The principal public policy rationale for protection of intellectual property is that it provides direct, socially beneficial incentives to innovate, while also facilitating further innovation by mandating public disclosure of the patented technology (Pardey, et. al., 2003). This indeed encourages innovators and R&D practitioners to pursue research as they are ensured to fully benefit from the fruits of their work. This stimulates further innovation as other researchers collect new insights from the diclosed IPR-protected technologies.
IP protection also have positive implications on the economy, as experienced by many. Industries are developed from new IPs creating opportunities for income and employment. Japan for instance, has a long list of successful business start-ups emerging from new technologies that were protected. There is the Toyota Group, Matsushita, Sony, and Honda to mention a few. Moreover, IPR ensures that the infrastructure necessary for the growth of industries and other sectors are protected.
There are arguments, however warning on the downside of IP protection in the developing world. Among the most debated issues is the access to affordable medicines in the developing countries. As IP rights are strengthened all over the world, the prices of medicines are likely to increase limitng the poor's access to medicines. In this case, the social cost of IP protection seems to have exceeded its benefits. Some experts believe that for the developing countries, stronger IPR is not necessarily better, at least in the short run.
References:
Pardey, D., B.D. Wright, C. Nottenburg, E. Binenbaum, and P. Zambrano. 2003. “Intellectual Property and Developing Countries: Freedom to Operate in Agricultural Biotechnology.” In Research at a Glance posted at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), http://www.ifpri.org/divs/eptd/dp/papers/eptdp70.pdf
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Rich countries: not ready for fair trade?
Due to inequitable global trading policies, which are dominated by rich countries, the gap between the developed and developing countries has become wider.
In previous trade negotiation rounds, the developed countries’ defensive interests in the agriculture, textile, and apparel sectors among others have limited liberalizing concessions in these areas. While they are aggressively pushing for liberalization of some important sectors like manufacturing and services in the developed countries, they are not ready to go beyond modest agricultural liberalization measures.
Meanwhile, talks stalled at the Doha Development Round of the WTO due to failure of reaching an agreement over opening up agricultural and industrial markets in various countries and also on cutting farm subsidies in rich nations. Most rich countries, with their apparently stronger bargaining power in the negotiation tables, have missed every deadline on reducing market distorting mechanisms and barriers to trade.
It is therefore a challenge for the developing countries, to strengthen their position in the negotiation tables, similar to how the G20 developing nations posed a strong stance in the Doha round.
In previous trade negotiation rounds, the developed countries’ defensive interests in the agriculture, textile, and apparel sectors among others have limited liberalizing concessions in these areas. While they are aggressively pushing for liberalization of some important sectors like manufacturing and services in the developed countries, they are not ready to go beyond modest agricultural liberalization measures.
Meanwhile, talks stalled at the Doha Development Round of the WTO due to failure of reaching an agreement over opening up agricultural and industrial markets in various countries and also on cutting farm subsidies in rich nations. Most rich countries, with their apparently stronger bargaining power in the negotiation tables, have missed every deadline on reducing market distorting mechanisms and barriers to trade.
It is therefore a challenge for the developing countries, to strengthen their position in the negotiation tables, similar to how the G20 developing nations posed a strong stance in the Doha round.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Biofuels and Food Secutiry: A Balancing Act!
The biofuels era has arrived. More and more countries are now joining the world bandwagon in the search for sustainable sources of energy. In the Philippines, a lot of farmers are shifting to biofuel crops for supposedly higher income. Income per hectare of biofuel crops is said to be better than a hectare of food crops like corn and rice, but authorities have yet to come up with a more reliable estimate on this. Be that as it may, the farming sector is showing so much excitement about biofuel crops like Jatropha, sweet sorghum, sugarcane and cassava.
While farmers are in an eager state, development advocates are not – and for valid reasons. If conversion of food production lands into biofuel plantations continues, food security would be jeopardized. Right now, food self-sufficiency issues crop up across the globe. If food areas are reduced in favor of biofuels, more people around the world would go hungry. A balancing act on biofuels and food must therefore be on top of every country’s policy agenda. In some countries, advocates are pushing for limiting the conversion of agricultural food lands. Still, others are advocating for non-competition of biofuel and food crops by limiting the former in non-agricultural, sloping and marginal lands.
The development community plays a significant role in helping pull off their balancing act through information, education and communication on the economics of biofuels and through sustainable development interventions / assistance.
