BANTAY GOBYERNO
Ike Señeres
The Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) accounting system has been used for many years now to
measure the health and condition of the national economy. I wonder however how
the data is being collected to overall GDP computation, because I have always
believed that all data collection should start from below, to be eventually
integrated and analyzed at the top.
Perhaps there is no direct connection to this main subject matter, but I
also believe that Bottom up Budgeting (BUB) should be the default standard in
local government budgeting and accounting, in line with a Barangay Development
Plan (BDP). As a requirement that is based on the Local Government Code (LGC),
BDPs should be prepared and approved by the Barangay Development Council (BDC).
As it is now, the performance of the President is already being measured
by the health and condition of the national economy during and after his or her
term of office. Of course, the measurement is always based on the national GDP
since there is no other credible measure that could be used as an alternative.
That being the case, my friend and fellow columnist Mr. Manny Valdehuesa
has suggested that we should also measure the GDP at the barangay level, and in
connection with that, to also use the barangay GDP to measure the performance
of the barangay based on the health and condition of the local economy. Mr.
Valdehuesa has the credibility to suggest this idea, being the founder of the
Gising Barangay Movement (GBM).
Aside from the BDC, there are also supposed to be Municipal Development
Council (MDCs), Provincial Development Council (PDCs) and Regional Development
Council (RDCs), also as required by the LDC.
What this means is that there is already an existing structure or
organization to collect GDP data from below, so that these could be submitted
upwards for eventual integration and analysis. That way, the BUB standard could
be easily implemented without any additional implementation costs. Although
there is really no empirical basis that would correlate the local barangay
budget to the local GDP, there could be lessons that could be derived from the
comparison. Besides, it would be logical to say that the quality of the BDP
should somehow result in a positive GDP.
As it is supposed to be, all cities and municipalities are supposed to
submit their Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs) to the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB). As it is now, the HLURB does not really require the
Local Government Units (LGUs) to submit their CLUPs in Geographic Information
System (GIS) format, but that would be a practical idea.
Also as it is supposed to be, all LGUs are supposed to submit their
Local Master Plans (LMPs) to the Department of Interior and Local Government
(DILG). As it is now, the DILG also does not require the LGUs to base their
LMPs on the GIS format, but that would also be a practical idea. In other
words, both the CLUP and the LMP could be integrated into the GIS format.
Over the years, we have gotten used to presidential candidates promising
to improve the economy. Although they are not really saying it directly, what
they really mean is that they will make the national GDP increase or grow. That
being the case, why should we not demand that our local candidates should also
promise to grow or increase the local economy, by way of the local GDP,
starting with the barangay level?
Based on the LGC, the Governors have authority over the Mayors and down
the line; the Mayors also have authority over the Barangay Chairmen. That being
the case, why don’t we interpret the law so that all these officials in all
levels would be responsible for computing and reporting their respective GDPs?
Given the fact that the barangay and municipal governments may not
have the resources to compute and report their respective GDPs, we should
perhaps make it a rule that the Governors should fund the whole process out of
their own funds. As I have observed however, there is hardly any Non-Government
Organization (NGO) that vets the GDP data that is reported by the National
Economic Development Authority (NEDA).
What is happening now, whatever GDP data that is being issued by the
NEDA is generally accepted as gospel truth, because nobody really challenges
it. Surely something should be done about that in the national level, but right
now we have the opportunity of starting fresh at the local level, by putting in
a vetting process down below.
Many of our citizens are already saying that the politics of
patronage should already be replaced with the politics of performance. I agree
with that, but I would be quick to add that the performance should not only be
measured in the delivery of local public services, but also in the improvement
of the local economy as it is reported in the local GDP.
By comparison, any candidate of average intelligence would be capable of
improving the delivery of local public services, but it would take more talent
to really improve the economy. That said, it is now time to vote only for the
candidates who have a track record in improving the economy. It is not enough
for them to be honest; the candidates now should also be savvy in economics.
No comments:
Post a Comment