Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:13:01.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Politics, Industrialization and Citizenship: Unemployment Policy in England, France and the United States, 1890–1950*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2009

Miriam Cohen  and
Michael Hanagan
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

With the “forward march of labor halted”, and labor movements everywhere in retreat, T.H. Marshall's state-based emphasis on social welfare as “social right” has reminded those interested in reform that appeals to membership in a national community, the essence of citizenship, have served to rally groups to successful struggles for reform. Those aspects of Marshall's ideas, best summarized in his classic 1949 address, “Citizenship and Social Class”, with the greatest resonance for modern social theorists revolve around the relationship between citizenship, rights and markets. For Marshall, “the universal status of citizenship” was a plane of equality such that “all who possess the status (of citizenship) are equal with respect to the rights and duties with which the status is endowed”. Rights were embodied in a common culture and enforced by state power. Marshall believed that, gradually, one particular kind of rights, “social rights”, would come to limit the power of the market. While markets would continue to exist and to generate social inequality, government redistribution would increasingly expand the plane of equality to include the most important aspects of material and cultural life. The distinctive feature of these social rights according to Marshall is that they were not exemptions, privileges or paternalistic solicitude for those excluded from what he labels the “national community”, but social rights were benefits given to members of the community to encourage and facilitate their continued participation.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of Social History , Volume 40 , supplement S3: Citizenship, Identity and Social History , December 1995 , pp. 91 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1995

References

1 Marshall, T.H., “Citizenship and Social Class,” in Marshall, , Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays (Cambridge, 1950), pp. 1–85, 28–29Google Scholar.

2 Barbalet, J. M., Citizenship (Minneapolis, 1988), p. 69Google Scholar.

3 By contrast, Montgomery, David has recently- shown how rights of citizen workers in nineteenth-century America were ultimately undermined by the unbridled rights exercised by American employers. Citizen Worker: The Experience of Workers in the United States with Democracy and the Free Market during the Nineteenth Century (New York, 1993)Google Scholar.

4 Marshall, T.H., “The Right to Welfare,” in Marshall, , The Right to Welfare and Other Essays (London, 1981), pp. 83–103, 83Google Scholar.

5 Marshall, “Citizenship and Social Class”, p. 69. This problem is raised by Anthony Giddens, “Class Division, Class Conflict and Citizenship Rights”, in Giddens, , Profiles and Critiques in Social Theory (London, 1982), pp. 164–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Tilly, Charles, “Where Do Rights Come From?”, Working Paper, no. 98 (07 1990)Google Scholar, Center for Studies of Social Change.

6 Cited in Vincent, Andrew and Plant, Raymond, Philosophy, Politics and Citizenship: The Life and Thought of the British Idealists (Oxford, 1984), p. 30Google Scholar.

7 See Topalov, Christian, Naissance du chômeur, 1880–1910 (Paris, 1994)Google Scholar.

8 On England's position in the Second Industrial Revolution, Gamble, Andrew, Britain in Decline: Economic Policy, Political Strategy and the British State (London, 1981), pp. 84–85Google Scholar and Hobsbawm, E.J., Industry and Empire (Harmondsworth, 1972), p. 188Google Scholar.

9 See Gospel, Howard, Markets, Firms, and the Management of Labour in Modern Britain (Cambridge, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Melling, Joseph, “Employers, Industrial Welfare, and the Struggle for Work-Place Control in British Industry, 1880–1920”, in Gospel, Howard F. and Littler, Craig R. (eds), Managerial Strategies and Industrial Relations: An Historical and Comparative Study (London, 1983), pp. 55–81, especially p. 75Google Scholar.

10 In 1868, for instance, Mill, John Stuart emphasized the importance of emigration as a solution for unemployment. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill: Late Letters 1849–1873 (Toronto, 1972), p. 1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 For a discussion of various schemes, see Hitchins, Fred H., The Colonial Land and Emigration Commission (Philadelphia, 1931)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Baines, Dudley, Migration in a Mature Economy: Emigration and Internal Migration in England and Wales 1861–1900 (Cambridge, 1985), p. 88Google Scholar.

13 Ibid. Also see Erickson, Charlotte, “Who Were the English and Scots Emigrants to the United States in the Late Nineteenth Century?”, in Erickson, Charlotte, Leaving England: Essays on British Emigration in the Nineteenth Century (Ithaca, 1994), pp. 87–125Google Scholar.

