Lifeline is a unique nationwide public assistance program created by the Federal Communications Commission to provide price discounts to low-income telephone subscribers. Recently there has been concern that program participation rates are low and that there is great variation in participation across states. We examine the Lifeline Program to explain why people do not participate in a program that provides them with financial benefits. Using state-level panel data, we consider reasons Lifeline participation varies among states and why only approximately one-third of eligible households nationwide enroll in the program. We find that participation is actually closely aligned with what is predicted given state characteristics when we control for socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. We also find that in addition to the demographic factors affecting participation, telecommunications companies appear to affect Lifeline participation rates.
Andrade, Carlos, and Faculdade de Ciencias Economicas e Empresariais.2002. The economics of welfare participation and welfare stigma: A review. Public Finance and Management2(2): 294-333.
2.
Blank, Rebecca M.1985. The impact of state economic differentials on household welfare and labor force behavior. Journal of Public Economics28(1): 25-28.
3.
Blank, Rebecca M., and Patricia Ruggles.1996. When do women use aid to families with dependent children and food stamps? The dynamics of eligibility versus participation. Journal of Human Resources31(1): 57-89.
4.
Blundell, Richard, Vanessa Fry, and Ian Walker.1988. Modeling the take-up of means-tested benefits: The case of housing benefits in the United Kingdom. The Economic Journal98: 58-74.
5.
Bruce, Donald, Karie Barbour, and Angela Thacker.2004. Welfare program reentry among postreform leavers. Southern Economic Journal . 70(4): 816-36.
6.
Burton, Mark, and John W. Mayo.2005. Understanding participation in social programs: Why don't households pick up the lifeline? Working paper, Univ. of Georgetown, Department of Economics, Washington, DC.
7.
Currie, Janet. 2004. The take up of social benefits. Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
8.
Eriksson, Ross C., David L. Kaserman, and John W. Mayo.1998. Targeted and untargeted subsidy schemes: Evidence from postdivestiture efforts to promote universal telephone service . Journal of Law and Economics41: 477-502.
9.
Federal Communications Commission.2002, 2003, 2004. Report 43-01, the ARMIS annual summary report. http://www.fcc.gov/omd/pra/docs/3060-0512/3060-0512-05.doc .
10.
Federal Communications Commission.2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. Universal service monitoring report prepared for the federal-state joint board on universal service, monitoring report CC docket no. 98-202. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/mr04-intro.pdf .
11.
Federal Communications Commission.2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. Reference Book of Rates, Price Indices, and Household Expenditures for Telephone Service. Washington, DC: Industry Analysis and Technology Division Wireline Competition Bureau.
12.
Fraker, Thomas, and Robert Moffit.1988. The effect of food stamps on labour supply: A bivariate selection model. Journal of Public Economics35(2): 25-56.
13.
Garbacz, Christopher, and Herbert G. Thompson , Jr.1997. Assessing the impact of FCC lifeline and linkup programs on telephone penetration. Journal of Regulatory Economics11(1): 67-78.
14.
———. 2002. Estimating telephone demand with state decennial census data from 1970— 1990. Journal of Regulatory Economics21(3): 317-29.
15.
———. 2003. Estimating telephone demand with state decennial census data from 1970— 1990: Update with 2000 data. Journal of Regulatory Economics24(3): 373-78.
16.
Greene, William H.2003. Econometric Analysis, 5th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17.
Hauge, Janice, Mark Jamison, and R. Todd Jewell.2006. Discounting telephone service: An examination of participation in Florida's Lifeline program using panel data. Working paper, Univ. of Florida, Department of Economics, Public Utilities Research Center, Gainesville, FL.
18.
Hoynes, Hilary W.1996. Welfare transfers in two-parent families: Labor supply and welfare participation under AFDC-UP. Econometrica64(2): 295-332.
19.
Maddala, G.S.1983. Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
20.
McGarry, Kathleen.1995. Factors determining participation of the elderly in SSI. Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
21.
Moffitt, Robert.1983. An economic model of welfare stigma. American Economic Review73: 1023-35.
22.
Papke, Leslie E., and Jeffrey M. Wooldridge .1996. Econometric methods for fractional response variables. Journal of Applied Econometrics11(6): 619-32.
23.
Roston, Gregory L., and Bradley S. Wimmer .2000. The `state' of universal service. Information Economics and Policy12(3): 261-83.
24.
Stuber, Jennifer, and Karl Kronebusch.2004. Stigma and other determinants of participation in TANF and Medicaid. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management23(3): 509-30.
25.
The Progress and Freedom Foundation.2005. Digital age communications act: Proposal of the universal service working group, release 2.0http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/books/051207daca-usf-2.0.pdf.
26.
United States Census Bureau.2004. The American Families and Living Arrangements: 2003 document, Table 4, www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf.
27.
———. 2005. State level demographic data. http://factfinder.census.gov/.
28.
Valletti, Tommaso M., Steffan Hoernig, and Pedro P. Barros.2002. Universal service and entry: The role of uniform pricing and coverage constraints. Journal of Regulatory Economics21(2): 169-90.
29.
Yelowitz, Aaron S.2000. Public policy and health insurance choices of the elderly: Evidence from the Medicare buy-in program. Journal of Public Economics78(3): 301-24.
