Account and Financial Management Journal e-ISSN: 2456-3374 Volume 8 Issue 01 January 2023, (Page No.-3051-3060) DOI: 10.47191/afmj/v8i1.02, Impact Factor: 6.839 © 2023, AFMJ 3051 Alexander D. Ypil 1 , AFMJ Volume 8 Issue 01 January 2023 The Major Local Entrepreneurial Development Approaches of Local Government Units in the Contemporary Setting: A Phenomenology Alexander D. Ypil 1 , Gloria P. Gempes 2 1,2 University of Mindanao ABSTRACT: The purpose of this phenomenological study is to present the different local entrepreneurial development approaches of local government units. The results of the study revealed major commonalities in local entrepreneurial development approaches that the local government units had been adapting. Major factors affecting the implementation of these approaches were revenue allotments, local economy, human development and institutional capabilities. Style of leadership and management approach by those manning the reign of authority provided a lot of influence as to how developmental undertakings are implemented. Notable difference in approaches to local entrepreneurial development could be attributed to the personal biases of the local chief executives due to their profession, passion and life endeavors. What is notable in this study is that the local chief executive’s management capability will be crucial to the development performance of every local economy. KEYWORDS: local entrepreneurial development approaches, human development, institutional capabilities. 1. INTRODUCTION Entrepreneurship almost always involves pushing against the status quo to capture opportunities and create value. The idea of public entrepreneurship may sound like it belongs on a list of oxymoron right alongside government intelligence. But it doesn’t. Public entrepreneurs around the world are improving our lives, inventing entirely new ways to serve the public. There is, however, a big problem with public entrepreneurs: there just aren’t enough of them. Without more public entrepreneurship, it’s hard to imagine meeting our public challenges or making the most of private innovation. Public entrepreneurship is not simply innovation in the public sector (though it makes use of innovation), and it’s not just policy reform (though it can help drive reform). Public entrepreneurs build something on nothing with resources — be they financial capital or human talent or new rules — they didn’t command (Weiss, 2021). The landmark legislation, Republic Act 7160, known as the Local Government Code of the Philippines enabled the local government units to assume responsibilities in improving the lives of their constituents by promoting growth and development in their respective communities. Aside from governmental function, the Code enhances the role of local governments, with the provisions on corporate function, to manage their respective local economy (Tapales et al.,1998). The innovation in government paradigm presented has changed the landscape of governance in many parts of the world. The concept has somehow transformed the role of government from the traditional service provider to an innovator by steering local economy as entrepreneur to provide the needs of growing clientele. It must create an environment conducive to business development. Model bureaucratic organizations that work well in the past are now obsolete and inadequate to cope with the changing environment, competition and dwindling resources. This put fiscal pressure on local chief executives to innovate the traditional way of doing business in order to meet the challenges of an entrepreneurial governance to be effective and efficient economic development managers (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). For more than two decades, local chief executives have assumed responsibility for economic development. While almost all regions have experienced high unemployment and declining real wages, national government action to deal with these economic problems has been constrained by budget deficits and a conservative political philosophy, and local governments have had to act. Almost every province, city and municipality has expanded the size and scope of economic development programs. More money is being spent by LGUs by providing capital and training to capacitate small business and entrepreneurs. To most politicians, economic development means more jobs. More jobs are expected to bring many benefits: lower unemployment, higher wages, high property values, increased profits for local businesses, more tax revenues, and reelection for the politician who can take credit for these boons. The lack of financial resources to support the provision of basic services and to fund local development plans is a critical concern at the local level if improvements in key human development outcomes are to be attained. On the one hand, revenue generation and resource