Special Articles / Shankar Pathak / Social Policy, Social Welfare and Social Development
The emergence of social policy as a field of study and as an academic department in universities is essentially a British product. A comparable development has not taken place even today in the developed European countries with a comprehensive social security system such as Germany, France or Sweden (Jones, 1979). In Britain, social policy was originally taught after the Second World War in the Department of Social Administration at the London School of Economics, London University by Titmuss, Donnison and others and later it began to be taught in other British universities. Teaching and Research in Social Policy was pioneered much later in U.S.A. by Eveline Burns, Martin Rein and Alwin Schorr.
We do not find in any university in India an academic department with a separate course of study in social policy and social administration. The reasons are well known. This has been discussed elsewhere (Pathak 1979, 1981). To mention briefly, with the end of the Second World War, Britain ceased to be a major world power. Its economy was crippled due to the ravages of the war. It had very limited resources to offer fellowships, scholarships and travel grants for students and teachers from developing countries of the British Commonwealth for the study of social administration in Britain. **
After the Second World War, the USA emerged as one of the most powerful countries in the world, both politically and economically. It had plenty of resources which enabled many Indians to study at American universities. One major consequence of this change of status of Britain, after the Second World War, was that there was no impact of the British pattern of social administration on Indian social work education. As a corollary to this, social policy, as an academic course in the schools of social work, was also neglected. Even today, social policy is not taught as a single integrated course in many schools of social work in India.
Emerging Interest in Social Policy
The interest in social policy among the Indian social workers began to develop gradually sometime around the mid-1960’s. The experience of nearly fifteen years of planning seems to have stimulated the interest of social workers and social work educators in India in social policy. In 1964, a Working Group, which included prominent leaders of voluntary and professional social work, was constituted by the Council for Social Development in Delhi. Some of them had participated in the planning and policy making process either directly through their work in the government and Planning Commission or indirectly by their association as academic experts in an advisory capacity in committees set up by the government or the Planning Commission.
The group prepared a document which included ‘Need for a Social Policy Resolution’, and a draft ‘Social Policy Resolution’ to be adopted by the government (hereafter referred to as CFSD document). It said that
During the last seventeen years (since independence) the long-term social and economic objectives of the desired social order have been broadly stated in various places. But the lack of a precise and comprehensive concept of social development, worked as one of the major handicaps, both to the planners and the administrators, and led to uncertain priorities and less rewarding use of resources. It is, therefore, considered necessary to formulate a coherent and consolidated Resolution on Social Policy in terms of long-range goals, immediate and middle range objectives of social development and measures to achieve them. (CFSD 1964).
The influence of the British perspective of social policy in the Titmussian tradition is evident in this document. A year later the Council for Social Development organised, in Delhi, a Seminar on Social Policy for India to discuss the draft Social Policy Resolution.
There is no evidence to suggest that the government or the Planning Commission formally adopted a comprehensive and integrated social policy resolution as advocated by the CFSD memorandum. However, a series of policy resolutions have been adopted by the government, during the period of about two decades, in the areas of education (1968, 1986), population control and family welfare (1976, 1977), child welfare (1974) and health (1983). A comprehensive, unified policy on social welfare is not yet in sight. After his return from the University of Swansea, where he spent sometime as Leverhume Fellow, P.D. Kulkarni delivered a series of three lectures on Social Policy in India in 1965 at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences which were later published in the Indian Journal of Social Work (also reprinted with the title, Social Policy in India). A few years later, the Department of Social Administration was created at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences and a new specialisation in social administration was offered.
From the beginning of the decade of the 1970’s we notice the emergence of interest in social development, and an attempt to link social welfare and social work education to planned social development (Pathak, 1971, UGC, 1980). It is difficult to say whether the simultaneous emergence of interest in social policy and social development among social work educators in India was a matter of coincidence, or, one was the cause and the other the consequence. It was at the end of this decade, i.e., in June, 1979, that a National Seminar on Social Policy was organised for the first time by the Association of Schools of Social Work in India.
Nature and Scope of Social Policy
An attempt to define social policy is beset with many practical difficulties. Social policy may be referred to both in the plural and in the singular. When referred to in the singular, it denotes a comprehensive and integrated set of policies in the social sector such as health, social welfare, education, and social security. When used in the plural the term refers to a series of specific governmental policies such as the policy towards the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, the policy for providing universal primary education, and the policy to provide rural medical care.
There are mainly two approaches to the study of social policy. Titmuss has called them the visionary and text-book definitions of social policy. The visionary approach to social policy is idealistic and so comprehensive as to include practically every policy of the government within its purview, and emphasizes more as to what a social policy should be than what it is. An example of this approach is the following definition of social policy by David Gil (1973).
Social policies are principles or courses of action designed to influence:
1. The overall quality of life in a society;
2. The circumstances of living of individuals and groups in that
3. The nature of intra-societal relationships among individuals,
groups, and society as a whole.
Social policies operate through the following key processes and their manifold interrelations:
1. The development of material and symbolic, life-sustaining
and life-enhancing resources, goods and services;
2. The allocation of individuals and groups to specific statuses
within the total array of societal tasks and functions, involving
corresponding roles, and prerogatives intrinsic to these roles:
3. The distribution to individuals and groups specific rights to
material and symbolic, life-sustaining and life-enhancing
resources, goods and services through general and specific
entitlements, task or status specific rewards, and general
and specific constraints. Social policies tend to, but need
not, be codified in formal legal instruments. All extant social
policies of a given society constitute an interrelated, yet not
necessarily internally, logically consistent, social policy
system, which is, at any point in time, in a state of “Dynamic
A variation of the visionary approach may be called a literal academic approach. Here, the word ‘social’ is defined in a very literal sense in its most comprehensive meaning and then the term social policy is given a comprehensive definition. This is illustrated by the definition of Kulkarni. According to him, “Social policy is the strategy of action indicating the means· and methods to be followed in successive phases to achieve the declared social objectives”. Elaborating it later, he mentions that the term, ‘social policy’ has been used to refer to the social objectives of state policy and the policy regarding social services as a sector, and policy governing the promotion of social welfare services as part of development plans (Kulkarni 1965, 1979). The phrase “declared social objectives” is so broad that it can include most if not all of the government policies.
The other approach tends to be practical and it emphasizes more as to what is generally understood as social policy by policymakers and administrators in a particular country than what should be included in it. The definition by Marshall is an illustration of the second type. He states that the term ‘social policy’ “refers to the policy of governments with regard to action having a direct impact on the welfare of the citizens, by providing them with services or income”. According to him, “the central core consists of social insurance, public assistance, the health and welfare services, and housing policy. Education and treatment of crime also belong to this core” (Marshall 1965). We may notice the similarity between the second part of Kulkarni’s definition and the ‘central core’ of social policy as stated by Marshall.
Broadly speaking, the term ‘policy’ refers to the general guidelines or principles which give a direction to a particular course of action by the government or by an organization. It also refers, in a very specific sense, to an intended or executed course of action. Many writers on social policy, including such well known names like Titmuss, Donnison, and Boulding have stressed that the distinguishing trait of social policy is its distributional or redistributive character. All governmental policies, in a sense, are distributional in character. It is the central purpose of any government, as part of its regulatory function in society, to distribute social resources among its population on the basis of certain criteria. Some of these policies may be redistributive in intent and also in consequence.
All government policies, which are redistributive in intent are definitely to be considered as social policy. Also, all those policies of organised powerful groups in society, such as the trade unions, the manufacturers’ association, the professional associations like the medical association, which try to influence the governmental policies in one direction or the other, and thus either hasten and strengthen the intended redistributive process or retard and weaken it, should also be part of social policy. There are some governmental policies which may not be redistributive in intent but may have unintended major redistributive consequences. Public expenditure through the budgetary provisions and resource mobilization, whether through direct and indirect taxes, or through the pricing policy of the products of the public sector undertakings, are illustrations of unintended redistributive consequences of economic policies.
The second characteristic of social policy is the unilateral transfer of resources from one section of the society to another section. This point was first made by Boulding who was making a distinction between economic policy and social policy: “Social Policy is characterised by the thread of integrative system. This includes those aspects of social life that are characterised, not so much by exchange in which a quid is got for a quo, as by unilateral transfers that are justified by some kind of appeal to a status or legitimacy, identity or community….. By and large it is an objective of social policy to build the identity of a person around some community with which he is associated.” (Boulding, 1967). Endorsing this view of social policy and elaborating it further, Titmuss stated that social policy operates in the social market, unlike the economic policy, which is concerned with the economic market and characterised by exchange (Titmuss, 1976).
