Uneven IRA shares
Should poorer towns have bigger IRAs, and richer cities less or none at all? This is now being floated by some local government authorities in order to even the economic growth in all localities in the country. This suggests that economic growth should have been more balanced geographically if there is equal distribution of IRAs.
I must add that that the economic paths taken by towns and cities are not only generated by this inequitable sharing system of IRAs among LGUs but also the ambiguity of goals and plans of local and national governments. The Local Government Code of 1991 gives special emphasis on the harmonization of local and national development goals. But it is very unfortunate that LGUs sometimes have their own priority programs, projects, and activities which more often than not deviate from those of the national government. Every budget year, LGUs are required to prepare and review documents like Local Development Plan, Local Development Investment Plan and Annual Investment Plan. These documents generally known as local development plans are vital in the preparation of the principal budgets of the LGUs, meaning, the plans shall be ‘operationalized’ only through the budgets. And, moreover, these local development plans must be aligned with the plans of the national government as indicated in the Philippine Development Plan, Medium-Term Philippine Development Program, Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, and Sectoral Plan. These plans of the national government are bases for the enactment of the General Appropriations Act.
However, are these local plans in harmony with the plans of the national government? Do these plans create an economic impact nationally and not only to those LGUs which have bigger chunks of IRAs? Do they create a synergy or partnership between the local and national governments in the effort to enhance economic growth and reduce poverty?
There is mushrooming of waiting sheds in LGUs with names of politicians etched on them. There are plenty of city, town and street markers around. There are many tarpaulins with pictures and greetings of politicians all over the country. Are these the only projects contained in the local plans? Are these the indicators of economic growth?
There should be a strategic direction of all LGUs and that is to follow the path of national development. The plans and goals of the LGUs should be in harmony with the national plans and goals. I strongly suggest that oversight agencies like NEDA, DILG, and DBM should carefully review also the local development plans of the LGUs prior to the release of their IRAs. If the local development plans match the national plans then IRAs be released. Otherwise, they have to be modified for consistency and synergy with the national plans. In that way we can feel a spectacular economic growth not only to towns and cities whose IRAs are huge but also in poor LGUs whose IRAs are merely pittance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I presume that when you speak (in the second para) about the "ambiguity of goals and plans of local and national governments", you are not saying that the goals and plans of the national government are also ambiguous. In effect this statement belies your view that local plans should be in harmony with national plans.
ReplyDeleteMuch has been said about the way the national government crafts the Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP)which is suppposed to map out the strategic directions of the Philippine government in the medium term. Economists have often referred to the MTPDP as a major wish list.
Besides, I have the view that your perspective may be considered as traditional and conservative, and many of our local executives are fixated in this type of traditional approach.
Based on my long experience with employment and manpower planning, a bottom-up approach is more effective rather than the usual top to bottom way.
It is a truism that local executives know best what is happening at the local level. However, oftentimes they lack the skill, perspective, patience and political will to pursue what is best for their locality. They simply end up pursuiong what is best for their political career.
Unfortunately there is no guarantee that these two paths will ever converge!
My point is for the national government to meticulously craft and communicate to the LGUs and various stakeholders concerned clear-cut list of national priorities and implementation targets that are also locally relevant and that both local and national governments should manage a coordinated implementation effort to achieve the same. Simply put, there should be a synchronized goals and plans espoused by both local and national governments and thereafter come up and develop a well-coordinated and comprehensive action plan for achieving such goals.
ReplyDeleteThe Local Government Code of 1991 implicitly suggests that LGUs should adopt the inverted pyramidal structure as a paradigm for governance which means that the approach to policy formulation and the delivery of basic services should be bottom-based, participatory, democratic, transparent, and fair so that all community sectors are empowered and have a say and a sense of ownership to local plans, projects and activities. This does not mean of course that there is no room for macro-level planning- far from it- rather clienteles' nature of governance no longer works.
I agree that there are local executives who lack “the skill, perspective, patience and political will to pursue what is best for their locality.” They may have the authority to govern but are not competent. I term this as capacity of nuisance.
Thanks for commenting manung.
Most welcome. Just putting in my own pragmatic views beyond the nice terminologies. I hope you don't mind.
ReplyDeleteIf we have the welfare and best interest of our people in mind, we cannot go wrong.