Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: High-income countries' willingness to support the use of tax sparing provisions in tax treaties to preserve the tax incentives offered by low-income countries has varied over the years, but the willingness to incorporate tax sparing appears to have diminished. Is this good tax policy, or another sign of high-income countries ignoring the needs of their low-income country neighbours?

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Feminist scholars have noted that recent policy developments in the arena of intimate association are examples of contradictory trends in state regulation of families and intimate life (Fraser 1997, Mink 1998, Smith 2001). On the one hand, in redistributive policy areas such as public benefits for low-income families, the state has been reducing its support for families. On the other hand, the state has increased its intervention in the realms related to sexuality and the regulation of morality through laws such as the Defense of Marriage Acts (at federal and state levels) and the marriage incentives, family caps, and abstinence-only sex education funding in welfare law.
This paper uses these feminist lenses to examine the social control and coercion of those who receive government benefits, and especially the control of women and men receiving TANF or whose children receive TANF. I focus on the current debate over the re-authorization of the 1996 welfare law, and proposals to extend state control over women who receive TANF benefits through the further extension of marriage incentives. The paper will examine H.R. 4, the current proposal for reauthorizing the TANF program, in particular with respect to provisions for marriage promotion. The paper argues that programs such as the marriage promotion and abstinence-only sex education initiatives in H.R. 4 construct low-income women and men as both gender role deviants and as sexual deviants, the latter because they are failed heterosexuals. Thus, the paper uses the TANF program as an example of state coercion and the justification for such coercion for groups targeted due to gender, race, class, benefit status, and perceptions regarding sexual deviancy. It suggests that these policies focus our attention on individuals as pathological and deviant, and make invisible many salient aspects of contemporary poverty. In turn this focus justifies coercive treatment of these individuals based on their constructed status as deviants.
Families and intimate association are matters that have both public and private dimensions in democratic polities. Ultimately these claims are about the nature of the political community and the extent to which it is responsive to claims regarding the unjust treatment of members and the exclusion of individuals and groups from the political process; thus, they are about the inclusion of all members in democratic decision-making. The coercive shaming of people who are the target of policies such as TANF acts as a justification for policies that actually harm the people they are purportedly providing with assistance.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Over the last decade, the Congress has made significant changes in numerous federal programs that support low-income families, including changes that have shifted program emphases from providing cash assistance to providing services that promote employment and economic independence. As a result of some of the federal policy changes, the support system is more decentralized than before. This heightens the importance of understanding policy choices and practices at the state and local levels as well as those at the federal level. To provide the Congress with information on this system, GAO agreed to address the following questions: (1) To what extent do states provide supports for lowincome families? (2) How have states structured programs to support low-income families? (3) What changes have states made to supports for low-income families in recent years? Our review focused primarily on supports for which states make many of the key decisions about eligibility, benefit amounts, and service provision. To obtain this information, GAO conducted a mail survey of the social service directors in the 50 states and the District of Columbia; conducted site visits in New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Washington, and Wisconsin; and reviewed federal reports and other relevant literature.

States use an array of federal and state funds to provide a wide range of benefits and services that can support the work efforts of low-income families, although the types of supports and coverage of the eligible population vary among the states and sometimes within states. For instance, most states subsidize several types of child care, subsidize use of public transportation, and offer employment services in at least one location in the state, but somewhat fewer states subsidize child care for sick children, assist with the purchase of used cars, or offer employment retention bonuses to parents who find and maintain jobs. The five states we visited structured the eligibility criteria and benefits of many supports in ways that allow them to serve a broad range of low-income families, including families on and off welfare and families who are working and those who are not currently working. The specific support structures vary, however, by state and type of support. These differences create a complex national picture of supports that provide an assortment of benefits and services to a range of populations. Over the last several years, many states have expanded the availability of supports that promote employment and economic independence for lowincome families. State officials reported that both the number of support services available and the number of recipients have increased. However, state officials express uncertainty about their continued ability to provide this level of support. As states plan for the future of supports in the current state fiscal environment, officials reported that they are considering changes that could limit the availability and provision of supports for low-income families. Overall, it its probable that the support system will continue to change as the federal and state governments further amend policies and respond to changes in the demand for services and cyclical fiscal conditions.

Publication Type: Proceeding

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Child care affordability is a problem for low-income families. Child care subsidies are intended to reduce child care expenses and promote parental employment for poor families. Yet many families fail to utilize the child care subsidies for which they are eligible. This research investigates barriers to utilizing child care subsidies. Found barriers included parents' beliefs that they either did not need or were not eligible for subsidy. Families both with and without subsidies were confused about subsidy regulations. Knowingly eligible families avoided applying for subsidies because of perceived hassles and restrictions, real or perceived, associated with accessing the subsidy system. Policy recommendations include adopting better methods for disseminating information about subsidy availability and eligibility as well as reducing barriers associated with specific subsidy regulations.