During the 1990s, both the United States and Britain shifted from entitlement to work-based systems for supporting their poor citizens. Much research has examined the implications of welfare reform for the economic well-being of the poor, but the new legislation also affects our view of democracy—and how it ought to function. By eliminating entitlement and setting behavioral conditions on aid, welfare reform challenges our understanding of citizenship, political equality, and the role of the state. In Welfare Reform and Political Theory, editors Lawrence Mead and Christopher Beem have assembled an accomplished list of political theorists, social policy experts, and legal scholars to address how welfare reform has affected core concepts of political theory and our understanding of democracy itself.

Welfare Reform and Political Theory is unified by a common set of questions. The contributors come from across the political spectrum, each bringing different perspectives to bear. Carole Pateman argues that welfare reform has compromised the very tenets of democracy by tying the idea of citizenship to participation in the marketplace. But William Galston writes that American citizenship has in some respects always been conditioned on good behavior; work requirements continue that tradition by promoting individual responsibility and self-reliance—values essential to a well-functioning democracy. Desmond King suggests that work requirements draw invidious distinctions among citizens and therefore destroy political equality. Amy Wax, on the other hand, contends that ending entitlement does not harm notions of equality, but promotes them, by ensuring that no one is rewarded for idleness. Christopher Beem argues that entitlement welfare served a social function—acknowledging the social value of care—that has been lost in the movement towards conditional benefits. Stuart White writes that work requirements can be accepted only subject to certain conditions, while Lawrence Mead argues that concerns about justice must be addressed only after recipients are working. Alan Deacon is well to the left of Joel Schartz, but both say government may actively promote virtue through social policy—a stance some other contributors reject.

The move to work-centered welfare in the 1990s represented not just a change in government policy, but a philosophical change in the way people perceived government, its functions, and its relationship with citizens. Welfare Reform and Political Theory offers a long overdue theoretical reexamination of democracy and citizenship in a workfare society.

LAWRENCE M. MEAD is professor of politics at New York University.

CHRISTOPHER BEEM is a program officer at The Johnson Foundation.

CONTRIBUTORS:  Alan Deacon, William A. Galston,  Desmond King,  Carole Pateman, Joel Schwartz, Amy L. Wax,  Stuart White.  

This comprehensive work—relevant to the major issue of the relation of social knowledge to political power—argues for strengthening the role of the social sciences in the federal government. It calls for a central organization for the social sciences and for better integration of research within the federal agencies. It underscores the various factors that might help to bring about this goal.

GENE M. LYONS is professor of government at Dartmouth College.
 

The reach of the social and behavioral sciences is currently so broad and interdisciplinary that staying abreast of developments has become a daunting task. The thirty papers that constitute Leading Edges in Social and Behavioral Science provide a unique composite picture of recent findings and promising new research opportunities within most areas of social and behavioral research. Prepared by expert scholars under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, these timely and well-documented reports define research priorities for an impressive range of topics:

Part I: Mind and Brain

Part II: Behavior in Social Context

Part III: Choice and Allocation

Part IV: Evolving Institutions

Part V: Societies and International Orders

Part VI: Data and Analysis

R. DUNCAN LUCE is Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and director of the Irvine Research Center in Mathematic Behavioral Science at the University of California, Irvine.

NEIL J. SMELSER is University Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Berkeley.

DEAN R. GERSTEIN is study director at the National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.

CONTRIBUTORS: Norma Graham, Linda Bartosik, Albert S. Bregman, Julian Hichberg, Azriel Rosenfeld, Michael Studdert-Kennedy, R. Duncan Luce, Richard Thompson, Carol Barnes, Thomas Carew, Lon Cooper, Michela Gallagher, Michael Posner, Robert Rescola, Daniel Schachter, Larry Squire, Alan Wagner, Saul Steinebers, Fergus I.M. Clark, John Jonedes, Walter Kinsch, Stephen M. Kosslyn, James L. McClelland, Raymond S. Nickerson, James Greeno, Frederick J. Newmeyer, Antonio R. Damasio, Merrill Garrett, Mark Lieberman, David Lightfoot, Howard Poizner, Thomas Roeper, Eleanor Saffran, Ivan Sag, Victoria Fromkin, Herbert Pick, Ann L. Brown, Carol Dweck, Robert Emde, Frank Keil, David Klahr, Ross S. Parke, Steven Pinker, Rochel Gelman, David S. Krantz, Leonard Epstein, Norman Garmezy, Marcha Ory, Leonard Perlin, Judith Rodin, Marvin Stein, John F. Kihlstrom, Ellen Berscheid, John Darley, Reid Hastie, Harold Kelley, Sheldon Stryker, Edward E. Jones, Nancy M,. Henley, Rose Laub Cosner, Jane Flax, Naomi Quinn, Kathryn Rish Sklar, Sherry B. Ortner, Alfred Blumstein, Richard Berk, Philip Cook, David Farrington, Samuel Krislov, Albert J. Reiss Jr., Franklin Zimring, William Riker, James S. Coleman, Bernard Grofman, Michael Hechter, John Ledyard, Charles Plott, Kenneth Shepsle, John Ferejohn,  Mark Machina, Robin Hogarth, Kenneth MacCrimmon, John Roberts, Alvin Roth, Paul Slovic, Rihard Thaler, Oliver Williamson, Jerry Hausman, Paul Joskow, Roger Noll, Vernon Smith, David Wise, Stanley Reiter, Kenneth Arrow, Lance Davis, Paul Dimaggio, Mark Granovetter, Jerry Green, Theodore Groves, Michael Hannan, Andrew Postlewaite, Roy Radner, Karl Shell, Leonid Hurwicz, Frank Stafford, Jamoes Baron, Danier Hamermesh, Christopher Jencks, Ross Stolzenberg, Donald J. Treiman, Stanley Fischer, William Beeman, Rudiger Dornbusch, Thomas Sargent, Robert Schiller, Lawrence Summers, Glynn Isaac, Robert Blumenschine, Margaret Conkey, Terry Deacon, Irven Devore, Peter Ellison, Richard Milton, David Pilbeam, Richard Potts, Kathy Schick, Margaret Schoeninger, Andrew Sillen, John Speth, Nicholas Toth, Sherwood Washburn, Douglas C. North, Robert Bates, Robert Brenner, Elizabeth Colson, Kent Flannery, Vernon Smith, Neil Smelser, Samuel Preson, Ansley Coale, Kingsley Davis, Geoffrey McNicoll, Jane Menken, T. Paul Schultz, Daniel Vining, John Modell, Margaret Clark, William Goode, William Kessen, Robert Willis, John Quigley, Alex Anas, Geoffrey Hewings, Risa Palm, James Fernandez, Keith Basso, Karen Blu, Kenneth Boulding, Stepher Gudeman, Michael Kearney, Goerge Marcus, Dennis McGilvary, Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney, William Sewell, Daniel H. Levine, Leonard Binder, Thomas Bruneau, Jean Comaroff, Susan Harding, Charles Keyes, Robert Wuthnow, Dorothy Nelkin, Charles Rosenberg, Theda Skocpol, Martin Bulmer, Thomas Joster, Donald McCloskey, Arnold Thackeray, Carol Weiss, Peter Evans, Bruce Cumings, Albert Fishlow, Peter Gourevitch, John Meyer, Alejandro Portes, Barbara Stallings, Robert Jervis, Josh Lederberg, Robert North, Steven Rosen, Dina Zinnes, Warren Miller, Martin David, James Davis, Bruce Russett, Kimball Romney, Norman Bradburn, J. Douglas Carol. Roy D'Andrade, Jean Claude Falmagne, Paul Holland, Lawrence Hubert, Edward E. Leamer, John W. Pratt, Cliffors C. Clogg, Bert F. Green, Michael Hannan, Jerry A. Hausman, William H. Kruskal, Donald B. Rubin, I. Richard Savaga, John W. Turkey, Kenneth W. Wachter, Leo A. Goodman.

