PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA

(University of the City of Manila)

INTRAMUROS, MANILA

COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES, ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK

A Book Review on:

Perspectives on Welfare
Ideas, Ideologies and Policy Debates
by: Allan Deacon
In partial fulfillment of a requirement in Social Welfare Perspectives

Submitted by:

BACANI, AMELIEN CLARIZA

BALBERO, MARIESOL
BUENAVENTURA, MAJIDA SAE
CABRERA, ALYSSA
CHO, ANGELICA
FLORES, MA. GENELLA

BS SOCIAL WORK 3rd YEAR, BLOCK 1

Submitted to:

PROF. KREEGER BONAGUA, RSW, MSSW

Faculty, Department of Social Work
 CHAPTER I
WELFARE AND EQUALITY

I. SUMMARY OF THE CONCEPT

This chapter of the book concentrated on explaining three perspectives of welfare and
equality. These are mainly welfare and altruism, welfare and redistribution, and welfare and
egalitarianism. Distinctively, these three perspectives presumed that the central goal of welfare is
to reduce all inequalities. In addition, these perspectives comparably reject all efforts in
explaining the increase of poverty in terms of the behavior and attitude of the poor people
themselves.

Richard Titmuss’ welfare and altruism supposed that the people are often motivated by a
regard for the concern and needs of others. Significantly, this perspective claimed that the
principal purpose of welfare is to promote feelings of altruism and to give expressions to them.
On the other hand, the “Quasi-Titmuss paradigm” assumed that one of the main purposes of
welfare is to shape the behaviors and aspirations of those who receive it. While the welfare and
egalitarianism of US also called as “blame the victim” perspective discussed the hostility of
many commentators due to the fact that poverty is concentrated on Black and Hispanic
Americans. Furthermore, this perspective specifically intensified the rejection of behavioral
explanations of poverty by the influence of Civil Rights Movement in US.

Richard Titmuss, a notable person significantly developed social policy as an academic

subject and wrote books that expressed his interest concerning moral choices underlying in
policy decisions, signified the values that shaped the goals of the social policy. His ideas are
greatly inspired by Richard Tawney’s concept of equality rooted in Christian Socialism.
Tawney’s initially established a proposition that “everyone is entitled to equality of respect by
virtue of their common relationship to the Creator”. From this premise, two principles emerged.
These are the principles that believed in the assumptions that “everyone is entitled to resources
and opportunities they need to develop to the limit of their potential” and “the idea of
fellowship” respectively. The second principle of Tawney’s presumption was considered as the
central concept in Titmuss’ point of view.
 Primarily, Titmuss is more focused on creating social and economic conditions through
formulation of social policy that will encourage and sustain “right behaviors” and in which
fellowship could flourish. It was adapted by British in which their demand for social welfare is
significantly entrenched in shared social values. However, both Titmuss and Tawney had
completely failed to perceive the idea of equal society as a product of men and women’s
different social experiences. Hence, Titmuss had only scrutinized the system of welfare divided
on the axis of occupational class and overlooked the idea of differentiation by gender as a
fracture in the concept of equal society.

Richard Titmuss’ view on welfare has the significant potential in achieving two
objectives at the same time. First, through the redistribution of resources inequalities will lessen.
Second, this redistribution through processes and institutions could greatly contribute in social
integration and fellowship. In his book, “The Gift Relationship”, Titmuss explained the attribute
of welfare is concentrated on integrative systems which are the processes, transactions and
institutions that encourage “an individual’s sense of identity, participation and community”.

Essentially, according to Titmuss in order to achieve the potential for integration, two
conditions of welfare should be accomplished. He identified that welfare should be universal and
non-judgmental. Titmuss signified the defect of means testing in directing resources to the poor.
He argued that this method will only divide the society into two groups which are particularly the
eligible for benefits and services and those who perceived themselves as the ones paying for
them. On the other hand, Titmuss also signified the notion of nonjudgmental welfare. He
critically discussed that the “problem of poverty is not a problem of individual character and its
waywardness, but a problem of economic and industrial organization”.

More importantly, Titmuss argued that welfare should be realized as a way of

recompensing those who bear the social costs of technological and industrial change shaped by
economic growth in the society or brought about by disservices caused by the society itself.
Therefore, social costs as identified by Titmuss, the obsolescence of skills, industrial injuries,
poor housing and environmental pollution must be amended through compensating the people
who suffer from it without stigma. Stigma as defined by Titmuss is the “spoiled identity” or “felt
and experienced discrimination and disapproval” which stemmed from being criticized as a
public burden. Hence, it is really a challenge to redistribute social rights without stigma
especially when in the beginning the welfare system is established from the assumption that poor
people are incompetent or feckless.

Above all, Titmuss signified that social policy should “facilitate the expression of man’s
moral sense and thereby help actualize the social and moral potentialities of all citizens”.
Contrary to the concept of Tawney which stressed the responsibilities and duties rather than
rights, Titmuss’ moral maxim signified the duties of the state to individuals rather than the duties
of individuals to the state. Conversely, there had been critics to Titmuss’ perspectives on welfare.
One of which is Titmuss failure in explaining the behavioral aspect as factor in the increase of
poverty. And that critically scrutinizing behavioral aspect has been irrelevant, thereby did not
call for further inquiry which should had been an important attribute in formulating welfare
system and in carrying out appropriate methods of redistributing resources especially to the poor.

Quasi-Titmuss paradigm originally evolved from Titmuss paradigm. This paradigm is

more focused on the material inequalities than of moral causes while altruism is paid
correspondingly less attention.

In the death of Titmuss, T.H. Marshall went on to observe and found that Titmuss’s
influence had been transmitted to his colleagues and former students. They all had occupied
teaching posts and positions all throughout the land after his death. David Donnison, one of the
most distinguished of them stated that those working in academic social policy were found to
have a club in which they are linked intellectually. He mentioned that they all had shared
ideology in which is generally categorized as Titmuss paradigm or Titmuss School.

Over the years, the Titmuss paradigm came to differ far from what has Titmuss
expounded himself. This is the reason why Titmuss paradigm transformed into Quasi-Titmuss
paradigm. The Quasi-Titmuss paradigm simply explains that how the resources and
opportunities are open to people, not by the means of their attitudes and behavior but upon their
position in the social structure.

