Poiicy Studies Journal, Vol. 16, No. 4, Summer, 1988

LITERATURE REVIEWS

A. Book Review Essay

WELFARE REFORM AND POUCY ANALYSISKathleen Morrison and David J. WebberUniversity of Missouri-Coiumbia

Robert H. Haveman. 1987. Poverty Policy and Poverty Research(Madison, Wi: University of Wisconsin Press) xi + 307 pp.; ISBN0-299-11150-4.

Lawrence M. Mead. 1986. Beyond Entitiement: The Sociai Obiigationsof Citizenship (New York: The Free Press) xi + 318 pp.; ISBN0-02-920890-4.

William Julius Wilson. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City,The Underdass and Pubiic Poiicy (Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press) xi + 254 pp.; ISBN 0-226-90130-0.

Welfare reform is a timely political and policy issue. In part as aresponse to President Reagan's 1986 State of the Union address, inwhich he requested the Domestic Policy Council to evaluate thewelfare system, the topic has received the attention of bothpolicymakers and policy researchers. The attention of the former hasresulted in the passage of HR 1720, the "Family Welfare Reform Act,"by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1987 and welfare reformproposals either currently adopted or presently being considered instates like California, Wisconsin, Washington, and Missouri. Mediaattention given to programs like Massachusetts' Employment andTraining ("ET") program undoubtedly has also contributed to placingwelfare reform on the policy agenda.

The three works reviewed here, while initiated before 1986,deserve wide consideration because of the currency of their argument.Additionally, they serve as another test of the usefulness of policyanalysis for structuring policy debate and for helping policymakersarrive at better policy decisions. Haveman and Mead are particularlyinteresting on this count because of their specific interest in the fieldof policy analysis as well as in weifare policy. Mead has presented his

858 Poiicy Studies Journai

vision of policy studies elsewhere in policy journals and Haveman'smajor purpose in Poverty Poiicy and Poverty Research is to describe,examine, and assess the impact of the Great Society Era on theefforts of social scientists to understand the poverty condition of somecitizens. As is discussed beiow, it is unfortunate that by "socialscientists," Haveman means economists and occasionally sociologists,and demographers (i-laveman, p. 4). The neglect of the work ofpolitical scientists by poverty policy researchers like Haveman hasproven detrimental to the foririulation of sound poverty policy as Meaddemonstrates.

As observed by Robert Reischauer, there has been a consensusthat we must "do something" about weifare programs in this countryfor some time. This consensus involves the topics of work,responsibility, family, education, and state discretion (Reischauer,1987:114) and is reflected in reports of the National GovernorsAssociation and The New Consensus on Famiiy and Weifare producedby the Working Seminar on Family and American Welfare Policy. Thereis near consensus that regardless of intention, the end resuits of thewelfare policy produced during the last two decades are sharplyincreased dependency, iower skills among recipients, and rising costsfor government. In addition to the canons of social science and poiicyanaiysis, this emerging consensus provides another set of criterion forassessing the contribution of these books by poiitical scientistLawrence Mead, sociologist William Julius Wilson, and economist RobertHaveman.

Evaiuating present policy and determining the future course ofwelfare policy is difficult, because the compiexity of the problemreaches across academic disciplines to touch on sociology, poiiticaiscience, economics and psychoiogy, to name a few, and calls intoquestion the iegitimacy and effectiveness of American political, social,and economic institutions. As noted by Mazmanian and Sabatier(1983:267) "[ejven more troubiesome from the standpoint of imple-mentation is the fact that the government is asked to correctinequities in health care delivery, educationai opportunities, jobtraining and related sociai needs that often result from shortcomingsof the very market economic system that, in theory, is otherwisechampioned."

in Beyond Entitiement: The Sociai Obiigations of Citizenship,L.awrence Mead presents a well-integrated normative and empiricalassessment of existing weifare policy resulting in this call forworkfare as the basis for welfare reform. His normative analysis ispremised on a great admiration for orderliness, stating that "civility isessentiai to a humane society, but it is not a natural condition, asAmericans tend to assume. It is something societies must achieve, in

