are filipino attitudes to the role of government different with tables

8/2/2019 Are Filipino Attitudes to the Role of Government Different WITH TABLES

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/are-filipino-attitudes-to-the-role-of-government-different-with-tables 1/23

Are Filipino Attitudes to the Role of Government Different?

A Cross National Analysis Across Time

Paper presented to the Second International Conference on Public Opinion Polls,“Public Opinion Polls in a Changing Society,” Cairo, Egypt, 8-9 November 2009

By Linda Luz Guerrero ([email protected])

Vice-President, Social Weather Stations, Philippines

Abstract

In 1984, the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP, www.issp.org) was established by

five nations. Each of the now 45 member-countries administer an identical survey to a random

sample of their population. The survey institutes themselves meet every year to develop and

design survey questions on topics that are relevant and meaningful to them.

In 1990, the Philippines joined the ISSP survey consortium and has since then annually

implemented all the agreed upon survey modules. In 1996 together with 22 other member

countries, the Philippines implemented the Role of Government survey to obtain data on

attitudes toward government responsibilities and government spending, state intervention in

the economy, civil liberties, political interest, trust and efficacy. Two thirds of the items in the

1996 survey were replicated in 2006 by 21 member countries.

This paper compares attitudes of Filipinos with that of the citizens of the other participating

ISSP countries towards the role of government in terms of (a) helping the economy grow; (b)

providing a job for everyone who wants one; (c) keeping prices under control; (d) providing

health care for the sick; (e) providing a decent standard of living for the old; (e) providing

industry with the help it needs to grow; (f) providing s decent standard of living for the

unemployed; and (g) reducing income differences between the rich and the poor. The paper

also discusses how government in these ISSP countries is rated on how successful it is in

providing health care for the sick, providing a decent standard of living of the old, dealing with

threats to security, controlling crime, fighting unemployment and protecting the environment.

http://www.issp.org/






AUTHOR: Ms. LINDA LUZ B. GUERRERO

Vice-President

Social Weather Stations

52 Malingap Street, Sikatuna Village

Quezon City 1101, PHILIPPINES

Tel No. +632 924 4465

Fax No. +632 921 0181

Email: [email protected]



Are Filipino Attitudes to the Role of Government Different?

A Cross National Analysis Across Time

1 Background and Objectives

The International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) is an international consortium of survey

institutes. It was established in 1984 and presently has 46 member-countries. Each year ISSPmembers develop survey questions on a topic of common interest and agree to conduct a

survey containing these common questions for the sake of cross- country comparison. Each

participating survey-institute-member funds all of its survey and non-survey costs.

Social Weather Stations (SWS) which represents the Philippines in ISSP became a member in

1990 and implemented its first survey in 1991.

Since 1984 there have been four national survey rounds on the role of government

implemented by the ISSP members. The first time the module was implemented was in 1985

with then only 6 countries; then replicated in 1990 with 9 countries. Since SWS was not yet a

member during the 1985 and 1990 survey rounds, this paper will use the 1996 and 2006 datawhich still allows one to track changes, if any, in Filipino attitudes towards the role of

government and at the same time compare itself with other countries.

In 1996 there were 22 other member countries who gathered data on attitudes toward

government responsibilities and government spending, state intervention in the economy, civil

liberties, political interest, trust and efficacy. Two thirds of the items in the 1996 survey were

replicated in 2006 by 21 member countries.

This paper focuses on a major area of concern in the survey module: the role of government in

terms of (a) helping the economy grow; (b) providing a job for everyone who wants one; (c)

keeping prices under control; (d) providing health care for the sick; (e) providing a decent

standard of living for the old; (e) providing industry with the help it needs to grow; (f) providing

s decent standard of living for the unemployed; and (g) reducing income differences between

the rich and the poor. The paper also discusses how government in these ISSP countries is

rated on how successful it is in providing health care for the sick, providing a decent standard of

living of the old, dealing with threats to security, controlling crime, fighting unemployment and

protecting the environment.



2 The changing role of government

Then the fundamental purpose of government was to secure the rights and freedoms of

individual citizens and maintain public order. Now its role has expanded and can be

categorized into direct and indirect roles. Direct roles include the provision and management

of social services. Indirect roles include policy-making, enforcing and upholding the law,

monitoring and regulating markets, and enabling and contracting private and other sectoral

independent service providers. The role of government has expanded to include

development in general and service delivery in particular.

