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