DQ

The Future of Social Policy

James Midgley and Michelle Livermore

I n seeking to provide a comprehensive overview of American social policy, the authors of this book have addressed many diverse aspects of the social welfare field. They have dealt with the nature of social policy and the policy· making process, the history of social policy, the political economy of social policy, and social policy and the social services. By covering a wide field, the book's authors hav~ sought to provide a state of the art account of American social policy at the beginning of the 21st century.

As social policy faces the challenges of a new century, it is appropriate that some tentative, sp~culative comments on its future direction be made. However, social policy is subject to many complex influences and events, so it is extremely difficult to predict future trends. As is well known, social scientists' attempts to discern the future have not been very successful. Nevertheless, some of the factors that will affect social policy development in the years to come can be identified. These include demographic, eco­ nomic, cultural, and political factors, among others. By examining these factors, it may be possible to glimpse the future of social policy.

The task is complicated by the fact that the policy-making process is subject not only to the forces of economics, demography, cultural change, and electoral politics but also to beliefs and ideologies that offer very dif­ ferent prescriptions for the future direction of social welfare. These factors exert an indirect but powerful influence on social policy makers. Although social policy is often regarded as a technical process in which rational pol­ icy makers identify problems and dispassionately formulate cost-effective solutions, they are influenced by ideologies as well as wider economic, demographic, political, and other forces.

An understanding of these forces is relevant to any attempt to speculate on the future of social policy in the United States. As this brief chapter endeavors to show, many complex factors will shape and determine social

557

558 INTERNATIONAL AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES OF SOCIAL POLICY

policy's future trajectory. It will also show that social policy commentators have reached different conclusions about these factors and their effects on the future of social policy. Generally, their opinions tend to be either pes­ simistic or optimistic. Since the 1980s, liberal scholars have tended to take a pessimistic view about .the future of social policy while those on the polit­ ical right have been more optimistic, claiming that the changes introduced over the last two decades have reduced the role of government and encour­ aged greater personal responsibility in social welfare. On the other hand, there is some agreement about the role of economic, demographic, cultural, and political factors in shaping future trends. These trends, the role of ide­ ologies and normative theories, and the views of social policy commenta- . tors about their importance are essential in attenipting to discern the future of social policy.

forces of Change and Sodal Policy _________

Economic factors are obviously very· influential in determining current and future social policy events. Significant and often dramatic economic changes have certainly shaped the evolution of social policy in the past. This has been particularly evident in times of economic difficulty. As was shown in Chapter 9 of this book, the Great Depression created pressing social needs that exerted pressures on government to respond. Similarly, the economic difficulties o{ the 1970s, which were associated with high inflation and unemployment, contributed to the redirection of social policy thinking in the 1980s. By blaming economic difficulties on social expenditures, conservative thinkers legitimated the retrenchment of social programs and, many com­ mentators believe, redirected the social policy trajectory from one of incre­ mental expansion to one of containment if not retrenchment.

The economic boom of the late 1990s created a very different climate for. social policy. With prosperity and a balanced budget, the alarmist claims of conservatives about the economic and fiscal problems created by social ser­ vice expenditures lost credibility. The Clinton administration had managed to balance the budget, and, despite significant shifts in welfare thinking and pressures to partially privatize Social Security, various social programs expanded, including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), child care, and the state-managed health insurance program for children of low-income families. Despite the termination of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program and the sharp decline in AFDC expenditures, the expan­ sion of the EITC in the 1990s resulted is a sizable increase in public wage subsidies. In 1990, the program cost approximately $7.5 billion. By the end of the decade, its cost had risen to approximately $30 billion (Hoffman & Seidman, 2003).

Faced with a sharp economic downturn in the wake of the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration did not seriously retrench

559 33. The Future of Social Policy

social service budgets even though the federal government again accumu­ lated a sizable budgetary deficit that was hugely exacerbated by the inva­ sion of Iraq in 2003. Despite criticisms from traditional conservatives who decried the administration,s profligate spending, the social services were not subjected to the same threats of budgetary retrenchment as during the Reagan years. However, this did not mean that the Bush administration approved of state welfare. On the contrary, a major initiative to promote faith-based social services was launched by the White House shortly after George W. Bush's election in 2000 (Bartokowski & Regis, 2003; Dilulio, 2007; Kuo, 2006), and efforts to partially privatize Social Security redou­ bled during his years in office. In addition, the president's decision, in October 2007, to veto two bills designed to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program attracted widespread condemnation. In these and other cases, opposition to state welfare was not driven primarily by budgetary but by ideological considerations.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration has bequeathed a major budgetary deficit that will in all likelihood require fiscal austerity to remedy in the .future. It is also likely that the challenge of balancing the federal budget will again invoke calls for the retrenchment of the social services. The severity of future fiscal retrenchment will, of course, depend on the health of the economy. If the economy continues to enjoy steady rates of growth since recovering from the post-September 11 recession, the challenge of balanc­ ing the budget may not be all that great. On the other hand, if economic conditions worsen, the prospect of balancing the budget in the near future may be slim. In addition, the vast recurrent costs of the occupation of Iraq will present a major challenge.

At the time of writing, economic growth had for many years been steady, and confidence in the economy, as revealed in stock market activity, had been strong. However, in early 2008, stock values fell sharply as it became increasingly apparent that many Americans who had purchased homes with subprime credit faced serious financial problems. The number of home foreclosures increased rapidly, and, although the unemployment rate remained relatively low at about 5%, anxieties about the health of the econ­ omy grew. In addition, these events mirrored wider economic concerns about the comparatively low valne of the dollar, the trade deficit, and the continued inflow into the United States of low"cost consumer goods, par­ ticularly from Asian producers. These factors continue to pose a major challenge to the manufacturing sector, which has found it increasingly dif­ ficult to compete in a global economy. In addition, many manufacturets have employed strategies of relocation and outsourcing, which have placed downward pressure on domestic wages.

The intensification of economic globalization is likely to exert a signifi­ cant influence on the future of American social policy. With its relatively open economy and a commitment to international trade among many polit­ ical and business leaders, the United States is particularly exposed to these

560 INTERNATIONAL AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES OF SOCIAL POLICY

forces. This is not to deny that the federal government continues to protect _ certain sectors of the economy, particularly agriculture, from international competition, but it is likely that the manufacturing sector, which had previ­ ously created steady and remunerative employment opportunities, will con­ tinue to shrink and that the proportion of workers employed in comparatively well-paid blue-collar jobs will further decline.

Whether the traditional services sector and the expanding financial ser­ vices sector can provide the san1e opportunities for millions of Americans

. to enjoy a good standard of living is questionable. The services sector is characterized by low-wage employment while the economically buoyant financial services sector has created well-paid employment opportunities for more highly educated workers. Indeed, the expansion of high-end employ­ ment opportunities and the stagnation of wages for unskilled workers have been identified as major reasons for the extraordinarily high rates of inequality that characterize income distribution in the United States.

The economic changes that have taken place with deindustrialization have significantly altered employment and income patterns in the United States. Obviously, as low-wage employment persists, poverty will remain an ever-present reality. Similarly, the proportion of the population in steady, lifetime employment is likely to decline. Indeed, increasing numbers of workers now cycle between jobs, and a growing number are also self­ employed. These strnctural changes will continue to have significant impli­ cations for social policy in the future. Also relevant is the impact of information technology. Economic activities have been transformed through the information revolution and the advent of computers and other technologies, which have had a major impact on productivity and economic growth. It is clear that productive employment and self-employment will increasingly require skills and expertise suited to the utilization of these technologies and an understanding. of the importance of information in society today.

Although economic globalization is often portrayed in the social science literature as a naturally occurring set of processes that are unresponsive to government regulation, governments are able to influence international eco­ nomic activities through trade agreements, tariffs, control over currencies, and, indeed, through exerting political influence on multilateral interna­ tional bodies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The extent to which the processes of globalization can be directed to promote social well-being at the domestic level thus reflects the influence that the government is able to exert and the extent to which it desires to shape global ecmiomic forces for the benefit of its citizens.

