超越民权:莫伊尼汉报告及其遗产

Q2 Social Sciences Journal of Children and Poverty Pub Date : 2015-07-03 DOI:10.1080/10796126.2015.1069262
Mary Phillips
{"title":"超越民权:莫伊尼汉报告及其遗产","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

20世纪70年代的Grams削弱了对福利的政治支持,同时挑战了基于需求的援助的基本逻辑。20世纪90年代,随着对有受抚养子女家庭的援助(或福利)计划的废除和EITC的扩大,工作福利原则变得根深蒂固。伯特伦指出,在改革的每一个关键时刻,真正的政治战线都是在持反对公共援助观念的民主党人之间划定的,而不是在对立的政党之间。自由民主党人强调基于需求的“福利主义”援助概念,而保守的南方民主党人则提出了与就业挂钩的“工人主义”援助概念。虽然共和党人有时是这项努力的合作伙伴,但工作福利的主要设计者是国会南方民主党人,他们打算维持南方低工资劳动力市场的现有结构。“简而言之,”作者认为,“工作福利是一个民主党的项目”(244页)。伯特伦决定将劳动福利演变的政治故事置于更广泛的地区和国家经济状况的背景下,这增加了她分析的深度,并将她的发现与更广泛的受众相关联。勾勒出南方经济的独特特征,为理解保守派民主党人反对以需求为基础的福利计划以及支持以工作为导向的改革提供了背景。此外,通过她对国家经济趋势和低工资劳动力市场结构变化的分析,伯特伦确定了工作福利状态的更广泛含义。具体来说,作者认为,让低薪工人放弃稳定和长期的工作,最终与将公共援助以工作活动为条件的反贫困方法不一致。在以临时和短期就业为特征的经济中,援助恰恰在最需要的时候被拒绝。而不是为家庭提供一条摆脱贫困的道路,工作福利国家最终将工作贫困人口困在低工资的劳动力市场,而无法为无法找到工作的人提供帮助。通过熟练地将政治和经济故事交织在一起,伯特伦揭示了工作福利国家的原因和后果——这些发现将引起广泛的美国福利国家学者的兴趣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Beyond civil rights: the Moynihan report and its legacy
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Children and Poverty
Journal of Children and Poverty Social Sciences-Demography
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Risk-taking behaviors of homeless youth: moderation by parental monitoring and social support Reimagining homelessness assistance for children and families Letter from the editor Using Youth Risk Behavior Survey data to analyze housing instability among Delaware public school students Assessment and screening of positive childhood experiences along with childhood adversity in research, practice, and policy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1