Community Capacity and Governance – New Approaches to Development and Evaluation
section. The approaches discussed in this sub-section are asset-based assessment, qualitative
evaluation, participatory evaluation, and concept-driven evaluation.
3.1. Asset-based Assessment
The first lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, worked with the pioneers of the assetbased
approach, John McKnight and Jody Kretzmann, in her hometown of Chicago. She had
this to say about asset-based development:
“We can't do well serving these communities…if we believe that we, the givers, are
the only ones that are half-full, and that everybody we're serving is half-empty. That
has been the theme of my work in community for my entire life -- that there are assets
and gifts out there in communities, and that our job as good servants and as good
leaders is not only just being humble, but it's having the ability to recognize those
gifts in others, and help them put those gifts into action. Communities are filled with
assets that we need to better recognize and mobilize if we're really going to make a
Mrs. Obama correctly identifies the need for practitioners and leaders to recognize that there
is something of value in the people and the communities they are involved with and an assetbased
approach helps to identify this.
As stated in Chapter Two, this work seeks a proactive and positive approach to human
development, poverty alleviation and its associated administrative procedures. Asset-based
assessment is one such approach. This approach focuses on a community’s capacities and assets,
rather than on needs and problems (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993, p. 1; see also Boyd et al.,
2006, p. 191; Gaarder et al., 2003; Robinson, 1997, p. 25), which can often be insurmountable
and cast the efforts of the community in a negative light.
Asset-based development and assessment starts from the positive aspects of a community and
allows policy and sense of community to develop from there. Assets are necessary for people to
thrive, and they need to be sustainable in order for them to have exponential impacts on the lives
of people (WB, 2002, p. 1).
Asset mapping is an exercise that is commonly used in asset-based assessment (see Beaulieu,
2002; Gaarder et al., 2003; McKnight & Kretzmann, 1996). Asset mapping is a way of
illuminating the resources that a community has at their disposal in the hopes that these local
assets can then be mobilized for policy management, human development, and poverty
alleviation (Gaarder et al., 2003, p. 4).
The recognition of assets is the first step to being better able to use those assets. One of the
goals of asset-based assessment is to provide insight into to how to better combine and leverage
local assets for the benefit of the community (Gaarder et al., 2003, p. 12). Taking an asset-based
approach helps to highlight and emphasize the local resources in a community with the intention
of utilizing them. An asset-based approach asserts that local actors are significant contributors to
local policy development (Gaarder et al., 2003, p. 12), as well as improvements in their own
lives. An asset-based approach to assessment and policy making is consistent with the concept
of community capacity, specifically in relation to the attributes of recognizing and accessing
resources and setting objectives.
There is not necessarily one established methodology to asset mapping or assessment
(Gaarder et al., 2003, p. 13). This is why it is referred to as an approach, rather than a tool with
prescribed steps. Many authors and practitioners have fashioned their own methodology based
on an asset-based approach, but they are typically highly contextualized to a country, situation,
or issue. For instance, Gaarder and colleagues (2003) developed an asset mapping tool that can
be used to identify assets that are useful for the community management of HIV/AIDS in the
developing community of Garifuna. This makes an asset-based approach to assessment and
development consistent with the ideology presented earlier in this work in Chapter Two,
emphasizing context and the capabilities of local people.
Sustainable community development depends on the realization of community capacity,
including the commitment to invest in community initiatives, which taking an asset-based
approach recognizes (Gaarder et al., 2003, p. 11). The asset-based approach to assessment and
development has many advantages, but it has yet to be widely established, particularly in
developing countries (Gaarder et al., 2003, p. 12).
3.2. Qualitative evaluation
Qualitative evaluation has been recognized as an important complement to traditional
quantitative evaluations at all levels (Madey, 1982, p. 223; Patton, 2002). Previously, evaluation
had been used to describe how a policy, program, project worked, but it was later realized that
understanding why it worked (or did not work) was also important (Madey, 1982, p. 224).
Qualitative data helps to answer questions of why in an evaluation. It enriches quantitative data
by improving sampling framework, the focus of the evaluation design, and the instruments used
for data gathering, as well as help to establish the priority of information needs (Madey, 1982, p.
Qualitative evaluation can be defined as the collection and analysis of qualitative data
(Fujikakae, 2008, p. 1). It can be further classified in two ways: 1) as a complement to
quantitative data to offer a broader evaluation of the target; or 2) the evaluation of phenomena
that cannot be thoroughly explained using quantitative data (Fujikake, 2008, p. 1). Qualitative
research methods are described in Chapter Three and also carry over into the discussion on
qualitative evaluation, evaluation itself being a research method. Qualitative methods that can be
used in evaluation are relatively open-ended and can be employed during any stage of data
collection (Madey, 1982, p. 225; Weiss, 1998, p. 83). With qualitative evaluation, there is an
emphasis on understanding, rather than precise measurement (Weiss, 1998, p. 83).
Qualitative evaluations can be useful for specific program or project evaluations, as well as
process evaluations because they tell the story of those involved with it (Patton, 2002, pp.
10,159; Weiss, 1998, p. 83). Although both qualitative and quantitative data are important for
constructing a comprehensive and balanced evaluation (Jackon & Kassam, 1998, p. 4; Patton,
2002, p. 5; Weiss, 1998, p. 256), it is qualitative data that can lead to improvements in processes
(Patton, 2002, p. 134; Weiss, 1998, p. 83) and the achievement of outcomes at the local level.
This is because qualitative data can be more easily related in context to those directly involved in
a policy’s implementation (Razafindrakoto & Roubaud, 2002b, p. 288). This is particularly true
when policies dealing with human development and poverty alleviation can be difficult of
quantify (Patton, 2002, p. 175).
Traditional evaluations that focus only on quantifiable measures can also fail to assess the
added value of programs, particularly when they deal with human resources and leadership (High
& Nemes, 2007, p. 110). This reinforces the relevance of including qualitative evaluation in
policy management. Qualitative evaluations provide rich, dynamic, and contextual (Weiss,
1998, p. 85) data that adds depth to numerical figures (Madey, 1982, p. 229) and an
understanding of a situation on humanistic terms. Qualitative evaluation can be particularly
useful at the early stages of the policy management cycle because is can lead to better decisions
being made about the policy while it is being implemented (Weiss, 1998, p. 85).
3.3. Participatory Evaluation
There is a broad understanding of participation, particularly in relation to evaluation, in the
fields of development and public administration. The World Bank’s Deepa Narayan (1993)
defines participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) as “a process of collaborative problemsolving
and use of knowledge…that leads to corrective action by involving all levels of
stakeholders in shared decision-making” (cited in Rietbergen-McCracken & Narayan, 1998, p.
191). The Narayan definition offers a starting point for the consideration of PM&E, but is vague
in that it does not specify the role of various stakeholders. Although Rietbergen-McCracken &
Narayan (1998) state that “local people are active participants - not just sources of information”
(p.192) their general definition is still too narrow and can lead to broad interpretation.
Based on their work with participatory evaluation in China, Vernooy, Qiu and Jianchu (2003)
describe PM&E as “the joint effort or partnership of two or more stakeholders to monitor and
evaluate, systematically, one or more research or development activities (p. 23)” with emphasis
on the “participation of stakeholders in deciding how project progress should be measured and
results acted on (p. 24).” While this definition offered by Vernooy and colleagues gives more
indication to the type of action required by stakeholders, it still limits them to a largely
Gail Fults (1993) discusses participatory evaluation as a management tool (p. 20). She
advocates having community members in a group report their progress in various program
activities, discuss the outcomes, and reach a consensus on how well they are doing and of their
next plan of action (Fults, 1993, p. 86). Fults’s description of participatory evaluation is more
proactive in that community members work together in a group to assess activities, but her angle
is still that of the donor without much acknowledgement of the importance or benefit to the local
Edward T. Jackson and Yusuf Kassam (1998) see participatory evaluation as a process that:
“…empowers communities, organizations, individuals to analyze and solve their own
problems; values the knowledge and experience of local citizens in analyzing their
economic, political, social and cultural reality; uses learning and education to promote
reflection and critical analysis by both project participants and development workers;
serves the purpose of improving program/organization in the interests of the
beneficiaries; involves active participation of project beneficiaries who play a decisive
role in the entire evaluation process; promotes the beneficiaries' ownership of a
development program; uses participatory methods of obtaining data and generating
knowledge using qualitative and quantitative techniques; is participatory and collective
that creates better, more in-depth and more accurate knowledge of the performance and
impacts of a development intervention (p.2).”