14 Fishman, William J., East End 1888 (London, 1988), p. 56Google Scholar; Birmingham Daily Chronicle 29 June 1912.

15 Russell, A. K., Liberal Landslide: The General Election of 1906 (Hamden, CT, 1973), p. 196Google Scholar.

16 Bernstein, George L., Liberalism and Liberal Politics in Edwardian England (Boston, 1986), p. 59Google Scholar.

17 Joseph Chamberlain was unsympathetic to the emigration solution, and his alter-ego, Collings, Jess, wrote a letter to the Birmingham Daily Post (12 02 1912)Google Scholar attacking poor law subsidies to emigration, which provoked considerable controversy.

18 Ibid., p. 344.

19 Berthoff, Rowland Tappan, British Immigrants in Industrial America (Cambridge, MA, 1953), pp. 70–71Google Scholar.

20 Flanagan, Richard, “Parish-Fed Bastards”: The History of the Politics of the Unemployed in Britain, 1884–1939 (Westport, CT, 1991), pp. 77–80Google Scholar.

21 Thane, Pat, The Foundations of the Welfare State (London, 1982), p. 95Google Scholar.

22 Marshall, T. H., “The Coming o f Social Insurance”, in Marshall, , Social Policy in the Twentieth Century (London, 1975), ch. 4, p. 54Google Scholar.

23 Collini, Stefan, Liberalism and Sociology: L. T.Hobhouse and Political Argument in England, 1880s–1914 (Cambridge, 1979), p. 111Google Scholar.

24 Ibid.

25 The most able discussion of inter-war unemployment in Britain is Garside, W. R., British Unemployment, 1919–1939: A Study in Public Policy (Cambridge, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 Stephen Constantine, “Introduction: Empire Migration and Imperial Harmony”, and Williams, Keith, “A Way Out of Our Troubles: The Politics of Empire Settlement, 1900–1922”, in Constantine, Stephen (ed.), Emigrants and Empire: British Settlement in the Dominions between the Wars (Manchester, 1990), pp. 1–45Google Scholar.

27 Baines, Migration in a Mature Economy. Already by 1908 the Canadian government was having second thoughts about admitting migrants from “[…] the vastly populated and greatly congested East End of London […] “ because “the conditions under which they had lived, and in which in all probability their parents for several generations have lived, do not produce the kind of men who are fit for labour which Canadian farmers have to offer […]”: report by Bruce Walker to the Interior Department of the Government of Canada, 10 January 1908, cited in Report of the Immigration Commission, The Immigration Situation in Other Countries: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Brazil (Washington, 1911), p. 113.

28 Birmingham Post, 13 May 1932.

29 See Newton, Scott and Porter, Dilwyn, Modernization Frustrated: The Politics of Industrial Decline in Britain since 1900 (London, 1988)Google Scholar.

30 On French industrial development see Freedeman, Charles E., The Triumph of Corporate Capitalism in France, 1867–1914 (Rochester, 1993)Google Scholar and Rust, M. J., “Business and Politics in the Third Republic: The Comité des Forges and the French Steel Industry, 1896–1914” (Ph.D., Princeton University, 1973)Google Scholar.

31 Noiriel, Gérard, “Du ‘patronage’ au ‘paternalisme’: la restructuration des formes de domination de la main-d'oeuvre dans l'industrie métallurgique française”, Le Mouvement social, 144 (07–09 1988), pp. 17–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar, especially p. 28.

32 The census of 1911 listed 1,683 foreign-born in the Arrondissement of Saint-Etienne. Wartime losses and post-war prosperity only exacerbated Stéphanois labor requirements. By 1921, the number of foreign-born migrants had increased five-fold to 7,626, to reach a maximum of 12,618 in 1926.

33 See Cross, Gary, Immigrant Workers in Industrial France: The Making of a New Laboring Class (Philadelphia, 1983)Google Scholar.

34 See, Le President du Conseil, Ministre des affaires étrangers à Monsieur le Prefet de la Loire, 8 février, 1924, Archives départementales de la Loire (ADL), Msup520.

35 M. Louis Lemarchand (Patron – filateur et tisseur de cot on, Rouen, Normandy), p. 169. du Travail, Ministére, Vingt-Sixième session, Novembre 1922 (Paris, 1923)Google Scholar.

