Promote the highest possible standard of living for a nation
At what point does our history transform from being something that shapes us; to something that we mealy learn about? Or even is there such a point? I believe that there is, the fact that my ancestors were most probably farmers is knowledge I have only by being taught, and it has no translation into what I am today. A hundred years ago my family was able to grow enough food to feed the family and to sell to others; I cannot even grow a small vegetable plot. Similarly how connected are people to their ancestors that operated small independent governing systems? If at some point in your regions history you were governed in a local and direct way; does that make you skilled at self rule? I often hear the idea that central government is a colonial installation and therefore foreign and unfit for one country or another and while I am not necessarily in favor of a centralized system I question this argument.
The social and potential economic benefits of a decentralized or federalist state have been realized in countries such as Canada and Brazil. The centralized system has found longevity and success in countries such as Denmark and Saudi Arabia.
Take the idea that most citizens of the majority of countries that historically operated in a decentralized system and were formerly colonized are no longer shaped by their historical decentralization. Combing this concept with the idea that both decentralized and centralized systems have found success within differing regions I believe the conversation needs to change from how to restore a decentralized system to; is a decentralized or federalist system going to promote the highest possible standard of living for a nation?
After reading the articles Decentralization Towards Democratization and Development in the Asian Pacific Region By Guzman and Reforma and Decentralization and Local Autonomy: A Framework for Assessing Progress by Ocampo I find that my initial assessment of the potential success and challenges of decentralization are widely apparent in Asia. China, Malaysia and Thailand all centralized to foster development and growth only later to decentralize to varying degrees. Korea and the Philippines have seen the decentralization process paused by military take over and India decentralized under the British rule that local taxation should be linked to local administration and responsibility.
I see an alternative understanding of the historical argument for decentralization. I wonder if it is indeed based on the concept that our ancestors shapes us or if it is based on the idea that a decentralized system worked in the former time and place, why not try it again? This, try it again idea, has much to support its potential repeat success. Many nations have found success under decentralized systems. Decentralization is a strategy that can be used to foster development and growth. Often decentralization has a policy basis an important tool that when used with other materials, such as a willing and skilled population can create an effective decentralized system. The other side is that places have been and most likely will continue to be impaired by decentralization attempts. These impairments are most easily seen by the increasing power of local elites while the poor continue to suffer corruption grows and the national government becomes weaker.
In the Philippine context decentralization has had mixed effects and appears to be in need of an array of changes. Underlying this imperfect decentralization is the remnants of colonial structures. Political families were installed by the Spanish and Americans who still dominate the offices. The imperfect American system of decentralization for control can still be felt in the country. In order to revitalizes decentralization in the Philippines the island nature of the country must be considered at all stages. For many aspects local control will provide faster service delivery and reflect the unique needs of the group living in a certain area. Other areas need to remain in central control. Keeping central control over areas that are prone to corruption, require stability of pay and personnel or benefit from maintaining national standards would benefit development. If I were to make policy change recommendations I would keep roads, city healthcare workers and minimal education standards under central control. Keeping some aspects under central control would allow the smaller units to focus on fewer tasks allowing them to develop greater effectiveness. Central control over specified areas and local control over others should help curb the human tendency to centralization based on a desire for ultimate power.
A system closer resembling federalism would create the highest possible standard of living in the Philippines. Each nation as it explores how to evolve will be faced with the complex of how to move forward. Several areas must be examined as the path forward is created. First is recognizing the underlying meaning of the arguments, such as decentralizes because it is what was in place historically or decentralize because it has worked in the past and might work again. Second would be to examine the question of what is needed to foster the highest standard of living for the most people. Finally would be to acknowledged areas where potential problems are most likely to occur and develop safety mechanisms. Decentralized, Federalist and many other systems have the potential to find success if implemented correctly.
No comments:
Post a Comment