Pinoy Cities on the Rise

Faustino Jerome Babate, MBADanny Alfaras, MBAAlfie Custodio, MARey Tesoro, MA

What is “PCCRP”? The project assesses the capacity of cities

to provide an environment that nurtures the dynamism of its local enterprises and industries;

It assesses the general ability of the city to attract investments, entrepreneurs, and residents and uplift the living standards of its residents;

The project provides a benchmarking process that will aid individual cities in measuring competitiveness.

Objectives of PCCRP: Motivate local governments to change

mentality from service provider to economic managers;

Provide feedback mechanism for business community to local governments

Ranking process functions as tool to pinpoint and analyze best practices in economic management of local governments and build the capacity of all LGUs by applying competitiveness lessons from other LGUs

Based on World Competitiveness Yearbook by IMD

AIM Policy Center has been the Philippine partner of IMD since 1995

Annual competitiveness ranking of 59 countries

Utilizes more than 300 indicators/ criteria from national statistics and executive surveys

Drivers of City Competitiveness

HUMAN RESOURCES AND TRAINING

COST COMPETITIVENESS

INFRASTRUCTURE

QUALITY OF LIFE

LINKAGES and ACCESSIBILITY

RESPONSIVENESS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

DYNAMISM OF LOCAL ECONOMY

Based on Ten Cities Ranking of 1999

1. General Santos2. Angeles3. Baguio 4. San Fernando, La

Union5. Davao 6. Iloilo 7. Zamboanga8. Cagayan de Oro9. Tacloban10. Iligan

PCCRP 2002 30 cities: 19 cities in Luzon

9 cities in Visayas 5 cities in Mindanao

Cities were classified into: Metro Cities

Mid-Sized Cities Small Cities

Based on PCCRP 2002

SMALL CITIES

1. San Fernando, Pampanga6.35

2. Tagaytay

6.14

3. San Fernando, La Union

5.89

METRO CITIES 1. Davao 6.31

2. Cebu 5.97

3. Marikina5.89

MID-SIZED CITIES 1. General Santos

6.77

2. Bacolod 6.16

3. Baguio 6.14

What’s New with PCCRP 2003?

50 cities: 23 cities in Luzon 11 cities in Visayas 16 cities in Mindanao

10

33

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1999 2002 2003

PCCRP CITY COVERAGE

What’s New with PCCRP 2003? Study utilized 70 indicators: 21 quantitative indicators 49 perception-based indicators

Executive surveys of owners and managers of SMEs in each city conducted between July 2003 to November 2003

5644

70

010203040506070

1999 2002 2003

PCCRP INDICATORS

Scale to Assess Urban Competitiveness

1-2 Very low competitiveness (improve)3-4 Below average

competitiveness(improve)5 Average competitiveness6-7 Above average

competitiveness(enhance)8-10 High competitiveness(sustain)

Score Qualitative Meaning

Scores for each indicator are converted into a ten-point scale based on national and global benchmarks

Philippine Cities Competitiveness Ranking Project 2003• Data gathering was conducted in partnership

with the following educational institutions St. Louis University (Baguio) Angeles University Foundation De La Salle Lipa Ateneo de Naga University University of San Agustin (Iloilo) University of San Carlos (Cebu) Xavier University (Cagayan de Oro) Mindanao State University (Marawi) Ateneo de Zamboanga University Ateneo de Davao University

Philippine Cities Competitiveness Ranking Project 2003

Small Cities Non-Metro Cities with Population Less than 200,000

ResidentsCadiz OroquietaCavite OzamisCotabato PagadianDagupan Puerto PrincesaDipolog RoxasDumaguete San CarlosKoronadal San Fernando, La UnionLegaspi Sta. RosaMalaybalay SurigaoMarawi TaclobanNaga TagaytayOlongapo TagumOrmoc