Jackson and Kassam’s conceptualization of participatory evaluation is very comprehensive,
acknowledging the importance of stakeholder ownership and knowledge and stressing
advantages to both beneficiaries and external stakeholders. For the sake of this work, the more
active conceptualization of participatory evaluation offered by Jackson and Kassam (1998) is
Systems, such as communities, need feedback in order to function properly and collectively
prosper (Bogenschnieder, 1996, p. 131). Without clear objectives and ways to assess them,
policies are less likely to succeed (Bogenschnieder, 1996, p. 132). Overall, participatory
evaluation seeks to obtain practical knowledge for policy management, as well as to actively
engage stakeholders in the process (Thurston, Farrar, Casebeer & Grossman, 2004, p. 481; see
also Bogenschnieder, 1996, p. 130). In each instance of participatory evaluation, it is necessary
for the evaluation coordinator to consider what the objective of the evaluation is (Weiss, 1998, p.
Participatory evaluation is necessary because stakeholders should be involved in all stages of
the policy process from agenda setting, goal setting, policy continuation and termination (Dobbs
& Moore, 2002, p. 159; Fults, 1993, p. 86; Vernooy et al., 2003, p. 23). Furthermore, as Jackson
and Kassam (1998) suggest, stakeholders should be involved in the process in a meaningful and
engaging way (see also Dobbs & Moore, 2002, p. 159). In terms of evaluation, stakeholders
should be involved in the planning, collection, analysis, and dissemination stages of the
evaluation process (Dobbs & Moore, 2002, p. 159). Not only should stakeholders be involved in
the evaluation process, but the results of the evaluation should be widely available and easily
understood by the public (Razafindrakoto & Roubaud, 2002b, p. 271). Asking stakeholders to
reply to surveys or questionnaires does not qualify as participatory evaluation (Rietbergen-
McCracken & Narayan, 1998, p. 192)
Stakeholders should be involved in policy management and evaluation because they have
valuable information related to the policies that affect them and the conditions under which they
live (Bogenschnieder, 1996, p. 132; Razafindrakoto & Roubaud, 2002a, pp. 127-128; Smith,
1999, pp. 12-14). In participatory evaluation the evaluation practitioner should take the role of a
facilitator in order to support learning throughout the evaluation process (Dobbs & Moore, 2002,
p. 159; Fults, 1993, p. 88; Jackson & Kassam, 1998, p. 10; Rietbergen-McCracken & Narayan,
1998, p. 192; Patton, 2002, p. 185; Secret, Jordan, & Ford, 1999, p. 121). The facilitator must
create a process and an environment that allows each stakeholder to speak freely and learn
without fear of retribution, and hierarchical powers are minimized (Jackson & Kassam, 1998, p.
11). If only external evaluators are involved in the evaluation it can lead to distrust of the
external evaluator, sabotage in the data collection efforts, or even termination of the entire
evaluation (Secret et al., 1999, p. 125).