With regard to the former, the belief that the United States is the world's only superpower and that it exerts unrivaled economic, political, and mili­ tary influence-which was so fervently advocated by neoconservative intel­ lectuals in the 1990s (Midgley, 2007)-is now greeted with skepticism in view of the disastrous consequences of the invasion of Iraq and the emerging

561 33. The Future of Social Policy

economic and political power of nations such as China, India, and Brazil, among others. On the other hand, the government of the United States is still able to exercise considerable international influence. In addition, opportunities for increased multilateral action through international coop­ eration are also available. It is possible that the pressing problems of poverty and deprivation that characterize the lives of millions of people around the world may be addressed if wise and committed leaders choose to foster a truly global perspective on social policy (Deacon, 2007). A per­ spective of this kind will have positive benefits not only for the world's cit­ izens but for the citizens of the United States as well.

Demographic factors will continue to play an important role in shaping social policy in the future. Of these, the aging of the population is perhaps the most significant. It is generally recognized that, as the population con­ tinues to age, pressure for enhanced services will increase. In addition, pop­ ulation aging is widely believed to be creating pressures on the Social Security retirement program, which will soon result in a major fiscal crisis. Claiming that the Social Security system is unsustainable, critics have called for the current government-run program to be replaced with commercially managed individual retirement accounts. As a first step, advocates of pri­ vatization have urged that a portion of the payroll contribution be diverted to these accounts. On the other hand, it has also been claimed that the pro­ gram is indeed sustainable provided that incremental adjustments to con­ tribution rates and benefit levels are made. Another factoi; which is relevant to an analysis of the effects of population aging on social policy, is the like­ lihood of people over the age of 65 years continuing to work. If real labor shortages occur, incentives to encourage some form of employment among elderly people may well be widely used.

Immigration will also affect social policy in the future. A proportion of immigrants are highly skilled workers whose expertise is sought after by employers, but many are unskilled, undocumented workers engaged in low­ wage employment. Despite stringent immigration controls, the numbers of undocumented immigrants has risen steadily. Although immigrants do not place major demands on the social services, it is likely that social policy making will need to respond to their needs and to the increased cultural diversity of American society. The influence of increased diversity and the need to offer responsive services are already being felt in many fields, espe­ cially'in edncation and health care.

The popnlation of the United States will continue to diversify as many new immigrant groups with different cultures become established not only in the major metropolitan areas but in many other parts of the country as well. The traditional approach to cultural diversity, which identified two or three major ethnic groups, has now been compounded by the addition of many more distinctive cultural groupings with links to many different parts of the world. An awareness of the multicultural realities of contemporary American society is now more frequently reflected in social policy discourse.

562

.., INTERNATIONAL AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES OF SOCIAL POLICY

Social policy debates have increasingly focused on multicultural issues, and, in addition to being more aware of racial and ethnic diversity, the field is increasingly cognizant of issues of gender and sexual orientation.

These developments have been characterized by some social policy schol­ ars as reflecting the realities of a new postmodern era in which the values and ideals of Enlightenment modernism-as exemplified by a belief in rationalism and progress, the acceptance of encompassing ideologies, and strong, centralized government-are giving way to decentralization, frag­ mentation, and localism. They contend that issues of ethnicity, gender, reli­ gious belief, and traditionalism are becoming more important than the grand ideologies of modernist thought and that mass consumerism has become a dominant cultural and economic preoccupation. Today, they believe that people are increasingly cynical about the possibility of progress and that fewer participate in the political process.

This interpretation of current social and cultural realities has enjoyed some popularity, and more social policy scholars today are persuaded that the emergence of a postmodern culture will significantly influence the future of social policy. In addition to according a far more important role to gender, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, and other expressions of identity, social policy making is likely to become more decentralized and receptive to localism. The grand normative theories of social welfare that previously found expression in all encompassing federal legislative and administrative actions are likely to be undermined by local and state initia­ tives. Indeed, with the enactment of the 1996 welfare reform legislation, decentralization is now well established, and its effects will be felt even more strongly as federal funding for state and local social services contin­ ues to decline.