Further with globalization, views on the role of government continue to change and expand.

And over the last two decades, in many countries there has been an emphasis on reducing the

role of government and on reforming public management by building alliances with the private

sector and other change constituencies.

The changing views of the role of government and the changing approaches to public sector

management has created strains in its capacity to perform “new” roles (Batley and Larbi,

2004).

3 Helping the economy grow

What roles do citizens want their governments to take considering that the role of governmentis determined by the level of economic and institutional development?

Many governments have had to balance their role in helping the economy to grow. Many

complain that government regulation of the economy is too little, preferring that it should

control and regulate, for example wages and prices. Others feel that it should instead take on a

passive role and let market forces prevail.

Looking at the ISSP data over 10 years from 1996 to 2006, high favorable support for

government intervention in the financing of projects to create jobs has been stable. On

average for each of the two years, 82% are in favor.

But if creating more jobs is done via reducing the working week then attitudes towards

government using this strategy to develop the economy are relatively less favorable, and in fact

support has slightly decreased from an average of 46% in 1996 to 40% in 2006. There is some

favorable view as to government supporting declining industries to protect jobs: 61% in 1996

and 62% in 2006.



There is still substantial support for having government cut on its spending to help the

economy develop. This support though has decreased on average, from 76% in 1996 to 67% in

2006.

Government support for industry to develop new products and technology has continued to

be highly favored, 84% in both 1996 and 2006 . But in the same breath, slight majorities favorgovernment to regulate business: 52% in 1996 and 51% in 2006.

3.1 Cuts in government spending

The more efficient government is in carrying out its functions, the lower the level of public

spending needed. Stability should be maintained at a level of government expenditure that

best allows the government to pursue its essential or core functions (Tanzi, 1998).

In general there have been declines in supporting cuts in government spending as something

government might do for the economy. Declines in support are seen more in Australia (from

68% in 1996 to 44% in 2006), Ireland (from 74% in 1996 to 43% in 2006), Russia (69% in 1996 to

40% in 2006) and Switzerland (78% in 1996 to 44% in 2006).

Support has increased in the Czech Republic (55% in 1996 to 60% in 2006), Latvia ( 92% in 1996

to 95% in 2006) and especially in Poland (70% in 1996 to 87% in 2006). In 2006, although there

have been erosions in support, still very high majority support is shown by France (88%),

Hungary (87%), and Poland (87%) and especially Latvia (95%) (Table 1).

The Philippines has unwavered. Three fourths of respondents in the Philippines since 1996

(76%) to 2006 (75%), favor government cutting on its spending as a way of helping theeconomy.

Table 1.

Here are some things the government might do for the economy.

Please show which actions you are in favor of and which are against.

Cuts in Government Spending, % In Favor

1996 2006 Change

(A) (B) (B-A)

Australia 68 44 -24

Canada 81 69 -12Czech Republic 55 60 5France 93 88 -5Germany-East 82 75 -7Germany-West 85 77 -8Great Britain 45 38 -7Hungary 90 87 -3Ireland 74 43 -31Israel-Arabs 79 74 -5Israel-Jews 89 79 -10



Japan 78 80 2Latvia 92 95 3New Zealand 71 63 -8Norway 66 61 -5Philippines 76 75 -1Poland 70 87 17Russia 69 40 -29

Slovenia 85 81 -4Spain 85 56 -29Sweden 58 56 -2Switzerland 78 44 -34United States 83 63 -20Average 76 67 -9

But attitudes can change depending on the situation. More recently, GlobeScan’s and PIPA’s

BBC World Service Poll (September 2009) across 20 countries showed support for increased

government spending to stimulate the economy. Increased government role in the regulation

and oversight of the national economy was also preferred to contain the current financial

crises.

3.2 Financing of projects to create new jobs

Among the roles, one of the three most popular roles government is favored to take is the

financing of projects to create new jobs. As mentioned earlier an average of 82% in both 1996

and 2006 favor this role for government (Table 2).

In 2006, very high above average majorities who support this role for government is shown by

Hungary (95%), Ireland (93%), Israel (the Arab side, 95%), Latvia (95%), Poland (95%) and Spain

(96%). Comparing 1996 and 2006, a surge of support is shown by Israel (Arabs side, 82% in1996 to 95% in 2006) and New Zealand (54% in 1996 to 75% in 2006).

