PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES 1951-2020: 1

HISTORY, CHALLENGES, AND PROSPECTS

Ador R. Torneo 2
Abstract
The Philippines was the first country to offer Public Administration (PA) degree
programs in Asia beginning in 1952. PA programs were offered by the newly
established Institute of Public Administration at the University of the Philippines
(UP) in 1951, in line with the Bell Mission’s recommendations to rebuild the civil
service and facilitate recovery from World War 2. Since then, Philippine PA
education has evolved with the changing political, administrative, and economic
landscape. PA programs have expanded across the country, and PA professional
and educational associations have grown. Despite these, obstacles limit their
development and challenge their relevance. The general environment of PA
education in the Philippines remains, in my view, fragmented, impeded by
regulatory issues, dependent on imported theories, ideas, and frameworks due to
centralized and limited indigenous scholarship. PA programs face questions on the
suitability of its curricula to the needs of students and the public sector. Finally, it
must deal with the question of whether PA, as it is taught and practiced, is
responsive to the needs of the Philippine bureaucracy and society. Several options
in dealing with these challenges are proposed and explored in this article.

This is the final pre-publication version of the article. To cite the article:

Ador R. Torneo (2020): Public administration education in the Philippines

1951-2020: History, challenges, and prospects, Journal of Public Affairs Education,
26:2, 127-149, DOI: 10.1080/15236803.2020.1744066

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2020.1744066

1
Acknowledgments. The author would like to express gratitude to my colleagues who directly and indirecty
provided their feedback and suggestion to this mansucript. Special thanks goes to Dr. Gary Ador Dionisio, Ms.
Maricel Fernandez-Carag, Dr. Joan Tomas-Ruiz, and Dr. Weng Noel Tarrazona, who provided valuable feeback and
inputs during the writing of this manuscript. All views expressed in this article belong to the author and in no way
represents the official views of any organization or association. All errors in this article belong to the author.
2
Dr. Ador R. Torneo is a Professor of Political Science and Development Studies, and Director of the Jesse M.
Robredo Institute of Governance of De La Salle University in Manila Philippines. He served as a Director for
Internationalization of the Korea Association for Policy Studies (KAPS) in 2017 and as the (National) Secretary of
the Philippine Political Science Association from 2017-2019. He is a regular member of the American Society for
Public Administration (ASPA) and a lifetime member of the Philippine Society for Public Administration (PSPA).
Overview
The Institute of Public Administration (IPA) was established in 1951 as a result of a cooperation
agreement between the University of the Philippines (UP) and the University of Michigan (UM).
It became the first institution to offer PA degrees in Asia in 1952. In this article, I describe the
history and development of modern Public Administration (PA) education in the Philippines
from 1951 to 2020. I also describe the educational environment in terms of the regulatory
environment, the scholarship, the engagement Philippine PA education programs have with
government organizations, and the issues and challenges of the discipline. Finally, I discuss
issues and challenges and explore the possible directions of Philippine PA education.
Brief History of Public Administration Education in the Philippines
Modern Philippine PA will celebrate the 70th anniversary of its formal institutionalization in
2021. The term “modern” here is used to refer to PA as it is currently taught and practiced. This
also acknowledges that the kingdoms that later comprised the Philippines had administrative
traditions before colonization, and that civil service was present in the Spanish colonial
government in the 16th century, and the Malolos Constitution of the Philippine Revolutionary
government in the late 19th century. The foundation of modern Philippine PA was laid down by
the Philippine Civil Service Act under the American Colonial government in 1900, but formal
PA education was only introduced after the establishment of the IPA at the UP in 1951 (Corpuz,
1957; Domingo-Tapales, 2002; Reyes, 2011).
The formal institutionalization of the study of PA in the Philippines was the result of a technical
support agreement between UP and the UM. The establishment of the IPA in the UP is a
response to the post-World War 2 recommendations of the Bell Mission for the Philippines. The
mission’s report recommended the revival of the Philippine bureaucracy that suffered the ravages
of the war with colossal material and personnel losses, by rebuilding and developing its capacity
and confidence as well as to restore its pre-war prestige. The IPA aimed to train and develop a
highly capable cadre of public sector administrators, managers, and staff to facilitate the
country's recovery and development (e.g., Domingo-Tapales, 2002; Reyes, 2011).
Programs were offered by the IPA to "professionalize the Philippine civil service and restore its
competence and confidence" (Reyes, 2011, 347). American experts were sent on rotation to the
IPA to design programs and conduct training and research with Filipino staff, who later took rein
over the institute when the cooperation agreement between UP and UM ended. The IPA offered
training, certificate programs, and both graduate and undergraduate degrees in PA, becoming the
first institution in Asia to do so. Later, it became the UP Graduate School of Public
Administration (GSPA) in 1963, the UP School of Public Administration (SPA) in 1966, and the
UP College of Public Administration (CPA) in 1966, before being renamed the UP National
College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG) in 1998 3 (Domingo-Tapales, 2002).

3
It was conferred the name National College of Public Administration by the UP Board of Regents in its 1126th
meeting on 26 November 1998.
The IPA pioneered PA education and training in the Philippines and was instrumental in the
development of its academic and professional communities. Under UP NCPAG's Dean Raul P.
De Guzman’s leadership, the Philippine Society of Public Administration (PSPA) was
established in 1977, initially as a professional association of practitioners dedicated to "better
government and improved public service." The Association of Schools of Public Administration
(ASPAP) was established in 1979 under his leadership, patterned after the National Association
of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) in the U.S. Dean De Guzman was
also influential in the establishment of the Eastern Regional Organization for Public
Administration (EROPA), a regional association of PA (Domingo-Tapales, 2002).
Since then, program offerings in the discipline have grown. In 1972, only 15 institutions outside
UP offered PA programs (Domingo-Tapales, 2002; Brillantes & Fernandez, 2008). As of 2020,
this has grown to around 200 colleges and universities across the country. The academic and
professional community has also increased. Some 151 educational institutions have registered for
membership in the ASPAP as of 2020. 4 The PSPA is a member of the Philippine Social Science
Council (PSSC), the umbrella organization of professional associations in social sciences.
The PSPA has grown, and annual conferences are attended by more than 600 registered and
dues-paying members as of 2019. The annual PSPA conferences are among the largest
conferences in the Philippines in the number of attendees. Officers of the PSPA and ASPAP also
contributed to establishing the Network of Asia Pacific Schools and Institutes of Public
Administration and Governance (NAPSIPAG) in 2004, the Asian Public Management Forum
(APMF) in 2001 and later, the Asian Association for Public Administration (AAPA) in 2010.

