Transcript Social Welfare Policy Analysis

MODULE II
SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY
READINGS:
PART I, 1,4
5/30 – 6/5
1
Module II: Social Welfare Policy (SWP)
That’s no
guy---that’s
a prof!
I actually
prefer to
think of myself
as an egghead
See, I told
you it
was a
guy!
PART 1
• What is social welfare policy
(swp)? More particularly,
what are its definitions, types,
origins, trends? Why is it
important for social workers
to know about it?
PART 2
• Why are institutional contexts
and, especially, politics the
keys to understanding swp?
Who supports/opposes
policies & why?
2
PART 1
>Relevance >Overview >Definitions>
Types>Origins>Trends
3
WHY STUDY SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY? (1)
Because:
• It is the “social” in social work; it is the major factor in shaping
the practice environment.
• More broadly still, swps both reflect and help to define the type of
society we live in. For example, some of the most important
distinctions between the US and Canada are reflected in the
differing swps characteristic of the two nations.
• American politics is largely about what should be the range and
types of swps adopted by various levels of government.
• Both the CSWE & NASW codes require that swp and social
justice be key features of social work education.
4
WHY STUDY SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY? (2)
SOCIAL WORKERS NEED TO HAVE:
• THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE
SUCH POLICIES PLAY IN SOCIETY.
• POLITICAL SAVVY TO GRASP WHY PARTICULAR
GROUPS ADVOCATE PARTICULAR SWPs.
• APPLIED KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENTS AND
IMPACTS OF SWPS.
5
RELEVANCE: QUESTION (3)
• WHERE DO SOCIAL WORKERS FIT
INTO THESE PROCESSES?
6
RELEVANCE (4): ANSWER
EVERYWHERE!
Social Workers Are:
Activists
•Administrators
•Advocates
•Public and Agency
Officials
7
Overview: SW Policy and Policy Making
EXPLANATIONS
1.Welfare State:
Total stock of social
programs & policies,
to which newly
enacted laws are added.
See module 3.
2/3. Context & politics
are the most immediate
factors accounting for
legislative outcomes
(laws). Covered later in
this module.
4. The content of major social
welfare policies and programs
is the principal subject matter
of this course, as will become
evident in later sessions.
5. Application – The
level of greatest immediate
concern to social work
practitioners. Covered in
practice courses and, to
some extent, throughout
this course.
5. ADMINISTRATIVE
APPLICATION
4. SOCIAL WELFARE
POLICIES
(LAWS))
2. INSTITUTIONAL
CONTEXT
(E.G., US CONGRESS)
3. POLITICS
(BARGAINING)
1. WELFARE STATE
(PROGRAMS/INSTITUTIONS)
8
Definitions (1): Policy, Social Policy, & Social Welfare
Policy
A subset of social policies, in particular
programs/regulations designed to satisfy
individual and familial needs inadequately met
through the market system. See slides 11/12 for
a closer definition.
Social policy is sometimes used as a synonym
for social welfare policy, but this is really a
misnomer, since the former is a far more
inclusive term encompassing all sorts of
domestic issues (e.g., education).
“Policy” generically refers to the goals, means,
and principles pursued by institutions, whether
public or private. The term is somewhat
confusing for that reason---i.e., it encompasses
both means and ends, but is particularly
associated with the notion of principles, which
are implicit/explicit assumptions guiding
specific actions in pursuit of goals.
SOCIAL WELFARE
POLICIES (SWPs)
SOCIAL
POLICIES
POLICIES
THE NEXT SLIDE PROVIDES
9
ANOTHER REPRESENTATION
OF THESE CONCEPTS
Definitions (2): Policy, Social Policy, & Social Welfare
Policy
PUBLIC POLICIES
SOCIAL POLICIES
SOCIAL WELFARE
POLICIES
10
SOCIAL WELFARE
POLICIES (SWPs)
DEFINITIONS (3)
SOCIAL WELFARE
POLICIES (SWPs)
• Publicly financed and administered programs
designed to meet basic needs inadequately met
through the market system.
• Program eligibility determined by citizenship,
contributions, and/or “means” criteria.
• Contents determined via the legislative process, as
mediated by values, interests, and “clout” of the
contending political actors and their supporters.