There have been relatively big declines in support for this action in Germany (West, 79% in

1996 to 65% in 2006; and East, 86% in 1996 to 73% in 2006), and Japan (71% in 1996 to 61% in

2006). Lowest support in 2006 is shown by Japan.

In the Philippines, although still high, there was a decrease in support, from 86% in 1996 to

80% in 2006, the latter not within the average range of 82%.

Table 2



Government financing of projects to create new jobs, % In Favor

1996 2006 Change

(A) (B) (B-A)

Australia 84 86 2Canada 72 72 0



Czech Republic 74 78 4France 80 78 -2Germany-East 86 73 -13Germany-West 79 65 -14Great Britain 86 75 -11Hungary 93 95 2

Ireland 92 93 1Israel-Arabs 82 95 13Israel-Jews 89 85 -4Japan 71 61 -10Latvia 96 95 -1New Zealand 54 75 21Norway 86 86 0Philippines 86 80 -6Poland 92 95 3Russia 85 86 1Slovenia 87 88 1Spain 95 96 1Sweden 69 68 -1

Switzerland 77 76 -1United States 74 85 11Average 82 82 0

3.3 Less regulation of business

When governments put more faith in free markets, it provides an environment conducive to

healthy competition and thus industrial success. With liberalization, government’s role is to

provide a stable macro-economy with clear rules of the game, and to level the playing field.

Government is expected to give a lead role to private enterprise and furnish essential public

goods like basic human capital and infrastructure. If deviations occur these cannot not be

remedied by government (Lall, 2003).

When unable to collect taxes efficiently, governments of developing countries in particular tend

to pursue their objectives through regulations, thus distorting the role of government (Tanzi,

1998).

Of the countries, the highest support for less government intervention in business is Germany

(East, 77% and West, 71%) particularly in 2006. Czech Republic (60%), France (62%), New

Zealand (60%) Poland (59%), and Slovenia (64%) also show above average favorable views on

government having less intervention in business (Table 3).

Russia (39% in 1996 to 28% in 2006), and Spain ( 43% in 1996 and 35% in 2006) and Sweden

(44% in 1996 and 47% in 2006) show the least favorable opinions on government regulating

business, i.e they would prefer more government role. Israel (Arabs side) declined much in its

support for this government role (70% in 1996 to 35% in 2006).

The Philippines is slightly above average in its support for having less government regulation of



business: 54% in both 1996 and 2006.

Table 3.Here are some things the government might do for the economy.


Less government regulation of business, % In Favor

1996 2006 Change

(A) (B) (B-A)

Australia 59 49 -10Canada 49 53 4Czech Republic 46 60 14France 66 62 -4Germany-East 49 77 28

Germany-West 53 71 18Great Britain 42 47 5Hungary 51 51 0Ireland 56 53 -3Israel-Arabs 70 35 -35Israel-Jews 60 45 -15Japan 51 40 -11Latvia 47 52 5New Zealand 57 60 3Norway 46 44 -2Philippines 54 54 0Poland 47 59 12Russia 39 28 -11

Slovenia 60 64 4Spain 43 35 -8Sweden 44 47 3Switzerland 53 46 -7United States 50 52 2Average 52 51 -1

3.4 Support for industry to develop new products and technology

This is a good example of the market-enhancing view where instead of viewing government and

the market as mutually exclusive, government policy is directed at encouraging private sectorpartnerships (Aoki eds, 1997).

Another role that countries would want government to take on is to support industry to

develop new products and technology. As mentioned earlier, a very positive average of 84% is

obtained for this role. In 2006, Australia (93%), Ireland (96%), Israel (Arabs, 93%, Latvia (91%),

New Zealand (93%), Norway (90%) and Slovenia (91%) stand out in this regard (Table 4).



There are some countries though that fall way below average in their support, although still

relatively substantial. In 2006, these include the Czech Republic (66%), Sweden (70%) and

Switzerland (69%).

Support of the Philippines for this role that government could play dipped from 79% in 1996 to71% in 2006. These proportions though are relatively still high but below the average.

Table 4.



