Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:08:34.720Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second-Order Devolution and the Implementation of TANF in the U.S. States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2021

Byungkyu Kim  and
Richard C. Fording
Byungkyu Kim
Affiliation:
Daegu University
Richard C. Fording
Affiliation:
Daegu University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Welfare reform gave the U.S. states the opportunity to engage in second-order devolution (SOD), which allows local governments to exercise more discretion in the implementation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Proponents of welfare decentralization insist that local governments better understand the needs of the poor and are therefore able to implement TANF more effectively. Nevertheless, opponents argue that decentralization could lead to a “race to the bottom” and, thus, SOD might lead to more restrictive TANF implementation. We investigate these competing claims by examining how differences in decentralization affect (1) TANF caseload decline, (2) the use of sanctions, and (3) several work-related outcomes among recipients. Based on a series of state-level analyses, we find that SOD states experienced a greater degree of caseload decline than non-SOD states. In addition, SOD states were more likely to use punitive policy tools, such as TANF sanctions. However, we also find that SOD states display marginally better TANF performance, as reflected in higher rates of employment exits and earnings gains among TANF recipients. Thus, we find support for both sides of the decentralization debate.

Type
2009 SPPQ Best Paper Award Winner
Information
State Politics & Policy Quarterly , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , Winter 2010 , pp. 341 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adkisson, Richard V. 1998. “Multi-Level Administrative Structure and the Distribution of Social Service Expenditures: A Nebraska Example.” The Social Science Journal 35:303–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agranoff, Robert, and McGuire, Michael. 2001. “American Federalism and the Search for Models of Management.” Public Administration Review 61:671–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael A., and Rom, Mark. 2004. “A Wider Race? Interstate Competition Across Health and Welfare Programs.” The Journal of Politics 66:326–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael A. 2005. “Welfare Migration and the Multifaceted Decision to Move.” American Political Science Review 99:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan. 1995. “What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data.” American Political Science Review 89:634–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States.” American Journal of Political Science 42:337–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William D., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 2003. “Reassessing the ‘Race to the Bottom’ in State Welfare Policy.” The Journal of Politics 65:327–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blank, Rebecca M. 2001. “What Causes Public Assistance Caseloads to Grow?” Journal of Human Resources 36:85–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brueckner, Jan K. 2000. “Welfare Reform and the Race to the Bottom: Theory and Evidence.” Southern Economic Journal 66:505–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, Chung-Lae, Kelleher, Christine A., Wright, Deil S., and Yackee, Susan Webb. 2005. “Translating National Policy Objectives into Local Achievements across Planes of Governance and among Multiple Actors: Second-Order Devolution and Welfare Reform Implementation.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 15:31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crouse, Gil. 1999. “State Implementation of Major Changes to Welfare Policies, 1992–1998.” Office of Human Services Policy, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services. http://aspe.hhs.gov/HSP/Waiver-Policies99/policy_CEA.htmGoogle Scholar
De Jong, Gordon F., Graefe, Deborah Roempke, Irving, Shelley K., and Pierre, Tanja St.. 2006. “Measuring State TANF Policy Variations and Change after Reform.” Social Science Quarterly 87:755–81.Google Scholar
Dye, Thomas R. 1990. American Federalism: Competition among Governments. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Enchautegui, Maria E. 1997. “Welfare Payments and Other Economic Determinants of Female Migration.” Journal of Labor Economics 15:529–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fellowes, Matthew C., and Rowe, Gretchen. 2004. “Politics and the New American Welfare States.” American Journal of Political Science 48:362–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figlio, David N., Kolpin, Van W., and Reid, William E.. 1999. “Do States Play Welfare Games?” Journal of Urban Economics 46:437–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fording, Richard C. 2001. “The Political Response to Black Insurgency: A Critical Test of Competing Theories of the State.” American Political Science Review 95:115–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fording, Richard C., Soss, Joe, and Schram, Sanford F.. 2007. “Devolution, Discretion, and the Impact of Local Political Values on TANF Sanctioning.” Social Service Review 81:285–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, Richard M. 1998. “Predictions, Patterns, and Policymaking: A Regional Study of Devolution.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism 28:143–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gainsborough, Juliet F. 2003. “To Devolve or Not to Devolve? Welfare Reform in the States.” Policy Studies Journal 31:603–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and Politics of the Anti-Poverty Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadri, Kaddour. 2000. “Testing for Stationarity in Heterogeneous Panel Data.” The Econometrics Journal 3:148–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelleher, Christine A., and Yackee, Susan Webb. 2004. “An Empirical Assessment of Devolution's Policy Impact.” Policy Studies Journal 32:253–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettl, Donald F. 2000. “The Transformation of Governance: Globalization, Devolution, and the Role of Government.” Public Administration Review 60:488–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, Lawrence M. 1997. The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Moffitt, Robert. 1996. “The Effect of Employment and Training Programs on Entry and Exit from the Welfare Caseload.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 15:32–50.3.0.CO;2-K>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandey, Shanta, and Collier-Tenison, Shannon. 2001. “Welfare Reform: An Exploration of Devolution.” Social Justice 28:54–75.Google Scholar
Peterson, Paul E., and Rom, Mark. 1989. “American Federalism, Welfare Policy, and Residential Choices.” American Political Science Review 83:711–28.Google Scholar
Schram, Sanford F., Soss, Joe, and Fording, Richard C.. 2003. Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soss, Joe, Schram, Sanford F., Vartanian, Thomas P., and Brien, Erin O'. 2001. “Setting the Terms of Relief: Explaining State Policy Choices in the Devolution Revolution.” American Journal of Political Science 45:378–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soss, Joe, Fording, Richard C., and Schram, Sanford F.. 2008. “The Color of Devolution: Race, Federalism, and the Politics of Social Control.” American Journal of Political Science 52:536–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Council of Economic Advisers. 1997. “Explaining the Decline in Welfare Receipt, 1993–1996.” Technical Report. URL:http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/CEA/Welfare/Technical-Report.htm1.Google Scholar
Volden, Craig. 2002. “The Politics of Competitive Federalism: A Race to the Bottom in Welfare Benefits?” American Journal of Political Science 46:352–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, Ingrid Phillips, and Time, Victoria. 2001. “Devolution and Welfare: The Social and Legal Implications of State Inequalities for Welfare Reform in the United States.” Social Justice 28:76–90.Google Scholar
Ziliak, James P., Figlio, David, Davis, Elizabeth, and Connolly, Laura. 2000. “Accounting for the Decline in AFDC Caseloads: Welfare Reform or the Economy?” Journal of Human Resources 35:570–86.Google Scholar