PUBLIC EXPECTATIONS OF THE RECOVERY AND REHABILITATION PLAN OF POST-HAIYAN IN A PHILIPPINE MUNICIPALITY
Article Sidebar
Published:
Jun 30, 2020
Keywords:
politics public expectations post-Haiyan Recovery and Rehabilitation plan Philippines
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aims to determine the level of expectation of respondents of the Rehabilitation and Recovery Plan (RRP) of post-Haiyan in a Philippine Municipality. The data obtained from households in the 12 barangays of Balangkayan, Eastern Samar, Philippines. Household members surveyed to determine the level of expectation and perception of respondents on the implementation of the rehabilitation and recovery plan in their municipality. Results reveal that age, stakeholder type, and educational attainment of citizens affect public expectations on the RRP implementation. The results of this study can help local government units to incorporate an interactive planning/implementation process into their policy-making process to lessen the gap or mismatch of expectations between the local officials, residents, and other stakeholders such as NGOs/humanitarian organisations.
Keywords: politics, public expectations, post-Haiyan, recovery and rehabilitation plan, Philippines
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Article Details
Section
Articles
JATI PUBLICATION ETHICS & PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT:
These guidelines are fully consistent with the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice Guidelines and the COPE Code of Conduct (https://publicationethics.org).
We encourage the best standards of publication ethics and take all possible principles of transparency and measures against publication malpractices. The Department of Southeast Asian Studies, as the publisher, plays its role of guardianship over all processes of publishing seriously, and we perform our ethical and other tasks.
- General duties and responsibilities of editors
Editors should be accountable for everything published in their journals. This means the editors should strive to meet the needs of readers and authors; constantly improve their journal; have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish; champion freedom of expression; maintain the integrity of the academic record; preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards; and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed. In addition to these general duties, the editors accept the obligation to apply best will and practice to cope with the following responsibilities: - Editorial Board
Will generate editorial board from recognized experts in the field. The editor will provide full names and affiliations of the members and updated contact information for the editorial office on the journal webpage. - Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions, and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. - Duties of Authors
Reporting standards
Authors should follow the format of reporting the original research with accurate data gathered. The author should include sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. It is unacceptable if the author performs malpractices in the paper. - Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have produced original articles and must appropriately cite or quote if the authors have used the work and words of others. - Concurrent Publication
It is ethical and acceptable for an author to submit or publish the same research or manuscripts in more than one journal or primary publication. - Acknowledging the Sources
Authors should cite properly publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. - Paper authorship
Those who have contributed significantly to the paper should be named as an author and co-authors. Those who have participated in the aspects of the research should be listed as contributors. All co-authors should have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. - Announcement and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should include the financier or grant giver if the manuscript or research is financed by the research grant or any financial support body. - Errors in published works
The author is responsible for communicating and co-operating with the editor to retract or correct the paper when a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work. - Publication decisions
The editor should decide which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. - Peer review process
All journal's content (articles) are subjected to a double-blind, peer-review process. Articles are first reviewed by editors and may be rejected because it is not dealing with the subject matter. Articles that are found suitable for review are then sent to two experts who are unknown to each other in the field of the paper.
Reviewers are asked to classify the paper as publishable, with amendments and improvements, or rejected. Reviewer's evaluations usually include what to do with the article. The author then sees the reviewer's comments.
Editors should be ready to justify any important points from the described process. Editors should not reverse decisions on publication. Editors should publish guidance to both authors and reviewers on everything expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and referred to or linked to this code. - Fair play
The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. Editors' decision to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper's importance, originality and clarity, and the study's relevance to the journal's aim. - Digital Archiving
The editor will ensure digital access to the journal content by the University of Malaya Journal depository section at http://jati-dseas.um.edu.my and MyJournal at http://www.myjurnal.my/public/browse-journal-view.php?id=39. - Confidentiality
Editor and any editorial staff must keep confidential all information about the manuscript's submitted and review process to anyone except the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher. - Publication and Submission fee
Authors are freed from submission fees. Authors are required to pay the Article Processing Fee, RM300 or USD80. - Open Access Policy
The journal is freely available online. Authors must agree with this open access policy which enables unrestricted access and reuse of all published articles. The articles are published under the Creative Commons copyright license policy CC-BY. - Reporting standards
Authors of papers should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the article. An article should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion' works should be identified as such. - Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works and if the authors have used the work and words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
References
Barret, S. (2004). Implementation Studies: Time for a Revival? Personal Reflections on 20 Years of Implementation Studies. Public Administration: An International Quarterly, 82(2), pp. 249-262.
Barret, S., & Fudge C. (1981). Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy. London: Methuen & Co.
Bassler, A., Brasier, K., Fogle, N., and Taverno, R. (2008). Developing Effective Citizen Engagement: A How-to Guide for Community Leaders. Pennsylvania: Center for Rural Pennsylvania.
Beltz, Johannes . 2005. Mahar, Buddhist, and Dalit: Religious Conversion and Socio-Political Emancipation. New Delhi: Manohar.
