Demography

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 617–637

Assessing immigrant policy options: Labor market conditions and postreform declines in immigrants’ receipt of welfare

  • Magnus Lofstrom
  • Frank D. Bean
Article

Abstract

Researchers infrequently have focused on assessing the degree to which the changes in welfare policy legislated during the 1990s have affected immigrants’ receipt of welfare. Using data from the March Current Population Survey, we analyze the contribution of local labor market conditions to the explanation of relative declines in immigrants’ receipt of welfare from 1994 to 2000. The results of a series of models that included labor market-area and state fixed effects indicate that employment and unemployment rates across metropolitan statistical areas and states account for at least one-third of the observed relative decrease among immigrants. The policy implications of the findings are discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bean, F.D, R. Corona, R. Turian, K.A. Woodrow-Lafield, and J.V.W. Van Hook. 2001. “Circular, Invisible, and Ambiguous Migrants: Components of Difference in Estimates of the Number of Unauthorized Mexican Migrants in the Unites States.” Demography 38:411–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bean, F.D., R.G. Cushing, C.W. Haynes, and J.V.W. Van Hook. 1997. “Immigration and the Social Contract.” Social Science Quarterly 78:432–51.Google Scholar
  3. Bean, F.D., S. Gonzalez-Baker, and R. Capps. 2001. “Immigration and Labor Markets in the United States.” Pp. 669–703 in Sourcebook of Labor Markets: Evolving Structures and Processes, edited by I. Berg and A.L. Kalleberg. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
  4. Bean, F.D. and G. Stevens. Forthcoming. America’s Newcomers: U.S. Immigration Policy and the Dynamics of Incorporation and Diversity. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, S.H. 2001. “Why Are Welfare Caseloads Falling?” Report No. 01-02. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  6. Betts, J.R. and M. Lofstrom. 2000. “The Educational Attainment of Immigrants: Trends and Implications.” Pp. 51–115 in Issues in the Economics of Immigration, edited by G.J. Borjas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blank, R.M. and R. Haskins. 2001. The New World of Welfare. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  8. Borjas, G.J. 1998. “Immigration and Welfare: A Review of the Evidence.” Pp. 121–44 in The Debate in the Unites States Over Immigration, edited by P. Duignan and L.H. Gann. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
  9. — 1999. Hea ven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Borjas, G.J. 2002. “The Impact of Welfare Reform on Immigrant Welfare Use.” March. Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies. Available on-line at http://www.cis.org/articles/2002/ borjaspr.html Capps, R. 2001. “Hardship Among Children of Immigrants: Findings From the 1999 National Survey of America’s Families.” Report No B-29. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Danziger, S.H. 1999. Economic Conditions and Welfare Reform. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute.Google Scholar
  12. De Jong, G.F. and A.B. Madamba. 2001. “A Double Disadvantage? Minority Group, Immigrants Status, and Underemployment in The United States.” Social Science Quarterly 82:117–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duignan, P. and L.H. Gann. 1998. The Debate in the Unites States Over Immigration. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
  14. Figlio, D.N. and J.P. Ziliak. 1999. “Welfare Reform, the Business Cycle, and the Decline in AFDC Caseloads.” Pp. 17–48 in Economic Conditions and Welfare Reform, edited by S. Danziger. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute.Google Scholar
  15. Fix, M. and J.S. Passel. 1999. “Trends in Noncitizens’ and Citizens’ Use of Public Benefits Following Welfare Reform: 1994–97.” Research report, March. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  16. — 2002. “The Scope and Impact of Welfare Reform’s Immigrant Provisions.” Discussion paper, January. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  17. Greenhouse, S. 2001. “Hispanic Workers Die at Higher Rate.” New York Times, July 16, p. A11.Google Scholar
  18. Hoynes, H.W. 2000. “Local Labor Markets and Welfare Spells: Do Demand Conditions Matter?” Review of Economics and Statistics 82:351–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hsueh, S. and M. Tienda. 1995. “Earnings Consequences of Employment Instability Among Minority Men.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 14:39–69.Google Scholar
  20. Kotkin, J. 2001. The New Geography. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  21. Madrian, B.C. and L.J. Lefgren. 1999. “An Approach to Longitudinally Matching the Current Population Survey.” Technical Working Paper No. 247. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  22. Moffitt, R.A. 1999. “The Effect of Pre-PRWORA Waivers on AFDC Caseloads and Female Earnings, Income, and Labor Force Behavior.” Pp. 91–118 in Economic Conditions and Welfare Reform, edited by S. Danziger. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute.Google Scholar
  23. Passel, J.S. 1996. “Problem With March 1994 and 1995 CPS Weighting.” Technical memorandum to CPS user, November. Washington, DC: The Urban InstituteGoogle Scholar
  24. Penner, R.G, I.V. Sawhill, and T. Taylor. 2000. Updating America’s Social Contract. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  25. Raijman, R. and M. Tienda. 1999. “Immigrants’ Socioeconomic Progress Post-1965: Forging Mobility or Survival?” Pp. 239–56 in The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience, edited by C. Hirschman, P. Kasinitz, and J. DeWind. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  26. Sassen, S. 1988. The Mobility of Labor and Capital: A Study in International Investment and Labor Flows. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Schoeni, R. and R. Blank. 2000. “What Has Welfare Reform Accomplished? Impacts on Welfare Participation, Employment, Income, Poverty, and Family Structure.” Working Paper 7627. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  28. Van Hook, J., J.E. Glick, and F.D. Bean. 1999. “Immigrant and Native Public Assistance Receipt: How the Unit of Analysis Affects Research Findings.” Demography 36:111–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Waldinger, R. 2001. Strangers at the Gates: New Immigrants in Urban America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  30. Weil, A. and K. Finegold. 2002. Welfare Reform: The Next Act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  31. Zimmermann, W. and M. Fix. 1998. “Declining Immigrant Applications for Medi-Cal and Welfare Benefits in Los Angeles County.” Urban Institute Research paper, July. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  32. Zimmermann, W. and K.C. Tumlin. 1999. “Patchwork Policies: State Assistance for Immigrants Under Welfare Reform.” Occasional Paper Number 24. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magnus Lofstrom
    • 1
  • Frank D. Bean
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Social SciencesUniversity of Texas at DallasRichardson
  2. 2.Center for Research on Immigration, Population and Public PolicyUniversity of CaliforniaIrvine
  3. 3.Department of SociologyIrvine

Personalised recommendations