Good Metropolitan Governance through Inter-Local Alliances: The Case of Metropolitan Iloilo-Guimaras Economic Development Council (MIGEDC)

Abstract

In the light of the globalizing world, urbanization is almost everywhere and this world of ours is drastically evolving to an urban world. The Philippines is experiencing the same statistical trend, as more than half of the Filipino population resides in urban areas, and the country’s rate of urban growth since 1980s is considered as one of the highest in the developing economies of Asia (Mercado and Manasan, 2002, p. 35). Overpopulation and overcrowding, traffic congestion, solid waste and refuse disposal, water and sewerage systems, public safety and security, and environmental degradation are just few of the many problems that are directly related to rapid urbanization. Of the many problems posed by metropolitan areas, one of the most intractable is that of how they can be governed effectively (Barlow, 1991). Given that the challenges posed by urbanization cannot be underestimated, governments both at the national and local levels are finding efficient and effective ways to manage and govern urban / metropolitan areas. One of these is the formation of metropolitan alliances between neighboring local government units (LGUs) to address common issues and concerns brought about by rapid urban growth. Yet, scholars in public administration and governance agree that the main challenge in metropolitan alliances is not on the formation/creation of alliances but rather in sustaining and maintaining them. This study provides an analysis and evaluation of a metropolitan alliance – the Metro Iloilo-Guimaras Economic Development Council (MIGEDC). Taking into context that formation of metropolitan alliance is emerging as an approach to develop the capacities of local governments to meet the demands and challenges of urbanization, this study will first review and analyze the trigger issues and forces that led to the creation of the alliance, as well as the binding and unbinding factors that influence the alliance’s governance process. The focal point of the study is the practice of good metropolitan governance wherein it seeks to answer the following questions: (1) is MIGEDC institutionally stable and financially sustainable?; (2) does MIGEDC adhere to and practice the principles and norms of good governance? and; (3) in the performance of the alliance’s functions and mandates, were the objectives and goals achieved? These three (3) major research questions will eventually determine if good metropolitan governance was achieved and practiced in MIGEDC’s pursuit of providing an improved quality of urban life to its constituents. It must be noted that the major research questions are complementary and mutually reinforcing of each other, thus serving as indicators of good metropolitan governance in the context of this study. David Easton’s systems framework was adopted to construct the systems framework on metropolitan governance used as the conceptual framework of this study. Based on the findings and evaluation of the elements of institutional stability that includes leadership, membership, structure and purpose, and plans and operations, it has been found out that MIGEDC is institutionally stable. In terms of MIGEDC’s financial sustainability as a metropolitan alliance, it was found out that the alliance is relatively sustainable in terms of finances. This relativity is justified on the point that the financial aspects of MIGEDC prove to be sustainable at this point, yet it needs immediate attention and serious reconsideration for it to be financially sustainable in the long-term perspective. Overall findings for practice and adherence to principle and norms of good governance reveal that MIGEDC as a metropolitan alliance adheres to and promotes good governance, thus promoting a culture of equity, effectiveness and efficiency, participation, and accountability and transparency. As a work-in-progress and developing metropolitan alliance, MIGEDC continually achieves it goals and objectives in the performance of its mandated functions through its agreed areas of collaboration, general goals and objectives, and the four (4) Es of metropolitan governance.