A Cross-National Perspective on the American Welfare State

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Lynch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Regulation ◽  
Eligibility Criterion ◽  
Social Risks ◽  
Social Goods ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Welfare State

The welfare system in the United States is not simply “small,”“residualist,” or “laggard.” It is true that protection against standard social risks is generally less comprehensive and less generous in the United States than in other rich democracies, but there are other important differences as well: The U. S. welfare state is unusual in its extensive reliance on private markets to produce public social goods; its geographic variability; its insistence on deservingness as an eligibility criterion; and its orientation toward benefits for the elderly rather than children and working-age adults. Nevertheless, the U.S. welfare state is not sui generis. The actors involved in the construction of the U.S. welfare state, the institutions created in response to social problems, and the contemporary pressures confronting the welfare state all have parallels in other countries. The markets that provide so many social goods in the United States are the products of state action and state regulation, and hence should really be thought of as part of the welfare “state.” Even recent expansions to the welfare state in the United States have, with the partial exception of health-care reform, reinforced old patterns of elderly oriented spending and benefits for worthy (working) adults. In order for the U.S. welfare state to adjust successfully to ensure against new social risks, it must focus more on underdeveloped program areas like health care, child care, early childhood education, and vocational training.

What Is the Affordable Care Act a Case of? Understanding the ACA through the Comparative Method

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-691
Author(s):  
Holly Jarman ◽  
Scott L. Greer
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Affordable Care Act ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Affordable Care Act ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
The Welfare State

Abstract International comparisons of US health care are common but mostly focus on comparing its performance to peers or asking why the United States remains so far from universal coverage. Here the authors ask how other comparative research could shed light on the unusual politics and structure of US health care and how the US experience could bring more to international conversations about health care and the welfare state. After introducing the concept of casing—asking what the Affordable Care Act (ACA) might be a case of—the authors discuss different “casings” of the ACA: complex legislation, path dependency, demos-constraining institutions, deep social cleavages, segmentalism, or the persistence of the welfare state. Each of these pictures of the ACA has strong support in the US-focused literature. Each also cases the ACA as part of a different experience shared with other countries, with different implications for how to analyze it and what we can learn from it. The final section discusses the implications for selecting cases that might shed light on the US experience and that make the United States look less exceptional and more tractable as an object of research.

scholarly journals 8.I. Workshop: Populist radical right and health: National policies and global trends

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United States ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
The United States ◽  
Radical Right ◽  
Health Policies ◽  
National Policies ◽  
Global Trends ◽  
Populist Radical Right ◽  
The Welfare State

Abstract Populist radical right (PRR) parties have been steadily expanding, not only in the number of supporters they gain and the seats they win in governments, but more importantly they have been increasingly elected into governmental coalitions as well as presidential offices. With the prominence of these authoritarian, nationalistic and populist parties, it is often difficult to discern what kind of policies they actually stand for. Particularly with regards to the welfare state and public health, it is not always clear what these parties stand for. At times they call for a reduction of health-related welfare provision, despite the fact that this goes against the will of the “ordinary people”, their core supporters; they often promote radical reductions of welfare benefits among socially excluded groups - usually immigrants, whom are most in need of such services; and finally they often mobilize against evidence-based policies. The purpose of this workshop is to present the PRRs actual involvement in health care and health policies across various countries. As PRR parties increase and develop within but also outside of the European continent it is necessary to keep track of their impact, particularly with regards to health and social policies. Although research surrounding PRR parties has significantly expanded over the last years, their impact on the welfare state and more specifically health policies still remains sparse. This workshop will present findings from the first comprehensive book connecting populist radical right parties with actual health and social policy effects in Europe (Eastern and Western) as well as in the United States. This workshop presents five country cases (Austria, Poland, the Netherlands, the United States) from the book Populist Radical Right and Health: National Policies and Global Trends. All five presentations will address PRR parties or leaders and their influence on health, asking the questions “How influential are PRR parties or leaders when it comes to health policy?” “Do the PRR actually have an impact on policy outcomes?” and “What is the actual impact of the health policies implemented by PRR parties or leaders?” After these five presentations, the participants of the workshop will be engaged in an interactive discussion. Key messages As the number of PRR parties increase worldwide and their involvement in national governments become inevitable, new light must be shed on the impact these political parties have on public health. Politics needs to become better integrated into public health research. The rise of PRR parties in Europe might have serious consequences for public health and needs to be further explored.

From Defining Characteristic to Vitiation of Principle

2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-500
Author(s):  
J. C. Herbert Emery
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Household Income ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sickness Insurance ◽  
Declining Demand ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Welfare State

Some studies that address the decline of fraternal sickness insurance conclude that fraternal insurers were crowded out of the market by increasing government and commercial competition. This line of reasoning reinforces beliefs that government and commercial insurers were superior to fraternal providers and that voluntary insurance arrangements were deficient for addressing household income risks before the rise of the welfare state. This article shows that this interpretation is problematic. The largest sickness insurer in the United States, the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, dismantled its sick benefit arrangements between the 1860s and the 1920s not because of an inability to compete with the government and commercial insurers that were not in the market until well after 1920 but rather because of declining demand for the insurance within the membership.

New Mayors: France and the United States

1987 ◽  
Vol 8 (x) ◽  
pp. 263-275
Author(s):  
Richard Balme ◽  
Jeanne Becquart-Leclercq ◽  
Terry N. Clark ◽  
Vincent Hoffmann-Martinot ◽  
Jean-Yves Nevers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Local Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
Socialist Government ◽  
The University ◽  
The City ◽  
Significant Support ◽  
The Welfare State

In 1983 we organized a conference on “Questioning the Welfare State and the Rise of the City” at the University of Paris, Nanterre. About a hundred persons attended, including many French social scientists and political activists. Significant support came from the new French Socialist government. Yet with Socialism in power since 1981, it was clear that the old Socialist ideas were being questioned inside and outside the Party and government—especially in the important decentralization reforms. There was eager interest in better ways to deliver welfare state services at the local level.

Charity and Philanthropy

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoltan J. Acs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
The United States ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Self Reliance ◽  
Bill Gates ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of Philanthropy ◽  
Viable System ◽  
The Welfare State

This chapter traces the history of philanthropy and shows the extent to which it is woven into the very fabric of the American entrepreneurial experiment. In order to understand philanthropy as a viable system for recycling wealth and creating opportunity, it is worth probing the dynamics that have sustained philanthropic giving and the conditions under which it has prospered and wavered. After providing a historical background on philanthropy in the United States, the chapter considers the Giving Pledge, an idea put forth by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett that commits billionaires to give away one-half of their wealth in their lifetimes. It then looks at the origins of American generosity, along with volunteerism, associations, and self-reliance. It also discusses mass philanthropy, the welfare state and the persistence of philanthropy, political philanthropy, and the rationale behind philanthropy and charity.

The Politics of the Welfare State: Canada, Sweden, and the United States

2004 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 748-750
Author(s):  
Linda A. White
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Welfare State ◽  
Comparative Politics ◽  
Social Indicators ◽  
The United States ◽  
Welfare States ◽  
Global Integration ◽  
Standards Of Living ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Welfare State

The Politics of the Welfare State: Canada, Sweden, and the United States, Gregg M. Olsen, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. vi, 258This book presents a familiar puzzle in comparative politics: how are we to understand variation in the design and scope of social programs and substantive outcomes for citizens in the three welfare states under scrutiny. As Olsen argues, all three cases are “advanced, industrialized, and highly affluent capitalist nations…. and all three nations enjoy average per capita incomes and standards of living that are among the highest in the world” (10). Yet we find great variation on a number of social indicators such as poverty levels, and income and wealth disparities. All three have also “experienced marked increases in inequality and welfare state retrenchment in recent years” (11) but yet “they continue to differ along these dimensions, even in the face of similar domestic strains and other exogenous pressures related to global integration” (11). The question is how do we account for the variation in the use of social policy to assuage inequalities and respond to these exogenous pressures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document