Good Governance, Social Quality,

and Active Citizenship: Gawad Kalinga

in the Philippines

Alex B. Brillantes Jr. and Maricel T. Fernandez

Abstract

This article discusses how the Gawad Kalinga movement in the Philippines has operationalized
good governance among its communities. This movement has not only provided opportunities
for collaboration and cooperation between and among the three major governance actors,
governments, business, and civil society, but more important, provided a framework for active
citizen engagement in the process of improving their quality of life. Citizen participation
is central not only in the theory of social quality but also in good governance. The paper
argues argues that in order for reforms to be successful and sustainable, institutional reforms
and active citizen engagement are necessary. These reforms are key to addressing some basic
problems facing nations today, an alarming decline in trust in institutions and corruption.
This paper is divided into three parts. The first part discusses good governance approaches
and reform of public administration in relation to social quality theory. The second part
discusses the tenets of citizenship and civil organization leadership within the context of good
governance. The third part focuses on an emerging citizens’ movement in the Philippines—the
Gawad Kalinga movement, which highlights the aspects of citizen engagement. The last part
contains some concluding remarks drawn from the Gawad Kalinga experience as applied
governance reform, and its implications for enhancing social quality.

Keywords: civil society; citizenship; social quality, good governance; Gawad Kalinga;
Philippines

Contexts of Analysis

Over the past decades, the praxis of governance has been under severe challenge and
continues to be under pressure to reform if it is to be responsive to the ever increasing
demands of society. The relevance of government itself has been under attack with
questions raised about its continued relevance as an institution. The declining trust
in institutions of government has been decried, with calls for the need to institute
reforms if government as we know it is to survive. It is in this situation that the social
sphere comes in where citizens participate and engage in the governance process.
In the Philippine political context, the power of the ruling elite still excessively
dominates. Hence, radical reforms of public administration is not only inevitable
International Journal of Social Quality 1(2), Winter 2011: 19–30
© Berghahn Journals 2011
doi:10.3167/IJSQ.2011.010203
Alex B. Brillantes Jr. and Maricel T. Fernandez

but also imperative. In order to successfully implement any reform efforts in the
Philippines, the Philippine social fabric and behavior must be improved i.e. its social
quality must be improved.
In the study of governance, several models and approaches of reforming public
administration have emerged, such as civic governance, “good governance,” and “good
enough governance” (Grindle 2004). These analytic approaches influenced (or even
dominate) the contemporary academic discourse of the present times. For instance,
Grindle (2004) brought our attention to a model of “good enough governance,” which
to her is a realistic goal for many countries to pursue, as they are faced with the goal of
reducing poverty. Working toward “good enough governance” means accepting a more
nuanced understanding of the evolution of institutions and government capabilities;
being explicit about trade-offs and priorities in a world in which all good things
cannot be pursued at once; learning about what is working rather than focusing solely
on governance gaps; taking the role of government in poverty alleviation seriously;
and grounding action in the contextual realities of each country.
In this study, we discuss the model of “good governance.” This model contains the
following elements: (1) people’s participation in policy and decision-making, made
possible by a decentralized government; (2) responsiveness to the will of the people,
who are empowered and enabled; (3) transparency and accountability of public servants
in response to the citizens’ right to know (“the truth”) as the sovereign in a democracy;
(4) efficiency and effectiveness in the exercise of power and authority to preserve scarce
resources for the provision of public services, solving problems, and fulfilling goals; (5)
the promotion and fulfillment of social justice and human rights; and (6) achieving
ecological integrity and sustainable development (see Cariño 2000: 1–16).
With these models in mind, we develop our analysis about the reform of public
administration in the Philippines. In this country, the reform of bureaucratic
institutions has been a prominent and recurring tradition of public administration
practice (Reyes 1997). Ilago (2004) argues that reform proposals and initiatives are
linked to desired changes in governmental structure, operations, and even roles in
society. To analyze these issues, the article suggests four major areas and targets of
reform of (1) institutions, structures, and procedures; (2) mindsets, behavior, and
values; (3) leadership, and (4) citizen engagement.
It should be noted that, in this paper, the authors develop this analysis in relation
to social quality (SQ) theory. Within this context the first and fourth aspects of
the framework are focused on, i.e., the imperatives of reformed institutions and
transformational leadership. It will be recalled that in the social quality theory, Lin
et al. (2009) argue that the nature of “the social” is defined by the productive and
reproductive relationships, manifested in structures, practices, and conventions. The
theory constitutes interdependency between processes of human self-realization and
the formation of collective identities. It promotes the importance of people’s social
participation. In this study about the Philippine’s experiences, the authors intend to
address the following questions: What are the notions of citizenship and leadership vis-
à-vis the tenets of good governance? What are the trends in leadership and citizenship
as brought about by globalization, and how do these relate to social quality? What
are the manifestations of good citizenship, and how can they relate to democracy?

