Search

This paper comments on the work of Rector et al. (1999a, 1999b). The poverty lines implicit in their restrictive material deprivation approach are disputed and the claim that America has triumphed over poverty is rejected. Evidence is presented showing that poverty among the poorest Americans has significantly increased and is now near an all time high. The long economic expansion since the recession of 1990-1991 has left hardcore poverty essentially unchanged and relative deprivation among the poorest of the poor has increased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prevailing measures of relative poverty are unchanged when all incomes grow or contract by the same proportion. This property stems from seemingly implausible assumptions about the disutility of relative deprivation and the cost of social inclusion. We propose "weakly relative" lines that relax these assumptions. On calibrating our measures to national poverty lines and survey data, we find that half the population of the developing world in 2005 lived in poverty, only half of whom were absolutely poor. The total number of poor rose over 1981 to 2005 despite falling numbers of absolutely poor. With sustained economic growth, the incidence of relative poverty became less responsive to further growth. The number of relatively poor rose, just as the numbers of absolutely poor fell. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article synthesizes an extensive literature on how local characteristics might affect the nature of poverty, particularly U.S. rural poverty. The attributes discussed include the natural environment, economic structure, public and community institutions, social norms, and demographic characteristics. In each case, the author discusses the ways in which these attributes can affect poverty and indicates what this implies about effective antipoverty policies. Multiple causal factors affect place-specific outcomes and interact so that "outcome" and "cause" are difficult to untangle. One implication is that both place-based and people-based policies may be necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The thesis of this study is that as a result of increased inequalities in welfare rules, the 1996 welfare reform act not only enhanced incentives for poor families to move but also (and perhaps more important) created disincentives for them to stay in "race to the bottom" states. In testing this thesis, we evaluated the mediating and moderating roles of state economic development and family structure. We merged data from three main sources: the 1996-1999 panel of the Survey of Income and Program Participation, the Urban Institute's Welfare Rules Database, and state economic data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Modeling both destination (pull) and departure (push) effects of welfare policy measures and selected covariates in a nested discrete-time event-history migration analysis, we found robust support for the thesis that stringency in state welfare-eligibility and behavior-related rules stimulated interstate out-migration of poor families in the United States. However poor families were not drawn to states with relatively more-lenient welfare rules, although stringency in state welfare dollar benefits inhibited in-migration and state unemployment patterns may have conditioned the migration effects of welfare-reform rules on the choice of destination. Single mothers were not more directly affected by welfare-eligibility and behavior-related rules than were poor married couples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]