Hello. I’m starting a newsletter called Makeshift Arrangements, and this is, in some sense, the inaugural issue. It will focus on the administrative state, the welfare state, and above all, the administration of the welfare state.
With the One Big Beautiful Bill Act set to create a host of new administrative hurdles for people seeking welfare benefits — Medicaid work requirements and the like — I trust you’ll see the value of this newsletter and subscribe to Makeshift Arrangements. But if you’re skeptical, I have a longer pitch below.
The name Makeshift Arrangements comes from my favorite Frances Perkins quote. Perkins, the fourth Secretary of Labor and first woman appointed to a cabinet position, was the architect of the Social Security Act of 1935, which remains the bedrock of the modern U.S. safety net. In a February 1935 speech explaining the Roosevelt administration’s social insurance proposals to the American public, she said:
As I look back on the tragic years since 1929, it seems to me that we as a Nation, not unlike some individuals, have been able to pass through a bitter experience to emerge with a newfound insight and maturity. We have had the courage to face our problems and find a way out. The heedless optimism of the boom years is past. We now stand ready to build the future with sanity and wisdom.
The process of recovery is not a simple one. We cannot be satisfied merely with makeshift arrangements which will tide us over the present emergencies. We must devise plans that will not merely alleviate the ills of today, but will prevent, as far as it is humanly possible to do so, their recurrence in the future. The task of recovery is inseparable from the fundamental task of social reconstruction. [emphasis added]
Ninety years on, there are still ways our social insurance system falls short. We have indeed become satisfied with mere “makeshift arrangements.”
Take, for example, our unemployment insurance system, a very small part of which will be the subject of my first piece (out tomorrow, subscribe!). The basic structure of unemployment insurance has changed little since 1935, with benefits being administered through a federal-state system. Some members of the Committee on Economic Security, including Perkins herself, thought a purely federal system was preferable from an administrative standpoint, but they settled on the federal-state system to appease members of Congress and, above all, a hostile Supreme Court.1 Its design was, in essence, a makeshift arrangement.
The aim of Makeshift Arrangements, then, is to closely examine our social insurance institutions. Where do they succeed? Where do they fail? Why do they succeed and why do they fail? How could policymakers, if they wish to do so, create institutions “that will not merely alleviate the ills of today, but will prevent, as far as it is humanly possible to do so, their recurrence in the future?”
While I cannot promise that I will never stray from this focus, I can say that I have about eight pieces planned that are on theme and zero pieces that are not. Well-known works that have greatly influenced my thinking on the welfare state and will inform the themes of this newsletter include Donald Moynihan and Pamela Herd’s Administrative Burden (how and why do we bury welfare recipients in paperwork?) and Gøsta Esping-Andersen’s The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (how does our social insurance regime compare with those of other rich nations?).
As a final matter, I want to be clear that I do not intend to waste your time. The purpose of this newsletter is not to repeat things that you have probably already heard, much as some things are worth repeating. I will root my pieces in novel data analysis or otherwise focus on underappreciated policy levers, little-known administrative processes, or underreported events. For an example of what to expect, see my post from May, for which I produced some stats on the welfare state that I hadn’t seen elsewhere and found compelling.
I plan to have something out at least every other week, and my first piece will be out tomorrow. Consider subscribing.
“There was one outstanding, and, in my mind, determining factor, at that time in favor of the federal-state system. Although we thought we were on the right track in using the taxing power of the Federal Government, we were never quite sure whether a federal system of unemployment insurance would be constitutional. […] There was grave doubt, our latest interviews with members of Congress had shown, that Congress would pass a law for a purely federal system.” (Perkins, 1946)
Instantly subscribed
One of Mt Holyoke College’s heroes is Frances Perkins. I hope you include her. ❤️