Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T21:35:28.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judging a Book by its Cover: Did Perceptions of the 1996 US Welfare Reforms Affect Public Support for Spending on the Poor?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2008

ANDREA HETLING  and
MONIKA L. McDERMOTT
ANDREA HETLING
Affiliation:
Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 33 Livingston Avenue, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA email: ahetling@rci.rutgers.edu
MONIKA L. McDERMOTT
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Connecticut, 341 Mansfield Road, U-1024, Storrs, CT 06269-1024, USA email: monika.mcdermott@uconn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research into public policy and public opinion demonstrates ample evidence that opinion affects policy, but relatively limited empirical findings regarding how policy might affect opinion: a process dubbed policy feedback. Much of the literature examines aggregate reactions to policy, while related public opinion research emphasises individual findings driven primarily by party affiliation or political ideology. This article takes the research one step further, examining whether individuals' judgements of policy effectiveness contribute to their support for or opposition to government policy spending. Specifically, it examines the case of US welfare reform and public reactions to it using a national survey conducted in 2001. Findings based on multinomial logistic regression analysis demonstrate not only that people's judgements of welfare reform's effectiveness contribute to their support for government spending on the poor, but also that the reasons behind their judgements matter.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , July 2008 , pp. 471 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

American National Election Studies (2005), ‘The 1948–2004 Anes Cumulative Data File [dataset]’, Stanford University and the University of Michigan [producers and distributors], http://www.electionstudies.org.Google Scholar
Bell, H. (2005), ‘Caseworkers' assessment of welfare reform: report from the front lines’, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 12: 2/3, 243–60.Google Scholar
Blank, R. M. (2002), ‘Evaluating welfare reform in the US’, Journal of Economic Literature, 40: 4, 1105–66.Google Scholar
Blank, R. M. (2006), ‘Was welfare reform successful?’, Economists' Voice, 3: 4, Article 2, available at: http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol3/iss4/art2.Google Scholar
Bullock, H. E. (2004), ‘From the front lines of welfare reform: an analysis of social worker and welfare recipient attitudes’, Journal of Social Psychology, 144: 6, 571–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burton, L., Cherlin, A. J., Francis, J., Jarrett, R., Quane, J., Williams, C. and Cook, N. M. S. (1998), What Welfare Recipients and the Fathers of Their Children are Saying about Welfare Reform, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Cook, F. L. and Barrett, E. J. (1992), Support for the American Welfare State: The Views of Congress and the Public, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
DeParle, J. (1994) ‘The nation; despising welfare, pitying its young’, The New York Times, 18 December, Section 4 (Week in Review).Google Scholar
Eismeier, T. J. (1982), ‘Public preferences about government spending’, Political Behavior, 4: 2, 133–45.Google Scholar
Fiorina, M. P. (1981), Retrospective Voting in American National Elections, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gilens, M. (1999), Why American Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, M. (2001), ‘Political ignorance and collective policy preferences’, American Political Science Review, 95: 2, 379–96.Google Scholar
Gusmano, M. K., Schlesinger, M. and Thomas, T. (2002), ‘Policy feedback and public opinion: the role of employer responsibility in social policy’, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 27: 5, 731–72.Google Scholar
Haskins, R. (2006), Work over Welfare: The Inside Story of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Hetling, A., McDermott, M. L. and Mapps, M. (2008), ‘Symbolism versus policy learning: public opinion of the 1996 US welfare reforms’, American Politics Research, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacoby, W. G. (1994), ‘Public attitudes toward welfare spending’, American Journal of Political Science, 38: 2, 338–61.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J. W. (1995), Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.Google Scholar
Kluegel, J. R. and Smith, E. R. (1986), Beliefs About Inequality, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mettler, S. and Soss, J. (2004), ‘The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: bridging policy studies and mass politics’, Perspectives on Politics, 2: 1, 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadeau, R., Niemi, R. G. and Amato, T. (2000), ‘Elite economic forecasts, economic news, mass economic expectations, and voting intentions in Great Britain’, European Journal of Political Research, 38: 1, 135–70.Google Scholar
Page, B. I. and Shapiro, R. Y. (1992), The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (1993), ‘When effect becomes cause: policy feedback and political change’, World Politics, 45: 4, 595–628.Google Scholar
Sawhill, I. V., Weaver, R. K., Haskins, R. and Kane, A. (2002), Welfare Reform and Beyond: The Future of the Safety Net, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Schneider, S. K. and Jacoby, W. G. (2005), ‘Elite discourse and American public opinion: the case of welfare spending’, Political Research Quarterly, 58: 3, 367–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, D. O. (1993), ‘Symbolic politics: a socio-psychological theory’, in Iyengar, S. and McGuire, W. J. (eds), Explorations in Political Psychology, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, G. M. and Shapiro, R. Y. (2002), ‘The polls-trends: poverty and public assistance’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 66: 1, 105–28.Google Scholar
Soss, J. (1999), ‘Lessons of welfare: policy design, political learning, and political action’, American Political Science Review, 93: 2, 363–80.Google Scholar
Soss, J. and Schram, S. F. (2007), ‘A public transformed? Welfare reform as policy feedback’, American Political Science Review, 101: 1, 111–27.Google Scholar
Stevenson, R. T. (2001), ‘The economy and policy mood: a fundamental dynamic of democratic politics?’, American Journal of Political Science, 45: 3, 620–33.Google Scholar
Swank, E. (2005), ‘Welfare-spending judgments through class, race, and gender lenses: exploring the influence of stratification beliefs, racial attitudes, and gender norms’, Journal of Poverty, 9: 4, 45–68.Google Scholar
Weatherford, M. S. (1983), ‘Evaluating economic policy: a contextual model of the opinion formation process’, The Journal of Politics, 45: 4, 866–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, R. K. (2000), Ending Welfare as We Know It, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C. (1995), ‘The public as thermostat: dynamics of preferences for spending’, American Journal of Political Science, 39: 4, 981–1000.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, D. (2000), ‘Welfare reform in America: a clash of politics and research’, Journal of Social Issues, 56: 4, 587–6000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar