Is Welfare Really about Social Control?

The social control thesis, especially as presented in the classic work by F. F. Piven and R. A. Cloward, Regulating the Poor, has enjoyed sustained influence as a theory of welfare policy making. In this article, I test the central premises in Regulating the Poor‐that welfare programs expand only in response to civil unrest, that such programs involve a work‐for‐relief quid pro quo, and that welfare programs always contract when unrest subsides. Data on civil unrest, welfare program creation, and spending show each of these claims to be false. I conclude with an alternate explanation of the role of civil unrest in welfare policy making.