Funds are pouring in, projects are implemented, but why poverty persist? What could be wrong?
The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) plays a significant role in evaluating, endorsing, and monitoring projects that contribute to the country’s national development goals. Government agencies and local government units (LGUs) often present their proposals to Regional Development Councils (RDCs), where these projects are reviewed and endorsed for potential government funding.
NEDA’s primary function is to ensure that projects align with the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) and the AmBisyon Natin 2040, a long-term vision for a prosperous and sustainable society. The agency also monitors and reports on the implementation and progress of national development projects, providing periodic updates to assess their impact.
However, NEDA relies heavily on implementing agencies and LGUs to execute and report on these projects. This dependence on secondary reports can result in incomplete or biased data, and in some cases, false reporting by the organizations responsible for implementation. Without direct field validation, there is limited assurance that these projects are delivering their intended outcomes.
Projects that require NEDA’s approval typically include large national infrastructure projects (such as highways, airports, and bridges) and major social programs (such as poverty reduction initiatives and disaster resilience projects). These projects are often subject to evaluation by NEDA’s investment coordination committee to ensure they are economically viable and beneficial to the broader population.
While NEDA’s role is essential in shaping the country’s development agenda, its reliance on self-reported data from implementing agencies poses challenges in ensuring accountability and transparency. Strengthening independent monitoring mechanisms and conducting field-based evaluations would significantly improve the agency’s capacity to measure real-world project impacts and ensure public funds are used effectively.
NEDA has units tasked with data gathering, analysis, and monitoring to support its planning processes, many of the data NEDA relies on are sourced from other agencies (secondary data), rather than primary, field-based research conducted in-house. While NEDA has research and evaluation units, their scope is limited, and the agency heavily depends on reports from other government bodies, surveys from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), and third-party studies. The reliance on secondary data means that NEDA's capacity to verify the actual on-the-ground impact of policies and projects is limited. Post-project evaluations and impact assessments are not rigorously done by NEDA itself but are often left to the implementing agencies or contracted third parties, which raises questions about accountability and transparency. This perhaps is one of the reasons why despite billions or may be trillions of funds for various types of projects have been granted to the region, it still is among the poorest in the country. Project prioritization, project planning, and poor project execution may lead to ineffective projects or poorly executed projects; contrary to its intention.
A striking example of poor planning and misallocation of funds is the construction of a PhP 200 million airport terminal in Samar Province, even though the runway remains non-operational. How did such a project gain approval when there was no immediate demand for its use? While the terminal is touted as one of the best in the Philippines, it remains unused and depreciating in value, a clear indication of ill-timed investment that provides no immediate benefit to the community.
Another glaring issue is Samar’s vast tourism potential, which is hindered by poor road infrastructure. The airport terminal may be ready, but how can tourists be enticed to visit when the access roads are some of the worst in the country? Travelers have even described these roads as “hellish” and treacherous, making Samar difficult to explore despite its natural attractions. Funds are available for its rehabilitation, but concerns of poor quality execution abound and prioritization has become a point of discussion in the province.
Similarly, Biliran Island’s main bridge recently experienced near-collapse, revealing major issues in its management. Although there were proposals for a new bridge years ago, these were never funded. Instead, the current bridge has deteriorated to a dangerous state, now requiring major rehabilitation or complete replacement—a crisis that could have been avoided with better prioritization and planning.
In another case, the Tacloban City causeway project was implemented to reduce travel time from downtown to the airport. The ideal could have been a bridge but for a reason, they have it as a causeway instead despite the concerns of experts about the environmental risks of the causeway, which disrupts natural water flow and marine ecosystems. Was there an environmental impact assessment? Despite these concerns, the project pushed through because the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) claimed a bridge was too costly. This decision highlights short-term cost-cutting at the expense of long-term sustainability.
These projects reflect a troubling pattern of misallocated funds, poor prioritization, and lack of thorough studies. Instead of addressing pressing issues that would create immediate impact, resources are poured into projects that either lack demand or are executed without careful consideration of long-term consequences. Without rigorous evaluation and impact assessments, such ill-studied projects will continue to burden the region, offering little to no improvement to the lives of the people they are supposed to benefit.
Data gathering and Research Units in NEDA
NEDA has several key units involved in data collection and analysis to support policy-making and development planning:
a. Policy and Planning Group
The core unit responsible for formulating the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) and monitoring its implementation.
Relies on data from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) and other government agencies for socio-economic indicators like poverty rates, employment, and GDP growth.
Uses data from international organizations (e.g., World Bank, IMF, ADB) for benchmarking and planning purposes.
b. Monitoring and Evaluation Staff
Tasked with evaluating the progress of national plans, policies, and projects.
