Content area
Full Text
Paul Pierson. Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics, 1994 (reprinted 1996). New York: Cambridge University Press. 213 pp. $17.95
In his book Dismantling the Welfare State, Paul Pierson analyzes the policy goals and policy outcomes of conservative governance. He focuses on the administrations of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, the two leaders who became symbols of new conservatism in the 1980s. Both advocated a drastic reduction of the role of government and of welfare arrangements. Pierson labels these policies as "retrenchment;' defined as the shift of social provision in a more residualist direction (14). He notices that there are many studies on the expansion of the modern welfare state, but few if any on the process of contraction. He observes that in spite of proclaimed retrenchment, Reagan and Thatcher largely failed to reach their goals. Most programs were successful in surviving the attacks.
His general claim (and conclusion) is that the process of retrenchment is fundamentally different from the process of expansion of the welfare state (8). The outcomes of retrenchment policies may diverge from stated policy goals and intentions: "Retrenchment is a distinctive, and difficult political enterprise; it is no simple mirror of expansion" (1). Both the policy context and goals of retrenchment are fundamentally different from expansion. The first important difference concerns the constituencies for certain programs. Organized labor-very important in the creation of certain programs-lost much of its membership and power. Pierson, however, remarks that apart from the unions, there are other constituencies for specific programs, including recipients, providers of services, and program administrators in government. They all have a stake in maintaining and defending existing expenditure levels. In this sense, the very existence and expansion of welfare programs created its own defense groups, and institutions.
Second, Pierson points to the fact that welfare programs entail direct benefits, and diffuse and often indirect costs. Voters react more strongly to losses than to equivalent gains (2). He concludes that the outcomes of the retrenchment policies in particular policy areas diverged in the United Kingdom and in the United States. Some programs were more vulnerable than others; in particular, the retrenchment efforts were more successful in housing and unemployed benefits, but much less so...