA has been late in coming, propelled only by the acceptance of the
governance paradigm. Partly it is also because the sector is not
sufficiently studied by both the organizations themselves and by academe.
As a result, they have simply done what traditional PA did and what the
governance paradigm now does: embrace corporate governance as their
own model for governance.5
I submit that voluntary sector management can enrich PPA in both

the administration aspect and the public aspect of the discipline. In the
administration aspect, it can provide other models than corporate
governance. For instance, their recruitment of staff with known
commitment to their causes is different from the required neutrality of
civil servants. It results in fewer clock-watchers and more innovations in
service provision, with voluntarism built into the personnel's psyche, even
if they are paid staff and not volunteers. A wholesale adoption of this into
the civil service may be fraught with danger. Too easily can the cause
become loyalty to the government of the day. Nevertheless, there are too
many civil servants whom the poor call "kaaway" (enemy) rather than
"karamay" (sympathizer) whose performance can be immeasurably
improved by their political commitment to the objectives of their agency;
for instance, some employees of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
were reported to have harangued tenants who did not agree with the
payment scheme they prepared in connivance with landlords. How can a
cause incorporated in law be pushed by civil servants in other than the
Spanish-era stance of "obedezco pero no cumplo" (I obey but I do not
comply)? Clearly, there is a need to study how recruitment of civil
servants can be improved with a dose of learning from the best of both
worlds- governmental as well as voluntary sector management.
A second example where the voluntary sector may enrich public

administration is in the area of regulation and accountability. The sector
as a whole has escaped regulation by the State, but it has recognized that
the behavior of its member-entities can go astray, so it has instituted
mechanisms for self-regulation. This is not new- guilds of the Middle
Ages might have invented this mode. Since then, one of the tests of an
occupation attaining the status of a profession is its ability to regulate
itself. In a sense, this is the price a profession pays for society's
recognition that it is an important part of society because it is not just
enriching its members but also rendering public service.
April-October
In a comparative study of the governance of these organizations in

various Asian countries, I was able to extract a collective governance
model from the way small, generally unregistered organizations were ran
(Carifio 2008). (See Table 2) Its policy-administration relationship
introduces an integration which was not considered, given the familiarity
with the politics-administration dichotomy. The members are more active
here than in corporate governance, being (in addition to tradition) a
source of policy, easily sliding into leadership roles, often working as
volunteers, and being implementors as well. Decisionmaking by consensus
rather than majority vote means that different views are not allowed to
divide the group; rather, the organization tries to find points where
general agreement is possible, thus preventing factional splits.
Accountability to their communities and constituencies is kept through
modes understandable to them, sometimes through such traditions as
community reporting through songs and theater. The presence of familiar
concepts, like accountability, policy-administration relations, group
decisionmaking, and leadership- but with a different twist- enriches the
qualities that these concepts may encompass. Besides, while unlikely to be
applicable to the national bureaucracy, some aspects of collective
governance may be developed for use by locally based organizations and
local government units.
Table 2. Two Types of Governance of

Voluntary Sector Organizations
Characteristics Corporate Governance Collective Governance
Publicness Registration and State recognition Not registered, but tackling public
issues also
Source of policy Board Tradition, membership
Distinctiveness as Self-governing with registration, Self-governing, but with more
an entity constitution and by-laws permeable boundaries
Policy- Dichotomized: policy in board, No break (integrated): membership

administration administration in CEO and staff involved in both
relationship
Mode of reaching Majority vote Consensus
decisions
Collective Through a board Through participation of all concerned
leadership
Volunteerism Voluntary service in board, some Throughout organization
implementers may be volunteers
Implementation By paid staff, augmented usually by By members and community

volunteers
Accountability Formal: to State, funders and Non-formal and mutual, to community

members served
Source: Carifio 2008
2008
But more than developing the "administration" in "public