While farmers are in an eager state, development advocates are not – and for valid reasons. If conversion of food production lands into biofuel plantations continues, food security would be jeopardized. Right now, food self-sufficiency issues crop up across the globe. If food areas are reduced in favor of biofuels, more people around the world would go hungry. A balancing act on biofuels and food must therefore be on top of every country’s policy agenda. In some countries, advocates are pushing for limiting the conversion of agricultural food lands. Still, others are advocating for non-competition of biofuel and food crops by limiting the former in non-agricultural, sloping and marginal lands.
The development community plays a significant role in helping pull off their balancing act through information, education and communication on the economics of biofuels and through sustainable development interventions / assistance.
Food Safety: A Development Strategy
In recent years, food safety has earned a greater degree of socio-economic and policy importance. Greater interest is placed on food safety as part of development efforts among countries. The heightened interest is partly a result of greater recognition of the strong links between safe food and human well-being.
Recent data reveal a growing number of food-borne ailments and food contamination. The poor are especially most vulnerable to such risks. Without good health, the poor populations could not perform economic activities that allow them to earn some income and buy food. Without safe food, the risks are high especially for the poorer populations.
Interest in food safety is also a reflection of the changing consumer demands and the new imperatives of international trade. Importing countries have put in place quality and safety standard to be complied with by all food imports. And disruptions in the international trading activities of many developing countries have increased due to failures of meeting such food quality standards. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (2004), the major causes of rejection of Asian food exports include unacceptable pesticide residue levels in fruits and vegetables, antibiotic residues in seafood and poultry, pathogens in seafood and mycotoxins in crops.
Recent data reveal a growing number of food-borne ailments and food contamination. The poor are especially most vulnerable to such risks. Without good health, the poor populations could not perform economic activities that allow them to earn some income and buy food. Without safe food, the risks are high especially for the poorer populations.
Interest in food safety is also a reflection of the changing consumer demands and the new imperatives of international trade. Importing countries have put in place quality and safety standard to be complied with by all food imports. And disruptions in the international trading activities of many developing countries have increased due to failures of meeting such food quality standards. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (2004), the major causes of rejection of Asian food exports include unacceptable pesticide residue levels in fruits and vegetables, antibiotic residues in seafood and poultry, pathogens in seafood and mycotoxins in crops.
Monday, August 11, 2008
New Paradigm of Agricultural Research and Extension in the Philippines
The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) of 1997 offers some corrective measures on the gaps left by the Local Government Code (LGC) of the Philippines as far as agricultural research and extension delivery is concerned.
AFMA involves the state colleges and universities (SCUs) in agricultural extension. It mandates the SCUs to assist the LGUs by improving their effectiveness and efficiency in extension delivery through capability-building and complementary extension activities. These include technical assistance, training of LGU extension personnel, improvement of physical facilities, and extension cum research and information support services. It also provides for the "development of national extension system that will help accelerate the transformation of Philippine agriculture and fisheries from a resource-based to a technology-based industry." It attempts to pursue this by defining the roles and encouraging the participation of the LGUs, SCUs and private sector in agricultural extension.
Private sector contribution is encouraged especially the participation of farmers and fisher folk cooperatives and associations and others in the private sector in training and other complementary extension services especially in community organizing, use of participatory approaches, popularization of training materials, regenerative agricultural technologies, agri-business and management skills (Saliot 2006).
Article by: D. Medrana, 2008
References:
Saliot, Asterio P. 2006. Philippine Agriculture and Fishery Extension System: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward after Fifteen Years of Devolution. A presentation material at the 15th UP Diliman Governance Forum held on October 19, 2006.
AFMA involves the state colleges and universities (SCUs) in agricultural extension. It mandates the SCUs to assist the LGUs by improving their effectiveness and efficiency in extension delivery through capability-building and complementary extension activities. These include technical assistance, training of LGU extension personnel, improvement of physical facilities, and extension cum research and information support services. It also provides for the "development of national extension system that will help accelerate the transformation of Philippine agriculture and fisheries from a resource-based to a technology-based industry." It attempts to pursue this by defining the roles and encouraging the participation of the LGUs, SCUs and private sector in agricultural extension.
Private sector contribution is encouraged especially the participation of farmers and fisher folk cooperatives and associations and others in the private sector in training and other complementary extension services especially in community organizing, use of participatory approaches, popularization of training materials, regenerative agricultural technologies, agri-business and management skills (Saliot 2006).
Article by: D. Medrana, 2008
References:
Saliot, Asterio P. 2006. Philippine Agriculture and Fishery Extension System: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward after Fifteen Years of Devolution. A presentation material at the 15th UP Diliman Governance Forum held on October 19, 2006.
Privatization Waves in the Philippines
Privatization in the Philippines is taking place in three waves:
The First Wave
The first wave of privatization took place in 1986 and 1987 when the country was faced with serious financial problems aggravated by the presence of non-performing assets and bankrupt agencies. These properties were mostly foreclosed and sequestered by Government banks but which left millions of loans for the Government to also assume payment. These included assets regained from the deposed President Ferdinand Marcos and his friends and relatives. Faced with a crisis, the Government decided to dispose such assets by reselling to private parties.
The Second Wave
The second wave started in 1990 with the privatization in the power sector. The projects that were implemented under the privatized scheme of Build-Operate and Transfer met with considerable success. Hence, similar schemes were replicated in other areas following the expansion and improvement of RA 6957or the BOT Law. Various delivery schemes were employed in areas of infrastructure such as roads, seaports, airports, water and even Information Technology.
The Third Wave
This is the current stage of privatization in the Philippines. Under this stage, there are additional areas where privatization schemes are being adopted. These include housing, health, postal services, and pension funds.
The First Wave
The first wave of privatization took place in 1986 and 1987 when the country was faced with serious financial problems aggravated by the presence of non-performing assets and bankrupt agencies. These properties were mostly foreclosed and sequestered by Government banks but which left millions of loans for the Government to also assume payment. These included assets regained from the deposed President Ferdinand Marcos and his friends and relatives. Faced with a crisis, the Government decided to dispose such assets by reselling to private parties.
The Second Wave
The second wave started in 1990 with the privatization in the power sector. The projects that were implemented under the privatized scheme of Build-Operate and Transfer met with considerable success. Hence, similar schemes were replicated in other areas following the expansion and improvement of RA 6957or the BOT Law. Various delivery schemes were employed in areas of infrastructure such as roads, seaports, airports, water and even Information Technology.
The Third Wave
This is the current stage of privatization in the Philippines. Under this stage, there are additional areas where privatization schemes are being adopted. These include housing, health, postal services, and pension funds.
New Public Management (NPM)'s Agenda
New Public Management (NPM), an innovating public management concept pursues “a government that works better and costs less" with its agenda:
Perhaps the most definitive characteristic of the “new public management” is the greater salience given to what is called the three “e’s” - economy, efficiency and effectiveness as opposed to other values of government activity such as accessibility, openness, fairness, impartiality, legitimacy, participation, honesty and rationality.
- NPM pursues “a government that works better and costs less" with its agenda:
- Decentralization
- Marketization
- Desegregation
- Competition and markets
- Efficiency strategies
- Reduction in size of units / downsizing
- Proper management practices
- Consumer orientation
- Performance measurements
Perhaps the most definitive characteristic of the “new public management” is the greater salience given to what is called the three “e’s” - economy, efficiency and effectiveness as opposed to other values of government activity such as accessibility, openness, fairness, impartiality, legitimacy, participation, honesty and rationality.
Marketization: A Development Concept
Marketization, as a management / organizational concept is the adoption of market principles to public management. In the context of service delivery, Marketization means letting the service be delivered by competing market players for profit / incentive providing consumers a range of choices on the service they need. This will require the government to let private providers to compete with the traditional government providers or even better, let the private providers compete while the governments take on the role of facilitators enabling the market to function properly.
A major focus of marketization is the concept of competition which is necessary for the market to function well. Moreover, competitive environments provide innovation and continuous improvement, maximizing benefits while preventing price-gouging. With this, many consider marketization of public services as a potential solution for some of the weaknesses and problems in the traditional bureaucracy.
One of the ways of marketizing public services is contracting or more popularly known today as outsourcing. It can be observed that today’s governments are increasingly interested to outsource their services to non-governmental entities. This is not so surprising because outsourcing has had significant positive results to some of the public services. The benefits from such schemes include cost reduction, greater flexibility, access to skills, and innovation.
A major focus of marketization is the concept of competition which is necessary for the market to function well. Moreover, competitive environments provide innovation and continuous improvement, maximizing benefits while preventing price-gouging. With this, many consider marketization of public services as a potential solution for some of the weaknesses and problems in the traditional bureaucracy.
One of the ways of marketizing public services is contracting or more popularly known today as outsourcing. It can be observed that today’s governments are increasingly interested to outsource their services to non-governmental entities. This is not so surprising because outsourcing has had significant positive results to some of the public services. The benefits from such schemes include cost reduction, greater flexibility, access to skills, and innovation.
