2017年-世界发展银行全球_Strengthening_Institutions_for_Urban_and_Metropolitan_Management_and_Service_Delivery___Philippines_Urbanization_Review_Policy_Notes_32页_3mb

Summary of Document: Strengthening Institutions for Urban and Metropolitan Management and Service Delivery

Core Content

The document outlines the challenges and institutional deficiencies that hinder effective urban and metropolitan management in the Philippines. It emphasizes the importance of strong institutions and governance frameworks in ensuring efficient service delivery, sustainable urban development, and the creation of an enabling environment for economic and social growth. The lack of a comprehensive national urban policy, the absence of a lead agency, and weaknesses in the fiscal decentralization system are identified as key obstacles to urban development.

Main Issues and Challenges

• Fragmented Institutional Framework: The Philippines lacks a unified institutional structure for urban development, with multiple agencies involved in oversight and sectoral responsibilities, leading to overlapping mandates and inefficiencies.
• Metropolitan Fragmentation: Urban areas in the Philippines are often spread across multiple jurisdictions, making inter-jurisdictional coordination difficult. Only a third of urban areas with over 100,000 people are "contained" within a single jurisdiction, compared to 60 percent in other East Asian countries.
• Weak National Urban Policy: There is no effective national urban policy (NUP) that provides a clear vision, legal foundation, and institutional framework for urban development. The NUDHF and NFPP have not been implemented effectively due to lack of political will and institutional support.
• Lack of a Lead Agency: No single national agency is fully accountable for urban development. HUDCC, DILG, and NEDA all have roles but lack a unified mandate and coordination mechanisms.
• Fiscal Decentralization Weaknesses: LGUs in the Philippines have limited fiscal autonomy, with weak local tax bases and rigid tax rate-setting rules. This results in uneven revenue generation and heavy reliance on national transfers, which are insufficient to support urban service delivery.

Key Points on Metropolitan Governance

• Need for Metropolitan-Wide Governance: Metropolitan fragmentation necessitates a governance structure that enables inter-jurisdictional coordination to deliver efficient and effective urban services. This is especially important for capital-intensive services such as transport, solid waste management, water supply, and sewerage.
• Current Governance Model Ineffective: The MMDA, the only formal metropolitan governance body in the Philippines, has failed to deliver quality services due to weak institutional capacity and coordination.
• Cost and Spillover Considerations: The cost per unit of urban services decreases with scale, and spillover effects of urban services across jurisdictions require a coordinated approach.

International Examples and Lessons

• South Korea: Evolved through three phases of urban policy, focusing on spatial balance, quality of urban development, and housing affordability. The alignment of land use, urban policy, and housing programs was crucial.
• Brazil: Enacted the Statute of the City in 2001, promoting equity and democratic land-use planning. It emphasized the social function of urban land over its commercial value.
• Colombia: Developed a NUP to address urban challenges, including the "Livable Cities" Strategy, and introduced innovative financing mechanisms like public-private partnerships.
• Australia: Adopted a comprehensive NUP in 2011 with a focus on productivity, sustainability, livability, and governance. It involved institutional alignment across departments and a strong national role in urban management.
• Ghana: Launched its first NUP in 2013 with a detailed action plan, but its implementation remains weak due to the absence of institutional mechanisms to coordinate across government departments.

Fiscal Decentralization and Revenue Disparities

• Local Tax Base Limitations: Only real property and business taxes generate substantial local revenues for LGUs, while other tax bases are underdeveloped.
• Tax Rate Constraints: The LGC imposes rigid limits on tax rate adjustments, allowing only a 10 percent change every five years.
• Revenue Disparities: Cities generate significantly higher own-source revenues compared to provinces and municipalities, leading to unequal capacity for service delivery.
• Table 2: Highlights the disparity in LGU own-source revenues as a share of total operating income, with cities contributing 52.2% on average in 2011, while municipalities and provinces contribute much less.

Conclusion

To improve urban management and service delivery in the Philippines, the adoption of a comprehensive national urban policy, the creation of a lead agency, and the strengthening of fiscal decentralization mechanisms are essential. These reforms are necessary to address metropolitan fragmentation, enhance inter-jurisdictional coordination, and ensure that urban areas can develop in a sustainable, equitable, and efficient manner.