Title: Social Welfare Policy Analysis
1 MODULE II SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY READINGS
PART I, 1,4 5/30 6/5
2Module II Social Welfare Policy (SWP)
- PART 1
- What is social welfare policy (swp)? More
particularly, what are its definitions, types,
origins, trends? Why is it important for social
workers to know about it? - PART 2
- Why are institutional contexts and, especially,
politics the keys to understanding swp? Who
supports/opposes policies why?
I actually prefer to think of myself as an
egghead
Thats no guy---thats a prof!
See, I told you it was a guy!
3PART 1
gtRelevance gtOverview gtDefinitionsgt TypesgtOriginsgtT
rends
4WHY STUDY SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY? (1)
- Because
- It is the social in social work it is the
major factor in shaping the practice
environment. - More broadly still, swps both reflect and help to
define the type of society we live in. For
example, some of the most important distinctions
between the US and Canada are reflected in the
differing swps characteristic of the two nations.
- American politics is largely about what should be
the range and types of swps adopted by various
levels of government. - Both the CSWE NASW codes require that swp and
social justice be key features of social work
education.
5WHY STUDY SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY? (2)
- SOCIAL WORKERS NEED TO HAVE
- THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE SUCH
POLICIES PLAY IN SOCIETY. - POLITICAL SAVVY TO GRASP WHY PARTICULAR GROUPS
ADVOCATE PARTICULAR SWPs. - APPLIED KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS AND IMPACTS OF
SWPS. -
6RELEVANCE QUESTION (3)
- WHERE DO SOCIAL WORKERS FIT INTO THESE PROCESSES?
7RELEVANCE (4) ANSWER
- Social Workers Are
- Activists
- Administrators
- Advocates
- Public and Agency
- Officials
8Overview SW Policy and Policy Making
- EXPLANATIONS
- Welfare State
- Total stock of social
- programs policies,
- to which newly
- enacted laws are added.
- See module 3.
- 2/3. Context politics
5. ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION
4. The content of major social
welfare policies and programs is the principal
subject matter of this course, as will
become evident in later sessions. 5. Application
The level of greatest immediate concern to
social work practitioners. Covered in practice
courses and, to some extent, throughout this
course.
4. SOCIAL WELFARE POLICIES (LAWS))
2. INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT (E.G., US CONGRESS)
3. POLITICS (BARGAINING)
1. WELFARE STATE (PROGRAMS/INSTITUTIONS)
9Definitions (1) Policy, Social Policy, Social
Welfare Policy
A subset of social policies, in particular
programs/regulations designed to
satisfy individual and familial needs
inadequately met through the market system. See
slides 11/12 for a closer definition.
SOCIAL WELFARE POLICIES (SWPs)
Social policy is sometimes used as a synonym for
social welfare policy, but this is really
a misnomer, since the former is a far more
inclusive term encompassing all sorts of
domestic issues (e.g., education).
SOCIAL POLICIES
Policy generically refers to the goals, means,
and principles pursued by institutions, whether
public or private. The term is somewhat
confusing for that reason---i.e., it
encompasses both means and ends, but is
particularly associated with the notion of
principles, which are implicit/explicit
assumptions guiding specific actions in pursuit
of goals.
POLICIES
THE NEXT SLIDE PROVIDES ANOTHER
REPRESENTATION OF THESE CONCEPTS
10Definitions (2) Policy, Social Policy, Social
Welfare Policy
PUBLIC POLICIES
SOCIAL POLICIES
SOCIAL WELFARE POLICIES
11DEFINITIONS (3)
SOCIAL WELFARE POLICIES (SWPs)
SOCIAL WELFARE POLICIES (SWPs)
- Publicly financed and administered programs
designed to meet basic needs inadequately met
through the market system. - Program eligibility determined by citizenship,
contributions, and/or means criteria. - Contents determined via the legislative process,
as mediated by values, interests, and clout of
the contending political actors and their
supporters.
12Social Welfare Policies Major Types
About 50 of all social welfare expenditure fall
into this category they are designed to
sustain income during unemployment or old age,
and require contributions from employees and/or
employers.
