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)
