management practices of pangasinan credit cooperatives in the context of collective action and...

Edwin B.R. Gbargaye October 2012

A Dissertation

Management Performance of Pangasinan Credit Cooperatives in the Context of

Collective Action and Good Governance

NCPAG National College of Public Administration and Governance

University of the Philippines

My special acknowledgement and

appreciation to my main supervisor, Dr. Vicente

Mariano, for his supervision and assistance during

my period of study. My panel chair, Dr. Edna Co

for her suggestions and insightful ideas, Dr.

Remigio Ocenar, my critic, for his suggestions to

improve my dissertation, my panel member, Dr.

Prospero de Vera, for helping me to refine my

research methodology and my external panel

member, Dr. Virginia Teodosio, for helping me

justify the relevance of my dissertation to the

cooperative movement in the Philippines. My gratitude to the Assistant Regional Director of

the Cooperative Development Authority – Dagupan Extension

Office and my former professor, Dr. Josefina B. Bitonio, for her

valuable time and substantial comments in evaluating

and enhancing my dissertation and Dr. Paulo Cenas for

his time in doing my statistical analysis.

Dedication

This work is dedicated to my kids, Peace, Rose, Robertha, Edwin Jr., Danforth and Edmund.

Without their love and encouragement, sacrifice and patience this could not happened.

To my late mother, Rose, who is the inspiration that led me to education and, to my father Henry, whose

persistent questioning and encouragement helped me to persevere.

This is also dedicated to the cooperatives

and cooperators of Pangasinan. Thank you very much!

This is also dedicated to the cooperatives

and cooperators of Pangasinan.

Baleg ya Salamat!

1. Introduction

2. Background of the Study

3. Research Problem

4. Research Questions

5. Objectives of the Study

6. Locale of the Study

7. Conceptual Framework

8. Research methodology

9. Research Design

10. Sampling Design

11. Description of Sampling Areas (LGUs)

12. Research Instrument

13. Data Collection Techniques

14. Data Analysis Technique

15. Profile of the Respondents

16. Profile of the Cooperatives

17. Focus Group Discussion (FGDs)

18. Findings and Discussion

a. Collective action

b. Good governance

c. Socio-economic and political factors

d. Management performance (COOP PESOS)

19. Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations

• Cooperatives continue to face numerous development challenges despite its commitment and dedication in advancing social and economic development of its constituents.

• Cooperatives remain and it is a force to reckon with in creating employment opportunity and reducing poverty

• Development start with people and their collective action and the application of good governance in managing these cooperatives.

• Absence of these components, the cooperatives’ resources would remain latent, untapped and potentially unviable.

• Cooperativism is deemed to be relevant in PA as a social development strategy aims to address the needs of the people.

• The Philippine experience in the SRPA (RA 8425)

• Philippine Federation of Credit Cooperative (PCFC)

• NEDA (2002, 2004); reveals implementation of coop program as an economic and social development mechanism towards poverty alleviation.

Status of Credit in Pangasinan from 2008-2011 (Table 1, p.38)

• Note: Re-registration to RA 9520 started in July, 2009 CDA-DEO: 2011

FY Operating

Cooperatives

Percent

Increased

/Decreased

Non Operating Cooperatives

Dissolved,

Cancelled and

Delisted

RA 9520, Art

144 (Failure to

Re-Register)

2008 15 -58.33 4 Not applicable

2009 23 53.33 3 0

2010 75 69.33 11 0

2011 31 -58.66 0 12

Total 144 5.67 18 12

General: What is assessment of the influence of cooperatives’ collective action, good governance, socio-economic and political factors in the management performance of credit cooperatives in Pangasinan?

Specific:

– What is the profile of the credit cooperatives in Pangasinan?

– What is the extent of the credit cooperatives’ collective action?

Specific:

– What is the extent of the credit cooperatives’ collective action?

– What is the level of governance being practiced by credit cooperatives along: transparency, accountability, predictability, and participation?

– What are the effects of the social and political factors in terms of : socio-economic divide, government involvement, level of education and training in the management performance of credit cooperatives?

Specific:

– What is the level of management performance of the credit cooperatives as measure through collective action and good governance?

– What is the relationship between collective action and good governance and how do these variables influence the management performance of credit coops?

– What intervention measures can be proposed to enhance and sustain the management performance of credit cooperatives?