Commenting on this distinction between the economic and the social market, Baker says “Social administration tends to be concerned with collective provision and organization, and economics with the market. The idea that the market may be a social burden tends to be underdeveloped in economics. Conversely, in social administration the market critique of state allocations is likely to be dismissed again, because of insufficient cross-fertilization between the subjects”. He also observes that to “talk about a division between economic ends and social ends is nonsense and not merely because the social incorporates the economic” (Baker, 1979).
We need to go a step further to elaborate fully the nature of social policy, especially in developing countries. There are governmental policies which may be considered as economic policies in the normal course because they involve some form of exchange process in the economic market. However, it is not fully an economic exchange. These are governmental policies which provide an open subsidy, either directly in cash, or indirectly, by way of tax rebate. A major example of the direct subsidy is the food subsidy as provided in Sri Lanka and India. Not so obvious, but equally an important form of direct subsidy which justified its inclusion as part of social policy, is the support price for basic items of mass consumption like the support price for food grains and dual policy regarding the sale of sugar, and subsidy to rich farmers in the form of supply of diesel, electric power for operating tubewells and supply of water through irrigation at less than the cost price.
The magnitude of the subsidies has been well brought out by Bardhan. He says that “even rough calculations of only the direct subsidies suggest that only three items food, fertiliser and export subsidies out of the central budget-taken together exceeded Rs. 15 billion in 1980-81 which amounts to half of total gross capital formation in manufacturing in the public sector in that year”, (Bardhan, 1984). It may be noted here that subsidies may be open as well as hidden and they may be given by deliberate intent by the government or they may be forced out of them. An example of the forced subsidy is the less than cost price of transport fare provided to some of the urban population in India, especially to certain powerful and privileged sections, like the students with their concessional passes and the suburban commuters with their railway season tickets.
The hidden nature of subsidy is highlighted by the figures cited by P.C. Lal who was for some time the Chairman of the Indian Airlines Corporation. According to him about 50 per cent of the I.A.C. passengers do not pay for their travel as these are paid for either by the government or by the companies in which they are employed and that only 5 per cent of them really pay for their travel.* Those who are ignorant of this information are likely to treat the transport policy and the fare policy concerning civil aviation in India as purely a matter of concern for the economists.
Almost all the writers on social policy use the word ‘distributive’ or ‘redistributive’ to describe the nature of social policy. Some of them make a specific reference to the underlying principle of equality. Normally speaking, ‘redistribution’ is a neutral word which refers to redistribution of resources in society from one section to another section. There are several policies of the government which do not bring about redistribution of social resources in the direction of greater equality and in favour of the weaker sections. Subsidies for fertilizer supplied to the rich farmers, pricing policy of steel and power, transport policy by way of investment in forms of travel, mostly used by the affluent sections and the fare charged at less than cost price, and indirect subsidy of air-travel by the government or the employing firms, result in redistribution of public resources, contrary to the principles of equity and social justice. These policies, whether singly or collectively, redistribute resources in favour of the privileged and the well-to-do.
Thus, the central concern of social policy is with social and economic justice based on the principle of equality, which means that the redistribution of social resources should take place from the better off sections towards the worse off sections of the society. At the same time, the policy which seems to work contrary to this principle cannot but be a matter of concern and, hence, a subject of study as part of social policy.
Objectives of Social Policy
It is frequently stated that social policies aim to bring about social change. In the final analysis, all social policies are governmental policies as stated by Marshall and Boulding. As part of the operation of the government, social policy cannot hope to introduce fundamental changes in society which would mean undermining the status quo on which the government rests. This characteristic of social policy is frequently overlooked in the literature on social policy. Whether in the socialist countries like the Soviet Union and China, or in the capitalist countries like the USA, or in any of the welfare states, social policy cannot usher in fundamental structural change.