20 • International Journal of Social Quality • Volume 1 Number 2 • Winter 2011

 Good Governance, Social Quality, and Active Citizenship

Taking the case of Gawad Kalinga, what is the role of active citizens’ engagement,
solidarity, social justice, and preservation of human dignity in realizing the tenets
of good governance? In this way, we suggest that civil organizations could be a key
player in societal governance, not only in consensus building but also in transforming
society.

Citizenship in the Context of Globalization

If there is such thing as “good governance,” there is also a need for good citizenship
values. Today, the traditional nationalist versions of citizenship have reached crisis
point, as we are confronted with global issues such as migration, climate change, war
and conflict, terrorism, and the global media, among others. These challenges are
not only local in nature. Since globalization relates phenomena such as international
migration, fragmentation or diminishing boundaries, and power of nation states,
it incurs a redefinition of the arena of citizenship from the nation state to a more
transnational location (Manalo 2004). In this regard, citizenship can be considered as
universal. Global citizenship, according to Manalo, is now a global trend where global
interdependences take place every day, given the presence of modern technology
such as the Internet. Because citizenship is often related to mass participation, we
may see a trend of participatory development from “community projects,” which
have traditionally been a local concern, to the rise of a “good governance agenda,”
(Manalo 2004: 340–342). The latter is concerned with increasing the responsiveness
of government to the needs and priorities of citizens.
In this background, the growing relationship between human rights and
development (Jones and Gaventa 2002) is referred to as “New Social Movement,”
which de-privileges class (in the Marxist sense) but gives more concern to the issues of
identity-gender, ethnicity, and ecology (Prior et al. 1995; Isin and Wood 1999; Sklair
2002). Consequently, the need to redefine participation as a function of citizenship
from pertaining purely to people’s relation with the state to one that also covers the
social relations sphere is highlighted. In this sphere, therefore, citizenship needs to be
clarified, developed, and fully exercised. For instance, in the developed North (the
welfare states), the interaction between feminist and citizenship theories is reinforced
by the ideological construction of a public–private divide that reconstructs citizenship
from a feminist perspective (Lister 1997).
The notion of citizenship is being deconstructed. From an institution of exclusion,
control, and containment imposed in the colonial period by consolidating elite
politics, the developing countries have gone beyond the “ideological construction”
and “re-ordering of life” by the nation states in the decolonization and post-colonial
period (Abeer 2002; Hassal 1999). Citizenship is now being strengthened by active
participation and the gradual democratization of all spheres of society. It is being
invoked to exact accountability from those in power and countervails their abuses.
Citizen rights are providing the justification to intervene in the whole political setup
of society, and to wrestle power from the state and those elites which control it (Cohen
and Arato 1992). The rights agenda is serving as a platform for asserting sovereignty;

International Journal of Social Quality • Volume 1 Number 2 • Winter 2011 • 21

Alex B. Brillantes Jr. and Maricel T. Fernandez

claiming, protecting, and promoting existing rights and privileges from the state
(Hassal 1999); and radically extending human rights into areas where they are not
prevailing or respected (Weekley 1999).
In the Philippines, Abueva (2009, 2008, 1993) has written various articles
concerning nationhood and nationalism; political and administrative culture; a
strong and effective state; democracy and democratization; leadership and citizenship.
In his view, the quality of governance involves interactions between the state, civil
society, and the market in dealing with local and national goals and problems and the
people’s needs and expectations. It is an important character of Philippine society that
empowered citizens and civil society influence governance in relation to human needs,
human rights, and the quality of life. In this society, citizenship can be considered
as both a description of democratic tenets and normative efforts for democratization
(Cohen and Arato 1992; Weekley 1999). However, Manalo (2004) points out that
citizenship in the modern Philippines is being redefined according to the specific
context of the societies where they are being promoted or invoked.