11
Social Welfare Policies: Major Types
1. Contributory
2. Means - tested
3. Benefits tied to
earnings
or savings
About 50% of all social welfare expenditure
fall into this category: they are designed to
sustain income during unemployment or old
age, and require contributions from employees
and/or employers.
Eligibility established by demonstrating need,
according to government – mandated criteria.
This type of social welfare program (e.g., SSI or
TANF) accounts for 13% of all expenditures.
Unlike “welfare” (#2), these programs are
Targeted at the working poor (EITC) or
elderly seeking Medicaid assistance for
for long-term care. About 20% of all
expenditures.
12
SWPs: ORIGINS (1)
(Mainstream version)
In the mainstream view, modern swps derive logically if not
spontaneously from the very nature of modern society. Whatever its
local variations, modernity everywhere involves urbanization,
industrialization, and loss of family/local community economic
support. Workers are consequently exposed to a variety of hazards---notably, illness, unemployment or injury on the job---previously
perceived as family and community responsibilities. In the same
vein, the life phases before and after market employment----i.e.,
youth and old age---also require protections as substitutes for the
family/community goods and services available in simpler times.
The next slide diagrammatically profiles the varying attempts to
satisfy these new needs.
13
ORIGINS (2): VARYING RESPONSES TO MODERNIZATION
(Mainstream version)
Traditional
American
individualism
and selfReliance
Mutual
Benefit Societies
to protect
members thru
insurance plans
Trade unions
to protect members
by winning
benefits through
collective
bargaining
Government
action, including
swps, in
response to
popular
demands
URBANIZATION
AND
INDUSTRIALIZATION
MODERNIZATION
14
SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY: ORIGINS
(Radical version)
Radicals contend that mainstreamers gloss over the issue of class struggle---i..e., the
allegedly ineradicable conflicts in interests between workers and owners---that radicals
view as the pivotal political element in capitalist society. The origins of modern swps---in
Germany in the 1880s---is seen as a prime case in point. Then in an early phase of
development, German capitalism was nevertheless already threatened by a comparably
dynamic radical political – labor movement demanding public ownership of the mines,
factories, and railroads (the “means of production”). In reaction, Germany’s “Iron
Chancellor,” Otto von Bismarck, acting on behalf of Germany’s capitalist and aristocratic
ruling class, instituted the first swps. The strategy worked by somewhat blunting working
class demands for more basic change and, at least equally important, by classifying workers
into various social insurance groupings, intentionally designed to fragment their capacity
for common class solidarity. This “divide and conquer” policy deflected the (potentially)
revolutionary ardor feared by German elites. While American swp followed its own
distinctive pattern, their intent and results were similar.
The next slide reviews the American case
more closely from a radical perspective.
15
SOCIAL WELFARE POLICIES: ORIGINS
(Radical version)
Liberals often view---or, better perhaps, venerate--- Franklin Delano
Roosevelt (FDR) as the “founding father” of modern American
social welfare policy. This is true in a technical sense---the Social
Security Act (1935) and other important social and social welfare
legislation were indeed enacted during the New Deal phase (1933-41)
of FDR’s long presidential tenure (1933-45). But radical historians
argue that liberals underemphasize the pressures exerted on
Roosevelt from both working class Left and, especially. capitalist
Right, as well as Roosevelt’s own essentially conservative
inclinations. Thus, radicals regard the Social Security Act itself--undoubtedly the most important
swp in US history---as basically prompted by
corporate America’s demands for public relief
from its Depression-era pension obligations.
Conservatives are equally negative about the New
16
Deal, as the next slide explains.
ORIGINAL SIN: THE CONSERVATIVE EXPLANATION
EDU-RAMA
• THIS EDU-RAMA! CLIP IS ONLY 4
MINUTES LONG, BUT APTLY
SUMMARIZES CONSERVATIVE
DISTASTE FOR THE ROOSEVELT
LEGACY. THE PRESENTER IS
PROF. MILTON FRIEDMAN, OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO,
PERHAPS THE FOREMOST
CONSERVATIVE OPPONENT OF
THE WELFARE STATE.
• HERE FRIEDMAN EXPLAINS
HOW ROOSEVELT’S
DISCUSSIONS WITH LEADING
INTELLECTUALS, WHILE FDR
WAS STILL GOVERNOR OF NEW
YORK STATE, SET THE STAGE
FOR HIS NEW DEAL POLICIES AS
PRESIDENT.
