ABSTRACT
According to the universalist-formalist perspective, those who utilize social services engage in a transaction that is essentially no different from acquiring any professional good or service. The formalist doctrine had its roots in the protection of clients' legal rights by the redefinition of the principle of gratuity. In the selectivist-discretionary perspective, the recipient of welfare is dependent on the state for his economic sustenance. Those who adhere to the selectivist-discretionary position seem reluctant to accept the implications of a substantial body of literature that shows the limited effectiveness of lower-case social services in promoting compliance or in encouraging achievement. Artificial policy dichotomies that offend common understanding have vitality in policy debates. The intellectual tradition that hopes to encourage free expression of individual preferences has sought to do so by both financial and administrative approaches. Citizen participation and decentralization have played a prominent role.
