Framing in Legislation: The Case of Population Policy in the Philippines

Abstract

This paper investigates the political framing of population in policy discourse through an analysis of legislative documents. Semantic network analysis was conducted and results were interpreted through discourse analysis of the typical arguments identified. Policy texts were classified into three sets: population management, reproductive health and family planning, and anti-abortion and anti-FP. While the “population management” frame focuses on social and economic consequences of population growth, the “reproductive health” frame defines the problem from a health perspective. Both policies propose aggressive FP programs but each frame uses distinct political rhetoric and semantic approach in its arguments. The “anti-abortion and anti-FP” frame identifies two problems: rise in incidence of abortion and existing policy that prohibit health professionals from refusing patients information on contraception. By invoking a moral argument and anchoring on rights, these policies challenge the problem and solutions identified by the first two frames.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Adams, J., Braun, V., & McCreanor, T. (2008). Framing gay men’s health: An analysis of policy documents. Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, 4(2), 108–126.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Altheide, D. (2007). The mass media and terrorism. Discourse & Communication, 1, 287–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bancroft, A., & Wilson, S. (2007). The ‘risk gradient’ in policy on children of drug and alcohol users: Framing young people as risky. Health, Risk & Society, 9, 311–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barnett, M. N. (1999). Culture, strategy, and foreign policy change: Israel’s road to Oslo. European Journal of International Relations, 5(1), 5–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barrett, D., & Tsui, A. O. (1999). Policy as symbolic statement: International response to national population policies. Social Forces, 78, 213–234.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baumgartner, F. R., & Mahoney, C. (2008). The two face of framing: Individual-level framing and collective issue definition in the European Union. European Union Politics, 9, 435–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brysk, A. (1995). Hearts and minds: Bringing symbolic politics back in. Polity, 27, 559–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Campbell, D. (1998). Writing security: War, terrorism, and democracy. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57, 99–118.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Christie, T. (2006). Framing rationale for the Iraq war. The International Communication Gazette, 68, 519–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Commission on Population. (2000). The Philippine Population Management Program (PPMP) 2001–2004 Directional Plan. Mandaluyong City: Commission on Population.

  12. Crawley, C. E. (2007). Localized debates of agricultural biotechnology in community newspapers: A quantitative content analysis of media frames and sources. Science Communication, 28, 314–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. David, C. C., Atun, J. L., & La Viña, A. G. M. (2010). Framing the population debate: A comparison of source and news frames in the Philippines. Asian Journal of Communication, 20, 337–353.

  14. David, C. C., Atun, J. L., & La Viña, A. G. M. (2011). Framing the population debate: Final report submitted to Institute of Philippine Culture. Unpublished manuscript.

  15. Edelman, M. (1964). The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gamson, W. A., & Wolfsfeld, G. (1993). Movements and media as interacting systems. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 528, 114–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the news left. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hahn, H. (1985). Toward a politics of disability definitions, disciplines and policies. Social Science Journal, 22, 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Joachim, J. (2003). Framing issues and seizing opportunities: The UN, NGOs, and women’s rights. International Studies Quarterly, 47, 247–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Johnson, S., Cupeper, J., & Suhr, S. (2003). From ‘politically correct councilors’ to ‘Blairite nonsense’: Discourses of ‘political correctness’ in three British newspapers. Discourse & Society, 14(1), 29–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kinder, D., & Sanders, L. (1990). Mimicking political debate with survey questions: The case of White opinion on affirmative action for Blacks. Social Cognition, 8(1), 73–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Koch, J. W. (1998). Political rhetoric and political persuasion: The changing structure of citizens’ preferences on health insurance during policy debate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 209–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kohring, M., & Matthes, J. (2002). The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: How the German press framed modern biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee, S. T., Maslog, C., & Kim, H. S. (2006). Asian conflicts and the Iraq war: A comparative framing analysis. The International Communication Gazette, 68(5–6), 499–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lind, R. A., & Salo, C. (2002). The framing of feminists and feminism in news and public affairs programs in U.S. electronic media. Journal of Communication, 52, 211–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58, 258–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Maynard-Moody, S., & Stull, D. D. (1987). The symbolic side of policy analysis. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), Confronting values in policy analysis. NY: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Murphy, P. (2001). Affiliation bias and expert disagreement in framing the nicotine addiction debate. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26, 278–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Murphy, P., & Maynard, M. (2000). Framing the genetic testing issue: Discourse and cultural clashes among policy communities. Science Communication, 22, 133–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. NSO & ICF Macro. (2009). National Demographic and Health Survey 2008. Calverton, Maryland: National Statistics Office and ICF Macro.

  32. Orbeta, A. (2002). Review of the population program: 19862002. Paper prepared for Population Commission and the Philippine Institute for Development Studies.

  33. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10, 59–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Papacharissi, Z., & Oliviera, M. F. (2008). News frames terrorism: A comparative analysis of frames employed in terrorism coverage in U.S. and U.K. newspapers. Press/Politics, 13, 52–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Payne, R. A. (2001). Persuasion, frames and norm construction. European Journal of International Relations, 7(1), 37–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Prentice, S. (2010). Using automated semantic tagging in Critical Discourse Analysis: A case study on Scottish independence from a Scottish nationalist perspective. Discourse & Society, 21, 406–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progresses in the communication sciences (pp. 173–212). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rhee, J. W. (1997). Strategy and issue frames in election campaign coverage: A social cognitive account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 47, 26–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Roth, A., Dunsbery, J., & Bero, L. (2003). Framing processes in public commentary on US Federal Tobacco Control Regulation. Social Studies of Science, 33(1), 7–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Schon, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Schuck, A., & De Vreese, C. (2006). Between risk and opportunity: News framing and its effects on public support for EU enlargement. European Journal of Communication, 21, 5–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50, 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Simon, A. F., & Jerit, J. (2007). Toward a theory relating political discourse, media, and public opinion. Journal of Communication, 57, 254–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–217.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Stewart, C., Gil-Egui, G., Tian, Y., & Pileggi, M. I. (2006). Framing the digital divide: A comparison of US and EU policy approaches. New Media and Society, 8, 731–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Valkenburg, P. M., Semetko, H. A., & de Vreese, C. H. (1999). The effects of news frames on readers’ thoughts and recall. Communication Research, 26, 550–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Vliegenthart, R., & Roggeband, C. (2007). Framing immigration and integration: Relationships between press and parliament in the Netherlands. The International Communication Gazette, 69, 295–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Woelfel, J. K., Danielsen, S., & Woelfel, J. (1995). Catpac for Windows. Troy, NY: Terra Research & Computing Co., The Galileo Company.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Zaller, J. (2001). Monical Lewinsky and the mainsprings of American politics. In W. L. Bennett & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics (pp. 252–278). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research reported in this paper is supported by grants from the Institute of Philippine Culture of the Ateneo de Manila University and the University of the Philippines Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Development.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clarissa C. David.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

David, C.C., Atun, J.M.L. & La Viña, A.G.M. Framing in Legislation: The Case of Population Policy in the Philippines. Popul Res Policy Rev 31, 297–319 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-011-9224-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Semantic network analysis
  • Framing
  • Policy
  • Legislation analysis
  • Population
  • Reproductive health
  • Family planning