This is an Author's Original Manuscript of an article published in “UP Los Banos Journal” on 2014 (vol 8, no 1, pp 33-46).
Bing
Baltazar C. Brillo
Associate Professor
Institute for Governance and Rural
Development
College of Public Affairs and Development
University of the Philippines Los Ban͂os
Abstract
Time and
again, scholars have interpreted policy making in the Philippines using the
weak state framework— Philippine polity is characterized by a
homogenous-controlling legislature and an ineffective-subservient bureaucracy. The
legislation of the foreign investment act, however, suggests that a different
dynamics existed between the bureaucracy and the legislature. First, the
bureaucracy and the legislature were not homogenous. Despite having ideological
unity, the government agencies and the legislative bodies took varying stances
during the legislative deliberations. Second, the bureaucracy was influential in
policy making. The influence of the bureaucratic agencies was evident
throughout the legislative proceedings, from the agenda setting to the policy
outcome. Third, the legislature was reactive to the bureaucratic inputs in
policy legislation. The bureaucratic proposals and opinions were readily
accepted, heavily relied on and served as the basis for the responses of the
legislative bodies. Overall, the case of the making of foreign investment law
reveals that, although lawmaking is technically the domain of the legislature,
the bureaucracy holds sway in policy making.
Key terms: Bureaucracy, Legislature, Foreign Investment Act, Policy Making, Weak
State
Introduction
The
centrality of the bureaucracy and the legislature in policy making is well
established in political science literature. The engagements of the bureaucracy
and the legislature can be seen throughout the policy making process, and the
inputs of nongovernment actors in the legislation are coursed through the two governmental
institutions. In Philippine studies, the interface of the bureaucracy and the
legislature has been traditionally interpreted using the weak state framework (e.g.
De Dios 1990, Rivera 1991, Montes 1992, Almonte 1993, Hutchcroft 1993, Rivera
1994, Rocamora 1998, Hutchcroft 1998, Abinales and Amoroso 2005, Almonte 2007,
Magno 2009). In general, an unresponsive legislature and an ineffective
bureaucracy characterize Philippine policy making. Although they are
homogenous, the legislative bodies are seen as decisive, while the bureaucratic
agencies are perceived to lack autonomy in shaping the policy outcome. Some
scholars, however, have criticized this perspective as simply too broad to
adequately illustrate the subtleties of contemporary legislation (e.g. Atkinson
and Coleman 1989, Howlett and Ramesh 1995, Mikamo 1997); specifically, in
accounting for the increasing diversity and competition between the bureaucracy
and the legislature in contemporary policy making (e.g. Tiglao 1992, Pedro
2002, Batalla 2002).
This paper assesses
the relationship between the bureaucracy and the legislature by examining the
making of the Foreign Investment Act or Republic Act (RA) 7042. The Foreign
Investment Law was a key economic policy of the administration of President
Corazon Aquino in the 1990s.The liberalization of foreign investment was deemed
requisite for economic advancement since it addresses perennial national
concerns (such as unemployment, inflation, capital deficiency and economic
growth) by seeking to increase the flow of investment and capital in the
country. The Foreign Investment Act was also regarded as the precursor
legislation that would pave the way for other liberalization policies. In
examining the dynamics in the making of foreign Investment law, the study
centers on the interaction of the bureaucratic agencies, specifically, the Board
of Investments-National Economic Development Authority (BOI-NEDA) and the
Department of Finance (DOF), and the legislative bodies, specifically, the
Senate and the House of Representatives. The discussion focuses on three key
issues that evolved in the legislative deliberations, namely, the negative
list, the divestment period, and the transitory provisions.
The Bureaucracy-Legislature Dynamics and the Weak
State Tradition in Policy Making[1]
The literature
is replete with works by foreign scholars denoting that at the core of policy
making is the institutional interaction between the bureaucracy and the
legislature (e.g. Pye 1963, Goodnow 1964, Riggs 1967, Niskanen 1971, Aberbach,
Putnam and Rockman 1981, Ripley and Franklin 1991, McCubbins and Noble 1995,
Wright 1999, Svara 2001, Rose 2004, Alesina and Tabellini 2007). The
bureaucracy-legislature dynamics is central in two ways: one, the engagement of
bureaucratic agencies and legislative bodies unfolds at every stage of policy
making process— from agenda-setting to policy formulation and enactment; and
two, the inputs of stakeholders and interest groups are mediated through the
bureaucratic-legislative interface. Their involvement in policy making comes
from different sources; bureaucratic agencies are attached to the Office of the
President, which means they formulate and push the government’s policy
proposals, while the Constitution grants legislative bodies the law-making
authority being the elected representatives of the people.
In
contemporary policy making, both the bureaucratic agencies and the legislative
bodies actively manage the legislative process, although they are two opposing views on how
they interface. The first is the legislature-dominance perspective where the
bureaucracy is deemed subordinate and supplementary to the legislature (e.g.
Wilson 1887, Goodnow 1900, Weber 1946, Marx 1967, Weingast and Moran 1983,
Ramseyer and Rosenbluth 1993, Yamamoto 2001). In this conception, bureaucratic
agencies are mere sources of information, while legislative bodies make the policies.
The other view is the bureaucracy-dominance perspective where the bureaucracy is
considered more influential compared to legislature (e.g. Heclo 1978, Dodd and
Schott 1979, Johnson 1982, Rourke 1984, Wilson 1989, Banks and Weingast 1992,
Vogel 1996, Carpenter 2001, Im 2001). In this conception, bureaucratic agencies “make” the
policies, while legislative bodies are expected to fully support and enact the
bureaucratic proposals.
In analyzing
Philippine politics from the dominant weak state tradition, the
legislature-dominance perspective is considered the default assumption in
policy making. The legislature is seen to be decisive, while the bureaucracy is
perceived to lack the capacity to meaningfully shape the legislative process
and outcome. For instance, scholars have given the following observation
vis-à-vis Philippine policy making: Hutchcroft (1991 and 1993) cited the lack
of autonomous bureaucracy that can be independent from the special interests
dominating the legislature; Mikamo (1997) observed that in economic policy
making the bureaucracy is underdeveloped and lacks the autonomy against the
elite interest controlling the legislature; Coronel et al. (2004) contended
that the legislators are the principal stumbling block to the changes reform-minded
bureaucrats want to have; and Caoili (1993 and 2006) argued that the
homogeneity among the legislators resulted in a conservative legislature that
is reluctant to reform.
However, some scholars have
questioned the applicability of the weak state framework in Philippine
post-EDSA politics.[2]
They argued that this framework is simply too general and indiscriminate to be
of much analytical use for policy making (e.g. Atkinson and Coleman 1989,
Howlett and Ramesh 1995, Mikamo 1997), and hence, inadequate to fully capture
the intricacies of present-day Philippine legislation. The weak state
proposition underestimates the interaction between the bureaucracy and the
legislature in policy making and fails to emphasize the increasing
fragmentation among them. For instance, Tiglao (1992) stated that post-EDSA
democratic restoration has resulted in intense competition for political
control and fragmentation in policy making. Pedro (2002) asserted that the
dynamics in policy making is changing, as various actors in government and
business have acted autonomously in legislation. And Batalla (2002), in support
of Pedro’s finding, maintained that the fragmentation of political and business
actors made it possible for the government to act autonomously and succeed in changing
policy. Overall, these studies underscore the fragmentation of actors in
contemporary policy making and suggest the need to reassess the dominant weak
state framework.
Rationale for the Foreign Investment Law
The foreign
investment policy came about in the Congressional Executive Investment Policy
Review which reassessed the prevailing investments laws in the Philippines in November
1989 to February 1990. The body concluded that most investment laws in the
country were outdated and needed immediate revisions. As a consequence, the
foreign investment bill was proposed as part of the package of legislative
measures to improve the country’s overall investment climate. The foreign
investment bill was also designed to have a spillover effect since its passage
was intended to precipitate the legislation of other policies that would
further liberalize the economy.
The foreign investment bill intended to repeal Executive
Order 226, otherwise known as Book II of the Omnibus Investment Code of 1987.[3]
The provisions of the said law, which were largely taken from RA 5186 and RA
5455 and enacted in 1967 and 1968, respectively, were considered passé and
discordant with the current economic situation. This law catered to a period
when the country enjoyed relative attractiveness to foreign investments. Since
this advantage has already dissipated in favor of its ASEAN[4]
neighbors, the country has had to compete under unfavorable conditions and thus
often left with residual investments. Out of the $12 billion investments that
flowed in Asia in the 1980s, only $500 million went to the Philippines, way
below Thailand’s $6 billion, Indonesia’s $4 billion and Malaysia’s $800 million
(Congress of the Philippines-Transcript: House of Representatives Session
Proceedings on Foreign Investments Act 1990). The BOI-NEDA attributed the
impressive investment draw of Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia to the liberalization of their investment laws,
and stressed the need for the Philippines to follow suit. The BOI-NEDA also
warned that Vietnam has already made drastic changes in its investment laws and
is poised to pull in more foreign investments at our expense.
Foreign investments are important in a country’s economic
development when the country is unable to generate enough domestic capital.
Because of the Filipinos’ low savings rate, the Philippine government needed to
tap into foreign loans and investments as sources of capital. Foreign borrowing
was not an appealing option as the country was already heavily burdened by
amortization and interest payments on foreign debts that stood at $28 billion
at that time. Thus, this left the government with attracting foreign
investments as the only viable alternative in resolving the country’s capital
insufficiency.
As the economic managers of the government, the BOI- NEDA
and the DOF were convinced that the increase in foreign investment would have a
profound impact on poverty alleviation, as the infusion of fresh investments
would mean more businesses and enterprises that, in turn, would create more
jobs. The BOI-NEDA and the DOF maintained that 1.24 million jobs a year are
needed to make headway in addressing unemployment. To realize this, the
BOI-NEDA estimates the country needs a total of P148 billion investments every
year, a figure which can only be reached if domestic investments are
supplemented by foreign investments. Moreover, the government agencies also
agreed that the entry of foreign investments
would bring other benefits to the country, such as transfer of technology,
improvement in the quality of products, enhancement of competition and decrease
in the price of commodities.
Issues in the Making of the Foreign Investment Law
On the side
of the legislature, the Senate’s Committee on Economic Affairs and House’s
Committee on Economic Affairs, Committee on Trade and Industries and Committee
on Labor and Employment led the deliberations on the foreign investment bill. On
the side of the bureaucracy, the principal agencies involved were the BOI-NEDA
and the DOF. The interest groups that actively participated in the legislative
proceedings were the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) and the foreign chambers of commerce, namely,
the American Chamber of Commerce, the European Chamber of Commerce, the
Japanese Chamber of Commerce, and the Australian-New Zealand Chamber of
Commerce. In general, the actors in the foreign investment bill advocated
different positions– liberal policy and moderate policy. A liberal policy would
considerably reduce restrictions on foreign investments. Advocates were the
House, the DOF, and the foreign chambers of commerce. A moderate policy would
cautiously welcome foreign investments while sufficiently protecting domestic
industries. Advocates were the Senate, the BOI-NEDA, and the PCCI. The dynamics
among the actors was particularly evident on how they handled the three
principal issues that emerged from the legislative deliberations: (1) the
negative list, (2) the divestment period and (3) the transitory provision.
Negative List
The
negative list was designed to protect domestic industries by specifying which
areas cannot accept foreign investments and those that can, but only up to a
maximum or 40 percent. Both bureaucracy and legislature agreed that the
negative list (a) is essential to the foreign investment bill; (b) should be
short, because a long list would discourage the entry of foreign investors; and
(c) should be temporary, only for three years, in order to avoid a repeat of
protected industries becoming too dependent on government support even after a
decade or two.
Bureaucracy
and legislature differed on formulating the guidelines on what domestic
enterprises should be on the negative list. They did agree to include those
areas reserved or regulated for Philippine nationals by mandate of the 1987 Constitution
and other nationalization laws (e.g. defense-related activities or activities
with implications on public health and morals)[5] since
they are existing laws. The disagreement was on those areas of activity deemed
by the government as needing protection for a limited period.[6] Because
being an open-ended category meant any industry or business can be included as
long as its inclusion can be justified, thus, attracting vested interests to
influence the criteria for inclusion in the negative list. Discussions centered
on the capacity utilization criterion, which is whether a domestic industry has
already served its specific market adequately (that would warrant its inclusion
in the negative list). In the deliberations, the legislators were passive participants,
as they largely took cue from the diverging opinions of the bureaucratic
agencies. On one hand, the DOF sought to drop the criterion, argued that it is
not needed since foreign investors are “rational economic managers” and would
not invest in areas that are already overcrowded. The DOF intended to make as
many economic activities open to foreign investment; naturally, the foreign
chambers of commerce supported this position. On the other hand, the BOI-NEDA maintained
that the criterion is still needed for the interim protection of local
industries. The BOI-NEDA intended to provide as many safety nets for the
domestic industries; naturally, PCCI supported this position. With the
differing opinions expressed by the DOF and the BOI-NEDA, the Senate and the
House eventually decided to abandon the discussion on the capacity utilization criterion
by appealing to the bureaucratic agencies to settle the matter when they draft the
implementing rules and regulations (i.e. after the passage of the foreign investment
bill in the legislature).
Divestment Period
The divestment provision was included in the foreign
investment bill on two grounds: one, to make the bill consistent with the constitutional
mandate for the state to develop a self-reliant and independent national
economy effectively controlled by Filipinos (Article 2, section 19); and two,
to allay the public fear that the economy would be eventually dominated by
foreigners. The divestment requirement compels foreign investors who took
majority equity to transfer the controlling interest (60 percent equity) to
Filipinos and take minority position (reduce their equity to 40 percent) within
20 years from their commercial operations.[7] The
rationale here is that the 20-year period is sufficient time for a foreign firm
to earn money and recoup its investment.
The critical
question on the divestment provision was whether to mandate or encourage
divestment among foreign investors. On one hand, the BOI-NEDA (with the support
of the PCCI) insisted on a mandatory divestment with a definite equity transfer
program that clearly states the conditions and commence of divestment. The BOI-NEDA
favored a progressive procedure where the divestment proceedings start on the
10th year of the business operations and terminate on the 20th
year (Congress of the Philippines-Transcript: Senate Committee Hearings on
Foreign Investments 1990). On the other hand, the DOF (with the support of the
foreign chambers of commerce) maintained that the divestment should only be encouraged.
The DOF warned that a categorical divestment period would be seen as a control
mechanism that would, in effect, discourage foreigners from investing in the
country. On the part of the legislature, both the Senate and the House mainly confined
their assessment on the exchanges and arguments presented to them by the
bureaucratic agencies. Eventually, both the Senate and the House followed the
DOF’s position. The two legislative bodies agreed with the DOF’s contention
that making the divestment proceedings mandatory will send a negative signal to
potential foreign investors. Thus, the divestment provision was dropped and
made recommendatory in the final version of the foreign investment bill.
Transitory Provision
The transitory provision or so-called “open door
provision” was considered the most contentious in the deliberations of the
foreign investment bill. In view of the dire need for foreign capital and the deteriorating
investment climate in the country, an interim open door policy was proposed to
accelerate the entry of foreign investments. This transitory provision would open
all areas of economic activity to foreign investors and suspend the
implementation of the negative list for a given period. The rationale behind
the move was to offset the lingering perception overseas of the country’s unattractiveness
by sending a clear signal to the international business community that the
Philippine government is serious in liberalizing its economy and welcoming
foreign investments.
The DOF, together with the foreign chambers of commerce, suggested
a three-year transitory period for the unrestricted entry of foreign investors.
This proposal was not only adopted by the House, but became the basis for the
legislative body’s more radical position, as the chamber extended the
three-year transitory period to a five-year period. The House rationalized that
since the Philippines is facing fierce competition with other countries for
foreign investments, an “extremely liberal policy” is necessary particularly
during the transition period (Congress of the Philippines-Transcript: House of
Representatives Session Proceedings on Foreign Investments Act 1990). On the
other hand, the BOI-NEDA, together with the PCCI, argued that the transitory
provision was not a critical component of the liberalization of foreign
investment since it was temporary and palliative. The Senate heeded this
proposal, as the legislative body dropped the transitory provision in its
version. As rationale, the Senate cited that having a transitory provision would
only pose the danger of foreign businesses gobbling up the market of small
local industries (Congress of the Philippines- Transcript: Senate Session Proceedings on
Foreign Investments Act 1991).
Since the
House version contained a five-year transitory period and the Senate version
had none, the issue became the flashpoint in the Bicameral Conference
Committee. At the deliberations, both legislative bodies were unyielding. The House
was adamant in pushing for the five-year transitory period since it has a
standing commitment to the two largest labor group coalitions in the
country (i.e. the Labor Advisory Consultative Council [LACC] and Trade Union
Congress of the Philippines [TUCP]), the DOF strongly supported the transitory
period, and that there was unanimous support among its members. The Senate was
resolute for the removal of the transitory period in the bill since it has
standing commitment to the PCCI, BOI-NEDA and its members (Congress of the
Philippines- Transcript: Bicameral Conference Committee on Senate Bill 1678 and
House Bill 32496 1991).
In the
negotiation, the Senate offered two-and-a-half years, while the House proposed
four years transitory period. A three-year period was floated as a possible
compromise, except that both legislative bodies were already reluctant to give in
beyond their respective positions. The impasse was only resolved through the
proxy engagement between the DOF and the BOI-NEDA over the President’s
intercession on the issue. Since the President supported the DOF’s position on
the transitory provision, the BOI-NEDA was compelled to abandon its original
stance and its support for the Senate’s position. In effect, the bureaucratic
agencies consolidated in favor of the House’s position, thus weakening the
Senate’s position. This bureaucratic engagement defined the legislative
dynamics, as the Senate eventually conceded more and agreed with the House to
have a three-year transitory period (Congress of the Philippines-Transcript:
Bicameral Conference Committee on Senate Bill 1678 and House Bill 32496 1991).
Summary of the Legislative Proceedings. The Eighth Congress opened the committee
hearings in the Senate on Senate Bill 1678 on August 1990, and in the House on
House Bill 32496 on November 1990. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 26,
paragraph 2 of Article VI of the Constitution, the President certified the
foreign investment bill as urgent in both chambers on 18 December 1990. The
Senate hearings yielded Committee Report no. 1157 on 15 November 1990, which
was approved on Second and Third Reading on 18 and 20 March 1991, respectively.
The House hearings resulted in Committee Report no. 1226 on 6 December 1990,
which was approved on its Second and Third Readings on 20 December 1990. The Bills
were reconciled and approved by the Bicameral Conference Committee on 4 June,
and ratified by the Senate and the House on 6 June 1991. The foreign investment
law was formally signed by the President on 13 June 1991, and became RA 7042.
Conclusion
There was
ideological unity between the bureaucratic agencies and the legislative bodies
since all of them are in favor of liberalizing the foreign investment policy.
But there was divergence on the extent of openness that would be allowed,
particularly on the entry of foreign investors. Consequently, the bureaucratic
agencies and the legislative bodies took different stances during the
deliberations on the foreign investment bill. On the side of the bureaucracy,
the DOF was pushing for a more radical form of liberalization, while the
BOI-NEDA was endorsing a more moderate form of liberalization. In their
engagement, the DOF took the upper hand over the BOI-NEDA since it defined the stand of the
government on the policy issue and shaped the key issues (e.g. the divestment
provision and the transitory provision) that characterized the law. On the side
of the legislature, the House passed a more liberal version, while the Senate
approved a more conservative version. In the legislative proceedings,
particularly in the Bicameral Conference Committee deliberations, the House got
the upper hand over the Senate since the compromises as well as the final form
of the foreign investment law were tilted towards its preference. On the
dynamics between the bureaucratic agencies and the legislative bodies, the
influence of the former was apparent over the latter. Although lawmaking was
technically the realm of the legislature, the experience in the legislation of
the foreign investment law reveals the influence of the bureaucracy in policy
making. Throughout the legislative proceedings the expert opinions of the DOF
and the BOI-NEDA carried substantial weight and were frequently sought by the
Senate and the House. Consequently, the legislative outcome was practically
delineated by the engagement of the bureaucratic agencies.
On the
whole, the making of the foreign investment law demonstrated that the facts of
the case do not conform to the conventional weak state framework, specifically,
its key proposition— Philippine polity is characterized by
homogenous-controlling legislature and an ineffective-subservient bureaucracy. The
policy making suggests that a different dynamics exist between the bureaucracy
and the legislature. In particular, the legislative experience illustrated the
following: firstly, the bureaucracy and the legislature were not homogenous
since they displayed varying positions and preferences during the legislative
proceedings; secondly, the bureaucracy was influential in policy legislation
since it was the source of the agenda as well as critical information on the bill;
and lastly, the legislature was reactive to the bureaucratic inputs in the policy
making since it readily accommodated and heavily relied on the bureaucratic
proposals which became the basis for the legislative bodies’ responses and
actions. Since these findings are inconsistent with the key proposition of the
dominant weak state framework, this study calls for more research on the bureaucracy-legislature
dynamics to be able to sufficiently establish their institutional relationship in
the Philippine context.
References
Aberbach, Joel, Robert Putnam and Bert Rockman. 1981. Bureaucrats and Politicians in Western
Democracies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Abinales, Patricio and Donna Amoroso. 2005. State and Society in the Philippines.
Pasig City: Anvil Publishing, Inc.
Alesina, Alberto and Guido Tabellini. 2007.
Bureaucrats and Politicians? A Single Policy Task. The American Economic
Review, 97(1) 169-179.
Almonte, Jose. 1993. The Politics of Development in the
Philippines. Kasarinlan: Philippine
Journal of Third World Studies, 9(2) 107-116.
Almonte, Jose. 2007. To Put Our House in Order: We Must Level the
Playing Field. Manila: Foundation for Economic Freedom, Inc.
Atkinson, Michael and William Coleman. 1989. Strong
States and Weak States: Sectoral Policy Networks in Advanced Capitalist
Economies. British Journal of Political
Science, 19(1) 47-67.
Banks, Jeffrey and Barry Weingast. 1992. The Political
Control of Bureaucracies under Asymmetric Information. American Journal of Political Science, 36(2) 509-524.
Batalla, Eric. 2002. The Politics of Financial
Liberalization. In Eric Batalla (ed.), The
Politics of Financial Liberalization: Foreign Banking in Japan and the
Philippines. Manila: Yuchengco Center/DLSU.
Carpenter,
Daniel. 2001. The Forging of Bureaucratic
Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies
1862-1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Caoili,
Olivia. 1993. The Philippine Congress: Executive- Legislative Relations and
the Restoration of Democracy. Quezon City: UP-CIDS and UP Press.
Caoili,
Olivia. 2006. The Restored Philippine Congress. In Noel Morada and Teresa Tadem
(eds.), Philippine Politics and
Governance. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Diliman.
Congress of the Philippines. 1990. Transcript: House of Representatives
Committee Hearings on Foreign Investments (Committee on Trade and Industry,
Committee on Economic Affairs and Committee on Labor and Employment, November
15).
Congress of the Philippines. 1990. Transcript: House of Representatives
Committee Hearings on Foreign Investments (Committee on Trade and Industry,
Committee on Economic Affairs and Committee on Labor and Employment, November
22).
Congress of the Philippines. 1990. Transcript: House of Representatives
Committee Hearings on Foreign Investments (Committee on Trade and Industry,
Committee on Economic Affairs and Committee on Labor and Employment, November
27).
Congress of the Philippines. 1990. Transcript: House of Representatives
Committee Hearings on Foreign Investments (Committee on Trade and Industry,
Committee on Economic Affairs and Committee on Labor and Employment, December
4).
Congress of the Philippines. 1990. Transcript: Senate Committee Hearings on
Foreign Investments (Committee on Economic Affairs, August 14).
Congress of the Philippines. 1990. Transcript: Senate Committee Hearings on
Foreign Investments (Committee on Economic Affairs, September 5).
Congress of the Philippines. 1990. Transcript: Senate Committee Hearings on
Foreign Investments (Committee on Economic Affairs, October 9).
Congress of the Philippines. 1990. Transcript: Senate Committee Hearings on
Foreign Investments (Committee on Economic Affairs, October 23).
Congress of the Philippines. 1990. Transcript: House of Representatives Session
Proceedings on Foreign Investments Act (December 18).
Congress of the Philippines. 1990. Transcript: House of Representatives Session
Proceedings on Foreign Investments Act (December 19).
Congress of the Philippines. 1990. Transcript: House of Representatives Session
Proceedings on Foreign Investments Act (December 20).
Congress of the Philippines. 1990. Transcript: Senate Session Proceedings on Foreign Investments Act
(November 15).
Congress of the Philippines. 1990. Transcript: Senate Session Proceedings on Foreign Investments Act
(December 5).
Congress of the Philippines. 1990. Transcript: Senate Session Proceedings on Foreign Investments Act
(December 18).
Congress of the Philippines. 1990. Transcript: Senate Session Proceedings on Foreign Investments Act
(December 19).
Congress of the Philippines. 1990. Transcript: Senate Session Proceedings on Foreign Investments Act
(December 20).
Congress of the Philippines. 1991. Transcript: Senate Session Proceedings on Foreign Investments Act
(March 18).
Congress of the Philippines. 1991. Transcript: Senate Session Proceedings on Foreign Investments Act
(March 20).
Congress of the Philippines. 1991. Transcript: Senate Session Proceedings on Foreign Investments Act
(June 4).
Congress of the Philippines. 1991. Transcript: Senate Session Proceedings on Foreign Investments Act
(June 5).
Congress of the Philippines. 1991. Transcript: Senate Session Proceedings on Foreign Investments Act
(June 6).
Congress of the Philippines. 1991. Transcript: Bicameral Conference Committee
on Senate Bill 1678 and House Bill 32496 (April 24).
Congress of the Philippines. 1991. Transcript: Bicameral Conference Committee
on Senate Bill 1678 and House Bill 32496 (May 13).
Congress of the Philippines. 1991. Transcript: Bicameral Conference Committee
on Senate Bill 1678 and House Bill 32496 (May 21).
Congress of the Philippines. 1991. Transcript: Bicameral Conference Committee
on Senate Bill 1678 and House Bill 32496 (May 27).
Congress of the Philippines. 1991. Transcript: Bicameral Conference Committee
on Senate Bill 1678 and House Bill 32496 (May 28).
Coronel, Shiela, Yvonne Chua, Luz Rimban and Boomba Cruz. 2004. The Rulemakers: How the Wealth and Well-Born Dominate Congress.
Quezon City: PCIJ.
De Dios, Emmanuel. 1990. A Political Economy
of Philippine Policy-Making. In John W. Langford
and K. Lorne Brownsey
(eds.), Economic Policy-Making in the Asia-Pacific
Region. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Institute for Research on Public
Policy.
Dodd, Lawrence and Richard Schott. 1979. Congress
and the Administrative State. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Goodnow,
Frank. 1900. Politics and Administration.
New York: Macmillan.
Goodnow, Henry. 1964. Bureaucracy and Political Power in the New States. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Heclo, Hugh. 1978. Issue Networks and the Executive
Establishment. In Anthony King (ed.), The
New American Political System. Washington D.C.: American Enterprise
Institute.
Howlett, Michael and M Ramesh. 1995. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and
Policy Subsystems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hutchroft, Paul. 1991. Oligarchs and Cronies in the
Philippine State: The Politics of Patrimonial Plunder. World Politics, 43(3) 414-450.
Hutchcroft, Paul. 1993. Selective
Squander: The Politics of Preferential Credit Allocation in the Philippines. In
Stephan Haggard, Chung H. Lee, and Sylvia Maxfield (eds.), The Politics of
Finance in Developing Countries. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Hutchroft, Paul. 1998. Booty Capitalism: The Politics of Banking in the Philippines.
Ithaca: Cornel University Press.
Im, Sunghan. 2001. Bureaucratic
Power, Democracy and Administrative Democracy. Aldershot: Ashgate
Publishing Limited.
Johnson, Chalmers. 1982. MITI and the Japanese Miracle: the Growth of Industrial Policy,
1925-1975. Stanford CA: Stanford
University Press.
Magno, Alex. 2009. Weak State. First Person, The Philippine Star, October 8, 1. http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleid=512148
Marx, Fritz Morstein. 1967. The Higher Civil Service
as an Action Group in Western Political Development. In Joseph LaPalombra
(ed.), Bureaucracy and Political
Development. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
McCubbins, Mathew and Gregory Noble.1995. The
Appearance of Power: Legislators, Bureaucrats and the Budget Process in the US
and Japan. In Peter Cowhey and Mathew McCubbins (eds.), Structure and Policy in Japan and the United States. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mikamo, Shingo. 1997. Economic Policy-Making in the
Philippines. UP-CIDS Chronicle,
2(3-4) 64-72.
Montes, Manuel. 1992. The
Politics of Liberalization: The Aquino Government’s 1990 Tariff Reform
Initiative. In David Timberman (ed.), The
Politics of Economic Reform in Southeast Asia. Makati: Asian Institute of
Management.
Niskanen, William. 1971. Bureaucracy and Representative Government. New York:
Aldine-Atherton.
Pedro, Antonio. 2002. Legislating Banking Liberalization
in the Philippines: Business-Government Relations in Policy Reform. In Eric
Batalla (ed.), The Politics of Financial
Liberalization: Foreign Banking in Japan and the Philippines. Manila:
Yuchengco Center/DLSU.
Pye, Lucian. 1963. The Political Context of National
Development. In Irving Swerdlow (ed.), Development
Administration: Concepts and Problems. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Ramseyer, Mark and Rosenbluth Frances. 1993. Japan’s
Political Marketplace. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Riggs, Fred. 1967. Bureaucrats and Political
Development: A Paradoxical View. In Joseph LaPalombra (ed.), Bureaucracy and Political Development.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ripley, Randall and Grace Franklin. 1991. Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy.
California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Rivera, Temario. 1991. Class, the State and Foreign Capital: The Politics of Philippine
Industrialization, 1950-1986. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin.
Rivera, Temario. 1994. The State
and Industrial Transformation: Comparative and Local Insights. Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of
Third World Studies, 10(1) 55-80.
Rocamora, Joel. 1998. Philippine Political Parties: Continuity and
Change. Quezon City: Institute for Popular Democracy.
Rose, Richard. 2004. Steering the Ship of State: One
Tiller but Two Pairs of Hands. In Bill Jenkins and Edward Page (eds.), The Foundations of Bureaucracy in Economic
and Social Thought Volume 2. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Rourke,
Francis. 1984. Bureaucracy, Politics, and
Public Policy. Boston: Little Brown.
Svara, James. 2001. The Myth of the Dichotomy:
Complementary of Politics and Administration in the Past and Future of Public
Administration. Public Administration
Review, 61(2) 176-196.
Tiglao, Rigoberto. 1992. The
Dilemmas of Economic Policymaking in a “People Power” State. In David Timberman
(ed.), The Politics of Economic Reform in
Southeast Asia. Makati: Asian Institute of Management.
Vogel, Steven. 1996. Freer Markets, More Rules: Regulatory Reform in Advanced Industrial
Countries. Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press.
Weber, Max. 1946. Bureaucracy. In Hans Gerth and
Wright Mills (eds.), Max Weber: Essays in
Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weingast, Barry and Mark Moran. 1983. Bureaucratic
Discretion or Congressional Control? Regulatory Policymaking by the Federal
Trade Commission. Journal of Political
Economy, 91(5) 765-800.
Wilson, James. 1989. Bureaucracy: What Agencies Do and Why They Do It. Boulder, CO:
Basic Books.
Wilson, Woodrow. 1887. The Study of Administration. Political Science Quarterly, 2(2)
197-222.
Wright, Maurice. 1999. Who Governs Japan? Politicians
and Bureaucrats in the Policy-making Processes. Political Studies, XLVII, 939-954,
http://www.sfu.ca/~kawasaki/wright.pdf
Yamamoto, Tadashi. 2001. Japan, Guidance for Governance: Comparing Alternative Sources of Public
Policy Advice. Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange.
http://www.jcie.org/researchpdfs/Guidance/guide_yamamo
[1] This section was derived from previous works of the author on
Philippine policy making.
[2] Post-EDSA politics
refers to the period of democratic restoration in the 1986 and onwards.
[3] Entitled “Foreign Investments Without Incentives”, specifically
Article 44 to 56.
[4] Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
[5] Refers to List A and B of the Foreign Investments Act of 1991.
[6] Refers to List C (Transitory Negative List and Regular Negative
List) of the Foreign Investments Act of 1991.
[7] Foreign investors whose enterprise exports
70 percent or more of their output are exempted from this provision.
[1] This section was derived from previous works of the author on
Philippine policy making.
[2] Post-EDSA politics
refers to the period of democratic restoration in the 1986 and onwards.
[3] Entitled “Foreign Investments Without Incentives”, specifically
Article 44 to 56.
[4] Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
[5] Refers to List A and B of the Foreign Investments Act of 1991.
[6] Refers to List C (Transitory Negative List and Regular Negative
List) of the Foreign Investments Act of 1991.
[7] Foreign investors whose enterprise exports
70 percent or more of their output are exempted from this provision.
No comments:
Post a Comment