POL S 354 Welfare States in Comparison

1
POL S 354 Welfare States in Comparison

• Lecture 4
• Liberal regimes part 1 North America

2
Take Home Exam

• Answer one question from both sections
• Maximum length is 750 words each
• Due Tuesday February 15

3
Lecture Summary

• Introduction
• Recap the Liberal World of Welfare Capitalism
• Social Policy in the USA
• The Canadian Welfare State
• Albertas Welfare System
• Next weeks readings

4
1. Introduction

• USA and Canada are usually presented as typical
  liberal regimes.
• Canada has historically gone further in
  enshrining social rights than the USA.
• Several aspects of North American welfare are
  difficult to fit into the liberal mould.
• North Americans have led the way in recent
  welfare reforms and workfare.

5
2. Recap liberal welfare states

• Means tested, tax funded, low benefits
• Work ethic, strict entitlement rules, stigma
• Citizens must rely on the market or family
  wherever able
• Private sector is involved in welfare
• United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
  Britain?
• Low de-commodification
• High stratification

6
3. Social Policy in the USA

• State dominated federal system
• Individualized morality, strong protestant work
  ethic, frontier mentality
• Strong role for private philanthropy and
  voluntary sector in provision of social services
• Until the 1930s localized administration of poor
  relief, highly discretionary

7
1935 and the New Deal

• Great Depression 1930s
• Roosevelts New Deal based on public works
  programs and minimum social rights
• 1935 Social Security Act basis of the modern US
  welfare state
• A two tier system Social Security and Social
  Welfare (Ginsburg)
• Gordons two types of citizenship

8
Social Security (OASDI)

• Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance
• Contributory, earnings related
• Exclusion of domestic and farm industries racial
  and gendered aspects
• Male breadwinner norm and womens position
• Most of US income support expenditure is devoted
  to social security 96 of the official workforce
  covered
• Enjoys considerable public support

9
Social Welfare (ADC/AFDC)

• Aid to Families with Children (ADC) later Aid
  to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
• Federal support for state assistance to low
  income families means tested
• Acceptance of family wage
• Maternalist view of womens role
• Work and morals tests suitable home provisions
• Administrative discretion, interstate variation

10
The Great Society 1960s

• Context mechanization of agriculture, mass
  migration of African Americans to northern cities
• 1960s Civil Rights movement, race riots
• The Rediscovery of Poverty (Harrington)
• War on Poverty
• Massive expansion of US social spending,
  increased services, growing caseload, welfare
  rights
• 1965 Medicare and Medicaid

11
Reagan's war on welfare 1980s

• New Right critique of post war liberalism
• Permissiveness the demise of moral authority and
  traditional family
• Welfare creates dependency, underclass,
  disincentives (Mead, Moynihan, Murray)
• Omnibus Reconciliation Act 1981
• Regressive tax cuts
• Retrenchment of welfare and social services,
  social security spared

12

• Devolution to the states
• The rise of workfare Wisconsin Works, GAIN
  Program (California)
• The problem of single mothers cast as welfare
  queens
• Changing gender composition of workforce

13
The end of welfare as we know it -1990s and
beyond

• Clintons Third Way
• 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work
  Opportunity Act (PRWOA)
• Replacing AFDC with Temporary Aid to Needy
  Families (TANF)
• Further devolution, block grants, time limits,
  mandatory workfare, incentives for caseload
  reduction, full family sanctions
• Proposals to privatize Social Security
• USA as a penal state

14
4. The Canadian Welfare State

• Pre 1930s laissez-faire, provincial
  administration, poor law tradition, Separate
  Spheres (Brodie)
• Great Depression provinces overwhelmed
• Following 1940 Keynesian welfare state
• Unemployment Insurance (1941), Family Allowances
  (1944)
• Vertical and horizontal redistribution

15

• Use of federal spending to create national
  programs
• Dollar-for-dollar matching
• 1966 Canada Assistance Plan, Canada Pension
  Plan, Medical Care Act uniform social rights

16

• 1980s rising unemployment, fiscal crisis,
  government debt
• 1990 Fed government withdraws from Unemployment
  Insurance, places a Cap on CAP
• Neo-liberal state decentralization,
  privatization, familialization/individualization
  (Brodie)

17

• Financial off-loading to provinces
• 1995 Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST)
• Replaces CAP
• Block funding no obligations on provinces
• 1996 Employment Insurance replaces UI,
  tightening eligibility
• Ontario Works, Alberta Works
• Social Union Framework Agreement 1999

18
Albertas Welfare System

• First province to commence neo-liberal
  retrenchment of welfare programs
• 1993 cuts to spending
• Changing the administrative culture from
  entitlement to work and independence
• Reducing benefits to induce work
• Tighter work requirements for single parents
• 1993-1996 67 drop in caseload

19

• Low Income Programs Review 2001 supporting
  welfare-to-work transitions
• Service delivery simplification and improved
  responsiveness
• Alberta Works 2004 merging payments
• Distinction between clients who are Expected to
  Work and Not Expected to Work

20
Next weeks readings

• Cochrane et al (2001) Ch2
• Evans (2001)
• Department for Work and Pensions (2004)

21
Questions for Discussion

• In what ways might the US welfare state be called
  conservative?
• How would you argue that the Canadian Welfare
  State went further in enshrining social rights
  than the US?
• Are the US and Canadian Welfare States becoming
  more liberal over time?

22
Low Income Programs Review

• What do the policy goals outlined in the review
  suggest about the priorities of the Albertan
  welfare state?
• What problems with the current system are
  identified?
• Critically comment on the building block
  approach proposed within the review.
• Why does the review recommend that supports
  should be customized to meet individual needs?