IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wop/wispod/1223-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Britain's New Deal and the Next Round of U.S. Welfare Reform

Author

Listed:
  • R. Walker
  • M. Wiseman

Abstract

The United States will begin another round of debate on welfare reform during the 107th Congress, which convened in January 2001. The new congress and administration must decide on reauthorization of funding for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the program established in 1996 as a replacement for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Among other things, the reauthorization debate will focus on issues of program funding, rationalization, performance, best practice, and direction. This paper argues that all phases of this debate would benefit from more widespread understanding and appreciation of the British Labour government's welfare reform program, including both the New Deal welfare-to-work programs and related changes in benefits and coverage. This paper reviews the ideology, strategy, and implementation of British innovations with regard to links to U.S. reforms and as a source of new perspectives and ideas for the reauthorization debate.

Suggested Citation

  • R. Walker & M. Wiseman, "undated". "Britain's New Deal and the Next Round of U.S. Welfare Reform," Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers 1223-01, University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty.
    • Handle: RePEc:wop:wispod:1223-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp122301.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Walker & Michael Wiseman, 1997. "The possibility of a British earned income tax credit," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 401-425, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mike Brewer & Tom Clark & Matthew Wakefield, 2002. "Five years of social security reforms in the UK," IFS Working Papers W02/12, Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gern, Klaus-Jürgen, 1999. "Auswirkungen verschiedener Varianten einer negativen Einkommensteuer in Deutschland: eine Simulationsstudie," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 1055, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    2. Michael Keen, 1997. "Peculiar institutions: A British perspective on tax policy in the United States," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 18(4), pages 371-400, November.
    3. Mike Brewer, 2000. "Comparing in-work benefits and financial work incentives for low-income families in the US and the UK," IFS Working Papers W00/16, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    4. Richard Blundell & Hilary W. Hoynes, 2004. "Has 'In-Work' Benefit Reform Helped the Labor Market?," NBER Chapters, in: Seeking a Premier Economy: The Economic Effects of British Economic Reforms, 1980–2000, pages 411-460, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Wolfgang Ochel, 2002. "Welfare to Work in the US: A Model for Germany?," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 59(1), pages 91-119, February.
    6. van Oers, H. & de Mooij, R.A. & Graafland, J.J. & Boone, J., 2000. "An earned income tax credit in the Netherlands : Simulations with the mimic model," Other publications TiSEM 09697d20-0f5c-4bc2-a625-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Waltraud Schelkle, 2000. "Subsidizing Low Earnings: German Debates and U.S. Experiences," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 69(1), pages 5-16.
    8. Mike Brewer & Tom Clark & Matthew Wakefield, 2002. "Five years of social security reforms in the UK," IFS Working Papers W02/12, Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wop:wispod:1223-01. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iruwius.html .

    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.