IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v103y2014icp76-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pathologizing poverty: New forms of diagnosis, disability, and structural stigma under welfare reform

Author

Listed:
  • Hansen, Helena
  • Bourgois, Philippe
  • Drucker, Ernest

Abstract

In 1996 the U.S. severely restricted public support for low income people, ending “welfare as we know it.” This led to dramatic increases in medicalized forms of support for indigent people, who increasingly rely on disability benefits justified by psychiatric diagnoses of chronic mental illness. We present case studies drawn from ethnographic data involving daily participant-observation between 2005 and 2012 in public clinics and impoverished neighborhoods in New York City, to describe the subjective experience of structural stigma imposed by the increasing medicalization of public support for the poor through a diagnosis of permanent mental disability. In some cases, disability benefits enable recipients to fulfill important social roles (sustaining a vulnerable household and promoting stable parenting). The status of family members who receive a monthly disability check improves within their kin and neighborhood-based networks, counterbalancing the felt stigma of being identified by doctors as "crazy". When a diagnosis of mental pathology becomes a valuable survival strategy constituting the basis for fulfillment of household responsibilities, stigmatizing processes are structurally altered. Through the decades, the stigmatized labels applied to the poor have shifted: from being a symptom of racial weakness, to the culture of poverty, and now to permanent medical pathology. The neoliberal bureaucratic requirement that the poor must repeatedly prove their “disabled” status through therapy and psychotropic medication appears to be generating a national and policy-maker discourse condemning SSI malingerers, resurrecting the 16th century specter of the "unworthy poor".

Suggested Citation

  • Hansen, Helena & Bourgois, Philippe & Drucker, Ernest, 2014. "Pathologizing poverty: New forms of diagnosis, disability, and structural stigma under welfare reform," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 76-83.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:103:y:2014:i:c:p:76-83
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795361300378X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.06.033?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moffitt, Robert, 1983. "An Economic Model of Welfare Stigma," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(5), pages 1023-1035, December.
    2. Darius Lakdawalla & Dana Goldman & Jay Bhattacharya, 2001. "Are the Young Becoming More Disabled?," NBER Working Papers 8247, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Phelan, Jo C. & Link, Bruce G. & Dovidio, John F., 2008. "Stigma and prejudice: One animal or two?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 358-367, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brizmohun, Roshini & Duffy, Patricia A., 2016. "Do Personal Attitudes about Welfare Influence Food Stamp Participation?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235698, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. David W. Emmons & Eva Madly & Stephen A. Woodbury, 2005. "Refundable Tax Credits for Health Insurance: The Sensitivity of Simulated Impacts to Assumed Behavior," Upjohn Working Papers 05-119, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
    3. Kurita, Kenichi & Hori, Nobuaki & Katafuchi, Yuya, 2019. "Model of endogenous welfare stigma: Statistical discrimination view," MPRA Paper 98299, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Huffman, Sonya Kostova & Jensen, Helen H., 2003. "Do Food Assistance Programs Improve Household Food Security?: Recent Evidence From The United States," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22219, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Gundersen, Craig & Jolliffe, Dean & Tiehen, Laura, 2009. "The challenge of program evaluation: When increasing program participation decreases the relative well-being of participants," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 367-376, August.
    6. Marianne P. Bitler & Hilary W. Hoynes, 2010. "The state of the safety net in the post-welfare reform era," Working Paper Series 2010-31, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
    7. Gale, William & Pence, Karen, 2006. "Are Successive Generations Getting Wealthier, and If So, Why?Evidence from the 1990s," MPRA Paper 55502, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Regina T. Riphahn, 2001. "Rational Poverty or Poor Rationality? The Take‐up of Social Assistance Benefits," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 47(3), pages 379-398, September.
    9. Ozturk, Orgul & Chyi, hau, 2006. "The Effects of Single Mothers' Welfare Participation and Work Decisions on Children's Attainments," MPRA Paper 10110, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2008.
    10. Assar Lindbeck & Mårten Palme & Mats Persson, 2016. "Sickness Absence and Local Benefit Cultures," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 118(1), pages 49-78, January.
    11. Keane, Michael & Moffitt, Robert, 1998. "A Structural Model of Multiple Welfare Program Participation and Labor Supply," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(3), pages 553-589, August.
    12. Farzin, Y. Hossein & Akao, Ken-Ichi, 2005. "Non-pecuniary Work Incentive and Labor Supply," Working Papers 190910, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    13. Gauthier, A.H., 1995. "Policies and the division of labour within families : The neglected link," WORC Paper 95.04.006/6, Tilburg University, Work and Organization Research Centre.
    14. Craig Gundersen & Brent Kreider, 2008. "Food Stamps and Food Insecurity: What Can Be Learned in the Presence of Nonclassical Measurement Error?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(2), pages 352-382.
    15. Todd Eberly & Mary Pohl & Stacey Davis, 2009. "Undercounting Medicaid Enrollment in Maryland: Testing the Accuracy of the Current Population Survey," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 28(2), pages 221-236, April.
    16. Dirk Sliwka, 2007. "Trust as a Signal of a Social Norm and the Hidden Costs of Incentive Schemes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 999-1012, June.
    17. Hauge, Janice A. & Jamison, Mark A. & Todd Jewell, R., 2008. "Discounting telephone service: An examination of participation in the Lifeline Assistance Program using panel data," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 135-149, June.
    18. Robert Moffitt, 1999. "Explaining Welfare Reform: Public Choice and the Labor Market," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 6(3), pages 289-315, August.
    19. Cyrine Hannafi & Rémi Le Gall & François Legendre, 2022. "Recours et non-recours à la prime d’activité : une évaluation en termes de bien-être," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 73(5), pages 841-873.
    20. Chiara Daniela Pronzato, 2015. "Fighting Lone Mothers’ Poverty Through In-Work Benefits: Methodological Issues and Policy Suggestions," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 61(1), pages 95-122.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:103:y:2014:i:c:p:76-83. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.