Social Policy Administration Research Articles

Human Rights’ Violation and Media

Human rights are those rights which are very important for every human being to live a peaceful life in this world. These can be called fundamental or inalienable rights. These are the basic rights with the help of which a man can live a life of dignity and freedom. These rights are given priority in social policy administration and enactment of law. These rights are of paramount importance and cannot be denied in any circumstances. The concept of human rights emphasizes the worth of an individual in the society. It covers the series of different rights and freedom asserted by the constitution, universally accepted and essential to live a happy and peaceful life. These provisions include equality before law and personal liberty, right against action, right to be releases on bail, right against inhuman treatment, abolition of discrimination and untouchablity and right to assemble etc.

Race, Institutions, and the Administration of Social Policy

The New Deal marked a critical conjuncture of civil rights and welfare policy in American political development. During the Progressive Era, civil rights policy and social policy developed independently and often antithetically. While the American state expanded its reach in economic regulation and social welfare, laying the institutional and intellectual groundwork for the New Deal, policies aimed at protecting the rights of minorities progressed barely at all (McDonagh 1993). But with the Great Depression, the welfare and civil rights agendas came together powerfully. For African Americans, who had already been relegated to the bottom of the political economy, the Depression created even more desperate conditions, and issues of economic opportunity and relief became paramount. The African American political community pursued an agenda that linked advances in civil rights to expansions of the state's role in social welfare (Hamilton and Hamilton 1992).

Race, Institutions, and the Administration of Social Policy

Race, Institutions, and the Administration of Social Policy

Reflections on the History of Social Policy in America

Since the Second World War scholars have become increasingly interested in the concept of A vague term, generally refers to actions taken by government to deal with social and economic distress and other problems of an urban-industrial society. More specifically, social policy has a variety of different but related goals: (1) to mitigate or to abolish poverty; (2) to provide for groups unable to survive without some form of assistance; (3) to improve and to humanize conditions of work; (4) to grapple with the sanitary and hygienic problems resulting from modern technology and urbanization; (5) to control and punish crime; (6) to establish surrogate structures for functions once performed by family, church, or the immediate community. Historians have long been concerned with the manner in which American society dealt with dependent groups. For the most part, however, they did not produce policy-oriented studies nor were they concerned with the formulation, implementation, or administration of social policy. Generally speaking, historians during the first half of the twentieth century were primarily interested in politics and elections and tended to study social problems within a conceptual framework that emphasized alternating chronological periods of liberal reform and conservative consolidation. Such an approach was not conducive to differentiating between dependent and distressed groups on the one hand and the general population on the other. The history of social policy, to the degree that it was studied, remained an adjunct to political history. Other barriers also inhibited the systematic study of social policy issues. Overlapping and fragmented political jurisdictions made it difficult to treat social policy in a coherent manner. Leaving aside the role of the federal government, the care of dependent groups was subject to a multiplicity of state and local governments. The resulting variety of political jurisdictions complicated the task of defining public policy as an entity. The important role played by private philanthropy only compounded the problem. Moreover, a lack of economic sophistication led historians to ignore fiscal issues