(De)legitimization of single mothers’ welfare rights: United States,Britain and Israel

Abstract

This article contributes to the theoretical discussion of the historical legitimacy of single mothers by examining the construction of relationships between single motherhood and welfare policy. Specifically, the study analyses the changing discourse regarding single mothers, and the social policy designed for them, in the US, UK and Israel from the 1970s to the 2000s. These three countries are similar in terms of the embeddedness, extension and institutionalization of neoliberal ideology in their welfare policies and public discourse, together with welfare legislation affecting single mothers, yet they differ in terms of policy implementation and the history of policy development. The study examines institutional intersectionality along with cultural perceptions of single mothers in each country. Looking at both the development and the withdrawal of social rights over time, we deepen understanding of how the image of the single mother is created in the neoliberal welfare regime.

Keywords

(de)legitimacy single motherhood neoliberalism social rights discourse images,welfare policy allowances culture poverty

Introduction

The study examines, over four decades (1970s–2000s), interrelations between the prevailing imagery ascribed to single mothers in the US, UK and Israel, the social legitimacy of these women and welfare policy designed for them. The rationale for considering these countries over this period is their resemblance in the embeddedness, extension and institutionalization of neoliberal ideology in their welfare policies and public discourse, together with significant legislative reforms affecting single mothers, as well as their differences in terms of policy implementation and the history of policy development. Specifically, the article analyses how the hegemonic narrative in each society reflects and creates stigmatized representations of single mothers in the context of welfare policy. The study takes an in-depth look at the periods in which this welfare policy was legislated, exposing basic cultural assumptions and social perceptions about the group of single mothers.

I argue that evolving discourse on single mothers sheds light on how prevailing imagery and social legitimacy interact and are interrelated with welfare policy. In this sense, the research is carried out on two analytical axes: first, welfare policy directed at single mothers and changing legitimacy; second, imagery and discourse over time. Single mothers thus serve as a microcosm for understanding the complex relations between welfare policy and women, producing the social construct of ‘single mother’ and allowing an examination of discourse practices and how they shape policies. By analysing the development and withdrawal of single mothers’ social rights over time, we can deepen understanding of how the image of the single mother is structured in the neoliberal welfare regime. The research question is: ‘In what ways, over time, has welfare policy affecting single mothers in the US, UK and Israel been associated with changes in discourse?’

Single motherhood

Single mothers are a heterogeneous social grouping. Lone parenthood can result from divorce, separation, widowhood or motherhood without marrying; it can occur by choice or by necessity (Bernardi and Mortelmans, 2018). Moreover, the socio-demographic profile of single mothers has changed. Being mostly widowed in the 1970s, single mothers are now mostly divorced or separated (Bernardi and Mortelmans, 2018). Divorce has dramatic negative short- and long-term economic consequences (Manting and Bouman, 2006). The traditional division of labour within many marriages often leaves women destitute after a divorce (Herbst and Kaplan, 2016; Hogendoorn et al., 2020; Hü bgen, 2018; Mortelmans and Defever, 2018).

The demographics of single mothers vary in the three countries under study. In 2017, the percentage of single-parent families with children, out of all families headed by individuals aged 16–65, was 27.1% in the US, 23.2% in the UK and 11.7% in Israel (ICBS, 2019; OECD, 2017). Of these families, the vast majority are headed by women: 81% in the US, 86% in the UK and 87% in Israel (ICBS, 2019; author’s calculations based on LIS, 2018). Additional socio-demographic details appear in Appendix A, which shows a high rate of single mothers in vulnerable socio-economic groups.

Single mothers suffer from an intersection of vulnerabilities. First, they have a higher risk of poverty (Brady and Burroway, 2012; Jäntti and Gornik, 2009; Härkönen, 2018; Hogendoorn et al., 2020; Hübgen, 2018; Lewis and Hobson, 1997; Maldonado and Nieuwenhuis, 2014) that deepens the delegitimization directed at them in public discourse (Ajzenstadt, 2009; Herbst, 2013). Second, single mothers negatively label their parenting, perceiving themselves as not good enough, largely in terms of ‘new social risks’ of bringing their children into poverty and social perversion (Abramovitz, 2006; Ajzenstadt, 2009; Herbst, 2013; Salter, 2018), although this claim has not been corroborated in research (Dermott and Pomati, 2016). Third, they are less able to accumulate economic capital than two-parent families (Sierminska, 2018) in terms of both income from wages (Raz-Yurovich, 2013) and pension accumulation (Price et al., 2016), and are characterized by decreased rates of homeownership leading to persistent residential instability (Mikolai et al., 2019). This is related to most of these families being headed by women excluded from the labour market, as well as socially and culturally understood as responsible for care (Raley and Sweeney, 2020). These multiple vulnerabilities create a continuous need to cope with a lack of resources.

Feminist researchers argue that welfare state institutions have not adjusted properly to major demographic and social changes involving single mothers (Abramovitz, 2006; Millar and Ridge, 2009; Orloff, 2001). Furthermore, welfare policies have a significant impact on the economic well-being of these mothers and their children. Lower child poverty rates have been found in countries with more generous social transfers, even after controlling for the country’s standard of living (Chzhen and Bradshaw, 2012). As such, single mothers are a litmus test for a welfare state’s orientation, serving as an index of gendered social rights (Kilkey, 2000; Kowalewska, 2017; Millar, 1996). Indeed, the opportunities that welfare states give single mothers to provide for their families, exercise their rights (Hirschmann, 2001), and maintain an autonomous economic status in the absence of a ‘male provider’ are intimately connected with welfare policy.

Divergence or convergence paths in discourses about single mothers are embedded in country-specific axes of stratification with regard to social rights. That is, in creating a range from exclusion to inclusion, policy areas interact and produce multilayered patterns of stratification (Halevy et al., 2018).

Welfare policy directed at single-parent families

This article aims to add another layer to the scientific debate on single mothers, welfare policies and legitimacy by combining two axes in feminist scholarship. The first axis is the intersectionality approach – the multiplicity of intersecting positions of gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and family status (Collins, 2006). The second is the development of welfare policies over time and their relation to the legitimacy of single mothers (Abramovitz, 2006; Herbst, 2013; Fraser and Gordon, 1994; Hirschmann, 2001; Millar, 2005). In analysing welfare policy, I refer to allowances for single mothers and activation policies.

