See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/350048328

Philippine Public Administration: 5Es and an A

Chapter · March 2021

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_4134-1

CITATIONS READS

5 6,132

2 authors:

Alex Brillantes Maria Pilar Lorenzo

University of the Philippines Ghent University & United Nations University Institute on Comparative Regional I…
46 PUBLICATIONS 362 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Pilar Lorenzo on 08 May 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

P
Philippine Public
Administration: 5Es and an A
Alex B. Brillantes1 and Maria Pilar Lorenzo2
1
University of the Philippines National College of
Public Administration and Governance, Quezon
City, Philippines
2
Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, Ghent
University, Ghent, Belgium
Synonyms
Expansion of classic framework of Public Admin-
istration; Government principles; Philippine Pub-
lic Administration
Definition
5 Es and an A is a conceptual framework that
seeks to expand the classic framework of Public
Administration given the context of a developing
country like the Philippines that grapples with
well-entrenched issues of inequality, lack of inclu-
sive growth, nepotism, and corruption.
Introduction
The discipline of Public Administration has many
times been considered a sub-field of the general
field of management and administration, and thus,
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
A. Farazmand (ed.), Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_4134-1
tends to focus on the three general classic con-
cerns of economic, efficiency, and effectiveness,
also referred to as the 3 Es of Public Administra-
tion. However, given the context of the Philip-
pines, a developing country that has been
confronted with deeply rooted issues on inequal-
ities, lack of inclusive growth, nepotism, and cor-
ruption, Public Administration has always gone
beyond the traditional 3Es – and it is not unrea-
sonable to assume that this may be also true for
other contexts – as other, and perhaps more rele-
vant, principles have to undergird the theoretical
underpinnings and practice of the discipline.
Defining Public Administration
Many countries today continue to grapple with the
challenges of growing inequality and graft and
corruption that have hindered growth and devel-
opment. Conventional thinking has always related
these to the unresponsive – and underdeveloped –
administrative structures and procedures, some-
times referred to as “maladministration” (Caiden
1991:486). Certainly, good administration boils
down to the so-called 3Es of management, econ-
omy, efficiency, and effectiveness, which are all
undeniably critical. But equally important are the
principles of equity, ethics, and accountability
wherein the lack of these in practice also lead to
maladministration and have also been character-
ized as “bureaupathologies” that are “systemic
shortcomings of organizations that cause
2 Philippine Public Administration: 5Es and an A
individuals within them to be guilty of malprac-
tice” (Caiden 1991, p. 490).
Traditional Public Administration:
Classic Principles of 3Es
The emergence of the discipline of Public Admin-
istration as a distinct area of academic study can
be specifically traced to the seminal work of
Woodrow Wilson entitled “The Study of Public
Administration” (1887) published during the peak
of the Progressive Movement in the United States
in which Wilson called for a rigorous scientific
study of administration (Waldo 1953). In an
expanded text version of his speech entitled
“The Study of Administration,” he refers admin-
istration to the practical functioning and operating
of the government and advocates for the study of
public administration as a science, arguing that it
needs to be a self-conscious discipline. Wilson has
thus ushered in what is called in the discipline as
the politics-administration dichotomy, which sig-
nifies the study of public administration as a sci-
ence of management distinct and separate from
politics. Wilson’s tenets mark the science of pub-
lic administration that regards the discipline as a
field of business with emphasis placed on core
government principles called the 3 Es of the Tra-
ditional Public Administration (TPA), namely,
economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.
Economy
In response to this call of making the discipline
objective and verifiable, empirical studies on
organizations and methods have intensified.
These have been carried out in pursuit of the
principle of economy, finding out the best way to
carry out government objectives and activities
with the most possible efficiency at least possible
costs (Wilson 1887). As Wilson’s call for a scien-
tific study fell at that time on a ripe intellectual
ground in the United States, many scholars (e.g.,
Frank Goodnow, Frederick Taylor, Henry Fayol,
and Luther Gulick) subsequently conducted thor-
ough studies that draw attention to the
organization and internal structure of public agen-
cies, bearing in mind the tenet of accomplishing
public functions with the greatest productivity but
at least cost. With this movement comes the con-
siderable accent on the administrative function of
economy that heavily centers on external and
materialist objectives.
