How are families the same or different around the world?

Families in a Global Context puts the

similarities and differences into perspective, presenting an in-depth comparative analysis of family
life in 17 countries around the world. Contributors discuss different countries' family life by using a
standard framework to review major influences and patterns. The framework allows readers to do
comparative reflection across several countries on a variety of daily living elements, including social
and economic forces such as urbanization and modernization, changes in gender/courtship/spousal
patterns, and war. This book provides an informative illustration of current as well as future trends of
family life worldwide.

Each chapter in Families in a Global Context describes customary types of family patterns within
each country’s social organization and culture. Important social, economic, political, and other trends
are explored in detail, and major ethnic, religious, or other subcultures are noted emphasizing
marriage and family patterns that differ from the more typical ones. The book is extensively
referenced and includes tables to clearly present data.

Countries explored in Families in a Global Context include:

 European countries of Wales, Sweden, Germany, Romania, and Italy
 African countries of Sierra Leone, South Africa, and Kenya
 Middle Eastern countries of Turkey and Iran
 Asian and Oceanian countries of India, China, the Philippines, and Australia
 Latin American countries of Brazil, Mexico, and Cuba
Topics discussed for each country in Families in a Global Context include:
 demographics
 mate selection patterns with an emphasis on the dynamics of couple formation
 marital roles
 the place and role of children and parenting in families
 socialization for gender roles
 differences in education, employment, and other opportunities
 major stressors affecting families, coping, and adaptation
 aging and life expectancy issues
 and much more!
Families in a Global Context is an insightful resource for researchers, educators, and advanced
undergraduate and graduate students investigating comparative family topics of family life around
the world and in cultural context.
The Philippines
Zlata Bruckauf Consultant, Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford

Introduction and context

In recent years, the Philippines has been faced with many difficulties associated with external
macroeconomic pressures and the destructive forces of natural disasters, such as the recent Typhoon
Yolanda (Asian Development Bank, 2013). Although in 2013 its economy reached a near-record high
growth rate of 7.2 per cent (ibid.), many experts believe the country’s most important challenge is to
translate robust growth into poverty reduction and to tackle structural inequalities, as poverty rates
have stayed practically unchanged (25.2 per cent in 2012 compared with 24.9 per cent in 2003) (World
Bank, 2014).

Family policy

The importance of family welfare has long been recognized in the Philippines as a state priority. Article
15 of the 1987 Constitution states that the Filipino family is ‘the foundation of the nation’, requiring the
state to ‘strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development’. The current policy
environment draws on these fundamental principles by supporting a child-centred family policy agenda.
For example, the Philippines National Strategic Framework for Plan Development for Children for the
years 2001 to 2025, known as Child 21, identifies ‘family’ as a unique sector that needs to be developed,
as it provides the basic environment that nurtures the child ‘throughout the life cycle’ (Council for the
Welfare of Children, 2013). The Philippines Development Plan 2011–2016 formulates a vision of
inclusive economic growth, which implies the promotion of equal access to development opportunities
across different geographical areas, income groups and social groups, and the provision of a safety net
for vulnerable groups (National Economic and Development Authority, 2013). This policy agenda is
aligned with Child 21. Both policy documents create an interlinked framework for poverty reduction and
early childhood care and development under which family and parenting support in the Philippines are
being implemented today. Furthermore, the Second National Plan of Action for Children 2011–2016
translates the Child 21 strategic vision into specific targets and actions while relating them to the
Millennium Development Goals. The aspiration towards breaking the inter-generational transmission of
poverty through investments in child human development is at the forefront of this interlinked agenda.

A number of social welfare programmes work towards fulfilling this aspiration. The core provisions
include:
■ the community-driven initiatives of Kapit-Bisig Laban Sa Kahirapan – Comprehensive and Integrated
Delivery of Social Services (KalahiCIDSS)
■ capacity building interventions under the Sustainable Livelihood Programme
■ the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) Philippines Programme or Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino
Programme, also known as 4Ps, the biggest government initiative; this is defined as a poverty reduction
and human development programme, which invests in the health and education of the poorest
households, with a focus on children aged 0–18 years; the Pantawid Pamilyang is in its seventh year of
implementation and it appears that the government priority now is to ensure that the CCT and its
beneficiaries are linked to other programmes on job generation, livelihood or asset management
(Department of Social Welfare and Development, 2013). The Early Childhood Care and Development Act
of 2000 is a national policy system for early childhood care and development based on the principles of
shared governance. The Early Childhood Care and Development Council is currently the lead agency for
this policy domain in the Philippines. It was founded as part of a functional separation from the Council
for the Welfare of Children under the 2009 executive orders (Manuel and Gregorio, 2011). The Council
for the Welfare of Children remains a coordinating, inter-agency body with the mission of protecting
child rights and the human development of Filipino children. The Council’s activities focus on children
with vulnerabilities and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This system of governance has been
said to be innovative in adopting a multi-sectoral, interdisciplinary approach to child development from
the outset (Armecina et al., 2006). It is important to note the highly decentralized nature of governance
in the Philippines. Under the Local Government Code of 1991, the central government has devolved
significant spending, taxation and borrowing powers to local governments. The Code increased the
responsibility of local government units in the provision of basic services: all health and social welfare
programmes including the maintenance of barangay (village) health and day-care centres, and the
operation and maintenance of schools (Azfar et al., 2000). Local government units also implement the
national early childhood care and development and poverty reduction initiatives. The national
government retained only three functions: to establish programme standards, to provide technical
assistance and to enhance local services on demand. With 79 provinces, 115 cities and 1,499
municipalities in the Philippines, disparities in local capacity in resource mobilization should not be
underestimated.
Issues regarding children and families

The socio-economic disparities between different geographical and especially urban and rural settings
are reflected in the child well-being indicators. The National Report as part of the Global Study on Child
Poverty and Disparities (PIDS and UNICEF, 2010) indicates that seven out of every ten poor children in
the Philippines are from rural areas. Child poverty rates there are twice those of urban areas.
Geographical and structural inequality are also observed in malnutrition, child survival and other
indicators of child well-being, many of which are associated with poverty. The report highlights the
challenges of child labour, commercial sexual exploitation, physical and sexual abuse, and the growing
number of children affected by armed conflict and displacement following natural disasters and for
other reasons. Various studies show a wide use of corporal punishment on children at home (Save the
Children Sweden, 2008). According to the current law, parents have the right to discipline their child as
it is understood to be necessary ‘for the formation of their good character, particularly obedience’
(Council for the Welfare of Children, 2014). This right to ‘discipline’ can certainly be interpreted
differently – including the use of corporal punishment – to ensure appropriate behaviour. More than
one in ten (11 per cent) of 5–14-year-old Filipino children are working, many of them in hazardous
activities in agriculture and domestic service (US Department of Labor, 2013). A Filipino family might rely
on children’s earnings in times of financial crisis (T. del Castillo, 2009) such as the disruption of livelihood
caused by a natural disaster. All these issues are reflected in the poor ranking of the Philippines in child
well-being among other countries in the Pacific region: it is placed at the bottom of the league table in
the average measure of material deprivation and education (the latter measures participation and
achievements) and second to bottom for child health (Lau and Bradshaw, 2010)