Sarah Hagberg
INTS 4763
Paper #2

A critique of the history of American welfare as a determining factor for contemporary attitudes towards welfare and social policies.

The introduction of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA) of 1996 is the beginning for attempts to overhaul existing welfare policies and reinforce the commitment of American capitalist society to minimal government.  The PRWORA combines two previously distinct goals of welfare policy namely deterrence and rehabilitation and aims to increase personal responsibility for moving out and above poverty while simultaneously 'encouraging' self help via work requirements and time limits for receiving aid.  (Camissa, 1998:104; 129) The US government is trying to move away from the traditional patterns of welfare laid down in the New Deal and Great Society eras of the 1930's and 1960's and forge ahead with eliminating dependency on the state.  Taking this as the fulcrum for analysis, this paper will consider the history of American welfare commencing before the New Deal era with the development of an industrial economy and leading up to the present day.  I will attempt to identify factors that explain why America's welfare programs have persisted to try and  reduce dependency on the state rather than increase state intervention to eliminate poverty via redistributive policies.  Furthermore, I will outline the  reasons which support (and challenge) the belief that the structure of American political culture is in fact the reason why paternalistic welfare policies have been minimal. A study of American welfare is potentially large in size and scope.  Identifying the elements of political culture as an explanatory tool of analysis for the condition of welfare is an attempt to view American welfare through a structural lens.  Moreover, a study of welfare has the potential to become subjective as a defense mechanism against the tendency for structural analyses to remain detached and abstract from the reality of policy-in-practice. The analysis presented here considers both sides of the coin in terms of  If American welfare and political culture resemble a coin it would look as follows: On one side the structural elements are at play including the decentralized government, weak public administration, male suffrage, the courts power of judicial review, and early, open, and massive immigration.  The flip side of the coin depicts the societal consequences of these structural forces namely a two party system, little to no state bureaucracy, a non-mobilized working class, the success of big business in keeping government intervention to a minimum, and racial and ethnic cleavages respectively. (Cammisa, 1998; Noble, 1997) A coin will always have two sides.  Similarly, American political society as outlined above suggests that although each side stands on its own, each must be understood in terms of its relationship to the other.  These structural characteristics help define the parameters that any attempts to implement social policies are working within.  Although the structures defined here are simplistic, it translates that the simpler the framework, the more successful a theoretical analysis or explanation transcends history. (Cox, in Keohane, 1986)  Rather then potentially missing the point, what emerges will be an overall picture of the way American political structure has shaped attitudes toward welfare. Early conditions for the evolution of American individualism and the preference for minimal government date back to poorhouses of the mid 1800's and the period proceeding the Civil War up to the early 1900's. In an attempt to address the issue of increasing poverty and simultaneously take responsibility for the poorest members of society a system of indoor and outdoor relief had been introduced.  Although outdoor relief was largely an extension of private charity it was also a form of public charity via work contracts.  In addition, indoor relief was introduced via the creation of institutions designed to house and rehabilitate the poor.  These poorhouses were intended as means for people living in poverty to become rehabilitated and allow them to gain rapid re-entry into society (Skocpol, 1995; Noble, 1997; Camissa, 1998). This attempt at government assistance and paternal responsibility quickly degenerated into a system of under-funded and inefficient institutions and rather than aid rehabilitation they became 'miserable warnings' to those who were at risk of slipping into poverty. (Skocpol, 1995:255) The early development of individualism over paternalism and deterrence from dependency was in motion. The first successful social policy measure was the system of pension schemes introduced following the Civil War.  Skocpol convincingly argues that although Civil War benefits are not often considered part of US social provision, they should be.  (Skocpol, 1995:259)  In addition to the scheme's generosity, it is important to note that in terms of its structural implications the Civil War pension was an early form of means-testing benefits and also the first scheme to explicitly introduce the concept of deserving versus undeserving recipients of government assistance.  This concept has definitely transcended historical time and in many ways the Civil Pension scheme can be seen as a precursor to xisting Social Security in terms providing assistance to those who are deemed to have earned it.  The bifurcation between deserving and undeserving poor did not reach extreme levels until the 1960's, but early examples of the poorhouses and the Civil War pension scheme fit the correlation between the impact of structure on shaping attitudes and vice versa.  On one side, the decentralized government led to the dissolution of the poorhouses from rehabilitating institutions to examples of the ravages of poverty.  Furthermore, the Civil War pensions scheme introduced the rewards for contributing to society and awakened the conscience of the government to help those who were no longer capable, through no fault of their own, of securing individual success.  On the reverse side, the disintegration of the poorhouses fueled public distaste for assisting those unworthy and incapable of moving out of poverty.  This led to demands for decreased government assistance and in turn led to further degeneration of a well-intended scheme. 

