Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Welfare Politics in Congress

  • Lawrence M. Mead (a1)

The stakes of political conflict involve contending values and issue definitions as well as policy. Welfare reform was the most important change in American domestic policy since civil rights. Its significance hinges crucially on how participants understood the issue, but existing research fails to resolve what their perceptions were. Most accounts suggest that welfare reform was an ideological contest concerning the proper scope of government, but there are other views. This study gauges the welfare agenda rigorously by coding speakers in congressional hearings on the basis of how they framed the issue and the position they took on it during the six chief episodes of welfare reform that occurred between 1962 and 1996. The reform efforts aroused four distinct divisions. Over time, positions moved rightward, but more important, the dominant issue changed: The ideological debate about government was overtaken by a more practical debate about how to manage welfare. This is the first study to track the substantive meaning of any issue in Congress over an extended period of time using hearing witnesses and a preset analytic scheme.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Lisa A. Bero , Theresa Montini , Katherine Bryan-Jones , and Christina Mangurian . 2001. “Science in Regulatory Policy Making: Case Studies in the Development of Workplace Smoking Restrictions.” Tobacco Control 10: 329–36.

Paul Burstein , and Marie Bricher . 1997. “Problem Definition and Public Policy: Congressional Committees Confront Work, Family, and Gender, 1945–1990.” Social Forces 76: 135–68.

Paul Burstein , R. Marie Bricher , and Rachel L. Einwohner . 1995. “Policy Alternatives and Political Change: Work, Family, and Gender on the Congressional Agenda, 1945–1990.” American Sociological Review 60: 6783.

Paul Burstein , and C. Elizabeth Hirsh . 2007. “Interest Organization, Information, and Policy Innovation in the U.S. Congress.” Sociological Forum 22: 4469.

Jacob Cohen . 1960. “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 20: 3746.

Steven L. Del Sesto 1980b. “Nuclear Reactor Safety and the Role of the Congressman: A Content Analysis of Congressional Hearings.” Journal of Politics 42: 227–41.

Martin Gilens . 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jeffrey Grogger , and Lynn A. Karoly . 2005. Welfare Reform: Effects of a Decade of Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shanto Iyengar . 1989. “How Citizens Think about Issues: A Matter of Responsibility.” American Journal of Political Science 33: 878900.

Shanto Iyengar . 1990. “Framing Responsibility for Political Issues: The Case of Poverty.” Political Behavior 12: 1940.

Ivar Lødemel , and Heather Trickey . 2001. “An Offer You Can't Refuse”: Workfare in International Perspective. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Fiona Ross . 2000. “Framing Welfare Reform in Affluent Societies: Rendering Restructuring More Palatable?Journal of Public Policy 20: 169–93.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

PS: Political Science & Politics
  • ISSN: 1049-0965
  • EISSN: 1537-5935
  • URL: /core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 6
Total number of PDF views: 35 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 136 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 29th June 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.