administration," the voluntary sector, particularly civil society, assists in
deepening the understanding of the "public" in "public administration."
When they interact with government, CSOs have not been hampered by
the idea that "public" questions are the realm of government or by the
need to study if a need is a public good before deciding to produce it. Most
of them have simply assumed that the causes they serve contribute to the
public interest. Armed with that assumption, they feel equal to
government as a representative of the people. In dedication to their
advocacy, they organize and conscienticize so that they can actively
actualize the public interest. This does not mean that they are always
right. Causes are numerous and touch all human concerns so it is not
possible that all their views can be equally right. Nevertheless, in their
participation in dialogue and deliberation, they make the public alive. It
is not simply the textbook discussion of "sovereignty residing in the
people" or the philosopher's view of the consent of the governed. What
the voluntary sector forces Philippine PA to do is to recognize the validity
of the people's participation in governance, and to teach some ways to
incorporate the publics' view into a relevant formulation of the public
interest.
Lessons from the Study of the Three Domains

in Philippine Public Administration
This little exploration has shown that State, market and civil society
play different roles in Philippine PA. The approaches and practices of
these domains can help improve the understanding of the governance
paradigm. The explicit recognition of their contributions forces us to
analyze how their presence impacts on the theories and concepts of
Philippine public administration.
The first lesson here relates to our view of government, the

institution that used to define the scope of the field. It suggests that even
as market and civil society are encompassed in the people's purview, it is
also a must to strengthen the people's grasp of the management of the
State. This requires regarding as within our purview all branches and
services of government and not just a small part of it. The wider scope
implied by the governance paradigm should make us strive for a more
comprehensive understanding of the institution that is still the enabler
and orchestrator of most programs that society needs for human
development.
April-October
The second lesson is the need to examine what models market and
civil society hold up for Public Administration and Governance. Business
Administration theories and techniques got into Philippine Public
Administration at its birth. In the 1950s, business management seemed to
typify generic administration- and thus how administration should be done
in all institutions, even in government. This perspective became muted
when New PA put the problems of society at the forefront. It has come
back in New Public Management, coupling with the governance paradigm.
As many scholars have already warned, corporate governance cannot be
grafted en toto in Public Administration without sacrificing some of the
discipline's most cherished values and methods; thus, the model that
business offers to Public Administration must be analyzed at every turn.
On the other hand, the entry of the voluntary sector, especially civil
society, in the studies of Public Administration is different from the role
business management originally played in it. CSOs have been regarded as
"alternative delivery systems," a different way of administering. Although
it has been acknowledged that lessons may be learned from them, for
instance, through their emphasis on participation, and their ability to
reach what government does not, they remain "other," a different way of
managing, not a model for administering the public domain (understood as
government or the state). VSM originally entered the discipline as a
parallel field, not as the source of models for Philippine PA; however,
some of the emerging governance aspects of the sector merit further study
as possibilities for changing the management of government.
The third lesson is the significant role of interest in each domain's

entry into the field. Every organization has interests, and some private
interests may be achieved as part of the public interest, while some are
selfish and contrary to the general welfare. The proliferation of business
firms and CSOs dipping their hands into governance requires militancy on
the part of those who would preserve the public interest. These guardians
are in state, market and civil society, just as those seeking only their
private interest are represented in all those domains also. This suggests
to me that politics, and particularly democratic politics, must be a central
part of the discipline and not just an unstudied assumption. Public
administration does not have a hidden hand like economics, where self-
interested individuals manage to produce the social good of efficiency by
allowing the free operation of the market. The scholar's counterpart is
the noisy intersection of several interests which everyone is free to join,
open and transparent rather than hidden transactions, all within the rule
of law. A policy would emerge from this crucible, and it cannot be known if
the debate has produced the policy that embodies the public interest
2008
except in hindsight, so trust is the important commodity of all the

participations in the interaction. This trust suggests strong doses of
interest group theory in the discipline, though updated with the
dimensions introduced by the entry of intermediary organizations,
disadvantaged groups, and other new participants of the latest stream of
PPA.
The fourth lesson is one already well-noted in the discipline. This