Marketization Models in Germany
Competitive powers have increased in the public sector of Germany over the last decade. This has been caused by the worldwide mainstream of neoliberal thinking and NPM. Two major forms of competition can be observed – non-market/quasi-market competition and the market competition. Related activities which fall under these two types of competition follow a number of trends.
One trend is the autonomization and corporatization of public entities, particularly at the local level. Over the past 20 years, more governmental units such as schools, hospitals, cultural organization, infrastructure, water or energy, maintenance and cleaning have moved from being an integral part of the Government toward a more autonomous status. The objective was to gain separate legal status and be able to enter the market.
Another trend is the benchmarking or performance measurement activity in the German public sector, predominantly at the local level. The aim was to establish a set of performance indicators that are related to the different products / services of the local bureaucracies. Such indicators are important such that in the absence of market competition, local governments compete on the basis of the set standard of performance and they are evaluated on the basis of these indicators. It is this kind of "competition by benchmarking" when public sector reformers in Germany speak about competition.
The introduction of internal markets into public sector organizations is another trend that has emerged in Germany. This model proposes a service level agreement between internal service units within a government agency. It is presumed that both the provider and the providee will negotiate on the terms and fees in the delivery of a service thereby simulating a market within the organization. This is what is referred to as "internal market."
One trend is the autonomization and corporatization of public entities, particularly at the local level. Over the past 20 years, more governmental units such as schools, hospitals, cultural organization, infrastructure, water or energy, maintenance and cleaning have moved from being an integral part of the Government toward a more autonomous status. The objective was to gain separate legal status and be able to enter the market.
Another trend is the benchmarking or performance measurement activity in the German public sector, predominantly at the local level. The aim was to establish a set of performance indicators that are related to the different products / services of the local bureaucracies. Such indicators are important such that in the absence of market competition, local governments compete on the basis of the set standard of performance and they are evaluated on the basis of these indicators. It is this kind of "competition by benchmarking" when public sector reformers in Germany speak about competition.
The introduction of internal markets into public sector organizations is another trend that has emerged in Germany. This model proposes a service level agreement between internal service units within a government agency. It is presumed that both the provider and the providee will negotiate on the terms and fees in the delivery of a service thereby simulating a market within the organization. This is what is referred to as "internal market."
Development Concept: Marketization of Public Services in New York
New York was one of US cities that first realized the benefits of sourcing out private providers to perform jobs that were once exclusive to the state government. The 1995 Governor Geroge E. Pataki remarked that "competitive bidding between the public and the private sector can lower costs and provide more efficient deliver of services."
Indeed, New York experienced efficiency gains since marketizing some of its public services. For example, it spends about 3 million dollars annually on highway maintenance, bus transit subsidies, mental health facilities, motor vehicles record keeping, human resource management, prisons, and welfare and Medicaid administration. In just these areas, about 5 to 50 percent efficiency is estimated to be achieved. Such gains can be translated into hundreds of millions of dollars every year and it can be larger when other areas are considered for outsourcing.
Since 1995, the state has contracted out services in areas including janitorial and custodial work, facility design, warehousing, courier and package delivery, sate bakeries and warehouses, and management of park concession stands at state parks. One of the felt benefits that the state government had from marketization is that it is now operating with 20,000 less payroll employees than a decade ago.
Indeed, New York experienced efficiency gains since marketizing some of its public services. For example, it spends about 3 million dollars annually on highway maintenance, bus transit subsidies, mental health facilities, motor vehicles record keeping, human resource management, prisons, and welfare and Medicaid administration. In just these areas, about 5 to 50 percent efficiency is estimated to be achieved. Such gains can be translated into hundreds of millions of dollars every year and it can be larger when other areas are considered for outsourcing.
Since 1995, the state has contracted out services in areas including janitorial and custodial work, facility design, warehousing, courier and package delivery, sate bakeries and warehouses, and management of park concession stands at state parks. One of the felt benefits that the state government had from marketization is that it is now operating with 20,000 less payroll employees than a decade ago.
The Changing Role of the State
The diffusion of Government’s traditional roles with the dawn of new public management (NPM) paradigms does not mean that the government will be irrelevant in today’s world. Instead, the government remains distinctive and indispensable entity for the exercise of public management. What has been witnessed in the emergence of Globalization is not the end of the government but rather a transformation of the government and evolution of its roles and responsibilities. It is only an affirmation that everything follows a certain life cycle. With the dawn of globalization, a life cycle of governance paradigm ended, especially in the western democracies yet another cycle began, the NPM paradigm.