Current postmodern social and culture realities are also characterized by a tendency toward depoliticization and a lack of interest in major ideolog­ ical controversies. There is evidence that people today are more influenced by consumerism and popular culture than by ideological and political issues. They are also increasingly focused on local rather than national and international events. Additionally, electoral turnout has declined, aud polit­ ical campaigns are increasingly targeted at the relatively small proportion of the people who actually v_ote. Generally, those who vote are dispropor­ tionately white, middle class, suburban and conservative. The changing nature of electoral politics now influences political decision making to a sig­ nificant extent. These realities were evident in the congressional election of 1994 when the Republican Party secured a substantial majority in Congress and again in the 2004 presidential election when a relatively small propor­ tion of the electorate decided in favor of George W. Bush. Electoral realities of this kind are obviously important in determining the future of social pol­ icy. However, the role of political factors can be overstated, and as experi­ ence has shown, electoral politics can be mercurial. In addition, the political process is governed not only by the voting strength of parties but also by

563

pular opinion, the influence of the media, and, of course, by wider eco­ Bmic and social forces. ·.Changing electoral realities, the media, and public opinion also play key !es in shaping social policy. Media messages that oversimplify complex

:: cial issues but appeal to middle-class people can have a powerful effect policy makers. For example, media images about welfare and crime have

en used effectively in national elections and have created pressure on pol­ '_'_y -makers to adopt increasing punitive positions. Today, few politicians · ill openly oppose the death penalty, mandatory imprisonment for minor ,_/~g offenses, or other stringent penal measures that have a major impact •n social policy. The future direction of social policy will be significantly '!llJuenced by these electoral realities and by the way social welfare services ·..·. e presented in the media and perceived by those who exert electoral influ­

nce of the political process. Just as progressive social policy making previ­ .. usly depended on the labor movement for support, current social policy . ncreasingly depends on and is determined by middle-class preferences.

The Role of Ideologies a111cl Normative Social Policy Theories

:Jll addition to the demographic, economic, cultural, electoral, and other forces that will shape the future of social policy, ideological beliefs and nor­

>-:riiative social welfare theories are also important influences. As was shown in Part II of this book on the history of social policy, ideological beliefs have

. exerted a powerful influence on the way social policies have evolved over the ·.years. The social policies that were adopted at the time of the New Deal drew on collectivist ideology to offer a coherent, normative theory that legit­

-, irnated extensive government intervention in social welfare. Ideological beliefs played an equally important role in shaping the social policy changes introduced during the Reagan era. Not imbued with the collectivism of the New Deal, these policies gave expression to the values and ideals of individ­

• ualism. Clearly, attempts to discern the future trajectory of social policy must · pay attention to the way ideologies and normative theories appeal to policy • makers, interest groups, and the public at large.

For many years, social policy debates were characterized by juxtaposing ,,- institutionalism versus residualis1n as opposing normative social welfare

choices. The New Deal legitimated institutionalist thinking, but, as many social policy scholars have shown, institutionalism never directed social

. policy in the United States to the extent that it did in Europe. Although many hoped that institutional ideas would be adopted and that social pol­ icy in the United States would evolve incrementally and conform to the European model, the Reagan era effectively challenged this vision and instead advocated a radical return to the residualism of the 19th century.

564 INTERNATIONAL AND FU11JRE PERSPECTIVES OF SOCIAL POLICY

However, if it had been fully implemented, the shift toward residualism would have resulted in a massive curtailment of government involvement in social welfare and reduced the role of the state to one of providing limited assistance to tbe most desperately needy. But tbis goal was never realized. Although the social services were retrenched, a more fragmented, pluralist system of provision emerged, rather than a truly residualist "Poor Law state." As shown in Chapter 15 on welfare pluralism, privatization clid not significantly redu~e government involvement but instead resulted in wide­ spread contracting with private providers. Contrary to the residualist tenet of reducing social expenditures to a bare minimum, the state has continued to meet the costs of social provision. The new pluralism not only sustained the nonprofit sector but also created a new commercial welfare industry that has reaped significant profits in fields as diverse as elder care, correc-­ tions, and child welfare.

Social policy during the Clinton era gave expression to welfare pluralism. Although New Democrat policy strategists at the Progressive Policy Institute and elsewhere sought to formulate a coherent approach to social policy that could inform tbe Clinton administration's agenda, David Stoesz (1996) has shown that they did not succeed in forging a new social policy paradigm. Instead, social policy under the Clinton administration may be viewed pri­ marily as an eclectic reaction to the more coherent agenda of the Right and an attempt to respond to its electoral challenge. Despite the influence of communitarian and "Third Way" ideas on the Clinton administration, its approach was essentially eclectic and pluralistic. Indeed, both communitari­ anism and Third Way thinking are expressions of ideological centrism and compatible with the welfare pluralism of the Clinton presidency.

Although welfare pluralism was institutionalized under the Clinton administration, alternative nor1native perspectives were vigorously advo­ cated by scholars on the political right. The Republican majority in Congress under House Speaker Newt Gingrich attacked the alleged wel­ fare statism of the Clinton administration and promised to introduce social policies that would replace the welfare state with the "opportunity society" (Gingrich, 1995). It was in this context that the new paternalism of Lawrence Mead (1986, 1997) and his colleagues informed the Republican alternative to the Clinton administration's welfare reform efforts. The eclecticism and pluralism that characterize the original Clinton legislation was replaced with the dogmatic advocacy of a work first model, and it was with reluctance, and the resignation of key social policy advi­ sors, that the President signed the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program into law in 1996. The Clinton administration also faced intense pressures from commercial and political interests to par­ tially privatize Social Security. Although tbe president fended off the Social Security privatization campaign, it seemed that the initiative lay with the advocates of privatization and that the Clinton administration's position was essentially defensive.

565 33. The Future of Social Policy

The Bush administration moved quickly to implement a more coherent social policy approach which, as was shown earlier, was marked by the introduction of the faith-based initiative. This development represented a significant shift in normative social policy thinking. Based on the writings of Marvin Olasky (1992, 1996), the Bush administration argued that the churches and religious charities are more able to respond to social needs and social problems than the government, which, because of its bureau­ cratic nature, unresponsiveness, and wastage, was unable to implement the "compassionate conservative 1' agenda. Despite the appeal of this argument, the creation of a new office of faith-based services in the White House was controversial, and disputes soon arose about the allocation of resources to faith-based social agencies (Diiulio, 2007). It was alleged that evangelical Protestant religious groups were disproportionately favored and that the welfare activities of the black churches as well as non-Christian religious groups were neglected. Nevertheless, the faith-based initiative revealed an ability on the part of the political right to offer coherent normative alter­ natives to both the institutionalist welfare statism of the New Deal and the welfare pluralism of the Clinton era.

Similarly, the campaign to partially privatize Social Security was vigor­ ously pursued by the Bush administration and only failed because of the stock market collapse after September 11, the high costs of thelraq invasion, and the reluctance of Republican representatives to support the president's initiative for electoral reasons. However, the administration's single-minded ideological commitment to privatization and its effective com1nunication of messages about the alleged unsustainability of Social Security have created a climate that will nurture future privatization endeavors.

The formulation of innovative and clearly articulated normative per­ spectives on social policy by the political right poses a challenge to the pre­ vailing welfare pluralist system. It may be argued that the adoption of behavioral regulationist policies in the TANF program is indicative of a shift toward an increasingly punitive and controlling social policy regime. On the other hand, it may be claimed that the vigorous advocacy of the par­ tial privatization of the Social Security system is indicative of a shift away from welfare pluralism toward welfare consumerism. It may also be argued that the new emphasis on faith-based social welfare is indicative of a shift toward traditionalism in social policy. But while these normative perspec­ tives and their popularity during the Bush administration's time in office exerted considerable influence, social policy in the United States remains essentially pluralist. Howeve1; the future trajectory of social policy will depend on the extent to which the prevailing pluralist regime can be shaped and influenced by market, regulationist, or traditionalist ideologies or on whether it will sustain a viable equilibrium between institutionalism and residualism. In addition, it is difficult to predict whether alternative nor­ mative perspectives will emerge to offer a radically different direction for social policy and move the pluralist welfare system in new directions.

566 INTERNATIONAL AND FUTURE PERSPECTNES OF SOCIAL POLICY

The !Future: Optimists and Pessimists

It has already been argued that attempts to discern future trends in social pol­ icy will need to take account of a large number of factors that interact in com­ plex ways to shape the future. As was explained earlier, these include the impersonal forces of economics, demographics, cultural change, and electoral politics, as well as normative welfare prescriptions based on ideological pref­ erences. New normative perspectives have become quite influential, and their proponents are seeking to shape the prevailing pluralist welfare system.

Different social policy commentators have assigned greater importance to some of these factors than others. Some are persuaded that economic and fiscal realities will play a paramount role while others conclude that the future of social policy will be determined by electoral politics. Some believe that ideological factors are of vital importance while others contend that the future of social policy will be shaped largely by cultural change. Of course, some social policy scholars base their predictions on more than one of these factors, and other factors not discussed in this chapter may also emerge as likely determinants of social policy's future trajectory.

In addition to attempts to dispassionately identify the factors that are likely to influence the future of social policy, predictions have also been influenced by the personal dispositions of commentators, who may view future trends in either positive or negative terms. Social policy scholarship has, in the past, been liberally infused with preferences of this kind, and both pessimistic and optimistic dispositions have characterized past analy­ ses. As was noted at the beginning of this chapter, these dispositions reflect ideological preferences. For example, the changes introduced during the Reagan administration in the 1980s were viewed by many liberal scholars in gloomy terms even though the effects of these changes did not result in massive retrenchments or in the dismantling of the New Deal legacy, as many believed they would. On the other hand, social policy scholars on the political right are persuaded that these changes have bronght positive con­ sequences by restoring self-reliance and personal responsibility and reduc­ ing the heavy fiscal burden imposed by excessive social expenditures. Obviously, accounts of the future of social policy will be influenced by these personal and ideological dispositions.

Despite these differences, and a tendency toward either pessimistic or optimistic predictions, there is some consensus about the impact of the dif­ ferent factors discussed earlier. For example, many social policy scholars agree about the role of economic change on the future of social policy. Although the economic situation at the time of writing in 2008 is ambigu­ ous, attention has already been drawn to the challenges posed by the hous­ ing slump, the credit crisis and declining value of the dollar, and the possibility of a major economic downturn.

Although it is difficult to predict medium-term economic trends, there is more agreement about the effects of long-term economic changes on social

567 33. The Future 0£Social Policy

policy. Most commentators agree that the contribution of manufacturing to the economy will continue to decline and that this will have an effect on employment patterns, which, as noted earlier, are already flexible, volatile, and cyclical. There is agreement also among scholars that social policy will continue to face the challenges posed by a postindustrial society and that policies previously based on steady, long-term employment will need to change to take account of labor flexibility, self-employment, and similar trends. However, the implications of these changes for incomes and poverty are disputed. While some pessimistically believe that the persistence of low­ income employment and poverty presents a major challenge, others opti­ mistically contend that low-paid workers, and immigrants in particular, are living the American dream and that they and their children will invariably seize the opportunities that will propel them into the middle class. These optimists argue that, if educational opportuuities are freely available, the problems of low-wage employment and poverty will take care of themselves­ provided the economy continues to grow and the culture of opportunity that characterizes American society is maintained. Others believe that more targeted interventions are needed to raise the standards of living of low­ income families. They contend that the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, a further increase in the minimum wage, and the restoration of wage bargaining through a reinvigorated union movement will serve this purpose.

There is agreement also among social policy scholars abont the impor­ tance of demographic trends, and particularly population aging, on social policy. Most believe that the aging of the population will create greater demands for services in the future. However, with economic uncertainty, the fiscal resources to meet these needs are likely to be increasingly strained. As public revenues come under greater pressure, middle-class people will have to rely increasingly on their own resources. In keeping with the prevailing pluralistic climate, many commentators conclude that elderly people with higher incomes will make increasing use of private and commercial services while services for those with low incomes will be provided from govern­ mental and voluntary resources. In this situation, it is likely that services to poor elderly people and, indeed, to poor people in general will continue to be badly funded, haphazardly implemented, and increasingly fragmented.

Discussions about the effects of population aging on the future of social policy invariably involve Social Security and intense debates about the system's long-term sustainability. Although many social policy scholars have shown that Social Security contributions will continue to exceed expenditures for at least three more decades, predictions from those on the political right contend that the system is on the verge of collapse. As noted earlier, this view has informed the Bush administration, which successfully communicated negative images about the future of Social Security. These images have been uncritically conveyed by the media with the result that many people today believe that the system is already bankrupt. In this

568 INTERNATIONAL AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES OF SOCIAL POLICY

climate, it is likely that some form of partial privatization will emerge in the future. Even though the Bush administration did not achieve this goal, pres­ sures on future Republican political leaders to pursue the privatization agenda will undoubtedly continue. Of course, the Democrat alternative of creating an add-on system of mandatory accounts, which leaves the current Social Security program intact, may prevail.

