Public Policy Environment free essay sample

CHAPTER II – ENVIRONMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY A. THE TOTAL SYSTEM: ECONOMIC, POLITICAL, SOCIAL, RELIGIOUS, CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL People of different political persuasions have varying ideas about the proper purpose of government. One way to evaluate the success of public policy is to examine the extent to which it increases the well-being of its citizens. But how is well-being defined? Should governments strive for equality of condition, i. e. to eliminate poverty and hunger? Or should governments strive for equality of opportunity, i. e. that all people have access to the tools they need to shape their own future? ECONOMIC POLICY According to Philip Gerson, â€Å"Past economic policies that hampered growth, and the resistance of powerful elites to much-needed reforms, were largely responsible for the high incidence and persistence of poverty in the Philippines. Recent policy changes have spurred growth, but additional reforms could accelerate the reduction of poverty. † The slow pace at which the Philippines has reduced poverty over time can be traced to economic policies that weakens growth, many of which have recently been abandoned, as well as to policies that have more directly achieved income inequality. For several years, the Philippine government tried to pursue economic policies that will help strengthen the economy. One of the policies introduced was the industrial policy that encouraged import substitution rather than promoting exports. Likewise, tariff reforms were introduced in 1991. However, trade policies heavily penalized the primary and agricultural sectors and benefited the manufacturing sector. In addition, the overvaluation of the Philippine peso during several periods between the 1950s and the 1980s contributed to declines in the prices of exports in peso terms and diverted resources away from agriculture and toward import-substituting manufacturing. In addition, incomes in the agricultural sector were depressed by heavy regulation. Beginning in the 1970s, price controls were imposed on rice and other products, and the importation of wheat and soybeans was monopolized. For instance, during the term of President Fidel V. Ramos, he introduced many economic reforms and initiatives to stimulate business growth and foreign investment. These measures, along with greater political stability, resulted in a period of higher growth rates. However, due to onset of the East Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, economic growth slowed and dropped to virtually zero in 1998. These reforms were continued with the administration of Pres. Joseph Estrada. His administration enacted laws to better regulate the banking system and securities markets, liberalize foreign participation in the retail trade sector, and promote and regulate electronic commerce. Expected growth and development did not materialize because Philippine Stock Exchange scandals, widespread corruption, and the Presidents impeachment for ties to illegal gambling and certain disreputable businessmen discouraged investment. On the other hand, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, formerly an economics professor at University of the Philippines, and her team have made considerable progress in restoring macroeconomic stability and an environment for growth. Recent performance has been strong, with the GNP growing annually at 5% or better for the last 5 years. 5, 6] Long-term growth, however, remains threatened by widespread poverty, severe under-spending on infrastructure, education systems, and social services, and remaining trade and investment barriers. It could be noted that the persistence of policies that have failed to stimulate growth owes much to the important role played by elites in Philippine politics and society. The Philippine government has introduced a numb er of reforms that have stimulated growth, and these should, in turn, help to alleviate poverty. It could achieve even more by eliminating remaining biases against agriculture and investing more in health and education, especially in rural areas. If the government is able to formulate economic policies that will promote growth, create jobs and create income for the people, then poverty and hunger can be lessened. It is inherent that the government plays vital role in the growth of the economy by enforcing economic policies such as controls on the production, marketing, and price stabilization fund that can either hurt or help the country in the process. SOCIAL POLICY According to Frank Riessman, â€Å"SOCIAL POLICY asks what is to be done to secure basic structural changes in American society. Its pages will provide a meeting ground — and battleground — where ideas, tactics and strategies for radical reconstruction of American institutions can be expressed and exchanged, tested and debated, expanded and deepened. † Social Policy seeks to inform and report on the work of labor and community organizers who build union and constituency-based groups, run campaigns, and build movements for social justice, economic equality, and democratic participation in the U. S. and around the world. Perhaps, in the Philippines, the arm of the government that implements much of its social policies is the Dept. of Social Welfare and Development or the DSWD. It is mandated to provide assistance to local government units, non-government organizations, other national government agencies, people’s organizations, and other members of civil society in effectively implementing programs, projects and services that will alleviate poverty and empower disadvantaged individuals, families and communities for an improved quality of life. Its mission is to provide social protection and promote the rights and welfare of the poor, vulnerable and the disadvantaged individuals, families and communities that will contribute to poverty alleviation and empowerment through social welfare development policies, programs, projects and services implemented with or through local government units (LGUs), non-government organizations (NGOs), people’s organizations (POs), other government organizations (GOs) and other members of civil society. POLITICAL RELIGIOUS POLICY Social science is packed with questions of how much of politics and religious matters should mix when it comes to determining public policies. Although the two seem separate and by law they must be, in modern Philippine political history is a witness to how much influence religious groups or movements have on some of the most urgent and important issues of the nation. One of the issues for instance is on population and development. Population control policy in the country has long been ineffective, unable to arrest the growth bears heavily on scarce economic resources; religious lobby is credited for demolishing some recommended actions of the government to fight the growing population, such as the use of artificial contraceptives, to limit the growth. Also, elections in the country is also increasingly becoming a competition between religious flocks, to see which ones could make or break the next government administration. Moreover, the issue on the death penalty law. Due to religious pressures and demands, upon assuming, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued a moratorium on executions. The two