Mid-Sized Cities Non-Metro Cities with Population Greater

than 200,000 Residents

Angeles Iligan

Bacolod Iloilo

Baguio Lipa

Batangas San Fernando, Pampanga

Butuan Tarlac

Cagayan de Oro Zamboanga

General Santos


Metro Cities Cities comprising Metro Manila, Metro

Cebu and Metro Davao

Cebu Mandaue

Davao Manila

Lapu-Lapu Marikina

Las Piñas Muntinlupa

Makati Pasig

Mandaluyong Quezon City

LINKAGES and ACCESSIBILITY


HUMAN RESOURCES and TRAINING

QUALITY OF LIFE

RESPONSIVENESS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

COST COMPETITIVENESS

INFRASTRUCTURE

Rating

Rating

Rating

Rating

Rating

Rating

Rating

CityRanking

PCCRP MODEL

Drivers of Competitiveness:COST OF DOING BUSINESSMETRO CITIES

1. Davao 5.83

2. Muntinlupa5.32

3. Marikina5.29MID-SIZED CITIES

1. General Santos 6.88

2. Batangas6.57

3. Bacolod 6.48

SMALL CITIES1. Tagaytay

6.80

2. Cavite 6.57

3. Tagum 6.30

COST OF ELECTRICITY

5-country Benchmark

COUNTRY US$/kwh

Indonesia 0.03

China 0.03

Thailand 0.06Malaysia 0.06Philippines

0.09Source: World Competitiveness Yearbook

2002

Drivers of Competitiveness:COST OF DOING BUSINESS

• How expensive is it to operate in the city compared to other cities?

Cost of power for industrial use

• Average rent of commercial space

• Average cost for acquiring phone services

• Minimum Wage• General profitability of doing

business*• Informal fees in the city*

* Survey Data

METRO CITIES1. Davao 5.83

2. Muntinlupa5.32

3. Marikina5.29MID-SIZED CITIES

1. General Santos 6.88

2. Batangas6.57

3. Bacolod 6.48

SMALL CITIES1. Tagaytay

6.80

2. Cavite 6.57

3. Tagum 6.30

Drivers of Competitiveness:DYNAMISM OF THE LOCAL ECONOMY• Can the city attract

and foster inward investments?

• Average household income• Local inflation rate• Percentage of top 200

corporations • Pop’n vs. fast-food chain locators• Market size • Consumer Price Index• Tourism sector is vibrant*• Business revenues expected to

increase*• Business access to financing*• Regulatory environment is

conducive to business*

* Survey Data

METRO CITIES1. Cebu 6.99

2. Makati 6.90

3. Quezon City6.87

MID-SIZED CITIES1. Iloilo 6.93

2. Bacolod 6.58

3. Cagayan de Oro6.53

SMALL CITIES1. Tacloban

6.29

2. Tagaytay6.19

3. Sta. Rosa5.87

Drivers of Competitiveness:LINKAGES AND ACCESSIBILITY• How easy is it to

transport goods and services from the city?

• Raw materials are located near the city*

• Transporting raw materials from sources takes a short time*

• International entry and exit points are located near the city*

• Availability of business support services*

• Benefits of business collaboration in the city*

• If the level of national government agencies services is good*

* Survey Data

METRO CITIES1. Davao 6.48

2. Cebu 6.31

3. Las Piñas6.28

MID-SIZED CITIES1. General Santos 6.59

2. Batangas6.42

2. San Fernando, Pampanga6.42SMALL CITIES

1. Legaspi 6.41

2. Koronadal6.32

3. Tacloban5.25

Drivers of Competitiveness:HUMAN RESOURCES AND TRAINING• How well equipped is the

population to build and take advantage of opportunity in the locality?

