The Philippine Bureaucracy: A Confluence of Native and Colonial Structures
I. Introduction
Contemporary society is propelled by the quest for further rationalization. Due to the hegemony of capitalism, social institutions have been preoccupied in formulating the most efficient means of organization. Hence, this trend has led to the resurgence of interest in the scholarship of bureaucracy, the pinnacle of rational organization in the modern world (du Gay, 2005; Olsen, 2008, Courpasson and Reed, 2004; Greenwood and Lawrence, 2005). According to Cargill (2013), social organizations and institutions are significantly geared towards adapting formal bureaucratic structures. However, the definition of bureaucracy has been shrouded by ambiguities that render it an essentially contested concept (Hall, 2016). Therefore, it is essential to establish its meaning before scrutinizing the nuances of bureaucracy as an object of study.
According to Weber (1968), a bureaucracy is any rational organization that constitutes specific dimensions such as having a division of labor, hierarchy of authority, a set of formally defined rules, and a merit-based system for promotion. This ideal type has been the classical conception that established the study of bureaucracy. Nonetheless, a recent paradigm shift has highlighted the significance of the political-cultural context on the specific functions and characters of bureaucratic institutions (Silberman, 1993; Dahlstrøm and Lapuente, 2017; Fukuyama, 2018)
Considering these conceptual gradients, this paper will focus on the Philippine state bureaucracy that refers to the political machinery of the state (Genato-Rebullida and Serrano, 2006). According to Reyes (1994), the confluence of native value systems and colonial institutions has rendered the Philippine bureaucracy distinct from the bureaucratic institutions of advanced Western democracies. Contrary to the individualistic and meritocratic ideal type conceived by Weberian scholars, the endemic collectivist value of Philippine society provides a different political-cultural context. This collision of local social structures and foreign political institutions has resulted in the odd duality of Philippine bureaucracy of being both an organic and synthetic entity.
To further elaborate on this unique sociological phenomenon, this paper will initially discuss Bureaucracy in Developing Contexts in Section II. Next, it will provide a characterization of the Philippine state bureaucracy in Section III, entitled A Clash of Local and Colonial Structures. Finally a comprehensive summary and reiteration of points will be discussed in Section IV Conclusion.
II. Bureaucracy in Developing Contexts
Majority of literature on bureaucracy tends to describe rational organizations in terms of Weberian dimensions. This encompasses attributes such as a clear division of labor according to specialization, a rigid hierarchy of authority, a legal-rational framework of rules on systems procedure, meritocracy, and the primacy of impersonality (Hall, 2016).These core aspects are usually found in advanced democracies such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom that have strong political institutions. In Western bureaucracies, meritocracy is strictly observed, there is a clear hierarchy between politicians and bureaucrats, and there is a neutral civil service (Dasandi, 2017). These attributes are consistent with the Weberian ideal of neutrality and legal-rationalism (Svara, 2006). However, these studies have primarily focused on wealthy institutionalized democratic states and lack any critical information on developing countries (Gulrajani and Moloney, 2012). Hence, a general model of Weberian bureaucracy is insufficient to describe the aberrant qualities of the global South.
The political-cultural context of a bureaucracy is a significant factor for the heterogeneity of these institutions in developing societies (Byrkjeflot, 2018). According to Dasandi (2017), the bureaucracies of developing states have little resemblance to the dominant ideal type of Weber. Bureaucracy in the Third World generally has low political autonomy and is subordinate to informal networks of power. Formal institutions such as the bureaucracy are incessantly rivalled by informal institutions such as factions, clans, and dynasties that challenge the authority of the state. As opposed to the prevailing impersonal and merit-based system of Western models, bureaucracies in developing countries are characterized by personalistic ties, political and administrative actors that are motivated by acquiring personal wealth, and rent-seeking behaviour. Hence, personal loyalty principally underscores the core trait of bureaucracies in non-Western countries (Grindle, 2012). These contextual nuances vividly exhibit the necessity of differentiating bureaucracy in developing states that have a different political-cultural background.
