March 2023

{“Body”:{“stkCallback”:{“MerchantRequestID”:”7618-265267158-1″,”CheckoutRequestID”:”ws_CO_09102023201653740713183274″,”ResultCode”:1032,”ResultDesc”:”Request cancelled by user”}}}

ROLE OF THE POLICY ANALYST. Policy analysis is a systematic evaluation of the technical and political implications of alternatives proposed to solve public problems. Policy analysis refers to both the process of assessing policies or programs, and the product of that analysis. SIX STEP POLICY ANALYSIS 1) Verify, define and detail the problem 2) Establish evaluation criteria 3) Identify alternative policies 4) Assess alternative policies 5) Display and distinguish among alternatives 6) Implement, monitor, and evaluate the policy   1) VERIFY, DEFINE AND DETAIL THE PROBLEM State the problem meaningfully: Determine the magnitude and extent of the problem Continually re-define the problem in light of what is possible Eliminate irrelevant material Question the accepted thinking about the problem Question initial formulations of the problem Say it with data Locate similar policy analyses Locate relevant sources of data Eliminate ambiguity Clarify objectives Resolve conflicting goals Focus on the central, critical factors Is it important? Is it unusual? Can it be solved? Identify who is concerned, and why? What power do concerned parties have? Make a quick estimate of resources required to deal with the problem   2) ESTABLISH EVALUATION CRITERIA What are the important policy goals, and how will they be measured? Identify criteria central to the problem and relevant to the stakeholders Clarify goals, values and objectives Identify desirable and undesirable outcomes Is there a rank order of importance among the criteria? What will be the rules for comparing alternatives? Administrative Ease Costs and benefits Effectiveness Equity Legality Political acceptability   3) IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE POLICIES Consider a wide range of options Consider the status quo, or no-action alternative Consult with experts Brainstorming, Delphi, Scenario writing Redefine the problem if necessary 4) ASSESS ALTERNATIVE POLICIES Select appropriate methods and apply them correctly Estimate expected outcomes, effects, and impacts of each policy alternative Do the predicted outcomes meet the desired goals? Can some alternatives be quickly discarded Continue in-depth analysis of alternatives that make the first cut 5) DISPLAY AND DISTINGUISH AMONG ALTERNATIVES Choose a format for display Show strengths and weaknesses of each alternative Describe the best and worst case scenario for each alternative Use matrices, reports, lists, charts, scenarios, arguments   6) IMPLEMENT, MONITOR, AND EVALUATE THE POLICY Draw up a plan for implementation Design monitoring system Suggest design for policy evaluation Was the policy properly implemented? Did the policy have the intended effect(s)?   ROLE OF THE POLICY ANALYST Policy analysis is a systematic evaluation of the technical and political implications of alternatives proposed to solve public problems. Policy analysis refers to both the process of assessing policies or programs, and the product of that analysis. A policy analyst: uses qualitative and quantitative data; uses a variety of approaches to the problem; Applies appropriate methods correctly. Who does policy analysis? Is public policy analysis a calling? A vocation? A service? A guild? A cult? the role of the policy analyst is to: Produce arguments for debates about public policy Produce evidence for decisions about public policy Act as internal organizational consultants Act as external policy consultants Handle both technical and people aspects of policy analysis All policy represents the distribution of power and resources. These policies are an expression of values. Values and beliefs are often used as short-cuts to decision-making. What code of ethics should the policy analyst adopt? What about the professional values of obligation, responsibility, discretion, and citizenship? What about published professional codes of ethics, such as ASPA, ICMA, AICP, NASW, NSPE, etc.? The policy analyst has responsibilities, to the client, the customer, the self, the profession, the public interest, fairness, equity, law, justice, efficiency, effectiveness, and the practice itself. Who is to define what is good? Whose values or goals should be pursued? What is the right thing to do? Who or what is ultimately to be served? Should the analyst try first and foremost to do good, or to do no harm? Should the analyst give neutral advice, or normative advocacy? Should the analyst be supportive or adversarial? Bias is inevitable in policy analysis. To mitigate the effects of bias, the analyst can: identify all underlying assumptions keep accurate records use multiple sources of information use replicable methods and models identify the client’s goals and values identify the formal and informal actors and institutions address relevant professional and ethical considerations

The nature and importance of policy analysis  and evaluation in the local sphere of government. … Policy analysis is described as the dissection, isolation and systematic examining and explaining of policy phenomena or components to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of each part or action Understanding Public Policy Importance of Policy Analysis during the development and Implementation Stages of Public Policy Policy analysis refers to the process of identifying which of the alternative policies is most likely to accomplish a certain set goals as regards the relationship between the goals and policies at hand. According to Dunn (2003), policy analysis methods offer the means needed to evaluate the policy alternatives and provide recommendations on the preferred policy approach to achieve the various economic, social or political goals. In addition, policy analysis offers a way of evaluating the existing policies with the primary of objective of providing recommendations on improvement (Dunn, 2003). Therefore, policy analysis is an indispensable tool during the development and implementation stages of public policy. During the development phase of public policy, policy analysis plays an instrumental role in the decision-making process in order to craft the most effective policy that can achieve the established goal (Dye, 2007). Policy analysis facilitates this by using a systematic approach to evaluate the various policy options with regard the goals and objectives at hand. The outcome of the policy analysis process provides a basis for recommending the most appropriate policy to be implemented in order to achieve the established goals. Policy analysis can deploy a number of methods such as quantitative and qualitative research, and using various models such as the process, institutional and rational models with the main objective of coming up with the best policy agenda per favor (Fischer, Miller, & Sidney, 2006). In the light of this view, Radin (2000) asserts that policy analysis is an effective tool that guarantees the effectiveness and efficiency of the public policies crafted. Policy analysis also plays an instrumental role during the policy implementation process by identifying opportunities for improvement. According to Fischer, Miller, & Sidney (2006), public policy analysis deploys quantitative and qualitative research methods with the aim of analyzing and comparing existing policies and provides recommendations for potential modifications. Dunn (2003) perceives policy analysis as a performance measurement tool for public policies and provides a basis for policy modification by identifying the policy’s weakness, strengths and areas that need improvement. According to Guess & Farnham (2011), policy analysis during the implementation phase of public policy serves as a tool for corrective action identifying aspects of the policy that require revision. Social Impact of Policies Public policies comprise of programs, decisions and actions implemented by governmental agencies in order to address issues affecting the public (Guess & Farnham, 2011). All government levels enact policies that tackle a myriad of social issues ranging from national security and crime to healthcare and education. Public policies have several impacts on various domains such as politics, the economy and social spheres. According to Fischer, Miller, & Sidney (2006), public policies strive to regulate the welfare and the economy system through enhancing social equality and economic performance respectively. Since public policies have the main objective of dealing with social, political and economic issues facing the citizenry, the impact of public policies in their respective domains depends on their effectiveness and efficiency. According to Fischer, Miller, & Sidney (2006), one of the notable social impacts of public policies implemented at all government