Term
2011-12
Old
T
heory,
New
Century,
Same
Issues:
Alternative
Development
in
the
Philippine
Context
By Asuncion M. Sebastian
On the 6th of December 2011
Abstract
This
paper
examines
the
civil
society
organizations
(CSOs)
in
the
Philippinesthe
more
traditional
ones
such
as
the
non-government
organizations
(NGOs),
the
peoples
organizations
(POs),
and
the
cooperatives,
as
well
as
the
merging
new
subsectors
of
microfinance
institutions
and
social
enterprisesin
the
light
of
alternative
development
theory
and
assesses
their
performance
using
mainly
John
Friedmanns
framework.
Despite
the
lack
of
empirical
evidence,
cases
and
experiences
have
been
cited
to
support
that
the
CSOs
have
contributed
in
promoting
development
in
the
country.
This
paper
also
argues
that
the
theory
is
still
relevant
and
in
fact
has
been
labeled
by
other
names
or
buzzwords
in
the
modern
development
programs.
The
paper
also
argues
that
the
application
of
theory
is
far
from
perfect
but
the
theory
itself
still
holds
sound
principles
so
much
so
that
alternative
development
agents
continue
to
evolve
in
terms
of
institutional
forms,
development
approach,
products
and
services,
and
dynamics
and
relations
with
one
another
and
with
other
institutions.
Such
evolution
is
an
indication
of
civil
society
organizations
adaptation
to
their
changing
context
and
clients
needs,
which
makes
them
relevant
still
to
the
present
time.
Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1 Research Questions ............................................................................................................................. 2 Rationale and Contributions of the Study.................................................................................. 3 Theoretical Background ......................................................................................................................... 3 Definition of Alternative Development ....................................................................................... 3 Conceptual Framework...................................................................................................................... 6 The Role of Institutions...................................................................................................................... 9 The Role of the NGOs ........................................................................................................................10 Critique of Alternative Development .........................................................................................12 The Philippine Context..........................................................................................................................13 The Civil Society Organizations....................................................................................................13 NGOs....................................................................................................................................................15 POs .......................................................................................................................................................16 Cooperatives ....................................................................................................................................16 Critique of the CSOs ...........................................................................................................................18 NGOs....................................................................................................................................................18 POs .......................................................................................................................................................20 Cooperatives ....................................................................................................................................20 The Emerging Subsectors ...............................................................................................................23 Application of Alternative Development Principles .......................................................24 Old Approach, New Implementing Agents..........................................................................26 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................28 Works Cited
Table of Contents
Old
Theory,
New
Century,
Same
Issues:
Alternative
Development
in
the
Philippine
Context
Introduction
The
three
development
decades
were
a
huge,
irresponsible
experiment
that,
in
the
experience
of
a
world-majority,
failed
miserably.
Esteva,
1985
This
statement
was
quoted
in
Nederveen
Pieterse
(1998,
2010)
in
response
to
the
mainstream
paradigm
of
growth
that
had
dominated
societies
since
after
the
war.
In
the
1940s,
development
was
understood
as
economic
growth
and
industrialization
in
the
Modernization
thought.
Then
in
the
1950s,
it
became
economic
growth
and
political
and
social
modernization.
(Nederveen
Pieterse,
Development
Theory,
2010)
During
the
1960s
and
1970s,
growth
was
associated
with
income
increases
of
the
affluent
groupthe
top
10
percent
to
40
percent
income
earnersalbeit
without
trickling
down
effect
to
the
lower-income
segment.
(Martinussen,
1997)
At
this
time,
attention
was
given
to
production
and
technocracy,
while
basic
needs
of
people
were
neglected.
The
poor
were
invisible
entities
in
statistics.
Thus,
the
advocates
of
alternative
development
thought
that
more
attention
to
inequality
and
poverty
issues
was
needed.
Consequently,
development
shifted
from
macroeconomic
growth
to
poverty
alleviation
strategies.
The
poor
then
became
passive
target
beneficiaries.
Eventually,
with
the
evolution
of
the
alternative
development
thought,
they
poor
are
acknowledged
as
active
human
beings
who
can
take
care
of
themselves
without
external
support.
(Martinussen,
1997)
Friedman (1992) traced back the history of alternative development way back in the 1960s during the emergence of social movements aimed at advancing human rights and green opportunities and peace. Considered a new paradigm, alternative development brought out the new idea of basic needs and the environmental resources that sustain the system, where the concept of self-reliance, importance of people rather than economics, endogeneity and ecological sustainability became elements to the construct the third system. In contrast to other existing paradigms, alternative development is participatory and people-centereddevelopment from below. (Nederveen Pieterse, My Paradigm or Yours? Alternative Development, Post-Development, Reflexive Development, 1998) In the 1980s and 1990s, decentralization became a global trend as a result of market-led economies and neoliberal agenda, which aimed for greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness. This decentralization trend, regarded as a way of moving away from state control, eventually worked to the poors social and political advantage, further promoting alternative developmentan unintended result of decentralization. Local people became more involved in decision-making and participation, which is key element of development. Hence, this move away from the top-down approach in development has been associated in particular with the growth of non-governmental organizations (or NGOs). (Willis, 2005)
Research
Questions
More
than
four
decades
since
its
conceptualization
as
an
approach
alternative
to
the
mainstream
development,
alternative
development
is
worth
examining
particularly
in
the
Philippine
context.
Thus,
this
study
aims
to
answer
the
following
questions:
How
have
the
agents
of
alternative
development
contributed
to
the
achievement
of
development
goals?
Page 2 of 30
Is alternative development still relevant today or has it simply led to another theory and strategy that people hope would be more effective in solving the current development issues? If indeed alternative development is still relevant, how can its implementation be made better or more effective?
Theoretical
Background
Page 3 of 30
development
goals
from
economic
growth
to
human
development,
and
focused
on
the
civil
society
as
development
agent.
