Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:43:10.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Stratification of Social Citizenship: Gender and Federalism in the Formation of Old Age Insurance and Aid to Dependent Children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

Suzanne Mettler
Suzanne Mettler
Affiliation:
Syracuse University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recently, scholars have shown that welfare state development, across nations, has often incorporated social groups in distinct ways that stratify and divide the citizenry.1 Citizenship has become stratified in terms of gender as policymakers have treated men and women differently in the policymaking process, perpetuating ascribed roles and institutionalizing gender inequality. The American welfare state that was fashioned in the New Deal has long been regarded as a “two-tiered” system that divided men and women as “social citizens,” incorporating them into distinct types of programs for economic security and welfare. How was such stratification of citizenship created in the course of the policymaking process? Some scholars have surmised that policymakers' ideas about gender were responsible for gendered outcomes; others have suggested that preexisting institutional arrangements foreordained the “two-tiered” results. Neither of these approaches, however, has offered an adequate explanation.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Policy History , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , January 1999 , pp. 31 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Esping-Andersen, Gosta, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Princeton, 1990)Google Scholar.

2. For a comprehensive review of literature on gender and welfare states, see Orloff, Ann, “Gender in the Welfare State,” American Sociological Review 22 (1996): 51–78Google Scholar . On citizenship, gender, and welfare states, see Lake, Marilyn, guest editor, “Citizenship: Intersections of Gender, Race, and Ethnicity,” Special Issue, Social Politics 2 (Summer 1995)Google Scholar ; Orloff, Ann Shola, “Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: The Comparative Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States” American Sociological Review 58 (June 1993): 303–28Google Scholar ; Vogel, Ursula, “Is Citizenship Gender-Specific?” in Trie Frontiers of Citizenship, ed. Vogel, Ursula and Moran, Michael (New York, 1991)Google Scholar ; Sainshury, Diane, ed., Gendering Welfare States (London, 1994)Google Scholar ; Sainsbury, Diane, Gender, Equality, and Welfare States (Cambridge, 1996)Google Scholar.

3. “Social citizenship” refers to the incorporation of legal citizens into the polity through programs for economic security and welfare. See Walzer, Michael, Spheres of Justice (New York, 1983), 64–94Google Scholar ; Marshall, T. H. “Citizenship and Social Class,” in Class, Citizenship, and Social Development (New York, 1965), 65–122Google Scholar ; Shklar, Judith, American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion (Cambridge, Mass., 1991)Google Scholar . On the “two-tiered” character of the New Deal welfare state in relation to gender, see Fraser, Nancy, Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory (Minneapolis, 1989)Google Scholar , and Nelson, Barbara J., “The Origins of the Two-Channel Welfare State: Workmen's Compensation and Mothers Aid,” in Women, the State, and Welfare, ed. Gordon, Linda (Madison, Wis., 1990)Google Scholar.

4. In the 1960s, ADC was altered to become Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). AFDC endured until it was dissolved through the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996. The SSA also included Old Age Assistance (OAA), which was transformed into Supplemental Security Income (SSI) in 1974, and Unemployment Insurance (UI), which, though amended, remains intact.

5. Skocpol, Theda, “The Limits of the New Deal System and the Roots of Contemporary Welfare Dilemmas,” in The Politics of Social Policy in the United States, ed. Weir, Margaret, Orloff, Ann Shola, and Skocpol, Theda (Princeton, 1988), 293–312Google Scholar ; Lieberman, Robert C., “Race and the Organization of Welfare Policy,” in Classifying by Race, ed. Peterson, Paul E. (Princeton, 1995), 156–87Google Scholar ; Quadagno, Jill, “From Old-Age Assistance to Supplemental Security Income: The Political Economy of Relief in the South, 1935-1972,” in The Politics of Social Policy in the United States, 293–312Google Scholar.

6. The concept of “unintended consequences” is hardly new in the analysis of public policy development, but the relevance of institutional administrative arrangements to such outcomes has not been examined sufficiently, and the unintended consequences of policy design for gender have been ignored entirely. Typically, in the public choice approach to policy analysis, the term “unintended consequences” is used to refer to “externalities,” otherwise known as impacts that affect those who did not consent to them. Such effects are usually understood as resulting from unanticipated environmental effects. See Weimer, David L. and Vining, Aidan R., Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1992), 57–62Google Scholar ; greater attention to bureaucratic arrangements is offered on pp. 131-43. This emphasis on “side-effects” overlooks, however, many of the ways in which institutional arrangements for policy delivery may have unexpected consequences even for those who are the intended recipients. Some political scientists have been more attentive to institutional effects, but the predominant literature has focused on the implementation process. The classic study in this regard is Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Wildavsky, Aaron, Implementation (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1974)Google Scholar ; see also Lowi, Theodore J., Ginsberg, Benjamin, et al. Poliscide (Lanham, Md., 1990)Google Scholar . Neither of these approaches gives much heed to the politics of policy design, and thus they neglect to explain how such seemingly irrational decisions were made. The best of the recent literature on policy design, though it departs from the public choice assumptions about selfinterested individuals seeking to maximize utility, still largely overlooks the importance of institutional arrangements for policy delivery. See Schneider, Anne L. and Ingram, Helen, “Policy Design: Elements, Premises, and Strategies,” in Policy Theory and Policy Evaluation, ed. Nagel, Stuart S. (Westport, Conn., 1990), 77–101Google Scholar ; idem, “Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy,” American Political Science Review 87 (June 1993): 334–47Google Scholar . Thus, this article attempts what has not been done elsewhere: to examine how policy officials make decisions about institutional arrangements that subsequently result in unintended consequences, in this case in terms of gender.

7. For a full analysis of the implementation and implications of each program in terms of gender, see Mettler, Suzanne, Dividing Citizens: Gender and Federalism in New Deal Public Policy (Ithaca, N.Y., 1998)Google Scholar.

8. Gordon, Linda, Pitied But Not Entitled: Single Mothers and the History of Welfare, 1890-1935 (New York, 1994)Google Scholar ; see also Muncy, Robyn, Creating a Female Dominion in American Reform, 1890-1935 (New York, 1991)Google Scholar ; Kessler-Harris, Alice, “Designing Women and Old Fools: The Construction of the Social Security Amendments of 1939,” in U.S. History as Women's History, ed. Kerber, Linda, Kessler-Harris, Alice, and Sklar, Kathryn Kish (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1995), 87–106Google Scholar ; Mink, Gwendolyn, The Wages of Motherhood: Inequality in the Welfare State, 1917–1942 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1995)Google Scholar ; Ladd-Taylor, Molly, Mother-Work: Women, Child Welfare, and the State, 1890-1930 (Urbana, III., 1994)Google Scholar ; Boris, Eileen, Home to Work: Motherhood and the Politics of Industrial Homework in the United States (New York, 1994)Google Scholar.

9. Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, Mass., 1992)Google Scholar ; Orloff, Ann S., “Gender in Early U.S. Social Policy,” Journal of Policy History 3 (1991): 249–81Google Scholar.

10. Skocpol, Theda and Amenta, Edwin, “Did Capitalists Shape Social Security?” American Sociological Review 50 (August 1985): 573CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. See also Theda Skocpol with Ikenberry, G. John, “The Road to Social Security,” in Social Policy in the United States (Princeton, 1995), 158–59Google Scholar.

12. On the interaction of ideas and institutions, and the role of political learning, see Heclo, Hugh, “Ideas, Interests, and Institutions,” in The Dynamics of American Politics, ed. Dodd, Lawrence C. and Jillson, Calvin (Boulder, Colo., 1994), 366–92Google Scholar . See also Smith, Rogers, “Ideas, Institutions, and Strategic Choice,” Polity 28 (Fall 1995): 135–40Google Scholar.

13. Orloff, Ann Shola, The Politics of Pensions: A Comparative Analysis of Britain, Canada, and the United States, 1880-1940 (Madison, Wis., 1993), 121–51Google Scholar ; Skocpol, , Protecting Soldiers and Mothers; Michael B. Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America (New York, 1986)Google Scholar.

14. Holtzman, Abraham, The Townsend Movement: A Political Study (New York, 1963)Google Scholar ; Brinkley, Alan, Voices of Protest: Huey Long, Father Coughlin, and the Great Depression (New York, 1982)Google Scholar.

15. Casebeer, Kenneth, “The Workers' Unemployment Insurance Bill: American Social Wage, Labor Organization, and Legal Ideology,” in Labor Law in America, ed. Tomlins, Christopher and King, Andrew (Baltimore, 1992)Google Scholar.

