OPINION
The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) accounting system has been used for many years now to measure the health and condition of the national economy.
I wonder, however, how the data is being collected to overall GDP computation, because I have always believed that all data collection should start from below, to be eventually integrated and analyzed at the top.
Perhaps there is no direct connection to this main subject matter, but I also believe that Bottom up Budgeting (BUB) should be the default standard in local government budgeting and accounting, in line with a Barangay Development Plan (BDP).
As a requirement that is based on the Local Government Code (LGC), BDPs should be prepared and approved by the Barangay Development Council (BDC).
As it is now, the performance of the President is already being measured by the health and condition of the national economy during and after his or her term of office. Of course, the measurement is always based on the national GDP since there is no other credible measure that could be used as an alternative.
That being the case, my friend and fellow columnist Manny Valdehuesa suggested that we should also measure the GDP at the barangay level, and in connection with that, to also use the barangay GDP to measure the performance of the barangay based on the health and condition of the local economy. Valdehuesa has the credibility to suggest this idea, being the founder of the Gising Barangay Movement (GBM).
Aside from the BDC, there are also supposed to be Municipal Development Council (MDCs), Provincial Development Council (PDCs) and Regional Development Council (RDCs), also as required by the LDC.
What this means is that there is already an existing structure or organization to collect GDP data from below, so that these could be submitted upwards for eventual integration and analysis. That way, the BUB standard could be easily implemented without any additional implementation costs.
Although there is really no empirical basis that would correlate the local barangay budget to the local GDP, there could be lessons that could be derived from the comparison. Besides, it would be logical to say that the quality of the BDP should somehow result in a positive GDP.
As it is supposed to be, all cities and municipalities are supposed to submit their Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs) to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB). As it is now, the HLURB does not really require the Local Government Units (LGUs) to submit their CLUPs in Geographic Information System (GIS) format, but that would be a practical idea.
Also as it is supposed to be, all local government units (LGUs) are supposed to submit their Local Master Plans (LMPs) to the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG).
As it is now, the DILG also does not require the LGUs to base their LMPs on the Geographic Information System (GIS) format, but that would also be a practical idea. In other words, both the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) and the LMP could be integrated into the GIS format.
Over the years, we have gotten used to presidential candidates promising to improve the economy. Although they are not really saying it directly, what they really mean is that they will make the national gross domestic product (GDP) increase or grow.
That being the case, why should we not demand that our local candidates should also promise to grow or increase the local economy, by way of the local GDP, starting with the barangay level?
Based on the LGC, the Governors have authority over the Mayors and down the line; the Mayors also have authority over the Barangay Chairmen. That being the case, why don’t we interpret the law so that all these officials in all levels would be responsible for computing and reporting their respective GDPs?
Given the fact that the barangay and municipal governments may not have the resources to compute and report their respective GDPs, we should perhaps make it a rule that the Governors should fund the whole process out of their own funds.
As I have observed, however, there is hardly any Non-Government Organization (NGO) that vets the GDP data that is reported by the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA).
What is happening now, whatever GDP data that is being issued by the NEDA is generally accepted as gospel truth, because nobody really challenges it.
Surely something should be done about that in the national level, but right now we have the opportunity of starting fresh at the local level, by putting in a vetting process down below.
Many of our citizens are already saying that the politics of patronage should already be replaced with the politics of performance. I agree with that, but I would be quick to add that the performance should not only be measured in the delivery of local public services, but also in the improvement of the local economy as it is reported in the local GDP.
By comparison, any candidate of average intelligence would be capable of improving the delivery of local public services, but it would take more talent to really improve the economy.
That said, it is now time to vote only for the candidates who have a track record in improving the economy. It is not enough for them to be honest; the candidates now should also be savvy in economics. (Content reposted from PANAY NEWS under its original title: Localizing the gross domestic product accounting system by Ike Señeres)
