Ateneo de Manila University Ateneo de Manila University

Archīum Ateneo Arch um Ateneo

Psychology Department Faculty Publications Psychology Department

10-14-2016

Transformation in Philippine local government Transformation in Philippine local government

Mendiola Teng-Calleja Ateneo de Manila University, mcalleja@ateneo.edu

Ma. Regina Hechanova Ateneo de Manila University, rhechanova@ateneo.edu

Ramon Benedicto A. Alampay

Nico Canoy Ateneo de Manila University

Edna P. Franco Ateneo de Manila University

See next page for additional authors

Follow this and additional works at: https://archium.ateneo.edu/psychology-faculty-pubs

Part of the Industrial and Organizational Psychology Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Teng-Calleja, M., Hechanova, M. R. M., Alampay, R. B. A., Canoy, N. A., Franco, E. P., & Alampay, E. A. (2017). Transformation in Philippine local government. Local Government Studies, 43(1), 64-88.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology Department at Archīum Ateneo. It has been accepted for inclusion in Psychology Department Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Archīum Ateneo. For more information, please contact oadrcw.ls@ateneo.edu.

Authors Authors Mendiola Teng-Calleja, Ma. Regina Hechanova, Ramon Benedicto A. Alampay, Nico Canoy, Edna P. Franco, and Erwin A. Alampay

This article is available at Archīum Ateneo: https://archium.ateneo.edu/psychology-faculty-pubs/84

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=flgs20

Local Government Studies

ISSN: 0300-3930 (Print) 1743-9388 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/flgs20

Transformation in Philippine local government

Mendiola Teng-Calleja, Ma. Regina M. Hechanova, Ramon Benedicto A.Alampay, Nico A. Canoy, Edna P. Franco & Erwin A. Alampay

To cite this article: Mendiola Teng-Calleja, Ma. Regina M. Hechanova, Ramon Benedicto A.Alampay, Nico A. Canoy, Edna P. Franco & Erwin A. Alampay (2017) Transformation in Philippinelocal government, Local Government Studies, 43:1, 64-88, DOI: 10.1080/03003930.2016.1235561

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2016.1235561

Published online: 14 Oct 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 845

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Transformation in Philippine local government

Mendiola Teng-Callejaa, Ma. Regina M. Hechanovac,Ramon Benedicto A. Alampayb, Nico A. Canoyc, Edna P. Francoa

and Erwin A. Alampayd

aAteneo Center for Organization Research and Development, Psychology Department,Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines; bLocal Governance Support Programfor Local Economic Development, Pasig City, Philippines; cPsychology Department, Ateneode Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines; dCenter for Local and Regional Governance,National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines,Quezon City, Philippines

ABSTRACTThis research examined the challenges, enablers and outcomes of organisationtransformation in Philippine local governments. We combined a multi-casestudy research design and backward mapping approach in collecting andanalysing narratives from 55 leaders in 9 Filipino local government units(LGUs) that have successfully undergone transformation. Results show thatthe transformations of the LGUs appear to have been catalysed by threeinterrelated elements: vision, LGU leadership and citizen engagement. Thetransformation in the local governments concentrated on multiple foci ofreform including structure and systems improvement, culture change,human-resource development as well as policy and programme development.This holistic approach enabled the transformation of bureaucratic and unpro-fessional government service to transparent, professional and efficient publicservice that engendered pride, transparency and social equity. Implications ofthe proposed model for transforming LGUs and in developing LGU leaders forgood governance are discussed.

KEYWORDS Local government; organisation transformation; Philippines; leadership; citizenengagement

The past decades have seen transformation in local governance all over theworld. The emerging perspective among the local government units (LGUs)reflects the Neo-Weberian State that shifts the internal orientation of gov-ernment towards meeting citizen’s needs. Rather than focusing on merelyimplementing bureaucratic controls and processes, governments today aremore oriented on facilitating consultations to ensure representation ofcitizens’ views, professionalisation of public service and achieving results(De Vries and Nemec 2013).

CONTACT Mendiola Teng-Calleja mcalleja@ateneo.edu Psychology Department, Ateneo deManila University, Quezon City, Philippines

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES, 2017VOL. 43, NO. 1, 64–88http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2016.1235561

© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

The transformation of governments has followed two courses: globa-lisation and devolution (Kettl 2000). Local governments are working withother nations to promote trade and local economic development. At thesame time, power has been devolved to local governments in order toimprove efficiency, governance and equity as well as to decrease pov-erty (Ishii, Hossain, and Rees 2007). The devolution of power has alsoencouraged citizen engagement and involvement (Otto-Zimmerman2012).

The transformation of local government is particularly salient to devel-oping countries faced with serious issues of poverty, low literacy, high infantmortality and poor social attainments (Rotberg 2012). Unfortunately, coun-tries with limited economic resources also often grapple with economic andpolitical fractures that require reform in organisational and cultural struc-tures (Cooper 2009) as well as moral and political reform (Brillantes andFernandez 2010). Because there is little known about the process of localgovernment transformation particularly in Southeast Asia, we seek to con-tribute knowledge on local government transformation in this region. Usinga multi-case study of Filipino LGUs that have undergone transformation, weexamine the challenges and drivers for transformation.

Local government devolution

The devolution of power from central governments has had tremendousimpact on local governments, changing their role from service providers tothat of a contractor–client nature. The greater accountability to stakeholdershas also meant a shift towards greater productivity and quality of service(Thomson 1992). However, the devolution of local governments has beenfraught with challenges. After centuries of decision-making and powerlodged in a hierarchical bureaucracy, devolution requires that local govern-ments acquire the capacity to manage effectively and for national govern-ments to reinvent themselves to remain relevant (Kettl 2000).

Studies on reform in local governance in developing countries revealed anumber of additional challenges to devolution including inactive and unin-formed constituencies; confusion in the roles of state, regional and localgovernment institutions; unwillingness of the central government to loosenits grip even with the inability to deliver key services; lack of financial,material and human resources at the local government level; weak leader-ship in all levels; greater opportunities for corruption due to strengtheningof informal or familial local power bases; increased regional disparitiesespecially in trade and investments and policy, structural and social capitalgaps that impede development (Wunsch and Olowu 1996; Silva 2005; Reesand Hossain 2010; Schoburg 2012).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 65

Devolution and transformation in local government

Given the many challenges in the journey towards devolution, an impor-tant question is how do you transform local governments? De Vries (2000)pointed out that decentralisation through devolution involves customisa-tion of services to the needs of the people in the locality, promotion ofefficiency through reduced red tape as well as greater participation andinnovation.

An article on reform in Philippine government suggests that reformbegins with a vision. This vision needs to be accompanied with changes ininstitution structures, procedures and processes, mindsets and behaviours ofcitizens, and leadership (Brillantes and Fernandez 2010). More specifically, astudy in Italy reported three requirements for the effective implementationof devolution: a radical alteration of programmatic activities in all tiers ofgovernment, workforce realignment and structural arrangements (Ongaro2006). The move towards reforming and professionalising systems for finan-cial and human-resource management was likewise a key element in thetransformation of local government in the United Kingdom (Arnaboldi andLapsley 2003), Indonesia and Pakistan (Guess 2005). The utilisation of infor-mation technology validated studies that showed its role in enabling publicservices and responding to user needs (King and Cotterill 2007).