Support for industry to develop new products and technology,

% In Favor

1996 2006 Change

(A) (B) (B-A)

Australia 95 93 -2Canada 83 82 -1Czech Republic 83 66 -17France 78 83 5Germany-East 80 78 -2Germany-West 81 82 1Great Britain 88 85 -3Hungary 88 86 -2Ireland 94 96 2Israel-Arabs 81 93 12Israel-Jews 90 81 -9Japan 84 81 -3Latvia 95 91 -4

New Zealand 90 93 3Norway 85 90 5Philippines 79 71 -8Poland 84 91 7Russia 83 88 5Slovenia 90 91 1Spain 88 88 0Sweden 66 70 4Switzerland 76 69 -7United States 78 86 8Average 84 84 0

3.5 Providing industry with the help it needs to grow

Given the above, it is not surprising that government should be positively viewed as providing

industry with the help it needs to grow.

In 1996, an average of 83% thought it should be government’s responsibility to provide industry

with the help it needs to grow. It slightly dipped in 2006 at 81% but this proportion is still very



much showing high majorities (Table 5).

In 2006, high above average support is observed in Australia (85%), France (83%), Great Britain

(88%), Hungary (90%), Ireland (95%), Israel (Arabs, 95%), Israel (Jews, 89%), Latvia (93%), New

Zealand (87%), Poland (93%), Russia (2%), Slovenia (94%) and Spain (93%).

The Philippines is slightly above average: 85% in 1996 and 83% in 2006.

Table 5

On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the

government's responsibility to…

… Provide industry with the help it needs to grow, % Should

1996 2006 Change

(A) (B) (B-A)

Australia 87 85 -2Canada 74 76 2Czech Republic 82 77 -5France 82 83 1Germany East 73 62 -11Germany West 64 58 -6Great Britain 93 88 -5Hungry 89 90 1Ireland 94 95 1Israel Arabs 89 95 6Israel Jews 91 89 -2Japan 75 67 -8Latvia 96 93 -3New Zealand 85 87 2

Norway 80 78 -2Philippines 85 83 -2Poland 91 93 2Russia 92 92 0Slovenia 93 94 1Spain 96 93 -3Sweden 80 77 -3Switzerland 52 45 -7USA 66 74 8Average 83 81 -2

3.6 Support for declining industries to protect jobs

On average as mentioned earlier, government role in supporting declining industries to protect

jobs has remained stable: 61% in 1996 and 62% in 2006 (Table 6).

A very positive change is shown by Israel (Arabs, from 80% in 1996 to 94% in 2006). Above

average increases in support is shown by Hungary (63% in 1996 to 72% in 2006), Ireland (72% in

1996 to 76% in 2006), Poland ( 66% in 1996 to 72% in 2006), and the United States (49% in 1996



to 68% in 2006).

Over the 10 year period from 1996 to 2006, visibly below average support is shown in Australia

(45% in 1996 and 51% in 2006), Canada (37% in 1996 and 42% in 2006), Czech Republic ( 39% in

1996 and 38% in 2006), Latvia ( 47% in 1996 and 55% in 2006), New Zealand (45% in 1996 and

42% in 2006), Norway (58% in 1996 and 56% in 2006), Russia (49% in both 1996 and 2006), andSweden (52% in 1996 and 51% in 2006).

The Philippines shows favorable, although decreasing, attitudes for government to have a role

in supporting declining industries to protect jobs: 75% in 1996 and 68% in 2006.

Table 6.



Support for declining industries to protect jobs, % In Favor

1996 2006 Change(A) (B) (B-A)

Australia 45 51 6Canada 37 42 5Czech Republic 39 38 -1France 69 66 -3Germany-East 77 63 -14Germany-West 65 57 -8Great Britain 64 62 -2Hungary 63 72 9Ireland 72 76 4Israel-Arabs 80 94 14Israel-Jews 79 78 -1Japan 68 57 -11Latvia 47 55 8New Zealand 45 42 -3Norway 58 56 -2Philippines 75 68 -7Poland 66 72 6Russia 49 49 0Slovenia 70 70 0Spain 83 82 -1Sweden 52 51 -1Switzerland 60 57 -3United States 49 68 19

Average 61 62 1

3.7 Reducing the working week to create more jobs

Among the different roles tested, reducing the working week to create more jobs is the least

favored role that government might do for the economy, and in fact has had a decrease in

support on average: 46% in 1996 to 40% in 2006 (Table 7).