16. Perkins, Frances, The Roosevelt I Knew (New York, 1946), 284–85Google Scholar.

17. Roosevelt, Franklin D., “Message to Congress Reviewing the Broad Objectives and Accomplishments of the Administration, June 8, 1934,”Google Scholar in National Conference on Social Welfare, ed. The Report of the Committee on Economic Security of 1935 and Other Basic Documents Relating to the Development of the Social Security Act (Washington, D.C., 1985), 138Google Scholar.

18. One public assistance program, Old Age Assistance, was also considered to be the appropriate source of aid for retired wage-earners until the contributory program itself matured. Social Security Board (SSB), Social Security in America: The Factual Background of the Social Security Act as Summarized from Staff Reports to the Committee on Economic Security (Washington, D.C., 1937), 189–90Google Scholar.

19. Blau, Francine D. and Ferber, Marianne A., The Economics of Women, Men, and Work (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1986), 70Google Scholar.

20. See Mettler, , Dividing CitizensGoogle Scholar.

21. Roosevelt, , “Message to Congress…June 8, 1934.”Google Scholar

22. Patterson, James T., The New Deal and the States (Princeton, 1969), 3–4Google Scholar ; Reminiscences of Eliot, Thomas H., Oral History Collection of Columbia University (hereafter OHC), 22Google Scholar . It should be noted that the oral history sources used here and below are “reminiscences” through which policy officials, some two to three decades after the creation of the Social Security Act, engaged in retrospective explanations of their behavior. It is possible that these actors had come to justify their prior behavior in light of the effects of the policies in the course of implementation. Therefore, these sources have been used cautiously, most always in combination with other sources that corroborate the evidence they present.

23. Committee on Economic Security (CES), “The Report on Economic Security,” in The Report of the Committee on Economic Security of 1935, ed. National Conference on Social Welfare, 4–5Google Scholar ; Orloff, Ann Shola, “The Political Origins of America's Belated Welfare State,” in The Politics of Social Policy, ed. Orloff, Weir, and Skocpol, , 37–80Google Scholar . See also Reminiscences of Arthur J. Altmeyer, OHC, 105, 187–88Google Scholar ; Skocpol, and Amenta, , “Did Capitalists Shape Social Security?” 572–75Google Scholar.

24. Coll, Blanche D., Safety Net: Welfare and Social Security, 1929-1979 (New Brunswick, N.J., 1995), 21–33Google Scholar ; Patterson, , The New Deal and the States, chap. 3Google Scholar ; Gordon, , Pitied But Not Entitled, 188–91Google Scholar.

25. Just how much the Supreme Court might attempt to restrain national policymaking was not yet clear at this point. In fact, Court decisions in 1934 suggested that a majority of the Court might view the New Deal with sympathy. See Kelly, Alfred H., Harbison, Winfred A., and Belz, Herman, eds., The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development, vol. 2 (New York, 1991), 475Google Scholar . Only in 1935, after the Roosevelt administration's Economic Security Bill had already been sent to Congress, did the Court begin to overturn important pieces of New Deal legislation. The most important examples are Schecter Poultry Co. v. United States 295 U.S. 495 (1935), through which the National Industrial Recovery Act was declared unconstitutional, and United States v. Butler 297 U.S. 1 (1936), in which the Agricultural Adjustment Act suffered the same fate. Because of this timing, scholars must be careful not to overstate the role of Supreme Court scrutiny in shaping decisions by the Committee on Economic Security.

26. “Extract from a Memorandum by Jane Perry Clark on Analysis of Types of Federal State Relationships in Relation to a Program of Economic Security,” Jane Perry Clark file, Records of the Committee on Economic Security (CES), Staff Reports, 1934-35, box 17, Records of the Social Security Administration (SSA), Record Group (RG) 47, National Archives (NA) ; Perkins, , The Roosevelt I Knew, 286–87Google Scholar.

27. Perkins, , The Roosevelt I Knew, 286–92Google Scholar ; Witte, Edwin, Development of the Social Security Act (Madison, Wis., 1962), 50–66Google Scholar , 116-18.

