Save

Philippine technocracy and politico-administrative realities during the martial law period (1972–1986): decentralization, local governance and autonomy concerns of prescient technocrats

In: Philippine Political Science Journal
Authors:
Alex B. Brillantes Jr. National College of Public Administration (NCPAG), University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines

Search for other papers by Alex B. Brillantes Jr. in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Abigail Modino National College of Public Administration (NCPAG), University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines

Search for other papers by Abigail Modino in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

$40.00

Decentralization and local governance in the Philippines have taken big strides since the passage of the Local Government Code of 1991. This article argues that the seeds and ideas were in existence prior to this period, as evidenced by discerning and forward-looking technocrats who saw that decentralization should be incorporated in the broader development strategies of the country. However, since the technocrats then were widely perceived to be mostly concerned with the administration’s economic and development policies, their thoughts on local autonomy and decentralization have not been given much attention by scholars. Based on original material gathered from interviews with key technocrats, the article concludes that a number of the fundamental principles pertaining to decentralization initiatives had been articulated in the Philippines as much as two decades before being meaningfully implemented by the Local Government Code in 1991. These basic decentralization tenets include the following: (1) decentralization of governance should focus on the countryside to bring about development; (2) deconcentration should be adopted to deepen decentralization under an authoritarian regime; (3) the implementation of decentralized structures and processes should be accompanied by changes in paradigms and mindsets of stakeholders; (4) doubts about the capacities of sub-national governments exist, hence impeding decentralization; (5) decentralization requires working with local leaders; (6) decentralization requires engaging with and working with local communities; and (7) decentralization and local governance require local governments to work together.

Content Metrics

All Time Past 365 days Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 518 84 6
Full Text Views 13 2 0
PDF Views & Downloads 29 10 0