Advertisement

Demography

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 719–746 | Cite as

Targeting, Universalism, and Single-Mother Poverty: A Multilevel Analysis Across 18 Affluent Democracies

  • David BradyEmail author
  • Rebekah Burroway
Article

Abstract

We examine the influence of individual characteristics and targeted and universal social policy on single-mother poverty with a multilevel analysis across 18 affluent Western democracies. Although single mothers are disproportionately poor in all countries, there is even more cross-national variation in single-mother poverty than in poverty among the overall population. By far, the United States has the highest rate of poverty among single mothers among affluent democracies. The analyses show that single-mother poverty is a function of the household’s employment, education, and age composition, and the presence of other adults in the household. Beyond individual characteristics, social policy exerts substantial influence on single-mother poverty. We find that two measures of universal social policy significantly reduce single-mother poverty. However, one measure of targeted social policy does not have significant effects, and another measure is significantly negative only when controlling for universal social policy. Moreover, the effects of universal social policy are larger. Additional analyses show that universal social policy does not have counterproductive consequences in terms of family structure or employment, while the results are less clear for targeted social policy. Although debates often focus on altering the behavior or characteristics of single mothers, welfare universalism could be an even more effective anti-poverty strategy.

Keywords

Poverty Single motherhood Social policy Welfare state Cross-national 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Demography reviewers, guest editor Suzanne Bianchi, editor Stewart Tolnay, as well as Liz Ananat, Lane Destro, Andrew Fullerton, Bob Jackson, Stephanie Moller, Jennifer Moren Cross, Stephen Morgan, Emilia Niskanen, and David Reingold for assistance and suggestions.

Supplementary material

13524_2012_94_MOESM1_ESM.docx (76 kb)
ESM Online Resource 1 Targeting, Universalism, and Single-Mother Poverty: A Multilevel Analysis Across 18 Affluent Democracies David Brady and Rebekah Burroway (DOCX 76 kb)

