Patients’ safety is the top priority for all healthcare practitioners. Healthcare systems comprising medical institutions, patients, and professionals must put efforts to avoid errors, fostering a safe culture, and learn from failures. Quality in the healthcare organization is advantageous. For example, the quality initiative is systematic and structured with the aim of advancing treatment for the people it helps while preventing injury (Bosler, 2016). It encourages a safe culture, excellence, and openness. Subsequently, quality healthcare is effective. For instance, the institution’s odds of redundancy and failure are reduced when the ‘process’ is improved. Rather than focusing on anecdotes, the improved healthcare organization relies on data-driven research. Finally, quality healthcare is patient-centered. For instance, the management and clinical procedures are becoming more efficient, physicians and staff have enough time to deliver receptive, courteous, and value-centered care to patients. Therefore, better-quality procedures are practical, identifying and resolving matters before they arise.
Indeed, through quality improvement initiatives and informative research, EMR (electronic medical records) collects “point-of-care” data that guide and improve practice. For example, by enhancing management, decreasing medication errors, decreasing unnecessary tastings, and enhancing interaction and communication among patients and primary care providers, EMR increases patient outcomes, safety, and quality of care.
Subsequently, reduced medication administration mistakes is another quality initiative. Adjustments in setting (like being admitted or released from the hospital), healthcare professional, or degree of treatment are all examples of transitions in care (Bosler, 2016). For example, through the organization giving its health care professionals the most up-to-date data it offers, practitioners have the clearest picture of the organization’s situation and help prevent prescription errors. Foster a culture of documenting all drug-related mistakes, especially near misses, as the essential element in decreasing medication errors. Therefore, if one pharmacist makes a mistake, another pharmacist working in the same environment is likely to make the same mistake.
Finally, the hospital readmissions reduction program (HRRP) enhances patients’ health care quality by tying payment to hospital treatment quality. The HRRP is a value-centered buying initiative that promotes hospitals to enhance communications and care coordination to better encompass caregivers and patients in discharging plans and, thus, prevent unnecessary readmissions.
Quality in a Healthcare System and Real-World Examples of Quality Initiatives
Quality in health care comprises providing effective, safe, and inexpensive medical care services to patients whenever they are needed. Patients might be engaged in taking steps to avoid and improve therapy, resulting in more effective care. Quality may be demonstrated in a patient’s shorter hospital stay or fewer infections after surgery, among other things. Different quality initiatives might be used to improve health care quality (Okpala, 2018). Therefore, the following are three quality efforts in healthcare institutions to enhance the quality of healthcare.
One of the quality enhancement programs is the frequent training of healthcare care personnel. The training guarantees that the appropriate knowledge and experience are developed, allowing for the effective and safe delivery of the finest possible care. As a result, the frequency of re-infections or hospital stays would be minimized, resulting in quality. Secondly, documentation of records in an electronic format is an example of quality in healthcare systems. Quality health care is also ensured through the quality initiative because, under an electronic system, a patient’s documentation and prior data would be effectively kept and organized. As a result, quality care will be provided since the people’s medical histories will be recognized by the system, and therapy will be delivered while taking into account the patient’s past medical history. This would improve the delivery of safe and effective medical treatment. Finally, quality in healthcare involves providing items or medications that prevent infections after procedures or shorten a patient’s stay in the hospital. Therefore, the solutions are designed to improve recovery and decrease readmissions, resulting in effective care delivery and high-quality health care.
Bosler, B. (2016). Legal versus common sense advocacy to improve home healthcare quality. Home Healthcare Now, 34(5), 281-282. https://doi.org/10.1097/nhh.0000000000000396
The Office of Inspector General for the United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2016, May 16). OIG Compliance Program Guidance for Individual and Small Group Physician Practices. https://oig.hhs.gov/documents/compliance-guidance/801/physician.pdf
Okpala, P. (2018). Balancing quality healthcare services and costs through collaborative leadership. Journal of Healthcare Management, 63(6), e148-e157. https://doi.org/10.1097/jhm-d-18-00020
Essay About Henry Fords Free Essay
Henry Ford was an American business industrialist famously recognized for creating the Ford Motor Company and championing the advancement of the assembly line large-scale manufacturing techniques. Henry held the idea that everyone across America should be able to afford a car, and to realize the idea, he revolutionalized the car manufacturing process. His innovations changed the car-making business and assisted America’s 20th-century middle class take off.
