Managing social policy under federalism: The challenges of hybrid funding and program delivery

This paper discusses generally the question of the level of government that should be used to administer different social policies. The chapter focuses on the Medicaid program, looking at recent state-level changes in health insurance for the poor and long-term care policy. Particular attention will be paid to the question of how states have used their new freedoms to outsource public insurance to the private sector and on the consequent differences in outcomes across states. Notably, this paper will be drawn from my forthcoming book “The American Myth of Markets in Social Policy” (Palgrave, MacMillan, November, 2015).

The American Myth of Markets in Social Policy: Ideological Roots of Inequality

The American Myth of Markets in Social Policy examines how implementing American tropes in policy design inadvertently frustrates policy goals. It investigates multiple market-oriented designs including funding for private organizations to deliver public services, funding for individuals to buy services, and policies incentivizing or mandating private actors to provide social policy. The author shows that these solutions often not only fail to achieve social goals, but, in fact, actively undermine them, for example saddling the poor with debt or encouraging discrimination. The book carefully details the mechanisms through which this occurs, for example a mismatch between program goals and either contract terms or individual preferences. The author examines several policies in depth, covering universal social insurance programs like healthcare and pensions, as well as smaller interventions like programs for the homeless. The author builds the argument using detailed empirical evidence as well as anecdote, keeping the book accessible and entertaining.

Practice Movements: The Politics of Non-sovereign Power

Practice movements, that is, forms of unorganized collective action, are a central site of politics. Their defining moments are that their goals are expressed in practices rather than in words, and that these “pre-ideological” practices aim at access to or redistribution of goods, whether material or symbolic, rather than at representation. They are transgression rather than resistance in that they transgress restrictions inherent in the material organization of space, property relations, status orders, and normative regulations, be they laws, morals, or customs. Practice movements are above all about access and participation rather than about autonomy, and thus have an ambiguous relation to the transformation of the status quo. Their politics are transformative and they can produce temporary or lasting changes in the material grounds or in the regulation of the everyday life of those who pursue them, and potentially of the normativity and the organization of the wider social order.