Martin, Megan and Caminada, Koen (2009): Welfare reform in the United States. A descriptive policy analysis. Published in: Department of Economics Research Memorandum No. 2009.03 (2009): pp. 1-29.
Download (428kB) | Preview
Poverty alleviation is an important objective of European countries and of the United States. If these ‘rich’ states offer elaborate systems of income maintenance, why is there still a considerable amount of poverty? And why are anti-poverty outcomes so different in the United States compared to European countries? This paper completes a trilogy of cross-country research papers on anti-poverty policy. Two former papers analyzed the effects of social transfers on both poverty levels and poverty alleviation through tax and social transfer systems. These papers marked the United States as an outlier: high poverty rates, low public social spending but high private social expenditures, a rather strong belief that people are poor because of laziness or lack of will, and remarkable differences across the Federal States caused by state discretion. Therefore, this paper analyzes U.S. welfare in more detail; we focus on part of the major welfare reform in 1996. The 1996 welfare reform emphasizes an American preference for work. Indeed, the welfare reform increased work, although the earnings of most individuals who left welfare were still below the poverty line, even many years after their exit. A drawback of this work-first approach is the termination of cash assistance after 5 years, especially for vulnerable groups with low skills. Recent economic recession can cause severe troubles; one could - for example – argue that recipients who reach time limits without meeting work requirements should be offered a chance to work in community service jobs in return for cash assistance. We found huge variation of welfare eligibility rights across states, depending on ability to pay and preferences to meet a certain level of social standard and other (social) objectives such as child care, work support and employment programs.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Welfare reform in the United States. A descriptive policy analysis|
|Keywords:||welfare reform, poverty|
|Subjects:||H - Public Economics > H5 - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies > H55 - Social Security and Public Pensions
H - Public Economics > H5 - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies > H53 - Government Expenditures and Welfare Programs
I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty > I32 - Measurement and Analysis of Poverty
|Depositing User:||Koen Caminada|
|Date Deposited:||20. Jan 2010 08:23|
|Last Modified:||22. May 2015 21:27|
Alesina, A., and E.L. Glaeser (2004), Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atkinson, T., B. Cantillon, E. Marlier and B. Nolan (2002), Social Indicators. The EU and Social Inclusion, Oxford: University Press.
Blank, R. (2000), ‘Fighting Poverty: Lessons from Recent US History’, Distinguished lecture on economics in government, delivered to a joint session of the Society of Government Economists and the American Economic Association at the annual meetings of the ASSA, Boston, MA.
Blank, R. (2002), ‘Evaluating Welfare Reform in the United States. Revised.’, Journal of Economic Literature 40(4), pp. 1-43.
Butler, S. (2008), ‘Long-Term TANF Participants and Barriers to Employment: A Qualitative Study in Maine’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, September 2008, Volume XXXV, Number 3.
Cabe, D. (2002), ‘Welfare to Work’, Kennedy School Bulletin, Harvard University, Boston, MA. (www.hks.harvard.edu/ksgpress/bulletin/autumn2002/features/welfare.html).
Caminada, K., and K.P. Goudswaard (2005), ‘Are Public and Private Social Expenditures Complementary?’, International Advances in Economic Research 11 (2), pp. 175-189.
Caminada, K., and K.P. Goudswaard (2009), ‘Social expenditure and poverty reduction in the EU15 and other OECD countries’, Research Memorandum Department of Economics 2009.02, Leiden University.
Caminada, K. and K.P. Goudswaard (2010), ‘Social income transfers and poverty alleviation in the EU15 and other OECD countries. An empirical analysis’, Research Memorandum Department of Economics, Leiden University, (forthcoming).
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2008), Policy Basics: The Earned Income Tax Credit, (www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2505).
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2009), Policy Basics: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, (www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=936).
Congressional Budget Office (1996), Federal Budget Implications of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, Congressional Budget Office Memorandum (www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/46xx/doc4664/1996Doc32.pdf).
Congressional Budget Office (2005), Changes in Participation of Means Tested Programs (www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/63xx/doc6302/04-20-Means-Tested.pdf).
Covin, M. (2005), An Introduction to TANF, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington DC. (www.centeronbudget.org/1-22-02tanf2.htm).
Danziger, S.H. (1999), ‘In Pursuit of Robert J. Lampman's Modest Goal: Antipoverty Policy After Welfare Reform’, Focus: Institute for Research on Poverty, 20 (2), pp. 8-12.
Danziger, S.H. (2002a), ‘Approaching the Limit: Early National Lessons from Welfare Reform’, PSC Research Report No. 02-507.
Danziger, S.H. (2002b), ‘After Welfare Reform and an Economic Boom: Why is Child Poverty Still So Much Higher in the U.S. than in Europe?’, in: J. Bradshaw (ed.), Children and Social Security, London: Ashgate, pp. 3-35.
Danziger, S.H. (2007), ‘Fighting poverty revisited: What did researchers know 40 years ago? What do we know today?’, Focus: Institute for Research on Poverty, 25 (1), pp. 3-11.
Danziger, S.H. (2009), ‘Chapter 1 – Introduction. What Are the Early Lessons?’ in : S.H. Danziger (ed.), Economic Conditions and Welfare Reform, Michigan: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Danziger, S. K., M. E. Corcoran, S. H. Danziger and C. M. Heflin (2000), ‘Work, Income and Material Hardship After Welfare Reform’, Journal of Consumer Affairs, 34 (1), pp. 6-30.