Early Life Story
Henry Ford was born on the family’s farm outside Dearborn, Michigan, on 30th July, 1863, to William Ford and Mary Litogot Ahern (Bellis, 2020). The US was facing the Civil War when Henry Ford was born. Ford attended the Scottish Settlement School and the Miller School, both one-room schools, from first to eighth grade. During the 1873 summer, Henry saw for the first time a steam engine (self-propelled road machine) that was generally employed in the stationary way to power a sawmill or threshing machine. However, Fred Reden, its operator, had modified it to be fitted on wheels with a drive conveyor belt attached to the steam engine. Henry was intrigued by the machine, and Reden trained him how to launch and run it over the following year. Ford later claimed that the incident showed him that he was, by nature, an engineer. At 12, his father had gifted him a pocket watch. Henry brought his interest in mechanics back home. He established a name as a watch repairman by the age of fifteen, having dismantled as well as reassembled friends’ and neighbors’ timepieces multiple times.
Young Henry was heartbroken following his mother’s death in 1876. Henry’s father wanted him to assume the family land in the future, but he detested agricultural labor. Ford had little incentive to stay on the farm when his mother died. He later commented that he never had any great affection for the property. Rather, it was his mother on the farm who he adored. He moved to Detroit, Michigan, in 1879 to serve as an assistant machinist, initially with James F. Flower & Brothers and then with the Detroit Dry Dock Company. However, he could not find a job that paid him enough to pay his bills, so he ended up taking a night cleaning and fixing watches job with a jeweller. As a result, he moved back to Dearborn in 1882 to operate on the family farm. He worked for a neighbor in 1882, operating Westinghouse portable steam engine, where he honed his skills. Henry was so great at it that the company hired him to run and fix engines manufactured and sold throughout Michigan and northern Ohio during the summers (1883 to1884).
Henry encountered Clara Jane Bryant in December 1885 at a New Year’s Eve ceremony, and the two wedded on 11th April, 1888. Edsel Bryant Ford would later be their son and only child. Henry kept working on the farm as his father had given him some land, but his passion was engineering. He was definitely thinking about starting a company. Henry is believed to attend Goldsmith, Bryant & Stratton Business University in Detroit during the winters of 1888 and 1890, where he most likely studied handwriting, accountancy, mechanical drawing, and basic business procedures. Henry was certain that he could build a horseless vehicle by the early 1890s. However, he had inadequate knowledge of electricity, hence went to work for the Edison Illuminating Company in Detroit in September 1891. Henry was appointed chief engineer after the birth of Edsel, his first and only son, on 6th November, 1893. Thomas Edison became Henry Ford’s lifetime friend and mentor.
The Quadricycle and Detroit Automobile Company
Henry started his profession as an automobile manufacturer in the 1893 winter after building a modest one-cylinder gasoline reproduction moved by his expertise in internal combustion engines (Bellis, 2020). At Henry’s house in Detroit, the original Henry engine flashed to life. He finished the “Quadricycle” in 1896, which comprised of a light metal structure with four bicycle wheels and was driven by a two-cylinder, four-horsepower gasoline engine (a later edition of his previous engine) (Bellis, 2020). Henry was aiming to advance on his prototype, and he, therefore, sold the Quadricycle to fund the development of a better model and continue creating other vehicles. For the next seven years, Henry acquired funding from a number of investors, a few of whom went on to create the Detroit Automobile Company in 1899. Henry left the Edison Illuminating Company a few days later. The delivery wagon, created by Henry, was introduced as the Detroit Automobile Company’s first commercial automobile on 12th January, 1900. However, rather than selling automobiles, Henry continued to enhance the design, and the firm soon went bankrupt. To demonstrate the superiority of his ideas, he raced his automobile against those of other manufacturers. On 10th October, 1901, Henry personally raced one of his vehicles to victory in a contest against Alexander Winton, a well-known automotive builder. To the surprise of the financiers, Ford kept working on his race vehicle in 1902. They desired a high-end production vehicle, so they enlisted the help of Henry M. Leland to design a passenger automobile that could be sold. Henry resigned as a result of his power being overrun. Later, the corporation was renamed Cadillac Motor Car Company.
