Understanding

Social Welfare
Policies in
Philippine
Context
Social Welfare Policies,
Programs and Services (SWPP
221)

Shella C. Fernando-Trecero, RSW

CO: In this course, you first need to establish theoretical understanding of social policies and analyze
various concepts including the arching values of each policy. Then, this will require you analyze some of
social policies using different tools. You need also to identify existing welfare policies, programs, and
services vital to social work practice and analyze and evaluate emerging policies focusing on ethical
dimension. Let us begin!

Week 1-3: Unit Learning Outcomes (ULO)

At the end of the unit, you are expected to:
a. Examine different concepts related to social policy
b. Analyze various theoretical perspective of social welfare policies
c. Explain the policy cycle process

Lesson 1
Metalanguage
In this part, you need to understand various concepts to grasp the bigger picture of social policy. You will
encounter these terms as we progress with our study. All terminologies are conceptually defined since
most of the ideas and concepts are considered borrowed knowledge from other social science disciplines.
Please refer to these definitions in case you will encounter difficulty in understanding social policy
concepts.

1. Social welfare - This refers to the various social arrangements that exist to meet the needs of
individuals and groups in society and to tackle social problems.

2. Social welfare policy – For any policy to be considered a social welfare policy it must have
these three characteristics: First, social welfare policy relates to enhancing the quality of life
of individuals, sometimes acting through groups or communities to do so; Second, while
social welfare policy can be made by either governmental or private organizations, it is
created by both lack of action on the part of the decision makers; Finally, social welfare
policy is the outcome of a process involving politics.

3. Social services - This refers to the programs, services and other activities provided under
various auspices, to concretely answer the needs and problems of the members of society.
These social services may take the form of services to individuals and families, services to
groups, services to people with special problems (the handicapped, the mentally challenged,
etc.) as well as community services

4. Residual social welfare – This model conceives social welfare as temporary, offered during
emergency situation and withdrawn when the regular social system – the family and the
economic system – is again working properly. Social welfare activities of this kind, because
of the residual substitute characteristic, often carry the stigma of “doles”, or “charity.”

5. Incremental social welfare – This is characterized by social sectors being expanded in a

piecemeal, expedient fashion in response to political pressures rather than to social need. This
incremental approach is still characteristic of social sector planning in most of the developing
and much of the industrialized world.

6. Institutional social welfare – This model, in contrast with residual, sees social welfare as a
proper, legitimate function of modern society. That some individuals are not able to meet all
their needs is considered a “normal” condition, and helping agencies are accepted as “regular”
social institutions.

7. Absolute poverty - this refers to situation wherein a household of five members’ income is
below the poverty threshold (Php. 10, 727), which make it impossible to meet basic need.
8. Relative poverty – It means poverty is defined in comparison to other people’s standing in
the economy. Thus a person can be poor in the relative sense, even if she is not poor in the
absolute sense, that is, can meet her basic needs.

Essential Knowledge
To meet the ULOa, you need to acquaint yourself to various concepts that re-define social policy as this
would be your knowledge base to the succeeding ULOs. Concepts are defined and discussed throughout
this section but be notified that you are not limited to refer to these resources exclusively. Thus, it is
expected from you to utilize other books, research articles, and other resources that are available in the
university's library, e.g., e-brary, search.proquest.com, and other credible platforms.

1. Social Policy. There are several different definitions of policy and social policy. Some are
presented in table below to illustrate the key features of social policy.

Policy can be taken to mean principles that govern action towards given end Titmuss 1974 cited in Dalton
et al. 1996
Policy can be seen as:
• A label for a field of activity
• An expression of general purpose or desired state of affairs
• Specific proposals
• Decisions of government arising from crucial moments of choice
• Formal authorization—a specific act or statute
• A program—a particular package of legislation, organization and resources
• Output—what government actually delivers, as opposed to what it has promised or has
authorized through legislation
• The produce of a particular activity
• Theory—if we do X then Y will follow
• A process unfolding over a long period of time Althaus et al. 2007 adopted from
Hogwood & Gunn 1990 [Public] policy is the continuing work done by groups of policy actors who use
available public institutions to articulate and express the things they value Considine 1994.

The study of social policy is concerned with those aspects of public policies, market operations,
personal consumption and interpersonal relationships that contribute to, or detract from, the well-being or
welfare of individuals or groups. Social policy explores the social, political, ideological and institutional
context within which welfare is produced, distributed and consumed. It seeks to provide an account of the
processes that contribute to or detract from welfare and it does this within a normative framework that
involves debating moral and political issues about the nature of the desired outcome. Erskine 1998,
Social policy contains both products and outcome- particular policies, as well as processes of
critical reflection, action and contest between people. Social policy is concerned with social goals, purpose
and values Dalton et al. 1996
Social policy is ‘actions aimed at promoting social well- being’. Alcock cited in Hill 2003.

1.1 Social policy has different meanings, including particular policies, areas of study or processes
for action.

1.2. Social policy is more planned than random—it involves some kind of purposeful,
intentional activity and often ‘authoritative choice’ (Althaus et al. 2007, p. 6).

1.3. Social policy is concerned about the welfare (or well-being) of individuals and groups in
society.

1.4. Social policy is concerned with social relationships—the relationships between

individuals, individuals and society, and between different groups in society. This is important because
individual and social well-being is very dependent on the quality of relationships.
1.5. Social policy is concerned with both overall welfare and also about how welfare or well-
being is distributed among different groups according to important facets of life, such as health, education,
income and employment.

1.6. Social policy is concerned with the articulation of objectives and principles, and critically
involves debates about values as well as action to achieve them. Different values and beliefs will mean
there are different understandings about what constitutes welfare and also about how welfare is best
promoted.

1.7. The process of social policy involves not only rational analysis but also political contest
about different values and the position of different groups. The analysis of social policy therefore requires
an understanding of the power relationships within society and is informed by different theories about
power and how it is exercised.

1.8. Social policy as intentions and objectives (Baldock et al. 2003), meaning social policy as
clarifying and debating what we want to achieve. Th is can be in the form of policy statements or informal
agreements.

1.9. Social policy as administrative and financial arrangement, meaning the way we organize
our services and institutions to achieve these intentions and objectives; for example, the organization of
our health and housing systems and of our welfare state overall.

1.10. Social policy as outcomes meaning the impacts of social policies, such as the extent of
poverty, how different groups are treated or the overall quality of life of the population.

2. Social welfare refers to the “organized system of social services and institutions, designed to aid
individuals and groups to attain satisfying standards of life and health.” This also includes “laws,
programs, benefits and services which assure or strengthen provisions for meeting social needs
recognized as basic to the well-being of the population and the better functioning of the social
order. These provisions may be directed toward strengthening existing arrangements; mitigating
hardships or handicaps of particular individuals and groups; pioneering new services; stimulating
a better adaption of the social structure including the creation of new programs as needed; or a
combination of all these approaches to social needs.

2.1. Society responds to the unmet needs or problems through the following ways:
a) Individual and group efforts. These refer to the systematic and voluntary efforts
undertaken by individuals and/or groups in response to the unmet needs of people in a community.
From this point of view, the basic conditions for the existence and survival of individual people
are necessarily social. No individual, however resourceful, could survive for long in isolation.
b) Major societal institutions which have their designated roles and responsibilities
for meeting human needs. The family, the church, the market, cooperatives and labor unions are
major social institutions. Social forces bring about changes which can affect the effectiveness of
these institutions in performing their social welfare functions. Institution-building should therefore
be a serious continuing effort because of its crucial implications for the welfare of human society.
c) Social agency. Whether under public or private auspices, a social agency is a
major provision for helping people with their problem. It is an integral part of community’s
institutionalized network of services for its members. The professional social workers in the
Philippines is usually employed by a social agency.

3. Social Services. This refers to the programs, services and other activities provided under various
auspices, to concretely answer the needs and problems of the members of society. These social
services may take the form of services to individuals and families, services to groups, services to
people with special problems (the handicapped, the mentally challenged, etc.) as well as
community services. In the sense that “social welfare” would be meaningless term unless there are
concrete demonstrations of its “concern for the well-being of human society” through actual social
services, then the two terms are inseparable and for this reason, often used interchangeably. There
are many motivations or reasons for providing social services. However, among the many
legitimate and vitally important goals of social welfare which often compete for scarce resources
are the following:

3.1. Humanitarian and Social Justice Goal. This goal of social welfare is rooted in the
democratic ideal of social justice and is based on the belief that man has the potential to realize
himself, except that physical, social, economic, psychological, and other factors sometimes hinder or
prevent him from realizing his potentials. This concept submits that it is right and just for man to help
man, hence, social service. This goal involves the identification of the most afflicted, the most
dependent, the most neglected, and those least able to help themselves, and making them the priority
target for the investment of scarce resources.

3.2. Social Control Goal. This goal is based on the recognition that needs, deprived
or disadvantaged groups may strike out, individually and/or collectively, against what they consider to
be an alienating or offending system. Society therefore has to secure itself against the threats to life,
property, and political stability in the community which are usually presented by those who are
deprived of resources and opportunities to achieve a satisfying life Social services to dissidents, and to
juvenile and adult offenders exemplify the social control goal of social welfare.

3.3. Economic Development Goal. The economic development goal places priority
on those programs designed to support increases in the production of goods and services, and other
resources that will contribute to economic development. The immediate beneficiaries of such
programs may be the able-bodied, relatively better-off members of the community.

4. Social Needs. Among the motivations of social provision of social welfare is the existing
deprivation of needs. A useful starting point is to distinguish needs from two related notions:
wants and preferences.

4.1. There are two important senses in which wants, and needs differ. First, wants are more
inclusive: we may want things that we do not need; indeed, marketing experts make great efforts to
persuade us to do so. Second, we may need things which we do not want, either through ignorance or
our dislike of them. Medical intervention can often be of this type. Both of these distinctions from
want suggests that needs are more basic or essential to us than wants.

4.2. Preferences, a concept frequently used in economic analyses, differ from needs and wants
in the sense that they are revealed only when we make choices, usually in the act of buying goods or
services as consumers. The argument here is that it is difficult to really know what people need or
want unless they act in some way to try to secure for themselves the things in question.

4.3. We should also make a distinction between needs and social needs. Needs (and problems
and welfare) are ‘social’ in the sense that they are not merely concerned with, for example, individual
causes and experiences of illness and poverty, but also with the amount and distribution of illness and
poverty in different social groups; the reasons for this that arise out of the shared conditions of life for
those social groups; and the social structures and processes through which they might be ameliorated.
For example, it is only necessary to vaccinate a proportion of the population to stop the spread of
infectious disease. In this case, the population can be seen to have a need, but any specific individual
may not necessarily feel, or be defined by others as, in need. Waiting in line for an injection, we may
have all felt this way as children. These considerations enable us to make some simple classification of
types of need:

a) First are those needs which we are aware of ourselves, felt needs. These are
obvious when we feel ill, or have an accident.

b) The second type of need is defined for us by others, usually experts or

professionals, such as doctors or teachers, but also importantly by family and
friends.
c) The third type of need is partly an extension of the second, to focus on needs as
revealed, perhaps in surveys, in comparison with other people in the same social
group. Here an individual can be said to be in comparative need because others
have something that they do not.