17
SWP TRENDS (1): RETREAT, HO!
• Retreat from expansionary social welfare policies is one of the
major political realities of our time, and one that has had
especially important implications for both social workers and
their traditional clientele---the poor.
• While the beginnings of this trend predate the 1980s, it was
during that decade, and specifically during the Reagan years
(1981-88), that the process really accelerated---indeed, Reagan
was elected on an explicitly “roll back the welfare state” platform
that constituted a wholesale rejection of the
New Deal tradition.
• Whatever one’s values, there is no doubt
that the era of “big government” is over and,
barring exceptional circumstances (most
obviously, a major economic downturn)
is unlikely to return any time soon.
18
SWP TRENDS (2): CAUSAL FACTORS
• The reasons for this reversal are hotly debated, but its overall
momentum remains indisputable. Conservatives point to popular
disillusionment: in President Nixon’s (1968 – 73) memorable
phrase, voters allegedly became tired of “throwing money at
[social] problems,” and so withdrew support from initiatives
allegedly most beneficial to public sector bureaucrats rather than
the ostensible recipients of services. As the Friedman video on
FDR testifies, this is merely the latest version of the longstanding
conservative claim that so-called “big government” doesn’t work
and therefore should be downsized to an absolute minimum.
• Radicals, however, see the matter differently. In their view, swps
have been undercut by increased corporate lobbying and the
worldwide victory of “free market” economics.
• For more on this controversy, see Part 2 of this module, module 3,
and relevant assigned readings.
19
SWP TRENDS (3) : STAGNATION & REVERSALS
• No new major social welfare reforms have been created since
enactment of Medicare/Medicaid in 1965. On the other hand,
several major programs, notably public assistance and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) have, respectively, been
transformed or radically reduced. Perhaps more importantly,
almost no prominent political figure in either major party now
advocates ambitious liberal swp initiatives.
• The last major attempt at innovation was President Clinton’s illfated 1994 health care proposal (Module 5), which resulted in the
single greatest domestic political defeat of his administration.
While dissatisfaction with health care continues to simmer,
Clinton’s attempt to reform the entire health care system was so
disastrous as to discredit all further attempts at “global” change.
Commenting at the time (1994) the inimitable “Tom Tomorrow”
summed up the political mess, as follows
20
SWP TRENDS (4): A “PLAGUE ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES”
COMMENT ON THE CLINTON HEALTH BILL (1994)
21
SWP TRENDS (5): PRIVATIZATION
• Privatization of public service programs is now a well-established
American pattern. Many municipalities, for example, subcontract
trash collection and some even have experimented with private
police and fire services. However, the most prominent
privatization experiments so far have been in education (so-called
“charter schools”) and in the penal system, with a number of
states experimenting with corporate – run prisons.
• Privatization has also dramatically expanded in the swp area,
notably in administration of state welfare programs and reliance
on for-profit HMOs in the Medicare and, especially, Medicaid
programs.
• More ambitious still are demands for the privatization of Social
Security, the “colossal enchilada” among American swps, which
some conservatives would like to see turned into a privatized
pension plan.
22
SWP TRENDS (6): PRIVATIZATION PROS & CONS
PRO
(CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENTS)
•Privatization of public services and
programs saves money because
businesses must meet contract
specifications or lose money. Because
contractors have specific “bottom line”
targets, they must conduct their
operations with exemplary efficiency if
they want to stay in business.
•In privatizing services, government is
avoiding long-term contractual
commitments to employees---a huge
cost saving over time.
•Corporate employees are not covered
by civil service protections, which
promote retention of “dead wood,”
and otherwise cost the taxpayer
avoidable expenses.
CON
(LIBERAL/RADICAL ARGUMENTS)
• Privatization is essentially a ruse
(“scam”), whereby corporations
connive with pliant politicians to
usurp what are legitimately public
functions. The conservative
arguments are therefore really “red
herrings,” i.e., designed to deflect
attention away from the real aims
underlying privatization.
• Privatization is dangerous insofar as
it subverts social solidarity, while
providing corporations with
undesirable entrée into all kinds of
activities---e.g., education and
public welfare---best left within the
23
public domain.
