Alfonso, Geonel Marko P.

POL 203
2012040368 March 11, 2016
Collaboration and Planning in Central and Local Governance

Collaboration is a common word. It can be used or heard in many aspects. It is similar to

cooperation and both are opposites of competition. Collaboration is not as simple as it sounds as

it is an art that plays a crucial role not only in our own lives but also in our society. In the world

of politics and public administration, Collaboration plays a vital role especially in planning as it

helps in the mechanics used in planning by having different actors or institutions synergize in

molding a relevant or substantial plan. The concept pays off when given the right attention and

putting capable actors into action. Collaboration’s concept is different when it comes to Public

Policy and Planning. If it fails a chain reaction might happen that can lead a certain institution or

government into a failure. Collaboration is a thing that is somehow not a prerequisite but its

advantages can help establish a sustainable society and can lead into better policy making and

efficient planning that can have positive effects and in turn be a way to achieve development and

progress in the state. Collaboration, it seems, is King in a turbulent world where governments don’t

have all the answers to complex challenges, and where there is some impetus to move beyond both

bureaucracy and markets” (O'Flynn, 2009, p. 113).

The objective of this paper will focus on the work of Ralf Brand and Frank Gaffikin titled

“Collaborative Planning in an Uncollaborative World”. The following selection will be examined

and expounded into 3 parts. First, the synopsis in which the the chosen article will be summarized.

Second will be the reflection about the journal in which I will share my insights and ideas on what

I know about the study and on how is it applicable in the field of Public Policy and Planning.

Lastly, the third part. This part is divided into two, the application of the study and the conclusion.

The application will be conducted via cross referencing of related literature that talks about
collaboration between institutions. The conclusion will be the end of the third part in which it is

where the combined ideas that were mentioned and cited in the previous parts will be integrated

and it sums up the entire paper.

Brand and Gaffikin (2007) expose the concept of collaborative planning and applied it to

reality. They assessed its efficacy for informing and explaining what the actors (planners) ‘really’

do and their capacity to perform. To begin with, the two authors disaggregated collaborative

planning into four elements that can explain such conceptual frameworks: (1) Ontology, (2)

Epistemology, (3) Ideology and (4) methodology. The four methods as explained by the authors

were used because it helps in delimiting and clarifying the object if their examination and it

provides some transparent criteria that guide our examination of the strengths and weaknesses of

collaborative planning (Brand & Gaffikin, 2007).

The second part of the article comprises an empirical investigation of planning processes in

Northern Ireland, ranging from region-wide to local and from a statutory to a visionary level. Why

did they choose Northern Ireland? The province was chosen because planning in it makes suitable

test cases because special care has been invested in participatory deliberation processes to

compensate for the democratic deficits or loopholes in its modern mainstream political system.

Such efforts sought to ensure a maximally inclusive planning process. An example was given by

the authors to prove such manner, the Regional Development Strategy for an instance has earned

plaudits from leading exponents of collaborative planning (Brand & Gaffikin, 2007).

The final analysis done by Brand and Gaffikin provides a systematic gauge of collaborative

planning in light of our empirical evidence in which the four conceptual dimensions were

deployed. The result of it was it exposed a range of problems not only with the concept itself but

also in its affinity with the existing uncollaborative nature of the game within which it has to play.
With this they started making out their conclusion in which Brand and Gaffikin said that they were

enlightened that collaborative planning as a conceptual toll for practitioners needs to be

overhauled. A latter highlight was also given in which it gives emphasis to the inconsistencies in

a political framewok that struggles to accommodate both global competitiveness and local

democratic collaboration (Brand & Gaffikin, 2007).

The article tackles on how collaborative planning works in an environment where actors tend

to ignore and act as independent individuals and think for themselves in a hostile environment.

The authors argue that an agonistic way of planning is problematic because the issues of power

and inequity remain stagnant in that scenario. The authors somehow prove that collaborative

planning will be successful if some patterns are followed. The objective of collaboration when it

comes public policy and planning is to promote acknowledgement of one party to another. With

the given standards and goals, it is believed that civic empowerment, mediation and negotiation

provide transformative learning opportunities for participants, so that not only their arguments

change, but they change as well and synergy will be possible. Beyond interest-based lobbying

there also exist a scope for mutual growth between the two parties. And even though they

sometimes have different opinions regarding one subject it is possible to create a broader civil

welfare. The said ideas were agreeable in a sense that appreciation is boosted and it helps in

connecting contradicting aspects and norms by institutions with the same goal as they can share

and formulate a better and neutral plan. And in this game the role of the citizens is highly

maximized in a sense that they can influence politicians transform a uncollaborative type of game

into a collaborative powerhouse that can make the political arena beneficial. But in the absence of

help from society, there will be a higher risk on having an incompetent society and collaboration

and progress in the affected cities are going to regress.

 Now that we have substantial knowledge about the article, the question to be answered will

be on what will be the effects of collaboration planning when applied in the Philippine setting. The

Philippines as we know is still figuring out the process of development since its democratization

in 1987 and its decentralization in 1991. In the process it has been evident that the country used

some collaborative efforts for it to sustain development when it comes to policy making and its

medium term plans. A good example will be the bilateral collaboration between The Philippines

and Japan.

The ties by Japan and the Philippines are more focused or in line with the plans that are made

by the central government. The collaboration between the countries has been big when it comes to

its scope and effects. The partnerships done by the states ushered Hybrid Policies as it enhanced

three different sectors: Transportation & Development, Economics, and in Tourism. This

collaboration between two countries has helped the current administration with its National Plans.

How? The programs and policies are somehow focused on the Philippine Development Plan as it

tackles Inclusive Growth, Competitive Industry & Service Systems, and Accelerating

Infrastructure Development.

In the transportation & development, the Philippine government approved the

Comprehensive Resurgence Strategy (CARS) Program which provides investment incentives in

the manufacture of whole body large plastic parts and other strategic parts that are not currently

produced in the Philippines. The target of this collaborative agreement is the development of small

and medium enterprise. The program has the capability to help boost local content in future

vehicles sold in the Philippines as well as boost employment in the industry. Solving the vehicular

traffic in Metro Manila has also been the concern of Japan as Japanese car brands put together

account for a decidedly dominant share of the Philippine market. This, together with a continuing
resilience in our economy, has unjustly been blamed for the worsening traffic condition in Metro

Manila. To solve the problem, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) continues to

take a keen interest in funding studies on how to solve the said problem, and a few key urban

centers’, traffic nightmares (Gamboa, 2016).

The bilateral relation of Japan and the Philippines economically has also improved

tremendously. Japan continues to be a major trading partner of the Philippines and it is due to the

Japan-Philippine Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) signed between the two states in

2006. The Department of Trade puts trade growth between the two countries at an average of 7%

annually from 2010 to 2014 despite the global economic slump that happened in the timeframe. In

terms of value, the latest trade estimate for 2014 was at $19.15 billion. Exports has also been a

major key especially in food products. The most crucial and essential factor in this collaborative

approach would be the improved flow of manpower from the Philippines to Japan, particularly in

the field of health and maritime (Gamboa, 2016).

And lastly, the tourism sector in which it has become a back and forth relationship. Filipinos

are returning the favor by choosing Japan as the mainstream destination these days. This give-and-

take reciprocity places well towards balancing our two countries’ tourism relationship. The recent

influx of Filipino tourists to Japan has been due to the partial relaxation of visa processing

requirements, coupled with the availability of low budget fares. On the other hand, with Japan’s

economy on the mend, their nationals have once again been booking flights to and

accommodations in popular Filipino tourism sites (Gamboa, 2016).

This bilateral collaboration has been substantial in the central government’s policies and

programs. It may affect local governance and its development but its effects are minor.

Collaboration in the Central and local government should also be given focus by the current
administration as it is the main source of different resources. Intergovernmental relations should

be improved in Public Policy and Planning as it is crucial in a state’s development. It is important

in the sense that it shows us on how different levels of government work and coordinate with each

other with distinct but complementary functions (Tayao, 2013). Central-local relations are

important in a country as it shows some promising results in development. The collaboration

between the two government units are known as the fundamental indicators of development of not

only the economy but also in democracy itself. In planning, the central government must also take

note that in order for the local governments to perform well it should give them maximum support

to create a synergy and productivity that can turn into a developmental process. When the local

government feels the support of the central government and they somehow synergize then good

manifestations will show up one by one because if they act as a single individual then it is a good

indication that there is a central-periphery collaboration (Tayao, 2013).

What I think needs to be improved in the case of collaborative planning is the relations

between the central and local governments. The central government is somehow inefficient when

it comes to planning in the local level. An example would be the budget that is given to cities in

the country which is constant. The national government gives 23% of the national budget in the

cities. When a municipality is upgraded into a new city the budget allotment is divided which

results into less resources to sustain the local government. The solution needed for the Philippine

government is to acknowledge the benefits that might brought up if great leadership skills by

training them, appreciation among its actors/workers, implementing institutional reforms,

Educating the people on what can they do and their roles and maximizing the role of the local

governments through collaborative governance.

 References
O'Flynn, J. (2009). The Cult of Collaboration in Public Policy. The Australian Journal of Public
Administration , 68 (1), 112-166.
Brand, R., & Gaffikin, F. (2007). Collaborative Planning in an Uncollaborative World. Planning
Theory , 6 (3), 282-313.
Gamboa, R. (2016, February 4). Closer Philippines-Japan Collaboration . Retrieved March 10,
2016, from The Philippine Star:
http://www.philstar.com/business/2016/02/04/1549353/closer-philippines-japan-
collaboration
Tayao, E. S. (2013). The Role of Local Governance in Asia: A Regional Perspective.
PANORAMA: Insights Into Asian and European Affairs .