General: To examine collectives’ collective action and good governance in the management performance of credit cooperatives in Pangasinan.

Specific:

– To be familiar with the profile of credit cooperative in terms of the following: year registered, total membership by gender, number of board of directors, number of employees, area of operation, and descriptions of the LGUs in which they operate

– To identify and describe the extent of the credit

cooperatives’ collective action relative to: steering capability, consensus building, resource mobilization and utilization and cooperation.

– To establish the level of GG practices of the credit coops in terms of transparency, accountability, predictability and participation

– To determine the extent of influence of the following social factors: socio-economic divide, political situation, government involvement and level of education and training in the management performance of credit cooperatives.

– To determine the potentialities and constraints in the management performance of credit cooperatives based on collective action and good governance and socio-economic factors.

– To identify the relationship of collective action and good governance and their influence to the management performance of credit cooperatives; and

– To come up with intervention measures to improve and sustain the management performance among credit cooperatives.

• Only 15 credit cooperatives in Pangasinan

• Operating in the 6 political districts

• Assets category (large, medium, small and micro).

• From 2008-2011

• Respondents: 3 BODs, 3 staffs and 5 members

• Pangasinan : west and central peripheral area

of the island of Luzon along the Lingayen gulf.

• Projected pop. (2010) 3,039,500.

• Voting pop. 1,360,807

• Popular fiesta: Bangus festival

• A gateway to northern Luzon

• City: 4

• Municipality: 44

• Barangay: 1,364

• Edwin B.R. Gbargaye • October 2012

Over the last century, cooperatives have played a significant and pivotal role in extenuating the concept of self initiative in the fight against capitalistic dominance and socio-economic disparities in neglected and backward communities affecting a cross section of the population. Conversely, the management of the said institution has not been excluded in the overarching problem of governance which translates into mismanagement, financial improprieties, and corruption. In spite of all the attempts of the government and other organizations in crafting policies, legislations, regulations, and rules of good governance and better management for the regulators to properly operate, manage and improve their organization still, management performance poses a serious and undaunted challenge in the collectivity of this social and economic institution.



Socio -Economic and Political Factors

Socio-economic divide Political situation Government involvement Level of Education and Training

• Descriptive survey research

• Survey questionnaire

• Focus group discussions

• Documentary analysis

Small P 3M – P15illion 4 Cooperatives

Medium P15- P100M 4 Cooperatives

Large Above P100 Million 3 Cooperatives

Micro Below P 3Million 4 Cooperatives

Surveyed: 15 credit cooperatives

Tract record: 3 years experience

in business operation

Description of the Areas

Large : (Calasiao, Lingayen and San Carlos City)

Medium: Alaminos, Pozorrubio, Urdaneta and San Carlos City

Small: Balungao, Bugallon, Mapandan and Sison

Micro: Anda, Basista, Bugallon

and Mangaldan

Distribution of Respondents by total Assets and LGUs (Table 13, p. 197)

Category by Million

Pesos City/Municipality

Population

(N)

Sample

(n) Respondents

BOD Staff Members

Large (>100M)

Calasiao (3rd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5

Lingayen (2nd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5

San Carlos (3rd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5

Medium (>15M to

100M)

Alaminos (1st Dist) 1 1 3 3 5

Pozzorubio (4th Dist) 1 1 3 3 5

San Carlos (3rd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5

Urdaneta (5th Dist) 1 1 3 3 5

Small (>3M to 15M)

Balungao (6th Dist) 1 1 3 3 5

Bugallon (2nd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5

Mapandan (3rd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5

Sison (3rd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5

Micro (3M and below)

Anda (1st Dist) 1 1 3 3 5

Bugallon (2nd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5

Sta. Barbara (3rd Dist) 1 1 3 3 5

Mangaldan (4th Dist) 1 1 3 3 5

Total 15 15 45 45 75

Location

Description & Population Number of

Barangays No of

Cooperative No of

Cooperative

Respondents

Calasiao

1st class municipality. According to

the latest census, it has a population

of 85,419 people with 15,020

households.

Calasiao is

politically

subdivided into

24 barangays.

15 1

Lingayen

1st class municipality..It is the capital

municipality and the seat of

government of the province of

Pangasinan. According to the latest

census, it has a population of 95,773

people in 16,467 households

Lingayen is

politically

subdivided into

32 barangays 18 1

San

Carlos

San Carlos City is a third class.

