For helpful comments and criticisms, we thank David Menefee-Libey, Lloyd I. Rudolph, Elizabeth Sanders, anonymous reviewers, and the Workshop of American Society and Politics at the Center for the Study of Industrial Societies.

1. For arguments concerning class power and class alliances, see Stephens, John D., The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism (London: Macmillan; Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Esping-Andersen, Gosta, Politics against Markets: The Social Democratic Road to Power (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985)Google Scholar. For arguments concerning the structures of political regimes, political parties, and party systems, see Castles, Francis G., The Social Democratic Image of Society (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1978)Google Scholar; Castles, Francis G., “The Impact of Parties on Public Expenditures,” in The Impact of Parties (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1982), 21–96Google Scholar; Flora, Peter and Alber, Jens, “Modernization, Democratization, and the Development of Welfare States in Western Europe,” in Flora, Peter and Heidenheimer, Arnold, eds., The Development of Welfare State in Europe and America (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1981), 37–80Google Scholar; Wilensky, Harold, The ‘New Corporation,’ Centralization, and the Welfare State (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1976)Google Scholar; Wilensky, Harold, “Leftism, Catholicism, and Democratic Corporatism: The Role of Political Parties in Welfare State Development,” in Flora, Peter and Heidenheimer, Arnold, eds., The Development of Welfare State in Europe and North America (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1981), 341–78Google Scholar; Orloff, Ann Shola and Skocpol, Theda, “Why Not Equal Protection? Explaining the Politics of Public Social Spending in Britain, 1900—1911, and the United States, 1880s–1920,” American Sociological Review 49 (1984): 726–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For arguments concerning the role of administrators and policy intellectuals, see Heclo, Hugh, Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974)Google Scholar.

2. For a comparative small-nation study of unemployment insurance, see Alber, Jens, “Government Responses to the Challenge of Unemployment: The Development of Unemployment Insurance in Western Europe,” in Flora, Peter and Heidenheimer, Arnold, eds., The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1981), 151–183Google Scholar.

3. For a comparative small-nation study of old-age pensions, see Myles, John, Old Age in the Welfare State: The Political Economy of Public Pensions (Boston: Little, Brown, 1984)Google Scholar.

4. For research on the differential determinants of the origins and expansion of social policies, see Flora, Peter and Heidenheimer, Arnold, “The Historical Core and the Changing Boundaries of the Welfare State,” in The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1981), 17–34Google Scholar.

5. For instance, Flora and Alber, in “Modernization, Democratization, and the Development of Welfare States in Western Europe,” omit any discussion of the United States.

6. For research that emphasizes the strength of liberal values or the hegemony of capitalists, see Collier, David and Messick, Richard, “Prerequisites versus Diffusion: Testing Alternative Explanations of Social Security Adoption,” American Political Science Review 69 (1975): 1299–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rimlinger, Gaston, Welfare Policy and Industrialization in Europe, America, and Russia (New York: Wiley, 1971)Google Scholar; Stephens, The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism.

7. Leman, Christopher, “Patterns of Policy Development: Social Security in the United States and Canada,” Public Policy 25 (1977): 261–91Google Scholar.

8. For state-level social policy developments, see Brandeis, Elizabeth, “Labor Legislation,” in Commons, John R., ed., History of Labor in the United States, 1896–1932 (New York: Macmillan, 1935), 3: 399–700Google Scholar; Lubove, Roy, The Struggle for Social Security, 1900–1935 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968)Google Scholar.

9. Skocpol, Theda and Ikenberry, John, “The Political Formation of the American Welfare State in Historical and Comparative Perpective,” Comparative Social Research 6 (1983): 120–31Google Scholar.

