Three Worlds of Relief: Race, Immigration, and the American Welfare State from the Progressive Era to the New Deal by Cybelle Fox (review)

The welfare state has traditionally neglected important heterogeneities among immigrants and ethnic groups, and not fully appreciated the historical coevolution of immigration law and social policy. Addressing these gaps, Fox offers a systematic and compelling history of U.S. welfare policy from the Progressive era through the New Deal. This pioneering contribution demonstrates convincingly how Blacks, European and Mexican immigrants were treated in fundamentally different ways and how this reflected and amplified ethnic inequalities.

In, the first two chapters, Fox presents the argument and effectively motivates and explains why the comparison of Blacks, Mexicans and European immigrants is needed to, “tease apart the relative influence of race, formal citizenship, and legal status for access to the social safety net” (2). Fox argues that the three groups inhabited “three [different] worlds” and while this reader doubts this application of Esping-Andersen, Fox presents a coherent argument. Fox identifies differences in race/color status, labor markets and politics that reflect the geographic concentration of the groups. Chapters 3-5 provide intriguing coverage of vast differences in welfare prior to the New Deal. She argues: “differences in the structure of the farm-labor relations across regions helps explain much of the racial patterning of relief spending, while differences in the political context … help explain most of the racial patterning” in whether spending was public or private (53). Chapters 4-5 cleverly contrast how social workers constructed Mexicans as welfare dependent, while European immigrants were viewed as capable of assimilation, and Blacks were neglected. Chapters 6-7 recount how the Great Depression triggered a nativist response and a push for repatriation, and transformed both immigration law and social policy. In Chapters 8-10, Fox traces through the New Deal. Harry Hopkins and Frances Perkins come out looking somewhat heroic in protecting welfare benefits for immigrants, though Fox points out their success was uneven. Fox shows that citizenship barriers and antiimmigrant politics were most concentrated on public works programs, whereas immigrants were covered by social insurance. She shows how Blacks were oppressed by an agrarian labor market, and as a result, were almost entirely excluded from the New Deal. Fox demonstrates how the New Deal’s incorporation of European immigrants facilitated their social mobility and had important feedback effects into politics. In a compelling last chapter, Fox summarizes her arguments but only briefly discusses the broader implications. Stressing the role of context, politics and institutions for the variation in immigrant groups’ and Blacks access to welfare, Fox (2012: 293) concludes, “There is no universal tradeoff between diversity and redistribution.”

This book is an impressive accomplishment. It is meticulously detailed and rigorous. The arguments rest on a strikingly deep and broad evidentiary base. Fox weaves a tight narrative from a chorus of rich quotes and fine-grained comparisons. The book is well-written and engaging, and makes many insightful, novel contributions. For example, Fox shatters the myth of the bootstrapping White ethnic by demonstrating how European immigrants were major beneficiaries of welfare. The strategy of comparing Blacks, Mexicans and European immigrants is useful and productively moves debates about race, ethnic heterogeneity and welfare beyond the Black-White binary. Fox demonstrates how Mexicans, and not Blacks, were viewed as the welfare dependent group historically. Redressing a neglect of social workers in the literature, Fox emphasizes their role in reifying ethnic hierarchies, framing public discourse, and influencing policy makers. Above all, the book corrects American political amnesia about the place of immigrants in society and their access to welfare.

As both Fox and myself are sociologists, I expected more general theory and concepts. Fox carefully confines arguments, and demonstrates balance and thoughtfulness. However, as the U.S. is a very unusual case with many idiosyncrasies absent in the political development of other affluent democracies, the generalizability was not always clear. At times, the book appears reluctant to...