There were mainly four factors that shaped Quasi-Titmuss paradigm:

1. The growing influence upon the welfare debate on Marxist political economy. This is said to
be focused more on collective rather than individual action. Titmuss was said to neglect the
social class which left him unable to formulate a strategy for a change.
2. Labour politician, Anthony Crosland’s opposition for Titmuss’ and Tawney’s moralism. He
did not believe them and said that he wanted to pursue an egalitarian strategy. Crosland had to
accept that this was a personal preference and was linked to his political strategy.
3. The upsurge in unemployment in the mid-70’s was also one factor that shaped Quasi-Titmuss
paradigm. This era showed the uselessness of trying to solve social problems by changing
people.
4. The most and the last that influenced the Quai-Titmuss paradigm was the growth of inequality
in Britain in the late 1970’s and 1980’s. There had much been a debate about the
conceptualization and measurement of income inequality.
In general, the Quasi-Titmuss paradigm significantly discussed several fundamental
issues in welfare which are not explained and signified by Titmuss. Furthermore, these issues
as mentioned in the book originated and explained at the American welfare debate in the
1960s and 1970s.
Blaming the victim? Welfare and Egalitarianism in the USA in the 1960’s and 1970’s
In 1960’s and 1970’s, the American debate was all about inequality on races. The black
Americans were mainly the ones that the rights have been deprived. Although civil rights
legislations had granted formal equality to black Americans, it was still not enough because
there were still deprivation and discriminations happening around the corner.
Most of the programs that the War on Poverty are pushing through are array of education,
health care, public housing and work programs. All of these are designed to compensate the
poor, especially the black poor. It is to enable them to participate fully in American life. But
above all this, US Department of Labor called for more radical restructuring of the US
welfare state. They had proposed the introduction of family allowances for all children, and
far more comprehensive jobs and training programs. Steve Tale recommended a ‘system of
social insurance for all families’ that would target resources on poor black families within a
Universalist framework. But instead of introducing new helping schemes, it was denounced
because it only encouraged ‘new form of subtle racism’ that explained racial inequalities by
the weaknesses and defects of the Negro himself’ (Ryan, 1967).
 Issues that are mentioned in the so called restructuring are:
• The terms of the need to avert the imminent collapse of the black family.
• The black family are particularly vulnerable because of ‘cultural weaknesses’.

William Ryan, a civil right activist argued Moynihan and said that it was simply wrong to
attribute the allegedly high ‘illegitimacy’ rate among black Americans to ‘Negro family
stability as a sub-cultural trait’. The difference between the rates for whites and blacks were
due to differences in access to abortion and contraception, and to the fact that whites were less
likely to report ‘illegitimate’ births and more likely to form ‘shotgun marriages’. It was in the
end ‘a systematic inequality of access to a variety of services and information’ (Ryan, 1967).
There were 2 aspects of Ryan’s argument that were considerably distinctive and
important:
1. He insisted that there was nothing deviant or pathological about the behaviours and
attitudes of the people who lived in poor black communities.
2. He claimed that those who argued otherwise were guilty of reinforcing racist stereotypes.
For Ryan, the social problems within poor black communities were due entirely to the social
economic inequalities, to racist institutions and practices. So if the liberals kept on saying that
the reason why there are problems with black communities is because of ‘environmental
causation’ was part of the problem, not part of the solution.
This argument represents a third perspective on welfare in which we coin the term
‘American egalitarianism’. It sees the role of welfare as to contribute to a process of giving
back to black Americans ‘what we took away’. This perspective is shared by any other writers
and activists, and the anger directed at Moynihan as to profound impact upon public
discussions of poverty and welfare.

William Julius Wilson has written, these ‘had the effect of curtailing serious research on
minority problems in the inner city for over a decade, as liberal scholars shied away from
researching construed as unflattering or stigmatizing to particular racial minorities.’ The critical
point for Wilson was that this meant that those scholars were ‘confused and defensive’ when
they were forced to readdress ‘the problems of inner city dislocations’ in the 1980’s. His own
analysis of the War on Poverty was that it had relied too heavily upon training and employment
programs and had paid too little attention to macroeconomic policy.
II. RELATED EXISTING PROGRAMS IN THE PHILIPPINES

As defined by Titmuss, welfare should be universal and nonjudgmental. Moreover, as

discussed by Titmuss, social policy should “facilitate the expression of man’s moral sense and
thereby help actualize the social and moral potentialities of all citizens”. There are laws and
social policies in the Philippines that provide programs which manifest the two conditions of
welfare as explained by Titmuss. Additionally, redistribution of social rights without stigma is
also apparently demonstrated in the Philippines. An example related to the welfare concept of
Titmuss is REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9710, also called “AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE MAGNA
CARTA OF WOMEN”. In this law, redistribution of services and benefits is not only universal
and nonjudgmental but there are also programs and initiatives in which women are encouraged
and empowered to contribute to the development of the nation. Therefore, national government
agencies that implement the law with its provisions are institutions comprised of processes and
transactions which greatly promote women’s involvement and participation in the progress of the
community.

Another prominent example of programs which shows Richard Titmuss’ principles of

universalism and nonjudgmental welfare is apparent in the National Health Insurance Program of
the Philippines which is presently known as PhilHealth. Significantly, this program is universal.

Furthermore, according to the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, Section 15

entitled the “ROLES AND RIGHTS OF PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS”, it provides “The
State shall respect the role of independent people's organizations to enable the people to pursue
and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and
aspirations through peaceful and lawful means. People's organizations are bona fide associations
of citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote the public interest and with identifiable
leadership, membership, and structure”. From this, Titmuss’ concept of altruism is seemingly
practiced. There are also various non-government organizations in the Philippines which
promote distinctive public interests and encourage empowerment, participation and unity of
people in the development of the community. Some programs practiced involved different
sectors in the society. Therefore, Titmuss’ perspective on welfare is dominant in the Philippines.
 The example programs in the Philippines relative to the welfare and egalitarianism
concept is apparent in the Philippines’ social welfare policy, programs and services for the
marginalized sector of the society. These include indigenous people, informal settlers and the
people with disabilities in the country. Prominent programs of the state are educational
assistance, skills training, resettlement programs, and health services which are mostly direct
provision. These are some only of the main laws and policies that provide programs for the
marginalized sector of the society;

1. “The National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC) is a government agency of the

Republic of the Philippines. It coordinates poverty reduction programs by national and local
governments and ensures that marginalized sectors participate in government decision-making
processes. NAPC was created by virtue of Republic Act 8425, otherwise known as the "Social
Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act," which took effect on 30 June 1998. NAPC is one of the 12
agencies, formerly from the Office of the President which now placed under the supervision of
the Cabinet Secretary, based on Executive Order #1 issued by President Rodrigo Duterte on July
4, 2016”.

2. “A People’s Plan is a community development plan formulated by a people’s

organization (PO), or an independent community, and/or sector-based organization or association
to relocate informal settler families (ISFs). This has been the framework proposed by organized
ISFs for decades but has only been embraced during the Aquino administration”.

III. REFLECTION

There are several essential propositions that I have learned from Titmuss’ concept of
welfare. One of which is his principles of universalism and nonjudgmental welfare in the
redistribution of welfare to the people. I have also understand its significance in preventing the
poor people perceive stigma in receiving the services and benefits. Furthermore, I have also
learned that social policy should be utilized in facilitating expressions of people’s moral sense
and enabling them realize and practice their moral and social potentialities in participating in the
development of the society. Above all, I have accumulated from Titmuss’ perspectives that the
one of the most important purposes of formulating social policy should greatly consider its use as
to promote altruism and fellowship through institutions which involve processes and transactions
as defined by Titmuss.

From what I have understood in Titmuss’ concept on welfare and altruism, I have
realized that it could be possible that the social policy to be formulated in the Philippines should
judiciously examine and study the shared social values that will mold the social policy. As
according to what Titmuss’ explained, in creating social policy, it should foster and sustain the
right behaviors of the people in order for fellowship among the people to flourish. Therefore, I
have realized that since in the Philippines the policy making is first entrenched in the observed
shared social values of the people, thereby, initially, one of the main purposes of the shared
social values that will form and shape the social policy should greatly consider its use as to
encourage integrative systems (processes and institutions) that will foster social integration,
fellowship and promote an individual’s sense of identity, participation and community as defined
by Titmuss.