Participatory evaluation provides voice to local people, particularly those who otherwise may
have difficulty being heard (Jackson & Kassam, 1998, p. 5; Razafindrakoto & Roubaud, 2002a,
pp. 127-128). This function of participatory evaluation leads to better democracy (Jackson &
Kassam, 1998, p. 15) and governance in terms of transparency and accountability (Kaufmann et
al., 2002, p. 54). Participatory evaluation, especially assessments on poverty alleviation
initiatives, has deepened the general understanding of poverty as a multidimensional phenomena
and provides a solid basis for political reform (Razafindrakoto & Roubaud 2002a, p. 128).
Outcomes of participatory evaluation include ownership of the evaluation, social justice,
community capacity building, more responsive public services, and knowledge transfer of
research techniques (Bogenschnieder, 1996, p. 132; Secret et al., 1999, p. 121; Vernooy et al.,
2003, pp. 24-25).
More meaningful information is generated from participatory evaluation than from externally
dominated evaluations (Dobbs & Moore, 2002, p. 159; Vernooy et al., 2003, p. 23). Exogenous
evaluations also remove the possibility for learning and knowledge sharing by local participants
(High & Nemes, 2007, p. 111). Community stakeholder participation in evaluation can also
lead to more civic engagement with policy; thus more community capacity and social capital
(Dobbs & Moore, 2002, p. 159). Having the capacity to analyze and understand their situation
leads to better results with poverty alleviation initiatives (Gariba, 1998, p. 68; WB, 2003, p. 1).
Participatory evaluation contributes to these capacities, therefore contributing overall to the
effectiveness of human development and poverty alleviation initiatives.
One of the advantages of using participatory evaluation is that it leads to the empowerment
of local people (Dobbs & Moore, 2002, p. 169; Jackson & Kassam, 1998, p. 2; Vernooy et al.,
2003, p. 24). For this reason, participatory evaluation can also be described as empowerment
evaluation, as Fujikake (2008), Jackson and Kassam (1998), Secret and colleagues (1999) did.
Empowerment evaluation follows the cycles of reflection and analysis (Fujikake, 2008, p. 2) that
are described in action research, again bonding the two concepts together.
Some of the drawbacks of participatory evaluation include difficulty in utilizing the data, the
penchant for local elites to keep those who are voiceless and disempowered in their current
situations (Razafindrakoto & Roubaud, 2002a, p. 129), the difficulty in executing a locally
dominated evaluation, fading hope and expectations of outcomes related to the evaluation
(Razafindrakoto & Roubaud, 2002a, p. 129), and the overall cumbersomeness and time it takes
to conduct participatory evaluations (Thurston et al., 2004, p. 489; see also Smith, 1999).
Furthermore, there is a limit to how many people can actually be involved in a participatory
evaluation (Weiss, 1998, p. 104), which leads to some level of exclusivity in the participatory
group and limitations on the quality of he data collected. Due to these limitations, participatory
evaluation remains a scantly used methodology remaining more or less in the realm of things that
are “really good ideas.”
3.4. Concept-driven evaluation
In order for evaluations to be effective and to fulfill their determined purpose, it is
necessary for them to be constructed around a theoretical or conceptual framework (Miyoshi &
Stenning, 2008; Chen, 2005), rather than solely on a method. Once the conceptual framework
guiding the evaluation has been established it can be introduced to those involved in the
evaluation. After the participants have been sensitized to the concepts, how it manifests in that
particular setting or among the group can be examined (Patton, 2002, p. 456). Furthermore,
action research requires a driving principle and aim in order for the process to flow (Gustavsen,
2006, p. 17) and a concept-driven evaluation fulfills this need. It should also be noted that this
process then in turn contributes to further development of the theory or concept (Gustavsen,
2006, p. 17; Patton, 2202, p. 221).
4. Chapter Summary
This chapter covers three main areas: 1) localization, 2) issues with evaluation, and 3)
improvements to evaluation. These areas are expanded upon to better illustrate the importance
of localized governance in relation to human development and policy effectiveness and the role
that evaluation plays.
Localization is examined as a complement to decentralization to better contextualize policy
management and evaluation. Localization encourages people to organize and collect their
demands at the local level and strengthens their position against other interests. It is also
consistent with the nesting concept of communities, fostering the development of policy links
between the levels of governance and recognizing the importance of delegate discretion.
