Public pensions : gender and civic service in the states, 1850-1937 /

Sterett (political science, Univ. of Denver) urges scholars studying the welfare state's history to pay closer attention to state courts and the public purpose doctrine, which held that state funds could be spent only on charity to the intrinsically dependent, on businesses providing general public benefits, or in rewarding people who had served the state. She examines this doctrine's application to pensions for firefighters, soldiers, government workers, poor mothers, the blind, injured workers, and the elderly. Sterett argues that the doctrine had teeth and that judges, citing state constitutions and precedents like Loan Association v. Topeka and State v. Osawkee Township, generally reined in attempts to spend taxpayers' money on pensions for those who were not poor or had not served the state, although they gradually redefined and extended the meaning of service. Contemporary critics and recent scholars chiding these judges often have failed to understand their consistency and logic, overstating their biases. Sterett concludes that the courts' abrupt change around 1937 was not abrupt, but due to "groundwork" laid in earlier cases striking down social insurance plans. The argument is generally well executed but fails to incorporate important scholarship in some areas--especially workers' compensation. ^BSumming Up: Recommended. Graduate, research, and professional collections. R. M. Whaples Wake Forest University