THE results of the Social Weather Stations 2012 Survey on Good Local Governance, which the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) told the public about on October 29, did not surprise anybody. For it was basically the same as the results of the 2011 survey.

Most, 73 percent, of the respondents—heads of household—of the survey conducted from August 20 to 28, 2012 were satisfied with the performance of their local government offices and only 14 percent were dissatisfied. This translates, according to the SWS table, to a grade of “very good.” The net satisfaction this year is plus-59-percent (+59%)—which is the result of 14 percent dissatisfied minus 73 percent satisfied.

There is a change, however. This year there are more dissatisfied respondents than in 2011. And last year’s “very good” grade was higher. In 2011, 75 percent of the heads of households were satisfied and 11 percent were dissatisfied. This means the net satisfaction last year was plus-64-percent (+64%). So this years plus-59-percent is lower by 5 points.

This year’s net satisfaction rating is, however, 15 points higher than in the survey conducted in September 2009. The satisfied heads of households in 2009 only made up 68 percent and the dissatisfied made up 23 percent, resulting in a net satisfaction rating of just plus-44-percent (+44%). The grade in 2009 was only “good.”

In this August survey, very good net satisfaction ratings were also obtained by key local officials and institutions.

Governors were “very good” with plus-56-percent of the respondents satisfied. But this “very good” grade is below the July 2011 “very good” which came from plus-67-percent of satisfied respondents.

Mayors were also “very good” at plus-65-percent but this is a lower grade than the mayors’ “excellent” grade in 2011 based on plus-73-percent satisfied respondents.

Vice-Mayors were also “very good” but down from plus-68-percent in 2011 to plus-60-percent this August.

Barangay-chairmen were also down from an “excellent” plus-70-percent in 2011 to only “very good” in August 2012 with plus-63-percent.

The City and Municipal Councils were also “very good” at plus-57-percent but down from 2011’s plus-57-percent.

The City and Municipal Police departments were also “good.” They improved from 2011’s plus-53-percent to 2012’s plus-54-percent.

This survey was done two days after the tragic death of the late Sec. Jesse Robredo. It found that 70 percent were satisfied and 7 percent were dissatisfied with the performance of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) which the late icon of good governance headed. The DILG’s net satisfaction rating is “very good” at plus-63-percent. This is up by 5 points from the “good” plus-48-percent (58 percent satisfied, 11 percent dissatisfied) in the July 2011.

What international monitor see
These “good” and “very good” grades of our local government units and the police do not seem to impress the international good-governance monitors.

The latest World Bank-Internation Finance Corporation report, “Doing Business 2013: Smarter Regulations for Small and Medium-Size Enterprises,” shows that starting a business in the Philippines is one of the most complicated in the world. We rank 161 out of 185 countries rated.

It shows as well that we have fallen two notches below our place in the previous report in “ease of doing business” — from 136th to 138th out of 185 countries. Apparently, the WB-IFC researchers who conducted the survey saw that we “did not implement any reforms to make it easier for small and medium enterprises to do business.”

The report says we made no reforms in the 12 months since the survey and research for Doing Business Report 2012 were completed. Was this because our local governments were made complacent by the annual SWS survey that has been giving them “excellent,” “very good” and “good” grades for the past four years?

In contrast, look at the reform-making records of countries that are rated in the WB-IFC report.

In the WB-IFC report, near perfect New Zealand at No. 3 rank —below Singapore and Hong Kong—at least did one reform.

No. 5 Denmark did 1 reform. No. 6 Norway did 2 reforms, No. 7 United Kingdom did 1, No. 8 South Korea did 4, No. 9 Georgia did 6, No. 1 Australia did 1, No. 15 Ireland did 2, No. 16 Taiwan did 2, and Canada did 1.

Here are our fellow Asean countries’ reform records. But No. 12 Malaysia did 2 reforms, No. 18 Thailand did 2, No 79 Brunei did 2, No. 99 Vietnam did 1, No. 128 Indonesia did 1 reform, No. 133 Cambodia (which is five places above us) did 1 reform and No. 163 Laos (where President Aquino is now) did 3 reforms.

Malacañang expectedly spoke of the reforms made by the Aquino administration in the national level. But the WB-IFC survey is titled “Doing Business 2013: Smarter Regulations for Small and Medium-Size Enterprises” and SMEs deal mainly with local governments and seldom with the national government.

The local governments—no matter how good the SWS surveys say they are—must shape up and help ease doing business both for local SMEs and foreign investors.

If they don’t—despite the administration’s confidence that the WB-IFC report will have no impact on foreign investment flows to our country—our FDI will remain as low as it is. This year it is less than $1 billion and just about the same as what Cambodia gets ($0.9 billion). Singapore’s FDI is $27.4 billion, Indonesia’s is $8.2 billion in inflows, Thailand’s is $5.6 billion and Malaysia’s is $4.4 billion.

That’s partly because, as the WB-IFC report sees, in these countries, it is easier to open and do business.

The administration must make opening a business in our country cease being the most complicated in the world.