10. For a literature review, see Skocpol, Theda and Amenta, Edwin, “States and Social Policies,” Annual Review of Sociology 12 (1986): 131–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11. For the logic of industrialism approach, see Cutright, Phillips, “Political Structure, Economic Development, and National Social Security Programs,” American Journal of Sociology 70 (1965): 537–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jackman, Robert W., Politics and Social Equality (New York: John Wiley, 1975)Google Scholar; Wilensky, Harold, The Welfare State and Equality: Structural and Ideological Roots of Public Spending (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1975), chap. 2Google Scholar.

12. See Collier and Richard Messick, “Prerequisites versus Diffusion”; Flora and Alber, “Modernization, Democratization, and the Development of Welfare States in Western Europe.”

13. Wilensky, The Welfare State and Equality, chap 3; Stephens, The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism; Castles, “The Impact of Parties on Public Expenditures.”

14. Amenta, Edwin and Carruthers, Bruce G., “The Formative Years of U.S. Social Policy: Theories of the Welfare State and Social Policies in the American States during the Great Depression” (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, New York, 1986; revised 1987)Google Scholar.

15. We looked at relative levels of industrialization and urbanization (in cities over 20,000) in 1929 and also examined the ordering of the states in terms of changes in industrialization from 1923 to 1929 and urbanization from 1910 to 1930 and from 1920 to 1930. Illinois, the last state to legislate unemployment insurance, comes out first or second (with Wisconsin) on all rank orderings. And Ohio, the next-to-last state to legislate, outranks Massachusetts on all measures and New York on all but the 1929 level of industrialization. Precise measures and results are available upon request, as are those for the top twenty industrial states.

16. Amenta and Carruthers, “The Formative Years of U.S. Social Policy.”.

17. We investigated the decline of “value added by manufactures” and the decline of “wage earners in manufacturing,” measuring each from 1929 to 1933. Wisconsin was the hardest hit state on both measures, but Illinois was next hardest hit, which probably meant more overall economic difficulty for the state, since it was more industrial than Wisconsin in 1929. And New York (which legislated unemployment insurance next after Wisconsin) was the least hardest hit by the depression of all our states. Exact measures and results are available upon request, as are those for the top twenty industrial states.

18. For the provisions of state unemployment compensation legislation, see Stewart, Bryce M., The Planning and Administration of Unemployment Compensation in the United States (New York: Industrial Relations Counselors Inc., 1938)Google Scholar.

19. Under the tax-offset plan built into the unemployment insurance provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935, the federal government gave the states an overwhelming incentive to legislate and took away most of the incentives for businesses to veto unemployment insurance. A 3 percent tax was levied by the federal government on all employers with eight or more employees. A state would forfeit all the money taken in taxes on its employers if it did not pass an acceptable unemployment compensation program. In the event that the state passed a plan, businesses were credited 90 percent of the federal tax.

20. Ingalls, Robert, Herbert Lehman and New York's Little New Deal (New York: New York University Press, 1975), 85Google Scholar.

21. For a discussion of these plans, see Nelson, Daniel, Unemployment Insurance: The American Experience, 1915–1935, (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969)Google Scholar.

22. In Wisconsin itself, a pooled balancing account was created in 1937 to provide benefits to unemployed workers from companies whose individual accounts had been depleted (Myers, Employment Stabilization and Wisconsin Act,” 35).

23. See Rubinow, Issac M., “The Movement toward Unemployment Insurance in Ohio,” Social Service Review 7 (1933): 186–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ohio Commission on Unemployment Insurance, Report of the Ohio Commission on Unemployment Insurance (Columbus: F. J. Heer, 1932)Google Scholar.

24. Heclo, Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden.

25. On the failure of reforms, see Orloff and Skocpol, “Why Not Equal Protection?”

26. On workers' compensation, see Brandeis, “Labor Legislation”; Asher, Robert, “Workmen's Compensation in the United States, 1880–1935” (Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1971)Google Scholar.

27. Commons, John R., “Constructive Investigation and the Industrial Commission of Wisconsin” Survey 29 (1913): 440–48Google Scholar; Andrews, John B., Labor Problems and Labor Legislation (New York: American Association for Labor Legislation, 1919)Google Scholar.

