gy benefits) and falling off rapidly thereafter. Accordingly, perspectives shaping state responsiveness to the energy needs of vulnerable populations are subject to short-term exigencies and seldom entail major resource commitments targeting underlying conditions (e.g., defective housing stock). The most telling indicator of priorities is revealed by budgets detailing dollar amounts projected for the state's 1984-85 energy assistance program activity: energy assistance, $36 million; administrative overhead, $4.3 million; and weatherization, $3 million. Of course, emergencies require attention, but the major lesson to be learned once again from the project is this: energy policy is social policy. Energy policy analyses that focus exclusively on techno-economic features overlook the institutional matrix that imbeds energy assistance and other social welfare programs. Comparative research on the organization of energy assistance programs in the United States and other industrialized nations could contribute to our understanding of the link between social welfare programs and institutionalized social inequality (cf. Bradshaw and Hutton 1983).
Bradshaw J. and Harris T. (eds), 1983. Energy and Social Policy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bradshaw J. and Hutton S., 1983. "Social policy options and fuel poverty." J. Econ. Psych., 3, 249-66.
Hartford Courant, January 4, 1984, p. 1.
Struyk R. J., 1984. "Energy costs and the housing of the poor and the elderly," in Downs A. and Broadbury K. L. (eds.), Energy Costs, Urban Development and Housing. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Warkov S. and Ferree G. D., Jr., 1984. Energy Assistance in Connecticut: A Survey of Elderly, Moderate/Low-Income and Hardship Households. Storrs: Univ. Connecticut, Institute for Social Inquiry.