Book Review Essay 859

part through public authority" (Mead, p. ix). Mead argues thatimproved "functioning" is the goai of welfare policy. Mead presents awell-constructed and eloquent hypothesis: G iven that functioning canbe taught and is desirable, therefore it is the duty of government totailor its welfare policy in such a way as to teach functioning (work)in order to integrate individuals into the mainstream of society. Hethen studies previous and existing welfare policies, notably theprograms of the Great Society and the current WIN program in NewYork state. After evaluating these policies from the standpoint ofpolicy intentions, outputs and impiementation, he proposes modifyingwelfare policy by adopting a mandatory workfare requirement.

Mead's emphasis is on creating functioning members of societywho fulfill what he sees as a mutual obligation between state andcitizen. He sees work as self-actualizing and a strong force forintegration of the poor into the mainstream of society. Toward thatend. Mead proposes a heavily paternalistic role for the state in forcingthe work ethic on its welfare recipients.

Mead examines past welfare policies to see if they have achievedthe social integration of the poor. To answer this question. Meadevaluates programs of the Great Society. One of the strongest areasof Mead's work is his study of the implementation procedures of theWIN program in New York state. He convincingly uses empirical datato show that policy implementation is the key to a successful program,thus stressing the importance of the authoritativeness of thecaseworker to the success of a program.

The weakest point in his analysis is his unexamined use ofgeneral social trends to suppon his assumption that the rise in thenumber of welfare recipients is the single determinant of the increasein other social F>athologles. An example is his use of the 300 percentIncrease in AFDC recipients between 1960 and 1983 as the determinantvariable in the doubling of unemployment, the quadrupling of thefelony crime rate, and the fall of SAT scores by almost 100 pointsduring the same period (Mead, p. 7). He fails to show conclusivelythat AFDC recipient number is the independent variable, rather thanmerely a variable driven by other forces, as Wilson maintains: "DespiteMead's eloquent arguments, the empirical support for his thesis isincredibly weak. . . . The greatest rise in black joblessness andfemale-headed families occurred during the very period when the realvalue of AFDC plus food stamps plummeted because states did not pegbenefit levels to inflation" (Wilson, p. 161).

Wilson maintains that Mead's assertion that welfare dependencyoccurs because F>eople would prefer being on welfare to working isunfounded. The real strength in Mead's analysis is not in his study ofthe causes of welfare dependency, but in his fashioning of a policy

860 Policy Studies Journai

tooi which is politicaiiy feasibie and meets the demands of policymakers. Mead's carefully crafted program addresses those very issuesof concern to all sides of the poiiticai spectrum and thus enhances itschances of implementation.

Wiiiiam Julius Wilson in The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City,the Underdass and Public Poiicy maintains that workfare will not helpthe most desperate of the disadvantaged. The driving force behind thecreation of an isolated underclass, according to Wilson, is not thewelfare mother, but the biack male. Wilson's research question is notlimited to the effectiveness of weifare poiicy in reducing isolation, butrather what forces have contributed to the creation of an isolatedunderclass in our society and how can we address those forces inorder to alter the situation? According to Wilson, unemployment andthe economic isolation of the biack male is the single biggest forcebehind the creation of an "underciass," the rise in crime, the fall ofthe SAT scores, and the other iils treated by Mead.

Where Mead maintains that the weifare class remains on welfarebecause they choose not to work, Wilson asserts that they remain onweifare because they do not have access to work of any type. Cieariy,Wilson's normative underpinnings are that members of the underclass,like citizens in all other ciasses, are not satisfied to exist on welfare,but wish to succeed. They are unabie to improve their situationbecause they are isolated by the iack of possibie empioyment. Hestates that the basic flaw in Mead's anaiysis is his empiricallyunsupported assumption that if we wiil only insist that the underclasswork, the jobs are there to be had.