Today’s challenges are much different than in the past, hence our solutions continue to evolve, just as how governance transformed in response to the changing challenges of the times. As for NPM, much has been promised, however, not everything has been achieved. It can be expected therefore that NPM will continue to evolve, probably in another name or with other set of principles in pursuit of solutions to the gaps left unfilled.
Today’s challenges are much different than in the past, hence our solutions continue to evolve, just as how governance transformed in response to the changing challenges of the times. As for NPM, much has been promised, however, not everything has been achieved. It can be expected therefore that NPM will continue to evolve, probably in another name or with other set of principles in pursuit of solutions to the gaps left unfilled.
Marketization of Water in Metro Manila
Marketization of water was done through competitive bidding to private providers in 1997. Two concessionaires won the bid and were awarded the contract. Much changed after two private concessionaires took over MWSS dividing Metropolitan Manila into two water zones. Although there are disputes regarding exact figure, the two companies were able to connect about 2 million more people to the water network.
However, six years after the private firms took over, the promised benefits seem to be fading. Many of the old problems – debts, underfunding, broken pipes and water theft – have resurfaced.
However, six years after the private firms took over, the promised benefits seem to be fading. Many of the old problems – debts, underfunding, broken pipes and water theft – have resurfaced.
Development Concept: North America's Instructional Commodities
In North America many universities have adopted entrepreneurial practices. They act not only as business partners, but also as businesses themselves. They developed profit-making activities through university resources, faculty and student labor. For instance, they conducted paid research, primarily commoditizing university research resources. The marketization model was also used to sell courses and instructional materials to potentially anyone in the world. This was done by developing online courses and internet-based learning modules.
ICT's Influence on Governance
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) has a major influence on governance. For one, it creates new expectations from citizens on how governments should deliver services or interact with them. The Institute of Governance, Canada says that Internet technologies are "redefining the boundaries of personal choice and private influence, and of collective decision-making on matters of public importance."
Moreover, there are expert opinions that ICT alters the patterns of complex interdependence among nations by increasing the channels of communications in world politics and between individuals. Before, the transnational flow of information were heavily controlled by large bureaucratic organizations, multinational corporations and the Catholic Church, which had the resources to establish a communications infrastructure. Today, anyone with a computer can communicate to all corners of the networked world and participate in the international exchange of information and opinions.
Moreover, there are expert opinions that ICT alters the patterns of complex interdependence among nations by increasing the channels of communications in world politics and between individuals. Before, the transnational flow of information were heavily controlled by large bureaucratic organizations, multinational corporations and the Catholic Church, which had the resources to establish a communications infrastructure. Today, anyone with a computer can communicate to all corners of the networked world and participate in the international exchange of information and opinions.
The Beginnings of New Public Management (NPM)
While New Public Management (NPM) carries the word “New”, it is relatively not new. In fact, it is only the third wave of radical reforms for running the business of the modern state. It is only a modified quality-driven version of older reforms in public governance. Probably, the epithet "New" indicates that NPM is a transformation from the previous thoughts and that indeed, public governance is a history of administrative transformations right from the Egyptian and Greek Civilizations up until today.
The first wave of radical change took place in Britain with the implementation of civil service reforms during the second half of the nineteenth century. The second wave, which was dubbed as "progressivism" occurred in the United States during the second and third decades of the twentieth century. Progressivism is a political movement that represents the interests of ordinary people in their roles as taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents.
The third wave of public governance transformation occurred toward or during the New Millennium. In the United Kingdom, Tony Blair’s agenda in the new millennium was “modernising” public services and delivering "Best Value,” particularly at local government level. Canada introduced PS 2000 (client-focused approach) in 1989. New Zealand has had a series of reform measures extending back to 1986. The Scandinavian countries have also embraced similar managerial reforms. In the US, Bill Clinton asserted that “the era of big government is over” referring to the reforms encompassed by their theme “reinventing government.” Together, these reforms and transformations make up the era of NPM.
The first wave of radical change took place in Britain with the implementation of civil service reforms during the second half of the nineteenth century. The second wave, which was dubbed as "progressivism" occurred in the United States during the second and third decades of the twentieth century. Progressivism is a political movement that represents the interests of ordinary people in their roles as taxpayers, consumers, employees, citizens, and parents.
