Abstract

In this dissertation, I argue that an adequate normative theory of the welfare state can best be formulated by combining the resources of critical theory and social-democratic theory. The theorists examined here contribute to both traditions, allowing me to develop a combined perspective that builds on the strengths of each. ;I begin by examining the classical social-democratic model of the welfare state, which I call the "labor-market paradigm." This model provides us with valuable critiques of exploitation and inequality, but formulates them too narrowly as economic problems. This economistic bias leads to several important blindnesses: it theorizes economic inequality as the primary axis of domination in society, ignoring many other sources of conflict; it overlooks problems of bureaucracy in the welfare state itself; and it undercuts economic performance by counteracting the economic imperatives of the labor market, leading to economic instabilities and crisis tendencies within the welfare state itself. ;The "power-theoretic paradigm" helps to theorize the bureaucratic side effects of the welfare state. I develop this paradigm by expanding upon Foucault's work on "governmental rationality," which puts forward the idea that power arises from the mundane characteristics of a state's legal and administrative structure. I outline three different aspects of governmental rationality, using them to develop an analytic scheme capable of identifying the modes of power characteristic of a given state. Ultimately, however, this perspective is limited by its purely negative view of bureaucratic power, which excludes any positive role for the state. ;Jurgen Habermas provides the basis for the "discursive-procedural paradigm." He claims that the welfare state contributes to the erosion of more organic processes of social integration, ultimately jeopardizing the health of society. I argue that this theory captures some valuable insights, but that it places too much normative weight on the idea of "social integration" and is insensitive to many of the welfare state's side effects. I also identify tensions between Habermas's proposed solution, a theory of procedural democracy, and the realities of cultural pluralism facing modern welfare state. I acknowledge, however, its contributions to democratizing the welfare state