Visibly below average support is shown by Australia (30% in 1996 to 23% in 2006), Czech

Republic (23% in 1996 and 30% in 2006), New Zealand (24% in 1996 and 26% in 2006), and the

United States (27% in 1996 and 36% in 2006).

There have been increases in support and are above the average in Poland (41% in 1996 to 49%in 2006) and Spain ( 53% in 1996 to 60% in 2006).

In the Philippines there has been a decrease in support but is still above the average: 57% in

1996 to 44% in 2006.

Table 7.



Reducing the working week to create more jobs, % In Favor

1996 2006 Change(A) (B) (B-A)

Australia 30 23 -7Canada 48 45 -3Czech Republic 23 30 7France 59 28 -31Germany-East 68 53 -15Germany-West 45 38 -7Great Britain 38 33 -5Hungary 39 39 0Ireland 52 32 -20Israel-Arabs 72 69 -3Israel-Jews 59 45 -14Japan 53 39 -14Latvia 29 39 10New Zealand 24 26 2Norway 45 29 -16Philippines 57 44 -13Poland 41 49 8Russia 28 30 2Slovenia 58 54 -4Spain 53 60 7Sweden 61 52 -9Switzerland 55 35 -20United States 27 36 9

Average 46 40 -6

3.8 Keeping prices under control

As reduction in the rate of inflation is often an important contributor to the growth of the

income especially to those at the bottom of the income distribution (Tanzi, 1998), the data

gathered show strong support that it should be government’s responsibility to keep prices



under control. On average, 84% showed support for this government role (Table 8).

Even higher above the average support is shown by Australia (81% in 1996 and 84% in 2006),

Germany East (87% in 1996 and 86% in 2006), Great Britain (86% in 1996 and 85% in 2006),

Hungary (88% in 1996 and 87% in 2006), Ireland (92% in 1996 and 93% in 2006), Israel Arabs

(95% in 1996 and 93% in 2006), Israel Jews (88% in 1996 and 86% in 2006), Japan (96 in 1996and 92% in 2006), Norway ( 990% in 1996 and 89% in 2006), Russia (95% in 1996 and 98% in

2006), Slovenia (90% in 1996 and 86% in 2006), and Spain (91% both in 1996 and 2006).

In the Philippines, there is much support that government has this role of keeping the prices

under control: 93% in 1996 and 96% in 2006.

Table 8


government's responsibility to… … Keep Prices under control, % Should

1996 2006 Change

(A) (B) (B-A)

Australia 81 87 6Canada 64 70 6Czech Republic 82 67 -15France 76 83 7Germany East 87 86 -1Germany West 71 75 4Great Britain 86 85 -1Hungry 88 87 -1

Ireland 92 93 1Israel Arabs 95 93 -2Israel Jews 88 86 -2Japan 96 92 -4Latvia 80 84 4New Zealand 74 77 3Norway 90 89 -1Philippines 93 96 3Poland 84 78 -6Russia 95 98 3Slovenia 90 86 -4Spain 91 91 0Sweden 86 82 -4

Switzerland 78 77 -1USA 69 77 8Average 84 84 0



4 Delivery of social services

Direct roles of government to provide basic social services is very much appreciated . Among

the responsibilities tested, providing health care for the sick (average of 95% in 1996 and 96%

in 2006) and providing a decent standard of living for the old (average of 95% for both 1996 and

2006) are considered must roles for government.

Another must role is government’s responsibility with regard reducing income differences

between the rich and the poor (average 70% in 1996 and an increase in 2006 to 74%). Coming

next although there have been declines are providing a decent standard of living for the

unemployed (average 76% in 1996 and 69% in 2006), and providing a job for everyone who

wants one (average 74% in 1996 and 69% in 2006).

4.1 Reducing income differences between the rich and the poor

Over time from 1996 to 2006 in general there have been strong preference that government

should reduce income differences between the rich and the poor. Big increases are shown in

Australia (52% in 1996 to 61% in 2006), Canada (51% in 1996 to 68% in 2006), Latvia (72% in

1996 to 83% in 2006) and Switzerland (60% in 1996 to 69% in 2006) (Table 9).

