TY  - JOUR
AU  - Bitler, Marianne
AU  - Hoynes, Hilary
TI  - The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same? The Safety Net and Poverty in the Great Recession
JF  - National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series
VL  - No. 19449
PY  - 2013
Y2  - September 2013
DO  - 10.3386/w19449
UR  - http://www.nber.org/papers/w19449
L1  - http://www.nber.org/papers/w19449.pdf
N1  - Author contact info:
Marianne Bitler
Department of Economics
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA  95616
E-Mail: bitler@ucdavis.edu

Hilary W. Hoynes
Richard & Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy
University of California, Berkeley
2607 Hearst Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94720-7320
Tel: (510) 642-1166
E-Mail: hoynes@berkeley.edu
M1  - published as Marianne Bitler, Hilary Hoynes. "The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same? The Safety Net and Poverty in the Great Recession," in David Card and Alexandre Mas, organizers, "Labor Markets in the Aftermath of the Great Recession" Journal of Labor Economics, Volume 34, Number S1, part 2 (2016)

AB  - Much attention has been given to the large increase in safety net spending, particularly in Unemployment Insurance and Food Stamp spending, during the Great Recession. In this paper we examine the relationship between poverty, the social safety net, and business cycles historically and test whether there has been a significant change in this relationship during the Great Recession. We do so using an alternative measure of poverty that incorporates taxes and in-kind transfers. We explore the mediating role played by four core safety net programs--Food Stamps, cash welfare (AFDC/TANF), the Earned Income Tax Credit, and Unemployment Insurance--in buffering families from negative economic shocks. This analysis yields several important findings. Our most robust and important finding is the safety net is doing less to provide protection for the most disadvantaged. In the post-welfare reform world, TANF did not respond in the Great Recession and extreme poverty is more cyclical than in prior recessions. On the other hand, Food Stamps and UI are providing more protection-or at least providing no less protection-in the Great Recession, although these results are less robust across our different models. These programs are more likely to affect households somewhat higher up the income distribution; we find some evidence of a reduction in cyclicality at 100% poverty and little evidence about this at higher income-to-poverty levels.
ER  -