Due to these contradictions engendered by institutional and contextual incongruence, inevitable conflict arises. These developing states are usually the former colonies of Western countries that have initially innovated Weberian paradigms of public administration and management (Ang, 2016). Upon colonization, these developing states undergo drastic institutional reforms that are vastly different from their pre-colonial forms of organization. This top-bottom imposition of colonial political structures consequently assimilates the local traits of the country that may potentially lead to a mismatch (Mcdonnell, 2017). After the colony gained independence, the bureaucracy was left to the local elites that have entrenched the state machinery. Instead of abiding by the merit-based and impersonal ideal type of bureaucracy, the institution is transformed into a bulwark of extensive personalistic ties (Grindle, 2012).
Considering all of these, it is imperative to situate the study of bureaucracy in contextualized backgrounds. Although some dimensions of Weber’s ideal type are present in the state bureaucracy of developing states, the subtle variations deserve recognition for further characterization. Countries such as the Philippines that have a strong social blocs, precolonial values systems, and axn intricate colonial history are quintessential sites of this diversification.
III. A Clash of Local and Colonial Institutions in the Philippines
Developing contexts modify and transform the dimensions of the Weberian ideal type of bureaucracy (Puehringer and Oetsch, 2017). Non-Western countries provide a different political-cultural background for the development of bureaucratic institutions that have little resemblance to their Western counterparts. The Philippines, a developing country with diverse cultural patterns and a complicated colonial history, is an excellent paragon of this fusion. According to Genato Rebullida and Serrano (2006), the Philippine bureaucracy is “highly politicized” and “subservient” compared to the Western bureaucracies that function in the virtue of impersonality and neutrality. Hence, this unique combination of informal native social structures and formal colonial institutions have led to the dysfunction and democratic deficit of Philippine bureaucracy (De Guzaman, 2003; Sto. Tomas, 2003). In order to elaborate, this chapter will extensively discuss the colonial history, local political-cultural background, and problems concerning the Philippine bureaucracy.
The colonial history of the Philippines has drastically steered the trajectory of bureaucratic institutions in the country . Before the arrival of colonizers in the Philippines, autonomous and self-governing polities already existed known as the barangays and sultanates (Agoncillo, 1990). These pre-colonial political institutions were established on communal values and kinship ties (Gata, 2016) that starkly contrasted individualistic and centralized colonial bureaucracies that will be established later on. According to Fernandez (1999), it was during the Spanish colonial era that the Philippines experienced a national and centralized government that subjugated the pre-colonial barangays. The upper echelons of the bureaucracy was filled with Spanish authorities while the former chieftains who were coopted were relegated to lower positions. Hence, the Spanish colonizers and local elites developed a mutual relationship that was motivated by self-gain. Furthermore, Varela (1993), adds that the persisting character of the Philippines bureaucracy was cemented during this crucial stage in history. The precolonial and Spanish colonial period laid down the values, beliefs, and norms that manifest up until today. This has rendered the Philippine bureaucracy highly personalistic, based on familialism and kinship ties, and particularism that shaped bureaucratic and administrative behavior today (Reyes, 1994).
After three centuries of Spanish colonial rule, it was the Americans who introduced a Weberian model of bureaucracy in the Philippines that emulated their institutions back in the USA. The Philippine bureaucracy underwent reform to conform with the Weberian ideal type that emphasized norms on political neutrality, meritocracy, and impersonality that were stipulated in the 1935 Constitution (Cola, 2003). However, despite the imposition of new colonial institutions, the bureaucracy further solidified the hold of elites from the former Spanish regime through another cooptation (Hutchcroft and Rocamora, 2003) Instead of rehabilitating the centralized and personalistic bureaucracy that dominated the Spanish era, it further reinforced informal social structures while providing institutional access to state resources. After the eventual independence of the Philippines from American rule, the elites who were coopted into the bureaucracy flourished and expanded their networks through patronage politics (Brillantes, 2012).
Aside from the fortuitous historical events that have shaped Philippine bureaucracy, the unique Filipino culture of the country has also greatly contributed to its notable characteristics. According to Pe-Pua and Protacio-Marcelino (2000), Filipino culture is innately collectivist as a whole. The social relationships that prevail in Filipino society are therefore underpinned by the values of cooperation, famialism, and communalism that place precedence over the community. As mentioned by Fernandez (1999), these values, beliefs, and norms have pre-colonial origins that managed to seep into formal bureaucracy and endure up until today. These values are commonly known as pakikisama, utang na loob, amor propio, delikadeza, hiya , etc. that stresses a dyadic mutual relationship among individuals (Saito et al., 2010). Due to these inherent features of Filipino culture, the Philippine bureaucracy is generally personalistic in nature (Hodder, 2010). Informal social structures that are native to the country have contravened the Weberian ideal. The Philippine bureaucracy is therefore characterized by a preference for personal relationships built on kinship, loyalty, and mutual obligation that are antithetical to meritocracy and impersonality in Weberian bureaucracy (Lande, 2002).