levels is public protection through increased consumer and public safety. It is evident that the enactment of public policies leads to enhanced workplace safety, cleaner environment, public safety through police protection, safe consumer goods and food, and improved national security among others. The underlying argument is that the interests of the public are central to the development and implementation of public policies; therefore, all public policies, if implemented appropriately, can increase the quality of life and enhance public safety. Another perspective to assess the social impact of public policy is to evaluate the role that public policies play in economic development. According to Dye (2007), several public policies have an indirect or direct impact on the economy of a nation. For instance, public policies aimed at improving education result in positive economic impacts through creating a skilled workforce and reduce unemployment. Similarly, policies associated with infrastructure improvement can also spur economic growth by improving transport and communication. It is extremely difficult to pinpoint a single social impact of public policies because they are multifaceted; however, Dunn (2003) argues that, if public policies are implemented appropriately with the public’s interest at heart, they result in greater good for the society irrespective of its domain. Limitations of Policies on Government Power According to Fischer, Miller, & Sidney (2006), the increasing complexity for public policy planning and development has played an instrumental role in limiting government authority. At present, public and community participation is central to any public policy development process; this implies that the authoritative role of the government in public policy planning and development is being taken over by public and community participation. For instance, Dye (2007) argues that public policy cannot underestimate the power of public opinion during the policy planning, development and implementation process. In addition, the very definition of public policy imposes limitations on government power. In this regard, Radin (2000) argues that the public’s interest is central to any public policy and that the government’s role is just to oversee its implementation. In addition, the emergence of other stakeholders, such as interest groups, is likely to reduce the government’s authority with respect to the policy process. These stakeholders, as well as public opinions, are gradually shaping the policy planning and development process, leaving the government with only task of implementing the policies crafted by these stakeholders in the policy community (Fischer, Miller, & Sidney, 2006).   Importance of Policy Evaluation Related Articles 1 What Is the Importance & Purpose of a Business Plan? 2 Advantages & Disadvantages of Performance Evaluation 3

MEANING OF POLICY ANALYSIS Policy analysis is a technique used in public administration to enable civil servants to examine and evaluate the available options to implement the goals of elected officials. … Analysis of existing policy, which is analytical and descriptive—i.e., it attempts to explain policies and their development. Policy analysis is a technique used in public administration to enable civil servants to examine and evaluate the available options to implement the goals of elected officials. It has been defined as the process of “determining which of various policies will achieve a given set of goals in light of the relations between the policies and the goals.”[1] Policy analysis can be divided[by whom?] into two major fields:[2] Analysis of existing policy, which is analytical and descriptive—i.e., it attempts to explain policies and their development. Analysis for new policy, which is prescriptive—i.e., it is involved with formulating policies and proposals (for example: to improve social welfare). The areas of interest and the purpose of analysis determine what types of analysis are conducted. A combination of two kinds of policy analyses together with program evaluation would be defined as policy studies.[3] Policy analysis is frequently deployed[by whom?] in the public sector, but is equally applicable to other kinds of organizations, such as nonprofit organizations and non-governmental organizations. Policy analysis has its roots in systems analysis, an approach used by United States Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara[4] in the 1960s. Approaches Various approaches to policy analysis exist. The analysis ‘for’ policy (and/or analysis ‘of’ policy) is the central approach in social science and educational policy studies. It is linked to two different traditions of policy analysis and research frameworks. The approach of analysis ‘for’ policy refers to research conducted for actual policy development, often commissioned by policymakers inside the bureaucracy (e.g., senior civil servants) within which the policy is developed. Analysis ‘of’ policy is more of an academic exercise, conducted by academic researchers, professors and think tank researchers, who are often seeking to understand why a particular policy was developed at a particular time and assess the effects, intended or otherwise, of that policy when it was implemented.[5] There are three approaches that can be distinguished: the analysis-centric, the policy process, and the meta-policy approach.[2] Analysis-centric The analysis-centric (or “analycentric”) approach focuses on individual problems and their solutions. Its scope is the micro-scale and its problem interpretation or problem resolution usually involves a technical solution. The primary aim is to identify the most effective and efficient solution in technical and economic terms (e.g. the most efficient allocation of resources). Policy process The policy process approach puts its focal point onto political processes and involved stakeholders; its scope is the broader meso-scale and it interprets problems using a political lens (i.e., the interests and goals of elected officials). It aims at determining what processes, means and policy instruments (e.g., regulation, legislation, subsidy, etc.) are used. As well, it tries to explain the role and influence of stakeholders within the policy process. In the 2010s, “stakeholders” is defined broadly to include citizens, community groups, non-governmental organizations, businesses and even opposing political parties. By changing the relative power and influence of certain groups (e.g., enhancing public participation and consultation), solutions to problems may be identified that have more “buy in” from a wider group. One way of doing this followed a heuristic model called the policy cycle. In its simplest form, the policy cycle, which is often depicted visually as a loop or circle, starts with the identification of the problem, proceeds to an examination of the different policy tools that could be used to respond to this problem, then goes on to the implementation stage, in which one or more policies are put into practice (e.g., a new regulation or subsidy is set in place), and then finally, once the policy has been implemented and run for a certain period, the policy is evaluated. A number of different lenses can be used during evaluation, including looking at a policy’s effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, value for money, outcomes or outputs. Meta-policy The meta-policy approach is a systems and context approach; i.e., its scope is the macro-scale and its problem interpretation is usually of a structural nature. It aims at explaining the contextual factors of the policy process; i.e., what are the political, economic and socio-cultural factors influencing it. As problems may result because of structural factors (e.g., a certain economic system or political institution), solutions may entail changing the structure itself. Methodology Policy analysis uses both qualitative methods and quantitative methods. Qualitative research includes case studies, interviews with community members. Quantitative research includes survey research, statistical analysis (also called data analysis), model building. A common practice is to define the problem and evaluation criteria; identify and evaluate alternatives; and recommend a certain policy accordingly. Promotion of the best agendas are the product of careful “back-room” analysis of policies by a priori assessment and a posteriori evaluation. Dimensions for analyzing policies There are six dimensions to policy analysis categorized as the effects and implementation of the policy across a period of time. Also collectively known as “Durability” of the policy, which means the capacity in content of the policy to produce visible effective compatible change or results over time with robustness.[6] Effects Effectiveness What effects does the policy have on the targeted problem? Unintended effects[7] What are the unintended effects of this policy? Equity[8] What are the effects of this policy on different population groups?   Implementation Cost What is the financial cost of this policy (some analysts also include tax credits in this analysis)? Feasibility Is the policy technically feasible? Acceptability[9] Do the relevant policy stakeholders view the policy as acceptable? The strategic effects dimensions can pose certain limitations due to data collection. But the analytical dimensions of effects directly influences Acceptability. The degree of acceptability is based upon the plausible definitions of actors involved in feasibility. If the feasibility dimension is compromised, it will put the implementation at risk, which will entail additional Cost. Finally Implementation