Many of our most urgent national problems suggest a widespread lack of concern for the future. Alarming economic conditions, such as low national savings rates, declining corporate investment in long-term capital projects, and ballooning private and public debt are matched by such social ills as diminished educational achievement, environmental degradation, and high rates of infant mortality, crime, and teenage pregnancy. At the heart of all these troubles lies an important behavioral phenomenon: in the role of consumer, manager, voter, student, or parent, many Americans choose inferior but immediate rewards over greater long-term benefits.

Choice Over Time offers a rich sampling of original research on intertemporal choice—how and why people decide between immediate and delayed consequences—from a broad range of theoretical and methodological perspectives in philosophy, political science, psychology, and economics. George Loewenstein, Jon Elster, and their distinguished colleagues review existing theories and forge new approaches to understanding significant questions: Why do people seem to "discount" future benefits? Do individuals use the same decision-making strategy in all aspects of their lives? What part is played by situational factors such as the certainty of delayed consequences? How are decisions affected by personal factors such as willpower and taste?

In addressing these issues, the contributors to Choice Over Time address many social, economic, psychological, and personal time problems. Their work demonstrates the predictive power of short-term preferences in behavior as varied as addiction and phobia, the effect of prices on consumption, and the dramatic rise in debt and decline in savings. Choice Over Time provides an essential source for the most recent research and theory on intertemporal choice, offering new models for time preference patterns—and their aberrations—and presenting a diversity of potential solutions to the problem of "temporal myopia."

GEORGE LOEWENSTEIN is professor of economics and psychology, Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University.

JON ELSTER is Edward L. Ryerson Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at the University of Chicago.

CONTRIBUTORS: George Ainslie, Gary S. Becker, Robert H. Frank, Michael Grossman, Nick Haslam, Richard J. Herrnstein, Walter Mishel, Kevin M. Murphy, Drazen Prelec, Howard Rachlin, Andres Raineri, Monica L. Rodriquez, Thomas Schelling, Hersh M. Shefrin, Yuichi Shoda, Richard H. Thaler.

Winner of the 1980 C. Wright Mills Award from the Society for the Study of Social Problems

Winner of the 1981 Gladys M. Kammerer Award from the American Political Science Association

Winner of the 1999 Aaron Wildavsky Enduring Contribution Award from the Policy Studies Organization

First published in 1980, Street-Level Bureaucracy received critical acclaim for its insightful study of how public service workers, in effect, function as policy decision makers, as they wield their considerable discretion in the day-to-day implementation of public programs. Three decades later, the need to bolster the availability and effectiveness of healthcare, social services, education, and law enforcement is as urgent as ever. In this thirtieth anniversary expanded edition, Michael Lipsky revisits the territory he mapped out in the first edition to reflect on significant policy developments over the last several decades. Despite the difficulties of managing these front-line workers, he shows how street-level bureaucracies can be and regularly are brought into line with public purposes.

Street-level bureaucrats—from teachers and police officers to social workers and legal-aid lawyers—interact directly with the public and so represent the frontlines of government policy. In Street-Level Bureaucracy, Lipsky argues that these relatively low-level public service employees labor under huge caseloads, ambiguous agency goals, and inadequate resources. When combined with substantial discretionary authority and the requirement to interpret policy on a case-by-case basis, the difference between government policy in theory and policy in practice can be substantial and troubling.

The core dilemma of street-level bureaucrats is that they are supposed to help people or make decisions about them on the basis of individual cases, yet the structure of their jobs makes this impossible. Instead, they are forced to adopt practices such as rationing resources, screening applicants for qualities their organizations favor, “rubberstamping” applications, and routinizing client interactions by imposing the uniformities of mass processing on situations requiring human responsiveness. Occasionally, such strategies work out in favor of the client. But the cumulative effect of street-level decisions made on the basis of routines and simplifications about clients can reroute the intended direction of policy, undermining citizens’ expectations of evenhanded treatment.

