ABSTRACT
In the opening chapter of Section II, entitled “Neoliberal Globalization: Social Welfare Policy and Institutions,” Michael Holosko and John Barner argue that neoliberal globalization has been the guiding paradigm for the U.S. social welfare regime for the last 15 years. This paradigm is characterized by a supraterritorial organization of social relations and transactions across political and geographical regions and networks that are best handled by privatized and deregulated markets, decentralized governance, global capitalism, and elite global networks. Holosko and Barner conclude that neoliberal globalization presents a turn away from the traditional model of state-supported interventions towards market-based interventions focused on efficiency and material welfare, often at the expense of cultural, ecological, economic, political, and social benefits. This turn, they continue, is incongruent with the customary ethical stance advocated by social welfare professionals because it has contributed to human insecurity, income inequality, poverty, and precarious labor. Holosko and Barner identify neoliberal globalization as a catalyst for policies such as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which enacted the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Richard Caputo’s contribution to this section (Chapter 22) examines the political impacts and effects of PRWORA on low-income women’s employment, and includes a historical background and description of political trends. PRWORA was designed to establish requirements for those enrolled in welfare programs to influence labor force participation. He compares the TANF program created under Title I of the Act with the program that it replaced, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). TANF implemented strict requirements for both recipients and states. Under the new program, recipients are required to meet specific eligibility guidelines, and punishments and rewards are administered on the basis of the achievement of policy goals. Caputo outlines these requirements with an emphasis on how PRWORA contributed to the increase of low-wage workers and massive decreases in welfare caseloads in the years immediately following its enactment, only to rise again in 2008 with the U.S. economic crisis. In “Anti-Poverty Policies and the Structure of Inequality” (Chapter 23) Eiko Strader and Joya Misra draw linkages between U.S. social policies, neoliberal ideology, and the structure of inequality. In their analysis of six major federal means-tested programs, they argue that a general concern that cash-transfer programs promote dependency has led to policies that focus on individual self-sufficiency and labor force participation. They note that the enactment of
PRWORA in 1996 sparked a sharp decline in direct cash-transfer programs by restricting the eligibility criteria to limit recipients to those experiencing deep poverty. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) on the other hand saw a steady increase in recipients during this time. Strader and Misra say that SSI is based on outdated criteria; therefore many recipients are still living below the poverty threshold. Because of the neoliberal ideology that fuels the country, the United States leans away from cash benefit programs such as TANF and SSI, and puts greater emphasis on programs such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), regardless of the fact that the research on in-kind benefit programming has been “inconclusive, contradictory, and mixed at best.” While a few of these programs in some cases assist in alleviating the depth of poverty, according to the authors, they create more barriers for extra-vulnerable populations such as lawful immigrants; none are sufficient to pull people out of poverty completely; and concurrently they do not form an effective safety net. Noting that the United States has one of the highest rates of inequality among wealthy nations, Strader and Misra discuss how federal poverty programs contribute to this growing gap. They conclude that the United States should allocate more funding for social programs and offer more universal programs to shore up economic inequality. The other chapters in this section support these observations and claims as they review the impact of neoliberal globalization on housing, health, and nutrition programs. Several of the chapters in this section highlight the transformation of housing support programs over the last two decades, which has been marked by a dramatic move from the provision of public housing to various private market housing schemes. In “Mixed-Income Communities and Poverty Amelioration” (Chapter 24), James Fraser and Deirdre Oakley argue that residential concentration of poverty increased over the last decade. The high-poverty neighborhoods are characterized by heightened isolation and racial segregation, and are disproportionately occupied by African Americans due to the mass suburbanization of whites and racial zoning codes. Fraser and Oakley argue that the negative portrayal of these communities in the media contributed to the creation of poverty de-concentration housing policies, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Reform Act of 1989, which created the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing. This Commission identified and assessed problems in severely distressed public housing developments and created the Homeownership Opportunities for People Everywhere (HOPE VI) program in 1993. The initial aim of the program was not neighborhood transformation, but rather intervention in the most severely distressed public housing developments. However, programmatic changes expanded the sites qualified for the funds to include most public housing. While some claim that the HOPE VI program was a success, Fraser and Oakley argue that the poverty de-concentration goal was not achieved; rather it resulted in the displacement of public housing residents to private sector housing in other highly distressed neighborhoods. Furthermore, they argue that the sense of community decreased in mixed-income areas due to a loss of commonality and that the goals of the program are contradictory in that they allow for more discrimination and contributed to further displacement of the poor. In “Countering Urban Poverty Concentration in the United States: The People versus Place Debate in Housing Policy” (Chapter 25), Anupama Jacob discusses shifts in federal housing policy during the late 1960s and 1970s that were premised on the belief that increasing the socio-economic diversity of neighborhoods would lead to a decrease in the social problems associated with concentrated poverty. She identifies people-based and place-based policy approaches to de-concentrating residential poverty, reflected in the HUD Housing Choice Voucher Program and Mixed-Income Housing Development programs respectively. While
