collective action; Cooperative Governance, Management Performance of Cooperatives; and Cooperatives and the Values of Public Administration

1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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!

4. This is also dedicated to the cooperatives
and cooperators of Pangasinan.
Baleg ya Salamat!

5. 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

6. 9. Research Design
10. Sampling Design
11. Description of Sampling Areas (LGUs)
12. Research Instrument
13. Data Collection Techniques
14. Data Analysis Technique

7. 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

8. • 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

9. • 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.

10. • 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.

11. 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

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?

13. 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?

14. 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?

15. 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

16. – 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.

17. – 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.

18. • 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

19. • 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

20. • 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.
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.
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.

21. Socio -Economic and
Political Factors
 Socio-economic divide
Political situation
 Government
involvement
Level of Education and
Training

23. • Descriptive survey research
• Survey questionnaire
• Focus group discussions
• Documentary analysis

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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)

28. Medium Cooperative -Respondents P15-100 M Assets
(2007 census)
Location Description & Population
Number of
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

29. Small Credit Cooperative -Respondents above P 3-15M Assets (2007 census)
Location Description & Population
Number of
Barangays
No of
Cooperative
No of
Cooperative
Respondents
Bugallon
3rd class municipality According
to the latest census, it has a
population of 62,237 people in
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
to the latest census, it has a
population of 32,905 people in
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)

30. 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
to the latest census, it has a
population of 62,237 people in
10,614 households
politically
subdivided into
24 barangays
11 1
Micro Cooperative -Respondents below 3M Assets (2007
census)

31. 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

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. • 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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. • 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

39. 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
LGUMale 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

40. • 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

41. 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”

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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

51. Collective Action by Management Performance for Large Cooperatives
Collective action
MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE
TotalSatisfactory 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)

52. (Table 40, p. 303)
Collective Action by Management Performance for Medium Cooperatives
COLLECTIVE ACTION
MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE
TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent
Satisfactory Count 1 4 0 5
% of Total 2.3% 9.1% .0% 11.4%
Good Count 2 24 3 29
% of Total 4.5% 54.5% 6.8% 65.9%
Excellent Count 0 2 8 10
% of Total .0% 4.5% 18.2% 22.7%
Total Count 3 30 11 44
% of Total 6.8% 68.2% 25.0% 100.0%

53. Collective Action by Management Performance for Small
Cooperatives
(Table 41, p. 303)
COLLECTIVE ACTION
MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE
Satisfactory Good Excellent Total
Satisfactory Count 8 0 1 9
% of Total 18.2% .0% 2.3% 20.5%
Good Count 3 21 1 25
% of Total 6.8% 47.7% 2.3% 56.8%
Excellent Count 0 8 2 10
% of Total .0% 18.2% 4.5% 22.7%
Total Count 11 29 4 44
% of Total 25.0% 65.9% 9.1% 100.0%

54. Collective Action by Level of Management Performance for Micro
Cooperatives
(Table 42, p. 304)
COLLECTIVE_ACTION
MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE
TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent
Satisfactory Count 1 5 0 6
% of Total 2.3% 11.4% .0% 13.6%
Good Count 4 18 3 25
% of Total 9.1% 40.9% 6.8% 56.8%
Excellent Count 1 6 6 13
% of Total 2.3% 13.6% 13.6% 29.5%
Total Count 6 29 9 44
% of Total 13.6% 65.9% 20.5% 100.0%

55. (Table 43, p.305)
Good Governance by Management Performance for Large Cooperatives
Good Governance
MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE
TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent
Satisfactory Count 1 2 0 3
% of Total 3.0% 6.1% .0% 9.1%
Good Count 0 18 3 21
% of Total .0% 54.5% 9.1% 63.6%
Excellent Count 0 4 5 9
% of Total .0% 12.1% 15.2% 27.3%
Total Count 1 24 8 33
% of Total 3.0% 72.7% 24.2% 100.0%

56. (Table 44, p. 306)
Good Governance by level of Management Performance for Medium Cooperatives
Good Governance
MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent
Satisfactory Count 1 2 0 3
% of Total 2.3% 4.5% .0% 6.8%
Good Count 2 28 0 30
% of Total 4.5% 63.6% .0% 68.2%
Excellent Count 0 0 11 11
% of Total .0% .0% 25.0% 25.0%
Total Count 3 30 11 44
% of Total 6.8% 68.2% 25.0% 100.0%

57. (Table 45, pp 306-307)
Good Governance by Management Performance for Small Cooperatives
Good Governance
MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent
Satisfactory Count 6 0 0 6
% of Total 13.6% .0% .0% 13.6%
Good Count 5 19 1 25
% of Total 11.4% 43.2% 2.3% 56.8%
Excellent Count 0 10 3 13
% of Total .0% 22.7% 6.8% 29.5%
Total Count 11 29 4 44
% of Total 25.0% 65.9% 9.1% 100.0%

58. (Table 46, pp 307)
Good Governance by Management Performance for Micro Cooperatives
Good Governance
MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent
Satisfactory Count 3 1 0 4
% of Total 6.8% 2.3% .0% 9.1%
Good Count 3 20 3 26
% of Total 6.8% 45.5% 6.8% 59.1%
Excellent Count 0 8 6 14
% of Total .0% 18.2% 13.6% 31.8%
Total Count 6 29 9 44
% of Total 13.6% 65.9% 20.5% 100.0%

59. (Table 47, pp 307)
Social Economic and Political Factors by Management Performance for Large
Cooperatives
SOCIO ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent
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%
Total Count 1 24 8 33
% of Total 3.0% 72.7% 24.2% 100.0%

60. (Table 48 pp 309)
Social Economic and Political Factor by Management Performance for Medium
Cooperatives
SOCIO_ECONOMIC
MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE
TotalSatisfactory 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%

61. Table 49, pp 310
Social Economic and Political Factor by Management Performance for Small
Cooperatives
SOCIO_ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE
TotalSatisfactory 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
%

62. (Table 50, pp 311)
Social Economic and Political Factors by Management
Performance for Micro Cooperatives
SOCIO_ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT_PERFORMANCE
TotalSatisfactory Good Excellent
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%
Total Count 6 29 9 44
% of Total 13.6% 65.9% 20.5% 100.0%

63. 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

64. 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.

65. • 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.

66. • 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.

67. • 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.

68. • 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.

69. • 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.

70. 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.)

71. • 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.

72. • 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)

73. 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 .

74. • 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

75. • 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

76. • 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.
The study’s contribution to PA

77. The study’s contribution to PA
• 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.

78. Pre-testing of the
Instruments at Agoo, La Union
Bayanihan CC
CCLU
LUL MPC

79. 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.