According to the latest census, it has

a population of 161,884 people in

28,025 households.

San Carlos City

is politically

subdivided into

86 barangays

34 1

Profile of LGUs (Table 14, p.199-201)

Large Cooperative -Respondents P100 M assets and

Above (2007 census)

Medium Cooperative -Respondents P15-100 M Assets

(2007 census)

Location


Barangays No of

Cooperative No of

Cooperative

Respondents

Alaminos

4th class city. According to the

latest census, it has a

population of 79,788 people in

15,527 households

politically

subdivided into 39

barangays 17 1

Pozorrubio

1st class municipality.

According to the latest census,

it has a population of 63,689

people in 11,288 households

politically

subdivided into 34

barangays 12 1

Urdaneta

2nd class city. According to the

latest census, it has a

population of 120,785 people

in 22,908 households

politically

subdivided into 34

barangays 30 1

San Carlos

San Carlos City is a third class.

According to the latest census,

it has a population of 161,884

people in 28,025 households.

San Carlos City is

politically

subdivided into 86

barangays

34 1

Small Credit Cooperative -Respondents above P 3-15M Assets (2007 census)

Location


Barangays No of

Cooperative No of

Cooperative

Respondents

Bugallon

3rd class municipality According

to the latest census, it has a


10,614 households

politically

subdivided into

24 barangays 11 1

Sison

3rd class municipality. According

to 2007 census it has a population

of 43,051 people in households

unknown

Politically sub-

divided into 28

barangays 11 1

Mapandan

3rd class municipality. According



5,751 households.

politically

subdivided into

15 barangays 12 1

Balungao

4th class income classification

with a total population 25,214 politically

subdivided into

20 19 1

Small Credit Cooperative -Respondents above P 3-15M Assets

(2007 census)

Micro Cooperative -Respondents below 3M Assets

(2007 census)

Location Description & Population Number of

Barangays No of

Cooperative No of

Cooperative

Respondents

Anda

3rd class municipality..

According to the latest census, it

has a population of 32,905 people

in 5,751 households.

politically

subdivided into

15 barangays 3 1

Mangaldan

1st class municipality. It is near

the cities of Dagupan. It is in the

4th congressional district of

Pangasinan

politically

subdivided into

31 barangays 15 1

Basista

5th class municipality. Famous

for its cottage According to the

latest census, it has a population

of 28,104 people in 4,871

households

politically

subdivided into

13 barangays 4

1

Bugallon

3rd class municipality According



10,614 households

politically

subdivided into

24 barangays 11 1

Micro Cooperative -Respondents below 3M Assets (2007

census)

Data Collection

• Research Instrument: Four-tier questionnaire (please see annex 12, p.263)

– Part 1: indicators of Collective Action (CA) – Part 11: indicators of Good Governance (GG) – Part 111: Social, Economics and Political

Factors (SEPF) – Part 1v: Management Performance (MP)

• Questions Guide: FGD (6 Coops from 6 selected districts with all representation

• Focus on intervening variables

Data Analysis Technique

• Analyses was done qualitatively

• Quantitative data was interpreted using frequency, percentage and simple averages.

• Responses were Likert scales (1 (Very Poor),2 (Poor) ,3 (Satisfactory), 4 (Good), 5 (Excellent))/ 1 (Not At All), 2 (Slight Extent), 3 (Great Extent), 5 (Very Great Extent)

• Its considered by this study as Ordinal

• Cross tabulations of the categories was performed for the relationship of the level of MP with CA, GG and SEPF.

Profile of Respondents

Profile of cooperatives covered: year registered, total membership by gender, number of board of directors, number of employees, total assets and area of operation, and description of the LGUs.

• Large coops : P 100 Million and above.