Wilson's unit of anaiysis is not behavior of the individual, butbehavior of the underciass as a social grouping in response to macro-economic inputs. He presents the biack male marriageability index toshow that the decline of the black family is directly linked to thehopeiessness of the biack man in today's world. Functional and macro-economic trends have locked him out of empioyment. Further, Wilsonmaintains, there exists a two-pronged black economy. One prong is themiddle ciass which benefits from programs such as affirmative action.The other is the underclass which only benefits from poiicies such asaffirmative action in a tight labor market. The black underclass maleis the first to suffer when unempioyment rates rise and the last tobenefit when they fall.

Whiie Wilson's methodoiogy and empiricai support for his thesisare strong, he is weakest in his poiicy proposals. Wiison's policyrecommendation is that the way to improve the functioning of theunderclass is through "macroeconomic policy to generate a tight iabormarket and economic growth; fiscai and monetary policy not only tostimulate noninflationary growth . . and a national labor market

Book Review Essay 861

strategy" (Wilson, p. 163). It is in Wilson's policy tool, themanipulation of fiscal and monetary policy to produce full employment,that he ignores the constraints of the policymaking process. In failingto understand that politics drives poiicy, he faiis to fashion a policytooi which can be adopted and implemented.

Robert Haveman's Poverty Poiicy and Poverty Research provides athird valuable view of poverty policy. He proposes to ". . . determinethe relationship between the making of pubiic policy and thedevelopment of social science" and examines research done in the fieldbetween 1964 and 1980. This research question is especially pertinentto those in policy studies since the underlying motivation of muchpolicy research is to enhance the creation of better policy.

Haveman describes the "dimensions of poverty research" (Chapter3) by focusing on input indicators (increases in federal support forpoverty-related research) and output indicators (articles published inacademic journals). In an analysis of economic journals, Havemanreports that poverty-related articles comprised 4.3 percent of the totalarticles in 1963, 11.6 percent in 1968, 9.2 percent in 1973, and 11percent in 1980 (see Table 3.7, p. 47). Simiiarly, poverty-relatedarticles were 2.4 percent of articles appearing in the five ieadingsociology journals in the early 60s, 8.9 percent in the early 70s, and7.8 percent in the late 70s. In Part li of this volume, Havemanreviews the conclusions of this body of research dealing with topicslike the measurement of inequality, the duplication of povertyprograms, and the economic effects of income transfers.

Conspicuously missing from this review and assessment of povertyresearch is the contribution of political scientists and policy analysts.Whiie understanding that Professor Haveman is an economist, it isdifficult to accept this lacuna given his Chapter 8, "Poiicy Analysisand Evaluation Research," where he mentions the Journai of PoiicyAnalysis and Management, Poiicy Studies Journal, and the PolicyStudies Review, and Appendix III, "Major Institutions OfferingPrograms in Public Policy Anaiysis and Evaluation Research." A cursoryreview of other social science journais including the AmericanPoiiticai Science Review, American Journai of Poiitical Science,Journai of Politics, as weii as the Pubiic Administration Review, andthe Poiicy Studies Journal reveals that they each had at least fivemajor articles dealing with an aspect of poverty policy between 1965and 1980. These articles dealt with topics like the determinants ofwelfare spending, issues relating to administering welfare programs,and alternatives to welfare programs. This oversight is unfortunatebecause it understates the impact that the Great Society Program hadon the social sciences and, more importantiy, because it contributes to

862 Policy Studies Journai

formuiating poverty policy that ignores the institutional capacity todeliver and implement poverty poiicy.

Haveman's second major contribution in this book is tracing thedevelopment of policy during the Great Society. He points out that inthis case the poiicy cart was before the research horse. Research onmany of the poverty related issues raised by the Johnson Adminis-tration took place oniy after policies to address those issues had beenset into piace. The result was a set of poorly integrated programsdesigned to address a variety of unsubstantiated theories about thedynamics of poverty. As Haveman notes: "Nearly every hypothesisregarding why the poor performed weakiy in the labor market wasreflected in some program" (Haveman, p. 17).

