I went into researching American Welfare expecting a history project. I thought I would spend most of my time on how we got here, how “welfare” became a weapon, and why our systems so often feel stuck.
What I didn’t expect was that some of the most forward-looking guidance would come from economists. They are not looking away from the strain this moment is placing on communities. They also remind us that the boundaries of “realistic” are often the result of choices, and that choices can change.
Over the past few years, a growing group of thinkers has been challenging a deeply familiar story: that markets alone determine value and that public institutions are mostly a backstop—useful only when “the real economy” fails.
Two economists who helped sharpen my understanding of what’s possible are Mariana Mazzucato and Darrick Hamilton. Their work doesn’t require you to speak fluent economic theory. It simply asks you to look again at what we’ve been taught to accept as inevitable.
Mazzucato has been especially influential in reframing the role of public institutions. Instead of seeing government as a clumsy fixer that arrives late, she shows how public investment often creates the conditions for innovation and growth, funding early research, absorbing risk, and shaping entire markets
In this view, value isn’t something markets magically “discover.” Value is co-created through public purpose, rules, investment, and the shared infrastructure that makes private initiative possible in the first place.
Opportunity isn’t a trait. It’s a structure.
Hamilton brings the lens down to everyday life. His work makes a clear case that mobility is not simply the reward for effort; it’s the outcome of systems that are either stable and fair, or unstable and punishing.
If you want an opportunity, you don’t start by lecturing people about better choices. You start by building the conditions that make choices viable: reliable income, secure housing, accessible education, and communities that aren’t forced to run on scarcity and stress.
Opportunity, in other words, is something we build.
What this changed for me
While researching my book, I kept encountering the same quiet insight: much of what we take as “the way things are” is actually the result of past decisions—policy choices, institutional designs, and cultural narratives repeated until they sound like truth.
Economists like Mazzucato and Hamilton helped me name what I was seeing:
- “We can’t” is often shorthand for “we haven’t decided to”
- Public systems don’t just deliver services; they shape stability, trust, and belonging
- Well-being isn’t a side benefit of a strong society; it’s part of how a strong society is built
This connects directly to the heart of American Welfare: when we see well-being as democratic infrastructure, we begin to recognize value in places we’ve been trained to overlook:
- in the stability that a family can count on
- in the trust rebuilt through small, human-centered choices
- in the time and breathing room that make participation in community—and democracy—possible
These aren’t soft extras. They’re part of the foundation.
As we approach the official release of American Welfare on March 24, 2026, I’m grateful for economists who widen the frame, reminding us that the boundaries of “realistic” are not fixed. They’re shaped by what we choose to value and what we’re willing to design for, together.
.