36 Cross, Immigrant Workers, p. 160.

37 A distinguishing feature of French unemployment in the inter-war period was its concentration among younger and older workers as French employers did everything that they could to retain adult males with families against the possibility of future labor shortages. In contrast to England and the United States, French employers discharged disproportionately large numbers of the elderly while seldom substituting younger (and more mobile) workers for mature adults. See Letelier, Gabrille, Perret, Jean, Zuber, H. E. and Dauphin-Meunier, A., Le Chöage en France de 1930 à 1931, tome 1 (Paris, 1938), pp. 71–79Google Scholar.

38 ADL Msup550.

39 Letelier et al., Le Chòmage en France de 1930 à 1931, tome 1, pp. 130 and 137.

40 See de Wenden, Catherine Wihtol, Les immigrés et la politique: Cent cinquante ans d'évolution (Paris, 1988)Google Scholar, ch. 2. Marcel Livian has attempted to rebut the accusations of Jean-Charles Bonnet and others that the Blum government was unreceptive to the needs of migrants, but his response is entirely unpersuasive except in so far as he points out the Blum government's concern with political refugees. See Livian, , Le Parti socialiste et l'immigration: Le gouvernement Léon Blum, la main-d'oeuvre immigrée et les refugies politiques (1920s–1940) (Paris, 1982)Google Scholar.

41 See Bonnet, Jean-Charles, Les pouvoirs publics français et I'simmigration dans I'entre deux guerres (Lyon, 1976), pp. 272–280Google Scholar.

42 Schor, Ralph, L'Opinion française et les érangers en France 1919–1939 (Paris, 1985), pp. 561–565Google Scholar.

43 See chapter V, “‘Liberty’ defending democracy”, in Jackson, Julian, The Popular Front in France Defending Democracy, 1834–38 (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 149–158Google Scholar.

44 Schor, L'Opinion française, p. 596.

45 Noiriel, Gérard, Longwy immigrés et prolétaires 1880s–1980 (Paris, 1984), pp. 306–309Google Scholar.

46 Shennan, Andrew, Rethinking France: Plans for Renewal 1940–1946 (Oxford, 1989), pp. 221–223Google Scholar.

47 Laroque, Pierre, “Chapter Seven: Social Security in France”, in Jackson, Shirley (ed.), Social Security in International Perspective (New York, 1969), pp. 171–189Google Scholar. On' the post-war programs of French political parties, see Shennan, Rethinking France.

48 Despite the dramatic decrease in intercontinental migration caused by World War I and the American immigration laws of the 1920s, England and France had very different experiences from those of New York: in 1930, 33.1 per cent of the New York population was born outside the United States. The inter-war crisis led to a wave of increased immigration to France; in 1931, 12.1 per cent of the Parisian population was born outside France, but it had no impact on England, where 5.2 per cent of the population was born outside the United Kingdom, with 1.2 per cent of this foreign-born population coming from the Irish Free State. The numbers of children aged 10–14 available to do sweated labor remained high in New York City, despite World War I and the imposition of migration restrictions in the 1920s. The percentage of children aged 10–14 of the foreign-born parents among the total second generation population in the 1920s was 14.5 per cent, in 1930 it was 14.1 per cent. All information comes from national censuses for the three nations.

49 See Butler, Elizabeth Beardsley, Women and the Trades, The Pittsburgh Survey 1 (New York, 1909)Google Scholar. See also Schatz, Ronald, The Electrical Workers of General Electric and Westinghouse, 1923–1960 (Urbana, 1983)Google Scholar, ch. 2.

50 See US Senate, Report on Condition of Employment in the Iron and Steel Industry III, US Senate Document 110, 62d Congress, first session, Appendix C: “Characteristics of the Labor Force in a Representative Steel Plant in the Pittsburgh District” (Washington, 1913), pp. 479–480. In this report, the Pittsburgh district refers to an industrial area beyond Allegheny County; it included the steel producing communities around Youngstown, Ohio, and in West Virginia.

51 On the history of unionizing by the Amalgamated Steel and Iron Workers, see among others, Fitch, John, The Steel Workers, The Pittsburgh Survey 2 (New York, 1911)Google Scholar; David Brody, Steelworkers in America, the Non-union Era; Brody, Labor in Crisis.

52 Shergold, Peter R., Working Class Life: The “American Standard” In Comparative Perspective, 1899–1913 (Pittsburgh, 1982), pp. 40Google Scholar, 41; see also J. T. Holdsworth, “Report of the Economic Survey of Pittsburgh”, 1911 (Archives of Industrial Society, University of Pittsburgh), p. 142; Kellogg, Paul (ed.), Wage-Earning Pittsburgh, The Pittsburgh Survey. (New York, 1914), p. 37Google Scholar.

