Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:33:47.337Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining America and the Welfare State: An Alternative Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Gary M. Klass
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although research on the welfare state is fundamentally comparative and cross-national, empirical observation of the peculiarities of the American case has structured much of the thinking on the subject. Explaining variations in welfare state policy usually begins with the identification of cross-national variations in the initiation, scope or size of national social service programs such as social security, workman's compensation, unemployment insurance, national medical care and public housing. The coverage of the programs that have been established, the number of programs and the size of the benefits distributed are typically found to be smaller in the United States than in other industrialized democracies. The relative lateness of the United States' adoption of major social welfare programs, along with the low percentage of either Gross National Product or government revenue expended in social service programs, constitutes clear evidence that the welfare state is a function of more than the level of national economic development. To the extent that welfare state research devotes itself to explaining the extreme variations represented by American policy performance, its theory often derives from interpretations made of corresponding peculiarities of American popular ideology, social structure, political institutions and history. As a consequence, explaining the welfare state often depends on how one explains America.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , October 1985 , pp. 427 - 450
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Huntington, Samuel P., ‘Paradigms of American Politics: Beyond the One, the Two, and the Many’, Political Science Quarterly, LXXXIX (1974), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Wilensky, Harold L., The Welfare State and Equality (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1975).Google Scholar

3 Piven, Francis Fox and Cloward, Richard A., The New Class War (New York: Pantheon, 1982).Google Scholar

4 For example, Wilensky, , The Welfare State and Equality.Google Scholar

5 For example, King, Anthony, ‘Ideas, Institutions and the Policies of Governments: A Comparative Analysis’, British Journal of Political Science, III (1973), 291–313, 409–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Rosenberry, Sara A., ‘Social Insurance, Distributive Criteria and the Welfare Backlash: A Comparative Analysis’, British Journal of Political Science, XIII (1983), 421–47.Google Scholar Rosenberry argues that the excessive reliance of welfare state research on aggregate expenditure measures of policy performance can be traced to their greater ease of operationalization.

7 Rosenberry, , ‘Social Insurance’, p. 422.Google Scholar

8 Waxman, Chaim I., The Stigma of Poverty (New York: Pergamon Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Titmuss, Richard M., Social Policy: An Introduction (London: Allen & Unwin, 1974)Google Scholar; Room, Graham, The Sociology of Welfare (Oxford: Basil Blackwell and Martin Robertson, 1979).Google Scholar

9 Lowi, Theodore J., The End of Liberalism: Ideology, Policy, and the Crises of Public Authority (New York: W. W. Norton, 1969).Google Scholar

10 The term ‘pluralistic paradigm’ is used here, and by Huntington, to reference a somewhat broader range of literature than that generally encompassed by the term ‘pluralist theory’, perhaps most commonly associated with the work of Robert Dahl, and would include ‘minority faction theory’ critics of pluralism such as Lowi and Grant McConnell.

11 Heidenheimer, Arnold J., Heclo, Hugh and Adams, Carol, Comparative Public Policy: The Politics of Social Choice in Europe and America (New York: St Martin's Press, 1975). p. 30.Google Scholar

12 See, Heidenheimer, , ‘The Politics of Public Education, Health and Welfare in the USA and Western Europe: How Growth and Reform Potentials Have Differed’, British Journal of Political Science, III (1973), 315–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Marmor, Theodore R., Political Analysis and American Medical Care (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983).Google Scholar

13 Lowi, Theodore J., ‘American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies, and Political Theory’, World Politics, XVI (1974), 677–715.Google Scholar

14 Lowi, , ‘American Business’, p. 691.Google Scholar Although Lowi does not use the regulatory–distributive–redistributive classification later in The End of Liberalism, he does refer to the ‘new welfare’ Great Society programs as ‘nepotistic patronage’ (p. 241). In ‘American Business’, Lowi states that: ‘patronage in the fullest meaning of the word can be taken as a synonym for distributive’ (p. 690).

15 See Hofferbert, Richard I., ‘Race, Space, and the American Policy Paradox’, (Binghamton, New York: Center for Social Analysis, State University of New York, 1981)Google Scholar, and King, , ‘Ideas, Institutions and Policies’.Google Scholar

16 Wilensky, , The Welfare State and Equality, p. 3.Google Scholar

17 Sharkansky, Ira and Hofferbert, Richard I., ‘Dimensions of State Politics, Economics, and Public Policy’, American Political Science Review, LXIII (1969), 867–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 For an excellent historical analysis of the tensions between the Midwest and Northeast, see Smith, Page, The Rise of Industrial America: A People's History of the Post-Reconstruction Era, Vol. 6 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984), pp. 798–825.Google Scholar Smith also argues that the Founding Fathers, Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams in particular, displayed an unrecognized attachment to notions of the positive state and that: ‘the only thing that hindered the effective use of the powers of the Federal government to ensure some modest degree of social justice was [the institution of slavery and] the mischievous doctrine of States' rights’ (p. 923).