Building His Company-Ford Motor Company
In 1903, Henry formed the Ford Motor Company alongside eleven other partners with 28,000 dollars in money. Henry held a demonstration where the car travelled a mile on Lake St. Clair’s ice in 39.4 seconds, establishing a new land speed record. Impressed by this accomplishment, legendary Barney Oldfield, race driver, who christened the new Ford model “999” in recognition of the day’s racing locomotive, drove the vehicle all across the country, establishing the Ford brand. Ford was also a supporter of the Indianapolis 500 event from the beginning.
Ford’s Philosophy on Labor
Ford’s ideology was based on self-sufficiency and vertical integration. The River Rouge Plant that began in 1927 grew to become the world’s leading industrial development, able of generating its own steel. Ford wished to manufacture a car from scratch, with complete independence from outside sources. He established a massive plant that received raw materials from Ford-owned mines, moved them through freighters and a Ford-owned train, and then exported finished autos. As a result, manufacturing continued without being hampered by supplier inefficiencies or the cost of stockpiling.
Henry Ford pioneered “welfare capitalism” that focused on improving his employees’ lifestyle and especially increasing employees’ retention, which saw many departments sign up 300 men yearly to fill 100 vacancies. Hiring plus retaining the finest personnel was vital to achieve competence. Ford bewildered the world when he unveiled his five-dollar a day initiative on 5th January, 1914. The groundbreaking initiative called for a decrease in workday duration from 9 to 8 hours, a five-day workweek, and an increase in minimum daily wage for skilled workers from 2.34 dollars to five dollars (Ford, 2015). The pay was granted to men with more than 22 years who had served at the firm for at least six months and, more significantly, lived in a way that Ford’s “Sociological Department” endorsed. Gambling and heavy drinking were disapproved. The Sociological Department deployed 150 inspectors and support personnel; a substantial number of employees were eligible for the program.
Wall Street criticized Ford for launching this initiative. The move, on the other hand, proved to be extremely profitable. In addition to increased employee retention, the eminent mechanics within Detroit migrated to Ford, bringing in their human capital and understanding, increasing productivity while reducing training expenses (Batchelor, 1994). The method was labelled “wage motivation” by Ford. Furthermore, paying people more allowed them to afford the automobiles they were making, which was beneficial for the economy.
Ford remained a strong opponent of labor unions at his factories. He appointed Harry Bennett, an ex-Army fighter, to lead the service department in order to avoid union action. Bennett used a variety of intimidation methods to prevent unionization. The most notable episode occurred in 1937, when business security guards and organizers engaged in a deadly confrontation that became recognized as “The Battle of the Overpass.”
Ford had for years rejected the United Auto Workers (UAW) union becoming the last Detroit automaker to recognize it. The River Rouge Plant was shuttered in April 1941 due to a peaceful protest strike. Ford ultimately consented to collective bargaining at Ford factories following persuasion from Edsel and his wife, Clara, and the first agreement with the UAW was endorsed in June 1941.
The Model T
On 1st October, 1908, the Model T was unveiled. It included a number of significant improvements, including the steering wheel on the left hand that was rapidly mimicked by his competitors in the industry. The engine and transmission remained totally enclosed, while the four cylinders were spread in a monolithic block with two semi-elliptic springs for suspension. The automobile was easy to operate and, more importantly, simple and inexpensive to fix (Long, 2016). The Model T was so inexpensive in 1908 (at $825) that by the 1920s, a vast number of American drivers had trained to drive on it, leaving millions of people with good recollections. Ford established a vast PR company in Detroit to guarantee that reports and advertising concerning the new vehicle surfaced in each newspaper.
Ford’s extensive local dealers’ network ensured that the automobile was available in practically every city in North America. The franchises flourished as self-governing dealers, making known not just the Ford but also the notion of “automobiling.” Local motor clubs popped up to assist novice drivers and enjoy the rural areas. Ford was inclined to supply to farmers, who viewed the car as a commercial tool that would aid their undertakings. Sales escalated, and for many years, they increased by more than 100percentage points over the preceding year. Ford, who was always looking for ways to improve efficiency and cut costs, added moving assembly belts to his assembly line in 1913, allowing for a massive boost in output. In 1914, sales moved past 250,000 pieces. The basic touring automobile sales hit 472,000 by 1916, following the price reduction to 360dollars (Bellis, 2020).
