Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Do Official Poverty Rates Provide Useful Information about Trends in Children's Economic Welfare?

Contents:

Author Info

  • Christopher Jencks
  • Susan E. Mayer

Abstract

Comparing business cycle peaks, the official poverty rate for American children rose from 14.0% in 1969 to 19.6% in 1989. This increase has been widely cited in policy debates, both as evidence that the war on poverty was counterproductive and as evidence that it should be intensified. But this trend estimate is upwardly biased for at least three major reasons: 1) children's households include more nonrelatives, whose income is not counted when the Census Bureau decides whether a child is poor; 2) official price indices overstate inflation; and 3) Medicaid, food stamps, and rent subsidies have raised many children's material standard of living without raising their household income. In addition, low-income households probably have somewhat more unreported income today than in the past. When we correct the first three problems, child poverty appears to fall sharply during the 1970s and remain roughly constant during the 1980s. Measures of "consumption poverty" among children also increase less than measures of "income poverty" over the same interval. Direct measures of children's living standards mostly support this "revisionist" account. Low-income children saw doctors more often, lived in less-crowded housing, and were more likely to have telephones in 1980 than in 1970. These indicators did not change much between 1980 and 1990. Low-income children's homes were also more likely to have complete plumbing, electrical outlets in every room, a modern sewage system, and air conditioning in 1990 than in the early 1970s. Home ownership declined among low-income parents during both the 1970s and 1980s, but automobile ownership increased slightly. Food consumption probably increased slightly, but the evidence for this is very weak. .

Download Info

To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Institute for Policy Resarch at Northwestern University in its series IPR working papers with number 96-1.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation:
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wop:nwuipr:96-1

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 2040 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208-4100
Phone: 847-491-8712
Email:
Web page: http://www.nwu.edu/IPR/publications/wpindex1.html
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Susan E. Mayer, 2000. "Why Welfare Caseloads Fluctuate: A Review of Research on AFDC, SSI, and the Food Stamps Program," JCPR Working Papers 166, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
  2. Marcia K. Meyers & Irwin Garfinkel, 1999. "Social indicators and the study of inequality," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, issue Sep, pages 149-163.
  3. R. D. Plotnick & E. Smolensky & E. Evenhouse & S. Reilly, . "The Twentieth Century Record of Inequality and Poverty in the United States," Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers 1166-98, University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty.
  4. Robert Haveman & Andrew Bershadker, . "Self-reliance and Poverty, Net Earnings Capacity versus: Income for Measuring Poverty," Economics Public Policy Brief Archive ppb_46, Levy Economics Institute.
  5. R. Haveman & A. Bershadker, . "The “Inability to Be Self-Reliant” as an Indicator of Poverty: Trends in the United States, 1975–1995," Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers 1171-98, University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty.
  6. Burkhauser, Richard V. & Crews, Amy D. & Daly, Mary C., 1997. "Recounting winners and losers in the 1980s: A critique of income distribution measurement methodology," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 35-40, January.
  7. Robert Haveman & Andrew Bershadker, 1998. ""Inability to be Self-Reliant" as an Indicator of U.S. Poverty: Measurement, Comparisons, and Implications," Macroeconomics 9809002, EconWPA.
  8. Richard Bavier, 2008. "Reconciliation of income and consumption data in poverty measurement," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(1), pages 40-62.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wop:nwuipr:96-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Thomas Krichel).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.