Post on 29-Jan-2023
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Trudie Knijn
Ilsemann, Norman
(4049322)
Date: 28.10.2013
Version: Final Version
Table of Contents:
1. Introduction p. 3
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Citizenship
2.2. The Power Resource Model
2.3. De-commodification and
Stratification
2.4. Political order change
p. 5
p. 5
p. 7
p. 8
p.10
3. The New Deal p.11
4. Obamacare p.13
5. Similarities and Differences p.16
6. Conclusion p.17
7. References p.19
1. Introduction
“Throughout the world, change is the order of the day”
Franklin Deleano Roosevelt, 4. January 1935.
Today, almost 80 years after the birth of the American
welfare state, we are told that changes can be difficult. The
world changed and with it the US welfare state changed over the
past 80 years enormously. At the times of Franklin Deleano
Roosevelt (FDR) the United States of America (US) established
the foundation for a welfare state. Roosevelt implemented the
first social protection policies for workers and their families
and gave the American citizens a guaranteed income. Without any
doubt, a big “change” for millions of people and also a big
“change” for the US which introduced new agencies and
administrative bodies (Finegold & Skocpol, 1995, p.3).
Barack Obama, the 44th President, wanted to “change” the US,
too. During his presidential campaign in 2007-8 the word became
his label and he declared that he will promote the introduction
of a public health insurance option as one of his priority
goals. Today, more than 5 years later, it seems like President
Obama has enormous problems with the implementation of a public
health care system (Klein & Soltat, 2013).
The president of the US is often called the most powerful
person in the world. That might be right on a supranational
level, on the national level he is not. As the example of
Barack Obama reveals, the implementation of a policy takes
time, even for the most powerful person in the world. But then
it should be asked, why does it take so long?
The question becomes even more pressing in light of other
western welfare states. In the year 1971 Canada was the last of
all western welfare states to implement a public health care
system, Countries like Belgium, Germany, Italy or Sweden had
already introduced a national health care system by the end of
the 19th century.
Seemingly, the implementation of policies in the US is not just
depending on the power of the president. Therefore, this paper
will analyze the question: “What are the reasons for
Roosevelt’s successful implementation of “The New Deal” and
Obamas stagnation in regard to the implementation of a national
health care system.” In order to answer the research question,
this paper will compare FDR´s New Deal with Barack Obama´s
Obamacare and analyses societal and political actors in the US
social policy making process.
This essay argues that a combination of actors plays a role
within the implementation process of US welfare policies.
Firstly, societal actors which can be understood as interest
groups. They are generally in favor of or against the
implementation of a policy. Secondly, political actors which
have to be understood as a combination of political aims,
political parties and a political system.
In order to analyze the research question and to proof the
hypothesis, the paper will first introduce a theoretical
framework, which is based on Thomas Humphrey Marshalls´s theory
of “citizenship”. The theory will support in particular the
evaluation of the societal and political actors. Furthermore,
the essay will make use of the so called “power resource
model”, which was developed by Walter Korpi. The model will
give help to understand the real power of the president.
Additionally, the essay determines the expected behavior of the
actors by introducing the idea of Gøsta Esping-Andersen´s
welfare regime types. In particular, the essay will reveal the
typology of the “liberal regime type” in order to stress a
better perspective on the actors. Lastly, the paper will make
use of the opportunity to compare The New Deal with the
Obamacare on Peter A. Hall´s “political order change – theory”.
Hall’s concept helps to distinguish between different types of
policies. Consequently, it should be examined generally whether
The New Deal and Obamacare can be analyzed.
Due to the fact, that this essay is limited on a certain word
limit, further theories, like for instance “Marxism” or “path
dependency” cannot be applied.
The conclusion will summarize the results and give answers to
the research question.
2. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework can be seen as a combination of
an explaining and an operational part. The latter part will be
framed on the “citizenship-theory” and the “power-resource-
model”. Both theories together can determine potentials and
limits of actors. As in the introduction mentioned, the essay
will focus on social and political actors, which can influence
and control the implementation process of US welfare policies.
The explaining part deals mainly with the concepts of “de-
commodification” and “stratification” in connection with the
theory of different “political order changes”. Since The New
Deal and the Obamacare are consisting of different social
policies, the framework of “de-commodification”,
“stratification” and “political order changes” will assess
whether they can meaningfully be compared way. Due to the fact
that different schools of thought will be combined within the
theoretical framework, it has to be mentioned that the essay
assumes a combination of different factors, which will play a
certain role in answering the research question. However,
firstly the essay will explain the operational part, which will
be followed by the explaining part. It has to be stressed, that
the concepts and theories shall be explained only briefly, due
to the limited extend of this paper
2.1 Citizenship
Marshall explains the rise of the welfare state with the
expansion of the citizenship, with regard to the process of
modernization, which took place all over the world. He proposed
that citizenship has to be divided into three elements, the
civil, the political and the social citizenship (Marshall,
1950, p.30). At the beginning of the 19th century, a “growing
interest in equality as principle of social justice and an
appreciation of an equal capacity for rights was not enough”
(ibid, p. 35). Thus, the consequence was that citizens claimed
more individual rights and more independency from the state.
The demanding of individual rights led to the emergence of
organized interest groups, such as worker unions or political
parties. As a result, the former relationship between the state
and the market was added by another organized shape (ibid,
p.38). The demand for more individual rights was not directly
accepted and led to conflicts between organized interest groups
and the capitalist class system (ibid). One result was the
development of further participation forms, for instance
collective bargaining, and the emergence of social rights.
In short, civil rights have been established around the 19th
century with the composition of rights “for individual freedom
liberty of the person, freedom of speech, thought and faith,
the right to own property and to conclude civil contracts and
the right to justice” (ibid, p.30). The political rights have
been established around the turn to the 20th century and
exercised the political power of the individual by the right to
vote and the right to be elected. Social rights developed
gradually at the beginning of the 20th century. They extended
the rights of citizens in respect to social justice and
economic independency.
The concept of the citizenship identifies the welfare state as
more than merely a set of policies. It explains the welfare
state as the citizen’s right on social protection and economic
independence. Thus, social policies are adjusted to the rights
of the individual.
The concept will be used to enable a broader understanding of
the concepts of “de-commodification” and “stratification” and
supports the analysis of societal and political actors.
Hypothesis I:
2.2 The Power Resource Model
The power resource model is based on the assumption that
power can be distributed among several actors. However, a clear
definition of “power” has not been provided yet, since scholars
like Gerhardt Lenski, Theda Skocpol, Esping-Andersen or Korpi
The absence of a public health care system in the US can
be explained by the weak development of social rights.
The Hypothesis could be examined on the total number of
homeless people with regard to the implementation of
social policies and governmental support.
did not agree on it. Nevertheless, what all scholars provided
is a common view on a distribution of possibilities to act.
Lenski offers the following explanation: “democratic polities
created the possibility for the “many” to combine against the
“few” (the elites)” (Lenksi, 1966, p.44). Thus, the “people”
became an actor within the implementation process.
The control over power resources is a major factor affecting a
policy process, the outcomes of the process and which elements
and instruments might be implemented (Korpi, 1983, p.80).
Consequently, the control over power resources plays a major
role in the development of the welfare state. According to
Korpi power resources are related to a democratic class
struggle (ibid, p. 83). That means that the forms of power
resources that can be mobilized can differ among classes.
Therefore, the possibility to mobilize as well as the position
of an actor plays an important role within the policy process.
Furthermore, the balance between actors reveals the level of
democratization within a country.
The theory of power resources will help to identify and to
understand different actors that can play a certain role within
the implementation process of social policies in the US.
Moreover, the theory can reveal the reasons for a successful
implementation and the interconnection of political and social
motives.