The impact of welfare reform on the social services workforce Key points Welfare reform has increased demand on the social services workforce, especially those in third sector care and support Workers have been emotionally affected by the impact of welfare reform on clients lives and have felt angry, distressed, as well as disappointed and frustrated in their ability to help Workers have been diverted from other tasks to help reassure people affected by welfare reform and guide and signpost them through the system Additional workloads and emotional stresses come on top of an already difficult work-life balance, decreasing job security and pay and conditions with possible implications for recruitment and retention The sector is involved in awareness raising, evidence gathering, lobbying and campaigning to challenge aspects of welfare reform Introduction This evidence summary explores the impact of welfare reform – in a climate of austerity and cuts – on key client groups and its consequent effect on the social services workforce in Scotland. It draws on evidence from the UK where relevant or transferable, but focuses on the Scottish context, impact and response. The context Background The Welfare Reform Act of 2012 ushered in wide-ranging changes to the post-war welfare system in the UK. Measures introduced by the Conservative-led coalition government form part of a programme of austerity, with significant cuts to public services. The changes to UK law can be summarised as (White, 2014): Replacing the Disability Living Allowance (DLA) with point-based Personal Independence Payments (PIP) Replacing Incapacity Benefit (and related benefits) with Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) – largely completed after initial phase of testing across UK from 2011–14 A withdrawal of Council Tax benefits and parts of the Social Fund (community care grants and crisis loans) The introduction of Universal Credit (UC), replacing a range of in- and out-of-work benefits incorporating housing costs, and changes to working tax credits The creation of new household caps and ‘under-occupancy’ penalties (known as the ‘bedroom tax’) From April 2013, changes to the DWP Social Fund scheme meant that Crisis Loans and Community Care Grants stopped. These were replaced by the Scottish Welfare Fund (SWF), delivered by councils in Scotland. Changes to welfare have also been accompanied by a migration to digital applications and monthly payments. These changes have made the transition for claimants particularly difficult, especially those without the requisite skills to make the transition. A Citizens Advice Scotland report (2013) suggested that claimants in Scotland are less likely than in other parts of the UK to have access to the internet; poorer families are the most affected. This can also be viewed in the broader context of public sector reform (Christie, 2011) and earlier debates, including the Changing lives (2006) report of the 21st century social work review. The latter questioned the sustainability of pouring more money into welfare models. Nevertheless, the extent of the changes brought in by the UK government in 2012 could not have been predicted. Scottish context The Scottish experience of welfare reform has been different to the experiences of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. For example, unique responses have been made to both the bedroom tax, with Discretionary Housing Funds available, and introduction of the Scottish Welfare Fund to replace the loss of DWP crisis funds. In Scotland, the Welfare Reform (Further Provision) (Scotland) Act 2012 intended to shift some of the burden of the changes to social security and protect vulnerable individuals in Scotland. The Social services in Scotland: a shared vision and strategy 2015–20 (2015) recognises the significant changes to the welfare system, and contends that ‘Scottish Government is working with stakeholders, partners and the UK Government to understand the impact of the welfare reforms and doing as much as possible to understand the impact on and support public services and vulnerable people in Scotland.’ As evidence of this, a committee investigating the impact of welfare reform was established in January 2012, signifying that Scottish Government was less sympathetic to the changes being implemented by Westminster.1 Following the ‘no vote’ in the Scottish independence referendum (Sept 2014), a further Westminster-Holyrood deal was struck to devolve more powers. Some of the detail is still being worked through, although, details on The Scotland Bill 2015-16 – in particular on welfare reform – have been formally released and include discretionary crisis and community care grants. The Welfare Funds (Scotland) Act 2015 places a duty on local authorities to provide a safety net for vulnerable people in an emergency situation, following abolition of the discretionary Social Fund by the DWP. While the Act comes into force in April 2016, it has been administered on an interim basis under a voluntary agreement between Scottish Government and COSLA since April 2013. The impact of these new powers on people receiving benefits, and the social services workforce supporting them, have yet to be realised. Groups most affected by welfare reform According to Beatty and Fothergill (2013), the poorest local authorities have been impacted the most by welfare reform. White’s review of the literature (2014) identified the following groups as most affected: unemployed and low-income groups; disabled people; vulnerable women; homeless people (Crisis, 2015); and prison leavers. The Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC, 2013:1) highlights the disproportionate impact on women; children; migrants and refugees; and disabled people. Dryburgh and Lancashire (2011) reported that disabled people are facing the greatest challenge. The WR Committee (2013) reported that the greatest impact is on working age people, with people of pensionable age, largely unaffected. It should be noted that the reforms to welfare impact more on women with a link to child poverty and larger families bearing the brunt (Beatty and Fothergill, 2013). ‘The explanation for this disproportionate impact on women lies in women’s pre-existing inequality’ (Engender, 2015: 4). The same may also be true of some of the other groups identified. The impact on unpaid carers – part client group, part unwaged member of the social services workforce – is not well known. However, Carers Scotland (2012) published a review, and

Factors Influencing Policy Formulation and Decision The basic factors that influence policy formulation are The objectives of a business firm Its management structure Economic and financial resources available to it at a particular point of time Attitudes, social values and norms of the top management Fiscal and monetary policies of the government Policies of sister concerns and business associations Government regulations and control measures Public opinion and expectations from business etc. You can never evade your responsibility towards the society and your policies must incorporate statements that reflect your interest in the welfare of the society. In corporate business environment, where voluminous business activity is carried on, corporations have very well understood the fact that, acquisition and utilization of resources from the society has to be repaid in the form of contributions to societal welfare. Otherwise their image might get tarnished. Moral and ethical values of a society also influence the mind set of business persons. In countries like India, where people ardently follow traditions and customs, a business person hailing from such a family will definitely try to maintain minimum ethical standards both in personal as well as business environments. Policy Aspects: Business policies cover all the functional areas such as production, marketing, personnel and finance aspects. Major policies pertaining to overall objectives, procedures and control affect the organization as a whole. Minor policies on the other hand, cover relationship in a segment of an organization, with considerable emphasis on details and procedures. Such policies are an outgrowth of major policies and preserve their unity of purpose. They meet the day-to-day requirements of the departments and are generally decided at the sectional and departmental levels.   