Suchergebnisse

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.

While reforms of welfare policies have been widely analysed, the reform of welfare administration has received far less attention. Using empirical case studies, this book provides significant new insights into the way welfare administration is being internationally transformed. Particular attention is given to the effect on welfare clients, staff and agencies

Abstract.We present a different approach to appraising welfare regimes, stressing different dimensions, variables and techniques to those used by Esping‐Andersen in his path‐breaking work entitledThe Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. First, instead of focusing on social rights, we construct an alternative path to identifying welfare regimes starting from the welfare mix. Second, we incorporate active labour market policies (ALMP) as a key variable of the welfare mix. Third, we use hierarchical and k‐means cluster analysis to identify welfare regimes in the data. Fourth, we compare regimes over time. Nevertheless, despite these different approaches, we conclude, like Esping‐Andersen, that there are three clusters or worlds of welfare capitalism. We also find that the clustering of welfare regimes was sharper in the mid‐1990s as compared to the mid‐1980s, but that comparing welfare regimes in the 1980s with the 1990s indicates strong path‐dependence. Faced with high and persistent levels of unemployment in the 1990s, OECD countries have adopted policies, including ALMP, which reinforce their welfare mix.

This article links together three themes in recent discussion of welfare. First, the extent to which current patterns of state welfare provision are likely to continue has been called into question. Disillusion with the traditional model derives in part from government response to economic pressures, in part from the likelihood that changes in demography, employment and popular expectations will increase demands on the state, and in part from the tendency of theorists to advocate pluralist, decentralized, mixed economy and civil society-based solutions to problems. Secondly, traditional notions of welfare citizenship have been challenged because they fail to take into account the wide variety of paths which different systems have pursued in their development and because they fail to include the impact of state policy on the private sphere of home and family in their analysis. Thirdly, vigorous controversy about the categorization of welfare states surrounds the work of Esping-Andersen (1990). The claim that state welfare cannot be sustained is found to be unconvincing. However, the arguments do focus attention on issues of social care and the impact of policy on women. This has strong implications for the way in which theories of welfare citizenship discuss the relation between state policy and the public and private spheres of social life. Esping-Andersen's model uses the extent of decommodification in relation to formal wage-labour to distinguish the ideal types of liberal, social democratic and conservative/corporatist regimes. State intervention is limited in the liberal model, extensive in the social democratic model and substantial but directed at maintaining the stratification order of the market in the conservative model. An analysis that includes both uncommodified care work in the home and the position of women in the formal labour market implies that different struggles will develop in the various regime types in response to current pressures on the welfare state. In liberal regimes, equal opportunities have been pursued through law rather than direct state intervention: the result is that gender conflicts become increasingly subsumed to the class conflicts of the market. In social democracy a substantial state sector provides both opportunities for women's advancement in employment and socialized care facilities that help to make this possible; pressure on spending leads to conflicts between public and private sector workers (who see the former as parasitic) which increasingly involve gender conflicts. Under conservative/corporatism, where women's opportunities to enter paid employment have been relatively limited, gender conflicts increasingly concern access to paid work. These predictions offer opportunities for the empirical testing of the model.