revolts at EDSA (1986 and 2001) against two administrations are the strongest proof so far that religious authority in the Philippines has become the peoples ally and refuge against bad governance. It is therefore not surprising that in the country today, Filipinos unconsciously look for cues from their religious leaders about how to regard politicians, their platforms, and their activities. The power of spiritual advice drawn from centuries of experience echoed in varying measures among different religious classes. Such influence, nonetheless, has sometimes made governing difficult and confusing at best and captive to the inefficient patron-client system at worst. CULTURAL POLICY Cultural Policy is the area of public policy-making that governs activities related to the arts and culture. Generally, this involves fostering processes, legal classifications and institutions which promote cultural diversity and accessibility, as well as enhancing and promulgating the artistic, ethnic, sociolinguistic, literary and other expressions of all people – especially those of indigenous or broadly-representative cultural heritage. On the other hand, the rubric cultural policy describes, in the aggregate, the values and principles which guide any social entity in cultural affairs. Applications of cultural policy-making at the nation-state level could include anything from providing community dance classes at little-to-no cost, to hosting corporate-sponsored art exhibitions, to establishing legal codes (such as the U. S. Internal Revenue Service’s 501(c)(3) tax designation for not-for-profit enterprises) and political institutions (such as the various ministries of culture and the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts in the United States). However, according to Kevin Mulcahy a leading cultural policy scholar -cultural policy encompasses a much broader array of activities than were addressed under arts policy. Whereas arts policy was effectively limited to addressing aesthetic concerns, the significance of the transformation to cultural policy can be observed in its demonstrable emphases on cultural identity, valorization of indigineity and analyses of historical dynamics (such as hegemony and colonialism). Cultural policies are most often made by governments, from school boards to Congress and the White House, but also by many other institutions in the private sector, from corporations to community organizations. Policies provide guideposts for those making decisions and taking actions which affect cultural life. Cultural policy is sometimes made explicitly, through a process defined by an agency charged with this responsibility. For instance, a ministry of culture or arts agency might draft a policy articulating its goals and operating principles in supporting theater companies in various regions. Very often, however and most often in the case of the United States cultural policy is not formally defined. Instead, what we have are the cultural effects sometimes unforeseen of social action. Today, most policy-makers havent made the paradigm shift that would bring culture fully to their consciousness. When government agencies in the industrialized world define cultural policy, for instance, they generally limit themselves to the most specialized expressions of culture: media and communications, the arts, education, and in some countries, sports. The measures taken to implement policy are quite varied. Grants to artists and institutions are common approaches, as are public service employment programs, building and maintaining cultural facilities, encouraging and financing historic preservation, and regulating the airwaves. A. INSIDE THE BUREAUCRACY: ITS RULES AND PROCEDURES AND PEOPLE’S BEHAVIOR Though the implementation of public policy is the most visible and obvious part of the policy making process for the bureaucracy, it is only one of several phases. Making public policy encompasses additional processes that stand outside of the three core functions of policy implementation (rule making, rule implementation and rule adjudication) discussed in the last section. To gain a fuller understanding of the role of the bureaucracy in the political system, we need to place the implementation of policy in a broader context. In most models, the policy-making process includes the following five steps, as this chapters diagram Policy Making and Policy Implementation illustrates: 1. Agenda setting 2. Policy formulation . Policy adoption 4. Policy implementation 5. Policy evaluation We reflexively view implementation as the core function of the bureaucracy. Regulatory agencies inspect workplace safety or automobile emissions, for instance, while other types of departments or agencies develop programs to provide public services to the citizens of Texas, including social services, education, highways, etc. So the first question that might arise fro m this model is: why is the bureaucracy engaged in the agenda setting, adoption, evaluation and review of public policies? Isnt that why we have a legislature? While the legislature is charged with making all laws or statutes, the bureaucracy usually must take the general enabling legislation created by the legislature and build real programs and administrative rules for implementing corresponding public policy. When the enabling legislation deals with regulation (e. g. , regulating environmental quality or building standards), the bureaucracys authority to develop programs and rules is critical to carrying out the letter and the spirit of the law. But bureaucracies inevitably become involved in actual policy making as they develop experience, accumulate information, and gain expertise on matters of public policy. This experience enters not only the policy implementation process, but also the process of review, assessment, and revision. Any organization, whether public or private, must evaluate and revise its policies and programs in order to continue to thrive, or at least survive. This can happen on a variety of different levels, from individual evaluation and revision of how best to execute a specific task or job, to agency-wide evaluation. Whatever the combination of types and frequency of formal and informal evaluation and revision, the policy process that begins with proposed ideas and ends with revisions becomes a series of cycles over time. The policy process starts with new ideas, but once policies are implemented, subsequent policy cycles occur as revisions of earlier policies. Many policy proposals and the processes they spawn, consequently, are revisions of earlier policies. Though the state health bureaucracy emerged from the 2003 proposals in a new form, most of the new policies and programs were revisions to previous policy and program initiatives that were well established within the states public policy system. BUREAUCRATS AS PUBLIC POLICY-MAKERS AND THEIR SELF-INTERESTS That public bureaucrats, like most other people, might pursue their private interests as voters, job applicants and union members is hardly surprising. It is the postulate that bureaucrats self-interested behavior penetrates their role as public decision-makers that represents a challenge, empirical-theoretically as well as normatively. To assess the assumption that bureaucrats self-interests affect bureaucrats decisions in their capacity as officials (the self-interest hypothesis), two main points are made. First, the probability that self-interests are conceived and made operational in different issue areas is considered. Second, it is argued that the explanatory power of bureaucrats self-interests has to depend on characteristics of the self-interest phenomenon itself, for instance whether it is dealt with as a variable or a constant. Moreover, it has to depend on the relative importance of other explanations. But direct democracy in terms of policy making is only one part of the governance picture. We mentioned that among the many complaints people have of present governments is that they are too bureaucratic. OK, so how will direct democracy be administered? I think the answer is, by direct bureaucracy! First of all, let me review what I believe to be the present functions—and dysfunctionsof bureaucracies now: 1. A mechanism of control by the ruler over the ruled . A day-to-day way to see that the ruled behave as rulers want them to. 2. A form of power. For the bureaucrats own sake vis-a-vis, for example, the legislature or even other bureaucrats, and vis-a-vis the military (another, but more powerful, bureaucracy, to be sure). 3. An advocate for some constituent group (For example, tobacco farmers). If you and your group have a bureaucrat concerned about you in the administration, then you have an advocate for your interests vs. the interests of other individuals and groups. If you do not have such a bureaucrat/advocate, you very well may be voiceless, or at least routinely voiceless (you will have to shout a lot to be heard! , when it comes to policy making and implementation. 4. A government of laws and not of men . The theory of modern administration, captured by that slogan, is that policy should be carried out in a routine, rational, fair, and predictable manner by people recruited and trained to be fair, rational and objective. The notion is that bureaucracy is, or should be, nonpolitical. And so the bureaucrat can and should always say, Im sorry, maam, but Im just doing my job. Im just carrying out the rules. I dont make them. 5. A job. Bureaucracy is also merely a job for someone. Jobs in the bureaucracy may be the best jobs around in the Third World, attracting the very best persons; or they may just be safe, secure, routine jobs in the First World, attracting the second or third bestpeople not even fit to be teachers, they are so incompetent! BUREAUCRACIES AS IMPLEMENTORS As policymakers, bureaucrats play three key roles: they are policy implementors; they administer public policy; and they are regulators. Policy implementation occurs when the bureaucracy carries out decisions of Congress, the president, and even the courts. Public policies are rarely elf-executing: bureaucrats translate legislative policy goals into programs. Policy implementation does not always work well, and bureaucrats usually take the blame when it does not. Reasons why implementation may break down include faulty program design, lack of clarity in the laws bureaucrats administer, lack of resources, the following of standard operating procedures, administrative discretion, and dispersa l of policy responsibility among several units of the bureaucracy (i. e. , fragmentation). Administrative discretion is the authority of administrative actors to select among various responses to a given problem. Discretion is greatest when rules do not fit a case; but even in agencies with elaborate rules and regulations-especially when more than one rule fits-there is still room for discretion. Michael Lipsky coined the phrase street-level bureaucrats to refer to those bureaucrats who are in constant contact with the public and have considerable discretion (including police officers, welfare workers, and lower court judges). Implementation can be effective if goals are clear and the means to achieve the goals are unambiguous. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 illustrates a program that was successfully implemented because its goal was clear: to register African Americans to vote in southern counties where their voting rights had been denied for years. The means to achieve the goals were also clear: the act singled out six states in the Deep South in which the number of African American registered voters was minuscule. The Justice Department was ordered to send federal registrars to each county in those states to register qualified voters. Implementation of this act helped bring the vote to some 300,000 African Americans in less than a year. BUREAUCRACIES AS REGULATORS Government regulation is the use of governmental authority to control or change some practice in the private sector. This is the most controversial role of the bureaucracies, yet Congress gives them broad mandates to regulate activates as diverse as interest rates, the location of nuclear power plants, and food additives. Most agencies charged with regulation first have to develop a set of rules (often called guidelines); guidelines are developed in consultation with (and sometimes with the agreement of) the people or industries being regulated. The agency must then apply and enforce its rules and guidelines, either in court or through its own administrative procedures. Almost every regulatory policy was created to achieve some desirable social goal. Charles L. Schultze (chairman of President Carters Council of Economic Advisors) is a critic of the current state of federal regulation, which he described as command-and-control policy: the government tells business how to reach certain goals, checks that these commands are followed, and punishes offenders. Schultze prefers an incentive system. Defenders of the command-and-control system of regulation compare it to preventive medicine; it is designed to minimize problems such as pollution or workplace accidents before they become too severe. The idea behind deregulation, the lifting of government restrictions on business, industry, and professional activities is, that the number and complexity of regulatory policies have made regulation too complicated and burdensome. To critics, the problem with regulation is that it raises prices, distorts market forces, and worst of all it does not work. Not everyone, however, believes that deregulation is in the nations best interest. Many regulations have proved beneficial to Americans. As a result of government regulations, we breathe cleaner air, we have lower levels of lead in our blood, miners are safer at work, seacoasts have been preserved, and children are more likely to survive infancy. WHAT DO BUREAUCRATS DO? Most people think that bureaucrats only follow orders. Of course, anyone who works in the executive branch is there to implement decisions, but the reality of their work is more complicated. The power of the bureaucracy depends on how much discretionary authority they have. Congress passes laws, but they cannot follow through on all the little decisions that have to be made as laws are translated into action. Bureaucrats, then, may make policies and choose actions that are not spelled out in advance by laws. Their main function is to do the nuts and bolts of executing policies that are made by Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court. IMPLEMENTATION Most policies do not implement themselves. After the President signs a bill into law, the bureaucracy must implement it. Bureaucrats develop procedures