Various Corporate Policies: Strategic business policies cover aspects such as product-mix, promotion-mix, market-mix, administrative policies etc; HR policies cover a wide range of aspects such as pay, promotions, recruitment, selection, induction, training and development, pension, disciplinary action, quality of work life and so on. So, to attain clear-cut objectives, firms need related business policies, in the absence of which, the firm may lose grip and direction in the overall management of the corporation. Factors Affecting Policy American Indians and Social Policy Systems Approach to Policy Making Contextual Factors Cultural: American perception of the importance of causes of social problems=a responsibility for problem(s) and societal obligation to assist those in need (deserving and undeserving poor). Economic: Government’s control of resources. Ex: tax revenues, corporate benefits, government budgetary priorities, etc. Institutional: Government’s administrative capabilities to develop and implement social programs and maintain balance in federal, state and local jurisdiction. Social: Changes in social environment that shape policy.  Ex: war, immigration, demographic factors, industrialization, urbanization, etc. Sequencing of Events: Timing of important developments on evolution of U.S. policy.  Ex: civil rights, terrorism, or nationalization of health care. Legal: Influence of constitutional provisions.  Judiciary both creates new and reshapes old social policy; negates policy; establishes procedural policy.  Ex: Roe vs. Wade; Brown vs. the Board of Education, etc. Political Factors The political process encourages or discourages expansion of public obligation-policy is enacted, defeated or the issue is not given political consideration. American Response to Social Problems An attentive public evaluates the effects on citizens and makes moral evaluations which in turn influence the larger societal context and the political process.   1.2 Factors that influence decisions Now that these different approaches to decision making have been considered it is possible to extract a number of linked factors that influence decisions: The decision makers The decision situation Thinking in terms of a problem or an opportunity Decision criteria Time People affected by the decision Decision support – theories, tools and techniques. Let us briefly consider each of these factors in turn. 1 The decision makers Different people approach decision making in different ways. Individuals are unique in terms of their personalities, abilities, beliefs and values. They also each have traditions of understanding out of which they think and act. Even when the same data is apparently available to all, people will interpret and assimilate the data in different ways and at different speeds. Some people are very confident about weighing up a situation and making decisions, others less so. Some like to take more risks than others. Competences, such as the ability to listen to other people, also vary. Social pressures affect everyone to varying degrees and the approval or disapproval of friends and colleagues may be more important to the decision maker than being ‘right’ every time. Political beliefs also vary and people will rank differently, for example, individual and social gains from a situation. Each individual develops personal beliefs and values, including those relating to their environment, through different life experiences, and hence brings a different perspective to a decision situation. Some people will also have more at stake in a decision outcome than others. There are therefore many issues around who is involved in decision-making processes and how they participate. 2 The decision situation The garbage-can approach to decision making showed that the decision situation is often messy and complex and that apparently unrelated events can affect decision outcomes, depending on what else is going on at the time the decision is taken. For any individual or group there will be both ‘knowns’ and ‘unknowns’ in a decision situation. In the examples so far, in the text and in the answer to Activity 1, the unknowns range from prices and models of computers to weather conditions and availability of people. It is not always easy to work out which aspects of a decision situation are relevant. Elements of change, risk and uncertainty are common in decision situations and recognising and making sense of these elements are two of the main challenges that decision makers face. Risk implies that we know what the possible outcomes of a decision may be and that we know, or can work out, the probability of each outcome. Uncertainty, on the other hand, implies that there are unknowns and that we can at best guess at possible outcomes and their

What is Policy Analysis? “The process through which we identify and evaluate alternative policies or programs that are intended to lessen or resolve social, economic, or physical problems.” – Carl V. Patton Policy Analysis in Six easy steps. Based on the ideas and approach followed by Carl V. Patton there exists a very simple pattern of ideas and points to be considered in doing an actual policy analysis. The six steps are as follows: Verify, define, and detail the problem. The most relevant and important of them all because many times the objectives are not clear or even contradictory from each other. A successful policy analysis will have allocated and identified clearly the problem to be resolved in the following steps. This is the foundation for an efficient and effective outcome of the whole process. The analyst must question both the interested parties involved as well as their agendas of the outcome. Locating the problem in such a way that eliminates any ambiguity for future references. Establish evaluation criteria. In order to compare, measure and select among alternatives, relevant evaluation criteria must be established. In this step it must be considered cost, net benefit, effectiveness, efficiency, equity, administrative ease, legality, and political acceptability. Economic benefits must be considered in evaluating the policy. How the policy will harm or benefit a particular group or groups will depend on the number of option viable Options more difficult than others must be considered but ultimately decided through analyzing the parties involved with policy. Political and other variables go hand in hand with the evaluation criteria to be followed. Most of the time the client, or person or group, interested in the policy analysis will dictate the direction or evaluation criteria to follow. Identify alternative policies. In order to reach this third step the other two must have been successfully reached and completed. As it can be seen, the policy analysis involves an incrementalist approach; reaching one step in order to go on to the next. In this third step understanding what is sought is very important. In order to generate alternatives, it becomes important to have a clear understanding of the problem and how to go about it. Possible alternatives include the “do nothing approach” (status quo), and any other that can benefit the outcome. Combining alternatives generates better solutions not thought of before. Relying on past experiences from other groups or policy analysis helps to create a more thorough analysis and understanding. It is important to avoid settling prematurely on a certain number of options in this step; many options must be considered before settling into a reduced number of alternatives. Brainstorming, research, experiments, writing scenarios, or concept mapping greatly help in finding new alternatives that will help reach an “optimal” solution. Evaluate alternative policies. Packaging of alternatives into strategies is the next step in accomplishing a thorough policy analysis. It becomes necessary to evaluate how each possible alternative benefits the criteria previously established. Additional data needs to be collected in analyzing the different levels of influence: the economical, political and social dimensions of the problem. These dimensions are analyzed through quantitative and qualitative analysis, that is the benefits and costs per alternative. Political questions in attaining the goals are analyzed as to see whether they satisfy the interested parties of the policy analysis. In doing this more concise analysis the problem may not exist as originally identified; the actual problem statement from the first step may suffer a transformation, which is explained after evaluating the alternatives in greater detail. New aspects of the problem may be found to be transient