Growth and Development of Philippine Public Administration Education

When the IPA was established in 1951, PA programs primarily focused on building the
capacities of the bureaucracy that was severely depleted by World War 2. Initially, training in the
IPA in UP were mainly run by American faculty from the UM with the assistance of Filipino
staff. The programs initially focused on professional training, but the IPA later offered a Master
and Public Administration (MPA) and a Bachelor of Arts in Public Administration (BAPA)
degree program in 1952. Consistent with its history as a product of American PA, the core
content and approach of PA education in the Philippines and the discourses also reflected
developments in American PA. The pioneers also engaged in research and began the
development of materials that were grounded in the local context and practices. Filipino staff,
many of whom trained and studied in the US, took over the American faculty later.
In charting the progress of Philippine PA research and teaching, De Guzman (1986: 381) notes
that the field had undergone several changes reflecting concerns in each period. In the 1950s and
the 1960s, the focus was on internal management, the staff functions in government, organization
and management, personnel, and fiscal administration, with some courses in local government.
The 1950s and 1960s was the period of Development Administration (Brillantes & Fernandez,

4
Not all of the registered members are active. This figures represent the number of institutions that have registered
for membership in ASPA at one time or another since the 2000s.
2008; Cariño, 2008). The role of PA is to carry out policies, projects, and programs to improve
social and economic conditions with development aid as a vehicle. In 1968, the UP CPA offered
the Doctor of Public Administration (DPA) program and temporarily phased out BAPA.
The 1970s were the period of New Public Administration (NPA) and saw the return of
philosophy and discussions of social justice and freedom in PA (Cariño, 2008). Public
administration and politics, the economy, and social change courses were introduced in the
curricula. This occurred against the backdrop of poverty, inequality, and absence of freedoms
under President Marcos's authoritarian regime (1965-1986), which placed the Philippines under
Martial law from 1972-1981. The administration adopted major changes in civil service policy
and reorganized the bureaucracy (De Guzman, 1986; Brillantes & Fernandez, 2008).
President Marcos appointed some of the brightest minds and most capable hands the country had
to offer in the cabinet and other important positions as it embarked on large scale infrastructure
and economic development programs. On the other hand, his regime was also associated with
cronyism, corruption, human rights abuses, and the use of state forces against critics and
enemies. Many faculty and students, especially from UP, resisted the Marcos regime, leading
protests, and opposing the regime overtly and covertly. UP CPA engaged in a period of “critical
collaboration” working with the government to reform organizations and make policy decisions,
even as it also studied topics that were not popular with the regime (Tapales-Domingo, 2002).
In the 1960s, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) under then-Commissioner Subido engaged in
the strengthening of the merit system and efforts against graft and corruption under Philippine
President Macapagal’s moral recovery program (Varela, 1995). In 1963, the CSC under his
leadership required those applying for promotion to supervisory positions in government to have
12 units of graduate courses in PA. This increased enrollment in the GSPA in UP and led to the
opening of PA programs and departments in many institutions across the country (Domingo-
Tapales, 2002). By 1972, around 16 institutions offered PA programs across the Philippines.
Although the IPA pioneered management education for public managers, other institutions with
similar offerings soon emerged. The Asian Institute of Management (AIM) was established in
1968 and offered master’s degree programs for Asian and Filipino executives. A program for
military managers was offered by the National Defense College of the Philippines (NDCP) in
1973. The Civil Service Academy offered the Executive Leadership and Management (ELM) in
1979 (Domingo-Tapales, 2003). The Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) was
established in 1973 as a development-oriented academy for the civilian bureaucracy tasked with
training leaders with new development perspectives and technologies to support development
programs. Departing from classical PA, it offered a Master in Public Management (MPM)
program with a developmental orientation and more managerial and technical focus.
Program administration and public policy were introduced in the UP GSPA’s PA curricula in
1978 with the help of Harvard University. In this period, some American PA schools recognize
the implications of continuing to dichotomize politics and administration, and many transforming
into schools of public policy (De Guzman, 1986; Cariño, 2008).
The ouster of the Marcos regime in the EDSA People Power Revolution of 1986 led to the
restoration of democracy under the Presidency of Cory Aquino (1986-1992). The new
administration attempted to “de-Marcosify” and reorganized the bureaucracy (Varela, 1995). The
Aquino administration led the drafting of the 1987 Constitution to restore democracy and put
strong constitutional safeguards against the abuses that happened under the Marcos regime. It
also sought to strengthen the Commission on Audit and the CSC to insulate the civil service from
politics and created the Office of the Ombudsman and the Commission on Human Rights.
In the mid-1980s, the number of institutions offering PA programs in the Philippines increased to
around 60 universities, and colleges offered degree programs in PA mostly as a second area of
specialization at the master's level (De Guzman, 1986). As of 2019, this has increased to
approximately 200 institutions offering PA degrees at the undergraduate and/or graduate levels.
The increase is partially influenced by several policies issued by the Philippine CSC.
While PA graduate programs no longer enjoy a monopoly as a requirement for promotion in the
Philippine civil service today, several policies of the CSC still make enrollment in these
programs an attractive option for those pursuing a career in public service. The CSC MC No. 42,
s. 1991 and later amended by CSC MC 12, s. 2003 which required all appointees to the Division
Chief (SG-24) rank to have a master's degree, except as otherwise provided by law.
De Guzman (1986) writes that a course on ethics in the public service was reintroduced in PA
programs, given the emphasis on accountability in the post-Marcos era. The meaning of “public”
in public administration shifted from “government” to “people,” signaling a shift in the focus of
teaching and research from the problems of the bureaucracy to broader concerns about the
delivery of services to the people. This included alternative channels, including the private
sector, non-governmental organizations, cooperatives, and others. The 1987 Philippine
constitution officially recognized the importance of non-governmental, community-based, or
sectoral organizations in promoting the welfare of the nation as state policy. The 1990s saw the
shift of the discourse from “administration” to “governance.”
The promulgation of the Local Government Code of 1991 and the movement for local autonomy,
decentralization, and devolution from the national government to local government units,
brought increased attention to local governance studies and its strengthening as a major area of
specialization under PA. In this regard, the Center for Local and Regional Governance (CLRG),
a unit established initially by UP and Congress as the Local Government Center in 1965, again
took center stage and led research, training and consulting center for local governments.
The New Public Management movement that began in the United Kingdom and Australia in the
1980s also reached the shores of the Philippines in the 1990s, followed by the Reinventing
Government movement that started in the US under the Clinton Administration in the early
1990s (e.g., see Pilar, 2008). The ideas and vocabulary of these paradigms would persist for the
next three decades, and readings continue to appear in the course syllabi of many PA programs.
The influence of NPM, Reinventing Government, and related ideas such as “outsourcing” and
“customer orientation” can be seen in the succeeding Ramos administration (1992-1998), which
embarked on a massive privatization and deregulation program.
The 1990s also saw the embrace of the governance paradigm and the adoption of good
governance models in PA (Brillantes & Fernandez, 2008). Civil society organizations (CSOs)
composed of nongovernment organizations (NGOs), People’s Organizations (POs), and
voluntary sector organizations (VSOs), played an important role in addressing important socio-
economic and political issues and supporting public service delivery in the post-Marcos era. The
UP NCPAG offered a major in Voluntary Sector Management in its MPA programs in 1997 in
recognition of VSOs as an alternative service delivery provider and a potential model for PA and
in line with the shift of the discourse in PA to the broader concept of governance (Carino, 1997).
Other prominent Philippine private universities established units with programs focused on
governance. In 1996, the Graduate School of Business of the Ateneo de Manila University
(AdMU) established a public sector arm which became the Ateneo School of Government
(ASOG), an autonomous school unit in 2001. The school offered an MPM program as well as
short training programs and engaged with research, technical support, and consultancy services.
In the same year, De La Salle University (DLSU), another prominent private university, also
established the La Salle Institute of Governance (LSIG). It did not offer degree programs but
offered training programs and executive courses as well as engaged in research, technical
support, and consultancy for the public sector and development organizations.
The 2000s saw increased attention to information and communications and technology (ICT) and
e-government, which reflected in courses and a major on Spatial Information Management in the
MPA curriculum of UP NCPAG. PA also paid increased attention to emerging ideas that include
ICT and governance, governmentality, results-based management, global citizenship, and
sustainable development. By 2010 the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Policies,
Standards, and Guidelines for Bachelor in Public Administration (BPA) programs were issued
and established through CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 06, s. 2010.

