Kobe University Repository : Thesis Policy Decisiveness and Collaboration in Housing Program Delivery: 学位論文題目 Leadership Patterns in Four Philippine Cities(住宅供給プログラムにお Title ける政策決定力と協力：フィリピン４市におけるリーダーシップパタ ーン) 氏名 POTUTAN Gerald Ejem Author 専攻分野 博士（学術） Degree 学位授与の日付 2014-09-03 Date of Degree 公開日 2016-09-03 Date of Publication 資源タイプ Thesis or Dissertation / 学位論文 Resource Type 報告番号 乙第3254号 Report Number 権利 Rights JaLCDOI URL http://www.lib.kobe-u.ac.jp/handle_kernel/D2003254 ※当コンテンツは神戸大学の学術成果です。無断複製・不正使用等を禁じます。著作権法で認められている範囲内で、適切にご利用ください。 PDF issue: 2021-10-04 Policy Decisiveness and Collaboration in Housing Program Delivery Leadership Patterns in Four Philippine Cities Kobe University Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies Gerald E. Potutan This page is left blank. Preface Heightened urbanization in the Philippines has changed the context of cities. It has resulted in a more complex local environment accompanied with problems such as lack of housing, environmental degradation, declining literacy rates, and rising unemployment rates. Among these, the lack of housing is seen as the most politicized because it involves hu ge number of urban poor voters. To facilitate an improved housing program delivery, especially at the city levels, collaboration (facilitated by institutional synergy) has been encouraged through structural mechanisms such as national legislation and polic ies. In the process, the strategy for program delivery has been focused more on structural factors such as institutions, rules, and laws. In view of this, the role of policy decisiveness (facilitated by leadership) in program delivery is somewhat neglected. While there are good reasons to emphasize the importance of institutional synergy to effectively address the rising housing demands, it is also essential to rethink the importance of leadership in facilitating and directing institutional synergy. This paper argues that policy decisiveness – which can be observed through the choices, decisions, and actions of a leader – matters because it has the potential to affect change. The paper explores whether policy decisiveness can offer a more viable option for addressing the complex challenges in housing program delivery. In particular, it will look into the role of policy decisiveness in managing the socio-political dynamics, the competing demands of interest groups, and the different opinions of people in the communities. In the recent context where popular technologies such as smart phones, internet, televisions, and social networking sites are widely accessible, local people are more empowered to know and express their voices about the decisions and actions of i their political leaders. Under this condition, it is critical to know whether the leader is able to convene the different voices towards a common goal and avoid policy gridlock in program delivery. While it is commonly thought the policy decisiveness can potentially improve program delivery, little attention is given to this subject, and therefore, there is a knowledge gap. To fill this gap, this research has collected, documented, and analyzed case studies to validate or invalidate such thought. In pursuit of this research, it is expected that the findings will inform the policies and strategies for an improved housing program delivery in the future. This research is also expected to offer new insights on policy decisiveness which can be useful for academic scholars, students, and policymakers. ii Table of Contents Preface i List of Tables and Figures vii Acronyms ix Abstract 0 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 2 1.1.1 Organizing Concepts 3 1.1.2 Shifting Patterns: From Personalities to Institutions 3 1.1.3 Housing Program Delivery: The Case Point for Analysis 9 1.1.4 Collaboration: Structure-focused Approach 16 1.1.5 Policy Decisiveness: Agency-focused Approach 19 1.2 Statement of the Problem 23 1.2.1 Research Question 24 1.2.2 Objectives 25 1.3 Scope, Limitations, and Contributions 25 1.4 Organization of the Dissertation 27 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 29 2.1 Structure and Agency 29 2.1.1 Structural Perspective 30 2.1.2 Agential Perspective 31 2.1.3 Structure-Agency Complementarity 33 2.2 Collaboration 34 2.2.1 Non-Collaboration Pattern 37 2.2.2 Collaboration Pattern 39 2.2.3 Synergy 43 iii 2.3 Policy Decisiveness 45 2.3.1 Policy Decisiveness as Unity of Purpose 46 2.3.2 Policy Indecisiveness as Gridlock 48 2.3.3 Analytical Advantage of Applying Policy Decisiveness 49 2.3.4 Leadership 50 2.4. Summary 56 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 57 3.1 Research Design 57 3.1.1 Hypothesis 57 3.1.2 Research Framework 59 3.2 Selection of Cases 61 3.2.1 Unit of Analysis 62 3.2.2 Choice of Issue 62 3.3 Data Collection 63 3.4 Summary 63 CHAPTER 4 MARIKINA CITY 64 4.1 Profile of Marikina City 64 4.1.1 Location 66 4.1.2 Quick Statistics 67 4.1.3 Serving Mayors 68 4.2 Bayani F. Fernando: The Mayor 69 4.2.1 Strong Resolve 70 4.2.2 Non-Collaboration Perspectives in Program Delivery 75 4.2.3 Other Initiatives 79 4.3 The “Squatter-Free” Program 82 4.3.1 Decisions 83 4.3.2 Delivery Mechanism 89 iv 4.4 Policy Decisiveness of BF 95 4.5 Summary 99 CHAPTER 5 NAGA CITY 100 5.1 Profile of Naga City 100 5.1.1 Location 103 5.1.2 Quick Statistics 104 5.1.3 Serving Mayors 105 5.2 Jesse M. Robredo: The Mayor 106 5.2.1 Semblance of True Grit 108 5.2.2 Collaboration Perspectives in Program Delivery 112 5.3 The “Kaantabay sa Kauswagan” Program 119 5.3.1 Decisions 120 5.3.2 Delivery Mechanism 121 5.4 Policy Decisiveness of Robredo 129 5.5 Summary 132 CHAPTER 6 MANDALUYONG AND CEBU 133 6.1 Mandaluyong City 133 6.1.1 City Profile 133 6.1.2 Neptali M. Gonzales II: The Mayor 137 6.1.3 The City Housing Program 141 6.1.4 Policy Indecisiveness of Gonzales 149 6.2 Cebu City 151 6.2.1 City Profile 151 6.2.2 Tomas Osmeña: The Mayor 154 6.2.3 The City Housing Program 159 6.2.4 Policy Indecisiveness of Osmeña 168 6.3 Summary 171 v CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS 172 7.1 Summary of Findings 172 7.1.1 How does policy decisiveness facilitate program delivery? 173 7.1.2 Should we accept policy decisiveness and reject collaboration? 177 7.1.3 How to achieve policy decisiveness? 178 7.1.4 Contributions of the Findings to the General Knowledge 180 7.2 Recommendations 180 7.2.1 Policy Recommendations 181 7.2.2 Recommendations for Further Research 182 BIBLIOGRAPHY 185 ANNEXES Annex 1 Website Links of Four City Mayors 206 Annex 2 List of Mayors in Four City Cases 2010-2013 212 Annex 3 Acknowledgements 213 vi List of Tables and Figures Tables Table 1.1 Housing Needs for 2005-2010 11 Table 1.2 Housing Targets and Accomplishments 2001-2004 13 Table 2.1 Characteristics of Non-Collaborative Pattern 37 Table 2.2 Characteristics of Collaborative Pattern 40 Table 4.1 Quick Statistics of Marikina City 68 Table 4.2 Serving Mayors in Marikina since 1988 Elections 69 Table 4.3 Major Settlements Sites 85 Table 4.4 Community Associations and Households 88 Table 4.5 Estimated Numbers of Squatters in Marikina 1993-2007 96 Table 4.6 Achievements of Squatter-Free Program (2008) 96 Table 5.1 Quick Statistics of Naga City 104 Table 5.2 Serving Mayors in Naga since 1988 Elections 105 Table 5.3 Housing Needs of Naga City 2001-2010 120 Table 5.4 Estimated Numbers of Squatters in Naga 1995-2007 130 Table 5.5 Achievement of Housing Program (2007) 130 Table 6.1 Profile of Mandaluyong City 135 Table 6.2 Income and Expenditures 1998-2003 135 Table 6.3 Serving Mayors in Mandaluyong since 1988 Elections 136 Table 6.4 Land Acquisition as of December 2002 143 Table 6.5 Eviction and Demolition Projects (2002-2003) 144 Table 6.6 Contribution of Adopt-A-Home Project 150 Table 6.7 Profile of Cebu City 153 Table 6.8 Serving Mayors in Cebu City since 1988 Elections 154 Table 6.9 Land Areas that Still Need to Be Acquired 161 vii Table 6.10 Estimated Numbers of Squatters Served 166 Table 6.11 Estimated Numbers of Squatters in Cebu 1993-2007 168 Table 7.1 Comparative Number of Squatters Before and After the Program 173 Table 7.2 Estimated Numbers of Squatters in Marikina 1993-2007 174 Table 7.3 Estimated Numbers of Squatters in Naga 1995-2007 174 Table 7.4 Estimated Numbers of Squatters in Mandaluyong 2004-2007 174 Table 7.5 Estimated Numbers of Squatters in Cebu 1993-2007 175 Table 7.6 Estimated Number of Beneficiaries Served in Four Cities 175 Figures Figure 3.1 Research Framework 59 Figure 3.2 Unique Features of Cases 61 Figure 4.1 Location of Marikina City 66 Figure 4.2 MSO Functional Structure 90 Figure 5.1 Location of Naga City 103 Figure 5.2 “Kaantabay sa Kauswagan” Operations Framework 122 Figure 5.3 Relationship between COPE and NCUF 123 Figure 5.4 Situating COPE and NCUF in NCPC 125 Figure 5.5 Collaboration Structure of Naga City 127 Figure 6.1 Location of Mandaluyong City 134 Figure 6.2 MHDB-GK Supplementary Project Structure 148 Figure 6.3 Location of Cebu City 152 Figure 6.4 Complementarity between DWUP and FORGE 164 Figure 7.1 Summary of Findings 172 viii Acronyms ADB Asian Development Bank AIM Asian Institute of Management BLGF Bureau of Local Government Finance BOI Board of Investment BOT Build Operate Transfer BRBDP Bicol River Basin Development Program CA Community Association CCUP Cebu City Commission for the Urban Poor CDC City Development Council CPDO City Planning and Development Office CHR Commission on Human Rights CISFA Comprehensive and Integrated Shelter Financing Act CLUP Comprehensive Land Use Plan CMP Community Mortgage Program COHRE Center for Housing Rights and Eviction COPE Community Organization of the Philippines Enterprises CSO Civil Society Organization DILG