Dismantling the Welfare State?

Abstract

This book offers a careful examination of the politics of social policy in an era of austerity and conservative governance. Focusing on the administrations of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, Pierson provides a compelling explanation for the welfare state's durability and for the few occasions where each government was able to achieve significant cutbacks. The programmes of the modern welfare state - the 'policy legacies' of previous governments - generally proved resistant to reform. Hemmed in by the political supports that have developed around mature social programmes, conservative opponents of the welfare state were successful only when they were able to divide the supporters of social programmes, compensate those negatively affected, or hide what they were doing from potential critics. The book will appeal to those interested in the politics of neo-conservatism as well as those concerned about the development of the modern welfare state. It will attract readers in the fields of comparative politics, public policy, and political economy.

Are press depictions of Affordable Care Act beneficiaries favorable to policy durability?

“…As noted, families are often considered deserving, and the Families and Workers portrayals may interact to support durability, as ''supplements for working families with low incomes'' have seen expansion even when politics otherwise favored retrenchment. 441 Third, as Table 4 recaps, Strong Insiders is the third most frequently used tag in descriptions of the newly Medicaid-eligible, and the Strong and Weak Insiders tags are the second and third most frequent tags for insurance-gainers. As noted above, claims that beneficiaries are insiders have often been associated with claims that beneficiaries are deserving.…”

“…Political context matters to policy durability. 87 An informal but potent influence on a policy's course may reside in how beneficiaries are discussed and portrayed. 88 119 Skocpol and others argue that ''no one.…”

“…meaning both its avoidance of outright retrenchment, 11 and fidelity to its policy aims over time. 12 While some features of the ACA's ''design'' 13 may dispose it to reap ''positive feedback processes,'' 14 as part II notes, other features may work against this prospect.…”

“…25 Simultaneously, policies curry strength and guard beneficiary interests when they encourage beneficiaries to see themselves as ''politically meaningful'' 26 groups, 27,28,29 and may lack political endurance when this is not the case. 30,31,32 Beneficiary mobilization is ''not an automatic process,'' 33 and ''[l]egislative achievements remain. .…”

“…66,67 They are administered in non-stigmatizing ways, 68,69 foster political participation by beneficiaries of all income levels, 70 and arrange at least latent coalitions of low-and middle-income earners. 71,72 Scholars argue that the latter's stake as beneficiaries bolsters Social mçäáíáÅë~åÇ íÜÉ iáÑÉ pÅáÉåÅÉë • c~ää OMNR • îçäK PQI åçK O Security, 73,74 Medicare, 75 and Medicaid. 76 Neckerman, Aponte, and Wilson argue that programs ''available to working-and middle-class segments of society as well as to the poor, are more likely to attract political support, and therefore more generous and stable funding.''…”