Reform Institutions, Processes, and Procedures and Leadership

According to Abueva (2008), Filipinos should be driven by a vision of “The Good

Society” through inclusive democracies, as Abueva described a good society as free
and peaceful, united in diversities, egalitarian, prosperous, life-sustaining, and non-
killing. However, in terms of the weak or failed states such as the Philippines, the
idea of a “good society” remains a distant goal. Nemenzo (2008) emphasized that
the Philippines is in a precarious state in which government institutions are falling
apart, the president’s legitimacy is in doubt, the Philippine’s rating fluctuates between
negative and very slightly positive, the judiciary no longer commands respect, and the
bureaucracy reeks of corruption. With the abovementioned characteristics, Nemenzo
suggested that we need a strong state to implement fundamental reforms, to break
elite resistance, and to withstand the imperialist pressure.
Thus, in order for our efforts in reforming and revitalizing institutions to succeed,
we need to re-build our nation and build a just and human society. Abueva (2008)
underscored this need by setting up the following developmental tasks: (1) love of
country, a deeper sense of nationhood, a stronger commitment to the common good
and the national interest, spirituality, moral values, and modern ethical behavior; (2)
competent, responsible, and accountable leaders who have the political will to do
what is necessary in terms of policies, decisions, and reforms; (3) responsible citizens
who are empowered economically, socially, and politically as members of a growing
middle class; and (4) a productive, competitive, and responsible private sector and an
equitable economy. The above examples require institutional reform, since institutions
provides incentives and disincentives for the people to behave in certain ways.
Therefore, good institutions are necessary in order to establish an incentive structure
which reduces uncertainty and enhances efficiency, and in so doing, strengthens
economic performance (North 1991).

22 • International Journal of Social Quality • Volume 1 Number 2 • Winter 2011

 Good Governance, Social Quality, and Active Citizenship

Since in many Asian countries, public institutions are vulnerable to political

influence, the reform is generally made in a top-down manner. Thus, a transformative
or transformational leader is a very important factor to advance this reform procedure.
However, any reform efforts are meaningless without the acceptance of the public.
Once the people accept the challenges of reform, the next step is to engage public
participation. Naturally, one of the tenets of good governance is participation, and
one manifestation of citizenship is to be able to participate in the democratic process.
As Manalo maintained, citizen participation is generally credited as a critical factor in
pushing for more democratization and in facilitating social transformation.
However, in the Philippine context, bureaucrats (particularly in local government)
normally resist such reforms in order to preserve nepotism in the appointment and
promotion process. This diminishes the public service standard, and attracts high
levels of graft or corruption, which in turn leads to incompetence, inefficiency,
redundancy, and overstaffing in the civil service. Similar to many countries in Africa
and Middle East Asia, civil service is considered as a means to buy political support,
and as a result, downsizing public sectors in these countries is difficult. Additionally,
the use of civil service to create jobs brings about fiscal pressures, which in turn
drives low wages that frustrate qualified professionals. Consequently, transparency
of public information and the open access of political appointees becomes difficult.
Thus, institutional development in public, private, and civil society is required in
order to depoliticize the public sector.
Political participation is essential in order to avoid risks such as corruption
and increased clientelism. The political participation of civil society groups above
and beyond traditional modalities of participation such as elections provides the
necessary check and balance against corruption and will enhance transparency and
accountability of local government officials. Thus, participation is an important factor
in strengthening democracy. The people should sufficiently participate and have
opportunities to convey their opinions and interests in the output of the decisions
that they have made. For these reasons, the people should have enough and equitable
opportunities to question and take part in the formulation of policies that affect
them. In the process, everybody shares benefits when participating in activities and
projects of the community. It is a strategy by which community members recognize
and exercise their rights and ability in planning and implementing projects for their
own benefit (UNDP 2003). It is within this context that the next section shall focus
on a specific case in the Philippines—the Gawad Kalinga movement—that has begun
to emerge as an indigenous Filipino development model and begun to successfully
introduce reforms at the local level.