and rules for implementing policy goals, and they manage the routines of government, such as delivering mail and collecting taxes. Usually Congress announces the goals of a policy, sets up a broad administrative apparatus, and leaves the task of working out details to the bureaucracy. The implementers take a policy handed down to them from Congress, the president, or the Court, and actually put it into effect, with real consequences for real people. Implementation involves more power in the policymaking process than is readily apparent. During this stage, many key decisions are made. Congress often passes ambiguous legislation, or the supporters of a bill that is passed into law get involved with other bills and lose contact with laws passed on to the executive branch. By the very nature of the compromise that passed the bill into law in Congress, it often sets general goals and passes the responsibility for interpretation on to the bureaucrats. As a result, the bureaucracy is given latitude in translating general guidelines into specific directives. REGULATION The function of regulation of private sector activities has developed over the course of the twentieth century. The earlier function of service (the Post Office, benefits to veterans, agriculture) dominated the bureaucracy until the early twentieth century Progressive Movement, when the government began to regulate businesses. As regulators, agencies first receive a grant of power from Congress to sketch out the means of executing broad policy decisions. Next, the agency develops a set of guidelines to govern an industry, usually in consultation with people who work in those industries. Next, the agency must apply and enforce its rules and guidelines, often through its own administrative procedures, but sometimes in court. Sometimes it reacts to complaints, and other times it sends inspectors out to the field. Regulation may be executed by requiring applicants to acquire a permit or license to operate under their guidelines and Congressional policies. HOW DOES BILL BECOMES A LAW BEGINNING OF A BILL An idea for a bill may come from anybody, however only Members of Congress can introduce a bill in Congress. Bills can be introduced at any time the House is in session. A bills type must be determined. A private bill affects a specific person or organization rather than the population at large. A public bill is one that affects the general public. The Member or the Bill Drafting Division of the Reference and Research Bureau prepares and drafts the bill upon the Members request. PROPOSAL OF A BILL After the idea for a bill is developed and the text of the bill is written, a Member of Congress must officially introduce the bill in Congress by becoming the bills sponsor. Representatives usually sponsor bills that are important to them and their constituents. Representatives who sponsor bills will try to gain support for them, in hopes that they will become laws. Two or more sponsors for the same bill are called co-sponsors. The bill is filed with the Bills and Index Service and the same is numbered and reproduced. Three days after its filing, the same is included in the Order of Business for First Reading. On First Reading, the Secretary General reads the title and number of the bill. The Speaker refers the bill to the appropriate Committee/s. COMMITTEE ACTION The bill is placed on the committees calendar. The Committee where the bill was referred to evaluates it to determine the necessity of conducting public hearings. If the Committee finds it necessary to conduct public hearings, it schedules the time thereof, issues, public notices and invites resource persons from the public and private sectors, the academe and experts on the proposed legislation. If the Committee finds that no public hearing is not needed, it schedules the bill for Committee discussion/s. Based on the result of the public hearings or Committee discussions, the Committee may introduce amendments, consolidate bills on the same subject matter, or propose a substitute bill. It then prepares the corresponding committee report. The Committee approves the Committee Report and formally transmits the same to the Plenary Affairs Bureau. SECOND READING The Committee Report is registered and numbered by the Bills and Index Service. It is included in the Order of Business and referred to the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules schedules the bill for consideration on Second Reading. On Second Reading, the Secretary General reads the number, title and text of the bill and the following takes place: a. Period of Sponsorship and Debate b. Period of Amendments c. Voting which may be by: i. viva voce ii. count by tellers iii. division of the House; or iv. ominal voting THIRD READING The amendments, if any, are engrossed and printed copies of the bill are reproduced for Third Reading. The engrossed bill is included in the Calendar of Bills for Third Reading and copies of the same are distributed to all the Members three days before its Third Reading. On Third Reading, the Secretary General reads only the number an d title of the bill. A roll call or nominal voting is called and a Member, if he desires, is given three minutes to explain his vote. No amendment on the bill is allowed at this stage. a. The bill is approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Members present. . If the bill is disapproved, the same is transmitted to the Archives. THE BILL IS REFERRED TO THE SENATE If a majority of the House votes to pass the bill, the bill is then referred to the Senate to undergo a similar process of approval. SENATE ACTION ON APPROVED BILL OF THE HOUSE When a bill passes in the House, it must also pass in the Senate in order to become a law. The two houses of Congress make up the bicameral legislature, part of a system of checks and balances that ensures that laws are created democratically. In the Senate, the bill again may be sent to a committee for study or markup. Members may choose to ignore the bill and continue to work on their own legislation. Members may vote to pass or not to pass the bill. If the bill passes with different language, it must be sent for review to a conference committee. CONFERENCE COMMITTEE A Conference Committee is constituted and is composed of Members from each House of Congress to settle, reconcile or thresh out differences or disagreements on any provision of the bill. The conferees are not limited to reconciling the differences in the bill but may introduce new provisions relevant to the subject matter or may report out an entirely new bill on the subject. The Conference Committee prepares a report to be signed by all the conferees and the Chairman. The Conference Committee Report is submitted for consideration/approval of both Houses. No amendment is allowed. THE BILL IS SENT TO THE PRESIDENT When a bill passes in the House and Senate and is sent to the President for a signature, it is said to be enrolled. Copies of the bill, signed by the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and certified by both the Secretary of the Senate and the Secretary General of the House, are transmitted to the President. PRESIDENTIAL ACTION ON THE BILL The President can take one of several possible actions: o The president may take no action. If Congress is in session, the bill automatically becomes law after ten days. o A pocket veto