Social Policy as a contested discourse

Policy is in most basic form a statement or guidelines, rules, goals and principles which govern how people operate. It can be determined by the government in the form public policy, referring and reflecting broad fields of government activities. Social and economic policies cannot be separated; they always work hand in glove. Policies are done in an endeavor to improve quality of life, economic wellbeing, citizenship, income, residence, education and health. Burckey (1998) emphasizes that the field of development policy formulation is a contestable jungle inhabited by counter theories, paradigms, approaches and programs of all sizes, shapes and colors. Social policy has no single acceptable definition which has been adopted by social policy analysts. Consequently, there are differences in perceptions of the domain of social policy. However, there seems to be convergence on the understanding of the objectives of social policy which is to solve social ills. The search for coordination and coherence of policies should take into account the fact that ideas about social policy and its role in development have changed over time, indicating the difficulty to find clarity on the approaches to social investment, poverty alleviation and equity. The nature of policy issue is thus relevant not only to scientists and scholars of politics, sociology and public administration but also for scholars and practitioners in institutions and organizations of different governments, businesses and NGOs and civil society in general. This difference in orientation is what makes policy a contested discourse since it is viewed differently by different entities from different academic and professional backgrounds. This paper will discuss the contestations of policy as presented by different theories and approaches.
There is a myriad of contestations as to what social policy is. Scholars from different orientations define policy in different forms. Sociological analysts define policy along the lines of social cohesion. Gil (1981) defines policy as pertaining to the quality of life and intra-societal relationships among individuals groups and society as a whole. Development practitioners define policy in the face of a poverty control strategy. Hill (1983) defines policy as concerned with the alleviation of social ills in the society. We also political-economists understanding policy as responses to historical events and development of mankind. Rein (1970) observes that policy can be regarded as the study of the history of politics, philosophy, sociology and economics of social services. From these definitions, it is directly observable that the objectives of social policy are closely aligned but the nature of orientation differs as Gil (1981) includes sociological aspects of social relations, while Hill (1983) recognizes the importance of alleviating social ills and Rein (1970) recognizes the importance of history of policy in understanding modern day policy. However, all definitions have an introspection of ideological issues in the provision and distribution of social services and analysis of rational for providing social services as a response to human need. It can therefore be argued that policy is contested in terms definition orientation but aiming towards one goal.
There is also a notable contestation as to who is responsible for formulation of policies. Hill (1983) argues that there has always been an inherent conflict between many scholars as to whether the citizens should be responsible or their government technocrats. This is very true especially in countries where policy is influenced directly by the political economy of the country. Modernists argue that governments should super-imposingly be responsible since the citizens may offer sub-standard ideas. However we also see political economy analysts inspired by participatory development arguing that nothing for the people without the people. This attracts substantial reference to Zimbabwe in post 1980 decade when policies like Education for all and Growth with Equity attracted applause because they involved a socialist approach that involved the people. Moyo (2002) however argues that the shift to capitalist notions through professional bias of top down approaches resulted in the introduction of policies like ESAP in the second decade after independence in Zimbabwe, a policy that brought more harm than good. Capitalist approach to policies has however worked significantly in South Africa where orphans, widows and old people are given grants and socialist approaches however failed in Cuban and Chinese social welfare policies where working conditions are still unfavorable and unhealthy. Such a dilemma attracts a contest as to which political economy approach between socialism; capitalism and or communism in the face of responsibilities should be adopted in order to achieve a goal, hence making policy a contested discourse.
Policy is also contested in trying to understand who exactly better actors are. Different theoretical approaches have risen to credit different entities as better actors than the other. There have been theories that we established in an endeavor to explain policy actors. Public Choice theory suggests that individuals cooperate like agencies that shape policy with response to things that affect them. Ginsburg (2003) argues that Public choice scholarship has addressed virtually every aspect of the political process including voting, interest group formation, the internal structure of political institutions, and the dynamics of political interaction within a constitutional system. This is typical of Memorandums undertaken to see whether or not people want a particular policy. However, it has been criticized for lack of empirical support and for its methodological approach. It has been accused of having conservative normative implications and a pessimistic view of democracy. On the other hand, pluralist and co-operatist theory talk about aspects of primacy. Actors do not co-operate as individuals but team up to influence policy discussions. For instance labor movements like ZCTU. However such teaming up usually attracts group conflicts because of enhanced collective identities thereby causing violent protests and demonstrations at times. Another theoretical approach that tries to explain actors in the discourse of policy is the Statism theory or Neo Institutionalist which recognizes the state as the major policy actor. In this instance, the policy reflects the objectives of the state capabilities. For instance, Land Reform Programme and Operation Murambatsvina in Zimbabwe. These theories have justifiable reasons for supporting different actors and also have notable loop holes. The contests is very observable because development is relative hence actors will always vary across different nations. This makes policy a much contested discourse as to who should be the major actor.