28. Maxwell, Robert S., La Follette and the Rise of the Progressives in Wisconsin (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1956), 64Google Scholar.

29. Sparling, Samuel E., “State Boards of Control with Special Reference to the State of Wisconsin,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 17 (1901): 74–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30. Brownlee, W. Elliot Jr, “Income Taxation and the Political Economy of Wisconsin, 1890–1930,” Wisconsin Magazine of History 57 (1973): 123–40Google Scholar.

31. Curti, Merle and Carstensen, Vernon, The University of Wisconsin, 1848–1925 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1949), 1: 247Google Scholar.

32. Altmeyer, Arthur J., The Industrial Commission of Wisconsin: A Case Study in Labor Law Administration, University of Wisconsin Studies in the Social Sciences and History, no. 17 (Madison, 1932)Google Scholar.

33. Commons, “Constructive Investigation and the Industrial Commission of Wisconsin,” 441.

34. Myers, Charles A., “Employment Stabilization and the Wisconsin Act” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1939), 20Google Scholar.

35. Altmeyer, The Industrial Commission of Wisconsin.

36. Commons, John R., Unemployment Insurance: The Road to Prevention (Madison: Wisconsin Association for the Prevention of Unemployment, 1923), 5Google Scholar.

37. Beckner, Earl, A History of Illinois Labor Legislation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929), 425–26Google Scholar.

38. Ibid., pp. 500–04.

39. Finegold, Kenneth, “Progressivism, Electoral Change, and Public Policy: Reform Outcomes in New York, Cleveland, and Chicago” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1985)Google Scholar.

40. Warner, Hoyt L., Progressivism in Ohio, 1897–1917 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1964), 326–27Google Scholar.

41. Dodd, Walter F., Administration of Workmen's Compensation (New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1936), 286–88Google Scholar.

42. Coker, F. W., “Dogmas of Administrative Reform as Exemplified in the Recent Reorganization in Ohio,” American Political Science Review 16 (1922): 399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43. Papers of William M. Leiserson, “Elizabeth Magee to Leiserson, April 4, 1929” (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Box 25). Magee was a member of the Consumer League.

44. Eisner, J. Michael, William Morris Leiserson (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1967)Google Scholar; Papers of Leiserson, William M., “Minutes of the Ohio Commission on Unemployment Insurance” (1932)Google Scholar (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Box 31); Ohio Commission on Unemployment Insurance, Report of the Ohio Commission on Unemployment Insurance.

45. Rubinow, “The Movement toward Unemployment Insurance in Ohio.”

46. See the correspondence between William M. Leiserson and Isaac M. Rubinow, and the correspondence between Leiserson and Elizabeth Magee, the commission's secretary, from October 1932 through March 1933 (Papers of William M. Leiserson [Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Boxes 35 and 25]).

47. Abrams, Richard, Conservatism in a Progressive Era: Massachusetts Politics, 1900–1912 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964), 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lieby, James, Carroll Wright and Labor Reform (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960)Google Scholar; Whittlesey, Sarah, “Massachusetts Labor Legislation: An Historical and Critical Study,” Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science (supp.) 17 (1901)Google Scholar.

48. Massachusetts Committee on Unemployment, “Unemployment Insurance for Massachusetts: Draft of an Act with an Introduction and Notes,” Bulletin, no. 2 (1916)Google Scholar.

49. Massachusetts Special Commission on Social Insurance, Report of the Special Commission on Social Insurance, Massachusetts House Document no. 2075 (Boston: Wright & Potter, State Printers, 1917)Google Scholar.

50. Massachusetts Special Commission on Unemployment, Unemployment Compensation, and the Minimum Wage, Report of the Special Commission on Unemployment, Unemployment Compensation, and the Minimum Wage, Massachusetts House Document no. 1325 (Boston: Wright & Potter, State Printers, 1923)Google Scholar.