In order to establish a comprehensive understanding of the
acting of actors, the next part will explain the concepts of
“de-commodification” and “stratification”.
Hypothesis II:
2.3 De-commodification and Stratification
Esping-Andersen categorized three different
welfare regime types, namely the social-democratic, the
conservative-corporatist and the liberal welfare regime
(Esping-Andersen, 1990. p.168). The characteristics differ, but
before this essay will reveal the differences, two main
concepts ought to be clarified, the concepts of “de-
commodification” and “stratification”.
In the words of Esping-Andersen “De-commodification occurs when
a service is rendered as a matter of right, and when a person
can maintain a livelihood without reliance on the market”
(ibid, p. 163). In other words, de-commodification explains
the (in) dependency of an individual on the market. The level
of de-commodification can be influenced by politics and
political institutions in terms of assessing welfare function
to the state, the market and the family. As a consequence, the
state plays a significant role within the development of
policies, hence the emergence of the welfare state. Closely
linked to the concept of de-commodification is the concept of
“stratification”.
The strong power position of the market and the capital
influences the outcome of policy making processes.
The Hypothesis could be examined on a comparative
analysis of social policies with regard to economic
factors and actors that played a role within the policy
The concept of de-commodification is focused on the
relationship between the individual and the market.
Stratification focuses on the relationship between the
individual and the society. In order to avoid a
misunderstanding, it has to be mentioned, that whether de-
commodification or stratification, both can have an influence
on all types of actors (the state, the market, the individual
etc.). However, the state can effect what kind of
stratification system shall be promoted and which will be
neglected (ibid, p.165). Esping-Andersen goes even further and
determines that: “the welfare state is not just a mechanism
that intervenes in, and possibility corrects the structure of
inequality, it is, in its own right, a system of
stratification. It is an active force in the ordering of social
relations” (ibid). Thus, by implementing policies, the state
structures the society and consequently also the balance of
power among actors. In other words, the state influences the
equality of the society.
Esping-Andersen identified the US as a liberal welfare regime.
That means the US has exposed a rather low-level of de-
commodification. The worker is highly dependent on the market
and influenced by the economy. With regard to stratification he
found out, that the US ought to have a rather low level of
social rights for the weakest part of the society. Furthermore,
the society can be defined as a two-part system, the upper part
ruling over the lower part, which has rather low chances to
participate in the market and the society.
The concepts of de-commodification and stratification provide a
deeper understanding of the motives of actors and consequently
of their point of view on The New Deal and Obamacare and
secondly, they can provide an overview of power resources among
actors, hence a pattern of the main actors within the process
of policy implementation.
Hypothesis III:
The last part of the theoretical framework will give an
overview of the concept of “political order changes”.
2.4 Political order change
Hill made a distinction between first, second and
third order changes. By “first order changes” he meant
adjustments of policies that have been already implemented
(Hall, 1993, p.280). In other words, the changing of settings
of basic policies, like the raising or decreasing of a benefit
could be seen as “first order change”. Normally, first order
If a president could unite both parts of a society, than
his/her power could lead to a welfare regime shift.
The Hypothesis could be examined on a case study among
welfare states. In order to examine, whether a shift might
be possible, the analysis could make use of the Esping-
Andersen welfare regime model indicators and could adjust
changes are performed by civil servants and experts, which are
routinized and familiar with the policy (ibid).
Second order changes are intensive alternations of policy
instruments. For instance, when the hierarchy of basic
techniques becomes altered, “as a result of dissatisfaction
with past experience” (ibid, p. 278). Hall provides as an
example the implementation of “cash limits” and clarifies that
within second order changes the goal of the policy remains the
same (ibid, p.279). They are initiated by politicians, experts
and civil servants.
Lastly, third order changes, which can be briefly explained as
“paradigm shift”, are the most concentrated modification for a
state. Paradigm shifts can modify policy structures within a
state, even entire policy fields can be affected by “paradigm
shift”. So, paradigm shifts might alter an entire system. With
regard to welfare states, the introduction of a health care
system or an insurance system could be seen as a paradigm
shift. A third order change is initiated by a combination of
actors, politicians, academic experts or the media, a crisis or
even society can play a significant role for a “paradigm shift”
(ibid, p. 287).
The concept of political order changes frames the pattern for
the comparison, due to the fact that The New Deal and the
Obamacare might be seen as “paradigm shifts” within US
politics. Thus, a comparative analysis can be conducted.
Hypothesis IV:
A paradigm shift in US policy is always a reaction to a
crisis.
The Hypothesis could be analyzed on a historical
comparative approach that compares paradigm shifts in the
US with the implementation of policies with regard to
In order to analyse the reasons that played a role for the
implementation of The New Deal. The next part will introduce a
short overview of it and identifies actors by the use of the
abovementioned concepts. Subsequently, Obamacare will be
depicted in order to accomplish a basis for a comparative
analysis.
3. The New Deal
When Roosevelt was elected in March 4, 1933, the US
was at the peak of the worst depression in its young history.
Around 30% of the population were unemployed, the industry and
farmers had to deal with a big slump in prices and around 2
million people were homeless. The New Deal was a series of
economic programs enacted between 1933 and 1936, which
established a social security system with instruments such as
an old age pension system or an unemployment insurance system.
The New Deal can be seen as the inauguration of the US Welfare
system or in other words “, there is near universal agreement
that the “social” side of the New Deal, embodied in the 1935
Social Security Act, declared the birth of the [American]
welfare state and established a basis for its growth and
development” (Pierson, 2006, p.123).
Social Actors
Before the implementation of the New Deal the US had just
barely social protection services, the most influential and
prominent was the civil war pension, which attained just civil
war soldiers (Skocpol, 1992).
So, social protection was for the biggest part of the American
society not reachable. The breadwinner, normally the men, would
be in case of unemployment or illness and with him his entire
family unprotected and destitute (Leuchtenburg, 1995).
It has to be stressed that welfare provisions existed, but just
on the federal and not on the national level. “At the turn of
the twentieth century, such limited public relief as there was
in the US was largely locally administered according to local
poor law customs” (Pierson, 2006, p.122).
With regard to Esping-Andersen the range of “de-
commodification” was low, since a social insurance system,
which could cover the loss of income was not in existing.
As a consequence, the need for a protection system must have
been quite high and brought into existence interest groups,
which developed out of the “growing interest in equality as
principle of social justice and an appreciation the an equal
capacity for right” (Marshall. 1950, p. 35).
So, “a number of U.S. trade union officials and reformers hoped
to transform Civil war pensions into more universal publicly
founded benefits for all workingmen and their families”
(Skocpol, 1992, p.2). One result out of those hopes and wishes
was a big support of the lower class and the working population
(Leuchtenburg, 1995).
We can conclude that the demand for the establishment of
welfare policies in the US around Roosevelt´s election was
high. In other words a social need for social rights was given.
Political actors
The time before, during and after the first election of FDR
brought long-term shifts in voting behaviour. Thus, a broad
coalition of labour unions, liberals, religious, ethnic and
racial minorities, southern whites, poor people arose
(Rosenbaum & Bartelme, 1987). Over the following decades the
coalition formed a majority of voters and hands the Democratic
Party seven victories out of nine presidential elections, and
the control of both houses. It has to be mentioned that this
“coalition” has been never formally organized. Even though, an
organized structure never existed, a common view on social and
liberal policy proposals on domestic affairs was established
(ibid, p.189).
With regard to the implementation of policies is the coalition
important, because of two reasons. The implementing of acts is
legitimized on the will of the American citizens; hence their
implementation is backed on political and social support.
Secondly, it gave FDR the possibility to act. He was able to
gain support for policies in both houses. Thus, only the
Supreme Court had the chance to stop them (ibid, p. 199).
At the beginning of the New Deal FDR had enormous problems with
the Supreme Court, which was not in in favour of the
implementation of welfare policies, due to a republican judge
majority and high suspicion (Lanzuela, 2011, p.113).
Furthermore, “the Court plan was greeted with predictable
outrage by conservative Republicans and Democrats highly
alienated from the New Deal” (ibid, p.114). The court was
divided between liberal and conservative viewpoints.
Thus, Roosevelt had to replace conservative judges by liberal
ones gradually between 1933 and 1935 in order to change the
attitude of the Supreme Court and to implement welfare policies
such as the social act (ibid, p.115). Before, the Supreme Court
even had the possibility to influence actively the
implementation process and to stop policies.
In the scope of Korpi, is the change of a conservative /
balanced towards a liberal / unbalanced Supreme Court likely
the cornerstone for the implementation of welfare policies.
Korpi, stated that the control over power resources gives an
actor the possibility to act, hence the chance to implement
policies (Korpi, 1983, p.87).
To sum up, the New Deal coalition and the majority of the
Supreme Court made FDR relatively powerful. He was nearly
independent from other actors, since the majority of the
population, the two houses and the Supreme Court backed his
actions.
4. Obamacare
When Barack Obama was elected in January 20, 2009,
the US was facing economic upheavals caused by the global
financial crisis of 2008. Some economists are calling it the
worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s
(Navarro, 2012; Page, 2013). Banks went bankrupt and millions
of people lost their jobs due to the impacts of the crisis
(Blackman, 2013).
The proper name of the so called Obamacare is the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) or commonly known as
Affordable Care Act (ACA). It ought to increase the quality and
affordability of health care, by expanding the public and the
private insurance coverage and by reducing the costs of
healthcare of individuals. Obamacare is a series of policies
including mandates, subsidies, insurance exchanges and the
requirement for insurance companies to cover all applicants
with a minimum standard for the same rates (Blackman, 2013).
Social Actors
“Fifty million people, one out of every six people in the
United States have no health insurance at all” (Brissenden,
2012, p.232). The live expectancy rate lags behind weak
developed countries such as Chile or Cuba and even those that
have insurance are facing big problems with a weak supply of
medical health care and extra costs. Thus, a demand for an
improved health care system should be given.
Though, this is rather not case, since “Americans would have to
agree on the need to subsidise the poor and compel those who
aren´t poor to take up insurance with penalties of some sort,
but the American public has had a long, historical, deep-seated
anxiety about both subsidisation and compulsion” (ibid, p.234).
And it seems like this assumption is right, several polls
revealed, that a majority disapproves the implementation of the
law, even after the recent Shutdown (Gallup, 2013).
Furthermore, “At the core, Americans still view health care as
a privilege, not a basic right” (Lanzuela, 2011, p.110).
The protests of the Tea Party movement can be referred back to
this quote. Many State republicans, certain small business
organizations and the Tea Party itself, believe the law will
cause the disruption of existing health plans and that
insurance should be seen as any other commodity and not as a
social benefit (Brissenden, 2012, p. 234).
Nevertheless, it should be stressed, that the introduction of a
public health care system is not supported by the entire
society. We can conclude, that a social need is just partly
given and that Obama has not the entire support of the society.
With regard to Marshall, we could argue, that the need for
health care is still in the process to become a part of the
social rights, which then might lead to a society demand
(Marshall, 1950, p.35).
Political Actors
As above already mentioned, many republicans don’t agree with
the implementation of a public health care system. Thus, the
political parties are divided, which has led to the emergence
of an ideological conflict on the implementation (Blackman,
2013, p. 142).
Due to the fact, that Obamas democrats are not holding the
majority at both houses, the republicans could avert the
implementation of further related policies (Brissenden, 2012,
p. 238). That even led to a governmental shut down at the
beginning of October 2013 and reveals the tense situation among
both parties at the moment.
