Although focused on the Warren Court, the book explores Western political thought from the seventeenth through late twentieth centuries, draws on American social history from the Age of Jackson through the civil rights era of the 1960s, and utilizes current analytic methods, particularly the "new institutionalism."

No developed nation relies exclusively on the private sector to finance health care for citizens. This book begins by exploring the deficiencies in private health insurance that account for this. It then recounts the history and examines the legal character of America's public health care entitlements - Medicare, Medicaid, and tax subsidies for employment-related health benefits. These programs are increasingly embattled, attacked by those advocating privatization (replacing public with private insurance); individualization (replacing group and community-based insurance with approaches based on individual choice within markets); and devolution (devolving authority over entitlements to state governments and to private entities). Jost critically analyzes this movement toward disentitlement. He also examines the primary models for structuring health care entitlements in other countries - general taxation-funded national health insurance and social insurance - and considers what we can learn from these models. The book concludes by describing what an American entitlement-based health care system could look like, and in particular how the legal characteristics of our entitlement programs could be structured to support the long-term sustainability of these vital programs.

Few American social programs have been more unpopular, controversial, or costly than Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Its budget, now in the tens of billions of dollars, has become a prominent target for welfare reformers and outraged citizens. Indeed, if public opinion ruled, AFDC would be discarded entirely and replaced with employment. Yet it persists. Steven Teles's provocative study reveals why and tells us what we should do about it. Teles argues that, over the last thirty years, political debate on AFDC has been dominated by an impasse created by what he calls "ideological dissensus"—an enduring conflict between opposing cultural elites that have largely disregarded public opinion. Thus, he contends, one must examine the origins and persistence of elite conflict in order to fully comprehend AFDC's immunity to the reform it truly needs-the kind that unites the elements of order, equality, and individualism central to the American creed. One of the first studies to analyze AFDC from a "New Democrat" position, Whose Welfare? sheds new light on the controversial role of the courts in AFDC, the rise of welfare waivers in the mid 1980s, the failure of the Clinton welfare plan, and the victory of block-granting over policy-oriented welfare reform. Teles, however, goes beyond mere critical analysis to advocate specific approaches to reform. His thoughtful call for compromise built around the centrality of work, individual responsibility, and opportunity offers a means for dissolving dissensus and genuine hope for changing an outdated and ineffectual welfare system. Based on interviews with participants in the AFDC policymaking process as well as an unparalleled synthesis of the voluminous AFDC literature, Whose Welfare? will appeal to a wide array of welfare scholars, policymakers, and citizens eager to better understand the tumultuous history of this problematic program and how it might fare in the wake of the fall elections.

This law school casebook examines how society uses law to impact the realities of existence for poor people. It explores an emerging orthodoxy ; that government welfare programs harm more than they help. The first section focuses on conceptualizing poverty law theory through exploring current poverty, the historical legacies influencing welfare policy, and competing public policy perspectives on welfare. The second section examines poverty law practice, including challenges for poverty lawyers and the constitutional issues related to due process, equal protection, and the unconstitutional conditions dilemma. The third section discusses welfare reform and its focus on family and work.

Containing cases decided by the courts of Berks County, Pennsylvania.

Presenting diverse understandings of the origins and development of social welfare law, this globally informed Research Handbook embraces the inherent contradictions and complexities within the field. It emphasises the importance of ethical research and inclusivity and recognises the value of historical and contemporary methodologies.

Interdisciplinary Community Development: International Perspectives is a unique look at the innovations in interdisciplinary community development around the world. International leaders in geography, public policy, administration, social work, education, and public health explore the latest research, programs, and approaches to promote strategies