51. Massachusetts Special Commission on the Stabilization of Employment, Preliminary Report of the Special Commission on the Stabilization of Employment, Massachusetts House Document no. 1100 (Boston: Wright & Potter, State Printers, 1932)Google Scholar.

52. Massachusetts Special Commission on the Stabilization of Employment, Final Report of the Special Commission on Stabilization of Employment, Massachusetts House Document no. 1200 (Boston: Wright & Potter, State Printers, 1933)Google Scholar.

53. Yellowitz, Irwin, Labor and the Progressive Movement in New York State, 1897–1916 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1965), 109Google Scholar; Zimmerman, Joseph, The Government and Politics of New York State (New York: New York University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Bischoff, Henry, “The Reformers, the Workers, and the Growth of Positive Government: A History of the Labor Legislation Movement in New York State” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1964), 649–50Google Scholar.

54. Finegold, “Progressivism, Electoral Change, and Public Policy.”

55. Yellowitz, Labor and the Progressive Movement in New York State, 111; Huthmacher, J. Joseph, “Charles Evans Hughes and Charles Francis Murphy: The Metamorphosis of Progressivism,” New York History 46 (1965): 25–40Google Scholar; Wesser, Robert F., Charles Evans Hughes: Politics and Reform in New York (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1967), 306Google Scholar; McCormick, Richard, From Realignment to Reform: Political Change in New York State, 1893–1910 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

56. Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, 165–68.

57. Ibid.; Berkowitz, Edward and McQuaid, Kim, Creating the Welfare State: The Political Economy of Twentieth-Century Reform (New York: Praeger, 1980)Google Scholar; Weinstein, James, “Big Business and the Origin of Workmen's Compensation,” Labor History 8 (1967): 156–74Google Scholar; Quadagno, Jill S., “Welfare Capitalism and the Social Security Act of 1935,” American Sociological Review 49 (1984): 632–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58. Massachusetts Special Commission on Unemployment, Unemployment Compensation, and the Minimum Wage, Report of the Special Commission on Unemployment, Unemployment Compensation, and the Minimum Wage; Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, 174.

59. Massachusetts Special Commission on the Stabilization of Employment, Final Report of the Special Commission on Stabilization of Employment, 23–29.

60. Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, 124–28.

61. Ibid., 164, 181. Lescohier, Don and Peterson, Florence, The Alleviation of Unemployment in Wisconsin (Madison: Industrial Commission of Wisconsin, 1931), 103–15Google Scholar.

62. Kelly, Alfred H., “A History of the Illinois Manufacturers' Association” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1938), chap. 29Google Scholar.

63. Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, 175–78.

64. Ingalls, Herbert Lehman and New York's Little New Deal, 73–85; Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, 162–73.

65. Shalev, Michael, “The Social Democratic Model and Beyond,” Comparative Social Research 6 (1983): 315–51Google Scholar.

66. Populist or loosely social democratic farmer-worker parties (for example, the Minnesota Farm Labor party) have gained statewide electoral power in the United States, but not strictly labor parties as such. In the states studied here, victories of “labor” parties were limited to scattered representation in state legislatures and control of some city governments. Even when American Socialists based in a city gained some influence in state politics—as did the Milwaukee Socialists in Wisconsin and Morris Hillquit's group of Socialists in New York City—they had to take very moderate reformist approaches and compromise with non-social democratic forces (as the Wisconsin Socialists did) in order to make any legislative headway.

67. For cross-national research concerning the political capacities of the working class, see Stephens, The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism. For research in the United States concerning the political capacities of the working class, see Greenstone, J. David, Labor in American Politics (New York: Knopf, 1969)Google Scholar.

68. Ohio State Federation of Labor, Forty-seventh Annual Convention Proceedings, 1930 (Columbus, 1930), 72, 135Google Scholar; Ohio State Federation of Labor, Forty-eighth Annual Convention Proceedings, 1931 (Columbus, 1931), 54, 91Google Scholar; Ohio State Federation of Labor, Forty-ninth Annual Convention Proceedings, 1932 (Columbus, 1932), 56, 76–87, 100Google Scholar.

69. Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, 169–71.

70. Ozanne, Robert W., The Labor Movement in Wisconsin: A History (Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1984)Google Scholar.

71. Nelson, Unemployment Insurance, chap. 6.

72. Gavett, Thomas W., Development of the Labor Movement in Milwaukee (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1965), chap. 2Google Scholar.

73. Yellowitz, Labor and the Progressive Movement in New York State, 109.

74. Ingalls, Herbert Lehman and New York's Little New Deal, chap. 6.

75. Gorvine, Harold, “The New Deal in Massachusetts,” in Braeman, John, Bremner, Robert H., and Brody, David, eds., The New Deal: The State and Local Levels (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1975), 3–44Google Scholar.

76. Ohio State Federation of Labor, Forty-first Annual Convention Proceedings, 1924 (Columbus, 1924), 148–63Google Scholar; Ohio State Federation of Labor, Forty-seventh Annual Convention Proceedings, 1930, 77, 140.

77. Staley, Eugene, The History of the Illinois State Federation of Labor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930), 461–73Google Scholar.

78. Illinois State Federation of Labor, Weekly News Letter, October 29, 1932, p. 1.

79. Gosnell, Harold, Machine Politics: Chicago Model (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937), 11–12Google Scholar; Gottfried, Alex, Boss Cermak of Chicago: A Study of Political Leadership (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1962), 210–18Google Scholar.

80. See Katznelson, Ira, City Trenches: Urban Politics and the Patterning of Class in the United States (New York: Pantheon, 1981)Google Scholar; Shefter, Martin, “Party and Patronage: Germany, Eng-land, and Italy,” Politics and Society 7 (1977): 404–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shefter, Martin, “Regional Receptivity to Reform: The Legacy of the Progressive Era,” Political Science Quarterly 98 (1983): 459–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McCormick, From Relignment to Reform.

81. See Shefter, “Regional Receptivity to Reform.”

82. Buenker, John, Urban Liberalism and Progressive Reform (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973), 43–44Google Scholar.

83. Yellowitz, Labor and the Progressive Movement in New York State.

84. Ibid., 116; Wesser, Charles Evans Hughes: Politics and Reform in New York, 366–70.

85. Ingalls, Herbert Lehman and New York's Little New Deal, chaps. 4–6.

86. Gorvine, “The New Deal in Massachusetts.”

87. Massachusetts Special Commission to Make an Investigation of Unemployment Insurance, Reserves, and Benefits, Second and Final Report of the Special Commission to Make an Investigation of Unemployment Insurance, Reserves, and Benefits, Massachusetts House Document no. 2225 (Boston: Wright & Potter, State Printers, 1935)Google Scholar.

88. For Ohio, see Flinn, Thomas, “The Outline of Ohio Politics,” Western Political Quarterly 13 (1960): 702–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fenton, John, Midwest Politics (New York: Hold, Rinehart & Winston, 1966)Google Scholar. For Illinois, see Merriam, Charles E., Chicago: A More Intimate View of Urban Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929)Google Scholar; Karl, Barry, Charles Merriam and the Study of Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Biles, Roger, Big City Boss in Depression and War: Mayor Edward J. Kelly of Chicago (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

89. Ingalls, Herbert Lehman and New York's Little New Deal, 12.

90. Gorvine, “The New Deal in Massachusetts.”

91. Biles, Big City Boss in Depression and War, 50–51; Jones, Gene DeLon, “The Origin of the Alliance between the New Deal and the Chicago Machine,” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 67 (1974): 253–74Google Scholar.

92. For a discussion of the role of administration in state political struggles, see Patterson, James T., The New Deal and the States: Federalism in Transition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93. For Ohio, see Flinn, “The Outline of Ohio Politics”; Fenton, Midwest Politics, 132. For Illinois, see Phillip, William B., “Chicago and the Downstate: A Study of Their Conflicts, 1870–1934” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1940)Google Scholar.