Beyond changes in direction, systems and structures, it is also important tonote how transformation is enabled in government. Literature on local govern-ment transformation highlights the role of citizen engagement and policyreform. The use of participation and citizen engagement is a central tenet inthe local government reform in Finland (Kull 2009) and Nigeria (Wunsch andOlowu 1996). Studies in Finland (Kull 2009) and the Caribbean commonwealths(Schoburg 2012) also reported on the importance of policy reform, as a meansto engage the support of various social and political groups in the communities.

The importance of leaders in organisation transformation has been acommon refrain in both local governance (Asquith 1997) and business(Herold et al. 2008; Latham 2013) literature. Among the leadership theories,the theory most strongly associated with managing change across organisa-tions is transformational leadership (Bommer, Rich, and Rubin 2005; Heroldet al. 2008). Kouzes and Posner (1995) described transformational leadershipbehaviours as challenging the process, inspiring a common vision, model-ling the way, enabling action and encouraging the heart. Beyond theseelements, studies point to the importance of the high degree of trust onthe leader by the different stakeholders (Oreg 2006). Research also suggeststhe need for leaders with strategic perspectives that remain grounded andsensitive to the local context (Asquith 1997). A recent study on leadershipbehaviours that are critical in leading transformation also points to theimportance of treating others with respect regardless of position,

66 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

collaborating, being persistent, demonstrating accountability, using systemsthinking, engaging in personal learning and being personally involved byspending considerable time with key stakeholders (Latham 2013).

Devolution in Philippine government

Since this study focuses on the transformation of Philippine LGUs, it isimportant to provide the context to devolution and transformation effortsin that country. Prior to devolution, the Philippines was a unitary state,where the supervision of local governments was done by national govern-ment. Local governments were viewed as subordinate entities, having noinherent powers and looks up to higher government levels for the delega-tion of authority (Tapales 2015). This centralisation of government reflectedthen-President Marcos’ dictatorial leadership following the declaration ofMartial Law in 1972 and the subsequent People Power Revolution andreturn of democracy in 1986. After decades of autocratic rule, a key featureof its current constitution ratified in 1987 was the provision on localautonomy1 (Ishii, Hossain, and Rees 2007) which emphasised democraticgovernance and decentralisation (Cabo 2007).

The devolution of government in the Philippines has been described asone of the most far reaching in the developing world (Guess 2005). TheLocal Government Code of 1991 widened the roles and functions ofPhilippine local governments and expanded their jurisdiction over hospitals,social welfare, environmental protection, public infrastructure and zoning.The devolution law vested local governments with significant powers andresources (Tapales 2015). From being mere implementers of bureaucraticcontrols and processes (De Vries and Nemec 2013), LGUs have been empow-ered both administratively and financially to enable a shift towards moreservice-oriented modes of governance. For instance, local governments’main source of revenue had been the internal revenue tax that the nationalgovernment shares with them.2 With the new law, local governments areauthorised to generate revenue from local sources, including taxes (Tapales2015). At the same time, the law also required LGUs to be more accountablein responding to the needs of their constituents and to enable people’sparticipation in governance (Cabo 2007).

As decentralisation minimises the reach of national government into thecommunities, LGUs are challenged to take on new functions and responsi-bilities to fill in the spaces that the field units of central governmentagencies previously occupied. With increased responsibilities, local govern-ments are under pressure to develop innovative ways in delivering basicgoods and services (Calugay 2013) and to be more efficient and dynamic intheir organisation and operations (Cabo 2007). Figure 1 illustrates the chan-ging roles of local governments during decentralisation.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 67

Similar to other countries, however, devolution of local government inthe Philippines was met with resistance from central and provincial autho-rities who argued that local officials did not have the capacity and citizenorganisations were too weak to ensure local accountability. Opponents alsoargued that it would lead to nepotism and patronage politics and weakinstitutional systems (Guess 2005). In fact, there have been mixed resultswith local governments showing both capacities and incapacities in runningtheir territories (Tapales 2015). Nonetheless, a case study on two successfulLGUs in the Philippines suggests that participatory governance can result ingreater public trust and improved outcomes for the LGU and its citizens(Ishii, Hossain, and Rees 2007). The caveat, however, is that there are multi-ple modalities on how to implement participatory governance and thusreform should build models that incorporate the influences of localenvironments.

More than two decades since the devolution of selected national govern-ment functions to local governments, this study seeks to contribute toextant knowledge by examining the experiences of local government trans-formation in the Philippines and elicit the challenges and drivers for trans-formation and its contingent outcomes in LGUs within a developingcountry. For this particular study, we adopt Lee and colleagues’ (2013)definition of transformation as both intended and multidimensional changethat radically modifies previous conditions through complex, large-scale andsystemic improvements. Specifically, we ask the following questions: (1)What were the challenges of transformation in Philippine LGUs? (2) Whatwere the factors that enabled transformation in LGUs? and (3) What werethe outcomes of the transformation?

Figure 1. Context of transformation in local government.

68 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

Method

This study used the multi-case study approach (Yin 1994) and backwardmapping strategy (Shields 2010). The multi-case study approach presentsthree phases of the research, (1) developing the research design, (2) collect-ing and analysing individual cases and (3) conducting cross-case analysisand deriving conclusions. Backward mapping involved selecting successfulorganisations and identifying the conditions and factors that promotedpositive outcomes (Shields 2010).

Case selection

The cases were purposively selected based on the methodological assump-tions of both multi-case study (Yin 1994) and backward-mapping approach(Shields 2010). To ensure proper selection of cases, the researchers con-vened a selection board consisting of representatives from various agenciesworking closely with local governments in the Philippines. These includedthe national agency for training local government officials and civil servants,an international agency providing assistance to LGUs, a foundation thatrecognises excellence in governance and academic institutions. Three cri-teria were used to select the LGUs: evidence of transformation, changeinitiatives and innovative projects in the 8 years from 2006 to 2014 (captur-ing at least three election cycles for local government officials who can haveno more than three consecutive 3-year terms of office); the absence of anyadverse or derogatory audit findings and the distinct demonstration ofsuccess through awards or recognitions received from government/privateentities. The description of some of the awards used to measure the successof transformation is shown in Table 1 while the data from each LGU that arerelevant to the selection criteria are shown in Table 2.

Data collection

The research team contacted the selected LGUs with the help of the selec-tion board. The primary sources of data were in-depth interviews with thelocal chief executive (LCE), i.e., the mayor for cities/municipalities, or thegovernor in the case of provinces (all of whom are directly elected by theirconstituents), plus at least five department heads in each of the LGUs. Therewere a total of 55 local government leaders interviewed for the project.

The department heads were purposively identified as those who workedclosely with the current and/or former LCEs in the different award-winningprojects of their LGU. Some of these department heads rose from the ranks.Others were appointed by the current or former LCE. Thus, they may not

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 69

necessarily share the values and opinions of the incumbent LCE on variousconcerns/issues.

Interview guide

Interview questions focused on the transformation story – the drivers forchange, changes implemented, challenges in implementing change andimpact of the changes on stakeholders. All interviews were audio-recorded,transcribed and, when appropriate, translated. The quotations in the resultssection were all translated to English, and the original text can be madeavailable upon request.