The third wave of public governance transformation occurred toward or during the New Millennium. In the United Kingdom, Tony Blair’s agenda in the new millennium was “modernising” public services and delivering "Best Value,” particularly at local government level. Canada introduced PS 2000 (client-focused approach) in 1989. New Zealand has had a series of reform measures extending back to 1986. The Scandinavian countries have also embraced similar managerial reforms. In the US, Bill Clinton asserted that “the era of big government is over” referring to the reforms encompassed by their theme “reinventing government.” Together, these reforms and transformations make up the era of NPM.
Transformation of Governance Paradigm
Over the last several decades, the modality for governing the public sector has undergone radical changes. This has been particularly true for the Western industrial democracies where globalization, which principally triggered such change, has gone way ahead than anywhere else in the world. In the past, governing the public is carried out predominantly through the “hierarchical government bureaucracy” model. This has been replaced with “governing by network” in which government executives redefine their core responsibilities from managing people and programs to coordinating resources for producing public value.
With the new paradigm, public services are delivered via various modalities but where efficiency and effectiveness are a common theme. Hence, some services are delivered through outsourced providers; some through the private sector or entrepreneurial bureaucracies under market or quasi market environment. This generally implies that conventional public administration is being replaced by public management. In effect, government agencies today are becoming less and less important as service providers/producers but more and more important as levers or facilitators of public value.
With the new paradigm, public services are delivered via various modalities but where efficiency and effectiveness are a common theme. Hence, some services are delivered through outsourced providers; some through the private sector or entrepreneurial bureaucracies under market or quasi market environment. This generally implies that conventional public administration is being replaced by public management. In effect, government agencies today are becoming less and less important as service providers/producers but more and more important as levers or facilitators of public value.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Philippines Education Profile
The Philippines has one of the shortest basic education systems in Asia-Pacific, with six years of elementary and four years of high school. The average Filipino child starts formal schooling in elementary at age six. However, children who are expected to avail of private education undergo preschooling at the age of three. The Philippine formal / mainstream education system is composed of the following:
Pre-school education: Children aged from 3 to 6 attend classes of different levels;- Elementary school: from grade 1 to grade 6;
- Secondary school: from 1st year to 4th year;
- Tertiary education: ranging from 4 to 6 years
- Post-graduate education: 2 years of master’s and 2-4 years of doctorate degree.
A diagram of the Philippines’ education system is shown in Figure 1.
Trifocalization of Education in the Philippines
The Philippines is a country that places so much value for education. In fact, it has committed itself to achieving universal primary education and has moved to provide free access to basic public education for all children. Moreover, management of the education sector has been given to three different agencies since 1994, each with its own area of focus. This trifocalization (or trifocalisation) of education aimed to give proper attention to (i) basic, (ii) training and vocational, and (iii) higher education.
Hence, today, the management, the system of governance and policy guidance over public and private basic education institutions is now under the Department of Education (DepEd). Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) is in charge of technical and vocational education while higher education is entrusted to the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).
Hence, today, the management, the system of governance and policy guidance over public and private basic education institutions is now under the Department of Education (DepEd). Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) is in charge of technical and vocational education while higher education is entrusted to the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).
Friday, August 8, 2008
History of Donor Activity in Cambodia
Although it received support from the Soviet Union, Cambodia was practically isolated from external assistance throughout the 1980s by virtue of the international embargo imposed by the West during the People’s Republic of Kampuchea (PRK) years. Hence, there was widespread hunger, malnutrition and poor health.
But since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 1991, the international donor community has been active in development work providing financial and technical assistance to Cambodia. By the end of 1990s, Cambodia received close to $ 2.5 billion in foreign assistance. (CDRI 2002).
Much of the foreign support extended by development partners in Cambodia since 1991, were targeted towards the country’s social sectors including education and health, primarily to help Cambodians meet their basic needs in the short run. It was much like a first aid response of donors for the deprived population of Cambodia, which heavily suffered from the international aid embargo previously imposed.
Aside from the provision of the basic needs, the restoration of democracy and economic growth were also given emphasis. In fact, the bulk of assistance from numerous donors in the 1990s, not only for Cambodia but for most developing countries were concentrated only on three major sectors - social infrastructures and services, general aid program, and economic infrastructures. Combined, these three sectors took up about 60% of the total aid funds of key bilateral and multilateral donors from 1990 to 1992. (see Thiele et. al. 2006).