94. Flinn, “The Outline of Ohio Politics,” 705.

95. The minority representation system was in effect in the lower house of the Illinois General Assembly. Each of the fifty-one legislative districts for the General Assembly sent one senator to the upper house and three representatives to the lower house. Each voter could cast three votes in any combination for the election of representatives; one could give all three votes to one candidate. This made it easy for one of the two major parties to salvage one seat in a district where the minority party was badly outnumbered because the minority party would usually nominate only one candidate, who would then receive all three votes from each of the minority party's followers. This generally led to larger-than-expected delegations of Democrats in the 1920s and to larger-than-expected delegations of Republicans in the 1930s (Bogart, Ernest L. and Mathews, John Mabry, The Centennial History of Illinois, Vol. 5, The Modern Commonwealth, 1893–1918 [Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co., 1922]Google Scholar; Fenton, Midwest Politics, 209).

96. Mann, Arthur, La Guardia Comes to Power, 1933 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), chap. 4Google Scholar.

97. Biles, Big City Boss in Depression and War, chap. 3.

98. Wittke, Carl, The History of the State of Ohio (Columbus: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1942), 11: 459–60Google Scholar; Maurer, David J., “Relief Problems and Politics in Ohio,” in Braeman, John, Bremner, Robert H., and Brody, David, eds., The New Deal: The State and Local Levels (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1975), 76–102Google Scholar; Patterson, The New Deal and the States, 61–62.

99. Patterson, The New Deal and the States, 62.

100. Lockard, Duane, New England State Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1959), 127–28Google Scholar.

101. Huthmacher, J. Joseph, Massachusetts People and Politics (New York: Atheneum, 1959), 235–36Google Scholar; Gorvine, “The New Deal in Massachusetts.”

102. See Greenstone, Labor in American Politics.

103. Wisconsin Legislative Interim Committee on Unemployment, Report of the Wisconsin Legislative Interim Committee on Unemployment (Madison: Industrial Commission of Wisconsin, 1931)Google Scholar.

104. McCoy, Donald R., “The Development and Dissolution of the Wisconsin Progressive Party of 1934–1946” (M.A. thesis, University of Chicago, 1949), 41Google Scholar.

105. Ewing, John B., Job Insurance (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1933), 36–38Google Scholar.

106. Nesbit, Robert C., Wisconsin: A History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973), 487Google Scholar.

107. Ewing, Job Insurance, 45–46.

108. Nesbit, Wisconsin: A History, 488.

109. Quadagno, “Welfare Capitalism and the Social Security Act of 1935.”

110. For two very different accounts emphasizing the role of New Deal state managers, see Skocpol and Ikenberry, “The Political Formation of the American Welfare State in Historical and Comparative Perspective”; Piven, Frances Fox and Cloward, Richard A. Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare (New York: Random Housed, 1971)Google Scholar.

111. See, for instance, Castles, “The Impact of Parties”; Esping-Andersen, Politics against Markets.

112. See table 3.

113. Although Roosevelt's Committee on Economic Security eventually recommended the tax-offset plan, which allowed the states to decide the shape of unemployment compensation, the experts on the staff and the Technical Board of the committee were overwhelmingly in favor of the principles embodied in the Ohio plan. See Witte, Edwin E., The Development of the Social Security Act (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1962), 111–28Google Scholar.

114. For Altmeyer's wartime views on the inadequacy of the federal-state unemployment compensation system, see Altmeyer, Arthur J., “War and Post-War Problems,” in Cohen, Wilber J., ed., War and Post-War Social Security (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Public Affairs, 1942), 20–30Google Scholar. On the opposition of Wisconsin administrators to national standards in unemployment compensation, see ”Statement of Paul A. Rauschenbush,” in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Finance, Hearings on H.R. 6635, 76th Congress, 1st session (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1939), 209–28.