Contemporary social policy toward low-income women in the United States, as evidenced both by Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) and by the AFDC programme that preceded it, is in part an artefact of long-standing conceptions of the nature of citizenship. This view sees citizenship as resting primarily on civil and political rights, not on rights with respect to economic, social, and cultural matters. Drawing on scholarly literature on the development of international human rights regimes, the feminist literature that analyses social policy both comparatively and in terms of US domestic policy, and literature regarding contemporary movements among low-income persons, this paper analyses the efforts of one organization, the Kensington Welfare Rights Union (KWRU), to challenge US policy via international human rights law and international enforcement mechanisms. We will suggest that, despite some of the flaws of the KWRU, their approach is a promising one for low-income women. In particular, we wish to suggest that a broader conception of citizenship that takes into account economic, cultural, and social rights is necessary to create a more equitable and democratic polity for women.
AbramovitzM. (2000) Under Attack, Fighting Back: Women and Welfare in the United States, New York: Monthly Review Press.
2.
AlstonP. (1990) ‘US Ratification of the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: The Need for an Entirely New StrategyAmerican Journal for International Law Vol. 84, No. 2 (April): 365–393.
3.
BussiereE. (1997) (Dis)Entitling the Poor: The Warren Court, Welfare Rights, and the American Political Tradition, University Park: Penn State Press.
4.
DavisM.F. (1993) Brutal Need: Lawyers and the Welfare Rights Movement, 1960–1973, New Haven: Yale University Press.
5.
EdelmanP. (1997) ‘The worst thing Bill Clinton has done’The Atlantic Monthly Vol. 279, No. 3: 43–58.
6.
FraserN. (1989) Unruly Practices: Gender, Discourse, and Power in Contemporary Social Theory, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
7.
FraserN. (1997) Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the ‘Postsocialist’ Condition, New York: Routledge.
8.
FraserN., and GordonL. (1994) ‘A genealogy of dependency: Tracing a Keyword of the US Welfare State,’Signs: The Journal of Women in Culture and Society (19 Winter): 309–336.
9.
GilensM. (2000) Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
HandlerJ. (1999) ‘Low-Wage Work “As We Know It”: What's Wrong/What Can be Done,’ in HandlerJ., and WhiteL. (1999) editors, Hard Labor: Women and Work in the Post-Welfare Era, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 3–23.
11.
HaneyL.A. (2000) ‘Feminist state theory: applications to jurisprudence, criminology, and the welfare state’Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 26: 641–666.
12.
HalterA.P. (1996) ‘State welfare reform for employable general assistance recipients: the facts behind the assumptions’Social Work Vol. 41 (January): 106–110.
13.
HerdP., and Harrington MeyerM. (2002) ‘Care work: invisible civic engagement’Gender & Society Vol. 16, No. 5 (October): 665–688.
14.
HochschildJ. (1981) What's Fair? American Beliefs about Distributive Justice, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
15.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, October 1 (1999) Poor People's Economic Human Rights campaign et al v. The United States of America. Petition available at http://www.kwru.org/updates/IACpetition.pdf.
16.
JosephsonJ. (2000) ‘Gender and Social Policy’, in Tolleson-RinehartS., JosephsonJ. (2000) editors, Gender and American Politics: Women, Men and the Political Process, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe Publishers, 133–159.
17.
KilkeyM., and BradshawJ. (1999) ‘Lone Mothers, Economic Well-Being, and Policies’, in SainsburyD. (1999) editor, Gender and Welfare State Regimes, New York: Oxford University Press, 147–184.
18.
KittayE.F. (1999) ‘Welfare, Dependency, and a Public Ethic of Care’, in MinkG. (1999) editor, Whose Welfare?, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 189–213.
LewisJ. (1997) ‘Gender and welfare regimes: further thoughts’Social Politics Vol. 4, No. 2: 160–177.
26.
LyonB. (2000) ‘Efforts and opportunities to use international law to alleviate poverty in the United States’Human Rights Brief Vol. 7, No. 3: 6–9.
27.
MandellB.R., and WithornA. (1993) ‘Keep on keeping on: organizing for welfare rights in Massachusetts’. in FisherR., KlingJ. (1993) editors, Mobilizing the Community: Local Politics in the Era of the Global City, Urban Affairs Annual Review41, Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 128–148.
28.
MelnickR.S. (1994) Between the Lines: Interpreting Welfare Rights, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
29.
MinkG. (1998) Welfare's End, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
30.
MinkG. (1999) ‘Aren't poor single mothers women? Feminists, welfare reform, and welfare justice’ in MinkG. (1999) editor, Whose Welfare?, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 171–188.
31.
MinkG. (2003) ‘From welfare to wedlock: marriage promotion and poor women's inequality’ in BurackC., and JosephsonJ. (2003) editors, Fundamental Differences: Feminists Talk Back to Social Conservatives, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 207–218.
32.
NaplesN. (1998) Grassroots Warriors: Activist Mothering, Community Work, and the War on Poverty, New York: Routledge.
33.
NeubeckK.J., and CazenaveN. (2001) Welfare Racism: Playing the Race Care Against America's Poor, New York: Routledge.
34.
O'ConnorA. (2000) ‘Poverty research and policy for the post-welfare era’Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 26: 547–562.
35.
O'ConnorJ.S., OrloffA.S., and ShaverS. (1999) State, Markets, Families: Gender, Liberalism and Social Policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
OrloffA.S. (1997) ‘Comment on Jane Lewis's ‘Gender and Welfare Regimes: Further Thoughts’Social Politics’. Vol. 4, No. 2: 188–2020.
37.
OrloffA.S. (1991) ‘Gender in early US social policy’Journal of Policy History Vol. 3, No. 3: 249–281.
38.
PatemanC. (1989) ‘The patriarchal welfare state’, in The Disorder of Women, Book of essays by Pateman Stanford: Stanford University Press, 179–209.
39.
PitcherA. (2002) Human Rights Violations in Welfare Legislation: Pushing Recipients Deeper Into Poverty, New York: Urban Justice Center Human Rights Project.
40.
PivenF.F., and ClowardR.A. (1977) Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail, New York: Vintage Books.
41.
RainwaterL., and SmeedingT. (1995) ‘Doing poorly: the real income of american children in a comparative perspective’Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series, No. 127.
42.
RobertsD. (1999) ‘Welfare's ban on poor motherhood’ in MinkG. (1999) editor, Whose Welfare?, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 152–167.
43.
SainsburyD. (1996) Gender, Equality, and Welfare States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
SorosG. (1998) The Crisis of Global of Capitalism: Open Society Endangered, New York City: Perseus Books.
45.
VayrynenR. (2000) Policy Brief: Anti-Globalization Movements at the Crossroads Nov, 4 Notre Dame: Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.
46.
WeissP. (2000) ‘Economic and social rights come of age: United States held to account in IACHR’Human Rights Brief Vol. 7, No. 3: 3–5.
47.
WeldonS.L. (2002) Protest, Policy, and the Problem of Violence Against Women: A Cross-national Comparison, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
48.
WestG. (1981) The National Welfare Rights Movement: The Social Protest of Poor Women, New York: Praeger.
49.
WilliamsL. (1997) Decades of Distortion: The Right's Thirty-Year Assault on Welfare, Somerville, MA: Political Research Associates.
50.
YoungI.M. (1997) ‘Mothers, citizenship, and independence: a critique of pure family values’, in Intersecting Voices: Dilemmas of Gender, Political Philosophy, and Policy, Book of essays by Young Princeton: Princeton University Press, 114–133.
51.
ZoelleD. (2000) Globalizing Concern for Women's Human Rights: The Failure of the American Model, New York: St Martin's Press.
52.
ZucchinoD. (1997) Myth of the Welfare Queen, New York: Scribner.