In the Philippines, a big increase in support for this government role is also seen: 63% in 1996

to 73% in 2006.

Table 9



… Reduce income differences between the rich and the poor,

% Should

1996 2006 Change

(A) (B) (B-A)Australia 52 61 9Canada 51 68 17Czech Republic 62 55 -7France 74 78 4Germany East 84 83 -1Germany West 63 67 4Great Britain 68 69 1Hungry 79 86 7



Ireland 78 80 2Israel Arabs 87 94 7Israel Jews 81 83 2Japan 64 66 2Latvia 72 83 11New Zealand 47 50 3

Norway 73 74 1Philippines 63 73 10Poland 84 88 4Russia 81 86 5Slovenia 85 91 6Spain 90 86 -4Sweden 71 68 -3Switzerland 60 69 9USA 48 52 4Average 70 74 4

4.2 Providing health care for the sick

Providing services for health is a universal need. All the countries feel that this should be a

responsibility of government (Table 10).

In the Philippines, practically all say that it should be government’s responsibility to provide

health care for the sick: 96% in 1996 and 95% in 2006.

Table 10



… Provide health care for the sick, % Should

1996 2006 Change

(A) (B) (B-A)

Australia 94 98 4Canada 94 96 2Czech Republic 97 96 -1France 89 92 3Germany East 99 97 -2Germany West 97 96 -1Great Britain 99 99 0Hungary 99 100 1Ireland 99 99 0Israel Arabs 88 96 8Israel Jews 96 96 0Japan 90 87 -3Latvia 99 96 -3New Zealand 97 98 1Norway 99 99 0Philippines 96 95 -1Poland 98 99 1Russia 98 98 0Slovenia 97 98 1



Spain 99 98 -1Sweden 96 94 -2Switzerland 90 88 -2USA 85 90 5Average 95 96 1

4.3 Providing a job for everyone who wants one

There have been declines from 1996 to 2006 in the support for the direct role of government to

provide jobs for those who want one is observed in. Biggest declines are observed in Germany

East (92% in 1996 to 80% in 2006), Germany West (75% in 1996 to 62% in 2006), Great Britain

(69% in 1996 to 56% in 2006), Japan (63% in 1996 to 52% in 2006), New Zealand (55% in 1996

to 37% in 2006) and Spain (91% in 1996 to 82% in 2006) (Table 11).

Relative to other countries, Australia (44% in 1996 and 43% in 2006), Canada (36% in 1996 and

35% in 2006), and the United States show low support for this direct role of government toprovide jobs for those who want one.

Above the average high support in 2006 is shown in Hungary (91%), Israel Arabs (94%), Poland

(89%), Russia (93%) , and Slovenia (88%).

The Philippines continued to show high above the average support for the role: 91% in 1996

and 92% in 2006.

Table 11



… Provide a job for everyone who wants one, % Should

1996 2006 Change

(A) (B) (B-A)

Australia 44 43 -1Canada 36 35 -1Czech Republic 76 79 3France 69 62 -7Germany East 92 80 -12Germany West 75 62 -13Great Britain 69 56 -13

Hungary 87 91 4Ireland 70 65 -5Israel Arabs 97 94 -3Israel Jews 75 76 1Japan 63 52 -11Latvia 90 83 -7New Zealand 55 37 -18Norway 81 79 -2Philippines 91 92 1



Poland 90 89 -1Russia 93 93 0Slovenia 89 88 -1Spain 91 82 -9Sweden 65 59 -6Switzerland 56 50 -6

USA 39 40 1 Average 74 69 -5

4.4 Providing a decent standard of living for the unemployed

In general there have been declines in support for the government role of providing a decent

standard of living for the unemployed. The biggest declines are observed in France (81% in

1996 to 70% in 2006), Germany East ( 92% in 1996 to 80% in 2006), Germany West (80% in

1996 to 67% in 2006), Great Britain (79% in 1996 to 57% in 2006), Israel Arabs (85% in 1996 to

60%in 2006), Japan (73% in 1996 to 56% in 2006), Latvia (83% in 1996 to 65% in 2006), NewZealand (63% in 1996 to 49% in 2006), and Russia (81% in 1996 to 68% in 2006) (Table 12).

In the Philippines support for this government role has in fact increased: 72% in 1996 to 79% in

2006.