Bjuremalm, H., Gibaja A., & Molleda, J. (2014). Democratic Accountability in Service Delivery.Stockholm, Sweden: International IDEA Publications.
Daniel, E. (2016). The Usefulness of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches and Methods in Researching Problem-Solving Ability in Science Education Curriculum. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(15), pp. 91-100.
Dempsey, N. & Johnston, N. (2018). Political disengagement in the UK: who is disengaged?.UK: House of Commons Library.
Dommett, K. & Flinders, M. (2014). The politics and management of public expectations: Gaps, vacuums, clouding and the 2012 mayoral referenda. British Politics, 9(1), pp. 29-50.
Easterly, W. (2006). The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done so Much ill and so Little Good. USA: Penguin.
Escobar-Lemmon, M., and Ross, A. (2013). Does decentralization improve percpetions of accountability?: attitudinal evidence from Columbia. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 175-188.
Fisher, R.A. (1926). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
Flinders, M. & Kelso, A. (2011). Mind the Gap: Political Analysis, Public Expectations and the Parliamentary Decline Thesis. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 13(2), pp. 249-268.
Gallagher, A. (2015). The Responsibility to Protect Ten Years on from the World Summit: A Call to Manage Expectations. Global Responsibility to Protect, 7(3-4), pp. 254-274.
Goodman, A., and Gregg. P. (2010). Poorer Children’s Educational Attainment: How Important are Attitudes and Behaviour?. UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Jelmin, K. (2011). Democratic Accountability in Service Delivery: A Synthesis of Case Studies. Sweden: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
Kanji, G. K. (2006). 100 Statistical Tests. London: Sage Publications.
Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, and P. Zoido-Lobatón. 1999. Aggregating Governance Indicators. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2195, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Linacre, J.M. (2008). The Expected Value of a Point-Biserial (or Similar) Correlation. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 22(1), p. 1153.
Nufianti, L., and Suseo, N. S. (2014). Factors affecting implementation of of good government governance (GGG) and their implication towards performance accountability. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 164(2014), 98-105.
Peers, I. (1996). Statistical Analysis for Education & Psychology Researchers. London: The Falmer Press.
Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA). (2013). Retrieved from http://bagong.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/.
Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016 (PDP)
Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS). (2012). Retrieved from https://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/.
Philippine Statistics Authority
Stavrova, O., and Ehlebracht, D. (2017). Education as an Antidote to Cynicism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(1), 59-69.
Walpole, R., Myers, R., Myers, S., & Ye, K. (2011). Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists. London: Pearson Education International.
World Bank. (2004). Accountability in Governance. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PUBLICSECTORANDGOVERNANCE/Resources/AccountabilityGovernance.pdf.
World Vision UK. (2016). Using beneficiary feedback to improve development programmes: findings from a multi-country pilot. UK: UK Department for International Development.
Worthy, D., Gorlick, M., Pacheco, J., Schnyer. D., and Maddox, W.T. (2011). With Age Comes Wisdom: Decision-Making in Younger and Older Adults. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1375-1380.
Yolanda Comprehensive Recovery and Rehabilitation Plan
Electronic Sources
Carpenter, J. (2019). Some industries are still overwhlemingly male-dominated: here’s how women can get in. CNN Business. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/08/success/women-male-dominated-occupations/index.html.
Crutchfield, M. (2013). Phases of Disaster Recovery: Emergency Response for the Long Term. Reliefweb. Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/report/world/phases-disaster-recovery-emergency-response-long-term.
Food and Agriculture Organization and United Nations Development Programme. (n.d.). Household Structure, Living Standards Incomes and Savings. Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/ac685e/ac685e05.htm.
Global Nation Inquirer. (2012). Philippines is 3rd Most Disaster Prone Country New Study Shows. Retrieved from http://globalnation.inquirer.net/52858/philippines-is-3rd-most-dsaster-prone-country-new-study-shows.
McRoberts, A. (2014). Seven Attributes of a Good Local Government Leadership. JDSUPRA. Retrieved from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/seven-attributes-of-good-local-governmen-68131/.
Parker, B. (2003). The Theory of Citizen Involvement. University of Oregon. Retrieved from https://pages.uoregon.edu/rgp/PPPM613/class10theory.htm.
United Nations Development Programme. (2013). Early Recovery and Rehabilitation for Central Mindanao (ERRCM) Project: What is the project about?. United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from http://www.ph.undp.org/content/philippines/en/home/operations/projects/crisis_prevention_and_recovery/project-ERRCM.html.
Zekic, A. (2017). Answerability in democratic accountability: Lessons from Brexit. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Retrieved from https://www.idea.int/news-media/news/answerability-democratic-accountability-lessons-brexit.
Barret, S., & Fudge C. (1981). Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy. London: Methuen & Co.
Bassler, A., Brasier, K., Fogle, N., and Taverno, R. (2008). Developing Effective Citizen Engagement: A How-to Guide for Community Leaders. Pennsylvania: Center for Rural Pennsylvania.
