Faustino Jerome Babate, MBA Danny Alfaras, MBA Alfie Custodio, MA Rey 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 COST COMPETITIVENESS DYNAMISM OF LOCAL ECONOMY HUMAN RESOURCES AND TRAINING LINKAGES and ACCESSIBILITY INFRASTRUCTURE RESPONSIVENESS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT QUALITY OF LIFE Based on Ten Cities Ranking of 1999 1. General Santos 2. Angeles 3. Baguio 4. San Fernando, La Union 5. Davao 6. Iloilo 7. Zamboanga 8. Cagayan de Oro 9. Tacloban 10. 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 METRO CITIES 1. Davao 6.31 2. Cebu 5.97 3. Marikina 5.89 MID-SIZED CITIES 1. General Santos 6.77 2. Bacolod 6.16 3. Baguio 6.14 SMALL CITIES 1. San Fernando, Pampanga 6.35 2. Tagaytay 6.14 3. San Fernando, La Union 5.89 What’s New with PCCRP 2003? PCCRP CITY COVERAGE 60 50 50 40 33 30 20 10 50 cities: 23 cities in Luzon 11 cities in Visayas 16 cities in Mindanao 10 0 1999 2002 2003 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 PCCRP INDICATORS 70 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 56 44 1999 2002 2003 Scale to Assess Urban Competitiveness Scores for each indicator are converted into a ten-point scale based on national and global benchmarks Score 1-2 3-4 5 6-7 8-10 Qualitative Meaning Very low competitiveness (improve) Below average competitiveness(improve) Average competitiveness Above average competitiveness(enhance) High competitiveness(sustain) 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 Residents Cadiz Cavite Cotabato Dagupan Dipolog Dumaguete Koronadal Legaspi Malaybalay Marawi Naga Olongapo Ormoc Oroquieta Ozamis Pagadian Puerto Princesa Roxas San Carlos San Fernando, La Union Sta. Rosa Surigao Tacloban Tagaytay Tagum Philippine Cities Competitiveness Ranking Project 2003 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 Philippine Cities Competitiveness Ranking Project 2003 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 PCCRP MODEL COST COMPETITIVENESS Rating DYNAMISM OF LOCAL ECONOMY Rating LINKAGES and ACCESSIBILITY Rating HUMAN RESOURCES and TRAINING Rating INFRASTRUCTURE Rating RESPONSIVENESS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT Rating QUALITY OF LIFE Rating City Ranking Drivers of Competitiveness: COST OF DOING BUSINESS METRO CITIES 1. Davao 5.83 COST OF ELECTRICITY 2. Muntinlupa 5.32 5-country Benchmark 3. Marikina 5.29 COUNTRY US$/kwh Indonesia 0.03 China 0.03 Thailand Malaysia Philippines 0.06 0.06 0.09 Source: World Competitiveness Yearbook 2002 MID-SIZED CITIES 1. General Santos 6.88 2. Batangas 6.57 3. Bacolod 6.48 SMALL CITIES 1. Tagaytay 6.80 2. Cavite 6.57 3. Tagum 6.30 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 CITIES 1. Davao 5.83 2. Muntinlupa 5.32 3. Marikina 5.29 MID-SIZED CITIES 1. General Santos 6.88 2. Batangas 6.57 3. Bacolod 6.48 SMALL CITIES 1. 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? METRO CITIES 1. Cebu 6.99 • 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* 2. Makati 6.90 3. Quezon City 6.87 * Survey Data MID-SIZED CITIES 1. Iloilo 6.93 2. Bacolod 6.58 3. Cagayan de Oro 6.53 SMALL CITIES 1. Tacloban 6.29 2. Tagaytay 6.19 3. Sta. Rosa 5.87 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 CITIES 1. Davao 6.48 2. Cebu 6.31 3. Las Piñas 6.28 MID-SIZED CITIES 1. General Santos 6.59 2. Batangas 6.42 2. San Fernando, Pampanga 6.42 SMALL CITIES 1. Legaspi 6.41 2. Koronadal 6.32 3. Tacloban 5.25 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 CITIES 1. Pasig 7.32 2. Cebu 7.19 3. Makati 7.14 MID-SIZED CITIES 1. Bacolod 7.36 2. Iloilo 