Advertisement

Demography

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 729–749 | Cite as

The Deserving Poor, the Family, and the U.S. Welfare System

  • Robert A. MoffittEmail author
Article

Abstract

Contrary to the popular view that the U.S. welfare system has been in a contractionary phase after the expansions of the welfare state in the 1960s, welfare spending resumed steady growth after a pause in the 1970s. However, although aggregate spending is higher than ever, there have been redistributions away from non-elderly and nondisabled families to families with older adults and to families with recipients of disability programs; from non-elderly, nondisabled single-parent families to married-parent families; and from the poorest families to those with higher incomes. These redistributions likely reflect long-standing, and perhaps increasing, conceptualizations by U.S. society of which poor are deserving and which are not.

Keywords

Welfare Poverty Single mothers 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This article is a revised version of Presidential Address to the Population Association of America, Boston, May 2, 2014. I thank Andrew Cherlin, Kathryn Edin, and other participants of a seminar at the Hopkins Population Center, as well as Sandra Hofferth, Michael Rendall, and other participants of a seminar at the Maryland Population Research Center for comments. Nadia Diamond-Smith and Gwyn Pauley provided excellent research assistance. Financial support from the Russell Sage Foundation is also gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Ben-Shalom, Y., Moffitt, R., & Scholz, J. K. (2012). An assessment of the effectiveness of antipoverty programs in the United States. In P. Jefferson (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the economics of poverty (pp. 709–749). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berkowitz, E. (2000). Disability policy and history. Statement before the subcommittee on social security of the committee on ways and means.Google Scholar
  3. Blank, R. M., & Kovak, B. K. (2009). The growing problem of disconnected single mothers. In C. J. Heinrich & J. K. Scholz (Eds.), Making the work-based safety net work better (pp. 227–258). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Burkhauser, R. V., Larrimore, J., & Simon, K. (2013). Measuring the impact of valuing health insurance on levels and trends in inequality and how the Affordable Care Act of 2010 could affect them. Contemporary Economic Policy, 31, 779–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burtless, G., & Svaton, P. (2010). Health care, health insurance, and the distribution of American incomes. Forum for Health Economics & Policy, 13(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daly, M. C., & Burkhauser, R. V. (2003). The supplemental security income program. In R. Moffitt (Ed.), Means-tested transfers in the United States (pp. 79–139). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edin, K., & Lein, L. (1997). Making ends meet: How single mothers survive welfare and low-wage work. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  8. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Garfinkel, I., & McLanahan, S. S. (1986). Single mothers and their children: A new American dilemma. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  10. Grogger, J., & Karoly, L. A. (2005). Welfare reform: Effects of a decade of change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Harrington, M. (1962). The other America: Poverty in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Penguin.Google Scholar
  12. Iceland, J. (2013). Poverty in America: A handbook (3rd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jencks, C. (1992). Rethinking social policy: Race, poverty, and the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Katz, M. B. (1989). The undeserving poor: From the war on poverty to the war on welfare. New York, NY: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  15. Loprest, P. J. (2011). Disconnected families and TANF (Brief No. 2). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  16. McGarry, K. (2013). The safety net for the elderly. In M. J. Bailey & S. Danziger (Eds.), Legacies of the war on poverty (pp. 179–205). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  17. McLanahan, S. (2004). Diverging destinies: How children are faring under the second demographic transition. Demography, 41, 607–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meyer, B. D., Mok, W. K. C., & Sullivan, J. X. (2009). The under-reporting of transfers in household surveys: Its nature and consequences (NBER Working Paper No. 15181). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  19. Moffitt, R. A. (1998). The effect of welfare on marriage and fertility. In R. A. Moffitt (Ed.), Welfare, the family, and reproductive behavior (pp. 50–97). Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  20. Moffitt, R. A. (2013). The great recession and the social safety net. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 650, 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moffitt, R. A., Phelan, B., & Winkler, A. (2015). Welfare rules, incentives, and family structure (Working paper). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  22. Murray, C. (1984). Losing ground: American social policy, 1950–1980. New York, NY: Basic.Google Scholar
  23. Patterson, J. T. (1994). America’s struggle against poverty, 1900–1994. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Preston, S. H. (1984). Children and the elderly: Divergent paths for America’s dependents. Demography, 21, 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shaefer, H. L., & Edin, K. (2013). Rising extreme poverty in the United States and the response of means-tested transfer programs. Social Service Review, 87, 250–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Spar, K. (2006). Cash and noncash benefits for persons with limited income: Eligibility rules, recipient, and expenditure data, FY2002–2004. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations