1. The definition of the welfare state is subject to a good deal of debate; see, e.g., Gosta Esping-Andersen, “The Three Political Economies of the Welfare State,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology (February 1989): 10–36; Flora, Peter and Heidenheimer, Arnold J., The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America (New Brunswick, 1981).Google Scholar Generally, it is conceptualized as a state committed to modifying the play of social or market forces in order to achieve greater equality (Ruggie, Mary, The State and Working Women [Princeton, N.J., 1984], 11).Google Scholar It is often operationalized as the collection of social insurance and assistance programs offering income protection to the victims of unemployment, industrial accident, retirement, disability, ill health, death of a family breadwinner, or extreme poverty; some analysts also include education and housing. The extent to which states actually promote citizens' well-being above, say, mere income maintenance, is rarely investigated. (Esping-Andersen, “The Three Political Economies of the Welfare State”). Although I am sympathetic to the more inclusive definition, I here settle for a definition of the welfare state as one that does intervene in civil society to alter the play of social and market forces. By this more modest definition, the origins of a welfare state in the United States occurred in the Progressive Era.

2. Okin, Susan Moller, Justice, Gender, and the Family (New York, 1989)Google Scholar; Gordon, Linda, “What Does Welfare Regulate?” Social Research 55 (Winter 1988): 609–30.Google Scholar

3. Recent demographic, socioeconomic, and political trends have contributed to an increase in economic insecurity for single mothers and children and a worsening of their standard of living relative to men and the elderly; see Preston, Samuel, “Children and the Elderly: Divergent Paths for America's Elderly,” Demography 21 (November 1984): 435–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pearce, Diana, “The Feminization of Poverty: Women, Work and Welfare,” Urban and Social Change Review 11 (February 1978): 28–36.Google Scholar Fully half of mother-only families are poor, as opposed to about one-tenth of two-parent families and a similar proportion of the elderly; see Ellwood, David T., Poor Support: Poverty in the American Family (New York, 1988), 89Google Scholar; Garflnkel, Irwin and McLanahan, Sara S., Single Mothers and Their Children (Washington, D.C., 1986), 14.Google Scholar The increasing numbers of marital breakups have been hardest on women and children: while men's postdivorce economic situation generally improves or remains the same, that of their ex-wives and children becomes demonstrably worse; see Hoffman, Saul D. and Duncan, Greg J., “What Are the Economic Consequences of Divorce?” Demography 25 (November 1988): 641–45CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Weitzman, Lenore,The Divorce Revolution (New York, 1985).Google Scholar Never-married mothers are more likely than divorced women to start out poor, and out-of-wedlock birth increases their odds of staying poor; see Hofferth, Sandra L. and Moore, Kristin, “Early Childbearing and Later Economic Weil-Being,” American Sociological Review 44 (December 1979): 784–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It is worth noting that the “feminization of poverty” does not mean that the poverty rates of single-mother families have risen; in face they have changed little if at all—hovering around 50% for the last two decades or so. Rather, the fact that women and children make up a larger proportion of the poor than they did in the past results from two trends: first, other groups in the population have fared better economically and at the hands of the American social welfare system, and second, the proportion of all families that are mother-only has increased; see Garfinkel and McLanahan, Single Mothers and Their Children; Ellwood, Poor Support, chap. 5, on these trends.

4. Garfinkel and McLanahan, Single Mothers and Their Children; Bergmann, Barbara R., The Economic Emergence of Women (New York, 1986).Google Scholar

5. Weir, Margaret, Orloff, Ann Shola, and Skocpol, Theda, “The Future of Public Policy in the United States: Political Constraints and Possibilities,” in The Politics of Social Policy in the United States, Weir, M., Orloff, A., and Skocpol, T., eds. (Princeton, N.J., 1988), 421–45Google Scholar; Ellwood, Poor Support: Poverty in the American Family; Mary Jo Bane, “Politics and Policies of the Feminization of Poverty, in The Politics of Social Policy in the United States, Margaret Weir, Ann Shola Orloff, and Theda Skocpol, eds, 381–96; Pearce, Diana, “The Feminization of Ghetto Poverty,” Society 21 (November/December 1983): 70–74, and “The Feminization of Poverty.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Myles, John, Old Age in the Welfare State (Boston, 1984)Google Scholar; Kahn, Alfred and Kamerman, Sheila B., Income Transfers for Families with Children (Philadelphia, 1983).Google Scholar

