ABSTRACT
At the heart of Jordan's critique of the new Anglo-Saxon welfare policy is his itemization of its unacceptable costs, mainly the loss of benefits and liberties. He criticizes the Clinton-Blair approach for being moralistic and authoritarian ill pressuring' \\,1'1I~lrt, recipients to submit to stringent means testing and training programme~, and thel1 ollt'ring only limited or reduced benefits. 71; It is also 'an authoritarian, communitarian route to social justice, paying a high price in terms of traditional liberal rights and social protections,.1/ These costs apply only in Anglo-Saxon countries, where ethnic di\'t'rsity is the highest among the developed nations. In Continental Europe, costs are not incurred in terms of/wlldits or rights to citizens, which remain relatively high. Rather tht' costs fall on non-citizens who want to share in the generous benefits but are exciuckd by the system through curbs placed on eligibility for citizt'llship and immigration. As noted earlier, Jordan considers this second set of costs to be unacceptable, and rt:iects ethnic exclusion out of hand. His message is dear: immigration should be nondiscriminatory whatever its impact on welfare rights. Jordan is, however, less repulsed by the se('ond set of costs, that is, costs to the home society. He is unhappy about the reduction oflwnclits and freedoms within the UK and the US, but considers the matter neg'Otiable, devoting a book-length discussion to it. Apparently, he considers equality and fiw'c1om less important within states than Ilt'tw('('n states, but olkrs no argument for making this distinction.