References

  1. Ananat, E. O., & Michaels, G. (2008). The effect of marital breakup on the income and poverty of women with children. Journal of Human Resources, 43, 611–629.Google Scholar
  2. Bane, M. J., & Ellwood, D. T. (1994). Welfare realities: From rhetoric to reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barry, B. (1990). The welfare state versus the relief of poverty. Ethics, 100, 503–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barth, M. C., Cargano, G. J., & Palmer, J. L. (1974). Toward an effective income support system: Problems, prospects, and choices. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty.Google Scholar
  5. Behrendt, C. (2000). Do means-tested benefits alleviate poverty? Evidence on Germany, Sweden and the United Kingdom from the Luxembourg Income Study. Journal of European Social Policy, 10, 23–41.Google Scholar
  6. Besley, T. (1990). Means testing versus universal provision in poverty alleviation programmes. Economica, 57, 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bianchi, S. M. (1999). Feminization and juvenilization of poverty: Trends, relative risks, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 307–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blank, R. M. (1997). It takes a nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Blau, F. D., Kahn, L. M., & Waldfogel, J. (2004). The impact of welfare benefits on single motherhood and headship of young women: Evidence from the census. Journal of Human Resources, 39, 382–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brady, D. (2003). Rethinking the sociological measurement of poverty. Social Forces, 81, 715–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brady, D. (2009). Rich democracies, poor people: How politics explain poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brady, D., Fullerton, A., & Moren-Cross, J. (2009). Putting poverty in political context: A multi-level analysis of adult poverty across 18 affluent Western democracies. Social Forces, 88, 271–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brady, D., & Kall, D. (2008). Nearly universal, but somewhat distinct: The feminization of poverty in affluent Western democracies, 1969–2000. Social Science Research, 37, 976–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brooks, C., & Manza, J. (2007). Why welfare states persist. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Carlson, M., Garfinkel, I., McLanahan, S., Mincy, R., & Primus, W. (2004). The effects of welfare and child support policies on union formation. Population Research and Policy Review, 23, 513–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chen, W.-H., & Corak, M. (2008). Child poverty and changes in child poverty. Demography, 45, 537–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Christopher, K. (2002). Welfare state regimes and mothers’ poverty. Social Politics, 9, 60–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Christopher, K., England, P., Smeeding, T. M., & Ross, K. (2002). The gender gap in poverty in modern nations: Single motherhood, the market, and the state. Sociological Perspectives, 45, 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Collier, P., & Dollar, D. (2001). Can the world cut poverty in half? How policy reform and effective aid can meet international development goals. World Development, 29, 1787–1802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Creedy, J. (1996). Comparing tax and transfer systems: Poverty, inequality and target efficiency. Economica, 63, S163–S174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Currie, J. (2006). The take-up of social benefits. In A. J. Auerbach, D. Card, & J. M. Quigley (Eds.), Public policy and the income distribution (pp. 80–148). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  22. DeFina, R. H., & Thanawala, K. (2003). International evidence on the impact of taxes and transfers on alternative poverty indexes. Social Science Research, 33, 322–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Edin, K., & Lein, L. (1997). Making ends meet. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  24. Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fitzgerald, J. M., & Ribar, D. C. (2004). Welfare reform and female headship. Demography, 41, 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garfinkel, I., & McLanahan, S. S. (1986). Single mothers and their children: A new American dilemma. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gilbert, N. (2002). Transformation of the welfare state: The silent surrender of public responsibility. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Goodin, R. E., & Le Grand, J. (1987). Not only the poor. London, UK: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  29. Gornick, J. (2004). Women’s economic outcomes, gender inequality and public policy: Findings from the Luxembourg Income Study. Socio-Economic Review, 2, 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greenstein, R. (1991). Universal and targeted approaches to relieving poverty: An alternative view. In C. Jencks & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), The urban underclass (pp. 437–459). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  31. Gundersen, C., & Ziliak, J. P. (2004). Poverty and macroeconomic performance across space, race, and family structure. Demography, 41, 61–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Handler, J. F., & Hasenfeld, Y. (2007). Blame welfare, ignore poverty and inequality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Heuveline, P., & Weinshenker, M. (2008). The international child poverty gap: Does demography matter? Demography, 45, 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hicks, A. (1999). Social democracy and welfare capitalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Huber, E., & Stephens, D. (2001). Development and crisis of the welfare state. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Huber, E., Stephens, J. D., Bradley, D., Moller, S., & Nielsen, F. (2009). The politics of women’s economic independence. Social Politics, 16, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huber, E., Stephens, J. D., Ragin, C., Brady, D., & Beckfield, J. (2004). Comparative welfare states data set. University of North Carolina, Northwestern University, Duke University, and Indiana University.Google Scholar