Challenges and Issues

Despite the strong heritage and continuing influence of American PA, Filipino scholars were
conscious of the particularities of PA in the Philippines since the beginning. Even as American
PA underwent one of its many periods of soul searching and “identity crisis” (Kirwan, 1977) in
the 1970s, Filipino scholars did not find it to be as serious a problem in the local setting. Reyes
(1979) notes, however, that the identity crisis may not be as severe a problem from the point of
view of Philippine PA due to three distinct features:
"(a) Public Administration has maintained some disciplinary
independence from allied disciplines and has not been insecure about its
relationships with Political Science; (b) the politics-administration
dichotomy has no strong tradition and is thus inapplicable here; (c) the
peculiarities of a developing country have necessitated Philippine Public
Administration to give emphasis on or favor to service type researches.
Thus, the identity crisis in Public Administration becomes relevant and
 worthwhile only if it is viewed from the perspectives of actual Philippine
conditions and development aspirations" (p.1).

Nevertheless, Philippine PA also continues to grapple with its identity issues. In 1986, De
Guzman and Onofre D. Corpuz wrote two separate essays entitled, "Is there a Philippine Public
Administration?" Both raised several questions that reflect issues both of PA as a field in general
and the Philippine PA in particular. Reflecting on the question, De Guzman asks:
"…what are the structural features which are uniquely Filipino and which
are common and shared with public bureaucracies in other countries?
What are the behavioral characteristics or patterns of behavior presumed
to be bureaucratic which are, again, uniquely Filipino and which are
similar to bureaucratic behavioral patterns in other socio-cultural
settings?" (De Guzman, 1986: 375).
Both Philippine PA luminaries answered in the affirmative. There is a Philippine PA as a field of
study and in terms of PA structures and processes within the broader Philippine political,
economic, cultural, and administrative context. There is also a Philippine PA undergoing its
identity crisis and a PA education concerned with issues. De Guzman (1986) asks:
Would curricular programs in public administration enable the students
to acquire a broad understanding of the process of social change and the
various cultural, social, economic and political factors which influence the
development effort in the country? Would the program equip the students
with the specialized knowledge on and the analytical ability to understand
the development goals, the structure, and dynamics of political and
administrative institutions, policy issues, and programs/project
implementation problems? Would the programs and the component
courses be too "theoretical," academic, and prescriptive in approach?
Would there be discussion on ethical issues and questions? (p.380-381)

These are perhaps the "big questions" of PA Education in the Philippines. Although they may be
basic relative to some of the grand questions asked in more mature PA traditions 5, they remain
relevant to Philippine PA today. Despite the increase in the offerings and the number of
institutions offering PA degrees and the growth of Philippine PA's academic and professional
community, many of these questions remained unanswered and unresolved after 34 years. The
salience and relevance of these questions are reflected in Brillantes and Fernandez's (2009)
revisiting of this question 24 years later. In another article published in 2013, they acknowledged
the still ongoing identity crisis within the field of Philippine PA, which was marked by:
"(1) the inordinate influence of mostly American public administration
theories and concepts upon Philippines public administration … ; (2) the
perceived disconnect between theories of public administration as taught

5
I note that the issues and challenges of Philippine PA are significantly different from the “Grand Challenges”
documented by Gerton and Mitchel (2019) in their article “Grand challenges in public administration: Implications
for public service education, training, and research” published in this journal.
 in schools and the realities in the outside world has raised questions of the
relevance of the discipline to real-world challenges; (3) the continued
frustration over the perception that in spite of many public
administration and governance reforms, the Philippines continues to
be among the more corrupt nations in the region; " (Brillantes &
Fernandez, 2013:80)
De Guzman (1986), Corpuz (1986), and Brillantes and Fernandez (2009, 2013) reflect concerns
among Philippine PA scholars on three persistent concerns: the dependence on Western (mostly
American) PA for concepts, models, and theories, the relevance of PA education to practice, and
the responsiveness of Philippine PA to the needs of its bureaucracy and society, especially in
dealing with chronic and persistent issues such as poverty, inequality, corruption, and the quality
of democracy, governance, leadership, citizenship, and public institutions (Abueva, 2008).
Since the latest Administrative Code was promulgated in 1987, a National Competency
Framework has yet to be established to guide capacity-building in the Philippine civil service. As
such, both the CHED and the institutions offering PA programs have no competency framework
as a reference for developing the curriculum of PA programs. The concern here is not just
whether PA programs are aligned to the needs and improve the capacities needed by the
bureaucracy. The accompanying problem is that it is not clear if the CSC, policymakers, and the
bureaucracy, in general, are systematically aware of the competencies needed in the first place.
In the absence of a framework, the various institutions design their PA curricula following what
they believe to be the needs of the students for which these programs were developed. The
CHED Policies, Standards, and Guidelines for BPA programs are partially patterned after the
curriculum of UP NCPAG, which covers the various areas of PA and reflects the developments
discussed by De Guzman (1986) and Brillantes and Fernandez (2013) among others.
Public Administration Scholarship in the Philippines
The continued influence of American PA theories and concepts on Philippine PA may be linked
to the limited growth of theory-oriented and critical indigenous scholarship in the discipline.
While the American pioneers in the IPA and their Filipino counterparts engaged in local research
alongside the development of training and education programs, the work they produced may be
more attuned towards describing, understanding, and providing prescriptions for the Philippine
civil service rather than developing indigenous theories and concepts for a distinctly Filipino PA.
The IPA established the Philippine Journal of Public Administration (PJPA) in 1957 as an outlet
for scholarly works in the discipline. It is the longest-running Philippine academic journal and
has contributed immensely to the development of local studies and knowledge on the study and
practice of the discipline. The PJPA was initially published quarterly but, in recent years, has
struggled to collect enough manuscript contributions and to release its annual issues on schedule
at times. Many contributions come from UP NCPAG faculty or graduate students. The journal
has yet to be indexed internationally in the ASEAN Citation Index, Scopus, or the Social Science
Citation Index (SSCI) or published by major international publishers. While the PSPA Annual
conferences are well-attended, the presentations in the conference do not automatically translate
into scholarly publications in the PJPA or other international journals. 6 Colleagues previously
involved in the journal note that many local contributions to the PJPA are not publishable.
Despite the increase in the number of schools offering Doctor of Public Administration (DPA),
there is a shortage of scholarly work geared towards developing indigenous theories, concepts, or
models. There are few critical reflections on the theories, concepts, and models imported from
American PA, apart from the work of a handful of luminaries in the field from UP NCPAG.
Many local studies are practice and policy-oriented, focused on single-agencies, particular local
governments, best practices, programs, and policies, or specific issues and concerns. While
growth in this area of scholarship is a good thing, a higher level of abstraction, theorizing, model
building, and critical reflection is needed to develop indigenous theories, models, and concepts.
As of 2020, there are only a limited number of available local textbooks on PA in the
Philippines.7 In the last seven decades, there had been several attempts to develop indigenous
teaching materials on Philippine PA by Filipino scholars. Pilar (2008) mentions three locally
produced volumes of note published during different periods. These include Arsenio Talingdan’s
Public Administration and Management in the Philippines (1966), Jose V. Abueva and Raul P.
de Guzman’s edited volume Foundations and Dynamics of Filipino Government and Politics
(1967), and the UP NCPAG’s edited volume, Introduction to Philippine Public Administration:
A Reader, now on its third edition as of 2015. The first two volumes combine articles that use
theories, concepts, and ideas borrowed primarily from American PA. The last volume was
comprised of articles by Filipino PA scholars and local studies (Pilar, 2008).
Internationally published PA scholars remain strongly concentrated among the faculty of UP
NCPAG and a handful of faculty members in DLSU. 8 Although some scholars publish their
work locally, few scholars outside of these institutions publish their work in internationally
refereed, abstracted, and indexed journals or widely distributed and accessible books on the
discipline. Considering that approximately 200 colleges and universities offer degree programs
in PA, the limited number of scholarly publications among most of the faculty in these programs
is lamentable. Some colleagues note that faculty in regions like Mindanao tend to use studies
written by scholars based in and for Metro Manila or produced in the US, Europe, and Asian
countries due to lack of published materials grounded in their local context.
Many studies on Philippine PA also tend to adopt the lens of Western (mostly American) PA
paradigms, frequently uncritically and with little awareness or consideration of Nonwestern PA
paradigms despite the latter being potentially closer to home. Thus far, I have yet to encounter
local scholarship that recognizes or adopts Confucian PA or Islamic PA, despite the strong
history, influences, and the presence of substantial ethnic Chinese and indigenous Muslim

6
The Center for Integrative and Development Studies (CIDS) in the University of the Philippines, a center whose
early history is tied to the GSPA, also publishes a journal titled Philippine Journal of Public Policy:
Interdisciplinary Development Perspectives but this is not strictly a PA journal. It is also locally published and is yet
to be indexed by Scopus or SSCI.
7
A single volume of Principles and Practices of Public Administration in the Philippines was also published by Rex
Bookstore in 2011.
8
Relative to other social science disciplines in the Philippines, internationally refereed and indexed publications in
the field of Public Administration in the Philippines by Filipino scholars is relatively low in number.
populations in the Philippines. As Muslim PA scholar Sukarno Tanggol (2008) notes, the study
of PA in the Philippines is for the most part “tilted towards issues and concerns other than the
Muslim minority question” (p. 359) outside the occasional thesis or dissertation and PJPA
articles on the regional governance on the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).
Most Philippine organizations in PA and related fields are housed in UP NCPAG. This includes
the Secretariat for PSPA, ASPAP, and EROPA are all in UP NCPAG. More recently, a new
organization, the Philippine Public Policy Network (PPPN), was also established with interim
officers and with its first conference hosted by the college. The PJPA is managed and published
by an Editorial Board based in the Publications Office based in the college. The journal Asian
Review of Public Administration (ARPA), EROPAs academic journal, is also managed from its
Secretariat office, also located in the college at the Diliman Campus of UP.
The concentration of scholars and associations in UP NCPAG, still arguably the primary
institution for teaching and research in the field, presents advantages and challenges to the
growth and development of Philippine PA. The proximity between scholars and associations
generated high-quality scholarship and accounts for the close intertwined relationship between
the development of Philippine PA and this institution. High-quality scholarship in PA, however,
has not blossomed elsewhere despite some earlier efforts to develop PA in the regions. Research,
as reflected in the number of international indexed and peer-reviewed publications, remains very
low among the faculty of other institutions offering PA outside of this institution. 9
The Education, Regulatory, and Policy Environment
Many higher education institutions all over the country offer MPA programs. UP NCPAG
continues to offer MPA programs with several areas of specialization. 10 It currently has three
configurations: Plan A, a two-year program with a thesis, Plan B, a two-year program without a
thesis, and Plan C, a one-year non-thesis program for senior government executives. The UP -
Open University (UPOU) and DAP, and private institutions, such as the Ateneo School of
Government (ASoG), offer MPM programs, with various areas of specialization. 11 The College
of Public Affairs and Development of UP-Los Banos Campus offers a Master in Public Affairs.
Many State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) and private institutions offer MPA programs.
The primary mode of instruction in MPA programs in the Philippines are still face-to-face
instruction. AMA University Online Education (AMAOEd), an online university in the
Philippines, is unique in offering an MPA program through online education. If MPM programs
are included in the discussion, UPOU is unique in that it pioneered and employs distance

