The Capacity of Selected Higher Education Institutions and Training Institutions in DeliveringGovernance Education Programs
Ederson Delos Trino Tapia (University of Makati)
Currently, there has been no study yet on the existing capacities of GovEd institutions in the Philippines. It would be interesting to ask the questions, what are the existing capacities of these GovEd institutions? Do they have a high level of capacity, average level of capacity, or lower than average capacity to deliver GovEd programs/courses?
Moreover, what factors make for a higher level of capacity compared to those factors which effect a lower level of capacity among the GovEd institutions to be covered by the study? Also, in which capacity component or aspect are some GovEd institutions strong, and in which capacity component/aspect are some lacking or inadequate?
Do some of these GovEd institutions know their existing capacities? Are they aware of their strengths and of their weaknesses? Do they make some efforts to measure their strengths/weaknesses as well as venture into some ways and means of measuring other GovEd institutions’ strengths/weaknesses for benchmarking purposes?
If these GovEd institutions are aware of their strengths/weaknesses, what have they been doing to sustain their strengths and to remedy their weaknesses? What problems do they encounter in building up their capacities? This paper addresses these questions and provides some initial recommendations on how some measures may be introduced to provide solutions to the problems identified.
Ma. Victoria R. Raquiza, Ph.D. (University of the Philippines)
The Philippines is a development paradox: on the one hand, the country has experienced high growth rates in recent years, earning the reputation of being one of the fastest, emerging economies in the region. On the other hand, poverty and inequality levels remain high. In the last decade alone, the wealth of the richest clans have either doubled or tripled their wealth underscoring the fact that the gains of high economic growth have benefited only a few.
An important pathway out of poverty is structural transformation which necessitates boosting the productivity across all sectors and moving employment to the most dynamic sectors of the economy. In real terms, this means significant investment in agriculture and the manufacturing sector, including the micro-, small, medium enterprises. Unfortunately this has not happened because the government’s neoliberal policy framework of deferring to the private sector has prevented it from playing a more interventionist role in the economy in support of domestic manufacturers and micro and small entrepreneurs.
Because the laissez faire strategy, in place for the last thirty decades, has produced the development paradox of high growth rates simultaneous to high poverty levels, government has resorted to social protection schemes in order to somehow mitigate the worst consequences of macro-economic policies. That these schemes have broad clientelistic appeal to politicians have only added to its allure.
However, for as long as the country’s institutional and policy framework remains neoliberal, significant levels of poverty, hunger and inequality may remain staple features of the country’s development landscape as the country’s potential to significantly boost labor productivity growth remains unrealized.