Besides the partisan problematic, the ACA faces several
judicative problems. Firstly, the Supreme Court judged1, that
most provisions of the ACA, including a requirement for most
Americans to have health insurance by 2014. However, this legal
decision has a Janus Face, since it created a coverage gap
between people, which are below and which are over the poverty
line (Blackman, 2013, p.150). Thus, more adjustments have to be
done. This ruling was rather unexpected, due to the fact that
those judges who have been nominated by republican’s presidents
are still in the majority 5 to 4.
Secondly, federal courts can freeze the implementation due to
federal debt ceilings. Some states consequently refer to the
federal court, which might freeze the implementation process;
hence states like Texas, South-Dakota or Oklahoma already have
frozen the implementation process until the financial situation
is stable (ibid, p.151).
1 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012).
It is obvious, that Barack Obama political situation is
tensioned. He has to share the political power in the country
with another party, which makes nearly any further step
impossible. Even in the case that an act passes both houses,
the Supreme Court could judge against the implementation or
federal courts could attempt to find a path to avoid the
implementation.
According to Korpi, we can conclude that the balance between
actors reveals a high level of democratization within a country
and further shows the will of the population. So, the problems
in the implementation process are intended by the population
and the political parties and further obstacles could appear.
5. Similarities and Differences
The New Deal and Obamacare are “paradigm shifts”
with regard to Hall. Consequently, both can be seen as third
order changes, which entails that not only settings or
instruments, have been changed or ought to be changed. A third
order change alters even the goal and the intention of a policy
or the way how a policy should be implemented (Hall, 1993,
p.287).
Thus, both programs can be analysed and ought to reveal
similarities and differences in the implementation process.
Similarities
FDR and Barack Obama started nearly with the same economic
background. Both had to face an enormous crisis and a high
number of unemployed and homeless people. Even more, both had
to face a decreasing economy and great expectations by the
society that they can solve these problems.
The people of the lower class supported both and have seen in
these presidents, persons which might enhance their lives.
For both presidents can be stated, that the level of de-
commodification is rather low as well as the level of
stratification.
At the beginning their plans have not been taken granted by
their political opponents and the Supreme Court was not in
favour of their programs.
So, they have in common weak economic pre-conditions, rather
support from the poor class and pressure from the political
opponent and the judiciary.
Differences
FDRs New Deal was backed by a need for a change and the demand
for the extending of social rights. His support increased
during his legislation and helped him to implement further
laws.
The support for Obamas health insurance did not increase and a
strong demand for an extension of social rights didn’t emerged.
Even movements, like the Tea party started to mobilize against
the health insurance.
That FDR had the majority in both houses supported the
implementation of policies too. He had not to face a political
shut down or a blocking majority. Furthermore, he had the
advantage to lie back on a legislative and judiciary majority,
since the Supreme Court turned into his political ideology as
well. Thus, FDR bundled the political power of the 1930s under
one seat.
Barack Obama has to face a quite different situation. He has to
implement policies against the political willingness of the
population and the House of Representatives and even if these
obstacles are taken, he still has to overcome the Supreme Court
that could reject his acts.
6. Conclusion
To sum up, this essay analysed the question: “What
are the reasons for Roosevelt’s successful implementation of
“The New Deal” and Obamas stagnation in regard to the
implementation of a national health care system.”
In order to answer the question, a brief comparison between
Roosevelt’s New Deal and Barack Obama´s Obamacare was presented
with regard to societal and political actors within the
implementation process.
The essay made the assumption, that a combination of actors
plays a certain role within the implementation process of US
welfare policies and not merely the US President. However, the
essay made us of the theories of Marshall, Korpi, Esping-
Andersen and Hall in order to answer the question and to proof
the hypotheses.
The reason for the successful implementation of the New Deal
can be referred back on an accumulation of power. Roosevelt
developed to strong and powerful actor and had the possibility
to nearly act independently. Furthermore, a demand for the
extension of social rights and hence for social policies was
given.
Barack Obama has not the same conditions as Roosevelt. His
societal support is weaker and he has more political obstacles.
Especially, the fact that both houses are political divided and
that the Supreme Court is represented by justices, who have
been appointed by republican presidents, makes the
implementation of welfare polices complicated.
With regard to the theory of power resources, the answer to the
question could be referred on the mobilization of power.
Roosevelt had several possibilities to mobilize different
actors, even an entire “coalition” of supporters, but Barack
Obamas has rather problems to activate actors, besides the poor
and the weak ones.
Consequently, the power resource theory has shown that strong
interest groups in combination with political actors can change
the welfare state.
It has to mentioned, that further research has to be done, in
order to give a full answer on the research question. The
influence of civil servants, federal governments and economic
actors could give occasion for further analyses.
Due to the fact, that this essay was limited on a certain word
limit, further theories, like for instance “Marxism” or “path
dependency” could be applied and might reveal a different
perspective on the answer to the research question.
Last but not least, it has to be stressed that Barack Obama is
still in office and hence has the chance to change the US
welfare state.
References:
Blackman, J. (2013). Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to
Obamacare. New York: PublicAffairs.
Brissenden, M. (2012). American Stories: Tales of Hope and Anger.
Queensland: University of Queensland Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. in
Pierson, C & Castles, F, G. (2006). The Welfare State Reader. , pp.
160-175. Cambridge: Polity Press
Finegold, K. & Skocpol, T. (1995). State and Party in America´s New
Deal. Published by: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Gallup. (2013, October, 26). Healthcare Law Polls. Retrieved via:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165548/approval-affordable-care-act-
inches.aspx
Hall, P, A. (1993). Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the
State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative
Politics, Vol. 25, No. 3, p.275 – 296. Retrieved via:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0010-
4159%28199304%2925%3A3%3C275%3APPSLAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A
Korpi, W. (1983). The Power Resources Model. in Pierson, C &
Castles, F, G. (2006). The Welfare State Reader. , pp. 76 - 89.
Cambridge: Polity Press
Klein, E., & Soltats, E. (2013, October, 21). Wonkbook: Can
Obama fix Obamacare? Washington Post. Retrieved from:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/21/wonk
book-can-obama-fix-obamacare/
Lanzuela, C., S. (2011). Comparing F.D. Roosevelt and B.H.
Obama in Developing Welfare. Revista de Esutios Norteamericanos, n. 15.
pp.101 -121.
Lenski, G. (1966). Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. New
York: McGraw Hill.
Leuchtenburg, W., E. (1995). The FDR years: on Roosevelt and his legacy.
New York: Columbia University Press
Marshall, T, H. (1950) Citizenship and Social Class. in Pierson, C &
Castles, F, G. (2006). The Welfare State Reader. , pp. 30 - 40.
Cambridge: Polity Press
Navarro, A. (2012). Global Capitalst Crisis and the Second Great Depression:
Egalitarian Systemic Model for Change. Lanham: Lexington Books
Page, W., G. (2013). The Economic Crisis in Retrospect: Explanations by Great
Economists. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing
Pierson, C. (2006). Beyond the Welfare State?. Cambridge: Polity
Press
Rosenbaum, H,D. & Bartelme, E. (1987). Franklin D. Roosevelt : the man,
the myth, the era, 1882-1945. New York: Greenwood Press.
Skocpol, T. (1992). Protecting Soldiers and Mothers. The political origin of
social policy in the United States. Cambridge: The Belknep Press of
Harvard University Press.
Stabile, D., R. & Kozak, A., F. (2012). Markets, Planing and the
Moral Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishin Limited.
Worth, M., M. & Gordon, M., R. (2013, October, 22). Obama´s
Uncertain Path Amid Syria Bloodshed. The New York Times. Retrieved
from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/world/middleeast/obamas-
uncertain-path-amid-syria-bloodshed.html?_r=0