4.4 An important aspect of needs, shared by all three types, has given rise to many
debates in social policy. This is the question of how needs can be measured, particularly when we move
away from the obvious examples such as major medical emergencies. The classic case is that of poverty.
How much income do we need? One approach, drawing on the second type of need as defined by experts,
is to think about the basic essentials, such as food, clothing, shelter, and to work out the amount of money
needed to buy the cheapest minimal provision of these, and to define anyone with less money as poor, or in
need.

4.5. An alternative approach is to use the first type of need, and merely to ask poor
people what they feel they need. However where this has been done, it seems that poor people
often adjust to their circumstances and feel less in need than they ‘ought’ to, especially if they are
older people; while others can feel poor where they ‘ought’ not to. Finally, we could merely define
as poor those people with less than others as in the third type of need, comparative need, for
example by ranking incomes and identifying, say, the bottom 10 per cent as poor.

5. Social Problem. Social welfare institutions are also concerned with social problems, which are
related to, but not the same as social needs. For example, as C. Wright Mills famously observed,
one person suffering from unemployment may be in acute need, but it is only when unemployment
becomes a more widely shared experience in a community that there may be said to be a social
problem. Social problems then are to be distinguished from individual need.

5.1. A further distinction should be made between the mere existence of a shared set of social
misfortunes in a community, whether or not they have been defined as needs, and three further
elements of a social problem: the extent to which they are perceived; the judgements made about them
and the values they threaten; and the actions recommended to deal with them. Needs can exist whether
or not they are known about by anyone. Social problems cannot. They exist within the public domain
rather than private experience.

5.2. Perceptions of social problems can occur through the eyes of experts or the general
public. In the case of experts, social problems are typically defined in relatively objective terms for
example the incidence of divorce, where the rate of change is a crucial issue. However, since many
social issues are less amenable to objective measurement, for example the effects of family neglect on
children, experts can differ widely in their claims about the objective state of a social problem. In these
cases, the general public, community groups, pressure groups, and so on may have widely varied
views, such that a social problem is more subjectively defined. Social problems, in the extreme version
of this view, become merely ‘what people think they are’. Since most of our experience of and
knowledge about social issues is indirect, the mass media are an important influence not only on our
knowledge of social issues, but also the way in which they are framed, judged and dealt with.

5.3. Another element to qualify a need into a problem is the value of judgement. First to
consider is the answer the question, whose values are threatened? Some issues command widespread
consensus, for example that threats to life are unacceptable. The judgement that the spread of disease
such as HIV-AIDS is a social problem from this point of view is relatively uncontested. Other issues
however may be the site of sharp value conflict, for example the relevance of people’s sexuality to
family life in various ways. However, a second important aspect of value judgements in definitions of
social problems can sharply modify the effects of these value concerns. This is the issue of who is to
blame for the problem. In the case of HIV-AIDS, what might have been an ordinary medical issue was
transformed in this regard by very sharp diseases over the judgements of blame made about gay men,
and therefore about the nature, status, and solution to the problem. Where problems are the site of
value conflict, or blame is attributed, we can speak of contested or open social problems, the solutions
to which are far from clear. Where consensus and lack of blame are typical we can think of social
problems as closed or uncontested.
5.4. The solutions proffered to social problems have an intimate connection to perceptions and
judgements made about them. Indeed, it has been argued that often the solution may in fact tend to
determine these other aspects. An example of this process has been the development since the 1970s of the
social problem of hyperactivity (ADHD) among children, at a time when a drug treatment to calm them
down became available.

6. Social Policy and Development

6.1. Social policy as welfare services. The conventional definition of social policy is
linked to government intervention to provide social services. This conception can be traced back
to the European post-war’s “welfare state” that perceived government as having the duty to ensure
standard of living and health for all its constituents. This idea was also reinforced by the
Keynesian principles of employment generating public investment which focus on the
government’s funding to social sectors such as education, health, and housing.
6.2. In the 1950s, according to mainstreamed modernization theory, social policy was
expected to stimulate modernization and generate growth through urban-based industrialization,
generating employment while alleviating poverty based on “trickle-down” effect to wider
population that will directly improve the welfare of the population. Here, any public spending to
social sector was considered a wasteful diversion from business of economic growth. Thus,
“residual model” of social welfare was conceived.
6.2.2. The incremental social welfare model came about due to the criticism of
the residual model. It asserts that residual model does not work in alleviating massive
poverty although economic growth takes its place due to the class system that exist.
Further, the demand for social services such health, housing and education grow due to
increase in population. Consequently, government elites were pressured by urban middle-
class to meet these demands to secure electoral support and political legitimacy. Thus,
incremental social welfare was put in place in which social sectors were expanded in a
piecemeal, expedient fashion in response to political pressures rather than social needs. It
then gave rise to the “urban bias” of social policy on development that simply ignored the
needs of the majority rural poor.
6.3. Social policy as safety nets. Here, social policy refers to the creation of social
safety nets using social funds to target scarce resources at poorer, more vulnerable groups.
However, the minimalist and selective nature of this approach and its reliance on the voluntary
sector for implementation is somewhat attributed to residual conception of social welfare.
6.4. Social policy and livelihoods. The above perspectives consider social policy as
being concerned primarily with either, (a) social and welfare services of one kind or another, or
(b) safety nets to alleviate immediate crises. However, a third definition views social policy in a
much broader sense as encompassing any planned or concerted action that affects people’s lives
and livelihoods. In this conceptualization, social policy is concerned essentially with more
fundamental questions of sources and stability of employment, support institutions, processes and
structures that determine people’s well-being as well as broader natural and political factors which
encourage and constrain human development.
6.4.1. The livelihood approach acknowledges the fact that ‘the poor’ are not a
homogenous mass nor are they always merely weak, passive recipients of government handouts. It
emphasizes the fact that they also have strengths, assets and capacities that may be mobilized for
pro-active participation in the development process.
6.5. The goals of social policy. The goals of social policy have become multi-faceted,
embracing an ambitious array of ideals towards which, some argue, development organizations
seem to be converging at least in part. This package includes poverty reduction, social protection,
fighting social exclusion, promoting human rights and even conserving the natural resources.
6.5.1. Poverty alleviation. Poverty reduction sits on top of the social policy agenda for
practically all development agencies and governments, at least rhetorically. However, important
differences exist in terms of how poverty is defined. Definitions of poverty range from reference
to an absolute poverty line expressed in US dollars, to inequality in terms of relative poverty and
deprivation and, more recently, to multidimensional concepts combining material and non-
material needs.
6.5.1.1. Poverty lines remain a popular tool with governments due to their simplicity and,
arguably, the ease with which they can be manipulated for political purposes to show greater or
lesser degrees of suffering by merely adjusting the poverty threshold.
6.5.2 Social protection. Associated with the idea of alleviating the absolute poverty of
particularly vulnerable groups, another social policy goal to have emerged during the 1990s is that
of social protection. The economic priority in development should remain that of maximizing the
potential of the poor by increasing labor productivity with the provision of basic social services in
health care, education, family planning, nutrition and primary education. These two approaches
are reputed to have brought about a significant reduction in poverty. However, these measures
may not be adequate to protect the very weak and vulnerable. In such cases, targeted transfers and
safety nets such as social funds are an essential complement in order to protect those who may not
benefit directly from economic growth or social service provision. In addition to poverty and
inequality, social disadvantage can be perpetuated through mechanisms of social exclusion. Many
factors may combine to exclude or marginalize large sectors of the population from participating
fully in mainstream economic, social or political life. These factors may be associated with social
class, caste, ethnicity, religion, culture, age or gender, for example
6.5.3. Fighting for social exclusion. In addition to poverty and inequality, social
disadvantage can be perpetuated through mechanisms of social exclusion. Many factors may
combine to exclude or marginalize large sectors of the population from participating fully in
mainstream economic, social or political life. These factors may be associated with social class,
caste, ethnicity, religion, culture, age or gender, for example. It remains a controversial issue
whether concepts of social exclusion constructed in the industrialized nations in relation to
minorities. However, the goal of promoting greater social integration and inclusion into the
mainstream of substantial groups which have been actively discriminated against, trapping them in
situations of poverty and vulnerability, has become an increasingly important social policy
objective
6.5.4. Social policy and human rights. Since the mid-1990s, the issue of human rights
and the promotion of social justice have also entered the social policy agenda. The early focus on
civil and political liberties has been complemented by a concern for economic, social and cultural
rights, providing a link with development and social policy discourses. Major international
organizations such as the World Bank and UNDP have long emphasized the importance of
providing education, adequate health care and other basic necessities. Yet these policy
recommendations have often been couched in rather instrumentalist terms, justified because they
contribute to improving economic and social development indicators rather than because they
intrinsically constitute a fundamental human right. Such concerns were, however, formalized in
the UN Declaration on the Right to Development (1986) that placed economic, social and cultural
rights on a par with civil and political rights. A human rights approach brings to development the
notion that people are entitled to have their basic needs met, and that those in power have a duty
and a moral obligation to facilitate this process. By attributing culpability to those who fail to duly
deliver these benefits, a rights-based approach thus introduces an element of accountability that
can be a powerful tool in the hands of civil society groups lobbying for change.

7. Values of Social Policies.

7.1. Equality. The egalitarian claim of welfare reformers has been that different
groups should be treated as of equal value in social policy. In practice this has led to demands for
equality in entitlement to benefits and services, in treatment by welfare authorities, and in
participation in decision-making.
7.1.1. Equality has been a central topic of debate in social policy analysis for
many years, framing the development of the welfare state and playing out as a more or
less central point of debate by political leaders on both the Left and Right since. However,
equality means different things to different people and is as contested as other central
topics in social policy including rights, freedom, and social justice.
7.1.2. As well as different forms of equality, there are also different reasons for
promoting equality. For example, economic equality may be valued to reduce poverty and
low income, while political equality may be valued in order to achieve status equality (an
element of social equality) via each person having an equal right to vote. The reasons for
promoting equality, and the type of equality promoted, will be influenced by a range of
economic, political, social, and ideological values.
7.1.3. Debates on equality within social policy have tended to highlight a
distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.
A) A minimal approach emphasizes merit, with equality in access to
opportunities in education, employment, and so on.
B) A broader approach recognizes people’s different histories and ensures
equal chances on this basis.
C) A third approach involves offering fair chances and taking affirmative
action (e.g. quotas) to address disadvantages.
D) Finally, significant intervention comes through positive action, which
can be used as a means of achieving proportionality in participation in public life and
employment. Positive action involves favoring candidates from underrepresented groups
where they meet the core requirements for the role. Moving from minimalist to
maximalist interventions corresponds with a move from concerns with promoting equality
of opportunity towards measures that more directly influence equality of outcomes.