1. Contributory
Eligibility established by demonstrating
need, according to government mandated
criteria. This type of social welfare program
(e.g., SSI or TANF) accounts for 13 of all
expenditures.
2. Means - tested
Unlike welfare (2), these programs
are Targeted at the working poor (EITC) or
elderly seeking Medicaid assistance for for
long-term care. About 20 of all expenditures.
3. Benefits tied to earnings or savings
13 SWPs ORIGINS (1) (Mainstream version)
- In the mainstream view, modern swps derive
logically if not spontaneously from the very
nature of modern society. Whatever its local
variations, modernity everywhere involves
urbanization, industrialization, and loss of
family/local community economic support. Workers
are consequently exposed to a variety of
hazards----notably, illness, unemployment or
injury on the job---previously perceived as
family and community responsibilities. In the
same vein, the life phases before and after
market employment----i.e., youth and old
age---also require protections as substitutes for
the family/community goods and services available
in simpler times. - The next slide diagrammatically profiles the
varying attempts to - satisfy these new needs.
14ORIGINS (2) VARYING RESPONSES TO MODERNIZATION
(Mainstream version)
Mutual Benefit Societies to protect members
thru insurance plans
Traditional American individualism and
self- Reliance
Trade unions to protect members by
winning benefits through collective bargaining
Government action, including swps,
in response to popular demands
URBANIZATION AND INDUSTRIALIZATION
MODERNIZATION
15SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY ORIGINS (Radical
version)
- Radicals contend that mainstreamers gloss over
the issue of class struggle---i..e., the
allegedly ineradicable conflicts in interests
between workers and owners---that radicals view
as the pivotal political element in capitalist
society. The origins of modern swps---in Germany
in the 1880s---is seen as a prime case in point.
Then in an early phase of development, German
capitalism was nevertheless already threatened by
a comparably dynamic radical political labor
movement demanding public ownership of the mines,
factories, and railroads (the means of
production). In reaction, Germanys Iron
Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, acting on behalf
of Germanys capitalist and aristocratic ruling
class, instituted the first swps. The strategy
worked by somewhat blunting working class demands
for more basic change and, at least equally
important, by classifying workers into various
social insurance groupings, intentionally
designed to fragment their capacity for common
class solidarity. This divide and conquer
policy deflected the (potentially) revolutionary
ardor feared by German elites. While American swp
followed its own distinctive pattern, their
intent and results were similar. - The next slide reviews the American case
- more closely from a radical perspective.
16SOCIAL WELFARE POLICIES ORIGINS (Radical
version)
- Liberals often view---or, better perhaps,
venerate--- Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) as
the founding father of modern American social
welfare policy. This is true in a technical
sense---the Social Security Act (1935) and other
important social and social welfare legislation
were indeed enacted during the New Deal phase
(1933-41) of FDRs long presidential tenure
(1933-45). But radical historians argue that
liberals underemphasize the pressures exerted on
Roosevelt from both working class Left and,
especially. capitalist Right, as well as
Roosevelts own essentially conservative
inclinations. Thus, radicals regard the Social
Security Act itself---undoubtedly the most
important - swp in US history---as basically prompted by
- corporate Americas demands for public relief
- from its Depression-era pension obligations.
- Conservatives are equally negative about the New
- Deal, as the next slide explains.
17ORIGINAL SIN THE CONSERVATIVE EXPLANATION
- THIS EDU-RAMA! CLIP IS ONLY 4 MINUTES LONG, BUT
APTLY SUMMARIZES CONSERVATIVE DISTASTE FOR THE
ROOSEVELT LEGACY. THE PRESENTER IS PROF. MILTON
FRIEDMAN, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, PERHAPS
THE FOREMOST CONSERVATIVE OPPONENT OF THE WELFARE
STATE. - HERE FRIEDMAN EXPLAINS HOW ROOSEVELTS
DISCUSSIONS WITH LEADING INTELLECTUALS, WHILE FDR
WAS STILL GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK STATE, SET THE
STAGE FOR HIS NEW DEAL POLICIES AS PRESIDENT.
EDU-RAMA
18SWP TRENDS (1) RETREAT, HO!