Localization is important because it contributes to good governance and empowers local
stakeholders, which leads to better success with human development and poverty alleviation
The localization of evaluation and policy can be facilitated through a consorted effort on the
part of leaders and administrators at larger bureaucratic agencies, recognition of the importance
of the role of local stakeholders, and trainings to build administrative capacity at the local level.
These issues were discussed through the examination of the JICA-Nepal SMES program and the
LMS project in Jagna, Philippines. The cases demonstrated how interventions to promote
localization can be organized and implemented through the coordination of various local and
extra local stakeholders.
The major issues with evaluation in developing countries, according to participants of the
JICA Forum on the Institutionalization of Evaluation System (ibid) (2007) are:
1. the need to build evaluation capacity;
2. the necessity of continuity in the policy management cycle through incorporating
3. the development of a culture of evaluation;
4. the need for coordination and involvement of all stakeholders, particularly local
stakeholders, in evaluation; and
5. the creation of legal and organizational structures for evaluation.
These issues are cited as the major constraints to the development of evaluation in
developing countries and their continued impact is seen in the failure of many human
development initiatives and stunted efforts in poverty alleviation.
These issues can be addressed through improvements in the way that evaluation is being
approached and implemented. The third section of this chapter suggests some progressive
approaches to evaluation in response to the issues such as: a) asset-based assessment, b)
qualitative evaluation, c) participatory evaluation, and d) concept-driven evaluation. These types
of evaluation contribute to better governance and benefit communities more than traditional
approaches to evaluation. Furthermore, they address some of the issues with evaluation,
particularly building evaluation capacity, continuity in the policy management cycle, developing
a culture of evaluation, and bringing stakeholders into the process. Legal frameworks and
organizational structures are not necessarily addressed here, but could be facilitated by the
adoption of the evaluation approaches offered here.
7. Pagudpud Case
his chapter looks at the case of Pagudpud, Ilocos Norte, Philippines and the field work
that was conducted there at the end of 2007 and in 2008. The purpose of this chapter
is to provide an initial understanding of the situation in Pagudpud and its policy
structure, and to describe its community capacity. The research questions addressed
How can community capacity building strategies be integrated into a community-level
2. What does community capacity mean in the context of a developing community?
3. Can the A-A-A framework be developed into an assessment tool?
These questions are addressed through an analysis of the municipal policy of Pagudpud, the
10-K Initiative, under the direction of Mayor Marlon Sales, as well as through an assessment of
their community capacity that was compiled through interviews, surveys, and observations in the
community. Before moving onto the analysis, some background information on the Philippines
and Pagudpud is presented in the next section.
1. Background on the Philippines
Like the rest of Asia, the majority (70%) of the poor in the Philippines live in rural areas
(Quibria, 1993, p. 1). The incidence of rural poverty in the Philippines has not improved much
since 1985. By the year 2000, rural poverty in the Philippines only decreased by 4%, while
urban poverty decreased by 14% (Bautista, 2006, p. 2).
The Philippines had been under the Spanish colonial empire, which had large cultural effects
because of Christianity (Mulder, 2003, p. 6). Their experience also played a role in the local
demand for democracy, justice, self-determination, and political representation (Mulder, 2003, p.
6). This background helped to form the active, although not necessarily effective, socio-political
environment that is present in the modern day Philippines.
However, the colonial past of the Philippines has led to some struggle with national identity
(Mulder, 2003, p. 29). There is common shared language in the archipelago, Tagalog, but the
prevalence and preference of local languages or even English is evident. Local and regional
identities are stronger than the national identity (Mulder, 2003, p. 35). It can also be noted that
overall association with a national identity is weak, marked only by impositions of the state
(Mulder, 2003, p. 34), largely through values-based education (Mulder, 2003, p. 71). However,
there are some commonalities among the national Filipino community, including a shared history
and geography (Mulder, 2003, p. 30).
