性身份、贫困和政府服务的利用情况

IF 6.1 2区 经济学
Cameron Deal, Shea Greenberg, Gilbert Gonzales
{"title":"性身份、贫困和政府服务的利用情况","authors":"Cameron Deal, Shea Greenberg, Gilbert Gonzales","doi":"10.1007/s00148-024-01031-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Previous literature has established that lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people are at least as likely to be poor as heterosexual people, standing in contrast to myths of “gay affluence.” These findings have used datasets limited by either sample size or using partnership status to infer sexual orientation. Using U.S. data from the Household Pulse Survey, which allows us to identify large samples of individuals who self-identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, we find that bisexuals have lower incomes and are more likely to experience poverty, and bisexual individuals, gay men, and lesbian women are more likely to report financial hardship. Additionally, we find that LGB people utilize government assistance at higher rates than heterosexual people, even when allowing for selection into poverty status. We propose several explanations for these differentials, drawing on the program non-participation literature, and suggest that social network effects, lessened stigma, and increased reliance on public programs may explain these differences. Finally, we examine receipt of the enhanced child tax credit and find evidence that gay men and lesbian women with children were less likely to receive it than heterosexual men and women with children.</p>","PeriodicalId":48013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Population Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sexual identity, poverty, and utilization of government services\",\"authors\":\"Cameron Deal, Shea Greenberg, Gilbert Gonzales\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00148-024-01031-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Previous literature has established that lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people are at least as likely to be poor as heterosexual people, standing in contrast to myths of “gay affluence.” These findings have used datasets limited by either sample size or using partnership status to infer sexual orientation. Using U.S. data from the Household Pulse Survey, which allows us to identify large samples of individuals who self-identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, we find that bisexuals have lower incomes and are more likely to experience poverty, and bisexual individuals, gay men, and lesbian women are more likely to report financial hardship. Additionally, we find that LGB people utilize government assistance at higher rates than heterosexual people, even when allowing for selection into poverty status. We propose several explanations for these differentials, drawing on the program non-participation literature, and suggest that social network effects, lessened stigma, and increased reliance on public programs may explain these differences. Finally, we examine receipt of the enhanced child tax credit and find evidence that gay men and lesbian women with children were less likely to receive it than heterosexual men and women with children.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Population Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Population Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-024-01031-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Population Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-024-01031-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以往的文献已经证实,女同性恋、男同性恋和双性恋者(LGB)至少与异性恋者一样可能处于贫困状态,这与 "同性恋富裕 "的神话形成了鲜明对比。这些研究结果所使用的数据集受到样本量的限制,或使用伴侣身份来推断性取向。利用美国家庭脉搏调查(Household Pulse Survey)的数据,我们发现双性恋者收入较低,更有可能经历贫困,双性恋者、男同性恋者和女同性恋者更有可能报告经济困难。此外,我们还发现,即使考虑到贫困状况的选择因素,男女同性恋、双性恋和变性者利用政府援助的比例也高于异性恋者。我们借鉴了不参与项目的文献,对这些差异提出了几种解释,并认为社会网络效应、污名化程度的降低以及对公共项目依赖性的增加可以解释这些差异。最后,我们研究了接受增强型儿童税收抵免的情况,并发现有证据表明,与有子女的异性恋男性和女性相比,有子女的男同性恋和女同性恋接受该抵免的可能性较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sexual identity, poverty, and utilization of government services

Previous literature has established that lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people are at least as likely to be poor as heterosexual people, standing in contrast to myths of “gay affluence.” These findings have used datasets limited by either sample size or using partnership status to infer sexual orientation. Using U.S. data from the Household Pulse Survey, which allows us to identify large samples of individuals who self-identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, we find that bisexuals have lower incomes and are more likely to experience poverty, and bisexual individuals, gay men, and lesbian women are more likely to report financial hardship. Additionally, we find that LGB people utilize government assistance at higher rates than heterosexual people, even when allowing for selection into poverty status. We propose several explanations for these differentials, drawing on the program non-participation literature, and suggest that social network effects, lessened stigma, and increased reliance on public programs may explain these differences. Finally, we examine receipt of the enhanced child tax credit and find evidence that gay men and lesbian women with children were less likely to receive it than heterosexual men and women with children.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
6.60%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: The Journal of Population Economics is an international quarterly that publishes original theoretical and applied research in all areas of population economics. Micro-level topics examine individual, household or family behavior, including household formation, marriage, divorce, fertility choices, education, labor supply, migration, health, risky behavior and aging. Macro-level investigations may address such issues as economic growth with exogenous or endogenous population evolution, population policy, savings and pensions, social security, housing, and health care. The journal also features research into economic approaches to human biology, the relationship between population dynamics and public choice, and the impact of population on the distribution of income and wealth. Lastly, readers will find papers dealing with policy issues and development problems that are relevant to population issues.The journal is published in collaboration with POP at UNU-MERIT, the Global Labor Organization (GLO) and the European Society for Population Economics (ESPE).Officially cited as: J Popul Econ Factor (RePEc): 13.576 (July 2018) Rank 69 of 2102 journals listed in RePEc
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信