Beltz, Johannes . 2005. Mahar, Buddhist, and Dalit: Religious Conversion and Socio-Political Emancipation. New Delhi: Manohar.
Bjuremalm, H., Gibaja A., & Molleda, J. (2014). Democratic Accountability in Service Delivery.Stockholm, Sweden: International IDEA Publications.
Daniel, E. (2016). The Usefulness of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches and Methods in Researching Problem-Solving Ability in Science Education Curriculum. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(15), pp. 91-100.
Dempsey, N. & Johnston, N. (2018). Political disengagement in the UK: who is disengaged?.UK: House of Commons Library.
Dommett, K. & Flinders, M. (2014). The politics and management of public expectations: Gaps, vacuums, clouding and the 2012 mayoral referenda. British Politics, 9(1), pp. 29-50.
Easterly, W. (2006). The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done so Much ill and so Little Good. USA: Penguin.
Escobar-Lemmon, M., and Ross, A. (2013). Does decentralization improve percpetions of accountability?: attitudinal evidence from Columbia. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 175-188.
Fisher, R.A. (1926). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.
Flinders, M. & Kelso, A. (2011). Mind the Gap: Political Analysis, Public Expectations and the Parliamentary Decline Thesis. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 13(2), pp. 249-268.
Gallagher, A. (2015). The Responsibility to Protect Ten Years on from the World Summit: A Call to Manage Expectations. Global Responsibility to Protect, 7(3-4), pp. 254-274.
Goodman, A., and Gregg. P. (2010). Poorer Children’s Educational Attainment: How Important are Attitudes and Behaviour?. UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Jelmin, K. (2011). Democratic Accountability in Service Delivery: A Synthesis of Case Studies. Sweden: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
Kanji, G. K. (2006). 100 Statistical Tests. London: Sage Publications.
Kaufmann, D., A. Kraay, and P. Zoido-Lobatón. 1999. Aggregating Governance Indicators. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2195, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Linacre, J.M. (2008). The Expected Value of a Point-Biserial (or Similar) Correlation. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 22(1), p. 1153.
Nufianti, L., and Suseo, N. S. (2014). Factors affecting implementation of of good government governance (GGG) and their implication towards performance accountability. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 164(2014), 98-105.
Peers, I. (1996). Statistical Analysis for Education & Psychology Researchers. London: The Falmer Press.
Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA). (2013). Retrieved from http://bagong.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/.
Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016 (PDP)
Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS). (2012). Retrieved from https://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/.
Philippine Statistics Authority
Stavrova, O., and Ehlebracht, D. (2017). Education as an Antidote to Cynicism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(1), 59-69.
Walpole, R., Myers, R., Myers, S., & Ye, K. (2011). Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists. London: Pearson Education International.
World Bank. (2004). Accountability in Governance. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/PUBLICSECTORANDGOVERNANCE/Resources/AccountabilityGovernance.pdf.
World Vision UK. (2016). Using beneficiary feedback to improve development programmes: findings from a multi-country pilot. UK: UK Department for International Development.
Worthy, D., Gorlick, M., Pacheco, J., Schnyer. D., and Maddox, W.T. (2011). With Age Comes Wisdom: Decision-Making in Younger and Older Adults. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1375-1380.
Yolanda Comprehensive Recovery and Rehabilitation Plan
Electronic Sources
Carpenter, J. (2019). Some industries are still overwhlemingly male-dominated: here’s how women can get in. CNN Business. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/08/success/women-male-dominated-occupations/index.html.
Crutchfield, M. (2013). Phases of Disaster Recovery: Emergency Response for the Long Term. Reliefweb. Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/report/world/phases-disaster-recovery-emergency-response-long-term.
Food and Agriculture Organization and United Nations Development Programme. (n.d.). Household Structure, Living Standards Incomes and Savings. Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/ac685e/ac685e05.htm.
Global Nation Inquirer. (2012). Philippines is 3rd Most Disaster Prone Country New Study Shows. Retrieved from http://globalnation.inquirer.net/52858/philippines-is-3rd-most-dsaster-prone-country-new-study-shows.
McRoberts, A. (2014). Seven Attributes of a Good Local Government Leadership. JDSUPRA. Retrieved from https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/seven-attributes-of-good-local-governmen-68131/.
Parker, B. (2003). The Theory of Citizen Involvement. University of Oregon. Retrieved from https://pages.uoregon.edu/rgp/PPPM613/class10theory.htm.
United Nations Development Programme. (2013). Early Recovery and Rehabilitation for Central Mindanao (ERRCM) Project: What is the project about?. United Nations Development Programme. Retrieved from http://www.ph.undp.org/content/philippines/en/home/operations/projects/crisis_prevention_and_recovery/project-ERRCM.html.
Zekic, A. (2017). Answerability in democratic accountability: Lessons from Brexit. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Retrieved from https://www.idea.int/news-media/news/answerability-democratic-accountability-lessons-brexit.