Stephan Leibfried

Nutritional Minima and the State

On the Institutionalization of Professional Knowledge in National Social Policy in the U.S. and Germany

Zes - Arbeitspapier Nr. 10/92

Zentrum für Sozialpolitik Universität Bremen Postfach 33 04 40 W-2800 Bremen 33 Contents

1 Introduction ...... 3 1.1 Arenas ofWelfare State Structure ...... 3 1.2 Formative Years of the Standardization of a Minimum in Social Poliey-A Prelude 6 2 The Institutionalization ofNutritional Minima at the National Level- Different Routes to Uni­ versal Benefits ...... 11 2.1 The U. S. Case: Federalizing Home Eeonomics-The Incidental Edueational Route to Uni­ versal, Ineomplete and In-Kind Welfare Benefits ("Food Stamps") ...... 11 2.2 The German Case: Total Rationing in Both Wars-the DirectMonetary Route to Universal and Comprehensive National Welfare Benefits ("Sozialhilfe") ...... 21 3 Trends of State Institutionalization of Minima Compared ...... 29 3.1 Universalization ofEntitiement through the Central State and Nourishment 29 3.2 Soeial Knowledge and the Totalization ofInstitutions by the State ...... 30 3.3 The Distinct Relevance ofWar for the Formation of the Welfare State 31 3.4 The Peeuliarities ofLinkage Berween Nutritional Standards and State Policy 32 3.5 Divergenee in the Evolution of the Scientific Standard...... 33 3.6 "Moral Economy of the Welfare State"-Phasing Symbolic vs. Delivery Politics . 33 4 Biographies of Key Actors ...... 35 5 References ...... 41 5.1 Overview of Key Studies Relied upon 41 5.2 Bibliography 41 Index. 55

Table~

1.1 Major Historieal Currents-Views ofPoverty Operationalized . 5 1.2 Welfare State Arenas ...... 6 1.3 Formative Years for the Standardization of a Minimum in Social Policy 7 2.1 Foci of Seientific Coneeptions in Nutritional Research of Human Nutritional Need Before World War! ...... 14

I am grateful to Petcr Baldwin, Faith Clark, David Ellwood. RageT Haydon, E. Peter Hennock. Dan Levine, Mollie Orshansky, 1I0na üstner, ßetty B. Peterkin, Hans J. Tcurcberg, Dietrich Rüschcmcyer, Wolfgang Sachs, Peter Townsend and lohn Veit \Vjlson for COl11l11Cllts and suggestions, to Florian Tennstedt for providing seme of the material, and to Abby Collins und Lothar Meycr-Lcrbs for cditing support. Alfons Lahisch pointed out same literature for a start. Eliz'lbcth Swaim ur Wesleyan University was helpfu1 wirh ehe Atwater Papers. Sabinc Lührs und Murat Kuru were of crucial hclp in searching for much of the literature. Inspite of all chis support, ultimatcly, sti ll "the buck stops here", with me. 1 am thankful to The German Marshall Fund of the United States for financial support and to rhe Center for European Studies at I-Iarvard University and to The ßroolcings Institution, including its librarians, for "logistical" support of this study. The manuscript was finished in Spring of 1989 and its bibliography has not been updated. The names of persons whosc wodes are shown in the bibliography are capitalizcd throughout ehe text. 1 Introduction and both of which-still today-focus more on an "absolute" notion of poverty than do welfare states "Ou.r ed1lcation in need in the rest ofNorthern Europe4 Nevertheless, this is a tragie passage state policy linkage evolved quite differencly in the from blindness to sigbt. " U. S. than it did in West Germany. The state and (IGNATIEFF 1984: 20) some ofits subsectors played divergent roles in insti­ tutionalizing such benchmark standarels, and soeial knowledge is organized distinctively in cl,e process. 1.1 Arenas ofWelfare State Structure The mix ofknowledge bearing groups, which are re­ sponsible for developing these standards is different In the U. S. and West Germany incomes- and for both countries. The process in which standards means-tested welfare state programs, which are are set is slanted differencly and also the locus of the (I) Jedemi, (2) universal and (3) uniform, and which professions within state structure differs. therefore encompass the whole nation,l share one In general, development in the U. S. is char­ characteristic: they are "food based". Their legitima­ acterized by its containment in a state-organized tion rests on a notion of a nutritionally-anchored "agricultural nexus" and bya relatively long period (social) minimum, which has been elaborated in of state-induced "education" about proper, pro­ terms of nutritional physiology and "domestic sci­ gressive "scientific eating" or "scientific cookery" ence" since the turn of the century. Even though (SHAPIRO 1986: 74) be fore a benchmark standard subsistence requires much more than food, food­ for delivering benefits could be institutionalized na­ and not housing or clothing-has historically been tionally. Since symbolic politics is so central in the central for building a standard of support and meas­ U. S.) "dOInestic science", i.e. home econom..ics, and urement, for structuring a view on poverty policy. also gender played a stronger role in the U. S. than in The expl icit legal tie, tbe strzu:tumllinkage ofsocial Germany. Also, in a pragmatic way, politics shaped policy to nutritional knowledge is unique to these two the professionalization of the issue itself more read­ Western countries,2 both ofwhich are federal states) ily in the U. S. ("politieal entreprenenrmode!"). In Ger- 1Ilany the nornlal "state-un..iversity-science nexus"

I. Sincc attention in this study is focused on encompassing structures the nutrition-policy linkage, with pro­ national features of welfare state building, state and IDeal fessionals contributing from their evolving spec.ial­ govcrnmcnts' contributions to welfare are not central [0 this izations as normal "publie servants" ("expert mode!"). essay. The road to state institutionalization of such a 2. Even though Brirain's development of"Supplementary Ben­ standard for benefit delivery is much shorter and efies" after World War 11 had a similar background in "fooel" legitimation (cf. amongst others Assistance Board 1942), the preparatory role of pure "education" less pro­ a formal, ICbrat link between nutritiona! knowledge alld nounced. An issue-specific, a manifest "force-fed" welfare policy was never established theTe (cf. LEIßFRIED institutionalization throngh the state, which avoids 1983:723ff.; MAVJ-IEW 1986; 1988 gives same of the inter­ traditional and builds new issue- and lobby-bound war background-sec LEITCH 1942 for a contemporary viewj cf. for a systcmatic study PETrY 1987). That these problems state ehannels, characterizes the U . S. case. Routine are still intcnscly fought over in recent times is revealcd by integration of differentiating scientific develop­ Memorandum 1977. ment and of issues into pre-existing-and then 3. In Illany Western countries earlier 20th century wclfare re­ widened-state channels is more typical for the forms did build on the nutritional-rninimum-approach, e.g. in Britain and Norway. But in these countries this approach German experience. Institutionalization of social was only associated with the take-off phase in welfare state knowledge in Germany nevertheless is "force-fed", buildingj it rcccdcd into the background afterwards. Only in but cllis is less obviously so, since there the pro­ Germany and the USA did thi s standard hold until today, cess fades into the background of a general pattern though in Germany it is now losing some of its grip. That the food concept has stayed so attractive for thc U. S. of strong and comprehensive state activity. In both and Gcrmany until today may have to do wirb thc fact mat nutritiona! minima are often seen as absolute eonccptual­ fits better to the U. S. and West German wclfare states than iz.1tions of povcrty. With such coneepts strong welfare state with some of me omer European countries. redistributivc programs benefitting the poor, and universa l­ 4. Cf., e.g., me Scandinavian countries, ßritain and the Nether­ ist wclfarc reforms are dcemphasized-a politieal bias which lands.

3 cases the institutionalization of professional social " ... there is an irreducible co re of absolute depriva­ knowledge in national social policy is part of an tion in our idea of poverty, which translares into exercise in stflte building. a diagnosis of poverty without having to ascertain The "hard core" of the incomes- and meam-tested first the relative picture" (SEN 1981: 17). This no­ American Federal welfare state5 is Food Stamps, a tion relates to a-traditionai1-elementary "moral program fixed on "in-kind delivery" of food through horizon" underlying the welfare state from its ear­ stamps, which allows its food base to stand out vis­ liesr building stages in the 20th eentury (cf. Ta­ ibly and with some stigma-when compared with ble 1.1). Food rights seem to be the most solid, the normal "cash nexus" to which many other prom­ compaet and oldest case of"needs make rights" (IG­ inent welfare programs are tied 6 Only with Food NATIEFF 1984: 13) in the welfare state - the most in­ Stamps a Federally-legislated and financed, nation­ tensive area of proving "society as a moral commu­ ally uniform as weil as indexed benefit, is avail­ nity". They can be more easily constructed-with able to all the poor and not just to some categories consensus-, seeming to use only the individual as (BERRY 1984: 67f.). West Germany's centerpiece is "primary element" (cf. Table 1.1). And the nutri­ "public assistance" ("Sozialhilfe"), a transfer pro­ tional, professionally-Iegitimated minimum seems gram which covers all costs of Iiving for the poor. to provide the elaborate, extra apparatus, whieh, Here the food base is anchored in a comprehen­ anee in plaee, can serve as a moral uguiding", ufor­ sive "market basket", in which alt currem needs are cing", and "staging mechanism" which gives a quasi­ addressed. This makes the food base of this wel­ automatic direction to the creation of the ultimate fare program less evident. Nevertheless, the benefit safety-net in the welfare stare. standards of"Sozialhilfe" have beenlegitimated his­ The conceptualization of poverty in the social torically mainly through its food component; this sciences, and in some countries also in soeial pol­ was, until recently, the onlycomponentofthe stand­ iey, has moved up one level from the "subsistence" ard thought to have "scientific" backing. logic, though, with society today becoming t1,e ex­ "Before hunger all men are equal." Such an in­ plicit"primaryelement", and with social rather than tuitively convincing, basic notion of human rights physical efficiency informing the discourse on pov­ and direct appeal to a sense of justice (RAWLS 1971: erty8 In Germany and the U. S., still, the older layer sec. 86) may be discovered as the foundation of the of conceptualization informs mueh of the opera­ national, universal and uniform approaches to wel­ tional logic of the last safety net, be it in policy or fare policy common to both countries; it seems, that in social scienee work on poverty. Table 1.1 oudines

5. This portrayal ofFood Stamps as the "hard ecre" may already be thought of as an outsider's view, biased by universalism, 7. Thc traditional"moral cconomy" relevant tO a society builtin since Americans would be much more likely to declare AFDC the framcwork of a subsistence economy seems to have been the harel eore progTam. Also, the legal struc[ure of Food carried along and crystallized onIy at this level, still implying Stamps was weakened in ehe lute '70s: Congrcss added a todaya notion of di7'ect patriarch al provision oflivelihood, of "funding cup" to ehe program in thc rooel ::md Agriculrure food, with the state stepping in as the feudal overlord. This Act of 1977 (91 Stat. 913), de ju,·e casting Food Stamps into tradition binds strongest in respect to "in-kind" dc1ivery and daubt as an tntitlement prograrn. But, since Congress has al­ in tying the benefit to a food plan, which ultimatc1y is just ways granted suffi cicnt additional funding fOT Food Stamps, a "meal plan"; it binds lea st in respeet to the bio-chemical de facta the program has rcmained:1O entitlement. (cf. WEAVER decomposition of traditional food notions, wh ich is the ease­ 1985,309 fn.6, 321) ment of the food plan. 6. If one were to look backward for a comparison, though, to In most other respects the "moral embcddedness" of the the system of moral va lues which underpinned the subsis­ wdfare state seems to operatc rather on a basis of indirec­ tcnce economy, the exemption of basic nourishment from tion, of"sccuring soeial security" by assuring "capabilities to the market, as it OCCllrs with ['aod St:lmps, would seem to eonncet" (with thc labor market), "possibilities of eO ll1ll1od­ conform to the traditional position. In this case the cultural ification". (cf. KOIII. I 1989, 11) censorship of the use of money, thollgh, coincides with neg­ 8. STEIN RINGEN ( 198 7: 141 Ff.) deals with some of the eoneep­ ative stercotyping of those in necd. If "consumption is thc tual problems afßicting the new ways of "staging" poverty. very arena in whieh eulture is fought ovcr and lickcd into The problem with measuring a "way oflife" secms to be, that, shape" (DOVGLAS, ISHERWOOD 1982:57) then Food Stamps in most cascs, a bundle of resource indieators (indin!ct meas­ are rather indieative of a wdfare state cu lture which can al­ urcmcnts again) steps in for one direct Il1casurc, whieh, at low for llnivcrsalislll only if countcrbalaneed by a high lcvel present, is eithcr impossible or, ar least, hopelessly subjcetivc of administrative stigmatizing. (as in measuring "happiness").

4 7i1ble 1.1: Major Historieal Currents-Views of Poverty Operationalized Indirect Measures of Povcrty Dircct Mcasures of Poverty Parameter Determinants of Way of Life WayofLife Deprived of Resourees, typically: income, or only food "Normal" conducr oflifc; "Ilormallife course" Historie.1 Phasing End of 19th eentury until World War U Post World War II Typical Measure Income deficiency ?--complex, cumu!ative measure of"hardships" Typical Background Physiological minimum ("subsistencc") Overall social participation ("integration") Strucntre Focus Exclusion from existcnce; physical efficicncy; Exclusion from cOlllmunity; social efficicncy; no one falling out of society (negative benr) evcryone integrated into society (positive bent) Individual seen as Primary entity Socialized entity Notion of Poverty' "Absolutist" Relativist a REIN (1970) rightly points out, that the distinction bctwecn absolute and relative poverty does not make sense, si nce absolute definitions are also relativc: What is considered ncccssary for subsistcnce, also in tcrms of food, va ries wirh the devclopment of general consumption standards in society (cf. al so RINGEN 1987: 150f.; TOWNSEND 1979). Neverthcless, a "physiological" worlel view of poverty will bc biascd towards strong "individualization", the individual being also the pril11ary element of (physiologieal) measurement. Ir is here that thc notion of "absolute" makes sense, i.c. in the systematic blending out of a societal eonstruction of a poverty measurcmcnt. Source: RINGEN 1987: 146ff. (with revisions and additions, insprred, amongst others by TOWNSEND 1979; ]ENcKs, l\1AYER 1987; N!AV[R, J[Ne,S 1989). the major eurrents in whieh poverty has historically assured through West Germany's "Sozialhilfe", but been operationalized, and the way it is eoneeived to­ in the U.S this holds true only with respeet to the day in many of the more developed welfare states. eategory of food. "Universal", used in this sense, The term "universal" in social poliey literature is the opposite of a eategorized ("eategorieal") ap­ often refers merely to eentral state struetures of en­ proach so eharaeteristic of U. S. welfare poliey.IO11 titlement from whieh me ans- and ineome-testing are absent completely, as for example in a guaran­ 10. In the British connotation universal is contrasted with sc/te­ teed annual ineome or in a citizenship pension9 Bur live, not with categorical. Therc, "universal" mcans thc ab­ "universal" mayaiso be used to distinguish strue­ sence of means-testing anel "selcctivc" denotes mcans-testing or "targeting" on the "ncedy". This notion cf univcrsali sl11 , tural features within the "residual", the ineomes­ whilc useful in the di scussion of thc development of the wcl­ and means-tested sphere of the welfare state. In both rare state in the United Kingdol11, does not faeilitate a focus spheres "universal" may be taken to mean that every on di!pmlties whi,h exist within 11Ienns-tested progrnm.s, within citizen-independent of age, gender, work status povcrty poliey. Targeting may not only rdate to "means" but- in addition-ta groups, to social category. lIefe thc ete.-has the same right vis avis the state, as is U.S. notion of"catcgorical", or, more accurately, "categor­ the ca se when abasie right to sustenanee is guar­ izcd", is helpful: i.e. only ccrtain groups, those without anteed to every eitizen. Soeial rights Aow direetly I11cans, 3re (mostly differcntially) entitled, whkh crcatcs spe­ from eitizenship rights-with no "labor market sta­ cial "showcase" and stigma effects in social politics through social policy. The contrast would be a uniform entitlcment rus" intervening. of (11/ the poor, wh ich I prefer to call "universa l"- in a quitc In incomes- and means-tested poverty policy uni­ different se nse. versality in respeet to alt Cfltegories ofneeds is basieally Ir is not only ehe reliance of some welfare states-the D.S. as compared with West Germany---on redistribu­ tion through public assistance (KORPI 1980:30;; lUNSON 9. "Universal" can logically refer to two layers of social policy: 1987: 186, graph p.171) and on less of a "welfare transfer (1) Transfers acru:llly delive1-ed to all citizens; if this criterion mix" (RAINWATER er al. 1988: 183ff., 212ff.) which makes werc sufficient. only a guaranteed annual incomc-and rc­ them vulnerable to back.1ash but it is also their reliance on a !ated programs-would qualify as "universal". (2) 1bnsfers categorized (U. S.}-and noc univcrsal (F. R. of Gcrmany}­ potentially delivernble to all citizens, though targetcd by Iife­ form of public assistance cyde (family allowances, old-age pensions, ctc.) or other (ac­ 11. The distinction often l1l:lde berween "Iibcral" (e.g., tllC ei dent, unemployment) criteria, which pottntially all citizens U.S.), "social democratic" (e.g., Sweden) and "middling" can attain: only when a strong prcsumption for "universal" (e.g., the Federal Republic of Germany) welfare states (cf. labor market or life cyde "access" can be made, does univer­ SCHMIDT 1988: 162ff., who rehes, among others, on ESI'ING­ sa lity obtain in most of these programs. ANDEUSEN, KORPI 1984), though resung on wC:lk hi storieal

5 Table 1.2: Welfare State Arenas Level of Comprehensivcness Income- ami EX3mpies of universa l Examples of c3tcgorizcd Means-tesrcd welfare state benefits welfare state bcnefits No t . Guaranteed Annuallncome etc. Special worker, white eol1or, professional, (Needs are presumed) 2. pensions (contriburion ba sed) ete. and puhlic serv:mt ... insurance (pensions, health, etc.)-not so profiled in U. S. Yes Food Stamps (U. S.); AFDC, SS! ... (U. S.); not so profilcd in (1\Teeds are tcsted) "Sozialhilfe" (F. R. G.) monetary transfers (F. R. G.)

\Vhile Food Stamps is the exceptional American wel­ fare policy and nutritional knowledge in standard­ fare program, "Sozialhilfe" is the basic German wel­ building become possible. In both countries pilot fare program. In the American "categorical wel­ studies focused on "the dependent and delinquent fare state" only those groups which are singled out c1asses" (ATWATER 190 I: 408), nutritional physiol­ specifically by Congress-like the aged (SSn or sin­ ogy in general "dealt foremost with the food habits gle mothers (AFDC)-are provided for, and each of the poorer c1asses" (KISSKALT 1912: 242). Scien­ according to its desert. Each group is placed in a tists began to determine "how much is enollgh" for public showcase for daily inspection. So me groups, individual and c1ass survival in modern society as therefore, may not be provided for at all, such as the concept of "calorie" was developed and became able-bodied men and women without children. 1z accepted in medicine and chemistry. Before such a These distinctions are summarized in Table 1.2. breakthrough in thi s further "rationalization of the body" no recourse could be taken to a firm standard in welfare programs, nor to a benchmark standard 1.2 Formative Years of the Standardization of widely legitimated by some high.", non-po/itical a1l­ a Minimum in Social Policy-A Prelude tbority as "scientific eating". With the turn of the century such standardization could begin to displace Shortly before the turn of the centll1Y, social know­ admjnistrative "discretion" as the former universal ledge in Germany and the U. S. for the first time of public welfare ami could serve to slowly (re)focus allowed for a systematic, scientific development of a welfare state policy in times of social crisis. standard of S1tbsistence, which involved the modern At the turn of the 19th century, reCOllrse had been professions. I ) Only then did a linkage of state wel- taken to standards in welfare delivery which appear similar to the linkage studied here, as in the English "Speenhamland system" (POLANYI 1957: 77-85, 86- fundaments (cf. amongst amers BALDWIN 1990), does nev­ crtheless allow for the different prominence, which poverty 102; NEUMAN 1982; WELLS 1988), which was built politics in generni had in welfare state building. These dis­ basicallyon a bread ration. Such short-lived stand­ tincrions are, nonetheless, too general co capcurc the differ­ ards, t11011gh, did not rest on formal, scientific, but enees in the structurc of povcrty policy-which is just what rather on eVe1ydtty or C07m11on sense, knowledge. To the distin ction universal and catcgorized is all about. 12. Decentralized state legislation in ehe U. S. may provide result in a politically convincing, unitary standard, bcncfits. Here again all bIll uniformity and universality are such standardization also presupposed a diet that assured. was not varied. All public attention then had been 13. Thc developmentof this standard presu pposed ehe redefini­ captured by a single foodstuff and a "poverty line" tion ofhuman beings into "machines", whose energy ("fuel") was constructed, which everybody could "compute" consumption was to bc addressed. Those to be nourishcd were thus taken out of their sodal context, their poverty by thllmb. was reduced to a biological level, for which honor, enti­ t1ement etc. had 110 special meaning. Rationalizatioll and modernizarion here reduced ehe individual co hislher bio­ Animals and humans were concepnlally put on ehe same logical apparatus. Thu5 olle might find here a5 weil ehe most level : "ln framing ehe standards for daily dietaries for human extreme conceprual example of a "moral community" of the beings the same physiological principles apply as in the stand­ estranged (cf. IGNATIEFF 1984: IOff.), since "survival" (and not ards for rarions for domcstic animals." (ATWATER t894b) "human Aouri shing") is the more basic focus of such stand­ Thus, the placement ofthis issue wirbin USDA in thc U.S. ards (cf. TREMoI.Il~ RES t 960 for another critiquc). also reflects a concepmal homology.

6 Tab!e 1.3: Formative Years for the Standardization of a Minimum in Social Policy The Formative Years of Gcrmany V.S. thc scientific concept - "chemical standard" 1880s-1914 1890s-1940 - "vitamin standard" 1912-1950s though slowly 1912- 1941 acccpted faster accepted using the scientific concept für until World War I; after J 924 unol 1969; then a more moral exhonation of the poor only residual policy element residual poliey element usi ng a "minimum dividcr" - as

The development of social, of scientifie, that is for­ thereafter, more direcrly, in the detivery of Food mal, knowledge about human nutrition, sometimes Stamps, which after 1970 was tied to an "Economy" combined with loeal application and experimenta­ and then a "Thrifty Food Plan" standard. tion, started weil before World War! (the "incu­ In this paper I will deal wirl, rI,e first two phases, bation phase"). The beginning of a stronger linkage with incubation and tflke-off. All later developments with social policyat the national level dates to World are just sketched so that the complete trajectory is War I in Germany and ro the Great Depression in accounted for.1n Table 1.3 this development is sum­ the U. S. (the "take-off phase" 14). In Germany, the marized. full-Aedged institutionalization in welfare delivery, The struggle over the policy role of nutritional as shown in Table 1.3, rook place from 1924 to 1962, minima 17 in both countries is basically one-rllOugh when a German version of a "Economy Food Plan" often veiled-about "soeilll citizenship" flS f/ focus of (the section "Ernährung" of the "Warenkorb"1 5) welfore stf/te eonstruction. In the U. S. and Germany was to become the "scientific" centerpiece of a re­ the ideal of a guaranteed national minimum provi­ formed national welfare law ("Bundessozialhilfege­ sion for the needs of all citizens is displaced from setz"). One might even date full implementation ro the late 1960s or early '70s, since it rook that long to implement nationally relatively uniform benefit "working tool für budget and planning purposes but also as an administrative guideline for prügram purpüses". These standards. In the U. S., the process begins later, un­ "quasi-official numbers" became official standards in August der the Great Soeiety programs in 1963, reaching a 1969, when the Budget Bureau (today = Office of Manage­ culmination point by 1970 (the "maturation phase"). ment and Budget, OMß) designated thern as the official The full development of this linkage, whieh had statistical series to be published regularly by the Ccnsus Bu­ reau (ORSIIANSKY 1977: I, 5ff., 231 ff., 285ff.). Sincc cl,cn the been loosely established three to four decades ear­ poverty linc hus also been spor:ldic:llly used as a targeting lier, therefore did not occur until weil after World mechanisl11 in the delivery of Federal programs. This has War 11. In the U. S., it ca me about at first as symbolic led to a separate setting of"Fedcral Poverty Income Guide­ potitics in the poverty Une after 1965 and 1969,16 lines" ut the beginning of each year (cf., für example, Federal Povcrty lncome Guidelines 1988). 17. "M inimum" is uscd here in the sense of a "basic stand­ 14. This phrasing is not to suggest thac unabashcd progress ard", which implies some concept of a "sodal minimum", starts with "take-orf". Rather progress anel regression in the Nutritional work-and the rood Plans as wcll as the Rec­ "moral economy of the welfare state" OCCUT simult:meously ommended Dietary AJlowances-in the U. S. avoids the term in this developmcnt. WElke-off' and "matl.lration" rebte ooly "minimum", since it is oftcn thought to bc tied solcly to a to the strengtb 0/ tbe /inkage established betwecn thc physio­ "pure" physiological assurance of"existence" at lowest cast. logieal sta ndard and delivery standards embeddcd in public Henee, food plans need to be seen as adequate with respcctto wclfare policy. their chemical make-up ns weil as to tbe acceptnbility oflbe foo(Js 15 . The nutritional part of ehe "Sozialhilfe" marker b:lskct. tUtti in "upltm, The Iatter usually is assured by relyi ng on sur­ 16 . MOLLIE ORSIIANSKY did her first studics on thc poverty veys of food consumption practices of low-income pcople. If lioc in 1963, updating alld extending it to 311 houscholds only me chcmical make-up were decisive, diets costi ng one­ in 1965 (a; b). Thc Research Division of thc Office of Eco­ third to one-half of the most "economical" food plan cOlild l10mic Opportunity :ldaptcd the mcasurc carly in 1965 as a be-and have been---

7 (Ueontributory") soeial insuranee, which is "eategor­ form welfare entitlements at the Federal level in ieal" only and thus always assures inseeurity for the U. S. have also remained food-based until to­ some, and projeeted onto "poverty poIities", onto day, only "in-kind" benefits were delivered through the "Iastsafety net". In both countries, though more this program and it did not yet provide a founda­ pronouneed in the U. S., welfare eompared with tion for a comprebensive welfare seheme whieh would soeial insuranee is eonsidered "programmatieally cover al/ fOsts ofliving, nor for strong eonstitutional underdeveloped, symboIieaUy demeaning, and po­ proteetion of any welfare entitlement19 litieally vulnerable at the national level" (SKOCPOL, Both countries, then and now, share a "tunnel IKENBERRY 1983: 139; CATES 1983 traces the history vision" vis 11 vis poverty. They strongly emphasize of this "projection"). an absolute definition of poverty in soeial welfare Welfare programs have historieally been seen as polieies, espeeially in the U. S. (cf. KORPl 1980). In needing firmer baselines for several reasons: strue­ both countries this myopie vision was supported by turaUy such a neeessity is apparent sinee welfare, a strong emphasis on human physiology and nu­ in delimiting basic needs, eannot-as does soeial trition in the standard building of the developing insuranee-build standards direetly from any "giv­ we lfare state, and not, for example, on the eeo­ en" parameter, whieh is eonveniently set by third nomies of inequality. This pattern did not obtain in parties (like employers and unions)-as happens Seandinavia or the Netherlands, but did ineipiently with wages vis 11 vis Soeial Seeurity. When welfare in Britain. Also, both countries foeus welfare pol­ programs beeome institutionalized, when they grow iey intensivelyon "ineOlne defieieney" only, or on as apart of a larger bureaueratie maehinery, they equivalents thereof. In Germany, t1,e basic grant of are under permanent pressure to arrive at some sort "Sozialhilfe" de faeto highlights exclusively ineome of self-explanatory, independent notion of"(re)dis­ defieieney. In the U. S., the federa l welfare state aims tributive justiee". This held true even at times when at "food defieieney" by ereating a proxy for ineome bureaueraeies used "diseretion" to shield againsten­ through a residual eurreney ("stamps") supplied by titlement strategies pursued by "outsiders". a Federal program, such as to assure in-kind as well Also, from early on, administrative self-rational­ as uniform relief to all. ization has exerted eontinuous pressure for at least The mllitiplieity of resouree defieieneies, whieh internal standardization, relied upon in guidelines, poverty is all about, is artifieially simplified in both auditing, and in diseiplinary proceedings. The har­ eountries, and time as an important dimension in in­ monization of regionaUyuneven labor markets with dividual biography is ignored. "Poverty" is bureau­ state benefits, whieh neeessarily eushion the wage eratieally framed as a "one eause" and "one time" dependent against the effeets of such markets, also event. This strategy of institution building in the enforees standardization, sinee the state's delivery welfare state is rather useful in countries whieh do organization, often the loeal governments, is not not emphasize redueing soeial inequality as a major neeessarily atnmed to the market area. Lastly, the poliey goal (KORPl 1980: 296ff.), sinee it bypasses "moral eeonotl1Y" of a soeiety, its notion of eiti­ struetural soeial issues and still seems to guarantee zenship and of the marginaIity, it will tolerate, will "proeedural fairness" . Thus, "visions of welfare" are contribute to state standardization efforts. institutionaIized in t1,e U. S. as weil as in the Ger­ In Germany a "national" welfare system eover­ man welfare state, whieh rely on some fields and ing altliving eosts far alt in need has emerged sinee aspeets of soeial knowledge-and stiAe others. World War I and espeeially sinee World War lI. It was ereeted on t1,e base of a nutrition al mini­ been no Constitutional Court tcst cascs in the welfare area as mum approach and is eonsidered eonstitlltionally yet. The legitimation for constitutional protection of welfare protected at its eore. 18 Though universal and uni- rights is stemming less from arguments in which the (old) notion of property is "extended" to its newer fOrlns but from the constitutional c1ause protecting "human dignity" ("Men­ 18 . The right to welfare represents the most scnsitive casc of schenwürde"). "new property" in \Nest Germany, which has been acknow­ 19. In Goldberg v. KeHy constirutional protcction has been ex­ ledged for pension rights etc. by the Constitutional Court. tcndcd by the 5upreme Court only to obtaining the status How sharp the cutting edge of such a substantive guarantee 'lUD of recipiency (d uc proccss) but not to substanti ve wcl­ is for welfare rights has rcmained opaque since there have fare rights themselves (cf. DAVIS 1989).

8 In the following the U. S. and (West) German routes to universal welfare state benefits for the poor will be presented as they are linked to a "food base". In the final chapter on "Trends of State Insti­ tutionalization of Minima Compared", theoretical conclusions about some patterns of state incorp­ oration ofbasic nutritional standards in the welfare state will be drawn from these ca se studies.

9

2 The Institutionalization of before World War I looked to government and not Nutritional Minima at the to business for support (LEVENSTEIN 1988: 155). In the U.S., WILBUR OLIN ArwATER4 was the National Level-Different Routes foremost American nutritional research er before to Universal Benefits World War J.5 His work was popularized by ED­ WARD ATKINSON (1896) and Ellen H. Riehards 2.1 The U. S. Case: Federalizing Horne (HUNT 1912) among others, "a remarkable trio", Econornics-The Incidental Educational "who fastened on to the worker's diet as a key to Route to Universal, Incornplete and In­ both the problem [of poverty-S. L.] and the so­ Kind Welfare Benefits ("Food Starnps") lution" (LEVENSTEIN 1988: 45). ATWATER led the expansion of agricultural research into human nu­ 2.1.1 Developments be fore World War I trition and standard building (ATWATER 1888ff.) and was also the principal builder of nutritional Nutritional research in the U. S. had developed sys­ research-and of the then still rudimentary dis­ tematieally at first not so mueh within the uni ver­ cipline of horne eeonom.ics-empire within the si ties-as it did in Germany-as within the Agri­ Department of Agriculture. In the U. 5., as in most culture Departtnents' network of land grant col­ countries, there was a bias of nutritional research leges and experiment stations, i.e., as part of the towards "total institutions" ,6 though ATWATER cited "agricultural sciences"l After the 1880s these, of­ Germany as the model for focusing more work in ten derided, "cow colleges" were a fast growing that direction.7 In the U.S., systematic work on institutional complex in seareh of productive, "new" "total institutions"-and application-eame later employment for their resourees and talents espe­ than it did in Germany, and it c1id not structure the ciallyas they moved towards the turn of the century nutritional debate as comprehensively. (DUPREE 1957: 169ff.; ROSSITER 1979:216f.; HAR­ WOOD 1987: 397f.). is Prof.JosEPH KÖNIG, who taught food chemistryatMünster The idea of an Agricultural Experiment Station U niversity (cf. KÖNIG 1899; 1900; 1906) and was dircctor of (cf. TRuE 1937; 1980; BETTERS 1930: 16-29; LEVEN­ the local experiment station at the same timc. STEIN 1988: 54f., 73ff.) had been imported long be­ 4. Cf. Supplement on Biographies ofKey Actors. fore from Germany2 Ir was first employed to ratio­ 5. The next generation of researchcrs consistcd of people Iike Eimer V McCollum, Lafayette B. Mendcl (both involved nalize animal feeding and was expanded to human in vitamin research) and GRAHAM LUSK, a student of i\1A,x nutrition soon afterwards-from "farm rations" to RUßNER. "human rations", 3ln general nutritional researchers 6. The first systematic study of thc dicts in total institutions, such as almshouses, pri sons and hospitals, dates to 1852 and was undertaken by JOHN STANTON GOULD (cf. Supplement on I. ROSSITER (1979: 245 fn. 27) points out, that two com petitive Biographies of Key Actors). Ir is intercsting to note that here traditions wcre at work in the formation of biochemistry: in onc alrcady finds the conflarion of "agricultural improve­ the univcrsity, olle centering on "physiological chemistry", ment" and social reform centered on the diet, here in the represe ntcd by RussEI.1. CHITTENDEN from thc Schcffield form of state institutions, which is to hecome so prominent Schaol at Yale University, and one of "agricultural chem­ as "agricultural nexus" in thc U.S. istry", cxcmplificd by WILBUR O. A-rwATER und then by 7. "There have been made some 350 studies of thc accual food Eimer V. McColium of the Wisconsin Experiment Station. consumption of families or groups of pcrsons in boarding Tn the beginning, the agricultural tradition seems to havc houses and institutions, comprising in all some 1800 per­ pl.yed the kcy role. On ATWATER .nd McColium cf. Supple­ sons in families and boarding houses and 30000 in insane ment of Biographies of Key Actors. hospitals and penal insti tutions ... almost cvcrywhcrc, the 2. The German stations (" Landwirtschaftliche Versuchsstatio­ results of scientific research are being put to practical use. It ncn") rcsultcd from LIEß1G'S ( 1803- 1873) major work (on would seem that they ought to bc ca pablc of being utilized Chcmiscry in its Application to Agriculture and Physiology, more than they now are in thc dietctic managcment of public 1847). The first station was founded in 185 1 at Mäckcrn near and private in stitutions. lndeed, a great deal has already been Leipzig, Saxony. In 1920 there were 78 such stations :md 2 done in this Linc, more especially in Europe, whcre much im­ in Africa. (Cf. Versuchsstationen 1920:445; RÜMKER 1911). portant information has been accumulated conccrning food 3. The German stations remained focused on "animals" and on and nutrition in general and dictctics of in stitutions in par­ technical aid. They nevcr acquired trairs ofbasic research in­ ticular. The most thorough scientific invcstigations in tl,is stitutions :md cntertained only sparse "personncl" linkages to general field thus far are those made in Gcrmany ... " (AT­ the nutritional physiology community. The major exception WATER 1901:396)

11 ATWATER'S standards were oriented solely towards (1888) repeatedly (1910) pointed to a potential a chemical composition of food, wnich did not al­ for social improvements, since Americans, and es­ low for possible "accessory food factors"8 Around pecially the poor, were spending much more on the turn of the century, only four constituents of food than proper nutrition would require l I (LE­ foods-protein, fats, carbohydrates, and minerals­ VENSTEIN 1988: 45f.).'2 "To these reformers, the were positively known and foods total value to hu­ main obstacle to elevating the standards of living of mankind was held to be the energy derived from it American workers seemed to be the worker's own as measured in calories. The ideal method of stand­ ignorance regarding foocl" (LEVENSTE IN 1988: 47). ard setting in the early "physiological model" was Thus, at first the re-education of workers came into experimentation with an isolated individual in an focus.'l artificial setting, studying energy Aows in a Respi­ 9 ration Calorimeter but the amount of calories ". is much highcr th::m those As long as calories were the sole measure, the found with higher Bavarian lumber workers ('oberbayrische more expensive vitamin carrying food stuffs, such I-Iolzknechtc') in the German food intakc tables. Also to be as fruit, vegetables, and milk, could easily appear as noted is rne high amount of fats alld carbohydrates in thc American diet." (368; and cf. table on 369; sec also LEVEN­ luxuries (LEVENSTEIN 1988: 57). Thus, adequate di­ STEIN 1988, 57ff.). ets would more readily seem a question of wise 11. Already in 1890 a rough version of a food plan was de­ spending than of insufficient wages.lO ATWATER veloped by MARY I-IINMAN AnEL, an ATWATER disciple, con­ taining cooking suggestions for wcek.1y mcnus for families at three different levels of "moderate and small means". ADEL, 8. An anccdote best rcveals thc nature alld bias of such stand­ Ellen I-I. Richards, and EOWARD ATKINSON then werc instru­ ards: "By 1890 ... chemists alld animal husbandrymcn had mental in the public kitchen movcment. The Berlin "Volks­ lost f3ith in the German system of chemieal analysis in plan­ küchen" (cf. GOTTSTEIN 1918:241- 251; KISSKAI.T 1908), niog farm rations. [Stephen M.- S. L.I Babcock, a man of studicd by AHE!., had setan example for this U.S.movcment grcat gooel humor, cold W. O. ATWATER. America's ourstand­ (LEVENSTEIN 1988:49), where it inspircd the New England ing authority 011 human nutrition in thc 18905 and [he Illan Kitchen and the Rumford [tood Laboratory (MJT, Cam­ who devised the means of measuring food enerb'Y in calories, bridge), i.e. of an "experiment smtion", built on a "seicntific that according to chemical analysis softcoal would bC:ls gooel basis" and "using the btest scientific ideas and equipment a food für pigs 3S farm crops, alld a great deal cheaper. Soft to devise mernods of cooking that would revolutionize the eaal containcd nitrogen, which made up J 6 percem of most diets of the working dass". In contrast the "Volksküchen" protcins. Mulriply the nitrogen content of a food by 6.15 were ooly plain welfare delivery organiz.'ltions. LEVENSTEIN and the protein content could be known. Soft-coal also con­ eharacterizes the public soup kitchcns as "education by every tained ether-soluble substances which food analysis called fat. means" (1988: 49). Carbohydrates or energy were supplied by othcr fra ctions. 12. ATWATER (1902,448) explained, e.g., in the Encyclopedia According to chcmical analysis, soft coal was a splendid food. Britannica: "Stati stics of income and cast of living in Great The humorless ATWATER did not appreciatc the analogy." Britain, Germany, and the Unircd States (Massaehusctts) (ETIIERIDGE 1972: 174,175). In a famous experiment with show that from 50 to 60 percent or morc of me incomc of cowsat the University ofWisconsin in 1907 it was shown that wage-workers and othcr pcople in moderate circumstanees is the chcmical standard was insufficicnt. This was thc starting expended for food. This relatively large cost of food, and the point for Eimer V McCollum, a young biochcmist at Wis­ imporrant inAlIence of diet upan health ami strength, make a consin, who later discovered vitamin A (ibid.: 174ff., 78). more widespread undcrstanding of the subject very desirahle. LEVENSTE IN (1988:46) sums up the approach: "These Thc maxim that 'thc best is the cheapest' does not apply [Q chemists ... thus recommended that people sclect thcir foods food .... The price of food is not rcgulatcd solely by its value on the basis of their chemical composition rather tban taste, far nutriment. Its agreeableness to the palate or to the bllycr's appearance, or other considerations, in other words, they fancy is a large factor in dctermining the current demand anel were telling peoplc to eat 'wh at was good for them' rather market price .... Animal foods, such as mcats, fish, milk anel than 'what they Iiked' ''. the like, gratify the palate as most vegetable foods da not. 9. Parallel to this physiological approach which autol11atically For persons in good health the foods in which the nutricnts focused more on absolute poverty-and partly overlapping are most expensive are like costly artides of adornment­ with it, household budget studies mushroomed undl World people who can weil afford them ma y be justified in buying Warn. I-Ierc a sociological approach dominated in which them, but they are not economical. " poverty tended to be seen in a more relative fashion (cf. 13. Only after these efforts vis avis the workers-"to work J-JOROWITZ 1985). from below upward" (ATwATER)-failed, did eelucation fo­ 10. Staying in thc framcwork of caloric mcasurcment American eus morc on ehe middlc c1asses, hoping for trick.1ing down workers wou ld on the avcrage bc better nourished than their cffcets (LEVENSTEIN 1988: 54ff.). I t is in this context rnat German counterparts, as SCHUMßURG notcd in 1913: "". Ln home economics expanded most. "By 1900, then a movc­ gcneral American data confirm those obtained for Germany; ment was growing which would dircct Illuch of its energy

12 The ehemieal standard interwoven with a notion If the more expensive and vitamin carrying fresh of"effieieney", as outlined in Table 2.1, was the ma­ foods were consumed domestically instead of sta­ jority opinion in research before World War I, with ple foods, more of clle latter could be shipped" (cf. ATWATER always being the leading figure. But be­ ARONSON 1982: 57ff.; ROSSITER 1982: 120). tween 1912 and 1922 in research on defieieney dis­ While nutritional arguments fueled the "Iiving eases one vitamin after the other was diseovered­ wage" diseussion a striet and eoherently applied stunted growth and xerophthalmia (vitamin A), ber­ poverty line was never developed. With the help of iberi (vitamin BI), seurvy (vitamin C), riekets (vi­ Frank Underhill, a chemist, the economist ROBERT tamin 0), and pellagra (vitamin 02) (cf. ARON­ C. CHAPIN I6 (1909: 319-325), though, brought this SON 1986: 63 3)-moving the foeus of the ongoing information together for clle first time, and-sup­ nutritional debate slowly from pure effieieney to­ ported by the Russell Sage Foundation-came up wards equality. Sinee a diet also suffieient in vitamins with alarming numbers of under-fed New Yorkers would be more coscly,14 edueation on "how to get (LEVENSTEIN 1988: 112f.) and wirh a systematie plea along with whatever wage you got" was now shading for lugher wages. into a diseussion about a "living wage", support­ The growth of nutritional physiologyand ofhome ing efforts toward minimum wage legislation. The economics, 17 the "domesticscience" of"home mak­ diseovery of vitamins contributes to the Progres­ ing", took a parallel course with both of these gen­ sive Era in a partieular way: feeding "the erueial dered professions anchored in the land grant college idea shared by so many proponents of government system. That ATWATER'S daughterl8 would belong action ... that it was the responsibility of soeiety to the founding generation of this profession, fixing to provide every family with the means neeessary its attention on dietary standards, should not see m to support itself, essentially by earning a Iiving" accidental. Nutritional physiology was "real sei­ (ZARETSKY 1982: 210) with a "living wage" (RYAN enee" and basieally men's work. Horne eeonomies, 1906; 1941; 1942). "Thus, developments internal to in contrast, was one ofthe most highly profiled early the knowledge produeing organizations of the agri­ entering wedges of women into seienee and employ­ cultural nexus and a shift in the scientific foeus l 5 1ed ment. Horne eeonomies was one of clle two major to a broader vision of adequacy. This development eomponents of employment of women scientists was intensified and hastened by World War I, sinee at the Federal level until World War TI (ROSSITER vitamins were ingredients of perishable foods cl13t 1982: 120, 121,229,233). A division oflabor started, could not be used as readily in feeding the Allies. whieh held until Wor/d War TI: Men eoneentrated

on "macro-issues" J on basic research, which pro­ vided eriteria for setting standards. Women worked toward changing thc dice of thc middlc dass. ßetter-educated alld more awed by modern scientific wisdom than thc sullen out diets, gathered empirieal material on eonsump­ workcrs who failed to respond to the New England Kirchen, tion, taught farmers and laborers' families about middle-class Amcricans WDuid be more easily impressed by proper nourishmentj they centered on "m.icro is­ the movement's aura of scicnce and professionalization. More sues", on making standards liveable. importam, howcvcr, many of them had a vcry dircct interest in the food question, as dcvelopments in thcir own hames made thCIl1 very receptive to the New Nutritionists' mes­ 16. Cf. Supplement on Biographies of Key Actors. sage" (LEVENSTEIN 1988: 59,72-85). 17. This relationship is dose from the start: "With the increas­ 14. Thc situation changed when the industrial production of ing employment of women in stores and factories and their vitamins bccamc possiblc. Now strategies of "enrichment" consequent lack of homc training in domcstic tasks a need and "fortification", wh ich were first applied widely in World arose for more formal instrl1ction in the household arts. This War n ("Vitamins Will Win the War" could have been a slo­ fact coupled with the growing application of ehemisrry anel gan), or vitamin pills, could bc uscd as a functional substitutc bacteriology to me problcms of nutrition led to thc dcvclop­ for a "Iiving wage", and efficiency could again take prece­ Illent of the early cooking schools and dOl11cstic seience insti­ dence ovcr equality without scientific standards contradict­ tutes common in me Eastern part of cllC Uni ted States du ring ing systcmatic incomc distribution (cf. futONSON 1982: 60). cl,e 1870s." (KYRK 1932:428). The "force-fed" developmcnt 15. "Nutritional scientists abandoned TRUE and Longworthy ofhomc cconomics through Federal instit11tionaliz.1tion and amidst thcir cxpensive rcspiratOI"y calorimctcrs and nutrition decentralized Extension Service work is still in nced of an surveys, re-eCJl1ipped their labs with rats, and began searching in-depth study (cf. ROSS1TEU 1979: 248 fn.42). On women's for other hielden nutrients and the ailments they prcvented" special role in cllis field cf. LEVENSTEIN 1988: 75 f. (LEvENSTEIN 1988: 148). 18. Cf. Supplement on Biographies ofKey Actors.

13 7able 2.1: Foei of Seientifie Coneeptions 111 Nutritional Research of Human Nutritional Need Before World WarI

Basic Conccpt Psychological Structura! Good Povcrty line Concept of orientation of nced assumptions assumptions nutrition poverty is IS rebted to Efficiency fuel for workers tend to make \Vages are sufficient; a means the minimum people absolute machinc irrational choices better education need, if "spent with pcr- notion of feet wisdom" poverty Equality needs workers makc choicc a living wage IS an end in that incomc level at wh ich relative of social within their moral econ- neccssary itself familics acwaHy purehase notion of bcing omy ("conventionaI nutritionally adcquate poverty necessitics") dicrs

Source: Compiled from ARONSON (1984a).

2.1.2 "The World Wars" Germany. Nevertheless, the War tilted the seales towards strengthening the Federal government Though the United States was affeeted by World vis avis the states and private individuals. This War I weil be fore she formally entered it in May evolution beeame relevant to welfare state devel­ 1917 (MARWICK 1974: 61),19 with rising food priees opment only in the Great Depression.22 U . S. soei­ resulting in food riots in February 1917 in New ety was much less homogeneous than Germany's. York, Philadelphia, and Boston (cf. LEVENSTEIN "Although in some respeets the sense of national 1988: 109),20 her involvement was not linked to identity was strengthened, in other respeets a gross a marked welfare state take-off as it was in Ger- divisiveness appeared in many sectors of Ameri­ 1TI3ny Of, for that matter, in Britain. Ratller, much ean soeiety." (MARWICK 1974: 62) Even though the of the progressive tradition whieh eould have en­ Allies pressed for it,23 whole-seale rationing, espe­ ergized such a take-off was side-traeked in and eially of basic food smffs, was never implemented through-and after-the War. Also, such a take-off in the U. S. Rather, a policy of "cooperation" and was "postponed" by a deeade of relative prosper­ "food conservation", building on voluntarism and ity following World War I2I-in no way was there "pledges" (llNLEY 1942: 16), was emphasized, lead­ mass privation similar to the one experieneed in ing for example to "wheatless Mondays, meatless Tuesdays, porkless Thursdays" (MARWICK 1974: 68) 19. MARWICK (1974,68) reports, that the Uni ted States in 1918 and aeeenting perishable foodsmffs-those with was cxporcing almost three timcs as Illuch wheat, Illcat .. nd sugar as shc had in pre-War ycars (cf. also MULLEN­ vitamins-for domestie eonsumption (poliey of DORE 1941). 20. Next [0 a revival of the food kirchen movemcnt the soci:11 problem was also attacked in an "educational way" as muni­ lived", [hough, was not much influenced by this developmenr cipal governmcnts and private charities in a number of citics (I 77ff.). circulatcd leaflets with ATWATER'S rabies of food valucs in 22. Evcn so, World Wad was no positive rurning point tor the slums. Thcy adviscd substituting milk for Illcat anel eggs the American welfare stare ntUio1lld!y (LEVINE 1988: 229-233), (LEVENSTEIN 1988: 11 Of.). LEVENSTEIN points out that of [he MARWICK points to it as a model for the New Deal, though many I11ct1 sures experimented with in thar food crisis only reference ro World War I scems [0 mc Illoscly rhctorical in the schoollunch program was to remain. nature: " ... bur again an experiment had been made, lessons 21. Though unemployment was ar a level of 8-9%, real in ­ had been learned. Ir was to these experiments that Roo­ come rose after the depression of 1921, which lead to a sevelt was ro turn in his New Deal policies in thc 1930s" qualitative jump in average living standards (SKOCPOL, lKEN­ (1974:68). Bur, atthest/uf level the Wardid trigger somewel­ "ERRV 1983 , 115). fare state developments (90): "Large-scale population move­ In contrast to Germany, the Iater post-World War I picture ments, founding of new faetories, allel thc growrh of federal Iooked, at first sight, rather rosy: "After lircle or no increase initiatives and control, broughr social insurance from being, (ro1111890to 1914,from 1924to 1926 the purchasing power as one historian has pur it, a 'peripheral idea' to a 'primary' of a week's work by the average worker hrrew by 20 percent" and 'immediate' one ar the end ofthe war." (70) (LEVENSTEIN 1988: 175). At the same time povcrty srarrcd 23. "My colleagues and I, howcver, bclievcd thar the spirit of to concentrate in U.S. eities, while the new ideas of nu­ sclf sacrifice of the American pcoplc could bc rclied upon for trition gained a firm hold from the middle dass upwards, so grcat a service as ro accomplish the necessary rcsults upan induding the solid white working dass. How "the other half a volunrary basis" (M ULI.ENDOnE 1941: 12).

14 substitution).24 Education and nutshell condensa­ Army provisions in World War I probably had the tions in sloganeering-"Lick the Plate and Lick the most significant impact on the food habits of the Kaiser"-were the prominent mechanisms of state lower c1asses (LEvENSTEIN 1988: 145). action. Here, home econornists played a special role A corresponding pattern obtained for World in state-induced education campaigns (LEVENSTEIN War rr,27 where "Planning for Total Food Needs" 1988: 139; ROSSITER 1982: 120) and the nutrition proceeded on the basis OfSTIEBELING'S28 and WARD'S issue first had a federal break-through, reaching 1933 "Restricted Diet for Emergency Use" (VOOR­ beyond the "agricultural nexus".25 Under Herbert HIES 1942: 32 29)lO and built directly on administra­ Hoover and in the context of stronger war-time state tive experience gained in World War I. Thus "Food control in general, a new agency, the U. S. Food Ad­ for Victory" plans were based on t1,e eheapest ver­ ministration, accomplished its tasks through price sion of a domestic "educationist" tool developed by control, bulk purchase etc. with regard to the coun­ home econornists during the Great D epression.ll try's, and especially the Allies' food supplies ("Food Will Win the War"; cf. LEVENSTEIN 1988: 137-146). 27. [n contrast to World War T, comprehensive plans for found­ In calculating the supplies for the United Kingdom ing a post-War welfare state were made by Fedcral agencies (cf. NRPB 1942). These plans focuscd ( 161 -205, 449-454) (cf. BEVERIDGE 1928), France, and Italy as against the also on a systcmatic upgrading of public aid standards ("ad­ "actual lninimutn consumption necessary" (MUL­ equate to mcet the need for physica l maintenance of their LENDORE 1941 :21), minimum nutritional standards recipients"-ibid. 161 ) and more universal access (NRPB first surfaced as instruments ofU. S. Federal, though 1942,451 ff.). The "diet at the 'emergency level''' (162), con­ structed by STJEBELING, WARD in 1933, was onestarting point foreign, soeial policy.26 The "Interallied Seientific for me NRPB in constructing its "measuring rod" ( 161 ), Food Commission" was the means bywhich Hoover as it had already been rdied on in the "Basic Maintenance achieved a rationing standard for the Allies. Hoover Budget" of the Works Progress Administration (STECKER based hi s food export plans on the dietary standards 1936; 1937). In contrast to ßritain (Bcvcridgc Plan of the same time), the U. S. plans ncver got offth c ground (At.iENTA, set by this commission, which relied on physiolo­ S KOCPOL 1988). gists like GRAHAM LUSK from Cornell. 28. Cf. Supplcmcnt on Bi ographies of Key Actors. Also, military rations for U. S. troops based on 29. VOORHIES ( 1942 :32) describes the development llS folIows: "scientific standards" and advice, a process which "Whcn w s country undcrtook to supply part of the food nceds of its Allies, it was not a difficult matter for officials had al ready been set in motion in Germany during of the Deparonent of Agriculnlre to deterlllinc the degrce the Franeo-Prussian War of 1870171 , ca me to the and direction of expansion that would be nccessary. T he nu­ U.S. with World WarI (cf. LUSK 1931:469-473), merous national srudies made within recent years, especially though the "new nutrition" made only slow, but those of thc Burcau ofHomc Economics of the Deparnnent persistent, headway here (LEVENSTEIN 1988: 145 f.). lSTIEßELING, WARD 1933 in foomote of VOORIIIES-S. L.], provided a basis for calculating individual :md total food needs. Officials of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 24. "Ir Amcricans could be taught aLout the interchangeability using thcse figures on total food nceds have been ahle to of proteins, rats, and carbohydrates, they could be persuadcd calculatc the acreages of different crops :md thc numbers of to ger their proteins from bcans and pulses rather than meat, livcstock neccssary to supply the needs. The total figures for their c:lrbohydrates from corn meal, oats, ::md grains other the Uni ted States wcrc then hroken down on a regional, state than wheat, and their fats frOITI lard und vegetable oi ls. If ancllocal basis. The quantities of the different farm products tll CY could learn to fill their bellies on fmirs and vcgcrablcs for each area so determined became the 'production goals' too pcrishablc [0 send to Europe, thcir soldicrs and civil ­ of such areas." ians QVerSC3S could bc supplicd, pressures on domcstic prices 30. In me mean time the "nutritional minimum consensus" could be eascd, and therc would bc no necd for rationing" had not on1y reached the AMA but also the I LO (1937) and (LEVt:NSTEIN 1988: 138). As LEVENSTEIN points out, the homc thc Lcaguc of Nations (Technical COlllmission 1936). Also economisrs and the reformers had prepared this lesson for the National Research Council's Food and Nutrition Board years. ( 1941) had developed Recommendcd Dicrary Allowances, 25. In agriculnlre th e War also brought th e opportunity for the which could be used to rewrite and updatc the food Plans. first massive national food Survey (LEVENSTEIN 1988: 140). ThllS, wide professional recognition of the wh oie scientific 26. MULLENDORE also notes, that the U. S. insisted upon ra­ community had been extendcd to this body offormal know­ tioning among thc Ncutrals "in order to keep down con­ ledgc as it had developcd by World Warll. sumption" ( 194 1: 21).ln most respecrs thc saille was also truc 3 1. for the first time the social sciences--outsidc of homc eco­ for England. The calculations for England rested dircctly on nomics, economics and statistics-now devcloped an interest GRMIAM LUSK'S work (cf. LUSK 1931: 757-759); cf. o n LUSK, in nutrition. A Committec on Food Habits of thc National Supplement on Biographies ofKey Actors. Rescarch Council was form cd in 1941, with most of its

15 Some civilian rationing of commodities had to 2.1.3 The Great Depression and the Great be introduced in World WarlI, though not the Society unprecedented one of most or even all basic food In aperiod of postwar prosperity "horne economics" commodities, but rather of gasoline, coffee, shoes, grew as a "feeding discipline" in the agrieultural, canned food (due to the tin involved) etc. (POLEN­ land grant college network, making use of the "new BERG 1972: 32), but also of meat and sugar. In ad­ knowledge of nutrition" (McCollum). HOllle eco­ dition maximum price legislation existed for food nomics entered "the era of bureau building" (Du­ sruffs. "No form of regulation [like rationing-S. L.] PREE 1957: 151) and was visibly federalized in 1923 conflicted more sharply with traditional Ameri­ in a uU. S. Bureau ofHome Econon1ics" within the can values" (POLENBERG 1972: 32)32 Even where Departll1ent of Agrieulture (BETTERS 1930: 41 ff.). rationing was introduced, the administrative mech­ To think of subsistence as a matter of educational anisms were such that uniform national standards .nd not of incorne deficiency, i.e. the moralization were not attained (ibid.: 3 Off.). Voluntarism, over­ of subsistence through education, took place rnostly laid by strong professional guidance, as by horne at the state or private agency level. But now systell1- economists (LEVENSTElN 1988: 199), who now num­ atie Federal guidanee and a seal ofFederal approval bered some 15000 in the U. S., was again relied were furnished. The Federal government crystal­ upon. How little World War II changed the struc­ lized a "sYll1bolic politics" of nutrition, which fo­ rure of dOlllestic policy is illustrated by the fact, that cused on educating homemakers tllrough food plans opposition against "national service" by unions and and other dietary advice (cf., for example, HUNTJJ employers alike was effective (ibid.: 182)-contrast­ 1921; 192 3). Nevertheless, at the same time nu­ ing sharply to the situation in all other allied and tritional researehers were not bound to the gov­ enen1Y countries. ernrnent any more when looking for research sup­ But World War II brought the first national state­ port. After World War I, business, food processors ment of scientific principles of nutritional measure­ and producers, came into their own in develop­ ment as Recolllmended Dietary A1lowances (RDAs), ing institutional research and job opporrunities (LE­ formulated in the fralllework of the National Re­ VENSTEIN 1988: 155 f.), tlms leaving the "welfare" search Council (LEVENSTEIN 1988: 200). components of nutritional development to the gov­ ernment alone. This also meant tl,at the focus of professionalization in nutrition moved away frOill emphasizing the poor, which had been stressed be­ fore World War I, and that those working on such issues in science or governrnent were slowly shifting mcmbcrs leaning towards cultural anthropology-and with to tl,e periphery of tl,eir profession. MargaretMead as executive sccretary. Thc aim was "chang­ to ing the dietary pattern of American culture" (Mead 1943: 20) On the other hand, economists began move :md dcsigning rauons for fecding libcratcd war-torn coun­ into the field more systematically (cf. as an over­ tri es adopted "to the food habits of the various countries" view HOROWITZ 1985), doing cost of living studies (National Research Council 1943:4, 5). Again~ ehe anthro­ and devising "measuring rods" for adequate wages at pologisrs were "practically mesmcrized by studies of the food the academie level,34 which often built on the work habits of poar, rural Americans" (LEVENSTEIN 1988:201), leading them to sec almost 110 possibility for changing food of horne econornists and nutritionists, and which habits. In addition to this committee the NRC had a Com­ could playa supporting role as the welfare prograrns mittee on Food and Nutrition, dcalingwith the chemical and of the New Deal were to develop. physiological side of nutrition and setting the basic standards (cf. SPANG 1988). 33. Cf. Supplement on ßiographies ofKey Actors [ar CAIWLINE In World War I, Herbert Hoover had turned to advertising L. HUNT's venture into Federal Food Plans. men and home economists, not to anthropologists, to imple­ 34. Most prominent here was the work done out of Berke­ ment or to accompany ration.ing (LEVENSTEIN 1988: 201). ley, CA, by the HeUer Committee for Research in Social 32. Rather than rationing basic food snIffs, indirect methods Economics (cf. Heller Committee 1928ff.; LUCK, WOODRUH' of controlling food stuffs were used: uniform enrichment 193 I ; PEIXOTrO 1929; cf. Supplement on Biographies ofKey ami fortification of basic foods, like bread and milk, among Actors for]. B. PEIXOTrO, who was of major importance on others, with vitamins (ETHERIDGE 1972:210-215; CARPEN­ that COll1mirtee; cf. HOROWITZ 1985: I 34ff. on these "budget TER 1986,208-210). experrs and social critics in prosperity and depression").

16 In the Great Depression more specific national within the agricultural institutions of the state and standards for nourishment support ("food budgets") their poLicies, that is the "agricultural nexus". were needed and developed-under the leadership But, minimum standards were already used to of HAZEL K. STIERELING 35_ by the U. S. Bureau evaluate the adequaey of surplus distribution (STIE­ of Home Economics (STIERELING, WARD 1933), RELING, AnELSON 1940; U.S. Congress 1976:427). which was the most visible, Federal base of the Also, such standards, when combined with the re­ "home economics" movement. Bur, the food bud­ sults of empirieal investigations of"average sponta­ gets only served as "guides to the perplexed" (OR­ neous consumption of population groups" (cf. STIE­ SHANSKY), since no nationally transparent poverty RELING 1936; STIEßELING et al. 1941; STIEßELING, standards and universal welfare schemes built on PHI PARD 193939) tended to politicize the obtaining such standards emerged from the Depression36 For income distribution. The eheapest diet-"restricted the poor, the New Deal meant a more syrnbolic, diet for emergency use" only-cost $61 in 1931/32 haphazard form of national relief"in-kind" admin­ retail prices; thus, the result of these studies was: istered by a Federal Relief Corporation,37 which "The diet had higher retail value than the food distributed some of the "surplus" produce (cf. Pop­ which could bc purchased out the relief allowances PENDlECK 1986 on the whole period). An educational received by the unemployed during 1931-1933." side effect of this should not be overlooked: dis­ (League of Nations 1937: 266) ... "considerable tributing the surplus, as for example grapefruit, of­ proportions of the employed population, and par­ ten educated COnSU111erS to new and unaccustomed ticularly of the negro familjes, in most of these foodstuffs more in li ne with the "vitamin standard" towns were suffering from malnutrition owing to (ETHERIDGE 1972: 204). The "food budgets" were insuffiency ofinco'l1le" (ibid.: 268; emphasis in the ori­ ginal). no basis for such delivery programs. They were "ed­ ucational" only, pointing to "Diets to Fit the Family Hence, in the thirties, the question had defi­ Income" (CARPENTER, STIERELING 1936) or to how nitely turned to one of "adequacy of income for to "Buy Health Protection with your Food Money" nutrition" (ibid.: 265) and, in consequenee, to a (STIEßELING et al. 1930).38 All initiatives remained demancl for t1luversal rights in a welfare state to be and for a minimum wage. The participation 40 35. Cf. Supplement on Biographies of Key AcrOTS. of professionals in international bodies, such as 36. Such standards, though, did emerge locall y. Cities, such as New York and Chicago, began to set their "Imme relief" wife to do it''' (LEVENSTEIN 1988: 54). This debate is contin­ allotments with recourse to, though not necessarily ur the ued unti! today under the heading of"consumer ignorancc" level of, the STIEBELING, WARD diet plan. Also, at the Federal (cf. RODWAY v. USDA 1975:819 n.18), and the meager pro­ level, they were relied upon in the "Quantity Budgets for visions far the family food budget serves as an additional Basic Maintenance anel Emergency Standards of Living" of legitimation for more nutritional education: "When food the Work Projccts Administration, as a survey mcasurcment money allowances are as low as the cost level of the economy taol. plan, the need far counseling of food management is c1early \Nhere such standards could very easily have been reiied indicated". (PETERKIN 1965:23; see also 1976a). Thc state's upon in Federal policy, as in the minimum benefits of Social home economist thus becomes the functional equivalent of Insurance legislated in 1935, policy-makers shied away from the "$ 5 000 a year wife". them. 39. Thedietofthoscon rcliefwasstudicd spccifically by WIEIIL, 37. TheFederal ReliefCorporation existed from 1933 to 1935. PAI.MER 1939. The extensive dietary surveys of low-income Later these functions were taken over by the F ederal Surplus families by the Bureau of Home Economics in 193 5-36, Commodities Corporation, which also bccame active in the wh ich were undcrtaken in cooperation with thc Department economic alld food crisis of 193 8. of Labor and the Wodes Progress Administration, had, in­ 38. That food budgets were early on known to be somewhat terestingly enough, not included relief families (ibid.: 6). artificial management techniques for individual households 40. EImer V. McCollum, then professor atJohns Hopkins, alld and part of a general rationalization approach which was at FaithWilliams, then with the Cost ofLiving Division of the odds with the experience of the lower classes is rcvcaled in Department ofLabor, wcre mcmbers of the mixed commit­ an anccdote: "There was also growing des pair over thc abil­ tee of the League of Nations, Dr. Williams representing the ity of the poor to master the rules of the New N utrition. [LO (cf. Lc"guc of Nations 1937). Again McCollu11l, "nd Some years Iatcr [1902, Ellen H.-S. L.] Richards quoted now Mary Swartz Rose (rom Columbia University ami Dr. thc remark of a visitor to the Rumford Kitchen's $ 500-a­ William H lenryJ Sebrcll, Chief of thc Department of Nu­ ycar workman's cottage [in the Massachusetts pavillion at thc trition of the National Institute of Hygiene, werc thc U. S. Columbian Exposition-S.L.]: 'Ir will take a $5000 a ycar members of the Technical COl1lmission.

17 the ILO and the League of Nations, had, sinee closing of foreign markets through World War TI 1932, assured standardization of what is "adequate and by the idea of providing good nutrition as part nourishment"41 (cf. Conferenee 1933; Teehnieal of National Defense. This program folds as sur­ Commission 1936; 1938) and had created an addi­ plus turns into seareity due to purehases by the tional platform for "the seienee of preventive nutri­ AJlies and the Armed Forces. The soeial neeessity tional medieine" (cf. ILO 1937; League ofNations to eontinue Food Stamps for the truly unemploy­ 193742). These aetivities also aimed at eonsolidat­ able was ignored (POPPENDlECK 1986: 241). Before ing such reform positions in U. S. domestie poliey, World War H, knowledge of nutrition, insofar as it as illustrated by the ample use of U. S. empirieal was institutionalized in the state, was in no way im­ material in these doeuments.43 mediately eonneeted to monetary transfers of the The first national poverty program, AFDC in the welfare state. Most speeifieally, such links were not Soeial Seeurity Act of 1935, was still very marginal: to be found in the meager Federal means-tested it aimed at "gild-edged widows" and did not of­ welfare programs; in AFDC, they still do not exist fer mueh relief at the time.44 From 1939 to 1943 today. Nevertheless, nutritional knowledge was ex­ the first45 (Blue and Gold) Food Stamp Plan is ploited systematieally for "moralizing poverty", i.e. tried out (MANEY 1989: 22-33), still as means of for ereating the image of individual responsibility "surplus disposal" and enhaneed by the antieipated for and eurability of malnourishment. If one then did not pull oneself out of malnourishment by the edueational boots traps, faulteould easily be loeated. 41. The struggle here was conducted for an "optimum diet" (Lcaguc of Nations 1937: 82ff.), father than for lrunimum Through home eeonomies the problem of poverty, nutrition Cf a basic standard, since only an optimum was even in the Great Depression, shrank to the size thought to bc efficicnt in terms of prevenrion of disease. of a "food plan"; poverty was no more an issue of 42. For the continuation of this work after World WadI in material want or of tTIonetary state transfers, hut the FAG (Food aod Agricultural Organization of the V.N. one of (dietary) edueation. After World War Hand whosc hcadquarters are located in Rame, Italy) cf. BEATON, PATWARDHAN 1976. until the 1960s, poverty even passed from sight as 43 . The U .S. (cf. amongst others League of Nations a souree of malnutrition-malnutrition beeoming 1937:252ff., 266f., 297-302), Germany (cf. Health Sec­ a "chemieal disorder, whieh struck at random on tion 1933:444-449) and also Britain served as thc major, the class seale, to be eured by trained dietieians us­ exemplary sources of empirical material on malnutrition and income distribution and of nlltritionist studies. ing ehemieal methods" (LEVENSTEIN 1988: 203). If 44. A wclfare state built from a brond base ofinco11lcs- und mcans­ education was and is a surrogate for welfare state tesfed benefits cmUlot opera te \\~thout a firm baseline standard growth in the U.S. (cf. HEIDENHEIMER 1981), then (a "minimum" or "social minimum", a "fair share"). A .wict this "moralization" of poverty affords another and contributian model is less in need of a baseline standard when its benefits are geared to wageslcontributions (and replace­ a different view of "edueational substitution" for ment rates) as a given, llsing some contribution formula. soeial policy. Nutritional minima would have been a convenient start­ The first real national welfare programs tookhold ing point for fixing the "baseline" when institutionalizing an in the 1960s. Only then did the American state be­ incomes- and means-tested welfare state. But the struggle in the U. S. ncvcr progressed far enough such that an approach come "fortified with an independent arm of national I.ike this would have had to be elaborated (cf. CATES 1983 vs. administrative action" (SKOWRONEK 1982: 286) in COLL 1988; CATES pinpoints features of the "impure" U. S. the field of poverty poliey. Now the first radieal Social Security system, which gave rise to similar conflicts, sl-uft in the "welfare state" vis avis the "social in­ e.g. on pages 8-9 and 94-95 where the "subsistenee level" appears as aim and target in the "increment" discussion). suranee state" oceurred with a heavy emphasis on 46 lnterestingly enough, this conRiet was also quite advanced the nutritional minimum. The discourse of the in Germany in the '20s, and also in the '50s. In the '50s it nutritional diseussion in the 1920s paralleis todays lasted until the decision to "dynamize" the pension system debates (LEVENSTEIN 1988: 204ff.). The nutritional had been made by Adenauer. This conAictual process then earried over to and was contained in the public assismnce re­ form of 1961, which boosted standardization on a nutrition al 46. The pertinent hame economics discussion is found in the base in the small er welfare system only (cf. HEISIG 1989). articles ,md reports in Family Economics Review, issued by 45. On the history ofFoQ(1 Stamps cf. especially U. S. Congress a division of the Agricultural Research Service. PETERKIN (1976: 390-494) ,nd BERRY (1984: 21 - 102). The most reccnt (I 976b) documcnts Illuch of the then recent dcvclopments developments are captured in WEAVER (1988: II0ff.). in Faod Plans relevant to the poverty line.

18 minimum by this time had been almost purified cornpetence fall Food Stamps), by specialization of its poverty connection and was now seen as a ("poverty" in the U . S. is an issue dominated by neutral, natural measuring rod, as going beyond economists52 and few sociologists; food policy is politics. The only more-or-Iess accepted poverty dealt with by nutritionists, horne economists, and a standard was now formed in the U. S. around food, few political scientists), and by lobby (entrepreneu­ not, for example, housing.47 Still, today, no other rial vs. movernentlprovider group mobilization).53 standard is in view, which can command a similar \iVhereas the abolition of "hunger" or "maInutri­ traditional acceptance and consensus. tion" is the focus of one network, the other one is The new programs were tied to their "educa­ rnainly oriented on themes like redistribution of in­ tional" past in several different ways: COOle and upholding the work effort. Since poverty (1) Food Stamps have developed as a delivery experts usually believe in cashing out Food Stamps, rnechanisrn since 1964 (BERRY 1984: 33ff.) and have wh ich, in the U. S. would probably mean the be­ become the only and major universal, nationally ginning of a dismantlement of the food assistance financed welfare program in the 1970s,48 still ad­ network, the two networks are not necessarily mu­ ministered within the Agriculture Department49 tually reenforcing. Food Stamps thus exist by a logic "Nourishrnent Need" in the Food Starnp program of not being viewed as a "poverty" program in the today is set by recourse to the "Thrifty Food Plan" traditional U. S. sense,54 and thus the U. S. logic of (PETERKIN et al. 1975), a rescaled version of the poverty politics makes AFDC and not Food Stamps "Restricted Diet for Emergency Use" developed by the centerpiece of poverty policy. STIEBELING and WARD in 1933 50 In addition child (2) Anational discussion crystallized around a nutrition, schoollunch etc. pro grams reenforce an nourishrnent based poverty line, which was intro­ "in-kind" welfare perspective, not to be found any­ duced in a quite uncontroversial way after 1963 where in Europe, Germany included. ("ORSHANSKy55 Standard"). The poverty line was Interestingly enough, these food policy issues in and is builton the costsofthe "Econorny FoodPlan" the U. S. are not strongly tied to poverty issues 51 for a given family type multiplied by the factor of The policy networks are completely separated, be it three; the factor was derived from consllmption sur­ by Departrnents (DHSS is responsible for "Incorne veys ancl was to take into account the non-food com- Security", amongst others AFDC; under USDA's 52. This domination is ITIuch more complete and hegemonical 47. Cf. on housing :tnd poverty in general SCIIORR (1963; 1964). than it is in the Federal Republic ofGennany (or in Britain), While a food standard was already firmly in place by World thus rccnforeing thc "monetary"l"work" bias of the public War n a firm housing standard was still weH out of sight: vision of poverry-instead of pluralizing it, that is showing "Therc are no genernlly accepted basic standards of the quan­ the multiplicity of reSüurces involvcd in creating poverty. tity and quality of housing considered a minimum essen­ 53. The division is such that there is almost no overlap be­ tial for evcry family." (V.S. I-Iousing Authority 1940:6-7: tween experts called to Congrcssional Hearings on Food emphasis in the original) The more recent discussion (cf. Stamps ami on AFDC. One present-day exception would SALINS 1987: 202, sub "standard" and "substandard") dem on­ be the economist l1MOTHY SMEEDING, whose work in the strates that consensus hefe is still far away. even whcn COIll­ !ate 1970s on counting "in-kind" benefits as income in the pared with tadays conflicts over the poverty line and alter­ poverty mcasurc is also tclling about the genetical "distance" native poverty standards. bet:ween these two policy areas. One historieal exception was 48. For a German (non-eomparative) view on Food Assistanee MOLLIE ORSHANSKYj her movcment from USDA to the Social cf. MURSWIECK (1988,113-120). Security Administration in 1958 brought nutritional argu­ 49. The strength of the "ideologieal" linkagc betv"een Food ments and incoll1e security thinking togethcr in a way wh ich Stamps and "seientific eating" is revealed, for example, in othcrwise would have been rather unlikely. U.S. Congress (1985:217-229), where policy is dcpieted as 54. This notion is supported uy thc fact, that there is no way built on "the researeh-based set of eeonomical anel nutritious to live off Food Stamps alone, though, in some states, there diets" (217). might bc a way to live off AFDC alone. 50. The emergenee of an American national diet, as traced by 55. Cf. Supplement on Biographies of Key Actors, and ÜR• LEVENSTEIN (1988), has also facilitated the use of a "food SHANSKY 1977; PETERKIN 1976b. An earlier City Workcr's plan" approach to establish a Aoor for a minimum Federal Family Budget standard, which had been deve!oped in transfer program. the Department of Labor after WoridWar II (cf. LAMALE, 5 I. HOllsing isslIes are similarly "estrangcd" from thc "poverty STOTZ 1960), faded into the background and was later auan­ nexus", being perceived in an in-kind logic analogous to [he doned, since the standard was found to be overly complex Food Stamps program. and methodologically dubiotls.

19 ponents of family needs.56 This standard originally for spottily and, if so, onl y for eertain social cat­ was designed only for statistical reporting and is egories, not universa lly, and fragmented by federal­ sti ll used regularly as such today. But this stand­ ism. These transfers are onl y marginally informed ard has also been integrated into several programs by adequate minimum standards (cf. for example as a delivery standard afterwards, technically taking WORTHINGTON et al. 1980).58 the form of "OMB poverty guidelines". But, these other programs57 are in no way ami anywhere near a When nutritional standards were first linked Witl, complete transfer bridge between Food Stamps and welfare policy at the national level in t1,e U. S., this all other non-food components (housin g, clothing, happened half a century later than it did in Ger­ recreation etc.), which are taken into account in the many. This process in the U. S. stayed quite "con­ poverty line. Thus a huge policy gap remains in the tained" within th e agricultural setting. At first"sym­ U. S. which is only assessed, but sparsely filled. bolic politics" are highlighted. "Education" in do­ Nevertheless the poverty line for some time ef­ mestic science in World War I an d especially be­ fectively exe rted pressure to (re)legitimate all gov­ cause the Great Depression provided the major his­ ernment action in terms of closing the poverty gap torical experience. Therefore a poverty line is first it measured. It effectively focused attention on the found after 1965, and it is prominent basically only size, compositi on, and development of the poverty as a statisti ca l, that is as an "educational", l11eas­ population, and ac ted as a "driving force" (ELL­ ure. If benefits had to be delivered to the poor, the woon) even after 1975 when the general trend was agricultural nexus was affirmed by "i n-kind" deliv­ "backJash". Thus, the nutritional minimum did not ery strategies, whi ch also fitted best to a "control have its most visible, public, and politicizing effects approach" vis a vi s th e poor. Thus, Food Stamps in directly via Food Stamps-here the sa fety net fune­ World War II and especially after 1964were handed tion is fulfilled more latently; rather, its major effects out (or sold). were ac hi eved indirectlyvia the pove rty line. There Nevertlleless, Food Stamps is the only U. S. pro­ is no poverty standard of comparable significance in gram, which, after 1970,59 became and remained any European country, Germany included. universal and uniform60 Only under such restrictive (3) Other Federal monetary transfers to the poor­ conditions, though, do we find a universal approach most prominently AFDC-are still only all owed in U. S. welfare policy: every person without means has a right to food, but to food only. Further, only here do we find a uniform approach in Federal 1'01- 56. For a contclllporary (rare) critique cf such ;l mcasurcmcnt iey, i.e. a benefit standard, which does not vary in standard cf. FRIEDMAN 1965 (i ncorrect M U RSWI ECK 1988: 98); for crideal afterthoughts cf., for examplc, J ENKINS, MILLER 58. Goly in the category of transfers to the aged, blind and 1984;JENcKs 1987:98ff.; JENcKs, MAYER 1987;JENcKs, TOR­ disabled (SSI) the programs rely ro a large extent on uni­ ItEY 1988: 229ff., 265ff.; MAYER,jENC KS 1989; PALMER er Oll. form, l'ederally-enforced standardization, closcly approach­ 19880: 12fl". ing subsistence in term s of the povcrty line. 57. Programs affcctcd by this standard are, for instancc, ar 59. That this was a very conscious shi ft in social policy towards DHSS: COllll11uni ty Services Block Grant, Low-Income univenal as well as neeeü-Jujjidem standards may be brathered I-lomc Energy Assistance Block Grant, H cad Startj ur USDA: from the testimony of the USDA Secretnry I-Iardin befare

20 the U. S., as is the ease in AFDC and in the states' ent physiologists in this area were KARL VOlT63 and publie assistanee programs. MAx RUBNER64 RUBNER (1914) reealls: All other S. welfare programs are built on the U. "Only the more methodologieal study of the N-se­ eategorical approach. The universal right to food cretion by Kar! Voit alld the use of the respiration never was extended to a right to livelihood of ev­ apparatus, built by Pettenkofer, made it possible, ery citizen without means. The welfare state as a to say exaecly whieh food materials a human being guarantor of a basic "social wage", as it obtains in really needs, alld whether fooclsmffs are meaSUf­ many European countries, 61 is not a U. S.-or for ing up to all nccessities ... Espeeially the work of that matter Anglo-Saxon-concept. Outside of SSI, Pettenkofcr, Voit aod Forster aod others made it possible to determine thc amaunt ofeach faGd COTTI­ monetary bene/its in "welfare" are thus only loosely ponent necessary, dcpending on whether a person standardized and meager-or non-existent. is working or not, alld on age, alld soon knowledge In the U. S. a statistieal standard, the "poverry was also obtained on the intake of children. (32, 33) hne", might then be said to have developed in­ ... These results of nutritional research have only stend of a universal, means-tested right to welfare. been of use for thc statistical determination of food Such a right exists only symbolically-as a univer­ consumption, since I have shown, that nutritional sa l and uniform statistieal measure at the Federal analysis---except for protein-nccd not attach itsclf level, whieh symbolizes a gap in welfare state insti­ strictly to particular food components, since only thc cncrgy of these components (the ca lories) will tutionahzation itself. This statistical standard then givc us a lead to their importance for nutrition." (40) is state organized social knowledge, whieh, on the one hand, is used to buttress universal in-kind de­ Calories in nutrition were to funetion like money. Iivery in Food Stamps. But, on the other hand, Food beeomes a eommodiry whose value is now the standard is an outgrowth of aeeumulated non­ judged only by cl1e energy it yields, not by the deeisions in U. S. welfare state development. These tastes it pleases or the status connotations it has. For deeisions not to build up a full-fledged welfare state, the "normal, not in any way heavy worker" ("rnitt­ but rather to rely on an "eeonomy of support with­ lerer Arbeiter") VOlT had suggested a daily ration held", are veiled in soeial seienee by an elaborate and of 118 g protein, 56 g fat and 500 g earbohydrates methodologieally profound quantitative diseussion (GOERKE 1976: 306), the "Voit standard" prominent of welfare (cf. BULMER 1983) and by research on until the turn of the eentury.65 The works of VOlT minutia and problems, like "labor effort withheld" and others had a strong institutional bias-they re­ or "divoree inerease" (cf. KORP! 1980: 306)62 lied not so mueh on outdoor relief, but prisons, poor houses, work houses, old age homes and the army were in focus, i.e. state institutions, where force 2.2 The German Case: Total Rationing was rather prominent and whieh allowed for to­ in Both Wars-the Direct Monetary tal eontrol of food-intake ("total institutions"). The Route to Universal and Comprehensive development of the nutritional minimum in Ger­ National Welfare Benefits ("Sozialhilfe") many was a mueh more direet outgrowth of state aetivity than it had been in the U. S. This was not 2.2.1 Developments before World War I only tme on the "objeet" side, i.e. research eentered on people concentrated within "total instirutions", Nutritional knowledge was developed in the see­ and served the state's needs to rationalize its institu­ ond half of the 19th eentury within the 11ledieal tions. It was also true on the researcher's side, since faeulties, espeeially in the physiologieal institutes al1 of the researehers were state servants in a publie (LICHTENFELT 1913: 363). The two most promin- universiry setting. The ehanges of dietary patterns effeeted by this research were so far-reaehing that 61. This may take on the form of wage polk)' cr of welfare now critique of prison- and pauper-upalaces" was policy, cr of both combined. 62. Thc stress on "ineorne deficicncy" only, when defining the pooras in the poverty line, is also cricical in U. S. dcvelopment 63. Cf. Supplement on Biographies ofKey Actors. (cf. KORPI 19 80: 294ff.). I da not dwell on this, since it is a 64. Cf. Supplcment on Biographies ofKey Actors. common denominator bctwccn Gcrmany allel the U.S., my 65. This standard was latcr somcwhat modified by RUBNER, who analysis focusing more on the differences berwecn thc two. proposed a linIe more protein and carbohydrates, and less fat.

21 heard (GoERKEI976: 310; cf. also RUBNER, THIER­ and agricllitural settings-but it was stripped of all FELDER 1908). The major success was obtained early its persOIlIlel early on in World War I. 67 and at • centr.lized state level: Despite some local experiments with benefit scales built on an adequate diet and inspite of the "Voit's teaching has left a strang mark on the reg­ weil entrenched nutritionists' orientation on the ulations about soldier's nutrition in the last four decades [before 1913'-S.L.]. Before his work had diets of the "less-well to do" (KrSSKAL T 1912: 242), taken effcct the soldier's diet left a lot to be desired." nutritional thought did not yet spill over into the (SCHUMBURG 1913:424; cf. a1soHlRsCIlFELD 1903) welfare delivery system in a general way. In 1894. report to the National Association ofWelfareAgen­ Changing food habits in the army (general con­ eies ("Deutscher Verein")68, delivered by WILL! scription) induced changes in the basic diet of the CUN069 , reveals the majority opinion on the "bio­ general population, .s with ".rmy bread" (Kom­ logical method": mißbrot) (GOERKE 1976: 316). The army as "school "V:1rious attempts to fix a minimum dict on thc basis of the nation" thus complemented the civili.n ap­ of physiologieal standards have as yet had no suc­ proaches to dietary education. cesslUl results." (CU NO 1894: 60) Nutrition.l research w.s retarded in its possibili­ ties for expansion, due to the small size oftmiversity In part,l° this was due to doubts some nutrition­ institutes and the constraints against specialization ists entertained about the possible range of stand­ and of teaching, but also due to the inflexible atten­ ardization. RUBNER thought: "There is no normal tion paid to animal feeding and farm rations by the diet just as there is no standard normal shoe size." agriculture establishment in Germany, so aremark (quoted by SCHUMBURG 1913: 398; cf. also RUBNER by RUBNER made in 1913 reveals: 1913: 29-4 3).l1 But a look at the average ranges discllssed also reveals that they would have led to "ln some quarters it is known that agriculture has a standardization at • significantly higher level for been improved bya more rational procedure of an­ payrnent standards.l2 imal feeding. What we might gain from scientific research on human nutrition, though, seems be­ 67. The institute moved from Berlin to Dortmund in the 19205 yond their imagination" (4, 5). and was dlen directed by EDGAR ATZLER. It kepta department for nutritional physiology which was importanr in preparing As late as 1913 a Kaiser WIlhelm Institute focused for rationing in World War IJ and in developing dle post-W:lr on the physiology of work-naturally also dealing "needs standard" in welfare (1955; 1957). The major actor with "Arbeiterernährung" (the worker's diet)-, was here is HEINRICH KRAUT; cf. Supplement on Biographies of founded for MAx RUBNER with special grants by Key Acrors. 68. Deutscher Verein für Armenpflege und Wohltätigkeit, after WIlhelm Merton,66 • heavy industrialist .Iso ac­ 1919: Deutscher Verein für öffentliche und private Fürsorge. tively engaged in financing other welfare policy ini­ "Standardization" of wclfare, including benefit scales, "by as­ tiatives and institutions outside the sphere of social sociation", is a major part of the process of nationalizatiol1 insurance proper. This institute was to make up for described for Germany ancl is associated with the Deutscher the structural deficiencies in the German university Verein.lts members are alliocal ami state governments, plus the national organizations of private welfare and the Fed­ cral government. In such a corporatist atmosphere a strong reliance on expertise devcloped after 1953, especially on nOI1- political expertise of nutritional physiologists (KRAUT). 66. RUBNER became a director on May I, 1913. Mertan set up 69. Cf. Supplement 011 Biographies ofKey Actors. a foundation for 0.5 mil!. Mark, which was doublcd by con­ 70. Also important wcrc differences in judgmcnt abollt the rel­ tributions from three departments of the Reich. Thus, the evance of meat vs. vegctablcs in the diet. I-Iere RUHNER and instinlte had 40000 Marks per year at its disposal, a mere VOlT did not diverge much, but both diverged radically from pittance when compared with the size, depth and extent of Hindhede and his "apostIes", who seems to have had some nutrition research within the "agricultural connection" in the popular but not much scientific support in Germany (er. U. S., and the finances available to it (cf. ROSSITER 1979: 212- FÜRTII 1911: 524r. for dle relevance of this for thc povcr­ 220), as weil as widl dle scope of the institute, which was ty measure). much wider than RUßNERS past fields of research would sug­ 71. RUUNJ-:R revoked this position bter (1926), narrowing the gest. Aptitude tests, the design of different jobs and work range substantially. placcs, the physiological adaptation of too1s and macrunes 72. No wonder SACIISSE, 'lENNSTEDT (1988:26) report: "Thc and oflighting etc. were also to be studied. extremely exact, contemporary studies of sodal hygien-

22 Rather, the major line of struggle within loeal ernährungswesen"; RUSNER 1916: 15), for whieh government was about a general rationalization the U. S. Departrnent of Agriculture served as the of local welfare administration and in that con­ prominent example.75 text about having a standard at all. If standardiza­ tion could be agreed upon, it would be safely and 2.2.2 "The Great War" in a cireular way linked to an "empirieal" notion of "need". Results from studies of consumption The relationsh.ip between state and society, espe­ obtaining among the poor anyhow (CUNO 1894; cially between the state and the working class and its SACHS SE, TENNSTEDT 1988: 26f.; but see already organizations changed significantly-"the state ap­ KISSKALT 1912: 238f[73) carried the day. They were paratus functioned less as an instrument of power of mainly done by economists, who competed with the the dominant c1ass during the War than it had done "normative ideal" of social hygiene and physiolo­ be fore 1914" (KOCKA 1984: 140). "The period of the gy in the effort to standardize benefit sca les in an First World War may weil have been the decisive "objective, unideological" wayJ4 Thus, also in Ger­ phase in the transformation of tlle old and limited many the educational aspeet of"adapting the habits 'Ordnungsverwaltung', even if it never existed in of the underclasses to rationalized modern living" pure form, into the quickly growing 'Leistungsver­ (SACHSSE, TENNSTEDT 1988: 12)-the general social waltung' ofthe modern welfare state" (ibid.: 143). In hygiene approach-remained at first as the major Germany, on a quite different scale than in the U. S. welfare influenee of nutritionists' thought, propa­ and with immediate results, both Wars were "pace gated, for example, through general or specialized makers for soeial policy" (PRELLER 1949: 85) in the public soul' kitchens ("Volksküchen"; "Schulspei­ 20th century. This was especially so for clle loeal, the sungen"-cf. KJSSKALT 1908; G01-rsTEIN 1918). non-social-insurance 1Ve!fflre stflte, the foundations Propagation worked to a lesser extent than in the for which were laid partly be fore World War I, but U. S. through an also developing home econom.ics, modernized with World War 1. called "hauswirtschafclicher Unterricht" (c f. TOR­ Germany's mobilization until early 1915 was char­ NIEPORTH 1979 for an in-depth study). German acterized "by the sa me kind of sheer unawareness of home eeonomics had its major ties to fem ale educa­ the economic and social implications of this mighty tion in the general school system, and was thus "sub­ war of the nations" as found "in even greater de­ ordinate to general edtleation" (KYRK 1932:427). gree in the other countries" (MARWICK 1974: 27). It had no special connection to agriculture, was The modernization of the local welfare state, thus, not systematically connected to the chemistry and did not happen according to a plan, but evolved in physiology of foods, though it loosely referred to spasmodic reactions to the spiraling demands of an stich knowledge in the main cooking manuals (HEYL ever prolonged War and finally to defeat. Welfare 1888ff.; even more so ESERT-STOCKINGER 1929). state development in poverty policy was directly Outside of "total institutions" public policy im­ inAuenced mainly in two ways: Rationing schemes pact of nutritional work consisted mainly in forcing gradually extended public responsibility76 to each discussion about the necessity of a Reich's Depart­ and every citizen and radically redrew the borders ment of Nutrition ("Zentralstelle für das Volks- between public and privateJ7 War welfare programs

ists and physiologists on nutritional needs cf workcrs were spa rsely noticcd in thc discussions cf the Deutscher Verein" 75. "... Only thc Uni ted Stares Department of Agriculnlrc is a in 1894 and 1898 (cf. DEIIN-RoTIIENHLSER 1894; SCHM IDT beginning in stich insti tutionalization [of a Nahrungs:ullt­ 1898; CUNO 1898). S. L.l; hefe the rcsults of Ilutritional research are made lI seful 73. This :uticlc on the socia! hygiene of poverty is most rc­ for cvcryday life and a m.tional ~ducation is beginning to vea ling sincc it is written by an assisrant co RUllNER. HeTe form." (RUßNEU 1913:8) "bio lobrical standards" are already rcadily applied to the wel­ 76. For a case study on Coblcnz and Cologne in the fooel crisis fare system and KISSKALT became rather activc in studying of Warld War I stressing "Fooel: Thc Caralyst of Unrest" and advising thc public sour küchen movcmcnt ("Volks­ cf. BOTT (1985: 223ff.). For a general argument strcssing the küchen"); cf. KISSKALT 1908. Tole of rationing in (British) welfare state dcvclopmcnt cf. 74. On thc leading disciplincs in welfare reform at the time and GOODIN, DRYZEK 1987: 64ff. their competition cf. S ACI-I SS E, lENNsTEDT 1988: amongst 77. This rcmaincd visiblc in post-War 3ttacks offarmcrs' orga­ others 21. nizations (in this case thc Deutscher Landbund) on thc CO ll-

23 reached out to newly impoverished social strata, de­ Rationing started with bread and Rour in]anuary pendency rising to new heights and in the process of 1915, the only area were it was effective in an egal­ politicizing the welfare state's dealing with the old itarian way throughout the country and throughout ("traditional poverty") and the new poor ("political the entire War. Soon it was extended formally in a poverty")7B at the same time. Under war-time con­ uniform way to potatoes and meat, but here with ditions these developments could not be politicized increasing inegalitarian consequencesBI as the War to the fullest, but in the post-War period most of went on (cf. ROERKOHL 1987: 357ff.). The first food these restraints were lifted. riots occurred in the winter of 1915. By summer of Germany's dependence on food imports79 and the 1916 all main elements of nutrition were rationed British "food blockade"-called "hunger blockade" (ROERKOHL 1987: 343), covering more than 90.6% ("Hunger Blockade") in Germany-, al ready ex­ of energy intake (RUBNER 1928: 19). BJ posed her to rationing conditions in 1915, which Even though a "nutritional dictatorship" ("Le­ the British did not suffer for another two years and bensmitteldiktator") had been hoped for, by May only for a short time, BO and which the U. S. never 1916 only a "Kriegsernährungsamt"B4 had been even approached. Food planning and caloric cal­ founded. This was, after all, the first national wel­ culations now extended from individuals or groups fare bureaucracy built by the Reich; nevertheless, it or institutions to the whole nation (cf. LUSK 1915); was powerless against the developing black markets. it grew, in terms of energy, to a concept compar­ With rationing, uniform standards were set for the able with todays "GNP". Very ea rly in the War, whole Reich-a level of standardization unheard Germany was moving towards aperiod of perma­ of in "normal welfare"-, with special allmvances nent privation lasting weil beyonel the War until for heavy workers. An extensive, as well as inten­ 1923. Rationing meant utilizing nutritional exper­ sive, set of regulations was developed, prompting tise in setting up planning and di stribution instru­ caricatures, which pointed at the overregulation of ments, e.g. "coupons", for a whole society at War; it diet in the rationing system (cf. Figure 2.1). Also, also meant nutritionists' administration of utmost since ] uly 1916, sta tistics on the adequacy of nutri­ scarcity, wh ich soon even made attaining a min­ tion, that is on "outcomes", were gathered for the inlUfll "existence" standardS! a utopian goal. Ra­ first time (ROERKOHL 1987: 343), also a novelty if tioning emerged as a step-by-step movement to­ compared with peace time welfare delivery. wards ((a state organjzed total war economy in nu­ "Calories" suddenly-and much later than in trition" (THJTEBERG, WIEGELMANN 1972: 60). the U. S.-became a "popular" notion, a house­ hold word (TEUTEBERG, WIEGELMANN 1972: 147). tinucd state rcgul::ltion cf their markets in 1919: "The Fedcral They no longer remained contained within total in­ govcrnmcnt now finally got to abandon its false premises, espccially thc crroneous feeling of rcsponsibility and ac­ stimtions, top state administrations and university countability, still taday, fcr thc nutritional well-being of cach physiological institutes. Still, ration coupons were and cvcry citizcn" (cited according to ROERKOJ-lL t 987: 367). no guarantees or distribution certificates, but rather 78. Since this povcrty was induced by thc War, the idea "ta maximum allotments ("Sperr-Karten"), depending change one's lot via polities" (GÜNTHEIt 1932 : 273) was a n:1t­ mal and endemie one to me new poor (cf. on their size and on the availabilityof the rationed goods-mu! on the composition ibid: 224-265). purchasing power, the income, of the inclividual .B 5 79. Espcci:1l1y for vegctable fats and milk produets. Rationing, haphazard at first, had its own political, 80. "Austcrity did not in fact becomc scvcre in Britain un- autonomous, welfare state logic, weil described by 01 191 7 ... Private and loeal rationing sehcl1lcs eventually gave way in April 1918 to a naoonwide rationing system. MAx RUBNER: Yet there was at 00 time widespread priv:1 tion in Britain :1nd the effect of shortages anel rationing was rather to level the 82. Ir is here that the black market builds, exploding in 1917/ 18 standards of nutrition amoog social c1asscs than to deprive .nd vividly dcscribed by RUDNER (1928). the paar." (MARWICK 1974: 60) For a dcrailed comparison 83. Por arecent study which also addresses dle food situati on of Britain and Gennany cf. W".LIAM S especially for the crisis ofthe lower classcs in \tVorid Wad cf. DANIEL 1989. year 191 7 ( 197 1: 223-240--Germany: "the grear run-down"; 84. After 1919 "Ernährunbrsministcrium". 178-198-England: "me speetre of starvatjon"). 85. Price regulations, bulk purchascs, stare ovcrtaking of food 8 1. An "cxistcnce sta ndard", in contrast to a "subsisre nee stand­ production enterprises and branches etc. werc lIscd as COI11- ard" jusr providcs enough energy to susrain life withollt any plcmentary instrum cnts to rationing at thc "conslllllcr end" relevant ex penditllrc of energy. as in work, ctc. (c f. ROERKOHL 1987).

24 Figure 2.1: Krauses weekend vacation in the Grunewald

Source: Zeitbilder, Supplement to Vossische Zeitung April 7, 1916 (from ROERKOHL 1987:337).

"A reaUy decisive Eeonomic Plan will have to develop minimum benefitscales; basic Federal finaneing; no bread and other allotments to true and adequate recoupment (cf. SACHSSE, TENNSTEDT 1988:49ff.). rations, providing enough bread, butter, milk, pota­ Sinee in many cities about a third of the population [oes, and meat to the individual for subsistence. We was on welfare, such developments were significant are getting cvcr düser to the qucstion, so readily for many and were to have wide repercussions after evaded until now, what reaHy is the minimum nu­ tritional need of the population. In administrative the War was lost. circles weoften encounter the absurd prejudice, that Since rations, however meager, did set a uniform scientific research on nutrition is aiming forutopian nationwide "measuring rod" for individual incomes ideals, at luxurious nutrition for cach anel cvery­ at the bottom, old and new welfare benefit lev­ one ... As long as only a few foodstuffs are rationed, els immediately became a Reich-wide issue when it is not important whether the rations allocated are they proved insufficient to obtain even rations. adequatc. Onee all food stuffs are rationed-as is Thus, welfare policies and nutritional standards the case in thc military-the surn total of nutrition obtained has to be suffieient, sinec other foodstuffs were linked, or-better-short-circuited, crystalliz­ will not be available any more" (1916: 3 7). ing pressures for uniformiry and "adequate" benefit levels in the welfare systems. Neither the rations nor War Welfare, and surely The War impoverished social strata, wh ich had not loeal welfare, could in any way live up to expec­ never be fore been touched by welfare: public ser­ tations of adequacy raised in the now fashionable vants, small shop keepers, independent profession­ discourse about and research on calories and nutri­ als, "the middling c1asses" (cf. MOMMSEN 1988: 34ff.), tional minima, and not even to wartime prOlTllSeS and especially the families of the drafted soldiers. It inherent in rations based on "existence standards". was in the War Welfare Scheme ("Kriegsfürsorge") Nevertheless, processes of policy standardization for soldiers' dependents that prewar demands made linked with "adequacy" had been set in motion. for general welfare reform for so me time were first realized systematically: a right to welfare; standard

25 2.2.3 Developments after World War I 1924 welfare reforms for th e first time mandated a loeal standard and regulated some procedures for Germany's involvement in the War had perma­ setting benefit sca les; they were the first step toward nently shifted the loeus of the domestie policycenter a universal national standard in welfare benefits (cf. from the states to the Reich. The seal es did not only LEIBFRJED 1986; 1981). "The entering wedge were turn fi scall y, as in the U. S. The Reich was no longer the new groups" (SACHSSE, TENNSTEDT 1988: 178), taking a stipend from state and local governments, tl,e coupling of tl,e old and the new poor in basieally but raised its own taxes, now itself redistributing one standard formula9o Nevertheless, it took until so me of their yield back to the states (ENGELI 1983). 1941 and 1955/ 1961 for a firm nutrition based na­ The Reich, for the first time after th e Kriegser­ tional standard to take hold, and only in the 19605 nährungsamt, got involved systematica lly in welf.re did it develop into a unitary national standard. policy proper, a heretofore unehallenged domain of From World War Ionwards the minimum nour­ loeal government. Also, famine, beginning in 1915, ishment standard matured into a moral infrastrue­ did not end in 19 18, but eontinued throughout the ture of a universal right to welfare, whi eh every inA.tion period until 1923 (TYSZKA 1934), inten­ citizen without means eould claim (cf. LEIBFRJED sifying welfare dependeney even further. In 1924, et al. 1984a; 1984b; H EISIG 1989). In Germany a tl,e sum of 1. 7 million War dependents, 1.5 million split between astate "statistical standard" and astate veterans, 0.5 million impoverished self-employed, "delivery standard", as it exists in the U. S., never de­ 2.6 million impoverished pensioners may indieate veloped. Sinee Germany developed a universal and the dramatiea ll y esealating growth of welfare need uniform right to sustenance-not only to food­ (SAC HSSE, TENNSTEDT 1988: 81). Now challenges there was not so mueh of an urgent need for an to the soeial insuranee system in the name of a independent measurement of poverty. One might "citizenship's pension"-a sort of "guaranteed an­ therefore say, that in Germany an independent sta­ nual ineome" opposed to graduated soeial seeurity tistieal standard was submerged in a universal and provisions-gained a wider pohtieal support for the uniform right to welfare. In the U . S., however, the first time (SACHSSE, TENNSTEDT 1988: 78f.). ineomplete development of the welfare state left The 1924 welfare reforms built on War wel­ ample spaee for a prominent statisti ea l standard, fare legislation and on the forerunners of 1922 , whieh in a sense gauged the developmental gap it­ whieh had addressed only the new poor. The re­ self. In Germany, some soeial support at the start forms were energized by eontinued agitation, in­ also eame from the working-c1ass movement, sinee formed montllly by a "private" publieation meas­ uring ineomes against a "poverty line" built on a is a peculiar German fe ature, not found as strongly in the U . S., and certainly not in ehe l' agricultural nexus". 86 nutritional standard This standard was built by \Nhereas ehe American state, not only in ehc uagricultural ROßERT (RENE) KUCZYNSKI 87 (1921) on the nutri­ nexus", was built on reform cu ltures, whieh spread aeross tional research done by NATHAN ZUNTZ88 89 The mu eh of ehe territory and were all but monopoli zed by Wash­ ington, DC, :lIld whcreas the national state's organizati on itselfwas spread across the country, dlC German ami Prussian 86. Interestingly cnough the "povercy line" was pionccrcd ear­ State was fixa ted on Berlin as ehe capital city and on reform Ii er in England (BOWLEV, BURNETT-HuRST 1915) duri ng developmcnts dlcrc. The state's capacity to aet was rather World WarI. Cf. on the latcr German reccption of such hi gh in Gerrnany, but its capaeity to absorb social knowlcdge work by German reformers: HERMßERG 1929; furmer work was rather restrictcd regionally. In contrast, the capacity to of H ERMBERG cf. LEIBFRIED er al. 1985: 10 7 (n.8). aet was less pronounced in thc U. S. Federal state, but thc 87. Cf. Supplement on ßiographies ofKey Acrors. capacity to stimubte, work wieh and absorb such knowledge 88. Cf. Suppl ement on Biographies ofKey Actors. from all ovcr the U. S. was mu ch more enhanced. 89. ZUNTZ'S ca lorie formula did not deviate strongly from the 90. T hc formula gave th e "new poor" a supplcment to ehe basic Olle used by R U ßNER. ZUNTZ worked at ehe Agrieultural gra nt. The supplcmcnt was expressed as a fix ed-and polit­ Coll ege in Berlin-interestingly enough he was ehe only ically difficult to change- percentagc of the basic grant to physiologist holding achair :lOd workingwithin the German which all the poor-that is, especially, ch e "old poor" - had a agricultural connection. right. Thus boch groups were "chaincd" together in onc for­ T he t\vo major physiologists relevant for sodal pol­ mub: the new poor's poljti cal so-uggle, mosdy taking place icy changes, RUBNER and ZUNTZ, were located in Berlin. at the local levcl, for hi gher welfare paymcnts aimed at rai s­ KUCZYNSKI developed his standard there. The eoncentration in g the basic grant for all-dlus also increasing the absolute of thc reform linbge and its research base in the capital city amount of the supplement due the new poor.

26 many reClplents of social insurance pensions (up tionwide benefit reached. The standard per se was to one-third) and unemployment grants depended unified completely in 1955 by a national agree­ on supplementary welfare payments. For the lower ment within the "welfare-philanthropy complex". strata of the working class, which were becoming A "market basket" was introduced. This stand­ increasingly important to the unions, and also for ard was incorporated into national Jaw with the the dependents of the middle strata (widows' and "Bundessozialhilfegesetz" of 1961 and adapted to orphans' benefits), welfare had not yet become a changed living habits in 1962 (HEISIG 1989; PE­ marginal issue, but was still integral to the meaning TERSEN 1972)94 and again in 1970. Bot due to slow of "welfare state". implementation of the standard-arnplified espe­ A formal Reich's wide Jinkage of the 1924 stand­ cially by a sJuggish erosion of regional disparities ards to sllbstantive criteria for need, which informed in costs of living-effective uniformity in benefit the setting of scales also by proving "adequate nour­ standards was only achieved by the later '60s. ishment", was not to come until World War TI. The centerpiece of the "market basket approach" The "Benefit Standard Decree" ("Richtsatz-Erlaß") ("Warenkorb-Prinzip") was the nutritionally ade­ of October 31,1941 (RMBliVJI 1941:1951) es­ quate diet. "The scientific base" provided by phys­ tablished the "needs principle" ("Bedarfsprinzip") iologists was to provide the magie formula for de­ demanding that local governments show in detail politicizing standard setting.95 This reform became how the benefit standard met "necessities for sub­ effective as a sideline to the major social security re­ sistence". The NS-regime dealtwith what theycon­ form of 1957 ("dynamizing pensions")-"the with­ sidered the "undeserving" poor by repressive means ering away of welfare" was expected, leaving room mostly outside of the welfare system: by tighter for a more radical reform of the welfare scheme policing of the labor market, by internment----Dr to the benefit of the occasional recipient of wel­ worse----Df so me groups in concentration camps, fare expected in the future, slipping in and out of which could otl,erwise have drawn welfare pay­ welfare in a short time. Though these expectations ments. Administrative and benefit improvements turned sour, they helped to firmly anchor a uniform could, therefore, be readily directed by the urge national standard of a universal welfare system to to stabilize the "horne front" through an "aryan a minimum nutritional baseline for the decades to welfare" reform. Again rationing, which had been come.96 decreed92 on August 27,1939, and which extended to most basic food stuffs,93 crystallized conflict and 94. World W.rII racioning, .nd especi.lly the 1955 .nd 1962 served as an action forcing mechanism on the wel­ "market baskct" in welfare are essentially associated with olle fare state in general. person's work: Prof. HEINRICH KRAUT of the now Max Planck Institute for PhysiologyofWork in Dortmund, the successor Not until the 19605 was a truly uniform na- institute to RUBNER'S. Cf. KRA1ITetal. 1939; KRA1IT, BRAMSEL 1951, which reHes on a study done for the govcrnment's ra­ tioning administration in the 1940s, and KRAUT 1955; 1957, 91. M_inisterialblatt des Reichs- und Preußischen Ministeriums which describe the nutritiorust's role in setting the welfare des lonern. standard. Cf. Supplement on Biographics ofKey Actors. 92. Thc massive rationing now taking place was specifically and 95. The depoliticization of setting standards was not as ef­ directly based 011 nutritional minima (cf. SPERLING 1955: 217- fective in Germany as in the U. S. (for the latter cf. 38 1; WERNER 1983:44-50). The caloric measurcment was WEAVER 1988, 115ff.). M.ny of the .rucks .nd descabi1izing now also used [0 mea sure the impact of rationing on the tendencies, though, related to the non-food components of population in the regular Reich's Statistics. Also the caloric the standard, i.e. to "culrural nceds". mcasurcmcnt IlOW was used here and thefe in loeal welfare 96. Welfare state rctrenchment in the area of Sozialhilfe has benefit scales. shaken the nutritional linkage of the benefit scale some­ For thc NS-regime World War! and its "aftermath" had what. Indcxation inherent in the standard was tampered been a lesson also in the area of nutrition. The pre-War with from ) 981 CO 1985-with a reform disclIssion aris­ years were used to prcparc for German "self-sufficicncy" ing which aimed at introducing a linkage with empiriea) in agricultural production. Plans for guarantccing and ad­ srudies of consumprion patterns. By ) 989 the standard had ministering a nutritional minimum wcre laid out weil in not changed-an "i ntermediate version" of the old standard advance-and wcrc quite effective, if one takes World War I was applied. The new standard was introduced in J 990/9 J . as. comparison (cf. BURCIIARDT 1974; PETZINA 1981,79). Cf. I-lANEscu et a1. 1988; GAU'EIUN 1988; GnossJoHANN, 93. At first potatoes, fresh fruit, vegetables and poultry were HARTMANN 1986a; J 986b; Gutachtliche Äußerung 1989; exempted &001 rationing (cf. VOORHIES 1942: 33). TSCHOEPE 1987; SCHELLHORN 1989.

27

3 Trends of State Institutionalization including the Nazi period-with a small period of of Minima Compared set-backs from 1949 to the early '50s. First, public responsibility for basic nourisbment rights had to be accepted as abasie welfare state 3.1 Universalization of Entitlement through responsibility. This breakthrough presupposed ex­ the Central State and Nourishment ceptional cireumstances in both countries, espe­ cially strata of newly impoverished poorl that would ("Residual") Universality and central state welfare politicize as weil as add to the old poverty, which policy have merged most readily along a "nourish­ until then had so readily been taken as "natural", ment" path, a food standard-at least in the U . S. at least as a given . The "normative standards", pro­ and (West) Germany. In the U. S., the only pro­ duced by nutritional physiology and buttressed by gram today close to a "mini-negative income tax" empirical studies, which revealed wide-spread defi­ (NATHAN 1976: 10), even with a liberal benefit re­ ciencies in diet and income, could help to overcome duetion rate (a t least in the 19705), is still Food the inertia of the status qua, if they were sufficiently Stamps.1 Ir is the only American universal, as weil discrepant with social reality, such that they could as uniform means-tested, national program,2 even not be used as an affirmative "educational" state though its development into such a strategie ele­ policy device only.4 ment of the safety net was more an unintended In the U. S. tl,e nutritional issue was developed consequence of policy than systematic design. In by political entrepreneurs who had build the "agri­ West Germany, such a minimum diet approach has cultural nexus" first, the pulpit from which they been the centerpiece of post World War II welfare then could preach their scientific (reform) gospel. of "Sozialhilfe", which covers all and not just food In Germany, the subject was developed more in the needs. context of normal differentiation and specialization In both countries the systematic linking of nutri­ wichin state universities; development relied more tional standards to the Federal state's transfer policy on pure rese"",h entrepreneurs-on public servants, was an extended and convoluted process. In the who were also drawn into established and expected U. S., it lasted from the 19305 to 1970; in (West) advisory functions by the state. Once chis res pon­ Germany from 1924 to the 19605. In the U. S., itwas sibility for basic nourishment was institutionalized a process worked out more in the accustomed "big and weil entrenched in public policy, nutritional ad­ bang" pattern-though the build-up of an educa­ equacy would become the state's issue, and suitable tional potential happened incrementally, preparing standardization the terrain for permanent policy for the "bang". In Germany there were steady and conAict. Now formal knowledge and knowledge­ incremental gains at the transfer level since 1924, bearing professionals, horne economists, physiolo­ gists5 as weil as economists, were routinely drawn 1. Some students of this epoch have strcssed 551 as a !\TJ.T into chis process of the state's standard building "sim il e". Sincc SSI is a privileged version of AFDC, only addressed [0 the aged, that secms much less appropriatc [0 3. The "new poor" in Germany at first were the impoverishcd me than ie does in thc case of Food Stamps. middle c1asses in and-with inAation-afterWorid War! 2. Also, Food Stamps rcaches more pcople than any other Fed­ (pre-World War] inflation had already Iaid same ground for eral welfare program and is fi scally most prominent ar ehe this development). Federallcvel. According co ELLWOOD (1988: 32) expenditurcs In the U. S. during the Great Depression the "new paar" have dcveloped as fo llows: rather were the impoverished industrial and agriculrural c1asses; in later decades the great social changes in the South, 1960 1976 \984 with its effects on migration to other parts of the country, also Public Assistance (primarily AFDC) 6.0 20.8 \7. \ need to be mentioned here. Food Assistance \.4 \4.4 \6.2 (Food Smmps/Cruld Nutrition) 4. In Germany continuing famine until 1923 created such an obvious di screpancy even to the widely held lower chemical Since Public Assist::mce expenditures include significant standard. In thc U. S. the faster coming ofthe vitamin stand­ amounts of state and local expenditures (AFDe rclated or ard created same discrepancy, but it was not strang cnough for public ass istance in general), whereas the Food Assis­ to overcome thc "cducational indine" in a decade of post­ tanee expendirures are eompletely federal, the development World War I prosperity. of the towering significance of Food Assistance in the Federal 5. That physiologists playa more prominent role in Germany budget is easily pcrceived. man in the U. S. derives &om the fact, that hame economics

29 and refinement, since they were thought to pos­ 3.2 Social Knowledge and the Totalization of sess unquestionable expertise useful for setting the Institutions by the State parameters of standardization. Nutritional knowledge6 in both countries could In.both countries the genesis and development of only be important in the formation ofthe state's eapae­ relevant formal knowledge (nutritional physiology; ity to aet as welfare state because it was part of a "di­ biochemistry) was part and parcel of the manage­ mate shift" in the over-all soeietal "moral economy": ment of total institutions, for the most part at the From the second half of the nineteenth century on­ state level (jails and prisons, almshouses, hospitals), wards the hegemonie view of"poverty" as "fate" was but also at the Federal level (arrny, federal prisons) . broken in Germany, a process starting in the U. S. State intervention and nutrition were Inarried early only around the turn of the century (cf. HUNTER on, though later and less rigidly in the U. S. than in 1904; PATI·ERSON 1981:7ff.). Poverty ceased to be Germany. This institutional management approach seen as a matter of"nanrral conditions" in Germany was-slowly in the U. S. and radically in Germany or as a character Aaw in the U . S. lnstead a view of (due to the two world Wars)-extended to all of poverty as a "soeial product", a "soeial pathology" civil society, with the welfare state assuming the role began to prevail, as a situation amenable to human, of a basic provider and dietary regulator.1 8 In both espeeially to public, to state action, that is to "so­ countries shifting from individual to maS5 quarters eial policy". The feasibility of a teclmical solution to in the army in the second half of the 19th cen­ poverty support, in this case the idea of a "scien­ tury, and the shift from more "individuali zed" liv­ tific minimum", was at the same time instrumental ing arrangements in the countryside to mass urban in criticizing aoel challenging traditional poverty working-c1ass dwellings at the turn of the century regimes, and was not just a consequence of shifting became the socio-empirical base for the growth of political climates. such fo rmal soeial knowl edge itsel f. The War ex­ perience supported the totalization of this institu­ tional management pattern, more so and sooner in Germany than in the U. S. But in the U. S. the management of food supplies for the Allies and for

7. Nutritional physiology on its way to social knowledge, in­ is still raday a basic part ofGerman general education ami not forming (and constituting) state capa city to regulate, is en­ so weil cntrenched in dietary research. Thus central comri­ riched by different social science elements: statistics and eco­ butions addrcssing the benefit standards aod done by haIne nomics; social work and "home economics". "Social hygiene" economists date form the 19805, mus not yet having l11u ch was the first link betwecn state social poli cy construction and impact. medical science. The border of the legitimation of welfare 6. In The U. S., one might say that such formal knowledge, state intervention was first crossed in both countries by the focusing on an imal nutrition, first served [0 make surplus deli very of social services not by monetary transfers: In Ger­ production in agriculture possible. Thcn, ru rning to human many, the focus was "health (insurance)", nutritional stand­ nutrition, it was used sporadicall y as a distribution princi­ ards being justone aspect; in thc U. 5., the focus was more on pie for, but more often as a morali zation principle about, an (educational) campaign for the habitual and moral better­ such an agricultural surplus. Gnly in the 1970s, when Food ment of the poor, which never led to health insurance etc., Stamps were fuHy establi shed as a national Roor under civilian la ced with some (Iare) in-kind transfers. The "service con­ consumption, did such formal knowledge gain an indepen­ nection" is more apt to tie in with middle-c1ass professional dent status as a formal legal dimension of social citizenship interests of the "delivering c1asses"; al so transfers in -kind are (cr. RODWAY v. USDA 1975:823f.). Now th e state mi ght no more compatible widl a "control strategy" in dclivery of so­ longer automatically ignore "generali zed, eas ily quantified, cia l goods. and very easily verified" (ibid.:823) characteristics of recipi­ 8.0ne might see in the Food Plan itsclf an example of the ents as they had evolved in nutritional science. (Cf. also Food totalization of an institution al approach. Thc high level of Stamp Program 19 75 on the consequences of the Supreme specification and planning needed to live (cook) according Court's decision.) to a Food Plan is likely to bc available and of use only in But since nutritional standards of the food plans are put an institutional setting, wi th professional expertise (of home to use in the framework of an absolute definition of poverty, economists) at hand. An individual household is totally un­ they confer a "social citizenship second d ass" only and are likely to realize any of the economies in conforming to a food not generally th ought o f as the primary level for an inclusive plan and its normal routines of cooking are in most cvery case base of citizensrup for all. completely at odds with the food plan approach.

30 neutral countries in both Wars, nevertheless, linked How are the marked differenees in the evolution of the minimum eoneept for the first time with Amer­ these poliey patterns, whieh are still visible today, iean (foreign) soeial policy. Thus, state aetions di­ explained? reeted the institutionalization of researeh-and its specialization-earlyon. Close cireuiting nutritional eoneepts of a mini­ 3.3 The Distinct Relevance ofWar for the mum and social poliey allowed-in the long run­ Formation of the Welfare State for the rise of a different eoncept of welfare pol­ iey, where standards would develop autonomous­ For Germany, the War experience of rationing and ly-without political interference-according to War Welfare- followed by a singular9 period of pri­ ehanges in priees, in the Reeommended Dietary vation immediately after World War I-were the Allowanees, and in eonsumption patterns, a situ­ most signifieant faetors for welfare state "univer­ ation weil eaptured in the expression "automatie saLization" with its nexus to "minimum building" government" (WEAVER 1988). Standard setting by in nutritional coneepts and welfare schemes. War the medieallbiochemistry/nutritionist profession as the major, dassical exereise of state power thus was slowly ineorporated into national public policy, plays a crucial role in the German ease. On the effeetively indexing benefits, extraeting this aspeet "home front" in Germany, World War I was fought from polities and foeusing conAiets on other aspeets over social reform issues such as reeognition of trade of the program, even in times of welfare state re­ unions, equal franchise, War Welfare improvement. trenchment (cf. ibid.: 105ff.). In the language of the That lent support to a radiealization of indusive­ Reagan administration: ness after defeat in 1918 as well. lO Germany-in contrast to Britain-experieneed total war, with "Changes in the cost of food items in the Thrifty the attendant devastation and disruption, first in Food Plan trigger changes in thc values of the al­ World War I, testing existing institutions to the ex­ lotment of food stamp rccipients. Thereforc, whcn treme, stressing participation of formerly exduded food costs fise, participating families receive higher groups.ll Here one would have an early German food stamp aJlotments." (Report 1984: 16) example for "one eharaeteristie path to the welfare Sinee the dients of the welfare state "are het­ state" (GOODlN, DRYZEK 1987: 45), namely, in that erogeneous, scattered, and relatively weak", formal "the pervasive uneertainty of wartime led to a new knowledge was more readily imposed on them (cf. popular demand for risk-spreading and broke down FREIDSON 1986: 227). But this imposition was also to old barriers to it" (ibid.: 46). In no dimension was proteet them to a eertain extent, sinee "knowledge the U. S. affected so strongly. Thus, social change providers" would also step in to shield such stand­ and its public ineorporation would be expeeted to ards, which would be used byyet another profession, take place more forcefully in Germany than in the lawyers, to enforee rights and coherenee. Also, sinee U.S. the 1970s, professional aetivists could now enter the For the U. S. social reform issues were not as in­ field, both in Germany and in the U . S. (cf. BERRY tegral to the central state's war effort as they were 1984:93-97, 130,134; WEAVER 1988: 101ff.). They in Germany-this was so even in World War II, would find a terrain weil prepared for such "sur­ rogate action", i.e. professional action whieh takes the plaee of social movements, and could exploit in­ herent contradictions as weil as mobilize additional 9. Ncither thc U.K., Italy, France nor the U. S. sha red such expertise for the cause. The further one goes back cumulated expericnces bcrween 1914 :md 1922. 10. 'TiTMUSS writes about ßritain's "demostrategy" in Wodd historieally, the more this imposition tends to be WarII, that "the war could not be won unless millions of one-sided, that is not balanced by dient benefits in ordinary peoplc ... were convinced that we had something terms of proteetion gained. better [0 offer than had our enemies-not only during but after the war" (195 8:82). For Germany this holds truc for bocl, World \MIrS. Until now the eondusion has foeused more on fae­ 11. These are some of th e major basic sta ndards MARWICK uscs tors common to U. S. and German development. in his compari son of the war experiencc (1974: 217).