This seminal, award-winning study tells a cautionary tale of how decisions made by overburdened workers translate into ad-hoc policy adaptations that impact peoples’ lives and life opportunities. Lipsky maintains, however, that these problems are not insurmountable. Over the years, public managers have developed ways to bring street-level performance more in line with agency goals. This expanded edition of Street-Level Bureaucracy underscores that, despite its challenging nature, street-level work can be made to conform to higher expectations of public service.

MICHAEL LIPSKY is senior program director of Demos, a non-partisan public policy research and advocacy organization, and an affiliate professor at Georgetown University.

Given the increasing diversity of the nation—particularly with respect to its growing Hispanic and Asian populations—why does racial and ethnic difference so often lead to disadvantage? In The Colors of Poverty, a multidisciplinary group of experts provides a breakthrough analysis of the complex mechanisms that connect poverty and race.

The Colors of Poverty reframes the debate over the causes of minority poverty by emphasizing the cumulative effects of disadvantage in perpetuating poverty across generations. The contributors consider a kaleidoscope of factors that contribute to widening racial gaps, including education, racial discrimination, social capital, immigration, and incarceration. Michèle Lamont and Mario Small grapple with the theoretical ambiguities of existing cultural explanations for poverty disparities.  They argue that culture and structure are not competing explanations for poverty, but rather collaborate to produce disparities. Looking at how attitudes and beliefs exacerbate racial stratification, social psychologist Heather Bullock links the rise of inequality in the United States to an increase in public tolerance for disparity. She suggests that the American ethos of rugged individualism and meritocracy erodes support for antipoverty programs and reinforces the belief that people are responsible for their own poverty. Sociologists Darren Wheelock and Christopher Uggen focus on the collateral consequences of incarceration in exacerbating racial disparities and are the first to propose a link between legislation that blocks former drug felons from obtaining federal aid for higher education and the black/white educational attainment gap. Joe Soss and Sanford Schram argue that the increasingly decentralized and discretionary nature of state welfare programs allows for different treatment of racial groups, even when such policies are touted as “race-neutral.” They find that states with more blacks and Hispanics on welfare rolls are consistently more likely to impose lifetime limits, caps on benefits for mothers with children, and stricter sanctions.

The Colors of Poverty is a comprehensive and evocative introduction to the dynamics of race and inequality. The research in this landmark volume moves scholarship on inequality beyond a simple black-white paradigm, beyond the search for a single cause of poverty, and beyond the promise of one “magic bullet” solution.

ANN CHIH LIN is associate professor in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy and Department of Political Science at the University of Michigan.

DAVID R. HARRIS is professor of sociology and deputy provost at Cornell University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Scott W. Allard, Heather E. Bullock, George Farkas, David R. Harris, Michèle Lamont, Ann Chih Lin, Selina A. Mohammed, Devah Pager, Lincoln Quillian, Rozlyn Reed, Sanford F. Schram, Mario Luis Small, Joe Soss, Michael A. Stoll, Christopher Uggen, Darren Wheelock, and David R. Williams

A Volume in the National Poverty Center Series on Poverty and Public Policy

How diverse can, and should, TV programming be? And especially, in what precise ways does governmental regulation of TV affect (or fail to affect) the programs station owners produce—programs which, in the final analysis, shape in such large measure the values of Americans? It is to these timely and beguiling questions that Harvey Levin addresses his dispassionate assessment of the complex relationship between government and the TV industry. Analyzing data drawn from the history of the FCC's regulatory decisions, as well as from interviews with numerous government and industry officials, Professor Levin shows how the present form of restrictive governmental regulation almost always results in higher profits and rents for TV stations, with no concomitant increase in programming diversity.

In addition, Professor Levin investigates various other aspects of the media market, from the particular kinds of crucial decisions that are made when, for example, a newspaper owns a TV station, to the kinds of problems that arise when commercial rents are taxed to fund public TV; from the brand of programming we are offered when a monopoly controls a given TV market to the nature of programming in a situation of steady and fair competition. Following a comprehensive assessment, the author makes a compelling case for diversification of station ownership, in order to be "safe rather than sorry." He also argues for the entry of new stations, more extensive support of public TV, and some form of quantitative program requirements—all of which will help bring about greater program diversity.