  38. Kakwani, N., & Subbarao, K. (2007). Poverty among the elderly in sub-Saharan Africa and the role of social pensions. Journal of Development Studies, 43, 987–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kamerman, S. B. (1995). Gender role and family structure changes in the advanced industrialized West: Implications for social policy. In K. McFate, R. Lawson, & W. J. Wilson (Eds.), Poverty, inequality, and the future of social policy (pp. 231–256). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  40. Kilkey, M., & Bradshaw, J. (1999). Lone mothers, economic well-being, and policies. In D. Sainsbury (Ed.), Gender and welfare state regimes. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare state institutions, inequality, and poverty in the Western countries. American Sociological Review, 63, 661–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krishna, A. (2007). For reducing poverty faster: Target reasons before people. World Development, 35, 1947–1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Le Grand, J. (1982). The strategy of equality: Redistribution and the social services. London, UK: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  44. Leisering, L., & Leibfried, S. (1999). Time and poverty in Western welfare states: United Germany in perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lichter, D. T., McLaughlin, D. K., & Ribar, D. C. (1997). Welfare and the rise of female-headed families. The American Journal of Sociology, 103, 112–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lichter, D. T., Qian, Z., & Mellott, L. M. (2006). Marriage or dissolution? Union transitions among poor cohabiting women. Demography, 43, 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lindbeck, A. (1998). The welfare state and the employment problem. American Economic Review, 84, 71–75.Google Scholar
  48. Lindert, P. H. (2004). Growing public (Vol. I). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) Database (n.d.). [Data file, multiple countries; analyses based on data available December 2009]. Luxembourg: LIS. Retrieved from http://www.lisdatacenter.org
  50. Mahler, V. A., & Jesuit, D. K. (2006). Fiscal redistribution in the developed countries: New insights from the Luxembourg Income Study. Socio-Economic Review, 4, 483–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Martin, M. A. (2006). Family structure and income inequality in families with children, 1976 to 2000. Demography, 43, 421–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McLanahan, S., & Percheski, C. (2008). Family structure and the reproduction of inequalities. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 257–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mead, L. M. (1986). Beyond entitlement. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  54. Misra, J. (2002). Class, race, and gender and theorizing welfare states. Research in Political Sociology, 11, 19–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Misra, J., Moller, S., & Budig, M. J. (2007). Work-family policies for partnered and single women in Europe and North America. Gender and Society, 21, 804–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Moffitt, R. (2000). Welfare benefits and female headship in U.S. time series. American Economic Review, 90, 373–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moller, S., Bradley, D., Huber, E., Nielsen, F., & Stephens, J. D. (2003). Determinants of relative poverty in advanced capitalist democracies. American Sociological Review, 68, 22–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Musick, K. A., & Mare, R. D. (2004). Family structure, intergenerational mobility, and the reproduction of poverty: Evidence for increasing polarization? Demography, 41, 629–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nelson, K. (2004). Mechanisms of poverty alleviation. Journal of European Social Policy, 14, 371–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nelson, K. (2007). Universalism versus targeting: The vulnerability of social insurance and means-tested minimum income protection in 18 countries, 1990–2002. International Social Security Review, 60, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Orloff, A. (1993). Gender and the social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states. American Sociological Review, 58, 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1993). Regulating the poor. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  63. Rainwater, L., & Smeeding, T. M. (2004). Poor kids in a rich country. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  64. Rank, M. R. (2005). One nation, underprivileged. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Rose, R. (1995). Lone parents: The Canadian experience. In K. McFate, R. Lawson, & W. J. Wilson (Eds.), Poverty, inequality and the future of social policy (pp. 327–366). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  66. Sainsbury, D. (1999). Gender and welfare state regimes. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schellekens, J. (2009). Family allowances and fertility: Socioeconomic differences. Demography, 46, 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Seccombe, K. (2000). Families in poverty in the 1990s: Trends, causes, consequences, and lessons learned. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1094–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sefton, T. (2006). Distributive and redistributive policy. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 607–623). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Sidel, R. (2006). Unsung heroines: Single mothers and the American dream. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  71. Skocpol, T. (1991). Targeting within universalism: Politically viable policies to combat poverty in the United States. In C. Jencks & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), The urban underclass (pp. 411–436). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  72. Skocpol, T. (1992). Protecting soldiers and mothers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Smeeding, T. (2006). Poor people in rich nations: The United States in comparative perspective. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sorensen, A. (1994). Women’s economic risk and the economic position of single mothers. European Sociological Review, 10, 173–188.Google Scholar
  75. Squire, L. (1993). Fighting poverty. American Economic Review, 83, 377–382.Google Scholar
  76. Thomas, A., & Sawhill, I. (2002). For richer or for poorer: Marriage as an anti-poverty strategy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 587–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tullock, G. (1997). Economics of income redistribution (2nd ed.). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Whitehead, M., Burstrom, B., & Diderichsen, F. (2000). Social policies and the pathways to inequalities in health: A comparative analysis of lone mothers in Britain and Sweden. Social Science & Medicine, 50, 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wilensky, H. L. (2002). Rich democracies. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  80. Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  81. Wu, L. L. (2008). Cohort estimates of nonmarital fertility for U.S. women. Demography, 45, 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zuberi, D. (2006). Differences that matter. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations