Episode Overview

Podcast: New Books Network
Episode: Alexandra Ghiț, "Welfare Work Without Welfare: Women and Austerity in Interwar Bucharest" (De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2025)
Date: December 18, 2025
Host: Roland Clark
Guest: Alexandra Ghiț

This episode explores Alexandra Ghiț's new book, which delves into the overlooked histories of welfare, women's labor, and austerity in interwar Bucharest, Romania. Through micro-historical case studies and the lives of activists, philanthropists, and working women, Ghiț challenges conventional views on state-building, social assistance, and gendered labor. The conversation spotlights both the fragile "patchwork" of welfare provision and the profound influence of female reformers, as well as what this all meant for the evolution of Romanian social policy.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Introduction to the Book and Key Character: Mariora (02:36–05:43)

• Mariora’s Story:
  • A 33-year-old single mother working in a rented room, making leather parts for shoes with her niece.
  • Migrated to Bucharest from rural Romania due to family poverty.
  • By 1929, sick and in debt, dependent for survival on two leased sewing machines.
  • A social worker gets involved, documenting the case—a rare intervention at the time.
• Historical Significance:
  • Showcases how women juggled paid piecework with unpaid care work.
  • Exposes the limits of welfare programs in an ostensibly expanding state:
    • "So the well being of those who were vulnerable was somehow insured through gendered forms of unpaid and underpaid work of various kinds." (05:15, Alexandra Ghiț)
    • Ghiț terms this reality “austerity welfare work.”
  • Both the working women and the welfare workers (“austerity welfare workers”) carried the burden of social care with little support.

2. Welfare Provision in Interwar Romania (05:43–07:45)

• Sources of Assistance:
  • Patchwork of help from private and state-subsidized organizations (clergy, societies for child protection, city hall, craft corporations, pharmacists, doctors, family, neighborhood networks).
  • Private initiative associations were influential; public funds were limited.
  • Women as influential welfare activists, but with very little systematic support available.
• Ghiț’s Summation: "Have many doors to knock on, but… very few systematic avenues of support." (07:33, Alexandra Ghiț)

3. Women’s Labor and Inequality (07:45–10:27)

• Employment Patterns:
  • Growing number of women in wage work post-WWI, but many still worked from home or as servants.
  • 1930 census: Women were 13% of factory/industry workers, but 89% of adult servants.
• Pay Disparity and Job Segregation:
  • Factory women’s wages typically 50% lower than men’s.
  • Quote: "Women's wages are 50% lower usually than those of men, but they do different kind of work, so it's very hard to compare." (09:24, Alexandra Ghiț)
  • Women forced to juggle paid labor with heavy unpaid care work; even white-collar “caring professions” like social work were poorly paid.

4. Legal Protections (10:27–12:29)

• Workplace Legislation:
  • Most women in domestic service were governed by outdated “servant codes,” not labor contracts.
  • Post-1928 reforms aligned with ILO: maternity leave and banning night work for women, but enforcement was weak.
  • Equal pay for equal work not legally enshrined until 1948.
• Systemic Gaps:
  • Labor inspection ineffective; legal protections inconsistently applied.

5. The Philanthropy Spectrum: Princess Cantacuzino (12:29–15:12)

• Role and Perspective:
  • Alexandrina Cantacuzino: aristocrat, leading welfare advocate, president of powerful associations.
  • Advocated a blend of modernization and continued influence of female-led charities.
  • Quote: "She believes those who benefit from any sort of public welfare should be respectable and show a clear willingness to work and to be reformed." (14:20, Alexandra Ghiț)
  • Progressive methods, but socially conservative and class-reinforcing attitudes toward recipients.

6. The Social Science Reformers and International Connections (15:12–21:17)

• New Actors:
  • Figures such as Calypso Botez, Veturia Manuila, and Xenia Costa-Foru led the Section for Feminine Studies and the Superior School of Social Assistance.
  • American influence: Manuila (trained at Johns Hopkins), Costa-Foru (Rockefeller fellow at University of Chicago).
• Research and Methods:
  • Advocated neighborhood studies, detailed home investigations, and data-driven approaches.
  • Held mixed beliefs: Individual/family “character” as a cause of poverty, but also acknowledged broader economic structures.
  • Influenced by international movements (suffrage, ILO, Rockefeller Foundation), but remained cautious of left-wing/communist influence.
• Implications:
  • Beginnings of sociological welfare research in Romania, but still shaped by prevailing notions of “worthiness” and morality.

7. Women's Dominance in Welfare Work and Municipal Politics (22:04–25:18)

• Why Women Led Welfare Efforts:
  • Rooted in history of female authority via charity, expanded by new municipal electoral rights (1929).
  • Many women “co-opted” into city councils based on charitable work before universal women’s suffrage.
  • Gendered division of political labor: women steered into welfare and social issues, roles both chosen and assigned.
• Quote: "Council women themselves see this as a domain they are good at and in which they can be effective...men politicians are not exactly willing to concede authority over many other domains." (24:00, Alexandra Ghiț)

8. Public vs. Private Welfare – A Continuum (25:18–28:37)

• Blurry Boundaries:
  • Private charities and municipal governments often cooperated; the division was rarely clear.
  • Private organizations ran most of the city’s charities, often with some public funding.
  • Statistic: Of 105 charitable societies in pre-1918 Romania, 88 were in Bucharest—most run or staffed by women.