By 1918, Model Ts accounted for half of all automobiles in the US. The Model was accessible in various colors until the invention of the assembly line that necessitated black for its faster drying time. Ford commented that any client might have a car painted whatever color he likes as long as it is black. He vigorously supported and maintained the design, and manufacturing lasted until 1927, with a total output of 15,007,034. This was a world record that stood for 45 years.
President Woodrow personally invited Ford to compete for the Senate as a Democrat from Michigan in 1918. Ford campaigned as a peace contender and a staunch advocate of the projected League of Nations despite the country being at war. He, however, handed over the leadership of Ford Motor Company to his son Edsel Ford in December 1918. Nevertheless, Henry held final decision-making power and occasionally overruled his son. All remaining shares were acquired from other investors by Henry and Edsel, granting the exclusive family ownership of the corporation. Due to increased competition, Model T sales started falling in the mid-1920s. Other automakers provided payment plans for customers to purchase their vehicles, which often contained more current technical features and design than the Model T. Ignoring Edsel’s urgings, Henry was adamant about not introducing new features to the Model T or establishing a consumer credit scheme.
Model A, V8
By 1926, Henry had been persuaded to create a new model automobile due to the Model T’s declining sales. Henry put his technical talents to work on the engine, chassis, along with other mechanical needs of the project, delegating the exterior plan to his son. Edsel also rose above his father’s concern regarding the sliding-shift gearbox installation. The outcome was the well-liked Ford Model A, which was debuted in December 1927 and manufactured until 1931, producing more than four million cars (Casey, 2010). Following that, the corporation implemented a yearly model change scheme similar to what manufacturers use today. Ford maintained his dislike to finance businesses up to the 1930s when the Ford-owned Universal Credit Company introduced a significant vehicle lending enterprise.
Ford turned the car industry by storm with the innovative flathead Ford V8, the very first low-cost eight-cylinder engine, as the company’s design modification for 1932. For the next 20 years, variations of the flathead V8 would be employed in Ford automobiles. Its power and durability made it a popular choice among hot-rod enthusiasts as well as car collectors.
Ford declined to provide armaments during both world wars because he was a lifelong humanitarian, although he did build engines for airplanes, jeeps, as well as ambulances. “Tin Goose,” or the Ford Tri-Motor, was the basis of early aviation passenger service throughout the late 1920s and early 1930s and was manufactured by the Ford Airplane Company. Even though only 199 were ever manufactured, Ford’s all-metal construction, 15-passenger size planes fulfilled the demands of practically all pioneer airlines until modern, bigger, and faster planes from Douglas and Boeing were attainable.
Impacts on Society and Markets
Despite being most famous for the Model T, Ford was indeed a dynamic guy with a slew of side interests. Among his most successful inventions was the Fordson farm tractor that he started designing in 1906. It was powered by a Model B engine and had a big water tank instead of a radiator. He had created functioning prototypes by 1916, and by the time World War I broke out, he was producing them all across the world. The Fordson was manufactured in the US until 1928, and during World War II, his workshops in Ireland, Cork, England, and Dagenham, produced Fordsons.
In World War I, Henry designed the “Eagle,” a steam-powered submarine chaser. It was equipped with a sophisticated submarine detecting system. By 1919, sixty had been placed into service, but the construction expenses had exceeded expectations. Ford also developed hydroelectric facilities, eventually building 30 of them, two of which were for the US government: New York and Minnesota. Ford Estates was his endeavor, in which he would acquire homes and renovate them for different uses. In 1931, he purchased the 18th-century mansion Boreham House in Essex, England, as well as 2,000 land acres around it. Boreham House was established as an Institute of Agricultural Engineering to teach people new agricultural methods, although he never resided there. A further Ford Estates initiative was cooperative agricultural holdings in rural locations across the United States and the United Kingdom, where individuals lived in cottages while raising crops and animals. Following the 1941 Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor, Ford turned into a significant military contractor in the United States, supplying engines, planes, jeeps, as well as tanks during WWII.
Later Career and Edsel’s Death
In May 1943, Ford’s son Edsel, the company’s president at the time, died of cancer, forcing the old and ill Henry Ford to take over. With Henry serving until the conclusion of World War II, Ford Motor Company deteriorated dramatically, losing over $10 million monthly. With his health deteriorating, Ford retired in September 1945 and handed the company’s president to Henry Ford II, his grandson. Henry Ford died of a brain haemorrhage at his Fair Lane house in Dearborn, Michigan, on 7th April, 1947, at the age of 83.