The initial strategy of the War on Poverty was three-fold. Thefirst thrust was to create more labor demand through education andjob training (i.e., VISTA and the Job Corps) and through anti-discrimination iegisiation designed to increase the market share ofexisting jobs for the under-privileged. The second arm of the War onPoverty was to give the poor increased access to the political policyprocess. Advocacy groups were formed with the purpose of lobbyingCongress for changes in poverty programs. According to Haveman, thisis one of the main reasons that sanctions and mandatory obligationswere never made a part of poverty policy. The third aspect of theWar on Poverty was an adamant stand against increasing cashtransfers to welfare recipients. Johnson spoke often of "Giving them ahand up, not a hand out" (Haveman, p. 17). it was not until later thatincreased benefits became part of the program, largely in response toadvocacy groups, according to Haveman.

The stated policy goai of the War on Poverty in 1964 was verysimiiar to the goals we hear stated in relation to welfare reformtoday: to enable those trapped in the poverty cycle to acquire thetools they needed to lift themselves into the mainstream of productivesociety. The obvious question for the student of policy studies at thispoint is, what went wrong?

It is in drawing conclusions about what did not work in the Waron Poverty that a clear dichotomy exists between Mead, Wilson, andHaveman. Where Mead maintains that the current welfare programs area disincentive to work and must be altered to enforce a mutualobligation between citizen and state, Wilson asserts that the supportprovided by the state in welfare programs has been so pitifully smallthat it is not a disincentive to work at all. Wiison makes a powerfuiargument that the underclass, as he names them, are not disinclined towork, but in fact are prevented from finding work because they aretrapped in a cycie of poverty by an economic system that isolates theunderclass from the rest of society

Book Review Essay 863

Haveman implies that they are both wrong. He firKls that one'sconclusions regarding the efficacy of the War on Poverty depend onhow one uses statistics to define poverty. Wilson tells us that realpoverty iias increased in the past two decades and Mead maintainsthere has been iittie change in the rate of poverty during this p>eriod.Economist Haveman disagrees with both, telling the reader that notonly has poverty declined in America, but that his reading of statisticsindicates tfiat it may have declined dramatically: "if family income isdefined to include in-kind benefits, the nation in 1980 could be said tohave come a considerable distance in reducing income poverty"(Haveman, p. 19). Despite the deciine in reai benefits under AFDC asnoted by WHson, Haveman says that the average inflation-adjustedcash transfer increased by 55 percent between 1965 arxl 1980. Hefurther notes, startlingiy, that when in-kind transfers were included inincome estimates of those considered poor, the 1982 census reportwould show the U.S. poverty rate at only 6.4 percent.

The analysis provided by both Mead and Wiison is limited in thatthey focus on a particular portion of the poverty population: Meadexamines the aisle-bodied long-term welfare recipient and Wilson theemerging black underclass. To this point Haveman notes that theinner-city poverty problem has not necessarily responded the same asother types of poverty: 'The share of the poverty populationrepresented by biack families, by those who resided in central citiesand by female-headed families aiso fell when in-kind benefits wereaccounted for, although the poverty rates for these groups remained-and stiii remain-strikingiy high" (Haveman, p. 77).

In the past policy makers have failed to grasp that the poor arefar more diverse than popularly conceived. There must be a morerealistic understanding of the poor if more effective poverty policy isto be adopted. Corcoran et al: (1985) examined demographiccomposition of the poor and, while they do not dispute that there is a"pathology of poverty" which exists, as noted by Wilson, in theisoiated ghettos of many cities, they find that it is more varied andthat the idea of a poverty culture is unfounded. They found thatpoverty in the U.S. is, for the most part, a temporary phenomena.One-quarter of the U.S. population were estimated to have fallenbelow the poverty line for one year between 1969 and 1978, but forthis group this was a temporary reversal of fortunes. A much smallergroup, 2.2 percent of the total population, remained below the povertyline for eight out of ten years. These, as noted by Corcoran, consumethe largest part of welfare expenditures (Corcoran, 1985:524). Theyconclude that most long-term poor do not fit the underclass descrip-tion as purported by Wilson and others. They are in large part oid,disabled, or living outside of large urban areas.