28. Gordon, , Pitied But Not Entitled, 146Google Scholar.

29. Reminiscences of Eveline Burns, OHC, 52

30. Armstrong, Barbara Nachtrieb, Insuring the Essentials: Minimum Wage Plus Social Insurance—A Living Wage Program (New York, 1932), xvii, 436Google Scholar ; Reminiscences of Eveline Burns, 52.

31. Armstrong, Barbara Nachtrieb, “Memorandum on Section 5: Old Age Retirement,” 3–4Google Scholar , CES, Staff Reports, 1934-35, box 23, RG 47, NA ; Bernstein, Irving, A Caring Society, 50Google Scholar.

32. Armstrong, , Insuring the Essentials, 145–48Google Scholar.

33. See Armstrong, Barbara Nachtrieb, “Possibilities of a Unified System of Insurance Against Loss of Earnings,” pp. 1–4Google Scholar , 8, CES, Staff Reports, 1934-35, box 17, RG 47, NA; idem , “Estimated Number of Workers Covered by Old Age Annuity System,” CES, Staff Correspondence, 1934-35, box 12, RG 47, NA ; Brown, J. Douglas and Armstrong, Barbara Nachtrieb, “Plan for Federal Compulsory Contributory Pension Insurance,” CES, Staff Reports, 1934-1935, box 17, RG 47, NAGoogle Scholar.

34. See Reminiscences of Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong, OHC, 98.

35. Reminiscences of Eveline Burns, 52-55.

36. Armstrong, , “Memorandum on Section 5: Old Age Retirement,” p. 1Google Scholar , CES, Staff Reports, 1934-35, box 1, RG 47, NA.

37. “Summary of Discussion of the Old Age Security Committee of the Technical Board,” 26 September 1934, CES, General Records of the Executive Director and Staff, box 1, RG 47, NA; Reminiscences of Thomas H. Eliot, 30 ; Altmeyer, Arthur J., The Formative Years of Social Security (Madison, Wis., 1966), 25Google Scholar.

38. Reminiscences of Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong, 74-76.

39. Martin, , Madam Secretary, 348Google Scholar ; Reminiscences of Thomas H. Eliot, 29-30.

40. Memo from Dudley O. McGovney for Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong, “Answer to Questions on Constitutional Chances of Three Schemes Outlined in Mr. Thomas H. Eliot's Memorandum,” 22 October 1934, CES, Staff Correspondence, 1934-35, box 12, RG 47, NA.

41. Reminiscences of Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong, 76, 93, 95.

42. “Outline of Old Age Security Program Proposed by Staff,” 9 November 1934, CES, General Records of the Executive Director and Staff, 1934-35, box 1, RG 47, NA ; Brown, J. Douglas, An American Philosophy of Social Security (Princeton, 1972), 9–16Google Scholar.

43. Letter and attached speech, Edwin Witte to Frances Perkins, 10 November 1934, p. 3, CES, Correspondence Regarding Proposals for the Economic Security Program, 1934-35, box 55, RG 47, NA.

44. Brown, , An American Philosophy of Social Security, 16–17Google Scholar ; Reminiscences of Barbara Nachtreib Armstrong, 68, 104-5.

45. Letters, Witte to Frankfurter, 19 November 1934, CES, Correspondence Regarding Proposals for the Economic Security Program, 1934-35, box 56, RG 47, NA.

46. Reminiscences of Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong, 82-83, 156-57, 168 ; Brown, , An American Philosophy of Social Security, 21–22Google Scholar.

47. Already, fourteen other nations had enacted old-age insurance plans complete with survivors' insurance, but the CES reported that though such a system was desirable, further investigation was needed before proposing an American counterpart. SSB, Social Security in America, 183, 204.

48. Leff, Mark, “Taxing the ‘Forgotten Man’: The Politics of Social Security Finance in the New Deal,” Journal of American History 70 (September 1983): 378, 381CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49. Brown, , An American Philosophy of Social Security, 20–21Google Scholar ; Reminiscences of Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong, 168.

50. SSB, Social Security in America, 160Google Scholar.

51. Burns, Eveline, Toward Social Security (New York, 1936), 111–12Google Scholar.

52. Goodwin, Joanne L., “An American Experiment in Paid Motherhood: The Implementation of Mothers' Pensions in Early Twentieth-Century Chicago,” Gender and History 4 (Autumn 1992): 330–34Google Scholar ; Gordon, , Pitied But Not Entitled, 49–50Google Scholar ; Douglas, Paul H., Social Security in the United States (New York, 1939), 187–92Google Scholar.