Table 12



… Provide a decent standard of living for the unemployed, % Should

1996 2006 Change(A) (B) (B-A)

Australia 65 57 -8Canada 65 63 -2Czech Republic 45 48 3France 81 70 -11Germany East 92 80 -12Germany West 80 67 -13Great Britain 79 57 -22Hungary 63 69 6Ireland 91 82 -9Israel Arabs 85 60 -25

Israel Jews 62 65 3Japan 73 56 -17Latvia 83 65 -18New Zealand 63 49 -14Norway 93 88 -5Philippines 72 79 7Poland 81 82 1Russia 81 68 -13Slovenia 86 83 -3



Spain 94 93 -1Sweden 90 83 -7Switzerland 72 67 -5USA 48 52 4Average 76 69 -7

4.5 Providing a decent standard of living for the old

The elderly is a sector much valued by all the countries. The proportions wanting that

government should provide a decent standard of living for the old are so high and this has not

changed over time from 1996 to 2006 (Table 13).

In the Philippines support has been high and unchanged : 90% in 1996 and 91% in 2006.

Table 13

On the whole, do you think it should or should not be thegovernment's responsibility to…

… Provide a decent standard of living for the old, % Should

1996 2006 Change

(A) (B) (B-A)

Australia 94 95 1Canada 90 95 5Czech Republic 97 95 -2France 92 94 2Germany East 98 96 -2Germany West 96 93 -3Great Britain 98 97 -1Hungary 98 99 1Ireland 99 100 1Israel Arabs 89 97 8Israel Jews 95 95 0Japan 91 89 -2Latvia 100 98 -2New Zealand 94 95 1Norway 99 99 0Philippines 90 91 1Poland 99 99 0Russia 99 99 0Slovenia 96 96 0

Spain 99 99 0Sweden 98 97 -1Switzerland 90 90 0USA 87 90 3Average 95 95 0

5 Government performance ratings



On average, countries are stringent with their ratings of the performance of government in

providing social services. In 2006, with more countries participating in the survey, only 23% to

43% would rate as successful government’s provision of welfare services. A plurality rated as

successful government’s role in dealing with threats to security (average 43%) (Table 14).

The next government role better rated to be successful is providing healthcare for the sick with

an average of 36%. A third on average felt that the government was successful in protecting

the environment (31%) and providing a decent standard of living for the old (30%). A fourth

rated government as successful in controlling crime (25%) and fighting unemployment.

5.1 Success in providing health care for the sick

In 2006 (as these items were not run in 1996), the highest rater was Switzerland, with 75%

saying that its government has been successful in providing health care for the sick. There were

15 countries giving ratings below the average successful rating of 36%. The least happy include

Latvia (13%), Russia (14%) , Poland (14%), Croatia (14%), Portugal (15%) and Hungary (17%).

Almost half (49%) in the Philippines rated as successful its government in providing health care

for the sick.

5.2 Success in providing a decent standard of living of the old

Switzerland was the highest rater, with 69% saying that its government was successful in

providing a decent standard of living of the old. There were 16 countries giving ratings below

the average successful rating of 30%. Countries where only a few thought that their respectivegovernment was successful in providing a decent standard of living of the elderly include Latvia

(7%), Russia (8%), Croatia (9%), and Portugal (9%).

Almost 2 out of 5 (37%) in the Philippines rated as successful its government in providing a

decent standard of living of the elderly.

5.3 Success in dealing with threats to security

Finland was the highest rater of its government, with 76% saying that it was successful in

dealing with threats to security. Switzerland (67%) and Germany East (66%) followed next.Other good raters were Denmark (64%), Germany West (62%), and Australia (62%).

The least happy were South Korea (17%) and Japan (19%).

The Philippines had 41% saying that its government was successful in dealing with threats to

security.



5.4 Success in controlling crime

Government success in controlling crime is not so well rated. In 2006, on average only 25%

rated government as successful in controlling crime. The highest raters were Germany West

(54%) and Switzerland (53%).

Chile (9%), Croatia (10%), Israel-Jews (11%), Russia (12%) and Sweden (12%) had the fewest

constituents rating government as successful in controlling crime.

About 2 in 5 (38%) in the Philippines rated its government as successful in controlling crime .

