Triangulation Framework for Local Service Delivery - Philippine ...

(a) demand for local autonomy by local politicians; (b) response to armed resistance; (c) reduction of
regional disparities and inequities; (d) enhancement of effectiveness and efficiency; (e) reduction in
transaction and administrative costs; (f) increasing intergovernmental competition and innovations; and
(g) promoting the linkage between revenue and expenditure arrangements. For Brillantes and Tumanut
(2007: 26), “democratic governance, rapid local development, and better mechanisms for service
delivery” serve as the rationale for decentralization.
2. The Promise and Pitfalls of Local Service Delivery 2
Almost two decades after the passage of 1991 LGC, the decentralization movement in the Philippines
has produced mixed results. Balisacan, Hill and Piza (2007) observe that: 3
Decentralization in the Philippines has been neither a notable success nor a
disappointing failure. The reform has not delivered what some of its proponents might
have expected: a decisive shift of power and resources out of the center, a vibrant,
efficient and responsive system of local government, and a general shift in the quality of
governance through the competitive ‘voice and exit’ accountability mechanisms.
Conversely, the reform can hardly be termed a failure. It has broadly ‘worked’ in the
sense that some administrative and political authority has been transferred to the
regions, and some local governments have performed well.
With the decentralization of power, resources, and responsibilities is the expectation for an improved
local service delivery. The increased in revenues allocated from the national to local government units
(LGUs) is expected to increase local expenditures on social services (Table 1). However, although LGUs’
share of national revenues is expected to continue to rise, the same cannot be said of LGUs’ expenditure
on social services (Table 2). Based on Manasan’s findings, “aggregate LGU spending on social services
registered upward trend for much of the 1990s, both as a percentage of Gross National Product (GNP)
and in real per capita terms, but stagnated (especially with respect to health expenditures) in 1993-
2 This is not to argue that all LGUs are basket cases. In fact, there are good practices not only in terms of local
service delivery in particular but local governance in general. Decentralization has mixed results in the Philippines,
that is, while there are LGUs that are being able to harness their devolved powers to improve LSD, there are also
many others struggling, reluctant, or inept to seize the opportunities to make local governance work. The
Gantimpalang Panglingkod Pook or Gawad Galing Pook – an awards program on innovation and excellence in local
governance and LSD ‐ serves as a testimony to a number of excellence in LSD and local governance. The main
difference between the laggard and exemplary LGUs is that the latter are able to “access resources more
effectively, and manage them more transparently and accountably” (Llanto 2009: 9). For an excellent discussion of
these mixed results, see ADB (2005).
3 See also, ADB‐World Bank (2005), Ramos (2007), Panadero (2007), Mangahas (2007), Ilago and Tumanut (2007),
and PIDS‐UNICEF (2009).
4