Gawad Kalinga: Converging Citizen Engagement

Over the past decade, the Gawad Kalinga (GK), (meaning “to give care”) has become
an emerging model of governance in the Philippines (Brillantes and Fernandez 2008).
Within the purpose of social reform, it demonstrates the convergence of citizen
engagement coupled with paradigm shifts. It is a movement for nation-building which

International Journal of Social Quality • Volume 1 Number 2 • Winter 2011 • 23

Alex B. Brillantes Jr. and Maricel T. Fernandez

brings together various stakeholders in the governance process, with the government,
business, and civil society involved. As the GK founder, Antonio Meloto puts it: “GK
is a global movement for poverty reduction that has spawned immense generosity
and massive volunteerism.” (Meloto 2009: 6). It is an indigenous patriotic global
development model that promotes the “new politics of caring,” or “kalinga politics”
and the new economics of sharing or “bayanihan economics.” It is not about divisive
proselytizing or narrow nationalism but about local citizenship and justice. Such
description of Gawad Kalinga highlights three important characteristics that embody
key concepts in new public administration, reinventing government, and governance:
enhancement of social equity as a key question (Frederickson 1971); effective delivery
of services as a core concept (Osborne and Gaebler 1992); and cooperation between
government, business, and civil society as a key principle of governance (ADB 2005,
1995; UNDP 1997; Cariño 2000).
The GK way is one of radical citizenship and patriotic development. It takes a
holistic approach which is sensitive to cultural values and social structures. It loves the
poor and also honors the rich who care for them. It does not condone corruption but
engages all politicians who want to follow their brand of honest development that is
their antidote to corruption (Meloto 2009: 140). It follows the old-fashioned Filipino
philosophy called “bayanihan” or “cooperativism.” GK aims to restore the dignity
of men. As pointed out by Abueva (2009 in Meloto 2009),1 “the ultimate end of
widening ‘bayanihan’ is to promote patriotism, societal renewal and nation-building
for a just and caring society.” At the core of the GK are thousands of volunteers
ranging from young men and women, students, to captains of industry, retired
business persons, all referred to as “bayani,” or “heroes” who have simply offered their
3Ts: time, talents, and treasure (“padugo”) or “sweat equity” to literally build homes
for the poor. Being a hero for others and not leaving anyone behind (“walang iwanan”)
are central to the GK paradigm and ethic; simply helping one’s neighbors.
The Gawad Kalinga movement has ventured on co-branding with partners both
from the state and the market that were attracted to popular causes. GK aspires to bring
back the true Filipino citizen; not necessarily to ask them to stay in the Philippines
but to share with the Philippines their fulfillments and achievements overseas. GK has
established an organized network of support from international organizations. One
such network is the “Answering the Cry of the Poor” (ANCOP) movement, composed
of a growing roster of international organizations covering countries like the US,
Canada, Denmark, Spain, Switzerland, and Australia. ANCOP offices have been set
up in twenty donor areas abroad as the official international representatives of GK.
In Philippine society, this GK movement serves as a convergence point for all
sectors—from the elite to the poor, from the soldiers to the civilians, from the senior
citizens to the youths, among others. These sectors at different levels are sprawled
geographically across the Philippines The “Kalinga Luzon” (Caring Luzon) and
“Kalinga Pilipinas” (Caring Philippines) concepts, for instance, have stirred the
imagination of other sectors as well. Kawal Kalinga (Caring Soldiers), for instance,
is being proposed by the Department of National Defense (DND). The DND
aims that the Gawad Kalinga program be implemented in several military areas and
camps so that decent homes for enlisted men can be built in peaceful and beautiful

24 • International Journal of Social Quality • Volume 1 Number 2 • Winter 2011

 Good Governance, Social Quality, and Active Citizenship

communities. There are already existing villages such as the “Kawal Kalinga” AFP Off-
Base Housing Project in Barangay San Jose de Urquico in Tarlac City. There is also a
campaign for “Pulis Kalinga” (Caring Policemen) by the Philippine National Police
(PNP). Provincial governments and multi-sectoral partners in local government units
such as Cebu and Malabon will launch Kalinga Cebu and Kalinga Malabon. GK has
also extended its activities to the Muslim communities in Mindanao by launching the
“Highway of Peace Campaign,” involving Muslim and Christians together in building
homes in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, the Zamboanga Peninsula,
and Lanao del Sur.
With the above context, a trend is born and the poor and marginalized in
Philippine society have found a powerful opportunity for growth and real change
in the Gawad Kalinga movement. The problems that besiege the poorest Filipinos
are deeply rooted in the system of national governance when it was first introduced.
Through the century of independence, Filipinos have not overhauled this deeply
rooted culture of ineffective governance. Filipinos, being perceived as inhabiting one
of the most corrupt nations in the world, point to the need to change the culture of
Filipino citizenship and governance. GK shuns partisan politics while working with
politicians. It successfully draws out Filipino ingenuity and generosity. As GK founder
Tony Meloto enthused in an interview with the Philippine Daily Inquirer:

