IT IS A common weakness among government agencies to have programs that do not have projects, or conversely to have projects that are not derived from programs.
As it ought to be, all government projects are supposed to be derived from programs, and all programs are supposed to be derived from policies. If only this framework was clearly understood, we would not have seen too many projects that are not based on programs, much less based on policies.
By definition, any government project is supposed to have a beginning and an end, otherwise it could not be funded if it is open ended. Similarly, any government program is supposed to have an action plan that is based on an official policy; otherwise it could also not be funded. As it is supposed to be, all government policies have to be based on official orders, otherwise it would not have any legal basis for implementation.
The term “ghost project” is actually an oxymoron, because there is technically no project if there is no deliverable. That is like saying that there is technically no problem if it could not be solved, because a problem could only be considered as a problem if it is solvable.
For a project to have an outcome that is deliverable, the outcome has to be measurable. To begin with, any government project could not be subjected to bidding if it is not quantifiable or measurable.
It is common sense to expect that any government project should be meant for public use, meaning to say that everyone should be able to use it and benefit from it. Common sense as it should be, there is still a need to make sure that public use happens, because it always happens that public funds are diverted towards private uses. That is the reason why I developed MARINERS, an acronym that could function as a simple mnemonic device that would help us to remember what outcomes to expect from government projects.
Here are the MARINERS Programs and Projects: Medication Program to build Public Hospitals, Accommodation Program to build Public Housing, Recreation Program to build Public Parks, Information Program to build Public Libraries, Nutrition Program to build Public Markets, Education Program to build Public Schools, Restoration Program to build Public Works and Sanitation Program to build Public Toilets.
In the context of this framework, “to build” could also mean “to rebuild”, because many public infrastructure today are already defective, sometimes even abandoned. That is the situation in the public hospitals, especially after the nationally owned hospitals were devolved to the local governments. That is also the situation in public works, a category that should also include public buildings and public monuments, aside from roads and bridges.
Over the years, the government has had public housing projects, but all of these had units for sale, none for rent. It would be a good idea to also have public housing for rent, because there are many people who could only afford to rent, and not to buy.
I remember that in New York, housing was a problem until the city built units for rent, and it became an opportunity because it became a major source of revenue for the city government. If it is really necessary to sell these units, then it could be converted into a rent-to-own program.
Because of the proliferation of shopping malls, it seems that public parks have been neglected. Shopping malls might have their own purpose, but public parks could actually provide more recreation, more so if these are developed to become greener and more natural. As a matter of fact, these green parks could become the demo sites and showcases for green technologies such as waste recycling, rain water collection, composting, vermiculture and home gardening.
In many other countries, people could find public libraries in almost every corner. Here in the Philippines, public libraries are hard to find, even inside the premises of the public schools. Since we are still a developing country, it would be enough to have a public library not in every corner, but in every barangay. For good reasons, these public libraries should also have internet access for online learning.
It is a largely ignored fact that public markets are actually food terminals that could also function as nutrition centers if planned and managed that way. Of course, the common notion is that food is just for sustenance, and for as long as people could put something in their stomachs, everything would just be fine. That could easily happen in a free market situation, but much more value added could be created if the government could get involved.
Aside from the Internal Revenue Allocations (IRAs) that local government units (LGUs) are getting from the national government, they also have the Educational Support Fund (ESF) as an additional source of financing for public school projects. At one point in our history, public schools were at par with private schools in terms of quality, and that parity should be brought back.
It is common knowledge that the government seldom allocates funds for the maintenance of public works. Given that backdrop, it would be unrealistic to expect the government to allocate funds for the restoration of public works. However, maintenance and restoration make a lot of economic sense since it would actually save future expenses for repairs and new constructions.
Access to safe water and clean toilets are two criteria of the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), to determine whether households would be considered poor or not. It would therefore be a good idea to build public toilets as part of local sanitation programs, in order to increase access to these two resources./PN
