A Tale of Two Disciplines: Welfare Retrenchment and Carceral Expansion

Underneath the beacon of federalism lies a covert problem, one largely hidden from public view. As responsibility for regulating societal behavior devolves to the states, many argue that this is a positive development. After all, who knows their constituencies better than state and local government actors? However, this so-called 'positive' development has led to a two-pronged approach to discipline: welfare retrenchment and carceral expansion. In Disciplining the Poor (2011), the authors argue that welfare and criminal justice systems have become two arms of a single apparatus for managing poverty, with states employing this dual strategy to discipline their poor. While federal constraints have limited how far states could go in disciplining recipients, states have instead focused on reducing benefits to make low-wage work more appealing. This policy shift largely responded to Black political gains after the civil rights era, Republican control, and conservative ideology. Drawing on their quantitative analysis, the authors argue that states with larger black caseloads were more likely to cut welfare benefits and increase incarceration. Moreover, they observe that the prison system served as a pipeline to get poor black men into the workforce after serving prison time. Through punitive parole and probation policies, these men were required to accept any available job, often low-wage.

Together, these patterns highlight how welfare itself had become a behavioral tool to shape the conduct of the poor. Using a case study of Florida, the authors showcase how neoliberalism and paternalism operate in practice; Florida's welfare system demonstrates the disciplinary turn in its strongest and clearest form, making it an ideal state for analytic inference. The authors further assert that real governance happens through human activity on the ground, as local actors use discretion and sanctions to interpret and apply rules. In this paper, I posit that Disciplining the Poor (2011) reveals how neoliberal paternalistic policies together violate the moral foundations of fair reciprocity outlined by Stuart White (2000), transforming welfare from a system of social rights into a mechanism of poverty governance and racialized discipline.

The Gridlock between Stuart White's Fair Reciprocity Approach and Welfare Contractualism

The disciplinary logic identified in Disciplining the Poor raises several ethical questions, one of which I pose here: If welfare and the prison systems are designed to be punitive and constricting rather than supporting, can they still be morally justified as part of a fair social contract? I draw from Stuart White's (2000) framework of fair reciprocity to answer this question. White (2000) argues that for welfare contractualism to be morally and equitably legitimate, it must be grounded in the ideology of fair reciprocity — the idea that citizens can be asked to contribute productively only if they are given a fair and just chance to do so. White argues that the enforcement of work obligations in an unequal society risks legitimizing exploitation, which he compares to asking slaves to fulfill moral duties under unjust conditions. To prevent this from happening, he proposes four conditions that must be met for reciprocity-based obligations to be fair: (1) workers must have a decent share of the social product, (2) there must be decent opportunities for individuals to find and maintain work, (3) citizens must be recognized for their non-market contributions, and (4) policies must be universally enforced.

Condition 1: Guarantee of a Decent Share of the Social Product

"The first and most obvious objective of social welfare provisions is to prevent poverty" (Fraser, 1996). This statement begs the question: do people who meet basic work expectations earn enough to live above the poverty line? Disciplining the Poor answers this succinctly. The authors show that Black women are often pushed into low-wage, unstable jobs that do not lift them out of poverty. In fact, they argue that welfare programs do not ensure that work leads to livable income; instead, they function as disciplinary mechanisms used to coerce poor people into the labor force. Black men are similarly affected. The book illustrates how parole and probation systems often require employment as a condition of release but offer no guarantee of livable or stable work. This creates a prison-to-workforce pipeline that pushes poor men into low-wage jobs through work-enforcing supervision and the threat of reincarceration. This failure to ensure a decent share of the social product illustrates that the welfare system no longer functions as a redistributive right but as a disciplinary mechanism.

Condition 2: Decent Opportunities for Productive Participation

Do citizens have a real chance to work meaningfully and with dignity? I answer this question by focusing on the authors' case study of Florida. The authors highlight that Florida's welfare system prioritizes rapid job placements over quality employment. Case managers are pressured to meet performance metrics, leading to high client churn through low-wage, unstable jobs. Additionally, Black clients are more likely to be sanctioned during longer welfare spells, suggesting that the system penalizes those who struggle to find meaningful work rather than supports them. The U.S. welfare system fails in this regard — it does not promote fair participation in the workforce.

Condition 3: Equitable Treatment of Different Forms of Productive Participation

Does the U.S. welfare system promote equitable recognition of different forms of productive participation? The book highlights that Black women, whose caregiving responsibilities often conflict with program compliance, are especially vulnerable to sanctions. The system disregards care work, treating it as a barrier to employment rather than a valuable contribution. Florida's welfare system illustrates this problem by narrowly defining productive participation solely as paid labor, thus diminishing the recognized value of care labor. In this sense, the U.S. welfare system fails White's moral test of reciprocity.

Condition 4: Universal Enforcement of Productive Participation Standards

If one individual must work to receive support, are all capable citizens subjected to the same condition? Based on Soss et al.'s (2011) arguments, the answer is no. The authors' RCM model explains that racial stereotypes and implicit bias shape welfare enforcement. Discipline depends on race and political context. States with a higher Black caseload often have stricter and more punitive welfare practices. Black women face greater surveillance, sanctions, and behavioral conditions in welfare programs. Black men are also disproportionately incarcerated and given harsh work requirements under parole and probation. Taken together, the authors illuminate how race functions as a negotiating principle through which welfare states differentiate, discipline, and govern their poor.

Reimagining the Social Contract: Theoretical Synthesis and Implications

Stuart White's (2000) essay argues that welfare contractualism can be compatible with social citizenship if conditions are fair. When applying White's four conditions to Disciplining the Poor, it becomes clear that the current welfare conditions are rooted in unfairness and racism, perpetuated through the unfair targeting of Black communities. The disciplinary nature of the U.S. welfare system fails to pass White's moral standards of fair reciprocity under all conditions. To counter this disciplinary logic, I draw on Fraser's (1996) proposal to combine the strengths of the universal breadwinner and caregiver parity models. The Universal Caregiver model challenges the traditional vision of work to include care, thereby satisfying White's conditions in a way the current system cannot. By institutionalizing care as valuable labor participation, Fraser's universal caregiver model redefines the moral and structural basis of social citizenship — transforming welfare from a system of discipline and coercion into one of equity, recognition, and justice.