This article assesses two competing views of the effects federal devolution may have on the future of health, education and welfare programs in the United States. One school of thought argues that devolution of social policy to the state and local level will have negative consequences for the less affluent. A contrasting view maintains that devolution will spur innovations at the state and local level, which in turn will lead to more effective and efficient social programs. Dileo analyzes presidential and gubernatorial speeches over a period of 5 years to assess the state of U.S. social policy. He concludes that the federal government is generally more supportive of redistributive policies than are the states.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||10|
|Journal||Spectrum (Lexington, Ky.)|
|State||Published - Jan 1 1996|