The former chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke recently said the “the greatest forces in Washington are ideas, and people prepared to act on those ideas.” (2013: 5). The following research demonstrates this power of ideas.
Much of the research explaining the generosity of antipoverty programs has focused on the perceived deservingness of the poor. While the notion of deservingness is useful in explaining the scope and general outlines of policy, it does not help us understand the development and change of the specific policy instruments that constitute antipoverty policies, asserts Joshua Guetzkow in his interesting (open access) paper “Beyond Deservingness Congressional Discourse on Poverty, 1964—1996“. Guetzkow argues that to better understand the development of antipoverty policy tools aimed at changing the behavior of the poor, we need to analyze how policy elites frame both the causes of poverty and the nature of the poor. He illustrates the utility of this approach by analyzing the United States congressional antipoverty discourse in two periods, comparing the “Great Society” period of 1964 to 1968 (“War on Poverty” era, when U.S. social policy was at its zenith in terms of scope and generosity) and the Neoliberal era of 1981 to 1996 (a period of sustained attack on the U.S. welfare system that began with the Reagan presidency in 1981 and reached its apotheosis in the PRWORA of 1996). The research shows how policymakers’ frames about the causes of poverty and about the capacities and desires of the poor shaped the specific antipoverty policies adopted in each period. In the 1960s, poverty was seen to be caused by the breakdown of the community, which itself was the result of blocked and limited opportunities. In the 1980s, and even more so in the 1990s, poverty came to be framed as caused by the breakdown of the family, which itself was the result of the generosity of the welfare system. The poor in the 1960s were framed as hopeless, helpless victims of discrimination and economic transformations; in the 1980s and 1990s, the poor were viewed as rational actors who lacked the values that would guide them to make the right choices. In the 1960s, society was to blame for poverty, and it was government’s duty to help by instilling hope, providing skills, and rebuilding communities; in the 1980s and 1990s, individuals were to blame for poverty, and it was government’s task to enforce and impose the right values by helping—in fact, forcing—people to help themselves.
Of course, the conceptions of policymakers are only one piece of a larger puzzle for understanding policy making that includes policy windows, political opportunities, policy feedbacks, and institutional inertia. One of the main questions is- Where do policymakers get their ideas about the causes of poverty and the poor? In the 1960s, suggests Guetzkow, many of their ideas seemed to be influenced by then-popular theories in social science. In the later period, they appear to have been influenced more by the conceptions promoted by think tanks like the Heritage Foundation or the Manhattan Institute. Clearly, the Reagan administration played a role in amplifying certain ways of thinking about the problems, but they faced initial resistance from Democrats and some Republicans.
See more entries in this blog on the power of ideas anf the rise of the Neoliberalism in the United States.
Follow ES/PE on Facebook
Follow ES/PE on Twitter
My TweetsTags
- academia
- accounting
- austerity
- banking
- banking system
- capital
- capitalism
- central banking
- China
- class
- commercialization
- comparative political economy
- consumerism
- consumption
- corporations
- COVID-19
- credit
- crisis
- Culture
- debt
- democracy
- development
- diffusion
- economic history
- economics
- Economic Sociology
- education
- elite
- embeddedness
- environment
- ethics
- ethnography
- Europe
- European Union
- finance
- financial crisis
- financialization
- financial system
- financial markets
- fiscal sociology
- France
- gender
- Germany
- global governance
- globalization
- global political economy
- Greece
- growth
- higher education
- history of economic thought
- ideas
- inequality
- institutional change
- institutions
- interest groups
- Karl Marx
- Karl Polanyi
- knowledge
- labor
- Latin America
- law
- marketization
- markets
- Marxism
- media
- Middle class
- money
- morality
- neoliberalism
- networks
- policy
- Political economy
- politics
- poverty
- power
- privatization
- public sociology
- race
- regulation
- socialism
- social movements
- social networks
- social sciences
- social studies of finance
- sociology
- Sociology of economics
- sociology of knowledge
- state
- taxation
- trade
- Unions
- United Kingdom
- United States
- valuation
- varieties of capitalism
- wealth
- welfare
- work
- market fundamentalism
- culture
Top Posts & Pages
- Remember the Golden Rule! Whoever has the gold, makes the rules!
- Thatcherism's greatest achievement
- Trump as Messiah
- Ulrich Beck has died. His powerful concept of 'Risk Society' is relevant as never before
- Karl Polanyi on the Rise of Fascism and Market Economy
- If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money
- Albert Einstein on the power of ideas and imagination in science
- The joke goes like this: A physicist, an engineer and an economist are stranded in the desert...
- Rise like Lions after slumber in unvanquishable number, Shake your chains to earth like dew... Ye are many — they are few
- Political Economy After Neoliberalism: A Manifesto for New Thinking
Categories
Archives
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- March 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- September 2013
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
ES/PE on Social Media
Is it possible that as the social sciences were progressing, they tended naturally towards a fragmented identity-politics worldview; this fragmented worldview, where every identity is based against another, and not in cooperation with, made possible the sort of disjunctive representations of the Welfare Queen ideal and the Welfare Recipient reality? Post-War social sciences exalted the individual, or human capacity, to such a degree that every minute interaction could be construed an oppression, so that we were eventually so involved with sucking our own personal, free utility out of everything and everyone that we became even more individualized. We lost the ability to relate to one another but through the enduring of common oppression. Oppression becomes the social currency so much that even the people in positions to oppress claim victimhood. And so, since the world is m oyster to consume individually, as I see fit, per my freely expressed, decolonized Self, all that which I do must provide personal utility. If I have an identity as a “haver,” complete with tribal affiliation and agreed upon characteristics, and the climate is to act identity against identity, then it seems natural to follow that the cooperative community approach would weaken for the benefit of nearshighted self-interest. Is this a valid hypothesis?