• Number of tertiary educational institutions • Number of vocational Institutions• Skilled labor availability*• Easily trainable workforce*• Appropriate academic programs for local industry*• Adequate IT training programs*• Eagerness of workers to skills development*• Importance of investing in skills development*• Availability of training programs organized by schools

and industry partners*• Expectation on worker performance*• Constructive labor-management relations*• Availability of businesses that allows on-the-job

trainess*• Effective management of workers*• Link between job satisfaction and worker productivity*• If poor labor practices are discouraged in the city*• Strong worker suggestion on business operations*

* Survey Data

METRO CITIES1. Pasig 7.32

2. Cebu 7.19

3. Makati 7.14

MID-SIZED CITIES1. Bacolod 7.36

2. Iloilo 7.29


SMALL CITIES1. San Fernando,

La Union6.76

2. Koronadal6.56

2. Legaspi 5.56

Drivers of Competitiveness:RESPONSIVENESS OF LGU

• Can the LGU respond to systematic and short-lived issues with a well grounded and focused vision?

• Percentage of IRA to LGU revenue• If securing a business is simple and efficient*• If the city government is transparent in its dealings*• If city’s administration of justice is fair*• If city policies and regulations are reflective

of business needs*• If local government holds regular forums to elicit

opinions from constituents*• If the city’s Clean and Green Program is effective*• If business taxes are reasonable*• If the city’s master development plan is appropriate to

business sector’s needs*• If land use regulations are reasonable and flexible*• If LGU is involved in developing human resources*• If LGU programs to assist displaced workers are

effective*

* Survey Data

METRO CITIES1. Marikina

7.15

2. Muntinlupa6.35

3. Las Piñas6.24

MID-SIZED CITIES1. San Fernando,

Pampanga 6.52

2. Bacolod 6.18

3. Cagayan de Oro6.13 SMALL CITIES

1. San Carlos6.59

2. Tagaytay6.44

3. Legaspi 6.30

Drivers of Competitiveness:INFRASTRUCTURE

• Are the necessary physical, telecommunications, technological, infrastructure, and knowledge support services present?

• Number of banks• Road density• Vehicle density• Number of internet service providers• Well- managed road network and traffic*• Road clearance during peak hours*• Reliability of electric power services*• Abundance of water supply*• Easy connection of telephone lines from other

service providers*• Adequate cellular phone signals*• Reliability of ISPs*• Adequate garbage management*

* Survey Data


8.15

2. Pasig 7.54

3. Makati 7.36

MID-SIZED CITIES1. Bacolod

6.46


3. San Fernando, Pampanga6.10 SMALL CITIES

1. Ormoc 6.19

1. Sta. Rosa6.19

2 Dagupan6.12

Drivers of Competitiveness:QUALITY OF LIFE

• How well-off are residents in terms of quality of environment and life?

• Incidence of theft per 100,000 Pop.• Incidence of murder per 100,000

Pop.• Hospital beds per 100,000 Pop.• Life Expectancy at birth• Roads and public open spaces are

clean*• Open bodies of water are clean*• Air quality is clean*• Rest and recreational facilities are

adequate*• Conduciveness of the security

environment to businesses.