GK has become a vehicle for convergence for all sectors and its model of governance is now
being replicated in all levels of Philippine society. GK exemplifies a governance paradigm
based on cooperation and partnership among business (corporate foundations), government
(LGUs, national government agencies, legislators), and civil society (non-government
organizations and academic institutions). The initiative is not merely an act of philanthropy,
but an investment (business), not merely humanitarian, but developmental-oriented (civil
society), and not simply an act of dole-out but of empowerment (civil society).

Exemplified by multi-stakeholdership, the GK movement is consistent with Article

62 of the Local Government Code of 1991, laying down the direct involvement of
people’s organizations (POs), NGOs, and the private sector in the plans, programs,
projects, or activities of Local Government Units (LGUs). This approach promotes the
pooling of resources and talents, an opportunity that LGUs, hard pressed to meet the
many competing priorities of their constituents, should explore. On the other hand,
mobilizing LGU commitment and resources in order to house the poor will generate
considerable impact and empower marginalized communities to meaningfully
transform themselves (LGSP 2005). GK partners with the Home Development
Mutual Fund (HDMF), popularly known as PAG-IBIG, a major funding source that
the LGU, as well as other GK partners can tap. HDMF “extends housing finance to
formally employed community members who have no capacity to build their own
homes without external assistance” (LGSP 2005: 26).
The partnership of Gawad Kalinga (GK) with various academic institutions is
congruent with the “town and gown” approach to development, where academia
is enriched by praxis and benefits the community. The National College of Public
Administration (NCPAG), as one of the hubs of GK activities, has been taking the
lead role in networking and in strengthening social capital, which can be of great help

International Journal of Social Quality • Volume 1 Number 2 • Winter 2011 • 25

Alex B. Brillantes Jr. and Maricel T. Fernandez

to GK’s mission. Members of the Association of Schools of Public Administration

in the Philippines (ASPAP, Inc.) are also tapped for capacity development and local
empowerment through various modes of interventions, such as development of a
curriculum and preparation of modules on good governance which incorporate the GK
development model, conduct of joint training programs, and workshops with various
stakeholders, collaborative research among different institutions, and documentation
of good and best practices of governance. The GK has invited academic institutions
to critique their methodology and conduct research in their villages (Brillantes and
Fernandez 2008).
GK’s partnership with its stakeholders is grounded on trust. This model has been
described as indigenous and fundamental. While GK is a faith-based initiative, it is
nonetheless a working model of development that can complement research, training,
and extension work. The initiative has gone beyond providing a roof for the homeless.
Research by various student groups, such as that by the Civic Welfare Training Service
students of the UP School of Economics, demonstrates how GK is transforming
people's lifestyles, giving hope and aspirations, resulting in greater self-reliance (lower,
if not eradicated, incidence of scavenging and mendicancy among GK residents),
disciplined habits (lower spending on vices such as alcohol and gambling and greater
spending on food), and improved health (lower incidence of disease, less spending on
medicines).

Gawad Kalinga as an Emerging Model for Good Governance

towards Social Quality: Some Concluding Notes

Gawad Kalinga (GK) can be considered a special paradigm of a “good governance”

model. The “good governance” ideal revolves around the values of transparency,
accountability, participation, rule of law, equity and social justice, sustainability, and
continuity. GK revolves around the values of “Bayanihan” (becoming a hero to one
another) and addressing the root cause of poverty: not simply the absence of money
but an absence of shared values; a sense of community and higher purpose. There is
a “massive mobilization of GK partners and volunteers” (beginning with “padugo,”
or “to bleed for the cause), which means devoting one’s own time and resources to
initiate work within the community without expecting outside funding or support).
In GK, there is likewise a manifestation of “patriotism in action” which is not just
working with the poor but more importantly working for the nation.
The Gawad Kalinga model may be further understood in reference to the ideals
of “good governance” and democracy in the context of transformative leadership and
good citizenship. Citizenship is becoming universal given the transnational nature
of countries and the globalization trends. As we suggested at the outset, citizen
participation is a central feature of the theory of social quality. Active citizenship and
transformational leadership are among the four reform areas of public administration
and good governance. The reform imperatives for social quality are not indicative and
may evolve depending on the characteristics and adaptability of certain governments or
institutions. However, the possibilities for creating an objective public administration

26 • International Journal of Social Quality • Volume 1 Number 2 • Winter 2011

 Good Governance, Social Quality, and Active Citizenship

template by which to evaluate how GK flourishes and continues to shine may be

considered in its capacity to engage strategic cooperation between government,
business, and civil society through its social network, effective delivery of service
through its programs, and enhancing social equity through its culture.
Thus, although some attempts at reform of public administration have not
succeeded, some lessons have been learned. For instance, there is a need to enhance
political participation in the democratic processes, and there is a need for a deepening
of the decentralization process. Also, decentralization as an approach to public
administration reform might be considered as providing an enabling framework for
active citizen engagement. Decentralization is the essence of participation. That local
government are able to actively provide an enabling framework for Gawad Kalinga
initiatives in their areas can be attributed to a decentralized politico-administrative
system. Collaborative participation between and among the various actors of
governance (government, national and local; business; and civil society) is also
encouraged if reforms in governance and public administration are to be appropriate,
implementable, and sustainable. This has been demonstrated by GK.
Gawad Kalinga (GK) serves as an example of a movement that advocates “good
citizenship.” “Good citizenship” is about being able to give back good things to your
own country. Antonio Meloto has proven that transformational leadership is effective
in social transformation. It has promoted nation-building and has brought out the
innate good citizenship values of the Filipinos. GK has succeeded in collapsing social
divisions by being non-discriminatory and thus serving as a converging point for all
sectors of society. It has achieved unprecedented milestones in providing land for the
landless, homes for the homeless, and food for the hungry. It concretely animates
the indigenous principle in the “sweat equity” concept which has brought out the
productive and creative side of people while promoting a sense of belonging and unity.
Furthermore, it has revived the indigenous practice of “bayanihan” or volunteerism.2
Indeed, Gawad Kalinga is emerging as an international model for development,
in the sense that it has extended its services to Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and
Cambodia. Its feasibility has been studied in East Timor, India, Nigeria, and Nicaragua.
Furthermore, Filipinos abroad are coming home to help rebuild their motherland.3
GK has built more than 100,000 homes all over the Philippines and in Southeast
Asian countries. More than 1,000 GK communities have been built in 350 towns and
cities. These communities are in various stages of a three-step development process:
start up, build up, and showcase. These three stages of Gawad Kalinga Community
Development may be seen and evaluated through two global lenses: first, in view of
Mahbub Ul Haq’s Core Pillars of Sustainable Human Development (1995), and second, in
view of the innovative, entrepreneurial principles of Osborne and Gaebler’s Reinventing
Government. This congruence concretely illustrates the possibilities of objectively
studying and establishing the effectiveness of the GK model through the lens of public
administration.
It has been said many times over that GK showcases the best of the Filipino in the
Philippines and abroad. Many dimensions of GK community life present possible
areas of study to determine exactly how the best of Filipino culture manifests in
this development model. Nevertheless, warmth, volunteerism, and hospitality are

International Journal of Social Quality • Volume 1 Number 2 • Winter 2011 • 27

Alex B. Brillantes Jr. and Maricel T. Fernandez

indigenous Filipino cultural traits clearly manifested in GK villages. Indeed GK may

