Reducing poverty among children: Evidence from state policy simulations

被引:18
作者
Pac, Jessica [1 ]
Garfinkel, Irwin [2 ]
Kaushal, Neeraj [2 ]
Nam, Jaehyun [3 ]
Nolan, Laura [4 ]
Waldfogel, Jane [2 ]
Wimer, Christopher [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Sch Social Work, 1350 Univ Ave Ste 314, Madison, WI 53711 USA
[2] Columbia Univ, Sch Social Work, 1255 Amsterdam Ave, New York, NY 10027 USA
[3] Pusan Natl Univ, Busandaehak Ro 63beon Gil, Busan 46241, South Korea
[4] Math Policy Res, 505 14th St, Oakland, CA 94612 USA
[5] Columbia Univ, 1255 Amsterdam Ave, New York, NY 10027 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Child poverty; SNAP; TANF; EITC; CTC; INCOME-TAX CREDIT; SAFETY NET; WELFARE; PROGRAMS; REFORMS; HEALTH; TRENDS; IMPACT; CASH;
D O I
10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105030
中图分类号
D669 [社会生活与社会问题]; C913 [社会生活与社会问题];
学科分类号
1204 ;
摘要
State approaches to reducing child poverty vary considerably. We exploit this state-level variation to estimate what could be achieved in terms of child poverty if all states adopted the most generous or inclusive states' policies. Specifically, we simulate the child poverty reductions that would occur if every state were as generous or inclusive as the most generous or inclusive state in four key policies: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), state Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and state Child Tax Credits (CTC). We find that adopting the most generous or inclusive state EITC policy would have the largest impact on child poverty, reducing it by 1.2 percentage points, followed by SNAP, TANF, and lastly state CTC. If all states were as generous or inclusive as the most generous or inclusive state in all four policies, the child poverty rate would decrease by 2.5 percentage points, and five and a half million children would be lifted out of poverty.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 64 条
[1]  
Almond D, 2011, HBK ECON, V4, P1315, DOI 10.1016/S0169-7218(11)02413-0
[2]  
Almond Douglas, 2017, Childhood Cirnumstances and Adult Outcomes: Act II
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2018, CURRENT POPULATION R
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2013, History, background, and goal of the supplemental nutrition assistance program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Examining the evidence to define benefit adequacy
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1995, MEASURING POVERTY NE, DOI 10.17226/4759
[6]  
[Anonymous], SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY
[7]   Cash or Condition? Evidence from a Cash Transfer Experiment [J].
Baird, Sarah ;
McIntosh, Craig ;
Oezler, Berk .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 2011, 126 (04) :1709-1753
[8]   Debunking the Stereotype of the Lazy Welfare Recipient: Evidence from Cash Transfer Programs [J].
Banerjee, Abhijit V. ;
Hanna, Rema ;
Kreindler, Gabriel E. ;
Olken, Benjamin A. .
WORLD BANK RESEARCH OBSERVER, 2017, 32 (02) :155-184
[9]  
Ben-Shalom Y., 2011, 17042 NBER, DOI [10.3386/w17042., DOI 10.3386/W17042]
[10]   The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same? The Safety Net and Poverty in the Great Recession [J].
Bitler, Marianne ;
Hoynes, Hilary .
JOURNAL OF LABOR ECONOMICS, 2016, 34 (01) :S403-S444