and even different from the original problem statement. This modification process allows this method of policy analysis to allow for a “recycling” of information in all the steps. Several fast interactions through the policy analysis may well be more efficient and effective than a single detailed one. What this means is that the efficiency is greatly increased when several projects are analyzed and evaluated rather than just one in great detail, allowing for a wider scope of possible solutions. Patton further suggests to avoid the tool box approach: attacking options with a favorite analysis method; its important to have a heterogeneous approach in analyzing the different possible alternatives. It becomes inefficient to view each alternative under a single perspective; its clearly relevant the need to evaluate each alternative following diverse evaluating approaches singled out according to the uniqueness of each of them. Display and distinguish among alternative policies. The results of the evaluation of possible alternatives list the degree to which criteria are met in each of them. Numerical results don’t speak for themselves but are of great help in reaching a satisfying solution in the decision. Comparison schemes used to summarize virtues are of great help in distinguishing among several options; scenarios with quantitative methods, qualitative analysis, and complex political considerations can be melded into general alternatives containing many more from the original ones. In making the comparison and distinction of each alternative it is necessary to play out the economic, political, legal, and administrative ramification of each option. Political analysis is a major factor of decision of distinction among the choices; display the positive effects and negative effects interested in implementing the policy. This political approach will ultimately analyze how the number of participants will improve or diminish the implementation. It will also criticize on how the internal cooperation of the interested units or parties will play an important role in the outcome of the policy analysis. Mixing two or more alternatives is a very common and practiced approach in attaining a very reasonably justified policy analysis. Monitoring the implemented policy. Assure continuity, determine whether they are having impact. “Even after a policy has been implemented, there may be some doubt whether the problem was resolved appropriately and even whether the selected policy is being implemented properly. This concerns require that policies and programs be maintained and monitored during implementation to assure that they do not change for

The Centre for Research in Social Policy (CRSP) is an independent research centre based in the Department of Social Sciences at Loughborough University. … The Centre’s biggest role at present is the researching and analysis of A Minimum Income Standard for the United Kingdom. Sexuality Research and Social Policy ISSN: 1868-9884 (Print) 1553-6610 (Online) Description Sexuality Research and Social Policy is an international forum for the publication of original peer-reviewed state-of-the-art empirical research on sexuality, theoretical and methodological discussions, and the implications of this evidence for policies across the globe regarding sexual health, sexuality education, and sexual rights in diverse communities. This multidisciplinary journal also publishes brief research and conf … show all  The Department of Social Policy and Intervention is a multidisciplinary centre of excellence for research in social policy, the development and systematic evaluation of social interventions, and population studies. Key elements of our strategy to  deliver international research excellence are: building expertise by strategic recruitment and investment to consolidate and develop research strengths in specific areas; emphasising methodological excellence and innovation at the macro and micro level; engaging in international and collaborative research; and strengthening our capacities in evaluation research and international comparative analysis. We are committed to conducting research to inform policymaking and practice in the realm of social welfare. Our research is multi-disciplinary in approach, and often international in reach. We have numerous comparative research projects as well as many studies focused on particular countries. Although our expertise is mainly on the advanced economies, we have a growing volume of research on developing countries. Our research contributes both to academic knowledge and debates as well as to policy and practice, and we have had a significant impact on policy debate, formulation and implementation around the globe, as well as secondary impact on people’s wellbeing. In the most recent evaluation of university research in the UK (REF 2014), 79% of our research activity was classified as world-leading. Within the department, our research is organised around three main clusters MA Social Research Methods (Social Policy) The programme provides the right balance between ground breaking theoretical and practical research in Social Sciences in general – and in Social Policy in particular. You get in touch with a wide range of scholars and practitioners in policy-related subjects, always ready to help to make the most of your academic or professional careers. Social Policy Analysis & Research   INDICATORS IMPENDING POLICY DECISION Overview Conflict Prevention is the object of a wide range of policies and initiatives; its aim is to avoid the violent escalation of a dispute. Conflict Prevention includes: Monitoring and/or intervening to stabilize a potentially violent conflict before its outbreak by initiating activities that address the root causes as well as the triggers of a dispute. Establishing mechanisms that detect early warning signs and record specific indicators that may help to predict impending violence. Using planned coordination to prevent the creation of conflict when delivering humanitarian aid and in the process of development. Institutionalizing the idea of preventing conflict at the local, regional, and international levels. The concept and practice of Conflict Prevention evolved from being focused almost exclusively on Preventive Diplomacy, to a new more comprehensive approach that can be defined as Structural Prevention. This new approach includes long-term initiatives targeting the root causes of conflict. The evolution of Conflict Prevention as a practice will depend on the necessary resources being committed to Conflict Prevention initiatives in the future. Conflict Prevention faces serious problems in this respect because it is extremely difficult to evaluate whether conflict prevention initiatives have been responsible for a conflict not having happened. It is possible to distinguish three sets of elements that compose the process of Conflict Prevention: The definition of the context with reference to the nature of a conflict, its causes, and its cyclical phases; The use of mechanisms to monitor indicators and signs to forewarn impending violence; and The selection of the specific initiatives to be taken. Evolution The concept of Conflict Prevention emerged in the theoretical literature of the early 1990s, but initially without significant practical application. The idea of Conflict Prevention was presented as an official policy of the UN by Secretary General Boutros-Boutros Ghali in 1992 in his An Agenda for Peace. He emphasized “fact-finding and analysis-to identify at the earliest possible stage the circumstances that could produce serious conflict-and the need for Preventive Diplomacy to resolve the most immediate problems with attention to underlying causes of conflict.” The focus was on punctual preventive interventions. The end of the Cold War gave the impression that the international community could intervene more flexibly and effectively to prevent the explosion of conflicts. This impression was reinvigorated by the negative experiences of Yugoslavia and Rwanda. A different behavior of neighboring countries, in the case of Yugoslavia, and a limited but robust military intervention in Rwanda, was commonly believed, could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. A successful UN deployment in Macedonia confirmed this idea. Since then, the concept of Conflict Prevention has developed further and moved its focus from “Preventive Diplomacy,” including a limited set of diplomatic or military initiatives, to more structural interventions. Academics and practitioners have since stretched the concept to include, in addition to diplomacy and military operations, institution building, economic development, and grass roots community building. In the 2001 Report of the Secretary General on Prevention of Armed Conflict, “an effective preventive strategy” is said to require “a comprehensive approach that encompasses both short-term and long-term political, diplomatic, humanitarian, human rights, developmental, institutional, and other measures taken by the international community, in cooperation with national and regional actors”. Structural Prevention lays its conceptual roots in part of International Relations Theory. Concepts of Security Community, and Johan Galtung’s “Warm Peace,” as well as theories of integration and international regimes, identify the structural foundations of a peaceful international community. The structure of these communities, it must be noticed, is composed not of elements of pure power but rather of norms, values and shared interests. Similarly, the peaceful interaction