As
for
the
methodology,
Nederveen
Pieterse
(1998,
2010)
emphasized
alternative
developments
being
participatory,
endogenous,
self-reliant,
and
ecologically
sustainable.
These
contours
are
hard
to
measure
but
the
whole
point
of
development
as
proposed
by
the
alternative
development
is
to
beyond
getting
standards
and
numbers
as
was
done
in
the
previous
economic
growth-driven
strategies.
He
furthered
that
development
is
not
about
growth
but
about
social
transformation,
coming
up
with
a
comparative
table
of
growth-centered
and
social
transformation-centered
growth
models
(see
Figure
1).
Figure
1:
Development
Models
(Nederveen
Pieterse,
1998)
Page 4 of 30
There
have
been
few
attempts
though
to
theoretically
develop
alternative
development
and
Nederveen
Pieterse
(1998,
2010)
explained
why.
For
one,
it
is
practice
oriented
rather
than
theoretically
inclined.
Second,
since
it
builds
on
local
knowledge,
abstract
expert
knowledge
would
not
count
much.
For
this
same
reason,
literature
on
the
topic
is
scattered
local
sets
of
knowledge
with
no
overarching
reflection.
Finally,
alternative
development
is
known
by
other
namesappropriate
development,
participatory
development,
people-centered
development,
human
scale
development,
grassroots/bottom-up
development/development
from
below,
another
development,
and
autonomous
development/
local
developmentwhich
is
an
indication
of
the
fluidity
of
the
concept.
Despite
these
limitations,
alternative
development
has
been
defined
and
described
in
various
yet
similar
ways.
Perhaps
the
earliest
work
that
legitimized
and
universalized
that
alternative
development
concept
was
the
1975
Dag
Hammarsjkold
Report,
which
highlighted
its
being
geared
to
the
satisfaction
of
needs,
endogenous
and
self-reliant
(participative),
and
in
harmony
with
the
environment
(sustainable).
Other
definitions
are
as
follows:
Development
is
a
process
by
which
the
members
of
a
society
increase
their
personal
and
institutional
capacities
to
mobilize
and
manage
resources
to
produce
sustainable
and
justly
distributed
improvements
in
their
quality
of
life
consistent
with
their
own
aspiration.
(Korten,
1990)
A
people-centered
development
in
harmony
with
the
environment,
requiring
a
more
self-reliant
effort
than
in
the
pastself-reliance
through
full
participation
in
a
system
that
perpetuates
dependence.
Cocoyoc
Declaration,
1974
cited
in
Friedmann
(1992).
A
theoretical
framework
outside
the
well-known
neoclassical
and
Keynesian
doctrinesan
ideology
that
rejects
a
system
driven
by
relentless
competition,
forced
to
expand
production
continuously
regardless
of
cost,
Page 5 of 30
while bringing ever-new technologies on the market. (It) addresses the condition of the poor directly(and) argues for their involvement in actions that will lead to their own empowerment. (It) therefore pursues structural changes at the national level as well as local meliorative action. (Friedmann, 1992) As a society-led theory, alternative development is often associated with community development, local economic development and micro regional development...alternative development has also been linked to the idea of de-globalization or de-linking local economies to the global economy and the return to indigenization. (Bello, 2002)
Conceptual
Framework
For
Friedmann
(1992),
alternative
development
must
begin
locally
but
it
cannot
end
there
and
that
state
collaboration
is
needed.
In
his
diagram
(see
Figure
2),
he
showed
the
four
domains
of
social
practicethe
state,
the
market
or
corporate
economy,
the
political
community,
and
the
civil
societyand
their
various
degrees
of
institutionalizations
and
forms
of
institutions
that
shape
the
behavior
within
their
respective
spheres.
Figure
2:The
Four
Domains
of
Social
Practice
(Friedmann,
1992)
Page 6 of 30
His
model
is
particularly
different
from
other
models
in
that
it
separated
the
state
and
the
political
community,
thereby
creating
four
different
arenas
instead
of
the
three
traditional
spheres
of
state,
market,
and
society.
While
civil
associations
are
included
in
the
civil
society
domain,
social
movements,
which
formed
the
foundations
of
NGOs,
are
classified
under
the
political
community
arena.
Moreover,
in
his
model,
religious
institutions
are
treated
as
the
common
ground
between
the
state
and
the
civil
society
when
in
most,
if
not
all
nations,
there
is
clear
separation
of
the
state
and
the
church.
According
to
Friedmann
(1992),
the
vertical
line
indicated
the
axis
linking
the
state
and
the
market,
which
had
dominated
the
history
of
political
economy.
He
thus
proposed
to
shift
emphasis
to
the
horizontal
axis
connecting
civil
society
and
the
political
community.
Consistent
with
Polyanis
(1977,
in
Martinussen)
argument
that
economic
relations
and
economic
activity
are
deeply
embedded
in
the
matrix
of
social
and
cultural
relations,
Friedmann
asserted
that:
1. Societal
relations
are
more
important
determinants
of
human
behavior
than
incentive
structures
of
mainstream
economists
2. It
is
necessary
to
probe
into
the
social-cultural
institutions
of
the
civil
society,
beginning
with
the
household
The
four
arenas
are
then
presented
in
another
way
in
Figure
3
to
highlight
the
role
of
household
and
of
societal
relations
in
shaping
human
relations.
Page 7 of 30
Figure 3: The Whole-Economy Model (Friedmann, 1992) This framework highlights the following features that distinguish the poor from the corporate economy and the sphere of the state: 1. The mergence of economic activities and other life-generating forces, geared toward creating livelihood for the households, and not for capital accumulation 2. The interdependence between the rationality of economic reasoning and the moral relations embedded in kinship, friendship, and neighborhood, thus making it necessary to probe into the social-cultural institutions of civil society in understanding the economic processes 3. The general capability of the poor and resource-weak householdsthose who may not succeed in participating in the market economy and are thus living in subsistence economyof making the best possible out of their current situation In the Philippine setting, the subsistence economy may be witnessed in the tradition of bayanihan, labor equity in exchange for goods, barter of goods, paluwagan or rotating credit, among others,
Page 8 of 30
explained by accumulation of wealth or capital preventing migration. In essence, the authors did not see the exclusivity between growth and social transformation, as presented by Nederveen Pieterse in Table 1.
want,
and
of
participation
or
the
involvement
of
people
in
the
development
projects.
However,
it
is
also
recognized
that
the
NGOs
can
only
do
so
muchthey
can
only
provide
a
context
wherein
the
process
of
empowerment
is
possible
but
ultimately,
individuals
decide
and
choose
for
themselves.
Even
participation
has
different
levels,
which
influence
the
roles
of
the
NGOs:
appraisal
(NGOs
get
information
from
the
local
communities);
agenda
setting
(NGOs
consult
the
local
in
planning
and
policy
making);
efficiency
(NGOs
engage
the
locals
in
actual
project
implementation);
and
empowerment
(NGOs
facilitate
local
participation
and
contribution
to
development
of
democracy).
(Willis,
2005)
Korten
(1990)
came
up
with
general
typology
of
NGOs:
1. Voluntary
organizations
that
pursue
a
social
mission
based
on
shared
values
2. Public
service
contractors
that
are
market-oriented
nonprofit
businesses
serving
public
purposes
3. Peoples
organizations
representing
members
interests
4. Governmental
non-governmental
organizations
that
are
into
creations
of
government
and
serve
as
instruments
of
government
policy.
Likewise,
Friedmann
(1992)
drew
his
own
typology
of
NGOs:
1. Popular
organizations
that
are
non-profit,
non-political
groups
from
within
the
civil
society
of
the
poor,
mostly
funded
by
the
membership
dues
2. Professional
groups
composed
of
educated
staff
working
on
disempowered
communities
and
funded
by
private
donations
3. Private
voluntary
organizations
that
are
well-funded
foreign
NGOs
with
global
operations
4. Non-profit,
socially
oriented,
business
organizations,
which
designs,
manufactures,
and
sells
village
technologies.
On
the
other
hand,
Bebbington
and
Bebbington
(2001)
came
up
with
two
types
of
NGOs:
Page 11 of 30
1. The informal civil society groups that emerged from bottom up, are more inclusive, and are thus more often viewed as the source of alternative development 2. The formal NGOs that normally employ top-down approachsomething that led the authors to emphasize that not all groups can be vehicles to alternative development This point is consistent with Nederveen Pieterses statement: given the wide variety of NGOs, it is quite inadequate to describe alternative development as development-by-NGOs. He said that the NGO ideology is organization-led Bebbington and Bebbingtons second type of NGOswhich is opposed to alternative developments participatory and endogenous features. (Nederveen Pieterse, Development Theory, 2010)
Page 12 of 30
They also illustrated that people have various notions of what development is and thus have different priorities and required interventions. For some, access to market is more important than agricultural technology and equipment; still for others, they want education more than anything, which indeed eventually enabled them to better manage their finances and run their own livelihood and market-oriented activities. The same issue, however, still stands: how will collective aspirations emerge from the diversity of interests and orientations that exist within and among popular organizations? (Bebbington & Bebbington, 2001) Cooke and Kothari (2001) in Willis (2005) called the participatory process as the new tyranny in development work because it requires time and energy of local people to participate, which could have been spent in productive, income- generating activities and/or in domestic chores. They also criticized the process that community participation does not always involve all sectors of the population and does not always lead to empowerment. Finally, the authors also argued that focus on the micro level could often lead to a failure to recognize much wider structures of disadvantage and oppression. Willis (2005) also pointed out that development managers might succumb to pressures, particularly from donor agencies that require quantifiable results and tangible outcomes, rather than addressing the issues of inequality, which are not easily measured. Dependence on external assistance also means that many projects are more likely to react to the requirements and favored sectors of donors than to the needs of the local people (Hulme and Edwards, 1997 in Willis).
capacity. The number of civil society organizations (CSOs) is estimated at 500,000, but only a few are registered as non-stock NGOs. (Asian Development Bank, 2007) In analyzing alternative development in the Philippines, it would be more appropriate to consider the whole CSO sector that aimed at helping the poor population and not limit it solely to the NGOs. There are three general subsectors of CSOs: NGOs, POs, and the cooperatives. Figure 4: Major CSO Subsectors Function NGOs Provision of wide range of services POs Promotion of public interest and provision of public goods and services Members on voluntary basis Leadership from within Members Non-profit Estimated at 100,000 primary POs and 300 secondary POs Cooperatives Provision of public goods and services Members on voluntary basis Leadership from within Members For-profit 18,484*
Organizations, communities, individuals Middle-class led or managed, with full-time staff complement None Non-profit Estimates range from 15,000- 30,000 to 34,000- 68,000
Based on Mapping and Analyzing Philippine Civil Society Organizations by Abao, 2011 *From Cooperative Development Authority, 2010
Further,
Friedmann
(1992)
noted
that
the
Philippines
may
have
its
own
definition
of
NGOs,
which
may
not
necessarily
be
true
in
other
countries.
Quoting
Garilao
(1987),
he
described
the
Philippine
NGO
sector
thus:
Sector
is
not
used
loosely
here.
It
is
used
precisely
to
denote
that
NGOs
as
a
group
have
a
distinct
socio-economic-political
function.
As
such,
they
can
Page 14 of 30
be juxtaposed with the traditional sectors of the economy, the public and the priavte sectors.As NGOs expand and professionalize their services, and attempt to bring in more of their population from the amrgins of society, they are in fact creating a new service industrythe social development industry. (Friedmann, 1992) Such definition is in contrast to Friedmanns model, where potilical arena is distinct from the economic and social. It seems that the Philippine society has merged unknowingly albeit effectively Friedmanns political community and civil society arenas. NGOs Majority of the NGOs in the country are engaged in education, training and human resource development, and community development. A significant number is also engaged in sustainable development and environmental protection, health and nutrition, enterprise and livelihood development, social service, microfinance, and cooperative development. (Tuano, Philippine Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): Contributions, Capacities, Challenges, 2011) In NGO reports, they claimed that they are most competent in areas involving deepening of knowledge and changing the orientation of individuals, strengthening organizational capacities of groups, and pushing for policy changes. (Tuano, Philippine Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): Contributions, Capacities, Challenges, 2011) Unsurprisingly, Serrano (1994, in Tuano) cited two characteristics of NGOs in the Philippines that distinguish them from others in Asia: 1) many NGOs have advocacy and lobbying components working at both the national and local government levels and in both legislative and executive levels; in fact, in many instances, the NGOs have won policy success; and 2) there are numerous networks and associations that have been established to coordinate the work the work of non-governmental groups.
Page 15 of 30
In
the
past
decade
or
so,
the
NGOs
with
community
organizing
work
have
decreased
in
number
while
those
with
microfinance
and/or
social
enterprise
components
increased;
likewise,
the
number
of
corporate
foundations
has
also
increased
over
the
same
period.
POs
POs
are
usually
defined
as
membership-based
organizations
formed
largely
on
a
voluntary
basis
and
function
as
community-sector
or
issue-based
groups
at
the
grassroots.
The
POs
in
the
Philippines
comprise
the
14
basic
sectors
identified
as
marginalized
groups
(i.e.
farmers,
workers,
women,
urban
poor,
and
social
sectors)
and
undertake
various
activities
such
as
provision
of
basic
services
(health,
education
and
nutrition,
water
and
sanitation),
environmental
services,
and
participation
in
local
government
affairs.
(Tuano,
A
Review
of
the
People's
Organizations
Sector:
The
Necessity
of
Strengthening
Partnerships
and
Exchanges,
2011)
The
strength
of
the
POs
lies
in
their
organizational
leadership
that
represents
well
the
concerns
of
the
members
in
the
local
and
national
councils,
as
well
as
in
international
agencies
such
as
the
United
Nations.
They
have
also
been
successful
in
influencing
the
crafting
of
laws
and
policies
that
benefit
their
served
sectors,
among
them
are
the
legislation
in
agrarian
reform,
urban
land
reform
and
socialized
housing,
fisheries
and
aquatic
reform,
and
labor
rights
and
welfare.
There
have
also
been
cases
of
successful
programs
implementation
for
poverty
reduction
and
the
POs
attribute
them
to
community
mobilization
prior
to
implementation
itself,
support
to
the
PO
leaders
in
terms
of
moral
and
resources,
and
organizational
skills.
Cooperatives
According
to
the
Philippine
Cooperative
Code
of
2008,
a
cooperative
is
an
autonomous
and
duly
registered
association
of
persons,
with
a
common
bond
of
interest,
who
have
voluntarily
joined
together
to
achieve
their
social,
economic,
and
cultural
needs
and
aspirations
by
making
equitable
contributions
to
the
capital
required,
patronizing
their
products
and
services
and
accepting
a
fair
share
of
the
Page 16 of 30
risks
and
benefits
of
the
undertaking
in
accordance
with
universally
accepted
cooperative
principles.
(RA
9520,
Ch.
1,
Art.
3)
The
number
of
cooperatives
in
the
country
shows
interesting
pattern
over
the
years:
from
over
3,000
in
1985,
peaking
to
77,701
in
2008,
then
dropping
to
over
18,000
in
2010
(see
Figure
5).
Of
this
number,
77
percent
are
multipurpose
cooperatives,
9
percent
are
credit
cooperatives,
and
5
percent
are
service.
(Cooperative
Development
Authority,
2010)
Figure
5:
Number
of
Cooperatives
in
the
Philippines
Sources:
Cooperative
Development
Authority
website
and
Mina
(2011)
The
growth
in
cooperatives
between
1985
and
1993
could
be
attributed
to
the
support
extended
to
the
subsector
by
the
Aquino
government.
The
drop
in
2009,
however,
may
have
been
caused
by
the
issuance
of
a
circular
requiring
cooperatives
to
register
and
confirm
with
the
authority
within
a
certain
periodwith
entailed
submission
of
articles
of
cooperation,
bylaws
and
latest
audited
financial
statementswhich
many
cooperatives
failed
to
comply
with.
As
of
2010,
the
cooperative
sector
had
an
asset
base
worth
Php158
billion
(see
Figure
6)
and
a
membership
of
over
7
million.
Page 17 of 30
The cooperatives consider their financial assets and political representation their primary strength. Four of the five party-list organizations supported by cooperatives consistently won in the past four elections. Among the laws passed included the cooperative code in 2008, expansion of tax exemption incentives for cooperatives, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms Act, and strengthening of crop insurance program. (Mina, 2011)
services,
still,
it
runs
counter
to
the
theorists
proposition:
that
the
NGOs,
because
they
work
with
the
grassroots,
would
know
the
appropriate
interventions
better,
use
local
resources
more,
and
encourage
participative
process
more
effectively.
Tuano
(2011)
recognized
the
need
for
the
NGOs
to
assess
their
program
and
project
impacts
and
outcomes.
Assessment
reports
of
the
NGOs
either
focus
on
organizational
status
(e.g.
employment
generation,
women
in
management)
or
indicate
economic
performance,
which
is
very
growth-led
in
nature
and
not
transformation-led
as
espoused
by
alternative
development.