Danziger, S.H., and S.K. Danziger (2005), ‘The U.S. Social Safety Net and Poverty: Lessons Learned and Promising Approaches’, PSC Research Report No. 05-580.
Danziger, S., R. Haveman and R. Plotnick (1981), ‘How Income Transfer Programs Affect Work, Savings and Income Distribution: A Critical Assessment’, Journal of Economic Literature, pp. 975-1028.
Danziger, S.H., C.M. Heflin, M. E. Cocoran, E. Oltmans and H.C. Wang (2002), ‘Does It Pay to Move from Welfare to Work?’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(4), pp. 671-692.
Deparle, J., and M. Ericson (2009), ‘Variations in Government Aid Across the Nation’, The New York Times, May, 9th, 2009.
Falk, G. (2007), ‘The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant, Responses to Frequently Asked Questions’, CRS Report for Congress, Congressional research Service, Washington DC (www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32760.pdf).
Gilens, M. (1999), Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Golden, O.A. (2005), Assessing the New federalism: Eight Years Later. An Urban Institute Program to Assess Changing Social Policies, Washington DC: The Urban Institute.
Gordon M. Fisher, (1992), ‘The Development and History of the Poverty Thresholds’, Social Security Bulletin 55 (4, Winter), pp. 3-14.
Haskins, R. (2000), ‘Effects of Welfare Reform on Family Income and Poverty’, in: R. Blank and R. Haskins (eds), The New World of Welfare, Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Haveman, R. (2008), ‘What Does It Mean to Be Poor in a Rich Society?’, Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Paper 1356-08, Madison.
Kaushal, N., and R. Kaestner (2001), ‘From Welfare to Work: Has Welfare Reform Worked?’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20(4), pp. 699-719.
Kaushal, N., Q. Gao and J. Waldfogal (2006), ‘Welfare Reform and Family Expenditures: How are Single Mothers Adapting to the New Welfare and Work Regime?’, National Poverty Center Working Paper Series 0607.
Luxembourg Income Study (2009), LIS Key Figures on Poverty, Luxembourg (www.lisproject.org).
Moffitt, R. A. (1992), ‘The Incentive Effects of the U.S. Welfare System’, Journal of Economic Literature, March, pp. 1-61.
Notten, G., and C. de Neuborg (2007), ‘Relative or absolute poverty in the US and EU? The battle of the rates’, MPRA Working Paper 5313, Munich.
OECD (2008), Growing unequal? Income distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries, Paris: OECD.
Parrott, S., and A. Sherman (2006), TANF at 10: Program Results are More Mixed Than Often Understood, Washington DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Primus, W., L. Rawlings, K. Larin, and K. Porter (1999), The Initial Impact of Welfare Reform on the Economic Well-being of Single Mother Families, Washington DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Scholz, J.K., R. Moffitt, and B. Cowan (2008), ‘Trends in Income Support’, Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Paper 1350-08, Madison.
Schott, Z., and L. Levinson (2008), TANF Benefits Are Low And Have Not Kept Pace With Inflation: But Most States Have Increased Benefits Above a Freeze Level in Recent Years, Washington DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (www.cbpp.org/pdf/11-24-08tanf.pdf).
Sherman, A., S. Fremstad and S. Parrott (2004), Employment Rates for Single Mothers Fell Substantially during Recent Period of Labor Market Weakness, Washington DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (www.cbpp.org/6-22-04ui.htm).
Smeeding, T. (2005), ‘Poor people in rich nations: The United States in comparative perspective’, Luxembourg Income Study Working Paper Series 419, Luxembourg.
Smeeding, T. (2006), ‘Poor People in Rich Nations: The United States in Comparative Perspective’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 20 (1), pp. 69-90.
Smeeding, T. M. (2005), ‘Public Policy, Economic Inequality, and Poverty: The United States in Comparative Perspective’, Social Science Quarterly, vol. 86 (supplement), pp. 955-983.
SOCX OECD (2008), Social Expenditure Database 1980-2005 (www.oecd.org/els/social/expenditure).
Super, D.A. (2008), ‘Privatization, Policy Paralysis, and the Poor’, California Law Review 96 (393), pp. 393-469.
Swabish, J., T.M. Smeeding and L. Osberg (2006), ‘Income Distribution and Social Expenditures: A Cross National Perspective’, in: D.B. Papadimitriou (ed.), The Distributional Effects of Government Spending and Taxation, Northampton MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 247-288.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (1996), Comparison of Prior Law and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) (http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/isp/reform.htm).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2004), Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Overview (http://aspe.hhs.gov/ HSP/abbrev/afdc-tanf.htm).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2008), Annual report to Congress. Indicators of Welfare Dependence (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/index.shtml).
United States Census Bureau Current Population Survey (2009). ‘Table 19. Percent of Persons in Poverty, by State: 2005, 2006, 2007’ (www.censusbureau.biz/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/histpovtb.html).
United States Census Bureau, (2007), ‘Poverty Thresholds: U.S. Bureau of the Census’, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007, Report P60, p. 53.
United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2009), ‘Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Policy’ (www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/government/Policy.htm).
United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2009), ‘WIC Program’ (www.fns.usda.gov/wic/aboutwic/wicataglance.htm).
Urban Institute (2006), Welfare Reform: Ten Years Later, Washington DC (www.urban.org/ toolkit/issues/welfarereform.cfm).
Welfare Rules Database (2006), ‘Initial Income Eligibility Thresholds (Family of Three) by State’, Welfare Rules Database Data Set 1e4-2, Washington DC: The Urban Institute.