lesson is the recognition of what the voluntary sector offers to
governmental management as an alternative delivery system. Its ability to
innovate in service provision, to reach underserved areas and to transform
beneficiaries from passive recipients to active participants was the first
quality of VSM that caught the attention of PPA scholars. To this can be
added the mode of collective governance that may provide new approaches
to leadership, decisionmaking and accountability that may be adapted for
the rest of Public Administration.
The fifth lesson is the need for PPA to pay more attention to the
function of regulation. The private sector has entered public
administration not only as a model of governance but also as an entity
subject to oversight and control lest its actions undermine the goals of
government. It is, thus, an instrument of governance that government
must regulate and manage. If the voluntary sector does not police itself
adequately through self-regulation, government oversight could very well
be forthcoming.
Finally, the two domains force us to be more attentive to the third

meaning of the public, in terms of how they can contribute to citizenship
and the public interest. It behooves us, therefore, not only to improve the
management part of Public Administration, but also our special core, the
public in public administration.
There are more lessons to extract from our improved understanding

of the workings of state, market and civil society in Philippine public
administration. I hope at least this article has shown that to call our
discipline Public Administration and Governance, we should not only look
at the private sector as a model for administration but also realize that
the voluntary sector is also providing us models to improve Philippine PA
through more attention to the "public" in public administration.
April-October
Endnotes
In 1983, I introduced these streams and called the last one "development public
administration" (DPA). This was in a paper explicating the concept of "administrative
accountability" and showing how the career of this concept has coincided with the twists
and turns of the discipline of public administration. See Carifio 1983, the latest
anthologizing of which is in Bautista, Alfiler, Reyes and Tapales 2003. In 2002, assigned
to look back on the research history of the College on the occasion of its fiftieth
anniversary, I bowed to the by-then already prevailing nomenclature, which described
public administration and governance-often called the governance paradigm-in terms
very close to how DPA is defined. See Carifio 2002.
2 As my study of the researches of the College in 2002 revealed, our research did
not seem constrained by our narrow definition of the field. Although the bulk of policy
and program studies occurred following the introduction of PPPA, our policy research
dates back to the 1950s. See Carifio 2002.
1 For a more comprehensive analysis of the problems and prospects of

reengineering as a transplant from business sector reform to government, see Ocampo
2003a and Reyes 2003.
When Emmanuel Buendia (2005), for instance, talks of "people's participation in

governance," he does not include those that would have been prominent as interest
groups in this era.
5 For one of the first studies of civil society governance in the Philippines, see
Domingo 2005.
References
Abueva, Jose V.
1997 Philippine Democratization and the Consolidation of Democracy since
the 1986 Revolution: an Overview of the Main Issues, Trends and
Prospects. In Felipe M. Miranda. ed. Democratization: Philippine
Perspectives. Quezon City: University of the Philippines.
Allison, Graham T.
1983 Public and Private Management: Are They Fundamentally Alike in All
Unimportant Respects? In James L. Perry and Kenneth L. Kraemer,
eds. Public Management: Public and Private Perspectives. Palo Alto,
CA: Mayfield: 72-92.
Basilio, Enrico
2005 PPA: A Case of Regulatory Capture. In Martin Minogue and Ledivina
V. Carifio, eds. Regulatory Governance in Developing Countries. UK:
Edward Elgar.
Baylon, Minerva S.
2005 The Political Economy of Regulation in the Philippine Power Industry.
Unpublished Ph.D.dissertation submitted to the University of
Manchester.
2008
Briones, Leonor M. and Mark Anthony Gamboa

2003 IMPSA: Regulatory Capture, Recapture and Rupture. Paper presented
at the International Conference on "Challenges to Development:
Innovation and Change in Regulation and Competition" sponsored by
the NCPAG-UP and the Center for Regulation and Competition,
Institute for Development Policy and Management, University of
Manchester.
Buendia, Emmanuel E.
2005 Democratizing Governance in the Philippines: Redefining and
Measuring the State of People's Participationin Governance. Diliman,
Quezon City: Center for Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy,
National College of Public Administration and Governance, University
of the Philippines Diliman.
Burawoy, Michael B.
2007 The Turn to Public Sociology: The Case of U.S. Labor Studies. Institute
for Research on Labor and Employment Working Paper Series No. 160-
07. Berkeley, CA: University of California. http://repositories.cdlib.org/
iir/iirwps/iiwrps-160-07. Retrieved March 6, 2008.
Caldwell, Lynton K.
1965 Public Administration and the Universities: A Half-Century of
Development. Public Administration Review. 25, 1 (March): 52-60.
Carifio, Ledivina V.
2008 Collective Governance: An Alternative Model of Third Sector
Governance. In Samiul Hasan, Jenny Onyx and Mark Lyons, eds.
Comparative Third Sector Governance in Asia: Structure, Process and
Political Economy. New York: Springer for Nonprofit Management
Series, UCLA.
2003 Administrative Accountability: A Review of the Evolution, Meaning and