19 Flora, Peter, ‘Die Bildungsentwicklung im Prozess der Staaten and Nationenbildung’Google Scholar, in Ludz, P. C., ed., Soziologie und Sozialgeschichte, Westdeutscher Verlag Opladen, 1972), 294–319, p. 301Google Scholar; Heidenheimer, , ‘Public Policies and the Health Care Supply Mix: A Dynamic Comparison of Sweden, Britain and the United States’, paper prepared for the Conference on Dynamics of Public Policy (Windsor Park, England, 1977), p. 3.Google Scholar

20 Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Who Should Pay for Public Schools?: Report on the Conference of State Financing of Public Schools (Washington, D.C: ACIR, 1971)Google Scholar, Appendix J; Cameron, David R., Cameron, Stefani H., and Hofferbert, Richard I., ‘Non-incrementalism in Public School Finance: The Dynamics of Change’, paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association (Chicago, Illinois, 1975).Google Scholar

21 Heidenheimer, , ‘Public Policies and the Health Care Supply Mix’.Google Scholar

22 Conversely, those who oppose centralized or federal educational efforts are often keenly aware of the implications for particular ethnic and racial groups. This is illustrated most clearly in the long battle for passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. See Eidenburg, Eugene and Morey, Roy D., An Act of Congress (New York: Norton, 1969).Google Scholar

23 An excellent summary contrasting the American with the European approach to poverty and income maintenance can be found in Leichter, Howard M. and Rodgers, Harrell R., American Public Policy in a Comparative Context (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984), pp. 45–59.Google Scholar

24 Leichter, and Rodgers, , American Public Policy, p. 55Google Scholar; Lynn, Laurence E. Jr., and Whitman, David de F., The President as Policymaker: Jimmy Carter and Welfare Reform (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, ‘Policy vs. Program in the 70's’. The Public Interest, no. 20, 90–100.Google Scholar

25 For example, Cutright, Phillips, ‘Political Structure, Economic Development, and National Social Security Adoption’, American Journal of Sociology, LXX (1965), 537–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and King, , ‘ideas, Institutions and Policies’.Google Scholar

26 Lowi, , The End of Liberalism, p. 251.Google Scholar

27 Leichter, and Rodgers, , American Public Policy in a Comparative Context, p. 272–3.Google Scholar

28 Lowi, , The End of Liberalism, p. 59.Google Scholar

29 Hartz, Louis, The Liberal Tradition in America (New York: Harcourt, 1955).Google Scholar

30 King, , ‘Ideas, Institutions and Policies,’ p. 418.Google Scholar

31 Wilensky, , The Welfare State and Equality, pp. 55–61.Google Scholar

32 Free, Lloyd A. and Cantril, Hadley, The Political Beliefs of Americans (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1968)Google Scholar; Coughlin, Richard M., Ideology, Public Opinion, and Welfare Policy (Berkeley, Calif.: Institute for International Studies, University of California, 1980)Google Scholar; Tropman, John E., ‘The Constant Crises: Social Welfare and American Cultural Structure?’ in Tropman, John E. et al. , eds, New Strategic Perspectives in Social Policy (New York: Pergamon Press, 1981).Google Scholar

33 Titmuss, , The Gift Relationship (Harmondsworth, Middx.: Penguin, 1973).Google Scholar

34 Wilensky, , The Welfare State and Equality, pp. 55–61.Google Scholar

35 Jacobs, David, ‘Dimensions of Inequality and Public Policy in the State’, Journal of Politics, XLII (1980), 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Wilensky, , The Welfare State and Equality, p. 53.Google Scholar

37 Katznelson, Ira, City Trenches (New York: Pantheon, 1981).Google Scholar

38 Wilensky, , The Welfare State and Equality.Google Scholar

39 White, Theodore H., The Making of the President, 1968 (New York: Atheneum, 1969), p. 32.Google Scholar

40 Sharkansky, and Hofferbert, , ‘Dimensions of State Polities’.Google Scholar

41 Wilensky, , ‘The New Corporatism’, Centralisation, and the Welfare State (London: Sage Publications, 1976).Google Scholar

42 Piven, and Cloward, , The New Class War., p. 93.Google Scholar

43 See McFarland, Andrew S., ‘Public Interest Lobbies versus Minority Faction’ in Ciglar, All J. and Loomis, Burdett A., eds. Interest Group Politics (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1983), 324–53, pp. 328–35.Google Scholar