• 3 Coops : Calasiao (Dist. III, 1st class municipality, male (78%)

• Lingayen (Dist. II, 1st class Municipality, female (62%)

• San Carlos City (Dist. III, 3rd class LGU, female (67%)

Large Cooperative

Profile of the Large Cooperatives (Table 17, p.211)

Name and

Address of

the

Cooperative

Year

Regis-

tered

Membership by

Gender

No. of

the

BOD

No. of

Emplo

yees

Area of

Operation Total Assets

Description

of LGU

Male Female

CPRCECC

Calasiao,

Pangasinan

1975 1154 320 15 8 Nationwide 197,965,926.59 Dist III,

Ist Class

LCCrC,

Lingayen,

Pangasinan

1965 5000 8094 9 19 Dist II 220,478,395.89 Dist II,

1st Class

CFCC, San

Carlos City 1975 1153 2340 7 15

City of San

Carlos 115,285,660.00

Dist III

3rd Class

TOTAL 7307 10754 31 42

533,729,982.48

Medium Cooperatives

• Assets : P15-100 Million.

• 4 coops

• Urdaneta (Dist. V, 2ND class LGU, Male (77%)

• Alaminos (Dist. I, 4th class LGU, Female (68%)

• Pozzorubio (Dist. V, Ist class LGU, Female (81%)

• San Carlos (Dist III, 3rd class LGU, Female (82%)

Medium Cooperatives

Profile of Medium Credit Cooperatives (Table 18, 212)

Name and

Address of

the

Cooperative

Year Registered

Membership

by Gender No. of

the

BOD

No. of

emplo

yees

Area of

Operation

Total

Assets

Description of

LGU

Male Female

PSCC,

Urdaneta

City

2009 638 1,691 7 5 Provincial 17,689,

685.19

Dist 5

2nd Class

ASCC,

Alaminos

City

1986 370 812 5 5 City wide 19,269,

430.64

Dist 1

4th Class

PMVCC,

Pozorrubio,

Pangasinan

1986 84 372 5 6 Municipal 17,774,

321.91

Dist 5

Ist Class

SCCTSCC

San Carlos

City

1991 197 902 7 5 City of San

Carlos

21,005,

432.13

Dist 3

3rd Class

Total 1,289 3,777 24 21

75,738,

869.87

• Assets: P3-15Million; 4 coops

• Bugallon, Dist II, 3rd class LGU, Female (59%)

• Balungao, Dist V, 4th class LGU, Female (59%)

• Sison, Dist V, 3rd class LGU, Female (71%)

• Mapandan, Dist III, 3rd class LGU, Female (72%)

Small Cooperatives

Profile of the Small Credit Cooperatives (Table 19, p.214)

Name and

Address of

Cooperative

Year

Regist

ered

Membership by

Gender

No. of

the

BOD

No. of

emplo

yees

Area of

Operation Total Assets

Descript

ion of

LGU Male Female

BMECC

Bugallon,

Pangasinan

2004 41 83 5 4 Municipal 3,778,808.95 Dist 2,

3rd Class

GCC

Mapandan,

Pangasinan

1986 530 1,332 7 5 Municipal 6,687,469.76 Dist 3,

3rd Class

MWCC

Balungao,

Pangasinan

2006 88 129 5 5 Municipal 3,518,225.53 Dist. 5,

4th Class

SCC

Sison,

Pangasinan

1987 150 378 7 5 Municipal 4,826,000.00 Dist 5,

3rd Class

Total 809 1,922 24 19 15,292,278.71

• Assets: P3 Million and below. 4 Coops

• Mangaldan, Dist III, 1st class LGU Female (72%)

• Anda, Dist 1, 1st class LGU Female (64%)

• Sta Barbara, Dist III, 1st class LGU Male (69%)

• Bugallon, Dist II, 3rd class LGU Female (70%)

Micro Cooperatives

Summary of the CA Indicators

• Majority of the Respondents acknowledged BODs’ steering capability as “good”.

• Consensus building has the same pattern as “good” notably, large was rated “poor”.

• Resource Mobilization & Utilization respondents rated above “satisfactory” performance

• Respondents rated “Cooperation” as “satisfactory”

Average Response Per Cooperative on CA (in %)

(Table 31, p.256)

Rating Very Poor Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent

Cooperative

Steering Capability

Large 0 1 7 60 32

Medium 0 0 14 48 38

Small 0 4.2 9.4 54.2 32.3

Micro 0 0 9.4 59.4 31.2

Consensus Building

Large 0 1 5.5 64 29.5

Medium 0 0 9.4 60.4 30.2

Small 0 0 25 50 25

Micro 0 0 11.5 60.4 28.1

Resource Mobilization and Utilization

Large 0 0 18 40.3 41.7

Medium 0 0 20.8 49 30.2

Small 0 0 21.9 55.2 22.9

Micro 0 0 16.7 45.8 37.5

Cooperation

Large 0 7.1 13.1 54.5 25.3

Medium 0 0 12 56 32

Small 0 0.8 25.7 48.5 25

Micro 0 2.3 25.7 42.4 29.6

Average per Response Category for all Cooperatives

Per CA Components (in %) (Table 32, p.259)