I am glad to have read the Quasi-Titmuss paradigm. It was well written though I slightly
had a hard time understanding some of the words used. I was impressed by how far Richard
Titmuss’ ideology had reached. Titmuss Paradigm already had reached a lot of individuals in
which they all have used even after the death of Titmuss.

It was amazing to have read about how social welfare evolved through the past decades.
I learned so much about the debate in determining usage of altruism or just plain seek their
social classes and the growth of material inequalities. I am also glad to know how Titmuss
paradigm evolved to Quasi-Titmuss paradigm. The growth of the original paradigm into
Quasi-Titmuss paradigm was quite a long story but I am happy that it all went well in the end
for the welfare of the people.

I have understood that the 1960s and 1970s debate on welfare of American is intricately
concerned about race. In line with this, even though the civil rights legislations of America
had already bestowed formal equality to Black and Hispanic Americans, still it had been
ineffective in ending the discrimination and deprivation they experienced. Furthermore, I have
also ascertained the factual meaning of “blaming the victim” notion in which it is discussed in
the book. In addition, I have learned from the discussion in the book that since the Black and
Hispanic Americans are the most likely to experience poverty and to be on welfare,
discrimination of the White Americans has been rampant in which they blame the weaknesses
and defects of the Negros themselves. It was also explained in the book that it is due to the
lack of access of the Black Americans to variety of services and information which the White
Americans had complete accessed in. Moreover, in support, there are arguments created by
several sociologists directed toward Moynihan.

From the concepts and viewpoints that I have accumulated from the discussion on the
welfare and egalitarianism, I have realized that it is somehow related to what is currently
happening in the Philippines. In the Philippines, most of the population of the society has the
“blaming the victim” way of thinking and that despondently even some of the government
officials have this thinking also. And so I have realized that maybe those people who have the
same personal and profession’s beliefs, values and principles just like us are the only people
in the country who are not subjugated by prejudices and judiciously scrutinize the situation of
the poor people in the country especially those who are in the marginalized sector of the
society. This is why I am grateful that I have been in this track where I will be able to
understand, empathize and help the marginalized sector of the society.

Above all, one of the most significant learning, I have accumulated from this
perspective is Kenneth Clark and Lee Rainwater’s arguments which explained that “the
circumstances into which so many disadvantaged blacks are born produced modes of adaption
and created norms and patterns of behavior that take the form of a self-perpetuating
pathology”. From this argument, I have realized the significance of studying and
understanding the underlying causes and the nature of the problem in the formulation of social
policy which will greatly help the society in alleviating poverty. And that significantly, I have
also realized that it is really crucial not just to take into consideration the identification of
shared social values that will shape the social policy but also judiciously study and assess the
nature and causes of the problem in creating a social policy. In this way, the provisions of the
social policy will be effective in helping the people self-actualized and poverty will surely
decline.
 CHAPTER II
WELFARE AND SELF-INTEREST

I. SUMMARY OF THE CONCEPT

The chapter contentions circled the connection of 'self-interest' to social welfare

expressed in the struggle of alleviating the growing poverty in the 1950's-1990's and especially
by the ideas of, Charles Murray and Frank Field.

Into the chapter's details were Murray and Field's arrival to their propositions toward
what constitutes a good society, Murray's ideas were observed during the 1950s to 1980s, and the
later were Field's. As a commonality and highlight of this chapter, both share the profound
concept that Social welfare shapes the behavior of its recipients, and vice versa. Their difference
on the other hand, is how they expressed this into the world.

Charles Murray; his take on the state policies of US (1950s-1980s)

To him, the society must cherish liberty, and freedom of choice, however accounts them
for the ways they express their choices; penalize ill deeds, and reward the good. This proposition,
he backed up by observing a generational phenomenon at the times that commenced the Collapse
of Family, and Withdrawal form Labour, those so conveyed in his noted journals, and books.
First of those; 'The Public Interest' that shares it was the decline in the husband-wife family, and
the drop in work levels among the poor that caused federal war on poverty in the mid-1960s to
fail. That it was as he observed the increasing rate of illegitimate children, and the decline in
employment, another reason he stated was the misallocation of social welfare budget, too large
spent on people above the poverty level and insufficient for the below. At the time, it was to
Murray an open issue, whether spending cuts should be considered or sparking radical change in
the social welfare perspective was the answer to the growing pains of poverty.

In his book, 'Losing Ground' he proposed that social welfare changes the behavior of the
people, then vice versa. Romanticizing that in the 1950s-1980s the rate of Illegitimacy increased
dominating the legitimate birth rate. This has made so that the US population were mostly
products of wed-lock particularly by the black unmarried women, ages 15-45. As a consequence
US families at the time were headed by Black women and by 1955 together as the teenage
pregnancy rose, the Labour Force Participation in the youth declined. Noting the generational
phenomena, the unemployment spread from the youth during the 1950s to 1970s, in translation,
the same bundle of youth grew old and brought the consistency in unemployment rate. 'Latent
Poor' people who cannot lift themselves out of poverty was what Murray called them, and what
he saw during the outcry of social welfare. Since poverty was so prevalent, social welfare acted
in response, however in a 'perverse' quality as Murray described. People were getting incentives
that tolerate the quality deterioration of their behavior. In focus, the Aid to Families with
Dependent Children was the giving of incentives to people depending on how many dependents
they have. Its recipients reached 11M by 1973. The great growth of AFDC recipients highlighted
how social welfare shape the behavior of people, as Murray suggested, people growing their
family size for the sake of financial aid. He explained this through 'Harold and Phyllis.'

Harrold and Phyllis is a story of a couple who's deciding what to do there after because
the girl got pregnant. Explaining that if Harold and Phyllis were in that context 1950s, they
would have married and Harold would have gotten a job that pays for the both of them, however
if Phyllis got pregnant 1970s they would have decided not to get married, instead just cohabit ,
Phyllis would get cheques from the AFDC, and Harold gets a substantial job. They would
depend on the social welfare aid. It was at that time as Murray put it, the shift of reality, people
has changed the reality and everyone adapted by it. Being that the poor has more exigencies;
they wouldn't have many resources to wait longer for better results of their investments,
translating that the rich could wait, and invest in bigger investments. As main point, Murray
suggests that people adapt by the same way, however differ in matters of exigencies therefore too
in results/status.

'There is no breakdown of the work ethic' in this account of rational choices among
alternatives… There is no need to invoke the specters of cultural pathology or inferior
upbringing. The choice may be seen much more simply, much more naturally, as the behavior of
people responding to the behavior of people responding to the reality of the world. (Murray
1984)
Decon after making it a point of Murray's clear cut on Social Welfare and Self-Interest,
slides in how Murray viewed Stigma, relevant to how people behave for social welfare. Murray
notes that, since people were abiding by Titmuss' proposition, being the most prominent
perspective on Social Welfare, saying it is in the eradication of stigma does social welfare initiate
and last. To Murray it wasn't, he says removing stigma would remove the blame from the people,
and if it was always the system who's to blame, there would be no point in rewarding those who
work, and those who do not, there would be no cut and the self-interest of the people would
change, in expression; thru their behavior.