- Retreat from expansionary social welfare policies
is one of the major political realities of our
time, and one that has had especially important
implications for both social workers and their
traditional clientele---the poor. - While the beginnings of this trend predate the
1980s, it was during that decade, and
specifically during the Reagan years (1981-88),
that the process really accelerated---indeed,
Reagan was elected on an explicitly roll back
the welfare state platform that constituted a
wholesale rejection of the - New Deal tradition.
- Whatever ones values, there is no doubt
- that the era of big government is over and,
- barring exceptional circumstances (most
- obviously, a major economic downturn)
- is unlikely to return any time soon.
19SWP TRENDS (2) CAUSAL FACTORS
- The reasons for this reversal are hotly debated,
but its overall momentum remains indisputable.
Conservatives point to popular disillusionment
in President Nixons (1968 73) memorable
phrase, voters allegedly became tired of
throwing money at social problems, and so
withdrew support from initiatives allegedly most
beneficial to public sector bureaucrats rather
than the ostensible recipients of services. As
the Friedman video on FDR testifies, this is
merely the latest version of the longstanding
conservative claim that so-called big
government doesnt work and therefore should be
downsized to an absolute minimum. - Radicals, however, see the matter differently. In
their view, swps have been undercut by increased
corporate lobbying and the worldwide victory of
free market economics. - For more on this controversy, see Part 2 of this
module, module 3, and relevant assigned readings.
20SWP TRENDS (3) STAGNATION REVERSALS
- No new major social welfare reforms have been
created since enactment of Medicare/Medicaid in
1965. On the other hand, several major programs,
notably public assistance and Supplemental
Security Income (SSI) have, respectively, been
transformed or radically reduced. Perhaps more
importantly, almost no prominent political figure
in either major party now advocates ambitious
liberal swp initiatives. - The last major attempt at innovation was
President Clintons ill-fated 1994 health care
proposal (Module 5), which resulted in the single
greatest domestic political defeat of his
administration. While dissatisfaction with health
care continues to simmer, Clintons attempt to
reform the entire health care system was so
disastrous as to discredit all further attempts
at global change. Commenting at the time (1994)
the inimitable Tom Tomorrow summed up the
political mess, as follows
21SWP TRENDS (4) A PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES
COMMENT ON THE CLINTON HEALTH BILL (1994)
22SWP TRENDS (5) PRIVATIZATION
- Privatization of public service programs is now a
well-established American pattern. Many
municipalities, for example, subcontract trash
collection and some even have experimented with
private police and fire services. However, the
most prominent privatization experiments so far
have been in education (so-called charter
schools) and in the penal system, with a number
of states experimenting with corporate run
prisons. - Privatization has also dramatically expanded in
the swp area, notably in administration of state
welfare programs and reliance on for-profit HMOs
in the Medicare and, especially, Medicaid
programs. - More ambitious still are demands for the
privatization of Social Security, the colossal
enchilada among American swps, which some
conservatives would like to see turned into a
privatized pension plan.
23SWP TRENDS (6) PRIVATIZATION PROS CONS
- PRO
- (CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENTS)
- Privatization of public services and programs
saves money because businesses must meet contract
specifications or lose money. Because
contractors have specific bottom line targets,
they must conduct their operations with exemplary
efficiency if they want to stay in business. - In privatizing services, government is avoiding
long-term contractual commitments to
employees---a huge cost saving over time. - Corporate employees are not covered by civil
service protections, which promote retention of
dead wood, and otherwise cost the taxpayer
avoidable expenses.
- CON
- (LIBERAL/RADICAL ARGUMENTS)
- Privatization is essentially a ruse (scam),
whereby corporations connive with pliant
politicians to usurp what are legitimately public
functions. The conservative arguments are
therefore really red herrings, i.e., designed
to deflect attention away from the real aims
underlying privatization. - Privatization is dangerous insofar as it subverts
social solidarity, while providing corporations
with undesirable entrée into all kinds of
activities---e.g., education and public
welfare---best left within the public domain.
