| Summary: | <p>This thesis examines the evolution of conservative ideas about U.S. welfare reform, demonstrating the primacy of the new paternalism in a case study of Ohio.</p>
<p>I argue that the new paternalism is primarily a mechanism of welfare state retrenchment because it rests on the logic of dependency. Although its assumptions – explicit through the writings of Lawrence Mead – distinguish the new paternalism from retrenchment through spending cuts and program elimination, it is nonetheless a distinct ideational strand of the same political order, a core but neglected element of conservatism’s maintenance of power at the local level. This conceptual shift challenges the conventional wisdom that paternalism is radically different from the abolitionism advocated by Charles Murray, and the claim that it is the product of political compromise between big-government liberals and small-government conservatives.</p>
<p>My empirical evidence comes from archival research from 1961 to 2007 and in-depth interviews conducted in 2018 about welfare policymaking in Ohio, particularly the development and functions of work requirements since the early 1960s. Through discourse analysis and analytic history of this case study, I examine each of paternalism’s assumptions over time, investigate how they gain strength, the extent to which they are contested, and how they collaborate with welfare abolition efforts to reduce access to the safety-net. My findings illustrate how conservative ideas have adapted to advance retrenchment efforts.</p>
|
|---|