Welfare policies have evolved mainly to address poverty, particularly that of single mothers and their children. The US, UK and Israel all implemented significant welfare reforms affecting these families in the 1990s and 2000s (see Appendix B; for a comparison of institutional characteristics, see Appendix C). A transition was made from mothers entitled to welfare assistance as caretakers of children to a group to be reintegrated into the job market, ignoring their carework responsibilities (Abramovitz, 2006; Herbst and Benjamin, 2012; Millar, 2005; Millar and Ridge, 2009). Active integration in the labour market was considered the most desirable form of state assistance (Millar, 2005; Orloff, 2001). However, the historical evolution of welfare policy for single mothers in the three countries under examination varied. Despite similarities in policy activation change and benefit cuts, there were significant differences in policy implementation. In each country, social policy frameworks are affected by policy histories, as well as norms and behaviours concerning the gender division of labour, particularly in times of budget constraints. There are differences not only in institutional frameworks but also in the timing of policy change (Saraceno and Keck, 2011). Policies such as leave entitlements, income support and acknowledgement of carework in pensions can affect not only the constraints and opportunities of single mothers but also expectations about the financial and care responsibilities taken on by families, individuals, the market and the state. Policies supporting the right to care for children can legitimize caregivers and, under appropriate conditions, provide protection from economic deterioration. At the same time, attempts to cut government spending on growing elderly populations in Europe, the US and Israel, accompanied by trends of care privatization, intersect with activation policies, precarious work and family instability to leave mothers (particularly single mothers) vulnerable to poverty and unable to receive decent wages (Williams, 2010).

The US

While in the early 1900s, individual states provided financial assistance to widows and eventually single and divorced mothers, the Social Security Act of 1935 shifted responsibility to the federal government (Gordon, 1994; Skocpol, 1992). In contrast, the Family Support Act of 1988 established the notion of the mutual responsibility of assistance recipient and state, increasing attention to ‘welfare dependency’. It created the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) training programme, which provided employment services, education and training for recipients (Falk, 2020).

Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) was created in 1996, offering a truncated version of child benefits, with emphasis on limiting eligibility time, and with coercive welfare-to-work programmes (Orloff, 2001). Sharp welfare cutbacks since the 1990s have restricted access to allowances and reduced the number of years women can receive them (Abramovitz, 2006; Mink, 1998; Morgen and Maskovsky, 2003; Orloff, 2001). These cuts have been accompanied by severe negative labelling, which has led to the call to regulate births, marriages and parenting among single mothers, and 25 US states have adopted marriage-strengthening programmes. Since the 1990s, poor women have been subject to policing in terms of healthcare, contraception, religion and parenting (Abramovitz, 2006).

Feminist research on welfare-to-work programmes has revealed that, after the welfare cutbacks, single mothers can mainly secure ‘bad’ low-wage jobs lacking security, with unconventional work hours that inhibit integrating carework with paid labour. Moreover, their employment is characterized by multiple entries into and departures from the labour market (Breitkreuz and Williamson, 2012; Dodson, 2013). Mothers experience financial poverty and ‘time poverty’ that reduce their ability to care for their children (Albelda, 2011). A considerable proportion remain poor even after gaining employment (Albelda, 2011; Bashevkin, 2002; Breitkreuz and Williamson, 2012; Cook, 2012; Morgen et al., 2010). To this day, US welfare programmes are characterized by selectivity, means tests and meagre benefits.

The UK

Welfare policy after the Second World War in the UK was based on the assumption that single parents were full-time caregivers. Welfare legislation for single mothers was rigid, and allowances were provided under rigorous employment and income tests (Millar, 2005). In the 1970s, single mothers whose earnings were not well above the average wage could claim supplementary benefits. In the 1980s, as policymakers attempted to cut spending on state allowances, an extensive debate began on enhancing the collection of child support from divorced fathers (Lewis, 1997). Two pieces of legislation focused on the family: the Children Act of 1989 emphasized the commitment of both biological parents to their children; the Child Support Act of 1991 increased enforcement of child support payments in an effort to reduce allowances to single mothers (Lewis, 1997).

The proportion of employed single mothers in the UK remained very low (about 30%) until 1997, when policy changed abruptly and allowances were cut, with a focus on integrating single parents into the job market (Millar, 2005). There was a strong policy shift towards an ‘employment-based’ or ‘active’ welfare state in which all adults are expected to support their families through labour-market participation (Hakovirta and Jokela, 2019; Millar and Ridge, 2009). Specifically, the New Deal for Lone Parents (NDLP) offered various incentives to lone parents to enter the labour market or increase their hours of paid work. These included an in-work training grant for those returning to the labour market; up to 1 week of childcare placement for lone parents considering employment; a weekly work search premium; a weekly payment of in-work credit to lone parents leaving Income Support or Jobseekers Allowance and working at least 16 weekly hours; meetings with an Advancement Support Adviser; and a quarterly employment retention bonus for 2 years for those remaining in full-time work (Graham and McQuaid, 2014).

Israel

In Israeli society, recognition of the rights of single mothers was gradual and dependent on family status. Welfare rights were historically granted in stages: first, widows of workplace accident victims, army widows and other widows, followed by the other single mothers: divorcees, agunot,¹ separated women (pending divorce) and mothers who had never married. Such trends of expansion and inclusion into the welfare policy, as well as a sequence of historical events, led to the Child Support (Income Assurance) Law in the 1970s and the 1992 Single-Parent Family Act, which marked recognition and expansion of single-parent family rights and offered welfare benefits (Herbst and Benjamin, 2012).

A major change occurred in 2003, when the annual Omnibus Law targeted some of the broadest achievements of legislation for single-parent families. The law sought to incentivize income-support recipients, particularly single mothers, to enter the labour market and reduce their dependence on welfare. The cuts inflicted on paid workers were severe, reducing the portion of the allowance unaffected by income (Gal and Doron, 2000).

Such cuts have made it less lucrative for low earners to work. This has particularly hurt low-income mothers (particularly single parents), many of whom are no longer entitled to a wage-supplement allowance (Achdut and Stier, 2020; Herbst and Kaplan, 2016).

With the above legislation, shaped over several decades, in mind, this study examines the interrelation between legislative action and discourse in the three countries in question. Specifically, it considers the connection between welfare policy in the neoliberal era and the legitimacy of single mothers, as reflected in their changing image in public discourse.

Background, objective and methods

Critical discourse analysis was applied to address the research question of this comparative study. This approach makes it possible to examine complex aspects of relationships between discourses and welfare policy affecting single mothers, as processes of legitimation/delegitimization inherent in discourse in these three countries are multifaceted and hidden under a system of power relations.