Efficiency
Efficiency can be regarded as a twin concept of
economy. Similar to the principle of economy,
efficiency signifies the achievement of a bureau-
cratic goal with competency but expended with
the least time and effort. A common bureaucratic
procedure that is employed to achieve greater
efficiency is through what is called public reorga-
nization. It means re-grouping various public sec-
tor agencies in a way that public goals can be
achieved with least cost, and at the same time,
incorporating a chain of command and ensuring
responsibility. Due to the unique mandate of the
bureaucracy to provide goods that are “public”
(in contrast to the nature of goods provided for
by private companies), it is argued that measuring
efficiency in the public sector is difficult (Erkoc
2017).
Effectiveness
Effectiveness is highly associated with the princi-
ples of economy and efficiency. It denotes goal
fulfillment, focusing on the objective(s) set forth
by an organization and closely anchoring this/
these on the needed steps in order to accomplish
the overall mission. Moreover, it means the pro-
vision of public service delivery performed by the
necessary national and local authorities. In order
to assess the effectiveness of the provision of a
public good, one method is to examine the amount
of resources allotted to the program implementa-
tion, the outputs (the actual work completed), and
the outcomes (key direction of improvements)
(Demin 2016).
Philippine Public Administration: 5Es and an A
Modern Public Administration: Towards
5Es and an a
In spite of the progress that TPA has able to
advance, the discipline of Public Administration
has been tainted by an identity crisis, emanating
from what Rutgers (1998) pertains to as an epis-
temological identity. This situation paved the way
for the beginning of the Modern Public Adminis-
tration (MPA), a school of thought that began in
the 1950s and has continued up to the
present time.
The early schools of MPA, specifically the
Development Administration and the New Public
Administration, surfaced due to the growing pros-
perity of a society that fails to meet the needs of
the public (Brillantes and Fernandez, 2008). This
identity crisis has resonated loudly in the
Philippine Public Administration as the country
confronts intractable poverty, unemployment, and
inequality. As discussed by Reyes (2003a, b), the
challenge is to make public administration both in
terms of scientific discipline (Public Administra-
tion) and practice (public administration) aligned
with the development objectives of the Filipino
people. As the pursuit of social equity continues to
be elusive in the Philippines (Brillantes et al.
2019), the principles espoused by MPA have
carved out a greater grounding in the country.
It is within this ambit that the academic disci-
pline of Philippine Public Administration needs to
move beyond the 3 Es as propounded by the TPA.
This is not to discount off the need for effective
and efficient public structures and organizations in
the Philippine government. However, given the
terrains of development, or the lack thereof, in
the country, the sole pursuit of 3 Es is not viable
in the long run. There is an urgent need for a
Public Administration that examines and meets
the needs and demands of the Filipino people.
As a crucial point to consider, Brillantes and
Fernandez (2008) raise what can be considered
as a more fundamental question in the Public
Administration discourse: For whom is Public
Administration in the first place?
Due to the chronic development gaps and
cracks in the country, Philippine Public Adminis-
tration has since its incipient stage necessarily
3
extended beyond the 3 Es. A situational analysis
of the Philippines necessarily assumes a norma-
tive dimension and points that PA has to be for the
poor and the marginalized. It has been manifest
that government rhetoric and interventions have
not succeeded in fully integrating these groups of
people in what is termed as the development pro-
cess in the Philippines (Asian Development Bank,
2009; Brillantes et al. 2019; Intal, 2002). Given
that administration has to largely cater to the pub-
lic, an enhanced paradigm is vitally important.
Ethics
Ethics comes from the Greek word “ethos” which
means customs, usage, and character. Its scope
typically includes traditional customs, habits, or
character of a community. At a personal level, it
refers to a person’s conduct and to his/her system
of values that determine what is right or wrong. In
the practice of ethics within the ambit of public
mandate, Rosenbloom and Kravchuk (2005)
argue that public administrators need to act with
responsibility as their work is linked to various
areas of public service and can lead to abuse of
public trust. Public officials are considered to a
certain extent as “moral actors” (Stewart 1985)
whose behavior ought to be distinguished by
civil virtues such as responsibility, trustworthi-
ness, honest, and impartiality (Demmke &
Moilanen 2012).
In spite of the positive repercussions that good
ethics may create in the public sector, upholding
ethics in government practice comes out to be
complex and challenging. As Sherman (1998)
points out, there has been a growing concern
relating to the lack of public sector ethics given
the several scandals that have arisen in recent
years. On a parallel note that Waldo (1980) argues
that the twentieth century can be characterized by
a decade of decay as to the lack of consensus on
and practice of agreed moral codes.
Given the context of the Philippines, its public
administration has been assailed with
bureaupathologies that are manifest for instance
in the widespread practice of nepotism in political
and civil service appointments and promotions that
4 Philippine Public Administration: 5Es and an A
date back to the Spanish regime (Endriga 1979). In
the sixteenth century, there was the practice of
regarding public office as a grant or favor (merced)
in exchange for their good acts for the king, such as
participation in a conquest and pacification of a
colony. At this time, public offices could be dis-
posed of either by appointment or by purchase. The
former was supposed to be excluded from sale;
however, this was far from practice. The saleable
public offices, on the other hand, were categorized
depending on the kind of reward the purchasers seek
to receive.
In addition, some Filipino cultural traits, such
as family-orientedness, sense of conviviality, and
debt of gratitude, that are still practiced until today
are susceptible to nepotism as well. Valera (1996)
suggests that these need to be re-interpreted so as
to separate them from the possible conflict with
the merit system instituted in the bureaucracy.
Public employment patronage that feeds into cre-
ating factions and competitions between political
parties acts as a stumbling block in the practice of
ethics in public sector. Moreover, the practice of
corruption, which seems to have spread like can-
cer, in the bureaucracy has also been a pressing
concern. As Domingo and Reyes (2011, p.401)
argue, corruption “remains a scourge in the gov-
ernment . . . contributing to the problem of
underperformance in the country.” With these
ingrained malpractices in the government – or
bureaupathologies – that there has been resistance
against pursuing merit reforms in Philippine pub-
lic administration.
In view of these bureaucratic malpractices that
revisiting public sector ethics mechanisms offers
new pathways in order to render greater public
service and to forge not only any kind of public
administration but an ethical one. One concrete
mechanism that can be leveraged is the country’s
highest standard of ethics as embodied in the
Philippine Republic Act No. 6713, or what is
referred to as the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
This upholds eight norms of conduct that have to
guide every government employee, namely, com-
mitment to public interest, professionalism, just-
ness and sincerity, political neutrality,
responsiveness to the public, nationalism and
patriotism, commitment to democracy, and simple
living. A core part of ethics involves reforming the
values, behavior, and mindsets of people
(Brillantes and Perante-Calina 2018; Brillantes
et al. 2020), and it is within this context that the
Code of Conduct of public officials comes out to
be a valuable compass for public affairs. As
holders of a public trust, public officials need to
abide by ethical values in order to satisfy public
interest (Sherman 1998).
Equity
Discussions about social equity can be traced back
to ancient times, particularly in the era of Aristotle
and Plato, who both argued that equity is a kind of
justice that may transcend beyond written law and
translate into practice (Rutledge 2002). Rousseau,
on his part, attributes inequities found in society to
unequal distribution (Rousseau 1992). Within the
field of public administration, social equity took
prominence in the 1960s and 1970s as a reaction
to the mechanical and value-neutral government
approaches (Wooldridge and Gooden 2009).
Dwight Waldo convened the first Minnowbrook
Conference in 1968 that pressed for the need to
include social equity in the way public services
are managed and distributed. H. George
Frederickson, a Minnowbrook I participant,
points out social equity as a crucial component
of public administration (Gooden and Portillo
2011; Rutledge 2002). In fact, Frederickson
(1990, 2010) regards equity as a pillar of same
status in public administration as that of economy
and efficiency.
Owing to a long history of colonization, the
general tenor – both in theory and practice – of the
Philippine bureaucracy demonstrates a close
resemblance to American Public Administration.
Among these foreign theories and models that
have been adapted by the Philippines, the New
Public Administration – with its emphasis on
equity and social inclusion – is the theoretical
framework that echoes greatest familiarity in the
country given the needs of Filipino people. Pilar
(1982) mentions that there has been a growing
interest in coming up with indigenous models on
Philippine Public Administration: 5Es and an A
Philippine Public Administration that can best
capture the plight of the people, but that there
has been no full-blown indigenous model that
has come to the fore. As such, he argues that “in
the absence of an indigenous model of public
administration, New Public Administration con-
cepts provide a good beginning” (Pilar 1982,
p. 234) and serve as a “worthy alternative” (Pilar
1982, p. 231).
Former President Ramon Magsaysay, who
assumed Philippine presidency from 1953–1957,
once said, “Those who have less in life should
have more in law.” This is to show that the clamor
for equity has been a mandate of Philippine gov-
ernment since early on. Furthermore, the 1987
Philippine Constitution serves as the primordial
framework that upholds equity and social justice.
In Article XIII, Section 1, it clearly stipulates that
“The Congress shall give highest priority to the
enactment of measures that protect and enhance
the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce
social, economic, and political inequalities, and
remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing
wealth and political power for the common good”.
The Philippines has undergone moderate eco-
nomic expansion, and yet, it has created limited
impact in terms of poverty reduction (Asian
Development Bank 2009). In the latest Associa-
tion of Southeast Asian (ASEAN) Key
Figures report (2019), the Philippines is the coun-
try with third highest poverty incidence in the
region at 21.6%, next to Laos at 23.4% and to
Myanmar at 24.8%. It is also the ASEAN country
with the lowest poverty reduction rate between the
years 2005 and 2017 (ASEAN 2019). Incorporat-
ing equity into Public Administration is thus an
imperative and occupies a central place in the
academic discourse. As Pilar (1982) argues, theo-
retical frameworks and models are hollow if they
fail to respond to difficult situations. Equity, as
part and parcel of Public Administration dis-
course, translates not only to greater quantities of
outputs and macro-economic growth but signifies
more importantly a public service which impact
can be felt by the most deprived portions of the
population.
5
Accountability
As defined by the United Nations Economic and
Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(2006), accountability is one of the prerequisites
of good governance. The urgency of the practice
of accountability emanates from the principle that
public office is a public trust. The Article II of
Section 1 of the Philippine Constitution (1987)
clearly stipulates that the sovereignty of the
Philippine government “resides in the people
and all government authority emanates from
them.” In conjunction to this, Article XI of the
Philippine Constitution (1987) lays down clearly
that public servants are to be accountable to the
Filipino people at all times, and the former are
expected to exercise authority for the welfare of
the latter with “utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty, and efficiency” (Article XI, Philippine
Constitution 1987).
A foremost challenge afflicting Philippine gov-
ernment when it comes to accountability is its
deep-seated problem on corruption. Endriga
(1979) argues that there were some precolonial
customs that might have been vulnerable to cor-
rupt behavior, but he argues that the practice of
graft and corruption in contemporary Philippine
bureaucracy can be specially attributed to the
colonial experience. He further maintains that it
started out specifically during the Spanish period
when compensation for public officials was non-
existent, and as such, officials were vulnerable to
engage in corruption. Meanwhile, Alfiler (1979)
gives emphasis on the post-war period. The latter
asserts that similar to other newly independent
states, the Philippines faced a host of internal
problems, bureaucratic corruption being one of
the foremost challenges. Corpuz (1965) argues
that shortly after the Japanese occupation, the
first wave of extensive corruption transpired,
resulting in a broad network of graft and corrup-
tion that involved officials from the lower eche-
lons up to the elite positions. All these
bureaucratic habits formed during the colonial
regimes have influenced the emergence and pro-
liferation of corruption in the public sector.
This bureaucratic corruption has been
sustained through various administrations up
6 Philippine Public Administration: 5Es and an A
until contemporary period. Reflecting on account-
ability issues apparent in the Philippine govern-
ment, Mangahas of Social Weather Stations
(2001) observes that next to inflation, corruption
has been the second-top cause of Filipinos’ dis-
satisfaction with government. As manifest in
some quantitative indicators like Transparency
International’s Corruption Perception Index, the
Philippines has not been faring well in terms of
accountability. The Philippines obtained a rela-
tively low score since 2012: 34 in 2012, 36 in
2013, 38 in 2014, 35 in 2015, 35 in 2016, 34 in
2017, 36 in 2018, and 34 in 2019 (100 being very
clean and 0 being highly corrupt). It ranked only
105th out of 198 countries in 2012, 94th in 2013,
85th in 2014, 95th in 2015, 101st in 2016, 111th in
2017, 99th in 2018, and 113th in 2019 (1st being
the most clean and the 198th being the most
corrupt).
Putting checks and balances in public sector
organizations would aid in creating accountabil-
ity. As such, there is a need for certain set of norms
and criteria to evaluate the performance of public
officials, including both elected and appointed
ones. In this regard that Cariño (1983) puts for-
ward these four standard questions: (a) Who is
considered accountable? (b) To whom are they
accountable? (c) To what standards are they
accountable? (d) By what means are they account-
able? Taking off from the question raised initially
by Brillantes and Fernandez (2008) “For whom is
public administration?”, the following inquiry
may be offered as well – “For whom is
accountability?”
Accountability signifies an institutionalized
relationship, which points out to regular,
established, and accepted relations among various
actors. It implies that officials – the so-called duty
bearers – are responsible and answerable to the
people – the “claimholders” – for their decisions
and actions (Brillantes, Lopos & Perante-Calina,
2018). There is recognition of duties and commit-
ments, and redress is undertaken when needed
(United Nations Economic and Social Commis-
sion for Asia and the Pacific 2006).
Conclusion
Given the development context of the Philippines,
the foremost question confronting the discipline
of Public Administration is not only in junction
with its identity – “What is Philippine Public
Administration” – but to expand the boundaries
and inquire, “For whom is Philippine Public
Administration?” The publicness of public
administration signifies that emphasis should not
be placed only on the traditional components of
3 Es, but primordial consideration must also be
given to additional principles of equity, ethics, and
accountability in order to create and sustain a
public administration that is truly agile and Fili-
pino people-oriented. As such, a Philippine ver-
sion of Public Administration can be framed as the
“5 Es and an A,” juxtaposing effectiveness, effi-
ciency, and economy with three other pillars,
namely, equity, ethics, and accountability.
Cross-References
▶ Accountability
▶ Accountability and Ethics
▶ Bureaucracy and Efficiency
▶ Economy and Nonprofit Sector
▶ Ethics and Good Governance
▶ The Effectiveness of Local Government
▶ The Principles of Good Governance
References
Alfiler MCP (1979) Administrative measures against
bureaucratic corruption: the Philippine experience. Phi-
lippi J Public Admin 23(3–4):321–349
ASEAN (2019) ASEAN key figures 2019. ASEAN Secre-
tariat, Jakarta
Asian Development Bank (2009) Poverty in the Philip-
pines: causes, constraints, and opportunities. Asian
Development Bank, Mandaluyong
Brillantes A, Fernandez M (2008) Is there a Philippine
public administration? Or better still, for whom is
Philippine public administration? Philippi J Public
Admin 12(2–4):245–307
Brillantes A, Perante-Calina L (2018) Leadership and pub-
lic sector reform in the Philippines. In: Berman E,
Prasojo E (eds) Leadership and public sector reform
in Asia. Emerald Publishing, Bingley
Philippine Public Administration: 5Es and an A
Brillantes A, Lopos BE, Perante-Calina L (2018) Knowl-
edge-based public sector reform: The Philippine expe-
rience. In: Nishihara AH, Matsunaga M, Nonaka I,
Yokomichi K (eds) Knowledge creation in Public
Administrations: Innovative government in Southeast
Asia and Japan (pp.211–236). Palgrave Macmillan,
Cham, Switzerland
Brillantes A, Raquiza MV, Lorenzo MP (2019) Social
equity in the Philippines: a continuing but elusive
promise. In: Morgen J (ed) Social equity in the Asia-
Pacific region: conceptualizations and realities. Pal-
grave Macmillan, New York
Brillantes A, Lorenzo MP, Dacumos BN, Comia AS,
Perante-Calina L (2020) The imperatives of peace for
development in the Philippines: how the Galing Pook
innovation awards provide hope it can be done. In:
Alampay EG, Suarez GM (eds) Local matters: experi-
ences in autonomy, decentralization and beyond. Uni-
versity of the Philippines, Center for Local and
Regional Governance, Quezon City, pp 347–375
Caiden GE (1991) What really is public maladministra-
tion? Public Adm Rev 51(6):486–493
Cariño LV (1983) Administrative accountability: a review
of the evolution, meaning, and operationalization of a
key concept in public administration. Philippi J Public
Admin 27(2):118–148
Corpuz OD (1965) The Philippines. Englewood cliffs.
Prentice Hall, New Jersey
Demin A (2016) The effectiveness of local government. In:
Farazmand A (ed) Global encyclopedia of public
administration, public policy, and governance. Springer
International Publishing, Switzerland
Demmke C, Moilanen T (2012) Effectiveness of public-
service ethics and good governance in the central
administration of the EU-27. Peter Lang, Frankfurt
am Main
Domingo MOZ, Reyes DR (2011) Performance manage-
ment reforms in the Philippines. In: Berman EM (ed)
Public Administration in Southeast Asia: Thailand,
Philippines, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Macao (pp.
397–421). CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group,
Boca Baton, London, New York
Endriga JS (1979) Historical notes on graft and corruption
in the Philippines. Philippi J Public Admin
23(3–4):241–254
Erkoc TE (2017) Bureaucracy and efficiency. In:
Farazmand A (ed) Global encyclopedia of public
administration, public policy, and governance. Springer
International Publishing, Switzerland
Frederickson HG (1990) Public administration and social
equity. Public Adm Rev 50:228–237
Frederickson HG (2010) Social equity and public admin-
istration: origins, developments, and applications.
M.E. Sharpe, Armonk
Gooden S, Portillo S (2011) Advancing social equity in the
Minnowbrook tradition. J Public Adm Res Theory
21(1):61–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muq067
7
Intal PS (2002) The persistence of poverty in the Philip-
pines: is globalization the culprit? Asia Pac Soc Sci Rev
3(2):1–33
Mangahas M (2001) Update on surveys concerning cor-
ruption. World Bank, Manila
Pilar N (1982) The relevance of the new PA in Philippine
public administration. Philippi J Public Admin
26(3–4):228–234
Reyes D (2003a) Public administration in the Philippines:
history, heritage and hubris. In: Bautista VA
(ed) Introduction to public Administration in the Phil-
ippines: a reader. University of the Philippines, Quezon
City, pp 39–65
Reyes D (2003b) The identity crisis in public administra-
tion revisited: some definitional issues and the
Philippine setting. In: Bautista VA (ed) Introduction to
public Administration in the Philippines: a reader. Uni-
versity of the Philippines, Quezon City, pp 18–34
Rosenbloom DH, Kravchuk RS (2005) Public administra-
tion: understanding management, politics and law in
the public sector. Mc Graw Hill, New York
Rousseau J-J (1992) Discourse on the origin of inequality.
Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis
Rutgers MR (1998) Paradigm lost: crisis as identity of the
study of public administration. Int Rev Adm Sci
64(4):553–564
Rutledge PJ (2002) Some unfinished business in public
administration. Public Adm Rev 62(4):390–394
Sherman T (1998) Public sector ethics: prospects and chal-
lenges. In: Sampford C, Preston N, Bois C-A (eds)
Public sector ethics: finding and implementing values.
Routledge, London
Stewart D (1985) Ethics and the profession of public
administration: The moral responsibility of individuals
in public sector organizations. Public Administration
Quarterly 8(4):487–495
The 1987 Philippine Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines. Retrieved on 23 February 2020 from
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-
constitution/
Transparency International (2012) Corruption Perceptions
index. Retrieved on 5 October 2020 from https://www.
transparency.org/en/cpi/2012/results
Transparency International (2013) Corruption perceptions
index. Retrieved on 5 October 2020 from https://www.
transparency.org/en/cpi/2013/results
Transparency International (2014) Corruption perceptions
index. Retrieved on 5 October 2020 from https://www.
transparency.org/en/cpi/2014/results
Transparency International (2015) Corruption perceptions
index. Retrieved on 5 October 2020 from https://www.
transparency.org/en/cpi/2015/results
Transparency International (2016) Corruption perceptions
index. Retrieved on 5 October 2020 from https://www.
transparency.org/en/cpi/2016/results
Transparency International (2017) Corruption perceptions
index. Retrieved on 5 October 2020 from https://www.
transparency.org/en/cpi/2017/results
8 Philippine Public Administration: 5Es and an A
Transparency International (2018) Corruption perceptions
index. Retrieved on 5 October 2020 from https://www.
transparency.org/en/cpi/2018/results
Transparency International (2019) Corruption perceptions
index. Retrieved on 5 October 2020 from https://www.
transparency.org/en/cpi/2019/results/phl
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia
and the Pacific (2006) What is good governance?
Retrieved on 23 February 2020 from https://www.
unescap.org/sites/default/files/good-governance.pdf
View publication stats
Valera AP (1996) Administrative culture and political
change. College of Public Administration, University
of the Philippines, Quezon City
Waldo D (1953) Ideas and issues in public administration.
Mc Graw Hill Book, Co., Inc., New York
Waldo D (1980) The enterprise of public administration.
Chandler & Sharp, Novato
Wilson W (1887) The study of administration. Polit Sci
Q 2(2):197–222
Wooldridge B, Gooden S (2009) The epic of social equity.
Admin Theory Prax 31(2):222–234