Social policy can only achieve moderate social change, whereby certain undesirable conditions of a section or sections of the society are redressed. Thus, social tension is minimised which may facilitate social integration. Many authors, including Boulding, Titmuss and Jagannadham, state that the objective of social policy is social integration, and to reduce social tension and alienation (CFSD 1964, Boulding, 1967; Titmuss, 1976; Jagannadham, 1979)*. On this point, the liberals and the socialists of the non-Marxist persuasion are in agreement. They consider all tensions and conflicts as dysfunctional. According to Marshall, “the avowed objective of twentieth century social policy is welfare” (Marshall, 1965). This is too broad and vague. It has provoked a critic to call it absurd. Taking a realistic view, Pinker states that the objective of social policy should be the minimization of suffering and not maximization of welfare (Pinker, 1979).
Sometimes, the objective of social policy is stated as the improvement of the quality of life of the people. It is said that the increasingly popular phrase, ‘quality of life’, was first used many years ago by the well-known British economist, A. C. Pigou, in one of his books. The phrase was lifted out of its obscurity and given wide currency by many modern writers on social policy including the several publications of the U.N. System.
It is an argueable point whether quality comes before quantity or vice versa. Sovani has stated that quality comes before quantity because “it is necessary to separate the horses from the bullocks before counting them apart”. (Sovani, 1974). One might argue with equal force in favour of the view that quantity precedes quality. This controversy is somewhat similar to the chicken and egg controversy. It will be impossible to decide conclusively which should come first. Our concern, however, is with the implications of the stated objective of the improvement in the quality of life of the people. As a statement, it is seductively elegant and delightfully vague. So no one may wish to disagree with it. It is necessary to ask as to whose quality of life we want to improve. This is a pertinent question in developing countries like India where the mass of the population lives in conditions of serious deprivation, without being able to get even the basic necessities for survival. They are said to be living in absolute poverty or below the poverty line. The estimates of the poor in the developing countries vary. According to the latest available estimate of the World Bank, it is 57 per cent (World Bank, 1978).
It should be patently clear that the limited resources of the developing countries cannot be utilised to improve the quality of life of all the population of these countries. The planning experience of the past two or three decades in these countries indicates it. It has been very well documented by several studies that the major beneficiaries of developmental planning in the Third World have been the numerically small fraction of the population, i.e., the top two or three deciles of the population of these countries. So the aim of social policy in the developing countries should be to redistribute social resources so that the quality of life of the top 20 per cent of the population does not keep on improving at the cost of the provision of the basic necessities for the very survival of the 50 or 60 per cent of the population. It is for this reason that Mahboob-ul-Huq has stated that the aim of development planning in the countries of the Third World should be stated as the preservation of the very life itself, and not as the improvement of the quality of life, which presumes that the basic survival needs have been met (Mahboob-ul-Huq, 1974, 1978).
Content of Social Policy
In discussing the content of social policy, a reference to the definition of social policy is inevitable because the content flows out of the definition and is determined by it. Almost all the western writers, and the few Indians who have written on social policy, are agreed that social policy consists of policies of the government in the whole sector of social services including social welfare. Titmuss stated that social services or social welfare were seen as the main ingredients of social policy (Titmuss, 1976). Marshall considered that the central core of social policy consisted of social services including treatment of crime (Marshall, 1965). Kulkarni, in his wider definition, included the policy with regard to social services as a sector and the policy governing the promotion of welfare services in a developing economy (Kulkarni, 1965, 1979). The CFSD document stated that social policy “envisages a network of interrelated preventive, promotive, curative and rehabilitative services organised by voluntary and governmental organisations for the citizens” and classified these services under two major areas: social services like health, education and housing, and social welfare services (CFSD, 1964). Martin Rein is of the view that “the definition should be broad enough to encompass services such as education, medical care, cash transfers, housing and social work; not the social services alone but the social purposes and consequences of agriculture, economic, manpower, fiscal, physical development and social welfare policies” (Rein, 1970).