Stakeholder involvement Practical guide to involve stakeholders in the WFD process This paragraph is largely based on Slob (2008). More information on stakeholder involvement can be found in WFD-CIS Guidance Document no.8 Public participation in relation to the Water Framework Directive. 1 Introduction Stakeholder involvement is of increasing importance for environmental policy-making such as water quality management, not only because European Union regulations demand societal participation, but also because of the increasing complexity of environmental policy issues in general. This complexity is caused by the many groups that have a role in environmental problems, the competing interests of stakeholders and the involvement of several policy levels (regional, national and international). There are many stakeholders as well as policy levels that are involved within river basins and the interests of all these groups are quite diverse. This chapter will focus on the basic questions concerning stakeholder involvement in the decision-making processes and, consequently, on the recommendations that can be derived from this. The structure of this chapter is as follows. First, attention will be given to the question of who the stakeholders are (paragraph 3.2 ) and why stakeholders should be involved (paragraph 3.3 ). Stakeholder analysis is a method to make an inventory of all stakeholders that have a role (a stake) in the issues and solutions. This is a necessary step to know which stakeholders one should involve in sediment management and will be discussed in paragraph 3.4 . Stakeholders should not be considered as one, homogenous, group. Stakeholders are diverse and heterogeneous and this is reflected in their perspectives. This inevitably leads to discussion on how to involve stakeholders (paragraph 3.5 ) and the tools and mechanisms to do this (paragraph 3.6 ). The last paragraph (3.7 ) deals with the risks and pitfalls that are attached to stakeholder involvement, for which the policy-makers should be warned. 2 Stakeholders A distinction is to be made between three types of stakeholders: Organizations and people that have a direct impact on water quality management or are directly affected by the relevant policies. This group includes: water authorities; industries using water and/or dumping their wastewater; farmers; water cleaning companies; regulators on the local, regional, national and international level dealing with water issues and subjects of environment, agriculture and safety, or with conventions such as international river committees; harbour authorities; shipping companies; dredging companies; organizations maintaining natural defences; water managers; owners of nature areas; and citizens that are directly affected by the measures planned or taken. Organizations and people that have an impact on the relevant decision making. This group covers: citizens; landowners; homeowners; insurance companies; NGOs such as Greenpeace and the WWF; scientists; and drinking-water companies. Those who have an indirect impact on or are indirectly affected by implementation of the WFD This group consists of all the other users of the waterways and fisheries, and includes citizens. The above mentioned WFD-CIS Guidance Document no.8 provides examples of public participation in water management projects. 3 Why stakeholders should be involved There are several arguments for stakeholder involvement with respect to the WFD. Apart from the basic fact that stakeholders have an impact on the quality and quantity of the water, the main arguments can be grouped into three themes: obstructive power; enrichment; and fairness (Gerrits, 2004). In modern society, parties other than governments have obstructive power. That is, they have the ability to obstruct or even block a decision or the implementation of a certain policy. The early involvement of stakeholders reduces the risk of the policy not being carried out. Stakeholder involvement, therefore, can be regarded as counteracting obstructive power (Renn, 1995; Healy, 1997). Such a choice will slow down the policy process in the early phases, but will speed it up in a later phase. The above mentioned reason for stakeholder involvement is sometimes regarded as a negative one, born out of strategic considerations. However, there is a positive motive as well. This considers enrichment. Policy makers do not possess all the resources, i.e. knowledge, required for the design, planning and implementation of sophisticated policies such as environmental policies. Relevant knowledge is in most cases distributed among several stakeholders. This counts the more for sustainable management of River Basins, a subject where knowledge is still fragmented and debated. From that point of view it is wise to invite stakeholders from the relevant fields in order to obtain and apply knowledge and information generated by them (Fisher, 2000). The last argument for stakeholder involvement is fairness. It is fair to involve actors affected by policy, and give them a say in the decision-making process. This raises awareness and creates support for the issue and its solutions. As a final remark on the motives for stakeholder involvement, we want to point out that stakeholders, especially the organized ones, often will look for ways to get involved themselves, as they are aware of their stake in the process.   4 Stakeholder analysis Stakeholder analysis consists of 3 steps: Convening Identification of Stakes Inventory of relations between stakeholders 4.1 Step 1: Convening The first step in the process of involving stakeholders is often referred to as convening, i.e. getting people to the table. This consists of four (sub) steps: assessing a situation (convening assessment); identifying and inviting the stakeholders; locating the necessary resources; and organizing and planning of the process (Susskind, 1999). We will focus here on the identification and analysis of the stakeholders. Stakeholder and network analysis starts with assembling a list of all relevant stakeholders. This can be done with a small group of people belonging to the convening organization, who know the issues and have an overview of possible stakeholders. This group should be diverse, as this prevents a one-sided selection of stakeholders. The first step in the process is to identify the different perspectives on the issue with a wide variety of people. At this stage of the process, the goal is not to identify people or organizations who should be involved. At this point, the way the different stakeholders

Introduction A national system of education is often defined from the perspective of formal education system. This includes institutionalized formal education from early childhood education, primary education, secondary education, tertiary education and university education. The informal and non-formal education subsets are often assumed to be part of the formal education and if not ignored altogether, they are given little attention. However, it is important the national educational system should be wholly inclusive of all the subsets of the educational system, that is, formal, informal and non-formal education. In light of this simple understanding of a national system of education, it is important to note that, behind every system of education, there are factors or features that determine or influence and hence shape each one of the system. However, the national character of a given system of education is never determined by one factor, but rather a combination and interweaving of several factors. Some factors are dominant in one particular system while in another system, they would be less dominant. Consequently national factors of a country are closely related with nationalism and national system of education. As such, in the study of comparative education we should study the factors which make the education of a country national. These factors include geographical, economic, social, cultural, historical, religions, political, language and technological. In this chapter we shall study some such factors;   1) Geographical Factors. The geography of any particular place is often natural, which means that it is undefined