In
the
absence
of
impact
assessments,
the
public
has
a
general
perception
that
the
NGOs
have
limited
success
in
their
economic
projects
due
to
their
choice
of
intervention
as
well
as
poor
targeting
strategies.
Worse,
the
NGOs,
specifically
the
community
organizing
ones,
have
been
criticized
by
some
members
of
the
development
community
for
not
being
able
to
provide
tangible
socio-economic
benefits
to
marginalized
areas
(as
in
the
case
of
microfinance
and
social
enterprise
NGOs).
Some
people,
however,
defended,
that
physical
asset
transfers
(i.e.
agrarian
reform,
urban
housing,
and
ancestral
domain
titles)
have
been
undertaken
in
the
most
organized
communities
in
the
country.
(Tuano,
Philippine
Non-Government
Organizations
(NGOs):
Contributions,
Capacities,
Challenges,
2011)
Finally,
the
NGOs
are
generally
dependent
on
the
declining
volume
of
grant
funding,
especially
from
abroad.
(Tuano,
A
Review
of
the
People's
Organizations
Sector:
The
Necessity
of
Strengthening
Partnerships
and
Exchanges,
2011)
This
condition
threatens
not
only
the
institutional
sustainability
of
NGOs
but
also
their
capacity
to
facilitate
endogenous
development,
as
external
fund
sources
can
always
make
demands
that
may
not
necessarily
be
according
to
the
needs
of
the
local
communities.
As
pointed
out
by
Willis
(2005),
dependence
on
external
assistance
also
means
that
many
projects
are
more
likely
to
react
to
the
requirements
and
favored
sectors
of
donors
than
to
the
needs
of
the
local
people.
Page 19 of 30
POs
Similar
to
the
NGOs,
the
POs
are
able
to
provide
the
basic
needs
of
the
communities
they
serve
as
well
as
environmental
protection/management,
as
prescribed
by
alternative
development.
As
well,
the
POs
are
also
able
to
represent
their
sectors
in
the
political
community
such
that
a
number
of
laws
and
policies
have
been
passed
as
a
result
of
the
PO
effortsin
this
sense,
the
POs
have
very
well
connected
Friedmanns
horizontal
axis
in
his
four-domain
framework.
That
the
POs
are
serving
the
14
marginalized
sectors
in
the
country
is
an
indicator
of
their
ability
to
reach
the
poor
and
thus
their
serving
their
raison
d'tre.
This
condition
also
facilitates
the
participative
and
endogenous
process
involved
in
alternative
development.
However,
as
in
the
case
of
the
NGOs,
the
POs
also
need
to
assess
their
programs
in
terms
of
outcomes
and
impact
to
the
beneficiaries,
beyond
the
passage
of
laws
and
policies.
Perhaps,
even
the
impact
of
these
laws
and
policies
should
be
examined
to
determine
how
and
to
what
extent
the
local
communities
benefitted
from
them.
The
POs,
like
the
NGOs
but
perhaps
in
a
lesser
degree,
are
also
experiencing
financial
constraints,
as
more
resources
are
allocated
to
service
provision
and
the
need
for
organization
capacity
building
de-emphasized.
At
the
present,
many
organizations
rely
on
their
internally
generated
funds,
including
membership
and
service
fees
(which
are
not
applicable
in
most
NGOs).
(Tuano,
A
Review
of
the
People's
Organizations
Sector:
The
Necessity
of
Strengthening
Partnerships
and
Exchanges,
2011)
Cooperatives
One
of
the
major
achievements
of
the
cooperative
movement
is
gaining
representation
in
the
congressa
sign
of
political
empowerment
of
the
civil
society.
Again,
this
fact
highlights
Friedmanns
political
community
as
an
arena
conquered
by
this
civil
society
group.
Page 20 of 30
Another
is
the
asset
base
or
financial
strength
of
the
cooperatives,
which
set
it
apart
from
the
NGOs
and
POs
whose
sustainability
becomes
an
issue
with
the
dwindling
funds
from
donors
here
and
abroad.
However,
the
financial
strength
could
very
well
be
its
weakness.
As
they
say,
rich
cooperatives
with
poor
members.
One
wonders
where
in
the
economy
the
billion-peso
worth
of
asset
lies.
Some
people
defended
that
although
the
cooperatives
become
rich
and
the
members
remain
poor,
the
organization
is
not
amiss
in
using
its
surplus
to
expand
and
reach
out
to
more
poor
members
of
the
community.
(Mina,
2011)
On
the
other
hand,
cooperatives
are
also
criticized
for
not
attracting
the
poorest
members
of
the
communityfor
one,
the
membership
fee
and
capital
build-up
required
readily
exclude
the
poor
from
the
organization.
According
to
Mina
(2011),
while
it
is
true
that
cooperatives
are
not
successful
in
attracting
the
D-E
households,
it
is
because
(they)
require
a
different
strategy
for
poverty
alleviation.
Some
quarters
also
claim,
albeit
without
figures
or
studies,
that
many
cooperatives
are
cooperatives
only
in
name,
and
not
in
practice.
Like
the
NGOs
and
POs
as
well,
the
cooperatives
have
weak
documentation,
which
include
impact
assessment
of
their
programs.
Thus,
there
is
no
established
evidence
yet
showing
how
cooperatives
have
contributed
to
poverty
alleviation.
Although
the
membership
has
been
increasing
(peaking
at
5
million
in
2003),
there
is
no
guarantee
that
the
members
belong
to
the
targeted
marginalized
members
of
the
communities.
Figure
7
summarizes
the
features
of
the
civil
society
organizations
based
on
alternative
development
principles.