Cooperative Very

Poor Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent

Large 0 1.3 9.9 55.3 33.5

Medium 0 0.2 12.9 58.7 28.2

Small 0 0 19.5 47.5 33

Micro 0 2.6 19.1 50.3 28

Overall 0 1.1 15.3 53 30.6

Average Response Per Cooperative on GG (in %) (Table 33, p.264)

Rating

Very Poor Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent Cooperative

Transparency

Large 0 17.1 60.7 22.2

Medium 0 2.2 7.5 58.3 32

Small 0 3.7 16 53.8 26.5

Micro 0 1.5 14.5 52 32

Accountability

Large 0 0 13.2 53.5 33.3

Medium 0 1.5 15.2 52.3 31

Small 0 0.8 19.7 44.7 34.8

Micro 0 0 13.7 58.3 28

Predictability

Large 0 1 21.2 39.4 38.4

Medium 0 0 12.1 49.2 38.7

Small 0 0.8 19.7 43.9 35.6

Micro 0 0.8 12.8 45.4 41

Participation

Large 0 1.8 29.6 48.1 20.5

Medium 0 4 20.8 47.2 28

Small 0 0 18 50 32

Micro 1.4 9.5 15.2 33.3 40.6

Average Response for all Cooperatives on the

Elements of GG (Table 34, p. 266)

Elements of

Governance

Very

Poor Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent

Transparency 0 2 13.7 56.2 28.1

Accountability 0 0.5 15.5 52.2 31.8

Predictability 0 0.7 16.5 44.4 38.4

Participation 0.3 3.8 20.9 44.6 30.2

Overall 0.7 1.7 16.6 49 32

Average Response per Cooperative Category on the SEPF

(Table 35, p. 275)

Rating

No Extent at all Slight Extent Moderate Extent Great

Extent

Very Great

Extent Cooperative

Socio Economic Divide

Large 38.4 13.1 27.3 17.2 4

Medium 36 26 14 17 7

Small 21 42 33 3 1

Micro 42 23 10 13 12

Political Situation

Large 46.46 15.16 19.2 14.3 5.06

Medium 49.23 20.4 12.9 15.16 2.2

Small 43.96 34.83 15.16 4.5 1.5

Micro 48.5 18.1 21.2 5.2 6.8

Government Involvement

Large 5 12.1 27.3 43.4 12.13

Medium 3 9.8 26.5 46.2 14.36

Small 2.5 9.4 36.8 38.8 12.3

Micro 5.3 19.7 25 25 25

Level of Education and Training

Large 0 5 17.2 54.3 23.2

Medium 1.5 5 13.1 48.7 31.5

Small 1.5 6 41.7 26.5 24.3

Micro 0 7.1 16.1 42.4 34.3

Average Response Per Indicator of SEPF for all Cooperatives

(Table 36, p. 277)

Indicators of Socio-

Economic and

Political factors

No Extent

at All

Slight

Extent

Moderate

Extent

Great

Extent

Very

Great

Extent

Socio-Economic

Divide 42 23 10 13 12

Political Situation 48.5 18.1 21.2 5.2 7

Government

Involvement 4 13 29 38.5 15.2

Level of Education

and Training 0.8 5.7 22 43 28.3

Responses Per Cooperative Category on MP

(Table 37, p. 295) Rating

Very Poor Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent

Cooperative

Compliance for Administrative and Legal Requirements

Large 0 1.4 21.1 50.2 27.3

Medium 0 1 19 47 33

Small 0 1 16.7 48.5 34

Micro 0 0 22.7 56.8 21

Organizational Structure and Linkages

Large 0 0 16.1 41.4 42.4

Medium 0 4.5 15.9 48.5 31

Small 0 8.3 31 43.1 17.4

Micro 6 7 25.7 47 14.3

Operation and Management

Large 0 1 19.2 46.5 33.3

Medium 0 0.8 16.6 48.5 34.1

Small 0 23 57 20

Micro 0 3.8 26 49 21.2

Plans and program

Large 0 3 21.2 40.4 35.4

Medium 1.5 0.8 19.7 54.5 23.5

Small 28 53.8 18.2

Micro 4.5 6.5 22 48 19

Portfolio Quality

Large 0 0 31.3 41.5 27.2

Medium 2.3 0.8 19 52.2 25.7

Small 0 0 28 63 9

Micro 8.3 27.3 54 10.4

Efficiency

Large 1 9.1 57.6 32.3 32.3

Medium 2.3 19 53 25.7 25.7

Small 26 52 22 22

Micro 2 30 43 25 25

Effectiveness

Large 0 16.2 55.5 28.3 28.3

Medium 3 13.5 51.5 32 32

Small 0.7 24 51 24.3 24.3

Micro 4.5 23 44.5 28 28

Stability

Large 0 0 19.2 47.5 33.3

Medium 0 7 25.7 39.3 28

Small 0 2.2 24.2 59.1 14.5

Micro 0 2 28 62 8

Operation

Large 0 0 20 50 30

Medium 0 0.8 23.5 50 25.7

Small 0 2 30 54 14

Micro 1 4.5 26.5 54.5 13.5

Structure of Assets

Large 0 0 16 56 28

Medium 0 0 24 53 23

Small 0 5.3 27.3 40.1 27.3

Micro 0 3 26 51 20

Average Response for All Cooperatives on MP (Table 38, p.300)

Indicators/Items Very Poor

Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent

Compliance 0 1.4 21 50.2 27.1

Organizational

Structure and Linkages 2 5 22 45 26

Operations and

Management 0 2 21 50 27

Plans and Programs 1.5 2.6 22.7 49.1 24

Portfolio Quality 0.6 2 26.4 53 18

Efficiency 0 1.3 21.1 51.4 26.2

Effectiveness 0 2 19 51 28

Stability 0 2.8 24.2 52 21

Operations 0.2 1.8 25 52 21

Structure of Assets 0 2 23 50 25

0.4 2 23 50.3 24.3

Collective Action by Management Performance for Large Cooperatives

Collective action MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE

Total Satisfactory Good Excellent

Poor Count 1 1 0 2

% of Total 3.0% 3.0% .0% 6.1%

Satisfactory Count 0 4 0 4

% of Total .0% 12.1% .0% 12.1%

Good Count 0 13 4 17

% of Total .0% 39.4% 12.1% 51.5%

Excellent Count 0 6 4 10

% of Total .0% 18.2% 12.1% 30.3%

Total Count 1 24 8 33

% of Total 3.0% 72.7% 24.2% 100.0

%

(Table 39, p. 302)

(Table 40, p. 303)

Collective Action by Management Performance for Medium Cooperatives

COLLECTIVE ACTION MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE

Total Satisfactory Good Excellent Satisfactory Count 1 4 0 5

% of Total 2.3% 9.1% .0% 11.4%


% of Total 4.5% 54.5% 6.8% 65.9%


% of Total .0% 4.5% 18.2% 22.7%


% of Total 6.8% 68.2% 25.0% 100.0%

Collective Action by Management Performance for Small

Cooperatives

(Table 41, p. 303)

COLLECTIVE ACTION MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE

Satisfactory Good Excellent Total


% of Total 18.2% .0% 2.3% 20.5%


% of Total 6.8% 47.7% 2.3% 56.8%


% of Total .0% 18.2% 4.5% 22.7%


% of Total 25.0% 65.9% 9.1% 100.0%

Collective Action by Level of Management Performance for Micro

Cooperatives

(Table 42, p. 304)

COLLECTIVE_ACTION

MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE



% of Total 2.3% 11.4% .0% 13.6%


% of Total 9.1% 40.9% 6.8% 56.8%


% of Total 2.3% 13.6% 13.6% 29.5%


% of Total 13.6% 65.9% 20.5% 100.0%

(Table 43, p.305)

Good Governance by Management Performance for Large Cooperatives

Good Governance MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE



% of Total 3.0% 6.1% .0% 9.1%


% of Total .0% 54.5% 9.1% 63.6%


% of Total .0% 12.1% 15.2% 27.3%


% of Total 3.0% 72.7% 24.2% 100.0%

(Table 44, p. 306)

Good Governance by level of Management Performance for Medium Cooperatives

Good Governance MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE



% of Total 2.3% 4.5% .0% 6.8%


% of Total 4.5% 63.6% .0% 68.2%


% of Total .0% .0% 25.0% 25.0%


% of Total 6.8% 68.2% 25.0% 100.0%

(Table 45, pp 306-307)

Good Governance by Management Performance for Small Cooperatives




% of Total 13.6% .0% .0% 13.6%


% of Total 11.4% 43.2% 2.3% 56.8%


% of Total .0% 22.7% 6.8% 29.5%


% of Total 25.0% 65.9% 9.1% 100.0%

(Table 46, pp 307)

Good Governance by Management Performance for Micro Cooperatives




% of Total 6.8% 2.3% .0% 9.1%


% of Total 6.8% 45.5% 6.8% 59.1%


% of Total .0% 18.2% 13.6% 31.8%


% of Total 13.6% 65.9% 20.5% 100.0%

(Table 47, pp 307)

Social Economic and Political Factors by Management Performance for Large

Cooperatives

SOCIO ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE


No Extent at all Count 0 10 1 11

% of Total .0% 30.3% 3.0% 33.3%

Slight Extent Count 1 4 0 5

% of Total 3.0% 12.1% .0% 15.2%

Moderate Extent Count 0 4 2 6

% of Total .0% 12.1% 6.1% 18.2%

Great Extent Count 0 6 2 8

% of Total .0% 18.2% 6.1% 24.2%

Very Great extent Count 0 0 3 3

% of Total .0% .0% 9.1% 9.1%


% of Total 3.0% 72.7% 24.2% 100.0%

(Table 48 pp 309)

Social Economic and Political Factor by Management Performance for Medium Cooperatives

SOCIO_ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE

Total Satisfactory Good Excellent No Extent at all

Count 1 5 6 12 % of Total 2.3% 11.4% 13.6% 27.3%

Slight Extent

Count 0 5 1 6 % of Total .0% 11.4% 2.3% 13.6%

Moderate Extent

Count 2 12 0 14 % of Total 4.5% 27.3% .0% 31.8%

Great Extent

Count 0 7 1 8 % of Total .0% 15.9% 2.3% 18.2%

Very Great Extent

Count 0 1 3 4 % of Total .0% 2.3% 6.8% 9.1%

Total Count 3 30 11 44 % of Total 6.8% 68.2% 25.0% 100.0%

Table 49, pp 310

Social Economic and Political Factor by Management Performance for Small

Cooperatives

SOCIO_ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE Total Satisfactory Good Excellent

No Extent at all

Count 1 6 1 8 % of Total 2.3% 13.6% 2.3% 18.2%

Slight Extent

Count 4 5 0 9 % of Total 9.1% 11.4% .0% 20.5%

Moderate Extent

Count 6 8 2 16 % of Total 13.6% 18.2% 4.5% 36.4%

Great Extent

Count 0 8 0 8 % of Total .0% 18.2% .0% 18.2%

Very Great Extent

Count 0 2 1 3 % of Total .0% 4.5% 2.3% 6.8%

Total Count 11 29 4 44 % of Total 25.0% 65.9% 9.1% 100.0

%

(Table 50, pp 311)

Social Economic and Political Factors by Management

Performance for Micro Cooperatives

SOCIO_ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE


No Extent at all Count 0 10 6 16

% of Total .0% 22.7% 13.6% 36.4%

Slight Extent Count 2 5 1 8

% of Total 4.5% 11.4% 2.3% 18.2%

Moderate

Extent

Count 2 6 1 9

% of Total 4.5% 13.6% 2.3% 20.5%

Great Extent Count 2 2 1 5

% of Total 4.5% 4.5% 2.3% 11.4%

Very Great

Extent

Count 0 6 0 6

% of Total .0% 13.6% .0% 13.6%


% of Total 13.6% 65.9% 20.5% 100.0%

Overall Results of the Study

Variables

Categories of the Cooperatives Large Medium Small Micro

Collective Action Good Good Good Good

Good Governance Good Good Good Good

Social, Economic and Political Factors

Moderate Extent

Moderate Extent

Moderate Extent

Moderate Extent

Management Performance

Good

Good

Good Good

Conclusions 1. The respondents of the study (large, medium, small

and micro credit cooperatives) have broader female constituents, categorized according to asset size with residential as the common bond of membership with municipal wide area of operation.