by man. Man in this respect ought to behave in accordance with the geography and nature in particular. In this regard the education system cum school system is influenced by the geography of the particular region. By and large the geography of a particular area dictates the type of building and equipment, means and methods of transporting children to school, school going age of pupils among others. However, there are three major geographical aspects that influence the educational system directly. These are, climatic conditions, population distribution and land configuration. In regard to climatic conditions they influence the system of education in terms of ,content of education depend on the continental climate, for example, training of doctors in the tropics is likely to emphasize more on tropical disease like malaria. Extreme low temperatures in Continental Europe, affects accessibility to school by young children. Temperatures also affect the time at which schools can reasonably begin in the morning and when they end. In Norway, for example, the sun does not rise during winter until ten o’clock in the morning and often temperatures fall to negative 20 degrees. Thus in the Scandinavian countries there are no infant schools or early childhood education departments in some schools because of extreme temperatures. Climatic conditions also influence the education system in relation to time of vacations. In North America and many countries in Europe take school vacations during cold winter and others during hot summer. In hot climatic conditions especially experienced in arid and semi-arid areas, learning often takes place during morning hours when it is cool. When it is hot in the afternoon very little learning takes place due to excessive heat.   In regard to population distribution, which is often as a result of geographical influence also affects the educational system. Generally worldwide, population is either concentrated in the urban centers, or scattered in the country side. For example Australia has two systems of education, that is, one for the urban areas and the other for rural areas. In the urban areas there are well-equipped schools with adequately qualified teachers and administrative personnel. While in the rural areas, schools are small with one teacher for ten up to forty students. This is because farms are far from the nearest schools and daily attendance is difficult. Therefore the central government is responsible for their administration and financing. The government also provides the means and organization of correspondence, tuition and traveling teachers. As such most students receive education through correspondence and occasional visits by the traveling education inspectors.   In regard to land configuration, this also influences the education system in terms of architectural structure of farm houses, school buildings, village location and also the whole way of life and thinking of people because of the rigours of the climate, in some cases, because of closeness of family ties, boarding schools for children are non-existence, except for the few who come from far and inaccessible places on daily basis. By and large land configuration determines settlement and location of schools.   2) Economic Factors. The type of education largely depends on the economic strength of any country. Also the economic factor determines the content and method of an education system. It is important to note that formal education is often possible where production exceeds consumption. In indigenous traditional education people were trained depending on the economic conditions and needs of the community. From an economic perspective, expenditure on education refers to the amount or percentage of national revenue spent on education by both individuals and the government. If the economic condition is poor, education becomes backward in many aspects while if the economy of a country is strong, then educational aims and the curriculum are given a special direction for making the country prosperous. For example, in the USA and Japan, education system is patterned so as to make the individual graduate, strong and capable enough to stand on his or her own feet after having received education. While in India, college and university graduate do not know where to go after completing their education and most of the students continue to stay on in the university as long as they can so that one can post pone for a few years the problem of the educated – unemployed.   Another economic influence on education is that, the poorer classes in communities tend to be content with minimum education for their children, and the richer classes are known to be able to keep their children longest at school

Key facts The Republic of Kenya is a country in Eastern Africa, with a population of approximately 41.61 million people. It lies on the equator and is bordered by Ethiopia (North), Somalia (East), Tanzania (South), Uganda (West), and Sudan (Northwest), with the Indian Ocean running along the southeast border. It has an extension of 582,646 sq. km. The country is named after Mount Kenya – before 1920, the area now known as Kenya was known as the British East Africa Protectorate. Kenya is a diverse nation of 42 distinct ethnic groups. Official languages are Swahili and English and the currency is Kenyan Shilling. Political context Kenya’s political context has been heavily shaped by historical domestic tensions and contestation associated with centralisation and abuse of power, high levels of corruption, a more than two decades long process of constitutional review and post-election violence. The approval of the new constitution in 2010 and relatively peaceful elections in March 2013 are milestones constituting steps forward in Kenya’s transition from political crisis. The Constitutional Review Process Campaigning for constitutional review initiated in the late 1980s by civil society actors, mainly intellectuals and human rights activists, in response to over 40 years of authoritarian rule, decay of the institutions of government, sharp economic decline, and lack of access to basic services and trust in the government. Campaigning intensified in early 1990s and rapidly won the support of religious groups, opposition political parties, professional associations, trade unions, and a broad spectrum of civil society. The campaign was bolstered by the emphasis of international finance institutions and donors on “good governance” enabling campaigners to secure political support and financial assistance from international development organisations. The process initiated under the leadership of the Constitution of Kenya Review Commission (CKRC), an expert independent body whose tasks were, amongst others, to prepare a draft constitution for consideration at a National Constitutional Conference (NCC) tasked with debating (and if necessary amending) and adopting the document and to the National Assembly (NA) responsible for enacting changes to the constitution by formal amendments. A landmark of this process was the 2005 referendum that resulted in people’s rejection of the proposal put forward by the government which diverted significantly from the draft prepared by CKRC. A different draft constitution was then produced by the Attorney General Amos Wako that included new changes that did not reflect the consensus that had been reached. It was submitted to a referendum on 21 November 2005 and rejected by 58% of voters. Intended to last two years, the review process only culminated in 2010 after parallel review processes (government led and civil society led – known as Ufungamano Initiative), establishment of several Constitutional review forums (such as the Inter-Parties Parliamentary Group – IPPG), several amendments of the Constitutional Review Act of 2000,  a series of national conferences, two referendums and post-election violence that culminated with a power-sharing agreement called the National Accord and Reconciliation Act which included provisions for constitutional review. The new constitution was only adopted after a second referendum held on 4th August 2013, when 67% of Kenyans voted in favour of its introduction. The new constitution introduces an expanded Bill of Rights that includes social, economic and cultural rights (with a strong focus on the needs and entitlements of children and women), reduces Presidents’ powers, defines better separation of powers between the three arms of government, circumscribes the power of security agencies, reforms the electoral devolves power to regions and introduces changes to the budget process. In relation to gender equality and women’s rights, the Constitution charts out targeted measures that deal with the traditional exclusion experienced Kenyan women. It requires affirmative action measures to be taken at various levels to ensure that women are included in decision-making processes. It sets aside a number of slots in political institutions which should mandatorily be filled by women. It variously exhorts public institutions and agencies to avoid taking measures that discriminate against women and girls. In addition it sets up various institutions that should oversee the implementation of the new gender responsive framework. The main shortcomings of the new Constitution are that it fails to establish clear principles to deal with past human rights violations; restricts sexual and reproductive rights and opens space for the application of religious laws in matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance. Socio-economic context Kenya has the largest and most diverse economy in East Africa, with an average annual growth rate of over 5% for nearly a decade. In terms of Human Development Index Kenya ranks highest in the region. Its entrepreneurship and human capital give it huge potential for further growth, job creation and poverty reduction. The recent discovery of oil and other mineral resources creates great potential for the Kenyan economy. However, despite a decline of the country’s absolute poverty rate, wealth has not been distributed equally. Kenya remains a highly unequal society by income, by gender, and by geographical location.  