Andrea Louise Campbell – författare

Why are so many American social programs delegated to private actors? And what are the consequences for efficiency, accountability, and the well-being of beneficiaries? The Delegated Welfare State examines the development of the American welfare state through the lens of delegation: how policymakers have repeatedly avoided direct governmental provision of benefits and services, instead turning to non-state actors for the governance of social programs. More recent versions, such as the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, delegate responsibility to consumers themselves, who must choose from an array of private providers in social welfare marketplaces. Utilizing a case study of Medicare, along with the 2009-10 health care reform, authors Andrea Campbell and Kimberly Morgan argue that the prevalence of delegated governance derives from fundamental contradictions in American public opinion. Americans want both social programs and small government, leaving policy makers in a bind. In response, they contract out public programs to non-state actors as a way to mask the role of the state. Such arrangements also pull in interest group allies--the providers of these programs--who help pass policies in a political landscape fraught with obstacles. Although delegated governance has been politically expedient, enabling the passage and growth of government programs in an anti-government political climate, it raises questions about fraud, abuse, administrative effectiveness, and accountability. Social welfare marketplaces also suffer due to the difficulties individuals have in making choices about the benefits they need. In probing both the causes and consequences of delegated governance,The Delegated Welfare State offers a novel interpretation of both American social welfare politics and the nature of the American state.

Why are so many American social programs delegated to private actors? And what are the consequences for efficiency, accountability, and the well-being of beneficiaries? The Delegated Welfare State examines the development of the American welfare state through the lens of delegation: how policymakers have repeatedly avoided direct governmental provision of benefits and services, instead turning to non-state actors for the governance of social programs. More recent versions, such as the Medicare Part D prescription drug program, delegate responsibility to consumers themselves, who must choose from an array of private providers in social welfare marketplaces. Utilizing a case study of Medicare, along with the 2009-10 health care reform, authors Andrea Campbell and Kimberly Morgan argue that the prevalence of delegated governance derives from fundamental contradictions in American public opinion. Americans want both social programs and small government, leaving policy makers in a bind. In response, they contract out public programs to non-state actors as a way to mask the role of the state. Such arrangements also pull in interest group allies--the providers of these programs--who help pass policies in a political landscape fraught with obstacles. Although delegated governance has been politically expedient, enabling the passage and growth of government programs in an anti-government political climate, it raises questions about fraud, abuse, administrative effectiveness, and accountability. Social welfare marketplaces also suffer due to the difficulties individuals have in making choices about the benefits they need. In probing both the causes and consequences of delegated governance,The Delegated Welfare State offers a novel interpretation of both American social welfare politics and the nature of the American state.

When Andrea Louise Campbell's sister-in-law, Marcella Wagner, was run off the freeway by a hit-and-run driver, she was left paralyzed from the chest down. Like so many Americans - 50 million, or one sixth of the country's population - neither Marcella nor her husband, Dave, had health insurance. On the day of the accident, she was on her way to class for the nursing program through which she hoped to secure one of the few remaining jobs in the area with the promise of employer-provided insurance. Instead, the accident plunged the young family into the tangled web of means-tested social assistance. As a social policy scholar, Campbell thought she knew a lot about means-tested assistance programs. What she quickly learned was that missing from most government manuals and scholarly analyses was an understanding of how these programs actually affect the lives of the people who depend on them. Using Marcella and Dave's situation as a case in point, she reveals the system's many shortcomings in Trapped in America's Safety Net.Because American safety net programs are designed for the poor, Marcella and Dave first had to spend down their assets and drop their income to near-poverty level before qualifying for help. To remain eligible, they will have to stay under these strictures for the rest of their lives, meaning they are barred from doing many of the things middle-class families are encouraged to do, such as save for retirement. And, while Marcella and Dave's story is tragic, the financial precariousness they endured even before the accident is all too common in America. Obamacare has reduced some of the disparities in coverage, but it continues to leave too many people open to tremendous risk. Beyond the ideological battles are human beings whose lives are stunted by policies that purport to help them. In showing how and why this happens, Trapped in America's Safety Net offers a way to change it.

When Andrea Louise Campbell's sister-in-law, Marcella Wagner, was run off the freeway by a hit-and-run driver, she was left paralyzed from the chest down. Like so many Americans-50 million, or one sixth of the country's population-neither Marcella nor her husband, Dave, had health insurance. On the day of the accident, she was on her way to class for the nursing program through which she hoped to secure one of the few remaining jobs in the area with the promise of employer-provided insurance. Instead, the accident plunged the young family into the tangled web of means-tested social assistance. As a social policy scholar, Campbell thought she knew a lot about means-tested assistance programs. What she quickly learned was that missing from most government manuals and scholarly analyses was an understanding of how these programs actually affect the lives of the people who depend on them. Using Marcella and Dave's situation as a case in point, she reveals the system's many shortcomings in Trapped in America's Safety Net.Because American safety net programs are designed for the poor, Marcella and Dave first had to spend down their assets and drop their income to near-poverty level before qualifying for help. To remain eligible, they will have to stay under these strictures for the rest of their lives, meaning they are barred from doing many of the things middle-class families are encouraged to do, such as save for retirement. And, while Marcella and Dave's story is tragic, the financial precariousness they endured even before the accident is all too common in America. Obamacare has reduced some of the disparities in coverage, but it continues to leave too many people open to tremendous risk. Beyond the ideological battles are human beings whose lives are stunted by policies that purport to help them. In showing how and why this happens, Trapped in America's Safety Net offers a way to change it.

Some groups participate in politics more than others. Why? And does it matter for policy outcomes? In this richly detailed and fluidly written book, Andrea Campbell argues that democratic participation and public policy powerfully reinforce each other. Through a case study of senior citizens in the United States and their political activity around Social Security, she shows how highly participatory groups get their policy preferences fulfilled, and how public policy itself helps create political inequality. Using a wealth of unique survey and historical data, Campbell shows how the development of Social Security helped transform seniors from the most beleaguered to the most politically active age group. Thus empowered, seniors actively defend their programs from proposed threats, shaping policy outcomes. The participatory effects are strongest for low-income seniors, who are most dependent on Social Security. The program thus reduces political inequality within the senior population--a laudable effect--while increasing inequality between seniors and younger citizens. A brief look across policies shows that program effects are not always positive.Welfare recipients are even less participatory than their modest socioeconomic backgrounds would imply, because of the demeaning and disenfranchising process of proving eligibility. Campbell concludes that program design profoundly shapes the nature of democratic citizenship. And proposed policies--such as Social Security privatization--must be evaluated for both their economic and political effects, because the very quality of democratic government is influenced by the kinds of policies it chooses.

Why Americans favor progressive taxation in principle but not in practiceMost Americans support progressive taxation in principle, and want the rich to pay more. But the specific tax policies that most favor are more regressive than progressive. What is behind such a disconnect? In this book, Andrea Louise Campbell examines public opinion on taxation, exploring why what Americans favor in principle differs from what they accept in practice. Campbell shows that since the federal income tax began a century ago, the rich have fought for lower taxes through reduced rates and a complicated system of tax breaks. The resulting complexity leaves the public confused about who benefits from the convoluted tax code, and leads to tax preferences that are driven by factors other than principles or interests.Campbell argues that tax attitudes vary little by income, or by party, as some Democrats, more Republicans, and even more independents want most taxes decreased. Instead, white opinion on nearly every tax is racialized. Many do not realize the rich benefit the most from tax breaks, attitudes toward which are racialized, too. And among Black and Hispanic Americans, long subject to government coercion, greater support for government spending is not matched by greater support for taxation. Everyone has a reason to dislike taxes, which helps antitax Republicans win votes—and helps the rich in their long campaign to get their own taxes reduced and undermine progressivity.

Why Americans favor progressive taxation in principle but not in practiceMost Americans support progressive taxation in principle, and want the rich to pay more. But the specific tax policies that most favor are more regressive than progressive. What is behind such a disconnect? In this book, Andrea Louise Campbell examines public opinion on taxation, exploring why what Americans favor in principle differs from what they accept in practice. Campbell shows that since the federal income tax began a century ago, the rich have fought for lower taxes through reduced rates and a complicated system of tax breaks. The resulting complexity leaves the public confused about who benefits from the convoluted tax code, and leads to tax preferences that are driven by factors other than principles or interests.Campbell argues that tax attitudes vary little by income, or by party, as some Democrats, more Republicans, and even more independents want most taxes decreased. Instead, white opinion on nearly every tax is racialized. Many do not realize the rich benefit the most from tax breaks, attitudes toward which are racialized, too. And among Black and Hispanic Americans, long subject to government coercion, greater support for government spending is not matched by greater support for taxation. Everyone has a reason to dislike taxes, which helps antitax Republicans win votes—and helps the rich in their long campaign to get their own taxes reduced and undermine progressivity.