9
Other prominent institutions like the DAP and ASoG are not included here as technically not focused on Public
Administration and they offer MPM rather than MPA programs.
10
Areas of specialization in the UP NCPAGs MPA program include Public Policy and Program Administration,
Organization Studies, Fiscal Administration, Local Government and Regional Development, Voluntary Sector
Management, Public Enterprise Management, and Spatial Information Management.
11
Specialization in DAPs MPM program include Health Systems and Development, Development and Security,
Rural Development, among others. Tracks for the AsoG MP Program include Governance, Health Governance,
Technology-based Enterprise Development, Environmental Governance and Sustainable Development, and Rural
Development, among others.
learning as the primary mode of instructional delivery. Other institutions, including but not
limited to the DAP and ASoG, also employs customized executive master's program formats. 12
Regulatory issues also challenge PA education in the CHED, the primary governing body that
regulates institutions of higher learning in the Philippines. At present, there is no dedicated
CHED Technical Panel on Public Administration that sets the policies, standards, and guidelines
for relevant program offerings. The regulation of PA degree programs is under the CHED
Technical Panel on Business and Management with only a small Working Committee on Public
Administration composed of three or so members.
Implicit in the above regulatory arrangement is the assumption that PA is just merely another
field of Management, not much different from Business Management. 13 This is a problematic
assumption considering that in the Philippines, PA did not have its roots in Management. As
Reyes (1999) notes, it is “a self-aware Public Administration,” unlike in the American case
where PA traces its roots to Political Science. The idea of PA as simply another subfield of
Management that can be grouped with Business Administration is not a widely held view in the
Philippine literature, where PA scholars are conscious of its identity as a separate discipline. I
argue that the regulatory arrangement for PA programs fails to account for the particularity and
distinctiveness of PA as a distinct and independent field.
At present, the CHED has only issued the Policies, Standards, and Guideline (PSG) for BPA
programs. There are no existing standard policies for MPA and DPA programs, that should be
followed by institutions offering these post-graduate programs. The implication is that different
institutions have latitude in designing their curricula and setting the classifications for their
faculty. Institutions, however, are required to have their graduate programs evaluated and
approved by the CHED Technical Panel on Business and Management.
These regulatory arrangements raise several issues that have implications on the research and
teaching of PA. The lack of a PSG for MPA and DPA programs raises concerns on the
qualifications of graduate PA faculty, some of whom may not have experience and formal
training in PA. The CMO No. 06 Series of 2020 or the Policies, Standards, and Guidelines for
BPA only explicitly require the Chair or Coordinator of the Department offering BPA to have a
PA degree. 14 The two-year supervisory experience requirement may be in government, civil
society, business, or education. Other faculty are only required to have law degrees or the
appropriate master's degrees, which are not prescribed.
This is an area of concern as the lack of PA qualifications as a requirement for faculty members
may limit their ability to teach the program effectively. While PA as a field of study and practice

12
Executive master’s degree programs tend to have compressed class hours compared to regular programs, students
tend to be in supervisory or managerial positions, the program is part-time and students expected to return to their
work between sessions, and outputs are typically work-based capstone projects instead of the usual master’s thesis.
13
While there are schools of thought in that categorizes PA under Management and institutions offering PA in their
Business and Management units, this is neither a universal or dominant view. The more dominant schools of thought
either places PA as a field of Political Science or as a separate and distinct field in and of itself.
14
This can either be a master’s degree in Public Administration or a bachelors degree in Public Administration
combined with as master’s degree in Social Science or Management.
is eclectic by nature and the contribution of practitioners and those from other disciplines are
valued, its core knowledge and literature as a discipline is distinct and requires a certain level of
formal training or study in the discipline. PA theories, models, concepts, and lenses should
ideally frame contributions from practitioners and experts from outside the discipline.
To a certain extent, CMO 06 s.2010 is a positive development in that it provides at least a
common Standard, Policies, and Guideline for BPA. The CMO allows BPA to be offered by a
separate School of Public Administration or a Department of Public Administration in the
Colleges of Business and Management. Colleagues share that in some institutions, graduate
programs in PA are offered by separate units dedicated to PA or which combines PA with other
offerings (e.g., College of Public Administration and Development Studies) while in others, it is
offered under the umbrella of a broader Graduate School with multiple program offerings.
There is no publicly available consolidated data at this time on the actual composition of the
faculty of the different colleges, universities, and institutions offering degrees in PA in the
country. The last evaluation of graduate PA programs was finished in 2005 by Cariño et al.
(2005), but the results are confidential and not publicly accessible. Initial discussions with
colleagues in the PSPA and ASPAP suggest that the qualifications of faculty members in
institutions and faculty offering PA degrees are a concern as they vary significantly.
Some colleagues share that in some institutions, PA courses are taught in a highly legalistic
manner without the benefit of PA theories by lawyers or by teachers and practitioners with little
PA qualifications. This is a serious concern as it has the potential to compromise how PA is
taught. Colleagues also observe that in many regional SUCs and private institutions, many PA
faculty are also taking their graduate studies in or have received their PA graduate degrees from
the same institution, with little outside PA training or exposure. The concern here is the risk of
“inbreeding” and “stagnation” of ideas. Without dwelling too deeply on this issue, I believe that
there is merit in pushing for diversity among faculty in terms of education and exposure.
Working Relationship with Government Agencies
Since establishment in 1951, the IPA has valued close working relationship with the civil
service, and the institute has actively engaged in extension and consultancy work with various
government organizations at different levels. Domingo-Tapales (2002) describes the close
relationship between the UP NCPAG and various government agencies over five decades from
1951 to 2002. The faculty, researchers, and graduates of the college have pioneered and initiated
the establishment of different institutions and programs, many of which had gone on to grow as
separate institutions or programs and/or absorbed by other institutions outside the university.
UP NCPAG generally offer MPA as a regular program in the UP-Diliman Campus. The DAP is
a Philippine Government-Owned and Controlled Corporation (GOCC) and works closely with
various national government agencies through customized MPM offerings. ASoG also offers
customized and on-site MPM programs. The various educational institutions offering MPA
programs provide a variety of short-term training and executive training programs on a wide
range of topics, catering to the needs of those working for the public sector. UP NCPAG
regularly offers short training programs for newly elected national legislators and local chief
executives and legislators. DAP and ASoG also have a variety of short-training or executive
course offerings for public sector officials and staff, and many other PA schools have similar
offerings. DLSU’s Jesse M. Robredo Institute of Governance does not offer PA degree programs
but offers certificate courses and executive training for public sector officers and staff.
Faculty and graduates of PA programs work with the Philippine government in various
capacities, with many occupying high-level positions. I have encountered PA alumni from UP
NCPAG working in different offices in the executive, legislative, and even the judiciary. A few
UP NCPAG PA alumni also tend to be part-time lecturers in various SUCs while remaining full-
time practitioners in the government or other organizations. However, I have only encountered a
handful of alumni holding full-time faculty positions in regional SUCs and private institutions.
Many faculty of DAP and UP NCPAG have served in cabinet and sub-cabinet level positions as
heads of various Philippine national agencies, including but not limited to the Department of
Budget and Management, the National Treasury, the Department of Finance, the Commission on
Higher Education, the Department of Education, and the Department of National Defense,
among others. 15 Two UP NCPAG faculty serve in the cabinet of the Duterte Administration. The
Chairman of the CHED, Prospero J. De Vera, and the Secretary of Education, Leonor M.
Magtolis-Briones, are professor and professor emeritus, respectively.
The highest level of engagement between PA educational institutions and government may be
happening at the local government level. Year after year, studies on local government policies,
programs, initiatives, and practices are some of the most common topics of presentations by
participants in the annual PSPA conferences. With 81 provinces, 146 cities, 1,488 municipalities,
and 42,045 barangays or village-level political and administrative units across the Philippines,
the capacity needs of LGUs are very high. Many of the 200 colleges and universities offering PA
programs in the Philippine have some form of formal or informal engagement with LGUs in the
form of programs and projects and have LGU officials and staff enrolled in their programs. 16
Despite the various engagement of PA faculty and alumni and the engagement of DAP, UP
NCPAG, ASoG, LSIG, and other educational institutions with various government agencies and
LGUs, my view is that the Philippine PA scholarship has limited influence in shaping
governance and public policy discourse. Colleagues and I observe that while there are a number
of PA studies on various governance challenges, experiences, best practices, and policy issues,
Philippine PA scholarly works appear to have very limited influence in terms of shaping and
driving the agenda for governance and public sector reforms in general. 17

15
A few faculty members also feature prominently in CSOs, like the Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) and the
Social Watch Philippines.
16
The Philippine government also established in 1988 by virtue of Executive Order 262 and later amended by the
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) Act of 1990 (RA 6975) a Local Government Academy
(LGA) “responsible for human resource development and training of local government officials and personnel for
the Department proper and the local government bureaus including regional field offices”.
17
I make a distinction here between Philippine PA scholar-practitioners, many of whom are actively engaged in
public policy and governance work, and Philippine PA scholarship, which pertains to the body of published
scholarly work in the discipline.
Major government initiatives in the last decade, such as the adoption of the Results-Based
Performance Management System (RPBMS), the Performance-Informed Budgeting (PIB) which
later became the Program Expenditure Classification (PREXC), and Public-Private Partnerships
(PPP), among others, appears to have been designed, adopted, and implemented with minimal
inputs from Philippine PA scholarship. Instead of shaping and driving governance discourse and
public policy agenda, my view is that it is the Philippine PA scholarship that often plays catch-up
to governance and public sector reforms through evaluation or best practice studies. 18
Challenges and Future Prospects
In trying to chart the future directions of the discipline, I ask the practical question of whether
PA education in the Philippines is responsive to the needs of the Philippine bureaucracy and
society. While I am unable to offer any definitive answer to this question at this time given a lack
of data and the various issues raised earlier, I offer several reflections for consideration moving
forward. In charting the future of PA education in the Philippines, it is perhaps best to revisit the
still unresolved fundamental issues raised by De Guzman in 1986. These are:
"(1) getting faculty members who have both the academic qualifications
and administrative experience;(2) the production and use of indigenous
teaching materials; (3) the use of innovative teaching methods and
techniques, and (4) the formulation of more relevant models and
analytical concepts." (p. 381)
In order to ensure that faculty members teaching PA have the appropriate academic
qualifications and experience, efforts towards advancing PA education may require the
establishment of a separate CHED Technical Panel on Public Administration, a comprehensive
review of the current state of PA education and curricula, and the development of the appropriate
Policies, Standards, and Guidelines that will cover not only undergraduate programs but also
graduate programs in the discipline. PA alumna and faculty are well represented and positioned
in the National Executive and the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippine
government, including in the CHED and Department of Education, to advance this cause.
Teaching materials in the Philippines are still primarily anchored on Western and American PA.
While this is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, I observe a tendency to use and embrace its
theories, models, and concepts without the benefit of critical reflection on its suitability to the
local context. As well, some faculty presenters in PSPA conferences continue to cite American
ideas that have already lost currency and/or been overtaken by developments. 19 Despite the
(re)emergence of other alternative Non-Western PA paradigms, including Confucian PA and
Islamic PA (e.g., see Drechsler, 2015), few Philippine studies consider these lenses.

18
For example, my own research work is limited to assessing the Strategic Performance Management System
(SPMS) and the Performance-Based Incentive System (PBIS) under the RBPMS (Torneo & Mojica, 2019).
19
For example, some still utilize the outdated New Public Management paradigm, which is arguably outdated
having been "new" for the last four decades.
Of course, the bigger question here is whether the PA theories taught programs are applicable to
practice and whether theories based on local practices are also being developed. As Brillantes
and Fernandez (2013) so eloquently raised, there is an:
"imperative to bridge the gap by reconciling both into the 'praxis' of public
administration. Theory without practice is living in an ivory tower; but
practice without theory is living without meaning and ideology." (p.81)

