IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cjrecs/v11y2018i3p459-483..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Politics, State discretion and retrenchment in safety net provision: evidence from the USA in the post-Welfare Reform era

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah K Bruch
  • KaLeigh K White

Abstract

The welfare reforms of the late 1990s in the US granted States increased and varying levels of discretion in programme financing, rulemaking and administration. Scholars have generally assumed that this discretion would lead to retrenchment. We use comparable measures of programme generosity and inclusion from 1994–2014 to examine the relationship between levels of discretion, State political factors and the likelihood of retrenchment. In our descriptive analysis, we find that discretion provides opportunities for both retrenchment and expansion and that these outcomes are shaped by State political factors. In multivariate models, we find a more limited association between State political factors and changes or differences in safety net provision.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah K Bruch & KaLeigh K White, 2018. "Politics, State discretion and retrenchment in safety net provision: evidence from the USA in the post-Welfare Reform era," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 11(3), pages 459-483.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cjrecs:v:11:y:2018:i:3:p:459-483.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cjres/rsy017
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Tania Arrieta, 2022. "Austerity in the United Kingdom and its legacy: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 33(2), pages 238-255, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cjrecs:v:11:y:2018:i:3:p:459-483.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cjres .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.