occurs when the president takes no action and Congress has adjourned its session. In this case, the bill dies and does not become a law. o The president may decide that the bill is unwise or unnecessary and veto the bill. o The president may sign the bill, and the bill becomes law. THE BILL BECOMES A LAW If the President signs the bill, or takes no action while Congress is in session, then the bill becomes a law. The same is assigned an RA number and transmitted to the House where it originated. ACTION ON APPROVED BILL The bill is reproduced and copies are sent to the Official Gasette Office for publication and distribution to the implementing agencies. It is then included in the annual compilation of Acts and Resolutions. THE BILL IS VETOED If the President decides a bill is unwise or unnecessary, the President does not sign the bill, but issues an official statement of objections to the bill called a veto. The same, together with a message citing the reason for the veto, is transmitted to the House where the bill originated. ACTION ON THE VETOED BILL The message is included in the Order of Business. If the Congress decides to override the veto, the House and the Senate shall proceed separately to reconsider the bill or the vetoed items of the bill. If the bill or its vetoed items is passed by a vote of two-thirds of the Members of each House, such bill or items shall become a law. If the House and Senate do not override the veto, the bill dies and does not become a law. EXECUTIVE POLICY MAKING: CABINET, NEDA, LEDAC, DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS The Executive Branch is headed by the President, who is elected by a direct vote of the people. As head of the Executive Department, the President is the Chief of Executive. He represents the government as a whole and sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. He has control over the department, bureaus and offices. This means that he has the authority to assume discretion of its officials. Corrollary to the power of control, the President also has the duty of supervising the enforcement of laws for the maintenance of general peace and public order. Thus, he is granted administrative power over bureaus and offices under his control to enable him to discharge his duties effectively. In Philippines politics, the Executive Departments of the Philippines also known as the â€Å"Cabinet† is the largest component of the national executive branch of the government of the Philippines. There are a total of nineteen executive departments and the Cabinet secretaries tasked are to advise the President on different affairs of the state. The departments comprise the largest part of the country’s bureaucracy. Similarly, Indonesia just like the Philippines, is a republic with presidential system and has a unitary state, power is concentrated in the central government. In the same way that the Philippine President is the head of the state, commander in Chief of the Armed forces of the Philippines, the Indonesian President also acts as the head of state, commander-in-chief of the Indonesian National Armed Forces, and the director of domestic governance, policy-making, and foreign affairs. In the same manner that Cabinet Secretaries of Philippines are appointed by the President, the Indonesian President likewise appoints a council of ministers, who are not required to be elected members of the legislature. The Cabinet secretaries are tasked to advise the President on different affairs of the state like agriculture, budget, finance, education, social welfare, national defense, foreign affairs and etc. The following are the list of Departments headed by Cabinet Secretaries Appointed by the Philippine President: LIST OF CURRENT DEPARTMENTS: (CABINET) 1. Department of Agrarian Reform 2. Department of Agriculture 3. Department of Budget and Management 4. Department of Education 5. Department of Energy 6. Department of Environment and Natural Resources 7. Department of Finance 8. Department of Foreign Affairs 9. Department of Health 10. Department of Interior and Local Government 11. Department of Justice 12. Department of Labor and Employment 13. Department of National Defense 14. Department of Public Works and Highways 15. Department of Science and Technology 16. Department of Social Welfare and Development 17. Department of Tourism 18. Department of Trade and Industry 19. Department of Transportation and Communications WHAT IS LEDAC? The Legislative Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC) was created under Republic Act 7640 as an advisory and consultative body to the President and the Legislature on various socioeconomic issues and concerns to ensure consistency in coordinating executive and legislative development planning and budgeting. The Council is composed of 20 members with the President as Chairman and the following members: †¢ Vice President †¢ President of the Senate †¢ Speaker of the House of Representatives †¢ Seven Cabinet Members †¢ Three Senators †¢ Three Congressmen †¢ The National President of the League of Provinces †¢ A Representative of the Youth Sector †¢ A Representative of the Private Sector For better cooperation, the Council expanded its membership by inviting all cabinet members and selected senators and congressmen to attend the weekly meetings of the Council. LEDAC ORGANIZATION The activities of LEDAC are overseen by an executive committee whose membership also comes from the various executive and legislative offices. The committee is headed by the Secretary of Economic Planning. The LEDAC Task Force to Prioritize the Common Legislative Agenda (CLA) is a committee composed of members from the executive and legislative offices. It is chaired by the Executive Secretary and includes both the majority and minority floor leaders of both houses of Congress. The committee monitors the CLA and discuss/resolve issues involving passage or prioritization of legislative measures included in the CLA. The day to day operation of the LEDAC is undertaken by the LEDAC Secretariat which is composed of career specialists from the different disciplines such as economics, business, ecology, development administration, law, and inform action technology. The LEDAC Secretariats principal responsibility is the hosting of weekly meetings between the President and his cabinet and legislators from the two houses of Congress. It is managed by an executive director. THE COMMON LEGISLATIVE AGENDA The Common Legislative Agenda (CLA) is a listing of bills from both houses of Congress that have been certified as priority measures by the President. These bills are submitted by cabinet members for input to the State of the Nation Address (SONA) of the President on the opening of Congress each year. The bills mentioned by the President in his SONA address are then adopted by the Task Force to Prioritize the Common Legislative Agenda for inclusion in the CLA. The status of the bills included in the CLA is regularly monitored and reported on the weekly LEDAC meeting between the President and his cabinet and the LEDAC members from both houses of Congress. During the course of the weekly LEDAC meeting, some bills may be identified as urgently requiring enactment in which case, the President may instruct the Chairman of the LEDAC Executive Committee to have the bills included in the CLA. Some cabinet members or members of the Legislature