The logic of industrialization[a] thesis is a sociological theory positing that welfare states emerge in response to societal changes brought on by industrialization. The thesis is most closely associated with the American sociologist Harold Wilensky and the American economist Clark Kerr.[1][2]
The thesis posits that the process of industrialization creates substantial societal change: economic growth, population growth, a division of labor, a rise in cyclical unemployment, the creation of a landless working class, changing family and community relations, and the need for a healthy and literate workforce. The welfare state is theorized to step in to fulfill the needs of the population created by such change.
Description edit
Christopher Pierson identifies a number of
Weak and strong versions edit
The sociologists John Myles and Jill Quadagno identify two versions of the theory:[3]
- The "weak" version: The weak version holds that industrialism is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to explain welfare state expansion. In other words, welfare states can only emerge after industrialization, but industrialization does not on its own lead necessarily to the emergence of a welfare state. According to Myles and Quadagno, this version is widely held among welfare state scholars.
- The "strong" version: The strong version holds that industrialization itself is the primary driver of the emergence and growth of welfare states. This version is highly contested among scholars, many of whom point to other forces like party politics, the preferences of political leaders, the strength of labor movements, and institutional structures to explain the development of welfare states (see Other theories).
Criticism edit
The principle critique of the logic of industrialism thesis is that it fails to explain differences among welfare states in countries of similar economic development.
Other theories edit
Modernization edit
The modernization approach to welfare state development is similar to the logic of industrialization thesis in that they are both based on a progressive-evolutionary logic (a belief that states inevitably progress towards higher stages of development) that place industrialization as a key driver in the development of welfare states. Modernization theories, however, situate welfare state development within a broader process of political modernization. In particular, modernization theories identify industrialization (economic modernization) as one of two key drivers of the development of welfare states, the other being democratization (political modernization).[4]
Neo-Marxist edit
Social Democratic edit
Social democratic theories of the development of the welfare state postulate that the strength of labor, and in particular in labor's ability to organize into trade unions and social democratic political parties, is the key factor in the development of welfare programs.[5]
Power resources model edit
Feminist edit
Race edit
Many scholars argue that race plays a substantial role in the trajectory of welfare state development, particularly in the United States. Racial critiques of welfare state theories generally fall into one of two interrelated categories: first, that welfare states have been constructed to systematically disadvantage racial and ethnic minorities; and second, that a desire to maintain racial hierarchies (for example, white supremacy in the United States, particularly in the South) stunt the expansion of welfare programs.
In the first category, scholars focus on the ways in which racial and ethnic groups have historically been excluded from or disadvantaged within social programs.
In the second category, scholars argue that attempts to disadvantage racial groups extend beyond limiting or excluding those racial groups from welfare programs to disrupting the growth of welfare programs writ large. These critiques often focus heavily on the United States, which was less ethnically homogeneous than Western European countries in the 20th and late 19th century and which has a long history of subjugating its substantial African American population. The economic historians Lee J. Alston and Joseph P. Ferrie, for instance, argue that efforts by southern politicians to maintain the region's agricultural economic system, which relief heavily upon sharecropping, thwarted efforts to expand welfare programs and place them more heavily under federal, rather than local, control.[b][6]
Historical institutionalism edit
The role of patronage politics in the United States, for instance, has been identified as key contributor to the late development of social insurance in the United States.[7]
Notes edit
- ^ It is also sometimes called the "logic of industrialism" thesis.
- ^ This argument also falls under the historical institutionalist approach discussed in the next section. Indeed, the publisher's description of the book describes it as falling under the new institutional economics school of thought.
Citations edit
- ^ Pierson 1998, p. 14.
- ^ Cousins 2012, p. 20–21.
- ^ Myles & Quadagno 2002, p. 36–37.
- ^ Pierson 1998, p. 20–22.
- ^ Skocpol & Amenta 1986, p. 139–143.
- ^ Alston & Ferrie 1999.
- ^ Amenta, Bonastia & Caren 2001, p. 225–226.
References edit
- Alston, Lee J.; Ferrie, Joseph P. (1999). Southern Paternalism and the American Welfare State: Economics, Politics, and Institutions in the South, 1865–1965. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511720529. ISBN 978-0521035798.
- Amenta, Edwin; Bonastia, Chris; Caren, Neal (August 2001). "US Social Policy in Comparative and Historical Perspective: Concepts, Images, Arguments, and Research Strategies". Annual Review of Sociology. 27: 213–234. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.213. JSTOR 2678620 – via Annual Reviews.
- Cousins, Mel (2012). "Welfare State Theories" (PDF). European Welfare States: Comparative Perspectives. Sage Publications. pp. 19–40. doi:10.4135/9781446211649. ISBN 9781847877833.
- Kerr, Clark; Dunlop, John T.; Harbison, Frederick; Myers, Charles A. (1960). Industrialism and Industrial Man: The Problems of Labor and Management in Economic Growth. Harvard University Press.
- Myles, John; Quadagno, Jill (March 2002). "Political Theories of the Welfare State". Social Service Review. 76 (1): 34–57. doi:10.1086/324607. JSTOR 10.1086/324607 – via The University of Chicago Press Journals.
- Pierson, Christopher (1998) [1991]. Beyond the Welfare State: The New Political Economy of Welfare (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN 9780271018614.
- Quadagno, Jill (August 1987). "Theories of the Welfare State". Annual Review of Sociology. 13: 109–128. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.13.080187.000545. JSTOR 2083242 – via Annual Reviews.
- Schustereder, Ingmar (2010). "Theoretical Foundations of the Welfare State". Welfare State Change in Leading OECD Countries: The Influence of Post-Industrial and Global Economic Developments. Gabler Verlag. pp. 11–24. doi:10.1007/978-3-8349-8622-1_2. ISBN 978-3-8349-8622-1.
- Skocpol, Theda (1992). "Introduction: Understanding the Origins of Modern Social Provision in the United States". Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Harvard University Press. pp. 1–62. doi:10.2307/j.ctvjz81v6. ISBN 9780674043725. JSTOR j.ctvjz81v6.
- Skocpol, Theda; Amenta, Edwin (August 1986). "States and Social Policies". Annual Review of Sociology. 12: 131–157. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.001023. JSTOR 2083198 – via Annual Reviews.
- Wilensky, Harold (1975). The Welfare State and Equality: Structural and Ideological Roots of Public Expenditures. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520028005.