53. Bell, Winifred, Aid to Dependent Children (New York, 1965), 19Google Scholar.

54. Abbott, Grace, “Recent Trends in Mothers' Aid,” Social Service Review 8 (1934): 210Google Scholar ; Costin, Lela B., Two Sisters for Social Justice (Urbana, III., 1983), 208Google Scholar.

55. Reminiscences of Katharine Lenroot, OHC, 33-34, 86.

56. Katharine Lenroot to Grace Abbott, 17 August 1934, Abbott Papers, box 54, file la, Regenstein Library, University of Chicago (hereafter UC); Reminiscences of Katharine Lenroot, 33-34.

57. Memo, From Katharine Lenroot to Mrs. Hopkins, 28 June 1934, box 479, file 0-5-4-10-0, Records of the Children's Bureau, RG 102, NA.

58. Katharine Lenroot to Grace Abbott, 17 August 1934, Abbott Papers, box 54, file la, UC.

59. Lenroot, Katharine, “Preliminary and Confidential Suggestions for Development of a Children's Program as Part of a Federal Security Program,” p. 1Google Scholar , Abbott Papers, box 61, file 3, UC.

60. Katharine Lenroot to Grace Abbott, 3 August 1934, Abbott Papers, box 36, file 3, UC.

61. Lenroot, Katharine, “Special Measures for Children's Security,”Google Scholar Abbott Papers, box 61, file 3, UC; Reminiscences of Katharine Lenroot, 92.

62. Katharine Lenroot to Grace Abbott, 10 January 1935, Abbott Papers, box 61, file 4, UC; SSB, Social Security in America, 288–89Google Scholar.

63. Katharine Lenroot to Grace Abbott, 13 October 1934, Abbott Papers, box 61, folder 3, UC ; Lenroot, Katharine, “Aid to Dependent Children”Google Scholar in SSB, Social Security in America, 248Google Scholar.

64. Reminiscences of Katharine Lenroot, 25, 33 ; Lenroot, Katharine, “Preliminary and Confidential Suggestions,” 3Google Scholar.

65. Lenroot, , “Preliminary and Confidential Suggestions,” 2Google Scholar ; Public Law 271, 74th Cong., 1st sess. (14 August 1935), Social Security Act of 1935, Title IV, Section 402 (a); Burns, , Toward Social Security, 111–12Google Scholar.

66. SSB, Social Security in America, Table 49, 235–36Google Scholar ; testimony of Katharine Lenroot, Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Hearings on the Economic Security Act, H.R. 4120, 74th Cong., 1st sess., 26 January 1935, 267Google Scholar.

67. CES, “Report of the Committee on Economic Security,” 26-27, 36–37Google Scholar.

68. Gordon, , Pitied But Not Entitled, 257Google Scholar.

69. Reminiscences of Katharine Lenroot, 99.

70. Lenroot, , “Preliminary and Confidential Suggestions,” 2Google Scholar.

71. Reminiscences of Katharine Lenroot, 107-11 ; Lenroot, , “Preliminary and Confidential Suggestions,” 4Google Scholar ; Mink, , The Wages of MotherhoodGoogle Scholar , passim ; Gordon, , Pitied But Not Entitled, 102Google Scholar ; Howard, Christopher, “Sowing the Seeds of ‘Welfare’: The Transformation of Mothers' Pensions, 1900-1940,” Journal of Policy History 4 (1992): 210Google Scholar.

72. Public Law 271, title IV, sec. 406(a). The law's broad definition of “dependent children,” “a child under the age of sixteen who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent,” was later drafted by FERA officials and approved by Abbott and Lenroot; it was the latter pair, however, who had already determined that such a standard should function not as a mandate for the states but rather to suggest the broadest possible terms of coverage that states could adopt if they so chose.

73. Abbott, Grace, From Relief to Social Security (New York, 1966), 279–80Google Scholar.

74. A controversy did erupt over ADC at this point, but it did not pertain to matters of national versus state-level authority. Just as the final draft of the CES Bill was being prepared for Congress, officials in FERA tried to wrest administrative authority for ADC from the Children's Bureau. Congress placed the program under the new Social Security Administration, however, rather than giving authority to either FERA or the CB. See Mettler, , Dividing Citizens, chap. 5Google Scholar.