864 Poiicy Studies Journai

After carefully tracing the research conducted during and follow-ing the Great Society, Haveman draws the conclusion that research hasclarified the policy picture. "Reiationships we earlier knew little about,yet acted on as if we did, are now more clearly perceived. It seemsunlikely that the next generation of policy-making can proceed asnaively as did that of the previous generation" (Haveman, p. 152). Thisaspect of Haveman's conclusions are good news to the poiicy scientist.He finds that sociai science research can and does have positiveimpacts on the deveiopment of successful public policy. However, hisspecific findings on the efficacy of past weifare policy cannot heip butconfuse those who also read Mead and Wilson.

The analyst of poverty policy in this instance finds three expertswith different definitions of poverty, different estimates of thereiative state of well-being of those on welfare, and opposingrecommendations on how to proceed. This dichotomy of views ishelpful to the anaiyst stepping into this field for the first time. Themessage here is that of all the domestic issues facing our society atthis time, poverty policy may well be the most intransigent anddifficult to analyze. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the policyscientist to exert superhuman effort to broaden his or her base ofknowledge in this area, utilizing the expertise from every applicablediscipiine. What we iearn from Mead, Wilson, and Haveman is thateach schoiar has valid recommendations and conciusions drawn fromthe perspective of his particular discipline. The challenge here issynthesizing the material and utilizing the valid conclusions whiiediscarding those which proceed from personal bias or poormethodoiogy.

Finaiiy, the policy scientist must formulate his poiicy proposalsbearing in mind Robert Haveman's final conclusion:

The success or failure in the application of social science(to the poiicy process) depends on a mesh between thescientific skills and poiiticai interests of the social scientiston the one side and the political skills and scientificinterests of the policy-maker on the other. Sociai researchstudies are part of an adversary process in which policymakers . . . wiii use whatever data are at hand to supporttheir case, regardless of the methodological purity by whichit has been developed (Haveman, p. 6).

These are three excellent, thought-provoking books that arenotable not merely because they are timely and may contribute to thewelfare reform debate, but because together they contribute to thebody of social science that has a ciear academic heritage and clear

Book Review Essay 865

public policy applications. Haveman provides a valuabid service in hisreview of arid commentary about development and contribution of thepast 20 years of a portion of social science research on poverty,Wilson presents a much needed comprehensive view of the underdassphenomenon emphasizing both its dimensions and causes, and Meadwrites a rather complete empirical and normative evaluation of AFDCpolicy that inciudes the much neglected questions of implementation.Together these works may well prove useful in guiding policy-makers.

REFERENCES

Corcoran, Mary, et al. 1985. "Myth and Reality: The Causes andPersistence of Poverty." Journal of Poiicy Analysis andManagement 4:516-536.

Mazmanian, Daniel A., and Paui A. Sabatier. 1983. Impiementation andPublic Policy (Gienview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company).

Reischauer, Robert D. 1987. "Welfare Reform: Will Consensus BeEnough." The Brookings Review (Summer).

Working Seminar on Family and American Welfare Policy. 1987. TheNew Consensus on Famiiy and Weifare (Washington, DC: AmericanEnterprise Institute).

866 Policy Studies Journal

B. Book Reviews

Jerry F. Hough. 1988. Opening Up the Soviet Economy (Washington,DC: The Brooking institution) ix + 100 pp.; iSBN 0-8157-3747-5(paper).

868 Policy Studies Journal

Daniei McCooi. 1987. Command of the Waters: Iron Triangles, FederalWater Development, and Indian Water (Berkeiey, CA: Universityof Caiifornia Press) xii + 321 pp.; iSBM 0-520-05846-1 (doth).

