Political Underrepresentation Among Public Benefits Recipients: Evidence from Linked Administrative Data

IF 2.4 3区社会学 Q2 URBAN STUDIES

Urban Affairs Review Pub Date : 2023-08-16 DOI:10.1177/10780874231191703

S. Chizeck, Kelley Fong, R. Goldstein, Ariel White

{"title":"Political Underrepresentation Among Public Benefits Recipients: Evidence from Linked Administrative Data","authors":"S. Chizeck, Kelley Fong, R. Goldstein, Ariel White","doi":"10.1177/10780874231191703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"People receiving government assistance have personal stakes in the political process and intimate knowledge of policy implementation. However, data limitations have made it hard to measure voting among those receiving assistance across various programs. Using linked administrative data from a large county in Pennsylvania, merged with the Pennsylvania voter file, we calculate voting rates among benefits recipients. We find that people receiving means-tested benefits (cash assistance, food assistance, health insurance, disability benefits, childcare, and housing) vote at just over half the rate of other county residents (45 percent compared with 84 percent in 2020). In the 2020 election, public benefits recipients comprised over 20 percent of the voting-eligible population but only 12 percent of voters. To the extent that benefits recipients are more supportive of generous welfare policy than nonrecipients and more familiar with administrative burdens programs impose, this underrepresentation may obscure popular preferences for social welfare provision and shape politicians’ attentiveness to program design.","PeriodicalId":51427,"journal":{"name":"Urban Affairs Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Affairs Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874231191703","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"URBAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

People receiving government assistance have personal stakes in the political process and intimate knowledge of policy implementation. However, data limitations have made it hard to measure voting among those receiving assistance across various programs. Using linked administrative data from a large county in Pennsylvania, merged with the Pennsylvania voter file, we calculate voting rates among benefits recipients. We find that people receiving means-tested benefits (cash assistance, food assistance, health insurance, disability benefits, childcare, and housing) vote at just over half the rate of other county residents (45 percent compared with 84 percent in 2020). In the 2020 election, public benefits recipients comprised over 20 percent of the voting-eligible population but only 12 percent of voters. To the extent that benefits recipients are more supportive of generous welfare policy than nonrecipients and more familiar with administrative burdens programs impose, this underrepresentation may obscure popular preferences for social welfare provision and shape politicians’ attentiveness to program design.

查看原文本刊更多论文

公共福利接受者中的政治代表性不足:来自相关行政数据的证据

接受政府援助的人在政治过程中有个人利益，对政策实施有深入的了解。然而，由于数据的限制，很难衡量各个项目中接受援助的人的投票情况。使用来自宾夕法尼亚州一个大县的相关管理数据，并将其与宾夕法尼亚州选民文件合并，我们计算了福利接受者的投票率。我们发现，接受经济状况调查福利(现金援助、食品援助、医疗保险、残疾福利、儿童保育和住房)的人的投票率略高于其他县居民的一半(45%，而2020年为84%)。在2020年的选举中，领取公共福利的人占有选举权人口的20%以上，但只占选民的12%。在某种程度上，福利接受者比非福利接受者更支持慷慨的福利政策，并且更熟悉项目带来的行政负担，这种代表性不足可能会模糊公众对社会福利提供的偏好，并影响政治家对项目设计的关注。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Urban Affairs Review URBAN STUDIES-

CiteScore

5.50

自引率

14.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Urban Affairs Reveiw (UAR) is a leading scholarly journal on urban issues and themes. For almost five decades scholars, researchers, policymakers, planners, and administrators have turned to UAR for the latest international research and empirical analysis on the programs and policies that shape our cities. UAR covers: urban policy; urban economic development; residential and community development; governance and service delivery; comparative/international urban research; and social, spatial, and cultural dynamics.