24SWP TRENDS (7) DEVOLUTION
- Devolution refers to the transfer of swps from
one level of government responsibility to
another---most recently, from the federal to the
state and lower levels of government, as was most
prominently done with public welfare, when it was
transformed from AFDC to TANF (1996). - Like the other trends described in this section,
devolution is a controversial issue. Its
conservative supporters argue that it will help
make swps more reflective of the popular will,
because state governments are literally and
figuratively closer to the people. - Liberals and radicals predictably dont see the
matter in this way. They view devolution as
simply one way of sloughing off the
responsibility for swps by downsizing the size
and power of the federal government---the only
level of government that, historically, has been
the most reliable and effective proponent of
social welfare programs.
25PART 2 SWP POLITICS
26THE POLITICAL DIMENSION
- SWPs are first and foremost the product of
politics that is why it is impossible to engage
in serious social work study without including
significant attention to the professions
political dimension. It is also why both CSWE and
NASW readily acknowledge the importance of
understanding politics in general, and the
politics of social welfare in particular, as
vital to the future of the profession. - This second part of Module 2, and associated
readings, provide a compressed review, of both
these themes. But doing so is not easy, not least
because, as we shall see, even defining what
politics is about is itself controversial,
depending as it does on whether one accepts a
mainstream or radical perspective on that
subject. - Well focus on this controversy, and its
implications for social work and social welfare
policy, but first briefly make note of the
institutional context within which all political
activity takes place and the actors who make
that activity actually happen.
27Institutions
- All swps are hammered out within certain
institutional rules and procedures that regulate
each stage of the policy making process. This may
occur at the local, state, or federal levels,
although, historically, the most important
legislation has been enacted at the federal
level. - The way in which institutions are organized, and
their relationship to one another, can have a big
impact on swp legislation. Indeed, the so-called
institutional school of policy analysts believe
that that impact is decisive in accounting for
social policy outcomes. These analysts argue that
the American systems division of powers makes it
possible to obstruct passage of sw legislation
(and much else), just as the weak structure of
our political parties tends to have the same
effect it is very difficult for party leaders to
rally the troops when each soldier (read
legislator) is primarily answerable to his
local constituents. Finally, older, more
conservative legislators have often exercised
extraordinary power simply because, as
legislative veterans, they have more
institutional experience and have occupied key
institutional positions.
28Institutions and Politics
- Institutional arrangements, of the type
summarized in the last slide, undoubtedly have
played a significant role in determining social
welfare policy. Indeed, when civic texts refer to
the policy making process, their primary
emphasis is usually on explaining the rules of
the game, as it is played in the various
institutional contexts from which swps emerge.
Yet it is important to remember that these are
POLITICAL as well as INSTITUTIONAL contexts i.e.
that institutional rules have been established in
order to constrain and discipline the struggle
for power that we call politics. Therefore,
while granting that the institutional school
has its points, most analysts still regard
politics and political interests as the keys to
understanding why we get the types of social
welfare policies we do. - For that reason, it is important to focus on the
key questions relating to politics and social
welfare policy, beginning with the primary one.
29POLITICAL ACTORS SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY
- Political actors determine the contents and
disposition of swps. - The clout of particular political actors in
turn depends on their resources (1) lobbyists,
their financial resources (2) politicians, their
political skills (3) the public, its degree of
active political mobilization. Generally, (1) is
the decisive factor, but (2) (3) can also be
very important, depending on the particular
issue. - Policy outcomes are thus often difficult to
predict - due to the complex interaction of these
- factors on any given issue
- The next slide provides a diagrammatic
representation of the relationships among
political actors.
30(No Transcript)
31INSERT THE GREATEST POLITICAL ACTOR OF THEM ALL?
- Students of modern American history often rate
Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) the most highly
skilled political leader since FDR. Indeed, LBJ
was an FDR protégé in his command of
institutional forms (he was Senate majority
leader for many years), interpersonal skills (the
famous LBJ treatment could reportedly
persuade even the most independently-minded),
and determined commitment to social justice.
Using these extraordinary assets, Johnson enacted
numerous civil rights, education, and social
welfare laws, including Medicare and Medicaid,
which are the most important swp legacies of his
administration (1963 1968). Yet despite these
extraordinary achievements, Johnsons presidency
was politically destroyed by the Vietnam war,
which drained resources from his War on Poverty
and helped discredit the liberal activism Johnson
exemplified and championed. Click on Edu-Rama!
to watch a capsule LBJ bio, which begins with his
statement following assassination of his
predecessor, J.F. Kennedy.
EDU-RAMA!
32WHAT IS POLITICS, ANYWAY?
ITS WHAT CLINTON DOES IN OVAL OFFICE
ITS A FIGHT FOR LOVE AND GLORY
DARNED IF I KNOW !
There is no single authoritative definition of
politics. In fact, as the following 3 slides
explain, its meaning very much depends on
whether you are an mainstreamer or radical.
33THE MAINSTREAM VIEW OF POLITICS
- As one would anticipate, mainstreamers see
politics basically as an arena of ideas in
which individuals and groups seek to promote and
act into law plans and values they regard as of
paramount social importance. - In the mainstream conception, civics is not
simply an add on, but close to the core of what
education should be about. That is, the schools,
especially at the higher levels, should teach how
to evaluate the objective merit of ideas by
equipping students with a knowledge of those
subjects---history, philosophy, and
economics---most germane to the evaluative task. - Democracy works to the extent that citizen-voters
have acquired and are able to exercise this
analytical capability. Thus, it is possible to
have a democratic institutional format without
the democratic commitment to public-spirited
debate and circulation of ideas. Indeed, many
mainstreamers worry that this is the current
American situation.
34THE MAINSTREAM VIEW LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES
- Usually seen as opposing political viewpoints,
liberals and conservatives actually share key
underlying assumptions. - Specifically, both view politics in terms of
dialogue and debate their objective is to put
before the public ideas and proposals they claim
serve the common interest, rather than specific
class interests. That liberals and conservatives
share this view is at least as important as their
political differences. - That said, conservatives believe that it is
necessary to promote corporate goals because
society will flourish only if business does. - Liberals do not disagree with this proposition,
but urge that all people be given an equal chance
to compete and that government helps those who,
for whatever reason, fail to compete
successfully. Liberals also believe that certain
common social programs should be adopted when the
private sector proves incapable of furnishing the
needed goods or services---medical care for the
aged. - The following two slides look at these
differences more closely.
35LIBERAL VIEWS
- Commitment to basic living standards beneath
which no one should be allowed to fall. - Equality of opportunity actively promoted by
government - Belief in the benign efficacy of government, as
led by the liberal elite - Belief that capitalisms rough edges can and
should be reformed for the benefit of society as
a whole. - Democratic process as the way to effect all
political changes.
36CONSERVATIVE VIEWS
- People are, or at least should be, responsible
for their own lives swp safety nets only
cushion the lazy and encourage the improvident.
They should accordingly be minimized or
eliminated altogether. - Equality of opportunity, but primary emphasis on
individual initiative - Belief in the inherent incapacity of government
to effectively address social problems. Led by
well-meaning but naïve liberals, governments can
be transformed into bureaucratized colossi, which
threaten individual freedom, even when they
remain nominally democratic in form. - There is no such thing as a free lunch
- Democratic process as the way to effect all
political change.
37THE RADICAL VIEW OF POLITICS
- Radicals see politics as essentially a struggle
for power, in which specific groups, individuals,
and, especially, social classes pursue their
specific interests by appealing to certain common
ideas and ideals. In this view, in order to
understand politics, you must first understand
what an individual, class, or group is trying to
achieve in terms of their advantage and then
relate their political ideas to this objective.
Ideas flow from interests, not the other way
around, as mainstreamers believe. - Expert political understanding, like expert
therapeutic practice, thus consists in being able
to distinguish between what political actors mean
as opposed to what they say. What they say is
probably designed to convince others (and perhaps
themselves as well) that passage of legislation
they are supporting contributes to the community,
when in fact it is quite partisan in its
intentions.