* Survey Data


6.96

2. Mandaluyong 6.68

3. Las Piñas6.40MID-SIZED CITIES

1. Bacolod 7.04

2. Baguio 6.02

3. San Fernando, 5.82 Pampanga

SMALL CITIES1. San Fernando,

La Union6.59

2. Olongapo6.32

3. Koronadal6.20

Recognition of the Most Competitive Philippine Cities

Overall Competitiveness

1. Koronadal

6.17

2. San Fernando, La Union

6.09

3. Tagaytay

6.05

SMALL CITIES

SMALL CITIES: RANKING BY DRIVERCOST OF

DOING BUSINESS


INFRASTRUCTURELINKAGES AND ACCESSIBILITY

HUMAN RESOURCE AND

TRAININGQUALITY OF LIFE

RESPONSIVENESS OF LGU

CITY RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK

Cadiz 5 14 19 23 24 22 13

Cavite 2 11 5 21 21 23 20

Cotabato 25 21 21 17 11 20 20

Dagupan 18 5 3 13 6 5 7

Dipolog 10 15 15 7 13 11 5

Dumaguete 24 12 16 13 8 15 22

Koronadal 4 4 4 2 2 3 4

Legaspi 23 8 9 1 2 4 3

Malaybalay 7 22 11 18 19 18 6

Marawi 11 12 23 24 22 25 25

Naga 22 9 7 18 5 6 8

Olongapo 21 6 14 13 14 2 23

Ormoc 13 10 1 5 10 12 18

Oroquieta 19 25 18 25 23 7 15

Ozamis 12 18 17 20 20 17 19

Pagadian 20 17 13 16 15 21 12

Puerto Princesa 16 16 25 9 8 16 14

Roxas 8 19 19 11 18 8 16

San Carlos 13 22 12 4 17 10 1San Fernando, La Union 5 7 6 6 1 1 11

Sta. Rosa 15 3 1 8 12 13 10

Surigao 9 20 8 10 7 8 9

Tacloban 17 1 22 3 4 19 17

Tagaytay 1 2 9 12 16 14 2

Tagum 3 24 24 22 25 24 24


1. Bacolod 6.62

2. San Fernando, Pampanga6.24

3. Cagayan de Oro 6.18

MID-SIZED CITIES

MID-SIZED CITIES: RANKING BY DRIVERCOST OF

DOING BUSINESS


INFRASTRUCTURELINKAGES AND ACCESSIBILITY

HUMAN RESOURCE AND

TRAINING

QUALITY OF LIFE

RESPONSIVENESS OF LGU

CITY RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK RANKAngeles 7 8 8 8 8 10 10

Bacolod 3 2 1 7 1 1 2Baguio 6 4 4 11 6 2 11Batangas 2 5 5 2 7 8 6Butuan 5 12 6 12 11 12 12Cagayan de Oro 11 3 2 4 3 4 3General Santos 1 11 7 1 4 9 5Iligan 10 10 9 10 10 13 7Iloilo 8 1 10 5 2 7 4Lipa 9 7 11 6 9 6 9San Fernando, Pampanga 4 6 3 2 5 3 1Tarlac 12 13 13 13 13 5 13Zamboanga 13 9 12 9 12 11 7


1. Marikina

6.58

2. Pasig 6.36

3. Davao 5.89

METRO CITIES

METRO CITIES: RANKING BY DRIVER

COST OF DOING

BUSINESS

DYNAMISM OF THE LOCAL

ECONOMY INFRASTRUCTURELINKAGES AND ACCESSIBILITY

HUMAN RESOURCES

AND TRAININGQUALITY OF

LIFE

RESPONSIVENESS OF LOCAL

GOVERNMENT UNITCITY RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK

Cebu 7 1 10 2 2 10 8Davao 1 4 6 1 5 8 4

Lapu-Lapu 5 11 12 4 9 10 7Las Pinas 3 9 11 3 6 3 3Makati 9 2 3 5 3 4 9Mandaluyong 8 6 5 10 10 2 6Mandaue 5 12 9 7 11 7 10Manila 11 7 7 12 7 12 11

Marikina 3 10 1 8 8 1 1Muntinlupa 2 8 8 9 11 5 2Pasig 12 5 2 6 1 6 5Quezon City 10 3 4 11 4 9 12

PCCRP 2003: TRAITS OF THE MOST

COMPETITIVE PHILIPPINE CITIES

Low cost of doing business and broad market base

Proximity to other growth centers

Competent Workforce

Vibrant tourism sector

Strong supporting environment

Very responsive local government

Next Steps• City Competitiveness Roadshows:

Nationwide• City Competitiveness Best Practices

Analysis: Marikina, Pasig, and Davao Bacolod, San Fernando, Pampanga, and

Cagayan de Oro Koronadal, San Fernando, La Union,

and Tagaytay

• Pinoy Cities on the Rise 2004 Magazine

• Leadership indicators in PCCRP• Regionalize the City Competitiveness

Ranking Project• City Competitiveness Ranking 2005

Pinoy Cities on the Rise

Documents

Transcript of Pinoy Cities on the Rise