Finally, due to the confluence of native values and Western institutions, it has led to problems of corruption and inefficiency in bureaucratic functions (Reyes , 2006). Corruption has been rampant in the bureaucracy due to granting personal favors of bureaucrats to their kin. Within the Weberian institution, values such as utang na loob and pakikisama become a basis for nepotism. Aside from this, the bureaucratic institutions of the Philippines have been inefficient in delivering public goods that will benefit the majority. Instead of upholding impartiality and neutrality of interests, the bureaucracy is motivated by partisanship that adversely affects its performance (Romero, 2003).
IV. Conclusion
Generally, scholarship on bureaucracy has focused on Weberian dimensions. Bureaucratic institutions have been defined by specialization in tasks , a hierarchy, a legal-rational framework, meritocracy, and impersonality (Hall, 2016). However, it has been noted that the political-cultural background and context of a bureaucratic institution can significantly change its dimensions away from the Weberian ideal type (Byrkjeflot, 2018).
Developing contexts provide an exemplary comparative framework for bureaucracies in different societies. As the political-cultural context vastly varies from Western institutions, the Weberian dimensions are expanded to accommodate bureaucracies from non-Western states (Grindle, 2012). Despite the contradictory nature of personalistic bureaucracies in the Third World, this phenomenon merits a closer analysis of different rational organizations.
Hence, the Philippine bureaucracy is a unique fusion of native social structures of collectivist culture and the colonial bureaucratic ideal type built on individualism and impersonality. Western bureaucracies tend to be autonomous and resemble more of Weber’s analysis of bureaucratic organizations (Dasandi, 2017). However, the antithetical character of the Philippine bureaucracy due to its unique colonial history and local beliefs, norms, and values, has rendered it inefficient and personalistic (Hutchcroft and Rocamora, 2003). In order to have a more nuanced understanding of bureaucracies in developing contexts such as the Philippines, the Weberian ideal type must also be understood within the cultural environment that bureaucracies are situated in.
References:
Agoncillo, T. A. (1990). History of the Filipino people. Quezon City: Garotech Publishing
Ang, Y. Y. (2017) Beyond Weber: Conceptualizing an alternative ideal type of bureaucracy in developing contexts. Regulation & Governance, 11: 282– 298. doi: 10.1111/rego.12123.
Brillo, B.B.C. 2012. A Theoretical Review on Philippine Policy Making: The Weak State-Elitist Framework and the Pluralist Perspective. Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society 9(1): 54–76. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2263537
Byrkjeflot, H. (2018), “The Impact and Interpretation of Weber’s Bureaucratic Ideal Type in Organisation Theory and Public Administration”, Bureaucracy and Society in Transition (Comparative Social Research, Vol. 33), Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 13–35.
Cola R. (2003). Reorganizing the administrative system: groundowrking, planning, and legislation. In introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader. 2nd Edition, edited by V. Bautista, M.C. Alfiler , Reyes D, and P. Tapales, 3–11. Quezon City; College of Public Administration, University of the Philippines
Courpasson D. and Reed M. (2004). Special issue on bureaucracy in the age of enterprise. Organization 11(1).
Dahlstrøm, C., & Lapuente, V. (2017). Organizing leviathan: Politicians, bureaucrats, and the making of good government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dasandi, N., and Esteve, M. (2017) The Politics–Bureaucracy Interface in Developing Countries. Public Admin. Dev., 37: 231– 245. doi: 10.1002/pad.1793.