Through an analysis of Filipino culture, Niles Mulder (2003) described the prevailing trends
• a distrust in the capacity for moral leadership of groups, especially the state (p. 72);
• high demands of family loyalty (p. 73);
• high dependence on others (p. 73);
• a large gap between the haves and the have nots (p. 73);
• the rich having power and guiding political processes (p. 73);
• an American orientation in education and the media (p. 73);
• self-esteem defined by English language skills (p. 73);
• religious attitudes that lead to indifference and gullibility (p. 74);
• beliefs that poverty promotes perseverance and self-sacrifice, gambling and corruption (p.
• the media exemplifying a slave mentality and serving as a pacifier (p. 74);
• respect for seniors and leaders leads to an admiration of despicable behavior (p. 74);
• knowing how to get along with others as an important part of social acceptance (p. 78);
• a lack of consideration for discrimination of groups/tolerance for corruption as a result of
following the silent majority (p. 79);
• a lack of civic action, high levels of indifference and exploitation (p. 79);
• people vocalizing complaints with little action taken to ameliorate the problems (p. 80);
• the poor being seen as less than virtuous, depending on others without personal
responsibility (p. 80);
• people being highly identified with groups, which supersedes autonomous conscience (p.
Philippine-bashing or self-flagellation is common and viewed as a way to cope with an
unjust society presided over by a weak government (pp. 82-83).
These trends portray a self-effacing, timid, and sometimes contradictory social culture. Many of
the trends identified by Mulder can also be seen in the analysis of community capacity in
Currently, the Philippines can be considered a post-authoritarian presidential democracy with
a strong pre-martial law presidential tradition (Pollard, 2004, p. 12). Democracy and the
participation of people are very important aspects of governance in the Philippines, or at least
they should be (Bautista, 2006). The role of civil society was defined in the Philippines
Constitution of 1987 (Bautista, Carino, Sajo, & Sanz, 2006, p. 11). Civil society plays a role in
governance at the national level through the National Anti-Poverty Commission and at the local
level through local poverty councils (Bautista et al., 2006, pp. 11-12). The Department of
Agriculture creates policy from the idea that farmers and fishers should be the drivers of
agricultural development, thus promoting the development of associations and cooperatives of
farmers and fishers so that they can be involved in governance (Bautista, 2006, p. 12).
The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997 (AFMA) is the framework for
rural development and has the goals of food security and poverty alleviation through the
promotion of people’s empowerment (Bautista et al., 2006, p. 14). The Macapagal-Arroyo
administration further amended the bill with the program Ginintuang Masaganang Ani (GMA),
which has the same basic tenets as AFMA, but focuses on the inclusion of rural stakeholders in
the policy management cycle (Bautista et al., 2006, p. 15).
Unfortunately, despite the intention of having the farmers and fishers included in the entire
policy management process for regional development there were never fully integrasted into the
process due to a lack of government effort (Bautista et al., 2006, p. 13). Additionally, the
mandated funding for the AFMA was not made available and was only recently re-implemented
(Bautista et al., 2006, p. 14). Development programs in the Philippines generally suffer from
poor planning and implementation, overly complex design, inflexibility in adapting to local
conditions, and a lack of participation by stakeholders (Quibria, 1993, p. 62). The Philippine
Department of Agriculture blames these issues primarily on budget constraints, but there is also a
problem with the pejorative way that farmers and fishers are viewed by government
administrators, thus reducing actual stakeholder participation (Bautista et al., 2006, p. 17). This
conundrum is most likely the result of the culturally held negative views on those in poverty,
considering that most rural people are farmers or fishers and most rural people are impoverished.
Many of these similar themes are found in the Pagudpud case. While the local government
attempts to bring development and modernization to the municipality, it is often hampered by
political considerations and a lack of empathy for those in poverty in the same way that national
development policy in the Philippines is stifeled.
