Category Archives: Welfare

News Article: “The War on the Poor: Donald Trump’s win opens the door to Paul Ryan’s vision for America”

News Article: Dylan Matthews, “The War on the Poor: Donald Trump’s win opens the door to Paul Ryan’s vision for America,” Vox, Nov. 22, 2016.

(Texas Size) Texas Law Review Symposium: “The Constitution and Economic Inequality”

Texas Law Review Symposium: “The Constitution and Economic Inequality”

Call for Papers: Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research of the University of Salzburg on “2017 Salzburg Conference in Interdisciplinary Poverty Research, Focus Theme: Religion and Poverty”

Call for Papers: Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research of the University of Salzburg on “2017 Salzburg Conference in Interdisciplinary Poverty Research, Focus Theme: Religion and Poverty,” Sept. 21-22, 2017.

The Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research of the University of Salzburg happily announces the call for papers for its 2017 Salzburg Conference in Interdisciplinary Poverty Research. The focus theme of the conference will be religion and poverty. …

The Organizing Committee invites submissions of proposals for single papers and thematic panels in all areas of poverty research but special attention will be given to those concerned with the 2017 focus theme of religion and poverty.

Possible topics [sic] for the general theme sessions are, among others, current trends in poverty, inequality and social exclusion, poverty trends of different groups (minorities, age, gender, disability, unemployment), analysis of the economic, social and cultural processes underlying poverty, the effects of poverty on health, well-being, education, and inclusion, conceptualizations of poverty, methodologies of poverty research, the effectiveness of poverty alleviation measures and policy responses, and research on safety nets and welfare.

Possible topics for the focus theme sessions are, among others, the relation of religion and poverty and inequality in different states and world regions, religion as a factor in development, faith-based organisations and poverty alleviation, extent and causes of poverty and social exclusion of religious groups and minorities, religious perspectives on poverty, and theological responses to poverty and inequality.

Please submit abstracts for single papers and panels via the submission form on the conference homepage. In case that you encounter difficulties using this form, please contact the organizers via e-mail.

The deadline for submitting abstracts for single papers and panels is 31 March 2017. Decisions will be communicated until 30 April 2017.

Contact Info: 

Gottfried Schweiger, Centre for Ethics and Poverty Research, University of Salzburg

Article: “Race, Class, and Access to Civil Justice”

Article: Sara Sternberg Greene, “Race, Class, and Access to Civil Justice,” 101 Iowa L. Rev. 1263 (2016).

Existing research indicates that members of poor and minority groups are less likely than their higher income counterparts to seek help when they experience a civil legal problem. Indeed, roughly three-quarters of the poor do not seek legal help when they experience such problems. Inaction is even more pronounced among poor blacks. This Article uses original empirical data to provide novel explanations for these puzzling and troubling statistics. This study shows, for the first time, a connection between negative past experiences with the criminal justice system and decisions to seek help for civil justice problems. For those familiar with the law, civil and criminal law are separate categories across which experiences do not generalize, any more than a negative experience of subways would lead one to avoid driving. For most respondents, though, the criminal and civil justice systems are one and the same. Injustices they perceive in the criminal system translate into the belief that the legal system as a whole is unjust and should be avoided. Second, this Article shows that past negative experiences with a broad array of public institutions perceived as legal in nature caused respondents to feel lost and ashamed, leading them to avoid interaction with all legal institutions. Third, my data and interviews suggest that respondents helped make sense of these troubling experiences by more generally portraying themselves as self-sufficient citizens who solve their own problems. Seeking help from the legal system might run counter to this self portrayal. Finally, this Article provides a novel analysis of racial differences in how much citizens use the civil legal system and argues that disparities in trust levels help to explain these differences. This Article concludes by discussing potential policy implications of the findings and identifies key areas for further research.

News Article: “Hillary Clinton and the Populist Revolt”

News Article: George Packer, “Hillary Clinton and the Populist Revolt,” The New Yorker, Oct. 31, 2016.

Article: “Uncontrolled Experiments from the Laboratories of Democracy: Traditional Cash Welfare, Federalism, and Welfare Reform”

Article: “Uncontrolled Experiments from the Laboratories of Democracy: Traditional Cash Welfare, Federalism, and Welfare Reform,” Ch. 5 in The Law of Economics and Federalism (2016).

In this chapter I discuss the history and basic incentive effects of two key U.S. cash assistance programs aimed at families with children. Starting roughly in the 1980s, critics of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program argued that the program — designed largely to cut relatively small checks — failed to end poverty or promote work. After years of federally provided waivers that allowed states to experiment with changes to their AFDC programs, the critics in 1996 won the outright elimination of AFDC. It was replaced by the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, over which states have enormous design discretion. In this chapter I argue that the empirical evidence on AFDC’s behavioral impact was never as compelling as AFDC’s critics maintained. Nor, for the period up to about 2012 (the endpoint of this chapter’s analysis), is there any substantial empirical evidence supporting what I call the “triumphalist” position that the wave of state and federal welfare reforms that took place in the 1990s importantly explains the observed increase in employment among single mothers. Either the economic boom of the late 1990s, or some other difficult-to-measure change, appears to have played a more important role than welfare reform. What is more, the uncontrolled experimentation of the last two decades has left the U.S. with a crazyquilt collection of state programs that do not lend themselves to the kind of empirical research that would be necessary to benefit from the Brandeisian idea of states as laboratories of democracy.

 

News Article: “Hillary Clinton is proposing a policy to tackle deep poverty”

News Article: Dylan Matthews, “Hillary Clinton is proposing a policy to tackle deep poverty,” Vox, Oct. 11, 2016.

 

News Article: Why So Many Poor Americans Don’t Get Help Paying For Housing

News Article: Andrew Flowers, “Why So Many Poor Americans Don’t Get Help Paying For Housing,” FiveThirtyEight, Sept. 16, 2016 [w/tables and charts].

Past Event: The 20th Anniversary of Welfare Reform: Lessons and Takeaways

Past Event: The 20th Anniversary of Welfare Reform: Lessons and Takeaways, Brookings Institution, Sept. 22, 2016 [link includes a complete agenda, as well as recordings of each panel].

Article: “Racial and Gender Justice in the Child Welfare and Child Support Systems”

Article: Margaret F. Brinig, “Racial and Gender Justice in the Child Welfare and Child Support Systems,” 35 Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice (forthcoming).

While divorcing couples in the United States have been studied for many years, separating unmarried couples and their children have proven more difficult to analyze. Recently there have been successful longitudinal ethnographic and survey-based studies. This piece uses documents from a single Indiana county’s unified family court (called the Probate Court) to trace the effects of race and gender on unmarried families, beginning with a sample of 386 children for whom paternity petitions were brought in four months of 2008. It confirms prior theoretical work on racial differences in noncustodial parenting and poses new questions about how incarceration and gender affect low income families.