Critical discourse analysis

In this study, critical discourse analysis refers to the examination of social practices in which discourse is formed and the context in which things are said or written (Hajer, 1995). Hence, the ‘order of discourse’ – power relations between images, discourses and underlying political forces – is of great importance. As instantiations of the social operations of power, discourses can affect policy by setting the terms in which it is designed and enacted (Padamsee, 2009). The order of discourse is particularly relevant to disadvantaged groups, as its embodied influence may have far-reaching implications for the creation of the image frame that describes them and their legitimacy or delegitimacy (Hajer, 1995). In this context, special emphasis is given to welfare policy legitimation. In other words, one dimension of discourse is whatever policymakers say to one another and to the public in efforts to construct and legitimate their programmes (Schmidt, 2002). It must be acknowledged, however, that discourses in a given society are not monolithic. Rather, at different levels of society, they are often based on contested ideas of different actors. Feminist critical discourse studies, based on the assumption of patriarchal power relations embedded historically, ideologically, culturally and socially and reflected in welfare legislation, can illuminate how taken-for-granted gendered assumptions and hegemonic power relations are discursively produced, sustained, negotiated and challenged in different contexts and communities. Discourses are sites of struggle, where forces of social (re)production and contestation are played out (Lazar, 2007).

Another emphasis of discourse research is the historical timing of policy. Analysis of the cultural discourse taking shape at historical time points can shed light on how welfare policy evolves, as it helps clarify how categories and social identities are constructed and represented (Padamsee and Adams, 2002). The current study analyses welfare policy design in the context of its surrounding discourses, taking into account processes of legitimation/delegitimization inherent in that discourse.

Operationalization of feminist critical discourse analysis

To arrive at a systematic review of the literature on single mothers and welfare policy changes in the US, the UK and Israel, I conducted an online search in ProQuest, EBSCO and JSTOR – academic databases renowned in the field of social policy. I looked for peer-reviewed articles written between 1990 and 2020 about the three countries in question, using the search terms ‘single mother’ and ‘welfare policy’. An additional search was performed on books and child support payment assurance. The choice of this timeframe was based on the implementation of far-reaching welfare policy reforms affecting single mothers since 1996, with the knowledge that such materials also covered the period beforehand. The search yielded 582 articles and books, each of which were reviewed to determine whether it met the criteria for allowance policy analysis: laws that anchor allowances; attempts to explain the necessity for allowance cuts; single mothers’ efforts to cope with the changes. The final sample included 110 articles and books.

Four types of discourse were analysed in the body of these materials: (1) the rights and (de)legitimation of a single-mother family structure and relations between the state, citizenship and single motherhood; (2) anchoring of the right to allowances and justifications for withholding them; (3) implementation of an activation policy for single mothers; and (4) the relationship between caregiving, single motherhood and employment. The actors who were analysed included policymakers and politicians, the media and single mothers themselves.

To determine content included in the analysis, I identified the main themes based on their repetition in the texts, as well as concepts associated with negative labelling and neoliberal characteristics in the discourse. As there are many countries in which neoliberal ideology is influential and the related stigmatization processes are connected to delegitimization, this approach allows for generalization to other settings.

Prevailing imagery and social legitimacy

Feminist scholars, who have analysed welfare cutbacks and the construction of single-mother welfare in the US in the 1980s and 1990s, and in the UK and Israel in the 2000s, have shown how ideological, cultural and social approaches have affected policy formation that particularly harms single mothers (Abramovitz, 2006; Herbst, 2013; Bullock et al., 2001; Hirschmann, 2001; Millar and Ridge, 2009). Specifically, the radical changes in welfare policy have been generated by an emergent neoliberal ideology. As Orloff (2001: 143) explained: ‘Also significant is the rise of (neo)liberalism as an ideological and cultural force – a preference for private provision and for minimizing state interventions, reflected in pressures to keep taxes and social spending low’.

The school of liberal feminism advocates deepening women’s integration in the labour market with the aim of enhancing gender equality. However, neoliberal welfare reforms that promote women’s employment have not been accompanied by mechanisms to protect the rights of the welfare state (Fraser, 2012). Rather, primary emphasis is placed on engagement in the market, self-sufficiency and individual responsibility (Breitkreuz and Williamson, 2012). According to Orloff (2001), although welfare-to-work reform marks a shift toward gender sameness, in that both mothers and fathers are required to be employed, it also removes a social right, eliminating caregiving as a basis for claims. The assumption that every adult should be a wage earner ignores the single mother’s need to look after her children, leading her to often hold unstable, part-time, low-paying jobs (Hobson et al., 2002). Such reform replaces ‘dependency’ on means-tested state programmes with ‘dependency’ on exploitative employers, deepening employment precarity and punishing the poor (Wacquant, 2016).

The above review and the analysis of reforms in the three countries under investigation disclose similarities and differences in public discourse. Three types of discourse emerge from the images of single mothers: the deserving versus the undeserving mom; financial dependence versus autonomy; and the coping versus the selfish mom. While there is a certain amount of overlap between the types of discourse, I present each one separately for the sake of clarity.

The deserving versus the undeserving mom

Development of the discourse on welfare legislation and the granting of rights to single mothers can shed light on how rights establishment is justified. A justification of deservingness can create legitimacy, whereas the undeserving can be delegitimized.

The US

The ideological basis of allowances for poor single mothers (mainly widows) was initially the mother’s contribution to the American nation. To advance legislation to the mainstream of policymakers, on the basis of worthiness of mothers, Edwin Solenberger, a prominent promoter of children’s rights, claimed in 1908: ‘A good mother is a splendid asset to society’ (Skocpol, 1992: 448). Thus, US legislation at the time embraced deservingness while granting rights.

The 1960s saw a shift from white widows with children to African American divorcees and separated or single (never married) mothers (Jarrett, 1996). Racist US policies towards African Americans deepened the exclusion of single mothers (Collins, 2006), who were perceived as undeserving of social welfare (Mulroy, 1995). Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, with the rise in women receiving allowances and the embeddedness of neoliberal ideology, public attitudes towards single mothers shifted from pity to blame (Fraser and Gordon, 1994). Mothers who received allowances were subject to public resentment (Bullock et al., 2001). Throughout this period, the symbol of the mother was ambivalent, and the image of bad mothers was fraught with racist meaning.

The denial of rights to single mothers, in the US welfare reform of the 1990s, was justified through negative imagery that deepened the delegitimation of divorced, separated and never-married mothers, although there was a certain schism in their public image. On the one hand, they were viewed as lazy, immoral and exploitive welfare consumers; on the other hand, they were also considered victims of a destructive relationship that deprived them of sovereignty over their lives (Morgen and Maskovsky, 2003).