SWP TRENDS (7): DEVOLUTION
• “Devolution” refers to the transfer of swps from one level of
government responsibility to another---most recently, from the
federal to the state and lower levels of government, as was most
prominently done with public welfare, when it was transformed
from AFDC to TANF (1996).
• Like the other trends described in this section, devolution is a
controversial issue. Its conservative supporters argue that it will
help make swps more reflective of the popular will, because state
governments are literally and figuratively closer to the people.
• Liberals and radicals predictably don’t see the matter in this way.
They view devolution as simply one way of sloughing off the
responsibility for swps by downsizing the size and power of the
federal government---the only level of government that,
historically, has been the most reliable and effective proponent of
social welfare programs.
24
PART 2: SWP & POLITICS
25
THE POLITICAL DIMENSION
• SWPs are first and foremost the product of politics; that is why it
is impossible to engage in serious social work study without
including significant attention to the profession’s political
dimension. It is also why both CSWE and NASW readily
acknowledge the importance of understanding politics in general,
and the politics of social welfare in particular, as vital to the
future of the profession.
• This second part of Module 2, and associated readings, provide a
compressed review, of both these themes. But doing so is not easy,
not least because, as we shall see, even defining what politics is
about is itself controversial, depending as it does on whether one
accepts a mainstream or radical perspective on that subject.
• We’ll focus on this controversy, and its implications for social
work and social welfare policy, but first briefly make note of the
institutional context within which all political activity takes place
and the “actors” who make that activity actually happen.
26
Institutions
All swps are hammered out within certain institutional rules and
procedures that regulate each stage of the policy making process.
This may occur at the local, state, or federal levels, although,
historically, the most important legislation has been enacted at the
federal level.
The way in which institutions are organized, and their relationship
to one another, can have a big impact on swp legislation. Indeed, the
so-called “institutional school” of policy analysts believe that that
impact is decisive in accounting for social policy outcomes. These
analysts argue that the American system’s division of powers makes
it possible to obstruct passage of sw legislation (and much else), just
as the weak structure of our political parties tends to have the same
effect: it is very difficult for party leaders to “rally the troops” when
each soldier (read “legislator”) is primarily answerable to his local
constituents. Finally, older, more conservative legislators have often
exercised extraordinary power simply because, as legislative
veterans, they have more institutional experience and have occupied
27
key institutional positions.
Institutions and Politics
Institutional arrangements, of the type summarized in the last slide,
undoubtedly have played a significant role in determining social
welfare policy. Indeed, when civic texts refer to the “policy making
process,” their primary emphasis is usually on explaining the “rules
of the game,” as it is played in the various institutional contexts
from which swps emerge. Yet it is important to remember that these
are POLITICAL as well as INSTITUTIONAL contexts: i.e. that
institutional rules have been established in order to constrain and
discipline the struggle for power that we call “politics.” Therefore,
while granting that the “institutional school” has its points, most
analysts still regard politics and political interests as the keys to
understanding why we get the types of social welfare policies we do.
For that reason, it is important to focus on the key questions
relating to politics and social welfare policy, beginning with the
primary one….
28
POLITICAL ACTORS & SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY
• Political actors determine the contents and disposition of swps.
• The “clout” of particular political actors in turn depends on their
resources: (1) lobbyists, their financial resources; (2) politicians,
their political skills; (3) the public, its degree of active political
mobilization. Generally, (1) is the decisive factor, but (2) & (3) can
also be very important, depending on the particular issue.
• Policy outcomes are thus often difficult to predict
due to the complex interaction of these
factors on any given issue
 The next slide provides a diagrammatic representation of the
relationships among political “actors.”
29
ACTORS
POLITICIANS
LEGIMATORS
ARTICULATORS
PUBLIC
PASSIVE OR ACTIVE
SKEPTICAL
ELECTORAL
Interest Groups
EMPLOY PROF. LOBBYISTS
OFFER TECHNICAL ADVICE
CAMPAIGN SUPPORT
30
INSERT: THE GREATEST POLITICAL ACTOR OF THEM ALL?
EDURAMA!
Students of modern American history often rate
Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) the most highly
skilled political leader since FDR. Indeed, LBJ was
an FDR protégé in his command of institutional
forms (he was Senate majority leader for many
years), interpersonal skills (the famous “LBJ
treatment” could reportedly “persuade” even the
most independently-minded), and determined
commitment to social justice. Using these
extraordinary assets, Johnson enacted numerous
civil rights, education, and social welfare laws,
including Medicare and Medicaid, which are the
most important swp legacies of his administration
(1963 – 1968). Yet despite these extraordinary
achievements, Johnson’s presidency was politically
destroyed by the Vietnam war, which drained
resources from his “War on Poverty” and helped
discredit the liberal activism Johnson exemplified
and championed. Click on Edu-Rama! to watch a
capsule LBJ bio, which begins with his statement
31
following assassination of his predecessor, J.F.
Kennedy.
WHAT IS POLITICS, ANYWAY?
IT’S WHAT
CLINTON
DOES IN
OVAL
OFFICE
IT’S A
FIGHT
FOR LOVE
AND GLORY
DARNED
IF I
KNOW !
There is no single authoritative
definition of politics. In fact, as the
following 3 slides explain, its meaning
very much depends on whether
you are an mainstreamer or radical.
32
THE MAINSTREAM VIEW OF POLITICS
• As one would anticipate, mainstreamers see politics basically as
an “arena of ideas” in which individuals and groups seek to
promote and act into law plans and values they regard as of
paramount social importance.
• In the mainstream conception, civics is not simply an “add on,”
but close to the core of what education should be about. That is,
the schools, especially at the higher levels, should teach how to
evaluate the objective merit of ideas by equipping students with a
knowledge of those subjects---history, philosophy, and economics--most germane to the evaluative task.
• Democracy works to the extent that citizen-voters have acquired
and are able to exercise this analytical capability. Thus, it is
possible to have a democratic institutional format without the
democratic commitment to public-spirited debate and circulation
of ideas. Indeed, many mainstreamers worry that this is the 33
current American situation.
THE MAINSTREAM VIEW:
LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES
• Usually seen as opposing political viewpoints, liberals and
conservatives actually share key underlying assumptions.
• Specifically, both view politics in terms of “dialogue and debate:”
their objective is to put before the public ideas and proposals they
claim serve the common interest, rather than specific class
interests. That liberals and conservatives share this view is at least
as important as their political differences.
• That said, conservatives believe that it is necessary to promote
corporate goals because society will flourish only if business does.
• Liberals do not disagree with this proposition, but urge that all
people be given an equal chance to compete and that government
helps those who, for whatever reason, fail to compete successfully.
Liberals also believe that certain common social programs should
be adopted when the private sector proves incapable of furnishing
the needed goods or services---medical care for the aged.
• The following two slides look at these differences more closely.
34
LIBERAL VIEWS
• Commitment to basic living standards beneath
which no one should be allowed to fall.
• Equality of opportunity actively promoted by
government
• Belief in the benign efficacy of government, as led
by the liberal elite
• Belief that capitalism’s “rough edges” can and
should be reformed for the benefit of society as a
whole.
• Democratic process as the way to effect all political
35
changes.
CONSERVATIVE VIEWS
• People are, or at least should be, responsible for their own
lives; swp “safety nets” only cushion the lazy and encourage
the improvident. They should accordingly be minimized or
eliminated altogether.
• Equality of opportunity, but primary emphasis on individual
initiative
• Belief in the inherent incapacity of government to
effectively address social problems. Led by well-meaning
but naïve liberals, governments can be transformed into
bureaucratized colossi, which threaten individual freedom,
even when they remain nominally democratic in form.
• There is no such thing as a free lunch
36
• Democratic process as the way to effect all political change.
THE RADICAL VIEW OF POLITICS
• Radicals see politics as essentially a struggle for power, in which
specific groups, individuals, and, especially, social classes pursue
their specific interests by appealing to certain common ideas and
ideals. In this view, in order to understand politics, you must first
understand what an individual, class, or group is trying to achieve
in terms of their advantage and then relate their political ideas to
this objective. Ideas flow from interests, not the other way around,
as mainstreamers believe.
• Expert political understanding, like expert therapeutic practice,
thus consists in being able to distinguish between what political
actors mean as opposed to what they say. What they say is
probably designed to convince others (and perhaps themselves as
well) that passage of legislation they are supporting contributes to
the community, when in fact it is quite partisan in its intentions.