Reviewed by Uday Desai, Southern illinois University at Carbondaie

Command of the Waters concerns the poiitics of water projects inthe West, it is also, therefore, inevitabiy about water rights and theconflict between indian and non-indian rights.

This presentation is divided into three historicai chunks. ChaptersTwo and Three discuss non-Indian and indian water development,respectiveiy, at the turn of this century. Chapter Two focuses oninterest group poiitics surrounding the creation and eariy years of theReciamation Service. Chapter Three focuses on the Winters decision(reserved rights doctrine) and non-Indian interest groups' reactions toit. The second part. Chapters Four and Five, continue the story up tothe beginning of the Carter Administration. The author pauses inChapter Six to point out the confiicts between the ciaims of Indiansand the water projects of the non-indians. The iast part. ChaptersSeven and Eight, bring the story up to date.

The author uses the idea of the iron triangie as the organizingtheme for the book. The Bureau of Beciamation, the Army Corps ofEngineers, western agricuiturai, commerciai, and industriai interests,and congressmen in reievant committees provide the principai cast ofcharacters, with presidents and the Department of Justice playingminor roies. The overwheiming poiiticai power of the non-indian inter-est groups starkiy contrasts in these pages with the compiete power-iessness of indians. Non-indian interests win in the end every time.

it is the author's attempt to fit the indian part of the story intothe iron triangle framework that is probiematic. Being without poiiticaipower or representation, indians couid not form the base of an irontriangie. Without such a base, there is no iron triangie. Neither canthe Bureau of indian Affairs (BiA) be characterized as one side of thetriangle. At ieast historicaiiy, the BiA couid not be accused of pro-tecting, iet alone promoting, indian interests. The story of indianwater deveiopment couid be better understood as a part of the overaiistory of the vanquished and vanishing peopie. Whereas the author

Book Reviews 867

reforms are not oniy for reai, but enjoy a much broader base ofsupport than one might commoniy imagine.

in the second argument. Hough draws our attention to the devei-opment of the argument within Soviet officiai circies of the need tobreak out of the oid autari<ic modei of economic deveiopment andgraduaiiy adjust the Soviet economy to the sorts of pressures andcompetitive stimuius that more open economies have iong known. Here,the book is at its most interesting and methodologically sound. Houghdemonstrates his fine biend of Kremiinoiogicai skiiis and sociaiscientific judgment by weaving the intricate process whereby one mustconclude that given aii the investment in the Perestroika reforms,something more profound than a poiiticai purge shouid be iogicailyexpected from Gorbachev's strategy, in the space of a few pages.Hough provides the reader with interesting descriptions of theimpiications for the aiterations of the Soviet power structure if infact his centrai thesis proves correct.

This ieads niceiy into his consideration of the proper U.S.response-his third context in the book. Actuaiiy, the text is at itsweakest and most giib in the iast twenty two pages. Whiie Houghwouid want the market to determine American foreign policy, thoseieft with picking up the pieces from our inarket excursions into LatinAmerican and Asia may have some different thoughts. How unreaiisticis it to turn U.S. foreign poiicy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union over toMcDonaid's or Levi Strauss, inc.? There may be a case, but Houghhas not made one in the space of this short text. He is certainiycorrect to note the hypocrisy of the Reagan Administration's shaiiowclaims to being the prophet and savior of the market whiie in foreignpoiicy there has been such a strict adherence to officiai restrictionsand guidelines on market exchanges with the USSR and other commun-ist nations. But whether the next administration wouid be so weiiadvised to abandon what some may caii the Reagan Administration'spragmatic caution wili have to await a more thorough anaiysis of thecosts and risks associated with venture capitai exchanges with theUSSR. This qualification aside, one would be making a very efficientinvestment in choosing Hough's short and rather "poiicy motivated"anaiysis of the reforms affecting the Soviet economy.