7. Overall, 53% of Social Security benefits paid to women are based on their own earnings record; 47% of benefits are paid on the basis of the earnings of their spouses; more than 99% of men's benefits are claimed on the basis of their own earnings records (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, Background Material and Data on Programs within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means [Washington, D.C., 1988], 34–35).Google Scholar There is an ongoing debate over whether to continue this system, which benefits “housewife-maintaining families” at the expense of two-earner couples, single people, and divorced women (see Burkhauser, Richard V. and Holden, Karen C., A Challenge to Social Security: The Changing Role of Women and Men in American Society [New York, 1983]Google Scholar; , Barbara Bergmann, The Economic Emergence of Women [New York, 1986], 221–25).Google Scholar

8. For example, in 1986, under Social Security, the average monthly benefit for a surviving child was $338 and for a surviving spouse was $339; thus a three-person family maintained by a widow of a covered wage-earner anywhere in the United States would receive about $1,000; the same size family would receive, on average, a combined benefit of $559 from AFDC and Food Stamps, although the benefit could be as low as $346 or as high as $980 (U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, Background Material and Data on Programs within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means [Washington, D.C, 1988], 30–31, 408–9).Google Scholar While elderly widows are more likely to be poor than retired men, they are somewhat better off than nonwidowed mothers and their minor children. On the situation of elderly women under Social Security, see Quadagno, Jill, “Woman's Access to Pensions and the Structure of Eligibility Rules: Systems of Production and Reproduction,” Sociological Quarterly 29 (Winter 1988): 541–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Stone, Robyn, “The Feminization of Poverty Among the Elderly,” Women's Studies Quarterly 17 (1989): 20–34.Google Scholar

9. Pearce, “The Feminization of Ghetto Poverty,” 72.

10. For example, see Pateman, Carole, “The Patriarchial Welfare State,” in Democracy and the Welfare State, Gutman, Amy, ed. (Princeton, N.J., 1988), 231–36Google Scholar; Gordon, “What Does Welfare Regulate?” 609–30.

11. Nelson, Barbar, “Women's Poverty and Women's Citizenship: Some Political Consequences of Economic Marginality,” in Women and Poverty, Gelpi, Barbara, Hartsock, Nancy, Novak, Clare, and Strober, Myra, eds. (Chicago, 1986), 211–31.Google Scholar

12. U.S. Children's Bureau (Department of Labor), Mothers' Pensions, 1931 (Washington, D.C., 1933).Google Scholar

13. Vandepol, Ann, “Dependent Children, Child Custody, and Mothers' Pensions: The Transformation of State-Family Relations in the Early 20th Century,” Social Problems 29 (February 1982): 221–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Katz, Michael B., Poverty and Policy in American History (New York, 1983), 9–11Google Scholar; Leff, Mark, The Limits of Symbolic Reform (New York, 1984).Google Scholar

14. Weiss, Harry, “Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation,” in History of Labor in the United States, 1896–1932, vol. 3, Lescohier, Don and Brandeis, Elizabeth, eds. (New York, 1935), 564–610.Google Scholar

15. U.S. Social Security Board, Social Security in America: The Factual Background of the Social Security Act as Summarized from Staff Reports to the Committee on Economic Security (Washington, D.C., 1937), 161, 166.Google Scholar

16. For example, see Nelson, Barbara, “The Origins of the Two-Channel Welfare State: Workmen's Compensation and Mothers' Aid,” in Women, the State and Welfare, Gordon, L., ed. (Madison, 1990), 123–51.Google Scholar Carole Pateman, “The Patriarchical Welfare State,” 231–60; Laslett, Barbara and Brenner, Johanna, “Gender and Social Reproduction: Historical Perspectives,” Annual Review of Sociology 15 (1989): 381–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

