Introduction. The article is devoted to political and socio-economic processes in the Philippines in the context of re-defining and re-understanding of the “Good Governance” concept.The term “good governance” in the Philippines is generally defined politically. As noted by the University of the Philippines Diliman National College of Public Administration and Governance (UP NCPAG), “good governance” is mainly concerned with improving the quality of government (QOG) which it perceives plays a key role in reclaiming democratic space. Thus, the main thrust is “to address the issues of anti-corruption, ethical public service service, efficient and effective delivery of public services by concerned Philippine institutions” (Forum Concept of the CLCD2018).Material and methods. To address meaningful governance for UP NCPAG therefore is to assess the country’s democratic institutions. This all leads to the major aims to assess the country’s democratic institutions and whether democracy has led to meaningful governance reforms in the Philippine context. This definition of governance has generally characterized the assessment of the post-martial law administrations of Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992), Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998), Joseph E. Estrada (1998-2001), Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (2001-2010), Benigno S. Aquino (2010-2016) and Rodrigo R. Duterte (2016present).Results. Although political reforms to strengthen the quality of government is indeed pertinent, this paper will, however, argue that these political reforms will only have a substantive impact on the democratization process in the country if it is coupled with policy reforms which address the growing socio-economic inequalities in Philippine society. In particular, there is a need for socio-economic policies which will address redistribution. Without this, not only will the economic but also the political gap between the rich and the poor remain wide, but it will also make the implementation of political reforms close to impossible.Discussion and Conclusions. The first part of this paper will, therefore, define how the term “governance” has generally been applied to the Philippines. It will elucidate how its definition has been generally limited to the political sphere and why there is a need to expand on this to include the socio-economic domain. It will highlight this concern in the post-martial law administrations. The second part, on the other hand, will elaborate on this issue in the current Duterte administration.
Does one size fit all? An analysis of portfolio allocation in the Brazilian multiparty presidential system