distinct, both of these approaches reflect the neoliberal elements of increased reliance on market-based programs. The housing voucher approach provides rent subsidies to low-income families for units that fulfill minimum-quality criteria set forth by HUD. After an initial success of the program in Chicago, HUD launched the Moving to Opportunity (MTO) social experiment in 1993 to study the long-term (10 to 15 years) effects of the program on participants, finding improved social networks, gender differences in crime, better mental health, and increased perceptions of safety overall, but no significant changes in employment or income-related networks, as well as no significant differences in the educational outcomes for children. The second approach, the mixed-income housing development approach, aimed to decrease the social isolation of the urban poor by residentially integrating families with varying income levels. Jacob notes that this is a strategy that has grown in popularity since the mid-1990s, and is reflected in HUD programs such as HOPE VI, but has not yielded improvements in social networks, employment opportunities, or educational benefits for program participants. Monique Johnson also focuses on housing policy aimed at residential poverty de-concentration. In “Poverty De-Concentration Priorities in Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Allocation Policy: A Content Analysis of Qualified Allocation Plans” (Chapter 27), Johnson examines the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) initiated in 1996. This neoliberal marketbased policy encouraged private sector provision of low-income housing through tax credit incentives for private investors to stimulate affordable housing production. Johnson provides evidence to support her claim that, prior to the initiation of LIHTC, most public and subsidized housing was constructed by the federal government through HUD. In a multi-state longitudinal analysis, Johnson examines how states have prioritized poverty de-concentration within their plan design and finds mixed results of the program’s effectiveness in meeting this goal as implemented from 2000 to 2010. Johnson concludes with a summary of policy implications and recommendations to enhance the strategic outcomes of locational equity within the program. In “Privatizing the Housing Safety Net: HOPE VI and the Transformation of Public Housing in the United States” (Chapter 26), Kimberly Skobba, Deirdre Oakley, and Dwanda Farmer provide an overview of federal housing policies from the 1930s to the contemporary period. In this overview, they examine how various policies have contributed to racial and class-level segregation, white flight, and mass suburbanization, leaving public housing as the only option left for the urban poor. They trace how federal policies have shifted over time to market-based housing and voucher programs which have generated an ever-shrinking pool of affordable housing options for the poor. Theorizing that the motivations of present-day public housing programs have more to do with stimulating the economy than with altruism, Skobba, Oakley, and Farmer argue that current federal housing policies benefit higher-income residents and the private real estate industry rather than the poor populations which they initially intended to serve. They argue that contemporary housing initiatives such as HOPE VI have effectively dismantled public housing and displaced residents, privatized low-income housing options, and generally weakened the housing safety net. They conclude with a case study of public housing in Atlanta, which exemplifies the neoliberal shift in public housing described by these authors. In “Neo-Liberalism and Private Emergency Food Networks” (Chapter 28), Deborah Harris and Jamilatu Zakari examine the growth of private emergency food networks as a result of the neoliberal turn in social services in the United States. They discuss the emergence of food banks and pantries as a response to the retrenchment of social welfare and food assistance programs available to low-income individuals and families. These private emergency networks aim to address hunger and food insecurity through local forms of private assistance that shore
up the gap created by the government divestiture in social welfare programs. In addition, the authors discuss the ideological and discursive practices of neoliberalism that privilege notions of individualism and personal responsibility at the expense of the recognition of structural social, economic, and spatial inequality. The authors argue that this maneuver stigmatizes the poor, leaving them less likely to advocate for their rights. In response, they conclude that an approach that positions food as a human right should be promoted to strengthen communities and empower individuals who experience food insecurity. Similarly, in “Examining Food Security Among Children in Households Participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Implications for Human Rights” (Chapter 29), Margaret Lombe and colleagues call for a human rights approach, rather than a neoliberal one, to food insecurity. Building on previous research, these authors analyze data from the Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement for 2010 to examine the effects of SNAP participation and the moderating effects of informal support, both community nonfood support and food assistance, on food security among children in vulnerable households. The study suggests that race/ethnicity, immigrant status, and household composition are related to child food insecurity. Informal food assistance was negatively associated with child food security, while an interaction effect between household food security and informal food assistance was indicated. Lombe and her co-authors conclude with a call to a rights-based perspective to address the persistence of child hunger in the United States. This perspective, informed by the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, is offered as an alternative to the existing neoliberal framework that advances a program of reductions in state mediations and market-driven interventions to hunger and food insecurity. The adoption of such a perspective would shift from a paradigm of food security as a charity provision to a right, a move that would actively seek to ensure that all children are guaranteed adequate nutrition. Finally, in “The Influence of a Neoliberal World View on Health Care Policy” (Chapter 30), John Orwat, Michael Dentato, and Michael Lloyd argue that there is a national consensus that rising health care costs, without increases in quality and access, should be addressed through policy reforms, but note that there is a chasm in thinking regarding the type of reforms that should be pursued. Proponents of neoliberal reforms, which have greatly influenced recent policy directions, posit that government intervention is inefficient and advocate for private market solutions that include decentralization, de-regulation, privatization of public health systems and public insurance (e.g., Medicare Advantage and the prescription drug benefit), use of tax breaks to reduce the “cost” of insurance and health services, increased cost sharing with patients, and promotion of individual decision making. The authors argue that recent health care policy changes have favored such private market-based programs that treat health care as a commodity. They conclude that market-based policies have resulted in the corporate consolidation of small family practices, the “mechanizing” of physician and nursing practice, a focus on profit over the provision of health care services, and reductions in public input into decision-making regarding resource allocation. They close with a call for research that addresses the impact of such policies on the most vulnerable, including those living in poverty.