31 which affected the U. S. more than World War V 2 contributing.ll Also, edueational aetivities started And also, if one is to speak of rationing at all, within USDA, mainly eentering on the Bureau of U. S. "rationing was perhaps the least onerous ever Horne Eeonomies and the Extension Service; this undertaken by a modern nation at war" (LEVEN­ was supportive to the growth of agendered pro­ STEIN 1988: 141). Thus, in the U.S., welfare re­ fession, "horne econornics", in land grant colleges, forms at the Federal level, which link "minimum whieh was weil focused on managing scareity of concepts" to publie policy, are rather reaetions to food resourees. ROSSITER speaks about the peeu­ social upheavals and to change in peaeetime, be Iiar scienee-agriculture linkage in the U. S. , which it in the Great Depression, or in the 19605 and is assoeiated with the "phenomenon of force-fed subsequently, when far the first time stronger wel­ specialization" (1975:212), thus highlighting the fare state linkages between nutritional minima anel role of the state, of the funding agencies outside soeial policy programs are formed. Thus, to vary of seience, for the pattern of seien ce development an old theme, war as "the mother of all states" itself. This also aceents the special role of the agri­ (SKOWRONEK 1982: 10) was eentral to the buildingof eultural bureaucracy in being among the first to the national German welfare state, but it remained remake "the deeentralized eharaeter of the Ameri­ peripheral to U. S. national welfare state building. can politieal system" (HOLLlNGSWORTH 1978: 163), "To expand people's moral horizons" (GOODlN, thus allowing-also-some welfare poliey to erys­ DRYZEK 1987:67) by shoeks of uneertainty took tallize there. Surplus disposal, a seetoral interest quite different paths in Germany eompared with the weil served by USDA and dominant in early eom­ U. S.: In Germany it was the universal, c1ass tran­ modity and Food Stamp programs (1939-1943; seendent uneertainty of total war, in the U. S. the 1961- 1970), and feeding the hungry have always more narrow c1ass uneertainty due to the Great De­ coexisted uneasily in U. S. soeial policy. "Welfare" pression, though eombineel with a notion to surely goals gained the upper hand only since the 1970s, not allow hunger in the land of plenty, whieh turned but then eompletely displaeed mueh of the earlie .. the tide. logie of surplus disposal. The "surplus" connec­ tion still explains some of the "in-kind" tilt in U. S. development. 3.4 The Peculiarities of Linkage Between Furthermore, diseussions of Food Stamps and Nutritional Standards and State Policy similar programs have foeused from the beginning on the "immllnity" of these benefits; that is, on In the U . S. the "agricultural connection" (HAR­ whether Food Stamps shall be eounted as ineome WOOD 1987: 399), forged within the Federal state, when reeeiving other ineomes- and means-tested has shaped welfare poliey heavily from the 18805 welfare state benefits or not. That is not explained onwards, as the government's attention broaelened simply by the stingy levels of welfare benefits in in scope frorn "animal fations" to human nOUf­ other programs, such as AFDC, but also by the tra­ ishment. The physiologieal eoneept of the min­ dition of "surplus disposal". To stimulate additional imum was (ATWATER'S "soft coal" standarel) de­ food eonsumption presupposed extensive immu­ velopeel in the orbit of the Departrnent of Agri­ nity. eulture, its seienee system (Agrieultural Experi­ In Germany, linkages were more "universal­ ment Stations, land grant colleges) and lobby net­ ist" from the start. General university physiology work. Nutritional knowleelge was further elevel­ (EuLNER 1976; 1970)-not ehernistry or later bio­ opeel in the same eontext (McCollum's vitamins; ehemistry-and its haphazard ties to the different elietary studies), with ehemistry, physiology and departments of Prussia and the Reich mattered later bioehemistry (wh ich eonsolidated mueh ear­ (justice-tprisons; interior-twelfare; war--tsoldiers' lier in the U. S. (HARWOOD 1987; KOHLER 1982) al\ rations; bm not to agricultllre). Edueational aetivities were tied to a home eeonornies, whieh grew as part

12. At the state level, though, social reform did makc same 13. The bter involvement ofthe university community in the progress. The major bacldash for social reforms happened U. S., diminished the scientiflc wcight of the agricultural fight after World War I, not during the War itself. connection.

32 of the general teaching profession (TORNIEPORTH policy, interestingly enough, evolved first vis a vis 1979) and thus was part of a more ambitious ped­ the A1lies-and neutrals-in both World Wars, and agogical curriculum. This profession never had not in domestie poliey, not even during the Great specific ties to agriculture and did not pay as much Depression when surplus disposal reigned. attention to low cost diets as did its U. S. counter­ part. The minimum approach became loosely linked to a general welfare reform movement in the in­ 3.6 "Moral Economy of the Welfare State"­ flationary period (the KUCZYNSKI, ZUN'rz standard) Phasing Symbolic vs. Delivery Politics from 1924 onwards. In Germany after World War I, "in-kind" approaches to nourishment never were a What seems most remarkable abaut the U. S. case, is general issue, but only of concern for short-lived the state's universal "moralization" of nutrition and crisis management (soup lcitchens) or for "case work income, which lasted from the 1880s to the early intervention" when managing individual ca ses of 1960s-more apologetic until World War I, more "deviance" (a1coholism, etc.). That other resources inclined to a living wage in the deeades afterwards. would not be given "immunity", that they would This moralization has been supported by the Fed­ be counted in incomes- and means-testing, is al­ eral government rather extensively since the Great most consistencly adhered to since cl,e 1890s. Strict Depression. To learn "How to Get by with What means-testing in Germany is, in contrast to the you Got" ("education") was stressed, not a univer­ U. S., tied to the notion of an adequate welfare level sal assistanee policy or a universal food program. from the very start (CUNO 1894). Counting small This long period of moralization was not eut short pensions, for example, as income would otherwise or punctured by famine, and it was reenforced by have been so unpopular as to endanger the whole a higher level of individualization and anti-statism. rationalization effort in the local welfare state. In the U. S. privation never evolved as a compact national issue, it always stayed diffuse and was not systematically tied to the standard of nourishment 3.5 Divergence in the Evolution of the of the population as a whole. 14 At most it could be Scientific Standard politicized regionally, as in the 1960s. While this stands for a tradition of social negleet, the "educa­ The developmentof the scientific standard itself dif­ tion phase" also prepared the ground for an effee­ fers in scope. The "chemical" bias of the standard tive poverty line (1965ff.) and for indexing Food was more enduring in Germany, probably also due 14. Nutrition in ehe inter-war period was held to be only to the greater eautiousness of research in the Ger­ loosely connected [0 diseases of "unknown origin" likc pel­ man university setting. But due to rationing and lagra, ehe "occupational disease" of the agricultural work­ then to famine conditions from 1915 to 1923 this ing dass of ehe sauth, or to scurvy. But, "only one under­ proved to be not so important in the struggle for nourishcd person in ten wore such a visible badge of the improving social poliey benefits in Germany. The poor diet" (ETI-TERIOGE 1972:213), so such "individualized famine" could not bc attacked with a Public Health approach "biochemical" revolution (vitamins) of the standard only. (Tuberculosis, the corresponding worlcing class dis­ had most of its origins in the Uni ted States, where ease of the North, also had a strong nutritional and poverty it also made an earlier as weil as stronger public connection---cf. for example League of Nations 1937: 22ff., impact. This is due, at first, to the dynamie develop­ 81 f. ßut, since ulberculosis fitted the bacteriological ap­ proach, it could be more nicely individualized and a politi­ ment of the agricultural eonnection. It is also due to cization of the living standard was much further away than in a war-time domestic policy which stressed the new the case of pellagra.) Formal knowledge-and welfarc statc "protective foods". action---connected pellagra and povcrty: Aseries of Federal In the U. S., though, cl,e standard exclusively af­ (Public Health Service) statistical field studies established the fected domestie poliey symbolically. Federal "educa­ link hetween pellab'1'a , povcrty, the Southcrn diet ami thccot­ ton cconomy. In medieal expcriments finally a nutritional tion" efforts were aimed at a nutritious diet and at remedy was found (affordahlc brewcr's yeast), a workable voluntarily implemented nutrition "policy" in both stratcgy short of rcforming thc wholc Southcrn economie World Wars. The use of the minimum as a "de­ strueture. The life wark afJaseph Galdberger (1874-1929), livery standard", as an effective standard of social a PlIhlic Hcalth Officcr, was spcnt mainly strllggling with the various Iaycrs of the "C:lllSes" of pellagra.

33 Stamps from 1970 onwards, that is for depoliti­ only after 1955 and especially 1961. In Germany cizing this area through "automatie government" therefore the moralizing, the educational approach (WEAVER 1988). is soon submerged in a developing institutionalized In the U. S. the bridge to pub/ic po/icy app/ication universal welfare transfer m _inimUITI. A "vision de­ tlt the Federa//evel was built during a long phase of vice" for poverty policy in Germany, even vaguely "mirumalist education" of the public. 15 Such educa­ equivalent to the symbolic functions of the poverty tion found a Federal home, when home economics line in the U. S., does not exist. 16 research was established in the Agriculture Depart­ The pace of and the actors in the development of ment and spread with the concomitant growth of a the welfare state did not allow gender to do much gendered profession focusing on dietary standards of the work of class in Germany. Rather class wide and cooking. In the "poverty line" th.is educational minimum transfers were an immediate reaction to feature is still prominent today, even though only social upheaval in the class structure. experts know about its food base. Due to this en­ during symbolic policy of welfare, "in-kind" policies like Food Stamps may have gained more support than they would otherwise have had. This perva­ sive "moralization" of the issue of adequate nour­ ishment through education has engrained the nu­ tritional minimum much deeper in the American social fabric. In the U. S. "national administrative capacities" could only expand "through cracks in an edifice of rules of action and internal governmental con­ trols articulated by courts and parties" (SKOWRONEK 1982: 287). Asymbolic, educational approach would be the most likely to penetrate these cracks least ob­ trusively, to first move "beyond the state of courts and parties" (ibid.: 290) and, thus, to set the founda­ tion for later regulatory as weil as transfer politics. Also, one may note this as an interesti ng further U. S. case of "gender doing the work of class". The horne econonucs movetnentwas basicallya women's movement, the education phase therefore rested on women's employment at the Federal level and in the "agricultural nexus" of land grant colleges and of the Extension Service and on homemakers' active involvement in nutrition programs. In Germany the phase of moralization was cut short by an extensive period of developing famine (1915-1923) in World War! and some years there­ after, which was visited upon a majority of the pop­ ulation. The jump to an improvised "poverty line" approach (1919ff.), loosely connected to the Reich's efforts to standardize welfare payments (l924ff.), therefore came about very fast with "education" 16. In German economic research on povcrty the development ofindepcndcnt poverty standards has made a small comeback playing a prominent role until 1924, and further since the end of the 19705 (cf. HAUSER et al. 1981)j in the until 1933 . It took until 1941 for a firmer link­ first period of post-World War 1I welfare state retrenchmcnt. age to develop, a development which matured fully These approachcs havc basically been containcd within thc science system, and they are duc in no sm all part to a rcliance 15. "'"hiscomponentisstill rathervisible today: cf. DWYER 1983. on models used in U . S. cconomic research on poverty.

34 4 Biographies of Key Actors c1ass, standards that might prescribe a diet provid­ ing optimum food value at lowest cost" land also HELEN WOODARD ATWATER (May 29, 1876-June with creating the first standard food composition 26, 1947); home economist; only daughter OfWIL­ tables (USDA 1895)], which became "the building BUR OLIN ATWATER; B.L., Smith College, 1897; blocks for scientific cookery" (SHAPIRO 1986: 74). An 9 years assistant to her father; after A.'s death she adroit manipulator of political and business support, prepared a bibliography of his extensive writings on A. was able to demonstrate the value of such nu­ nutrition; she then joined the scientific staff of the tritional investigations to the Committee on Agri­ Office of Horne Economics in the USDA, where culture of th e House of Representatives, which in for fourteen yeafs (1909-23) she interpreted to ru­ 1894 began to support nutrition research, a pro­ ral women and homemakers the new knowledge of gram directed by A. until his death. By the first food values and preparation of food; her writings decade of the twentieth century, calorimetric work appeared mainly in departrnent publications and in had become an extremely popular, almost fashion­ the Journal of Home Economics; 1923, first full­ able field, with broad implications for public pol­ time editor of theJournal ofHome Economics. (cf. icy and popular health education. Ir is ironic that TODH UNTE R 1971). the total impact of A.'s nutrition work was some­ what c1ouded: his emphasis on caloric values-in WILBUR OLIN ATWATER (May 3, 1844 Johnsburg, the absence of knowledge of vitamin and anuno NY-September 22, 1907, Middletown, CT); nu­ acid requirements-Ied to recommendations that tritional physiologist; his father was a Methodist the working c1ass purchase carbohydrates and avoid preacher; B.A., Wesleyan University, 1865; post­ such "Iuxuries" as green vegetables (c f. ROSENBERG graduate work at Yale under chenust Samuel W. 1970; HARROW 1928; MAYNARD 1962). Johnson, a Leipzig graduate-student ofKarl Lud­ wig-and America's leading authority on agricul­ ROBERT COlT CtlAPIN Clanuary 4, 1863, Beloit, tural chemistry; Ph.D. 1869 on the composition WI-September 13, 1913, Whitefield, NH); eco­ of varieties of American maize; 1873, Professor of nomist; studied economics and theology at Beloit Chemistry, Wesleyan University. In 1875, the Con­ College, Yale, Berlin (1894/95) and Columbia Uni­ necticut legislature established firstAgricultural Ex­ versity (1906/07); deciding not to enter the active periment Station ("patterned largely after German ministry, he became Professor of History, Eco­ Stations, institutions admired by bothJohnson and nomics and Modern Languages at Drury College A."), directed by A. until 1877; after 1877 the sta­ since 1890; Professor ofPolitical Econorny at Beloit tion was relocated to New Haven and directed by College since 1892, teaching there also American Johnson. The 1887 Hatch Act, for which A. did in­ and European History at first; CIMPIN took spe­ tensive lobbying, provided for one station for each cial interest in the development of Sociology; since state-with A. as the first Chief of the Office ofEx­ 1908 his chair was endowed by Andrew Carnegie; periment Stations, established in the USDA to over­ his 1913 book was his "professionalliterary monu­ see and coordinate the work of all state experiment ment" (RrCHARDSON 1913:4)-the empirical study stations (until 1889, but only part-time). His suc­ was generously funded by the Russe ll Sage Foun­ cessor, A. C. TRUE, continued A.'s policies. In 1887 dation; member of the American Economic and A. made an extended visit to Europe, visiting with the American Historical Association, as weil as the KARL VOlT and MAX RUBNER in Munich, where he Anlerican Sociological Society (CHAPIN 1913; 1943; became interested in their work on calories. In ad­ RrCHARDSON 1913). dition, he developed a calorimeter, starting in 1892, together with the Wesleyan physicist Edward Ben­ WILLI CUNO (September 22, 1860, Berlin- May nett Rosa (A.-Rosa Calorimeter), completed in 1897 26, 1951, Hagen); city welfare official and writer; (cf. LUSK 1931: 61-74). "A. was not only interested son of the director of a public savi ngs- and loan as­ in metabolism as a problem of physiology, but also sociation; studied law. 1884, firstworkon welfare is­ with the use ofhis new technique for the determina­ sues while an assistant to the Berlin magistrate; since tion of improved dietary standards for the working 1894, city comrnissioner ("Stadtrat") in Königsberg;

35 1901-27 Mayor ofHagen; from 1896, member of Economies; 1923ff., specialist, Bureau of Home the plenary, then of the steering committee of the Economics (HUNT 1943). German Association ofPublic and Private Welfare, since 1923 memberofitsboardofdirectors;in 1924, HEINRI CH KRAUT (September 2, 1893, Stuttgart); member of its commission on welfare legislation; physiologist of nutrition and work; October 1913- developed into the expert on support rates in public April 1917, participated in World War I, April 1916, welfare (cf. CUNO 1894; 1898; 1927; 1933), plead­ injured,January 1918, pensioned as liemenant; stud­ ing against standardization ("schematization") and ied chemistryand physiology atTübingen, Stuttgart for rates which were to be used for the orientation of and Munieh; Ph.D. December 1921 in Munieh; the bureaucracy only (cf. DFG-Report 1987: sup­ 1922-April 1924 assistant at the chemical labora­ plement, XXXVI). tories of the state of Bavaria in Munieh; inaugural dissertation at Munich University in lune 1925; lOHN STANTON GOULD (March 14, 1812, New­ 1925-28 taught chem.istry in Munich as Privat­ port, Rl-August8, 1874, Hudson, NY); agricultur­ dozent; from 1928 directed nutrition-physiological ist; member of the Society of Friends; decided first research in the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physi­ to enter the print works of a relative as a chemist; ology ofWork; member of the "Reichsschaft Hoch­ studied in the physical sciences; owned a large farm schullehrer" in the Nazi-"Lehrerbund" as of]uly 1, in Columbia County, NY; active in agricultural "im­ 1933; member ofthe NSDAP as ofMay 1,1937; provement"; for some years President of the State in the pre-World War II and War period, K. led in Agricultural Society and, as such, member of the studies of nutrition of workers (KRAUT et al. 1939; Board of Trustees of Cornell University; temper­ KRAUT, BRAMsEL 1951) and of Russian concentra­ ance advocate; from 1846, member of the NY leg­ tion camp inmates, who were held under extreme islature; focused on prison and "total institutions" privation and some of whom died (Kraut papers, reform; in 1852, made first systematic study of"food Bundesarchiv); from 1951, independent Director and diet" in "total instirutions"; far many years or the Nutrition Research Unit of the Max Planck director and "executive officer" of the New York Institute, and since 1956 Director oftheMaxPlanck Prison Association. Institute for Nutrition Research in Dortmund; from Founder of the agriculture chair at Cornell Uni­ 1954-57 member of the plenary conunittee of the versity (Mechanics applied to Agriculture), he filled German Association of Public and Private Welfare; this position for twelve years (circa 1862-74); the expert member of the Committee on the Design Cornell Faculty Biography Folder says: "At a later of Support Rates (cf. amongst others KRAUT 1951; period Mr. Gould was elected to one of the non­ 1955; 1957); retired inJune 1965 (cf. DFG-Report resident professorships in the Institution, which in­ 1987: supplement, LVIIIf.). volved a double duty-a general duty as a lecturer before the entire graduating c1ass, upon the subject ROBERT [RENE] KUCZYNSKI (August 12,1876, Ber­ of Agriculture at large, and a special duty as Profes­ lin-November 25, 1947, London); economist, fo­ sor, in the Agriculture Department, of Mechanics cusing on statistics and public finance/public wel­ applied to Agriculture." (cf. GOULD 1874; 1888). fare; 1904-05, Director of the Bureau of Statistics of the City of Elberfeld; 1906-21, Director of the CAROLINELuISAHuNT (August 23, 1865 Chicago, Bureau of Statistics in Berlin-Schöneberg and fre­ IL-1927); food economist; B.A., Northwestern, quent cooperation with NATHAN ZUNTZ; editor of 1888; 1892-93, graduate work in chemistry there, "Deutsch-französische Wirtschaftskorrespondenz" 1893-94, at the University of Chicago; 1894-96 and "Finanzpolitische Korrespondenz", in which dietary studies in Chicago for the USDA; 1896- the reports on wage developments and minimum 1901, teacher of domestic economy at the Lewis standards appeared regularly; diverse publications, Institute in Chicago; 1903-08, Professor of Home so me with Lujo Brentano, on the economics of the Economies at the University of Wisconsin; 1909- welfare state (KUCZYNSKI 1957). 15, scientific assistant USDA for nutritional inves­ tigations; 1915-23, at the USDA's Office ofHome

36 GRAHAM LusK (February 15, 1866, Bridgeport, MOLLIE ORSHANSKY (191?, New York, NY); distri­ CT-July 18, 1932, New York, NY); physiologist; butional and family economist; daughter of a faJnily son of prominent NY family; BA, Columbia Uni­ emigrating from Russia; father, a tinsmith, repair­ versity School of Mines, 1887; graduate study in man, and later small grocery store owner; from a Germany with VOlT; Ph.D., Munich University, family of 6 daughters, of whom the younger 3 got 1891, on the inAuence of carbohydrates in pro­ to study; B.A., Hunter College, majoring in math­ tein metabolism; 1891 teacher of physiology at ematies and statistical theory; 1936 job as statis­ Yale Medical School; 1909, appointed Professor of tical elerk for the U. S. Clllldren's Bureau, work­ Physiology at Cornell Medical College. L.'s work ing on fanuly surveys; attendance of the Graduate centered on analysis of metabolie processes through School of USDA and of American University; in the use of the calorimeter in the analysis of in­ World War II one year (1942) in tl,e New York City take ami output. In 1912, L. was appointed also Health Department, then economist with the War as Scientific Director of the Russell Sage Institute Labor Board as head of the Division of Program of Pathology, which gave hirn adequate financial Research and Statistics; 1946-1958, economist with resources for a calorimeter and continuous ex­ the USDA interrupted only by a short stint with the perimentation; most inAuential was Ills text book Wage Stabilization Board during the Korean War; "Elements of the Science of Nutrition" (four edi­ at USDA, worked on Iiving standards and spending tions between 1906 and 1928); during World War I, patterns of American farm and city families, acquir­ L. was active as an advisor in matters of nutrition to ing famjliarity witl, the food plan approach in con­ the U. S. government, especially in setting up the sumption studies; 1958-81, research analyst for the "rations" for the English Ally; as late as 1932, he Social Security Adnunistration under IDAMERRLAM, still dismissed vitamjn studies, since he was fixed on Assistant Commissioner for Research and Statis­ measuring energy with the calorimeter, as he had ti es (cf.MERRLAM 1968:751-766); began toworkon learned in the 1890s (RosENBERG 1973). "children of the poor" in 1962 with backing of her eluef (ORSHANSKY 1963; 1965a; 1965b; 1969; 1977; ELMER VERNER MCCOLLUM (March 3, 1879, near 1988; FENDLER, ORSHANSKY 1979); major areas of Fort Scott, KS-November 15, 1967, Baltimore, work always concrete distributional economics or MD); biochemjst; BA, University of Kansas, 1903; family economics (cf. ORSHANSKY 1971). doctorate at Yale in organic chemistry, 1906; ex­ posed to agricultural chemistry through work at JESSICA BLANcHE PEIXOTTO (October 9, 1864, New the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station York, NY-October 19, 1941, Berkeley, CA); eco­ under Thomas B. Osborne; from 1907, employed nonust; fatl,er, of early American PortugueseJ ewish at Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station to descent, a prosperous merchant. Graduated from conduct chenucal analysis of food and excreta of Girls High School, San Francisco, stayed at horne dairy cattle. He set up study of albino rat colony for ten years (accepting her father's disapproval of for faster experimentation, from wluch he discov­ her going to college); but in 1891 enrolled at UC, ered a "growth-promoting-factor" in 1913, which Berkeley; BA, 1894; 1896-97, Sorbonne; 1900, 2 years later he called "fat-soluble N' and "water­ Ph.D., published 1901, on "The French Revolu­ soluble B", initiating the alphabetical nomenelature tion and Modern Socialism"; 2nd Ph.D. given to a for vitamins. In 1917 he became Professor ami first woman at UC; lecturer in Sociology, Berkeley, 1904; biochemist at the School of Hygiene and Public her appointment was soon shifted to the Economics Health of The Johns Hopkins University, where Departrnent, where she stayed until 1935; 1918, he was instrumental in elucidating the nature ofVi­ full Professor for Social Economics (first women in tamin D; in general M. shifted tl,e emphasis from such rank at UC; DORNIN 1959); brieAy Chair of the respiration calorimeter to the living animal as Department. "Though she wrote popular artieles analytical tool; active in the World Health Organi­ on child welfare and coeducation, her major schol­ zation and on the Food and Nutrition Board of the arly work lay in the field of cost of living studies. National Research Council (BEcKER 1973). A founder and chairman of the Heller Committee for Research in Social Economics [made possible

37 by a foundation, which stipulated her function as MAx RUBNER Oune 2, 1854, Munich-April 27, a chair-S. L.], she stimulated rnany signifieant in­ 1932, Berlin); physiologist; second son of a local vestigations." (CHAMBERS 1971) rnerchant; 1873-1877, medical studies, Munieh; be­ Mernber of the California State Board of Chari­ longed to the few who studied chemistry in LIEBIG'S ties and Correction from 1912-24; 1918, Executive laboratory under Volhard; in addition to his clini­ Chairman of the Child Welfare Department of the eal edueation collaboration with KARL VOlT in v.'s Woman's Cornmittee of the Council of National laboratory on issues of nutritional physiology and Defense and then as Chief of the Council's Child metabolism; then assistant to v.; his Ph.D. in 1879 Conservation Seetion. At UC, "Mrs. Peixotto's in­ was on "Utilization of Some Foods in the Human terest in both research and social service and her L1testines" (87pp.); inaugural dissertation ("Habi­ commitment to the principle that sound welfare litation") under (and in opposition) to V. on the work required disciplined and trained personnelIed calorie approach, determining for the first time the her to initiate (1917/18) a special program within energy value of so me of the normal food stuffs; the Econornics Department that in time led to the V. delayed R.'s Habilitation, doubting the value of establishment of a separate professional school of the caloric measurement approach. R. studied with social work. Research and experience dernonstrated Karl Ludwig in Leipzig 1880/81; 1883, Habilita­ to her the social costs of poverty, and by 1930 she tion accepted in Munieh, the results being published had come to endorse regularity of employment, a in a classical article of the Zeitschrift für Biolo­ living wage, social insurance for old age and un­ gie; 1885-1891, Professor in Marburg ("Extraordi­ employrnent and soeial casework for special family nariat") for Hygiene ("health teaching"; "Gesund­ needs" (CHAMBERS 1971); 1928, Vice President of heitslehre") and construction of a physiologicallab­ the American Economic Association, 1933, brieRy oratory, including a ca lori meter, without university member of the Consumer's Advisory Board of the support; 1 essential further calorimetric studies are Federal "National Recovery Administration" (cf. done in his Marburg period (1885,1889,1891) and HATFlELD 1935; CHAMBERS 1971). work on effects of radiant heat on human beings; discovery of the law of isodynamie substitutability KÄTE PETERSEN (May 13, 1903, Elmshorn-Jan­ of foodstuffs (Zeitschrift für Biologie, 1883: 312ff.), uary 10, 1981, Hamburg); State Welfare official; which led the way to his being called to Berlin in Klosterschule, Hamburg; from 1923-1926, studied 1891 as the successor of Robert Koch on the Chair economics and psychology at Gießen and Freiburg for Hygiene, which he understood as "applied phys­ i. Br. universities, and from 1925, law; 1928, first, iology" (K. Ludwig); built another large laboratory 1930, second state law exam in Hamburg; Ph.D., in Berlin in 1905, which allowed hirn a wide scope Hamburg, 1930, on an issue of welfare policy; 1932 of hygienic arrays; in 1909 he switched ehairs in employed by the Hamburg state welfare Depart­ Berlin, succeeding Engelmann who had held the ment, working at first on legal matters; from 1935, chair for physiology, making room for Karl Flügge in charge ofbasic welfare administration; promoted from Breslau in hygiene and allowing R. to focus to Regierungsrat only in 1938 as women had to be at on physiology and nutrition, e.g. on protein min­ least 35 years old, and member ofNazi party; mem­ ima, amI to stay away from the study of"pathogenic ber ofNSDAP since May 1,1937; from 1943, in bacteria"; R. also analyzed human clothing in an ex­ charge of all welfare matters, since the person for­ perimental fashion. merly in charge had Red the Harnburg bombings, He stood against the dominant trend in research: and active in this department unti11966, eventually "Hygiene then was more and more incorporated by as "Regierungsdirektorin "; member of the German Association of Public and Private Welfare and its 1. RUßNEH finished his calorimeter-for animals-in 1889, AT­ Committee on the Design of Support Rates (cf. PE­ \VATER- for humans-in 1892, thus demonstrating that the Jaw of conservation of cnergy also held fcr human beinf,rs. TERSEN 1972); from 1965, Vize Chair of the German L US K ( 1932: 132) comments: "ft must not be forgotten that Association, from 1970-78, Chair; very inRuential ATWATER was a pupil in VOIT'S Iaboratory whcn RUBNER was in the creation of anational welfare standard (cf. assistant there and that he was in frequent touch with RUß• DFG-Report 1987: supplement, LXXIII). NER after thc latter went to Marburg. RUßNER told mc that he had pcrsonally taught ATWATER much that he kncw."