Produces the Socioeconomic Report (SER), which monitors the implementation of the PDP and whether targets are being met.
However, much of their evaluation is paper-based and reliant on reports from implementing agencies, rather than direct field validation of project impacts.
c. Public Investment Staff
Evaluates and recommends major public infrastructure projects for approval by the NEDA Board.
Conducts Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and assesses the feasibility and economic returns of proposed projects.
However, their focus is primarily pre-implementation, with less emphasis on post-project impact assessments.
d. Social Development Staff
Focuses on social sector programs like health, education, housing, and social protection.
Responsible for ensuring that social programs contribute to poverty reduction and human capital development, but again, it often relies on secondary data from implementing agencies and national surveys rather than conducting its own field research.
Does NEDA Conduct Primary Research?
NEDA does not have a dedicated research unit that conducts extensive primary field research. Instead, it relies heavily on secondary data from the following sources:
Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA): For official poverty, employment, and economic growth statistics.
Department of Budget and Management (DBM): For government spending data.
Other government agencies and local government units (LGUs): For sectoral data and project reports.
International organizations (World Bank, ADB, UNDP): For global comparisons and best practices.
This reliance on secondary data limits NEDA's ability to verify the actual impact of policies and projects on communities. Post-project evaluations and impact assessments are rarely conducted by NEDA itself and are often left to implementing agencies or outsourced to third-party evaluators. As a result, there is little accountability for whether these projects actually improve the lives of Filipinos.
Does NEDA Monitor the Real Impact of Projects?
NEDA has monitoring mechanisms, but they are often limited to process-based metrics (e.g., project completion rates, budget utilization) rather than outcome-based metrics (e.g., reduction in poverty, improved quality of life).
The Monitoring and Evaluation Staff (MES) tracks whether projects are implemented on time and within budget. However, there is no robust system to measure the long-term impact of these projects on communities. Many projects are approved and completed without thorough post-project assessments to determine whether they have truly benefited the people.
For example, NEDA can approve a major flood control project, but it might not monitor whether it actually reduced flooding and improved the lives of local residents. Instead, they rely on implementing agencies or LGUs to report project outcomes, which can lead to incomplete or biased reports.
Weakness in Project Impact Monitoring
One of the biggest gaps in NEDA’s function is its lack of a comprehensive, independent evaluation mechanism to measure the real-world impact of projects and policies. Unlike some of its regional counterparts like Singapore, Malaysia, and even Vietnam, the Philippines does not have a culture of evidence-based governance.
NEDA Should Ideally:
Conduct independent post-project evaluations to verify whether the intended outcomes were achieved.
Measure social, economic, and environmental impacts beyond project completion.
Hold implementing agencies accountable for failed projects or poor performance.
Without these changes, poor regions like Eastern Visayas will continue to suffer from ineffective development programs, with little improvement in poverty rates and overall quality of life.
How Do Regional Counterparts Handle Project Monitoring?
Countries like Singapore and Malaysia have more independent and rigorous monitoring and evaluation units. These countries have zero-tolerance policies for corruption and prioritize accountability in government projects.
For instance:
Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) conducts detailed post-project evaluations and holds officials accountable if projects fail to deliver results.
Malaysia’s Economic Planning Unit (EPU) integrates impact assessments into its planning processes to ensure that projects contribute to long-term national goals.
Vietnam has implemented regular field validations to ensure that poverty reduction programs are reaching marginalized communities.
Political Interference and NEDA’s Challenges
One of the reasons why NEDA struggles to effectively monitor projects and ensure impactful development is political interference. At both the national and regional levels, NEDA’s work is often influenced by political leaders who prioritize short-term political gains over long-term development goals.
For example:
Vote-buying during elections often leads to the election of officials who lack competence and focus more on self-serving projects rather than community-centered development.
Regional Development Councils (RDCs) are chaired by local politicians, which can skew project prioritization based on political interests rather than actual development needs.
NEDA's recommendations for socio-economic reforms are often ignored or watered down by Congress, which is widely viewed as the largest syndicate in the Philippines.
What Needs to Change?
For NEDA to truly drive development, it must:
Establish a dedicated, independent research unit to conduct primary field research and post-project impact assessments.
Strengthen its monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to focus on outcomes rather than just processes.
Reduce political interference by ensuring that project approvals and evaluations are independent of political influence.
Adopt accountability measures to ensure that projects deliver real benefits to communities and hold agencies responsible for failures.
Without these reforms, NEDA will continue to be an agency that plans on paper but fails to deliver impactful results on the ground—leaving regions like Eastern Visayas stuck in poverty and underdevelopment.
(Article written with AI assistance; data/information needs verification)