There is consensus also about the continuing importance of immigration trends for social policy. Many commentators believe that efforts to restrict undocumented immigration will have limited success and that policies and procedures for legitimizing the importation of unskilled workers will be introduced. In addition, legal immigration will also continue to foster the further diversification of American society. For this reason, many believe that the social services will become increasingly responsive to the cultural needs of immigrant groups although, of course, the extent to which they are able to effectively meet the growing needs of low-income families is debat­ able. It is possible that the growing political activism of immigrant groups may create new political pressures for expanded social programs or, at least, for higher subsidies to nonprofit and community-based organizations that serve these communities.

With regard to electoral politics, many commentators are persuaded that the current disinclination among a sizable proportion of the electorate to engage in political activity will not be reversed even though there is scope for the greater political participation of immigrant groups in the future. It is likely that electoral politics will result in marginal shifts in the electoral strength of the two major parties although, as noted earlier, the political process can be mercurial. Nevertheless, national electoral campaigns will probably continue to focus on relatively small groups of swing voters. Policies articulated during major elections will generally focus on these groups, which, as mentioned earlier, tend to be predominantly white, sub­ urban, and conservative.

Although, as was discussed earlier, social policy scholars on the political right have formulated innovative normative social policy propos'als, it is likely that the prevailing pluralistic welfare approach will continue to char­ acterize social policy making in the foreseeable future. This is not to deny the significance of attempts by those on the political right to shape the pre­ vailing pluralist welfare regime so that it becomes increasingly dominated by a market-based welfare consumerism, or by traditionalism or regula­ tionism, or even by a combination of these approaches. But despite these efforts, many social policy scholars believe that welfare pluralism will con­ tinue to characterize American social policy. It is also likely that the plural­ istic position will be nurtured and sustained by wider social demographic and economic forces that will require multiple interventions appropriate to the demands of different situations. In addition, the expansion of faith­ based welfare and the subsidization of the nonprofit sector are likely to con­ tinue and to give expression to social policy's pluralist impetus.

569 33. The Future of Social Policy

In this context, it is also likely that future social service provision will be characterized by greater decentralization and localism. As noted earlier, the trend from federalism to devolution is already revealed in the way responsi­ bility for the TANF program has been transferred to the states. Some scholars take a pessimistic view of this trend, believing that increased devolution and localization will result in further fragmentation and unevenness in social ser­ vice provision. Social policy scholars of a more optimistic disposition challenge this view, arguing that increased devolution will foster greater democratic par­ ticipation and involvement in social policy making and implementation.

Howeve1; in view of the huge deficit accrued by the federal government since the Bush administration came to office, it is likely that federal funding for the social services will decline and that the states will be asked to assume greater responsibility for social welfare. This development, pessimists believe, will foster the further retrenchment and privatization of social programs and the disengagement of the middle class from the public social services. Although the social services may become more responsive to the cultural needs of ethnic minorities, their identification with low-income minority groups will result in less support from members of the white, suburban middle class, whose will­ ingness to pay the taxes needed to fund these services will be increasingly strained. On the other hand, optimists claim that this trend will foster greater personal and community responsibility for social welfare. They view the shift toward devolution and pluralism as a welcome attempt to balance the exces­ sive statism of the past with the increased participation of commercial and nonprofit providers. Middle-class people, they believe, will have new oppor­ tunities to meet their needs through the market in ways that are compatible with current social and economic realities. For example, the possible intro­

duction of individual savings accounts as a part of Social Security reform will promote greater choice and responsibility and free up public resources to meet the needs of those who are not able to care for themselves.

These factors .are likely to result in a perpetuation of welfare pluralism, and the trend toward localism and residualism will, in all likelihood, con­ tinue. It is highly unlikely, as some social policy advocates hope, that there will be a return to the goldeu age of welfare statism as exemplified by the New Deal and the social policy innovations of the Johnson administration. It is also unlikely that any of the normative prescriptions advocated by the polirical right will dominate social policy. Pluralism, decentralization, and inadequate funding will probably characterize the social services for the foreseeable future. However, it may also be tbe case that unforeseen factors and new normative theories will emerge to shape the future direction of social policy. It is also possible that social welfare may again emerge as a central and positive preoccupation of American political and social life and be characterized by a greater sense of collective responsibility and solidar­ ity. But, if this is to be the case, it will require new, visionary ideas that are responsive to current realities as well as the leadership and resolve to ensure their implementation.