2. Background on Pagudpud
Pagudpud has a population of 21,857 people (Socio-
Economic Profile [SEP], 2006, p. 1) and is the third most populous municipality in Ilocos Norte. There 16
barangays7, of which Pancian is the largest. Almost one half of the total land area of Pagudpud consists of
mountainous areas (SEP, 2006, p. 1) and 70% forested area (M. Sales, 2007). A large portion of the forested
area in Barangay Pancian has been declared a natural park and critical watershed by Presidential
Proclamation No. 1275 on April 20, 2007 (Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2007).
Pagudpud also has the largest stretch of national highway in Ilocos Norte (M. Sales, 2007), going along the
north cost of North Luzon.
Pagudpud i s unde rdeve l oped . The re a re no ma jo r f a c i l i t i e s o r
conven i ences w i t h i n t he mun i c i pa l i t y . The re a re many sma l l shops
Barangay is the smallest unit of governance in the Philippines. It was the traditional governing unit and was
reinstated by Ferdinand Marcos in the 1970’s in an attempt to re-establish Filipino identity. (Ferdinand Marcos
a round t he t own t ha t se r ve t he bas i c needs o f t h e l o ca l peop l e . Many
o the r t h i ngs can be pu r chased o r t r aded a t t he marke t bu i l t i n 2004 ,
wh i ch i s ad jacen t t o t he p i nk - o range mun i c i pa l o f f i c e comp lex , o r a t
t he t r ad i t i ona l marke t s i t ua t ed beh i nd t he comp lex . Marke t days a re
Monday , Wednesday , and Sa tu rday ; howeve r , some vendo r s r ema in i n t he
marke t a l l week l o ng , a l t hough mos t o f t he s t a l l s r ema in vacan t on
non - marke t days (V i o l a , 2007 ) . Many peop l e buy t he i r goods a t t he
l a r ge r marke t i n Bangu i o r t r a ve l t o Laoag C i t y 8 t o pu rchase ma jo r
seconda r y goods .
Several of the barangays are on the coast (such as Balaoi, Saud and Pasaleng) and derive
their income from farming, fishing, handicraft production, and a blossoming tourist industry.
Roadside markets with handicrafts, small restaurants, hotels, and other small shops line the road
and huddle near the tourist attractions in these areas. Due to an increase in the amount of tourists
to Pagudpud in the high season (February through May), a few homestays have also been
established to provide affordable lodging and supplementary income for the local residents.
The overall hard infrastructure of Pagudpud seems to be well maintained and in good
condition. This includes the national highway, smaller locally maintained roads (some of which
were ordered refurbished by Mayor Sales at the request of residents (Viola, 2007)), public
buildings, electricity and water supplies. Although the infrastructure was intact, there are some
supply issues when it comes to water and electricity. There are frequent brownouts during times
of high electricity consumption and complete blackouts during inclement weather. Although,
100% of the barangays and 85% of households have access to electricity (SEP, 2006, p. 3),
household and business freshwater supply is sometimes problematic, but there are few problems
with irrigation. Housing stocks are generally conservative, consisting of wood or brick
construction with thatch or corrugated iron roofs.
Other social services in the municipality include two hospitals (in Pancian and Balaoi), one
rural health center, five health stations (Pasaleng, Cauayan, Baduang, Dampig, and Saud), and
seven health sub-stations (Balaoi, Saguigui, Subec, Burayoc, Caparispisan, Aggasi, and Tarrag).
As for the education sector, there are 12 elementary schools, three complete primary schools, six
incomplete primary schools, three public secondary schools, one private secondary school, and
16 day care centers (SEP, 2006, p. 3).
Movement within and through the municipality relies largely on public transport. The
intercity buses makes stops along the national high and individually hired tricycles, which
operate through personal contacts and the tricycle post in the town center operated by the tricycle
drivers' union, PATODA. Many families have access to their own private transportation, mostly
tricycles, with some having cars or light trucks.
3. Pagudpud’s Policy Structure
Laoag is a city in Ilocos Norte and the closest major city to Pagudpud.