Rethinking the Risks of Poverty: A Framework for Analyzing Prevalences and Penalties

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may RETHINKING THE RISKS OF POVERTY: A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING PREVALENCES AND PENALTIES ABSTRACTConsiderable attention focuses on the risks of poverty, defined as individual-level labor market and family characteristics more common among the poor than the non-poor. This article first develops a framework for analyzing the risks of poverty in terms of prevalences (share of the population with a risk) and penalties (increased probability of poverty associated with a risk).Comparing the four major risks (low education, single motherhood, young headship, and unemployment) across 29 rich democracies, we show there is greater variation in penalties than prevalences. Second, we apply this framework to the U.S. We show that prevalences cannot explain high U.S. poverty as the U.S. has below average prevalences. Rather, the U.S. has high poverty partly because it has the highest penalties. U.S. poverty would decline more with crossnational median penalties than cross-national median prevalences, and U.S. poverty in 2013 would actually be worse with prevalences from 1970 or 1980. Third, we analyze cross-national variation in prevalences and penalties. We find very little evidence that higher penalties discourage prevalences, or that lower penalties encourage prevalences. We also show welfare generosity significantly moderates the penalties for unemployment and low education. We conclude with three broader implications. First, a focus on risks is unlikely to provide a convincing explanation or effective strategy for poverty. Second, despite being the subject of the most research, single motherhood may be the least important of the risks. Third, for general explanations of poverty, studies based solely on the U.S. are constrained by potentially large sample selection biases. 3A prevailing and enduring feature of American poverty research has been a focus on risks. For a long time, scholars have stressed the individual-level family and labor market characteristics that are more common among the poor than the non-poor (O'Connor 2001). Recently, Sawhill (2014: 14) claims, "The ideal would be education, work, marriage, children -in that order. The achievement of these benchmarks will, in almost all cases, ensure that any children a couple decides to have are not born into poverty." Earlier in 2003, Sawhill wrote, "Those who graduate from high school, wait until marriage to have children, limit the size of their families, and work f...

Women in the German Workplace: What Facilitates or Constrains Their Claims-Making for Career Advancement?

“…Because cross-level interactions are of great relevance in our models and are more straightforward in linear probability models, we followed Brady et al 2017in deciding not to estimate logistic regressions despite having a dichotomous dependent variable. Another disadvantage of logistic regression models is that they do not allow a comparison of results between models or samples (Brady et al 2017). 3 Specifically, we estimated cross-sectional linear probability models that contained organizational fixed effects.…”

Comparing Child Poverty Risk by Family Structure During the 2008 Recession

“…To understand the magnitude of within‐country penalties, we tested and reported the statistical significance of the family structure coefficient (cohabitating, single male, single female, single female with adults; married couple as reference category; statistical significance p < .05). Penalties have three criteria according to Brady and colleagues (). First, they are standardized to facilitate comparison across context.…”

When working isn’t enough: Family demographic processes and in-work poverty across the life course in the United States

“…As an example, for education, comparative cross-sectional analyses show that not holding a high school diploma or having some college compared to holding a high school diploma changes the probability of in-work poverty by between 4-10 percentage points (Lohmann and Crettaz 2018;Brady, Fullerton, and Moren Cross 2010). We additionally show that these relationships are more substantial for very young adults (age 18-22); this is an example of how a relatively low prevalence of specific family events at young ages, such as the transition to parenthood, are associated with very high penalties (Brady, Finnigan, and Hübgen 2017).…”