Professor Levin's volume provides us with a fully documented and sharply focused analysis of the theories, policies, and problems of one of the most powerful and misunderstood of contemporary institutions.

HARVEY J. LEVIN is professor of economics at Hofstra University and senior research associate at the Center for Policy Research.

What are the essential elements of a democracy? How can nations ensure a political voice for all citizens, and design a government that will respond to those varied voices? These perennial questions resonate strongly in the midst of ongoing struggles to defend democratic institutions around the world and here at home. In Designing Democratic Government, a group of distinguished political scientists provides a landmark cross-national analysis of the institutions that either facilitate or constrain the healthy development of democracy.

The contributors to Designing Democratic Government use the democratic ideals of fairness, competitiveness, and accountability as benchmarks to assess a wide variety of institutions and practices. John Leighly and Jonathan Nagler find that in the U.S., the ability to mobilize voters across socioeconomic lines largely hinges on the work of non-party groups such as civic associations and unions, which are far less likely than political parties to engage in class-biased outreach efforts. Michael McDonald assesses congressional redistricting methods and finds that court-ordered plans and close adherence to the Voting Rights Act effectively increase the number of competitive electoral districts, while politically-drawn maps reduce the number of competitive districts. John Carey and John Polga-Hecimovich challenge the widespread belief that primary elections produce inferior candidates. Analyzing three decades worth of comprehensive data on Latin American presidential campaigns, they find that primaries impart a stamp of legitimacy on candidates, helping to engage voters and mitigate distrust in the democratic process. And Kanchan Chandra proposes a paradigm shift in the way we think about ethnic inclusion in democracies: nations should design institutions that actively promote—rather than merely accommodate—diversity.

At a moment when democracy seems vulnerable both at home and abroad, Designing Democratic Government sorts through a complex array of practices and institutions to outline what works and what doesn’t in new and established democracies alike. The result is a volume that promises to change the way we look at the ideals of democracy worldwide.

MARGARET LEVI is Jere L. Bacharach Professor of International Studies of the Department of Political Science at the University of Washington.

JAMES JOHNSON teaches social and political theory at the University of Rochester.

JACK KNIGHT is professor of law and political science at Duke University.

SUSAN STOKES is John S. Sadden Professor of Political Science at Yale University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Susan A. Banducci, Shaun Bowler, Henry E. Brady, Thomas L. Brunell, John M. Carey, Kanchan Chandra, Todd Donovan, David L. Epstein, Bernard Grofman, Iris Hui, James Johnson, Jeffrey A. Karp, Jack Knight, Jan E. Leighley, Margaret Levi, David Lublin, Michael P. McDonald, Jonathan Nagler, Sharyn O'Halloran, John Polga-Hecimovich, Gary Segura, Charles Stewart III, and Susan Stokes.

As the United States wages war on terrorism, the country's attention is riveted on the Muslim world as never before. While many cursory press accounts dealing with Muslims in the United States have been published since 9/11, few people are aware of the wealth of scholarly research already available on the American Islamic population. In Muslims in the United States: The State of Research, Karen Isaksen Leonard mines this rich vein of research to provide a fascinating overview of the history and contemporary situation of American Muslim communities.

Leonard describes how Islam, never a monolithic religion, has inevitably been shaped by its experience on American soil. American Muslims are a religious minority, and arbiters of Islamic cultural values and jurisprudence must operate within the framework of America's secular social and legal codes, while coping with the ethnic differences among Muslim groups that have long divided their communities. Arab Muslims tend to dominate mosque functions and teaching Arabic and the Qur'an, whereas South Asian Muslims have often focused on the regional and national mobilization of Muslims around religious and political issues. By the end of the 20th century, however, many Muslim immigrants had become American citizens, prompting greater interchange among these groups and bridging some cultural differences.

