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

Spending On Social Welfare Programs In Rich And Poor States

Contents:

Author Info

  • Richard Toikka

    (The Lewin Group)

  • Thomas Gais

    (The Rockefeller Institute of Government)

  • Plamen V Nikolov

    (The Lewin Group)

  • Patricia Billen

    (The Rockefeller Institute of Government)

Abstract

Social welfare programs strive to improve the well-being of needy and vulnerable populations. The fact that states spend different amounts on these programs is well known, but why they do so is less understood, including the extent to which differences are affected by states’ relative fiscal capacity, defined as their ability to raise revenue through taxation. The federal government has long played an important role in offsetting state fiscal disparities. However, recent changes in federal grant programs might have affected poor and rich states in different ways. For the purpose of this study, we measure fiscal capacity—and thus distinguish between rich and poor states—using states’ real per capita income. By social welfare spending, we mean per capita state spending on programs intended to support lower-income households, usually programs that are means tested. These programs might include cash assistance programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or cash payments under AFDC’s replacement, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); health programs such as Medicaid and state child health insurance programs (SCHIP); and a wide variety of non- health service programs providing child care, foster care, low-income energy assistance, and social services to the physically disabled and programs funded by the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). The Study Conducted over 21 months, the study involved two major activities: Analysis of expenditures across 50 states. Our analysis examined variation in spending patterns across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Our team analyzed 24 years of data on state and local social welfare spending patterns for four categories of social welfare spending and a residual category of all other state and local spending. These categories encompassed cash assistance; Medicaid; non-health social services, such as child care, child welfare, energy assistance, and services to the aged and disabled; public hospitals; and all other non- social welfare spending. We approached the analysis of spending in three ways: (1) employing descriptive data to analyze trends and patterns, (2) developing and estimating econometric models of state spending to estimate how differences in states’ fiscal capacity affect spending, and (3) using the results from the descriptive and econometric analysis to better understand the spending variations we observed between rich and poor states. Case studies. We collected and analyzed qualitative and quantitative data from six states— Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Carolina, and West Virginia—selected for their high needs relative to their fiscal capacities. Findings from the econometric analysis were used to compare states on their propensities to spend on certain types of social welfare. Comparisons were drawn between rich states (i.e., states with high fiscal capacity) and poor states (i.e., states with low fiscal capacity) and among the six states selected for case studies. To obtain in-depth information about how state fiscal capacity affects state spending on social programs, we conducted site visits to case study states. Four questions guided our interviews: · How do states with the greatest needs and the least resources make financial decisions regarding their social welfare programs? · How do these states respond to short-term financial challenges, such as the recent state fiscal crises? · Why do some poor states spend more on social welfare programs than other poor states? And why did some spend more on certain programs and less on others?

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://128.118.178.162/eps/pe/papers/0410/0410006.pdf
Download Restriction: no

File URL: http://128.118.178.162/eps/pe/papers/0410/0410006.ps.gz
Download Restriction: no

File URL: http://128.118.178.162/eps/pe/papers/0410/0410006.doc.gz
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by EconWPA in its series Public Economics with number 0410006.

as in new window
Length: 118 pages
Date of creation: 27 Oct 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwppe:0410006

Note: Type of Document - doc; pages: 118. Also available at
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://128.118.178.162

Related research

Keywords: welfare economics state spending welfare reform expenditures;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

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. Michael T. Owyang & Sarah Zubairy, 2009. "Who benefits from increased government spending? a state-level analysis," Working Papers 2009-006, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

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:wpa:wuwppe:0410006. 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: (EconWPA).

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.