In 1915, Ford paid for himself and roughly 170 other renowned peace advocates to travel to Europe, where World War I was unfolding. He talked about the trip with President Wilson, receiving no administration help. His mission travelled to the Netherlands as well as neutral Sweden to speak with peace campaigners. Ford claimed that war financiers orchestrated the shipwreck of the RMS Lusitania in order to persuade America to join the conflict. Ford’s efforts, on the other hand, were met with scorn and mockery, and he departed the ship as soon as it arrived in Sweden. The endeavor as a whole was a flop.
Ernest G. Liebold, Ford’s close aide and personal secretary, acquired The Dearborn Independent, an insignificant weekly newspaper, in 1918 to allow Ford to propagate his beliefs. The publication became vehemently anti-Semitic by 1920. It released “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” a fabrication that was subsequently exposed.
The Worldwide Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem was released in the early 1920s by The Dearborn Independent. The book was extensively circulated and had a significant impact, even on Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler, who was captivated with autos, displayed a photograph of Henry Ford on his wall and intended to model the Volkswagen on the Model T. Ford closed the Independent in December 1927 as a result of a lawsuit filed by a San Francisco attorney Aaron Sapiro in reaction to anti-Semitic statements. President Wilson led other prominent Americans in a declaration rebuking Ford and others for their anti-Semitic crusade before leaving office early in 1921 (Long, 2016). Ford’s choice to close the daily was influenced by a protest of Ford products by liberal Christians and Jews
Ford was a firm believer in his company’s international integration. He believed that global commerce and collaboration would lead to world peace, and he demonstrated this through the Model T assembly line technique and manufacturing. In 1911, Ford constructed assembly ventures in the UK as well as Canada, and he rapidly turned the dominant automaker in both nations. Ford joined with Fiat to construct the first Italian automobile production facility in 1912. The initial plants within Germany were erected in the 1920s with Herbert Hoover’s backing. He concurred with Ford’s idea that worldwide trade was necessary for world peace. Ford also developed factories in India, France and Australia in the 1920s, and by 1929, he had thriving franchises on six continents.
Ford explored a commercialized rubber plantation named Fordlândia in the Amazon jungle, but it was among his few disasters. In 1929, Ford agreed to establish a model factory (NNAZ, presently GAZ) at Gorky, eventually called Nizhny Novgorod, at Stalin’s suggestion. Ford Motor Company aimed to run a business in each country with which the United States had diplomatic ties. Ford produced one-third of all autos in the world by 1932. Ford also got into the business of making plastic from agricultural goods, particularly soybeans (Batchelor, 1994). All through the 1930s, Ford vehicles employed soy-based plastic.
Long-Lasting Effect he had on Today’s Businesses
After his death, Henry Ford left a lasting impact. Ford was a prominent inventor, receiving 161 patents in the United States. He grew into one of the world’s richest and most recognized individuals as the sole proprietor of the Ford Motor Company. The “Model T” car, which he brought in, changed transportation in addition to American industry. The Model T revolutionized American society by giving regular individuals access to transportation that had previously been reserved for the wealthy. The motor supplanted the horse-drawn carriage quickly, generating change in agriculture, transportation system demands (surpassing mass transit rail systems with privately owned cars operating on a wide-ranging roadway system) and urbanization processes.
He is recognized for “Fordism,” or the mass manufacture of inexpensive vehicles utilizing the assembly line, as well as high remuneration for his workers, including the $5.00 per day pay scale implemented in 1914. Despite his lack of education, Ford had a global outlook, seeing consumption as the route to peace. His relentless drive to cut costs led to a slew of technical and financial breakthroughs, including a franchising structure that put a dealer throughout every town in North America, as well as significant cities across six continents. The Ford Foundation, a nonprofit organization, located in New York City, was established to finance initiatives that promote democracy, eliminate poverty, enhance global cooperation, and improve human accomplishment. Ford gave the majority of his immense wealth to the Ford Foundation.
Batchelor, R. (1994). Henry Ford, mass production, modernism, and design (Vol. 1). Manchester University Press.
Bellis, M. (2020). Biography of Henry Ford, American Industrialist and Inventor. Retrieved, 31st March 2022 from https://www.thoughtco.com/henry-ford-biography-1991814
Casey, B. (2010). John & Horace Dodge. Henry Ford and Innovation.
Ford, H. (2015). My Life and Work: Top Biography (Vol. 5). 谷月社.
Long, D. (2016). Henry Ford: Industrialist. Cavendish Square Publishing, LLC.
Muldoon, J. (2020). Henry Ford and his legacy: an American Prometheus. The Palgrave Handbook of Management History, 521-544.
High Income Society: Singapore Sample College Essay
Singapore began its quest for fast economic development over four decades ago, a move aimed at benefiting each Singapore citizen and its society at large (Lim, 2016). According to the world bank, Singapore is classified as a high-income economy with US$54,530 per capita as of 2017. Singapore is ranked as one of the world’s countries with the best and most business-friendly environment (Chatibura, 2021). This has made Singapore to speedily develop from a low middle-income to a first world developed country. The development in Singapore can be attributed to economic, social, political, and historical contexts. Singapore remains a stable economy because it has no foreign debts and high revenue, which is highly driven by exports (Hwang, 2020). This paper aims to give a deeper analysis and research on the mentioned above contexts and challenges facing Singapore and address the migration, population, and housing policies within Singapore society as the possible solutions to the challenges and how they have shaped Singaporean society’s economic development.
Despite being among the high-income country globally, Singapore as a society has faced various domestic challenges towards its social mobility (Ho and Tat, 2021). The following are the three major challenges facing the Singapore economy at the domestic level: population, inequality, and managing external dependence. These challenges have been in existence the attainment of independence and have posed a threat to the government’s economic sustainability movement.
At independence, the government of Singapore, through the National Family Planning and Programme, came up with a plan to reduce the fertility rates among its citizens. The strategized plan was to be rolled out after every five years(Ho and Tat, 2021). After successfully achieving the plan to reduce the fertility rates, there came another challenge of slow population growth. The slow growth across all the population ages has stagnated the workforce, thus weakening productivity.
Despite the government trying to revive its population by incentivizing the rearing of children, fertility rates continue to fall further. For instance, in 2017, the fertility rate is said to have dropped further to 1.20(Ho and Tat, 2021). The growth of the resident workforce has been decelerating greatly compared with 4.5% in the 1970s and 1980s, to 2.1% in the 2000s, and is projected to drop further to 0.1 by 2030, according to the 2013 Population White Paper. If the falling continues with the tightened immigration guidelines, it may be negative, thus affecting productivity growth.
Singapore’s society is highly unequal, especially with other successful developed economies, especially in North Europe. The economic benefits from Singapore are unequally skewed. This is evident from the Gini coefficient, a conventional income inequality measure that assigns lower scores to many equal societies (Ho and Tat, 2021). The Gini coefficient of Singapore remains high even though it dropped to 0.456 in 2016. From the available Gini coefficient data, there is evidence of income inequality between 2000 and 2008.
Management of External Dependence
After independence, Singapore had little labor force to sustain its workforce demands. This made the country depend on foreigners highly, which has brought some consequences. There are many ways Singapore depends on foreigners, and one of them is the provision of a labor workforce. The result is that many foreigners have migrated to Singapore as either skilled or non-skilled laborers. Normally, a nation that depends on foreign labor spends a lot of capital to pay the workers and lay down policies that could protect the foreign workers. The overdependence of foreign labor means that the citizens of Singapore have little contribution towards the economic growth of their nation.
Either money paid to the foreign workers does not directly benefit Singapore since the workers will tend to send back to their country of origin. In addition, the high number of foreigners brought a housing problem. The government of Singapore could not be able to provide proper and good housing services for both the citizens of Singapore and foreign workers. The housing shortage problem had to be addressed since many residents were forced to live in harsh conditions such as slums.
Policy Solutions to The Challenges
At independence, the larger part of Singapore was unemployed, affected by high mortality rates and poverty, and the government depended highly on labor importation. As a result, the Singapore government’s priorities have been focusing on the incorporation of population issues, considering that geographically, the country is small and has a scarcity of natural resources (Chu, 2014). Either, while trying to solve the issue of high rates of unemployment and settlement on the slums by the economic planners, the country’s success in rapid industrialization, reduction of the rate of birth, the improvement of the education in the 1970s and 1980s provided a significance labor surplus by mid-1980s. Family planning as a population policy was introduced.
In Singapore, population planning is an initiative that balances the economic needs for more highly skilled workers and the considerations that are social and political like the ethnic and local or foreign population composition (Teng and Gee, 2016). As a result, over five decades since its independence, the Singapore government has focused on introducing policies to control birth rates and in-migration.
A few years after independence, the National Family Planning and Programme came up with a plan with five elements aimed at fertility reduction (Teng and Gee, 2016). The basic issues to be addressed were: contraception access, abortion and sterilization liberalization, educating the public about comprehensive and extended family planning, incentives and disincentives, and lastly is manipulating the determinants of socioeconomic fertility like improvement of education of women. It also came up with a definition on their target number to reach after a given specific duration of time which is at the end of every five-year plan duration. This means that the Singapore government treated the issue of population control with urgency.
Between 1966 and 1980, the Singapore National Family Planning and Programme was able to achieve some of its goals. It was able to provide quite a good range of family planning services (Chu, 2014). The services were offered via an island-wide chain of maternity and children’s clinics which offered contraceptive services, visiting homes, and men’s clinic for family planning services. In 1970, Singapore legalized the Voluntary Sterilization Act, which opened room for offering such services at government hospitals. In 1975, a liberalization allowed on-demand sterilization at a low affordable cost and was available in private hospitals (Tan, 2012).
In 1984, a few years after achieving most targets set for a five-year plan, the government came up with a strong anti-natalist plan and measures to promote large families on well-educated women (Graham, 2007). This shifted the focus towards pro-natalism by 1987, which focused on encouraging economically strong families to have large families of three or more. This translated to a new population policy supported by financial aid for the rearing of children. As a result, the period was characterized by rapid economic growth in Singapore and the restructuring of the economy. In 2000, the Singapore government introduced Baby Bonus due to the rapid decline in fertility in the 1990s (Chua, 2009). The Baby Bonus is aimed at providing and helping parents manage the cost of upbringing of their children. It mainly comprised cash gifts and an account for child development.
As a high economy society, Singapore has a unique system of housing which comprises quite a good number of its housing stock constructed by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and ownership of homes through the Central Provident Fund (CPF) (Phang and Helble, 2016). Since 1959 when the first elections were held, and in 1965 when Singapore gained independence, the Asian nation has been ruled by the People’s Action Party government, which adopted a housing program for the public that they classified as the foundation stone that the party was to build its legitimacy.
The establishment of the HDB-COF scheme in the 1960s has changed Singapore’s municipal housing, which has remained intact for more than 50 years (Phang, 2007). In Singapore, housing policy has changed over time to respond to different emerging housing challenges. For instance, the 1960s political tensions, mergers with Malaysia, and abrupt independence made it difficult to attract long-term investments (Phang and Helble, 2016). A large number of immigrants and population growth caused a high housing shortage. Previous colonial government measures in planning towns and offering rental service housing and flats proved to be inadequate. Housing for the public constructed by the Singapore Improvement Trust (SIT) managed to accommodate only 8.8% population of people in the year 1959 (Phang, 2007). These housing areas lacked access to water and basic amenities due to over crowdedness.
The newly elected government prioritized the provision of homes in large numbers. It developed the housing schemes on three major pillars: the formation of HDB in 1960 and the 1966’s enactment of the Land Acquisition Act (Phang and Helble, 2016). It gave CPF an additional role in becoming a financial institution towards housing in 1968. By the 1970s, the HDB-CPF was effectively working to channel resources into housing. As a result, the housing shortage problem was resolved a few years later in the 1980s. The renewal of the aging houses in the various estates became a challenge. Subsidies of housing in the form of donations were introduced. Since 2000, the challenge in housing construction has been to curb speculative and investment demand for housing, increase income inequality, and aging population.
Considering that a good number of foreigners live and study in Singapore, the housing statistics show a clear distinction between resident and non-resident populations (Phang, 2007). In 2000, non-residents were made up 19% of the total population. Government data indicate that the housing market caters to residential and non-residential citizens (Phang and Helble, 2016). The HDB regulates Singapore’s public housing rental sector, which represents the public housing sector.
The housing scheme of Singapore has been of great benefit to the socio-economic. Such improvement of the housing standards in the urban environment has been of great success towards the adopted Singaporean government’s economic and housing strategy (Phang and Helble, 2016). The benefits have been seen, such as an increase in the savings rate, increased quantity and quality housing stock, a high number of homeowners, and the development of the mortgage market.
A few years after gaining independence, Singapore’s growing economy required both skilled and unskilled foreign workers, thus welcoming permanent and temporary foreign workers (Chu, 2014). The result led to an immigration system with various policies for the immigrants, which has increased the number of foreigners. For instance, data indicates that 47% of the residents born in Singapore in 2017 were foreigners compared to 28% in the year 1965%. The government of Singapore does not discriminate between naturalized workers and those who were born citizens when it comes to its workforce characteristics.
Migration in Singapore is liberal but targeted and is limited to migrants who only enter Singapore for economic and educational reasons (Chu, 2014), which is different from other nations like the United Kingdom, that only allows refugees and seekers of asylum. The analysis of the migration trends since 1980 shows that there has been an increase in the migration of immigrants to Singapore (Tan, 2012). The migrants entering Singapore are classified into two major groups; foreign talents and low-skilled workers.
Since the year 1997, the immigration system in Singapore has modernized and changed greatly. The adoption of liberal immigration laws has increased the number of foreigners in Singapore (Wong, 1997). There is no labor market test in Singapore, only those workers need to have wages above a certain given threshold to qualify for portable and flexible visas that allow for naturalization. The immigration system of Singapore facilitates an inflow of foreign talents, which will create a knowledge-based economy that encourages the immigration of foreign investors, thus boosting productivity and employment opportunities. Also, in Singapore, hiring foreign workers from abroad is open, and in most cases, it involves employment agencies.
The government has adopted a model famously known as Chinese-Malay-Indian-Others (CMIO) that has contributed to racial harmony. The CMIO has greatly contributed to the ethnic depoliticization, strong central authority that was able to influence its people effectively, egalitarianism across ethnic groups, and lastly, the depoliticization of ethnicity.
Despite having gone through many challenges in its economic development quest, Singapore has still managed to rise and become one of the high-economy societies. This can be linked to the good policies laid down by the government of Singapore to counter the challenges. Also, the policies have helped to have a well-organized, peaceful environment for both domestic and international investors and human laborers, who have boosted the economic growth of Singapore.
List of References
Chatibura, D. M. (2021). Critical success factors of street food destinations: a review of extant literature. International Journal of Tourism Cities.
Chua, C. X. (2009). The baby bonus in Singapore: a brief empirical study. Northwestern University. Prieiga per internetą: http://mmss. wcas. northwestern. edu/thesis/articles/get/663/% EE, 80.
Chu, P. (2014). Migration and the Politics of Multiculturalism in Singapore. Singapore Policy Journal, 1-34.
Graham, E. (2007). Son preference, female deficit and Singapore’s fertility transition. Watering the Neighbor’s Garden. The Growing Female Deficit in Asia, Paris, CICRED, 89-106.
Ho, K. W., & Tat, M. T. K. (2021). Challenges to social mobility in Singapore: Facilitating social mobility. In The Singapore Economy (pp. 221-276). Routledge.
Hwang, G. J. (2020). The political economy of welfare in Singapore: explaining continuity and change. Policy Studies, 41(1), 63-79.
Wong, D. (1997). Transience and settlement: Singapore’s foreign labor policy. Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 6(2), 135-167.
Lim, L. Y. (2016). Fifty years of development in the Singapore economy: An introductory review. Singapore’s Economic Development: Retrospection and Reflections, 1-15.
Nowrasteh, A. (2018). Singapore’s Immigration System: Past, Present, and Future. Cato Institute.
Phang, S. Y., & Helble, M. (2016). Housing policies in Singapore.
Phang, S. Y. (2007). The Singapore model of housing and the welfare state.
Tan, K. P. (2012). The ideology of pragmatism: Neo-liberal globalization and political authoritarianism in Singapore. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 42(1), 67-92.
Teng, Y. M., & Gee, C. (2016). Singapore’s Demographic Transition, The Labor Force and Government Policies: The Last Fifty Years. In Singapore’s Economic Development: Retrospection and Reflections (pp. 195-219).