The UK

Up to the 1960s, divorce in the UK was affordable only for the rich. It was not until the 1970s and 1980s, as the divorce rate rose, that the number of single-parent families increased significantly and the availability of social security expanded. At the same time, discourse focusing on the negative imagery of single mothers emerged. During the first half of the 1990s, politicians of the New Right and the media described single mothers as a social threat, raising their children with a predilection for delinquency without proper parenting and living off the welfare system (Kiernan et al., 1998). Journalists debated the challenges of changing cultural habits in the black community, such as men with several ‘babymothers’ with whom they have children but whom they may not support, and questioned the stereotype of black single mothers as passive victims. Other journalists focused on the need for greater government spending on childcare to provide a pathway out of poverty (Salter, 2018). The negative images ascribed to these mothers were backed by positions that state support for birth should be discontinued, with an emphasis on conventional marriage instead. Proposals were made to limit divorce and to house young single mothers in hostels, where their sex life could be monitored (Duncan et al., 1999). In the late 1990s, pressure groups, leftist politicians and the church attempted to reimagine the image of single mothers as ‘normal’ women who do their best for their children despite hostile circumstances and external constraints (Duncan et al., 1999).

On the whole, policymakers have considered single mothers in the UK a source of difficulty mostly because of their need for financial support, although within the category of single mothers, widows have always been regarded as inherently more deserving because they could not be construed as morally blameworthy (Lewis, 1997). This is supported by discourse that stresses the link between rights and responsibilities, in which ‘fairness’ demands that all those who can work should work (Millar, 2005).

Israel

Israeli society has had a dual approach to single mothers. On the one hand, as part of the nation-building process, motherhood has always constituted an ‘entrance pass’ to civil rights, as it maintains the maternal ideal of increasing the Jewish population, addressing the demographic ‘threat’ of the growth of Israel’s Arab population (Berkovitch, 1997). The discourse of deservingness was thus linked to the predominant notion that good mothers contribute to the national mission. The Child Support Law of the 1970s, which expanded the definition of single mothers from widows to divorcees and others, emphasized their deservingness, promoting perceptions of victimhood and helplessness. Single mothers were described by some members of Parliament and the media as wretched (Herbst, 2012), preserving and deepening their labelling as pitiful creatures.

Decades later, the Single-Parent Family Act 1992 (Herbst and Benjamin 2012) emphasized the discourse of deservingness by rights, as it recognized the need to reward single mothers for their care-taking (Helman, 2011), especially the poorest among them (Herbst, 2013). Some researchers claim that it was enacted mainly in response to large waves of immigrants from the former Soviet Union (Ajzenstadt and Gal, 2001; Herbst, 2012), generating a 44 percent increase in the number of single-parent families in Israel, from 57,000 in 1989 to 82,000 in 1994 (ICBS, 1989, 1994). In addition, 28 percent of immigrants from Ethiopia who arrived in Israel in the 1980s were single parents. However, these rights were anchored in execution of the Zionist mission, that is, immigration to Israel, affording these women their right to care for their children (Ajzenstadt and Gal, 2001; Herbst and Benjamin, 2012; Helman, 2011).

From the late 1990s, however, there was rapid development of negative imagery, such that single mothers were increasingly thought to exploit the allowance system and threaten traditional family values. Their rights were drastically cut during the welfare reform of 2003, justified by a new means test. Reductions in welfare were part of a neoliberal ideology that viewed welfare support of the poor in general, and single mothers in particular, as a burden on society (Ajzenstadt, 2009; Herbst, 2013; Lavee, 2016).

In sum, there are similarities between the three countries under study in terms of a historical increase in single-parent families and in their diversity. This began with the expansion of rights based on a discourse of deservingness, but by the 1970s led to a denial of these very rights, which accompanied the rising divorce rates and policy based on neoliberal ideology (Abramovitz, 2006; Ajzenstadt, 2009). Single mothers were blamed for their audacity to have children outside the ‘normal’ two-parent family and for their irresponsibility. They were perceived as an unwarranted burden upon the welfare system, which should be limited in light of the illegitimacy of the welfare state in general (Herbst, 2013; Salter, 2018). Social benefits came to be viewed as a redundant instrument that compensated for familial failure, for which these undeserving women were to blame.

Notably, justification for the discourses of the deserving and undeserving single mother varied between the countries. In the US, expanded rights in the early 1900s were targeted at widowed mothers and their right to raise their children at home as a national mission and was tied to the economic crisis of the 1920s. The discourse of deservingness developed mainly around widows, while the opposite discourse was mostly aimed at divorced or never-married mothers. In the UK, there was a general expansion of the right of mothers to raise their children, whether widowed, divorced, separated or never married. The discourse of the undeserving mom revolved around the delegitimization of having children without a breadwinner. Finally, in Israel, there was a demographic-nationalist justification of more rights for mothers and children, as well as a Zionist discourse of founding the nation, but the resonance of single mothers’ contribution to nationbuilding was weakened as neoliberal discourse gained momentum and allowance recipients were blamed as undeserving.

Financial dependence versus autonomy

Feminist studies have raised questions about perceptions of single mothers as economically dependent (Fraser and Gordon, 1994; Morgen and Maskovsky, 2003). Welfare policies encourage employment and entrepreneurship with the aim of their becoming financially self-sufficient. In this context, women’s ‘appropriate’ level of economic autonomy is their ability to help support themselves and their family without depending on the welfare state (Yuval-Davis, 2011). This notion of civic belonging excludes citizens who are responsible for care, especially women in welfare states that do not sufficiently protect the right to receive care (Halevy et al., 2018).

The US

In their discussion of single mothers in the US, feminist scholars have provided a broad theoretical framework for understanding justifications for allowance cutbacks. Historical research has shown that, even in the early twentieth century, single mothers were perceived as dependent (Fraser and Gordon, 1994; Fraser, 1994). Over time, this imagery metamorphosed from involuntary dependency on the state, in order to raise their children, to exploitative dependency (Fraser and Gordon, 1994). Thus, the neediness imagery expanded, peaking in the 1990s, when single mothers were presented as ‘parasites’ pathologically ‘addicted’ to welfare (Fraser and Gordon, 1994; Gordon, 1994; Hirschmann, 2001). Jarrett (1996) argued that this process accelerated from the 1960s, as single mothers mainly shifted from white widows to African American divorcees and separated women.

Dependence on welfare policy is often considered a negative characteristic of women in general, and of single mothers and other underprivileged populations in particular. Supporters of welfare cutbacks in the US argued that state allowances harm underprivileged families and undermine moral values and initiative (Mink, 1998). The image of the pathological parasite, common in the 1980s and 1990s, was uniquely attached to single mothers, denying them rational capabilities and enabling politicians to draw a parallel between welfare and drugs (Fraser and Gordon, 1994). This pathological dependence allegedly doomed the women, who lacked the skills and willingness to work, to an aimless existence (Hirschmann, 2001). Claimants of benefits were portrayed as a problem population whose adverseness to work must be corrected by ‘preclusion, duress and shaming’. This transformed them into ‘cultural similies of criminals who have violated the civic law of wage work’ (Fletcher and Wright, 2018: 326).

According to Fraser and Gordon (1994), allowance cutbacks which effectively deny women's rights are allegedly legitimized as an effort to reduce dependence. The classification of welfare recipients as dependent is in accordance with a long tradition of opposition between autonomy and reliance, the former of which is link to superior qualities (strength, morality, white, masculin), and reliance (including financial dependence), and the latter to inferior qualities (weakness, racial inferiority, femininity). Indeed, Orloff (2001) argues that the welfare cuts of the 1990s were tied to the agreement, in political spheres, that welfare generated dependence, while Abramovitz (2006) claims that fear of the independence of women, achieved through allowances or paid labour, resides at the core of this approach.

The UK

Historically, single mothers in the UK have always been associated with scroungers and benefit fraudsters, placing them by implication in the same economic category of dependence on the state (Salter, 2018). This remains true to the present, despite their significant numbers. Thus, single mothers are viewed as irresponsible, with doubtful parenting skills, dependent on allowances and ‘wedded to welfare’ (Millar, 1996). The unmarried mother is condemned as ‘married to the State’ (a phrase from the American social theorist, Charles Murray, adopted by the Conservative Right), and considered responsible for ‘spawning’ a ‘welfare-dependent underclass’ (Salter, 2018: 68). Notably, there is no discourse of financial autonomy with regard to single mothers.

Israel

In Israel, discourse on the dependence of single mothers underwent transformations over the four decades in question. In the 1970s, members of Parliament and the media presented these mothers as ‘abandoned’ (a reference similarly applied to property and children), attributing the women’s plight to the absence of a providing male. Indeed, the Child Support Law of the 1970s positioned the state as a strong and mighty man who came to the woman’s rescue – she was dependent and needy and found it difficult to actualize her rights (Herbst, 2012). Discussions about the 1992 Single-Parent Family Act also emphasized the helplessness of single mothers. The social rights anchored in that law were limited, applying only to underprivileged single mothers, marking them as needy, and the maintenance allowance it stipulated was contingent upon strict means and employment tests (Herbst and Benjamin, 2012). Nonetheless, recognition of this type of family in law, as well as allowances for poor single mothers to care for their children (Helman, 2011), constitutes a limited form of economic autonomy. Moreover, in the 1990s, immigrant single mothers changed the image of the dependent single mother by protesting, demanding rights and establishing organizations for single-parent families (Herbst and Benjamin, 2012). The 2003 welfare reform and its aftermath exposed how single mothers were viewed as lazy and parasitical, expressed through deeply ingrained stigmas and social stereotypes, with imagery of marginality, poverty and dependence. The women were held responsible for their own poverty and that of their children (Herbst, 2013).

To sum up, while the discourse of financial dependence versus autonomy with respect to single mothers was more interlaced with racism in the US than it was in the UK and Israel, all three countries based welfare policy and allowances on the women’s economic weakness and the attempt to extricate them and their children from poverty. While dependence on welfare was initially perceived as legitimate (Ajzenstadt and Gal, 2001; Gal, 2010; Skocpol, 1992; Millar, 2005), the image became transformed and social policy ultimately sought to save the single mother from herself, from reliance on welfare. Policy shapers often branded this ‘pathological dependence’, equating welfare recipients with junkies (Hirschmann, 2001), viewing the state as the mighty force that could resocialize these women and move them from welfare to labour (Orloff, 2001). At the same time, policymakers may have feared that increased autonomy for these women would threaten family structure (Abramovitz, 2006; Ajzenstadt, 2009; Salter, 2018). Welfare has ceased to be viewed as a tool to improve conditions for single mothers, but rather is seen as something that destroys moral values and reinforces dependence. While there has been a discourse of (limited) autonomy in the US and Israel, it appears to be non-existent in the UK. Indeed, a rights discourse, anchored in the desire to foster economic autonomy in women who lack access to a male wage earner, has been rare in all three contexts.

The coping versus the selfish mom

A final theme revolving around the imagery of single mothers is how motherhood is perceived. Under neoliberal ideology, single motherhood is considered illegitimate and selfish, denying children the two-parent family framework. At the same time, single mothers in the three countries under study have attempted, to varying degrees of success, to create imagery of the mother who copes.

The US

Allowance cutbacks in the US in the 1990s led to pressure to enter the job market and reinforced family ethics, undermining the legitimacy of groups that threatened these values, such as homosexual couples and single-parent families. These sanctions and incentives were designed to mould recipient behaviour (Berrick, 2005). Thus, women who abandoned relationships, selfishly withdrawing from the role of wife and mother in a two-parent family, were deemed unworthy of support and held responsible for their economic downfall, as well as the stigma attached to it. Underprivileged single mothers were not deemed fit to raise children; thus, they were not only a burden on the state but also could not be trusted as parents (Abramovitz, 2006). In this sense, the sharp welfare cuts of the 1990s reinforced the dominant cultural ideology through the glorification of two-parent families. This idealization encouraged US society to pry into single women’s sexual habits fearing they would bequeath their ‘perversion’ to their children (Seccombe et al., 1999). The demonization of single mothers was enhanced by racial and gender stereotypes (Abramovitz, 2006; Fraser, 2001). One common derogatory description was ‘welfare queen’, mainly attributed to non-working African American mothers, whose children were said to be sponsored by the US taxpayer. Allusions to these women depicted them as sexually promiscuous and extortive, having children only to raise their income (Jarrett, 1996). Moreover, politicians often likened welfare recipients to junkies, perceiving them as irresponsible, unmotivated and irrational (Hirschmann, 2001). These images were promoted by the media, which ignored issues of racial discrimination and structural racism (Abramovitz, 2006; Fraser, 2001). Even if these presumptions were never made explicit, they were at the core of policymaking (Abramovitz, 2006; Mink, 1998).

At the same time, starting in the 1990s, low-income single mothers fought back, defining proper motherhood in their own terms. They argued that good mothers sacrifice for their children, teach them to be self-reliant and protect them (Elliott et al., 2015). A good mother puts her children first, spends time with them, provides for them, keeps them out of trouble and keeps them safe (McCormack, 2005). In their limited space of low income and high delegitimacy, the women have built sources of maternal identity, power and resistance (Collins, 2006).

The UK

In the early 1990s, single mothers were perceived as undermining family life and a burden on the welfare system. Thus, when the political system sought to pave the way for dramatic cuts in their benefits, the media narrative emphasized the ideal of the traditional family (Atkinson and Oerton, 1998). Media and government discourse referred to single mothers as a threat and a social problem that cast a shadow on society and the conventional family (Kiernan et al., 1998). They were represented as irresponsible for raising children without a father (Salter, 2018).

In the late 1990s, as the media narrative began to give wider scope to diverse patterns of families, the discourse became slightly more open, with emphasis on labour market integration. This change was, however, rather superficial, and the single-parent family continued to be seen as problematic (Atkinson and Oerton, 1998). Indeed, single mothers in the UK remain highly stigmatized (Salter, 2018). Yet, despite their difficult economic situation and stigmatization, they find ways to cope, managing family life and employment by sharing house and family duties with children (Millar and Ridge, 2009) and getting support from friends and the extended family (Gardiner and Millar, 2006).

Israel

The discourse of motherhood in Israel is complex and paradoxical. On the one hand, Israel’s motherhood myth is cardinal and holds a highly respected place in society, with roots in the woman’s demographic role of bearing children and thereby building the nation. The strong/struggling mother who gives birth to future soldiers and citizens is considered worthy of state assistance (Herbst, 2013; Berkovitch, 2001). On the other hand, in keeping with neoliberal ideology, there are those who consider single mothers responsible for breaking up the family, linking their hardships to their ‘selfishness’ and the need to pay the price of freedom (Ajzenstadt, 2009; Lavee, 2016).

The image of the strong, coping mom came to the fore following the 2003 allowance cuts, when large groups of single mothers protested, claiming deprivation of the right to offer their children a respectable existence (Herbst, 2013). The women appropriated the ‘politics of motherhood’ or the ‘politics of the womb’, as demands made in the name of motherhood are one of the cornerstones of Israeli society. They were portrayed in the press as lionesses fighting for their cubs (Herbst, 2013).

This struggle was suffused with the military imagery so sacred to Israeli society – it was the ‘battle’ of mothers for the ‘survival’ of their children. Although the women ‘warriors’ sought a ‘civil agenda’, they promoted it through military means. Importantly, their protest did not oppose the discourse of Zionism, nation and army, but rather emphasized that discourse as the sole way to achieve consensus. The mothers’ contribution, in terms of giving birth to and caring for children, was not limited to the private sphere, but flowed into the public realm through the appropriation of myths viewed as legitimate and militant (Berkovitch, 2001). At the same time, the 2003 struggle exposed how single mothers were viewed as selfish women who had chosen to divorce or have children without a husband and therefore should not demand public support (Herbst, 2013).

The analysis of the three countries reveals a significant emphasis on selfish single motherhood and its correspondence with neoliberal ideology. This has been particularly strong in the US; only in the late 1990s did mothers oppose these devaluating images and highlight the importance of the work they do raising their children. In contrast, the discourse in the UK has always been abusive towards single mothers, although in the late 1990s it seems to have opened to include more diverse family patterns. Notably, in Israel, the discourse moved in the opposite direction – from the coping mom to the selfish mom.

Discussion

This article has examined developments in discourse directed at single mothers and their public legitimacy in the context of welfare in the neoliberal era. Examining the US, the UK and Israel from the 1970s to the 2000s, the analysis addressed two levels: the institutional level, in terms of how welfare policy for single mothers was shaped, and the level of discourse, in which images are ascribed to single mothers. Analysis of the development and withdrawal of social rights over time has deepened understanding of how the single mother is structured in the neoliberal welfare regime.

In all three countries, the rise of single-parent families, together with expanded welfare rights, has undoubtedly increased the public visibility of single mothers. Their social rights have increased and even received a legal infrastructure. However, their entitlement to rights on the basis of their motherhood has been conditional. After an initial provision of rights resting on the image of deservingness, the discourse shifted to blaming them for their selfishness, and single mothers’ benefits were undermined in the 1990s and the 2000s, condemning them to dependence on a providing man or the state.

The neoliberal trend reveals decreased tolerance of the welfare state and a return to the stigmatization of poverty. Indeed, welfare cutbacks were preceded by a process of negative labelling and condemnation of single mothers (Abramovitz, 2006; Herbst, 2013; Millar and Ridge, 2009). Single mothers have remained the ‘other’ in the neoliberal era – a weakened segment that should be scrutinized and policed. Their frequent association with poverty and allowances to combat extreme distress, together with the sanctions imposed on them for violating the rules, has marked them as an excluded, marginal segment of society. Despite their increased labour-market participation, single mothers remain stigmatized and delegitimated.

These circumstances may be related to the logic of the neoliberal regime: we will leave you alone and not blame you as long as you do not need allowances, but if you want to receive rights we will dictate how you live. Under these conditions, and in spite of them, single mothers in the US, the UK and Israel continually struggle to raise their children, defining proper motherhood their own way and demonstrating that single mothers can do as good a job as two-parent families (Dermott and Pomati, 2016).

This study is innovative both theoretically and empirically. It adds a layer to theoretical studies linking delegitimization of single mothers to the development of the welfare state (Abramovitz, 2006; Herbst, 2013; Fraser and Gordon, 1994; Hirschmann, 2001; Millar, 2005). Going one step further, the study emphasizes how stigmas, perpetuated through discourse and imagery, often form the basis of welfare policy – or at least serve as rationalization for policy. The empirical uniqueness of the research lies in the use of three examples of neoliberal welfare regimes, pointing to numerous similarities between the countries, as well as significant differences. The study has shown how analysis of welfare state development in relation to vulnerable groups through complex intersections of legislation, discourse and imagery can yield important insights.

This article is not without limitations. The study examined discourse surrounding the policy of enacting and cutting welfare benefits, as well as the legitimacy of single mothers in this context. The analysis, however, cannot reflect cause and effect. This will require research using other methodologies.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-esp-10.1177_09589287221076743 – Supplemental Material for (De)legitimization of single mothers’ welfare rights: United States, Britain and Israel.

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-esp-10.1177_09589287221076743 for (De)legitimization of single mothers’ welfare rights: United States, Britain and Israel by Anat Herbst-Debby in Journal of European Social Policy.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Anat Herbst-Debby

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Note

References

Abramovitz

(2006) Welfare reform in the United States: gender, race and class matter. Critical Social Policy 26(2): 336–364.

