With welfare reform a burning political issue, this special anniversary edition of the classic history of welfare in America has been revised and updated to include the latest bipartisan debates on how to “end welfare as we know it.”In the Shadow of the Poorhouse examines the origins of social welfare, both public and private, from the days of the colonial poorhouse through the current tragedy of the homeless. The book explains why such a highly criticized system persists. Katz explores the relationship between welfare and municipal reform; the role of welfare capitalism, eugenics, and social insurance in the reorganization of the labor market; the critical connection between poverty and politics in the rise of the New Deal welfare state; and how the War on Poverty of the ’60s became the war on welfare of the ’80s.
2 stars feels harsh for such an incredibly well researched text. But, this book was framed for me as "one of the most foundation social policy historical texts." However, this book should be held as no more than a reference text. Maybe a chapter or two will be interesting for your personal research, but do not read this book cover to cover.
Goodreads friends, I know you are tired of hearing me go on about accessibility. I have to say it though, this book is considered one of the more accessible social policy historical pieces. Of course, it was still incredibly dense and inaccessible for an average reader interested in welfare policy.
"Poorhouse" also lacked a racial and capitalist analysis that felt...glaringly absent. If you'd like to read a welfare policy text, stick with Piven and Cloward "Regulating the Poor."
I only read the first half of this book. I was hoping for more discussion on the challenges faced by the poor, instead of the emphasis on tracing the dominating political philosophies towards welfare. The concepts could have been presented much more concisely as well.
Katz's argument is that the New Deal and Great Society programs of the FDR, JFK, and LBJ administrations did not go far enough to create an effective American welfare state. That failure left the country with a "semiwelfare" state that has done some good things but is overall a disappointing failure.
Katz approached the history of poverty in America from a decidedly liberal point of view. Every problem must have a federal government solution. He also had no apparent understanding of basic economics but fell back time and again on typical Keynesian tropes.
The book is filled with random statistics and meaningless comparisons that the author tried to cobble together to support his narrative. In my view, this book is a great example of how liberal arts in the academy have come off the rails.
Somewhat academic, but thorough history of social policy concerning relief for the poor or what we now call "welfare." Starts from colonial times and works its way to the mid 1990s. The theme is that we as a society has essentially changed little in our attitudes and our underlying agenda in providing money or in kind services to the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. The books points out the limits and mistakes of relief policy even in the most liberal times of history, during the New Deal and the Great Society periods. I wish it devoted more space to a model policy solutuon. The books seemed satisfied to stay in the safe ground of historical analysis.
I happen to be obsessed with poverty, and with the ageless question it poses: Why? Is it systemic? Is it circumstantial? Behavioral? A bit of all three?
This book, written for policy students, is a good, readable primer on the public assistance "system" in North America, and demonstrates that societies have grappled with the question and problems of poverty as long as there have been societies. Each generation has tried to solve it using a different tact, a different moral viewpoint, with predictable results. The poor, as it says in the Good Book, will always be with us.
All I remember of this book was 1) sometimes it got pretty dense (so if you want lots of detail on American welfare programs--private and public--this is the book) and 2) sometimes the author got quite shrill. You definitely knew which camp he was in, which is kind of my same camp, but that shrillness I mentioned even turned me off.