Active government, active communities: How government social programs affect volunteerism and philanthropy in helping the poor [electronic resource]
說明
406 p
附註
Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 61-09, Section: A, page: 3745
Adviser: Frances Fox Piven
Thesis (Ph.D.)--City University of New York, 2000
Much recent public policy in the United States, most notably the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996, has been driven by a commonly assumed inverse relationship between government activism on social welfare and private voluntary action to help people who are poor. It is widely believed that government programs "crowd out" volunteerism by causing people to come to rely on government as the central source of poor relief Conservatives who support this belief argue that reducing government welfare will lead to an outpouring of private voluntary initiative to help the poor. This dissertation challenges this belief
First, a survey of over 400 volunteers in New York City working in programs to assist people who are poor, and interviews with over 40 volunteer program administrators, reveals that proponents of the "crowding out" theory are mistaken about volunteers' motivations, and that what is likely to dampen people's desire to volunteer is not government involvement in welfare, but government and politicians communicating---through policy and rhetoric---a message that blames people who are poor for their own predicaments
An analysis of historical statistical data on private philanthropy and government social welfare confirms that government activism on social welfare tends to foster, rather than to "crowd out," growth in private giving to organizations that assist people in poverty. Most noteworthy, the intense anti-welfare rhetoric surrounding the 1980 and 1994 election campaigns and the 1996 passage of the Personal Responsibility Act was accompanied by sudden drops in the level of private giving to assist the poor and in the percentage of private giving dedicated to helping the poor
The dissertation also challenges some left-wing critics of charity who assert that the encouragement of direct-services volunteerism has diverted people from getting involved in political activism to get government to address the root causes of poverty. My survey and interviews indicate that, in fact, assisting individuals is a fundamental step for many people and even organizations toward understanding the complexity of the problems facing the poor, often leading them to greater political awareness and to involvement in public advocacy on behalf of their clientele
Finally, I address the implications of these findings to the broader discussion of civil society and social capital in America, in which it is often assumed that "big government" and "big citizenship" as mutually opposed values and forces. Instead, I argue, an activist government can foster the sense that our problems are societal in nature, and that we all have a role as members of society to play a role in solving these problems, while government policy that treats problems as purely individual in nature is more likely to dampen civic involvement, as we come to feel less as members of a society and more as isolated individuals responsible for only our own problems