Page 21 of 30
Figure 7: Summary of CSOs Alternative Development Features Grassroots operation Provision of basic needs Participative process Self-reliance Sustainability (ecological management) NGOs No Yes No No Yes POs Yes Yes Yes No/Yes Yes Cooperatives No/Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Overall, the various subsectors of the civil society in the Philippines are able to achieve empowerment in the political community as proposed by Friedmann. However, there is lack of documentation or evidence of their achievement in the promoting economic activities and/or growth among the poor communities. In fact, in some cases, their ability to reach and serve these target communities is in question and consequently, their ability to facilitate endogenous and self-reliant processes. The assessment of the civil society subsectors often focus on institutional capacity rather than on their outcomes and impacts. From these assessment reports, common concerns among these organizations have been identified. First is the issue of sustainability, with the organizations relative dependence on external sources of funds and limited capacity to generate their own income. Sustainability in terms of institutionsuccession of leaders and attraction of members, who are at present mostly on voluntary basisis also an issue. Second concern is governance. Many organizations are driven by the executive directors while the board is perceived to be simply rubber stamps. Finally, these organizations recognize their need to build their capacities, specifically in the area of advocacy, lobbying, media relations, public relations, and research; fundraising, personnel, and governance. (Abao, 2011)
Page 22 of 30
The abovementioned needs of the CSOs are apparent indicators of their mindsets fundraising (external dependence) instead of income-generation (internal generation of funds or financial independence), lobbying and public relations (political) instead of socio-economic innovations, advocacy and research instead of impact monitoring and measurement. Friedmann may be right after all in proposing separate spheres for political community and civic associations because as exhibited by the CSOs in the Philippines, there seems to be a distinct operations or functions for these two arenas (contrary to Garilaos claim), in contrast to the commonly used state-market-society model. According to Abao (2011), there is high level of cooperation among the NGOs, POs, and cooperatives, as evident in the number of federations and coalitions in the country. Likewise, these civil society subsectors maintain a major interface with the business sectors, what with the growing number of corporate foundations. However, there seems to be tension between civil society and government, particularly in the issue of regulation. Although civil society recognizes the need for it to prevent the proliferation of fly-by-night organizations, they contend that they should remain self-regulating to maintain the spirit of voluntary and non- government functions. Still, there are some groups that want more regulation from the government. This kind of interface of civil society and the government in the Philippine context challenges what Friedmann, Bebbington and Bebbington, and Nederveen Pieterse asserted: that state collaboration is necessary in the creation and sustainability of development. This issue could be a separate discourse altogether that would be of valuable research interest.
association and the corporate or market economy spheres. Where these traditional civil organizations are weak, the microfinance institutions and social enterprises are strong. The microfinance methodology from Bangladeshsmall, uncollateralized loans, with weekly payments spread over at least six months, extended to the poor to finance their micro enterpriseswas first adopted in the Philippines in the 1980s. It grew rapidly in the 1990s, and was recognized as an affective mechanism for poverty alleviation in 2000s, with even the formal banking system adopting it. On the other hand, the concept of social entrepreneurship came later in the 1990s and gained popularity beginning the 2000s. According to Nicholls (2006), the general goals of social enterprises include the provision of goods and services, which the market or public sector is either unwilling or unable to provide; development of skills; creation of employment; and social integration of the excluded. Among the specific activities of social enterprises are poverty alleviation through empowerment, such as the microfinance movement; health care; education and training, including widening of participation and the democratization of knowledge transfer; environmental preservation and sustainable development; community regeneration; and advocacy and campaigning, such as fair trade and human rights promotion. (Nicholls, 2006) Essentially, these activities are the very same elements of alternative development. Dacanay (2011) estimated that there are 30,000 social enterprises (with the poor as primary stakeholders); included in this figure are some 500 microfinance institutions. Application of Alternative Development Principles
Tuano
(2011)
reported
that
the
decline
in
community
organizing
NGOs
was
coupled
with
the
rise
in
NGOs
with
microfinance
and
social
enterprise
components
and
that
the
former
was
criticized
for
not
being
able
to
provide
tangible
socio-economic
Page 24 of 30
benefits
to
marginalized
areas
as
in
the
case
of
the
latter.
Although
there
is
no
empirical
evidence
supporting
this
explanation,
there
could
be
some
truth
in
itas
expressed
by
Cooke
and
Kothari
(2001)
in
Willis
(2005),
the
participatory
process
requires
time
and
energy
of
local
people,
which
could
have
been
spent
in
productive,
income-generating
activities
and/or
in
domestic
chores,
and
if
people
do
not
get
anything
in
return
right
away
or
at
least
enjoy
the
immediate
perceived
benefit
of
participating,
then
chances
are
they,
as
rational
beings,
will
not
stay
for
long.
In
their
study,
Bebbington
and
Bebbington
(2000)
also
observed
that
the
most
successful
initiatives
of
the
participatory
groups,
aside
from
the
literacy
training,
was
the
organization
of
village
banks
(which
is
a
mechanism
for
micro
credit).
(p.14)
In
contrast
to
the
NGOs,
microfinance
institutions
and
social
enterprises
are
able
to
deliver
services
with
immediate
impact
as
far
as
the
beneficiaries/members/clients
are
concernedcash
on
hand
in
the
form
of
microloans,
insurance
with
cash
benefits,
financially
or
economically
rewarding
transactions
and
business
partnerships,
among
others.
In
terms
of
the
alternative
development
principles,
the
microfinance
institutions
and
social
enterprises
could
pass
the
test.
Many
of
these
organizations
are
deliberately
targeting
the
marginalized
communities
by
using
various
poverty
index
tools
to
prevent
leakage
to
the
better-off
groups.
In
terms
of
providing
basic
needs,
many
of
them
have
multi-product
offering,
going
beyond
credit
and
financial
services
(although
there
has
been
debate
that
access
to
financial
services
is
indeed
a
basic
need,
if
not
a
human
right)providing
business
skills
and
livelihood
training,
medical
assistance,
and
some
even
water
and
power
supply
in
communities.
