The Poverty Reduction Success of Public Transfers For Working Age Immigrants and Refugees In the United States Christopher R. Bollinger Paul Hagstrom University of Kentucky Hamilton College We thank Lindsay Allen for excellent research assistance. Author Bollinger thanks the University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research for supporting this project.
14
Embed
The Poverty Reduction Success of Public Transfers For Working Age Immigrants and Refugees In the United States Christopher R. Bollinger Paul Hagstrom University.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Poverty Reduction Success of Public Transfers
For Working Age Immigrants and RefugeesIn the United States
Christopher R. Bollinger Paul Hagstrom
University of Kentucky Hamilton College
We thank Lindsay Allen for excellent research assistance. Author Bollinger thanks the University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research for supporting this project.
Refugees/Immigrants/PRWORA
• Prior to PRWORA, all legal permanent residents were eligible for Food Stamp, AFDC, Medicaid and SSI.
• PRWORA Denied these program benefits to immigrants in general.
• Refugees, however, are eligible for the first 5 years they are in the US (and then eligible if they are citizens).
Previous Research• Program declines among immigrants and refugees (Fix and
Passell, 2002; Lofstrom and Bean, 2003; Borjas, 2002; Haider,2004; Bollinger and Hagstrom, 2006)
• Earnings and Assimilation (Borjas, 1987, 1990, 1994; Kosoudji, 1989; Aguilar and Gustafsson, 1991; Reitz, 1998; Galster et al 1999; Card et al. 2000; Butcher and DiNardo, 2002; Longva and Raaum, 2002)
• Poverty Rates (Lee, 1994; Ley and Smith, 1997; Clark 1998)• Previous research often ignored refugees or only used crude
measures (country of origin). Exception Bollinger and Hagstrom, food stamps, refugees are different.
Measuring Refugee Status
• No large public use cross sectional data sets have refugee status and income.
• CPS has detailed information on Income and Immigrant status (including country of origin and year of entry)
• Census of Legal Permanent Residents has refugee status, country of origin, year of entry, gender, and age at entry.
Methodology
• Calculate refugee probability from Census of LPR: age and age squared by country of origin, year of immigration and gender.
• Use model from Census to predict refugee probability in CPS.
• Use these probabilities for weighted averages and in likelihood functions for probits and other models (like 2 sample IV).
Poverty Measures
• Standard Poverty Threshold Used for all• Private Income: Only private income sources
such as earnings, investment income, private transfers (alimony, child support, pensions).
• Official Measure: Private Income + social security + means tested cash transfers.
• Policy Income: Private Income net of all taxes (including EITC effect) and transfers (including food stamps, housing subsidies and school lunch).
Trends in PovertyFigure 1: Three Poverty Measures Using Full Sample
.1.1
5.2
.25
.3
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002year
By Immigration StatusOfficial Poverty Rates over Time
.1.1
5.2
.25
.3
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002year
By Immigration StatusNet Poverty Rates over Time
.1.1
5.2.
25.3
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002year
Natives Immigrants
Refugees
By Immigration StatusPrivate Poverty Rates over Time
(0.030) (0.033) (0.042)Observations 293075 293075 293075Standard errors in parentheses*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1All Models include year and state fixed effects.a. Demographics include the Head of Household, Spouse, and Household variables from Table 2.
Table 4: Probit Estimation Results for Dependent Variable Private Poor Using Full Sample
Basic ModelAdding Labor Market
Adding Full Demographicsa
Local Unemployment 0.0599*** 0.0442***(0.0021) (0.0025)
Post Reform -0.00783 -0.00303 0.00307(0.012) (0.012) (0.014)
(0.031) (0.034) (0.043)Observations 293075 293075 293075Standard errors in parentheses. *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1All Models include year and state fixed effects.a. Demographics include the Head of Household, Spouse, and Household variables from Table 2.
Table 5: Probit Estimation Results for Dependent Variable Officially Poor (Counted Income less than Poverty Threshold) Using Full Sample
Basic Model Adding Labor Market
Adding Full Demographicsa
Local Unemployment 0.0560*** 0.0404***(0.0022) (0.0025)
Post Reform -0.00990 -0.00407 -0.0786***(0.013) (0.013) (0.014)
(0.033) (0.035) (0.044)Observations 293075 293075 293075Standard errors in parentheses*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1All Models include year and state fixed effects.a. Demographics include the Head of Household, Spouse, and Household variables from Table 2.
Table 6: Probit Estimation Results for Dependent Variable Net Poverty Using Full sample
Removed -Official Basic Model Adding Labor Market
Adding Full Demographicsa
Local Unemployment -0.0206 -0.00706(0.025) (0.027)
Post Reform -0.0160 -0.102 -0.129(0.025) (0.076) (0.079)
Immigrant x Post Reform 0.0402 0.00326 0.00177(0.039) (0.0082) (0.0083)
Immigrant x Local Unemployment
-0.0637 -0.0301
(0.22) (0.23)Refugee 0.00263 -0.0945 -0.0868
(0.088) (0.15) (0.16)Refugee x Post Reform -0.121 0.00760 0.0177
(0.14) (0.026) (0.028)Refugee x Local Unemployment
0.121* 0.794***
(0.064) (0.071)Constant 48353 48353 48353
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1All Models include year and state fixed effects.a. Demographics include the Head of Household, Spouse, and Household variables from Table 2.
Table 7: Probit Estimation Results for Dependent Variable Removed from Net Poverty Using Private Poor Subsample
Conclusions
• Immigrants are more likely to be poor, refugees most likely.
• Policy, both pre- and post-reform appears to move refugees and immigrants out of poverty more effectively than native counterparts.
• Differences in poverty rates, in general, are due to differences in private sources of income rather than policy differentials.