38 microbiology and the [hygiene-So L.] chairs were stuffs ("Ersatzmittel"); in the end, "during the war given to disciples ofKoch. Hygiene ofR.'s and Pet­ [RuBNER's standard values-S. L.] were used to cal­ tenkofer's brand was slowly pushed aside. Rather culate the requirements of nations and to esti­ than creating new chairs for the microbiologists, mate the imports and exports necessary" (LUSK 'savings' were instituted ... by the departments and 1932: 130). R collaborated continuously with t1,e the state secretaries for education, who did not see "Kriegsernährungsamt"; R. was also rather outspo­ the signs of the time ... It was not accidental that ken in World War I against the "hunger blockade" the Army and the Air Force immediately established and in what he saw as its prolongation after the physiological institutes and advisory bodies ("Ar­ Armistice. R was sent as an expert as part of the beitskreise"), when they became concerned with the German delegation to the 1919 A1lied Conference efficienc)' and adaptability of the soldier. Right af­ in Spa, Belgium, trying in vain to obtain Allied ter the War, the members of one of these advisory agreement for food provisions calculated from a nu­ bodies were, with good reason, imported wholesale tritional minimum standard. R. was honored with as personnel by the Arnericans." (THOMAS 1954: 67) the Iron Cross and a title ("Geheimer Oberme­ R was the founder of specialized nutrition re­ dizinalrat") for his support of the War effort. "In search ami widely respected in his own lifetime; 1923 the new law [for man da tory retirement-S. L.] he was active as advisor to the government on all forced R, though still in his füll powers, to take his issues relating to health, such activities being rou­ pension" (FICK 1932: CXXXIV); soon afterwards he tinely expected of the hygienist holding the Berlin also quit the directorship ofhis Kaiser Wilhelm In­ chair; thus, he was a member of the Pmssian Medi­ stitute. (Cf. also ATZLER 1932; KrSSKALT 1932; LUSK cal Board (Preußische wissenschaftliche Deputation 1932; SPITI'A 1932.) für das Medizinalwesen), which was consulted reg­ ularly on all health policy issues, like calcium defi­ MARGARET L[OOMIS] STECKER (1885-March 13, ciency in nutrition, food plans for Pmssian prisons 1977, Fort Lauderdale, FL); labor, consulllption, (cf. RUBNER, THIERFELDER 1908), evaluating differ­ and distributional economist; studied economics at ent breads ("no hospital was built, no sewage treat­ the University of Wisconsin and at Cornell Uni­ ment facility instalIed in Pmssia, without an expert versity, B.A. 1906; taught economics and sociology opinion of this body" (ibid.: 66); most of R.s expert for four years (1911-13, 15-17) at Mount Holyoke opinions were published in the Vierteljahresschrift College; 1914, special agent U .S. Comlllission on für gerichtliche Medizin und öffentliches Sanitäts• Industrial Relations; 1917-28, Illelllber of research wesen); he collaborated regularly with the Army staff of the NationalIndustrial Conference Board; and Navy Medical Corps, welcoming Corps doc­ dissertation 192 5; 1929-33, Industrial Relations tors to do research at his laboratory; R was first a Counselors; 1934-38, Chief, Cost of Living Unit, member, then vice president of the Kaiserliche Ge­ first at the Federal Emergency Relief Administra­ sundheitsamt (after 1918 "Reichsgesundheitsamt"); tion, then with the Works Progress Administra­ from 1903, Vice Chairman of the Reich's Council tion-here she designed the "basic maintenance on Health ("Reichsgesundheitsrat", founded 1900), standard of living" and did empirical studies of in­ a consulting body to the Reich; later, member of tercity differences in costs-of-living; from 1938, the Scientific Council for the Army, where he was worked for the Social Security Administration, first consulted regularlyon nutrition rations and cloth­ at the field studies unit of the Bureau of Old Age and ing in the Army (R. had also done some historical Survivors Insurance; 1943-47, senior economist research on Count Rumford's nutrition policy via a with the Office of Price Administration and par­ vis the army and public institutions). In 1910 he was ticipated in setting up the World WarIi rationing elected President ("Rektor") of Berlin University. machinery; 1947, returned to the Social Security R. had strong "nationalist" leanings, becoming Administration as Social Security Research Ana­ quite active in pressing the government at the start Iyst until retirement in 1955; member Arnerican of World War I, without much success at first, on Economic Association (STECKER 1956; 1977). advance nutritional planning and preparation for ra­ tioning, then researching possible substitute food-

39 fuZEL K[ATHERINE) STIEBELING (March 20, 1896, NATHAN ZUNTZ (Ocrober 7, 1847, Bonn-March Has1cins, 0.); hOllle economist; teacher of home 23, 1920, Berlin); physiologist; came from a family economics Findlay (0.) High School, 1916; super­ of Jewish academic background; left school early visory teacher of home economics, Kansas State for a bank apprenticeship, brea1cing off to finish Teachers College, Emporia, 1919-22; assistant in school; 1864, studied medicine (with La Vallete and nutrition, Teachers College, Columbia, 1923-25; PAüger) and chemistry (under Kekule) in Bonn, M.A., Colurnbia, 1923; research assistant, chern­ and rook his Ph.D. and medical exams there in Au­ istry, Colurnbia, 1926-30; Ph. D. there in 1928 gust 1868; until 1869 he was a country physician in (cooperation with Henry C[lapp) Sherman and Oberpleiss/Siebengebirge; then did research work Mary Swartz Rose); from 1930, with Bureau of and further sUlclies in Berlin as cJinician and phys­ Home Economics, USDA: 1930-42, Senior Food iologist under Rudolf Virchow; from April 1870, Economist, Bureau ofHuman Nutrition and Home he was assistant to the physiologist Eduard PAüger Economies; 1942-44, Assistant Chief of this Bureau (1829-19 10) in Bonn and put forward his first major in charge of research; 1944-53, Chief; 1953-57, Di­ publications in nutritional physiology; did voluntary recror of Horne Econornics Research, Agricultural hospital work during the War of 1870171; 1871, in­ Research Service (ARS); 1955-57, Director, In­ augural dissertation and venia legendi; from 1873, stitute of Horne Economics, ARS; 1960, Deputy teacher of physiology at the newly founded Agricul­ Administrator of the ARS; seven honorary degrees tural College Poppelsdorf (near Bonn), and from after 1943; at retirement: "since 1936, she has been summer of 1874, Professor at Bonn University, active in advising on international nutritional prob­ also practicing as a private physician until 1880; in lems, both as a Government representative and 1880, called to achair for physiology at the Berlin in an individual capacity. Her first work with the Agricultural College and founded an Institute for League of Nations led ro later work through spe­ Animal Physiology there. His main areas of work cia lized agencies of the Uni ted Nations, especially were the physiology ofblood and breathing, general the Food and Agriculture Organization ... Her metabolism, nutrition, digestion, resorption, levels pioneer studies of the 1cind and quantity of food of muscular activity, energy consumption, priva­ American families eat pointed up the shortcom­ tion and life process; developed the Zuntz-Geppert ing of many diets and gave impetus to the national Respiration Calorimeter (cf. PAügers Archiv 1888, schoollunch and other educational programs" (Re­ vo!. 42, p.189; HEIDE 1918; FISCHER 1932: 173lf.; tirement Statement USDA 2069-63; STIEBELING DFG-Report 1987: supp!., XCIV). 1963; 1964/65).

KARL (v.) VOlT (October 31, 1831, Amberg, Bava­ ria-J anuary 31, 1908, Munieh); physiologist; 1857, inaugural dissertation ("Habilitation") in Munich in physiology; frorn 1860, independent university teacher ("a.o. Prof."), and, from 1863, first Chair for Physiology (having been taught until then by Wilhelm integrated with anatomy). In the 1860s, together with Pettenkofer, he designed arespiration chamber for experiments, which was large enough for a man; in collaboration withJUSTUS v. LIEBIG, he analyzed the food consumption habits of Munich's population, utilizing material from public institu­ tions (VOlT 1877a). He was the founder of the "Mu­ nich School" of physiology, stressing "exact science" approach es (EULNER 1976: 90 fn. 36; HOLMES 1976).

MEDORA MAy WARD (1890); horne economist.

40 5 References 5.2 Bibliography

5 .1 Overview ofKey Studies Relied upon ADAMS, PAUL, 1982: Health of the Stale. Foreword by S. Mike Miller. New York, NY: Praeger, X, 198 p. (Praeger Special Studies in Social Welfare, General For this analysis the following studies have been Eds. Neil Gilbert, Harry Specht). most useful for the U. S. ease: espeeially ARONSON ABEL, MARY W['UTE] HINMAN, 1890: Praetieal Sanitary (1981; 1982; 1984a; 1984b); BERRY (1984); ETHE­ and Eeonomie Cooking Adapted to Persons ofModerate and RIDGE (1972); LEVENSTEIN (1988) and U.S. Con­ Small Means. Rochester, NY: American Public Health gress (1976). NAOMI ARONSONS basic study on "Sei­ Association, VIII, 188 p. (Translated into German by enee and Social Justice: Nutrition in Search of the M. Pf

41 ATWATER, WILBUR O[LIN], 1894a: Foods: Nutritive ""Iue für Govcrnment Research, Service Monographs of the and Cost. Washington, DC: USGPO, 31 p. (USDA, United States Government, no. 62). farmers' Bulletin, no. 23). BEVERIDGE, SIR WILLIAM !-I[ENRV], 1928: Britüh Food Con­ ATWATER, WILBUR O[LIN], 1894b: "Standards for Rations trol. LondonINew Raven, CT: !-Iumphrey Milford­ ::tnd Dictaries," In : 7th Annuol Report, Storrs Agricul­ Oxford Univcrsity PresslYale Unjversity Press, XX, tural Erperiment Station, 205-221. 447 p. ATWATER, WILBUR O[L1N], 1901 : "Dicta ries in Public BOTT,]OI-IN, 1985: The Germall Food Criris ofWorld War I. Instirutions." In: Yearbook, USDA. Washington, DC: The Cases ofCoblenz and Cologlle. PhD., University of USGPO, 393-408. Missouri-Columbia. Ann Arbor, MI: University Mi­ lI ATWATER, WILBUR O[LlN], 1902 1: "Dietetics. In: Ency­ crofilms International, 229 p. ciopedia Britamzica, New York, NY etc.: Thc Wcrner BOWLEY, AltTl-IUR LYON; BURNET'T-I-TuHST, A[LEXANDER] Co., 9th cd., 443-448. R[OßERT], 1915: Livelihood (md Poverty. A Sludy ill ATWATER, WILBUR O[LINj, 1910: Principles of Nutrition the Econo",ic Conditiom of Working-Class Households in and Nutritive v"lue ofFood. Washington, DC: USGPO, Northa1llpton, Warrington, Stanley, and Reading. Lon­ 48 p. (USOA, Farmers' Bulletin, no. 142). don: G. Beils & Sons, 222 p. (reprint: New York, NY: ATWATER, WILBUR O[LIN], 1911: "Bibliography (pre­ Garland PubL, 1980). pared by Helen W. Atwater)" - Weslcyan University BRANDT, KARL, in collaboration with Otto Schiller, Franz Bulletin 5, 2 Gune 19 11 ),31-40 (partofa special is­ Ahlgrimm, 1953: Management ofAgriculture and Food in sue: "A Record of Scientific Work 1831- 1911 "). the Ger11lan Occupied and other Areas ofFortrm Europe. A Atwater Papers: Tthaca, NY: Departrnent ofManuscripts St/ldy in Military Goverm"ent. Stanford: Stanford Uni­ and University Archives, Corncll Univcrsity Libraries, versity Press, XXXIC, 707 p. (Germany's Agriculrural (Microfilm). and food Policies in World War II, voL IIl) ATWATER, WII.BUR OrLIN]; WOODS , CtIARLES D., 1986: BULMER, MARTIN, 198 3: "Science, Theory, and V.1Iues The Chemiml Composition of American Food Materials. in SociaI Science Research on Poverty: Thc United Washington, OC: USGPO, 47 p. (USDA, Office of States and Britain." In: Richard F. Thamassün, cd., Experiment Stations, Bulletin, no. 28) (rev. cd. 1899, The WeifareState, 1883-1983. Greenwich, CTetc.:]AI 87 p.). Press, 353-369 (Comparative Social Research, voL 6). ATZLER, EDGAR, 1932: "Max Rubner" - Arbeitsphysiologie BUMM, FRANZ, cd ., 1928: Die Gesundheitsverhältnisse 5 ( 1932), 497-499. Deutschlands unter dem Einfluß des Weltkrieges. SUIttgart BALDWIN, PETER, 1990: The Politics ofSocial Solidarity and etc.: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 2 vols., XIX, 365, V; the Class Bases ofthe European Weifare Stale, 1875-1975. 280 p. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, XlV, BURCHARDT, LOTHAR, 1974: "Die Auswirkungen der 353 p. Kriegswirtschaft auf die deutsche Z ivilbevölkerung im BEATON, GEORGE H .; PATWARDHAN, [VINAYAK] N[ARAYAN], Ersten und im Zweiten Weltkrieg" - Militiirgeschicbt­ 1976: "Physiological and Practical Considerations of liehe Mitteilungen 15, 1 (1974),65-97. Nutrient Function and Requirements." In: George CARPENTER, KENNETH]., 1986: History of SClIrvy and Vi­ H. Beaton, ] [ose] M[aria] Bengoa [y Lccandra], eds., tamin C. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, Nutrition and Preventive Medicine: The Major Defi­ vm,288 p. ciency Syndromes, Epidemiology, and Approaches to Con­ CARPENTER, R[OWENA] S[CHMIDT]; STIEBELING, I-IAZEL trol. Geneva: World !-Iealth Organization, 445-481 K[ATI-IERINE], 1936: Diets to Fit the Fa11lily In c011le. (Monograph Series WHO, no. 62). Washington, DC: USGPO, September, TI, 38 p. ßECKER, STANLEY L., t 973: "Eimer Verner McCollum." (USOA, farmers' Bulletin, 11 0. 1757). In: Dictionary of Scientific Biography 1970-1980, VllI, CATES,] ERRY R., 1983: Insurillg In equality: AdminiJtrative 590-591. Leadership in Social Security, 1935-54. Ann Arbor, MI: BERRV, ] EFFREV M., 1984: Feeding Hungry People. Rule- The University of Michigan Press, XII, 190 p. 1111lking in the Food Stamp Program. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, XVI, 183 p. BETTERS, PAUL V[ERNON], 1930: The Bureau ofH011le Eco­ 2. Val. I of this study woule! havc contributed substa ntially nomics. lts History, Activities (md Organization. Was hing­ to this stucly. lts tide was: Brandt, Karl; in collaboration ton, DC: The Brookings Instirution, X, 95 p. (Institute with Kurt Häfner, Arthur Hanau, Emil WocTmann, 19 53: Management cf Agriculture und Food in Germany. A Study in Planncd Economy, Stanford: Stanford University Press I. Passagcs from this articlc wcrc quoted from Aronson's works (Germany's Agricultural and Food Polides in World War n, (in seetion 2, fn. t 2) but the original article could not be vol. I). This volume never appearcd. Neithcr Stanford Un.i­ located in any of thc editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica versity Archives-SC 147, Kar! Brandt's Papers-nor the accessiblc in Germany. Hoover Tnstitution hold the manuscript 01' parts thereof.

42 CHAMBERS, CLARKE A., 1971: "Jessica Blanche Peixotto" CUNO,WILLI, 1933: Die Riclltsätze der öffentlichen - Notab/e American Wrmzen III (1971), 42-43. Fürsorge. Grundsätze ftir ibre Aufstellung und Handha­ CI-IAMUERS, DONALD E., 1981: "Another Look atPoverty bung. Leipzig: Kommissions-Verlag von Lühc & Co. Lines in England and the United States" -SoeialService GmbH, 103 p. (Veröffentlichungen des Deutschen Review 55, 3 (September 1981),472-483. Vereins für öffentliche und private Fürsorge, Aufbau CHAP'N, ROßERT C[OIT] , 1909: The Standard of Living und Ausbau der Fürsorge, no. 19). A1llong Workingmen's Families in New York City. New DAN1EL, UTE, 1989: Arbeiteifrouen in der Kriegsgesellschaft. York,l'.ry: Russell Sage Foundation, XV, 372 p. (Ph.D., Beruf, Familie ul1d Politik im Erstell Weltkrieg. Göttin­ Columbia University 1989, vm, 289 p.). gen: Vandenhoeek und Ruprecht, 397 p. [ON] O'AI"N, ROßERT C[OIT1, 1943: Who was Wbo in DARBY, WILUAM]., 1976: "Nutrition Science: An Over­ view of 34, 1 Amerim. A Compflnion to Wllo j- Wllo in AUlen·CfI. Val. I, American Genius" - Nutrition Rwiews 1897- 1942. Chieago: The A. N. Marquis Co., 212. Oanuary 1976),1- 14. DAV'S, MARTHA F., 1989: Goldberg v. Kelly and the Wel­ [ON] CHAP'N, ROBERT C[OIT], 1913: "Obituary" - New fare Rights Movement: Creating the New Property. York Times 15, (September 14, 1913),7. Cambridge, MA: The Bunting Institute, 20 p. Unpubl. CHITTENDEN, RussELL H., 1930: The DeveiopmentofPhys­ man. i% gical Chemistry in the United States. New York, NY: DEHN-RoTHFELsER, LUDWIG VON, 1894: "Korreferat - Ameriean Chemieal Soeiety Monograph Series. Grundsätze über die Art und Höhe der Unterstüt• CLEVELAND, L'NDA E.; KERR, R'CHARD L., 1988: "Devel­ zung." In: Scbriften des Deutschen Vereins ftir Armen­ opment and Uses ofthe USDA Food Plans" - Journal pflege und Wobltiitigkeit, no. 19. Leipzig: Duncker & ofNutrition Education 20, 5 (I988), 232-238. Humblot, 77- 85 . COLL, BLANCIIE D., 1988: "Publie Assistanee: Reviving DFG-Report, 1987: Sozialreform und Entwicklung the Original Comprehensive ConeeptofSoeial Secur­ standardisierter Unterstützungssätze von 1945 bis ity." In: Gerald D. Nash, Nocl H. Pugach, Richard 1962. Bremen: University ofBremcn, December, lxvii, F. Thomasson, eds., Social Secrtrity. Tbe First Half­ 592 (2 vols.) and ecxlvi (supplement) p. Unpubl. man. Century. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mex­ Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 1970-1980: Diction­ ico Press, 221-241. ary of SeientiJic Biograpby. CharI es Coulston Gill espie, Confcrenee, 1933: "Conference ofExperts for thc Stand­ cd.-in-chief, 16 vols. New York, NY: CharIes Serib­ ardization of Certain Methods Used in Making Di­ ner's Sons. etary Studies. Held in Rome on September 2nd and DORN'N, MAv, 1959: Biographical Notes Concerning 3rd, 1932" - Quarterly Bulletin of tbe Health Organizn­ Persons for whom Residenee Halls are Named. Ber­ tion I, 3 (September 1933),477-483. keley: University of California, Archives, 308gd D 72 CONNER, MARGARET M ., 1968: "A History of Dietary (peixotto), 3 I. Standards." In: Lydia J. Roberts Award Essays. A Com­ DOUGLAs, MARY; ISHERwooD, BARON, 1982: The World of pi/acion of Essays. Chicago: The American Dietetic As­ Good,.. New York, NY: Basic Books, XII, 228 p. sociation, 107-114. DUPREE, A. HUNTER, 1957: Seience in tbe Federal Go­ CONWAV,J'LL, 1971/72: "Women Reformers and Amer­ Verll7lle1lt. A Hi,.tory of Polieies lind Activities to 1940. iean Culture, 1870-1930" - Journal ofSoeial History , Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press ofHarvard Uni­ Winter(1971172),I64-177. versity Press, XIII, 273 p. (reprinted 1986). CUNO, W'LLI, 1894: "Referat - Grundsätze über die Art DWYER,]OHANNA, 1983: UDietary Recommendations and und Höhe der Unterstützung." In: Schriften des Deut­ Policy Implications. The U. S. Experience." In: Jean scben Vereins ftir Armenpflege und Wohltiitigkeit, no. 19. Weininger, George M. Briggs, eds., Nutrition Update. Leipzig: Duneker & I-Iumblot, 1-85. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1,315- 355. Cu NO, WILLI, 1898: "Korreferat - Existenzminimum in DYE,MAR'E, 1972: Home Econolllicsattbe UnivenityofCbi­ der ArmenpAege. Anrechnung der Leistungen der Pri­ engo, 1892-/956. Chicago: Horne Eeonomics A1umni vatwohltätigkeit und Invalidenrenten." In: Scbriften des Association, VIII, 372 p. Deutschen VereillS für Arlllellpflege und Wobltätigkeit, no. EBERT-STOCK'''GER, CLARA, 1929: Das Bucb der Hausfrau. 39. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 109-150. Eine neuzeitliche Haushaltungskunde. Mit mehreren Ori­ CUNO, W'LLI, 1927: Grundsätzliebes bei der Aufstellung ginaltabel/en von Dipl. Ing. Ragnar Berg. Basel, Leipzig und /-landbabung von Richtsätzen ftir die Unterstiitzung etc.: Wendepunkt Verlag, 2nd exp. and impr. ed., 402 p. Hilfsbedürftiger. Frankfurt a. M.: Deutscher Verein für ELLWOOD, DAVlD T., 1988: Poor Support. Poverty in tbe öffentliche und private Fürsorge, 68 p. (Veröffentli­ A1Ilerican Fomily.New York, NY: Basic Books, Xll, chungen des Deutschen Vereins für öffentliche und 271 p. private Fürsorge, Aufbau und Ausbau der Fürsorge, ENGEL', CHR'ST'AN H., 1983: "Städte und Staat in der no. 12). Weimarer Republik. Hans Herzfcld zum Gedenken."

43 In: Bernhard Kirchgässner,Jörg Schadt, cds., Kummu­ FORSTER,JOSEF, 1877: "Über die Kost in Armcn- und Ar­ nale Selbstverwaltung -idee und Wirklichkeit. Sigmarin­ beitshäusern." In: Karl Voit, cd., Untersuchung der Kort gen: Thorbeck, 163-181. in einigen bffentlichen Anstalten. München: R. Olden­ ESPING-!\NDERSEN, G0STAj KORPI, WALTER, 1984: "$0- bourg, 186-2 15 . cial Policy as Class Politics in Post-War Capitalism: FREIDSON, ELloT, 1986: Profossional Powers: A Study ofthe Scandinavia, Austria, and Gcnllany." In: John H. Institutionalizlltion of Formal Knowledge. C hi cago, IL: Goldthorpe, ed., Order and Conflict in Comemporary Ca­ Chicago University Press, XVIIT, 241 p. pitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 179-208. FIIIEDMAN, ROSE 0., 1965: Poverty. Definition allli Perspec­ ETHERIDGE, ELlZAßETH W., 1972: The Butterfly Caste: A tive. Washington, oe: American Enterprisc Institute, Soeial History of Pellagra in the South. Westport, CT: F ebruary, 49 p. Greenwood Pub!., IX, 278 p. FÜRTH, HENRIETTE, 1911 : "Mindesteinkommen, Le­ EULNER, HANs-I-IEINz, 1970: Die Entwicklung der medi­ bensmittelpreise und Lebenshaltung (In Anlehnung an zinischen Spezialfächer an den Universitäten des deutschen die Verhältnisse in Frankfurta. M.)" -Archiv für Sozial­ Sprtlchgebietes. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, V, wissenschaft und Sozialpolitik XXXIII (1911), 523-544. 721 p. (Studien zur Medizingeschichte des 19.Jahr­ GALPERIN, PETER, 1988: "Der (Eck-) Regelsatz der So­ hunderts, Walter Artelt, Walter Rüegg, eds., vol. 4). zialhilfe - Rückblick und Ausblick" - Nachrichtendienst EULNER, HANs-I:-IEINz, 1976: "Die Lehre von der Ernäh• des Deutschen Vereins Jür öffentliche untl private Fürsorge rung im Universitätsunterricht." In: Edith I-Ieischkel­ 68, 10 (October 1988), 296--297. Artelt, ed., Ernährung und Ernährungslehre im 19. Jahr­ GIB"S, WINIFRED STUART, 1917: The Minimum Cost of hundert. Vorträge eines Symposiums am 5. und 6. Januar Living. A Study of Families of Limited Income in New 1973 in Frankfurt a. M. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & lOrk City. New York, NY: Macmillan Pub!. Co., XV, Ruprecht, 76--98. 93 p. EVANS, PETERj RÜSCHEMEYER, DIETRIC I-!; SKOCPOL, GOERKE, HEINZ, 1976: "Anstaltsernährung im 19.Jahr­ THEDA, 1985: "On the Road toward a More Adequate hundert." [no Edith Heischkel-Artelt, cd., Ernährung Understanding ofthe State." In: Peter Evansj Dietrich und Ernährungslehre im / 9. Jahrhundert. Vorträge eines Rüschemeyer; Theda Skocpol, eds., Bringing the State Symposiums am 5. und 6. Januar 1973 in Frankfurt a.M. Back in. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 303-317. 347-366. GOODlN, ROBERT E., 1988: Rem'om for Welfare. The Poli­ Fecleral Poverty Income Guidelines, 1988: "The 1988 tienl Theory of the Welfare State. Princeton: Princeton Federal Poverty Income Guidelines" - Sodal Security University Press, XIV, 423 p. Bulletin 51 , 4 (April 1988), 2. GOODIN , ROßERT E.; DRYZEK,JOHN, 1987: "Risk-Sharing FENDLER, CAROLj ÜRSHANSKY, MOLLlE, 1979: "Impro­ and Social Justice: The Motivational Foundations of ving the Poverty Definition." - A11lerican Statistical the Post-War Welfare State." [no Goodin, Le Grand, Assoeiation, Soeial Statistics Section, Proceedings. (1979), etal.,1987:37-73. 640--645. GOODIN, ROßERT E.j LE GRAND,]OI-IN, et al., eds., 1987: FICK, R[UDOLF], 1932: "Gedächtnisrede des Herrn Not Only the Poor. The Middle Classnnd the Welfare Slate. R. Fick auf M. Rubner." In: Sitzungsberichte der London etc.: Allen & Unwin, XIV, 251 p. Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Physikalisch­ GOTTSTEIN, AnOLF, 1918: "Volksspeisung, Schulkinder­ Mathematische Klasse, 97, CXXVIII-CXXXVII (Ber­ speisung, Notstandsspeisung, Massenspeisung." In: lin: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften). A[ugust] Gaertner, ed., [Theodor] Weyl's Handbuch FINEGOLD, KENNETH, 1988: "Agriculture and Politics der H ygiene, supplementary vol.: Soziale Hygiene (vol. of U . S. Social Provision: Social Insurance and Food 5). Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth, 2nd cd., 229- Stamps." In: Margaret Weir, Ann Shola Orloff, Theda 289. Skocpol, eds., The Politics of Soeial Policy in the United GOULD,JOHN STANTON, 1852: AReport on Food and Diet, States. Princcton: Princcton University Press, 199- witb ObseT1Jatiolls on the Dietetical Regimen, Sllited for 234. A/mshouses, Prisolls, and Hospitals, also on Heatil1g, Venti­ FISCHER,Isll?OR, 1932: Biographisches Lexikon der hervor­ lation, & c., witb PractiCflI Rec01Jl1llendatio71s, Prepared fit ragenden Arzte der letzten JünfzigJahre (/880-1930). 2 the Request of the Board of Comminioners of Emigration vols. Berlin etc.: Urban & Schwarzenberg, VII, 1741 p. and the Board of Governors of the New lOrk Ahnshollse Food Stamp Program, 1975: "Food Staml' Program; Depart1llent. New York, NY: Vim. C. Bryant & Co., Maximum Monthly Allowable Income Standards and 99 p. Basis of Coupon Issuance: 48 States and Distriet of [ON] GOULD, JOHN STANTON, 1874: FaCldty ßiography Columbia" - Federal Register 40, 231, (Monday, De­ Folde ... Ithaca, NY: Department of Manuscripts and cember 1,1975), 55646--55656. Archives, Cornell Univcrsity Libraries, 2 p.

44 [ON] GOULD,]OHN STANTON, 1888: Appleton's Cyclopedia Haushaltungsunterricht, 1891: "Der Haushaltungsun­ ofAmerican Biography. New York, NY: D . Appleton & terricht. Vorbildung von Lehrkräften im In- und Aus­ Co., 695 p. lande (enthält Artikel von FritzKalle, Otto Kamp, Au­ GROSSJOHANN, KLAus; I-uRTMANN, I-IELMuT, 1986a: guste Förster und Rektor Pudor)." In: Emil Münster• "Auf dem Weg zur Neufestsetzung der Sozialhilfere­ berg, ed., Die Verbindung deroffentlichen und der privaten gelsätzc" - Theorie und Praxis der sozialen Arbeit 3 7, 11 Wohifahrtspfoge. Der Haushaltungsunterricht. Leipzig: (1986),362-368. Duncker & Humblot, 158 p. (Schriften des Deutschen GROSSJOHANN, KLAus; I-lAnTMANN, HELMUT, 1986b: Vereins, no. l4). Neues BedaifsbemesmngJSChe111a in der Sozialhilfe - Er­ Health Section, 1933: "The EconOlnic Depression and gebnisbericht. Köln: ISG, 180 p. & supplements. Public Health. Memorandum prepared by the Health

GÜNTHER, AnOLF t 1932: "Die Folgen des Krieges für Seetion" - Quarterly Bulletin oftbc l-lealtb Organizatioll Einkommen und Lebenshaltung der mittleren Volks­ 1,3 (September 1933),425-476. schichten Deutschlands." In: RudolfMeerwarth, Adolf HEIDE, R[ICHARD?] V.O., 1918: "Nathan Zuntz zum Günther, Waldemar Zimmermann, Die Einwirkung des 70. Geburtstag" - Landwirtschaftliche Jahrbücher 51 Krieges auf Bevotkerungsbewegung, Einkommen und Le­ (1918),328-362. benshaltung in Deutschland. Stuttgart etc.lNew Haven, HElDENHEIMER, AnNOLD, 1981: "Education aod Social CT: Deutsche Verlags-AnstaltlYale University Press, 99-279. Security Enticlements in Europe and America." In: Peter Flora, Arnold ]. Heidenheimer, eds., The De­ GUGGENHEIM KAUL Y., with assistance of Ira Wolinsky, t velopment ofT#ifare States in Europe and America. New 1981: Nutrition and Nutritional Diseases. The Evolution of Brunswick, NJ etc.: Transaction, 269-304. Concepts. Lexington, MAfToronto, Canada: The Col­ Iamore Press/D.C. Heath and Co., XJV, 378 p. HEISCHKEL-ARTELT, EOITII, ed., 1976: Ernährung und Gutachtliche Äußenmg, 1989: Gutachtliche Äußerung. Ernährungslehre im 19.Jahrhundert. Göttingen: Van­ Neun Bedaifsbemessungssystem für die Regelsätze der Sozi­ denhoeck & Ruprecht, 409 p. (Studien zur Medizin­ alhilfe: Ableitung der Regelsätze für sonstige Haushaltsan­ geschichte im 19.Jahrhundert, vol. 6). gehörige. Frankfurt a.M.: Deutscher Verein für öffent• I-fElSIG, M ICHAEL, 1989: Armenpolitik im Nachkriegs­ liche und private Fürsorge, 79 p. deutschland (1945-1964). Die Entwicklung der I -IANEscH, WALTER; STAHLMANN, GÜNTHER; WETH, Fürsorgeunterstützungssätze im Kontext all gemei­ HANS-ULRICH, 1988: "Sozialhilferegelsätze am Schei­ ner Sozial- und Fürsorgereform. Bremen: Universität. deweg: Zur geplanten Neuvermessung des Existenz­ Diss. phil., 724 p. (2nd rev. ed. 1992) minimums" - info also 6, I (1988),3-11. Heller Committee (for Research in Social Economics), I-IANSEN, ERNSTGEORG; WENDT, WILLI, 1965: "Ge­ 19,,: Quantity and Cost Budgets for Four Income Levels. schichte der Lebensmittelwissenschaft." In: Ludwig 1. FamilyofanExecutive. 2. Familyofa Clerk. 3. Familyof Acker, et a1., eds., Josef Schormüller, gen. cd., Hand­ a Wage Earner. 4. Dependent Families or Childre1l, Prices buch der Lebensmittelchemie, vol. l: Die Bestandteile der for San Francisco. Berkeley: Univcrsity of California. Lebensmittel. Berlin etc.: Springer, 1-75. Heller Committee, 1928-1933: Cost of Living Studies. 5 HANSON, RUSSELL L., 1987: "The Expansion and Con­ vols. Berkeley: University of California (cf. also LUCK, tfaction of the American Welfare State," In: Goodin, WOOORUFF 1931; PEIXOTTO 1929). Le Grand, et al., 1987: 169-199. Heller Committee, 1928: The Dependent Aged in San I-IARRow, BENJAMIN, 1928: "Atwater." In: Dictionary oi Francisco. Berkeley: University of California. American Biography, under the aus pi ces of thc ACLS. Heller Committce, 1934-1943: Restricted Quality and Cost New York, NY: CharIes Scribner's Sons, 1,417-418. Budget for Maintenance of Families of Children (Current HARWOOO,]ONATHAN, 1987: "National Stylcs in Sciencc. Needs Only). Prices for San Francisco. Berkeley: Univer­ Genetics in Germany and the Uni ted States Between sity of Califomia (title varies). the Wold Wars" -1S1S 78, 293 (September 1987), 390- 414. Heller Committee, 1934: ... Standards ofReliefin Seletted l-lATFIELo, HENRY RAND, 1935: "Jessica Blanchc Pei­ Cities ofthe United Staus, 1933. Berke1ey: U niversity of xotto." In: Essays in Sodal Economics. In Hanor ofJessica California. Blanche Peixotto. Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia Heller Committee, 1934: Report on the Probable Costs of Press, 5-14. Administering Food Relief in Atameda County by Ihe Gro­ HAUSER, RICHARDj CREMER-SCHÄFER, HELGAj Nou­ cery Order Commüsary, and Cash Systems-December VERTNE, U 00, 1981: Armut, Niedrigeinkommen und 1933. Berkeley: University of California, January. Unterversorgung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Be­ Heller Comm.ittee, 1939ff.: Quantity and Cost Budget for standsaufnahme und sozialpolitische Perspektiven. Frank­ a Single Working Woman. Prices for San Francisco. Ber­ furt a.M.: Campus, 352 p. (2nd ed. 1986). keley: University of California (title va ries).

