The Rise and Fall of the U.S. Welfare State

Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Julilly Kohler-Hausmann

In 1970s America, politicians began “getting tough” on drugs, crime, and welfare. These campaigns helped expand the nation's penal system, discredit welfare programs, and cast blame for the era's social upheaval on racialized deviants that the state was not accountable to serve or represent. This book sheds light on how this unprecedented growth of the penal system and the evisceration of the nation's welfare programs developed hand in hand. The book shows that these historical events were animated by struggles over how to interpret and respond to the inequality and disorder that crested during this period. When social movements and the slowing economy destabilized the U.S. welfare state, politicians reacted by repudiating the commitment to individual rehabilitation that had governed penal and social programs for decades. In its place, they championed strategies of punishment, surveillance, and containment. The architects of these tough strategies insisted they were necessary, given the failure of liberal social programs and the supposed pathological culture within poor African American and Latino communities. This book rejects this explanation and describes how the spectacle of enacting punitive policies convinced many Americans that social investment was counterproductive and the “underclass” could be managed only through coercion and force. Spanning diverse institutions and weaving together the perspectives of opponents, supporters, and targets of punitive policies, the book offers new interpretations of dramatic transformations in the modern American state.


2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 247-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Nazareno

The U.S. government has a long tradition of providing direct care services to many of its most vulnerable citizens through market-based solutions and subsidized private entities. The privatized welfare state has led to the continued displacement of some of our most disenfranchised groups in need of long-term care. Situated after the U.S. deinstitutionalization era, this is the first study to examine how immigrant Filipino women emerged as owners of de facto mental health care facilities that cater to the displaced, impoverished, severely mentally ill population. These immigrant women–owned businesses serve as welfare state replacements, overseeing the health and illness of these individuals by providing housing, custodial care, and medical services after the massive closure of state mental hospitals that occurred between 1955 and 1980. This study explains the onset of these businesses and the challenges that one immigrant group faces as owners, the meanings of care associated with their de facto mental health care enterprises, and the conditions under which they have operated for more than 40 years.


Signs ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Fraser ◽  
Linda Gordon
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
pp. 119-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Fraser ◽  
Linda Gordon
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Julia Lynch

The welfare system in the United States is not simply “small,”“residualist,” or “laggard.” It is true that protection against standard social risks is generally less comprehensive and less generous in the United States than in other rich democracies, but there are other important differences as well: The U. S. welfare state is unusual in its extensive reliance on private markets to produce public social goods; its geographic variability; its insistence on deservingness as an eligibility criterion; and its orientation toward benefits for the elderly rather than children and working-age adults. Nevertheless, the U.S. welfare state is not sui generis. The actors involved in the construction of the U.S. welfare state, the institutions created in response to social problems, and the contemporary pressures confronting the welfare state all have parallels in other countries. The markets that provide so many social goods in the United States are the products of state action and state regulation, and hence should really be thought of as part of the welfare “state.” Even recent expansions to the welfare state in the United States have, with the partial exception of health-care reform, reinforced old patterns of elderly oriented spending and benefits for worthy (working) adults. In order for the U.S. welfare state to adjust successfully to ensure against new social risks, it must focus more on underdeveloped program areas like health care, child care, early childhood education, and vocational training.


1990 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 290-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn Muncy

In response to New Deal legislation, veteran reformer Molly Dewson exclaimed: “I cannot believe I have lived to see this day. It's the culmination of what us girls and some of you boys have been working for for so long it's just dazzling.” Historians have subsequently confirmed Dewson's judgment that female New Dealers had been hawking their agenda for a long time before Franklin Roosevelt's administration finally bought it. Indeed, Clarke A. Chambers, Susan Ware, and J. Stanley Lemons have carefully documented the activities of a large contingent of women who inaugurated their battle for public welfare programs during the Progressive Era (1890–1920), continued their fight through the 1920s—a decade that one activist called the “tepid, torpid years”—and stood ready with their programs when the Great Depression renewed the possibility of federal welfare legislation in the 1930s. Now we need an explanation for the continuity of this female commitment to public welfare programs: Why was it that middle-class women played such a prominent part in sustaining the Progressive Era's social welfare agenda into the 1930s.


1997 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Gordon

Why, alone among its democratic capitalist peers, does the U.S. not have national health insurance? This question has invited a range of replies; some focusing on specific historical episodes, some invoking grand political or cultural or economic explanations for the peculiar trajectory American social policy. For the most part, the historical accounts have trouble climbing from narrative to explanation; little of the scholarship on the failure of health reform in 1920 or 1935 or 1948 or 1970 or 1994 makes any substantial contribution to our larger understanding of the American welfare state and its limits. And the theoretical accounts often stumble on the descent to historical context; the largely artificial debate between “state-centered” and economic explanations, for example, rests largely on abstractions which are either not unique to the American setting (capitalism, industrialism, liberalism) or which are offered in such broad strokes that they make little sense in specific historical contexts. In explaining this “hole” in the American welfare state, it is necessary to pursue two lines of inquiry; to consider both the relative success of other American social programs during the years in which health insurance was beating at the door, and the relative success of public health insurance in other national settings. Our understanding of the American health debate of the 1940s, in other words, must in part explain both the distinct trajectory of health policy during the formative years of Social Security, and the “exceptional” character of the American welfare state.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document