1932

Abstract

Recent research has argued that the American welfare state is not necessarily smaller than the welfare state in other advanced industrial countries. Rather, it is organized on principles that make it seem smaller: Because it functions through tax expenditures and public–private partnerships, it is less visible than welfare states that operate on the principle of direct spending. This review summarizes the most important messages of this revisionist scholarship, particularly in how this form of welfare provision undermines support for the welfare state, increases the complexity and decreases the efficiency of the system, and hides regressive policies from public scrutiny. I then argue that although this work has taught us much about American politics, several gaps need to be addressed. First, the explanation of the origins of this state of affairs is incomplete and unconvincing. Second, while private welfare is an important part of the American experience, the scholarship on private welfare provision has not yet grappled with the fact that private welfare was also historically found in many other advanced industrial countries, but did not crowd out the public welfare state there as it has in the United States. Finally, although the scholarship has usefully called attention to the invisibility of tax expenditures, we should not consider tax expenditures part of the “welfare state,” because they only rarely accomplish the functions of redistribution and risk pooling of public welfare programs. Rather, in most cases, tax expenditures should be seen as tax cuts, that is, diminishment of state capacity. These observations suggest that the scholarship would benefit from broader engagement with the comparative literature on political economy and from a more precise and conceptually grounded definition of the “welfare state.”

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-042214-044323
2016-05-11
2024-06-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/19/1/annurev-polisci-042214-044323.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-042214-044323&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adema W, Einerhand M. 1998. The growing role of private social benefits. OECD Labour Market and Soc. Policy Occas. Pap. No. 32 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alber J. 2009. What the European and American welfare states have in common and where they differ: facts and fiction in comparisons of the European social model and the United States Order No. SP I 2009, Soc. Sci. Res. Cent. Berlin (WZB) [Google Scholar]
  3. Balogh B. 2009. A Government Out of Sight: The Mystery of National Authority in Nineteenth Century America Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  4. Clemens ES. 2006. Lineages of the Rube Goldberg state: building and blurring public programs, 1900–1940. Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State I Shapiro, S Skowronek, D Galvin 380–443 New York: New York Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  5. Cowen T. 2010. Social welfare expenditures in the United States and the Nordic countries. Marginal Revolution Blog May 18. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/05/social-welfare-expenditures-in-the-united-states-and-the-nordic-countries.html [Google Scholar]
  6. Dobbin F. 1994. Forging Industrial Policy: The United States, Britain, and France in the Railway Age New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  7. Dutton PV. 2002. Origins of the French Welfare State Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  8. Esping-Andersen G. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism Cambridge, UK: Polity [Google Scholar]
  9. Esping-Andersen G. 1999. Social Foundations of Post-Industrial Economies Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  10. Faricy C. 2011. The politics of social policy in America: the causes and effects of indirect versus direct social spending. J. Polit. 73:174–83 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fishback PV. 2010. Social welfare expenditures in the United States and the Nordic countries: 1900–2003 NBER Work. Pap. No. 15982. http://www.nber.org/papers/w15982 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fitzgerald R. 1988. British Labour Management and Industrial Welfare 1846–1939 London: Croom Helm [Google Scholar]
  13. Gottschalk M. 2000. The Shadow Welfare State: Labor, Business, and the Politics of Health Care in the United States Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  14. Hacker J. 2002. The Divided Welfare State: The Battle Over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  15. Howard C. 1997. The Hidden Welfare State: Tax Expenditures and Social Policy in the United States Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  16. Howard C. 2008. The Welfare State Nobody Knows: Debunking Myths About U.S. Social Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  17. Howard C. 2009. Making taxes the life of the party. See Martin et al. 2009 86–100
  18. Immergut E. 1990. Institutions, veto points, and policy results: a comparative analysis of health care. J. Public Policy 10:4391–416 [Google Scholar]
  19. Iversen T, Soskice D. 2009. Distribution and redistribution: the shadow of the nineteenth century. World Polit. 61:3438–86 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kastl J, Moore L. 2010. Wily welfare capitalist: Werner von Siemens and the pension plan. Cliometrica 4:3321–48 [Google Scholar]
  21. Katznelson I. 2014. Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time New York: Liveright [Google Scholar]
  22. Kettl DF. 1993. Sharing Power: Public Governance and Private Markets Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. [Google Scholar]
  23. Klein J. 2003. For All These Rights: Business, Labor, and the Shaping of America's Public-Private Welfare State Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  24. Lipset SM, Marks G. 2000. It Didn't Happen Here New York: W.W. Norton [Google Scholar]
  25. Martin I. 2008. The Permanent Tax Revolt Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  26. Martin I, Mehrotra A, Prasad M. 2009. The New Fiscal Sociology: Taxation in Comparative and Historical Perspective Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  27. McCaffery EJ, Cohen LR. 2005–2006. Shakedown at Gucci Gulch: the new logic of collective action. North Carolina Law Rev. 84:41089–158 [Google Scholar]
  28. McCreary E. 1968. Social welfare and business: the Krupp welfare program, 1860–1914. Bus. Hist. Rev. 17:24–49 [Google Scholar]
  29. Mettler S. 2011. The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  30. Miller MB. 1994. The Bon Marché: Bourgeois Culture and the Department Store, 1869–1920 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  31. Morgan KJ, Campbell AL. 2011. The Delegated Welfare State: Medicare, Markets, and the Governance of Social Policy Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  32. Novak WJ. 1996. The People's Welfare: Law and Regulation in Nineteenth-Century America Chapel Hill: Univ. North Carolina Press [Google Scholar]
  33. Pozen D. 2007. Tax expenditures as foreign aid. Yale Law J. 116:869–81 [Google Scholar]
  34. Prasad M. 2011. Tax “expenditures” and welfare states: a critique. J. Policy Hist. 23:2251–66 [Google Scholar]
  35. Prasad M. 2012. The Land of Too Much: American Abundance and the Paradox of Poverty Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Quadagno J. 1984. Welfare capitalism and the Social Security Act of 1933. Am. Sociol. Rev. 49:5632–47 [Google Scholar]
  37. Quinn S. 2015. Conduits of the credit state: toward a sociology of federal credit programs in the United States Work. pap., Dep. Sociology, Univ. Washington, Seattle [Google Scholar]
  38. Reid D. 1985. Industrial paternalism: discourse and practice in nineteenth-century French mining and metallurgy. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 27:4579–607 [Google Scholar]
  39. Salamon L. 1989. Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action Washington, DC: Urban Inst. Press [Google Scholar]
  40. Sanders E. 1999. Roots of Reform Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  41. Schickler E, Caughey D. 2011. Public opinion, organized labor, and the limits of New Deal liberalism, 1936–1945. Stud. Am. Polit. Dev. 25:2162–89 [Google Scholar]
  42. Schulz N. 2010. The U.S. is more compassionate than Sweden?. The Enterprise Blog https://web.archive.org/web/20100519204213/blog.american.com/?p=14244 [Google Scholar]
  43. Scruggs L, Allan J. 2006. Welfare-state decommodification in 18 OECD countries: a replication and revision. J. Eur. Soc. Policy 16:155–72 [Google Scholar]
  44. Skocpol T. 1995. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  45. Sombart W. 1976 (1906). Why Is There No Socialism in the United States? transl. PM Hockings CT Husbands. White Plains, NY: M.E. Sharpe [Google Scholar]
  46. Stearns PN. 1978. Paths to Authority: The Middle Class and the Industrial Labor Force in France, 1820–1848 Urbana: Univ. Ill. Press [Google Scholar]
  47. Stevens B. 1988. Blurring the boundaries: how the federal government has influenced welfare benefits in the private sector. The Politics of Social Policy in the United States M Weir, AS Orloff, T Skocpol 123–48 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  48. Surrey SS. 1970. Tax incentives as a device for implementing government policy: a comparison with direct government expenditures. Harvard Law Rev. 83:705–38 [Google Scholar]
  49. Surrey SS. 1973. Pathways to Tax Reform Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  50. Teles SM. 2013. Kludgeocracy in America. Natl. Aff. 17:97–114 [Google Scholar]
  51. Turner FJ. 1996 (1920). The Frontier in American History Mineola, NY: Dover [Google Scholar]
  52. Yarmie A. 2003. Employers and exceptionalism: a cross-border comparison of Washington State and British Columbia, 1890–1935. Pac. Hist. Rev. 72:4561–615 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-042214-044323
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-042214-044323
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error