53 Shergold, Working-Class Life, p. 40.

54 Keyssar, Alex, Out to Work: The First Century of Unemployment in Massachusetts (Cambridge, 1986)Google Scholar.

55 Mink, Gwendolyn, Old Labor and New Immigrants in American Political Development: Union, Party and State, 1875–1920 (Ithaca, NY, 1986)Google Scholar. At the end of the nineteenth, and during the early twentieth, century the National Labor Tribune, the Pittsburgh labor weekly put out by AFL unions, ran a limited number of stories on national news which they believed were relevant for their readers – the fate of legislation on industrial protectionism, efforts to elevate standards of children's education, mothers' pensions, protective hours legislation for women and immigration restriction.

56 On steel, see Brody, Labor in Crisis; Daniel Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, p. 47. See also Fitch, The Steel Workers, The Pittsburgh Survey 2, Appendix II, for rules and regulations of the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers with respect to benefits, especially pp. 270–277. On the unions' suspicion of the employers' motives for offering benefits, see chapters XV and XVI.

57 See Salvatore, Nick, “Some Thoughts on Class and Citizenship in the Late Nineteenth Century”, in Debouzy, Marianne (ed.), In the Shadow of the Statue of Liberty: Immigrants, Workers and Citizens in the American Republic, 1880–1920 (Urbana, 1992), pp. 211–228Google Scholar and Catherine Collamp, “Union, Civics and National Identity: Organized Labor's Reaction to Immigration, 1881–1897”, in In the Shadow of the Statue, pp. 229–255.

58 Ringenbach, Paul T., Tramps and Reformers, 1876–1916: The Discovery of Unemployment in New York, (Westport, CT, 1973), p. 143. Devine quoted and paraphrasedGoogle Scholar.

59 SeeIbid. This partly explains th e tone surrounding the discussion of new immigrants in the famous US Immigration Commission reports made to the Congress in 1910.

60 Leiserson, William, Adjusting Immigrant and Industry (New York, 1924)Google Scholar. See Ringen-bach, Tramps and Reformers, ch. 4, on the efforts of the Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society to relocate Russian Jews on farm land in New Jersey.

61 See “Report of the Economic Survey of Pittsburgh”, 1911, pp. 142, 143.

62 Rubinow, Isaac, Social Insurance (New York, 1913)Google Scholarand Seager, Henry, Social Insurance: A Program of Social Reform (New York, 1910)Google Scholar. See also Ringenbach, Tramps and Reformers; Lubove, Roy, The Struggle for Social Security, 1900–1935 (Cambridge, 1968)Google Scholar, ch. VII; Nelson, Daniel, Unemployment Insurance: The American Experience 1915–1935 (Madison, WI, 1969)Google Scholar.

63 SeeIbid. See also Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, MA, 1992), ch. 3Google Scholar.

64 Ibid.

65 See Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, ch. 2; see also Jacoby, Sanford M., Employing Bureaucracy: Managers, Unions and the Transformation of Welfare in American Industry (New York, 1985)Google Scholar; Jacoby, , “Employers and the Welfare State: The Role of Marion B. Folsom”, Journal of American History, 80:2 (09 1993), pp. 525–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schatz, Ronald, The Electrical Workers (Urbana, 1983)Google Scholar; Eggert, Gerald G., Steelmasters and Labor Reform: 1886–1923 (Pittsburgh, 1981)Google Scholar; Dawley, Alan, Struggles for Justice: Social Responsibility and the Liberal State (Cambridge, MA, 1991)Google Scholar.

66 On steel see Brody, Labor in Crisis.

67 Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, p. 47.

68 Ibid., p. 81.

69 Fraser, Steven, Labor Will Rule, Sidney Hillman and the Rise of American Labor (New York, 1991), p. 217Google Scholar.

70 See Nelson, Unemployment Insurance.

71 On “mobilization”, see Tilly, Charles, From Mobilization to Revolution (Reading, MA, 1978)Google Scholar. The idea of a “political opportunity structure” draws on the work of McAdam, Doug, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970 (Chicago, 1982)Google Scholar. See also the idea o f “critical junctures” developed by Berins, RuthCollier, and Collier, David, Shaping the Political Arena (Princeton, 1991)Google Scholar.

72 Hamer, D. A., John Morley: Liberal Intellectual in Politics (Oxford, 1968), pp. 255–266Google Scholar.

73 “Trade Unionism and Tariff Reform”, London, 17 May 1905, in Boyd, Charles W. (ed.), Mr.Chamberlain's Speeches (London, 1914), pp. 324–325Google Scholar.

74 In November 1885 Sir William Harcourt had written that “The rapid conversion o f the Tories to Radical measures quickens the speed of Radical progress”, Hamer, Liberal Politics, p. 220.

75 Cronin, James E., The Politics of State Expansion: War, State and Society in Twentieth-Century Britain (London, 1991)Google Scholar. On the evolution of wartime policy see Brooke, Stephen, Labour's War: The Labour Party during the Second World War (Oxford, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

76 Greenwood had been involved in the planning for reconstruction during World War I and was determined to avoid the problems that caused its failure. See Johnson, Paul Barton, Land Fit for Heroes: The Planning of British Reconstruction 1916–1919 (Chicago, 1968)Google Scholar.

77 Addison, The Road to 1945, p. 134.

78 Calder, Angus, The People's War: Britain 1939–1945 (London, 1992), p. 533Google Scholar.

79 Griffiths, James, Pages from Memory (London, 1969), p. 84Google Scholar. The problem was that it proved impossible to reconcile “bringing everyone in “ with Beveridge's other principles, with his plan's commitment to equal benefits for all interruptions of earnings, flat rate payments and flat rate benefits, and a basic subsistence income: Harris, José, “Social Planning in War-time: Some Aspects of the Beveridge Report”, in War and Economic Development: Essays in Memory of David Joslin (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 239–256Google Scholar. In the end they were not all brought in and those who were not brought in did not receive a subsistence income. Unlike almost every other category of worker, married women who returned to work were not required to contribute and were not paid full benefits if they did. Unmarried mothers were not eligible for insurance benefits, and Beveridge even proposed that separated or divorced women should only be eligible for benefits if the marriage breakdown was in no way their fault: Wilson, Elizabeth, Women and the Welfare State (London, 1977), pp. 149–151Google Scholar.

80 Beveridge, William H., Full Employment in a Free Society (New York, 1945), p. 260Google Scholar. On Beveridge, Harris, José, William Beveridge: A Biography (Oxford, 1977)Google Scholar.

81 Beveridge, Full Employment in a Free Society, p. 258.

82 See Foote, Geoffrey, The Labour Party's Political Thought: A History (London, c. 1985), pp. 173–186Google Scholar.

83 Morgan, Kenneth O., Labour in Power 1945–1951 (Oxford, 1985), p. 138Google Scholar.

84 See Kloppenberg, James T., Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870–1920 (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar. Kloppenberg is wrong, however, to assimilate the English New Liberalis and French Solidarism to Social Democracy. The differences between the New Liberals and social democracy can be seen most clearly in England, where New Liberals surviving into the mid-twentieth century voted for the Conservatives. This division is explored in Freeden, Michael, Liberalism Divided: A Study in British Political Thought, 1914–1939 (Oxford, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83 Warwick, Paul, The French Popular Front: A Legislative Analysis (Chicago, 1977)Google Scholar.

86 On early nineteenth-century “social Catholicism” see Lynch, Katherine, Family, Class, and Ideology in Early Industrial France: Social Policy and the Working Class Family 1825–1848 (Madison, 1988)Google Scholar and Talmy, Robert, Aux sources de Catholicisme social (Tournai, 1963)Google Scholar.

87 Fontanille, Henri, Loeuvre sociale d' Albert de Mun (Paris, 1926), p. 92Google Scholar.

88 A classic study which shows the similarities of middle-class reformists who were divided by their perspectives on the Church and parliamentary government in the 1930s is Bayle, Jean-Louis Loubet del, Les non-conformistes des années 30: Un tentative de renouvellement de la pensde francaise (Paris, 1976)Google Scholar.

89 Gibson, Ralph, A Social History of French Catholicism, 1789–1914 (London, 1989), pp. 193–226Google Scholar.

90 On the Communist side, see Murphy, Francis J., Communists and Catholics in France, 1936–1939: The Politics of the Outstretched Hand (Gainesville, 1989)Google Scholar. Better for the Catholic side is Christophc, Paul, 1936: Les catholiques et le Front populaire (Paris, 1986)Google Scholar.