And
while
their
approach
to
economic
and
social
development
is
often
top-down,
the
endogeneity
factor
comes
in
when
these
microfinance
institutions
and
social
enterprises
tap
on
their
clients
innate
talent
and
skills
(e.g.
sewing,
food
processing)
to
help
them
become
productive
and
be
part
of
the
mainstream
market.
They
also
use
local
knowledge
in
designing
more
appropriate
and
responsive
products
and
services.
Page 25 of 30
There is a big room for improvement though in the area of ecological management and participation and empowerment. Further, since these organizations approach is at micro level, they tend to overlook the much wider structures of disadvantage and oppression. (Willis, 2005) At present, the microfinance institutions and social enterprises try to bring their intervention to a higher level by working on the supply chainthat is, from sourcing of raw materials and other factors of production to the distribution of goods to the marketto integrate the marginalized into the formal markets and enable them to achieve growth in the process. Still, their efforts have not reached the level of policy-makingfor example, that will correct the structures that have excluded the marginalized in the market economy in the first place. Referring to Friedmanns whole-economy model, one may hypothesize that while the traditional NGOs, POs, and cooperatives have bridged the civil society and the political community, the emerging microfinance institutions and social enterprises have linked civil society with corporate/market economy. Old Approach, New Implementing Agents
One
may
asked
if
indeed
it
is
accurate
to
brand
microfinance
institutions
and
social
enterprises
as
emerging
subsectors
of
civil
society.
Although
not
all
of
these
organizations
are
NGOs,
they
could
very
well
fit
into
Kortens
category
of
public
service
contractors
that
are
market-oriented
non-profit
businesses
serving
public
purposes
and
Friedmanns
non-profit,
socially
oriented,
business
organizations,
which
designs,
manufactures,
and
sells
village
technologies.
Further,
in
Nederveen
Pieterses
(1998)
development
model,
the
author
identified
synergies
of
society,
government,
and
business
as
one
of
the
agencies
of
social
transformation-driven
development,
which
are
essentially
microfinance
institutions
and
social
enterprises
that
use
business
models
and
principles
in
addressing
societal
issues.
In
the
same
model,
too,
he
mentioned
micro
credit
as
one
of
the
methods
of
social
transformation.
Therefore
the
form
that
microfinance
institutions
and
social
enterprises
have
taken
on
is
new
neither
in
the
light
of
civil
society
Page 26 of 30
organizations nor in the context of alternative development. Perhaps the other typologies of NGOs have just dominated the earlier period of development and now the other forms are beginning to gain popularity. Economic growth of local communitieswhich can be translated into Nederveen Pieterses modernization from within and of traditionis one area neglected by the more traditional development agents, although theoretically, this element has been incorporated in the design and framework of alternative development. Either that or the agents have mistakenly treated economic growth as something absolutely outside the realm of social transformation when in fact growth may and should be a logical consequence of social transformation, or at least, something that may be achieved side by side with social transformation. Consequently, alternative development has been criticized for the insufficient attention (it pays) to the economic dimensions of alternatives (Bebbington & Bebbington, 2001), which is now being addressed by the microfinance institutions and social enterprises. Institution-wise, one of the acknowledged strengths of the microfinance institutions and social enterprises are their financial self-sufficiency, enabling them to be independent from external fund sources and donors. As such, these organizations are able to free themselves from the pressures of meeting the quantifiable results and tangible outcomes required by the donors, which may not necessarily be consistent with the development needs of the local communities. Another is their capacity to monitor, measure, and report their performance and impacts. Therefore, although these organizations are young relative to the NGOs, POs, and cooperatives, they are able to establish their credibility in effecting socio-economic changes, sooner than these older organizations did (if at all).
Page 27 of 30
Conclusion
Based
on
the
general
assessment
of
the
civil
society
sector
in
the
Philippines,
alternative
development
has
contributed
in
changing
the
dynamics
in
the
four
domains
of
social
practice
in
favor
of
the
marginalize
communities.
On
one
hand,
the
NGOs,
POs,
and
cooperatives
have
strengthened
the
civil
association
and
political
community
linkage
(Friedmanns
x-axis
in
his
model)
by
generating
participation
at
the
grassroots
level
and
involving
and
empowering
them
via
representation
in
the
political
arena.
On
the
other
hand,
the
microfinance
institutions
and
social
enterprises
have
bridged
the
civil
society
and
market/corporate
economy
spheres
by
using
business
models
in
addressing
poverty
issues.
It
will
also
be
of
great
research
interest
to
document
and
study
the
impact
of
alternative
development
to
provide
the
abovementioned
claims
with
empirical
evidence.
Although
the
countrys
poverty
incidence
have
dropped
from
almost
50
percent
in
1985
to
26.5
percent
in
2010
and
the
Gini
coefficient
(the
measure
of
inequality)
from
its
peak
of
almost
0.51
in
the
late
1990s
to
0.48
in
2006
(Reyes,
Tabuga,
&
Mina,
2011),
such
development
cannot
be
solely
attributed
to
civil
society
initiatives.
Another
research
area
could
be
the
relationship
of
the
CSOs
and
the
state.
Questions
would
be,
would
the
Philippine
CSOs
have
achieved
more
had
they
worked
closely
with
the
government?
Should
they
maintain
its
current
distance
from
the
state
or
not?
Ultimately,
the
study
should
aim
to
prove
or
disprove
the
cited
authors
claim
that
state
collaboration
is
necessary
in
the
creation
and
sustainability
of
development.
As
a
theory,
alternative
development
still
makes
a
lot
of
sense;
however,
its
application
has
proven
more
challenging.
Each
subsector
in
the
civil
society
has
its
own
strengths
and
weaknessesthus,
they
can
either
learn
from
one
another
in
Page 28 of 30
addressing
their
shortcomings
or
collaborate
with
one
another
and
build
on
their
complementing
features.