17. Nelson, “The Origins of the Two-Channel Welfare State,” 136–37. This is not the only feminist position on mothers' pensions; Wendy Sarvasy for example, discusses the “feminist potential” in these programs in her article “Reagan and Low-Income Mothers: A Feminist Recasting of the Debate,” in Remaking the Welfare State, Brown, Michael K., ed. (Philadelphia, 1987), 253–76.Google Scholar

18. Nelson, “The Origins of the Two-Channel Welfare State,” 140.

19. Ibid., 144–45.

20. , RoyLubove, The Struggle for Social Security: 1900–1935 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968).Google Scholar

21. Theda Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers (Cambridge, forthcoming), chap. 9.

22. Katz, Michael B., In the Shadow of the Poor House: A Social History of Welfare in America (New York, 1986), part 1.Google Scholar

23. Vandepol, “Dependent Children, Child Custody, and the Mothers' Pensions,” 221– 35; Katz, In the Shadow of the Poor House, chaps. 2–5.

24. Katz, Michael B., Poverty and Policy in American History (New York, 1983), chap. 1.Google Scholar

25. Massachusetts Commission on the Support of Dependent Minor Children of Widowed Mothers, Massachusetts House Report No. 2075 (Boston, 1913), 23–24, 30–31.Google Scholar

26. Squier, Lee Welling, Old Age Dependency in the United States (New York, 1912), 35–50Google Scholar; Ohio Health and Old Age Insurance Commission, Health, Health Insurance, Old Age Pensions: Report, Recommendations, Dissenting Opinions (1919), 5, 13, 262–63Google Scholar; Wisconsin Industrial Commission, Report on Old Age Relief (Madison, 1915), 5–6.Google Scholar

27. Rubinow, I. M., Social Insurance: With Special Reference to American Conditions (New York, 1913).Google Scholar

28. See, for example, Seager, Henry, Social Insurance (New York, 1910), 4–5, 148–50, as well as Rubinow, Social Insurance.Google Scholar For a similar argument in the British context, see Hobson, J. A., The Crisis of Liberalism: New Issues of Democracy (London, 1909), 93, 96–113.Google Scholar I discuss the development of new liberalism in chap. 5 of The Politics of Pensions: A Comparative Analysis of the Origins of Pensions and Old-Age Insurance in Canada, Great Britain, and the United States, 1880s–1930s (Madison, forthcoming).

29. Freeden, Michael, The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform (Oxford, 1978), 201, 204–5.Google Scholar

30. Collini, Stefan, Liberalism and Sociobgy (New York, 1979), 125, 109.Google Scholar

31. Collini, Liberalism and Sociology, 125.

32. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, chap. 9.

33. For example, Squier, Old Age Dependency in the United States; Nassau, Mabel, Old Age Poverty in Greenwich Village (New York, 1915)Google Scholar; Henderson, Charles, Industrial Insurance (Chicago, 1909)Google Scholar; Doren, Durand Van, Workmen's Compensation (New York, 1918).Google Scholar

34. So common was the argument that mothers' pensions reflected the proper social response to the worthy service of widows that Mary Richmond, one of the most active opponents of such legislation, felt compelled to argue vociferously against those “asseverating that their provisions [of mothers' pensions proposals] are justice and not relief,” Richmond, Mary, “Pensions and the Social Worker,” The Survey 23 (15 February 1913): 665.Google Scholar (See also , Richmond, “Motherhood and Pensions,” The Survey 23 (1 March 1913): 774–80.Google Scholar

35. Hard, William, “Pensions for Mothers: General Discussion,” American Labor Legislation Review 3 (June 1913), 231–33.Google Scholar

36. Massachusetts Special Commission on Social Insurance, Massachusetts House Report No. 1850 (Boston, 1917), 55–56.Google Scholar For examples of the service metaphor used by proponents of old-age pensions, see Squier, Old Age Dependency in the United States, 320; Nassau, Old Age Poverty in Greenwich Village, 95–96.

37. Even before women gained the full rights to citizenship with the suffrage, poor relief was often regarded as an illegitimate way to cope with the problems of needy mothers; as was the case cross-nationally with public provision for newly enfranchised groups, “honorable” provision was claimed as a right and poor relief had even less legitimacy after women gained the vote. On the link between citizenship and forms of public social provision, see Marshall, T. H., Citizenship and Social Class (Cambridge, 1959), 24Google Scholar; Coll, Blanche, Perspectives in Public Welfare (Washington, D.C., 1969), chap. 3; Katz, In the Shadow of the Poor House, chap. 2.Google Scholar

38. Rubinow, Social Insurance.

39. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers; Quadagno, Jill, The Transformation of Old Age Security: Class and Politics in the American Welfare System (Chicago, 1988)Google Scholar; Orloff, Ann and Skocpol, Theda, “Why Not Equal Protection?: The Politics of Public Social Spending in Britain, 1900–1911, and the United States, 1880s–1920,” American Sociological Review 49 (December 1984): 726–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anglim, Christopher and Gratton, Brian, “Organized Labor and Old Age Pensions,” International Journal of Aging and Human Development 25:2 (1987): 91–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

40. Massachusetts Commission on Old Age Pensions, Annuities, and Insurance, Massachusetts House Report No. 1400 (Boston, 1910), 334.Google Scholar

41. Kleeck, Mary Van, “Security for Americans, IV: The Workers' Bill for Unemployment and Social Insurance,” New Republic 81 (12 December 1934), 121–24Google Scholar; Holtzman, Abraham, The Townsend Movement (New York, 1963).Google Scholar

42. Cates, Jerry, Insuring Inequality (Ann Arbor, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Derthick, Martha, Policy-Making for Social Security (Washington, D.C., 1969)Google Scholar; Coll, Blanche, “Public Assistance: Reviving the Original Comprehensive Concept of Social Security,” in Social Security: The First Half-Century, Nash, Gerald, Pugach, Noel, and Tomasson, Richard, eds. (Albuquerque, 1988).Google Scholar

43. Indeed, experts to this day debate this issue (see, e.g., Garfinkel, Irwin, Income Tested Transfer Programs: The Case for and Against (New York, 1983), although after the 1940s, social insurance gained ground on social assistance.Google Scholar

44. Rubinow, Social Insurance, Epstein, Abraham, Facing Old Age (New York, 1922)Google Scholar and Challenge of the Aged (New York, 1928)Google Scholar; Armstrong, Barbara, Insuring the Essentials (New York, 1932).Google Scholar

45. Perkins, Frances, The Roosevelt I Knew (New York, [1946] 1964), 245–85.Google Scholar

46. Orloff and Skocpol, “Why Not Equal Protection?” 726–50; Ann S. Orloff, “The Political Origins of America's Belated Welfare State,” in The Politics of Social Policy in the United States; Seager, Social Insurance; Richmond “Motherhood and Pensions,” 774–80.

