Table of Contents
Question 1: Welfare Policy
Welfare policy is the means by which a healthy balance is kept between the well being of people and society. The people’s belief on human nature is that people are decent. However, this can be varied depending on the age of a person, community, or other factors. In one society people can be the same and helping, while, in another culture this can be different. This gives a perspective of welfare policy relative to its susceptibility to the manipulation of human nature. The solutions give a relation where panic or fear can be a way people use to fulfill their overall best. Therefore, this calls for some certain measure in which welfare policy can be used to determine the human nature. This should involve measure that must be met and the reasons as to which they have to be met. In addition, the actions that are needed to correct the issues involved in human nature should be included.
The welfare policy is an essential aspect in any culture and society. This is because it defines the nature of humans. As it is known an individual is a social being whose survival in the environment and their offspring depend on the help and cooperation from other human beings. This aspect of human nature is what calls for an appropriate welfare policy for the human beings. All people depend on each other including the ones who live in relatively large or uncomplicated setups like; village or tribal subsistence society, need each other. This is the fundamental belief of the human nature, and that is the reason the welfare policy is vulnerable to influence by a person’s belief on human nature.
The development process of human nature extends the range and multiplies the diversity of the situations that call for mutual dependence (Rosenstein, 376). Therefore, a developing and evolving society cannot advance or survive without the inclusion of others. This calls for the inclusion of development and creation of processes that incorporate new instruments and adaptation of the already existing processes. This is done so as to meet the trends of the changing situations.
Question 2: Environmental Management
The evolution of environmental management has been evolving towards decentralization. That is moving the power to the cities and states. This is a clear direction for the environment public policy. This is because the decentralization has provided a solution in tackling the environmental problems. In addition, the ever increasing population, evolving technology and ways of tackling environmental problems calls for the decentralization. The evolution has also helped to decentralize the systems of management form the bureaucracy that is common in the central management. The decentralization has provided opportunities to the states and cities to have governing processes and policies that can be used in managing the environment.
The states and cities have provided varied ways that can be used in the local areas for managing the environment better. The states and local cities provide straight forward management systems in comparison to the central systems that have so much bureaucracy. The decentralization has removed that, and this has given a clear direction towards the management of environmental public, policy. Moreover, the environment is destroyed by the locals who consume the non living and living natural foundations that they live. This provides a tremendous risk to the local states and cities and rapid remedies can easily be provided by the decentralized management systems.
The states and cities play a crucial role in the conservation efforts on the environment. They are the ones that are nearest to the people, and can offer first hand environmental solutions that need collective and organized rapid, response. This cannot easily be found in central government. The higher levels of government are often characterized by rigidity; rely on regulatory and bureaucratic approach in solving the environmental problems affecting the locals. The cities and states can also be bureaucratic and inflexible; however, they have greater ability in tailoring policies and programs that account for the local needs and conditions. The states and cities can promote the less compartmentalized approaches in implementing and analyzing programs and policies (Dennis, 1991). In addition, they can easily consider the social, fiscal, and economic implications of the environmental decisions. Moreover, the cities and states are closest to the people, hence; they can easily foster and aid the public participation in the consensual support that are significant to the success of the environmental processes, policies and programs.