9. Respectability, “Deserving” Poor, and Work Requirements (28:37–32:00)

• Preconditions for Aid:
  • Recipients had to “work or promise to work”; demonstrate respectability.
  • Subtle discriminations by religion/ethnicity likely: "if you were Orthodox...or identified as such, you'd be probably a little bit more favored." (29:32, Alexandra Ghiț)
  • Persistent ideology: assistance must be earned, even through symbolic tasks like knitting socks for the city hall.
• Quote: "The idea is that there is no such thing as social assistance without it being immediately paid back in a way by the individual or the specific family who is helped." (30:52, Alexandra Ghiț)
• Comparison: Contrasted with emerging views internationally that insurance should support life events like sickness or old age, and older Orthodox traditions of unconditional charity.

10. Ethnic/Religious Identity in Welfare Petitions (32:00–33:14)

• Applicants would highlight their “Romanian-ness” and Orthodox Christianity to bolster claims to aid, often explicitly in petitions.
  • Example: “Give me this because I'm Orthodox and I'm Romanian and I'm a good person.” (32:23, Roland Clark)

11. Domestic Servants: Perceptions, Risks, and Control (33:14–38:04)

• Official and Media Perception:
  • By 1930s, domestic servants seen as “internal enemies”—potential criminals, objects of media suspicion.
  • Employers’ anxieties exacerbated by global trends (post-Russian Revolution), press coverage of isolated crimes.
• Repressive Measures:
  • State responded with fingerprinting, medical exams (foisted only on women), and an “office for the control of servants.”
  • Employment governed by master-servant codes, not labor laws—offering no protection for servants.
  • Quote: "Servants are controlled and surveilled through an office for the control of servants, which fingerprints and photographs them...women but not men are required to undergo medical examinations." (36:01, Alexandra Ghiț)
• Workplace Danger:
  • Charities encouraged young women to take service jobs for lack of better alternatives, but the profession was stigmatized and hazardous, with frequent reports of exploitation or abuse.

12. Research on Women's Work and Family Structures (38:04–41:09)

• Superior School of Social Assistance’s Findings:
  • Increasing female workforce participation was largely a response to male unemployment or abandonment, not feminist ambition.
  • Quote: "Paid work for many of these proletarianized women is not a form of liberation...Rather, it seems it was perceived as a kind of...painful necessity." (39:30, Alexandra Ghiț)
  • Family “disorganization” was more a function of failing economic conditions and absent men than changing gender roles.
• Caution Against Simple Narratives:
  • The reality for most working-class women was more survival than emancipation; paid work had complex, often burdensome, social consequences.

13. Impact on State Building and the Welfare State (41:09–43:55)

• Immediate Value:
  • Women's unpaid and underpaid labor kept social life functioning during crisis (esp. the Great Depression).
  • Working women often supported numerous dependents—confirmed by 1930s surveys.
• Long-Term Legacy:
  • Despite significant contributions, these networks—because of WWII and postwar regime change—did not transition into the foundation for a modern welfare state, as happened elsewhere (e.g., Argentina).
  • WWII and the Holocaust fundamentally altered the trajectory of Romanian welfare, cutting off direct continuities.
• Reflection:
  • "Had there not been a sort of World War II and its horrors and massive regime change...we could have had a similar genealogy where these women's organizations and private, public, disjointed cooperations would have been institutionalized in a similar way." (43:00, Alexandra Ghiț)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

• "The well-being of those who were vulnerable was somehow insured through gendered forms of unpaid and underpaid work of various kinds." — Alexandra Ghiț (05:15)
• "So in this Bucharest is not atypical at the time. What is unusual is that women welfare activists are quite influential, but the public money to be spent is quite limited." — Alexandra Ghiț (06:58)
• "Women's wages are 50% lower usually than those of men, but they do different kind of work, so it's very hard to compare." — Alexandra Ghiț (09:24)
• "She believes those who benefit from any sort of public welfare should be respectable and show a clear willingness to work and to be reformed." — Alexandra Ghiț (14:20)
• "Council women themselves see this as a domain they are good at and in which they can be effective...men politicians are not exactly willing to concede authority over many other domains." — Alexandra Ghiț (24:00)
• "If you receive welfare, you should be knitting socks at home." — Alexandra Ghiț (31:14)
• "Paid work for many of these proletarianized women is not a form of liberation...Rather, it seems it was perceived as a kind of...painful necessity." — Alexandra Ghiț (39:30)
• "Had there not been a sort of World War II and its horrors and massive regime change...that we could have had a similar genealogy where these women's organizations and private, public, disjointed cooperations would have been institutionalized in a similar way." — Alexandra Ghiț (43:00)

Conclusion

Alexandra Ghiț’s work paints a portrait of interwar Bucharest in which women’s invisible labor sustained not just families, but the fragile infrastructure of welfare during an era of poverty, crisis, and political transition. The patchwork nature of welfare provision, the gendered expectations of work, and the fraught boundaries between public and private assistance are all laid bare. Ultimately, the persistent legacy of “austerity welfare work” challenges myths of steady progress toward social citizenship and signals the lingering impacts of gendered labor and state formation in modern Eastern Europe.