There have only been a few attempts to develop indigenous Philippine PA theories and models.
Brillantes and Fernandez (2013) recently offered Gawad Kalinga as a model of Philippine public
administration and governance based. This is based on the work of a Philippine NGO that
engages government, business, and civil society to deliver essential services to poor
communities, especially housing. I do not have enough information on how well this model has
been integrated into the PA syllabus and/or curricula.
Developing suitable theories and concepts entails scholarship rooted in the local context and
practice. To develop indigenous theories, concepts, and teaching materials suited to the local
context, PA scholars across the country must have a strong capacity to conduct high-quality
research. Teaching institutions should support and encourage the writing of books, and the
development of high-quality academic journals in PA and related disciplines in the regions, and
the publication of scholarly work in local and international outlets. As well, local PA journals
should actively involve and solicit scholarly contributions from overseas scholars with the help
of international organizations like the Asian Association of Public Administration (AAPA),
EROPA, the American Society of Public Administration (ASPA), and the International Institute
of Administrative Sciences (IIAS), among others.
To encourage more high-quality international contributions, local journals like the PJPA may
need to pursue international accreditation from bodies such as the ASEAN Citation Index,
Scopus, and/or the Social Science Citation Index. This necessitates establishing an active
Editorial Board with broad institutional and international representation, and possibly, finding a
major international publisher to ensure wider distribution. To ensure that materials are widely
accessible, expanding journal subscription and/or Open Access options should be explored so
that these materials are accessible to PA faculty and students in the distant Philippine regions.
The development of more relevant models and analytical concepts for PA education also entails
involving the different stakeholders in curriculum review and design. These include stakeholders
from government agencies, alumni, educators, and other practitioners in the public sector. The
development of the CHED Policies, Standards, and Guidelines for graduate programs in PA
should be done in consultation with stakeholders, especially the CSC. This should also be
complementary to efforts to establish a National Competency Framework to ensure that the
curricula of PA programs are genuinely responsive to the capacity needs of the bureaucracy.
Of course, developing responsive PA programs does not only entail alignment of the curriculum
with the appropriate competencies. Educators must also be conscious of and take into account
societal needs and national policies. The Philippine government under the Duterte
Administration has adopted the Ambisyon 2040 as a guiding vision with particular goals and
targets. As well, it is committed to meeting its obligations under the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), which provides measurable development targets and indicators. PA education
must also strive to address better persistent issues such as poverty, corruption, and inequality.
The signing of a Peace Accord between the Philippine Government and the rebel group Moro
Islamic Administration Front (MILF) and the creation of a new Bangsamoro Autonomous
Region of Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) entails the establishment of new administrative units
and massive capacity building. The former rebels will transition into civilian lives, and many will
work for the new BARMM government. Since PA involves a wide range of activities geared
towards the attainment of the purposes of government, Philippine PA education should equip the
public sector with the capacities to realize these visions and goals.
Different educational institutions can develop innovative teaching methods and techniques by
experimenting and benchmarking with other institutions, not just in the Philippines but also
overseas. Educational institutions can explore a variety of options of pedagogical approaches and
methods for instructional delivery, including but not limited to the ones is used today: flipped
classrooms, case teaching, hybrid classes, distance education, online learning, and others.
Benchmarking also need not be limited to PA programs but also those from other disciplines.

Concluding Notes
I observe that PA education in the Philippines has progressed in the last seven decades since the
IPA was established in UP in 1951, adapting with the requirements of the changing political,
administrative, and economic landscape and the different Presidencies. Since then, scholarship
and teaching in the discipline have made great strides, and PA program offerings have expanded
across the country. The PSPA, the professional association of the discipline, has grown, and the
ASPAP has served as an active umbrella organization of schools offering PA programs. Despite
these, Philippine PA faces hurdles that limit its development and challenge its relevance.
The general environment of PA education in the Philippines remains, in my view, fragmented,
impeded by regulatory issues, dependent on imported theories, ideas, and frameworks due to
centralized and limited indigenous scholarship. PA education programs face the question of
relevance and suitability of its theories, concepts, curricula, and mode of instruction to the needs
of its students and the public sector. Educators have to deal with the lack of a competency
framework for the bureaucracy that can serve as a reference for curricular design, the lack of
policies for graduate programs, potential issues in the regulatory arrangement and assigned
technical panel, limited indigenous scholarship and teaching materials, and issues in faculty
qualifications, among others. As well, it has to deal with the question of whether Philippine PA,
as it is taught and practiced, is responsive to the needs of the Philippine bureaucracy and society.
More PA studies in the regions and the context of minority groups, including the various areas
with Indigenous Peoples, the primarily Muslim and culturally distinct Bangsamoro communities,
and special autonomous regions, such as the Cordillera Autonomous Region (CAR) and the new
BARMM in Central Mindanao, are needed. The establishment of new civil service institutions
with political, administrative, and cultural characteristics in these communities and regions are
fertile areas for learning. The need to transition and capacitate former MILF rebels into the
bureaucracy provides excellent opportunities for research and capacity building.
Non-Western PA paradigms should also be considered in the Philippine PA. Islamic PA, for
example, may offer an alternative lens to consider in studies of the BARMM in Muslim
Mindanao. This does not mean that Western or American PA scholarship should be abandoned
altogether. These traditions are mature and continue to generate new theories, models, and ideas,
many of which are relevant to the Philippine context. I am merely suggesting that imported ideas
should be evaluated more critically and put in context before they are embraced or adopted as
part of instruction. Many colleagues are likely doing these in the classroom. More effort,
however, is necessary so that these also reflect in research and teaching materials.
In evaluating Philippine PA education, it might be relevant to assess the different modes of
instructional delivery and assess their effectiveness. It might also be relevant who are enrolling
in PA programs to evaluate the impact of the stage the students were in their careers when they
took the program. Some students enroll in the program before entering the public sector (pre-
service) while others register while already working for public sector organizations (in-service).
Of the latter, some register in their early career while others enroll mid-career. Towards this end,
a more comprehensive and systematic evaluation of PA education programs is necessary.
While it is possible to evaluate the responsiveness of PA programs to the professional needs of
its graduates and their organizations based on the curriculum and through tracer studies, the
results are bound to be limited. It would be challenging to come up with a broader assessment of
Philippine PA programs at this time, given the lack of baseline data and issues discussed earlier.
This is, however, a necessary undertaking to advance Philippine PA and PA education programs.
It may be advantageous to engage in collaborations between international scholars and Filipino
scholars of PA. In particular, comparative research and cross-cultural studies can generate
learnings and insights that can simultaneously enrich Philippine PA and other PA traditions. For
example, the volume Public Administration in Southeast Asia: Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia,
Hong Kong, and Macao edited by Berman (2011) which covers four countries and The Palgrave
Handbook of Global Perspectives on Emotional Labor in Public Service edited by Guy, Yang,
and Mastracci (2019) which includes 12 countries are excellent examples of such work. In the
age of globalization, PA scholars cannot afford to be too insular and parochial in their
worldview. Global governance is growing in importance, and emerging concerns like climate
change, migration, industry 4.0, and pandemics, require broad perspectives and collaborative
approaches since they transcend geopolitical and administrative borders.
Identity issues in Philippine PA are likely to persist, even as many issues raised by De Guzman
(1986), Reyes (2008), and Brillantes and Fernandez (2013), remain unresolved. UP NCPAG is
currently reviewing its curricula, and the various issues raised in this article are bound to come
up along with what Behn (1995), Kirlin (1996, 2001), Neumann (1996), and Denhardt (2001)
refers to as the "big questions" of the discipline especially as this institution is firmly rooted in its
history and conscious of its identity and role in the discipline. To have a broader impact,
discussions on PA education must engage the wider Philippine PA community. I imagine that
some degree of decentralization of scholarship may be needed for the Philippine PA to grow.
"Big question" issues, including the "identity crisis" of Philippine PA and its proper role in
addressing chronic and persistent societal problems such as poverty, inequality, corruption, and
the poor quality of democracy, governance, leadership, citizenship, and public institution are best
discussed in a collegial body where PA educators, practitioners, and other stakeholders are
represented. To be genuinely inclusive and to have a broader impact, these discussions should
extend beyond the halls of prominent institutions like UP NCPAG. For Philippine PA to grow
further, the various universities, colleges, and institutions offering PA and related programs need
to take on a bigger role in the discourse, scholarship, and in shaping the future of Philippine PA.
ASPAP and the PSPA, with its diverse membership, excellent regional representation, and a
good mix of scholars and practitioners, should take an active role in facilitating these
discussions, building consensus, and disseminating developments. They should strengthen links
with the broader global PA community to enrich theories, ideas, and practice. Finally,
scholarship on Philippine PA should be encouraged and involve the broader PA community. It
must engage both scholars and practitioners on how Philippine PA as a field of study and
practice can be truly modern and global and, at the same time Filipino.

