POSC 459 — Social Welfare Politics and Policy · Week 12, Monday 9 November 2026
Accessible text version of the Week 12 Monday slides — same content in linear order, with no slide-scaling container. Readings: Gilens 1999, chapter 3, skim chapter 5; Howard 2007, chapter 9.
POSC 459 — Social Welfare Politics and Policy Week 12 · Monday, November 9
Gilens 1999, ch. 3, skim ch. 5 · Howard 2007, ch. 9
The film: “Go back to your Section 8 housing”
Soss and Schram: “lack motivation,” still tied to opposing welfare spending after 1996
Today: how did welfare come to be seen through race?
Week 11 film · Soss and Schram, p. 117
27% actual · 50% guessed
Gilens’s figures, 1999 · median answer in one survey
Gilens, p. 68; repeated p. 102
| Time, Newsweek, U.S. News | Black |
|---|---|
| Poor people pictured, 1950–92 | 53.4% |
| Actual poor, average for the same years | 29.3% |
| Poor people pictured, 1967–92 | 57% |
1967–92: “about twice the true proportion”
Gilens, pp. 113–14 · newsmagazines, not today’s feeds
Support: helping the poor; welfare in principle
Oppose: welfare spending
| Favor cutting spending on | |
|---|---|
| “welfare” | 63% |
| “people on welfare” | 71% |
Gilens, pp. 60, 63–65
| Most people on welfare… | Agree |
|---|---|
| are “taking advantage of the system” | 66% |
| “could get along without it if they tried” | 61% |
| who can work “try to find jobs” | 31% |
Gilens, table 3.1, p. 62 · surveys, 1994–95 and earlier
“Most welfare recipients could get by without it if they really tried”
| Respondent | Cut welfare | Increase welfare |
|---|---|---|
| Strongly agrees | 59% | 18% |
| Strongly disagrees | 22% | 43% |
Gilens, figure 3.1, pp. 64–65 · National Race and Politics Study, 1991
“Welfare” as a “race-coded” topic
| Rated Black Americans as | Cut welfare | Increase welfare |
|---|---|---|
| Hard-working (1 of 7) | 35% | 47% |
| Lazy (7 of 7) | 63% | 15% |
Gilens, p. 67; figure 3.2, pp. 68–69 · General Social Survey, 1990 and 1994
How to read it: rows are Gilens’s labels for beliefs measured in a 1986 survey of white respondents. Columns are outcomes: cutting food stamps, negative feelings toward welfare recipients, and the two combined. Each number is points of opposition, 0–100, between one end of the belief and the other, with the other five held constant.
| White respondents’ belief | Cut food stamps | Negative feelings | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|
| “Blacks lack work ethic” | 20.1** | 14.3*** | 17.2*** |
| “Civil rights leaders push too fast” | 14.2* | 4.3 | 11.7** |
| Opposition to affirmative action | 14.8* | 8.5 | 10.4* |
| “Helping blacks is not government’s job” | 11.2* | 1.4 | 4.1 |
| Negative feelings toward Black people | 0.7 | 8.7 | 3.1 |
| “Blacks are innately inferior” | −4.3 | 5.1 | −0.2 |
Top right: 17 points. Bottom two rows: no statistically clear link. Stars mark results that would be unusual if there were no association; they aren’t proof of cause.
Gilens, table 3.2, p. 77 · 1986 NES · 357–381 people · * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Gilens, pp. 72, 76, 79
| Years | Poor people pictured who are Black |
|---|---|
| 1950–59 | 18% |
| 1964 | 27% |
| 1965 | 49% |
| 1966 | 53% |
| 1967 | 72% |
Actual share of the poor, early to late 1960s: 27% to 30%
Gilens, pp. 114, 117
| Stories on | Pictured Black |
|---|---|
| Underclass | 100% |
| Urban problems | 84% |
| Welfare, antipoverty programs | 54% |
| Children | 51% |
| Medical care | 28% |
| Hunger | 25% |
| Old-age assistance | 0% |
Gilens, table 5.2, p. 128 · 1950–92 · selected topics
| Power | Positive construction | Negative construction |
|---|---|---|
| Strong | Advantaged: the elderly, business, veterans | Contenders: the rich, big unions, minorities |
| Weak | Dependents: children, mothers, disabled | Deviants: criminals, drug addicts, gangs |
Their map of how officials may perceive groups. Minorities’ placement is contested.
“the poor were constructed as lazy or shiftless and were often believed to be minorities”
Schneider and Ingram 1993, figure 1, p. 336; p. 345 · not assigned
The common view: race has faded from social policy; welfare is “the big exception”
Howard: “has not disappeared, nor is it limited to welfare”
How: the states, about 2000; benefits, not poverty
Form: a student and a teacher work it out
Howard 2007, pp. 178–81
How to read it: each column is one regression across the states, predicting the maximum monthly TANF benefit in 2000, holding income, education, urbanization, poverty, and party constant. Population and officials figures are dollars per percentage point. A dash: not in that model.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Black population | −7.458** | — | — | — | — |
| Black + Hispanic population | — | −4.568* | — | — | — |
| Racial attitudes | — | — | 6.474** | — | 6.195** |
| Black elected officials (% of all officials) | — | — | — | −12.835** | −10.760* |
| Adjusted R² | .552 | .448 | .524 | .509 | .590 |
| N | 49 | 49 | 44 | 49 | 44 |
Model 1: one more percentage point of Black population, $7.46 less a month. Attitudes: higher means more tolerant; Howard’s units are unclear, but least to most tolerant is about $250 a month. Adjusted R²: share of variation explained. N: states.
Howard, table 9.1, p. 187 · stars: unusual if no association, not proof of cause · * p < .05, ** p < .01
How to read it: each row summarizes comparisons across the states; SCHIP uses simple correlations without controls. A negative figure means states with more Black or Hispanic residents pay less, holding income, education, urbanization, need, and party constant. The last column asks whether a state’s racial attitudes showed a reliable link to that program’s benefits.
| Program | Per 1 point more minority population, with controls | Racial attitudes significant? |
|---|---|---|
| TANF, maximum benefit | −$7.46** a month (Black) | Yes |
| Medicaid, elderly | −$126* a year per patient (Black + Hispanic) | No |
| Medicaid, children and disabled | Not significant | Not reported |
| Unemployment insurance | −$1.72** a week (Black + Hispanic) | No |
| Workers’ comp | Fewer of 19 “essentials” of a program | No |
| SCHIP | Black share r = .24, Hispanic share r = −.23; neither significant | Not reported |
Howard, tables 9.1–9.3 and pp. 182–84, 191 · state benefits, 1999–2001 · * p < .05, ** p < .01
On welfare: “very consistent” with Gilens
Outside welfare: larger minority shares go with lower benefits; the attitude measure leaves the mechanism open
The student: “I’m not yet sure how race matters”
Howard, pp. 188–89
“Race matters” is where the argument starts.
Next: “Race explains X and not Y, and here is how you would tell.”
Week 12 prompt
This week: nothing due
Wed 11/11: Veterans Day, no class
Mon 11/16: Michener 2020; Mettler 1998, ch. 1, 5–6
Fri 11/20, 11:59 p.m.: Discussion Paper 5
The poor: 27% actual, 50% guessed (Gilens, 1999)
Opposition turns on who seems deserving
Among whites, a work-ethic stereotype predicts it best
News pictures jumped in 1965 and followed tone
Howard: the pattern reaches past welfare; attitudes don’t say why
Race explains X and not Y: how would you tell?