As always, the issue is what they count, and whether it is countable. For
example, a purely quantitative approach to welfare reform can count the
increased employment among welfare mothers and ignore the decline in parental
supervision that such work demands. In fact, the commodification of child care
epitomizes the stereotypical post-welfare reform job--mothers who used to care
for their own children on welfare were lazy until the 1996 law improved their
character by forcing them to work caring for somebody's else children at low
wages. Studies like those conducted by Manpower venerate work and work effort,
but never total up its social costs. Sure, quantitative analysis has its place,
but given Manpower's tunnel vision about welfare reform, it seems ill-suited
to capture the social transformation that is taking place.
Joel Blau
Brad De Long wrote:
> >What's your beef with MDRC?
> >
> >mbs
> >
> >
> >I am very dubious about these studies. First, Manpower Demonstration
> >Research Corporation is among the quantoid (and therefore tunnel-visioned)
> >of the institutes researching welfare. . . .
>
> It appears to be that they count things...