47. The main factors preventing the adoption of most social spending programs or social insurance in the United States during the Progressive Era were associated with the American social policy legacy and patterns of state formation—the extent of state capacities and bureaucratization, especially as this is manifested by successful civil-service reform, and the sequence of bureaucratization and democratization, and the impact this had on party politics; see Hawley, Ellis, “Social Policy and the Liberal State in Twentieth-Century America,” Federal Social Policy: The Historical Dimension, Critchlow, Donald T. and Hawley, Ellis W., eds. (University Park, Pa., 1988), 126–27Google Scholar; Skocpol and Ikenberry, “The Political Formation of the American Welfare State in Historical and Comparative Perspective”; Orloff, “The Political Origins of America's Belated Welfare State; Orloff and Skocpol, “Why Not Equal Protection?”; Orloff, The Politics of Pensions. In the United States, working-class and women's mobilization and the dilemmas of traditional social policies created pressures for reform, yet prior to the Progressive Era (of about 1900–1916), bureaucratization had made little headway and patronage practices remained strong in administration and in party politics. Although noncontributory programs were potentially quite popular with nonelite groups, they were politically problematic for important sectors of reformers, given the character of administrative organizations in the American state and federal governments and the ongoing struggle against patronage practices in U.S. politics. Indeed, reformers and patronage politicians were engaged in battles for control of administrative practices and positions. To reform elites, and the middle-class public, which followed their political lead, the U.S. state was not yet considered a suitable instrument for administering new social programs, especially if large financial resources were involved. Public spending represented an important political resource for gaining electoral support among critical segments of the electorate. Reformers battling the patronage system were loathe to initiate any program that might offer new resources to their political enemies; in addition, they worried about initiating programs whose benefits might be expanded in response to an electoral logic (see, e.g., Seager, Social Insurance; Richmond, “Motherhood and Pensions,” 776–78), as had Civil War pensions, a program similar to proposed old-age pensions, which reached a million Americans around the turn of the century (Glasson, William, Federal Military Pensions in the United States [New York, 1918]).Google Scholar Contributory social insurance might have provided an alternative programmatic form that could have reined in expansionary pressures somewhat (or so reformers then thought), but the U.S. state lacked the administrative capacities necessary to manage such programs (Orloff, Politics of Pensions, chap. 7; Brooks, John Graham, “Report on German Workingmen's Insurance,” Proceedings of the National Conference of Charities and Corrections, Portland, Oregon, 1905).Google Scholar Thus, for most reform-minded, middle-class Americans, the first step in social reform had to be political reform. In essence, the differing political preferences of elites and the mass electorate made a cross-class alliance around social spending a prerequisite to reform (Esping-Andersen, “The Three Political Economies of the Welfare State”; Orloff and Skocpol, “Why Not Equal Protection?”), an impossibility in the United States. Negative reactions to the existing U.S. military pension program, combined with negative evaluations of the character of American public administration, both of which were involved in the workings of mass patronage democracy, undercut support for new social insurance and pension policies among key reform elites (although not among working-class political leaders) during the Progressive Era, thus contributing to the failure of most such policies in this period.

48. Leff, Mark, “Consensus for Reform: The Mothers' Pension Movement in the Progressive Era,” Social Service Review 47 (September 1973): 397–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Asher, Robert, “Business and Workers' Welfare in the Progressive Era: Workmen's Compensation Reform in Massachusetts, 1880–1911,” Business History Review 43 (Winter 1969): 452–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Failure and Fulfillment: Agitation for Employers' Liability legislation and the Origins of Workmen's Compensation in New York State, 1876–1910,” Labor History 24 (Spring 1983): 198–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berkowitz, Edward and Berkowitz, Monroe, “The Survival of Workers' Compensation,” Social Service Review 58 (June 1984): 259–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49. Abbott, Edith, “The Experimental Period of Widows' Pension Legislation,” in Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work (Chicago, 1917), 154–65.Google Scholar

50. Glasson, Federal Military Pensions in the United States; estimates are from Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, chap. 3.

51. Orloff and Skocpol, “Why Not Equal Protection?”

52. Ritter, Gerhard, Social Welfare in Germany and Britain (New York, 1986)Google Scholar; Rubinow, Social Insurance, 432–38.

53. U.S. Children's Bureau, Mothers' Pensions, 1931 (Washington, D.C., 1919), 20–21.Google Scholar

54. The strength of these constraints is illustrated in the concerns of opponents of mothers' pensions, which were acknowledged by all to be a far smaller undertaking than would be the pensioning of America's elderly. Mary Richmond, in an article opposing mothers' pensions, in which she goes on at length about the problems of the Civil War pension system, noted, “The point of this comparison between mothers' and soldiers' pensions—a comparison that did not originate with me—is that grants to voters, or to those who may, perhaps, soon become such [women were still demanding the franchise as this was being written], tend to mount up and up, without any assurance to the state of an adequate return (“Motherhood and Pensions,” 778).

55. Leff, “Consensus for Reform,” 398.

56. Most states had no specific mention of property, but a few limited the amount of property pensioned mothers could own. For example, Wisconsin's law permitted the ownership of a homestead. A few did prohibit property ownership. See Lundberg, Emma, Public Aid to Mothers with Dependent Children: Extent and Fundamental Principles (U.S. Children's Bureau Publication No. 162) (Washington, D.C., 1928), 8.Google Scholar Edith Abbott noted that the Illinois mothers' allowance law excluded women who owned property, but that judges routinely pensioned women who owned their own homes (“Experimental Period in Widows' Pensions,” 159). See also Abbott, Grace, The Child and the State, Volume II: The Dependent and Delinquent Child, The Child of Unmarried Parents (Chicago, 1941), 317.Google Scholar

57. In a recent paper, Barbara Nelson explores some of the links between mothers' aid, poor relief, and suffrage (“Mothers' Aid, Pauper Laws and Woman Suffrage: The Intersection of the Welfare State and Democratic Participation, 1913–1935,” unpublished manuscript, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota). She points out that in ten states paupers receiving outdoor relief (i.e., aid in their own homes) were disenfranchised; in five of these states mothers' aid was specifically excluded from the pauper law, but in five states it was not. Thus, de jure, mothers' pensioners could be disenfranchised in those states (after the passage of woman suffrage), although we do not know the de facto situation. She is convincing in arguing that these links need to be further investigated, yet I remain impressed that reformers worked so hard to distance modern social programs from poor relief. The incomplete success of that distancing was not unique to mothers' pensions in the United States; old-age assistance suffered similar problems, as did means-tested noncontributory programs everywhere.

58. Abbott, “Experimental Period of Widows' Pensions,” 163.

59. Leff, “Consensus for Reform,” 401.

60. U.S. Children's Bureau, Mothers' Pensions, 1931, 16–17; Lundberg, Public Aid to Mothers, 11–16.

61. Abbott, “Experimental Period in Mothers' Pensions,” 154–55.

62. Leff, “Consensus for Reform,” 405.

63. Massachusetts Commission on the Support of Dependent Minor Children of Widowed Mothers, Massachusetts House Report No. 2075 (Boston, 1913), 28–29.Google Scholar

64. Weiss, “Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation,” 587–88.

65. Ibid., 577–79, 589–94.

66. Ibid., 608–10.

67. Orloff, “The Political Origins of America's Belated Welfare State.”

68. See Folbre, cited in Gordon, “What Does Welfare Regulate?” 613.

69. Coll, “Public Assistance,” 221–42; Preston, Samuel, “Children and the Elderly: Divergent Paths for America's Elderly,” Demography 21 (November 1984): 435–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70. U.S. Social Security Board, Social Security in America, 161.

71. Ibid., 159.

72. Ibid., 162–63.

73. Millis, Harry and Montgomery, Royal, Labor's Risks and Social Insurance (New York, 1938), 379.Google Scholar

74. Preston, “Children and the Elderly,” 435–57.

75. Burkhauser and Holden, A Challenge to Social Security.

76. Abromovitz, Mimi, Regulating the Lives of Women (Boston, 1988).Google Scholar

77. For examples of women reformers who supported the granting of pensions to all single mothers, regardless of marital status, see Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers; for an example of reformers arguing for clear differentiation between the “worthy” and “unworthy” poor, see Massachusetts Commission on the Support of Dependent Minor Children of Widowed Mothers, Massachusetts House Report No. 2075 (Boston, 1913), 23–24, 30–31.Google Scholar

78. U.S. Children's Bureau, Mothers' Aid, 1931, 3–4.

79. For example, Nelson, “The Origins of the Two-Channel Welfare State,” relies on a description of the workers' compensation laws, rather than on descriptions of their implementation, while examining the actual administration of mothers' pensions.

80. Abbott, Edith, “Public Welfare and Politics,” The Social Service Review 10 (September 1936), 395–412 (quote, 396–97).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

81. Edith Abbott, “The Experimental Period of Widows' Pensions,” 154–64, and “Public Welfare and Politics.”

82. Coll, Blanche, Perspectives in Public Welfare (Washington, D.C., 1969), 79.Google Scholar

83. Ehrenreich, John, The Altruistic Imagination: A History of Social Work and Social Policy in the United States (Ithaca, N.Y., 1985), chaps. 2, 4.Google Scholar

84. Gratton, Brian, “Social Workers and Old Age Pensions,” Social Service Review 57 (September 1988), 403–15 (quote, 405).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

85. Goodwin, Joanne, “The Differential Treatment of Motherhood: Mothers' Pensions, Chicago 1900–1930,” paper presented at the Conference on Gender and Social Policy held in conjunction with the Social Science History Association, Minneapolis, October 1990.Google Scholar

86. Leff, “Consensus for Reform,” 414.

87. Katz, Michael B., “The History of an Impudent Poor Woman in New York City From 1918 to 1923,” The Uses of Charity, Mandler, P., ed. (Philadelphia, 1990), 227–46Google Scholar; Vandepol, “Dependent Children, Child Custody, and the Mothers' Pensions,” 221–35.

88. U.S. Social Security Board, Social Security in America, 238.

89. Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers, chap. 7, discusses this issue.

90. Weiss, “Employers' Liability and Workmen's Compensation,” 564–610; Lubove, Struggle for Social Security, 59–61.

91. Millis and Montgomery, Labor's Risks and Social Insurance, chap. 4.

92. Berkowitz and Berkowitz, “The Survival of Workers' Compensation,” 266.

93. Quoted in ibid., 266.

94. Ibid., 581,586, 592.

95. Ibid., 610.

96. U.S. Social Security Board, Social Security in America, table 36, 160–61; U.S. Children's Bureau, Mothers' Pensions, 1931, 9.

97. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Handbook of Labor Statistics, 1929 (Washington, D.C., 1929), 530–31Google Scholar; U.S. Children's Bureau, Mothers' Aid, 1931, 8; U.S. Social Security Board, Social Security in America, 164, 238.

98. U.S. Social Security Board, Social Security in America, 164–65.

99. Ibid., 246–47.

100. U.S. Children's Bureau, Mothers' Aid, 1931, 17.

101. Douglas, Paul, Social Security in the United States (New York, 1936), 189.Google Scholar

102. U.S. Social Security Board, Social Security in America, 165, 242; U.S. Committee on Economic Security, The Report of the Committee on Economic Security (Washington, D.C., [1935] 1985), 27.Google Scholar

103. Coll, “Public Assistance.”

104. Ibid.

105. Skocpol and Ikenberry, “The Political Formation of the American Welfare State, 87–147; Orloff, “The Political Origins of America's Belated Welfare State.”

106. Cates, Insuring Inequality.

107. Berkowitz, Edward, “The First Advisory Council and the 1939 Amendments,” Social Security After Fifty, Berkowitz, Edward, ed. (New York and Westport, Conn., 1987), 55–78Google Scholar; Achenbaum, W. Andrew, Old Age in the New Land (Baltimore, 1978), 136–37.Google Scholar

108. Altmeyer, Arthur J., The Formative Years of Social Security (Madison, 1968), chap. 3.Google Scholar

109. Grace Abbott, The Child and the State, 2:317.

110. Cates, Insuring Inequality; Skocpol, Theda, “The Limits of the New Deal System and the Roots of Contemporary Welfare Dilemmas,” in The Politics of Social Policy in the United States, Weir, M., Orloff, A., and Skocpol, T., eds. (Princeton, NJ, 1988).Google Scholar

111. Cates, Insuring Inequality; Derthick, Policymaking for Social Security, 273.

112. Katz, In the Shadow of the Poor House, chap. 9.

113. Skocpol, “The Limits of the New Deal System and the Roots of Contemporary Welfare Dilemmas.”