He termed the phenomenon 'Homogenization of the poor' saying all poor must be
victims, no one was superior or inferior. That to which for him was catastrophic and immoral,
not holding people to be accountable for their failures would mean no punishment therefore no
point of entry for growth, immoral in the sense that people were inhibiting the pursuit of
happiness.

As conclusion of Murray's claims, and with his touch of belief in Radicalism Decon
shares; "If the behaviors which created poverty were a rational response to the existing rules,
then those rules would have to change." Describing by the Alexandrian Solution, that Murray
prefers to cut the knott, for there is no way to untie it.

Critics on Charles Murray

1. Data Flaw
2. Misleading
'Deceptive-Numbers-Juggling' Murray was accused of ignoring the developments before
1970, and that he only based his claims to one atypical state-Pennsylvania. Another tap to his
propositions was that, he had wrongly observed how black women lead households, that it wasn't
caused of poverty, rather is a natural trait of black families. This to which Murray shan't be
swayed by since his claim started with social welfare as the reason for the existing behaviors.
 Using the black families in contrast with the white was misleading as others opposed
him, he again couldn't care less as to him, it was what would appeal and was capable to explain
his claim.
Murray to other critics, was responsive, he revised some of his ideas one of which; "for
the young woman who is not pregnant, enabling means that she does not ask, "Do I want a
welfare cheque badly enough to get pregnant?" but rather "If I happen to get pregnant, will the
consequences really be so bad?"- (Murray 1986)

Different light, a praise, Mead (1988) refer to Murray's contribution; " 'Losing Ground'
marks a sea change in the style of research and argument about poverty"

Frank Field's take on the social policies of UK (1960s-1990s)

While Murray theorized, Field, executed. He led on the changes in social policy upon
noticing that the poor had gotten 'poorer.' Field noted, and as his main entrée for social welfare
contribution was that the social welfare perspective to go by should be popular to pamper the
rich who as he puts it, allows how much the poor has a shot in success.

He suggested how to restructure social welfare; policy makers should accept that it's
human nature to pursue their self-interest. And that as a nod to Murray, they must recognize that
shaping the behavior of people 'is a proper goal for public policy and that it is in the public
interest to see certain aspects of character develop for their own sake.' Since Welfare punishes
the bad, and rewards the good, it is crucial for social policy he adds. One that disappointed him,
was the prevalent 'Means tested' benefits, capping those who can avail services, to which when a
person rises his income, gets disqualified in being recipients thus discourages
improvement/advancement.
So he thought how does he devise a 'scheme' that would better the majority and make the
minority compromise for the sake of commongood towards social welfare. His eureka was,
"Stakeholder Welfare" making the inclusion of the poor with the not worthwhile for the refusing
party; the rich.
 It lied in the behavior of the poor that the rich approves. Awkwardly out of place by
Field's great contribution, the Achilles' heel termed by Decon, of his proposition was that since,
the stakeholder was to offer help to the poor, he would need more than the urge of self-interest
for the rich to stick by him.

Field's work remains the clearest guide to what a welfare system would look like if it
sought to strike this proper balance and to channel the self-interest of voters and claimants alike.

Field like a good game of badminton, an answer to Murray's bird is that behavior shapes
social welfare as well. Expanding Murray's idea to a better lighting and broader sense.

II. RELATED EXISTING PROGRAMS IN THE PHILIPPINES

1. Social Security System (SSS)

2. Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)
3. Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4PS)
4. PH TAX

1. The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) is a human development measure of

the national government that provides conditional cash grants to the poorest of the poor,
to improve the health, nutrition, and the education of children aged 0-18. It is patterned
after the conditional cash transfer (CCT) schemes in Latin American and African
countries, which have lifted millions of people around the world from poverty. The 4PS
provide health grant of P6000.00 pesos annually (P500.00 per month) and Education
grant for children aged 18 and below P3000.00 annually (P300 per month, per child)
2. REPUBLIC ACT 8282 or The Social Security Act of 1997. (SSS)
RA 8282 Section 2: It is the policy of the State to establish, develop, promote and
perfect a sound and viable tax‐exempt social security system suitable to the needs of the
people throughout the Philippines which shall promote social justice and provide
meaningful protection to members and their beneficiaries against the hazards of
disability, sickness, maternity, old age, death, and other contingencies resulting in loss of
income or financial burden. Towards this end, the State shall endeavor to extend social
security protection to workers and their beneficiaries.

3. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8291 or The Government Service Insurance System Act of
1997. (GSIS)
Created by Commonwealth Act No. 186 and Republic Act No. 8291 (GSIS Act of
1997), GSIS is a social insurance institution that provides a defined benefit scheme under
the law. It insures its members against the occurrence of certain contingencies in
exchange for their monthly premium contributions.The GSIS is compulsory security
system for all Public Officials except Judiciary Officials because they have a separate
security system and Barangay Officials because they do not have a fix monthly income.

4. The Philippine Taxation System on Income of the Tax Code of 1997

Income Tax is a tax on a person's income, emoluments, profits arising from
property, practice of profession, conduct of trade or business or on the pertinent items of
gross income specified in the Tax Code of 1997 (Tax Code), as amended, less the
deductions and/or personal and additional exemptions, if any, authorized for such types
of income, by the Tax Code, as amended, or other special laws.
III. REFLECTION

a. REACTION
Murray's and Field's contribution on how to view social welfare could be one
topic all social work students should encounter to read. It shares that social welfare isn't
only necessary for aid and for its self-fulfillment but also for politics. It’s a good
reminder and it invites to widen people's mindset on social welfare, how necessary
systems are to people, and vice versa.

It is entertaining to see agreements between intellectuals. I am fascinated to know

that the complexities of a country can be defined by a simple quality that is the
determining of which system to use, promoting the good or condoning the bad.
Challenging to know that while generations could entrap us, it is thinkable to go beyond
present time and its reality, anticipating through research and thus changing destiny.

b. INSIGHTS/LEARNINGS

It was helpful to know how; social welfare could control the behavior of people.
How people are driven by self-interest, and how social welfare molds that very
motivation into contributing for common good.

Reading this chapter could increase people's awareness of the existing social
systems, programs, and policies beneficial to know which of these really are effective,
which really serves the people and what particular sectors should need amendment by.
Policymakers should read this and understand just what Field hoped the policymakers of
his time understand.

Lastly searching through those that Murray and Field mentioned, it would be
inevitably realized that the information we get really depends on the media we rely on, as
that what we have researched on a page, would only be partial, or not mentioned in other
accounts.
 CHAPTER III
WELFARE AND PATERNALISM

I. SUMMARY OF THE CONCEPT

In contrast to Murray’s and Field’s perspective that welfare should provide incentives to
the promotion of pursuance of self-interest, Mead’s perspective of paternalism argues that
people, especially the long-term poor, do not act to these incentives because they are not
competent and functional to further their self-interests. Mead says that these people are ‘dutiful
but defeated’, meaning they are so ‘defeated’ that they will not respond to the incentives.
According to him, those who respond to the incentives were already functional, and are already
within the economy. Incentives, he says, won’t pull people from non-work to work.

