CARTOON BY: AARON PAUL C. CARIL
EDITORIAL
From NEDA to DEPDev: New Name, Old Challenges
For over 50 years, the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) has been the Philippines’ go-to agency for crafting economic plans and policies. Created during the Marcos Sr. administration in 1972, NEDA’s role was to develop coordinated socioeconomic strategies to guide the nation. While it started strong, steering key projects and laying out long-term development plans, its influence has dwindled over the decades. Departments like Finance (DOF) and Budget (DBM) have taken on bigger roles in shaping the country’s economic direction, leaving NEDA struggling to implement its ambitious plans.
NEDA’s journey hasn’t been without missteps and controversies. Many Filipinos remember the corruption scandals, like the NBN-ZTE deal during the Arroyo administration, where allegations of bribery emerged, tarnishing the agency’s credibility. There’s also been public outrage over its poverty thresholds, which often seemed disconnected from reality—like the controversial P21-per-meal metric that sparked widespread criticism. Despite its commitment to data-driven planning, such issues have raised doubts about NEDA’s ability to truly address the challenges faced by ordinary Filipinos.
Fast-forward to today: Republic Act No. 12145 has rebranded NEDA as the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDev) in April 2025. This change is part of an effort to strengthen the agency’s mandate and modernize its approach to long-term planning. Key reforms include better integration of planning and budgeting, crafting a long-term vision for national development, and introducing tools like scenario planning to prepare for future challenges. The NEDA Board has also been replaced by the Economy and Development Council (ED Council), headed by the President, to ensure top-level coordination.
But will these changes be enough? Critics argue that the reorganization doesn’t go far enough. The DEPDev still suffers from the same fundamental weaknesses that hampered NEDA—limited executive power, political pressures, and a lack of independence. While the reforms look good on paper, the agency’s historical struggles to implement its plans remain a big question mark. Some even suggest merging its functions with more powerful departments like the DOF and DBM to give it the muscle it needs to drive real change.
Ultimately, the success of DEPDev will depend on whether it can rise above these long-standing challenges. Rebranding alone won’t be enough; what really matters is ensuring that the agency has the authority, resources, and independence to turn its plans into reality. Without these, DEPDev risks being just another “rehashed label”—a new name for the same old struggles.