Moreover,
the
state,
at
all
or
whichever
level,
will
have
to
come
in
to
enhance
the
sustainability
of
development
efforts.
The
Cooperative
Development
Authoritys
re- registration
order
in
2009,
for
example,
weeded
out
the
non-existent
cooperatives.
Its
next
step
could
be
to
police
the
cooperatives
that
do
not
live
out
their
purpose,
i.e.
those
that
are
cooperatives
only
by
name.
The
same
thing
could
be
done
to
the
NGOs,
who
have
been
used
as
tax
shields
by
many
for-profit
entities
without
necessary
functioning
to
create
social
benefits.
Among
the
microfinance
institutions
and
social
enterprises,
taxation
has
been
a
longstanding
issue
as
well.
Today,
alternative
development,
or
at
least
its
principles,
is
still
used
in
development
interventions
albeit
it
may
not
be
called
as
such.
Take
for
example
the
latest
buzzword
inclusive
growth.
Growth
is
inclusive
when
it
allows
all
members
of
a
society
to
participate
in
and
contribute
to
the
growth
process
on
an
equal
basis
regardless
of
their
individual
circumstances.
An
effective
poverty
reduction
strategy
consists
of
two
prongs,
the
first
being
broad-based,
pro-poor
economic
growth
based
on
private
sector
incentives
to
create
employment
opportunities;
and
the
second
being
public
investment
in
basic
education,
health,
and
infrastructure.
(AlI
&
Zhuang,
2007)
(Emphasis
provided
by
the
writer
to
highlight
the
alternative
development
features
embedded
in
the
literature.)
External
donors
keeping
endogeneity
of
the
process
is
another
story
though.
Two
things
may
explain
this
continuous
application
of
the
alternative
development
theory:
that
it
is
too
young
for
the
society
to
judge
its
success
or
failure,
or
that
it
is
indeed
working
to
the
benefit
of
the
marginalized,
which
is
more
likely
the
case.
The
application
of
theory
is
far
from
perfect
but
the
theory
itself
still
holds
sound
principles
so
much
so
that
alternative
development
agents
continue
to
evolvenot
only
the
traditional
organizations
of
NGOs,
POs,
and
cooperative
but
also
the
relatively
younger
microfinance
institutions
and
social
enterprisesin
terms
of
Page 29 of 30
institutional forms, development approach, products and services, and dynamics and relations with one another and with other institutions. This evolution is an indication of civil society organizations adaptation to their changing context and clients needs, which makes them relevant still to the present time. However, this circumstance will and should not prevent the development of new and probably more effective theory, method, and/or strategy in addressing poverty and other social issues.
Page 30 of 30
Works
Cited
Abao,
C.
V.
(2011).
Mapping
and
Analyzing
Philippine
Civil
Society
Organizations
(CSOs).
Civil
Society
Research
Institute.
AlI,
I.,
&
Zhuang,
J.
(2007
July).
InclusIve
Growth
toward
a
ProsPerous
asIa:
PolIcy
ImPlIcatIons.
Economics
and
Research
Department
Working
Paper
Series
No.97.
Mandaluyong,
Philippines:
Asian
Development
Bank.
Asian
Development
Bank.
(2007).
Overview
of
NGOs
and
Civil
Society
Philippines.
Retrieved
2010
29-March
from
Asian
Development
Bank:
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Civil-Society-Briefs/PHI/CSB- PHI.pdf
Bebbington,
A.,
&
Bebbington,
D.
(2001).
Development
Alternatives:
Practice,
Dilemmas,
and
Theory.
Area
,
33.1,
7-17.
Bello,
W.
(2002).
Deglobalization:
Ideas
for
New
World
Economoy.
New
York,
New
York,
USA:
Zed
Books.
Cooperative
Development
Authority.
(2010).
Selected
Statistics
as
of
December
31,
2010.
Dacanay,
M.
L.
(2011
8-August).
Social
Enterprises
and
the
Poor:
Enhancing
Social
Entrepreneurship
and
Stakeholder
Theory.
Copenhagen,
Denmark:
(unpublished).
Friedmann,
J.
(1992).
Empowerment:
The
Politics
of
Alternative
Development.
Malden,
Massachussetts,
USA:
Blackwell
Publishers
Inc.
Korten,
D.
(1990).
Getting
to
the
21st
Century:
Voluntary
Action
and
the
Global
Agenda.
West
Hartford,
CT:
Kumarian
Press.
Martinussen,
J.
(1997).
Society,
State,
and
Market
A
Guide
to
Competing
Theories
of
Development.
Nova
Scotia,
Canada:
Fernwood
Books.
Mina,
R.
(2011).
Philippine
Cooperatives:
Exploring
New
Frontiers.
Civil
Society
Research
Institute.
Nederveen
Pieterse,
J.
(2010).
Development
Theory.
Sage
Publication.
Nederveen
Pieterse,
J.
(1998).
My
Paradigm
or
Yours?
Alternative
Development,
Post-Development,
Reflexive
Development.
Development
and
Change
,
29,
343- 373.
Nicholls, A. (2006). Introduction . In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social Entrepreneurship New Models of Sustainable Social Change (p. 448). Oxford , New York, USA: Oxford University Press. Reyes, C. M., Tabuga, A. D., & Mina, C. D. (2011). An Assessment of the Poverty Situation in the Philippines. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Tuano, P. (2011). A Review of the People's Organizations Sector: The Necessity of Strengthening Partnerships and Exchanges. Civil Society Organizations in the Philippines, A Mapping and Strategic Assessment. Quezon City: Civil Society Resource Center. Tuano, P. (2011). Philippine Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): Contributions, Capacities, Challenges. Civil Society Organizations in the Philippines, A Mapping and Strategic Assessment. Quezon City: Civil Society Research Institute. Willis, K. (2005). Theories and Practices of Development. New York, USA: Routledge.