Suchergebnisse

Based on papers presented at a Workshop on the Politics of the Welfare State, sponsored jointly by Government and Opposition and the Department of Government, University of Manchester, held in Manchester, England, Sept. 13-14, 1984.

This conceptual article and special issue introduction argues for the importance of studying three policy paradigms surrounding welfare policy opposition. The first is welfare populism, the opposition to welfare policies that do not benefit the 'common people'. The second is welfare chauvinism, the opposition to welfare policies for non-natives within a nation-state. The third is welfare Euroscepticism, the opposition to welfare policies at the European Union level. These paradigms have distinct causes and consequences that should be studied in more detail across different political actors. And while welfare policy opposition may not lead to a complete farewell to welfare, they have been shaping and will continue to shape welfare state recalibration. This article offers summaries of the special issue contributions with empirical snapshots of welfare policy opposition and concludes with avenues for future research.

The welfare state in the UK & elsewhere is currently caught up in a number of crises. The slowing of economic growth has reduced the resources available for its support & has consequently exposed it to theoretical challenges. In particular, it has been criticized as seeking to fulfill needs that are in fact illimitable. In addition, market & liberation theorists have suggested that the welfare state is hostile to individual autonomy & responsibility, & serves the interests of welfare professionals more than those of the poor. It appears, however, that fundamental changes in policy are less likely than incremental readjustments. The issues raised by this crisis concern the basic nature of the relation of society to state, & of both to the individual. W. H. Stoddard

Abstract
In his libertarian manifesto, For a New Liberty, Murray Rothbard [15] points to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an excellent model for what a private welfare program would look like in a free society. In analyzing this same organization, we can see that nearly 50 years later Rothbard's analysis is truer than ever. Unlike the public welfare programs in the U.S., the LDS church has successfully helped lift countless individuals out of poverty and off the welfare rolls by increasing their level of productivity – a point that Henry Hazlitt [7] made in his book, The Conquest of Poverty. Public welfare, on the other hand, has continuously failed to increase the standard of living or even lift those it ostensibly seeks to help out of poverty; on the contrary, it is a system that prevents economic independence. The analysis in the present paper seeks to revive, amplify and bring up to date Rothbard's observation and provide further insight on key factors that other private organizations can take from the Church's model. Ultimately, it reveals that the successful journey out of poverty is not a public but rather a private endeavor.

Feminists' engagement with contemporary US welfare reform is investigated. Although the Personal Responsibility Act is interpreted as an aggressive affront to women's rights, it is asserted that US feminists offer little resistance to the welfare reform policy. Rather than advocate women's choice to work either inside or outside the home, feminists are delineated as only supporting wage-earning employment for women. It is contended that feminists' attention to welfare reform emphasizes female recipients' personal deficiencies rather than problems with the welfare system. Moreover, emphasis on female recipients' decision making supports the dominant position that individuals who require financial support are morally deficient. Even though the termination of welfare is viewed as a positive objective, it is stated that poor women's input in ending welfare is needed. Therefore, women's domestic caregiving should be recognized as a legitimate form of work, & women's participation in the labor market must be rendered a more meaningful experience. 8 References. J. W. Parker

'CRISIS? WHAT CRISIS?', THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER was reported to have replied to a question concerning the alleged crisis in sterling. In the case of the welfare state it might seem that the appropriate response would be 'Which crisis? ' since there are several on the menu - fiscal crisis, legitimacy crisis, crisis of ungovernability . Left, Right and Centre have become convinced that there is a crisis. This is after a period of history which had seen an unprecedented rise in the standard of living of the vast majority of the population living in what are normally regarded as welfare states.

THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT (PRWORA) OF 1996 IS THE MOST AGGRESSIVE INVASION OF WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN THIS CENTURY. YET MOST FEMINISTS DID LITTLE TO OPPOSE ITS PASSAGE. IN FACT, MANY FEMINISTS ACTUALLY ENDORSED PRWORA'S CORE PRINCIPLES -- NAMELY, THAT POOR SINGLE MOTHERS SHOULD MOVE FROM WELFARE TO WORK AND INTO FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH THEIR CHILDREN'S FATHERS. SUCH FEMINISTS COLLABORATED WITH WELFARE REFORMERS -- EITHER THROUGH SILENCE OR THROUGH THEIR DEEDS. ALL WHITE WOMEN IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, INCLUDING FOUR DEMOCRATS WHO CALL THEMSELVES FEMINISTS, VOTED FOR THE NEW WELFARE LAW WHEN IT WAS INTRODUCED IN 1995. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 26 OF 31 DEMOCRATIC WOMEN VOTED FOR A WELFARE BILL THAT WOULD HAVE STRIPPED RECIPIENTS OF THEIR ENTITLEMENT TO WELFARE.

With welfare reform soundly launched and its effects already praised, it is time to examine its impact on former welfare recipients. A typology of adaptation to welfare—comprising dependency, supplementation, self-reliance, and autonomy—was developed based on former welfare recipients' financial status and employment status. An examination was also made of ways in which welfare recipients changed from more independent modes of adaptation (autonomy and self-reliance) to less independent modes (supplementation and dependency). Using longitudinal data extracted from a U. S. Department of Labor survey, event history analysis was applied to investigate changes in adaptation mode and factors contributing to these changes, among former welfare recipients across a period of 1 8 years. The investigation found that return to welfare was uncommon. Furthermore, the results show that nonpoor former recipients most often joined the ranks of the working poor because of welfare reform, ethnicity, education level, occupational skills, family income, housing subsidy, child care, and prior experience in welfare use. Some nonpoor former recipients who spent long spells in welfare returned to welfare because they suffered income reductions and needed food stamps. Working poor former recipients were likely to become nonpoor if they were married and had no need for child care or food stamps. Working poor White, single mothers with little work experience and little child support were likely to return to welfare and become further dependent on it.