Hybridity implies the mixing of elements to create a new entity (Hutnyk, 2005); in the context of this thesis it has been applied to a system of governance. As noted in Chapter1 (Section 1.2) and Chapter 3 (Section 3.1), the term governance has been used to consider both the changing role of the state, and adaptations made by organisations which have brought changes in management and government. These attributes, while clearly linked, are not mutually dependent. In the first instance, the contested discourses of neoliberalism and globalisation provide opportunities for re-conceptualising the role of the state and the emergence of hybrid forms of governance. This can be done by considering the increasing significance of the private sector in the provision of services and creation of public goods, and the dialectic of global and local (glocal)76 processes shaping societies; that is, substantive changes in terms of who is governing whom. In the second instance, hybrid governance can be seen as related to adaptations made by organisations. Adaptations and changes in management and government and can be seen as reforms in public sector administration. In this instance, models of administration have taken a more businesslike approach to public management based on a neoliberal, market-led agenda; in particular, the ‘new public management’ model of public
76
administration (Crook and Ayee, 2006; Haque, 2004; Polidano and Hulme, 1999). Both of these processes can be seen to have occurred within the Philippines, Bohol and the city of Tagbilaran and are addressed in turn below.
The changing role of the state in the Philippines has been an ongoing process, which has been brought into sharper relief in the present, highly globalised era. Philippine development has been shaped by inherent social, cultural, political and geographical factors as well as exogenous influences, most notably colonisation (Spanish era 1521-1898 and US era 1898- 1946). Since gaining independence from the US in 1946, development in the Philippines has been characterised by persistent poverty and uneven development, spatially, socially and across sectors. The post-independence planning and development framework directing the official development agenda reflected the ideology espoused by key development agents in the 1940s and 1950s, particularly the US and the World Bank (see Chapter 3). For this reason, development premised on modernisation and economic growth was favoured, in which the government was seen to play a vital role in determining development priorities as well as implementing development programs and projects.
Early strategies to modernise the Philippine economy manifested in a shift from an agricultural to industrial bias in an attempt to address the spatial diversity in regions in which import-substitution industrialisation was pursued. Uneven growth across the country presented challenges to nationally implemented strategies and precipitated the shift towards regional development from the 1960s onwards in concert with national development strategies and planning (Constantino-David, 2001; Manasan and Chatterjee, 2003).77
As an indication of the strong role played by the government in directing development in the Philippines, the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) has been the key body responsible for economic and social development since 1973. NEDA formulates national annual, medium- and long-term economic and social development plans, and monitors approved national, sectoral and regional development plans and programs. Rather than a strictly centralised program of development, however, the Philippines has been pursuing a regional approach to development since 1972 (see Chapter 5, Section 5.1).
To reduce spatial and distributional inequality, regional development in the Philippines became institutionalised in 1972 with the creation of administrative regions with NEDA offices, and regional development councils (RDCs). The RDCs were established to increase local and regional participation in plan formulation by engaging local leaders, as represented by provincial governors and city mayors, with national officials, as represented by regional directors of central government departments and agencies (Alburo, et al., 1995). Through
77
For a discussion on the causes of uneven growth in the Philippines see for example (Cuervo and Hin, 1998; Mercado, 2002; Reid, 2001).
RDCs, the government sought to coordinate policy formulation, development planning and monitoring in the regions of the Philippines. Moreover, the RDCs acted as counterparts to the NEDA board at the sub-national level (NEDA, 2004a). Ostensibly, the creation of RDCs and efforts to increase regional participation in development represents a shift towards a more decentred approach to development whereby power and control is transferred from the central government to lower levels of political administration. The irony in this instance, however, is that the creation of RDCs and subsequent attempts to increase regional development efforts occurred during the dictatorship of President Ferdinand Marcos shortly after the declaration of martial law.
The extent to which the RDCs were effectively able to direct and implement regional development strategies autonomously was relatively constrained through the 1970s. During this period a centralised system of planning, budgeting and expenditure prevailed with decisions about development projects made by national officials and government agencies. Furthermore, local governments were limited in their ability to raise revenue and national funds were unpredictable (Rood, 1998). The EDSA78 uprising and the end of the Marcos regime in 1986 heralded a new political regime and a new Philippine Constitution with the abolition of the 1973 Constitution and the enactment of the 1987 Constitution in February 1987. In addition, the role of the RDCs was greatly enhanced with decentralisation, which followed the enactment in 1991 of RA7160TheLocalGovernmentCodeof1991 (Republic of the Philippines, 1991).
The enactment of the Local Government Code (LGC) represents an important shift in the way in which governments function in the Philippines, and the role played by the state in development. Since the passing of the LGC, local government units have a greater role in formulating their own local plans and making decisions over issues affecting their communities (Legaspi, 2001). The LGC devolves authority and functions to local government units, which are mandated to provide certain basic services such as water. Under the LGC, the participation of the private sector in local governance, particularly in the delivery of basic services, is encouraged.79 In addition, the LGC emphasises the importance of promoting people’s organisations and non-governmental organisations to become partners in matters concerning local governance (Legaspi, 2001; Rood, 1998).80
The role of the state post-Marcos has also changed as a consequence of structural reforms, in which privatisation, deregulation and liberalisation have been emphasised. Philippine economic policy has steadily been influenced by the World Bank and IMF, mostly as a consequence of high levels of indebtedness, and is therefore inclined towards neoliberal reforms
78
EDSA stands for Epifanio de los Santos, the name of the road upon which the uprising against President Ferdinand Marcos took place, which ultimately led to Marcos being deposed as leader.
79
Chapter 1 section 3 paragraph (l) (Republic of the Philippines, 1991).
80
(Kelly, 2000). As a consequence, NEDA and the national government support greater private sector participation in developing infrastructure citing the expense associated with its development as a major rationale (NEDA, 2001; 2002). In this regard development policies in the Philippines mirror international development trends more broadly whereby increasing engagement by the private sector in public service provision is embedded in the development legacy of the Philippines.
As well as political decentralisation and changes in the role played by the state (and private sector) in development in the Philippines, the way in which the state functions has also changed. Haque (2004) observes how the Philippines’ public administration has been greatly influenced by the US, and how the Philippines, along with other countries in Southeast Asia have followed reform initiatives undertaken in industrialised countries including the US. Most notable are efforts to build capacity of public sector workers (manifesting most often as various sorts of training exercises), managerial decentralisation, new public management and other changes which strive to reduce bureaucracy and apply a business-like approach to the government (Haque, 2004; Polidano and Hulme, 1999) .
In the context of water, the localisation of concepts and approaches borne out of global environmental governance has also been influential in shaping development approaches in the Philippines. Water resource management in the Philippines has incorporated recommendations and information from the broader international community through international forums – Rio, Dublin, World Summit on Sustainable Development, World Water forum – as well as through international financial institutions; again, the World Bank and the IMF. Discourses of IWRM, allocative efficiency, and private sector participation and other tenets of neoliberalism have, therefore, been absorbed into water and development policy nomenclature. In this way development and water governance in the Philippines can be seen to have followed the trajectory of discourses promulgated by multilateral development agencies, international forums, conventions, conferences, and subsequent governance institutions. However, the formal institutions governing water remain integral to configuring the ways in which water is regulated and managed. For this reason, in the following section I explicate the formal water governance institutions regulating municipal water supply that currently exist in the Philippines.