Labor Market Governance and Regional Development in The Philippines: Uneven Trends and Outcomes

Jonathan P. Sale 세계과학도시연합 2012 World Technopolis Review Vol.1 No.3

Globalization has fuelled the desire for simplicity and flexibility in rules and processes within nations. de Soto (2000) calls for the simplification of rules to enable people to join the formal economy. Friedman (2005) echoes the need for simpler rules, to attract business and capital. Marketbased approaches to governing have been adopted in many nations due to globalization. Recent developments demonstrate that such approaches fail. Globalization may lead to impoverishment in the absence of proper forms of governance (Cooney 2000). That is why it has the tendency to become a “race to the bottom.” Regulatory measures can be costly, and the costs of doing business are uneven across nations. This unevenness is being used as a comparative advantage. Others call this regulatory competition (Smith-Bozek 2007) or competitive governance (Schachtel and Sahmel 2000), which is similar to the model of Charles Tiebout. Collaborative governance is an approach that governments could use in lieu of the competitive method. Mechanisms that enable stakeholders to exchange information, harmonize activities, share resources, and enhance capacities (Himmelman 2002) are needed. Philippine public policy encourages a shift in modes of realizing labor market governance outcomes from command to collaboration (Sale and Bool 2010B; Sale 2011). Is labor market governance and regional development in the Philippines collaborative? Or is the opposite – competitive governance (Tiebout model) – more evident? What is the dominant approach? This preliminary research tackles these questions by looking at recent data on average and minimum wages, wage differentials, trade union density, collective bargaining coverage, small and bigger enterprises, employment, unemployment and underemployment, inflation, poverty incidence, labor productivity, family income, among others, across regions of the country. The issue is studied in the context of legal origins. Cultural explanations are broached.

Labor Market Governance and Regional Development in The Philippines: Uneven Trends and Outcomes

Sale, Jonathan P. World Technopolis Association 2012 World Technopolis Review Vol.1 No.3

Globalization has fuelled the desire for simplicity and flexibility in rules and processes within nations. de Soto (2000) calls for the simplification of rules to enable people to join the formal economy. Friedman (2005) echoes the need for simpler rules, to attract business and capital. Market-based approaches to governing have been adopted in many nations due to globalization. Recent developments demonstrate that such approaches fail. Globalization may lead to impoverishment in the absence of proper forms of governance (Cooney 2000). That is why it has the tendency to become a "race to the bottom." Regulatory measures can be costly, and the costs of doing business are uneven across nations. This unevenness is being used as a comparative advantage. Others call this regulatory competition (Smith-Bozek 2007) or competitive governance (Schachtel and Sahmel 2000), which is similar to the model of Charles Tiebout. Collaborative governance is an approach that governments could use in lieu of the competitive method. Mechanisms that enable stakeholders to exchange information, harmonize activities, share resources, and enhance capacities (Himmelman 2002) are needed. Philippine public policy encourages a shift in modes of realizing labor market governance outcomes from command to collaboration (Sale and Bool 2010B; Sale 2011). Is labor market governance and regional development in the Philippines collaborative? Or is the opposite - competitive governance (Tiebout model) - more evident? What is the dominant approach? This preliminary research tackles these questions by looking at recent data on average and minimum wages, wage differentials, trade union density, collective bargaining coverage, small and bigger enterprises, employment, unemployment and underemployment, inflation, poverty incidence, labor productivity, family income, among others, across regions of the country. The issue is studied in the context of legal origins. Cultural explanations are broached.

Collaborative Governance in Philippine Science and Technology Parks: A closer look at the UP – Ayala Land Technohub

Jonathan P. Sale 세계과학도시연합 2015 World Technopolis Review Vol.4 No.1

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are very popular governance practices, as they enable the private partner to engage in business and have profits while the public partner improves the provision of public services. PPPs are organizational arrangements with a sector-crossing or sector-blurring nature, and are modes of governance – governance by partnerships or collaborative governance (Schuppert 2011). New models and applications of PPPs have been developed over time. Collaborative governance entails information exchange, action or movement harmonization, resource sharing, and capacity enhancement among the partners (Sale 2011; 2012a). As the national university, the University of the Philippines (UP) serves as a research university in various fields of expertise and specialization by conducting basic and applied research and development, and promoting research in various colleges and universities, and contributing to the dissemination and application of knowledge, among other purposes. (Republic Act 9500) It is the site of two (2) science and technology parks (Sale 2012b), one of which is the UP – Ayala Land Technohub. A collaboration between industry and the academe, the Technohub is envisioned as an integrated community of science and technology companies building a dynamic learning and entrepreneurial laboratory (UP-AyalaLand Technohub). This paper takes a closer look at the UP – Ayala Land Technohub as an example of a PPP or collaborative governance in science and technology parks. Have information exchange, action or movement harmonization, resource sharing, and capacity enhancement taken place in the Technohub? What are some significant outcomes of, and issues arising from, the PPP? What assessment indicators may be used? Is a governance instrument needed?

Collaborative Governance in Philippine Science and Technology Parks: A closer look at the UP - Ayala Land Technohub

Sale, Jonathan P. World Technopolis Association 2015 World Technopolis Review Vol.4 No.1

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are very popular governance practices, as they enable the private partner to engage in business and have profits while the public partner improves the provision of public services. PPPs are organizational arrangements with a sector-crossing or sector-blurring nature, and are modes of governance - governance by partnerships or collaborative governance (Schuppert 2011). New models and applications of PPPs have been developed over time. Collaborative governance entails information exchange, action or movement harmonization, resource sharing, and capacity enhancement among the partners (Sale 2011; 2012a). As the national university, the University of the Philippines (UP) serves as a research university in various fields of expertise and specialization by conducting basic and applied research and development, and promoting research in various colleges and universities, and contributing to the dissemination and application of knowledge, among other purposes. (Republic Act 9500) It is the site of two (2) science and technology parks (Sale 2012b), one of which is the UP - Ayala Land Technohub. A collaboration between industry and the academe, the Technohub is envisioned as an integrated community of science and technology companies building a dynamic learning and entrepreneurial laboratory (UP-AyalaLand Technohub). This paper takes a closer look at the UP - Ayala Land Technohub as an example of a PPP or collaborative governance in science and technology parks. Have information exchange, action or movement harmonization, resource sharing, and capacity enhancement taken place in the Technohub? What are some significant outcomes of, and issues arising from, the PPP? What assessment indicators may be used? Is a governance instrument needed?