Donnison has provided a helpful approach to define and identify a wide range of government actions which could be considered as social policy. Stating that the classification and description of policies by fields of services, or in terms of particular needs and problems, or particular target groups, will be too restrictive or too ill defined, he posed the question: “Are all public services and their policies therefore to be described as social?” He then provided the answer to the question. It is not the institutions, the problems or the client groups involved, but the essentially distributional character of the decisions; “not the putative consequences of the policy but the fact that it deals with the distribution of resources, opportunities and life chances between different groups and categories of people which will distinguish a policy as social”. He further argued that
unless evidence was available to prove the point, it need not be assumed that the effects of the benefits distributed through the social services are necessarily equalising or necessarily should be. If these effects are indeed equalising other government programmes not usually described as ‘social’ (regressive indirect taxes or industrial subsidies, for example) may exert a more than counter balancing influence. The distributional effects of these policies must also be examined by anyone interested in social policies (Donnison, 1976).
In other words, the social objectives of government policy as stated by Kulkarni or the social purposes and consequences of agricultural and economic policies as mentioned by Rein will be too comprehensive to be practical or may be even confusing. It is the distributional character of these policies, whether in the social services sector or in the economic and other sectors, which will justify the inclusion of the policies within the scope of social policy.
We may now sum up the discussion by describing the areas which should be part of the content of social policy in India. They should include the following: disaster relief, relief of the riot-affected and the refugees, and also their prevention and rehabilitation, welfare of the scheduled castes and tribes, welfare of women, children and the handicapped, labour welfare, housing, social security, social legislation, land reforms, public distribution system of essential commodities, minimum needs programme, health, education, ecology and redistributional aspects of transport, taxation and other economic policies.
Social Policy and Social Work Practice
In a provocative paper Kulkarni has stated that “identifying the relevance of social work to social policy is a tenuous exercise”. Elsewhere in the same paper, he has asked the question: “What is the precise interaction of individual social work practitioners with social policy?” It is necessary to give thought to these questions. Kulkarni has answered his own question to some extent when he says that “in principle, a practitioner takes policy guidance so as to relate his little task to a purposeful whole” (Kulkarni, 1979b). In other words social policy ultimately has to be implemented in the field of social welfare by social work practitioners at the grass root level. If that is so, then social workers have to know the goal of social policy, the rationale behind it and in the light of the understanding of these two aspects of social policy, deliver services to the people as best as they can so that the objectives of the policy are attained. To use Kulkarni’s phrase, this is to relate the “‘practitioners’ little task to the purposeful whole”. Marshall considers this link between policy and the delivery of services as a special characteristic of social policy. He says: “in the case of social policy the relation between programme and objective is an immediate one. The general pattern is one of action carried through until, so to speak, the product has been delivered into the hands of the person for whom it is intended; till then the job has not been finished.” (Marshall, 1965).
There is another important reason as to why social workers should understand and study social policy. Long ago, this was stated by Titmuss. Social workers are concerned with social problems as part of their day-to-day work. They have to be problem-oriented and problem-conscious. We might add that they also have to understand the structural origin of social problems. Such a perspective is only possible when social workers study social policy.
There is sometimes a wrong impression among social work practitioners, and even among social policy planners and administrators, that social policy is made only at the macro level and social workers function by and large at the micro level. This is only partly true as a statement describing the relationship between social policy and social work practice. We can identify social policy broadly at three levels: (1) at the national level, (2) at the state level, and (3) at the local level. The first two levels are fairly clear as far as the Indian political system is concerned. They roughly approximate to the central government and the state government and the Union Territory and in the case of voluntary organisations, the national organisation and the state organisation. The third level which we have described as the local level needs some clarification. It certainly includes policy formulation done at the level of the local governments such as Zilla Parishad, Village Panchayat and Municipal Corporation. In addition, it also refers to the local branches of national level or state level voluntary organizations. Lastly, It includes voluntary organisations which have an exclusively local jurisdiction.
The macro-level social policy formulated at the national level is implemented at the state and the local levels. An illustration of this is the constitutional obligation of the central government to improve the conditions of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes which is carried out by laying down the policy and providing the financial resources. But the implementation of the policy is left to the state government and the state government implements it though its local units as well as through voluntary organisations who operate at the local level. A policy formulated at the national level may be distorted or deflected from its path at the time of implementation at the state or local level. The diversion of funds allocated by the central governments for family planning, by some of the state governments to other areas, is an example of this process. So it is necessary for social workers to understand how the macro-level social policy is or is not implemented properly at the state and/or the local level.