91 The best study of the creation of the French welfare state remains Galant, Henry C., Histoire politique de la sicuriti sociale francaise 1945–1952 (Paris, 1955)Google Scholar.

92 Durand, Paul, La politique contemporaine de sicurite' sociale (Paris, 1953)Google Scholar.

93 A point made, among others, by Heidenheimer, Arnold J., “Secularization Patterns and the Westward Spread of the Welfare State, 1883–1983: Two Dialogues about Ho w and Why Britain, the Netherlands, and the United States have Differed”, in “The Welfare State, 1883–1983”, Comparative Social Research, 6 (1983), pp. 3–37Google Scholar.

94 Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, pp. 137–145.

95 See ibid., pp. 141–142; National Industrial Conference Board, Unemployment Benefits and Insurance (New York, 1931)Google Scholar, Introduction, part II; see also Gordon, Colin, New Deals, Business, Labor and Politics in America, 1920–1935 (Cambridge, 1994)Google Scholar, ch. 7.

96 See ibid., p. 143. See also Jacoby, “Employers and the Welfare State”, p. 536.

97 See, for example, the National Industrial Conference Board's endorsement of corporate schemes, and admonition against government programs in the 1931 report, Unemployment Benefits and Insurance, “Summary and Conclusions”, pp. 117–127.

98 See Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, pp. 141–145; Jacoby, “Employers and the Welfare State”, pp. 538–541.

99 See Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, pp. 142, 143.

100 See ibid., p. 143; Jacoby, “Employers and the Welfare State”, p. 538; Fraser, Labor Will Rule, ch. 10.

101 Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, p. 155.

102 See ibid., p. 156; Fraser, Labor Will Rule, p. 278.

103 See Casebeer, Kenneth, “The Worker's Unemployment Insurance Bill: American Social Wage, Labor Organization, and Legal Ideology”, in Tomlin, Christopher L. and King, Andrew J., Labor Law in America: Historical and Critical Essays (Baltimore, 1990), pp. 231–259Google Scholar, espedally pp. 232 and 245; Montgomery, David, “Labor and the Political Leadership of New Deal America”, International Review of Social History, 39 (1994), pp. 348–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

104 See Casebeer, “The Worker's Unemployment Insurance Bill”, pp. 238, 248.

105 Nelson, Unemployment Insurance; Lubove, The Struggle, p. 171.

106 Fraser, Labor Will Rule, pp. 273, 274.

107 See Montgomery, “Labor and the Political Leadership”, pp. 347–353; Gordon, New Deals, ch. 7. For recent interpretations which conclude that labor was able to influence and benefit from New Deal legislation in meaningful ways, see Dubovsky, Melvyn, The State and Labor in Modern America (Chapel Hill, 1994)Google Scholar; Cohen, Lisabeth, Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919–1939 (Cambridge, 1990)Google Scholar.

108 “Constitution and Platform: Unemployed Citizens' League of Allegheny County”, preamble, p. 2 (Archives of Industrial Society, University of Pittsburgh).

109 Along these lines it is important to note, as Kenneth Casebeer points out, that the only substantive difference between the Trade Union Councils radical insurance bill and the version introduced in Congress by Lundeen was that, in the Congressman's version, workers benefits were limited to American citizens. “The Workers Unemployment Insurance Bill”, p. 248.

110 On the discriminatory effects of unemployment insurance policy as it was embodied in the Social Security Act see, among others, Nelson, Barbara, “The Origins of the Two-Channel Welfare State: Workmen's Compensation and Mothers' Aid”, in Gordon, Linda (ed.), Women, the State and Welfare (Madison, 1990), pp. 123–151Google Scholarand Pearce, Diana M., “Toil and Trouble: Women Workers and Unemployment Compensation”, Signs, 10 (Spring 1985), pp. 439–459Google Scholar. Alice Kessler-Harris has recently shown that the Social Security Amendments of 1939, which provided pension benefits for widows, were designed to reinforce traditional gender roles, with additional money being rewarded to mostly white, male pensioners, to cover their wives in widowhood, rather than through extended greater benefits to female wage earners, or, for that matter, by broadening the categories of workers covered by social security in the jobs heavily dominated by women and minorities. See “Designing Women and Old Fools: The Construction of the Social Security Amendments of 1939”, in Kerber, Linda, Kessler-Harris, Alice and Sklar, Kathryn Kish (eds), U.S. History as Women's History: New Feminist Essays (Chapel Hill, 1995), pp. 87–104Google Scholar. While Kessler-Harris argues that this is evidence of the way in which gendered policies were used not as a surrogate for class, as Kathryn Sklar has argued (see “Two Political Cultures”, in U.S. History As Women's History, p. 41), but as a vehicle for weakening efforts to broaden coverage of the working class and of minorities. One could argue that class power still remained salient, since those who reaped the benefits were the families among organized labor, along with others covered by social security pensions. In European countries, with stronger class movements, widows' pensions were handled in the same manner – by increasing benefits of married men to cover their wives.

