The Experts below are selected from a list of 2749740 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
inside the war on poverty the impact of food stamps on birth outcomes
The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2011Co-Authors: Hilary Williamson Hoynes, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Douglas AlmondAbstract:This paper evaluates the health impacts of a signature initiative of the War on Poverty: the introduction of the modern Food Stamp Pro- gram (FSP). Using variation in the month FSP began operating in each U.S. county, we find that pregnancies exposed to FSP three months prior to birth yielded deliveries with increased birth weight, with the largest gains at the lowest birth weights. We also find small but statistically insig- nificant improvements in neonatal mortality. We conclude that the sizable increase in income from FSP improved birth outcomes for both whites and African Americans, with larger impacts for African American mothers. N this paper, we evaluate the health consequences of a sizable improvement in the resources available to Ameri- ca's poorest. In particular, we examine the impact of the Food Stamp Program (FSP), which in 2007 provided $34 billion in payments to about 13 million households, on infant health. Our paper makes two distinct contributions. First, although the goal of the FSP is to increase the nutri- tion of the poor, few papers have examined its impact on health outcomes. Second, building on work by Hoynes and Schanzenbach (2009), we argue that the FSP treatment represents an exogenous increase in income for the poor. Our analysis therefore represents a causal estimate of the impact of income on health, an important topic with little convincing evidence due to concerns about endogeneity and reverse causality (Currie, 2009). We use the natural experiment afforded by the nation- wide rollout of the modern FSP during the 1960s and early 1970s. Our identification strategy uses the sharp timing of the county-by-county rollout of the FSP, which was initially constrained by congressional funding authorizations (and ultimately became available in all counties by 1975). Speci- fically, we use information on the month the FSP began operating in each of the roughly 3,100 U.S. counties and examine the impact of the FSP rollout on mean birth weight, low birth weight, gestation, and neonatal mortality. Throughout the history of the FSP, the program para- meters have been set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and are uniform across states. In the absence of the state-level variation often leveraged by economists to eval- uate Transfer programs, previous FSP research has typically resorted to strong assumptions as to the comparability of FSP participants and eligible nonparticipants (Currie, 2003). Not surprisingly, the literature is far from settled as to what casual impact (if any) the FSP has on nutrition and health. Hoynes and Schanzenbach (2009) use this county rollout to examine the impact of the FSP on food consumption using the PSID. They found that the introduction of the FSP increased total food spending and decreased out-of-pocket food spending. Importantly, consistent with the predictions of canonical microeconomic theory, the magnitude of the increase in food expenditures was similar to an equivalent- sized income Transfer, implying that most recipient house- holds were inframarginal (that is, they would spend more on the subsidized good than the face value of the In-Kind Transfer). As one of the largest antipoverty programs in the United States—comparable in cost to the earned income tax credit (EITC) and substantially larger than Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)—understanding FSP effects is valuable both in its own right and for what it reveals about the relationship between income and health. 1
-
Consumption Responses to In-Kind Transfers: Evidence from the Introduction of the Food Stamp Program
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2009Co-Authors: Hilary Williamson Hoynes, Diane Whitmore SchanzenbachAbstract:Economists have strong theoretical predictions about how In-Kind Transfer programs -- such as providing vouchers for food -- impact consumption. Despite the prominence of the theory, there has been little empirical work documenting actual responses to In-Kind Transfers. In this work, we leverage previously underutilized variation in the date of the county-level original implementation of the Food Stamp Program in the 1960s and early 1970s. Using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, we employ difference-in-difference methods to estimate the impact of program availability on food spending, labor supply and family income. Consistent with theoretical predictions, we find that the introduction of food stamps leads to a decrease in out of pocket food spending, an increase in overall food expenditures, and a decrease (although insignificant) in the propensity to take meals out. The results are quite precisely estimated for total food spending, with less precision in estimating the impacts on out of pocket food costs. We find evidence of small work disincentive impacts in the PSID, which is confirmed with an analysis of the 1960, 1970 and 1980 Census.
Hilary Williamson Hoynes - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
inside the war on poverty the impact of food stamps on birth outcomes
The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2011Co-Authors: Hilary Williamson Hoynes, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Douglas AlmondAbstract:This paper evaluates the health impacts of a signature initiative of the War on Poverty: the introduction of the modern Food Stamp Pro- gram (FSP). Using variation in the month FSP began operating in each U.S. county, we find that pregnancies exposed to FSP three months prior to birth yielded deliveries with increased birth weight, with the largest gains at the lowest birth weights. We also find small but statistically insig- nificant improvements in neonatal mortality. We conclude that the sizable increase in income from FSP improved birth outcomes for both whites and African Americans, with larger impacts for African American mothers. N this paper, we evaluate the health consequences of a sizable improvement in the resources available to Ameri- ca's poorest. In particular, we examine the impact of the Food Stamp Program (FSP), which in 2007 provided $34 billion in payments to about 13 million households, on infant health. Our paper makes two distinct contributions. First, although the goal of the FSP is to increase the nutri- tion of the poor, few papers have examined its impact on health outcomes. Second, building on work by Hoynes and Schanzenbach (2009), we argue that the FSP treatment represents an exogenous increase in income for the poor. Our analysis therefore represents a causal estimate of the impact of income on health, an important topic with little convincing evidence due to concerns about endogeneity and reverse causality (Currie, 2009). We use the natural experiment afforded by the nation- wide rollout of the modern FSP during the 1960s and early 1970s. Our identification strategy uses the sharp timing of the county-by-county rollout of the FSP, which was initially constrained by congressional funding authorizations (and ultimately became available in all counties by 1975). Speci- fically, we use information on the month the FSP began operating in each of the roughly 3,100 U.S. counties and examine the impact of the FSP rollout on mean birth weight, low birth weight, gestation, and neonatal mortality. Throughout the history of the FSP, the program para- meters have been set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and are uniform across states. In the absence of the state-level variation often leveraged by economists to eval- uate Transfer programs, previous FSP research has typically resorted to strong assumptions as to the comparability of FSP participants and eligible nonparticipants (Currie, 2003). Not surprisingly, the literature is far from settled as to what casual impact (if any) the FSP has on nutrition and health. Hoynes and Schanzenbach (2009) use this county rollout to examine the impact of the FSP on food consumption using the PSID. They found that the introduction of the FSP increased total food spending and decreased out-of-pocket food spending. Importantly, consistent with the predictions of canonical microeconomic theory, the magnitude of the increase in food expenditures was similar to an equivalent- sized income Transfer, implying that most recipient house- holds were inframarginal (that is, they would spend more on the subsidized good than the face value of the In-Kind Transfer). As one of the largest antipoverty programs in the United States—comparable in cost to the earned income tax credit (EITC) and substantially larger than Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)—understanding FSP effects is valuable both in its own right and for what it reveals about the relationship between income and health. 1
-
Consumption Responses to In-Kind Transfers: Evidence from the Introduction of the Food Stamp Program
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2009Co-Authors: Hilary Williamson Hoynes, Diane Whitmore SchanzenbachAbstract:Economists have strong theoretical predictions about how In-Kind Transfer programs -- such as providing vouchers for food -- impact consumption. Despite the prominence of the theory, there has been little empirical work documenting actual responses to In-Kind Transfers. In this work, we leverage previously underutilized variation in the date of the county-level original implementation of the Food Stamp Program in the 1960s and early 1970s. Using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, we employ difference-in-difference methods to estimate the impact of program availability on food spending, labor supply and family income. Consistent with theoretical predictions, we find that the introduction of food stamps leads to a decrease in out of pocket food spending, an increase in overall food expenditures, and a decrease (although insignificant) in the propensity to take meals out. The results are quite precisely estimated for total food spending, with less precision in estimating the impacts on out of pocket food costs. We find evidence of small work disincentive impacts in the PSID, which is confirmed with an analysis of the 1960, 1970 and 1980 Census.
Firouz Gahvari - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Transfers in Cash and in Kind: Theory Meets the Data
Journal of Economic Literature, 2008Co-Authors: Janet Currie, Firouz GahvariAbstract:We review theoretical explanations for In-Kind Transfers in light of the limited empirical evidence. After reviewing the traditional paternalistic arguments, we consider explanations based on imperfect information and self-targeting. We then discuss the large literature on In-Kind programs as a way of improving the efficiency of the tax system and a range of other possible explanations, including the "Samaritan's Dilemma," pecuniary effects, credit constraints, asymmetric information amongst agents, and political economy considerations. Our reading of the evidence suggests that paternalism and interdependent preferences are leading overall explanations for the existence of In-Kind Transfer programs but that some of the other arguments may apply to specific cases. Political economy considerations must also be part of the story.
-
In-Kind Transfers, cash grants and labor supply
Journal of Public Economics, 1994Co-Authors: Firouz GahvariAbstract:Abstract In-Kind and cash Transfer programs are compared in their impacts on labor supply. It is demonstrated that labor supply is higher under an In-Kind Transfer program, if In-Kind Transfers and leisure are Hicks substitutes, leisure is normal, and In-Kind Transfers are ‘over-provided’. It is further shown that under these conditions a one dollar increase in In-Kind coupled with a one dollar cut in cash Transfers increases tax revenues. Finally, the paper proves that weak separability of preferences between leisure and other goods, in addition to normality of leisure and normality and over-provision of In-Kind Transfers, is also sufficient to ensure a higher level of labor supply under In-Kind Transfers.
Douglas Almond - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
inside the war on poverty the impact of food stamps on birth outcomes
The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2011Co-Authors: Hilary Williamson Hoynes, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Douglas AlmondAbstract:This paper evaluates the health impacts of a signature initiative of the War on Poverty: the introduction of the modern Food Stamp Pro- gram (FSP). Using variation in the month FSP began operating in each U.S. county, we find that pregnancies exposed to FSP three months prior to birth yielded deliveries with increased birth weight, with the largest gains at the lowest birth weights. We also find small but statistically insig- nificant improvements in neonatal mortality. We conclude that the sizable increase in income from FSP improved birth outcomes for both whites and African Americans, with larger impacts for African American mothers. N this paper, we evaluate the health consequences of a sizable improvement in the resources available to Ameri- ca's poorest. In particular, we examine the impact of the Food Stamp Program (FSP), which in 2007 provided $34 billion in payments to about 13 million households, on infant health. Our paper makes two distinct contributions. First, although the goal of the FSP is to increase the nutri- tion of the poor, few papers have examined its impact on health outcomes. Second, building on work by Hoynes and Schanzenbach (2009), we argue that the FSP treatment represents an exogenous increase in income for the poor. Our analysis therefore represents a causal estimate of the impact of income on health, an important topic with little convincing evidence due to concerns about endogeneity and reverse causality (Currie, 2009). We use the natural experiment afforded by the nation- wide rollout of the modern FSP during the 1960s and early 1970s. Our identification strategy uses the sharp timing of the county-by-county rollout of the FSP, which was initially constrained by congressional funding authorizations (and ultimately became available in all counties by 1975). Speci- fically, we use information on the month the FSP began operating in each of the roughly 3,100 U.S. counties and examine the impact of the FSP rollout on mean birth weight, low birth weight, gestation, and neonatal mortality. Throughout the history of the FSP, the program para- meters have been set by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and are uniform across states. In the absence of the state-level variation often leveraged by economists to eval- uate Transfer programs, previous FSP research has typically resorted to strong assumptions as to the comparability of FSP participants and eligible nonparticipants (Currie, 2003). Not surprisingly, the literature is far from settled as to what casual impact (if any) the FSP has on nutrition and health. Hoynes and Schanzenbach (2009) use this county rollout to examine the impact of the FSP on food consumption using the PSID. They found that the introduction of the FSP increased total food spending and decreased out-of-pocket food spending. Importantly, consistent with the predictions of canonical microeconomic theory, the magnitude of the increase in food expenditures was similar to an equivalent- sized income Transfer, implying that most recipient house- holds were inframarginal (that is, they would spend more on the subsidized good than the face value of the In-Kind Transfer). As one of the largest antipoverty programs in the United States—comparable in cost to the earned income tax credit (EITC) and substantially larger than Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)—understanding FSP effects is valuable both in its own right and for what it reveals about the relationship between income and health. 1
Jesse M. Cunha - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Testing Paternalism: Cash versus In-Kind Transfers
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2014Co-Authors: Jesse M. CunhaAbstract:Welfare programs are often implemented In-Kind to promote outcomes that might not be realized under cash Transfers. This paper tests whether such paternalistically motivated Transfers are justified compared to cash, using a randomized controlled trial of Mexico's food assistance program. In relation to total food consumption, the In-Kind Transfer was infra-marginal and nondistorting. However, the Transfer contained ten food items, and there was large variation in the extent to which individual foods were extra-marginal and distorting. Small differences in the nutritional intake of women and children under In-Kind Transfers did not lead to meaningful differential improvements in health outcomes compared to cash.
-
Testing Paternalism: Cash Versus In-Kind Transfers in Rural Mexico
2012Co-Authors: Jesse M. CunhaAbstract:Welfare programs are often implemented In-Kind to promote outcomes that might not be realized under cash Transfers. This paper tests whether such paternalistically motivated Transfers are justified compared to cash, using a Randomized Controlled Trial of Mexico’s food assistance program. In relation to total food consumption, the In-Kind Transfer was infra-marginal and non-distorting. However, the Transfer contained 10 food items, and there was a large variation in the extent to which individual foods were extra-marginal and distorting. Small differences in children’s nutritional intake under In-Kind Transfers did not lead to meaningful differential improvements in child health compared to cash. ⇤Contact information: jessecunha@gmail.com. I thank Giacomo De Giorgi, Seema Jayachandran, Karthik Muralidarhan, Caroline Hoxby, Orazio Attanasio, Ned Augenblick, and Luigi Pistaferri for helpful comments. This research was funded in part by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Leonard W. Ely and Shirley R. Ely Graduate Student Fund Fellowship.
-
Testing Paternalism: Cash vs. In-Kind Transfer in Rural Mexico
2010Co-Authors: Jesse M. CunhaAbstract:Welfare programs are often implemented In-Kind to promote outcomes that might not be realized under cash Transfers. I use a randomized controlled trial of the Mexican government's Food Assistance Program ('PAL') to test whether this form of paternalism is necessary, comparing precisely measured consumption and health outcomes under both In-Kind food and cash Transfers. Importantly, I fnd that households do not indulge in the consumption of vices when handed cash. Furthermore, there is little evidence that the In-Kind food Transfer induced more food to be consumed than did an equal-valued cash Transfer. This result is partly explained by the fact that the In-Kind Transfer was infra-marginal in terms of total food. However, the PAL In-Kind basket contained 10 individual items, and these Transfers indeed altered the types of food consumed for some households. While this distorting effect of In-Kind Transfers is paternalism's motivation, I fnd that households receiving cash consumed equally nutritious foods. Finally, there were few differences in child nutritional intakes, and no diferences in child height, weight, sickness, or anemia prevalence. While other justifcations for In-Kind Transfers may certainly apply, there is minimal evidence supporting the paternalistic one in this context.