Another common link between social work practice and social policy which has been discussed by several authors is the need for a feed-back from the practitioners who implement social policy to the planners and the administrators of social policy. This is called a ‘feedback loop’ by Coleman (Coleman, 1979). This is necessary both for the evaluation of the effectiveness of social policy as well as to correct any defects that are discovered in the instruments chosen for implementation and the programmes formulated as part of social policy. So it is not only the social work practitioner who has to relate his little task to the purposeful whole, but the policy-maker or the administrator who functions mostly at the macro-level, who has to relate ‘the purposeful whole’ or the big task to the little tasks into which social policy is ultimately translated. Thus, it is a two-way process.
Research and Social Policy
A few comments may be made here on the linkage of research and social policy. The role of research in generating knowledge, whether basic or instrumental knowledge in the area of social policy has been highly exaggerated. There is a good deal of literature that deals with this issue. Social policy planners and administrators have also spoken of the inadequacy of research and the consequent lack of knowledge which would enable them to prepare social policy that can be effectively implemented. The mood of dejection, if not despair, is evident in some of their writings (Bose, 1977). A divergent view, however, has been expressed by social administrators who are mostly from the provincial or central service cadres. Weiner (1979) has referred to the near universal complaint of directors and researchers in India’s social science research institutes that “their studies are rarely utilised by policy makers-even when the studies are directed at specific policy issues or the evaluation of particular programmes and projects and are done under contract with government.” He also quoted the reply of officials to these criticisms:
“Some state government officials believe that they know what needs to be done and that what they lack is not additional knowledge but additional funding. Experience is seen as preferable to social science research. The secretary of a state government department involved in slum clearance and improvement programmes and in the construction of low income housing justified the lack of research in his department: we know these slum dwellers well so there is no need for research. “We only need to develop programmes for them.”
Some officials justified their indifference to research on the grounds that academics lacked the experience that might make their findings useful to administrators. An official in the social welfare department of one state government noted that research findings on social problems all said the same thing. “We get reports that tell us we have a beggar problem, or prostitution, or abandoned children. They tell us we should start new programmes or spend more money. Our social problems are so colossal that research cannot help. Research can help only when you can expand your programmes to meet the needs of people you want to help.” Evidently, none of the research studies submitted to him suggested how one might choose among alternative programmes and projects when resources are scarce. (Emphasis supplied, Weiner 1979.)
While conceding that there is inadequate knowledge to guide a planner, our own past experience of using allocated resources for research in social welfare, the quality of research conducted, and the utilisation of research findings by the policy makers, do not Justify that more and better research will necessarily mean better social policy and better implementation. Some time ago Pahl, a British sociologist, wrote that the housing conditions in Britain deteriorated in direct proportion to the increase in the number of research conducted on the topic. (Pahl, 1975)
Some studies have been made of the utilisation of research findings in developed countries like U.K. and U.S.A. in the field of social science where enormous amount of money has been used. Their conclusions support the point made earlier. Reviewing the British experience, Sharpe has stated that in his opinion, research has only a limited role in public policy-making. He also refers to the civil servants’ suspicion of the social scientists and their dislike of too much information. He then states: “If there is a role for social scientists as policy monitors, it is likely to be for well-defined and limited middle-range policy and the social scientist involved must be prepared for the possibility that his work will be ignored, or possibly suppressed, if the conclusions can be construed as being damaging to the government” (Sharpe, 1978). The record of U.S.A., both in funding social science research and in making use of social scientists in policy formulation, is considered to be better than that of any country in Europe. Reviewing the utilization of social science research in U.S.A., Abte has remarked: “Programme Administrators, interested in evaluation of the costs and effects of programme component, have a formal intent of justifying and protecting what they do” (Abte, 1979). He also pointed out that while research reports commissioned by the government were rarely suppressed when the findings were adverse, they were frequently ignored and the findings were not even published.
In our own country some years ago one of the well-known schools of social work was commissioned to evaluate a national programme in the field of social welfare which was funded by an international organisation. As some of the findings of the study were thought to reflect adversely on the programme, the prestigious and powerful international organisation has successfully suppressed the findings of this major study. A few years earlier, two social work educators conducted a study, which was funded by a government department and it was carried out at their request. Though it was not an evaluative study, the authors were asked to modify part of the report as politically sensitive matters had been discussed.
Sufficient evidence has been produced in support of our contention that the contribution of research to social policy is highly exaggerated. This is not to argue against research being undertaken by the faculty or encouraged by the schools of social work as part of their training programme. It should be done carefully, selectively and at times courageously by taking into account various factors.
Notes and References
Abt. Clark C. : “Social science research and the modern
1979 state”, Daedalus, Vol.-108 (Fall 1979)
Baker, John : “Social conscience and social policy”, Journal
1979 of Social Policy Vol-8 (April 1979)
Bardhan, Pranab : “The political economy of development in India”,
1984 Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Boulding, : “The boundaries of social policy”, Social Work,
Kenneth E 1967 Vol-12 (January 1967)
Bose, A. B. : Data for social welfare planning-some
1977 observations on problems and possibilities,
Indian Journal of Social Work Vol. 38 (Oct. 1977).
Coleman, James : ‘Sociological analysis of social policy’ in Tom
1979 Bottomore & Robert Nisbett (Eds) A History of
Sociological Analysis, London, 1979.
CFSD : The Need for Social Policy in India, Council for
1964 Social Development, New Delhi (Mimeo).
Donnison, David: ‘An approach to social policy’, Australian Journal
1976 of Social Issues, Vol-II (February 1976),
Donnison, David : ‘Social policy since Titmuss’, Journal of Social
1979 Policy, Vol-8 (April 1979).
Gil, David : Unravelling social policy, Cambridge,
1973 Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing Co.
Huq, Mahboob-ul: ‘Development and Independence’, Development
1974 Dialogue, Vol.-1 (1974).
Huq, Mahboob-ul: The Poverty curtain-the choices for the third
1978 world, New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
(Indian Edition) 1978.
Jagannatham, V. : ‘The challenge of evolving social policy,’ Keynote
1979 Address. National Seminar on Social Policy,
Association of Schools of Social Work in India,
Hyderabad, 1979 (Mimeo).
Jones, Catherine : Teaching social policy-some European
1979 perspectives’, Journal of Social Policy, Vol.-8
Kulkarni, P. D. : Social policy in India, Tata Institute. of Social
1965 Sciences, Bombay.
Kulkarni, P. D. : Social policy and social development in India,
1979a Association of Schools of Social Work in India,
Kulkarni, P. D. : National trends and directions of social policy
1979b in India-National Seminar on Social Policy,
Association of Schools of Social Work in India,
Marshall, T. H. : Social Policy, London: Hutchinson.
Pahl, R. E. : ‘Sociology’ in Paul Barker (Ed), The Social
1975 Sciences Today, London: Edward Arnold.
Pathak, Shankar : ‘Social work education: some basic issues and
1971 problems’, Social Work Forum, Vol.-8.
Pathak, Shankar : ‘Professionalisation of social welfare’, in Social
2012 Welfare and Social Work, Niruta publications,
Pathak, Shankar : Social welfare-An evolutionary and develop-
1981 mental perspective, New Delhi Macmillan
Pinker, Robert : The idea of welfare, London: Heinemann.
Rein, Martin : Social policy-issues of choice and change, New
1979 York: Random House.
Sharpe, H. J. : ‘Government as client for social science research’
1978 in Martin BIumer. Social Policy Research, London:
Singh, Tarlok : ‘Social change and the economic process’, The
1978 perspective of social policy, Evelyn Hersey
Memorial Lecture, Delhi School of Social Work,
Sovani, N. V. : ‘Whither social planner and social planning’ in
1974 S.D. Gokhale (ed.), Social Welfare-Legend and
Legacy, Bombay: Popular Prakashan.
Titmuss, Richard : Commitment to welfare, London: George Allen
1976 and Unwin.
U.G.C. : The Report of the Second Review Committee on
1980 Social Work Education, University Grants
Commission, New Delhi.
Weiner, Myron : ‘Social science research and public policy in
1979 India,’ Economic and Political Weekly. Vol.-15,
(September 22, 1979).
World Bank : World Bank Report, Washington, D.C. : World
Subscribers please login to access full text of the article
New 1 Year Subscription to Digital Archives at just Rs.500
your articles to
to publish in our website.
Our Other Websites
Receive email updates on the new books & offers
for the subjects of interest to you.