45 Heller Committee, 1943ff.: (Wartime) Food for Four In­ HUNT, CAROLINE L[OUISA], 1912: The Lift of Ellen Ri­ came Levels. Prices for San Francisco. Berkeley: Univer­ chards. Pioneer in Conservation. Boston, MA: Whitcomb sityofCalifornia (prepared by Ruth Okey) (titlevaries). and Barrows, XVI, 329 p. HENNOCK, E. PETER, 1989: "Concepts of Poverty in the HUNT, CAROLINE L[OUISA], 1921: A Week's Food for an British Social Surveys from Booth to Bowley." In: Mar­ Average Family. Washington, DC: USGPO, 27 p. tin Bulmcr, Kcvin Bader, Kathryn Kish Sklar, eds., Tbc (USDA, Farmers' Bulletin, no. 1228). Sodal S1t11Jey in Historical Perspective: Britain and the HUNT, CAROLINE L[OUISA], 1923: Good Proportions in the United States, 1880- 1940. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge Diet. Washington, DC: USGPO, 23 p. (USDA, Far­ University Press, man., 38 p. (in preparation). mers' Bulletin, no. 1313). I-lERMBERG, PAUL, 1929: "Besprech1.mg, A. L. Bowley und [ON] HUNT, CAROLINE L[OUISA], 1943: Who was Wbo in M.A. I-Iogg, I-las Povcrty Diminished? London 1925" Amcrica. A Companion to Who',r Wbo in Amcrica. vol. 1, - Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 30, 2 (1929), 15 I -153. 1897- 1942. Chicago: The A.N. Marquis Co., 607. HUNTER, ROHERT, 1904: Poverty. New York, NY. I-lERTZLER, ANN A.j ANDERSON, HELEN L. t 1974: "Faod Guidcs in the Uni ted Stares" - Journal ofthe American IGNATIEFF, MICHAEL, 1984: The Needs of Strangers. Lon­ Dietetic Association 64 (1974), 19-28. don: Chatta & Windus, The Hogarth Press, 156 p. HEYL,I-IEDWIG, 1888: ABC der Küche. Berlin: Habcl, XII, ILO (=International Labour Office), 1937: Workers' Nu­ 824 p. (1 3th ed. 1926). trition and Sodal Policy. Geneva: ILO, VII, 249 p. HEYL , HEDWIG, undated, (1914ff.): Kleines Kriegskochbuch. (Studies and Reports, Series B: Social and Economic Berlin: Carl Habe!, 40 p. Conditions, no. 23). jENCKS, CHRISTOPHER, 1987: "The Politics of Incomc HmscHFELD, FELlX, 1903: "Die Ernährung der Soldaten Measurement." In: William Alonso, Pau! Starr, eds" vom physiologischen lmd volkswirtschaftlichen Stand­ The Politics of Numbers. New York, NY: Russell Sage punkt" - Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift für öffentliche Ge­ F oundation, 83-131. sundheitspflege 35 (1903), 597-616. j ENCKS, CHRISTOPHER, 1985: "I-Iow Paar are thc Poor?" HOFMANN, WOLFGANG, 1984: "Aufgaben und Struktur - New York Review ofBooks, (May 9, 1985),41-49. der kommunalen Selbstverwaltung in der Zeit der ]ENCKS, CHRISTOPHERj MAYER, SVSAN, 1987: Poverty and Hochindustriealisicrung." In: KurtJeserich, etal., eds., Hardship: How we Made Progress while Convindng Our­ Deutsche Verwaltungsgeschichte, vol. 3, Das Deutsche seives that we were Losing Ground. An {nun'nt Report to Reich bis zum Ende der Monarchie. Stuttgart, 578- the Ford Foundation. Evanston, lL: Center for Urban 644. Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University, HOLLINGSWORTH,]. ROGERS, 1978: "Thc United States." January, man., 103 p. In: Raymond Grew, cd., CrisesofPolitical Developmentin ]ENCKS, CHRISTOPHER; TORREV, BARßARA BOYLE, 1988: Europe and the United Staus. Princeton, NJ: Princeton "Beyond Income and Poverty: Trends in Social Wel­ University Press, 163- 195 . fare among Children and the Elderly since 1960." In: HOLMES, FREDERIC L ., 1976: "Carl von Voit" - Dictionary Palmer, et al., 1988b: 229-273. ofScientific Biography 1970-/980 , XIV (1976), 63-66. J ENKINS, MARGARET; MILLER, S. MIKE, 1984: The Con­ HOLMES, ZOE ANN, 1986: "Historical and National Per­ ccptualizarion and Measurement of Poverty. Boston, spectives on Food Research." In: Ruth E. Oeacon, March, 19 p. Unpubl. man. WaUace E. Huffman, eds., Human ResDurces Research, KISSKALT, KARL, 1908: "Mittagessen in verschiedenen 1887- 1987. Proceedings. Ames, 10: The College of Wirtschaften" - Archiv für Hygiene 66 (1908), 244- Horne Economics, Iowa State University, 43-57. 272. HOROWITZ, DANIEL, 1985: The Morality ofSpending: At­ KISSKALT, KARL, 1912: "Arme." In: Max Rubncr, Max v. titudes Toward the Consumer Sodety in America, 1875- Gruber, Martin Ficker, eds., Handbuch der Hygiene, vol. 1940. Baltimore: TheJohns Hopkins University Press, Iv, part 1. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel, 221-244. XXXI, 254 p. K.JSSKALT, KARL, 1932: "Max Rubner" - Archiv für Hy­ I-IoUGHTON, BETSY; Gussow, jOAN OYE; OODDS, jANICE giene 108 (1932),1 I I-I 12. M., 1987: "An Historical Study ofthe Underlying As­ KOCKA, JÜRGEN, 1984: Fadng Total War. Germnn So­ sumptions for the Uni ted States Food Guides from ciety 1914- 1918. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 1917 through the Basic Four Food Group Guide" - Press, IX, 278 p. (Translation from German: Klas­ Journal ofNutrition Education 19,4 Guly/August), 169- sengesellschaft im Krieg. Deutsche Sozialgeschichte 176. 1914-1918, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Hungerblockade, 1920: "Hungerblockade und Volksge­ 305 p.-2nd ed. 1978; Nachdruck 1988 Frankfurt sundheit" - Veröffentlichungen aufdem Gebiete der Volks­ a.M.: Fischer.) gesundheit 10, 3 (issue no. 104 of the wh oie eollection) KÖNIG, ]OSEPH, 1899: "Über die Errichtung der land­ (1920),1-11 7. wirtschaftlichen Versuchsstationen und was ihnen not

46 tut" - Die landwirtschaftlichen Vermchsstationen. Orgall verwaltung, Wirtscbaft und personelle Ressourcell 1939- für naturwinenschaftliche Forschungen auf dem Gebiete 1941. Snmgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, XVIII, der Landwirtschaft 52 (1899), 47ff.. 1062 p. (Series: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite KÖNIG, JOSEPH, 1900: "Über die Errichtung von Ver­ Weltkrieg, Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt, cd., suchswirtschaften usw." - Die landwirtschaftlichen Ver­ Beiträge zur Militär- und Ksiegsgeschichtc, val. 5/1) s1lchsstationen. Organ für naturwissenschaftliche Forscbun­ KUCZYNSKI, ROBERT lR.ENE], 1921: Das Existenzminimum gen aufdem Gebiete der Ltmdwirtschaft 55 (1900), 99ff.. und verwandte Fragen. Berlin: H. R. Engelmann, 137 p. KÖNIG, JOSEPH, 1906: "Die hauptsächlichen Ergeb­ KUCZYNSKI, JüncEN, 1937a: Labour COllditiolls il1 Western nisse der wissenschaftlichen Forschung für die Er­ Europe, 1820-1935. London: Lawrence and Wishardt, nährung des Menschen" - Zeitschrift ftir Untersuchung VII, 118 p. der Nahrungs- und Gen'llßmittel sowie der Gebrauchsge­ KUCZYNSKJ, JÜRGEN, 1937b: Lohne und Existenzminimum genstände 12, 10 (November 15,1906),577-588. in Deutschland 1820 bis 1937. Libau: Gottl. D. Meyer, KOHLER, ROßERT E., 1982: From Medieni Chemistry to Bio­ 45 p. chelllistry: Tbe Making of a Biomedieni Diseipline. Cam­ KUCZYNSKI,J ÜRGEN, 1957: Rem! Kuczynski. Ein fortschritt­ bridge: Cambridge University Press, IX, 399 p. licher Wissenschaftler in der I. Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts. KOJILI, MARTIN, 1989: "Moralökonomie und Gene­ Berlin: Aufuau Vcrlag, 169 p. (bibliography 168- 169). rationenvertrag." In: Max Haller, Hans-Joachim KYRK, HAzEL, 1932: "Horne Economics." In: Emyclopedin I-Ioffinann-Nowotny, Wolfgang Zapf, eds., Kultur und oftbe Soeial Seiences, Edwin R. A. Seligman, cd. in chief. Gesellscbaft. Verhandlungen des 24. deutschen Soziologen­ New York, NY: Macmillan Co., IV, 427-431. tages, des 11. Österreicbischen Soziologentages und des 8. Kongresses der Schweizeriscben Gesellschaft ftir Soziologie. LAMALE, HELEN I-I.; STOTZ, MARGARET S., 1960: "The In­ Frankfurt a.M.: Campus, 532-555. terim City "\lorker's Family Budget. The Purpose and KORPI, WALTEn, 1980: "Approaches to thc Study of Po­ Methods Used in the Interim Revision. Thc Quanti­ verty in the United States: Critical Notes from a ries of Goods and Scrvices in the Budget. Irs Cast in 20 Large Cities, Autumn 1959" - Monthly Labor Review , European Perspective." In: Vincent T. Covello, ed., Poverty anti Pub/ic Policy: An Evaluation of Soeial Seience August (1960), 785-808. Research. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman, 287-314. A re­ LANGWORTI-IY, CHA IILES F, 1911: "Origin and Develop­ vised and updated version of this article is to be found ment of the Nutrition Investigation of thc Office of in: Stephan Leibfried, Wolfgang Voges, eds., Armut Experiment Stations." In: Annual Reports ofthe Office of im modernen Wohlfahrtsstaat, Opladen: Westdeutscher Experiment Stations. Washington, DC: USGPO, 449- Verlag, 1992: 300-323 (special vol. 42 of the Kölner 460. Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie). League of Nations, 1937: Nutrition. Final Report of tbe KRAUT, HEINRICH, 1951: Berechnung des Nahrungsbedarft Mixed Committee of the League of Nations on the Rela­ im Bundesgebiet als Grundlage einer zur vollen volkswirt­ tions of Nutrition to Health, Agriculture and Economic schaftlichen Leistung ausreichenden Ernährung. Frankfurt Policy. Geneva: L.o.N., Public Report of Lcague of a. M., Bad Godesberg, 13 p. (Schriftcnreihe des Land­ Nations (Serial 1937.TLA.IO.), August 14, 327 p. (5. und Hauswirtschaftlichen Auswcrtungs- und Informa­ also: Confercnce 1933; Health Seetion 1933; Techni­ tionsdienstes, no. 2). cal Commission 1936; 1938; cf. also lLO). KRAUT, HEINRICH, 1955: "Die Sicherung des Nahrungs­ LEIBFRIEO, STEI'HAN, 1979: "The United States and West bedarfs." In: Hans Muthesius, cd., Öffentlicbe Einkom- German Welfare Systems. A Comparative Analysis" - 1llensbilft und Richtsatzpolitik. Köln, Berlin: Carl Hey­ Cornelllnternationni Lnw Journal 12, summer (1979), manns, 4-19. 175-198 (= Leibfried, et al. 1985: 537-560). KRAUT, HEINRICH, 1957: "Die Sicherung des Nahrungs­ LEIBFRIEO, STEJlILAN, 1981: "Existenzminimum und Für• bedarfs aus dcm Fürsorgerichtsatz" - Blätter der Wohl­ sorgerichtsätze in der Weimarer Republik (= Mini­ fabrtspflege 104, I (1957),6--10. mum Subsistence and Welfare Benefit Scalcs in the KRAUT, I-lEINRICI-Ij ßRAMSEL, H_ERBERT, 1951: "Körper­ Weimar Republic)." In: Chsistoph Sachßc, Florian gewichtsentwicklung deutscher Arbeiter von 1937- Tennstedt, eds., Geschichte und Gescbicbten,Jahrbucb der 1947" - Arbeitsphysiologie 4, 5 (1951), 394-406. Sozialarbeit 4. Reinbek near I-Iamburg: Rowohlt, 469- KnAuT, I-!EINRICHj LEHMANN, GUNTHERj ßRAMSEL, HER­ 523 (= Leibfried, ct al. 1985: 186--240). BERT, 1939: "Vorschlag zu einer Ernährungsstatistik LEIBFRIEO, STEPIIAN , 1983: "Sozialpolitik und Existenz­ auf der Grundlage des Asbeitsbedarfs der einzelnen minimum. Anmerkungen zur Geschichte der engli­ Berufe" - Arbeitsphysiologie 10, 4 (1939), 440-458. schen Entwicklung (= Social Policy and Minimum KnOENER, BERNlIARD R.j MÜLLER, RUDOLF DIETERj UM­ Subsistence. Notes on the English Development)" - BREIT, IIANS, 1988: (Vol. 5) Organisation ulld Mobili­ Zeitschriftfor Sozialreform 29, 12 (1983), 713-734 (= sierung des deutscheIl Macbtbereichs. (Halfvol. I) Kriegs- Leibfried, et al. 1985:414-435).

47 LEIßFRIED, STEPHAN, 1986: "Wclfare Guidelines in the LUSK, GItAHAM, 1915: "The Calorimeter as the Tnterpre­ I 920s: Regulating Weimar's Poor." In: Douglas E. tcr of the Li fe Processes" - Science XLII, (New Series), Ashford, E . W. Kelley, eds., NationalizingSoeial Security 1093 (Dcccmber 10, 1915), 816-819. in Europe and America. Grecnwich, CT etc.: JAJ Press, LUSK, GRAt-IAM, 1918a: "The Fundamcntal Require­ 137-154 (abridged version of Leibfried 1981). ments of Energy for Proper Nutrition" -Journal oftbe LEIßFRIED, STEPHAN, et al., 1985: Armutspolitik und die American Medical Assoeiation 70, 12 (March 23, 1918), Entstehung des Sozialrtaats. Entwicklungslinien sozialpo­ 821 - 824. litischer Existenzsicherung im histon'schen und internatio­ LUSK, GRAIiAM, 1918b: Food in Uilr Time. Philadelphia nalen Vergleich (~ Regulating the Poor and the Genesis of etc.: W. B. Satlnders & Co., 46 p. the Weifare State. Lineages of Subsirtence Policy in Hi­ LUSK, GRAHAM, 1931: Tbe ElemellfS oftbe Science ofNlItri­ storical and Comparative Perspective) Bremen: Bremen tion. Philadelphia etc.:W. B. Saunders & Co., 844 p. University, 675 p. LusK, GRAHAM, 1932: "Contributions to the Sciencc of LEIßFRIED, STEPHANj lIANsEN, ECKHARDj !-IEISIG, MI­ Nutrition. Tribute to the Life and WorkofM. Rubner" CHAEL, 19840: "Politik mit der Asmut. Notizen zu - Seience 76, (New Series), 1963 (August 12, 1932), Weimarer Perspektiven anläßlich bundesrepublikani­ 129- 135. scher Wirklichkeiten (~ Politics and Poverty. Notes MAcNlcOL, JOHN, 1980: The Movement for Fa1llily Allo­ Pertaining to Weimar Perspectives on Present Wel­ wanw 1918-45. A Study ill Soeial Policy Development. fare State Realities)" - PROKLA , 56 (1984), 105- 126 London etc.: Heineman, 243 p. (~Leibfried, et aJ. 1985: 146-167). MANEY, ARDITH L., 1989: All Tbese Yean: Food ASJ"istrlllce LEIBI:JUED, STEPHANj l-lANsEN, ECKHARDj HEISIG, MI­ Policy from Kennedy to Reagan. Ncw York, NY etc.: CHAEL, 1984b: "Geteilte Erde? Bedarfsprinzip und Exi­ Greenwood, 203 p. (Studies in Social Welfare Policies stenzminimum unter dem NS-Regime: Zu Aufstieg and Programs). und Fall der Regelsätze in der Fürsorge (~ Shared MARWICK, ARTHUR, 1974: War and Soeial Change in the Wealth? Needs Standard and Subsistence Minimum Twentietb Cencury. A Comprtrlaive Study of Britain, Under the NS-Regime. Notes on the Rise and Fall Frallce, GenIlany, Russin, and tbe United States. New of Standardized Support Scales in Welfare Politics)" York, NY: Macmillan, XIV, 258 p. - Neue Praxis 14, I (1984), 3-20 (~ Leibfried, et aJ. 1985: 168-185). MARWICK, ARTlIUR, cd ., 1988: Total War find Soda! LEIBY, JAMES, 1978: A Hirtory of Social Weifare and Soeial Change. ßasingstock: Macmillan, XXII, 134 p. Work in the United States. New York, NY: Columbia MAYER, SUSAN E.j]ENCKS, CHRISTOPHER, 1989: "Povcrty University Press, vrn, 426 p. and the Distribution ofMaterial Hardship" - TheJour­ LEITCII, IlsABELLA], 1942: "The Evolution of Dietary nal of Human Resources 24, I (Winter 1989), 88-114. Standards" - Nutrition Abstracts and Reviews (ed. by The MAVHE\\', MADELEINE, 1986: WhatWcre the Economic, Imperial Bureau ofAnimal Nutrition) 11,4 (April 1942), Social and Political Implications in the 1930s of "Thc 509-521. Newer Knowledge of Nutrition"? Sussex: University LEYENSTEIN, HA RVEY A., 1988: Revolution at the Table. The of Sussex, 31 p. (Final Year Diss.). Transformation of the A11lerienn Diet. Oxford: Oxford MAYl-IEW, MAoELEINE, 1988: "The 1930s Nutrition Con­ University Press, XII, 275 p. troversy" - Journal ofContemporary Hirtory 23,3 Ouly LEVINE, DANIEL, 1988: Poverty and Soeiety. The Growth of 1988),445-464. the A11Iericall Weifare State in International Comparison. MAYNARD, LEONARD A., 1962: "Wilbur O. Atwatcr. New Brunswick, NJ etc.: Rutgers Univcrsity Press, A Biographical sketch (May 3, I 844-September 22, XII, 355 p. 1907)" - Journal ofNutritioll 78, I (1962),3-9. LlcHTENFEL T, ALFRED, 1913: Die Geschichte der Ernäh• Measure, 1976: Tbe Measure of POVe71y. AReport 10 Con­ rung. BerIin: G. Reimer, xvn, 365 p. gress as Mrmdated by the Edllcation Amendments of 1974. LIEßIG,juSTus, FREIlIERR VON, 1847: Chemistry and its Ap­ Washington, DC: USDHEW, April, XXVI, 162 p. (cf. plication toAgricultureand Physiology, ed. by Lyon Playfai~ also: Orshansky 1977; PETERKIN 1976a). Philadelphia, PA: T. B. Peterson, IV, 135 p. MEIN HOLD, WIILLY], 1939: "Die deutsche Kriegsernäh• LIGHT, LUISEj CRONIN, FRANCES J., 1981: "Food Gui­ rungswirtschaft" -Jahrbücher für Natiollaliikol1omie und dance Revisited" - Journal ofNutrition Eduention 13,2 Statistik 150 (1939), 688-707. (1981),57-62. Memorandum, 1977: The Case for an Immediate Re­ LUCK, MARY GORRINGEj WOODRUFF, SYBIL, 1931: "Cast view of the Government's Nutritional Information. of LiYing Studies ill. The Food for Twelve Families Memorandum to the Department ofHealth and Social of the Professional CI ass. " - University of California Security. London, February 2 1,7 p. UnpubJ. man. Publicatiol1s in Econ01ltics 5, Berkeley (see also: Heller MERRIAM, IDA C., 1968: uWclfare and ItsMeasuremcnt." Committee),278- 293. In: Elcanor Bernert Sheldon, Wilbert E. More, eds.,

48 Indientors ofSoeial Change. New York, NY: Russell Sage ORLOFF, A..'OIN SI-IOLA, 1988: "Thc Political Origins of Foundation, 721-804. America's BelatedWelfare State." In: Margaret Weir; MERRITT, ALBERT N[EWToN], 1920: War Time Controlof Ann Shola O rl off; Theda Skocpol, cds., Tbe Polities of Distribution of Foods. A Short History of the Distribu­ Social Policy in the United States. Princeton, N]: Prin­ tion Division of the United Stotes Food Administration, its ceton University Press, 37-80. Personnel flntl Achievemwts. New York, NY: The Mac­ ORLOFF, ANN SHOLA; SKOCPOL , THEDA, 1984: "Why Not millan Co., X, 23 7 p. Equal Protection? Explaining the Politics of Public MOMMSEN , WOLFGANG j., 1988: "The Social Conse­ Social Spending in Britain, 1900-1911, and the Uni ted quences of World War 1: The Case of Germany." In: States, 1880s-1920" - Americon Sodologiea! Review 49, Marwick, 1988: 25-44. 6 (Oecemberl 984), 726-750. MORGULlS, SEHGIUS, 1923: Hunger und Unterernäbrung. ORSHANSKY, MOLLIE, 1963: "Childrcn of thc Poor" - Biologische und soziologische Studie. Berlin: Springer, IX, Soda! Security Bulletin 26, 7 Ouly 1963), 3-13 (= Ors­ 311 p. hansky 1977: 5- 15). MULLENDORE, WILLlAM CLlNTON, 1941: History of the ORSI-lANSKY, MOLLlE, 1965a: "Counring thc Poor: Ano­ United Stnter Food Administration J9 J7-J 9 J9, with an ther Look at thc Poverty Profile" - Soda! SeCilrity B1I1Ie­ lntroduction by Herbert Hoover and 0 Foreword and Biblio­ tin 28, I Oanuary 1965),3- 29 (= Orshansky 1977: 16- graphy by Ra!ph Haswell Lutz. Stanford, CAILondon: 43). S tan ford Uni versi ty Press/H um phrey Mil ford, Oxford ORSHANSKY, MOLLlE, 1965b: "Who's Who Among the University Press, XIV, 399 p. Poor: A Oemographic Vicw of Poverty" - Soda! Se­ MURSWIECK, AXEL, 1988: Sozialpolitik in den USA. Eine curity Bulletin 28, 7 Ouly 1965), 3- 32 (= Orshansky Einftihr1lng. Opladen etc.: Westdeutscher Verlag, II, 1977: 45-74). 164 p. ÜRSHANSKY, MOLLlE, 1969: "How Poverty is Mcasured" NATHAN, [UCHARD P., 1976: "[Approaches to Welfare Re­ - Momhly Labor Review 92, 2 (February 1969), 37-41. form. 1wo Views.] The Case für Incrementalism" - [ON] ORSHANSKY, MOLLlE, 1971: "How Much Is Too City A!manae 11 ,4 (December 1976), I, 8-11. Little? [Allthor ofbiographical article not idcntified]" National I-Iealth Insurance, MedicaI Research COlTImit­ - Oasis [monthly publication of the Social Security Ad­ tee, 1917: An Inquiry into the Composition of Dietarier ministration] 17, 10 (October 1971), 13- 16. with Speda! Reference to the Dietarier of Munition Wor­ km. London: HMSO, 48 p. ORSHANSKY, MOLLlE, cd., 1977: The Measure ofPoverty, U. S. Oepartment of Health, Education and Welfare National Research Couneil (= NRC), Conunittee on (USOHEW), gen. ed., vol. I: DOC71mentation of Back­ Food Habits, 1943: The Probien. ofChanging Food Ha­ ground lnfonnatioll and Rationale for Current Poverty bits. Washington, OC: NRC, National Academy of Matrix (ed. by Mollie Orshansky, Social Secllrity Ad­ Sciences, 177 p. (Bul. ofthe N.R.C., no. 108, October ministration). Washington, OC: USGPO (Techniea l 1943). Papers, 18 vols.), VIII, 357 p. National Research Council, Committee on Food and Nutrition (= Food ami Nutrition Board), 1941: Re­ ÜRSHANSKY, MOLLlE, 1988: "Commcntary: T hc Poverty connn

49 PATTERSON,]AM ES T., 1981: Ammca's Struggle Agflinst Po­ des Zweiten Weltkriegs." In: Waclaw Dlugoborski, verty 1900-/980. Carnbridge,MA: I-larvard University cd., Zweiter Weltkrieg und sozialer Wandel. Achsen11liichte Press, XIT, 268 p. und bmtzte Länder. Göttingen: Y.1ndenhoeck & Ru­ PEIXOTTO, ]ESSICA BLANCHE, 1923: The Control of Po­ precht, 65-86 (Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswis­ verty. Economics /80. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia senschaft, vol. 47). Press, 112 p. POLANYI, KARL, 1957: The Great Transformation. The Po­ PEIXOTTO,] ESSICA B[LANCHE). 1929: Cost ofLiving Studies litienl and Economic Origins of Ollr Time. Foreword by 11. How Workers Spend a Living Wtlge. A Study oftbe Inco­ Roben M. Mac/ver Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 3 15 p. ",es and Expenditures ofEightytwo Typographers' Families POLENIU': RG, RTCIIARD, 1972: War (md Soäety: The United in San Francisco. Berkeley: University of California, Staus, /94/-45. Philadelphia, PA:]. B. Lippincott Co., VrI, 245 p. (University of California Publications in VIII, 298 p. (reprinted 1980 by Grecnwood). Economics, vol. 5, no. 3) (sec also: I-Icller Commit­ POPPENDIECK, JANET, 1986: Breadlines Knee-Deep in tee). Whear. Food Assista71Ce in the Great Depression. Ncw PETERKIN, BETTV B., 1965: "USDA Food Plans and Brunswick, N): Rutgers University Press, XX, 306 p. Costs-Tools for Deriving Food Cost Standards for PRELLER, LUDWIG, 1949: Sozialpolitik in der Weimarer Re­ Use in Public Assistance" - Fnmily Ecollomics Review publik. Stuttgart: Mittelbach, XX, 360 p. (Reprinted (ARS 62-5-Consu1ller and Food Economics Research Di­ Düsseldorf 1978). vision, Agricultural Researcb Service, USDA) , March PnoTzNER, WOLFGANG, 1987: "Vom Hungcrwintcr bis (1965),19-23 . zum Beginn der 'Freßwelle'." In: Wolfgang Protz­ PETERKIN, BETTV B., 1975: "USDA Family Food Plans, oer, cd., Vom Hungerwinter zum kulinarischen Scblaraf­ 1974" -Family Economics Review (ARS 62-5-Conmmer fonland. Aspekte einer Kulturgeschichte des Essms in der find Pood Economics Research Division, Agricultural Re­ Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Wiesbaden: F ranz Steiner searcb Service, USDA) , Winter (1975), 3-12. Verlag, 11-30 (Beiträge zur Wirtschafts- und Sozial­ PETERKIN, BETTY B., 1976a: "Dietary Guidancc für geschichte, vol. 35). Food St,1rnp Families" - Family Econ011lics Review (ARS RAINWATER, LEEj REIN, MARTINj SCHWARTZ, jOSEPH E., 62-5-Consumer lind Pood Economics Research Division, 1988: Income Ptlckaging in tbe Welfare State. A C01ltpar­ Agricultural Researcb Service, USDA) , Winter (1976), ative Study of Family Inco",e. Oxford etc.: C1arendon 18-25. Press, Oxford University Press, X, 286 p. PETERKIN, BETTY [B.). ed., 1976b: The Measure of Po­ RAWLS,]OIIN, 1971: A Theory ofJustice. Carnbridge, MA: verty, U. S. Department of Health, Education and The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, XV, Welfare (USDHEW), gen. cd., vol. XII: Food Plans for 607 p. Poverty Meamrenzent (cd. by Betty Peterkin, U. S. De­ REIN, MARTIN, 1970: "Problems in the Definition and partrnent of Agriculture). Washington, DC: USGPO Measurcment of Poverty." In: Peter Townsend, cd., (Technical Papers, 18 vols.), X, 130 p. Tbe Concept ofPoverty. Working Papers on Metbods of 111.­ PETERKIN, BErrv [B.]; CI-lASSEY, ]UDYj KERn, RICHARD, vestigation and Lifestyles ofthe Poor in Different Countries. 1975 : The Thrifty Food Plan. Hyattsville, MD: Consu­ New York, NY: American Elsevier, 46-63. mer and Food Economics Institute, Agricultural Re­ Report, 1984: Report of the Presidmt's Tnsk Force on Food search Service, USDA, September, man., rII, 28 p. Assistance. Washington, DC: USGPO, XVI, 297 p. PETERKIN, BETT\' B.; KERR, RICHARD L ., 1982: "Food RlCHARDSON, ROBERT K., 1913: "Death Takes Prof. Cha­ Starnp Ailotment and Diets ofU. S. Households" - Fa- pin from us" - Tbe Rou"d Table [Beloit, WlJ 60, 1 11lily Economics Review (ARS 62-5-Consumer alld Food (Oetober 3, 1913),2-5. Econo11lics Research Division, Agricuitura/ Research Ser­ RlNGEN, STEIN, 1987: Tbe Possibility of Politics. A Study in vice, USDA) , Winter (1982), 23-26. tbe Political Economy of the Welfare State. Oxford: Cla­ PETERSEN, I<ÄTE, 1972: Die Regelsätze nach dem BSHG rendon Press of Oxford University Press, XII, 303 p. - ihre Bedeutung, Bemessung und Festsetzung. F rank­ ROBERTS , LVDIA J.. 1958: "Beginnings of the Recom­ furt a. M .: Deutscher Verein für öffentliche und private mendcd Dictary Allowance" - Journal of the A1IlerietlTl Fürsorge, 88 p. (Kleine Schriften des Deutschen Ver­ Dietetic Association 34, 9 (September 1958), 903-908. eins, no. 43). RODWAV v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 1975: PETTV, E[L1ZABETHj CELlA, 1987: T he Impact of the Ne­ 514 F. 2d. (= 514 Federal Reporter, 2nd Series), 809- wer Knowledge of Nutrition: Nutrition Science and 824. Nutrition Policy, 1900- 1939. London: University of ROERKOIIL, ANNE, 1987: "Die Lcbcnsmittclversorgung London, LSHTM (London School of Hygiene and während des Ersten Weltkrieges im Spannungsfeld Tropical Medicine), 303 p. Ph.D. (med.). kommunaler und staatlicher Maßnahmen," In: l-Ians PETZINA, DIETMAR, 1981: "Soziale Lage der deutschen ] ürgen Teuteberg, ed., Durcbbruch z1lm modernen Mas­ Arbeiter und Probleme des Arbeitseinsatzes während senkonsum. Lebensmittelmärkte und LebeuS'mittelqllolitiit

50 im Städtewachstum des Industriezeitalters. Münster: F. RUBNER, MAx, 1928: "Das Ernährungswesen im allge­ Coppenrath, 309- 371 (Studien zur Geschichte des All­ meinen." In: Franz Bumm, ed., Die Gesundheitsver­ tags, vol. 8). hitltnirse Deutschlands unter dem Einfluß des Weltkrieges. ROSEN[WASSERJ.JOSEF, 1944: "Le Rationnement alimcn­ Stuttgart etc.: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1,1-42. taire dans quelque pays d'Europe, 1939- 1944" - Bulle­ RUBNER, MAx, 1932: "Schriftenverzeichnis im Anhang tin Mensue! de Statistique 6, June (1944), (Geneva: zu: Gedächtnisrede des I-Im. R. Fick auf M. Rubner" Societe des Nations, Service d'etudes economiques) - SitzungsbenChte der Preußischen Akademie der Wis­ 157- 177. senschaften, Physikalisch-Mathematische Klarse 97 (1932), ROSEN[WASSER], JOSEI', 1945: "Die Entwicklung der CXXXVIII-CXLVI (Berlin: Verlag der Akadcmie der Kriegsernährung in 7 europäischen Ländern 1939- Wissenschaften). 1944. Der Verbrauch an Nährstoffen und Vitaminen" Rubner Papers: Archives on the I-listory of the Max - Schweizerische Medizinische Wochenschrift 75,31 (Au­ Planck Society. Berlin, Div. m, Rep. 8. gust 4, 1945), 683-691. RUBNER, MAxj llHERFELDER, I-lANs, 1908: "Drei Gutach­ ROSENBERG, CHARLES E., 1970: "Wilbur O. Atwater." In: ten der Wissenschaftlichen Deputation für das Med­ Dictionary of Seientific Biography, 1970- 1980, I, 325- zinalwcscn, betreffend die Aenderung der Grundsätze 326. für die Verpflegung der Gefangenen in den Gef:ing­ ROSENBERG, CHARLES E., 1973: "Graham Lusk." In: Dic­ nissen der Justizverwaltung" - Vierteljahresschrift für tionary of Seientific Biography, 1970-1980, VIII, 555- gerichtliche Medizin und offentliches Sanitätswesen, lll. 556. Folge, XXXV, I (1908), 116-139. RÜMKER, KURT [l1·IEoOOR HEINRICH] v, 1911: Das land­ ROSENBERG, CHARLES E., 1977: "RationaJization and Rea­ ' wirtschaftliche Verruchs- und Unterrichtswesen in den Ver­ lity in the Shaping of Agricultural Research, 1875- einigten Staaten von Nordamerika und in Preußen. Berlin: 1914" - Soeial Studies of Seience 7 (1977), 401-422. Verlagsbuchhandlung Paul Parey, 34 p. ROSSITER, MARGARET W[ALSHl, 1975: The Emergence of RVAN,JOHN [AUGUSTINE], 1906: A Living w"ge: lts Ethical Agricllitural Seience. Jurtus Liebig and the Americanr, and Economic Aspects with an Introduction by Richard T 1840-1880. New Haven, CT etc.: Yale University EIy. New York, NY etc.: MacmiIIan, XVI, 346 p. Press, XIV, 275 p. RVAN,]OIIN [AUGUSTINE], 1941: Social Doctrine inAction: A ROSSITER, MARGARET W[ALSH], 1979: "The Organization Personal Hirtory. New York, NY etc.: Harper Brothers, of the Agricultural Sciences." In: Alexandra OIeson, VII, 297 p. J ohn Von, eds., The Organization of Knowledge in Mo­ RVAN, ]OHN [AUGUSTINE], 1942: Distributive Justice: The dern America 1860-1920. Baltimore, MD: The]ohns Right and Wrong of our Present Distribution of Wealth. Hopkins University Press, 211-248. New York, NY: MacMiIIan, XI, 3rd ed., 357 p. ROSSITER, MARGARET W[ALSH], 1982: Women Seientim in SACHSSE, CHRISTOPHj TENNSTEDT, FLORlAN, 1988: Ge­ America: Strllggles and Strategies to 1940. Baltimore, schichte der Armenfürsorge in Deutsebland, vol. 2: Fürsorge MD: The lohns Hopkins University Press, XVIII, und Wohlfahrtspflege 1871 bis 1929. Stuttgart etc.: Kohl­ 439 p. hammer, 272 p. ROTHSCHUH, KARL E[DUARD], 1975: "Max Rubner." In: SALINS, PETER D., cd., 1987: Housing Americaj· Paar. Cha­ Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 1970- 1980, XI, 585- pel HilI etc.: University ofNorth Carolina Press, XII, 586. 203 p. RUBNER, MAx, 1902: "Bemerkungen hierzu (to: Smo­ SCHELLHOUN, \-\fALTEn, 1989: "Neu es Bedarsbemes­ lensky 1902)" - Hygienische Rundschau XII, 21 (1902), sungssystem für die Regelsätze der Sozialhilfe: Ab­ 1155. leitung der Regelsätze für sonstige Haushaltsan­ RUBNER, MAx, 1913: Wandlungen in der Volksernährung. gehörige" - Nachrichtendienst des Deutschen Vereins für Leipzig: Akademischc VcrIagsgeseIIschaft, 134 p. offentliche und private Fürsorge 69,5 (May 1989), 157- RUBNER, MAx, 1914: Über moderne Ernährungrreformen. 161. Munich etc.: R. Oldenbourg, 83 p. SCHMIDT, GEORG, l898: "Referat - Existenzminimum in RUBNER, MAx, 1916: Deutschlands Volksernährung der Annenpflege. Anrechnung der Leistungen der Pri­ im Kriege. Leipzig: Verlag "Naturwissenschaften" vatwohltätigkeit und InvaHdenrenten." In: Schriften des GmbH, 60 p. Deutschen Verein.rfür Arntenpflege und Wohltätigkeit,no. RUBNER, MAx, 1926: "Die Beziehung zwischen Nah­ 39. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 9- 108. rungsaufwand und körperlichen Leistungen des Men­ SCHMIDT, MANFREO, G., 1988: Sozialpolitik. Historische schen" - Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie Grundlegung und internationaler Vergleich. Opladen: der Wissemchaften, Physikalisch-Mathematische Klarse 91 Leske & Budrich, 222 p. (1926), 384-403 (Berlin: Verlag der Akademic der SCHORR, fu.VIN L[oVJsl, 1963: Slums and Sociallnsecllr­ Wissenschaften). ity. An Appraisal ofthe Effectiveness ofHousing Polieies in

51 Helping to Eliminate Poverty in the U. S. Washington, STECKER, MARGARET L[ooMls], 1937: Intercity Diffirences OC: USGPO, VIII, 168 p. in Costs of Living in March 1935, 59 Cities. Washing­ SCHORR, ALVIN L[ovls], 1964: Slums and Social Ins

52 Clerical Workers in Cities. Washington, OC: USGPO, TODHUNTER, E[UZAßETH] NEIGE, 1971: "Helen Woodard H, 141 p. (USOA, Circular, no. 507). Atwater." In: Notable American W011ten. 1, 66-{'7. STIEBELlNG, HAZEL K[ATHERINE]j WARD, MEDORAM[AV], TORNIEPORTH, GERDA, 1979: Studien zur Frauenbii­ 1933: Diets at Four Levels of Nutritive Content and Cost. dung. Beiträge zur historischen Analyse lebensweltori­ Washington, OC: USGPO, November, 58 p. (USOA, entierter Biidungskonzeptionen. Weinheim ctc.: Beltz, Agricultural Extension Service Circular, no. 296). VIII, 488 p. SWAN, PATRIClA, 1986: "A History ofNutrition Research TOWNSEND, PETER, 1979: Poverty in the United Kingdom: in the Uni ted States with Emphasis on Agricultural fI Survey of Household Resources and Standards of Living. Experiment Stations." In: Ruth E. Deacon, Wallace E. London: Penguin, 1216 p. Huffinan, eds., Human Resources Rmarch, 1887-1987. TREMOUERES,JEAN, 1955: Manger pour vivre. Paris:Jehe­ Proceedings. Ames, TO: Thc College of Horne Eco­ ber, 125 p. nomics, Iowa State University, 27--40. TREMoLlImEs,] UN, 1960: URemarques sur l'appn~ciation Technical Commission, 1936: "Report on the Physiolo­ des besoins alimentaires et la signifieation des stand­ gical Base of Nutrition. Orawn up by the Technical ards nutritioncls" In: HU111aniti et subsistance. Vcvey: A. Commission of the Health Conunittee at the Meeting Nestle, 252-263. Held in London (November 25th-29th 1935). Revi­ TRUE, ALFRED C[llARLES], 1937: A History ofAgricultural sed and Amplified at the Meeting held at Geneva (J une Experimentation and Research in the United StateJ, 1607- 4th-8th, 1936)" - Bulletin ofthe Health Organisation 5, 1925. Washington, OC: USGPO, VI, 321 p. (USOA, 3 (September 1936), 391-415. Miscellaneous Publication, no. 251). Technical Commission, 193 8: "Report by the Technical TRUE, ALrRED C[HARLES], 1980: Alfred Tme on Agricultu­ Commission [of the League ofNations] on Nutrition ral Experimentation and Research. [ntroduction by Mar­ on the Work of its Third Session. Held in London garet W[alshJ Rossite~ New York, NY: Arno Press, VI, from November 15th to 20th 1937" - Bulletin ofthe 321,436p. Health Organisation 7, 3 (June 1938),460-498. TSCHOEPE, ARMIN, t 987: uNelles Bedarfsbemessungsssy­ stem für die Regelsätze der Sozialhilfe nach §22 TWTEBERG, HANSJÜRGEN, 1987: "Oie Ernährung als Ge­ BSHG." - Nachrichtendienst des Deutschen Vereim- für genstand historischer Analyse" - Vierteljahresschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Histona socialis et aeco­ offentliche und private Fürsorge 67, 12 (1987),433-442. nomica, supp!. 84 (1987), 180-202. TVSZKA, CARL VON, 1912: Die Lebemhaltung der arbeiten­ den Klassen in den bedeutenden Industriestaaten: England, TEUTEBERG, I-IANs JÜRGENj WIEGELMANN, GÜNTHER, Deutschland, Frankreich, Belgien und Vereinigte Staaten 1972: Der Wandel der Ernährungsgewohnheiten unter von Amerika. Jena: Gustav Fischer, 69 p. dem Einfluß der Industrialisierung. Gättingen etc.: Van­ TVSZKA, CARL VON, 1934: Ernährung und Lebem-haltung denhoeck & Ruprecht, 418 p. (Studien zum Wandel des deutschen Volkes. Ein Beitrag zur Erkenntnis des Ge­ von Geschichte und Bildung im 19.Jahrhundert, vol. sundheitszustandes des Deutschen Volkes. Bcrlin: Julius 3). Springer, VI, 127 p. TEUTEBERG, I-lANs JÜRGENj WIEGELMANN, GÜNTHER, U. S. Congress, House Committee on Agriculture, 1976: 1987: Unsere tägliche Kost. Geschichte und regionale Food Stamp Act of1976. Report Togetherwith Supplenten­ Prägung. Münster: F. Coppenrath Verlag, VI, 471 p. tal Views, Dissenting Views anti Induding CO'llgressional (1988, 2nd ed.). Budget Office Estimates on H.R. 13613, 94th Cong., 2nd THOMAS, KARL, 1954: "Max Rubner" - MPI Mitteilungen Sess. Washington, OC: USGPO, IIl, 868 p. (1954),63- 68. U . S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nu­ Thrifty Food Plan, 1975: USOA, Consumer and Food trition and Forestry, 1985: The Food Stamps Progrmn: Economics Institute, Agricultural Research Service, History, Desmption, Issues, and Options. Prepared by the The Thrifty Food Plan, Septembe~ Washington, OC: Staffof .. , April 1985, 99th Cong., Ist Sess. Washington, USOA, TI , 26 p. OC: USGPO, IV, 409 p. l1NLEV, J[AMES] M[ADDlSON], 1942: Rationing and Con­ U. S. Housing Authority, 1940: US HO'usingAuthority, Fe­ trol of Food Supplies. Berkeley, CA etc.: University of deral Works Agency in Cooperation with the Social SeCitrity California Press, IV, 26 p. Board, Housing and Welfare. Report ofa Survey Condllcted llTMUSS, RICHARD M., 1958: "War and Social Poliey." by .. Washington, OC: Federal WorksAgency, V, 53 p. In: Richard M. Titmuss, Essays on the Welfare State. USOA, 1983: USDA Family Food Plans, 1983: Low-Cost, London: Unwin U niversity Books, 75-87. Moderate-Cost, and Liberal. Hyattsville, MO: USOA, TODHUNTER, E[UZABETH] NEIGE, 1951 ff.: Collection of Consumer Nutrition Division, fINIS. Biographical Sketches from the History of Nutrition. Versuchsstationen, 1920: uVersuchsstationen, landwirt­ Vanderbilt University (mostly published in theJournal schaftliche." In: Illustriertes Landwirtschafts-Lexikon. of the American Dietetie Association). Berlin: Paul Parey, 5th ed., vol. 2, 444-445.

53 VOlT, KARL [V.], 1877a: "Über die Kost in Volksküchen." WILLlAMS,)OIIN, 1971: The Other BattlegTound: The Horne In: Voit, Karl [v.], 1877b:41-65. Fronu-Britain, France and Ge17Jumy 1914- 18. Chi­ VOlT, KAilL [v.], 1877b: Untersuchung der Kost in einig'" cago,IL: Regnery, XIV, 325 p. öffentlichen Anstalten. Für Aerzte und Verwaltungsbeamte WOOD, H UG H McKINNoN, 1918: "Methods ofFood Con­ in VerbindungmitJ[oseJl Forrter, Fr[iedrich Georg?/ Renk, trol in War-Time" - Journalofthe Society ofCo1ltparative und Ad[olf/ph] Schuster zusammengestellt. München: R. Legislation andlntemational Law 18 (1918), 100- 1 10. Oldenbourg, 215 p. WORTHINGTON, MAruc.i LINDHEIM, BARBARA L.j ROSEN­ BAUM, L lDlA Vj SULLIVAN, MICHAELi CA.~'1INO, CVN­ VOlT, KARL [v.l , 1881: "??" In: L. Herrmann, cd., Hand­ THIA; ]ONAS, ALISA, 1980: AFDC Standarels ofNeed: An buch der Physiologie . Leipzig: Vogel, vol. 6, pt. I , 518- 528. Evaluation of Current Practices, Alternative Approaches, and Policy Options. Full Report. Cambridge, MA: Urban Volksschulkinder, 1909: Die Emährungsverhältnisse der Systems Research & Engineering, Ine., XVI, 461 p. Volksschulkinder. Vorbericht und Verhandlungen der 3. YOUNG, E. GORDON, 1964: "Dietary Standards." In: Ge­ Konferenz der ZentralsteIle für Volkswohlfahrt am 24., orge H. ßeaton, Earle Willard McHenry, eds., Nu­ 25. und 26. Mai 1909 in Darmstadt. Berlin: Carl Hey­ trition. A Comprehensive Treatise. New York, NY etc.: manns Verlag, ca. 17 1 p. (Schriften der Zentralstelle Academic Press, 2, 299-350. für Volkswohlfahrt, no. 4, new series of der Schriften ZARETSKY, Eu, 1982: "Thc Place of the l'amily in the der Zentralstelle für Arbcitcr-Wohlfahrtseinrichtun­ Origins of the Welfare State." In: Barric Thorne, Ma­ gen). rilyn Yalom, eds., Rethinking the Fllmily: Some Femi"ist VOORJIIES, EDWIN C[OßLENTZ], 1942: Planning Jor To­ Questions. New York, NY: Longman, 188-224. tal Food Neeels. Bcrkclcy ctc.: University of California ZIMBALIST, SlDNEY F., 1977: "Recent British ,md Amcri­ Press, VI, 34 p. ean PovertyTrends: Coneeptual and Poliey Contrasts" WATTS, I-lAROLD D., 1980: "Special Panel Suggcsts Chan­ - Social Service Review 51, 3 (Se ptember 1977), 419- ges in BLS Family Budget Program. Committee Pro­ 433. poses Fours Budget Levels Appücable to Six Different ZUNTZ, NATHAN, 1919: "Stoff- und Kraftwechsel. Types ofFamilies, and Based on Median Expcnditures, Wärmehaushalt, [ehap. XIl1." In: Nathan Zuntz, Adolf Rathcr than Dctailcd Commodity Lists" - Monthly La­ Loewy, cds., Lehrbuch der Physiologie des Menschen. bor Review 103-1, December (1980),3-10. Leipzig: C. W Vogel, 3. impr. ed., 671 - 740. WAYAND,OTTO, 1969: "Historical Development ofCon­ cepts and Measures of M-inimunl Living Standards." In: Departrnent ofNational Health and Welfare, Ca­ nada , cd ., Tbe Measurement of Poverty. Toronto, Ca­ nada: DNHW, 3-23 (Memorandum 19-5ocial Se­ curity Scrics, Social Sccurity Research Division, Re­ sea rch and Statistics Directorate). WEAVER, R. KENT, 1985: "Controlling Entitlements." In: lohn E . Chllbb, Paul E. Peterson, eds., The New Direaion in A1Ilerican Politics. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 307-341. WEAVER, R. KENT, 1988: Automntic GOVerll71lelll. The Po­ litics of Indexation. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, XIl, 276 p. WEINBERG, DANIEL 1-1., 1985: "Measuring Poverty" - Fa­ mily Econo71lics Review (FamiJy Economics Research Group, Agriculturlll Research Service, USDA) , 2 (1985), 9-13. WELLS, ROGEn A. E., 1988: WretchedFaces. Famine in War­ time England, 1793-1801. Gloucester, UKlNew York, NY: Allan SlIttOn/St. Martin's, XIl, 466 p. WERNER,WOLl:GANG FRANZ, 1983: "Bleib übrig". Deutsche Arbeiter in der nationalsozialistischen Kriegswirtschaft.. Düsscldorf: Schwann, 461 p. WIEHL, DORoTHv G.j PALMER, CARROLL E., 1939: "Sum­ mer Diets of the Paar in Washington, DC" - The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly XVII, I Oanuary 1939), 5-28.

54 Index

Abel, Mary Hinman 12 Bureau of Agricultural Ebert-Stockinger, Clara 23 Adelson, Sadye F[rances) 17 Economics 15 Economy Food Plan 7, 19f. Adenauer 18 Burnett-Hurst, A[lexanderJ Ellwood, David T. 20,29 AFDC 4,6, 18-21,29,32 R[obert) 26 Engeli, Christian H . 26 Agricultural College Engelmann 38 -, Ber!in 26,40 California, University of Ernährungsministerium 24 -, Poppelsdorf 40 (Berkeley) 37 Esping-Andersen, Gasta 5 Agricultural Experiment Carpenter, KelmethJ. 16 Etheridge, Elizabeth W. Stations Carpenter, R[owena) S[chmidt) 12, IM., 33 -, Middletown, CT 35 17 Eulner, Hans-Heinz 32,40 -, New Haven, CT 35 Cates, Jerry R. 8, 18 Extension Service 13,32, 34 -, Wisconsin Ilf., 37 Census Bureau 7 Almshouses 11, 21, 30 Chambers, Clarke A. 38 Family Economics Review 18 AMA 15 Chapin, Robert C[oit) 13,35 FAO 18 Amenta, Edwin 15 Chicago, University of 36 Federal Emergency Relief American University 37 Chittenden, Russell H. 11 Administration 39 Army 15, 2lf., 30, 39 Columbia, Teachers College 40 Federal Poverty lncome Aronson, Naomi 13,41 Columbia, University 17, 35 Guidelines 7,20 Assistance Board 3 Community Services Fendler, Carol 37 Atkinson, Edward Ilf. Block Grant 20 Fick, R[udolf] 39 Arwater, Helen 13, 35 Conference, Health Finanzpolitische Arwater, Wilbur O[lin) Organization (1933) 18 Korrespondenz 36 6, 11 - 14,32,35,38 Constitutional Court 8 Fischer, Isidor 40 Atzler, Edgar 22, 39 Consumer Price Index 20 Flügge, Kar! 38 Cornell University 36, 39 Food and Agriculture Act Babcock, Stephen M. 12 Cuno, Willi 22f., 33, 35f. of 1977 4 Baldwin, Peter 6 Food Stamps Becker, Stanley L. 37 Daniel, Ute 24 4, 6f., 18-21, 29f., 32, 34 Beloit College 35 Davis, Martha F. 8 Forster, J osef 21 Benefit Standard Decree 27 Dehn-Rothfelser, Ludwig von France 15,31 Ber!in, University of 35,38-40 23 Freidson, Eliot 31 Berry, JeffreyM. 4, 18f., 31,41 Department of Agriculture Friedman, Rose D. 20 Betters, Paul V[ernon) 11, 16 11, 15f. Fürth, Henriette 22 Beveridge Plan 15 Deutscher Landbund 23 Beveridge, Sir William H[enry) Deutscher Verein 22f. Galperin, Peter 27 15 -, Committee on the Design of Geppert 40 Boarding houses 11 Support Rates 36, 38 Goerke, Heinz 21f. Bonn, University of 40 -, für ArmenpAege und Goldberger, J oseph 33 Bowley, Arthur Lyon 26 Wohltätigkeit 22 Goldberg v. Kelly 8 Bramse I, Herbert 27,36 -, für öffentliche und Goodin, Robert E. 23,31f. Brentano, Lujo 36 private Fürsorge 22 Gottstein, Adolf 12,23 Britain 3,8,12, 14f., 18f., 24, 31 DHSS 19f. Gould,John Stanton 11, 36 Budget Bureau 7 Douglas, Mary 4 Günther, Adolf 24 Bulmer, Martin 21,41 Dryzek, John 23,31 Burchardt, Lothar 27,41 Dupree, A. Hunter 1 [ Hamburg, University of 38 Dwyer, Johanna 34 Hanesch, Walter 27

55 Hanson, Russell L. 5 Kohler, Robert E. 32 Mead, Margaret 16 Hardin, USDA Secretary 20 König, Joseph 11 Mendel, Lafayette B. 11 Harrow, Benjamin 35 Korpi, Walter 5,8,21,41 Merriam, Ida C. 37 I-Iar.vood,Jonathan 11,32 Kraut, Heinrich 22,27,36 Merton, Wilhelm 22 Hatfield, Henry Rand 38 Kriegsernährungsamt 24,26,39 Migrant and Seasonal Hauser, Richard 34 Kriegsfürsorge 25 Farmworker Program 20 Head Start 20 Kuczynski, Jürgen 36 Miller, S. Mike 20 Heide, R[ichard?) v. cl. 40 Kuczynski, Robert [Rene) Mullendore, William Clinton Heidenheimer, Arnold 18 26, 33, 36 14f. Heischkel-Artelt, Edith 41 Kuczynski-Zuntz standard 33 Munieh, University of Heisig, Michael 18, 26f., 41 Kyrie, Hazel 13,23 36-38,40 Heller Committee 16,37 Murswieck, Axel 19f. Hermberg, Paul 26 Land grant colleges Heyl, Hedwig 23 11, 13, 16,32,34 National Recovery Hindhede 22 La Vallete 40 Administration 38 Hollingsworth, J. Rogers 32 Landwi rtscha ftliche National Research Council 15f. Holmes, Frederic L. 40 Versuchsstationen -, Food and Nutrition Board Hoover, Herbert 15 f. -, Möckern 11 15, 37 Horowitz, Daniel 12, 16 -, Münster 11 National School Lunch Hospitals 11, 30 League of Nations Program 20 Hunt, Caroline L[ouisa) 15, 17f., 33,40 Netherlancls 3,8 11, 16,36 -, Mixed committee 17 Neuman, Mark 6 Hunter, Robert 30 Leibfried, Stephan 3,26,41 New England Kitchen 12f. Hunter College 37 Leipzig, University of 38 Northwestern, University 36 Levenstein, Ha rvey A. Nor.vay 3 Ignatieff, Michael 3f.,6 11-19,32,41 NRPB 15 Ikenberry, John 8, 14 Levine, Daniel 14 !LO 15,17f. Lewis Institute 36 Office of Interallied Scientific Food LichtenfeIt, Alfred 21 -, Economic Opportunity 7 Commission 15 Liebig, Justus, Freiherr von -, Experiment Stations 35 Isherwood, Baron 4 11 ,38,40 -, Horne Economies 35f. Italy 15, 18,31 Longworthy 13 -, Price Administration 39 Low-Income Horne Energy Old age hornes 21 Jencks, Christopher 5,20 Assistance Block Grant 20 Orshansky, Mollie 7, 17, 19, 37 Jenkins, Margaret 20 Luck, Mary Gorringe 16 Osborne, Thomas B. 37 Job Corps 20 Ludwig, Kar! 38 Johns Hopkins University 37 Lusk, Graham 11 ,15,24,35-39 Palmer, Carroll E. 17 Johnson, Samuel W 35 Palmer, John L. 20 Journal ofHome Economics 35 Maney, Ardith L. 18 Patterson, James T. 30 Marburg, University of 38 Peixotto, Jessica Blanche 16, 37f. Kaiserliches Gesundheitsamt 39 Marwick, Arthur 14,23f.,31,41 Peterkin, Betty B. 17-19 Kaiser Wilhelm Institute 22, 39 Max Planck Institute for Petersen, Käte 27,38 -, for Physiology ofWork 36 -, Nutrition Research 36 Pettenkofer 21, 39f. Kansas State Teachers -, Physiology ofWork 27 Petty, E[lizabeth) Celia 3 College, Emporia 40 Mayer, Susan 20 Petzina, Dietrnar 27 Kansas, University of 37 Mayhew, Made/eine 3 Pflüger, Eduard 40 Kißkalt, Karl 6, 12 , 22f., 39 Maynard, Leonard A. 35 Phi pard, Esther F. 17 Koch, Robert 38f. McCollum, EImer V. Polanyi, Karl 6 Kocka, Jürgen 23 llf., 16f., 32, 37 Polenberg, Richard 16

56 Poppendieck, Janet 17f. Schorr, AJvin L[ovis] 19 u. S. Departrnent of Eclucation Poverty line Schulspeiswlgen 23 20 M., 18-2l, 26, 33f., 41 Schurnburg, Wilhelm 12,22,41 U. S. Department of Labor Preller, Ludwig 23 Scientific Council for the Army 17, 19 Preußische wissenschaftliche 39 -, Cost of Living Division 17 Deputation für das Sebrell, William H[enry] 17 U. S. Food Administration 15 Medizinalwesen 39 Sen, Amartya Kumar 4 Underhill, Frank 13 Prisons 11,21,30,32,36,39 Sherrnan, Henry CQapp] 40 Upward Bound 20 Prussian Medical Board 39 Skocpol, Theda 8, 14f. Public assistance 18, 21, 29 Skowronek, Stephen 18, 32, 34 Virchow, Rudolf 40 Public soup kitchen 23 Smeeding, Timothy 19 Voit, Karl [v.] 2lf., 35, 37f., 40 Social Security Administration Voit standard 21 Rainwater, Lee 5 19,37,39 Volhard 38 Rawls,John 4 Sozialhilfe 4-8,27,29 Volksküchen 12,23 Recommencled Dietary Spang, Rebecca L. 16 Voorhies, Edwin C[oblentz] AJlowances 7, 15f., 31 Sperling, Hans 27 15,27 Reich's Council on Health 39 Spitta, Oskar 39 Reich's Department of SSI 6, 20f., 29 Wage Stabilization Board 37 Nutrition 23 Stecker, Margaret L[oomis] War Labor Board 37 Reichsgesundheitsamt 39 15, 39 Ward, Medora M[ay] Reichsgesundheitsrat 39 Stiebeling, Hazel K[atherine] 15,17,19,40 Rein, Martin 5 15, 17,19,39f. War Welfare Scheme 25 Restricted Diet for Emergency Suprerne Court 8,30 Weaver, R.Kent 4,18,27,31,34 Use 15,17, 19f. Sweden 5 Weinberg, Daniel H . 20 Richards, Ellen H. llf., 17, 41 Wells, Roger A. E. 6 Richtsatz-Erlaß 27 Technical Commission 15,17f. Werner, Wolfgang Franz 27 Ringen, Stein 4f. Tennstedt, Florian 22f., 25f., 41 Wesleyan University 2,35 Rodway v. USDA 17,20,30 Teuteberg, Hans Jiirgen 24,41 WIC 20 Roerkohl, Anne 24f. Thierfelder, Hans 22, 39 Wiegelmann, Günther 24 Rosa, Eclward Bennett 35 Thrifty Food Plan 7, 19f., 31 Wiehl, Dorothy G. 17 Rose, Mary Swartz 17, 40 Tinley, J[ames] M[acldison] 14 Wilhelrn 40 Rosenberg, CharIes E. 35,37 Titrnuss, Richard M. 31 Williams,John 24 Rossiter, Margaret W[alsh] Todhunter, E[lizabeth] Neige 35 Wisconsin, University of 36,39 ll, 13,22,32 Tornieporth, Gerda 23,33 Wooclruff, Sybil 16 Rubner, Max Torrey, Barbara Boyle 20 Work houses 2l 11,21-24, 26f., 35, 38f. Townsend, Peter 5 Works Progress Administration Rumford 17, 39 Tremolieres, Jean 6 15, 17,39 Rumford Food Laboratory 12 True, AJfred C[harles] 11,13,35 World Health Organization 37 Rümker, Kurt [Theodor Tschoepe, Armin 27 Worthington, Mark 20 Heinrich] v. LI Tyszka, Carl von 26 Russell Sage Foundation 13,35 Yale University 11 ,35,37 Russell Sage Institute U. S. Bureau of Home of Pathology 37 Economics 15- 17,32,36,40 Zaretsky, Eli 13 Ryan,John [Augustine] 13 U. S. Children's Bureau 37 Zentralstelle für das U. S. Departrnentof Agriculture Volksernährungswesen 23 Sachße, Christoph 22f., 25f., 41 23, 32 Zuntz, Nathan 26,33,36,40 Schellhorn, Walter 27 -, Agricultural Research Service Schmidt, Georg 23 18,40 Schmidt, Manfred, G. 5 -, Graduate School 37

57