Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 26. No. 2,1998 (333-340)

Something Borrowed and Something New?: Welfare Reform and Social Science

Scott Fitzgerald

William M. Epstein, Welfare in America: How Social Science Fails the Poor. Madison ,WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1997. 267 pp. $19.95

Herbert J. Gans, The War Against the Poor: The Underclass and Antipoverty

Joel F. Handler, The Poverty of Welfare Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale

@ape+

Policy. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1995. 195 pp. $14.00 (paper).

University Press, 1995. 177 pp. $13.00 (paper).

Politicians, social service providers, and scholars anxiously are assessing the effects of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Preliminary studies demonstrating reductions in the number of poor p p l e on the welfare rolls have been interpreted by some as a clarion call that the reform indeed is working. The reduction in the welfare rolls also has provided rhetorical ammunition for critics of the 1996 Act; who question whether the ex- recipicnts actually have found jobs and economic self-sufficiency or merely have been forced off of needed aid and into even more dire straits.

In The Poverty of Welfare Reform, Joel Handler posits that the distinction between work and welfare is no longer credible. According to Handler, welfare reform policy is discussed misleadingly in terms of moving welfare recipients into the labor market. Because of this error we fail to define the problem accurately, and consequently perpetuate myths about poverty, blaming the victims of poverty-single mothers and their children-for their plight.

Handler refutes the popular claim that the current welfare reforms are “new.” He claims that the underlying assumptions about the causes of poverty and the effects of welfare barely have changed since the enactment of the Statute of Laborers in England in 1349 and specifies four key assumptions about the nature of poverty and welfare underlying these myths: First, “dependency” is not simply being poor and out of work; it is a moral issue. Second, the work ethic is destroyed when aid is provided. Third, individual behavior rather then environmental factors should be changed, Fourth, adults, not children, should be the focus of reform efforts.

Handler begins with a short history of poor relief in England and the United States to make two points. First, “poor mothers, including those on welfare, have always been required to work-it is a myth to think that new ‘responsibilities’ are now being asked” (p. 30). Second, “although contemporary welfare policies are often described in so-called objective terms-labor markets, wage rates, incentives, demographics-they are heavily laden with moral judgements” (p. 30). The role of myth and ceremony in the formation of public policy is a theme that runs throughout his book:

From its earliest days, then, ADC was an exercise in myth and ceremony. The myth was that poor mothers would be allowed to stay at home and take care of their children-hence the popular name “mothers’ pension.” The ceremony was that a small number of deserving white widows were helped; this validated the myth. The

333

Policy Studres Journal, 26:2

reality was that, for most poor, single mothers and their children, at best, nothing changed; at worst, they were stigmatized further by being excluded from the mothers’ pension programs (p. 25).

Within the current welfare debate there is considerable discussion about “family values” and the “work ethic.” Handler concedes that indeed there are disturbing effects, especially on children, associated with poverty. However, the root problem is poverty, and poverty is a much larger problem than just welfare. The problem of poverty is related intimately to the problem of work. Between 1973 and 1990, the median family income for families headed by parents under age 30 has declined by almost one-third. There has been a decline in wages for less skilled, less educated workers since 1973. The issue of part-time work is also important, for it has both positive and negative aspects. With the growth of nontraditional families part-time work often is desired due to its flexibility. However, many individuals are involuntary part-time workers, and part-time work is more likely to be dead-end. The issue of part-time work seems to be particularly cogent for women. Women are more likely to choose part-time work, but also are more likely to be involuntary part-time workers.

Handler also provides a useful critique of the common misconceptions associated with welfare recipients. The stereotypes associated with welfare recipients (i.e., intergenerational dependency, and young black women with lots of children) are both popular and erroneous. Handler writes:

On examination, we find that most welfare recipients are not African American; that few are teenagers, especially young teenagers; that welfare families have about the same number of children or fewer than nonwelfare families; that most are on welfare for relatively short periods; but that most remain quite poor and this probably accounts for their children being more likely to have welfare spells when they are older as compared to children whose parents did not experience welfare. When we then examine how welfare recipients survive, we find that a great many are most likely already working. They may be working off the books, but they are working. And most work their way off welfare (p. 45).

Handler provides a lengthy discussion on specific policy approaches that connect welfare and work. For example, a primary component of the current welfare reform is that able-bodied recipients should be moved off the welfare rolls and into the labor market. This approach has received strong support from both Republicans and Democrats. To increase work participation by welfare recipients, Handler writes, Congress traditionally has used regulatory requirements and incentives. He concludes that incentives are more effective than regulatory requirements, yet requirements are popular and subsequently are favored for largely symbolic reasons. Further, despite the fundamental differences between these two approaches, each approach assumes that poverty is the result of personal deficiencies rather than structural problems.

