I
Vol. Xlll
No. 4
July-August1995
ISSN0115-9097 I
Fiscal Decentralization •
,=m,,,
,
EDITOR'S NOTE
,
., A,,.,. ,,,.. o,,.,,. ,.w
The Early Years of Code I pl"ementat'on 1
among others, the adoption of k_ economic
Govern men t Code of1991 which gave local governments expanded powers to raise local a,tdenactmet, tofappropriate revenzzes altd allocate them according to
Rosario G, Manasan
their needs so that they can have more say in the irn provemen t of their respectivc areas. In our le.ad article, Dr. Rosario G.
he enactment of the Local Government Code (LGC or the Code) of 1991 represents a major shift in local governance. It mandates the devolution to local government units (LGUs) of many functions previously discharged by central government agencies. It provides for a higher LGU share in internal revenue taxes and national wealth, It also allows LGUs greater autonomy not only in mobilizing revenue from local sources but also in allocating these resources to their various needs, Since the enactment of the LGC in 1991, significant progress has been achieved in devolving per_nnel, assets and functions from national government agencies to LGUs. At the same time, theLGU share in internal revenue taxes (most commonly referred to as the internal revenue allotment or IRA) has more than doubled relative to GNP and in real per capita terms between 1991 and '1993. However, it cannot be overemphasized that, to a large extent, the Code provisions are enabling rather than executory. The broader powers and responsibilities provided by the Code are meaningless unless LGUs seize the initiative and take full advantage of the opportunities it offers. Thus, it is imperative that the overall policy environment revenue generation
LGUs whichshowsthat much is yet to be done to fulfill the Code's potential Dr Manasan has shown, quite succinctly, that the intergovernmental transfers to LGUs through theinternalrewmueallotment had a substitutive,
regime.
First, while the increase
sufficient to cover the cost of devolved a mismatch of the financial resources
in the IRA (in the aggregate)
were transferred to LGUs as a result of the 1991 LGC at the micro level. Thus, the increase in the IRA share of some LGUs is not enough to finance the functions devolved to them. Second, the IRA is a block grant. As such, the devolved functions will have to compete with other spending priorities of lo.cal officials. Third, as a corollary, the possibility that the higher IRA will substitute for local revenue effort cannot be discounted. International experience as well as a priori expectation based on the economic literature on intergovernmental transfers do not provide clear guidance on this matter. or- Payc
l 0
stimulative,
clihlateofthelocaloilindustry.Thepricing becominga supply and dentand decision,has becomea battleof sentimentsas canbesee.nin thearticleson of oil, instead of
pp- 2, 3, and 4. A tall deregulation of the industry, many agree,would be the best
solution.
WHAT'S INSIDE 2 The government's dilemma: to increase or not to increase
is
functions, it canno t be denied that there is and the expenditure responsibilities that
rather than a
effect with regard to revenue,collection. Another raging concern is the political
provides the appropriate incentives in support of greater local and efficient resource allocation at the local level.
At this point, it is not yet clear how LGUs will behave in terms of mobilizing local resources and budgeting the funds that are available to them in the new decentralized
Manasan, research fellow at PIDS, presents an analysis of the fiscal performance of
' oil prices
3 Deregulating the local oilindustry
4 The political economy of oil 6 Privatization: the World Bank perspective
7 From planned to market
8
economy: Indochina in transition Agenda for development