Poverty is highest in the arid and semi-arid areas that cover about 80% of the land area and are inhabited by about 20% of the population. Poverty also affects the coastal area, which receives fewer resources. Rapid population growth is another major challenge, further complicated by high unemployment rates especially among the youth. More than 70 per cent of Kenya’s population are below the age of 30 and the population under age 14 alone amounts to 43 percent. Policy Influencing Actors Civil society The “civil society scene” is characterised by increased voice and protest and negative memories of past repression and violence. Kenyan civil society groups are actively engaged in the political life of the country and media is considered vibrant and active. Feminist and women’s groups are amongst the most active, particularly in policy influencing. Four Kenyan civil organisations formed a coalition and established the national campaign for “Safeguarding the Gains of Women in the Draft Constitution” aimed at mainstreaming social justice, gender mainstreaming and gender equality in the language and mechanisms of the review process and in

Functions of social policy Social Policy cannot be analysed solely by looking at individual measures; rather these can only be understood by looking at the underlying role and function. A first step is to recognise a fundamental shift during the evolution of social policy. The origin of social policy in the modern sense is to be seen in the so-called social question, arising as a result of the industrial revolution. Society, then, had been more than ever characterised by a fundamental split between classes. Even if societies before had by no means been societies of equals they had means of dealing with the inequalities, i.e. the early clientelism, the carried religiously motivated doing good (and punishment and strict exclusion), the mutual help of the guilds. Capitalism, now, lacked any of such support systems or even motivations for any social support systems and was thus extremely vulnerable. Nevertheless, the lack of such a motivation is true only on the individual level. As capitalist society this systems clearly showed a need and it was this, what the capitalist state had to deliver � a political system, bridging the ever-widening gap between the classes. Seemingly neutral, the aim was to maintain the hierarchy and exploitation of one class by the other. In particular five functions of social policy can be seen against this background. 1.    Protective function Protection against negative consequences arising from working life; including intervention into the economic system Protection of the employee to maintain the ability to work 2.    Function of distribution Determination of income as means or reproduction 3.    Function of productivity Securing the ability to work and securing against abuse of the workforce (including health, education etc.). Including as well the provision of societal and social stability (industrial peace) In this context as well the provision of military forces. 4.    Function of societal politics social policy having a socio-political function or being social politics 5.    Function of re-distribution interpersonal re-distribution inter-temporal re-distribution   Welfare and society Social policy draws on sociology to explain the social context of welfare provision. If we are trying to improve people’s welfare, it is helpful to try to understand something about the way that people are, and how welfare policies relate to their situation. Some writers have gone further, arguing that because welfare takes place in a social context, it can only be understood in that context. This has been particularly important for ‘critical social policy’, which begins from a view of social policy as underpinned by social inequality – particularly the inequalities of class, race and gender. Issues of inequality are considered in a companion file on Welfare and equality. Social structure Family The normal family Lone parents Teenage pregnancy Work Patterns of work The labour movement Nation Nations and welfare Immigration and nationality Social problems Deviance The social structure Societies are ‘structured’ in the sense that people’s relationships follow consistent patterns. Fiona Williams has argued that social policy is dominated in practice by the dominant values of society – the issues of family, work and nation. [1] Family A range of policies are built around the idea of the ‘family’ as a man, woman and children. Examples are child benefits, education and child care. Some countries have policies built on the idea of the man as ‘breadwinner’, with support based on the idea that the marriage is permanent and the woman will not work. Families which deviate from the norm – for example, poor single mothers – are likely to be penalised, though there may also be anomalies in the organisation of benefits (e.g, when promiscuity is accepted and stable cohabitation is not). Work Many systems of social protection depend on a stable work record for basic cover in unemployment, ill health and old age. Workers who misbehave – for example, by striking or being dismissed – may be penalised. Nation Most systems discriminate against non-citizens, and many have residence rules for particular benefits or services. Immigrants are likely to have different, and often second-class, services. These issues are discussed further in the sections which follow. Family policy The normal family “Normal” does not mean “average”; it means “conforming to social norms”. The ‘normal’ family consists of two parents with one or more children, but it is increasingly untypical in developed countries. Several factors have contributed to this trend: ageing populations, which mean that increasing numbers of households consist of elderly people without children; the delay in undertaking childbirth, which means that more households consist of single women or couples without children; the growth of lone parenthood; and household fission – the tendency for households to split, because of divorce and earlier independence for children. Social policies sometimes seek to reinforce the normal family, by rewarding normal conduct or penalising “deviant” (non-normal) circumstances. Rewards include subsidies for married dependants and children; penalties include requirements to support one’s family, and legal and financial deterrents to divorce. At the same time, the assumption that couples live more cheaply than single people may lead to two single people getting greater support: cohabitation rules, treating people living together as if they were married, are used to ensure equity with married couples. Lone parents The rise in lone parenthood is mainly based on three factors: Divorce, which has been increasing as women have gained independence in finance and career; Unemployment. Unemployment is correlated with divorce, partly because it strains the marriage, and partly, perhaps, because it has undermined the role of the traditional male breadwinner. Cohabitation. This effect is a statistical artefact, rather than a real change in parental status. There is no reason to attribute the rise to teenage motherhood (which, like other forms of motherhood, has tended to fall). The position of lone parents who receive social benefits has been controversial. The liberal individualist position is that if people choose to have children it’s then up to them to look after their family. The collectivist position, and to a large extent the dominant position in continental Europe, is that children are other people’s business