may on their own initiative request the President to have any legislative measure included in the CLA. If the President approves, he may then instruct the LEDAC Task Force on the Common Legislative Agenda to include the bill in the CLA. From then on, the status of these bills will be included in the CLA report presented at the weekly LEDAC meeting. Once a bill is enacted into law by both houses of Congress, it is automatically stricken off the CLA. THE PRESIDENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA The Presidential Legislative Agenda is a list of priority bills of the executive branch of government. It is a purely executive branch initiative and the two legislative houses are not involved in its preparation. The list is being pushed and monitored by the Presidential Legislative Liaison Office (PLLO). LEDAC is involved in its preparation by serving as secretariat for the yearly conduct of the cabinet clusters workshop to come up with the PLA. The result of the cabinet workshop is included as the Presidents Legislative Agenda in the yearly State of the Nation Address of the President. COLLABORATIVE ACTIVITIES Occasional meetings among the Executive Secretary, the Senate President and the House Speaker serves to further LEDAC functions and objectives. To compensate for fewer LEDAC meetings, The LEDAC Secretariat has embarked on a series of collaborative activities with other agencies or private sector group to further its goal of closer and stronger executive-legislative cooperation. Under a Memorandum of Agreement with the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), LEDAC has committed to undertake jointly with PIDS a series of activities involving conduct of research and discussion forum and sharing of policy notes on current legislative issues as well as establishing information linkages between the two agencies. THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) is the Philippine’s social and economic development planning and policy coordinating body. As mandated by the Philippine Constitution, it is the country’s independent economic development and planning agency. It is headed by the President as the Chairman of the NEDA Board, with the Secretary of Socio-Economic Planning, concurrently NEDA Director- General, as Vice-Chairman. Several cabinet members, the Central Bank Governor, ARMM and ULAP are likewise members of NEDA Board. The powers and functions of the NEDA reside in the NEDA Board. It is the country’s premier social economic development planning and policy coordinating body. The Board is composed of the President as Chairman, the Secretary of Socio Economic Planning and NEDA Director-General as Vice-Chairman, and the following as members: the Executive Secretary and the Secretaries of Finance, Trade and Industry, Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources, Public Works and Highways, Budget Management, Labor and Employment, and Interior and Local Government. Pursuant to Sec. of EO 230, empowering the President to modify the membership of the Board whenever deemed necessary, the following members have been added: the Secretaries of Health, Foreign Affairs, and Agrarian Reform (per Memorandum Order No. 235 dated 19 May 1989); and the Secretary of Transportation and Communications (per Memorandum Order No. 321 dated 26 September 1990). In addition, the Secretary of Energy (per R. A. Mo. 7638) , approved December 9, 1992) and the Deputy Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (per Section 124 of RA 7653 approved June 14, 1993) have been added as members of the NEDA Board. The following are the six cabinet-level interagency committees that assist the NEDA Board in the performance of its functions, namely: 1. DEVELOPMENT BUDGET COORDINATION COMMITTEE (DBCC) The DBCC is composed of the Sec. of Budget and Management, as Chairman; the Director-General of the NEDA Secretariat, as co-chairman; and the Executive Secretary, Secretary of Finance and the Governor of the Central Bank of the Philippines, as members. The DBCC recommends to the President the level of annual government expenditures and the ceiling of government spending for economic and social development, national defense, and government debt service; proper allocation of expenditures for each development activity between current operating expenditures and capital outlays; and amount set to be allocated for capital outlays broken down into the various capital or infrastructure projects . INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE (INFRACOM) The InfraCom is composed of the Director-General of the NEDA Secretariat, as chairman; Secretary of Public Works and Highways, as co-chairman; and the Executive Secretary and Secretaries of Transportation and Communications, Finance and Budget and Management as members. The InfraCom advises the President and the NEDA Board on matters concerning infrastructure development, including highways, airports, seaports, and shore protection; railways; power generation, transmission and distribution; telecommunications; irrigation, flood control and drainage, water supply and sanitation; national buildings for government offices; hospitals and related buildings; state colleges and universities, elementary and secondary school buildings; and other public works; coordinates the activities of the agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations involved in infrastructure development; and recommends to the President government policies, programs and projects concerning infrastructure developments consistent with national development objectives and priorities. 3. INVESTMENT COORDINATION COMMITTEE (ICC) The ICC consists of the Secretary of Finance, as chairman; the NEDA Director-General, as co-chairman; and the Executive Secretary, the Secretaries of Agriculture, Trade and Industry, Budget and Management and the Governor of the Central Bank of the Philippines, as members. The ICC evaluates the fiscal, monetary and balance of payments implications and foreign borrowings of major national projects, and recommends to the President the timetable of their implementation on a regular basis; advises the President on matters related to the domestic and foreign borrowings program; and submits a status of fiscal, monetary and balance of payments implications of major national projects. 4. SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (SDC) The Committee is composed of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, as chairman; the Director-General NEDA Secretariat as co-chairman; and the Executive Secretary, and the Secretaries of Education, Culture and Sports, Health, Interior and Local Government, Agrarian Reform, Agriculture, Social Welfare and Development, and Budget and Management, as members. The SDC advises the President and the NEDA Board on matters concerning social development, including education, manpower, health and nutrition, population and family planning, housing, human settlements, and the delivery of other social services; coordinates the activities of government agencies concerned with social development; and recommends appropriate policies, programs and projects consistent with the national development objectives. 