111 Skocpol, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers. especially part 2 and the Conclusion.

112 See ibid., part 2. See also Lubove, The Struggle', Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, ch. 6.

113 Seeibid.

114 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Labor and Industry, Unemployment Compensation Law, 1 December 1938; Van Fleet, Josephine, “An Appraisal of the United States-Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Program” (M.A., University of Pittsburgh, 1938), pp. 2Google Scholar, 3; Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, pp. 189, 190.

115 See Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, ch. 9; Lubove, The Struggle, Conclusion.

116 Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, p. 209.

117 National Resources Planning Board, Security, Work and Relief Policies (Washington, 1942), p. 70Google Scholar. Marion Folsom was dismayed to discover that in New York, Kodak would have to live under conditions closer to the Ohio scheme, rather than the more business-oriented Wisconsin plan. See Jacoby, “Employers and the Welfare State”, p. 541.

118 Laclau, Ernesto and Mouffe, Chantal, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (London, 1985)Google Scholar; Mouffe, Chantal (ed.), Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, and Community (London, 1992)Google Scholar and Mouffe, Chantal, The Return of the Political (London, 1993)Google Scholar. See also Aronowitz, Stanley, “The Situation of the Left in the United States”, Socialist Review, 23 (1993), pp. 5–80Google Scholar, and the responses to these, particularly those by Ehrenreich, Epstein, Flacks and Zaretsky. Scholars who have been influenced by Marshall include: Hollifield, James F., Immigrants, Markets and States; The Political Economy of Postwar Europe (Cambridge, MA, 1992)Google Scholar; Offe, Claus, “A Non-Productivist Design for Social Policies”, in Coenen, Harry and Leisink, Peter (eds), Work and Citizenship in the New Europe (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 215–232Google Scholar; Roche, Maurice, Rethinking Citizenship: Welfare, Ideology and Change in Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1992)Google Scholar; and Turner, Bryan, Citizenship and Capitalism: The Debate over Reformism (London, 1986)Google Scholar.

119 Kitschelt, Herbert, The Transformation of European Social Democracy (Cambridge, 1994), p. 300CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

120 Mouffe, “Feminism, Citizenship and Politics”, in The Return of the Political, p. 84.

121 Anna Clarke also critiques Mouffe. Discourses do not determine politics, according to Clark, but, rather, power relations and political goals, such as the maintenance of male dominance, determine the kind of politics of discourse chosen by those putting forth political demands. See Clarke, , The Struggle for the Breeches: Gender and the Making of the Working Class, 1790–1840 (Berkeley, 1995), p. 9Google Scholar.

122 The most complete discussion of how these factors combined to leave women vulnerable in the construction of social security benefits can be found in Gordon, Linda, Pitied But Not Entitled: Single Women and the History of Welfare (New York, 1994), chs 7–9Google Scholar.

123 On migration to England from the Irish Republic, see Kathleen Paul, “A Case of Mistaken Identity: The Irish in Post-War Britain”, International Labor and Working-Class History (forthcoming).

124 See Meehan, Elizabeth, Citizenship and the European Community (London, 1993)Google Scholar.

125 Hammar, Tomas, Democracy, and the Nation State: Aliens, Denizens and Citizens in a World of International Migration (Aldershot, 1990)Google Scholar.

126 See Miller, Mark J., Foreign Workers in Western Europe: An Emerging Political Force (New York, 1981)Google Scholar.

127 Faist, Thomas, “Transnationalizing Labor Markets and Social Rights in Europe”, unpublished paper delivered at the conference on “Markets, States, and Social Citizenship: European Economic and Political Integration, 1900–1955”, New School for Social Research, New York, 05 1994Google Scholar.

128 See Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoglu, Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Member-ship in Europe (Chicago, 1994)Google Scholar.