De Guzman R. (2003). Is there a Philippine public administration? In introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader. 2nd Edition, edited by V. Bautista, M.C. Alfiler , Reyes D, and P. Tapales, 3–11. Quezon City; College of Public Administration, University of the Philippines
Du Gay P., (2005). The values of bureaucracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Fernandez P.R. 1999. Understanding Politics and Governance in the Philippines. Mindset Publication: Iloilo City. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1G5eK8Pb6i3DNakuesyLBvd6BGO7cddfm/view?usp=sharing)
Fukuyama, F. (2018). Identity: The demand for dignity and the politics of resentment. New York:Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gata, L. (2016). Philippines, Families in. In Encyclopedia of Family Studies, C.L. Shehan (Ed.). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119085621.wbefs251
Genato Rebullida M. L. and Serrano C. (2006). Bureaucracy and public management in democracy, development, and governance in the Philippines in Encarnacion-Tadem, T.S and N.M. Morada’s Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction. Department of Political Science CSSP: UP Diliman. pp. 217–248 (Chapter 10: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cf3nBmhPAsPTSNRtMUtldphLLcqrqT1g/view?usp=sharing)
Greenwood R. and Lawrence T. B. (2005). The iron cage in the information age: The legacy and relevance of Max Weber for organization studies. Eidotrial. Organ. Stud. 26(4). p. 493–499
Grindle MS. (2012). Jobs for the Boys: Patronage and the State in Comparative Perspective. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Hall, R. (2016). The Concept of Bureaucracy: An Empirical Assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 69(1), 32–40. Retrieved December 2, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2775309
Hodder R. (2010). Informality in the Philippine civil service. Asian Studies Review, 34:2, 231–251. DOI: 10.1080/10357823.2010.481043
Hutchcroft, P., & Rocamora, J. (2003). Strong Demands and Weak Institutions: The Origins and Evolution of the Democratic Deficit in the Philippines. Journal of East Asian Studies, 3(2), 259–292. doi:10.1017/S1598240800001363
Lande´ , C.H. (2002) Political clientelism, developmentalism and post-colonial theory. Philippine Political
Science Journal 23, pp. 119–28.
McDonnell, E. M. (2017). Patchwork Leviathan: How Pockets of Bureaucratic Governance Flourish within Institutionally Diverse Developing States. American Sociological Review, 82(3), 476–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417705874
Olsen J. P. (2008). The ups and downs of bureaucratic organization. Annual Rev. Political Sci. 11. p. 13–37.
Pe-Pua, R. & Protacio-Marcelino, E. (2000). Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino
Psychology): A legacy of Virgilio G. Enriquez. Asian Journal of Social Psychology Vol.3: 49–71
Puehringer, S., & Oetsch, W. O. (2017). Right-wing populism and market-fundamentalism: Two mutually
reinforcing threats to democracy in the 21st century (№59). ICAE Working Paper Series.
Reyes D. (1994). Reinventing government and bureaucracy in the Philippines old themes and a new image?. Philippines Journal of Public Administration XXXVIII (2). P.77–97.
Reyes, V. (2016). Dysfunctional bureaucracy, corruption and weak rule of law: A case study of policy implementation in the Philippines. In J. Quah (Ed.), The Role of the Public Bureaucracy in Policy Implementation in Five ASEAN Countries (Integration through Law:The Role of Law and the Rule of Law in ASEAN Integration, pp. 233–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316340653.006
Romero S. Jr. (2003). Transforming the bureaucracy for development with democracy. Draft paper for the Department of Political Science-CHED Textbook Project
Silberman B. S. (1993). Cages of reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sto. Tomas P. (2003). A question of numbers. In introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader. 2nd Edition, edited by V. Bautista, M.C. Alfiler , Reyes D, and P. Tapales, 3–11. Quezon City; College of Public Administration, University of the Philippines
Svara JH. 2006. Introduction: politicians and administrators in the political process — a review of themes and issues in the literature.
International Journal of Public Administration 29(12): 953–976
Varela A. (1993). The culture perspective in organization theory: relevance to Philippine public administration. In introduction to Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader. 2nd Edition, edited by V. Bautista, M.C. Alfiler , Reyes D, and P. Tapales, 3–11. Quezon City; College of Public Administration, University of the Philippines
Weber M. (1968). Economy and society. G. Roth , C. Wittich, eds. University of California Press, Berkely.
This paper was written in partial fulfillment of Sociology 101 (Introduction to Sociology) course at the University of the Philippines — Visayas.