It is also important to pay homage to the 'maternalist' policies characteristic of the years prior to the New Deal.  Again, the ultimate outcome of well-intended programs of assistance was not good.  For example, the initial goal of maternal pensions was the to provide for respectable and deserving widows left to care for children without a means of income.  That it ultimately degenerated into Aid for Dependent Children under the umbrella of the Social Security Act of 1935 is especially interesting within an analysis of the effects of political culture on shaping attitudes to welfare as outlined below. The formation of several women's organizations including the National Congress of Mothers, The General Federation of Women's Clubs, and the National Association for Colored Women demonstrates that in the absence of a cohesive working class movement, there were at least some sectors of society that appeared to be unified under a common cause.  It is ironic that these maternal organizations were paternal in their outlook, a factor that caused problems for the longevity of such organizations. Firstly, there were problems related to class.  Concluding with the Social Security Act, means testing became a stigmatizing factor in the distribution of assistance and the recipients originally intended to benefit, the 'worthy widows' were excluded from the scheme.  (Skocpol, 1995:256)  Secondly, the goals of these women's groups was to enable women to become more independent and to remove the tag which labeled women as dependents but under Aid for Dependent Children women merely transferred dependency from the family to the government.  Moreover, the government's attempts to offer assistance only to those who qualified molded attitudes about 'women on welfare' so that the lasting legacy of maternalism has been a stigmatizing program designed to assist only those mothers who really need help whilst continuing to breed a sector of society dependent on social welfare.  In contrast to the intended goal of ADC, to provide for a sector of society unable to care for itself, ADC (and later Aid to Families with Dependent Children) evolved into a program which faced hostility for giving to unworthy immoral women.  The disqualification of 'worthy widows' meant that the recipients became increasingly single, never married mothers who had no business claiming money from the government.  The legacy of the AFDC and the early maternal movement, therefore, is undeniable.  Take, once again, the image of the coin.  On one side the decentralized government attempted to incorporate protection for women but due to the constraints arising from the distribution of funds amongst the various states, the provisions were reduced so that only women whose incomes were considered 'poor' became eligible (Camissa, 1998: 43). In hindsight the government had a nave view of society in the New Deal era.  Roosevelt wanted to assist those who were needy via Old Age Insurance and ADC, and decrease not maintain dependency.  AFDC placed qualifications on being poor and undermined traditional values based on the notion of the family.  The backlash to government support for this unsavory situation challenges the original suggestion that American society is individualistic and not paternalistic.  The response to disappointment over the erosion of the family unit however, does not blend well with these 'family' values.  Thus, on the reverse side the bifurcation of welfare (i.e., AFDC) and social security (i.e., Old Age Insurance) was now apparent and society responded to this via growing distaste for provisions to the undeserving poor. The contradictory attitudes to social policy is summarized by Camissa in the following observation of Roosevelt:  "Roosevelt seemed to be of two minds about problems in the system of relief.  On the one hand, he specifically criticized welfare dependence, implying that poverty is primarily an individual problem; on the other hand, his vision of government rested on the belief that society had an obligation to care for the least well off of its citizens.  (Camissa, 1998:45) The legacy of the New Deal does not end with AFDC and Social Security.  The years following the Depression witnessed a surge in working class and business organizations in an attempt to survive from the economic impacts of the Depression.  A study of the various movements of this time gives additional support to the argument that the structural elements shaped attitudes towards welfare and government intervention, underlining the individualist elements at work.  For example, despite the existence of unions including the American Federation of Labor, the United Mineworkers and the Congress of Industrial Organizations, there was generally a lack of cohesion among the working class.  Compounding this problem was the racial issue and many unions retained hostility toward integrating black workers.  This highlights another structural element originally outlined; immigration.  In light of competition for jobs resulting from the effects of the economic depression, the already divided working class was also confronted with divisions based on race and color. To add a final ingredient to an already explosive mix, big business remained hostile to any government intervention to increase taxation to provide social policies and remained vehemently opposed to decreased controls over their workers.  Roosevelt held firm that business would understand his motives that increased intervention would actually save the capitalist system of which he was a firm supporter.  Noble provides the following summary of  Roosevelt; "His vision of reform was hierarchical: his role was to develop social legislation for workers rather than empower workers (and especially unions) to govern themselves" (Noble, 1997:77) The era that challenges the individualistic attitude of American political culture is the period referred to as the Great Society of the 1960's.  Noble argues that the 'window' for reform was opened not via demands from the working class or economic depression but as a result of a 'newly found affluence' and the demands for civil rights from African Americans. (Noble, 1997: 80)  This era is perhaps the first fully-fledged attempt to move from individualism to community with a little encouragement from the federal government.  