The current study explores the impact of parental welfare history on individuals’ current use of welfare by decomposing intergenerational differences using techniques traditionally employed in the race and sex wage discrimination literature. This research extends Rank and Cheng’s examination of welfare across generations by including various attitudinal, cultural, and community factors. Empirical testing of the the oretical explanations of welfare use— cultural and structural models—found mixed support. Utilizing data from the National Survey of Households and Families, logistic regression and decomposition analysis shows that family endowments and resources, but not family culture, determine welfare use. Differences in education, socioeconomic status, attitudes, and community resources appear to sufficiently explain the influence of intergenerational welfare use. The article concludes with implications of welfare reform in light of the theoretical models and the current study findings.
An, C., Haveman, R., & Wolfe, B. (1993). Teen out-of-wedlock births and welfare receipt: The role of childhood events and economic circumstances. Review of Economics and Statistics, 75, 196-208.
2.
Antel, J. J. (1992).The intergenerational transfer of welfare dependency: Some statistical evidence. Review of Economics and Statistics, 74, 467-473.
3.
Becker, G. S., & Tomes, N. (1979). An equilibrium theory of the distribution of income and intergenerational mobility. Journal of Political Economy, 87, 1153-1189.
4.
Berlin, G. (2001). The 30-year tug-of-war: Can reform resolve welfare policy’s thorniest conundrum?Brookings Review, 19, 34-38.
5.
Center on Hunger and Poverty. (1999). State investments to make work feasible. Medford, CT: Tufts University.
6.
Chambre, S. M. (1985). Role orientation and intergenerational welfare use. Social Casework, 66, 13-20.
7.
Corcoran, M. (1995). Rags to rags: Poverty and mobility in the United States. Annual Review of Sociology, 21, 237-267.
8.
Corcoran, M., & Adams, T. (1997). Race, sex, and the intergenerational transmission of poverty. In G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor (pp. 461-517). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
9.
Corcoran, M., Gordon, R., Laren, D., & Solon, G. (1992). The association between men’s economic status and their family and community. Journal of Human Resources, 27, 575-601.
10.
Dolinsky, A. L., Caputo, R. K., & O’Kane, P. (1989). Competing effects of culture and situation on welfare receipt. Social Service Review, 63, 359-371.
11.
Duncan, G. J., & Yeung, W. J. (1995). Extent and consequences of welfare dependence among America’s children. Children and Youth Services Review, 17, 157-182.
12.
Gottschalk, P. (1990). AFDC participation across generations. American Economic Review, 80, 367-371.
13.
Gottschalk, P. (1992). The intergenerational transmission of welfare participation: Facts and possible causes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 11, 254-272.
14.
Greenberg, M. (2001). Welfare reform and devolution: Looking back and forward. Brookings Review, 19, 20-24.
15.
Gruenewald, P. J., Treno, A. J., Taff, G., & Klitzner, M. (1997). Measuring community indicators: A systems approach to drug and alcohol problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Hagen, J. L. (1999). Time limits under temporary assistance to needy families: A look at the welfare cliff. Affilia, 14, 294-314.
17.
Haskins, R. (2001, Summer). Giving is not enough: Work and work supports are reducing poverty. The Brookings Review, 19, 13-15.
18.
Hao, L. (1995). How does a single mother choose kin and welfare support?Social Science Research, 24, 1-27.
19.
Hill, M. S., & Duncan, G. J. (1987). Parental family income and the socioeconomic attainment of children. Social Science Research, 16, 39-73.
20.
Horn, W. F. (2001). Wedding bell blues: Marriage and welfare reform. Brookings Review, 19, 39-42.
21.
Jackson, J. D., & Lindley, J. T. (1989). Measuring the extent of wage discrimination: A statistical test and a caveat. Applied Economics, 21, 515-540.
22.
Jorgensen, S. R. (1993). Adolescent pregnancy and parenting. In T. P. Gullotta, G. R. Adams, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Adolescent sexuality (pp. 103-140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Levine, P. B., & Zimmerman, D. J. (1996). The intergenerational correlation in AFDC participation: Welfare trap or poverty trap? (Paper no. 1100-96). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion.
24.
Lewis, O. (1966). The culture of poverty. Scientific American, 214, 19-25.
25.
McLanahan, S. S. (1988). Family structure and dependency: Early transitions to female household headship. Demography, 25, 1-16.
26.
Mead, L. (1986). Beyond entitlement. New York: Free Press.
27.
Peters, H. E. (1992). Patterns of intergenerational mobility in income and earnings. Review of Economics and Statistics, 74, 456-466.
28.
Rank, M. R., & Cheng, L. C. (1995). Welfare use across generations: How important are the ties that bind?Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 673-684.
29.
Sawhill, I. (2001). From welfare to work: Making welfare a way station, not a way of life. Brookings Review, 19, 4-7.
30.
Sherman, A. L. (1999). The changing face of welfare. Family Policy, 12, 1-14. Washington, DC: Family Research Council.
31.
Stevens, G., & Cho, J. H. (1985). Recode of occupation into socioeconomic status score, as reported in Socioeconomic Indexes and the New 1980 Census Occupational Classification Scheme. Social Science Research, 14, 142-168.
32.
Sweet, J., Bumpass, L., & Call, V. (1988). The design and content of the National Survey of Families and Households (Working Paper No. 1). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center for Demography and Ecology.
33.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1991). Family disruption and economic hardship: The short-run picture for children (Current Population Reports, Series P-70, No. 23, 1-13). U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington D.C.
34.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