References
Abueva, J.V. (2008). Ideals and Practice in the Study of Philippine Public Administration and
Governance. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 52(2-4), 119-113.
Behn, R.D. (1995). The Big Questions of Public Management. Public Administration Review
55(4): 313–24.
Berman, E. M. (Ed.). (2011). Public Administration in Southeast Asia: Thailand, Philippines,
Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Macao. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.
Brillantes Jr, A.B., & Fernandez, M.T. (2013). Theory and practice of public administration in
the Philippines: Concerns for an identity crisis. Asian Journal of Political Science, 21(1),
80-101.
Brillantes Jr., A.B. & Fernandez, M.T. (2008). Is There a Philippine Public Administration? Or
Better Still, For Whom Is Philippine Public Administration? Philippine Journal of Public
Administration, 52(2-4), 1-19.
Cariño, L.V. (1997). But is it Public Administration?: The Place of Voluntary Sector
Management in the Discipline. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 49(1-4): (301-
318.
Cariño, L.V., Co, E.E. A., Dannug, R., Fernandez, E., & Tapales, P.D. (2004). An Evaluation of
the Schools Offering Graduate Programs in Public Administration 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.
Cariño, L.V. (2008). State, Market and Civil Society in Philippine Public Administration.
Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 52(2-4), 139-166.
Corpuz, O.D. (1957). The Bureaucracy in the Philippines. Manila: Institute of Public
Administration.
De Guzman, R.P. (1986). Is there a Philippine Public Administration. Philippine Journal of
Public Administration, 30(4), 375-382.
Denhardt, R. B. (2001). The big questions of public administration education. Public
Administration Review, 61(5), 526-534.
Drechsler, W. (2015). Paradigms of non-Western public administration and governance. In
Massey, A. & K. Johnston (2015. (Eds). The International Handbook of Public
Administration and Governance, pp. 104-131. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gerton, T., & Mitchell, J. P. (2019). Grand challenges in public administration: Implications for
public service education, training, and research. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 25
(4): 435-440.
Guy, M. E., Mastracci, S. H., & Yang, S. B. (Eds.). (2019). The Palgrave Handbook of Global
Perspectives on Emotional Labor in Public Service. Springer Nature.
Kirlin, J. J. (1996). The Big Questions of Public Administration in a Democracy. Public
Administration Review, 56(5): 416–23.
Kirlin, J.J. (2001). Big Questions for a Significant Public Administration. Public Administration
Review, 61(2): 140–3.
Kirwan, K. A. (1977). The crisis of identity in the study of public administration: Woodrow
Wilson. Polity, 9(3), 321-343.
Neumann, Francis X., Jr. (1996). What Makes Public Administration a Science? Or, Are Its "Big
Questions" Really Big? Public Administration Review 56(5): 409–15.
Pilar, N. N. (2008). Philippine public administration: from classical, to new public
administration, to new public management. Philippine Journal of Public Administration,
52(2-4), 308-318.
Reyes, D. R. (1979). The identity crisis in public administration revisited: some definitional
issues and the Philippine setting. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 23(1), 1-19.
Reyes, D. R. (1999/2003). Public Administration in the Philippines: History, Heritage, Hubris. In
V. A. Bautista, M. P. Alfiler, D. R. Reyes, & P. D. Tapales (Eds.), Introduction to Public
Administration in the Philippines: A Reader (2nd ed.) (pp. 38-65). Quezon City,
Philippines: National College of Public Administration and Governance.
Reyes, D.R. (2011). History and Context of the Development of Public Administration in the
Philippines. In Berman, E.M. (Ed.), Public Administration in Southeast Asia: Thailand,
 Philippines, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Macao (pp. 355-380). Boca Raton, Florida: CRC
Press.
Tapales, P. D. (2002). 50 Years of Public Administration Education in the Philippines: UP
NCPAG at the Forefront. National College of Public Administration and Governance,
University of the Philippines Diliman.
Tanggol, S. D. (2008). Is There a Philippine Public Administration? The Relevance of Public
Administration to Muslim Minorities. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 52(2-
4), 333-363.
Torneo, Ador R. & Mojica, Brian C. (2019). Performance-based management in the Philippine
Bureaucracy. Stratbase Albert del Rosario Institute Publications, pp. 1-80.

Varela, A. P. (1995). Administrative Culture and Political Change: The Philippine Experience,
1961-1987. Philippine Journal of Public Administration, 39(1), 37-87.