7.1.4. Forms of Equality.

a) Legal equality – having equal protection and treatment by the law.
b) Political equality – having equal opportunities to play a part in political
life, including voting and standing for political office.
c) Social equality – having status equality with other social groups and an
absence of domination of one group over another.
d) Economic equality – having opportunities to access economic resources,
with recognition of the role played by the state in intervening to achieve this.
e) Moral equality – recognizing through the organization of society,
people’s morally significant interests in relations to freedoms, resources and so forth, that different people
have equal claims in relation to their respective interests.
7.1.5. Approaches to Equality
a) Sameness: focuses on treating everyone the same way. This would mean
that we neither see particular group characteristics (for example, ethnicity, disability,
gender, sexual orientation) as being relevant to someone’s abilities, nor would we
recognize these characteristics as meaning that a person is entitled to adaptations to
current policies or practices.
b) Difference: focuses on recognizing and accommodating differences.
This would mean recognizing that different people have different needs and adapting
policies and practices to take account of these differences.
c) Transformative: focuses on fundamental change within policy and
practice. A much more significant change to relations between groups is emphasized,
with concern to design equalities issues into policies and practices rather than adapt or
offer adjustments to meet the needs of specific groups.
7.2. Rights. Human rights are associated with freedoms that all humans are entitled to
hold. In contrast with needs, wants, preferences, or resource claims, human rights do not need to
be assessed by the state or society as being valid or justifiable before we can claim them. Rather, it
is the duty of the state to ensure that people’s human rights are safeguarded. This means that
public bodies must respect human rights and the government must ensure that there are laws in
place to protect them. Claims in the welfare area can be legitimated as rights in a number of ways:
7.2.1. Need-based arguments maintain that a class of human needs can be
identified, which provides the justification for an obligation on government to ensure that
these are met, so far as the current stage of development allows. There are a number of
problems in this approach, not least in establishing a bed-rock of human needs that is
secure against relativist reduction. The human needs approach has offered some of the
most profound arguments for the legitimation of welfare as an ineluctable duty of
government.
7.2.2. The capability-based approach, developed in the path- breaking work of
Nobel Laureate economist Amartya Sen (2009) understands well-being in terms of the
capabilities a person has, ‘the substantive freedoms he or she enjoys to lead the kind of
life he or she has reason to value’. Poverty can be understood as the deprivation of
capabilities. The onus lies on government to remedy this, if possible. People’s access to
capabilities can be established by comparing what more or less privileged groups are able
to do or enjoy in a society. The approach underlies the construction of the widely used
UN Human Development Index, which, broadly speaking, seeks to compare the
achievement of a range of capabilities in different countries. It has been expanded to
support demands from systematically disadvantaged groups such as women and disabled
people.
7.2.3. Desert-based claims are founded on the view that some quality of, or
activity by, a particular group imposes an obligation on society to provide them with
certain services. Examples of such arguments are claims that motherhood or contribution
through work or in war is deserving of social support, and that the duty to provide it
should come home to the state. Such claims are typically linked to functional or reciprocal
arguments or are part and parcel of a normative system.
7.2.4. Forms of Human Rights.
a) Natural rights – are not contingent upon the laws, customs or beliefs of a
particular society or political context. Rather they are morally universal. The Declaration
of Human Rights fits within this conceptualization of rights.
b) Legal rights – are codified through legal statute, legislation, and legal
systems. Legal rights can only be called upon where there is a corresponding legal
provision in place to protect those rights.
7.2.5. Principle of Human Rights. There are a number of guiding principles
surrounding human rights protections. First, human rights belong to everyone regardless
of sex, race, nationality, socio-economic group, political opinion, sexual orientation, or
any other status. Second, they are universal, held by everyone simply on the basis of
being human. Third, they are inalienable, they cannot be removed from people. They can
only be limited in certain tightly defined circumstances. Some rights, such as the
prohibition on torture and slavery, can never be limited. Finally, human rights are
indivisible, you cannot pick and choose the rights you will endorse and those you will
not. Many rights also depend on each other to be meaningful. For example, the right to
free speech must go hand in hand with the right to assemble peacefully.
7.2.6. Promoting human rights involves recognition of both negative rights and
positive rights.
7.2.6.1. Negative rights include civil and political rights such as freedom of
speech, freedom from violent crime, and a fair trial. The emphasis is on an absence of
constraint on your actions or absence of action taken against you that will have negative
results.
7.2.6.2. Positive rights include civil, political, social, economic, and cultural
rights such as education, health care, and social security. The emphasis is on action being
taken to ensure that you can achieve your rights. This echoes with distinctions between
negative and positive freedoms – with negative freedoms (‘freedom from’) concerned
with minimal state/political intervention and positive freedoms (‘freedom to’) promoting
a more significant role for the state (e.g. in providing education and health services) to
ensure that people can take up a range of life opportunities.
7.3. Social Justice. Social justice is concerned with who ought to get what. Resource
allocation in most welfare states is dominated by market systems which rest on the idea that goods
are property to be owned, valued, bought and sold, and by normative systems of distribution
closely linked to kin relationship. Arguments about rights and about equality have provided a
basis for claims about justice which often cross-cut market and kin allocation. The most important
positions of recent years have been those of Nozick and Rawls, and these illustrate the way in
which individualistic and social approaches to social justice may be developed.
7.3.1. Nozick argues that the core of just claims is labor – people have a right to what
they have ‘mixed their labor with’, that is, improved by their work. As a matter of strict justice, it
is a violation of individuals’ autonomy to appropriate or redistribute the goods that people have
gained through their work, although individuals may as a matter of charity choose to surrender
property to those they view as needy and deserving.
7.3.2. Rawls’s approach rests on the notion of a ‘veil of ignorance’. The central idea is
that just arrangements are those which people would agree on if they did not know what position
in society they themselves would come to occupy, if they had no vested interests themselves. He
goes on to argue that it is in principle possible to ‘second guess’ the kinds of choices about the
allocation of goods (and bad) that individuals would arrive at under these circumstances.
Uncertain whether they would end up at the bottom of an unequal and exploited society, they
would prefer a social order in which the only permitted inequalities were those that improved the
position of the worst off; for example, by raising living standards throughout the community.

Let’s Check Activities

Hall, Anthony, and James O. Midgley. Social Policy for Development, SAGE Publications, 2004.
ProQuest Ebook Central,

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uniofmindanao- ebooks/detail.action?docID=254747.

The Student's Companion to Social Policy, edited by Pete Alcock, et al., John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uniofmindanao-
ebooks/detail.action?docID=4567441.

Mendoza, T. (2007). Social Welfare and Social Work 3rd Edition. Central Bookstore.

McClelland, A. & Smyth, P. (2010). Social Policy in Australia. Oxford University Press.
Retrieved from:http://lib.oup.com.au/he/samples/mcclelland_SPA3e_sample.pdf

Let’s Analyze Activities

Activity 1. For this part, let’s try to evaluate your understanding on different concepts discussed above.
Please write your answer in the space provided before each item.
_____________1. Social policy is traditionally equated with?
_____________2. &3. These concepts are the justification for the need of social policy or social welfare.
______________4. This constitutes policies and programs that seek to reduce poverty and vulnerability to
risks and enhance the social status and rights of the marginalized by promoting and protecting livelihood
and employment against hazards and sudden loss of income.
_____________5. This goal of social policy aims to promote greater social integration of the marginalized
and excluded sectors of society.
_____________6. In this conceptualization, social policy is concerned essentially with more fundamental
questions of sources and stability of employment, support institutions, processes and structures that
determine people’s well-being as well as broader natural and political factors which encourage and
constrain human development.
____________7. These are the characteristics of a social problem.
____________8. This concept gives notion that people are entitled to have their basic needs met, and that
those in power have a duty and a moral obligation to facilitate this process.
____________9. This refers to the treatment of “other” group as relevant, thus they should be given equal
opportunities in social policy.
____________10. This approach in equality includes reparation of historical injustices.
____________11. These rights emphasized the absence of constraint on your actions or absence of action
taken against you that will have negative results.
____________12. In the Philippine context, this is the main reason why social welfare is provided.

In a Nutshell
Activity 2: In this part, you need to thoroughly discuss the following items based from your readings and
researches.
1. Differentiate a social “need” from a social “problem”. Think of the community where you live.
What human needs exist; what human problems are there? How do people meet their needs? How do they
and/or society respond to their problems

2. “Human needs must be satisfied in the context of our interdependency with others.” What does it
mean?

3. The most notable forms of social policy are laws. In the Philippines, women have more laws that
advance their rights and welfare compared to men. Why do you think this is the arrangement of our public
policy? Is it fair and just? What is/are the value/s operating in behind this policy arrangement.

QA List
In this section, all your questions or clarifications may be listed down. You may wish to raise you concern
through LMS or other modes such as email or sms (in case of distant learning). After the clarification, you
may write your understanding of the question/ raised in the “answer” portion.

Questions/Issues
Answers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Keywords Index
Social welfare
Social services
Residual social welfare
Incremental social welfare
Institutional social welfare
Absolute poverty
Relative poverty
Humanitarian and Social Justice Goal
Social Control Goal
Economic Development Goal
Equality
Human Rights
Social Justice
Social Protection
Safety Net
Social Inclusion

Lesson 2
Metalanguage
The following terms are useful to have an operational understanding of the topics below.

1. Neoliberalism – It is the resurgence of liberal philosophy that believes in the free market is
the main organizing feature of society state intervention in market activities to be inherently
destructive.
2. Social democracy – It is a political ideology advocating a gradual transition to socialism or a
modified form of socialism by and under democratic political processes.
3. Socialism - Socialism is an economic system in which the factors of production are valued in
relationship to their usefulness to people. Socialists take into account both individual needs
and greater social needs. They allocate resources using central planning, as in a command
economy.
4. Feminism - Feminism is a term used to describe economic, political, or economic movement
for the purpose of establishing equal rights and legal protection for women. Feminism
incorporates social and political theories and philosophies with regard to gender inequality, as
well as movement that campaigns for women's rights and interests.
5. Liberal Feminism - Liberal feminism purported the equality of men and women through
legal and political reform. In itself is an individualistic form of ideology that zeroed-in on the
actions and choices of women concerning equality. According to them, personal interactions
between men and women are the platforms to transform society with the assumption that all
women are capable of asserting their ability to overcome inequality; therefore, it is possible
for them to change the society without altering its structure. Issues that are concerning for
liberal feminists are sexual harassment, reproductive and abortion rights, affordable childcare,
affordable health care, voting, education, equal pay for equal work, and domestic violence.
6. Radical Feminism - Radical feminism considers the male-controlled capitalist hierarchy,
which it describes as sexist, as the defining characteristics of women's oppression. Radical
feminists believe that women can only acquire freedom when they have done away with what
they consider a "naturally" oppressive and dominating patriarchal system. Radical feminists
suggest that there is no significant change in the system when the system itself values the
male-based power and authority responsible for inequality and oppression. Some radical
feminists see no other way than the total uprooting and reconstruction of society in order to
achieve their goals.
7. Marxist/Socialist Feminism - Socialist feminism aligns the oppression of women to Marxist
ideas about oppression, exploitation, and labor. Socialist feminists imply that unequal
standing in both the domestic and workplace sphere holds women down. Socialist feminists
view, domestic work, childcare, prostitution, and marriage as ways wherein women are
exploited by a patriarchal system that devalues women and work they do. Socialist feminists
zeroed-in their energies in the structural problems that affect a great range of women, rather
than the individual's struggles. They view the capitalist system as the main force that devalues
their efforts and womanhood. Marx implies that class oppression has a direct relationship with
gender; that is, when class oppression vanquished, so doe’s gender oppression. This
perspective of gender oppression, a sub-class of class oppression, is ingenious, and much of
the work of socialist feminists has focused towards separating gender phenomena from class
phenomena.

8. Welfare Feminism – This movement of feminism advocates for the welfare of women in
their private life.
9. Post-modern Feminism – A typology of feminism that emerge during 1980s and 1990s that
emphasize on the differential relations of race, age, ethnicity, and culture into the sphere of
“gender”.
10. Welfare state – A concept of government in which the state or a well-established network of
social institutions plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social
well-being of citizens. It is based on the principles of equal opportunities equitable
distribution of wealth, and public responsibility for those unable to avail themselves of the
minimal provisions for a good life. The general term may cover a variety of forms of
economic and social organization.
11. Utopian ideology – Is an imagined community or society that is characterized by nearly
perfect qualities and highly desirable for its citizens.

Essential Knowledge
In this part, you will be introduced to a different theories and perspectives that will help you understand the
necessity of social welfare policy. You need to analyze "social welfare” through the identified theoretical
lenses.

1. Neo-liberalism. Developed from the 1960s onwards, the core beliefs and principles of
neo-liberalism are best understood as concerted attack on the comprehensive system of social protection.
1.1. Neo-liberals believe that nation-states were undermined economically during the
post-war period (roughly 1945–80) because governments diverted resources away from
productive, entrepreneurial firms and individuals operating in the free market to the systematic
state-based protection of vulnerable sections of their populations. The high taxation required to
sustain levels of welfare provision that went beyond a basic ‘safety net’ for the worst off reduced
the scope for private sector investment.
1.2. Neo-Liberals argue that comprehensive social protection does not work anyway.
For one thing, public money is wasted on vast welfare bureaucracies that appear keener to
preserve their own budgets than to provide a good level and choice of services; for another,
welfare recipients tend to become ‘welfare dependent’ and so fail to act as responsible individuals
earning in the marketplace and looking after themselves and their families.

2. From classical liberalism to neo-liberalism. The roots of neo-Liberalism lie in the

particular understandings of the nature of the free market and individual freedom developed by Liberal
political economists in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
2.1. Adam Smith (1723–90) is regarded as the founding figure of an approach to
political economy. He believes that the free market is the main organizing feature of society state
intervention in market activities to be inherently destructive.
2.2. Smith argued that the market can secure individual and social welfare, and, most
importantly, human liberty. It creates these benefits in his view because, paradoxically,
individuals’ self-interested pursuit of wealth naturally leads to collective prosperity. . Simply put,
the selfish desire to prosper and make a profit is constrained by market competition because free
competition among producers inevitably leads to falling prices and thus a ‘natural’ balance
between supply and demand. As long as this self-correcting mechanism is allowed to function
essentially unhindered, prosperity is assured. Indeed, for Smith, interference in the marketplace is
only justifiable on the grounds that its free operation is being protected and preserved. A legal
framework for market operations is important, for instance, as is the provision of certain public
goods like law and order, and public health.

3. Key Principles of Neo-liberalism

a) Human liberty: individuals are free to act as they choose providing that their
actions are consistent with the liberty of others.
b) A competitive market economy kept as free as possible from state interference.
c) Preservation of the rule of law: a constitutional framework that limits state
powers and institutionalizes rules of property and contract.
d) Minimal public provision: applying only to those goods like public health that
markets cannot efficiently provide.
e) ‘Safety-net’ security: for those who are unable to work in the marketplace.

4. Neoliberalism and Social Welfare

a) For neo-Liberals, ‘welfare states’ with their large, complex public welfare
bureaucracies are inherently coercive. Coercion comes through monopolistic state provision of
social services, which has the effect of ‘squeezing out’ private and voluntary alternatives, thus
limiting both consumer choice and the freedom of individuals to supply welfare goods and
services.
b) Bureaucratic over-supply: public servants will devise budget- maximizing
strategies to increase salaries and prestige rather than dispense high-quality services to service
users.
c) State coercion: state welfare services are monopolistic and therefore restrict
choice.
d) What policies do neo-Liberals recommend to reduce the size of the state and
‘manage’ welfare?
i. Reduction of state welfare provision: reduced state activity will allow
private and voluntary organizations to enter the welfare marketplace, cutting the costs of
public sector bureaucracy.
ii. Greater choice of services: new service providers will allow welfare
consumers greater choice of provision.
iii. Negative income tax: the state should subsidize low earnings through a
negative income tax (NIT) to ensure continued participation in the labor market.
iv. Safety-net welfare: individuals should be encouraged to insure against
risk. The poorest will need public support, but income should be provided at subsistence
level and services delivered through voucher schemes wherever possible.
v. Tax cuts: savings from the closure of monopolistic state bureaucracies
should be returned to individual earners through tax cuts.

5. Criticism of Neoliberalism

a) Neo-liberals definition of human liberty is too narrow that it focuses exclusively

on individuals and, as mentioned, is conceived negatively as ‘freedom from’ constraint. This
understanding dismisses a ‘positive’ conception of liberty cast in terms of various social groups’
‘freedom to’ enhance their potential and prospects. Women, disabled people and minority ethnic
populations, for example, typically have less access to resources and suffer from greater
discrimination than others. To offset these disadvantages, it may be that they need to pursue
specific political objectives and demand particular policies that can increase their collective
opportunities, thus adding to the liberties of individual members.
b) Neo-liberals do not distinguish between ‘freedom’ and ‘ability’. The free market
distributes income and resources neither fairly nor equally, and those with less earning power and
few other advantages have less ability to use their liberty than wealthier individuals. Lacking
access to particular goods (the best education and healthcare) they are not in a position to make
the most of their notional freedom.
c) State institutions are not necessarily more coercive than their private sector
counterparts. Any organization can be insensitive to the needs of its ‘customers’ – and state
welfare agencies are certainly no exception. Nevertheless, private sector service providers can also
‘coerce’ consumers by creating price cartels, thus restricting choice, or by providing ‘selective
information’ about the benefits of their products.
d) Neo-liberals fail to understand that the socio-cultural dimensions of welfare are
important.

6. Social Democracy. As a political movement its only fixed point is its constant search to build and
sustain political majorities for reforms of economic and social institutions which counter injustice
and reduce inequality.

6.1. All social democrats are committed to maximizing personal freedom for all,
which is deemed to require positive action on the part of an elected government to ensure that
individual liberty is not undermined by the adverse effects of unregulated free market activity, the
lack of an adequate income or healthcare, or the denial of educational opportunities.
6.2. Social democrats are strong advocates of democracy, believing this to be the best
means for reconciling the conflicts that will inevitably arise in any society through peaceful
means. The political process is seen as vital for engendering the broad degree of solidarism and
cooperation needed for communities and nations to flourish.
6.3. Those on the liberal wing of social democracy tend to display less utopian zeal,
believing that it is better to focus on small-scale advances that avoid the threats to both personal
freedom and to the democratic process to which more expansive, transformative approaches can
give rise. Liberal social democrats tend to hold more positive attitudes towards the market,
provided that they are properly regulated, and they are more receptive to the use of innovative,
non-state methods to resolve contemporary problems.
6.4. Those on the socialist wing of the social democratic movement tend to be less
enamored by capitalism, believing it to be inherently unstable and in need of tight regulation and
control. Their greater commitment to equality of outcome also leads them to favor more extensive
constraints on personal freedom if these can be shown to have broader social advantages. Socialist
social democrats are more deeply wedded to values such as universalism, have greater confidence
in the benevolent power of state action, and are keen to ensure that an extensive public realm is
protected from unwarranted incursions from market influences.
7. Social democracy and social welfare. State action to protect and promote the welfare of
citizens, irrespective of labor market participation, has been a hallmark of social democratic
societies.
a) In conjunction with economic interventionism and an active labor market policy,
the welfare state is seen as a key means of providing security and opportunity for all citizens,
enhancing equality and fostering social solidarity.
b) Liberal social democrats, with their emphasis on ‘progressive’ outcomes, have
accepted that it is possible to tackle injustice and pursue equality by diverse configurations of
public, private, voluntary and informal provision. This has led to a focus on ‘progressive’
outcomes rather than adherence to a particular principle (universalism), method (public provision)
or ‘form’ of government (national rather than local).
c) Socialist social democrats, in contrast, have tended to be more wedded to the
principle of universalism, state provision and a more uniform pattern of service delivery.

8. Criticism of social democrats.

a) Social democratic welfare regime is characterized by de-commodified, comprehensive,
universal state welfare services provided on the basis of citizenship, with relatively minor
contributions from the private, voluntary and informal sectors. This calls into question the ethos of
some of the welfare policies pursued by supposedly social democratic governments in recent
decades.

9. Socialist Perspective. While liberalism champions individual freedom, socialism champions

social equality. It emerged in Western Europe as political critique of the capitalist economic
system and its consequences.

9.1. Socialism as a creed is humanistic, collectivist and egalitarian. Modern socialism

articulated itself in opposition to industrial capitalism: its dehumanizing effects, its individualistic
competitive ethos and the ways in which it exacerbated social inequality.
9.2. Socialism is the project by which workers’ control will be exercised, leading in
time to a classless or communist society in which human needs can be fully realized and properly
satisfied.
9.3. Writings of Karl Marx (1818–83) offered a brand of ‘scientific’ socialism that
crystallized its essential tenets. His central insight is that control over the natural, physical,
technological and financial resources required for the maintenance of life determines the structure
of society. Human history has been a story of struggles between dominant and oppressed classes
and, under capitalism – the most recent stage in human history – the mass of humanity has become
alienated from the productive process by which it sustains its own existence. Capitalism, however,
contains the seeds of its own destruction, because the oppressed class under capitalism (the
working class) will in time be able to seize control of the state apparatus established by the
dominant class (the capitalist class).

10. Socialism and Social Welfare. From a socialist perspective there are various ways in
which we can interpret the role of the welfare state as it has in practice developed. We can distil
these into three kinds of explanation: the instrumentalist, the structural-logical and the neo-
Marxist.
a) Instrumentalist critiques: The welfare state in capitalist countries ultimately
serves the interests of the capitalist, not the working class. The key positions in government and
administration are held by people from relatively privileged backgrounds or those who have an
underlying allegiance to ‘the establishment’ and/or the status quo. The welfare state, by
implication, is a conspiracy against the working class. According to this explanation, the shape
and nature of the welfare state are deliberately contrived to accord with the economic
requirements of capital. The welfare state has become both the handmaiden of capitalism and its
henchman. Through health and education policies, the state ensures an orderly supply of workers
for industry and commerce, so reducing the costs of reproducing labor power. Through a range of
social services the state ensures that the costs of the weak and vulnerable do not fall on industry.
Through social security and labor market policies the state manages those workers who are
unemployed or temporarily unproductive. The welfare state has not hastened capitalism’s demise
but smoothed over its contradictions and helped to sustain it.
b) Structural-logical critiques: A different line of reasoning is that the functioning of
the state under capitalism is not a cunning conspiracy so much as a consequence of capitalism’s
structural constraints or immanent logic. The state behaves like a managing committee only in a
metaphorical sense. It is not necessarily a willing handmaiden or henchman. It has a degree of
autonomy. And yet well-meaning reformers remain, in part at least, captive creatures of
circumstance. In the last instance, it is economic imperatives that determine the outcomes of social
policy. This happens because in order to survive the state must acknowledge certain priorities over
which it has no control. For example, it must maximize economic growth, protect profits and
maintain social order. In liberal democracies economics trumps politics. It is deterministic or
functionalist argument.
c) Neo-marxist critiques: While the welfare state has brought real benefits to the
working class and the most disadvantaged members of capitalist society, it has also played a part
in repressing or controlling them. The welfare state succeeded in increasing social consumption
and living standards, but capital benefited more than labor, while poverty and inequality persisted.
State welfare enhanced the productivity of labor, while minimizing the adverse social
consequences of the capitalist economic system. It regulated both the quantity and the quality of
labor power. The development of state welfare played a necessary part in constituting the modern
wage laborer and by according popular legitimacy to capitalism. It also subjected the working
class to new forms of administrative scrutiny and normative control – through, for example,
compulsory education and the conditions that attach to the receipt of many welfare benefits.
Capitalism could neither survive without having a welfare state nor endure the costs and
implications of having one. To an extent, this prophecy has been borne out since in times of crisis
capitalist countries seek to ‘roll back’ their welfare states and to shift the responsibility and costs
of welfare provision from the public to the private sector, from the state to the individual or, in
effect, from capital to labor.

10. Feminist Perspective. What does it mean to have a feminist perspective on social welfare and
social policy? There are a vast and changing range of contested responses to this question.
Liberal, welfare, socialist, Marxist and post-modern feminisms approach this question
differently. Each is concerned in different ways about women’s equality, their agency, gender
relations and social justice, and how these are achieved enabled or hindered through the
arrangement of welfare. Feminist debates show the complexities of understanding gendered
inequalities; where being treated the same as men causes a problem for women because of the
neglect of their specific needs (as mothers, for example), but being treated differently on the
basis of an assumed women’s specificity can lock women into unequal and dependent
relations with men and constitutes the source of their inequality.
11.1 Liberal feminism focus on the equal participation of women in the public sphere. It
influence policies for equal employment rights, including equal pay, and anti-discrimination
legislation.
11.2. Welfare feminism concern itself to improve lives of women in private sphere, as
wives and mothers.

11.3. Radical, Marxist and Socialist feminists were critical of the connection between
women’s public and private disempowerment and the assumption as to the existence of natural,
biological differences between men and women. Their arguments were around the important role
of welfare in maintaining the subordination of women in the home which served to support the
broader material and ideological needs of labor. Thus, the gendered division of welfare was
viewed as an important means of reproducing class relations and maintaining the social stability
necessary for the smooth running of capitalist labor relations.
11.4. Post-modern feminists critiqued the universalizing and generalizing nature of
earlier debates over sameness and difference. Their aim is to think about the differential
relationships of various groups of older, black, disabled and heterosexual women to welfare
arrangements and their varying material and social consequences. This sort of approach
emphasizes the dynamic, changing and contradictory processes of welfare and its changing
gendered relations between men and women, rather than assuming universally disempowering
consequences of social policies for women.

12. Rational Choice Theory.

The rational-choice theory, which is sometimes called social- choice, public-choice, or
formal theory, originated with economists and involves applying the principles of micro-
economic theory to the analysis and explanation of political behavior (or nonmarket decision-
making).
Perhaps, the earliest use of rational-choice theory to study the political process is Anthony
Downs’ Economic Theory of Democracy. In this influential book, Downs assumes that voters and
political parties act as rational decision-makers who seek to maximize attainment of their
preferences. Parties formulate whatever policies will win those most votes and seek to maximize
the portion of their preferences that could be realized through government action. In attempting to
win elections, political parties move toward the center of the ideological spectrum to appeal to the
greatest number of voters and maximize their voting support. Thus, rather than providing
“meaningful alternatives‟, parties will become as much alike as possible, thereby providing an
„echo rather than a choice‟ (Downs, 1957).

The rationalist model is conceptually quite simple. Policy- makers using it are expected to take the
following steps:
Step 1. Identify all the value preferences currently existing in a society Assign each value a
relative weight,
Step 2. Discover all the alternative policies available to accomplish these values
Step 3. Know all the costs and consequences of each alternative policy
Step 4. Select the best alternative which is also the most efficient in terms of the costs and benefits
of social values

For the above steps to be taken, the rational-choice theory according to Ikelegbe (1996)
assumes the following: That perfect information can be obtained for example, to objectively assess
policy alternatives; that there is commonality of values and preferences particularly in the setting
of goals and objectives, that the rational actor thinks of the greatest good of the greatest number as
a guide to decision-making, that objectives and alternatives can be quantified and compared on a
single monetary measure; that the conditions and parameters for the decision are static within the
decision- making period. There is no doubt that these assumptions are simply not realizable in the
real world situations, hence making the implementation of the model clearly impossible.

12.1. Criticism of Rational Choice Theory

The rationalist model is appealing in its simplicity. But, there are problems that lie with
its implementation. For instance, it lacks explicit concern for the political environment in which
public policy must be carried out. Furthermore, according to Braybrooke and Lindblom (1964),
the rational policy-making process, ideally, is based on knowledge of all of society’s value
preferences, and their relative weight, all of the alternatives, all of the potential consequences
(costs and benefits) of each policy alternative. The final selection must be that alternative that
maximizes the weighted value preference.

The obvious limitation of this approach is its demand for knowledge (facts and
information) not within the reach of mere mortals. The prospects of the successful application of
this model in developing countries like Nigeria is very dim indeed given the paucity of data (in
coverage and quality) needed for policy-making. Some scholars have argued that the average
developing country has neither the technology, the resources nor the time to effectively employ
this model in policy- making (Braybrooke and Lindblom, 1964).

Another serious objection to this model is its bias toward efficiency to the exclusion of
other values such as equity and responsiveness. No doubt, rationalist model has its limitations but,
it can be useful to policy- makers and administrators as a tool of policy output analysis.
13. Incremental Theory.
The idea of incrementalism is closely associated with the work of Charles Lindblom, who
suggested that policy-making is a process whereby policy-makers cope with problems as they
arise, and that they tend to stick with the manageable and familiar, with new policies often
differing only marginally from old policies. He argued that incrementalism (‘muddling through’)
is therefore a more realistic model of policy-making than is rationalism.

According to this approach, the policy-makers examine a limited number of policy

alternatives and implement change in a series of small steps. It may be noted that each of the
alternatives available to the policy-maker represents only a small change in the status quo. This
approach recognizes the less than ideal circumstances under which administrators must make
policies. There are very real limits of time, brains money etc. on administrator's ability to
understand complex problems and make different policies about them. Because of these
limitations, the policymakers, though they try to be rational, accept the past policies that satisfy
them as legitimate and suffice to deal with the issue.

Incrementalism is politically expedient because it is easier to reach agreement when the

matters in dispute among various groups are only limited modifications of existing programs
rather than policy issues of great magnitude or of an all-or- nothing character. Because policy
makers operate under conditions of uncertainty about the future consequences of their actions,
incremental decisions tend to reduce the risks and cost of uncertainty. Incrementalism is also
realistic because it recognizes that policy makers lack the time, intelligence, and other resources
needed to engage in comprehensive analysis of all alternative solutions to existing problems.
Moreover, people are essentially pragmatic seeking not always a single best way to deal with a
problem but, more modestly, something that would work incrementalism utilizes limited
analysis to yield limited, practical, acceptable decisions.

13.1. Criticism of Incremental Theory

 One is that it is too conservative, to focused on the current order; hence, it is a
barrier to innovation, which is often necessary for effective policies.

 Another is that in crisis situations, incrementalism provides no guidelines for

handling the tasks of decisions.

 Third, geared as it is to past actions and existing programs and to limited changes
in them, incrementalism may discourage the search for or use of other readily
available alternatives (Anderson, 1997).

 Fourth, incrementalism does not eliminate the need for theory in policy-making,
are some of the more enthusiastic advocates contend. Unless changes in policy
are to be made simply at random or arbitrarily, some theory is needed to guide
the action and to indicate the likely effect of proposed changes (Hayes, 1992:2).
Non-withstanding reservations of these sorts, incrementalism has become a form
of conventional wisdom.

14. Systems Theory.

The systems theory in political science owes its origin to David Easton who is reputed to
be the scholar that attempted to analyze politics from the perspective of systems in his famous
work political system‟ which appeared in 1953. His work which was regarded as the foundation of
the behaviorist revolution in political science outlined eight major characteristics. He described
the characteristics as the intellectual foundation stone of behaviorism which are regularities,
verification, techniques, quantification, values, systemization, pure science, and integration.
The political system, as Easton defines it, comprises those identifiable and interrelated
institutions and activities (what we usually think of as government institutions and political
processes) in a society that make authoritative allocations of values (decisions) that are binding on
society (Anderson, 1997). This environment consists of all phenomena-the social system, the
economic system, the biological setting - that are external to the boundaries of the political
system. Thus, atleast analytically one can separate the political system from all the other
components of a society (Easton, 1965).
If the open system model is applied in public policy analysis the issues to reflect on
include the nature of the components of the system which constitute the sub-systems, and the
outside components that impinge on the system directly, which is referred to supra-system
(Dlakwa, 2004). Inputs into the political system from the environment consist of demands and
supports. Demands are usually the claims for action that individuals and groups make to satisfy
their interest and values. Support is rendered when groups and individuals abide by election
results, pay taxes, obey laws, and otherwise accept decisions and actions taken by the political
system in response to demands. The amount of support for a political system indicates the extent
to which it is regarded as legitimate, or as authoritative and binding on its citizens.
On the other hand, outputs of the political system include laws, rules, judicial decisions,
and the like. Regarded as the authoritative allocations of values, they constitute public policy. The
concept of feedback indicates that public policies (or outputs) made at a given time may
subsequently alter the environment and the demands arising therefrom, as well as the character of
the political system itself. Policy outputs may produce new demands, which lead to further
outputs, and so on in a never-ending flow of public policy.
On the whole, this model applies systems theory to the policy- making process. In simple
words, according to this model, the political system receives inputs from its environment and
converts them into outputs. The inputs are in the form of demands from groups or individuals for
specific policy outcomes. The policy outcomes take the form of determination of societal values
and allocation of resources. A feedback loop exists by which the outputs alter the future inputs.
This model thus relies on concepts of information theory. In other words, systems theory
conceives public policy as the response of the political system to demands from its environment.
The political system consists of those institutions that make authoritative allocation of values
binding on the society as a whole. The environment of the political system consists of those
institutions found in the economic, social, cultural and international systems which shape political
process and whose activities are influenced by the political system. Using systems approach, it is
assumed that a state of mutual causation exists between public policy and
environmental variables (Abdulsalami, 1987).

14.1. Criticism of Systems Theory.

The usefulness of the systems theory in studying public policy is limited by its
highly general and abstract nature. It does not, moreover, say much about the procedures
and processes by which decisions are made and policy is developed within the “black
box‟ called the political system.
Nonetheless, this approach can be helpful in organizing inquiry into policy
formation, it also alerts us to some important facets of the political process, such as these:
how do inputs from the environment affect the content of public policy and the operation
of the political system? How in turn does public policy affect the environment and the
subsequent demands for policy actions? How well is the political system able to convert
demands into public policy and preserve itself over time (Anderson, 1997).

15. Elite Theory

Approached from perspectives of elite theory, public policy can be regarded as reflecting
the values and preferences of a governing elite. The essential argument of elite theory is that
public policy is not determined by the demands and actions of the people or the masses but rather
by ruling elite whose preferences are carried into effect by political officials and agencies. In other
words, according to this theory, the elite simply believe that they alone have the ability to
determine the policies to promote the welfare of the masses and implement them. Thus policies
flow downward from the elite to the masses. The policies made by the elites reflect elite values
and prefer status quo to radical changes. Professors Thomas Dye and Harmon Zeigler provide a
summary of elite theory:
 Society is divided into the few who have power and the many who do not have. Only
small number persons allocate values for society; the masses do not decide public policy.
 The few who govern are not typical of the masses who are governed. Elite are drawn
disproportionately from upper socio-economic strata of society.
 The movement of non-elites to elite positions must be slow and continuous to maintain
stability and avoid revolution. Only non-elites who have accepted the basic elite
consensus can be admitted to governing circles.
 Elites share a consensus on the basic values of the social system and the preservations of
the system.
 Public policy does not reflect demands of the masses but rather the prevailing values of
the elite. Changes in public policy will be incremental rather than revolutionary.
Incremental changes permit responses to events that threaten a social system with a
minimum of alteration or dislocation of the system.
 Active elites are subject to relatively little direct influence from apathetic masses. Elites
influence masses more than the masses influence elites (Dye and Zeigler, 1990).
 The above assumptions presuppose that if the government is committed to serving the
interest of the masses it must do something about curtailing the excesses of the elite. This
could be done by adopting a participatory approach to policy making, involving all key
stakeholders, thereby subduing the undue manipulation of the elite. Once this feat is
achieved the structure of the society would move away from the hour-glass shape to a
more horizontal or flatter shape. However, for this objective to be achieved the formation
of the government itself has to first be devoid of elite manipulation in terms of elections
and appointment to political positions.

15.1. Criticism of Elite Theory

 The implication of this theory as indicating that public policy reflects elite values, serves
elite ends, and is a product of the elite. The corollary of this assumption is that the general
citizenry or the masses are apathetic and ill-informed and do not determine or influence
policy through their demands or actions.
 Elite theory is a provocative theory of policy formation because policy here, is the
product of elites, reflecting their values and serving their ends, one of which may be a
desire to provide in some way for the welfare of the masses.
 It assumes a highly structured and stratified society. In structurally diffused societies, elite
formation and therefore, elite values and elite identity is relatively undeveloped.

16. Group Theory

According to the group theory of politics, public policy is the product of the group
struggle. What may be called public policy is the equilibrium reached in this group struggle at any
given moment, and it represents a balance which the contending factions or groups constantly
strive to win in their favor. Many public polices do reflect the activities of groups (Anderson,
1997). This means that this theory attempts to analyze how each of the various groups in a society
tries to influence public policy to its advantage at the policy formulation level.

In other words, the central practice of this model is that interaction among groups is a
critical ingredient in politics. Public policy is thus a temporary point of compromise reached in the
course of competition between mosaics of numerous interest groups with cross-cutting
membership. The ability of the group that is favored at one point to sustain its gain depends on its
power to counteract the powers of other groups that would make efforts to tilt decisions to their
favor. It is this type of competition between groups that determine pattern of allocation of societal
resources (Enemuo, 1999: 24).
The locus of power in the society changes from time to time, depending upon the group
that succeeds in exerting its own supremacy over the others. Accordingly, the power to determine
policy direction changes with the changes in the fortunes of each or a combination of these
groups. It is in appreciating the fluidity of power base in society that Latham contends that what
we regard as public policy is in reality a temporary equilibrium reached in the course of the inter-
group struggle (Latham, 1965). As soon as the equilibrium point is altered in the favor of new
groups another policy will emerge, or the old policy will be modified. Politics in essence entails a
dynamic equilibrium created by the struggle between different groups. In Latham’s opinion the
legislature acts only as a referee to the inter-group struggle and it ratifies the victories of the
successful coalitions, as well as record the terms of the surrender, compromises, and conquest in
the form of statutes or Bills (Latham, 1965).
Since the power to dominate policy decision is dependent on group solidarity and power,
the dynamics of the policy process is expected to be more vibrant and fierce in plural societies
than in homogenous ones. In such societies the ability of a group to tilt the policy to its favor
depends on a number of factors, prominent among which are:
 Wealth
 Organizational skill
 Leadership quality
 Bargaining skill
 Access to decision-makers
 A modicum of luck

Wealth is essential because political mobilization is resource absorbing. All over the
world, even in the most democratic societies, politics involves a lot of expenditure; as such only
the wealthy can afford to mobilize the electorate and those in authority to tilt decisions in their
favor. Wealth alone without organizational skills will render a group ineffective. It is the ability to
conceive of ideas and get people to subscribe to such ideas that can get a group or person to
succeed in tilting policy decision in its favor. In contemporary period, organizational skill requires
the tack of bringing all stakeholders on board in the process of policy decision. For example, the
group that attempts to mobilize the public in order to push its ideas would have to be tactful in
main-streaming various interest groups such as the women, youth, professional groups and, in
some cases, traditional rulers. Central to organization ability in mobilizing the public is leadership.
Without a concrete rallying focal point a wealthy group, with a sprinkling of persons with diffuse
organizational skills, will fail woefully in pushing its agenda in the policy process. But, when
there is a strong leadership, especially a charismatic on the group can succeed in pushing its
agenda through with relative ease. One of the virtues of good leadership is the ability to bargain
successfully even in a turbulent environment. A group would thus succeed in pushing its agenda
through the parliament when it has strong bargaining skill. The power of lobby is often
complemented by the degree of visibility of the lobbyist. Persons that are well known and
respected in society could easily influence decision makers to support their ideas in parliament.
Dahl observes that the good thing about pluralism is that no single group has monopoly
over all these resources (Anderson, 1997). The equilibrium point will thus continue to shift
position as different groups manipulate these resources to get public policies to their favor, either
singly or in concert with other groups that share common interest with them. Coalition building,
compromises, trading of favor and conflicts among groups are the key tactics used in the struggle.
In this situation the majority or more dominant group will have its way but the minority or less
dominant group for the moment will have their say. The struggle will continue without rancor.

16.1. Criticism of Group Theory

 First, the group theorists did not really define in clear terms what they mean by the two
key concepts in the analysis; group and interests. Thus, while Bentley sees groups as a
relation between men, a process of adding man to man, Truman, defines it as any
collection of individuals who have some characteristic in common. None of these
definitions clearly tells us what a group that is really relevant to politics and decision
making is.
 Second, the theory was so concerned with the role of groups that it leaves out the
individuals and society in their analysis. While not disputing the fact that politics is a
struggle between and among groups, one can also not forget that the role of particular
individuals is a very important variable. This is particularly important in third world
countries, where one-man dictatorship has proved that an individual could indeed hold a
whole country to ransom and dictate what happens mostly after decimating all competing
groups. Also, the role of the society in this competition for power is completely left out
which is a defect.

17. Institutional Theory

One of the oldest concerns of political science and public administration is the study of
government institutions since political life generally revolves around them. These institutions
include legislatures, executives and judiciary; and public policy is authoritatively formulated and
executed by them.
Traditionally, the institutional approach concentrates on describing the more formal and
legal aspects of government institutions: their formal structure, legal powers, procedural rules, and
functions. Formal relationships with other institutions might also be considered, such as
legislative-executive relations. Usually, little was done to explain how institutions operated as
opposed to how they were supposed to operated, to analyze public policies produced by the
institutions and to discover the relationships between institutional structure and public policies.
Institutionalism, with its emphasis on the formal or structural aspects of institutions can
nonetheless be usefully employed in policy analysis. An institution is, in part, a set of regularized
patterns of human behavior that persist over time and perform some significant social function. It
is their differing patterns of behavior that usually distinguish courts from legislatures, from
administrative agencies, and so on. These regularized patter ns of behavior, which are usually
called rules or structures, can affect decision-making and the content of public policy. Rules and
structural arrangements are usually not neutral in their effects; rather, they tend to favor some
interest in society over others and some policy results over others.
In sum, institutional structures, arrangements, and procedures often have important
consequences for the adoption and content of public policies. They provide part of the context for
policy-making, which must be considered along with the more dynamic aspects of politics, such as
political parties, groups, and public opinion in policy study. By itself, however, institutional theory
can provide only partial explanations of policy.

17.1. Criticism of Institutional Theory

 This model studies the official structures and functions of government departments and
institutions in an attempt to learn how public policy takes shape. It focuses on the
organization chart of government. However, this model has shown little concern about the
connections between a department and the public policy emanating from it. While the
systems approach is dynamic and process-oriented, institutionalist approach is more static
and formalistic.

Let’s Check Activities

Hall, Anthony, and James O. Midgley. Social Policy for Development, SAGE Publications, 2004.
ProQuest Ebook Central,

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uniofmindanao
ebooks/detail.action?docID=254747.

The Student's Companion to Social Policy, edited by Pete Alcock, et al., John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated,
2016. ProQuest Ebook Central,
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uniofmindanao- ebooks/detail.action?docID=4567441.
Cerna, A. (2013). The Nature of Policy Change and Implementation: A Review of Different Theoretical
Approaches. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from:
http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/The%20Nature%20of%20Policy%20Chan ge%20and
%20Implementation.pdf
Anyebe, A. (2018). An Overview of Approaches to the Study of Public Policy. International Journal of
Political Science (IJPS) Volume 4, Issue 1. Retrieved from: https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijps/v4-
i1/2.pdf

Let’s Analyze Activities

Activity 3. Let’s assessed your learning by answering the modified true or false questions below. Write
True if the statement is correct. If the given statement is incorrect, write False and rephrase the
word/phrase to make the statement correct.
1. Socialist views welfares state as counterproductive to the growth of free market.
2. Social democracy criticizes welfare state as an instrument of capitalist to remedy the problem of
the free market.
3. Socialist social democrats tend to hold more positive attitudes towards the market, provided that
they are properly regulated, and they are more receptive to the use of innovative, non-state methods to
resolve contemporary problems.
4. Liberal Feminism viewed gendered division of welfare as an important means of reproducing
class relations and maintaining the social stability necessary for the smooth running of capitalist labor
relations.
5. Neoliberalism viewed the welfare state as a form of monopolistic provider of social service that
limits the private sector’s participation in crafting its own social welfare activities.
6. Post-modern feminism advocates for the inclusion of race, ethnicity and culture in the political
sphere of gender.
7. Socialist believes that welfare recipients tend to become ‘welfare dependent’ and so fail to act
as responsible individuals.
8. Feminism incorporates social and political theories and philosophies with regard to gender
inequality, as well as movement that campaigns for women's rights and interests.
9. Instrumentalist critiques imply that the shape and nature of the welfare state are deliberately
contrived to accord with the economic requirements of capital.
10. Neoliberals believe that oppressed class under capitalism will in time be able to possess of the
state apparatus established by the dominant class.

In a Nutshell

Activity 4. In this part, you need to explain comprehensively your answers based from the readings and
researches you have.

1. What are the contentions of neo-liberal thought on social welfare? How did this ideology
influence social welfare policies?

2. What are the distinguishing features of social democratic welfare state?

3. In what ways does socialist perspective interpret the role of welfare state?

4. When can we say that a social policy becomes an advantage and disadvantage for women?

5. Identify social policies in our country (national, local, private spheres) which might be said to
reflect ‘rational’ or ‘incremental’ approaches to policy-making. Explain your answer.
6. Identify existing policy (national, local, private spheres) which might be said to reflect elite theory
and group theory. Explain your answer.

7. Identify existing policy (national, local, private spheres) which might be said to reflect systems
theory and institutional theory. Explain your answer.

SELF-HELP
1. Neo-Liberal ideas pose a significant challenge for supporters of extensive systems of public
welfare. It has its roots in classical Liberal thinking and in the writings of Adam Smith in
particular. Neo-Liberals want to cut back public welfare systems, to eliminate bureaucratic
waste, reduce taxation and allow greater choice through private service provision. Neo-
Liberal thinking contains critical flaws. The conception of ‘negative liberty’ is unduly
restricted and the faith in pure market solutions may be misplaced.

2. The political doctrine of social democracy originated in northern Europe in the latter part of
the nineteenth century. There has been ongoing debate about what constitute the defining
elements of social democracy. It has subcomponent of liberal social democrats and socialist
social democrats who has different perspective on social welfare.

3. Socialist perspective on social policy argues that capitalism as a social and economic system
is inimical to human well-being. It regards the welfare state as an ambiguous phenomenon
that has benefited disadvantaged and working-class people, while also subjecting them to
social control in the interests of capitalism. It has nonetheless played a role in the
development of social policy in capitalist societies.

4. According to Feminist view, the welfare state, its policies and practices construct are
simultaneously constructed through gender inequalities. Feminists have used women’s
experiences to challenge what is understood by welfare to include the cultural and intimate
spheres. More differentiated approaches to feminist social policy analysis includes issues of
masculinity and relations of power. Feminists interact with mainstream political structures to
fight for gender inequality.

5. There is a wide range of models and concepts that can be used to analyze the policy process.
Applying particular models to specific policies and policy areas can allow us to gain a better
understanding of the role of different groups, their power relative to one another, and the
motivations behind particular government actions and inactions

QA List
In this section, all your questions or clarifications may be listed down. You may wish to raise you concern
through LMS or other modes such as email or sms (in case of distant learning). After the clarification, you
may write your understanding of the question/ raised in the “answer” portion.

Questions/Issues

Answers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Keywords Index
Neoliberalism
Social democracy
Socialism
Feminism
Liberal Feminism
Marxist/Socialist Feminism
Post-modern Feminism
Radical Feminism
Welfare Feminism
Welfare State
Utopian Ideology
Capitalism
Economic Interventionism
Human Liberty
Competitive Market
Bureaucratic oversupply
Safety Net Welfare
State Coercion
Liberal Social Democracy
Socialist Social Democracy
Instrumentalist critiques of social welfare
Structural-logical critiques of social welfare
Neo-Marxist critiques of social welfare

Lesson 3
Essential Knowledge
In this part, you will be introduced to the generic policy cycle process. Take note that there are lot of
models of the policy process but below is the simplified version. Thus, you are free to explore other
comprehensive and complex models to further understand the process. It also includes the legislative
process of the Philippine government.

1. Policy Cycle Process. The idea of modeling the policy process in terms of stages was first put
forward by Lasswell. As part of his attempt to establish a multidisciplinary and prescriptive
policy science, Lasswell introduced (in 1956) a model of the policy process comprised of
seven stages: intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application, termination, and
appraisal. Based on the growth of the field of policy studies during the 1960s and 1970s, the
stages models served the basic need to organize and systemize a growing body of literature
and research. Subsequently, a number of different variations of the stages typology have been
put forward, usually offering further differentiations of substages. Today, the differentiation
between agenda-setting, policy formulation, decision making, implementation, and evaluation
(eventually leading to termination) has become the conventional way to describe the
chronology of a policy process.

1.1. The Stages of Policy Cycle

a) Agenda-Setting: Problem Recognition and Issue Selection
• Policymaking presupposes the recognition of a policy problem. Problem
recognition itself requires that a social problem has been defined as such and that the
necessity of state intervention has been expressed. The second step would be that the
recognized problem is actually put on the agenda for serious consideration of public
action (agenda- setting).
• The agenda is nothing more than “the list of subjects or problems to
which governmental officials, and people outside the government closely associated with
those officials, are paying some serious attention at any given time” (Kingdom, 1995).
The government’s (or institutional) agenda has been distinguished from the wider media
and the overall public (or systemic) agenda (Cobb and Elder 1972). While the
government’s (formal and informal) agenda presents the center of attention of studies on
agenda-setting, the means and mechanisms of problem recognition and issue selection are
tightly connected with the way a social problem is recognized and perceived on the
public/media agenda.
• Problem recognition and agenda-setting are inherently political
processes in which political attention is attached to a subset of all possibly relevant policy
problems. Actors within and outside government constantly seek to influence and
collectively shape the agenda (e.g., by taking advantage of rising attention to a particular
issue, dramatizing a problem, or advancing a particular problem definition). The
involvement of particular actors (e.g., experts), the choice of institutional venues in which
problems are debated and the strategic use of media coverage have been identified as
tactical means to define issues.
• Agenda-setting results in a selection between diverse problems and
issues. It is a process of structuring the policy issue regarding potential strategies and
instruments that shape the development of a policy in the subsequent stages of a policy
cycle. If the assumption is accepted that not all existing problems could receive the same
level of attention (and some are not recognized at all).
• The crucial step in this process of agenda-setting is the move of an issue
from its recognition—frequently expressed by interested groups or affected actors—up to
the formal political agenda. This move encompasses several sub stages, in which
succeeding selections of issues under conditions of scarce capacities of problem-
recognition and problem-solving are made. Several studies of environmental policy
development, for example, showed that it is not the objective problem load (e.g., the
degree of air pollution) which explains the intensity of problem recognition and solving
activities on the side of governments. Instead, a plausible definition of a problem and the
creation of a particular policy image allowing to attach a particular solution to the
problem, have been identified as key variables affecting agenda-setting.
• The actual agenda-setting is characterized by different patterns in terms
of actor composition and the role of the public:
o The outside-initiation pattern, where social actors force governments to place an
issue on the systemic agenda by way of gaining public support, presents but one
of different types of agenda-setting.
o The inside-initiation pattern is an equally significant processes of policies
without public input such as when interest groups have direct access to
government agencies and are capable of putting topics on the agenda without
major interference or even recognition of the public.
o Another pattern has been described as the mobilization of support within the
public by the government after the initial agenda-setting has been accomplished
without a relevant role for non-state actors.
o Finally, consolidation is the fourth type whereby state actors initiate an issue
where public support is already high.
• The confluence of a number of interacting factors and variables
determines whether a policy issue becomes a major topic on the policy agenda. These
factors include both the material conditions of the policy environment (like the level of
economic development), and the flow and cycle of ideas and ideologies, which are
important in evaluating problems and connecting them with solutions (policy proposals).
Within that context, the constellation of interest between the relevant actors, the capacity
of the institutions in charge to act effectively, and the cycle of public problem perception
as well as the solutions that are connected to the different problems are of central
importance.

b) Policy Formulation and Decision-Making.

• During this stage of the policy cycle, expressed problems, proposals, and
demands are transformed into government programs. Policy formulation and adoption includes the
definition of objectives— what should be achieved with the policy—and the consideration of
different action alternatives. Some authors differentiate between formulation (of alternatives for
action) and the final adoption (the formal decision to take on the policy). Because policies will not
always be formalized into separate programs and a clear-cut separation between formulation and
decision-making is very often impossible, we treat them as sub stages in a single stage of the
policy cycle.
• Political scientists argued from the beginning (Lindblom 1968; Wildavsky 1979)
that decision-making comprises not only information gathering and processing (analysis), but
foremost consists of conflict resolution within and between public and private actors and
government departments (interaction). In terms of patterns of interdepartmental interaction,
Mayntz and Scharpf (1975) argued that these usually follow the type of negative coordination
(based on sequential participation of different departments after the initial policy program has
been drafted) rather than ambitious and complex attempts of positive coordination (pooling
suggested policy solutions as part of the drafting), thus leading to the typical process of reactive
policy-making. The aim of political science based policy analysis was, therefore, to suggest
institutional arrangements which would support more active policy-making.
• Governments and higher civil servants are not strictly separated from the wider
society when formulating policies; instead, they are constantly interacting with social actors and
form rather stable patterns of relationships (policy networks). Whereas the final decision on a
specific policy remains in the realm of the responsible institutions, this decision is preceded by a
more or less informal process of negotiated policy formation, with departments (and the units
within the departments), organized interest groups and, depending on the political system,
appointed members and their associates as major players. Numerous policy studies have
convincingly argued that the processes in the preliminary stages of decision-making strongly
influence the final outcome and very often shape the policy to a larger extend than the final
processes within the parliamentary arena.
• While patterns of interaction between governments and society in policy
networks are regarded as an omnipresent phenomenon, the particular constellation of actors within
policy networks vary between policy domains, as well as between nation states with different
political/administrative cultures, traditions of law (Feick and Jann 1988) and differences regarding
the wider constitutional setting.
• In order to allow for the analysis of different structural patterns of state-society
interaction, policy research has developed taxonomies of policy networks. While considerable
variation (and maybe even confusion, cf. Dowding 2001) prevails, one major distinction has been
made between iron triangles, sub- governments, or policy communities on the one hand and issue
networks centered around a particular policy issues (e.g., abortion, fuel taxes, speed limits) on the
other hand. These two basic types are differentiated along the dimensions of actor composition
and the insulation of the network from the wider environment.
• Another crucial aspect of policy formulation represents the role of (scientific)
policy advice. While earlier models differentiated between technocratic (policy decisions
depending on superior knowledge provided by experts) and decisionist (primacy of politics over
science) models of the science/policy nexus (Wittrock 1991), the dominant normative
understanding favored a pragmatic and cooperative interaction at eye level.
c) Implementation
• The decision on a specific course of action and the adoption of a program does
not guarantee that the action on the ground will strictly follow policy makers’ aims and objectives.
The stage of execution or enforcement of a policy by the responsible institutions and organizations
that are often, but not always, part of the public sector, is referred to as implementation.
• Policy implementation is broadly defined as “what happens between the
establishment of an apparent intention on the part of the government to do something, or to stop
doing something, and the ultimate impact in the world of action” (O’Toole 2000).This stage is
critical as political and administrative action at the frontline are hardly ever perfectly controllable
by objectives, programs, laws, and the like (cf. Hogwood and Gunn 1984). Therefore, policies and
their intentions will very often be changed or even distorted; its execution delayed or even blocked
altogether.
• An ideal process of policy implementation would include the following core
elements:
o Specification of program details (i.e., how and by which
agencies/organizations should the program be executed? How should the law/program be
interpreted?);
o Allocation of resources (i.e., how are budgets distributed? Which
personnel will execute the program? Which units of an organization will be in charge for
the execution?);
o Decisions (i.e., how will decisions of single cases be carried out?).
• Earlier, implementation of policies was not recognized as a separate stage within
or element of the policy-making process. What happens after a bill becomes a law was not
perceived as a central problem—not for the decision makers and, therefore, also not for policy
analysis. The underlying assumption was that governments pass laws, and this is where the core
business of policy-making ends.
• Initially, implementation was regarded from a perspective that was later called
the top-down approach. Implementation studies followed the hierarchical and chronological path
of a particular policy and sought to assess how far the centrally defined goals and objectives are
achieved when it comes to implementation. Most studies centered on those factors leading to
deviations from these objectives. Intra- and inter- organizational coordination problems and the
interaction of field agencies with the target group ranked as the most prominent variables
accounting for implementation failures. Another explanation focused the policy itself,
acknowledging that unsuccessful policy implementation could not only be the result of bad
implementation, but also bad policy design, based on wrong assumptions about cause-effect
relationships.
• Implementation studies of the first generation thus shared a hierarchical, top-
down understanding of governance, at least as a normative yardstick for the assessment of
outcomes of implementation. Implementation research was interested in developing theories about
what works. One way to do this has been to assess the effectiveness of different types of policy
instruments based on particular theories about cause and effect relations. Policy instruments have
been classified into regulatory, financial, informational, and organizational policy tools.
• The so-called bottom-up perspective suggested a number of analytical
reorientations that subsequently became accepted in the wider implementation and policy
literature.
o First, the central role of implementation agencies and their personnel in
shaping the actual policy outcome has been acknowledged in particular the pattern of
coping with diverse and often contradictory demands associated with policies is a
recurring theme in this line of research.
o Second, the focus on single policies regarded as inputs into the
implementation process was supplemented, if not replaced, by a perspective that regarded
policy as the outcome of implementation resulting from the interaction of different actors
and different programs. Elmore (1979/80) suggested the notion of backward mapping for
a corresponding research strategy that begins at the last possible stage, when
“administrative actions intersects with private choices”.
o Third, the increasingly widespread recognition of linkages and networks
between a number of (governmental and social) actors within a particular policy domain,
cutting across the implementation/policy formulation borderline, provided the ground for
the eventual abandonment of the hierarchical understanding of state/society interaction.

d) Evaluation and Termination

• Policymaking is supposed to contribute to problem solving or at least to the
reduction of the problem load. During the evaluation stage of the policy cycle, these intended
outcomes of policies move into the center of attention. The plausible normative rationale that,
finally, policymaking should be appraised against intended objectives and impacts forms the
starting point of policy evaluation.
• Evaluation is not only associated with the final stage in the policy cycle that
either ends with the termination of the policy or its redesign based on modified problem
perception and agenda-setting. At the same time, evaluation research forms a separate sub
discipline in the policy sciences that focuses on the intended results and unintended consequences
of policies. Evaluation studies are not restricted to a particular stage in the policy cycle; instead,
the perspective is applied to the whole policy-making process and from different perspectives in
terms of timing.
• The role of evaluation in the policy process goes far beyond the scope of
scientific evaluation studies. Policy evaluation takes place as a regular and embedded part of the
political process and debate. Therefore, scientific evaluation has been distinguished from
administrative evaluations conducted or initiated by the public administration and political
evaluation carried out by diverse actors in the political arena, including the wider public and the.
Not only scientific studies, but also government reports, the public debate and activities of
respective opposition parties embrace substantial elements of evaluation.
• Evaluation research sought to establish evaluation as a central part of rational
evidence-based policymaking, activities of evaluation are particularly exposed to the specific logic
and incentives of political processes in at least two major ways, both related to blame games:
• First, the assessment of policy outputs and outcomes is biased according to the
position and substantial interest, as well as the values, of a particular actor. In particular, the
shifting of blame for poor performance is a regular part of politics.
• Second, flawed definition of policy aims, and objectives presents a major
obstacle for evaluations. Given the strong incentive of blame-avoidance, governments are
encouraged to avoid the precise definition of goals because otherwise politicians would risk taking
the blame for obvious failure. Even outside constellations that may be seen as shaped by partisan
politics, the possibility of a self-evaluating organization has been strongly contested, because it
conflicts with some of the fundamental values and interests of organizations.
• Evaluations can lead to diverse patterns of policy-learning, with different
implications in terms of feed-back mechanisms and a potential restart of the policy process. One
pattern would be that successful policies will be reinforced; a pattern that forms the core idea of
so-called pilot projects (or model experiment), in which a particular measure is first introduced
within a (territorial, substantive, or temporal) limited context and only extended if the evaluation
is supporting. However, instead of enhancing evidence-based policy-making, pilot projects may
represent tools that are utilized for purposes of conflict avoidance; contested measures are not
finally adopted but taken up as a pilot projects and thereby postponed until the political mood is
ripe for a more enduring course of action.
• Evaluations could also lead to the termination of a policy. The primary idea of
policy termination—a policy problem has been solved or the adopted policy measures have been
recognized to be ineffective in dealing with the set policy goals—seems rather difficult to enforce
under real-world conditions of policy-making. Rather large-scale budget cuts (e.g., related to
subsidies) or windows of opportunity (e.g., changing governments, public sentiments) could
trigger policy termination. These processes are frequently connected with partisan motivations,
like the implementation of election promises.
• Studies of policy termination are frequently concerned with why policies and
programs “live on” although they have “outlived their usefulness”. Counter- strategies against
termination efforts range from window-dressing activities (instead of substantial changes) to the
formation of crosscutting anti- termination coalitions formed by beneficiaries of programs (e.g.,
delivery agencies, affected interest groups, local politicians).These coalitions can rely on a
comparative advantage, because they are easier able to overcome collective action problems than
any pro-termination coalition (given the threat of a potential loss of resources provided by the
policy). In addition, politicians face greater incentives towards the declaration of new programs
rather than the termination of old ones that include the admission of failures. The short- term
political, as well as financial, costs of termination may outweigh the long- term benefits.

2. The Philippine Legislative Process.

2.1. Philippine Legislative Process.

i. Preparation of the Bill. The Member or the Bill Drafting Division of the
Reference and Research Bureau prepares and drafts the bill upon the Member's request

ii. First Reading.

a. The bill is filed with the Bills and Index Service and the same is
numbered and reproduced.
b. Three days after its filing, the same is included in the Order of Business
for First Reading.
c. On First Reading, the Secretary General reads the title and number of the
bill. The Speaker refers the bill to the appropriate Committee/s.

iii. Committee Consideration/Action

a. The Committee where the bill was referred to evaluates it to determine
the necessity of conducting public hearings. If the Committee finds it necessary to
conduct public hearings, it schedules the time thereof, issues public notice and invites
resource persons from the public and private sectors, the academe and experts on the
proposed legislation. If the Committee finds that no public hearing is not needed, it
schedules the bill for Committee discussion/s.
b. Based on the result of the public hearings or Committee discussions, the
Committee may introduce amendments, consolidate bills on the same subject matter, or
propose a substitute bill. It then prepares the corresponding committee report.
c. The Committee approves the Committee Report and formally transmits
the same to the Plenary Affairs Bureau.

iv. Second Reading

a. The Committee Report is registered and numbered by the Bills and
Index Service. It is included in the Order of Business and referred to the Committee on
Rules.
b. The Committee on Rules schedules the bill for consideration on Second
Reading.
c. On Second Reading, the Secretary General reads the number, title and
text of the bill and the following takes place:
i. Period of Sponsorship and Debate
ii. Period of Amendments
iii. Voting which may be by:
1. Viva voce
2. Count by tellers
3. Division of the House; or
4. Nominal voting

v. Third Reading
a. The amendments, if any, are engrossed and printed copies of the bill are
reproduced for Third Reading
b. The engrossed bill is included in the Calendar of Bills for Third Reading
and copies of the same are distributed to all the Members three days before its Third
Reading.
c. On Third Reading, the Secretary General reads only the number
d. amendment on the bill is allowed at this stage.
i. The bill is approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of
ii. Archives.

vi. Transmittal of the Approved Bill to the Senate. The approved bill is
transmitted to the Senate for its concurrence.

vii. Senate Action on Approved Bill of the House. The bill undergoes the same
legislative process in the Senate.

viii. Conference Committee

a. A Conference Committee is constituted and is composed of Members
from each House of Congress to settle, reconcile or thresh out differences or
disagreements on any provision of the Conference Committee prepares a report to be
signed by all

ix. Transmittal of the Bill to the President. Copies of the bill, signed by the Senate
President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and certified by both the Secretary of
the Senate and the Secretary General of the House, are transmitted to the President.

x. Presidential Action on the Bill

a. If the bill is approved the President, the same is assigned an RA number
and transmitted to the House where it originated.
b. If the bill is vetoed, the same, together with a message citing the reason
for the veto, is transmitted to the House where the bill originated.

xi. Action Approved Bill. The bill is reproduced, and copies are sent to the Official
Gazette Office for publication and distribution to the implementing agencies. It is then included in
the annual compilation of Acts and Resolutions.

xii. Action Vetoed Bill. The message is included in the Order of Business. If the
Congress decides to override the veto, the House and the Senate shall proceed separately to
reconsider the bill or the vetoed items of the bill. If the bill or its vetoed items is passed by a vote
of two-thirds of the Members of each House, such bill or items shall become a law.

Let’s Check Activities

Colby, I. C., Dulmus, C. N., Sowers, K. M., & Sowers, K. M. (2013). Connecting social welfare policy
to fields of practice. ProQuest Ebook Central https://ebookcentral.proquest.com

Legislative Process: How A Bill Become a Law. Philippine Congress. Retrieved from:
http://congress.gov.ph/legisinfo/?v=process

Handbook of Public Policy Analysis : Theory, Politics, and Methods, edited by Frank Fischer, and Gerald
J. Miller, Taylor & Francis Group, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central,
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uniofmindanao- ebooks/detail.action?docID=283245.
Let’s Analyze Activities
Activity 5. Let’s evaluate your learning. Write true if the statement is correct and write False if the
statement is wrong. If your answer is False, modify the word/phrase to make the statement correct.
1. Agenda is a collection of problems, understanding of causes, symbols or solutions, and other
elements of public problems that come to the attention of members of the public and their governmental
officials.
2. Policy formulation and decision-making phase involves identifying a set of policy alternatives
to address problem, and narrowing the set of solutions in preparation for the final policy definition.
3. Policy formulation is an explicit object of inquiry in studies of policy design and policy tools.
4. Top-down models put their main emphasis on the ability of decision makers to produce
unequivocal policy objectives and on controlling the implementation stage.
5. Bottom-up critiques view of street level bureaucrats as the main actor in policy delivery and
conceive of implementation as negotiation processes within networks of implementers.
6. Top-down model of implementation=hierarchical guidance and elitist; bottom-up model of
implementation=decentralized problem-solving and participatory.
7. According to rational model, any decision-making usually should be based on a comprehensive
analysis of problems and goals, followed by an inclusive collection and analysis of information and a
search for the best alternative to achieve these goals.
8. The crucial step in the process of agenda setting is the move of an issue from its recognition –
frequently expressed by interested groups or affected actors – up to the formal political agenda.
9. Evaluation of policy marks the imminent ending of the implementation of a policy.
10. Evaluation could lead to the termination of a policy.

In a Nutshell
Activity 6. In this part, you need to explain comprehensively your answers based from the readings and
researches you have.

1. Why might the view of “other” groups be excluded from policy agenda?

2. Why might top-down approaches to social policy implementation appeal to decision- makers
but prove problematic in practice?

3. What are the grounds for a policy to be terminated?

4. What is the importance of pilot project in policy cycle process?

QA List
In this section, all your questions or clarifications may be listed down. You may wish to raise you concern
through LMS or other modes such as email or sms (in case of distant learning). After the clarification, you
may write your understanding of the question/ raised in the “answer” portion.

Questions/Issues

Answers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.