Reaction Paper: Philippine Bureaucratic Capacity for Effective Government and Development by Prof. Hilton J. Aguja

This paper will focus on the validity of the claim (of the research paper) that economic growth and development lies on how strong their state is and their bureaucratic capacity for effective governance. I consider it as valid. In fact, when we look at it, the strength of the state will also depend with the bureaucratic capacity that a particular government has. For instance, when the composition of government offices is filled with incapable or weak civil servants, eventually the facade of the government as a whole will not be good to look at. Moreover, it was clearly defined in the research paper on how bureaucracy should be. This refers to the criteria to have an ideal type of bureaucracy. The first criterion is that bureaucracy should be a clearly defined division of labor. There must be a demarcation line in performing different tasks of the government. In the national government, the task of legislating laws must be isolated merely in the legislative body, the task of executing the laws must be exclusively given to the executive body concomitant with the bureaucratic agency and the task of adjudicating or interpreting the laws must be handled only by the judicial body. However, it is important to take note that albeit the existence of the division of labor, each civil servants belonging to different tasks must value the coherency in achieving the goal of the government as a whole. Second criterion focuses on the impersonal authority structure. It means that the structure of government positions must be characterize not on the basis of personal choice but on the basis of how positions are defined and structured by the existing laws that a particular state have. The third one talks about the existence of the hierarchy of offices. Because of the division of labor and impersonal authority structure, their must be an arrangement of offices in a top-to-bottom scheme. The hierarchy of offices is quiet important because it shows the outlook of authority- who is more powerful and who is more authorized in a particular task in respect to the provisions provided. Dependence on formal rules is the fourth criterion. Civil servants perform their specific task not because of the dictates of other individuals inside or outside the borderline of the government but because of the rules prescribed by the existing laws. Next criterion is the employment based on merit. The employment of civil servants must be in line with the principle of meritocracy. Employees must employ applicant in a specific job on the basis of merits, knowledge in the job that the applicant applied for and the applicant’s capability to perform that particular job. According to Presidential Decree No. 07 (supra. ), â€Å"graduation with honors earned under the competitive atmosphere of the academic community is as good as a qualifying mark in a competitive examination to determine merit and excellence for public employment. † The rationale behind this principle is to make sure that the government is filled with the best talents and are capable in doing their specific tasks effectively and efficiently. The sixth criter ion is the availability of a career. It means that careers in government must be open or available for applicants to the great extent as possible. Availability of positions or careers in government must be open to everyone who aspires to, as long as they fit in the requirements provided. It is under the premise that the more applicants, the grater chance of having the most qualified or the best among the bests for a particular position. Distinct separation of members’ organizational and personal lives is the last criterion. There must be a demarcation line between the interests as civil servants and the personal interests. Because civil servants must imply to the constituents that public office is really for public trust. Now is the high-time to ask ourselves: what is the bureaucracy then in the Philippine setup? I concede in the claim, and I think it is valid, that when we draw the line of the bureaucratic capacity that the Philippines have vis-a-vis the feasibility of the state in performing its functionality in the economic, political and administrative sphere, we really can’t draw the line, or even if we can, not a straight one for sure. Our bureaucracy is clearly defined not with the ideal criteria of bureaucracy but with the colonial mentality or experiences (in the past) and the circumstances i. e low payment for civil servants and appointment based on patrimonialism (in the present). In fairness to the government we have, especially the former administration of P. GMA, the ideal bureaucracy of government still exist however the unwanted bureaucracy outweighed it. In the level of appointment, in status quo, we appoint or employ individuals not on his/her merits or capability but usually on the basis of personal attitude towards the applicant, personal considerations, personal connections, favors and what not. Not to mention that because of colonial influences that results to colonial mentality, most of the politicians, if not all, practice the political culture of corruption. Because of that, it sends a message that public office is not really for public trust but for private gain. Moreover, civil servants received low payment compared to civil servants in other East Asian countries and laborer in private institutions. That’s the reason why more and more people opted to work outside the Philippine border or they opted to work in private institutions. I don’t think that the employment based on patrimonialism, unethical behaviour of civil servants that eventually will result to mistrust, the low payment for civil servants and what not makes the economy of the country better and fully developed. Their must be a shift of paradigm and we must start it now.