7.29 3. Cagayan de Oro 6.84 SMALL CITIES 1. San Fernando, La Union 6.76 2. Koronadal 6.56 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 CITIES 1. Marikina 7.15 2. Muntinlupa 6.35 3. Las Piñas 6.24 MID-SIZED CITIES 1. San Fernando, Pampanga 6.52 2. Bacolod 6.18 3. Cagayan de Oro 6.13 SMALL CITIES 1. San Carlos 6.59 2. Tagaytay 6.44 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 METRO CITIES 1. Marikina 8.15 2. Pasig 7.54 3. Makati 7.36 MID-SIZED CITIES 1. Bacolod 6.46 2. Cagayan de Oro 6.17 3. San Fernando, Pampanga 6.10 SMALL CITIES 1. Ormoc 6.19 1. Sta. Rosa 6.19 2 Dagupan 6.12 Drivers of Competitiveness: QUALITY OF LIFE METRO CITIES • 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 1. Marikina 6.96 2. Mandaluyong 6.68 3. Las Piñas 6.40 MID-SIZED CITIES 1. Bacolod 7.04 2. Baguio 6.02 3. San Fernando, Pampanga 5.82 SMALL CITIES 1. San Fernando, La Union 6.59 2. Olongapo 6.32 3. Koronadal 6.20 Recognition of the Most Competitive Philippine Cities Overall Competitiveness SMALL CITIES 1. Koronadal 6.17 2. San Fernando, La Union 6.09 3. Tagaytay 6.05 SMALL CITIES: RANKING BY DRIVER C OST OF D OIN G B U SIN ESS D Y N A M ISM OF LOC A L EC ON OM Y IN F R A ST R U C T U R E LIN KA GES A N D A C C ESSIB ILIT Y HU M A N R ESOU R C E A N D T R A IN IN G QU A LIT Y OF LIF E R ESPON SIV EN ESS OF LGU RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK C ad iz 5 14 19 23 24 22 13 C avit e 2 11 5 21 21 23 20 C o t ab at o 25 21 21 17 11 20 20 D ag up an 18 5 3 13 6 5 7 D ip o lo g 10 15 15 7 13 11 5 D umag uet e 24 12 16 13 8 15 22 4 4 4 2 2 3 4 23 8 9 1 2 4 3 M alayb alay 7 22 11 18 19 18 6 M ar awi 11 12 23 24 22 25 25 N ag a 22 9 7 18 5 6 8 Olo ng ap o 21 6 14 13 14 2 23 Or mo c 13 10 1 5 10 12 18 Or o q uiet a 19 25 18 25 23 7 15 Oz amis 12 18 17 20 20 17 19 Pag ad ian 20 17 13 16 15 21 12 Puer t o Pr incesa 16 16 25 9 8 16 14 R o xas 8 19 19 11 18 8 16 San C ar lo s San F er nand o , La U nio n 13 22 12 4 17 10 1 5 7 6 6 1 1 11 St a. R o sa 15 3 1 8 12 13 10 Sur ig ao 9 20 8 10 7 8 9 T aclo b an 17 1 22 3 4 19 17 CITY Koronadal Leg asp i T ag ayt ay 1 2 9 12 16 14 2 T ag um 3 24 24 22 25 24 24 Overall Competitiveness MID-SIZED CITIES 1. Bacolod 6.62 2. San Fernando, Pampanga 6.24 3. Cagayan de Oro 6.18 MID-SIZED CITIES: RANKING BY DRIVER COST OF DYNAMISM HUMAN LINKAGES AND DOING OF LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE RESOURCE AND ACCESSIBILITY BUSINESS ECONOMY TRAINING QUALITY OF LIFE RESPONSIVENESS OF LGU CITY Angeles RANK 7 RANK 8 RANK 8 RANK 8 RANK 8 RANK 10 RANK 10 Bacolod 3 2 1 7 1 1 2 Baguio Batangas Butuan Cagayan de Oro General Santos Iligan Iloilo Lipa San Fernando, Pam panga Tarlac Zam boanga 6 2 5 11 1 10 8 9 4 5 12 3 11 10 1 7 4 5 6 2 7 9 10 11 11 2 12 4 1 10 5 6 6 7 11 3 4 10 2 9 2 8 12 4 9 13 7 6 11 6 12 3 5 7 4 9 4 12 13 6 13 9 3 13 12 2 13 9 5 13 12 3 5 11 1 13 7 Overall Competitiveness METRO CITIES 1. Marikina 6.58 2. Pasig 6.36 3. Davao 5.89 METRO CITIES: RANKING BY DRIVER CITY Cebu Davao DYNAMISM COST OF OF THE HUMAN DOING LOCAL LINKAGES AND RESOURCES BUSINESS ECONOMY INFRASTRUCTURE ACCESSIBILITY AND TRAINING RANK RANK RANK RANK RANK 7 1 10 2 2 1 4 6 1 5 QUALITY OF LIFE RANK 10 8 RESPONSIVENESS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT RANK 8 4 Lapu-Lapu Las Pinas Makati Mandaluyong Mandaue Manila 5 3 9 8 5 11 11 9 2 6 12 7 12 11 3 5 9 7 4 3 5 10 7 12 9 6 3 10 11 7 10 3 4 2 7 12 7 3 9 6 10 11 Marikina 3 10 1 8 8 1 1 Muntinlupa Pasig Quezon City 2 12 10 8 5 3 8 2 4 9 6 11 11 1 4 5 6 9 2 5 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