2. They all manifested high degree of collective action within the cooperative with medium coops excelling in consensus building and cooperation aspects of collective action. The large coops are high in steering capability and the small coops are prominent in resource mobilization and utilization of resources.

• The cooperatives worked very well in the steering capability, consensus building and cooperation except in their resource mobilization and utilization of resources.

• The members of the credit cooperatives in Pangasinan show satisfaction in the GG practices by the BODs with large coops as the most transparent and with high level of participation.

• Micro cooperatives showed high accountability and medium cooperatives proven as more predictable.

• All cooperatives excelled are transparent and accountable however, they have to improve their performance in terms of predictability and participation aspects of GG.

• There is no socio-economic divide with all cooperatives giving a fair access to their resources and services and with political situation conducive to their growth and stability without interference or pressures, where government involvement is very much welcome and where cooperatives put premium on education and training.

• The credit cooperatives performed good in the eight MP indicators (COOP-PESOS), however, organizational structure and linkages, and plans and programs were found to be weak in their compliance.

• Large cooperatives excelling in efficiency, effectiveness, and structure of assets, medium cooperatives at their best in compliance to admin and legal requirements, organizational structure and linkages, and plans and programs.

• Small cooperatives performing well in organization and management and portfolio quality and micro cooperatives were better performers in stability and operations.

• In terms of CA by MP , the medium cooperatives have the strongest relationship between the two variables as compared to the other cooperative categories.

• It seems that MP is dependent on CA.

• The findings revealed that credit cooperatives in Pangasinan have “good “ MP in relation to CA.

• There is a relationship b/w GG and MP.

Recommendations

The credit coops should formulate a long term plan to transform themselves and migrate upstream simultaneously from micro to small size category; from small to medium size category; from medium to large size coops; large size to globally competitive cooperative.

(Please turn to the Manuscript on page 331 for the Intervention Measures.)

• The large coops have a vast experience and are armed with a wealth of management expertise that they are very much ready to operationalize branches or satellite offices within or outside Pangasinan as there are a lot of municipalities with limited cooperatives serving the population.

• There is a need for the coops to federate to strengthen themselves in the horizontal and vertical position in the province business arena as well as maximize their economies of scale.

• To encourage the large, medium and small cooperatives to conduct research on their levels to appraise the responsiveness of their policies and also to know the members’ satisfaction on their services.

• The weaknesses identified in the study can be addressed by the proposed intervention measures. (See Table 51, p. 338)

Further Studies

• It is recommended that further researches are needed to find out the extent to which each of the independent variables in this study affects management performance in other types of coops in Pangasinan so as to exactly classify the major and critical factors influencing MP .

• This kind of study must be conducted in other areas in the country in order to ascertain the role of collective action and good governance in the management performance of credit cooperatives.

Further Studies

• Cooperatives should formulate their own appraisal or performance evaluation tools to be used as management tool in order to improve the efficient, effective and economical and responsive way of managing their cooperatives, which are the goals in PA.

• Cooperatives attuning to PA goals would redound to the benefits of their members this is akin to public service where the objective is client satisfaction.

The study’s contribution to PA

• Cooperatives have proven themselves as socio economic organization that help in poverty reduction programs and upholding the goals in administration of development where people are empowered and have the capacity to help the government in improving lives.



• PA in the study calls for the strengthening of civil society as active participants to the country’s development where civil society is strong and can propelled themselves to become contributor to local and national development.

Pre-testing of the Instruments at Agoo, La Union

Bayanihan CC

CCLU

LUL MPC

My cardinal objective in coming to the Philippines is to be educated as I foresee myself to be a prime mover in our country’s development. It was not an easy journey leaving a family behind for almost 8 years achieving (2) MS and (1) Doctoral Programs. My family will be prouder that I am the most educated in my family and they cant wait to see me soon and I am on them also.

I must say, Filipinos have been helpful in this endeavor – to everybody here, my deepest thanks for the guidance, learning and friendship. It will be forever etched in my heart that UP shaped me for what I am today and I will make sure UP will be proud of me for what I will become in the future.

management practices of pangasinan credit cooperatives in the context of collective action and...

Business

operating cooperatives

cooperatives percent

cooperatives resources

status of credit

profile of credit cooperative

context of collective

collectives collective

level of governance