{"title":"Beyond civil rights: the Moynihan report and its legacy","authors":"Mary Phillips","doi":"10.1080/10796126.2015.1069262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"grams in the 1970s eroded political support for welfare while challenging the underlying logic of needs-based assistance. Workfare principles became firmly entrenched in the 1990s with the dismantling of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (or welfare) program and expansion of the EITC. Bertram shows that at each critical moment of reform, the real political battle lines were drawn between Democrats with opposing conceptions of public assistance, rather than between opposing political parties. While liberal Democrats emphasized a ‘welfarist’ conception of assistance based on need, conservative southern Democrats pushed forth a ‘workfarist’ conception of assistance tied to employment. Though Republicans were at times partners in this effort, the primary architects of workfare were congressional southern Democrats intent on maintaining the existing structure of the low-wage labor market in the South. ‘Workfare was, in short,’ the author argues, ‘a Democratic project’ (244). Bertram’s decision to situate the political story of workfare’s evolution amidst a backdrop of broader regional and national economic conditions adds to the depth of her analysis and extends the relevance of her findings to a broad audience. Drawing out the unique features of the southern economy provides context for understanding conservative Democrats’ opposition to needs-based welfare programs as well as their support for work-oriented reform. Moreover, through her analysis of national economic trends and the changing structure of low-wage labor market, Bertram identifies the broader implications of the workfare state. Specifically, the author argues that a move away from stable and long-term jobs for low-wage workers is ultimately inconsistent with an antipoverty approach that conditions public assistance on work activity. In an economy characterized by contingent and short-term employment, assistance is denied precisely when it is needed most. Rather than offering families a path out of poverty, the workfare state ultimately traps the working poor in the low-wage labor market while failing to provide for those unable to find work. By expertly weaving political and economic stories into one, Bertram uncovers both the causes and consequences of the workfare state – findings that will be of interest to a broad range of scholars of the American welfare state.","PeriodicalId":35244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Children and Poverty","volume":"21 1","pages":"137 - 139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10796126.2015.1069262","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Children and Poverty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10796126.2015.1069262","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18
Abstract
grams in the 1970s eroded political support for welfare while challenging the underlying logic of needs-based assistance. Workfare principles became firmly entrenched in the 1990s with the dismantling of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (or welfare) program and expansion of the EITC. Bertram shows that at each critical moment of reform, the real political battle lines were drawn between Democrats with opposing conceptions of public assistance, rather than between opposing political parties. While liberal Democrats emphasized a ‘welfarist’ conception of assistance based on need, conservative southern Democrats pushed forth a ‘workfarist’ conception of assistance tied to employment. Though Republicans were at times partners in this effort, the primary architects of workfare were congressional southern Democrats intent on maintaining the existing structure of the low-wage labor market in the South. ‘Workfare was, in short,’ the author argues, ‘a Democratic project’ (244). Bertram’s decision to situate the political story of workfare’s evolution amidst a backdrop of broader regional and national economic conditions adds to the depth of her analysis and extends the relevance of her findings to a broad audience. Drawing out the unique features of the southern economy provides context for understanding conservative Democrats’ opposition to needs-based welfare programs as well as their support for work-oriented reform. Moreover, through her analysis of national economic trends and the changing structure of low-wage labor market, Bertram identifies the broader implications of the workfare state. Specifically, the author argues that a move away from stable and long-term jobs for low-wage workers is ultimately inconsistent with an antipoverty approach that conditions public assistance on work activity. In an economy characterized by contingent and short-term employment, assistance is denied precisely when it is needed most. Rather than offering families a path out of poverty, the workfare state ultimately traps the working poor in the low-wage labor market while failing to provide for those unable to find work. By expertly weaving political and economic stories into one, Bertram uncovers both the causes and consequences of the workfare state – findings that will be of interest to a broad range of scholars of the American welfare state.