FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W213317985> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W213317985 startingPage "158" @default.
• W213317985 abstract "Introduction WITH THE RECENT PASSAGE OF WELFARE REFORMS IN 2006 AS A LITTLE-DISCUSSED element of a federal budget bill, welfare policy in the United States has moved ever closer to universal workfare. (1) Even before the more sweeping reforms of 1996, Bob Jessop described an emerging that was replacing the welfare state in the industrialized democracies. The latter's logic of protecting citizens from the fortunes of the market was being supplanted by its opposite. This new regime emphasizes: (1) flexibility for enterprise; (2) geographic re-scaling of economic and social intervention; (3) replacement of entitlements with obligations on the part of citizens; and (4) coalitional power-holding spanning governmental, civil-society, and profit-motivated actors (Jessop, 1994; see also Jessop, 2003; Peck, 2002). In this article, I explore the expansion of workfare programs in New York City and concentrate on the relationship of coalitional power to the form and content of opposition to workfare. From 1995 to 1998, New York City's program requiring welfare recipients to work as a condition of receiving benefits began a fourfold expansion (New York City Office of the Mayor, 1997, 1998, 1999), while welfare rolls contracted by nearly half. Workfare assignments in the city's Work Experience Program (WEP) created enormous disincentives to remain on welfare, and created more opportunities for the state to sanction-- or cut off--welfare recipients' grants. Stricter eligibility procedures and hassle (Mead, 2004) designed to get applicants to give up their efforts to sign up for relief also contributed to a sharp decline in the rolls. I attend most carefully to the dynamics by which the changes in welfare were put into play; the creation of an organized opposition to workfare; and the creation of a discourse among the opposition that highlighted WEP's shortcomings. In the wake of its fiscal crisis in the 1970s, New York City developed what Jessop calls a rather than a fully politics, i.e., one based, at least for social provision, on partnerships between the state and nonprofit social service providers. Many of these service providers had roots in urban movements in the 1960s and 1970s. Yet, as DeFilippis (2003) suggests, many of these groups, which devoted their energies to housing rehabilitation and tenant organizing, became co-opted as specialized conduits for housing redevelopment and low-income housing management. As a result, many abandoned their roles as agitators for broader change. By the early 1990s, however, at the peak of a second fiscal crisis under the mayoral administration of David N. Dinkins (1990-1993), several of these organizations were actively exploring ways of re-infusing organizing into their development work (Krinsky and Hovde, 1996). When Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (1994-2001) aggressively reneged on the neocorporatist recognition of community-based organizations in providing social services, some of the more progressive housing groups worked to oppose workfare with organizations that had recently faced similar dilemmas in service politics with respect to the city's homelessness crisis. In spite of its apparent global hegemony, neoliberalism is not the same everywhere; wherever neoliberal governance is tried, its roll-back moment--i.e., the point at which it uproots the existing social policy infrastructure--generates specific sorts of opposition depending upon the existing configuration of, and division of labor in, the state and civil society groups. Specifically, this helps to highlight the dialectics of privatization and advocacy in New York. In New York City, the initial imposition of neoliberalism ended in at least a partial neocorporatist bargain. Yet the coalitional pressures created by New York's neocorporatism failed to contain politically the push for greater flexibility by the city's financial elite, and this, in turn, created a progressive-corporatist reaction in the 1990s. …" @default.
• W213317985 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W213317985 creator A5071275468 @default.
• W213317985 date "2006-09-22" @default.
• W213317985 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W213317985 title "The Dialectics of Privatization and Advocacy in New York City's Workfare State" @default.
• W213317985 cites W1497534413 @default.
• W213317985 cites W1502953616 @default.
• W213317985 cites W1599154906 @default.
• W213317985 cites W1606937993 @default.
• W213317985 cites W1985430242 @default.
• W213317985 cites W2004545755 @default.
• W213317985 cites W2004939754 @default.
• W213317985 cites W2022636002 @default.
• W213317985 cites W2037594087 @default.
• W213317985 cites W2043664177 @default.
• W213317985 cites W2071624487 @default.
• W213317985 cites W2084221112 @default.
• W213317985 cites W2095842624 @default.
• W213317985 cites W2130172246 @default.
• W213317985 cites W2142909072 @default.
• W213317985 cites W2147934057 @default.
• W213317985 cites W2166994805 @default.
• W213317985 cites W2324286395 @default.
• W213317985 cites W589551307 @default.
• W213317985 cites W599617448 @default.
• W213317985 cites W88417732 @default.
• W213317985 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W213317985 type Work @default.
• W213317985 sameAs 213317985 @default.
• W213317985 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W213317985 countsByYear W2133179852013 @default.
• W213317985 countsByYear W2133179852014 @default.
• W213317985 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W213317985 hasAuthorship W213317985A5071275468 @default.
• W213317985 hasConcept C100243477 @default.
• W213317985 hasConcept C129603779 @default.
• W213317985 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W213317985 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W213317985 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W213317985 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W213317985 hasConcept C2779444201 @default.
• W213317985 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W213317985 hasConcept C34447519 @default.
• W213317985 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W213317985 hasConceptScore W213317985C100243477 @default.
• W213317985 hasConceptScore W213317985C129603779 @default.
• W213317985 hasConceptScore W213317985C144024400 @default.
• W213317985 hasConceptScore W213317985C162324750 @default.
• W213317985 hasConceptScore W213317985C17744445 @default.
• W213317985 hasConceptScore W213317985C199539241 @default.
• W213317985 hasConceptScore W213317985C2779444201 @default.
• W213317985 hasConceptScore W213317985C3116431 @default.
• W213317985 hasConceptScore W213317985C34447519 @default.
• W213317985 hasConceptScore W213317985C94625758 @default.
• W213317985 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W213317985 hasLocation W2133179851 @default.
• W213317985 hasOpenAccess W213317985 @default.
• W213317985 hasPrimaryLocation W2133179851 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W120981183 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W1942435039 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W1978887206 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W1985346824 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W2020602240 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W2092448899 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W2139988700 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W2160469026 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W2187133917 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W2198595206 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W2331519787 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W2338402752 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W2485492255 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W2496362849 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W277060013 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W2950344477 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W3124400527 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W607876294 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W61802307 @default.
• W213317985 hasRelatedWork W2188945451 @default.
• W213317985 hasVolume "33" @default.
• W213317985 isParatext "false" @default.
• W213317985 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W213317985 magId "213317985" @default.
• W213317985 workType "article" @default.