5.5 Success in fighting unemployment

Governments on average are rated poorly in fighting unemployment. Visibly poor ratings are

observed in Croatia (5%), Germany East (6%), South Korea (6%), Hungary (6%), Germany West

(7%), Portugal (8%), Japan (9%), and Sweden (9%).

5.6 Success in protecting the environment

As earlier mentioned, on average only 31% rate government as successful in protecting the

environment. The poorest rater was Russia (9%) and the highest was Switzerland (52%) and

New Zealand (51%) and Uruguay (50%).

In the Philippines 38% thought that its government was successful in protecting the

environment.



Table 14. Government Success in Providing Welfare Services, 2006

% SuccessfulHealth Care Decent Standard Threats to Controlling Fighting Protecting thefor the Sick of Living for the old Security Crime Unemployment Environment

Australia 38 35 62 33 53 25Canada 49 37 37 33 35 24Chile 23 18 33 9 13 18Croatia 14 9 36 10 5 19Czech Republic 36 28 50 18 14 30

Denmark 48 43 64 30 65 43Dominican Republic 33 24 49 29 13 30Finland 49 34 76 43 22 44France 40 26 53 29 15 16Germany-East 39 38 66 45 6 49Germany-West 42 35 62 54 7 44Great Britain 51 30 42 22 30 20Hungary 17 15 46 17 6 17Ireland 20 40 41 22 65 42Israel-Arabs 45 50 55 18 14 45Israel-Jews 27 19 30 11 12 15Japan 28 23 19 18 9 18Latvia 13 7 45 20 13 25Netherlands 35 30 37 18 21 31New Zealand 37 40 50 26 51 51Norway 34 28 51 18 53 35Philippines 49 37 41 38 27 38

Poland 14 10 38 30 20 30Portugal 15 9 23 18 8 15Russia 14 8 37 12 10 9Slovenia 37 33 40 20 15 26South Africa 51 45 40 14 10 35South Korea 34 20 17 17 6 17Spain 53 36 31 32 34 29Sweden 45 32 38 12 9 41Switzerland 75 69 67 53 51 52Taiwan 47 33 23 22 12 30United States 25 23 47 35 30 34Uruguay 38 29 34 26 37 50Venezuela 58 56 28 16 26 41Average 36 30 43 25 23 31



6 Concluding Remarks

There are already many roles ascribed to government. Many other roles are evolving.

The data for the Philippines show that it is not an outlier. It did not have any extreme values onany of the question items.

Through time from 1996 to 2006, the Philippines has maintained its position on what

government can do for the economy, in particular in having cuts in government spending and

regulation of business. It has decreased its dependence on government to undertake many of

its indirect responsibilities, i.e. financing of projects to create new jobs, supporting industry to

develop new products and technology, supporting declining industries to protect jobs,

providing industry with the help it needs to grow and reducing the work week to create more

jobs. It has however increased its support for government to keep prices under control.

It has maintained and even increased its preference that government take on its direct role of

providing basic social services. Big proportions still say that government should provide jobs for

those who want one; provide health care for the sick and provide a decent standard of living

for the old. It has increased its desire for government to provide a decent standard of living for

the unemployed and reduce income differences between the rich and the poor.

In general, the Philippines has given better above the average ratings than many countries as to

the success of its government in providing welfare services.

References

Aoki, Masahiko, Kim, Hyung-Ki and Fujiwara, Masahiro Okuno (eds) (1997). The Role of

Government in East Asian Economic Development: Comparative Institutional Analysis, Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Batley, Richard and Larbi, George (2004). The Changing Role of Government: The Reform of

Public Services in Developing Countries. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

GlobeScan and the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of

Maryland (2009). Global Poll Shows Support for Increased Government Spending and

Regulation, Press Release for the BBC World Service Poll

Bechert, Insa and Quandt, Markus (2009). ISSP Data Report: Attitudes Towards the Role of

Government. GESIS Arbeitsberichte Nr. 7, Bonn.



Lall, Sanjaya (2003). Reinventing Industrial Strategy: The Role of Government Policy in Building

Industrial Competitiveness, Paper for the Intergovernmental Group on Monetary Affairs and

Development (G-24), University of Oxford.

Tanzi, Vito (1998). Fundamental Determinants of Inequality and the Role of Government,

Working Paper of the International Monetary Fund 98/178.

are filipino attitudes to the role of government different with tables

Documents