Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-zts5g Total loading time: 0.216 Render date: 2021-10-23T06:22:06.434Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

American Federalism, Welfare Policy, and Residential Choices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Paul E. Peterson
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Mark Rom
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin Madison

Abstract

The relationship between welfare benefit levels and the residential choices of the poor raises two issues for federalism in the United States. Do state benefit levels affect the residential choices of the poor? Do residential choices of the poor affect the level at which a state sets its benefit levels? Empirical studies have seldom studied the interconnection between these two issues. This research estimates simultaneously the mutual effects of welfare benefits and poverty rates while controlling for other economic and political variables. When benefit levels become high, the size of the poverty population increases. Conversely, when poverty rates become high, benefit levels are cut. The findings are consistent with the claim that state-determined benefit levels distort policy and residential choices.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bane, Mary Jo, and Ellwood, David T.. 1986. The Dynamics of Dependence: The Routes to Self-Sufficiency. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services contract no. HH5-100-82-0038.Google Scholar
Blank, Rebecca M. 1985. “The Impact of State Economic Differentials on Household Welfare and Labor Force Behavior.” Journal, of Public Economics 28:2558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Charles C., and Oates, Wallace E.. 1986. “Assistance to the Poor in a Federal System. University of Maryland. Typescript.Google Scholar
Cebula, Richard J. 1979. “A Survey of the Literature on the Migrant-Impact of State and Local Government Policies.” Public Finance 34:6983.Google ScholarPubMed
Chubb, John E. 1988. “Institutions, the Economy, and the Dynamics of State Elections.” American Political Science Review 82:133–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danziger, Sheldon. 1988. “Fighting Poverty and Reducing Welfare Dependency: A Challenge for the 1990s.” Presented at a meeting of the Rockefeller Foundation on Welfare Reform, Williamsburg, VA.Google Scholar
Danziger, Sheldon, Haveman, Robert, and Plotnick, Robert. 1981. “How Income Transfer Programs Affect Work, Savings, and the Income Distribution: A Critical Review.” Journal of Economic Literature 19:9751028.Google Scholar
Da Vanzo, Julie. 1976. Why Families Move: A Model of the Geographic Mobility of Married Couples. Research and Development Monograph 48. Washington: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.Google Scholar
Ellwood, David T., and Bane, Mary Jo. 1986. “The Impact of AFDC on Family Structure and Living Arrangements.” Research and Labor Economics 7:137207.Google Scholar
Fenton, John H. 1966. Midwest Politics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fields, Gary S. 1979. “Place-to-Place Migration: Some New Evidence.” Review of Economics and Statistics 61:2132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fry, Brian R., and Winters, Richard F.. 1970. “The Politics of Redistribution.” American Political Science Review 64:508–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallaway, L. E., Gilbert, R. F., and Smith, P. E.. 1967. “The Economics of Labor Mobility: An Empirical Analysis.” Western Economic Journal 5:211–23.Google Scholar
Gramlich, Edward M., and Laren, Deborah S.. 1984. “Migration and Income Redistribution Responsibilities.” Journal of Human Resources 9: 489511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, Michael J. 1968. “The Economics of Labor Mobility: An Empirical Analysis: Comment.” Western Economic Journal 6:243–44.Google Scholar
Hanushek, Eric A., and Jackson, John E.. 1977. Statistical Methods for Social Scientists. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Hibbs, Douglas A. Jr., 1987. The American Politicat Economy: Macroeconomics and Electoral Politics in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.Google Scholar
Holmer, Martin R. 1975. “The Economic and Political Causes of the Welfare Crisis.” Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Jennings, Edward T. Jr., 1979. “Competition, Constituencies, and Welfare Policies in American States.” American Political Science Review 73: 414–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernell, Samuel. 1986. Going Public. Washington: Congressional Quarterly.Google Scholar
Key, V. O., Jr. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
Kiewiet, Roderick D. 1983. Macroeconomics and Micropolitics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ladd, Helen F., and Doolittle, Fred C.. 1982. “Which Level of Government Should Assist the Poor?National Tax Journal 35:323–36.Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, Michael S. 1980. Applied Regression: An Introduction. Beverly Hills: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, Larry H. 1974. “Poverty Status and Receipt of Welfare among Migrants and Nonmigrants in Large Cities.” American Sociological Review 39: 4656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffitt, Robert. 1987. “Historical Growth in Participation in Aid to Families with Dependent Children: Was There a Structural Shift?Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics 9:347–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffitt, Robert. 1988. Has State Redistribution Policy Crown More Conservative? Working paper no. 2516. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oates, Wallace E. 1972. Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Pauly, Mark V. 1973. “Income Redistribution As a Local Public Good.” Journal of Public Economics 2:3558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peltzman, Sam. 1980. “The Growth of Government.” Journal of Law and Economics 23: 209–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Paul E. 1980. City Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, Paul E., and Rom, Mark. 1988a. “The Case for a National Welfare Standard.” Brookings Review 6:2432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, Paul E., and Rom, Mark. 1988b. “Lower Taxes, More Spending, and Budget Deficits.” In The Reagan Legacy: Promise and Performance, ed. Jones, Charles O.. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.Google Scholar
Peterson, Paul E., and Rom, Mark. 1988c. Welfare Reform, Federalism, and Residential Choice. Center for American Political Studies Occasional Paper Series no. 88-8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Plotnick, Robert D. 1987. “Welfare and Other Determinants of Teenage Out-of-Wedlock Child-bearing.” University of Washington. Typescript.Google Scholar
Plotnick, Robert D., and Winters, Richard F.. 1985. “A Politico-economic Theory of Income Redistribution.” American Political Science Review 79:458–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rom, Mark, and Peterson, Paul E.. 1988. “Welfare Magnetism and Welfare Policy in Wisconsin.” Presented at annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington.Google Scholar
Ross, Christine, and Danziger, Sheldon. 1987. “Poverty Rates by the States, 1978–1985: Estimates from the Current Population Surveys.” University of Wisconsin. Typescript.Google Scholar
Schlottmann, Alan M., and Herzog, Henry W. Jr., 1981. “Employment Status and the Decision to Migrate.” Review of Economics and Statistics 63: 590–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharkansky, Ira. 1969. “The Utility of Bazar's Political Culture.” Polity 2:6683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwick, Lawrence Jr., 1981. “Public Welfare Programs and Recipient Migration.” Growth and Change 12:2232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tiebout, Charles M. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy 64: 416–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Ways and Means. 1986. Background Material and Data on Programs within the Jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Washington: GPO.Google Scholar
64
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

American Federalism, Welfare Policy, and Residential Choices
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

American Federalism, Welfare Policy, and Residential Choices
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

American Federalism, Welfare Policy, and Residential Choices
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *