You are on page 1of 35

2nd

Term

2011-12

Old T heory, New Century, Same Issues: Alternative Development in the Philippine Context

By Asuncion M. Sebastian
On the 6th of December 2011

To Dr. Julio C. Teehankee


For DVS530P Development Theories, Policies, and Practice
D e L a S a l l e U n i v e r s i t y , P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e D e p a r t m e n t

Abstract
This paper examines the civil society organizations (CSOs) in the Philippinesthe more traditional ones such as the non-government organizations (NGOs), the peoples organizations (POs), and the cooperatives, as well as the merging new subsectors of microfinance institutions and social enterprisesin the light of alternative development theory and assesses their performance using mainly John Friedmanns framework. Despite the lack of empirical evidence, cases and experiences have been cited to support that the CSOs have contributed in promoting development in the country. This paper also argues that the theory is still relevant and in fact has been labeled by other names or buzzwords in the modern development programs. The paper also argues that the application of theory is far from perfect but the theory itself still holds sound principles so much so that alternative development agents continue to evolve in terms of institutional forms, development approach, products and services, and dynamics and relations with one another and with other institutions. Such evolution is an indication of civil society organizations adaptation to their changing context and clients needs, which makes them relevant still to the present time.

Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1 Research Questions ............................................................................................................................. 2 Rationale and Contributions of the Study.................................................................................. 3 Theoretical Background ......................................................................................................................... 3 Definition of Alternative Development ....................................................................................... 3 Conceptual Framework...................................................................................................................... 6 The Role of Institutions...................................................................................................................... 9 The Role of the NGOs ........................................................................................................................10 Critique of Alternative Development .........................................................................................12 The Philippine Context..........................................................................................................................13 The Civil Society Organizations....................................................................................................13 NGOs....................................................................................................................................................15 POs .......................................................................................................................................................16 Cooperatives ....................................................................................................................................16 Critique of the CSOs ...........................................................................................................................18 NGOs....................................................................................................................................................18 POs .......................................................................................................................................................20 Cooperatives ....................................................................................................................................20 The Emerging Subsectors ...............................................................................................................23 Application of Alternative Development Principles .......................................................24 Old Approach, New Implementing Agents..........................................................................26 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................28 Works Cited

Table of Contents

Old Theory, New Century, Same Issues: Alternative Development in the Philippine Context
Introduction
The three development decades were a huge, irresponsible experiment that, in the experience of a world-majority, failed miserably. Esteva, 1985 This statement was quoted in Nederveen Pieterse (1998, 2010) in response to the mainstream paradigm of growth that had dominated societies since after the war. In the 1940s, development was understood as economic growth and industrialization in the Modernization thought. Then in the 1950s, it became economic growth and political and social modernization. (Nederveen Pieterse, Development Theory, 2010) During the 1960s and 1970s, growth was associated with income increases of the affluent groupthe top 10 percent to 40 percent income earnersalbeit without trickling down effect to the lower-income segment. (Martinussen, 1997) At this time, attention was given to production and technocracy, while basic needs of people were neglected. The poor were invisible entities in statistics. Thus, the advocates of alternative development thought that more attention to inequality and poverty issues was needed. Consequently, development shifted from macroeconomic growth to poverty alleviation strategies. The poor then became passive target beneficiaries. Eventually, with the evolution of the alternative development thought, they poor are acknowledged as active human beings who can take care of themselves without external support. (Martinussen, 1997)

Friedman (1992) traced back the history of alternative development way back in the 1960s during the emergence of social movements aimed at advancing human rights and green opportunities and peace. Considered a new paradigm, alternative development brought out the new idea of basic needs and the environmental resources that sustain the system, where the concept of self-reliance, importance of people rather than economics, endogeneity and ecological sustainability became elements to the construct the third system. In contrast to other existing paradigms, alternative development is participatory and people-centereddevelopment from below. (Nederveen Pieterse, My Paradigm or Yours? Alternative Development, Post-Development, Reflexive Development, 1998) In the 1980s and 1990s, decentralization became a global trend as a result of market-led economies and neoliberal agenda, which aimed for greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness. This decentralization trend, regarded as a way of moving away from state control, eventually worked to the poors social and political advantage, further promoting alternative developmentan unintended result of decentralization. Local people became more involved in decision-making and participation, which is key element of development. Hence, this move away from the top-down approach in development has been associated in particular with the growth of non-governmental organizations (or NGOs). (Willis, 2005)

Research Questions
More than four decades since its conceptualization as an approach alternative to the mainstream development, alternative development is worth examining particularly in the Philippine context. Thus, this study aims to answer the following questions: How have the agents of alternative development contributed to the achievement of development goals?

Page 2 of 30

Is alternative development still relevant today or has it simply led to another theory and strategy that people hope would be more effective in solving the current development issues? If indeed alternative development is still relevant, how can its implementation be made better or more effective?

Rationale and Contributions of the Study


As the primary agent of alternative development, the civil society sector in the Philippines is large and vibrant by developing country standards (Asian Development Bank, 2007). However, there is no study yet assessing its performance using the theoretical framework of alternative development developed by Friedmann (1992). This paper thus aims to contribute to the body of knowledge by examining the civil society sector and its various subsectors in the country using the said framework. Secondly, this paper attempts to assess the microfinance institutions and social enterprises as agents of alternative development. In the past, these organizations are either viewed as the new business models or the new development approach, but not necessarily in the context of alternative development. Finally, this paper argues and aims to prove that alternative development has worked and continues to work in the Philippine context yet in more, varying organizational forms today.

Theoretical Background

Definition of Alternative Development


According to Martinussen (1997), alternative development is different from other theories in terms of goals and agents. Alternative development redefined

Page 3 of 30

development goals from economic growth to human development, and focused on the civil society as development agent. As for the methodology, Nederveen Pieterse (1998, 2010) emphasized alternative developments being participatory, endogenous, self-reliant, and ecologically sustainable. These contours are hard to measure but the whole point of development as proposed by the alternative development is to beyond getting standards and numbers as was done in the previous economic growth-driven strategies. He furthered that development is not about growth but about social transformation, coming up with a comparative table of growth-centered and social transformation-centered growth models (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Development Models (Nederveen Pieterse, 1998)
Page 4 of 30

There have been few attempts though to theoretically develop alternative development and Nederveen Pieterse (1998, 2010) explained why. For one, it is practice oriented rather than theoretically inclined. Second, since it builds on local knowledge, abstract expert knowledge would not count much. For this same reason, literature on the topic is scattered local sets of knowledge with no overarching reflection. Finally, alternative development is known by other namesappropriate development, participatory development, people-centered development, human scale development, grassroots/bottom-up development/development from below, another development, and autonomous development/ local developmentwhich is an indication of the fluidity of the concept. Despite these limitations, alternative development has been defined and described in various yet similar ways. Perhaps the earliest work that legitimized and universalized that alternative development concept was the 1975 Dag Hammarsjkold Report, which highlighted its being geared to the satisfaction of needs, endogenous and self-reliant (participative), and in harmony with the environment (sustainable). Other definitions are as follows: Development is a process by which the members of a society increase their personal and institutional capacities to mobilize and manage resources to produce sustainable and justly distributed improvements in their quality of life consistent with their own aspiration. (Korten, 1990) A people-centered development in harmony with the environment, requiring a more self-reliant effort than in the pastself-reliance through full participation in a system that perpetuates dependence. Cocoyoc Declaration, 1974 cited in Friedmann (1992). A theoretical framework outside the well-known neoclassical and Keynesian doctrinesan ideology that rejects a system driven by relentless competition, forced to expand production continuously regardless of cost,
Page 5 of 30

while bringing ever-new technologies on the market. (It) addresses the condition of the poor directly(and) argues for their involvement in actions that will lead to their own empowerment. (It) therefore pursues structural changes at the national level as well as local meliorative action. (Friedmann, 1992) As a society-led theory, alternative development is often associated with community development, local economic development and micro regional development...alternative development has also been linked to the idea of de-globalization or de-linking local economies to the global economy and the return to indigenization. (Bello, 2002)

Conceptual Framework
For Friedmann (1992), alternative development must begin locally but it cannot end there and that state collaboration is needed. In his diagram (see Figure 2), he showed the four domains of social practicethe state, the market or corporate economy, the political community, and the civil societyand their various degrees of institutionalizations and forms of institutions that shape the behavior within their respective spheres. Figure 2:The Four Domains of Social Practice (Friedmann, 1992)
Page 6 of 30

His model is particularly different from other models in that it separated the state and the political community, thereby creating four different arenas instead of the three traditional spheres of state, market, and society. While civil associations are included in the civil society domain, social movements, which formed the foundations of NGOs, are classified under the political community arena. Moreover, in his model, religious institutions are treated as the common ground between the state and the civil society when in most, if not all nations, there is clear separation of the state and the church. According to Friedmann (1992), the vertical line indicated the axis linking the state and the market, which had dominated the history of political economy. He thus proposed to shift emphasis to the horizontal axis connecting civil society and the political community. Consistent with Polyanis (1977, in Martinussen) argument that economic relations and economic activity are deeply embedded in the matrix of social and cultural relations, Friedmann asserted that: 1. Societal relations are more important determinants of human behavior than incentive structures of mainstream economists 2. It is necessary to probe into the social-cultural institutions of the civil society, beginning with the household The four arenas are then presented in another way in Figure 3 to highlight the role of household and of societal relations in shaping human relations.
Page 7 of 30

Figure 3: The Whole-Economy Model (Friedmann, 1992) This framework highlights the following features that distinguish the poor from the corporate economy and the sphere of the state: 1. The mergence of economic activities and other life-generating forces, geared toward creating livelihood for the households, and not for capital accumulation 2. The interdependence between the rationality of economic reasoning and the moral relations embedded in kinship, friendship, and neighborhood, thus making it necessary to probe into the social-cultural institutions of civil society in understanding the economic processes 3. The general capability of the poor and resource-weak householdsthose who may not succeed in participating in the market economy and are thus living in subsistence economyof making the best possible out of their current situation In the Philippine setting, the subsistence economy may be witnessed in the tradition of bayanihan, labor equity in exchange for goods, barter of goods, paluwagan or rotating credit, among others,

Page 8 of 30

The Role of Institutions


For while the establishment and strengthening of autonomous local communities are both a means to promote human wellbeing and as an end in itself (Korten), these autonomous local communities cannot be created and sustained without the state collaboration (Friedmann, 1992). Alternative development cannot walk away from the role of the state. Education, health care and infrastructure cannot be left to local alternative development. Economic development requires state action. More recent alternative approaches argue that a strong civil society needs a strong state (Brohman 1996, Friedmann 1992). (Nederveen Pieterse, My Paradigm or Yours? Alternative Development, Post-Development, Reflexive Development, 1998) Bebbington and Bebbington (2001) also argued that the state could provide the legal environment and structure that encourage alternative development, such as decentralization of power to local government, at which level the groups can better participate in the planning and implementation activities. Nederveen Pieterse (1998, 2010) also emphasized the role of institutions in alternative development. He supported Kortens (1990) argument that the heart of development is institution and politics, and Sanyals (1994) point that alternative development has not found institutional support because agencies, bureaucracies, and ministries cannot handle sharp discontinuities in principles and practices. (Nederveen Pieterse, My Paradigm or Yours? Alternative Development, Post- Development, Reflexive Development, 1998) Bebbington and Bebbington (2001) also brought the market back into development. They argued that economic development remains important to the communitiesin fact, collective actions were said to be more sustainable in areas where group participation was coupled with economic development (in the form of access to markets and/or capital). They suggested that this phenomenon could probably be
Page 9 of 30

explained by accumulation of wealth or capital preventing migration. In essence, the authors did not see the exclusivity between growth and social transformation, as presented by Nederveen Pieterse in Table 1.

The Role of the NGOs


According to McIlwaine (1998 in Willis), while there is little precise agreement as to which activities should be included within civil society, particularly in terms of political and economic associations, they generally refer to voluntary organizations, community groups, trade unions, church groups, cooperatives, business, professional, and philanthropic organizations, and a range of other NGOs.Although civil society is usually defined as made up of these various groups, there has also been a tendency to view NGOs as primary vehicles or agents of civil society. The NGOs are often regarded as the answer to the perceived limitations of the state or the market in facilitating development. Since the NGOs work with the grassroots, they can provide services that are much more appropriate to the local communities. They can also easily draw on locals knowledge and use local materials, when necessary. Finally, since the NGOs are embedded in the communities, empowerment, participation, and democratization are more likely to happen and accountability to the locals, enforced. (Willis, 2005) While the number of NGOs has increased rapidly due to the amount of funds channeled to them and due to lack of other support mechanisms for communities in need, determining their number is quite difficult. This is because there are varying registration practices across the globe. In 2000, however, the United Nations Development Program estimated that there were 145,405 NGOs worldwide. (Willis, 2005) The NGOs have been acknowledged as significant service providers for communities, particularly in housing, healthcare, and education. They are also known to be instruments of empowerment, the kind that get people to do what they
Page 10 of 30

want, and of participation or the involvement of people in the development projects. However, it is also recognized that the NGOs can only do so muchthey can only provide a context wherein the process of empowerment is possible but ultimately, individuals decide and choose for themselves. Even participation has different levels, which influence the roles of the NGOs: appraisal (NGOs get information from the local communities); agenda setting (NGOs consult the local in planning and policy making); efficiency (NGOs engage the locals in actual project implementation); and empowerment (NGOs facilitate local participation and contribution to development of democracy). (Willis, 2005) Korten (1990) came up with general typology of NGOs: 1. Voluntary organizations that pursue a social mission based on shared values 2. Public service contractors that are market-oriented nonprofit businesses serving public purposes 3. Peoples organizations representing members interests 4. Governmental non-governmental organizations that are into creations of government and serve as instruments of government policy. Likewise, Friedmann (1992) drew his own typology of NGOs: 1. Popular organizations that are non-profit, non-political groups from within the civil society of the poor, mostly funded by the membership dues 2. Professional groups composed of educated staff working on disempowered communities and funded by private donations 3. Private voluntary organizations that are well-funded foreign NGOs with global operations 4. Non-profit, socially oriented, business organizations, which designs, manufactures, and sells village technologies. On the other hand, Bebbington and Bebbington (2001) came up with two types of NGOs:
Page 11 of 30

1. The informal civil society groups that emerged from bottom up, are more inclusive, and are thus more often viewed as the source of alternative development 2. The formal NGOs that normally employ top-down approachsomething that led the authors to emphasize that not all groups can be vehicles to alternative development This point is consistent with Nederveen Pieterses statement: given the wide variety of NGOs, it is quite inadequate to describe alternative development as development-by-NGOs. He said that the NGO ideology is organization-led Bebbington and Bebbingtons second type of NGOswhich is opposed to alternative developments participatory and endogenous features. (Nederveen Pieterse, Development Theory, 2010)

Critique of Alternative Development


Bebbington and Bebbington (2001) pointed out three weaknesses of alternative development: 1) it understates the diversity among popular organizations and their ideas about development alternatives; 2) it pays insufficient attention to the economic dimensions of alternatives; and 3) it understates the potential importance of the local state. The last point, however, has been countered by Friedmann in his assertion that state collaboration in needed in the process of alternative development (although he did not specify at what level). The authors cited cases of groups having preference in partnering with other groupsin which case, participation ceases to be participation and instead the group dynamics becomes that of political battle/alliance. And should there be a qualified group, the next issue will be, how will collective aspirations emerge from the diversity of interests and orientations that exist within and among popular organizations? (Bebbington & Bebbington, 2001)

Page 12 of 30

They also illustrated that people have various notions of what development is and thus have different priorities and required interventions. For some, access to market is more important than agricultural technology and equipment; still for others, they want education more than anything, which indeed eventually enabled them to better manage their finances and run their own livelihood and market-oriented activities. The same issue, however, still stands: how will collective aspirations emerge from the diversity of interests and orientations that exist within and among popular organizations? (Bebbington & Bebbington, 2001) Cooke and Kothari (2001) in Willis (2005) called the participatory process as the new tyranny in development work because it requires time and energy of local people to participate, which could have been spent in productive, income- generating activities and/or in domestic chores. They also criticized the process that community participation does not always involve all sectors of the population and does not always lead to empowerment. Finally, the authors also argued that focus on the micro level could often lead to a failure to recognize much wider structures of disadvantage and oppression. Willis (2005) also pointed out that development managers might succumb to pressures, particularly from donor agencies that require quantifiable results and tangible outcomes, rather than addressing the issues of inequality, which are not easily measured. Dependence on external assistance also means that many projects are more likely to react to the requirements and favored sectors of donors than to the needs of the local people (Hulme and Edwards, 1997 in Willis).

The Philippine Context


The Civil Society Organizations
The Asian Development Bank (2007) concedes that the civil society sector in the Philippines is large and vibrant by developing country standards, even though most of the large number of organizations are small, struggle financially, and have weak
Page 13 of 30

capacity. The number of civil society organizations (CSOs) is estimated at 500,000, but only a few are registered as non-stock NGOs. (Asian Development Bank, 2007) In analyzing alternative development in the Philippines, it would be more appropriate to consider the whole CSO sector that aimed at helping the poor population and not limit it solely to the NGOs. There are three general subsectors of CSOs: NGOs, POs, and the cooperatives. Figure 4: Major CSO Subsectors Function NGOs Provision of wide range of services POs Promotion of public interest and provision of public goods and services Members on voluntary basis Leadership from within Members Non-profit Estimated at 100,000 primary POs and 300 secondary POs Cooperatives Provision of public goods and services Members on voluntary basis Leadership from within Members For-profit 18,484*

Group served Management

Ownership Financial operation Number

Organizations, communities, individuals Middle-class led or managed, with full-time staff complement None Non-profit Estimates range from 15,000- 30,000 to 34,000- 68,000

Based on Mapping and Analyzing Philippine Civil Society Organizations by Abao, 2011 *From Cooperative Development Authority, 2010

Further, Friedmann (1992) noted that the Philippines may have its own definition of NGOs, which may not necessarily be true in other countries. Quoting Garilao (1987), he described the Philippine NGO sector thus: Sector is not used loosely here. It is used precisely to denote that NGOs as a group have a distinct socio-economic-political function. As such, they can
Page 14 of 30

be juxtaposed with the traditional sectors of the economy, the public and the priavte sectors.As NGOs expand and professionalize their services, and attempt to bring in more of their population from the amrgins of society, they are in fact creating a new service industrythe social development industry. (Friedmann, 1992) Such definition is in contrast to Friedmanns model, where potilical arena is distinct from the economic and social. It seems that the Philippine society has merged unknowingly albeit effectively Friedmanns political community and civil society arenas. NGOs Majority of the NGOs in the country are engaged in education, training and human resource development, and community development. A significant number is also engaged in sustainable development and environmental protection, health and nutrition, enterprise and livelihood development, social service, microfinance, and cooperative development. (Tuano, Philippine Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): Contributions, Capacities, Challenges, 2011) In NGO reports, they claimed that they are most competent in areas involving deepening of knowledge and changing the orientation of individuals, strengthening organizational capacities of groups, and pushing for policy changes. (Tuano, Philippine Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): Contributions, Capacities, Challenges, 2011) Unsurprisingly, Serrano (1994, in Tuano) cited two characteristics of NGOs in the Philippines that distinguish them from others in Asia: 1) many NGOs have advocacy and lobbying components working at both the national and local government levels and in both legislative and executive levels; in fact, in many instances, the NGOs have won policy success; and 2) there are numerous networks and associations that have been established to coordinate the work the work of non-governmental groups.

Page 15 of 30

In the past decade or so, the NGOs with community organizing work have decreased in number while those with microfinance and/or social enterprise components increased; likewise, the number of corporate foundations has also increased over the same period. POs POs are usually defined as membership-based organizations formed largely on a voluntary basis and function as community-sector or issue-based groups at the grassroots. The POs in the Philippines comprise the 14 basic sectors identified as marginalized groups (i.e. farmers, workers, women, urban poor, and social sectors) and undertake various activities such as provision of basic services (health, education and nutrition, water and sanitation), environmental services, and participation in local government affairs. (Tuano, A Review of the People's Organizations Sector: The Necessity of Strengthening Partnerships and Exchanges, 2011) The strength of the POs lies in their organizational leadership that represents well the concerns of the members in the local and national councils, as well as in international agencies such as the United Nations. They have also been successful in influencing the crafting of laws and policies that benefit their served sectors, among them are the legislation in agrarian reform, urban land reform and socialized housing, fisheries and aquatic reform, and labor rights and welfare. There have also been cases of successful programs implementation for poverty reduction and the POs attribute them to community mobilization prior to implementation itself, support to the PO leaders in terms of moral and resources, and organizational skills. Cooperatives According to the Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008, a cooperative is an autonomous and duly registered association of persons, with a common bond of interest, who have voluntarily joined together to achieve their social, economic, and cultural needs and aspirations by making equitable contributions to the capital required, patronizing their products and services and accepting a fair share of the
Page 16 of 30

risks and benefits of the undertaking in accordance with universally accepted cooperative principles. (RA 9520, Ch. 1, Art. 3) The number of cooperatives in the country shows interesting pattern over the years: from over 3,000 in 1985, peaking to 77,701 in 2008, then dropping to over 18,000 in 2010 (see Figure 5). Of this number, 77 percent are multipurpose cooperatives, 9 percent are credit cooperatives, and 5 percent are service. (Cooperative Development Authority, 2010) Figure 5: Number of Cooperatives in the Philippines
Sources: Cooperative Development Authority website and Mina (2011)

The growth in cooperatives between 1985 and 1993 could be attributed to the support extended to the subsector by the Aquino government. The drop in 2009, however, may have been caused by the issuance of a circular requiring cooperatives to register and confirm with the authority within a certain periodwith entailed submission of articles of cooperation, bylaws and latest audited financial statementswhich many cooperatives failed to comply with. As of 2010, the cooperative sector had an asset base worth Php158 billion (see Figure 6) and a membership of over 7 million.
Page 17 of 30

Figure 6: Total Assets of Cooperative, 2010


Source: Cooperative Development Authority, 2010

The cooperatives consider their financial assets and political representation their primary strength. Four of the five party-list organizations supported by cooperatives consistently won in the past four elections. Among the laws passed included the cooperative code in 2008, expansion of tax exemption incentives for cooperatives, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms Act, and strengthening of crop insurance program. (Mina, 2011)

Critique of the CSOs Using Friedmanns Alternative Development Framework


NGOs Clearly, the areas of competence identified by the NGOs indicate their provision of basic services to the communities, as defined in alternative development. Moreover, the NGOs have crossed over Friedmanns line that delineates civil associations and political community in that the NGOs have had remarkable success in policy advocacies. However, the NGOs are also unable to serve some requirements or features of alternative development. That the development NGOs are concentrated in large, urban centers, with high correlation between NGO density and average family income in the region, shows that the NGOs are created mainly by the middle class. (Tuano, Philippine Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): Contributions, Capacities, Challenges, 2011) Although transportation and communication infrastructures that enhance efficiency of operations may explain this phenomenon (Tuano, Philippine Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): Contributions, Capacities, Challenges, 2011), add to that banking and other enterprise support
Page 18 of 30

services, still, it runs counter to the theorists proposition: that the NGOs, because they work with the grassroots, would know the appropriate interventions better, use local resources more, and encourage participative process more effectively. Tuano (2011) recognized the need for the NGOs to assess their program and project impacts and outcomes. Assessment reports of the NGOs either focus on organizational status (e.g. employment generation, women in management) or indicate economic performance, which is very growth-led in nature and not transformation-led as espoused by alternative development. In the absence of impact assessments, the public has a general perception that the NGOs have limited success in their economic projects due to their choice of intervention as well as poor targeting strategies. Worse, the NGOs, specifically the community organizing ones, have been criticized by some members of the development community for not being able to provide tangible socio-economic benefits to marginalized areas (as in the case of microfinance and social enterprise NGOs). Some people, however, defended, that physical asset transfers (i.e. agrarian reform, urban housing, and ancestral domain titles) have been undertaken in the most organized communities in the country. (Tuano, Philippine Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): Contributions, Capacities, Challenges, 2011) Finally, the NGOs are generally dependent on the declining volume of grant funding, especially from abroad. (Tuano, A Review of the People's Organizations Sector: The Necessity of Strengthening Partnerships and Exchanges, 2011) This condition threatens not only the institutional sustainability of NGOs but also their capacity to facilitate endogenous development, as external fund sources can always make demands that may not necessarily be according to the needs of the local communities. As pointed out by Willis (2005), dependence on external assistance also means that many projects are more likely to react to the requirements and favored sectors of donors than to the needs of the local people.
Page 19 of 30

POs Similar to the NGOs, the POs are able to provide the basic needs of the communities they serve as well as environmental protection/management, as prescribed by alternative development. As well, the POs are also able to represent their sectors in the political community such that a number of laws and policies have been passed as a result of the PO effortsin this sense, the POs have very well connected Friedmanns horizontal axis in his four-domain framework. That the POs are serving the 14 marginalized sectors in the country is an indicator of their ability to reach the poor and thus their serving their raison d'tre. This condition also facilitates the participative and endogenous process involved in alternative development. However, as in the case of the NGOs, the POs also need to assess their programs in terms of outcomes and impact to the beneficiaries, beyond the passage of laws and policies. Perhaps, even the impact of these laws and policies should be examined to determine how and to what extent the local communities benefitted from them. The POs, like the NGOs but perhaps in a lesser degree, are also experiencing financial constraints, as more resources are allocated to service provision and the need for organization capacity building de-emphasized. At the present, many organizations rely on their internally generated funds, including membership and service fees (which are not applicable in most NGOs). (Tuano, A Review of the People's Organizations Sector: The Necessity of Strengthening Partnerships and Exchanges, 2011) Cooperatives One of the major achievements of the cooperative movement is gaining representation in the congressa sign of political empowerment of the civil society. Again, this fact highlights Friedmanns political community as an arena conquered by this civil society group.
Page 20 of 30

Another is the asset base or financial strength of the cooperatives, which set it apart from the NGOs and POs whose sustainability becomes an issue with the dwindling funds from donors here and abroad. However, the financial strength could very well be its weakness. As they say, rich cooperatives with poor members. One wonders where in the economy the billion-peso worth of asset lies. Some people defended that although the cooperatives become rich and the members remain poor, the organization is not amiss in using its surplus to expand and reach out to more poor members of the community. (Mina, 2011) On the other hand, cooperatives are also criticized for not attracting the poorest members of the communityfor one, the membership fee and capital build-up required readily exclude the poor from the organization. According to Mina (2011), while it is true that cooperatives are not successful in attracting the D-E households, it is because (they) require a different strategy for poverty alleviation. Some quarters also claim, albeit without figures or studies, that many cooperatives are cooperatives only in name, and not in practice. Like the NGOs and POs as well, the cooperatives have weak documentation, which include impact assessment of their programs. Thus, there is no established evidence yet showing how cooperatives have contributed to poverty alleviation. Although the membership has been increasing (peaking at 5 million in 2003), there is no guarantee that the members belong to the targeted marginalized members of the communities. Figure 7 summarizes the features of the civil society organizations based on alternative development principles.
Page 21 of 30

Figure 7: Summary of CSOs Alternative Development Features Grassroots operation Provision of basic needs Participative process Self-reliance Sustainability (ecological management) NGOs No Yes No No Yes POs Yes Yes Yes No/Yes Yes Cooperatives No/Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Overall, the various subsectors of the civil society in the Philippines are able to achieve empowerment in the political community as proposed by Friedmann. However, there is lack of documentation or evidence of their achievement in the promoting economic activities and/or growth among the poor communities. In fact, in some cases, their ability to reach and serve these target communities is in question and consequently, their ability to facilitate endogenous and self-reliant processes. The assessment of the civil society subsectors often focus on institutional capacity rather than on their outcomes and impacts. From these assessment reports, common concerns among these organizations have been identified. First is the issue of sustainability, with the organizations relative dependence on external sources of funds and limited capacity to generate their own income. Sustainability in terms of institutionsuccession of leaders and attraction of members, who are at present mostly on voluntary basisis also an issue. Second concern is governance. Many organizations are driven by the executive directors while the board is perceived to be simply rubber stamps. Finally, these organizations recognize their need to build their capacities, specifically in the area of advocacy, lobbying, media relations, public relations, and research; fundraising, personnel, and governance. (Abao, 2011)

Page 22 of 30

The abovementioned needs of the CSOs are apparent indicators of their mindsets fundraising (external dependence) instead of income-generation (internal generation of funds or financial independence), lobbying and public relations (political) instead of socio-economic innovations, advocacy and research instead of impact monitoring and measurement. Friedmann may be right after all in proposing separate spheres for political community and civic associations because as exhibited by the CSOs in the Philippines, there seems to be a distinct operations or functions for these two arenas (contrary to Garilaos claim), in contrast to the commonly used state-market-society model. According to Abao (2011), there is high level of cooperation among the NGOs, POs, and cooperatives, as evident in the number of federations and coalitions in the country. Likewise, these civil society subsectors maintain a major interface with the business sectors, what with the growing number of corporate foundations. However, there seems to be tension between civil society and government, particularly in the issue of regulation. Although civil society recognizes the need for it to prevent the proliferation of fly-by-night organizations, they contend that they should remain self-regulating to maintain the spirit of voluntary and non- government functions. Still, there are some groups that want more regulation from the government. This kind of interface of civil society and the government in the Philippine context challenges what Friedmann, Bebbington and Bebbington, and Nederveen Pieterse asserted: that state collaboration is necessary in the creation and sustainability of development. This issue could be a separate discourse altogether that would be of valuable research interest.

The Emerging Subsectors


If the NGOs, POs, and cooperatives have made a considerable headway in promoting political empowerment of the marginalized groups and connecting them to the political community arena, somebody must be working on Friedmanns civil
Page 23 of 30

association and the corporate or market economy spheres. Where these traditional civil organizations are weak, the microfinance institutions and social enterprises are strong. The microfinance methodology from Bangladeshsmall, uncollateralized loans, with weekly payments spread over at least six months, extended to the poor to finance their micro enterpriseswas first adopted in the Philippines in the 1980s. It grew rapidly in the 1990s, and was recognized as an affective mechanism for poverty alleviation in 2000s, with even the formal banking system adopting it. On the other hand, the concept of social entrepreneurship came later in the 1990s and gained popularity beginning the 2000s. According to Nicholls (2006), the general goals of social enterprises include the provision of goods and services, which the market or public sector is either unwilling or unable to provide; development of skills; creation of employment; and social integration of the excluded. Among the specific activities of social enterprises are poverty alleviation through empowerment, such as the microfinance movement; health care; education and training, including widening of participation and the democratization of knowledge transfer; environmental preservation and sustainable development; community regeneration; and advocacy and campaigning, such as fair trade and human rights promotion. (Nicholls, 2006) Essentially, these activities are the very same elements of alternative development. Dacanay (2011) estimated that there are 30,000 social enterprises (with the poor as primary stakeholders); included in this figure are some 500 microfinance institutions. Application of Alternative Development Principles

Tuano (2011) reported that the decline in community organizing NGOs was coupled with the rise in NGOs with microfinance and social enterprise components and that the former was criticized for not being able to provide tangible socio-economic
Page 24 of 30

benefits to marginalized areas as in the case of the latter. Although there is no empirical evidence supporting this explanation, there could be some truth in itas expressed by Cooke and Kothari (2001) in Willis (2005), the participatory process requires time and energy of local people, which could have been spent in productive, income-generating activities and/or in domestic chores, and if people do not get anything in return right away or at least enjoy the immediate perceived benefit of participating, then chances are they, as rational beings, will not stay for long. In their study, Bebbington and Bebbington (2000) also observed that the most successful initiatives of the participatory groups, aside from the literacy training, was the organization of village banks (which is a mechanism for micro credit). (p.14) In contrast to the NGOs, microfinance institutions and social enterprises are able to deliver services with immediate impact as far as the beneficiaries/members/clients are concernedcash on hand in the form of microloans, insurance with cash benefits, financially or economically rewarding transactions and business partnerships, among others. In terms of the alternative development principles, the microfinance institutions and social enterprises could pass the test. Many of these organizations are deliberately targeting the marginalized communities by using various poverty index tools to prevent leakage to the better-off groups. In terms of providing basic needs, many of them have multi-product offering, going beyond credit and financial services (although there has been debate that access to financial services is indeed a basic need, if not a human right)providing business skills and livelihood training, medical assistance, and some even water and power supply in communities. And while their approach to economic and social development is often top-down, the endogeneity factor comes in when these microfinance institutions and social enterprises tap on their clients innate talent and skills (e.g. sewing, food processing) to help them become productive and be part of the mainstream market. They also use local knowledge in designing more appropriate and responsive products and services.
Page 25 of 30

There is a big room for improvement though in the area of ecological management and participation and empowerment. Further, since these organizations approach is at micro level, they tend to overlook the much wider structures of disadvantage and oppression. (Willis, 2005) At present, the microfinance institutions and social enterprises try to bring their intervention to a higher level by working on the supply chainthat is, from sourcing of raw materials and other factors of production to the distribution of goods to the marketto integrate the marginalized into the formal markets and enable them to achieve growth in the process. Still, their efforts have not reached the level of policy-makingfor example, that will correct the structures that have excluded the marginalized in the market economy in the first place. Referring to Friedmanns whole-economy model, one may hypothesize that while the traditional NGOs, POs, and cooperatives have bridged the civil society and the political community, the emerging microfinance institutions and social enterprises have linked civil society with corporate/market economy. Old Approach, New Implementing Agents

One may asked if indeed it is accurate to brand microfinance institutions and social enterprises as emerging subsectors of civil society. Although not all of these organizations are NGOs, they could very well fit into Kortens category of public service contractors that are market-oriented non-profit businesses serving public purposes and Friedmanns non-profit, socially oriented, business organizations, which designs, manufactures, and sells village technologies. Further, in Nederveen Pieterses (1998) development model, the author identified synergies of society, government, and business as one of the agencies of social transformation-driven development, which are essentially microfinance institutions and social enterprises that use business models and principles in addressing societal issues. In the same model, too, he mentioned micro credit as one of the methods of social transformation. Therefore the form that microfinance institutions and social enterprises have taken on is new neither in the light of civil society
Page 26 of 30

organizations nor in the context of alternative development. Perhaps the other typologies of NGOs have just dominated the earlier period of development and now the other forms are beginning to gain popularity. Economic growth of local communitieswhich can be translated into Nederveen Pieterses modernization from within and of traditionis one area neglected by the more traditional development agents, although theoretically, this element has been incorporated in the design and framework of alternative development. Either that or the agents have mistakenly treated economic growth as something absolutely outside the realm of social transformation when in fact growth may and should be a logical consequence of social transformation, or at least, something that may be achieved side by side with social transformation. Consequently, alternative development has been criticized for the insufficient attention (it pays) to the economic dimensions of alternatives (Bebbington & Bebbington, 2001), which is now being addressed by the microfinance institutions and social enterprises. Institution-wise, one of the acknowledged strengths of the microfinance institutions and social enterprises are their financial self-sufficiency, enabling them to be independent from external fund sources and donors. As such, these organizations are able to free themselves from the pressures of meeting the quantifiable results and tangible outcomes required by the donors, which may not necessarily be consistent with the development needs of the local communities. Another is their capacity to monitor, measure, and report their performance and impacts. Therefore, although these organizations are young relative to the NGOs, POs, and cooperatives, they are able to establish their credibility in effecting socio-economic changes, sooner than these older organizations did (if at all).

Page 27 of 30

Conclusion
Based on the general assessment of the civil society sector in the Philippines, alternative development has contributed in changing the dynamics in the four domains of social practice in favor of the marginalize communities. On one hand, the NGOs, POs, and cooperatives have strengthened the civil association and political community linkage (Friedmanns x-axis in his model) by generating participation at the grassroots level and involving and empowering them via representation in the political arena. On the other hand, the microfinance institutions and social enterprises have bridged the civil society and market/corporate economy spheres by using business models in addressing poverty issues. It will also be of great research interest to document and study the impact of alternative development to provide the abovementioned claims with empirical evidence. Although the countrys poverty incidence have dropped from almost 50 percent in 1985 to 26.5 percent in 2010 and the Gini coefficient (the measure of inequality) from its peak of almost 0.51 in the late 1990s to 0.48 in 2006 (Reyes, Tabuga, & Mina, 2011), such development cannot be solely attributed to civil society initiatives. Another research area could be the relationship of the CSOs and the state. Questions would be, would the Philippine CSOs have achieved more had they worked closely with the government? Should they maintain its current distance from the state or not? Ultimately, the study should aim to prove or disprove the cited authors claim that state collaboration is necessary in the creation and sustainability of development. As a theory, alternative development still makes a lot of sense; however, its application has proven more challenging. Each subsector in the civil society has its own strengths and weaknessesthus, they can either learn from one another in
Page 28 of 30

addressing their shortcomings or collaborate with one another and build on their complementing features. Moreover, the state, at all or whichever level, will have to come in to enhance the sustainability of development efforts. The Cooperative Development Authoritys re- registration order in 2009, for example, weeded out the non-existent cooperatives. Its next step could be to police the cooperatives that do not live out their purpose, i.e. those that are cooperatives only by name. The same thing could be done to the NGOs, who have been used as tax shields by many for-profit entities without necessary functioning to create social benefits. Among the microfinance institutions and social enterprises, taxation has been a longstanding issue as well. Today, alternative development, or at least its principles, is still used in development interventions albeit it may not be called as such. Take for example the latest buzzword inclusive growth. Growth is inclusive when it allows all members of a society to participate in and contribute to the growth process on an equal basis regardless of their individual circumstances. An effective poverty reduction strategy consists of two prongs, the first being broad-based, pro-poor economic growth based on private sector incentives to create employment opportunities; and the second being public investment in basic education, health, and infrastructure. (AlI & Zhuang, 2007) (Emphasis provided by the writer to highlight the alternative development features embedded in the literature.) External donors keeping endogeneity of the process is another story though. Two things may explain this continuous application of the alternative development theory: that it is too young for the society to judge its success or failure, or that it is indeed working to the benefit of the marginalized, which is more likely the case. The application of theory is far from perfect but the theory itself still holds sound principles so much so that alternative development agents continue to evolvenot only the traditional organizations of NGOs, POs, and cooperative but also the relatively younger microfinance institutions and social enterprisesin terms of
Page 29 of 30

institutional forms, development approach, products and services, and dynamics and relations with one another and with other institutions. This evolution is an indication of civil society organizations adaptation to their changing context and clients needs, which makes them relevant still to the present time. However, this circumstance will and should not prevent the development of new and probably more effective theory, method, and/or strategy in addressing poverty and other social issues.

Page 30 of 30

Works Cited
Abao, C. V. (2011). Mapping and Analyzing Philippine Civil Society Organizations (CSOs). Civil Society Research Institute. AlI, I., & Zhuang, J. (2007 July). InclusIve Growth toward a ProsPerous asIa: PolIcy ImPlIcatIons. Economics and Research Department Working Paper Series No.97. Mandaluyong, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. Asian Development Bank. (2007). Overview of NGOs and Civil Society Philippines. Retrieved 2010 29-March from Asian Development Bank: http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Civil-Society-Briefs/PHI/CSB- PHI.pdf Bebbington, A., & Bebbington, D. (2001). Development Alternatives: Practice, Dilemmas, and Theory. Area , 33.1, 7-17. Bello, W. (2002). Deglobalization: Ideas for New World Economoy. New York, New York, USA: Zed Books. Cooperative Development Authority. (2010). Selected Statistics as of December 31, 2010. Dacanay, M. L. (2011 8-August). Social Enterprises and the Poor: Enhancing Social Entrepreneurship and Stakeholder Theory. Copenhagen, Denmark: (unpublished). Friedmann, J. (1992). Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development. Malden, Massachussetts, USA: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Korten, D. (1990). Getting to the 21st Century: Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press. Martinussen, J. (1997). Society, State, and Market A Guide to Competing Theories of Development. Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood Books. Mina, R. (2011). Philippine Cooperatives: Exploring New Frontiers. Civil Society Research Institute. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (2010). Development Theory. Sage Publication. Nederveen Pieterse, J. (1998). My Paradigm or Yours? Alternative Development, Post-Development, Reflexive Development. Development and Change , 29, 343- 373.

Nicholls, A. (2006). Introduction . In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social Entrepreneurship New Models of Sustainable Social Change (p. 448). Oxford , New York, USA: Oxford University Press. Reyes, C. M., Tabuga, A. D., & Mina, C. D. (2011). An Assessment of the Poverty Situation in the Philippines. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Tuano, P. (2011). A Review of the People's Organizations Sector: The Necessity of Strengthening Partnerships and Exchanges. Civil Society Organizations in the Philippines, A Mapping and Strategic Assessment. Quezon City: Civil Society Resource Center. Tuano, P. (2011). Philippine Non-Government Organizations (NGOs): Contributions, Capacities, Challenges. Civil Society Organizations in the Philippines, A Mapping and Strategic Assessment. Quezon City: Civil Society Research Institute. Willis, K. (2005). Theories and Practices of Development. New York, USA: Routledge.