be seen as a good example, at least within the Philippine context, for reform that
harnesses the key factors of good citizenship and transformational leadership, coupled
with changed mindsets, as levers for social transformation and change. Designing,
implementing, and sustaining reforms in public administration and governance,
both at the local and national levels, will eventually bring about what we collectively
envision as a “good society.”
We have argued that the active engagement of the citizens is key in the general
effort to transform governance. Other areas of transformation—in addition to a
transformed citizenry due to their engagement in matters of governance—are the
transformation of institutions, mindsets and values, and leadership. These four areas
are anchored by a common vision of a good society. As pointed out by social quality
theorists, citizen participation is key for improved quality of life. It goes beyond
economic analysis, rejecting the commodification of all aspects of the human world
that is central in neo-liberal principles (Gasper et al. 2008: 5). The Gawad Kalinga
movement in the Philippines operationalizes the convergence of the three aspects
of governance: government, business, and citizens. They work together towards a
common goal of improving not only the economic wellbeing of the people (beginning
with the provision of shelter, with livelihood as a second order), but more importantly
restoring their dignity and self-worth founded upon the transformation of values and
paradigms. Central to all these goals is people participation, which is central to good
governance, social quality, and a transformed society.
Thus, this paper addresses the fundamental argument proposed by the theory
of social quality and relates it to a movement in the Philippines called the Gawad
Kalinga. The social quality theory presents a new approach that touches upon very
essential parts of daily circumstances in societies. We have argued elsewhere (Brillantes
and Fernandez 2008) that the Gawad Kalinga phenomenon in the Philippines
suggests an actual operationalization of the widely accepted notion of governance,
i.e., partnership and cooperation between and among government, business, and
citizens towards the common desired objective of good governance. We have likewise
argued that this has pushed the frontiers of the study of public administration and
governance in the Philippines, laying the groundwork for a reexamination of the
emergence of an indigenous, i.e., Philippine, public administration theory. The social
quality theory further enhances the theory of public administration in the Philippines
even further by providing a lens to reexamine not only public administration theory
and governance, but more important, to suggest and deepen a new and unique
perspective of viewing Gawad Kalinga, which has enabled citizen participation in
the social and economic life of their communities, providing opportunities not only
for economic advancement and livelihood, but individual wellbeing, as well as the
restoration of self-worth, self-confidence, and self-esteem of the individual, which is
what development is all about.

28 • International Journal of Social Quality • Volume 1 Number 2 • Winter 2011

 Good Governance, Social Quality, and Active Citizenship

Notes

1. Foreword of Abueva in the book of Meloto entitled The Builder of Dreams (2009).
2. GK practices are now being adopted by various sectors and, as such, can be described as having become
a template for the “good governance” model. The new initiative being developed by the leadership of
the House of Representatives, aptly called Kalinga Pilipinas, will call on all members of the House of
Representatives to commit a substantial portion of their priority development assistance fund to building
communities via the GK approach (Montelibano 2008).
3. The President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) Archbishop Angel Lagdameo
describes GK as the new kind of “people power” the country needs.

References

Abeer, N. 2002. “Citizenship and the Boundaries of Acknowledged Community: Identity,

Affiliation, and Exclusion.” IDS Working Paper 171. Brighton: Institute of Development
Studies, University of Sussex.
Abueva, J.V. (1993). “Towards the Filipino Vision of the Good Society and an Authentic
Democracy: From Development to Social Transformation.” In Bautista et al. Introduction to
Public Administration in the Philippines: A Reader. Quezon City: NCPAG. pp. 268–280. http://
www.cfc-net.org
——— (2008). “Ideals and Practice in the Study of Public Administration and Governance.”
Philippine Journal of Public Administration. Vol 52., Nos. 2–4. April-October.
——— (2009)“Building the Good Society We Want: My hope as a teacher in politics and
Governance” in Siningbayan: Social Artistry Field Book. Quezon City: UP NCPAG.
Asian Development Bank. 1995. Governance: Sound Development Management. Manila, Philippines:
ADB.
——— 1997. Governance: Sound Development Management. Manila, Philippines: ADB.
——— 2005. Country Governance Assessment. Manila, Philippines: ADB.
Brillantes, A. and M. Fernandez. 2008. “Is There a Philippines Public Administration? Or Better Still,
For Whom is Philippine Public Administration?” Philippine Journal of Public Administration
LII(2–4) (April-October).
Cariňo, L. 2000. “Re-engineering the Bureaucracy: Translating Principles into Performance
Indicators.” pp. 261–282 in Measuring Good Governance in the Philippines, ed. Mendoza. Pasig
City: Development Academy of the Philippines.
Cohen, J.L. and A. Arato. 1992. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Gasper, D. and L.J.G. van Der Maesen, T. Truong, and A. Walker. 2008. “Human Security and
Social Quality: Contrast and Complementarities.” ISS Working Paper 462. (December 2008).
International Institute of Social Studies, The Hague.
Grindle, M.S. 2004. “Good Enough Governance: Poverty Reduction and Reform in Developing
Countries.” 17( 4): 525–548.
Haq, M.U. 1995. Reflections on Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hassal, G. 1999. “Citizenship in the Asia-Pacific: A Survey of Contemporary Issues” in Globalization
and Citizenship in the Asia Pacific, eds. Davidson, A. and K. Weekley. London: MacMillan
Publishers and New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc.
Ilago, S. 2004. “Reform as Policy Theory: The Case of Public Management Reform in the
Philippines.” Philippine Journal of Public Administration 38(1–4): 249–259.
Isin Engin F. and P.K. Wood. 1999. Citizenship and Identity. London: Thousand Oaks and New
Delhi: SAGE Publications.

International Journal of Social Quality • Volume 1 Number 2 • Winter 2011 • 29

Alex B. Brillantes Jr. and Maricel T. Fernandez

Jones, E. and J. Gaventa. 2002. “Concepts of Citizenship: A Review.” IDS Development Bibliography
19. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
Lin, K., P. Ward, and L.J.G. van der Maesen. 2009. “Social Quality Theory in Perspective.”
Development and Society 38(2): 201–208.
Lister, R. 1997. Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. Basingtoke and London: MacMillan Publishers.
Local Government Support Program (LGSP). 2005. Transformation Partnerships: A Replication for
Building LGU-Initiated Gawad Kalinga Communities. Manila: Local Government Resource
Center (LGRC) and Philippines-Canada Local Government Support Program.
Manalo, F. 2004. “Transformative Citizenship: Exploring its Challenges to Philippine Public
Administration.” Philippine Journal of Public Administration XLVIII(4): 338–370.
Meloto, A. (2009). Builder of Dreams. Mandaluyong City: Gawad Kalinga Community Development
Foundation. pp 6–410.
Montelibano, J.M. 2008. “Glimpses of Heroism” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 2 May. Accessed at
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/20080502-134012/Of_heroism
Nemenzo, F. 2008. “Beyond the Classroom: UP’s Responsibility in Helping Rebuild a Damaged
Nation.” UP Centennial Lecture delivered at the National Institute of Mathematics and Science
Education Development, UP Diliman, Quezon City (15 February 2008).
North, D.C. 1991. “Institutions” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1): 97–112.
——— 1997. “Economic Performance through Time.” in Nobel Lectures. ed. Persson, P. Singapore,
SG: Word Scientific.
——— 2003. “The Role of Institutions in Economic Development.” Paper presented at UN
Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva, Switzerland. www.unece.org/oes/disc_papers/
disc_papers.htm (accessed 5 October 2011).
Osborne, D. and Gaebler T. 1992. Reinventing Government. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Sklair, L. 2002. Globalization: Capitalism and its Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
United Nations Development Program. 1997. “Reconceptualizing Governance.” Discussion Paper 1.
New York: UNDP.
——— 2003. “Public Administration Reform Practice Notes.” UNDP. www.undp.org/governance/
focus_public_administration.shtml (accessed 5 October 2011).
Weekley, K. 1999. “Introduction.” in Globalization and Citizenship in the Asia Pacific, eds. A.
Davidson and K. Weekley. London: MacMillan and New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Biographies

Alex B. Brillantes Jr (Ph.D. University of Hawaii) is Professor at the National

College of Public Administration of Governance of the University of the Philippines.
He also served as Executive Director of the Local Government Academy of the
Department of Interior and Local Government. He has published in local and
international journals on governance and public administration concerns including
decentralization, reorganization, and civil service reform. He is President of the
Philippine Society for Public Administration.

Maricel T. Fernandez is University Researcher at the National College of Public

Administration and Governance, where she is currently enrolled in its graduate
program. She earlier taught Public Administration and Business Administration
at the St Paul University System of the Philippines. She also worked as Managing
Editor of the Philippine Journal of Public Administration.

30 • International Journal of Social Quality • Volume 1 Number 2 • Winter 2011

Copyright of International Journal of Social Quality is the property of Berghahn Books and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.