His proposition then to end long term poverty is on the government’s execution of strict
authority on its citizens. Lawrence Mead’s argument assumes that the cause of poverty in the
underclass or disadvantaged (that is those who are poor for more than two years, not elderly and
doesn’t have disability that prevents them to work) lies upon their behavior, not on their
situations. ‘They are excluded because they excluded themselves. If they experience stigma, it’s
because they have chosen to be dependent’. Additionally, a political culture that condones such
self-destructive behavior adds to the causes of poverty.

Mead’s resolution then is that the government should exercise strict authority that will
compel people to act that is conducive to their own betterment as well as conducive to the
common good. An individual’s entitlement to welfare and benefits will be subject to conditions.
Those dependent to welfare will not be given new opportunities or incentives, but rather, they
will be told on how they should act at least in their lives. It is believed that forcing authority onto
an individual is a way to prevent harm to others.

An obvious example of paternalism, according to the book, is enforcing work

requirements upon applicants of unemployment benefits: workfare. Mead’s argument of
workfare assumes that: 1. the poor do not work because they are incompetent and; 2. their failure
of work is the main cause of long term poverty and dependency on welfare. However, his critics
disagree on the first assumption. They said that the reason the poor who is dependent to welfare
do not work is because there are not enough jobs for them to become independent. And if there
are jobs, the pay’s not sufficient enough to lift them off from poverty. Mead counter-argues that
many of that on welfare were not ‘job seeking’ but rather ‘job shopping’. He said that they are
not accepting the job offered to them but accepts only those jobs that are attractive to them.

Another debate on Mead’s is William Julius Wilson’s argument that the underclass
behavior, rather than causes of non-work, they are consequences of it. According to Wilson, the
‘defeatism’ Mead perceives is an adaptation of the poor to the circumstances imposed by
external forces. Wilson argued that there’s no ‘culture of poverty’ but rather ‘social isolation’.
It’s not because of the these ‘cultural traits’ that caused the poor to behave in such ways that
Mead perceives, but rather, those traits were a response to social structural constraints and
opportunities. In short, socio-economic forces produced inequalities that prevent the people to
work.

In response, Mead acknowledged that there is inequalities where there is a mismatched of

experiences and skills of the poor and the demands of the employers. Moreover, he
acknowledged that it might be needed to raise the quality of jobs available through the increase
of minimum wage or providing health insurance. Also, he acknowledged the idea that
government and welfare claimants both have mutual obligation towards each other. However, he
still argued that the problem was that the poor can’t find a job but they are unwilling to keep it.
He said that job quality, not quantity, is the real issue in work enforcement. Low quality jobs that
are available are often unacceptable.
II. RELATED EXISTING PROGRAMS IN THE PHILIPPINES

In Philippine context, it is somehow true that the poor do not work not because they lack
the competency but rather because they chose not to. In the country, there is stigma that poor
Filipinos are poor because they are lazy. Often, it is the functional people or working class that
gives them this stigma. One of the few observations I saw, poor people in the Philippines likes to
be dependent. They like to become the recipient and thus, they become dependent. And
sometimes, if there are any requirements that are asked upon them, they become indifferent and
think of it as a hassle and would rather choose not to compel to these requirements. Or if you
want something from them or want them to behave in particular ways, there must be something
for them in return. There should always be some sort of payment.

This culture of giving and direct provision condones such behavior of the people in the
Philippines that makes them dependent to the welfare and act in ways that fosters poverty.
People are used to receiving and because of this; they always choose politicians that would
always give. The cycle of giving and receiving upon Filipinos would definitely not help in
alleviating poverty in the Philippines. However, it would be wrong to generalize the poor
Filipinos like this. Poverty in the Philippines has many root causes and this assumption can’t be
applied to all poor people.

In the terms of programs and services in Philippines, there is no structural framework of

welfare that requires the people to compel to act in ways that is conducive to the betterment of
themselves and the society. If analyzed carefully, it is designed in form of direct provision. They
are more giving a provider rather than authoritative or demanding. It is more on giving support
through financial aid and development of skills, which adds to the culture of receiving.

There’s no unemployment benefit in the Philippines that would require people to work
enforcement. There’s no unemployment benefit for the unemployed but rather there’s assistance
to those looking for employment: Pre-employment Assistance Fund (PEAF): “Grant to assist
SLP participants who have potential or guaranteed employers that need financial assistance to
obtain the necessary pre-requisite requirements for the job. This seeks to ensure prompt
submission of requirements to access jobs.” And as this perspective is paternalism, meaning the
people in welfare is obliged, there’s no law that obliged the people to conduce in ways that
would restrict them or enforce them to act unwillingly. There’s no paternalism in welfare in the
Philippines.

III. REFLECTION

As I read this chapter, Mead’s take on welfare as paternalism is very strong. However, his
arguments all make sense and it hit hard on the truth. While I was reading it, I made some
remarks or notes on some arguments of Lawrence Mead because it as much true that I strongly
agree with him. Like for example, he said that the “programs that support the disadvantaged have
been permissive in character, not authoritative. That is, they have given benefits to their
recipients but have set very few requirements for how they ought to function in return.” And in
this line, I was acquiescing. The government doesn’t have much of the claw or authority. They
don’t come so strong. They’re always on the good side of the people and I realized that this is
why people always abuse the benefits they acquire. They do not appreciate it and take it for
granted and always expects that the government would always be there to support them. They
just continuously receive from the government but do not exert much effort to alleviate their
selves. And then I realized that the problem lies within the values.

I believe, that a community should have a common sense of values that they will all
follow so as to maintain social order and for them to realize their responsibilities and obligations
as citizens. As citizens, they should all accept that there are obligations and responsibilities that
can’t be avoided. And I agree with Mead that people should act in ways on how they are
expected to be. Like for example for a student, then they should study and graduate. Then for an
adult, have a job. This expectations becomes social obligations that people are compelled to do.
In the Philippines, I believe that there should be strong enforcement of these obligations to the
people and by doing this; there should be strong set of values and education among the people.
They must realize the social obligations and responsibilities themselves and not through force.

However, on Mead’s argument that the cause of poverty within the poor is because of
themselves, I do not completely agree with this. Just like what his critics said, there aren’t
enough jobs that would support the poor. And if there are, they aren’t high paying enough to
support their family in poverty. And the quality of work that is available to the poor is not
acceptable or attractive or likeable. Say for example, being a janitor, a street sweeper, a security
guard, a sales lady, a nanny, a caregiver, or etc. Any of these might be acceptable for some, but
some jobs, whether mentioned or not, is really not attractive. And this puts the poor in a difficult
situation because these are jobs that do not really have high paying jobs and are hard to keep if
not interested.