Data analysis

The study utilised the six-step thematic analysis procedures proposed byBraun and Clarke (2006). Data analysis began by transcribing the data andreading and rereading the transcriptions while noting down ideas to ensure

Table 1. Evidences of successful transformation: example of awards given to successfullocal governments in the Philippines.Award Description

1. Galing Pook Award It is a ground-breaking programme that distinguishesinnovation and excellence in local governance. Galing Pookstarted in 1993 under the joint initiative of the LocalGovernment Academy–DILG, Ford Foundation and individualadvocates of good governance from the civil society,academe and government1

2. SGH The SGH is a project by the DILG that recognises LGUs withgood performance in internal housekeeping. It seeks toadvance the values of transparency, accountability,participation and performance. Assessment focuses on thefollowing areas: local legislation, development planning,resource generation, resource allocation and utilisation,customer service and human-resource management anddevelopment2

3. Gawad Pamana ng Lahi An award given to provinces, cities and municipalities thathave shown ‘exemplary performance in Administrative,Social, Economic and Environmental Governance’.Performance information is gathered from the database ofLocal Governance Performance Management System,International Organization or National Government Agency-bestowed Award(s), SGH, among others3

4. Most Business-friendly LocalGovernment Unit Award

The award is given by the Philippine Chamber of Commerceand Industry, one of the biggest and most prestigiousbusiness leader’s organisation in the country. Therecognition is given annually to commend localgovernments for ‘creating policy environments that areconducive to business’4

SGH: Seal of Good Housekeeping; DILG: Department of the Interior and Local Government.1Funding support for Galing Pook (2014); 2Seal of Good Housekeeping (2012); 3Gawad Pamana ng Lahi(2012); 4Most Business-friendly Local Government Unit Award 2016.

70 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

Table2.

BasisforLG

Ucase

selection.

LGU

Exam

pleof

awards/recog

nitio

nEvidence

oftransformation,

change

initiatives

orinno

vativeprojects

Boho

lSealof

GoodHou

sekeeping(2011–2012)

Gaw

adPamanang

Lahi

(2011–2012)

GalingPook

Award(2012–2013)

Strategicandparticipatoryplanning

process;system

sthinking

Clusterapproach

toprog

rammeimplem

entatio

nSystem

s’installatio

nandimprovem

ent(m

onito

ringandevaluatio

n;HRrecordsmanagem

ent)

Consultativeapproach/collabo

ratio

nwith

civilsociety,fun

ding

agencies

Learning

from

bestpractices

ofotherLG

U’s

Cultu

rechange,restructurin

gandcompetencydevelopm

entin

thelocalg

overnm

ent

NagaCity

Sealof

GoodHou

sekeeping(2012)

GalingPook

Award(2007)

Inclusive,partnership-basedgo

vernance

with

civilsociety

andprivatesector

Citizen’scharter,pu

blicgo

vernance

scorecard,

rewards/penaltiessystem

forperformance

Business-friend

lypo

licies,i-g

overnance

Dum

ingag

GalingPook

Award(2010)

Sealof

GoodHou

sekeeping(2012)

Gaw

adPamanang

Lahi

Award(2013)

Strategicplanning

basedon

diagno

sisandsystem

sapproach

tochange

Changing

mindsetsandcultu

reof

citizenry

(discipline,accoun

tability,glob

almindset)

Stream

lined

processesandimproved

organisatio

nstructureto

supp

ortthevision

Goala

lignm

entandmon

itorin

gprog

rammeimplem

entatio

nLG

Uem

ployees’andcitizens’capacity

building(In

stitu

teof

SustainableandOrganicAg

riculture)

Upi

Sealof

GoodHou

sekeeping(2012)

GalingPook

Award(2010&2011)

Changing

cultu

reof

citizenry

Stream

lined

processesandprocedures

Transparentbu

dgetingandcommun

icationof

initiatives

Citizen

engagementandconsultatio

nInstitu

tionalised

civilsociety

participation

Benchm

arking

with

otherLG

Us,competencydevelopm

entof

employees

Albay

Three-tim

eGalingPook

Awardee

(2009,

2011,and

2015)

ProactiveDisasterMitigatio

nprocesses,volunteerinvolvem

ent,bu

dget

approp

riatio

nsspecificto

disaster

managem

ent

Partnershipwith

privateorganisatio

ns,N

GOsandInternationalN

GOs

Collectiveleadership

andcitizen

engagement(anti-d

rugcampaigns,G

reen

Christm

as,A

cademic

Olympics;formingcitizen

organisatio

ns)

Provisionof

awards

(Outstanding

Teachers,O

utstanding

Principals,Student

Excellence)

Commun

icationandconsultatio

n(pub

lichearings,Facebook)

Citizens’capacity

building(pageant

academ

y,ClimateCh

ange

Academ

y,Co

mmun

ityCo

llege)

Restructuringandcreatio

nof

new

offices(DRRM,A

rts,cultu

re,tou

rism,Investm

entbo

ard)

(Con

tinued)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 71

Table2.(Co

ntinued).

LGU

Exam

pleof

awards/recog

nitio

nEvidence

oftransformation,

change

initiatives

orinno

vativeprojects

SanJose

GalingPook

AwardforFarm

er’sEntrepreneurship

Prog

ram-Awarded(2012)

Sealof

GoodHou

sekeeping(2012)

Transparency

onLG

Uactivities

One-stopshop

forbu

siness

licensing

Improvem

entof

HRsystem

swith

intheLG

UPartnershipwith

privateorganisatio

nsforecon

omicdevelopm

ent(Farmer

entrepreneurship

prog

ramme)

Iloilo

City

Finalistforthemostbu

siness-friend

lyaw

ardin

2013

Stream

lined

processesandprocedures

Sectoral

involvem

entin

prog

rammeimplem

entatio

nPreserving

heritagebu

ildings

Participatorymanagem

ent,regu

larexecutive–legislativemeetin

gsImprovem

entin

HRsystem

s:performance

incentives,selectio

ncriteria,traininganddevelopm

ent,

employee

relatio

nsCo

llabo

ratio

nwith

natio

nalagencies,privatecompanies,fun

ding

agencies,N

GOs

Marikina

Sealof

GoodHou

sekeeping(2012&2011)

GallingPook

Award(2009,

2008,&

2007)

Long

-term

planning

andsystem

sapproach

tochange

Improved/M

oreeffi

cientinfrastructuresandenvironm

entalp

rogram

mes

Reorganisatio

nandimproved

staff

benefits

Accessible

leadership,con

sultatio

nandeffi

cientinform

ationdissem

ination

Mandaluyong

Sealof

GoodHou

sekeeping(2015)

GallingPook

Award(2012)

MostBu

siness

Friend

lyCity

(2008)

One-stop-shop

business

registratio

n(streamlined

process)

Commun

icationandconsultatio

nwith

stakeholders

Citizen’scapacity

building:

Projectteach&cares,manpo

wer

Training

,vocationalschooling

Creatio

nof

Office

forperson

swith

disabilities

Gardenof

Life

(affordablecemetery,funeralh

omes,colum

bary)

Alln

ineLG

Usdidno

thave

anyadverseor

derogatory

auditfind

ings.