There is also an observable contest in the discourse of policy as to the purposes and objectives it holds. Grand narrative sociological skirmishers of wit have gone under a progressive debate as to what exactly the objectives of policy are. Functionalists argue that policies are initiatives by the state to improve the lives of the people and alleviate poverty. The states thus become a functional entity holding responsibilities of meeting the needs of the people. This is typical of War Veterans Pensions in Zimbabwe where the state rewards ex-combatants for their roles in building a 'nation state'. For the Marxists and Conflict theorists, the claim is that the objectives of policy are more apparent than real whenever done by the state not the masses. Dahrendorf (1959) a conflict theorist argues that policies made in a capitalist economy are nothing but either a strategy to silence the masses or a strategy to enhance the dominant group. Policies like Land Reform in Zimbabwe are argued to be strategies to appease the war veterans so that they could not pose any potential threat to the existing government (Moyo, 2002). Dependency theorists argue that when policies are globally discussed by multilateral and bilateral institutions and later imposed upon 3rd world countries, development is not the primary objective, but rather destabilization of the economies or perhaps just a pursuit of self-interests. This is typical of ESAP which has been argued to be a destabilization strategy and a pursuit of self-interests since West could boost their economies through export led growth in Zimbabwe and privatization. These grand narratives question the nature of policy objective in different instances thereby creating a contest in the discourse of policy.
The rise of feminism in the discipline of sociology came with a major complication in the discourse of policy. Feminism brought about a women face in the discourse of policy but with different needs and approaches. Liberal feminists strategies focus upon the overt decision making processes within the existing institutions of society but maintain an awareness of the covert nature of power wielded within state processes through inclusion of Feminist bureaucrats known as 'femocrats' (Schneir, 1972). This is typical of initiatives like Women in Development. Socialist feminist advocate for the legitimization of capitalist social relations, production, reproduction and alienation so as to do away with capitalist and patriarchal dominance in policy formulation. Strategies which arise from this consider both public and private dynamics, in tandem, and focus attention on the connection between women's control of their productive and reproductive labor. Radical feminism also comes in place with the women-only consciousness that women should have their conventions and policies as women alone. They advocate for policies that gives them autonomy to control themselves, for instance controlling their sexualities through legalized sex work as in Thailand and legalized abortion in Australia (Hennessy, 1993). In regards to policy, liberal feminism was based on an assertion of asexual personhood demanding change within existing structures, portraying the subject of feminism as an androgynous individual fighting for equality, and while socialist feminism subsumed gender as one position among the many in the general struggle against social hierarchies of all types demanding relative platforms and policies of change, radical feminism insisted on the distinct nature of female experience and the feminine subject demanding alternative services, making the whole concept of policy in face of feminism a contested discourse.
In an endeavor to ensure the viability of a policy, different contesting models have been propounded by different skirmishers of wit. The Residual Welfare Model is based on the assumption that human needs should be met either through private market or the family. Social policy in this model is supposed to be provided when the private market and family are unable to function properly. For instance during recession, natural disasters and droughts. On the other hand, Industrial Achievement Model links social welfare services to productivity at the work place calling for the provision of social welfare services to reinforce production and performance at the work place. For instance, provision of protection against old age, sickness, maternity and occupational injuries. Hall (1991) argues that this model sees policies as designed for workers to be motivated but however difficult to adopt in developing countries with serious problems of unemployment, for instance, Sub Saharan countries like Zimbabwe. This model is also likely to create an elitist welfare system that exacerbates existing glaring inequalities. Another model is the Institutional Redistributive model which views social policy as an instrument for the redistribution of wealth and income. This model rejects the notion that human needs should be made through either the family or market economy. It however recognizes the complexities of human needs and acknowledges that humans can never meet their full scope of needs without the support and active involvement of the state. The model favors the role of the state, NGOs and churches in order to create an egalitarian society. Despite that the Institutional Redistributive model appears apt than the others, they cannot wholly be discarded thus their presence and applicability attracts a contest in the discourse of policy.
The policy process has also been surrounded by multiple debates visible in different perspectives. The rational paradigm of the policy process separates policy-making into different 'stages': agenda setting, policy formulation, decision-making, implementation and evaluation (Neilson 2001). This model has been criticized for assuming an unrealistically rational and problem-solving mode of policymaking, and for wrongly positing a sequential progress of clearly-defined parts (Porter 1995). Davis and Bridgeman (1992) policy cycle however adds emphasis to the issue of problem identification, consultation and policy analysis. Issues they claim are of paramount importance but mentioned little of by the rational paradigm of policy process. Kingdon (1984) offers a model of the agenda-setting process building on the 'garbage can' model of the policy process, where choices seek problems and solutions seek issues, rather than vice versa. The framework is built around three streams of activity that attempt to move alternatives higher on the agenda. These models explain the policy process in a different way showing how contested the discourse is. However their aims are equally the same, solving social ills.
There are various ways of marking the boundaries within which policy is made, ranging from more literal notions of the 'place' to more conceptual ones. One aspect is the level at which policy is made, such as local, national and international arenas. The actors involved; relevant institutions and prevailing discourse will significantly differ according to each of these. There are also likely to be complex interactions and power relations between each level, for example some argue that participatory practice must begin locally, while other analyses suggest that power is shifting to globalized actors, and there are important debates on the role of the nation state and the links to the local level through decentralization (Gaventa 2006). Participatory development school of thought argues that if problems are at grass root levels, then policies should be implemented at local level and advanced by the grass root people to avoid professional bias. This is justified by the relative nature of problems and social setups. Culture, religion and tradition define needs and preferences. For instance, legalization of abortion to Christians is meaningless because they don't believe in abortion while illegalizing it in an atheist community might attract resentment because they are not religious bound by anything. Some scholars like Pomares and Jones (2009) argue that policies should be made at a global level since the world economies are now interconnected and it helps fight against States which are oppressing a particular ethnic, political or gender group through giving unfavorable consequences to states violating provision declared by the international community. For instance, Malawi was compelled to legalize homosexuality and Iraq compelled to be monitored its Uranium processing zones. Failure to meet these demands will attract sanctions and negative eye from international community. These loggerheads about who should be authoritative enough to enact policies and by what virtue makes the discourse of policy filled with contests.
There is also a notable contest regarding research in policy making. The rational paradigm advocates the generation of 'high quality' knowledge for policy. This will involve the promotion of policy-oriented research, knowledge produced in order to directly assist decision-makers in dealing with the policy problems they face. This is often produced in a 'consultancy'-type mode, with organizations selling their analytical services to policy-makers. Some argue that it is also crucial to promote more fundamental scientific research, which is not necessarily focused on policy problems but rather on more academic questions which rigorously investigate social, political and economic behavior. It is argued that it is more than just policy-focused research that is required in order to create a healthier link between knowledge and policy. Policy-oriented research has been criticized for overly depoliticizing issues, encouraging the 'commodification' of knowledge and making science susceptible to political interference. (Harriss-White 2007). In this case, failure by scholars to reach a mutual agreement in the issue of research in policy formulation shows the existence of contests in the discourse of policy.
In conclusion, despite notable contestations, policies do agree on paper to be approaches in an endeavor to ensure the survival of mankind through continuously providing material and non-material needs in form of goods, money and services. Despite ultra-motives described by Marxists, ideally the notion of policy as it developed from ancient-kind was a rational response to the social problems faced by the people in their different proximities. In this mission and vision, there exist to be no contest. However the issues rise when trying to figure out who should enact the policy, by what virtue, who should be the actors, what model should be used to introduce a policy, whose research knowledge should be considered, at what level of administration should policies be implemented and whose interested are best served. This is where different skirmishers of wit contest vigorously in the discourse of policy making it beyond reasonable doubt contested and debated.