Welfare Reform in Rural Places: Comparative Perspectives: Volume 15

The welfare state is certainly paradoxical. On the one hand, it is extraordinary mundane, concerned with the minutiae of the pension and benefit rights of millions of citizens. On the other, the sheer scale of its growth is one of the most remarkable features of the post-war capitalist world and it remains on of the dominant, if sometimes unnoticed, institutions of the modern world. (Pierson, 1998, p. 208)

It has been over a decade since the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) was passed in 1996 with the intention of “ending welfare as we know it.” The main cash assistance entitlement program that had been in place since the 1930s, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), was eliminated in favor of the non-entitlement Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. This drastic change occurred at a time of economic growth, where employment and wages rose across the United States. Initially, caseloads fell dramatically.

The United States has always been an outlier in its approach to social welfare and safety net provision compared to other industrial and postindustrial nations. A large literature has emerged to explain U.S. exceptionalism. Much of this theory and research centers on U.S. race relations and, more recently, on gender ideologies embedded in state policies that have fostered “poverty knowledge” and policies that emphasize individual responsibility and dependency rather than structural factors and processes that create social stigma and exclusion (O'Connor, 2001). Relatively unrecognized is the way spatial inequality shapes U.S. welfare policies. The restructuring of the welfare state by the enactment in 1996 of PRWORA, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, more familiarly known as welfare reform, highlighted the significance of spatial inequality through one of its key provisions: devolution of authority for program formation and administration to state and local jurisdictions. Devolution, a major element of neoliberal policies designed to diminish state redistributive power, places responsibility for welfare reform in local jurisdictions and agencies with varying capacities and resources for this task. Rural areas are particularly subject to disadvantage from devolution as they often lack the means to successfully implement welfare to work policies. Studies of the impacts of welfare reform using national data and crude proxies for spatial differences obscure differences in outcomes for individuals and communities that emerge when more attention is paid to spatial variation. The result is a form of extreme spatial inequality that marginalizes rural regions, communities, and their impoverished residents. This chapter examines the relationship between spatial inequality, devolution, and social exclusion for rural peoples and places in the era of welfare reform and shows how these form key elements of U.S. welfare provision. Illustrations are drawn from primary research on the impacts of welfare reform in rural Appalachia.

Attention to the role of institutions in the construction of racial inequality suggests that the status of racial groups in society results not necessarily from the mobilization of racist ideology but from the normal workings of social and political arrangements. (Lieberman, 1998)In the Post-Civil Rights context, all politics are racial. (Omi & Winant, 1994)

For the most part there is no rural welfare policy in Canada – just as there are few examples of rural policy. There are many examples where welfare policy has special implications for rural people, and even a few instances where welfare policy has targeted (explicitly or implicitly) rural regions, but this is rarely formulated from a position of rural policy or perspective. In addition, social welfare policy in Canada is complex. Within the Canadian Confederation, social welfare policy is primarily the responsibility of provinces and territories. For that reason, instead of a unified policy system, Canadians have a multitude of welfare policies, somewhat coordinated within a national structure.

These reforms offer a vision of a fairer welfare system where truly no one is written off, where nearly everyone is preparing or looking for work, where everyone is treated as an individual and gets the support they need. More importantly, these reforms point the way to a fairer society where children don't grow up in poverty, where disabled people enjoy real equality, and everyone is given real help to overcome the barriers to achieving their full potential. (DWP, 2008, p. 8)Workfare has finally arrived in the UK, but not with trumpet blasts of outrage: it's been smuggled in with lofty rhetoric about ‘personalisation’, ‘individually tailored’ advice and support which will enable people to ‘take control of their journey to work'. (Bunting, 2009)

This chapter is concerned with exploring the lived experience of welfare-to-work policy in rural Wales through the lens of participant observation with young people undertaking the initial course that represents their first encounter with the New Deal for Young People (NDYP).¹ I wish to respond to calls for qualitative explorations into marginalised rural life through discussing policy delivery personnel's² views of unemployed young people, and how some young people respond to the experience of being a rural welfare-to-work participant. The terms with which welfare practitioners speak about their clients and the client experience itself are both useful ways to look closely at the operation of the UK welfare programme, drawing out particular issues arising in the countryside. The chapter begins with a brief outline of the NDYP as an early mandatory welfare-to-work programme in the United Kingdom, before summarising some of the characteristics of youth unemployment. Drawing on empirical research undertaken in central Wales, I then outline some ways in which frontline practitioners characterise the 18–24-year olds with whom they work, before a detailed look at some individual stories from fieldwork with the young people themselves.