Handler discusses the Work Incentive Programs (WIN I and WIN 11) of the 1970s and a variety of state WIN demonstration projects that took place during the 1980s, including California’s GAIN (Greater Avenues of Independence) program and Massachusetts’s ET (Employment and Training) program. The Manpower Development Research Corporation (MRDC) was the principal evaluator for these projects. MRDC found that the employability of participants

334

ReviewslEssuys: Fitzgeruld

in these programs increased by 5-7% compared to the control group, but that most jobs were entry level, minimum wage positions. Further, the results of the programs varied between the states according to differences in labor markets. There also is little evidence that job training and education programs significantly increase participants’ earnings. Even while focusing on California’s Riverside County GAIN program, which has been lauded as a large scale success story, the overall effects of these programs are minimal. Handler writes:

[A]t best, welfare receipt declined by only 7 percent among the people targeted by the programs, most of those who went to work got relatively low-paying jobs, which triggered reductions in their welfare grants and often substantially offset their earnings gains, resulting in little increase in their combined income from earnings and welfare (p. 82).

Handler argues that, contrary to common perceptions, there is no national AFDC program; indeed there are not even 50 state programs. Rather, it is more appropriate to discuss the hundreds or thousands of local AFDC programs. Handler suggests that the pattern of decentralization associated with federalism occurs for three reasons. First, welfare involves deeply held moral views. Citizens and communities want u) keep these issues at the local level for they do not trust higher-level politicians to protect their moral interests sufficiently. Second, the conflict associated with debates over moral issues has been dealt with historically at the national level by passing broad legislation with significant leeway in interpretation and enforcement at the local and state level. Third, the technique of passing broad pieces of legislation is an exercise in symbolic politics that provides myth and ceremony.

Writing before the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Handler presents and critiques the welfare proposals at the forefront of the debate in the early 1990s. This section of the work does an adequate job of delineating the different components of the Republican and Democratic proposals. Handler also discusses the potential of the Earned Income Tax Credit and universal health care to alleviate the problem of poverty. Although Handler does provide some interesting critiques of the proposals, many of his points are contingent upon unverifiable conjecture.

Despite this limitation, Handler does succeed in providing a critique of current welfare reform that challenges the reader to look beyond the popular rhetoric. Handler’s presentation illustrates both the role of symbolic politics and the role of myth and ceremony. Further, as Handler makes quite clear, the major assumptions and issues surrounding welfare reform apparently are timeless.

The Wur Against the Poor: The Underclass and Antipoverty P o k y differs significantly from the other two works, for it is unabashedly a work of advocacy. Herbert J. Gans sets out to delineate the origins of labeling the poor and the effects of labeling on the design and implementation of antipoverty policy. Upon describing the dangerous implications of labeling the poor, Gans provides both contemporary and futuristic policy recommendations.

The term “underclass” has economic, sociological, and behavioral definitions. Gans focuses on the behavioral connotation used by “journalists and social scientist to describe poor people who are accused, rightly or wrongly, of failing to behave in the ‘mainstream’ ways of the numerically or culturally dominant American middle class” (p .2). Underclass generally refers to the poor

335

Policy Studies Journal, 26:2

who do not work, those who drop out of school, and single poor women who have babies to receive welfare benefits. This behavioral term is flexible, for depending on the context it also may refer to panhandlers, the homeless, residents of the “projects,” poor drug or alcohol addicts, sweet criminals, illegal immigrants, and teenage gang members. Gans challenges these common causal assumptions about the behaviors of the poor.

[Tlhe causes of these behaviors, when they do occur. are in fact usually poverty-related effects; that sometimes poor people are driven by the effects of poverty to actions that violate their own morals and values. poverty-related effects or pressures develop because poor people lack the funds, the economic security, and sometimes the social supports and emotional strength, to behave in mainstream ways. This is why antipoverty programs that help them are in the end the only sure remedy for behavior thought to make people undeservinp (p. 3).

A brief history of the terms used to label the poor begins with the medieval era. Since that time the poor have been divided into two groups. One group, the “worthy poor,” are the sick and the old, and the working poor. The other group, the “unworthy poor,” are the able-bodied nonworking poor. Umbrella labels are broad labels that allow for interchangeability of definitions. In the twentieth century, three major umbrella labels for the poor have been used: feeblemindedness, the culture of poverty, and the underclass.

Gans describes the general process of label formation. First, there are the label makers, the people who invent or redefine the term. Label makers usually are journalists, social scientists, or advocates and practitioners. Label making is supported by two important functional roles: the alarmist and the counter. The alarmist persuades the larger audience that the new term is necessary to identify a new population. The counter provides enumeration of the population to demonstrate that the population in question is significantly large. The next step in the label formation process is the label users. Recently, this role has been filled primarily by journalists and to a lesser extent by social scientists. Associated with the process is the role of legitimators, who often are researchers, other experts, popular media personalities, or politicians. Gans discusses the contributing role of journalists, social scientists, research funding organizations, and government officials in the creation and subsequent use of the umbrella term “underclass.”