Today, Japan, France, Australia, and the United States are among the major bilateral donors of Cambodia. Currently, Japan is the country’s largest donor. Meanwhile, China provides substantial bilateral aid. Economic links between the two countries have also increased in the recent years.
With substantial support from the international community, Cambodia made significant progress within the first half of the 1990s in terms of financial stability and economic recovery. However, future prospects of socioeconomic development for Cambodia depend on the country’s ability to effect reforms towards good governance, including control of corruption, and revision of investment policies among others. The donor community recognizes this, hence has started prioritizing crucial areas such as good governance, control of corruption, local capacity building and private sector participation.
Article by: D.Medrana, 2007
References:
Cambodia Development Resource Institute (CDRI). 2002. Economy Watch – Domestic Performance. Cambodian Development Review. Cambodia: CDRI
Thiele, Rainer, Peter Nunnenkamp and Axel Dreher. 2006. Sectoral Aid Priorities: Are Donors really doing their best to achieve the Millennium Development Goals?. Working Papers. No. 124. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich.
But since the signing of the Paris Agreement in 1991, the international donor community has been active in development work providing financial and technical assistance to Cambodia. By the end of 1990s, Cambodia received close to $ 2.5 billion in foreign assistance. (CDRI 2002).
Much of the foreign support extended by development partners in Cambodia since 1991, were targeted towards the country’s social sectors including education and health, primarily to help Cambodians meet their basic needs in the short run. It was much like a first aid response of donors for the deprived population of Cambodia, which heavily suffered from the international aid embargo previously imposed.
Aside from the provision of the basic needs, the restoration of democracy and economic growth were also given emphasis. In fact, the bulk of assistance from numerous donors in the 1990s, not only for Cambodia but for most developing countries were concentrated only on three major sectors - social infrastructures and services, general aid program, and economic infrastructures. Combined, these three sectors took up about 60% of the total aid funds of key bilateral and multilateral donors from 1990 to 1992. (see Thiele et. al. 2006).
Today, Japan, France, Australia, and the United States are among the major bilateral donors of Cambodia. Currently, Japan is the country’s largest donor. Meanwhile, China provides substantial bilateral aid. Economic links between the two countries have also increased in the recent years.
With substantial support from the international community, Cambodia made significant progress within the first half of the 1990s in terms of financial stability and economic recovery. However, future prospects of socioeconomic development for Cambodia depend on the country’s ability to effect reforms towards good governance, including control of corruption, and revision of investment policies among others. The donor community recognizes this, hence has started prioritizing crucial areas such as good governance, control of corruption, local capacity building and private sector participation.
Article by: D.Medrana, 2007
References:
Cambodia Development Resource Institute (CDRI). 2002. Economy Watch – Domestic Performance. Cambodian Development Review. Cambodia: CDRI
Thiele, Rainer, Peter Nunnenkamp and Axel Dreher. 2006. Sectoral Aid Priorities: Are Donors really doing their best to achieve the Millennium Development Goals?. Working Papers. No. 124. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich.
History of Donor Activity in the Philippines
Donor activity in the Philippines dates back to the early years following independence from the Japanese occupation and American tutelage. During this period, what the Philippines needed the most were the resources to support the national recovery efforts of the newly independent state. This meant rebuilding the economic and social structures, which were damaged by the war.
The US, in recognition of this need, extended food aid and economic support to the Philippines as early as 1946, making it the first aid donor of the new Republic. The US led the development assistance to the Philippines during the latter’s early years as a sovereign nation. The US focused on the development of a wide range of basic institutions and national services that the country required (USAID Philippines 2005) to strenghten the government. Most of the assistance extended to the Philippines were in the form of grants.
In the succeeding decades, Japan, together with other donor agencies came in although the US remained as the Philippines’ biggest development partner.
During the 1960s, donor activities focused on “community development” to help people help themselves. This shift of focus was relevant to the needs of the country during that period. It was the period when there were increasing public calls for self-governing at the local levels. The US, encouraging democratic process in the Philippines, focused its assistance on rural development, specifically on small-scale activities in agriculture, social services, and community development. The US also focused on building the capacities of the local governments in local planning and program implementation.
Based on various estimates consolidated by USAID, the Philippines received a total of $1,104 million worth of official development assistance from 1952 to 1972 and $13,146 million from 1978-1988. There is a remarkable shift in the type of assistance received by the Philippines between these two periods. From 1952 to 1972, about 56% of the development assistance was in the form of grants and only 44% were loans. Meanwhile, Meanwhile, during the period 1978-1988, around 80% of the development assistance was in the form of loans. The US, nevertheless, maintained a larger proportion of grants in both periods.