Also in the Philippines, you can’t easily just say for the poor that he/she wants to be out
of poverty then get a job. Contrary to Mead’s argument of workfare, in the Philippine setting, his
perspective of paternalism is ideal but not applicable. Before one becomes employed in the
country, they must first passed off the requirements that the employers demand and usually they
require that they are at least had 2 years in college or had a degree. Good paying jobs are like
that. And usually minimum earners need only to be high school graduate. Sometimes, there’s age
requirement too. What I’m saying is that before one obtains a job, they must first have the skills
and qualifications. But in order to have the skills and qualifications, they must first have the
money to do that. And where do they get the money if they are poor? Though I know they can
find ways if they really want to but still, not everyone has the will and motivation to do that. Just
like what Wilson said, Mead’s critics, the ‘defeatism’ of the poor are responses to their
situations. They are just responding to the socio-economic constraints they have. And we really
can’t blame them though.

In conclusion, lesson learned is that there really is no perfect formula or perfect

perspective on how should welfare would be. I believe there should be complexity in the design
of welfare where not one perspective is dominant but many other perspectives. There should be
like switches that if this perspective doesn’t work in one place, then switch to another. However,
one must think carefully of what really is the effective perspective or idea for one place. Like in
the Philippines, Mead’s idea of paternalism is not really applicable to the Philippines because his
values and values of Filipinos differ greatly which is why his perspective will not just work.
 CHAPTER IV
WELFARE AND OBLIGATION

I. SUMMARY OF THE CONCEPT

This chapter started with a notion that welfare is a sense of duty and of commitment. It
articulates an idea that welfare is an obligation which rooted in fulfillment of complying because
of the social system and personal responsibilities. Welfare and obligation from this perspective is
a persuasion rather than coercion developing a sense of duty to individuals. Thus, an idea was
tackled – communitarianism.

Communitarianism as discussed in the chapter arose in 1980s wherein the people focused
much on individualism and it created an imbalance in the society. It was that time wherein rights
of the people have had given account on and social responsibilities have been less paid attention.
In what they called as “responsive” communitarianism, it gave three important beliefs shared by
the writers of the perspective. These are: liberty as autonomy; the existence of common good;
and the presence of moral senses.

Liberty as autonomy converse about having individual liberty may cuts across the
collective freedom given that people generally belong to groups. Liberty should not be
synonymously intertwined with self-indulgence rather to an independence of action prior to
being rational. Thus, qualities of self-restraint and self-governance must be exemplified through
social interactions. These societal pressures and expectations will stabilize culture – culture that
also stabilizes an individual. However, culture is threatened by individual liberty.

From its notion, “I” of being with “We” is important. The sense of duty and freedom
starts with the societal expectations and pressures that one must comply with. It is with this sense
that diversity has limits and conforming to what people learned as habits that becomes
obligations is vital.

The next tenet was the belief of common good. This tenet speaks of public interests for
the common good rather than individual’s interest to achieve personal goals. Collective will and
obligation is to determine what is best and what is not for the many. The collective people define
what the goals, roles, and obligations are. And those expectations where carry throughout. This
emphasized the role of the community in the obligation of individuals. This belief will be carried
through moral senses formed and fostered.

Moral sense is the center of welfare and obligation perspective. Wilson argues that
lifestyle has been looked upon in the perspective of welfare rather than on the moral values and
virtues. It first starts with how an individual’s intuition that one is ought to act than of an
individual acting voluntarily. He continued to argue that it is not behavior that triggers moral
feelings but sentiments. These sentiments were being formed and fostered thru the impact of
society’s culture. Though, culture and an individual self have predispositions. It is important to
balance and carefully deliberate such arguments. Thus, these moral feelings will allow the
individual to act in such a way they will comply within an obligation duly recognized by a sense
of commitment given that they belong in a group.

In Etzioni’s proposition, it speaks of moral implication of duties duly set normatively to

attain social order. If duties were to be done in normative means, people were to act and be
responsible with their duties. They will be ordered of these duties and they’ll follow it as way to
conform.

Jonathan Sacks on the one hand, speaks that welfare is commitment. And determine by
moral consciousness. Individuals tend to just filter and choose their preferred lifestyle and
morality is not about values and virtues. Thus, due to these changes, a national policy must
intervene to strengthen the responsibilities of individuals clearly emphasizing that rights and
responsibility is different but relevant. Hence, Selznick puts more on it.

Selznick puts it forward as it is interdependently the responsibility of both the individuals

and the collectivity. The participation of the individual in a collective group is deeply motivated
by how the collective group motivates them. On the other way around, the motivation that the
collective group emits is within the participation of the individual. Thus, welfare is a mutual
responsibility.

Therefore, this chapter emphasizes the idea of reciprocity. The obligation of an individual
determined and motivated by social factors and the motivation for social factors is determined by
the participation of the individuals.
II. RELATED EXISTING PROGRAMS IN THE PHILIPPINES

Welfare and obligation is a universal concept. If it is to apply in the Philippine concept,

an example of which are the progressive taxes gained from the Filipino people. Oftentimes,
Filipinos pay their taxes as a matter of obligation. They work or buy goods and taxes were being
paid off. As this is part of the system, they accepted it as part of their duty for the development of
the country.

In other terms, bigger companies were being exempted from taxes. Nonetheless, they
create corporate social responsibility. It is the act of giving back for the welfare of many
Filipinos depending on which clientele system is at focused. These taxes and social responsibility
were being reprimanded by what their groups (corporation) have done over the past years.

In a manner of which, Filipinos are given different social services. These social services
have congruently emphasized by conforming to the obligation of using it for the betterment of
oneself. It is the obligation of the state to protect, support, and provide the people programs and
social services as mentioned in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Nonetheless, it is also the
stakeholder’s obligation to use the programs and services for their betterment.

III. REFLECTION

As a matter of fact, the group extends the same tenet as welfare and obligation- that it is a
mutual responsibility. It is a mutual responsibility of the people and of the government to govern
the existing systems and deliver existing programs designed for the betterment of the people.
However, it is a bit crucial when it comes with the moral aspect of individuals.

In social work profession, diversity and individualization is at hand. Moral values are
formed throughout the psychosocial development. The obligation of the other may not be the
same as another. A good example is the people of the urban and the indigenous people on
paying taxes. It is a responsibility among the people working in urban areas to pay for taxes as it
is inclined with their obligation as expected within their social environment. On the one hand, it
is also needed to preserve the indigenous people’s culture and give them programs for their
betterment. Hence, they are on subsistence economy and do not pay for taxes.
 It is critical to point out that everyone has their obligations uniformly attached with moral
values as different child rearing, on its specific notion, up to the values created and molded by
the culture. Henceforth, diversity is energy which can neither be created nor destroyed but it is an
entity.

Nevertheless, the idea of welfare and obligation lies within a notion of several tenets. I
have learned to value the sense duty of each individual in terms of receiving and fulfilling an
obligation duly set and inclined with our moral sentiments. I remembered that in High School,
we were taught to decide and act for the common good as part of Values Education. It is an
obligation and our duty to recognize ourselves and the people around us to act accordingly.
Furthermore, culture will let us know how to act in such a way that is acceptable depending on
our roles.

This chapter helped me to consequently reflect and deeply scrutinize the moral values I
have developed through ages rather than to see the lifestyle of the people of how they perceive
liberty. It cuts across that people must not just sit, relax, and wait but rather act within his/her
obligation to continuously be better.

It is astounding to see that the perspective does not only focus on the individual self but
with the collective group where the individual belongs. It is true that we act in compliance with
what our environment expects as it is part of our roles and responsibilities. Furthermore, we
balance the individual wants and collective wants us to act to establish liberty.

In contrast with the perspective, I have challenged and asked myself if obligations
continue to persist, will freedom be also inviolable as individual self is always determine by the
collective group. Nonetheless, I agree with the concepts being discussed. There are just some
questions about the parallelism diversity and individualization in terms of freedom and liberty
that left me hanged.

All in all, welfare always depends on a perspective where one or more people analyze
and study what is preferably good and better for the programs and services. Thus, what matters is
that the betterment and the welfare of individuals belonging in a group is an obligation of both
the group and of the individual.
 CHAPTER V
WELFARE AND TEMPORARY SUPPORT

I. SUMMARY OF THE CONCEPT

The premise of this chapter is that “poverty can never be alleviated by the payment of
cash benefits alone.” According to David Ellwood to avoid all the conflicts the welfare should be
readdressed as temporary or transitional assistance. Providing cash benefits should be limited
and at this time the recipients will receive education and training. After the end of the period they
should be expected to have a job or if they don’t have they will work on a public sector. Once
they have a work they will be eligible for a supplementary benefits and services that will help
them to have a higher income than they previously received on welfare

There are three essential features of system welfare. First is that cash assistance is
temporary. The second is that work pays, and because of this there should be an improvement in
supplementing low wages, and a new extreme change in the system of collecting child support
payments from absent fathers. The third is that welfare should be understood as a contract
between government and claimants. Government can only require claimants to work if they have
provided adequate trainings, education and job placement programs. Claimants can only demand
cash assistance if they are prepared to make the most of the opportunities created by these
programs.

WELFARE DYNAMICS

In the early 1980’s the central issue in the debates on welfare is the possible impact of
benefits upon behaviours. There are many reoccurring questions about it: to what extent did the
experience of claiming welfare lead people to loosen their efforts to find a job? Did welfare
provide worthless assistance for short periods or did it ensure a long term dependency onto their
recipients.

Administrative data and surveys were done is support to the existing study of poverty and
the dependency in welfare. These provided a view on the situation at the time when the survey
was conducted or when the statistics were compiled. Estimating on how many household were
below the poverty line or were receiving welfare at that particular time was possible. Repeating
the survey or compiling later statistics would provide another view, another count of household
on welfare or poverty. They are not necessarily the same households. The people who were poor
receiving programs of welfare in 1980, might not be the same people who were poor or on
welfare in 1975 or 1970. This kind of data revealed about the length of time which people moved
into or out of poverty over time.

This information can be obtained through panel studies. These studies do re-interview the
same respondents, usually an interval of a year. Working with Mary Jo Bane, Ellwood provided
an analysis on the result of Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). They were able to identify
the events which most commonly to happen on or off welfare and the personal characteristics are
associated with long-term dependency.

The two sided of the welfare debate were right, the results were seemed to defy common
sense. The great majority of people who claimed that welfare are only in a short period of time:
over half of all the services on welfare lasted less than two years. On the other hand, those who
receive welfare on a bulk in one time would claim it for a long period: over half of the current
recipients would remain on welfare for more than ten years. Most claimants were short term, but
most welfare expenditures went on long term claimants.

The single mother and their children are those who receive welfare the most and the issue
for policy was how for them to be remain in a long period of time. There were three
characteristics that were accompanied with long term receipt of welfare (1) having never
married, (2) having dropped out of school and (3) having little or no work experience. The
women who are at risk of dependency and have all these characteristics are teenage mothers.

The majority of those who claim for welfare are those who are affected by the changes of
the family. AFDC spells always begin with a relationship change. Two-fifths starts when a
divorced, separated or never married women has a child, and a further two-fifths are triggered by
the separation of both parent. Seven percent begin after decrease in earnings. The real problem
for the hostility of welfare was the rules and regulations that determined the eligibility for
welfare and not the lack of compassion for the poor or the misunderstanding of how welfare
functioned.
POOR SUPPORT

Long-term cash-based welfare for the healthy is inherently flawed. It was flawed because
by providing money instead of services, education or training, it treated the symptoms not the
cause. People are not poor just because they lack money. They are poor because they don’t not
have job, their wages are too low, they are trying to raise a child single-handedly or they are
undergoing some crisis. Treating the symptoms rather than the cause of poverty will create
certain conflicts in incentives and values that undermine the credibility and effectiveness of
welfare.

Ellwood formulate these conflicts as three helping conundrums. The first was security-
work: when the welfare became generous there will be a less pressure for the people to take care
of themselves and work. The second is the assistance-family structure conundrum: the poverty of
single parent should be aided but it will create a potential incentive for the perpetuation and
formation of such families. The third, the targeting-isolation conundrum it is when treating can
label and stigmatize people. The danger is that the traditional routes to success lose both their
status and their appeal when those who fail got more attention than those who succeed and
should be rewarded.

There were two issues that should be resolved in order to have a viable alternative to
welfare. First is the level of paid employment to be expected to those people with different
caring responsibilities. Second are the policies that ensures to those who fulfilled these
expectation and would be lifted out of poverty. Ellwood answer both issues, his answer to the
first question is that if there were two parents in the family then neither of them should hold a
one full-time full-year job while for those who are single parent, the norm should be half time
work although it may vary in some cases.

MAKING WORK PAY

To solve the problems in welfare they should start with the working poor. Even though
they are only small percent of America’s population they still contained a quarter of poor
children. According to Ellwood they are the people who are playing by the rules but losing the
game. They are the people who have found a job but it is insufficient to keep their family out of
poverty line and they were not able to get much help from the welfare system. Free medical
insurances were not received and the only cash benefits they get were the food stamps.

Ellwood suggested an inexpensive plan to help the working poor, an increase in their
minimum wage and an expansion of Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). This last measure
provides lower paid workers with additional tax credit in every dollar they earn. The effect is to
boost up the value of earnings up to maximum after which the credits will be gradually
withdrawn.

ENFORCING CHILD SUPPORT

A single mom can work on a half-time basis. In work she would benefit from higher
minimum wage by the EITC available to all low-paid workers, with a further tax credit for child
care. Even with these improvements a lone mother would not be able to keep her family out of
poverty line by working half time. She needs to find other resources outside the welfare. The
place to find help is the father of her children.

Children in a single parent family are in an invulnerable disadvantage unless there is a

way to force their fathers to recognize their responsibilities. This could be done by ensuring that
the name of both parents and their security numbers are included at the birth certificate of the
child. A universal formula that can be established to calculate the absent of the father’s payment
and by collecting these payments through employers in the same way as social security taxes.
This will provide a stable income to the lone mothers and at the same time it would affect the
behaviours and attitudes of young men.

