State and Regional Politics: Introduction
" Th e Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare: Vol. 10 : Iss. 2
State and Regional Politics: Introduction
Timothy W. Lause
Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol10/iss2/2
Follow this and additional works at; https; //scholarworks; wmich; edu/jssw
-
Much of the states' new prominence in social welfare is due to a
conspicuously diminished scope and level of federal activity since 1980. Four
of these articles establish significant connections between their research and
one or more of these recent reversals in national policy. Mueller and Comer
examine the fate of state health system agencies, following federal
deregulation in 1981. They explore several potential explanations for state
decisions, grounded in the framework of an interesting varient of general
innovation theory as developed within political science. The results of their
analysis suggest that "dissinnovation" or termination of the agency is
negatively related to general factors normally associated with decisions to
adopt reforms initially but in interaction with several variables which are
more specific to the problem, such as the costs of hospitalization in the
states. The aftermath of federal deregulation and reduced block grants is
also explored in Sink and Wilson's case study of initial allocations in
Alabama. In that article they develop a model of interaction between the
initiation of that mechanism of fiscal transfers and regionally placed systems
of political culture and balances of power among the branches of state
goverment. Demone and Gibelman contribute an examination of factors effecting
state decisions in the design of social service delivery strategies within
the rubic of expanded state discretion. They devote special attention to
purchase of service arrangements and relate the examined advantages and
disadvantages to a discussion of future trends.
*
The editor wishes to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the
following reviewers who provided able assistance in the preparation of this
special issue: Dr. Elwin Barrett, Bobbeye Humphrey ACSW, Bernice Hutcherson
ACSW, Dr. Art Crowns, Donovan Rutledge ACSW (Wichita State) Dr. John Bardo
(Southwest Texas State) Dr. Buford Farris and Dr. Gary Hamilton (Saint Louis
University) Dr. Shirley Porter (Western Illinois) Dr. Marie Caputi, Hugh
Gibson ACSW, and Thomas Racunas ABD. Thanks is also extended to Drs. Robert
Leighninger and Normon Goroff, regular editors of the Journal of Sociology
and Social Welfare, for their help in the completion of this project.
The results of Heffernan's study of welfare spending are illustrative
of a number of common objections to increasing reliance upon the states.
They are also indicative of the challenges facing social welfare scholarship
and advocacy even if future elections restore a period of incremental growth
in federal funding roles. Controlling for differences between state wealth
and several other measures similar to those used in Mueller and Corner's study,
Heffernan concludes that in their allocation of their own revenues there are
rather stable patterns in which some states exceed predicted spending, while
others regularly make less than predicted efforts. Since the states appear
to be "resilient in their desire to carry out programs consistent with their
own traditions," reduced federal funding would compound benefit inequalities
between states on the basis of those varied traditions. On the one hand, these
inequalities may substantiate need for national standards requiring a larger
federal funding role than that of the seventies. On the other hand, to defer
actions to promote benefit allocations in the states in favor of creation of
an adequate federalized program appears to be a remote prospect in the
imediate future unless accompanied by a "swap" which yields a net loss of federal
social program transfers to the states. One of his principal points is that
as yet social research lacks & reasonable understanding of what exact
circumstances account for the differences in spending efforts.
Three of these articles explore regional constructions as partial
explanations of differing state policy decisions. The two case studies in that
group fall within traditional boundaries of the south. Sink and Wilson's
article on block grants in Alabama, already mentioned, was the only one of
the two which focused upon spending. McNeece and Ezell discuss the
interaction of political culture and symbolism in describing the backlash to reform
in Florida's juvenile detention criteria. Along with Block's overview of a
sunset review of social work licensing, the study of juvenile detention reform
illustrates one of the reasons the framework of this collection was not equated
with the scope or duration of the Reagan agenda for social welfare. Both issues
fall within domains of state policy which are largely removed from federal
politics.
Savage's article is the most ambitious of the studies concerned with
regional traditions in state p (...truncated)