According to Gans, the “underclass” label has dangerous ramifications. First, the term implies that the population is beneath the larger society and therefore not a legitimate part of society. This facilitates and justifies our exclusion of anyone who can be placed into the underclass category. Second, the flexibility of the label allows for new populations to be stigmatized or for already- targeted populations to be accused of new failures. Third, the reification of the label disguises the fact that the underclass is an “imagined group that has been constructed in the minds of the definers” (p. 61). Fourth, umbrella terms like “underclass” erroneously suggest the existence of a homogeneous population. Gans also provides considerable attention to the “positive” functions for the larger society of labeling the poor. These functions fall under the headings of macrosocial, microsocial, economic, normative, and political.

Gans acknowledges that elimination of the term “underclass” is not a panacea. The issues surrounding the delineation of the deserving and undeserving poor are larger than the specific label presently in fashion. The undeserving poor

336

ReviewslEssays: Fitzgerald

present a series of threats to the larger population: moral, economic, and criminal threats. Gans explains that these threats may be actual, imagined, exaggerated, or displaced fears. To address these fears Gans suggests a three-pronged approach.

First, a comprehensive crime policy focused on crime prevention, rehabilitation. and job creation. Second, a comprehensive antipoverty policy focused on job creation. Gans argues that to be successful a job creation policy must create private sector jobs. Policies need to be universal, not targeted at specific groups. Further, antipoverty policies should be economic, race-blind policies. Gans also addresses industrial policy, public works, community development, work sharing, income security programs, and upgrading part-time work in his discussion of antipoverty policy. Third, and directly related to labeling, is a debunking campaign. Through the use of popular ethnography stereotypes and misconceptions, the “underclass” can be debunked. Journalists can draw more heavily on the social science method in reporting on a given population, thus potentially providing stories that are more representative of the larger issue of poverty in America. The majority of the responsibility, according to Gans, will fall on social scientists, who are called upon to “argue with journalists or other label-makers if and when social science concepts are improperly being turned into labels” (p. 126). Further, the current poverty research agenda needs to be questioned. Gans argues for a more structural analysis of poverty rather than the “characteristics” approach. Further, and consistent with Epstein’s position, Gans argues that due to the difficulty of determining causality social scientists are in need of more training in the use of sophisticated methodologies, as well as greater sensitivity to ideology.

Gans also provides a long-term, futuristic research agenda for the twenty- first century. To address the important issues of future labor markets, Gans provides three suggestions. First, the government can play a leading role in reinventing a labor-intensive economy. Second, workplace democracies should be created. Third, drastic work sharing can be implemented. Gans acknowledges that the policies suggested in this section are not feasible presently. However, to prepare adequately for possible future policy directions, he argues, this type of research is necessary.

William M. Epstein’s Welfare in America: Iiow Social Science Fails the Poor is an extremely valuable contribution to the welfare literature. Epstein challenges both liberal and conservative arguments regarding welfare reform. Epstein’s skepticism of social science facilitates an extended critique of the research literature on welfare:

[TJhe true value of the social sciences resides in their fundamental ability to provide objective and reliable information for public discussion of social problems. In essence, this implies that solutions for such problems need to be credibly tested, which in turn implies that scholarship exhibit particular methodological characteristics as well as commitment to objectivity ....

Unfortunately, the ability to identify cause has eluded social scientists even when it has been technically possible. The effects of this failure have both undercut their authority as policy advisors and deprived the policy debate of important information about social problems (pp. 4x35).

331

Policy Studres Journul, 26:2

After exposing the so-called empirically founded conclusions of both liberal and conservative welfare research as little more than ideologically driven, Epstein proposes an alternative ideologically driven proposal for welfare reform: generosity.

Epstein claims that “classical experimentation-the randomized controlled trial (RCT)-is the definitive method for establishing the cause and effectiveness of an intervention” (p. 27). However, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to utilize RCT methodology in the study of social problems. Epstein argues that without adherence to classical experimentation, causal relationships cannot be determined adequately. Consequently, he suggests, the rational grounds for research claiming that welfare arrangements cause family break-up are undermined. This inability leads to the use of social dialectics rather than empirical verification as the basis for policy debate:

In any event, the problem remains whether the appearance of a relationship, as well as other breaches of rationality. can establish sufficient or reasonable grounds to legitimize social policy. The assertion that the welfare state undermines civil society has a plausible elegance; so does its denial. Without the authority of empirical proof, the argument becomes frankly partisan. The social sciences become enmeshed in the play of power and not in the production of decisive tests of social reality (p. 29).

Epstein argues that although the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 represents thc Rcpublican position, thc initial proposals from Republicans and Democrats were practically identical. Consistent with Handler’s position, Epstein points out that despite the rhetoric about overhauling the welfare system the proposals and the Act represent minuscule directional changes. Epstein presents and critiques the research literature that conservatives and liberals cite as supporting evidcnce for their respective proposals. In short, the positions offcrcd by both sides are determined to be the result of overstepping the limits of the data and projecting unverifiable causal connections.

Epstcin examines and critiques the research surrounding welfare and work by exploring how AFDC, Food Stamps, and Medicaid affect work incentives. He challenges the premise that the logic of the “welfare-to-work” reform is based on questionable assumptions of the nature of poverty and social problems. The popular “moral hazards” of welfare argument favored by conscrvalives, and the refutation of this argument by liberals, has drawn considerable attcntion. However, Epstein points out that both of these posilions accept the same logic: that “money poverty is at the root of social distress and that a reduction in money poverty produces, pari passu, a reduction in social problems” (p. 77). Epstein concludes that the social science literature has failed to provide conclusive evidence of causal relationships between welfare and work. Further, the appeal to this questionable evidence masks ideological positions in the language of social science.

Epstein then turns to the literature dealing with welfare, family structure, and intergcnerational dependency. He concludes, “ ... the research is routinely limited, uncertain, and overgeneralized ... [als a consequence, the limited range of proposed reforms carries little rational authority, and the argument remains stubbornly ideological” (pp. 113-1 14).

338

ReviewslEssuys: Fitzgerald

Epstein examines the literature on training programs for welfare recipients. Individual and subcultural-level efforts, such as job training, historically have been the approach favored in the United States. This approach does not present the same challenges to social order as would structural-level change. Epstein identifies three assumptions that support the reliance on individual and subcultural approaches. First, individuals can become self- sufficient without major investments in social environments and institutions. Second, there is an adequate number of jobs available for the trainees. Third, if there is not an adequate number of available jobs, at least the labor market is fluid and unemployment will not be concentrated consistently in this group of workers. Epstein states that the two common approaches to evaluating programs for those with low incomes and welfare recipients-reduced-form evaluations and structural evaluations-are quite sophisticated, yet “both approaches have fallen far short of their goals” (p. 145). Epstein concludes that the manpower training programs have been little more than a test of deservingness. Further, the social science literature, despite the lack of conclusive results and therefore rational basis, has contributed to the ceremonial function of welfare-to-work programs by perpetuating the myth that the problems of poverty can be solved through inexpensive and politically popular measures.

According to Epstein, the ceremonial functions of social science are even more prevalent in the literature dealing with personal social services. The use of counseling, psychotherapy, and rehabilitation programs represents another individual and subcultural approach to welfare. Epstein writes: “Whether social services are provided as entitlements or as discretionary care, they customarily focus on personal adaptation, not on the reform of systemic imperfections” (p. 183). After a review of the literature Epstein concludes that the effectiveness of personal social service is indeterminate as best. However, the myth of their effectiveness is perpetuated throughout the research and political communities.

Epstein’s own ideological position is revealed in his advocacy of a position of generosity, as opposed to the current liberal and conservative focus on efficiency. Epstein does not claim that a policy of generosity has any more scientific credibility than do the policies he critiqued throughout the book. In fact, he writes, “the issue of whether to accept the liberal or conservative position, or a more generous alternative, remains largely intuitive, subjective, and political” (p. 230).

Each of these books makes an important contribution to the welfare reform literature. Handler’s work argues successfully that the current round of welfare reform commits the same errors as other reforms for the past 600 years. Based on an erroneous dichotomization of work and welfare, current policy is little more than an exercise in myth and ceremony. For a welfare-to-work reform to be successful, structural changes to the labor market are necessary. Cans’ work augments Handler’s argument by demonstrating the malignant effects of labeling the poor and how this labeling affects the discussion of poverty. Epstein’s work has profound implications for both the welfare debate and social science in general. Epstein argues successfully that political and ideological forces drive welfare policy and welfare research. Further, due to the methodological limitations of social science, it is crucial for researchers to exercise greater prudence when attempting to ascribe causal relationships. Taken together, these three books provide insightful critiques and alternative perspectives that inform the current discussion of welfare reform while challenging us to recognize the many timeless assumptions about the nature of poverty.

339

Policy Studies Journal, 26-2

***

Scott Fitzgerald is a graduate student in the Department of Political Science at Iowa State University. He will enter the doctoral program in sociology at the University of Iowa in Fall 1998.

340