LGU:Local

governmentun

it;HR:

human

resource.

72 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

the researchers’ familiarity with the data. This was followed by creatinginitial codes, then identifying themes and patterns that reflected each ofthe LGUs’ transformation stories. The researchers were assigned in pairs totranscribe the individual case interviews and perform initial coding. It isimportant to highlight that the researchers did not necessarily identifythemes in terms of frequency of responses, but to represent importantideas/experiences/meanings in relation to the research questions.Significant quotes from the interviews were lifted to illustrate these themes.The fourth step involved the simultaneous review of the themes to establishinter-coder reliability. Multiple researcher coders exchanged interview datafrom each case for coding and discussed their themes until these werejudged to be coherent, consistent and distinctive. The themes from theindividual cases were then re-examined in a group session in light ofexisting frameworks and literature on local government transformation.The focus then shifted to collectively agreeing on the labels and definitionsof each theme (fifth step) that survived cross-case analysis. A tentativemodel of local government transformation was then developed and usedas guide in writing the results to complete the final step.

Results

The context of transformation

Results show that Philippine local governments grapple with the problemsrelated to poverty, peace and order, social vices, as well as environmentalchange and natural disasters in their communities. Similarly, many LGUs arestill burdened by bureaucracy or red tape, limited financial and humanresources, and corruption. Finally, apathy from the LGUs external (commu-nity) as well as internal (LGU employees) stakeholders continues to chal-lenge LGUs even with decentralisation.

As an archipelago located within the Pacific Ring of Fire, Philippine LGUsare constantly at risk due to disasters such as typhoons, earthquakes andvolcanic eruptions. In 2013, the province of Bohol survived a 7.2 magnitudeearthquake. Another province, Albay, receives multiple super typhoonsannually while having to keep a watchful eye on an active volcano (Mt.Mayon) which erupted most recently in 2014. Even when they are not hitdirectly, LGUs also report indirect impacts. For example, when supertyphoonHaiyan hit in 2012, nearby provinces needed to absorb refugees and aidLGUs within their region.

The LGUs in the study also reported common social problems such aspoverty and lack of peace and order compounded by social vices and citizenapathy. One LCE described his municipality, ‘Seven years ago, our biggestproblem was 93% poverty incidence. Although some of the poor had

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 73

resources like land -they did not till the land. People had no direction in life.Gambling was prevalent, social vices were rampant’.

In some LGUs, armed groups threatened the safety and security ofleaders. One of the leaders in Dumingag shared the threat brought aboutby banning gambling in their municipality ‘He (mayor) really opposedgambling as early as his first year of administration. He stopped it andmade many enemies, including those in the underworld’.

At the same time, the LGUs also had to deal with constraints or barriersfrom within their own organisations. Common constraints cited by the LGUleaders were the lack of financial and human resources as well as theresistance to change of both LGU employees and citizens. To emphasisethe difficulty of not having enough budget for projects, a leader in Iloilo Citysaid that ‘The (non)availability of funds’ is a major challenge. This redoundsto not having enough resources to hire people that they need for the LGUsto function effectively.

Another internal constraint cited by many respondents was the LGUemployees’ resistance to efforts promoting professionalism, discipline andservice orientation. As recounted by one of the leaders in Dumingag, ‘Themood was not very positive, the reaction of the employees was very hostile.There was antagonism because people were used to easy money’.

The LGUs also encountered similar resistance from their constituents. Oneof the leaders in the municipality of San Jose noted the people’s reaction tothe transfer of the public market to another location, ‘People were veryadamant about the issue. They were asking why did they have to move toanother location when the current one was very convenient?’ There was alsolack of motivation among citizens to take part in governance. One leaderfrom Upi remembered that ‘. . .a lot of people will say, “Why should we bepart of that? The local government can do that”’.

Finally, the LGUs commonly mentioned the difficulty in sustaining reformgiven the leaders’ limited terms of office. The Philippine Constitution, whichwas adopted in 1986, limits local government leaders to only 3 years perterm of office, with a maximum of two consecutive re-elections after the firstterm. After a LCE’s term of office, the new leader almost always has a freehand to discontinue any of their predecessors’ programmes. Departmentheads may be removed or assigned elsewhere unless they abide by the rulesof the new administration. As one of the leaders in Bohol recalled, ‘there wasno continuity; the political administration will change (the programs) espe-cially if they do not belong to the same (political party)’.

Responding to the external and internal challenges

Given the aforementioned context and challenges, how did LGUs transformthemselves? The transformations of the LGUs appear to have been catalysed

74 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

by three interrelated elements: vision, LGU leadership and citizen engage-ment. The LGUs developed a vision that was typically articulated first by thegovernor or mayor. In turn, these leaders engaged and rallied the citizensaround this vision of change.

The process of visioning in the LGUs typically began with a critique of thecurrent state of their people/LGUs and acknowledgement of the deficienciesof the local government in providing services to its citizenry. Dumingagacknowledged poverty in 93% of its population, low literacy rates, poorhealth services, slow economic activity and low income. Thus, their visionwas ‘Liberate our people from poverty, sickness, and hunger’ which redir-ected the focus of governance to addressing concerns of the marginalisedmajority of people in the municipality.

Although some visions started as vague articulations of what the LCEwanted to accomplish (e.g., ‘Premier city by 2015’; ‘The Happy Place’), theseevolved into multiple projects that led to the transformation of the LGUs.There was also a constant reminder of accountability to the people andsocial responsibility, ‘The most critical in this context was the mindset ofpeople in the city hall (that) we are in office primarily to serve the peopleespecially those who are in need. We are in office not for our own interestsbut primarily for the Nagueño (citizens of Naga City)’.

Leadership

The critical role of leadership in initiating and sustaining transformation wasa common thread across the cases. The LCEs, i.e., the mayors and governors,articulated a vision for the LGU and inspired others to share the vision. Aleader from Iloilo City described their mayor as ‘having a vision and mission,and a direction for the city government to become a premier city by 2015’.An interviewee from Bohol likewise described their leader as having ‘a vision. . . he was not only able to communicate his vision, but also made the othersfeel that the vision is theirs as well’.

Competence was another common characteristic ascribed to the LCEs. Aninterviewee from Dumingag emphasised that the leader ‘. . .does not justknow the program but also knows the framework and how it will becascaded to people that he interacts with regardless of level of educationand economic status. As a leader, he knows how to drive the program ofgovernment suited to the people’. A leader from Bohol also mentioned thata competent LCE must be ‘quick in looking at the situation and then readyto lay down the alternative means to settle or to solve whatever problems’.

The results suggest that effective leaders must demonstrate managementskills especially in terms of planning, systematising work and monitoringoutput. An interviewee from San Jose described how their LCE was able to‘combine skills of being systematic with having targets and being output-

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 75

oriented’. A leader from Iloilo City likewise shared that their LCE was ‘. . .output-oriented, demanded results, (and) looks at implementation’.Similarly, Bohol’s governor was described as someone who ‘. . .rememberswhat he says and is consistent and able to follow-up and monitor’. Leaderswere frequently described as role models. A leader from Dumingag said that

Our mayor has very high credibility. When he said “no smoking”, because hehas high integrity, he does not smoke. When he said no gambling, people willbelieve him because he does not gamble. When he said “let us engage inorganic farming”, people will really believe him because he has an organicfarm.

Another leader from Iloilo said that ethical behaviour was important, ‘hemust not have “under the table” transactions’.

Another common characteristic of LGU leaders was that they were visibleand accessible to the citizens. A leader from San Jose described theirmayor’s weekly radio programme, ‘“Time for the People”, where she dis-cusses answers to the questions asked. People directly hear it from her andtherefore understand her plans’. The mayor of Iloilo City, on the other hand,immediately ‘responds to Facebook and social media because he considersthese as good feedback mechanisms’ while the mayor of Upi was easilyaccessible through mobile text.

The leaders were also risk-takers who demonstrated political will andcourage in upholding the common good. One informant recalled theirmayor’s boldness when other local officials insisted on supporting gamblingin Dumingag,

. . .from the first year of mayor’s administration, he really opposed gambling.There were political figures in higher positions, persons of authority who wenthere and told him, “That’s not possible, Mayor.” You know what the mayordid? He wrote a resignation letter. “If you continue to do illegal gambling inour town, I will resign from my office”. The whole province was shockedbecause he had just won (the election). So it was stopped.

A respondent from Mandaluyong also shared how they faced the chal-lenge of relocating the buried bodies from the old city cemetery to the newcemetery,

‘When you exhume and relocate ten bodies, you will surely be cursed by thepeople. If you do this to 5000 bodies, for sure, when elections come, you willnot only lose but also be sued. That was the choice I had. Either change this orleave it at that for our political convenience . . . we made a choice.

Citizen engagement

The LGU leaders ensured the success and sustainability of their changeinitiatives by ensuring citizen engagement. One department head in Naga

76 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

City argued that ‘more people will listen to you’ when the policies andprogrammes came from their own expressed needs. Another LGU leader inNaga sees stakeholder engagement as the key to sustainability, saying that‘It is extremely difficult to tear down a program that the people have alreadyembraced’.

The LGUs instituted mechanisms to counter apathy and promote participa-tion by citizens. These included consultative planning, community consultationsthrough public hearings and feedback mechanisms, volunteer involvement inLGU projects, as well as forming sectoral organisations and alliances.

Another leader shared how they encouraged volunteerism,

Our roads here were mostly rough roads. So when there was a road project,we called on the neighboring barangays who would eventually benefit from itto work on the project. . .. They were the ones who constructed the roads whilewe provided them food. The money intended to pay for labor was reallocatedto buy materials. So instead of constructing a one-kilometer road, we wereable to build longer ones because we did not have to pay for labor. It’s thepeople who did it.

Engaging the citizenry also meant promoting inclusivity across groups andequal representation in governance. A leader in Upi described their tri-peoplecouncil, ‘Upi has an empowered tri-people so everything we do, (are) veryinclusive. The Moro (Muslims), IP (indigenous people), and Christian groups’. InDumingag, one LGU official declared, ‘We really pushed to establish organiza-tions that represent the different interests of the people living in Dumingag.Weorganised the tricycle drivers, jeepney drivers, farmers, irrigators, teachers’.

A number of LGUs used a combination of media to communicate withthe people. Naga City used their website and the Naga City Gazette topublish executive orders and administrative orders. Iloilo City usedFacebook and other social media to gather and respond to feedback whileUpi and San Jose utilised the local radio station and/or local cable TVtogether with text messaging to enhance accessibility of leaders.

Foci of LGU transformation

In line with the leaders’ and the citizens’ vision of change, the LGUs in thestudy focused their efforts on transformation or reform in the following keyareas: LGU structures, systems improvement, culture-building, human-resource development, as well as policy and programme development.

Structural changesEnsuring that transformation initiatives will be institutionalised entailedreorganisation and the creation of new units and positions. Albay createdan education department and a Climate Change Academy to support the

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 77

LGU’s efforts to promote disaster risk reduction and management.Dumingag likewise established the Dumingag Institute of SustainableOrganic Agriculture so people will ‘know how to use, integrate, and imple-ment sustainable organic agriculture. . .’ and institutionalise their adherenceto organic farming. They also created new positions within the local govern-ment and hired community organisers to ensure that government pro-grammes reach far-flung communities.

Process improvementsTo ensure equal and efficient access to government services, all nine LGUsengaged in efforts to improve processes and procedures mostly throughinformation and communication technologies. Leaders from Iloilo Cityexpressed that ‘One very distinct improvement on reforms would be . . .processing of the renewal of business permits. We have shortened it. Beforeit used to be 12 steps, now we only have three steps’. These efforts werealso in line with their goal to eliminate red tape which discourages invest-ments in the LGUs and privileges those who have the capacity to pay fixers.

To address corruption and red tape as well as promote transparency inservice, the LGUs instituted systems for results-based performance manage-ment. As explained by one of the leaders in Naga,

There must be clarity in terms of the specific service, the person responsible forservice delivery, and the reasonable expectation for the time it takes to deliverit. We established that in every office, we post lists of the frontline services, thestaff responsible, the response time, and the expected time to deliver.

San Jose set similar performance standards across departments ‘Thiseffort to establish standards of performance for all the LGU departments isso that we would know how to measure ourselves, and how our constitu-ents would assess our performance’.

There were also deliberate and regular efforts to monitor and assessprojects. Albay, for example, measures itself against a goal of zero casualtiesfrom natural disasters. One of the leaders in Bohol shared that ‘We have aprocess every semester; we do strategic planning. . .. So whatever projectswere not finished within the period, we really assess if we can still push todeliver in the succeeding semester’. Iloilo City on the other hand institutio-nalised weekly executive–legislative meetings

. . .every Tuesday before anything else, the legislative and the executive willmeet to thresh out everything . . . the meeting is for several reasons. One is tothresh out the kinks before a legislation is passed . . . getting everyoneinformed on what each is doing in the previous week . . . spell out what youwill do for this week and the following.

78 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

Culture buildingLeaders in almost all of the LGUs mentioned culture-building as critical inmanaging and sustaining change. As such, the leaders engaged in efforts topromote a culture of service, professionalism, discipline, continuousimprovement and pride among LGU employees.

However, they admitted that culture was the most difficult to change.According to one interviewee fromDumingag, ‘because it’s a new thing, peopleresist it’. In Naga, one leader explained, ‘It is very difficult to change culture. . ..They would always ask, “we could do it before, why can’t we do it anymore?”’.

LGUs enabled the process of culture-building in various ways. Iloilo Citybuilt a new city hall which helped enhance employee professionalism andmorale as the transfer also came with a new set of norms. As one of theleaders in Iloilo shared ‘When we transferred here, we had a set of rules. Wehad what we called house rules that all employees must observe – wearingof uniform, wearing of IDs; nobody is allowed to eat in his workplace’.

For others, culture was shaped by changing systems and processes. San Josebegan by fixing the recruitment as well as performance management andrewards systems for employees. One leader shared that ‘Automating processeshelped facilitate the timely receipt of salaries. Among them were the use ofbiometric systems for timekeeping, software for payroll processing and (in2014), the use of automated teller machines or ATM for the release of salaries’.Added another San Jose leader, ‘ensuring that staff salary and benefits are paidon time sets a kind of performance standard in the LGU. My thinking is that ifwe give them the right benefits, we can expect the right service’.

Involving employees in the planning process considerably enhanced theservice orientation of employees and encouraged them to think continu-ously of new ways to tackle problems. In Bohol, ‘all employees participate . . .they are part of the overall discussion and addressing the problem’.

Changing the culture was not only necessary among LGU employees butalso to change the mindset and behaviours of their citizens. According toone of the leaders in Dumingag,

The greatest challenge is the mindset. How can you challenge the mindset?Through education . . . to educate and compel. Culture is one of the mostimportant things in getting what we want to achieve and in going to our chosenpath. Culture resets the perspectives of people. It can also be a venue of ourstruggle towards genuine development. There is a cultural program alongsidepolitical and economic programs to heighten morale and ignite the fire (in them).

Human-resource developmentThe LGUs also initiated development programmes to enhance the capabil-ities of LGU employees. One manager reported that in Marikina, ‘We sentour employees to learn through formal schooling and attend trainingsabroad’. Through field trips, Upi benchmarked itself against other LGUs on

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 79

customer service as well as transparent and accountable governance. Aleader in Upi explained, ‘The administration sends you on field trips toother places so knowledge is not based only on what you see in the fourcorners of the LGU’.

Infrastructure developmentInfrastructure development programmes were among the main priorities ofthe LGUs, especially the far-flung municipalities. Being an agricultural muni-cipality, leaders in Upi prioritised farm-to-market roads. ‘In the past, it wouldtake us almost 3 to 4 hours to go from Cotabato City to Upi on rough roads.Now, it takes only 30 minutes’. In Marikina, investments in bike lanes and ariver park were meant to improve the well-being of people across socialstatus and groups.

In Iloilo, the culture building was facilitated by more modern facilities.Recounts one leader,

Our city hall was old and dark. There (were) no clean bathrooms, there werevendors selling food, and people were reading newspapers and not working.We built a new building that was “green” and professional looking. This greatlyboosted the morale of the employees, and at the same time we were able toinstitute reforms specially to provide quality service to our people. . .

Local economic development programmesThe cultural and structural reforms were supported by numerous programmesto spur employment, livelihood and other economic activities. Dumingag hasan Institute of Sustainable Organic Agriculture. Iloilo City on the other hand hasa Technical Institute of Iloilo City to develop ‘the technical skills of the people-masonry, carpentry, electrical-for free’. San Jose collaborated with a non-profitfoundation to improve the productivity of local farmers and enable them tocomply with quality and volume requirements of commercial buyers.

Legislative reformThe structural reforms as well as new projects/programmes were supported byordinances and executive orders to make sure that these would be continuedby future leaders. In Dumingag, one of the leaders said, ‘Amajor challenge wassustainability. All of our initiatives from deputizing school to organic farmingsystems required the creation of policies and ordinances. . .. Almost everythingis supported with legislation’. In establishing the Public Safety and EmergencyManagement Office, Albay assured financial sustainability for its programmesthrough regular local appropriations and ordinances that also insulate theoffice from changes in political leadership.

80 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

Outcomes of LGU transformation

Although the LGUs’ context and priorities varied, the changes reported bythe various LGU informants suggested common outcomes related to localgovernance (transparency and democracy), quality of life (social equity) andcitizenship (sense of pride).

Transparency and democracyEffective reform in local government systems and policies changed theattitudes and behaviours of the people in these LGUs. One of the intervie-wees from San Jose shared that ‘The people became vigilant because theynow respond through venues for feedback. The lines of communicationwere open; the people made sure to maximize that’.

Social equityThe various programmes for infrastructure, capacity development and socialservices led to improvements in the local economy and way of life. As men-tioned earlier, a leader in Upi shared that from almost 3–4 hours travel on roughroad fromCotabato City to Upi, travel timewas reduced to 30min. Through SanJose’s agribusiness training partnership with a non-profit foundation,

the farmers learned to value continuing education, striving for excellence, beingaccountable and responsible, and later, the spirit of sharing their experience tofellow farmers. They moved beyond the usual dole-out mentality and resistanceto new farming technologies and developed a culture of discipline and integrity.

A respondent from the Dumingag LGU now describes it as ‘a gambling-free society, a 100% smoke-free municipality with increasing number oforganic farming practitioners (from less than 20 farmers in 2007 to moreor less 532 at present and still counting) and remarkably reducing povertyincidence from 93% to 42.8%’.

Sense of prideThe efforts of the leaders to change the culture within the LGUs resulted inpositive outcomes for the employees and the people in the community. Oneleader in Iloilo City recalled that employees

. . .were ashamed for people to know that they worked in the city hall becauseof the negative issues. . .. Back then, the city hall employees were unprofes-sional. because they were not pro-people, they were not service-oriented, sothat caused shame. But now, they are so proud, not just because of the newbuilding but because of the transformation that has transpired.

Increased sense of pride among the citizens was also a common refrainacross the LGUs. This statement from one respondent was echoed in other

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 81

LGUs, ‘In the past, nobody wanted to be identified with Upi. Now, theyproudly say that “I am from Upi”’.

In summary, guided by clear vision and driven by the leaders as well as theengaged citizens, the LGUs’ transformation concentrated on multiple foci ofreform including structure and systems improvement, culture change and HRD,infrastructure development, local economic development programmes andlegislative reform. This holistic approach enabled the transformation of bureau-cratic and unprofessional government service to transparent, professional andefficient public service that promotes transparency, democracy and social equity.Figure 2 illustrates the proposedmodel for transforming local government units.

Discussion

The LGUs in the study reported a number of challenges including poverty, peaceand order problems, corruption, social vices, the lack of resources, bureaucraticred tape and apathy of both citizens and civil servants. These issues are similar tothe issues that plague political leaders in developing countries (Cooper 2009;Rees and Hossain 2010; Rotberg 2012). It has also been noted that many of theexternal factors and internal conditions that defined Philippine local governancehave not changed with decentralisation (Preschle and Sosmeña 2006). However,rather than remaining as barriers to development, these external and internal

Figure 2. Proposed model for transforming local government units.

82 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

challenges became the foci of change for each LGU. In addition, the stories oftransformation also highlighted some key elements to success.

The success factors for transformation were somewhat similar to thatreported in other countries. This is not surprising given that globalisationhas enabled benchmarking and increased access to information. However,what made these LGUs exemplary was the breadth and systems perspectiveto transformation. Given the myriad of economic, political and social pro-blems and the many challenges to change, a key factor to success was theLGU’s integrated response and efforts at holistic transformation

As suggested by Brillantes and Fernandez (2010), government reformbegins with a vision for change. In the case of the LGUs, a common elementwas their vision as a starting point. However, beyond the ‘what’ of change,the case studies also showcased transformation as a dynamic process.Although the presence of a vision was a driving force for change, someLGU goals and vision statements were not always clear at the onset. Goalsand plans evolved – and visions sharpened – to the extent that the leaderswere open to engaging their stakeholders in the transformation process.The short electoral cycles for Philippine local officials increase the risk thattransformation processes can be discontinued at the end of their terms.Exemplary LGUs mitigated these risks by achieving quick victories towardstheir vision that were demonstrable within the 3-year terms of their LCEs. Toinstitutionalise the transformation process along the reform track, localordinances and other legislation ensured the sustainability of programmes.

The case studies likewise highlighted the critical role of leaders in initiat-ing reform. As with the characteristic of change leaders cited by Asquith(1997) and transformational leaders described by Kouzes and Posner (1995),the LCEs not only articulated a vision and inspired others to share that visionbut also competently translated their goals to action. These were done in amanner that was grounded and considerate of the local context.

Similar to the findings of Latham (2013) on effective behaviours critical inleading transformation, the LCEs served as role models, showed accountabilityby being output oriented and by demanding results from LGU employees. Theleaders collaborated with various stakeholders (partnered with business andcivil society) demonstrating the ability to create and sustain partnerships criticalin development work (World Bank Institute 2013). The LCEs also used a systemsapproach in managing change as seen in how structural and process improve-ments were coupled with culture building, human-resource development andpolicy development. Leaders were likewise personally involved as seen in howthey engaged the citizens and made themselves visible and accessible tocitizens through various consultative and feedback-seeking mechanisms.

The emphasis on consultation and accessibility of the leaders may beculturally nuanced since the Philippines had been described as having apaternalistic culture (Jocano 2009) and high in power distance (Hofstede

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 83

2005). However, a local study on organisation transformation pointed outthat Filipino leaders who use too much consultation may appear weak orindecisive, and not inspire confidence from employees (Hechanova andFranco 2012). Given this, leaders need to balance participation and deci-sion-making so that people have confidence in their leader, yet still feel thattheir ideas and concerns are heard (Hechanova and Franco 2012).

Limitation and implications

This study sought to elicit insights on local government transformation in thePhilippines using multiple case studies of exemplars. However, futureresearchers may wish to compare exemplars with the experience of lesssuccessful LGUs in order to highlight the success factors. Especially, sincethe study only looked at cases of positive change, the association betweencharacteristics of transformational leadership and transformation in LGUsmust likewise be validated. It will be interesting to explore through furtherstudies whether there are instances wherein non-transformational leaderswere able to bring about meaningful change in LGUs or where transforma-tional leaders were not successful in transforming their local government. Theoverall model that summarises the experiences of exemplary LGUs will alsoneed to be validated with a larger sample possibly through quantitative data.

The cross-sectional nature of the study was another limitation. The journey ofthese LGUs has been long and although the interviews sought to capture theirevolution, the informants were limited bymemory and recall biases. Longitudinalstudies may perhaps highlight the transformation process more clearly.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the study suggests a number of implica-tions for local governance. The case studies showcase the importance of leadersin initiating change. This implies the need to develop competencies of localgovernment leaders to effectively initiate and manage transformation such ashaving a systems perspective and the ability to think strategically. The ability tocommunicate and engage is also critical competencies in times of transformation.Studies focusingmore specifically on how these competencies are built would beuseful for those engaged in leadership development in local government.

Though each journey was unique, what was common among the LGUs wasthe presence of a vision and strategic plan, a multifaceted approach to trans-formation and a conscious monitoring and evaluation effort. The cases alsohighlighted the important role of changing structures, systems and legislationto support programmes and initiatives. They also illustrate how local govern-ments can harness technology to improve efficiencies as well as to engagecitizens. However, local leaders must be careful that the use of technology-based mechanisms for communication and engagement do not benefit onlythose who can afford the technology. Thus, technology must be complemen-ted by other widely accessible means of engendering participation.

84 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

The exemplars also reveal the importance of sound human-resourcemanagement systems that enable the recruitment, selection, developmentand retention of competent public servants. In turn, these systems andservants build a culture of integrity and professionalism within the LGU.Highly competent and professional managers mitigate the risk from therelatively quick turnover of elected officials and thus represent essentialelements for sustaining reform within the executive branch.

The interviews highlighted aspects of national law that may need to bereviewed, particularly on the structure of LGUs and term limits of officials. Inaddition, local ordinances are critical elements in institutionalising and sustainingtransformation in local governments.

The multifaceted reform required in transformation necessitates not onlybuilding capacities and cultures but having enabling resources to drive andsustain initiatives. In order to identify and develop an LGU’s core naturalresources, create the infrastructure necessary to facilitate livelihood, or facilitatethe creation of new businesses, an entrepreneurial mindset and competencefrom LGU leaders is a critical element in transforming local government.

Finally, a key element that was evident across the cases was the change inmindset of the local government leaders regarding the participation of itscitizens in all stages of transformation – from planning to programme imple-mentation even to the crafting of ordinances. Citizen empowerment appears tobe a key factor not only in sustaining transformation but also ensuring that localgovernments continue to evolve and respond to their people.

Notes

1. Local autonomy refers to the ‘degree of self-determination exercised by a localgovernment unit vis-à-vis the central government’ (Tapales 2015, 382).

2. The Local Government Code raised their share from 20% to 40%. InternalRevenue allotments are also divided depending on an LGU’s classification,population and land area.

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank the Research Unit of the Ateneo Center for OrganizationResearch and Development, the panel members that helped selected the cases, thePhD in Leadership Studies class of Fr Bienvenido Nebres, SJ and most especially thenine local governments that opened their doors to us and allowed us to documenttheir transformation journey.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 85

Funding

This work was supported by the Commission on Higher Education, Republic of thePhilippines.

Notes on contributors

Mendiola Teng-Calleja is an Associate Professor at the Psychology Department of theAteneo de Manila University. She is also the Director for Organization Developmentof the Ateneo Center for Organization Research and Development. Her researchareas include human resource management, labor relations and employee engage-ment, organization development and humanitarian work psychology.

Ma. Regina M. Hechanova is a professor of Psychology at the Ateneo de ManilaUniversity. Her research areas include organization development, leadership, humanresource management, organization culture, innovation, technology, corruption anddisaster management.

Ramon Benedicto A. Alampay was the Program Manager of the Local GovernanceSupport Program for Local Economic Development, an eight year (2008-2016) pro-gram of the Philippine and Canada Governments to support local government unitsin becoming more business-friendly and competitive. His current research interestsare in tourism, regional economic development, and local governance.

Nico A. Canoy is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the Ateneo de ManilaUniversity. His research areas include discursive and material analysis of sexuality,health systems and inequalities, and class-based social constructions.

Edna P. Franco is an Associate Professor at the Psychology Department of the Ateneode Manila University. She is also the Executive Director of the Ateneo Center forOrganization Research and Development. Her research areas include organizationdevelopment, leadership, workplace motivation and human resource management.

Erwin A. Alampay is an Associate Professor at the National College of PublicAdministration and Governance at the University of the Philippines. He also serves asthe Director for the Center for Local and Regional Governance. His research areas includee-Governance, ICTs for Development, voluntary sector management and citizenship.

References

Arnaboldi, M., and I. Lapsley. 2003. “Activity Based Costing, Modernity and theTransformation of Local Government.” Public Management Review 5 (3): 345–375.doi:10.1080/1471903032000146946.

Asquith, A. 1997. “Achieving Effective Organisational Change in English LocalGovernment.” Local Government Studies 23 (4): 86–99. doi:10.1080/03003939708433887.

Bommer, W. H., G. A. Rich, and R. S. Rubin. 2005. “Changing Attitudes about Change:Longitudinal Effects of Transformational Leader Behavior on Employee Cynicismabout Organizational Change.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 26: 733–753.doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379.

86 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.

Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” QualitativeResearch in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Brillantes, A., and M. Fernandez. 2010. “Toward a Reform Framework for GoodGovernance: Focus on Anti-Corruption.” Philippine Journal of PublicAdministration 15 (1–2): 87–127.

Cabo, W. 2007. “Exploring Accountability Initiatives in Philippine Local Governance.”Philippine Journal of Public Administration 51 (2–7/1–4): 33–50.

Calugay, Z. C. 2013. “Inter-Local Cooperation as Alternative Service DeliveryMechanism.” In Local Government in the Philippines: A Book of Readings (IV): NewDirections in Local Governance, edited by R. D. Ocenar and P. D. Tapales. QuezonCity: CLRG-NCPAG.

Cooper, C. W. 2009. “Performing Cultural Work in Demographically ChangingSchools: Implications for Expanding Transformative Leadership Frameworks.”Educational Administration Quarterly 45: 694–724. doi:10.1177/0013161X09341639.

De Vries, M. 2000. “The Rise and Fall of Decentralization: A Comparative Analysis ofArguments and Practices in European Countries.” European Journal of PoliticalResearch 38: 193–224. doi:10.1111/ejpr.2000.38.issue-2.

De Vries, M., and J. Nemec. 2013. “Public Sector Reform: An Overview of RecentLiterature and Research on NPM and Alternative Paths.” International Journal ofPublic Sector Management 26 (1): 4–16. doi:10.1108/09513551311293408.

Funding Support for Galing Pook. 2014. Accessed 11 February 2016. https://www.landbank.com/galing-pook-foundation-inc

Gawad Pamana ng Lahi GPL. 2012. Accessed 11 February 2016. http://ncr.dilg.gov.ph/home/index.php/2012-05-26-06-07-22/capacity-development/gawad-pamana-ng-lahi

Guess, G. M. 2005. “Comparative Decentralization Lessons from Pakistan, Indonesiaand the Philippines.” Public Administration Review 65 (2): 217–230. doi:10.1111/puar.2005.65.issue-2.

Hechanova, M. R., and E. P. Franco, eds. 2012. Rebirth and Reinvention: TransformingPhilippine Organizations. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Herold, D. M., D. B. Fedor, S. Caldwell, and Y. Liu. 2008. “The Effects ofTransformational and Change Leadership on Employees’ Commitment to aChange: A Multilevel Study.” Journal of Applied Psychology 93: 346–357.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.346.

Hofstede, G. J. 2005. Cultures and Organizations. Intercultural Cooperation and ItsImportance for Survival. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Ishii, R., F. Hossain, and C. Rees. 2007. “Participation in Decentralized LocalGovernance: Two Contrasting Cases from the Philippines.” Public OrganizationReview 7: 359–373. doi:10.1007/s11115-007-0043-2.

Jocano, F. L. 2009. Management by Culture: Fine Tuning Management to PhilippineCulture. Quezon City,, Philippines: Punlad Research House.

Kettl, D. F. 2000. “The Transformation of Governance: Globalization, Devolution andthe Role of Government.” Public Administration Review 60: 488–497. doi:10.1111/puar.2000.60.issue-6.

King, S., and S. Cotterill. 2007. “Transformational Government? the Role ofInformation Technology in Delivering Citizen-Centric Local Public Services.” LocalGovernment Studies 33: 333–354. doi:10.1080/03003930701289430.

Kouzes, J., and B. Posner. 1995. The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.Kull, M. 2009. “Local and Regional Governance in Finland: A Study on

Institutionalization, Transformation and Europeanization.” Halduskultuur 10: 22–39.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 87

Latham, J. R. 2013. “A Framework for Leading the Transformation to PerformanceExcellence Part II: CEO Perspectives on Leadership Behaviors, Individual LeaderCharacteristics, and Organizational Culture.” QMJ 20 (3): 19–40.

Lee, S.-Y. D., B. Weiner, M. Harrison, andM. Belden. 2013. “Organizational Transformation:A Systematic Review of Empirical Research in Health Care and Other Industries.”Medical Care Research and Review 70: 115–142. doi:10.1177/1077558712458539.

Ongaro, E. 2006. “The Dynamics of Devolution Processes in Legalistic Countries:Organizational Change in the Italian Public Sector.” Public Administration 84 (3):737–770. doi:10.1111/padm.2006.84.issue-3.

Oreg, S. 2006. “Personality, Context, and Resistance to Organizational Change.”European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 15 (1): 73–101.doi:10.1080/13594320500451247.

Otto-Zimmerman, K. 2012. “From Rio to Rio+20: The Changing Role of LocalGovernments in the Context of Current Global Governance.” Local Environment17 (5): 511–516. doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.686564.

Preschle, K., and G. C. Sosmeña. 2006. The Local Government Bureaucracy and LocalFiscal Administration. Manila, PI:Local Government Development Foundation.

Rees, C. J., and F. Hossain. 2010. “Perspectives on Decentralization and LocalGovernance in Developing and Transitional Countries.” International Journal ofPublic Administration 33: 581–587. doi:10.1080/01900692.2010.514459.

Rotberg, R. 2012. Transformative Political Leadership. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Schoburg, E. D. 2012. “Local Government and Local Development: Bridging the Gap

through Critical Discourse: Evidence from the Commonwealth Carribean.”Commonwealth Journal of Local Government 10: 5–31.

SGH (Seal of Good Housekeeping). 2012. Accessed 11 February 2016 http://ncr.dilg.gov.ph/home/index.php/2012-05-26-06-07-22/capacity-development/seal-of-good-housekeeping

Shields, C. M. 2010. “Transformative Leadership: Working for Equity in DiverseContexts.” Educational Administration Quarterly 46 (4): 558–589. doi:10.1177/0013161X10375609.

Silva, J. A. 2005. “Devolution and Regional Disparities in the Philippines: Is There aConnection?.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 23 (3): 399–417.doi:10.1068/c051.

Tapales, P. 2015. “The Nature and State of Local Government.” In Introduction toPublic Administration in the Philippines: A Reader, edited by D. Reyes, P. Tapales, M.O. Domingo, and M. F. Villamejor-Mendoza. 3rd ed. Quezon City: UP-NCPAG.

Thomson, P. 1992. “Public Sector Management in a Period of Radical Change: 1979-1992.”Public Money & Management 12: 33–41. doi:10.1080/09540969209387720.

World Bank Institute. 2013. “Leadership: The World Bank Institute’s Leadership forDevelopment Program.” Accessed 17 February 2016. http://wbi.worldbank.org/wbi/content/leadershipworld-bankinstitute%E2%80%99sleadership-development-program

Wunsch, J. S., and D. Olowu. 1996. “Regime Transformation from Below:Decentralization, Local Governance and Democratic Reform in Nigeria.” Studiesin Comparative International Development 31 (4): 66–82. doi:10.1007/BF02738632.

Yin, R. K. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

88 M. TENG-CALLEJA ET AL.