75. Perkins, , The Roosevelt I Knew, 297–98Google Scholar.

76. Public Law 271, title IV, sec. 401.

77. Witte, , Development of the Social Security Act, 164Google Scholar.

78. It should be noted that women who were included in the contributory program by virtue of their marital status were treated differently and less well than men. Still, inclusion in a program with national standards provided them with a form of social citizenship far superior to that of ADC recipients. For men, of course, coverage under OASI continued to be determined, as it had been from the start, by their labor market participation and type of occupation.

79. Schattschneider, E. E., The Semisovereign People (New York, 1960)Google Scholar ; McConnell, Grant, Private Power and American Democracy (New York, 1966)Google Scholar.

80. Tomlins, Christopher L., “Law, Police, and the Pursuit of Happiness in the American Republic,” in Studies in American Political Development 4 (1990): 3–34Google Scholar ; Novak, William J., “Intellectual Origins of the State Police Power: The Common Law Vision of a Well-Regulated Society,” Legal History Program, Working Papers, Series 3 (Madison, Wis.: Institute for Legal Studies, University of Wisconsin, 1989)Google Scholar.

81. Walker, David B., The Rebirth of Federalism (Chatham, N.J., 1995), 69Google Scholar.

82. “County Reports of Administration of Public Assistance Programs,” p. 7, file 620.6/1940, Records of the Executive Director, Subject Files, 1935-40, box 274, RG 47, NA. For a fuller treatment of such rules during this period, see Mettler, , Dividing Citizens, 164–65Google Scholar.

83. Social Security Board (SSB), Bureau of Public Assistance , Families Receiving Aid to Dependent Children, by Leisy, Agnes, October 1942, Part I, Public Assistance Report No. 7, (Washington, D.C.: Social Security Board, Bureau of Public Assistance, 1943)Google Scholar.

84. Bell, , Aid to Dependent Children, 42–48Google Scholar ; Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, Regulating the Poor (New York, 1971), 134–41Google Scholar.

85. Southern states used such procedures to maintain the racial order. See Quadagno, , “From Old-Age Assistance to Supplemental Security Income.”Google Scholar

86. SSB, Bureau of Public Assistance, Families Receiving Aid to Dependent Children, 3–5Google Scholar.

87. Quadagno, , “From Old-Age Assistance to Supplemental Security Income.”Google Scholar

88. SSB, “The Comparability of Public Assistance Payments and Social Insurance Benefits,” by Fisher, Jacob, Social Security Bulletin 7 (December 1944): 11Google Scholar.

89. Robertson, David B. and Judd, Dennis R., The Development of American Public Policy: The Structure of Policy Restraint (Glenview, III., 1989), 31Google Scholar.

90. Robertson, David Brian, “The Bias of American Federalism: The Limits of Welfare-State Development in the Progressive Era,” journal of Policy History 1 (1989): 261–91Google Scholar ; Graebner, William, “Federalism in the Progressive Era: A Structural Interpretation of Reform,” Journal of American History 54 (1977): 331–57Google Scholar.

91. Peterson, Paul E., “Who Should Do What? Divided Responsibility in the Federal System,” Brooldngs Review (Spring 1995): 6–11Google Scholar ; idem , City Limits (Chicago, 1981)Google Scholar.

92. Douglas, , Social Security in the United States, 428Google Scholar.

93. This topic is substantiated more fully in Mettler, , Dividing Citizens, especially 143–79Google Scholar.

94. On these changes, see Davis, Martha F., Brutal Need: Lawyers and the Welfare Rights Movement, 1960-1973 (New Haven, Conn., 1993)Google Scholar ; Piven, Frances Fox and Cloward, Richard A., Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail (New York, 1979), 264–361Google Scholar ; King v. Smith 392 U.S. 309 (1968); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969); Goldberg v. Kelley, 397 U.S. 254(1970).

95. Teles, Steven M., Whose Welfare: AFDC and Elite Politics (Lawrence, Kan., 1996), 119–46Google Scholar ; Lurie, Irene, “State Welfare Policy,” in The State of the States, ed. Horn, Carl E. Van (Washington, D.C., 1996)Google Scholar.

96. For the use of such language, see CES, “Report of the Committee on Economic Security,” 5, 25, 26Google Scholar.