In this chapter the restructuration of the Finnish welfare state is examined in the context of rural Finland and especially within the framework of the structural change in agriculture. After briefly outlining the context of globalizing food markets and the Common Agricultural Policy for the condition of Finnish farmers, the chapter focuses on the economic impacts of the ongoing structural transformation on ex-farmers' position in society and the cultural and political aspects of this transformation. After this, the transitions in the overall position of the farmers will be connected with the current restructuring of the Nordic welfare state in Finland. The conclusion highlights the most critical features in the structural change of the welfare state regime as they are recognized against this background. A special concern of this chapter is how the remodelling of the welfare state treats the principle of universalism, which is justly regarded as the focal characteristic of the Nordic welfare states. The changing position of farmers has been selected as a point of departure for two reasons: agriculture is still the most important rural livelihood in Finland and, consequently, transitions in agriculture have a strong impact on rural areas.

Rural welfare is more than addressing problems of ‘poverty’. As we argue here, social policy initiatives are also conceived by governments as solutions to geographical problems about uneven regional development and population distribution. What these problems were, and how welfare provision could solve them, has varied from generation to generation and takes shape in place-specific ways. That welfare provision has operated as de facto geographical development and population policy is particularly the case in Australia, in its context of massive continental size and heterogeneous rural places. In Australia, the ‘rural’ means much more than just the ‘countryside’ surrounding or between networks of cities and towns (in the traditional European sense; see Gorman-Murray, Darian-Smith, & Gibson, 2008). ‘Rural Australia’ is inserted into national politics as a slippery geographical category, coming to encompass all of non-metropolitan Australia (each of Australia's states only having one major city), within which there is great diversity: broadacre farming regions involving the production of cash crops at scales of thousands of squared kilometres; regions producing rice and cotton with state-sponsored irrigation; coastal agricultural zones with smaller and usually older land holdings (often the places of traditional ‘family farming’ communities); single industry regions focused around minerals extraction or defence (many of Australia's major defence bases being located outside state capitals either in sparsely populated regions in Australia's north or in smaller ‘country towns’ in the south, where they dominate local demography); semi-arid rangelands regions dominated by enormous pastoral stations leased on Crown land (single examples of which rival the United Kingdom in size); and remote savannah and desert regions many thousands of kilometres from capital cities, supporting Aboriginal communities living on traditional country mixing subsistence hunting and gathering with government-supported employment and food programmes. In this context, rural welfare performs a social policy function, but also becomes a means for government to comprehend, problematise and manage geographical space.

In the decades since World War II, Australia has moved from a vibrant, universalist welfare system, based on the rights of citizens to receive income support, to a residualist system that is highly targeted, based on harsh and increasingly punitive eligibility requirements and which re-defines recipients as ‘clients’. These developments have happened slowly, some would say insidiously, as Australia moved from a supportive environment where the notion of collective responsibility for the vulnerable was accepted and, indeed, embraced. More recently collectivism has been replaced by the notion of individualism in what McDonald (2006, p. 10) refers to as ‘a silent surrender of public responsibility’. Individuals and/or their families are expected to absorb their own welfare needs as much as possible, while those that fall to the public purse are treated with some suspicion, particularly if they fall into categories of the ‘undeserving’ poor. In Australia the ranks of the ‘undeserving’ appear to be widening beyond single parents and the unemployed to include those with disabilities and young people.

If our school closes, we lose our community. (Opunake & Coastal News, 2002, p. 1)