Does Targeting Always Mean Retrenchment? Housing Assistance “Exceptionalism” in the Canadian Welfare State

• Author: Maroine Bendaoud
• Published date: 01 March 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0095399720947992
• Date: 01 March 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720947992

Administration & Society

1 –29

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095399720947992

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Original Article

Does Targeting Always

Mean Retrenchment?

Housing Assistance

“Exceptionalism” in

Canadian Welfare State

Maroine Bendaoud1

Abstract

According to many scholars, policy targeting is the product of conservative and/

or neoliberal politics. Targeting is perceived as a reduction of social welfare or

a form of exclusion, usually resulting in no “winners” but only “losers.” Based

on the study of housing assistance in Canadian provinces, this article argues

that alternative views are possible. I emphasize the historic low coverage of

housing assistance, that I term the housing “exceptionalism,” which refers to

the small number of households who benefit from government support. The

“exceptionalism” sets the stage to understanding why the vulnerable citizen

winners have gained over the moderate-income losers.

Keywords

housing policy, targeting, retrenchment, welfare state, Canada

The article’s main claim is that rental housing assistance is a distinctive

domain of the welfare state, and, as such, targeting did not emerge as a process

of welfare retrenchment as we know it. According to much scholarly wisdom,

retrenchment and its targeting component are the product of conservative and/

1National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy, Montréal, Quebec, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Maroine Bendaoud, National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy, 90 Boul

Crémazie E, Montréal, Quebec, Canada H2P 1E2.

Emails: maroineb@hotmail.com; maroine.bendaoud@inspq.qc.ca

947992AASXXX10.1177/0095399720947992Administration & SocietyBendaoud

research-article2020

2 Administration & Society 00(0)

or neoliberal politics. Targeting is perceived as a reduction of social welfare or

a form of exclusion, usually resulting in no “winners” but only “losers.” Yet

this article argues that alternative views of targeting are possible. I emphasize

the historic low coverage of housing assistance in Canadian provinces, which

I term the housing “exceptionalism,” and which refers to the small number of

people coping with housing difficulties who benefit from government support.

There had been queuing among the very needy together with some provision

to middle-income households. The “exceptionalism” sets the stage to under-

standing why the vulnerable citizen winners have gained over the moderate-

income losers in the housing reforms of the past decades. Among housing

policy makers, concerns for equity and efficiency drove reforms to focus the

limited housing budgets toward the destitute. Surprisingly, there is little evi-

dence suggesting that political forces were significant in the policy adjust-

ments. The implications of these concerns and the programmatic exceptionalism

of subsidized housing among other welfare state domains are this article’s

main conceptual contributions.

The conventional view in political economy treats universalism as a more

progressive policy orientation, while targeting, often considered its opposite,

resonates as more conservative (Korpi & Palme, 1998; Skocpol, 1991). In

policy studies, targeting is also seen as a process, as a type of reform that

tightens or narrows benefit eligibility. Along with budget cuts, targeting is

commonly understood as a form of retrenchment associated to the neoliberal

paradigm, responsible for eroding social protection (Hall & Lamont, 2013,

pp. 7–8). For instance, Pierson’s (1994) classic study on retrenchment under

Reagan and Thatcher underlined that “[i]n many cases, services have become

more threadbare, benefits have been cut, and eligibility rules have been tight-

ened” (p. 5). In fact, the “explicit alterations of rules governing eligibility or

benefits,” wrote Hacker (2004), are “the subject of most retrenchment analy-

ses” (p. 249).

The rule of thumb suggests that retrenchment, including targeting, is

largely about reduction and losses, in contrast to the welfare state expansion.

The tightening of eligibility criteria usually implies that fewer people can

receive welfare or unemployment benefits, compared with the pre-reform

period. “[L]ower coverage is often a result of tighter eligibility rules,” wrote

Starke (2008, p. 19). Many policy examples exist, including in Canadian

social policy (Banting & Myles, 2013, p. 22). Most cases experienced the

same process: Before the reform, a typical “broad-based” policy supports all

of those in need meeting the criteria (X people), but after “conservative” tar-

geting reforms, fewer people are eligible (X – n). Whether or not they receive

more generous benefits is another question.1 Yet the point drawn from the

literature, which is emphasized here, is that post–World War II (WWII)