5. COMMITTEE ON TARIFF AND RELATED MATTERS (CTRM) The CTRM is composed of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, as chairman, with the Director-General of the NEDA, as co-chairman. Its members are the Executive Secretary, the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, Transportation and Communications, Environment and Natural Resources, Budget and Management, and Finance, the Governor of the Central Bank, and the Chairman of Tariff Commission. The CTRM Advises the President and the NEDA Board on Tariff and related matters and on the effects on the country of various international developments; It coordinates agency positions and recommends national positions for international economic negotiations; and recommends to the President a continuous rationalizations program for the country’s tariff structure. 6. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (RDCom) The RDCom was created by virtue of EO 257 issued on 15 December 2003. It is composed of the NEDA Director-General, as Chair. Its members are the Secretaries of the Dept. of Budget and Management and the Interior and Local Government, RDC Chair or Co-chair each coming from Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao and four regional development expert from the private sector and academe. The RDCom formulates and monitors the implementation of policies that reduce regional growth disparities, and promote rational allocation of resources among regions; serve as clearing house for the regional development policy/programs proposals which impact on two or more regions; directs the formulation and review guidelines for the regional allocation of agency budgetary resources; and periodically reviews the viability of the regional configuration of the country and recommend to the President the redelineation of regions, as may be necessary; and periodically reviews the composition, structure and operating mechanism of the Regional Development Councils and recommend to the President changes as may be necessary. The NEDA Board Executive Committee was created under Memorandum Order No. 2 (dated 26 July 1994), the NEDA Board Executive Committee resolves policy issues requiring NEDA Board discussion and decision are immediately acted upon. The NEDA Board ExCom is composed of the Exe cutive Secretary as Chairman; the Secretary of Socio-Economic Planning and NEDA Director-General as Co-Chairman; Chairpersons of the Development Budget Coordination Committee, Investment Coordination Committee, Committee on Tariff and Related Matters, Social Development Committee; Co-chairperson of the Infrastructure Committee; and the Governor of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. The NEDA Secretariat serves as the research and technical support arm of the NEDA Board. It also provides technical staff support and assistance, including the conduct of studies and formulation of policy measures and other recommendations on the various aspects of development planning and policy formulation, and coordination, evaluation and monitoring of plan implementation. The NEDA Secretariat is headed by the Director-General who carries the rank and title of Secretary of Socio-Economic Planning and Development and who exercise general supervision and control over the technical and administrative personnel of the Secretariat. The 3 major offices comprising the NEDA Secretariat, and the bureau-level staffs under each are as follows: †¢ National Development Office Provides technical staff support to NEDA Board in coordination formulation of national and sectoral policies, plans and programs. It also monitors macroeconomic and sectoral performance, prepares the necessary economic reports, and conducts economic and development studies on macrolevel plans and policies; †¢ Regional Development Office – Provides technical staff support as may be required by the implementing agencies in the regions. It also monitors regional and interregional development policies; plans and programs; prepares integrated reports on regional planning; and conducts studies on regional development policies. †¢ Central Support Office – Provides the NEDA Secretariat technical assistance and support services in the areas of development administration, internal management improvement, legal services, development nformation, and administrative services. Six government agencies are attached to the NEDA for purposes of administrative supervision. These are: †¢ Tariff Commission (TC) †¢ Philippine National Volunteer Service Coordinating Agency (PNVSCA) †¢ National St atistical Coordination Board (NSCB) †¢ National Statistics Office (NSO) and †¢ Statistical Research and Training Center (SRTC) †¢ Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) is attached to the NEDA for policy and program coordination or integration. B. THE BIG â€Å"P† POLICY VS. THE SMALL â€Å"p†: ISSUE OF POLICY ACCOUNTABILITY Policy – Statement of goals and intentions with respect to a particular problem or set of problems. On the other hand, Black’s Law Dictionary defines public policy as â€Å"principles and standards regarded by the legislature or by the courts as being of fundamental concern to the state and the whole of society. † The definition derives from a very old principle that â€Å"a person should not be allowed to do anything that would tend to injure the public at large. † Public policies are long lasting. They outlive individuals’ terms in office and frequently they outlive entire governments. They are put in place by people we have elected or appointed to office and therefore to whom we have given our authority. However, not all public policies survive or last for a long period of time. One classic example is the â€Å"Filipino-First Policy† implemented during the term of then President Carlos P. Garcia. His administration was known for its Filipino First policy, which put the interests of the Filipino people above those of foreigners and of the ruling party. This policy heavily favored the Filipino businessmen over the foreign investors. If this policy was implemented, adopted, sustained and supported not only by the government but the Filipino citizens as well, it could help alleviate and uplift the present situation not only of our economy but the whole society as well. Many public policies affect us as citizens. Yet, some decisions that affect you in significant ways are not made in the forum where your voice has the most weight. Some are policies that can be implemented at the local level: others are policies that may or may not be influenced from the local level. Still others are policies that we might believe are appropriately decided at the local level, but where decision-making authority has been taken away from local government. Public policies in other contexts might be mission statements. They are sometimes lofty ideas that may or may not be achieved in a single generation. They may also be ideals that define a society. Some examples that define our society: â€Å"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. †Ã‚   (Amendment 1 to the U. S. Constitution) The best long-term deterrent to terrorism – obviously – is the spread of our principles of freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human life. The more that spreads around the globe, the safer we will all be. These are very powerful ideas and once they gain a foothold, they cannot be stopped. (Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to United Nations, October 1, 2001)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Once public policies are accepted and leaders move to implement them, they tend to generate public issues. For instance, with the recent deluge experienced by the Philippines after it was hit by typhoon â€Å"Ondoy† where it heavily flooded the areas of Marikina, Rizal, Laguna and other neighboring towns. What action should the government take? What public policies should be adopted and implemented? Or are there existing public policies, rules and regulations, or laws such as the Republic Act 9003 (known as the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000) which the proper authorities have failed to implement? Or is it the fault of the people around these flood-stricken areas for not taking good care of mother earth and not practicing the proper disposal of waste? Surely, there are policies or laws that govern the proper management and waste disposal. One of these is the RA 9003 or the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000. Sec. 2 of RA 9003 states that, â€Å"Declaration of Policies. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to adopt a systematic, comprehensive and ecological solid waste management program which shall: (a)Ensure the rotection of public health and environment; (b) Utilize environmentally-sound methods that maximize the utilization of valuable resources and encourage resources conservation and recovery; (c) Set guidelines and targets for solid waste avoidance and volume reduction through source reduction and waste minimization measures, including composing, recycling, re-use, recovery, green charcoal process, and others, before collection, treatment and disposal in appropriate and environmentally-sound solid waste management facilities in accordance with ecologically sustainable development principles. (d) Ensure the proper segregation, collection, transport, storage, treatment and disposal of solid waste through the formulation and adoption of the best environmental practices in ecological waste management excluding incineration; (e) Promote national research and development programs for improved solid waste management and resource conservation techniques, more effective institutional arrangement and indigenous and improved methods of waste reduction, collection, separation and recovery. f)Encourage greater private sector participation in solid waste management; (g) Retain primary enforcement and responsibility of solid waste management with local government units while establishing a cooperative effort among the national government, other local government units, non-government organizations, and the private sector; (h) Encourage cooperation and self-regulation among waste generators through the application of market-based instruments; (I)Institutionalize public participation in the development and implementation of national and local integrated, comprehensive and ecological waste management programs; and (j) Strengthen the integration of ecological solid waste management and resource conservation and recovery topics into the academic curricula of formal and non-formal education in order to promote environmental awareness and action among the citizenry. Another public issue that arose of this calamity is should the government prevent the informal settlers dwelling around the esteros and rivers that clogs the natural flow of waterways? Should the authorities be able to help address the continuing problem of the country on garbage disposal? Policy issues may hold the start of their own resolution. Investigation and open discussion may discover those solutions! Obviously, there are so many issues that must be addressed by the government and it might take a while before these concerns and issues can be fully addressed. Public policy is an attempt by the government to address a public issue. The government, whether it is city, state, or federal, develops public policy in terms of laws, regulations, decisions, and actions. There are three parts to public policy-making: problems, players, and the policy. The problem is the issue that needs to be addressed. The player is the individual or group that is influential in forming a plan to address the problem in question. Policy is the finalized course of action decided upon by the government. In most cases, policies are widely open to interpretation by non-governmental players, including those in the private sector. Public policy is also made by leaders of religious and cultural institutions. Academics continue to contemplate the definition of public policy, since there is currently no consensus. The study of public policy began in 1922, when Charles Merriam, a political scientist, sought to build a link between political theory and its application to reality. Numerous issues are addressed by public policy, including crime, education, foreign policy, health, and social welfare. In 1993, due to ineffective healthcare policies, the Clinton administration sought to implement a policy that would bring about a national healthcare system. As part of the policies being considered, the US federal government would protect the healthcare consumer’s rights, consumers would be able to form alliances to obtain better healthcare prices, and caregivers would be required to provide fair healthcare packages. Players involved in the policy-making process included lobbying groups and politicians. While some changes were made to healthcare provisions by legislators, the policies advocated by the Clinton administration were not put into effect as result of political differences. The rational model for the public policy-making process can be divided into three parts: agenda-setting, option-formulation, and implementation. Within the agenda-setting stage, the agencies and government officials meet to discuss the problem at hand. In the second stage, option-formulation, alternative solutions are considered and final decisions are made regarding the best policy. Consequently, the decided policy is implemented in the final stage. Implied within this model is the fact that the needs of the society are a priority for the players involved in the policy-making process. Also, it is believed that the government will follow through on all decisions made by the final policy. Unfortunately, those who frame the issue to be addressed by policy often exert an enormous amount of influence over the entire process through their personalities, personal interests, political affiliations, and so on. The bias is extenuated by the players involved. The final outcome of the process, as well as its implementation, is therefore not as effective as that which could result from a purely rational process. Overall, however, public policy continues to be vital in addressing social concerns. References : Public Purposes and Public Responsibilities by Patrick M. Callan Public Administration an Action Orientation, Robert B. Denhardt and Janet Denhardt, 5th Edition, 2006 Thomson Wadsworth http://www. livinginthephilippines. com/philippines_citizenship_act_9003 http://www. imf. org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1998/09/gerson. htm Philip Gerson, 1998, Poverty, Income Distribution, and Economic Policy in the Philippines, IMF Working Paper 98/20 (Washington: International Monetary Fund). http://philippines. suite101. com/article. cfm/erratic_philippine_economic_growth#ixzz0TVshd3Yx Editorial in Social Policy #1, May/June 1970, Frank Riessman, Founding Editor http://www. wwcd. org/policy/policy. html#DEF