There is a simple but effective way to eliminate welfare it is the Child Support
Assurance. The government would guarantee a minimum level of child support and assume
responsibility for pursuing non-paying fathers. This would fix the half of the family that is under
the poverty line. Together with the other proposal a single mother can who worked half-time
would have an income sufficient to him and her children out of poverty line. One advantage of it
was that the child support payments and welfare will be distinguished because they were made to
all lone mothers not only those who were poor.
TRANSITIONAL ASSISSTANCE

To solve the problem in welfare dependency Ellwood’s solution was to replace welfare
with transitional or temporary assistance. Ellwood argued that time limits were essential if
assistance was to avoid the problems. He already said that cash based-welfare could not provide
an income above the poverty line without lessening work incentives, threatening the two parent
family and reducing the returns to responsible behaviour. The only way for a healthy adult to
escape poverty is work. The objective of welfare system should be enabling those who are
receiving cash assistance a skills and attitudes to get a job and to make sure that they took it.

Ellwood’s specific proposal was that anyone who has ‘come on hard times’ should apply
for ‘transitional aid.’ They will be offered wide choices of services and could get a small amount
of cash while they were not working. The services could range from job matching to vocational
training to social services to child care. But the program will be strictly transitional after some
period cash assistance would come to an end.

Once a person doesn’t have found any work at the end of the period he would be offered
a minimum wage job in a public sector. If they refused they will not receive any benefits and
cannot reapply until they had worked for one to two years.

II. RELATED EXISTING PROGRAMS IN THE PHILIPPINES

1. SELF-EMPLOYMENTASSISTANCE-KAUNLARAN (SEA-K) under the

Sustainable Livelihood Program two-way track which is the Microenterprise
Development Track. The Self-Employment Assistance-Kaunlaran program is the
Department of Social Welfare and Development's comprehensive approach and
investment in social capital towards poverty alleviation. SEA-K, as the project is known,
aims to provide the poor and disadvantaged sector of the society with timely access to
credit and development opportunities. Kaunlaran (SEA-K) Capital Seed Fund: Provide
start-up capital for individual or group enterprises to be rolled-back to the Field Office
Revolving and Settlement Fund (RSF) within a period of 2 years, it also give people
entrepreneurship skills training,
 2. Cash for building livelihood assets (CBLA): under the Sustainable Livelihood
Program two-way track which is the Microenterprise Development Track. Short-
term employment of program participants for the development, rebuilding or protection
of physical and natural assets to increase productivity for profitable, sustainable
livelihood projects.

III. REFLECTION

“Fear is temporary, regret is forever.”- Unknown

Welfare as a temporary support is a good idea for me. It only help people in a limited
period of time with conditions such as acquiring skills training or education and searching for
jobs afterwards. This conditions will help them start to stand on their own feet and will not be
depending on the aid that the government will give. This will force the people to find a job that
can support his family and himself. Also its main focus is those who are in poverty line and
single mothers. Single Parent-hood is already present in the Philippines and is giving adequate
support to all the single parents.

Nowadays the problem in our society is that we only rely on what the government will
give us. We are so comfortable living a life that is lifeless as long the government provides
different programs and services without us working or doing an effort. If the government failed
to do so the people will get angry at the government and put all the blame on them. Long-term
welfare promotes laziness and dependency on the government and because of this the people
were not able to bring out its fullest potential for its mindset is focused on the government
always got their back.

Welfare as a temporary support will be applicable and is very reasonable in the Philippine
context. Filipinos are always depending on the government, these leads people to slacken their
efforts to find a job on their own. With the current context of how the welfare in the Philippines
work there is no doubt that many of half of its population is under poverty. Dependency on a
long-term welfare is the biggest problem of the society. They should teach people how to catch a
fish not to just eat by themselves. The laziness of the Filipino in finding a job is in the fault of the
government and their selves, they always give doll out services and the people will only wait and
expect to be given that kind of services.

Under employment and unemployment is the cause of how the governments give
financial support and services to the people. As long as the people have given financial aid their
efforts in looking for a job and attending skills training to enhance their capabilities are not their
major goal. Some Filipinos especially those in the poverty line don’t practice the no pain, no
gain. They only just wait for the apple to fall off the tree.

Our government should practice the welfare as a temporary support on all the services
and programs that they are giving to people. By doing so many families might be taken out on
the poorest of the poor line and they will have sufficient income to support their family and the
dependency to the government will be over. Also it will provide skills trainings to those welfare
beneficiaries in this way they will find a suitable job and under employment or unemployment
will be reduced.

The economy of the country will also improve due to the higher employment rate if
welfare system will be reformed. Changes will bring the best in the people and help the country’s
state as a developing country. It may take a while to fully established a welfare system that is
transitional but I believed that it is a one of the many solutions to reduce the poverty rate and to
have a better living in each families in the Philippines

I’ve learned that dependency on long term welfares will bring no good to people. They
will not be developed and their skills will not be enhanced if they only rely on what they are
given to them. People may fear the temporary support that will be given by the government
because they were trained to only receive but they should also realize that the government is only
helping them to don’t have any regrets. Regrets like not working and making the most out of life
by making an effort to find a job. The regrets of staying in the poverty line until they die.
Sometimes temporary is good, that temporary is only thing that can help people to change for the
better. And besides, everything is temporary so we need to make the most out of it by working
hard and make our life worth living.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
 R.A. 9710. (n.d.). Retrieved March 16, 2017, from
http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2009/ra_9710_2009.html
 PhilHealth | GOVPH. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2017, from
http://www.gov.ph/services/philhealth-gis/
 The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines | GOVPH. (n.d.). Retrieved March 13,
2017, from http://www.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/
 The Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2017, from
http://www.napc.gov.ph/commission
 People's Plan. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2017, from http://www.napc.gov.ph/peoples-
plan
 Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program. (n.d.). Retrieved March 17, 2017, from
http://www.gov.ph/programs/conditional-cash-transfer/
 REPUBLIC ACT NO.8282 Social Security Law . (n.d.). Retrieved March 16, 2017, from
https://www.sss.gov.ph/sss/DownloadContent?fileName=SSS_Law.pdf
 P. (2014, March 03). Republic Act No. 8291. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from
http://www.gsis.gov.ph/about-us/gsis-laws/republic-act-no-8291
 P. (2017, January 08). GSIS Mandate. Retrieved March 13, 2017, from
http://www.gsis.gov.ph/about-us/gsis-mandate-and-functions/
 Division, L. A. (n.d.). Guide to Philippines Tax Law Research - Bureau of Internal
Revenue. Retrieved March 13, 2017, from http://www.bir.gov.ph/index.php/rulings-and-
legal-matters/guide-to-philippines-tax-law-research.html
 1, A. P. (n.d.). Income Tax - Bureau of Internal Revenue. Retrieved March 13, 2017, from
http://www.bir.gov.ph/index.php/tax-information/income-tax.html
 Hernandez, G. (2013). Sustainable Livelihood Program. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from
http://ceap.org.ph/upload/download/20135/312932646_1.pdf
 Serrat, O. (2008, November). The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach. Retrieved March 14,
2016, from http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/27638/sustainable-
livelihoods-approach.pdf
 About the Sustainable Livelihood Program. (n.d.). Retrieved March 14, 2016, from
http://www.dswd.gov.ph/programs/sustainable-livelihood-program/about-the-sustainable-
livelihood-program/
 Ballesteros, M. (2016). Assessment of Sustainable Livelihood Program- Employment
Facilitation. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from About the Sustainable Livelihood Program.
(n.d.). Retrieved August 30, 2016, from
http://dirp3.pids.gov.ph/websitecms/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps1613.pdf