37
THE RADICAL VIEW OF POLITICS
•Radicals are divided into various sub-classifications---notably,
communists, socialists and social democrats. However, all are more
or less committed to viewing politics as essentially a struggle for
power, in which the vast majority of people share common interests
in world peace and economic security, and would accordingly
benefit from a high degree of cooperation for the common good.
That is what is in their interests.
• However, these commonalities are obscured because a small,
property owning minority---essentially, the capitalist class---is able
to exercise decisive political influence in pursuit of its narrow ends.
(See Module 1, slides 30 – 59 for details.)
•The following slide looks more closely at radical views.
38
RADICAL VALUES
• Commitment to a decent standard of living for all citizens as
a fundamental legal and human right
• Full equality of opportunity and partial opportunity of
result: i.e. everyone should enjoy roughly the same life
chances, but in any case, social and economic differences
among people should be drastically narrowed.
• Activist government working on behalf of those most in
need of representation.
• Mixed economy
• Democratic process but without current inequalities of
media or political access
39
POLITICS AND SOCIAL WELFARE POLITICS
The remainder of this module is devoted
to applying Part 2 concepts to the
politics of social welfare.
40
SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY:
Political Supporters and Opponents
• Actors and, more generally, swp supporters and opponents,
differ in both their economic interests and political values
• Most Americans identify themselves as either liberals (not
“liberalists”) and conservatives. Radicals are a small
minority without effective political representation or access
to major media outlets for dissemination of their views.
• Radicals, like liberals, support popular swps, but want to see
them extended as part of an overall effort to reduce
inequality.
41
SWP SUPPORTERS: ECONOMIC INTERESTS (1)
• Generous swps are generally supported by the poor and
working class, as represented by trade unions, and by
others (e.g., handicappers) seeking protection from the
unrestrained capitalist market.
• Such programs are also selectively supported by middle
class Americans insofar as universal social insurance
programs benefit them---Medicare, Medicaid (nursing
homes), and Social Security.
• To the extent that that Americans perceive that they have
common interests in protecting programs, they are likely
to become political “actors.”
• The following slides examine these alignments more
closely.
42
SUPPORTERS: ECONOMIC INTERESTS (2)
Solidarity
Forever!
• Blue collar workers are more
vulnerable to lay off and hence
more interested in “safety net”
social welfare protections for
themselves and their families
• Trade union power is increased
to the extent that workers have
a “fall back” position in
negotiations with owners: the
stronger the swp “safety net,”
the more assertive unions are
able to be in their negotiations
with management
43
OPPONENTS: ECONOMIC INTERESTS
SOAK THE
RICH, WHY
DON’T YOU!
TAX
CUTS
NOW!
• Swps increase taxes and are resented by the rich,
who can afford to buy protections through the
market---e.g., health care and retirement
investments. Their lives are in any case much more
materially secure than those of ordinary Americans.
• The welfare state increases the bargaining power of
labor, as noted, so that its size and coverages are very
important considerations for employers seeking to
restrain wages and benefits.
• Owners want consumers to have maximum “private”
resources so that, ideally, even necessities are
purchased through the market rather than
collectively through the political process. (“What I
want as an individual consumer,” as opposed to
“What we want as a political community.” ) See
Module III discussion of “decommodification” for
44
more on this point.
ECONOMIC INTERESTS AND POLITICAL BELIEFS:
A FINAL COMMENT
• While people’s ideas and interests are ideally in
harmony---in principle you should be aware of
and favor those policies that are in your
individual and class interests----there is often a
discrepancy between the two: i.e., in reality, we
often believe things that are not in our interest.
• Radicals attribute such discordance to “false
consciousness,” i.e. what was termed in Module I
capitalist control over the “means of mental
production” and the resultant political ideas and
proposals that deflect ordinary people from their
real interests.
45
Part 2 Questions
1. As emphasized in this module, politics is the driving force behind
development and enactment of social welfare policy. Which political
position do you identify with---liberal, conservative, or radical---and
on what grounds?
2. Does the concept of “false consciousness” make sense to you? If so,
apply it to a given political situation with which you are familiar. If
not, explain why you think the concept is faulty.
3. Imagine that you are a political decision maker charged with
development of new social welfare policies. To which policies would
you give priority? Why do you think these are so important?
4. Having reviewed the module and associated readings, discuss the
importance of social welfare policy for social workers.
46