Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-ms7nj Total loading time: 0.339 Render date: 2022-08-09T01:11:57.113Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Who Stays Poor and Who Doesn’t? An Analysis Based on Joint Assessment of Income and Assets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2022

JUN-HONG CHEN*
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis, Brown School of Social Work, 1 Brookings Dr, St. Louis, MO63130 emails: jun-hongchen@wustl.edu; haotian.z@wustl.edu
CHI-FANG WU
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, School of Social Work, 1010 W Nevada St, Urbana, IL61801 email: cfangwu@illinois.edu
HAOTIAN ZHENG
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis, Brown School of Social Work, 1 Brookings Dr, St. Louis, MO63130 emails: jun-hongchen@wustl.edu; haotian.z@wustl.edu
*
Corresponding author, email: jun-hongchen@wustl.edu

Abstract

When designing programs to assist the poor, it is important to recognize who is most in need of government assistance. Although measures of poverty are often based on income alone, poverty measures based on both income and assets provide greater precision in the analysis of this group since accumulated assets can be liquidated to compensate for temporary shortfalls in income. The current study used the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (2007–2017) to analyze associations between different facets of poverty dynamics (i.e. poverty entry and exit) and its determinants. We explored differences in results based on whether poverty was measured by income alone, or income plus assets. The Cox proportional hazard regression was used to examine how demographic characteristics predicted poverty entry and poverty exit. Results indicated factors predicting poverty entry were not identical to those predicting difficulty of exiting poverty. Also, the risk of poverty entry and exit differed based on whether poverty was measured by income alone, or income plus assets. Thus, using income plus assets provides new perspectives into poverty dynamics which past research, based on income alone, did not provide. These new insights can be used to inform decisions about policies for poverty prevention and alleviation.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

Both Jun-Hong Chen and Chi-Fang Wu contributed equally and are co-first authors.

References

Andriopoulou, E. and Tsakloglou, P. (2011), The Determinants of poverty transitions in Europe and the role of duration dependence, Discussion paper 5692, Institute of Labor Economics, Bonn.Google Scholar
Azpitarte, F. (2012), ‘Measuring Poverty Using Both Income and Wealth: A Cross-Country Comparison between the U.S. and Spain’, Review of Income and Wealth, 58, 1, 2450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bane, M.J. and Ellwood, D.T. (1986), ‘Slipping Into And Out Of Poverty: The Dynamics Of Spells’, Journal Of Human Resources, 21, 1, 223.Google Scholar
Bernstein, S. F., Rehkopf, D., Tuljapurkar, S. and Horvitz, C. C. (2018), ‘Poverty dynamics, poverty thresholds and mortality: An age-stage Markovian model’, PloS One, 13, 5, e0195734.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brandolini, A., Magri, S. and Smeeding, T. M. (2010), ‘Asset-Based Measurement of Poverty’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29, 2, 267284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butrica, B. A., Murphy, D. P. and Zedlewski, S. R. (2010), ‘How many struggle to get by in retirement’, The Gerontologist, 50, 4, 482494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chavez, K., Wimer, C., Betson, D. M. and Manfield, L. (2018), ‘Poverty Among the Aged Population: The Role of Out-of-Pocket Medical Expenditures and Annuitized Assets in Supplemental Poverty Measure Estimates’, Social Security Bulletin, 78, 1, 4775.Google Scholar
Chen, H. and Lerman, R. I. (2005), Do asset limits in social programs affect the accumulation of wealth, Opportunity and Ownership Project Paper, The Urban Institute, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Chung, Y. and Maguire-Jack, K. (2020), ‘Understanding Movement into Poverty and Poverty Persistence over Time’, Journal of Poverty, 24, 3, 241255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, T. G., Bradburn, M. J., Love, S. B., and Altman, D. G. (2003), ‘Survival analysis part I: basic concepts and first analyses’, British journal of cancer, 89, 2, 232238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, A. (2014), The dynamics of economic well-being: Poverty, 2009-2011, Current Population Reports, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Gornick, J. C., Sierminska, E. and Smeeding, T. M. (2009), ‘The Income and Wealth Packages of Older Women in Cross-National Perspective’, The Journals of Gerontology Series B, 64, 3, 402414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haveman, R. and Wolff, E. N. (2005), ‘The Concept and Measurement of Asset Poverty: Levels, Trends and Composition for the U.S., 1983–2001’, Journal of Economic Inequality, 2, 2, 145169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hokayem, C. and Heggeness, M. (2014), Factors Influencing Transitions Into and Out of Near Poverty: 2004-2012, SEHSD Working Paper 2014-05, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service (2019), ‘Updated Mortality Improvement Rates and Static Mortality Tables for Defined Benefit Pension Plans for 2020, Notice, 2019-26’, The U.S.: Internal Revenue Service, https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-19-26.pdf [accessed 05.10.2021].Google Scholar
Johnson, D., McGonagle, K., Freedman, V., and Sastry, N. (2018), ‘Fifty Years of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Past, Present, and Future’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 680, 1, 928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuitunen, I., Ponkilainen, V. T., Uimonen, M. M., Eskelinen, A., and Reito, A. (2021), ‘Testing the proportional hazards assumption in cox regression and dealing with possible non-proportionality in total joint arthroplasty research: methodological perspectives and review’, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 22, 489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuypers, S. and Marx, I. (2018), ‘Estimation of Joint Income-Wealth Poverty: A Sensitivity Analysis’, Social Indicators Research, 136, 117137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauldin, T. A. and Mimura, Y. (2007), ‘Marrying, unmarrying, and the poverty dynamics among mothers with children living at home’, Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 28, 4, 566582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKernan, S. M. and Ratcliffe, C. (2002), Transition events in the dynamics of poverty, Washington DC: The Urban Institute.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKernan, S. M. and Ratcliffe, C. (2005), ‘Events that trigger poverty entries and exits’, Social Science Quarterly, 86, 11461169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKernan, S.M. and Sherraden, M. (2008), Asset building and low-income families, Washington DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
Meyer, B.D., Mok, W. K. C. and Sullivan, J. X. (2009), ‘The Under-Reporting of Transfers in Household Surveys: Its Nature and Consequences,’ NBER Working Papers 15181, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miranda-Agrippino, S. and Rey, H. (2014), World Asset Markets and the Global Financial Cycle, NBER Working Paper No. 21722, National Bureau of Economic Research, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Nafukho, F. M., Hairston, N. and Brooks, K. (2004), ‘Human capital theory: implications for human resource development’, Human Resource Development International, 7, 4, 545551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panel Study of Income Dynamics, public use dataset. Produced and distributed by the Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017).Google Scholar
Piketty, T. (2014), Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, L. (2011), Understanding Inequalities: Stratification and Difference, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Radner, D. B. (1990), ‘Assessing the economic status of the aged and nonaged using alternative income-wealth measures’, Social Security Bulletin, 53, 3, 214.Google ScholarPubMed
Rank, M. R. and Hirschl, T. A. (2001), ‘The occurrence of poverty across the life cycle: Evidence from the PSID’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 4, 737755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rank, M. R. and Hirschl, T. A. (2015), ‘The Likelihood of Experiencing Relative Poverty over the Life Course’, PloS One, 10, 7, e0133513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ribar, D. C. and Hamrick, K. S. (2003), Dynamics of poverty and food sufficiency, Economic Research Service, Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. 33, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Sabia, J. J. and Burkhauser, R. V. (2010), ‘Minimum wages and poverty: will a $9.50 federal minimum wage really help the working poor?’, Southern Economic Journal, 76, 3, 592623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, K. C. and Ruggles, P. (2006), ‘Experimental Measures of Poverty and Net Worth: 1996’, Journal of Income Distribution, 13, 34, 8-21.Google Scholar
Smith, N. and Middleton, S. (2007), A Review of Poverty Dynamics Research in the UK, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Torraco, R. J. (2016), ‘The Persistence of Working Poor Families in a Changing U.S. Job Market: An Integrative Review of the Literature’, Human Resource Development Review, 15, 1, 5576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (2018), ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights on his mission to the United States of America’, The U.N.: United Nations General Assembly, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1629536 [accessed 05.10.2021].Google Scholar
Van den Bosch, K. (1998), ‘Poverty and Assets in Belgium’, Review of Income and Wealth, 44, 2, 215228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisbrod, B. A. and Hansen, W. L. (1968), ‘An Income-Net Worth Approach to Measuring Economic Welfare’, American Economic Review, 58, 5, 13151329.Google Scholar
Wimer, C. and Manfield, L. (2015), Elderly Poverty in the United States in the 21st Century: Exploring the Role of Assets in the Supplemental Poverty Measure, Center for Retirement Research Working Paper No. 2015-29, Boston College, Massachusetts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xue, X., Xie, X., Gunter, M., Rohan, T. E., Wassertheil-Smoller, S., Ho, G. Y., Cirillo, D., Yu, H. and Strickler, H. D. (2013), ‘Testing the proportional hazards assumption in case-cohort analysis’, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, 88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zagorsky, J. L. (2006), ‘Measuring Poverty Using both Income and Wealth’, Journal of Income Distribution, 13, 34, 22-40.Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Who Stays Poor and Who Doesn’t? An Analysis Based on Joint Assessment of Income and Assets
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Who Stays Poor and Who Doesn’t? An Analysis Based on Joint Assessment of Income and Assets
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Who Stays Poor and Who Doesn’t? An Analysis Based on Joint Assessment of Income and Assets
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *