|
Kudos to
the National Competitiveness Council (NCC) and the Asian
Institute of Management (AIM) Policy Center for
partnering with the World Bank Group’s International
Finance Corp. (IFC) in putting together a report on
doing business in the Philippines, with emphasis on how
big cities can actually improve their respective
business environments by improving on regulations
affecting business and property registration, as well as
licensing.
After
all, unless areas for possible improvement are bluntly
revealed in an independent and nonpartisan report, many
local executives tend to prioritize practical
initiatives that are more in aid of reelection rather
than overall growth of the city economy. And this is
unfortunate, for beyond real property taxes, towns and
cities make most of their income from business taxes as
well as local licenses and permits.
By
looking into areas where cities can improve their
regulation, particularly in starting a business, issuing
licenses and registering property, the new
competitiveness report from IFC can help localities move
to attract more investments, encourage and support
business and thus improve their overall capacity to
generate income. All in the hope that such initiatives
can also translate to better infrastructure and public
services that benefit city residents. And what better
way to aid reelection, really. As noted by Bert Hofman,
World Bank country director, “Cities that do well in
creating a good business climate are also likely to do
well in poverty alleviation.”
In
explaining the rationale for the Doing Business report,
Federico M. Macaranas, executive director of the AIM
Policy Center and core member of the NCC, noted: “Doing
Business in the Philippines is a diagnostic tool that
provides actionable information for designing and
implementing reforms to guide local officials in
creating competitive environments to attract new
investments.”
In a
statement, the IFC said the Doing Business report covers
21 cities and three areas of regulation —starting a
business, dealing with licenses, and registering
property. It also noted city regulations and the
interpretation and implementation of national laws
varied greatly, thus either constraining or promoting
local business activity. Cited as example was
Mandaluyong City, where it took three weeks to transfer
a property title, compared with six weeks in Mandaue
City in Cebu. Also, it requires 23 procedures to build a
warehouse and connect basic utilities in Taguig City,
but 33 procedures to do the same in Pasig City.
Aside
from the IFC,
AIM Policy Center
and NCC, the Doing Business in the Philippines 2008
report was also supported by the Australian Agency for
International Development and the Canadian International
Development Agency. It was based on the efforts of more
than 200 lawyers, accountants, architects, contractors,
engineers, property specialists and national and local
public officials. It compared 21 cities against each
other, and with 178 economies around the world. It
covered 15 cities in Metro Manila, three cities in the
Visayas (Cebu, Lapu-Lapu and Mandaue), Davao City in
Mindanao and Tanauan City in Batangas in Southern Luzon.
The
report highlighted two very important findings: (1)
business regulations and their enforcement vary widely
across Philippine cities. Even while all local
governments share the same legal and institutional
framework, they also “interpret and implement national
regulations differently,” and (2) much reform, both at
the national and local level, is needed to reduce the
high number of procedures to start a business, deal with
construction-related activities and transfer a property
title across Philippine cities. Although most procedures
can be completed relatively quickly, the large number of
them “increases the hassle for businesses and creates
opportunities for corruption.”
And this
is the crux of the matter, really. Issues relating to
bureaucratic red tape naturally result in creating
opportunities for discretion, and thus, possible
corruption. Anybody with experience in putting up a
business, or registering a property, or securing a
license or permit from either a national or local
agency, would attest to having dealt with corruption one
way or the other. For that is the unavoidable
circumstance of dealing with regulators not only in the
Philippines but
in many other countries, as well.
Unfortunately, the well-intended Doing Business report
appears to have intentionally excluded this issue,
perhaps as its authors prepare a more comprehensive
analysis of the situation for release in the future, and
recommend possible reform areas to deal with this
particular phenomenon.
Invariably, the pace and ease of doing business in the
Philippines can be predetermined not by the number of
procedures or the legal framework for regulation.
Reducing the number of procedures can simply mean
dealing with fewer people, and thus fewer people to pay
off. One-stop shops can also mean centralizing the
corruption, with a sign on the lead person’s desk
clearly and truly stating that, “The buck stops here.”
In this part of the world, business-friendly can simply
mean easy to talk to, as long as you bring money.
Comments to matort@yahoo.com |