Emerging from the dictatorship period which lasted from 1972 to 1985, the Philippines was in a state of economic and financial crisis. In support of the government’s priorities, donors concentrated on helping the country achieve economic stability and growth. The US concentrated on improving macroeconomic management, encouraging domestic and international private sector development, and alleviating sector-specific constraints through policy-based sector assistance programming (USAID Philippines 2005). Improved health and more manageable population growth were also emphasized during this era.
Today, Japan, the US, and Australia remain the Philippines’ major bilateral donors, while the World Bank and the Asian Develoment Bank are the biggest funding donors. Their development programs for the Philippines, since the recent years have focused on economic development, community development, governance, security, health, and education.
Article by: D.Medrana, 2007
Main Sources: USAID Philippines website, The Library of Congress Country Studies and the CIA World Factbook
The US, in recognition of this need, extended food aid and economic support to the Philippines as early as 1946, making it the first aid donor of the new Republic. The US led the development assistance to the Philippines during the latter’s early years as a sovereign nation. The US focused on the development of a wide range of basic institutions and national services that the country required (USAID Philippines 2005) to strenghten the government. Most of the assistance extended to the Philippines were in the form of grants.
In the succeeding decades, Japan, together with other donor agencies came in although the US remained as the Philippines’ biggest development partner.
During the 1960s, donor activities focused on “community development” to help people help themselves. This shift of focus was relevant to the needs of the country during that period. It was the period when there were increasing public calls for self-governing at the local levels. The US, encouraging democratic process in the Philippines, focused its assistance on rural development, specifically on small-scale activities in agriculture, social services, and community development. The US also focused on building the capacities of the local governments in local planning and program implementation.
Based on various estimates consolidated by USAID, the Philippines received a total of $1,104 million worth of official development assistance from 1952 to 1972 and $13,146 million from 1978-1988. There is a remarkable shift in the type of assistance received by the Philippines between these two periods. From 1952 to 1972, about 56% of the development assistance was in the form of grants and only 44% were loans. Meanwhile, Meanwhile, during the period 1978-1988, around 80% of the development assistance was in the form of loans. The US, nevertheless, maintained a larger proportion of grants in both periods.
Emerging from the dictatorship period which lasted from 1972 to 1985, the Philippines was in a state of economic and financial crisis. In support of the government’s priorities, donors concentrated on helping the country achieve economic stability and growth. The US concentrated on improving macroeconomic management, encouraging domestic and international private sector development, and alleviating sector-specific constraints through policy-based sector assistance programming (USAID Philippines 2005). Improved health and more manageable population growth were also emphasized during this era.
Today, Japan, the US, and Australia remain the Philippines’ major bilateral donors, while the World Bank and the Asian Develoment Bank are the biggest funding donors. Their development programs for the Philippines, since the recent years have focused on economic development, community development, governance, security, health, and education.
Article by: D.Medrana, 2007
Main Sources: USAID Philippines website, The Library of Congress Country Studies and the CIA World Factbook
Food: improving human well being in the Philippines
Despite the Philippines’ long-term efforts towards becoming food self-sufficient, food insecurity remains one of the country’s major concerns. In fact, it has been importing rice (the country’s staple food), meat, livestock (including dairy products) and other marine products since the 1990s. Its rapidly growing population, which at 2.36% per year, is the fastest in East Asia, has eroded the previous economic gains and severely strains access to basic social services (USAID Philippines 2005). Moreover, the estimated 86 million Filipinos represent an insurmountable challenge as far as achieving food security is concerned.
The production sectors’ inability to cope with the increases in food requirements has deprived the populations, especially in the rural areas of this very basic need resulting in hunger, poor health conditions, and poverty. The rural areas, incidentally, account for much of the country’s poorest populations.
Hence, providing access to food would not only mean satisfying a basic need but also improving health conditions, stimulating the rural economy and alleviating poverty. Providing the rural populations access to food is therefore among the most direct means to address the country’s major development concerns.
The production sectors’ inability to cope with the increases in food requirements has deprived the populations, especially in the rural areas of this very basic need resulting in hunger, poor health conditions, and poverty. The rural areas, incidentally, account for much of the country’s poorest populations.
Hence, providing access to food would not only mean satisfying a basic need but also improving health conditions, stimulating the rural economy and alleviating poverty. Providing the rural populations access to food is therefore among the most direct means to address the country’s major development concerns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)