38THE RADICAL VIEW OF POLITICS
- Radicals are divided into various
sub-classifications---notably, communists,
socialists and social democrats. However, all are
more or less committed to viewing politics as
essentially a struggle for power, in which the
vast majority of people share common interests in
world peace and economic security, and would
accordingly benefit from a high degree of
cooperation for the common good. That is what is
in their interests. - However, these commonalities are obscured
because a small, property owning
minority---essentially, the capitalist class---is
able to exercise decisive political influence in
pursuit of its narrow ends. (See Module 1, slides
30 59 for details.) - The following slide looks more closely at radical
views.
39RADICAL VALUES
- Commitment to a decent standard of living for all
citizens as a fundamental legal and human right - Full equality of opportunity and partial
opportunity of result i.e. everyone should enjoy
roughly the same life chances, but in any case,
social and economic differences among people
should be drastically narrowed. - Activist government working on behalf of those
most in need of representation. - Mixed economy
- Democratic process but without current
inequalities of media or political access
40POLITICS AND SOCIAL WELFARE POLITICS
- The remainder of this module is devoted to
applying Part 2 concepts to the politics of
social welfare. -
41SOCIAL WELFARE POLICYPolitical Supporters and
Opponents
- Actors and, more generally, swp supporters and
opponents, differ in both their economic
interests and political values - Most Americans identify themselves as either
liberals (not liberalists) and conservatives.
Radicals are a small minority without effective
political representation or access to major
media outlets for dissemination of their views. - Radicals, like liberals, support popular swps,
but want to see them extended as part of an
overall effort to reduce inequality.
42SWP SUPPORTERS ECONOMIC INTERESTS (1)
- Generous swps are generally supported by the poor
and working class, as represented by trade
unions, and by others (e.g., handicappers)
seeking protection from the unrestrained
capitalist market. - Such programs are also selectively supported by
middle class Americans insofar as universal
social insurance programs benefit
them---Medicare, Medicaid (nursing homes), and
Social Security. - To the extent that that Americans perceive that
they have common interests in protecting
programs, they are likely to become political
actors. - The following slides examine these alignments
more closely.
43SUPPORTERS ECONOMIC INTERESTS (2)
- Blue collar workers are more vulnerable to lay
off and hence more interested in safety net
social welfare protections for themselves and
their families - Trade union power is increased to the extent that
workers have a fall back position in
negotiations with owners the stronger the swp
safety net, the more assertive unions are able
to be in their negotiations with management
Solidarity Forever!
44OPPONENTS ECONOMIC INTERESTS
- Swps increase taxes and are resented by the rich,
who can afford to buy protections through the
market---e.g., health care and retirement
investments. Their lives are in any case much
more materially secure than those of ordinary
Americans. - The welfare state increases the bargaining power
of labor, as noted, so that its size and
coverages are very important considerations for
employers seeking to restrain wages and benefits.
- Owners want consumers to have maximum private
resources so that, ideally, even necessities are
purchased through the market rather than
collectively through the political process.
(What I want as an individual consumer, as
opposed to What we want as a political
community. ) See Module III discussion of
decommodification for more on this point.
SOAK THE RICH, WHY DONT YOU!
TAX CUTS NOW!
45ECONOMIC INTERESTS AND POLITICAL BELIEFS A
FINAL COMMENT
- While peoples ideas and interests are ideally in
harmony---in principle you should be aware of and
favor those policies that are in your individual
and class interests----there is often a
discrepancy between the two i.e., in reality, we
often believe things that are not in our
interest. - Radicals attribute such discordance to false
consciousness, i.e. what was termed in Module I
capitalist control over the means of mental
production and the resultant political ideas and
proposals that deflect ordinary people from their
real interests.
46Part 2 Questions
- As emphasized in this module, politics is the
driving force behind - development and enactment of social welfare
policy. Which political - position do you identify with---liberal,
conservative, or radical---and - on what grounds?
- 2. Does the concept of false consciousness make
sense to you? If so, - apply it to a given political situation with
which you are familiar. If - not, explain why you think the concept is faulty.
- 3. Imagine that you are a political decision
maker charged with - development of new social welfare policies. To
which policies would - you give priority? Why do you think these are so
important? - 4. Having reviewed the module and associated
readings, discuss the - importance of social welfare policy for social
workers.