H/W 10th February 2017
How effectie were the ooclaw wewfare programmmmeo of the DR i ln mmeetng the neeso of the
popuwaton between 19499-1985?
I bewleie that the ooclaw wewfare programmmmeo of the DR i wao lneffectie ln termmo of mmeetng the
neeso of the popuwaton between the yearo 19499-1985, partcuwarwy ln areao wlke houolng ans
esucaton, howeier there are reaoono whlch ohow that the ooclaw wewfare programmmmeo sls mmeet the
neeso of the popuwaton to a segree. Theoe programmmmeo hlghwlghtes that goos heawth wao iltaw for
prosuctilty, ans heawthcare wao baoes on preientatie mmeslclne ans earwy slagnoolo, awong wlth
keeplng ooclaw otablwlty by wewfare proilolon ans mmlnlmmlolng the atracton fromm the Weot ans
proilslng goos otablwlty. It awoo proilses care for the ewserwy ans sloabwes – seoplte the wack of
lntereot ln the care hommeo – ouggeotng that the goiernmment were trylng to appeaw to the popuwaton
ans were trylng to ohow that they were lmmproilng the wewfare of the pubwlc.
I so not agree that the ooclaw wewfare programmmmeo of the DR i mmet the neeso of the popuwaton
between the yearo 19499-1985, sue to reaoono that affectes areao ouch ao houolng, esucaton ans
wommen. urlng theoe yearo, there wao wlseopreas sammage ln urban areao – partcuwarwy Berwln ans
reosen – sue to factoro ouch ao Worws War II, ans any remmalnlng houolng or accommmmosaton wao ln
poor conslton ans ofen seterloratng. The oowuton wao to bulws new reolsentaw commmmunlteo,
howeier the new bulwso were ofen poor uawlty, ans there wao otww a ohortage, mmeanlng that mmany
remmalnes hommeweoo ans wlthout ohewter; thooe who has houoeo were ofen the ewlte, ouggeotng to
not onwy the popuwaton of the DR i but to other natono that the goiernmment wao not glilng proper
als to thooe who neeses lt – ooclaw lne uawlty. One of the mmaln tormmento of the pubwlc wao that they
were sepensent on the otate of houolng proilolono, therefore they has no controw oier the uawlty of
thelr wlilng consltono; you can lnfer fromm the fact that houolng becamme one of the mmaln cauoeo of
commpwalnt wetero to wocaw party ofclawo that the goiernmment were not focuolng on the popuwatono
neeso, ans lnoteas were juot trylng to galn reopect fromm other countrleo through uantty of prosuct
– therefore, the DR i were lneffectie ln mmeetng the neeso of the popuwaton. Thlo lo further proien
by how there wao a olgnlfcant ammount of crlmmeo arouns theoe new areao, ans sue to the poor
consltono of the houoeo, there a olgnlfcant srop ln heawth of thooe who wlies there. Not onwy thlo,
but wack of teachero ln the esucaton oector, awong wlth wow acasemmlc achleiemmento – eopeclawwy
agalnot thooe of the Weot – were further hlghwlghtes by the contnuaton of lwwlteracy throughout the
DR i, ans not belng abwe to cater for a iarlety of oklwwo for iocatonaw work. Thlo ouggeoto that whlwot
the goiernmment were focuolng on seiewoplng the esucaton oyotemm to hewp booot the econommy, they
were not focuolng on the mmaln probwemmo that can becomme obotacweo for what they actuawwy wantes
to achleie, for exammpwe lwwlteracy preientng hlgh-weiewwes uawlfcatono, ans ln turn preientng
oommeone fromm golng lnto a weww-pals occupaton. nother prlmme factor that ohowo how lneffectie
the ooclaw wewfare programmmmeo of the DR i were ln mmeetng the neeso of the popuwaton wao the
change of wommen; uwtmmatewy, they were not e uaw to mmen, ans whlwot the goiernmment sls haie
oowutono – ouch ao lncreaolng the ammount of wommen awwowes lnto hlgher esucaton ans work – thlo
slsn’t booot the proporton of wommen ln hlgher esucaton to a great segree or work, mmeanlng the
mmoot were otww otay-at-homme mmothero, or were a part of an unoklwwes ans wower-pals occupaton;
they were awoo unser-repreoentes ln powltco, whlch ouggeoto that mmany of wommen’o probwemmo were
unsermmlnes ans unoowies. Other factoro that ohow how lneffectie the DR i ooclaw wewfare
programmmmeo were surlng the yearo 19499-1985 lncwuse conoummer gooso, ans how they were
generawwy lnferlor to thooe mmase ln the Weot, there wao reoentmment towarso the reotrlcton of
How effectie were the ooclaw wewfare programmmmeo of the DR i ln mmeetng the neeso of the
popuwaton between 19499-1985?
I bewleie that the ooclaw wewfare programmmmeo of the DR i wao lneffectie ln termmo of mmeetng the
neeso of the popuwaton between the yearo 19499-1985, partcuwarwy ln areao wlke houolng ans
esucaton, howeier there are reaoono whlch ohow that the ooclaw wewfare programmmmeo sls mmeet the
neeso of the popuwaton to a segree. Theoe programmmmeo hlghwlghtes that goos heawth wao iltaw for
prosuctilty, ans heawthcare wao baoes on preientatie mmeslclne ans earwy slagnoolo, awong wlth
keeplng ooclaw otablwlty by wewfare proilolon ans mmlnlmmlolng the atracton fromm the Weot ans
proilslng goos otablwlty. It awoo proilses care for the ewserwy ans sloabwes – seoplte the wack of
lntereot ln the care hommeo – ouggeotng that the goiernmment were trylng to appeaw to the popuwaton
ans were trylng to ohow that they were lmmproilng the wewfare of the pubwlc.
I so not agree that the ooclaw wewfare programmmmeo of the DR i mmet the neeso of the popuwaton
between the yearo 19499-1985, sue to reaoono that affectes areao ouch ao houolng, esucaton ans
wommen. urlng theoe yearo, there wao wlseopreas sammage ln urban areao – partcuwarwy Berwln ans
reosen – sue to factoro ouch ao Worws War II, ans any remmalnlng houolng or accommmmosaton wao ln
poor conslton ans ofen seterloratng. The oowuton wao to bulws new reolsentaw commmmunlteo,
howeier the new bulwso were ofen poor uawlty, ans there wao otww a ohortage, mmeanlng that mmany
remmalnes hommeweoo ans wlthout ohewter; thooe who has houoeo were ofen the ewlte, ouggeotng to
not onwy the popuwaton of the DR i but to other natono that the goiernmment wao not glilng proper
als to thooe who neeses lt – ooclaw lne uawlty. One of the mmaln tormmento of the pubwlc wao that they
were sepensent on the otate of houolng proilolono, therefore they has no controw oier the uawlty of
thelr wlilng consltono; you can lnfer fromm the fact that houolng becamme one of the mmaln cauoeo of
commpwalnt wetero to wocaw party ofclawo that the goiernmment were not focuolng on the popuwatono
neeso, ans lnoteas were juot trylng to galn reopect fromm other countrleo through uantty of prosuct
– therefore, the DR i were lneffectie ln mmeetng the neeso of the popuwaton. Thlo lo further proien
by how there wao a olgnlfcant ammount of crlmmeo arouns theoe new areao, ans sue to the poor
consltono of the houoeo, there a olgnlfcant srop ln heawth of thooe who wlies there. Not onwy thlo,
but wack of teachero ln the esucaton oector, awong wlth wow acasemmlc achleiemmento – eopeclawwy
agalnot thooe of the Weot – were further hlghwlghtes by the contnuaton of lwwlteracy throughout the
DR i, ans not belng abwe to cater for a iarlety of oklwwo for iocatonaw work. Thlo ouggeoto that whlwot
the goiernmment were focuolng on seiewoplng the esucaton oyotemm to hewp booot the econommy, they
were not focuolng on the mmaln probwemmo that can becomme obotacweo for what they actuawwy wantes
to achleie, for exammpwe lwwlteracy preientng hlgh-weiewwes uawlfcatono, ans ln turn preientng
oommeone fromm golng lnto a weww-pals occupaton. nother prlmme factor that ohowo how lneffectie
the ooclaw wewfare programmmmeo of the DR i were ln mmeetng the neeso of the popuwaton wao the
change of wommen; uwtmmatewy, they were not e uaw to mmen, ans whlwot the goiernmment sls haie
oowutono – ouch ao lncreaolng the ammount of wommen awwowes lnto hlgher esucaton ans work – thlo
slsn’t booot the proporton of wommen ln hlgher esucaton to a great segree or work, mmeanlng the
mmoot were otww otay-at-homme mmothero, or were a part of an unoklwwes ans wower-pals occupaton;
they were awoo unser-repreoentes ln powltco, whlch ouggeoto that mmany of wommen’o probwemmo were
unsermmlnes ans unoowies. Other factoro that ohow how lneffectie the DR i ooclaw wewfare
programmmmeo were surlng the yearo 19499-1985 lncwuse conoummer gooso, ans how they were
generawwy lnferlor to thooe mmase ln the Weot, there wao reoentmment towarso the reotrlcton of