African American Muslims remain the most isolated group—a minority within a minority. Many African American men have converted to Islam while in prison, leading to a special concern among African American Muslims for civil and religious rights within the prison system. Leonard highlights the need to expand our knowledge of African American Muslim movements, which are often not regarded as legitimate by immigrant Muslims. Leonard explores the construction of contemporary American Muslim identities, examining such factors as gender, sexuality, race, class, and generational differences within the many smaller national origin and sectarian Muslim communities, including secular Muslims, Sufis, and fundamentalists.

Muslims in the United States provides a thorough account of the impact of September 11th on the Muslim community. Before the terrorist attacks, Muslim leaders had been mostly optimistic, envisioning a growing role for Muslims in U.S. society. Afterward, despite a brave show of unity and support for the nation, Muslim organizations became more open in showing their own conflicts and divisions and more vocal in opposing militant Islamic ideologies.

By providing a concise summary of significant historical and contemporary research on Muslims in the United States, this volume will become an essential resource for both the scholar and the general reader interested in understanding the diverse communities that constitute Muslim America.

KAREN ISAKSEN LEONARD is professor of anthropology at the University of California, Irvine.

The positive social benefits of low unemployment are many—it helps to reduce poverty and crime and fosters more stable families and communities. Yet conventional wisdom—born of the stagflation of the 1970s—holds that sustained low unemployment rates run the risk of triggering inflation. The last five years of the 1990s—in which unemployment plummeted and inflation remained low—called this conventional wisdom into question. The Roaring Nineties provides a thorough review of the exceptional economic performance of the late 1990s and asks whether it was due to a lucky combination of economic circumstances or whether the new economy has somehow wrought a lasting change in the inflation-safe rate of unemployment.

Led by distinguished economists Alan Krueger and Robert Solow, a roster of twenty-six respected economic experts analyzes the micro- and macroeconomic factors that led to the unexpected coupling of low unemployment and low inflation. The more macroeconomically oriented chapters clearly point to a reduction in the inflation-safe rate of unemployment. Laurence Ball and Robert Moffitt see the slow adjustment of workers' wage aspirations in the wake of rising productivity as a key factor in keeping inflation at bay. And Alan Blinder and Janet Yellen credit sound monetary policy by the Federal Reserve Board with making the best of fortunate circumstances, such as lower energy costs, a strong dollar, and a booming stock market.

Other chapters in The Roaring Nineties examine how the interaction between macroeconomic and labor market conditions helped sustain high employment growth and low inflation. Giuseppe Bertola, Francine Blau, and Lawrence M. Kahn demonstrate how greater flexibility in the U.S. labor market generated more jobs in this country than in Europe, but at the expense of greater earnings inequality. David Ellwood examines the burgeoning shortage of skilled workers, and suggests policies—such as tax credits for businesses that provide on-the-job-training—to address the problem. And James Hines, Hilary Hoynes, and Alan Krueger elaborate the benefits of sustained low unemployment, including budget surpluses that can finance public infrastructure and social welfare benefits—a perspective often lost in the concern over higher inflation rates.

While none of these analyses promise that the good times of the 1990s will last forever, The Roaring Nineties provides a unique analysis of recent economic history, demonstrating how the nation capitalized on a lucky confluence of economic factors, helping to create the longest peacetime boom in American history.

ROBERT SOLOW is Institute Professor Emeritus, M.I.T., and a Nobel laureate in economics.

ALAN KRUEGER is professor of economics at Princeton University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Katharine G. Abraham, Laurence Ball, Giusepe Bertola, Rebecca M. Blank,  Francine D. Blau,  Alan S. Blinder,  Jessica Cohen,  William T. Dickens,  David T. Ellwood,  James R. Hines Jr., Hilary W. Hoynes,  George Johnson,  Lawrence M. Kahn,  Lisa M. Lynch, Robert Moffitt, Stephen J. Nickell,  Adam Posen,  Matthew D. Shapiro,  Robert Shimer,  Matthew J. Slaughter,  Douglas Staiger,  James H. Stock, Janet L. Yellen, Mark W. Watson.

Copublished with The Century Foundation