Achdut

Stier

(2020) Welfare-use accumulation and chronic dependency in Israel: the role of structural factors. Journal of Social Policy 49(1): 81–101.

Ajzenstadt

(2009) Moral panic and neo-liberalism: the case of single mothers on welfare in Israel. British Journal of Criminology 49(1): 68–87.

Ajzenstadt

Gal

(2001) Appearances can be deceptive: gender in the Israeli welfare state. Social Politics 8(3): 292–324.

Albelda

(2011) Time binds: US antipoverty policies, poverty, and the well-being of single mothers. Feminist Economics 17(4): 189–214.

Atkinson

Oerton

Burns

(1998) ‘Happy families?’ Single mothers, the press and the politicians. Capital & Class 22: 1–11.

Bashevkin

(2002) Welfare Hot Buttons: Women, Work, and Social Policy Reform. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Berkovitch

(1997) Motherhood as a national mission: the construction of womanhood in the legal discourse in Israel. Women’s Studies International Forum 20(5/6): 605–619.

Berkovitch

(2001) Citizens and mothers: the status of women in Israel. In: Y

Peled

Ophir

(eds) Israel: From Mobilized to Civil Society. Jerusalem: Van Leer Institute, 206–243.

10.

Bernardi

Mortelmans

Larenza

(2018) Changing lone parents, changing life courses. In: L

Bernardi

Mortelmans

(eds) Lone Parenthood in the Life Course. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 1–26.

11.

Berrick

(2005) Marriage, motherhood and welfare reform. Social Policy and Society 4(2): 133–145.

12.

Brady

Burroway

(2012) Targeting, universalism, and single-mother poverty: a multilevel analysis across 18 affluent democracies. Demography 49(2): 719–746.

13.

Breitkreuz

Williamson

(2012) The self-sufficiency trap: a critical examination of welfare-to-work. Social Service Review 86(4): 660–689.

14.

Bullock

Fraser Wyche

Williams

(2001) Media images of the poor. Journal of Social Issues 57(2): 229–246.

15.

Chzhen

Bradshaw

(2012) Lone parents, poverty and policy in the European Union. Journal of European Social Policy 22(5): 487–506.

16.

Collins

(2006) From Black Power to Hip Hop: Racism, Nationalism, and Feminism. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

17.

Cook

(2012) Social support in single parents' transition from welfare to work: analysis of qualitative findings. International Journal of Social Welfare 21: 338–350.

18.

Dermott

Pomati

(2016) The parenting and economising practices of lone parents: policy and evidence. Critical Social Policy 36(1): 62–81.

19.

Dodson

(2013) Stereotyping low-wage mothers who have work and family conflicts. Journal of Social Issues 69(2): 257–278.

20.

Duncan

Edwards

Song

(1999) Social threat or social problem? Media representations of lone mothers and policy implications. In: Franklin

(ed) Social Policy, the Media and Misrepresentation. New York, NY: Routledge, 238–252.

21.

Elliott

Powell

Brenton

(2015) Being a good mom. Journal of Family Issues 36(3): 351–370.

22.

Falk

(2020) The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Legislative History, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44668.pdf.

23.

Fletcher

Wright

(2018) A hand up or a slap down? Criminalising benefit claimants in Britain via strategies of surveillance, sanctions and deterrence. Critical Social Policy 38(2): 323–344.

24.

Fraser

(1994) After the family wage, gender equality and the welfare state. Political Theory 22(4):591–618.

25.

Fraser

(2001) Recognition without ethics? Theory Culture & Society 18(42–3): 21–42.

26.

Fraser

(2012) Feminism, Capitalism and the Cunning of History: An Introduction. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00725055/document.

27.

Fraser

Gordon

(1994) ‘Dependency’ demystified: inscriptions of power in a keyword of the welfare state. Social Politics 1: 4–31.

28.

Gal

(2010) Is there an extended family of mediterranean welfare states? Journal of European Social Policy 20(4): 283–300.

29.

Gal

Doron

(2000) Dealing with the elusive welfare‐to‐work issue: the case of poverty traps in Israel. Social Policy & Administration 34(3): 253–273.

30.

Gardiner

Millar

(2006) How low-paid employees avoid poverty: an analysis by family type and household structure. Journal of Social Policy 35(3): 351–369.

31.

Gordon

(1994) Pitied But Not Entitled: Single Mothers and the History of Welfare 1890–1935. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

32.

Graham

McQuaid

(2014) Exploring the Impacts of the UK Government’s Welfare Reforms on Lone Parents Moving into Work. https://www.gcph.co.uk/assets/0000/4284/Lone_parents_Literature_Review_web.pdf.

33.

Hajer

(1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

34.

Hakovirta

Jokela

(2019) Contribution of child maintenance to lone mothers’ income in five countries. Journal of European Social Policy 29(2): 257–272.

35.

Halevy

Lepianka

Santero

(2018) Differently unequal: on migrants’ stratified access to family reunification and family entitlements in the Netherlands, Israel and Italy In: T

Knijn

Naldini

(eds) Gender and Generational Division in EU Citizenship. Cheltenham. UK: Elgar, 139–111.

36.

Härkönen

(2018) Single-mother poverty: how much do educational differences in single motherhood matter? In: R

Nieuwenhuis

Maldonado

(eds) The Triple Bind of Single-Parent Families: Resources, Employment and Policies to Improve Wellbeing. Bristol: Policy Press, 31–50.

37.

Helman

(2011) ‘Let us help them to raise their children into good citizens’: the lone-parent families act and the wages of care-giving in Israel. Social Politics 18(1): 52–81.

38.

Herbst

(2012) Discourse of need: the case of child support (payment assurance). Women's Studies International Forum 35(4): 214–222.

39.

Herbst

(2013) Welfare mom as warrior mom: discourse in the 2003 single mothers' protest in Israel. Journal of Social Policy 42(1): 129–145.

40.

Herbst

Benjamin

(2012) It was a Zionist act: Feminist politics of single-mother policy votes in Israel. Women's Studies International Forum 35: 29–37.

41.

Herbst

Kaplan

(2016) Mothers’ postdivorce earnings in the context of welfare policy change. International Journal of Social Welfare 25(3): 222–234.

42.

Hirschmann

(2001) A question of freedom, a question of rights? Women and welfare. In: JN

Hirschmann

Liebert

(eds) Women and Welfare: Theory and Practice in the United Europe. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 84–107.

43.

Hobson

Lewis

Siim

(2002) Contested Concept in Gender and Social Politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

44.

Hogendoorn

Leopold

Bol

(2020) Divorce and diverging poverty rates: a risk‐and‐vulnerability approach. Journal of Marriage and Family 82(3): 1089–1109.

45.

Hübgen

(2018) ‘Only a husband away from poverty’? Lone mothers’ poverty risks in a European comparison. In: L

Bernardi

Mortelmans

(eds) Lone Parenthood in the Life Course. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 167–190.

46.

ICBS (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics) (1989) Yearly Statistics. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. [Hebrew].

47.

ICBS (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics) (1994) Yearly Statistics. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. [Hebrew].

48.

ICBS (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics) (2019) Labor Force Survey Data, December, Fourth Quarter and Annual Data of 2018. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. [Hebrew] https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/publications/Pages/2019/%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%99-%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C-2019-%D7%9E%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8-70.aspx.

49.

Jäntti

Gornik

(2009) Child Poverty in Upper-Income Countries: Lesson From The Luxembourg Income Study. LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg. Working Paper Series (working paper 509).

50.

Jarrett

(1996) Welfare stigma among low-income, African American single mothers. Family Relations 45(4): 368–374.

51.

Kiernan

Land

Lewis

(1998) Lone Motherhood in Twentieth-Century Britain: From Footnote to Front Page. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

52.

Kilkey

(2000) Lone Mothers Between Paid Work and Care: The Policy Regime in Twenty Countries. Aldershot: Ashgate.

53.

Kowalewska

(2017) Beyond the ‘train-first’/‘work-first’ dichotomy: how welfare states help or hinder maternal employment. Journal of European Social Policy 27(1): 3–24.

54.

Lavee

(2016) The neoliberal mom: how a discursive coalition shapes low-income mothers' labor market participation. Community, Work & Family 19(4): 501–518.

55.

Lazar

(2007) Feminist critical discourse analysis: articulating a feminist discourse praxis. Critical Discourse Studies 4(2): 141–164.

56.

Lewis

(1997) Lone mothers: the British case. In: J

Lewis

(ed) Lone Mothers in European Welfare Regimes. London: Kingsley, 50–75.

57.

Lewis

Hobson

(1997) Introduction. In: J

Lewis

(ed) Lone Mothers in European Welfare Regimes. London: Kingsley, 1–20.

58.

LIS (Luxemburg Income Study) (2018) Luxemburg Income Study Database.

59.

Maldonado

Nieuwenhuis

(2014) Family policies and single parent poverty in 18 OECD countries, 1978–2008. Community, Work & Family 18(4): 395–415.

60.

Manting

Bouman

(2006) Short- and long-term economic consequences of the dissolution of marital and consensual unions. The example of the Netherlands. European Sociological Review 22(4): 413–429.

61.

McCormack

(2005) Stratified reproduction and poor women’s resistance. Gender & Society 19(5): 660–679.

62.

Mikolai

Kulu

Vidal

, et al. (2019) Separation, divorce, and housing tenure: a cross-country comparison. Demographic Research 41(39): 1131–1146.

63.

Millar

(1996) Mothers, workers, wives: comparing policy approaches to supporting lone mothers. In: EB

Silva

(ed) Good Enough Mothering? London: Routledge, 97–113.

64.

Millar

(2005) Work as welfare: lone mothers, social security and employment. In: Saunders

(ed) Welfare to Work in Practice: Social Security and Participation in Economic and Social Life. Aldershot: Ashgate, 23–42.

65.

Millar

Ridge

(2009) Relationships of care: working lone mothers, their children and employment sustainability. Journal of Social Policy 38(1): 103–121.

66.

Mink

(1998) Welfare’s End. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

67.

Morgen

Maskovsky

(2003) The anthropology of welfare ‘Reform’: new perspectives on U.S. Urban poverty in the post-welfare era. Annual Review of Anthropology 32: 315–338.

68.

Morgen

Acker

Weigt

(2010) Stretched Thin: Poor Families, Welfare Work and Welfare Reform. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

69.

Mortelmans

Defever

(2018) Income trajectories of lone parents after divorce: a view with Belgian register data. In: L

Bernardi

Mortelmans

(eds) Lone Parenthood in the Life Course. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 213–236.

70.

Mulroy

(1995) The New Uprooted: Single Mothers in Urban Life. London: Auburn House.

71.

OECD (2017) Children in Families. Living arrangements of children. http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/SF_1_2_Children_in_families.pdf.

72.

Orloff

(2001) Ending the entitlements of poor single mothers. In: JN

Hirschmann

Liebert

(eds) Women and Welfare: Theory and Practice in the United Europe. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 133–159.

73.

Padamsee

(2009) Culture in connection: re-contextualizing ideational processes in the analysis of policy development. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 16(4): 413–445.

74.

Padamsee

Adams

(2002) Signs and regimes revisited. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 9(2): 187–202.

75.

Price

Glaser

Ginn

, et al. (2016) How important are state transfers for reducing poverty rates in later life? Ageing and Society 36(9): 1794–1825.

76.

Raley

Sweeney

(2020) Divorce, repartnering, and stepfamilies: a decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family 82(1): 81–99.

77.

Raz-Yurovich

(2013) Divorce penalty or divorce premium? A longitudinal analysis of the consequences of divorce for men’s and women’s economic activity. European Sociological Review 29(2): 373–385.

78.

Salter

(2018) A media discourse analysis of lone parents in the UK: investigating the stereotype. In: L

Bernardi

Mortelmans

(eds) Lone Parenthood in the Life Course. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 55–74.

79.

Saraceno

Keck

(2011) Towards an integrated approach for the analysis of gender equity in policies supporting paid work and care responsibilities. Demographic Research 25: 371–406.

80.

Schmidt

(2002) Does discourse matter in the politics of welfare state adjustment? Comparative Political Studies 35(2): 168–193.

81.

Seccombe

Walters

James

(1999) ‘Welfare Mothers’ welcome reform, urge compassion. Family Relations 48(2): 197–206.

82.

Sierminska

(2018) The ‘wealth-being’ of single parents. In: R

Nieuwenhuis

Maldonado

(eds) The Triple Bind of Single-Parent Families: Resources, Employment and Policies to Improve Wellbeing. Bristol: Policy Press, 51–80.

83.

Skocpol

(1992) Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

84.

Wacquant

(2016) Bourdieu, Foucault, and the penal state in the neoliberal era. In: D

Zamora

Behrent

(eds) Foucault and Neoliberalism. Malden, MA: Polity Press, 114–133.

85.

Williams

(2010) Migration and care: themes, concepts and challenges. Social Policy and Society 9(3): 385–396.

86.

Yuval-Davis

(2011) The Politics of Belonging: Intersectional Contestations. London: Sage.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.35 MB