Operationalization of a Key Concept in Public Administratuion. In
Victoria A. Bautista, Ma. Concepcion P. Alfiler, Danilo R. Reyes and
Proserpina D. Tapales, eds. Introduction to Public Administration in
the Philippines: A Reader. Diliman, Quezon City: National College of
Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines
Diliman. 2 "d edition: 745-772.
2002a Between the State and the Market: The Nonprofit Sector and Civil
Society in the Philippines. Diliman, Quezon City: Center for
Leadership, Citizenship and Democracy, National College of Public
Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines Diliman.
2002b From Traditional Public Administration to the Governance Tradition:

Research in NCPAG, 1952-2002. Paper presented at the International
Conference on Public Administration marking the fiftieth anniversary
of the National College of Public Administration and Governance,
University of the Philippines Diliman. October 21-23.
1992 Bureaucracy for Democracy: The Dynamics of Executive-Bureaucracy

Interaction during Governmental Transitions. San Francisco, CA and
Makati, Philippines: College of Public Administration, University of the
Philippines Diliman International Center for Economic Growth and the
Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
April-October
Carifio, Ledivina V., Edna Estefania Co, Roman Dannug,

Ederlinda Fernandez, and Proserpina D. Tapales
2004 An Evaluation of the Schools offering Graduate Programs in Public
Administration. Report submitted to the Fund for Assistance to Private
Education, as commissioned by the Council for Higher Education.
Manila: Commission on Higher Education. October.
Coronel, Sheila S.
1998 Monopoly. In Sheila S. Coronel (ed.). Pork and Other Perks:
Corruption and Governance in the Philippines. Pasig City: Metro
Manila: Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, Evelio B. Javier
Foundation and Institute for Popular Democracy: 112-49.
De Dios, Emmanuel S.
1999 Interest-Group Competition, Legislative Obstruction and Executive
Power. In D. Canlas and S. Fujisaki, eds. Studies in Governance and
Regulation: The Philippines. Tokyo: Institute of Developing
Economies: 28-46.
Domingo, Ma. Oliva Z.

2005 Good Governance. and Civil Society: The Role of Philippine Civil
Society Boards. Diliman, Quezon City: Center for Leadership,
Citizenship and Democracy, National College of Public Administration
and Governance, University of the Philippines Diliman.
Easton, David
1953 The Political System. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Franke, Richard Herbert. and James D. Kaul

1978 The Hawthorne Experiments: First Statistical Interpretation.
American Sociological Review. (43): 623-643.
Gillespie, Richard
1991. Manufacturing Knowledge: A History of the Hawthorne Experiments.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, Garth N.
1976 Frontiersmen in Search of the 'Lost Horizon': The State of
Development Administration in the 1960s. Public Administration
Review. 36, l(January-February): 99-110.
Kwantes, Anne C.
1989 Presbyterian Missionaries in the Philippines: Conduits of Social
Change. Quezon City: New Day Publishers.
Marshall, Gordon
1998 Human Relations Movement. A Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford
University Press. Reprinted in http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1088-
HumanRelationsMovement. html. Retrieved 6 March 2008.
Mayo, Elton
1933 The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization. New York:
Macmillan.
2008
Ocampo, Romeo B.
2003a Models of Public Administration Reform. In Victoria A. Bautista, Ma.
Concepcion P. Alfiler, Danilo R. Reyes, and Proserpina D. Tapales, eds.
Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines:A Reader. 2 nd
edition. Quezon City: National College of Public Administration and
Governance, University of the Philippines Diliman. 147-56.
2003b The Nature of and Need for Policy Studies. In Victoria A. Bautista, Ma.
Concepcion P. Alfiler, Danilo R. Reyes, and Proserpina D. Tapales, eds.
Introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader.
2
,d edition. Quezon City: National College of Public Administration and
Governance, University of the Philippines Diliman. 227-236.
Reyes, Danilo R.
2003 Public Sector Reengineering: Practice, Problems and Prospects. In
Victoria A. Bautista, Ma. Concepcion P. Alfiler, Danilo R. Reyes, and
Proserpina D. Tapales, eds. Introduction to Public Administration in
the Philippines:A Reader. 2 nd edition. Quezon City: National College of
Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines
Diliman. 157-74.
Salamon, Lester M.
1994 The Rise of the Nonprofit Sector. Foreign Affairs, July-August: 109-
22.
Salamon, Lester M. and Helmut K. Anheier

1998 Defining the Nonprofit Sector: A Cross-National Analysis. Manchester
and New York: Manchester University Press.
Simon, Herbert A.
1946 The Proverbs of Administration. Public Administration Review, 6: 53-
67. Washington D. C.: Americal Society for Public Administration.
United Nations
2002 Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World: Human Development
Report 2002. New York: United Nations Development Programme.
Wilson, Woodrow
1887 The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2 (2): 197-
222.
April-October

52 Phil JPub Admin 139

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

52 Phil JPub Admin 139

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DATE DOWNLOADED: Thu Feb 20 20:28:33 2020

SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline

Bluebook 20th ed.

ALWD 6th ed.

APA 6th ed.

Chicago 7th ed.

McGill Guide 9th ed.

MLA 8th ed.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

State, Market and Civil Society

The author critically limns the roles of the state, market

The discipline of Public Administration and Governance (PAG) claims

* University Professor Emeritus, University of the Philippines National College of

To reach these objectives, I shall analyze the roles of these domains

The Streams of Philippine Public Administration

PPA has navigated on four streams: Traditional Public

As the scope and focus of PPA, have changed, so has the

A Note on Limitations. This analysis comprehends mainly how

Table 1. The Convergence of PA Streams

Indicative US:1880s 1950s 1970s Mid-1980s

Meaning of As government As government As kind of goods As the focus of

Note: Summary of Textual Discussion

Traditional Public Administration

Traditional PA was what developed in the United States since the

When the Bell Mission recommended the improvement of Philippine

education in this field to the Philippine shores, "public" and

In a sense the Philippines did not have a Traditional Public

Development trumped democracy as a value for PA and it was what

The 1950s was a wonderful period. The 'American dream' was

On the administration end, we had the techniques and methods of

New Public Administration

"New Public Administration" was distinctly aimed at changing

New PA brought philosophy back into PA -the literature blossomed

In 1978, the College has had a second round of technical assistance,

The study of public policy brought about our second understanding

The "public" in "public goods" gained significance in public

Public Administration and Governance,

The term "governance," and the introduction of a "governance

By then, the "public" in "public administration" was also being

The Three Domains in Philippine

Philippine PA was governmental management from its inception

Government and Public Administration

Public Administration began as a discipline focused on the

"Government" was the referent of "public" when the discipline was

But what government was Philippine PA interested in? Note that I

That changed as we moved to New PA and became interested not

With the governance paradigm, Philippine PA now includes not only

Why is it significant to note that only a small slice of government

1990s, I tried to conduct a study of the civil service in terms of the

There is one exception to the small slice of government that we have

The involvement of the two other domains of society in Public

Business Administration as Model for Philippine PA. Despite the

(1946) unmasked them as "proverbs" rather than products of scientific

In the Philippines, Public Administration started out as a cross

This idea was especially influential in the 1970s when UP was

The interaction of PA with business firms is also significant in the

Business management as a model has been implicitly set aside under

Business as Providerof Public Goods. The second point of interaction

This interface of government and business was potentially a strong

New PA pushed the relevance of Regulation into the discipline as it

The relationship of government and business received an early boost

A young movement in the domain of the market dawned in the 1990s

Business as Interest-Bearers. Business also gets involved in