Why did the government try and move towards increased intervention as opposed to the previous pattern of minimizing its role especially during a relatively stable economic period? The literature covering this era tends to explain the 'War on Poverty' in terms of the opportunity for the government to promote self-help at the community level, and the attempt to create opportunities for the poor through programs such as the Jobs Corps and Head Start. (Camissa, 1998; Noble, 1997, Skocpol, 1995)  By actually increasing its role, the federal government 'could help people help themselves.' (Camissa, 1998:52)  This would eventually lead to a decreased need for government intervention, as the development of the community would revert responsibility back to the local level.   Once again, the decentralized system of government combined with the lack of state level administration necessitated a small boost from the federal government to awaken their community-oriented obligations.  President Johnson's ultimate goal was the promotion of individualism through the mechanisms of the immediate locality.  This falls in line with the model of welfare commonly associated with Germany, namely hierarchical welfare and reliance upon the family for assistance as a means to rehabilitate.  Given the different political, social and economic structures of Germany and the US, this flirtation was brief.  As Camissa observes, "What Johnson did was ultimately set himself up to fail (Camissa, 1998; 49) In addition, the civil rights movement came to fruition during the Great Society era.  The existence of racial divisions witnessed social unrest previously not experienced in the industrial age and resulted in increased pressures on the government to stabilize the situation.  As this is an analysis of welfare it is unnecessary to launch into the issue of the civil rights development.  Suffice to say the impact of Johnson's trade off with Congress is an example of the structural elements at work. For example, in order to pass civil rights reforms aimed at decreasing segregation, Johnson attempted to include a vast range of interest areas within his program for change. (Noble, 1997; 93-4)  To appease Congress and interest groups he deemed crucial to the success of the civil rights initiatives; he was reluctant to increase government expenditures.  The reforms introduced under the Great Society suffered from lack of funding and ultimately from success. (Noble, 1997; Camissa, 1998) The structure of decentralized government was such that it was unable to target specific areas without suffering losses in another and this resulted in a watered down approach to policies previously initiated.  Furthermore, the divisions amongst business, working class organizations and social movements resulted in and continue to influence the manner in which the government attempts or is willing to intervene. So how does this translate for contemporary welfare?  Although the Reagan years are not considered in detail here it is necessary note that the 1980's were largely viewed as the years of retrenchment of any existing welfare programs.  A point of relevance that emerges from the Reagan and Bush years is the survival of Social Security, bruised maybe but very much in one piece.  How is this important for the study of welfare in a structural, individualist framework?  Surely the persistence of Social Security provides the counter argument to the effects of structural response?  Again, the notion of deserving versus undeserving poor emerges.  As the Baby Boomers age, there is increased demand upon the government to retain and secure old age provisions.   As increasing numbers of never married, single mothers demand welfare, the bifurcation between welfare and social security or undeserving versus deserving grows wider. Furthermore, as with the Civil War pensions of the period around the turn of the century, Social Security is a more universal policy, something which everyone at least has some chance of receiving.  This underlines the individualist attitude towards welfare. The transcendence of individualism is apparent even in programs that appear otherwise.  Johnson's attempts to create greater opportunities via government intervention were still primarily designed to eventually decrease federal intervention and shift responsibility for the poor to the local community.  The policies of the New Deal era were also designed to promote individualism and reduce dependency upon the government.  The lack of a mobilized working class due to the decentralized government and party system, racial cleavages, and targeted interests has enabled businesses to influence government policies and also leave workers more susceptible to market forces.  Skocpol notes that unlike Great Britain, the working classes were not mobilized around a common goal, namely to gain suffrage. The US had early male suffrage and this laid the foundations for a less cohesive working movement (Skocpol, 1995) The emergence of racial tensions in the 1960's were also the product of structural forces in place evident from the segregation arising from the failure of the government to intervene in the operations of businesses and secure equal working rights.

What effect will this legacy of structuralism and individualism have for contemporary welfare?  The PRWORA has also handed the problem of the poor back to the state level.  AFDC became Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and is largely a deterrence policy aimed at restricting welfare through time limits.  Can this deterrence strategy work or will it simply add to the confusion of how to break the cycle of dependency?  As this paper has hopefully suggested, there are forces at play in the American political framework that hinder a paternalistic approach to welfare.

References:
1. Camissa, A. M., _From Rhetoric to Reform? Welfare Policy in American Politics_ (Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 1998
2. Cox, R.W., _Social Forces, States and World Orders_ in Keohane, R., Ed. _Neorealism and Its Critics_ Ch.8;204-254 (Colombia University Press, NewYork, 1986)
3. Noble, C., _Welfare As We Knew It - A Political History of the American Welfare State_ (Oxford University Press, New York, 1997)
4. Skocpol, T., _Social Policy in the United States_ (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1995)