The second article I chose was, “Does Welfare Reduce Poverty?” written by George J. Borjas published in 2015. As most have already learned in class, the news, or my previous explanation of the article above, welfare-programs ordinarily help decrease the poverty rates in most families, nonetheless this is not always the case. In this article Borjas’ objective is to determine the link between immigrant families and poverty rates.
Borjas states that, “the huge changes in eligibility introduced by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) provide a great deal of exogenous variation that could, in principle, help address this important question of the impact of welfare on poverty (Borjas 143).” Therefore, …show more content…
This increase in their labor earnings and income shifted them out into a new tax and income bracket therefore reduced the help that was provided by the government in the welfare-programs. Therefore, even though states provided welfare-programs to these immigrant families, the welfare didn’t contribute enough to get them out of poverty. In turn immigrant families went to work more which then increased their earning which then decreased their welfare, which them consequently caused an increase in …show more content…
Borjas was much more understandable than the first article, “Do Social-Welfare Policies Reduce Poverty? A Cross-National Assessment”, written by Lane Kenworthy. I feel this way because throughout the first article Kenworthy used a lot more statistics and research which overall confused me, and Borjas had a way that simplified his research, which in turn made it easier to understand. Continually, the article written by Kenworthy was published in 1999, whereas the article written by Borjas was published in 2015, therefore Borjas was more up to date and probably very similar to welfare and poverty statistics today. Moreover, Borjas’ methods were more appropriate because it was more focused on the United States and the data was found using the 1995-2001 Annual Demographic Supplements of the Current Population Surveys. Conversely, Kenworthy’s article was more based on the world, because it took data found from 15 nations, and the data was split into three different sections which described the impact of social-welfare policies on poverty rates. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that Kenworthy’s article is broader and can produce a more definite answer to the link between welfare-programs and poverty, I still believe Borjas’ article is more relatable to me as an individual. I feel this way because I believe poverty is one of the biggest issues happening in the world today, and we shouldn’t
Borjas states that, “the huge changes in eligibility introduced by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) provide a great deal of exogenous variation that could, in principle, help address this important question of the impact of welfare on poverty (Borjas 143).” Therefore, …show more content…
This increase in their labor earnings and income shifted them out into a new tax and income bracket therefore reduced the help that was provided by the government in the welfare-programs. Therefore, even though states provided welfare-programs to these immigrant families, the welfare didn’t contribute enough to get them out of poverty. In turn immigrant families went to work more which then increased their earning which then decreased their welfare, which them consequently caused an increase in …show more content…
Borjas was much more understandable than the first article, “Do Social-Welfare Policies Reduce Poverty? A Cross-National Assessment”, written by Lane Kenworthy. I feel this way because throughout the first article Kenworthy used a lot more statistics and research which overall confused me, and Borjas had a way that simplified his research, which in turn made it easier to understand. Continually, the article written by Kenworthy was published in 1999, whereas the article written by Borjas was published in 2015, therefore Borjas was more up to date and probably very similar to welfare and poverty statistics today. Moreover, Borjas’ methods were more appropriate because it was more focused on the United States and the data was found using the 1995-2001 Annual Demographic Supplements of the Current Population Surveys. Conversely, Kenworthy’s article was more based on the world, because it took data found from 15 nations, and the data was split into three different sections which described the impact of social-welfare policies on poverty rates. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that Kenworthy’s article is broader and can produce a more definite answer to the link between welfare-programs and poverty, I still believe Borjas’ article is more relatable to me as an individual. I feel this way because I believe poverty is one of the biggest issues happening in the world today, and we shouldn’t