In 1969, Senator John Pastore requested that the Surgeon General appoint a committee to conduct an inquiry into television violence and its effect on children. When the Surgeon General's report was finally released in 1972—after a three-year inquiry and a cost of over $1.8 million—it angered and confused a number of critics, including politicians, the broadcast industry, many of the social scientists who had helped carry out the research, and the public.

While the final consequences of the Report may not be played out for years to come, TV Violence and the Child presents a fascinating study of the Surgeon General's quest and, in effect, the process by which social science is recruited and its findings made relevant to public policy.

In addition to dealing with television as an object of concern, the authors also consider the government's effectiveness when dealing with social objectives and the influence of citizen action on our communication systems. Their overwhelming conclusion is that the nation's institutions are ill-equipped for recruiting expert talent, providing clear findings, and carrying out objectives in this area of delicate human concern.

DOUGLASS CATER is director of the Aspen Institute Program on Communications and Society.

STEPHEN STRICKLAND is director of the Washington, D.C., office of the Health Policy Program of the University of California, San Francisco.

 

In France, low wages have historically inspired tremendous political controversy. The social and political issues at stake center on integrating the working class into society and maintaining the stability of the republican regime. A variety of federal policies—including high minimum wages and strong employee protection—serve to ensure that the low-wage workforce stays relatively small. Low-Wage Work in France examines both the benefits and drawbacks of this politically inspired system of worker protection. France’s high minimum wage, which is indexed not only to inflation but also to the average increase in employee wages, plays a critical role in limiting the development of low-paid work. Social welfare benefits and a mandatory thirty-five hour work week also make life easier for low-wage workers. Strong employee protection is a central characteristic of the French model, but high levels of protection for employees may also be one of the causes of France’s chronically high rate of unemployment. The threat of long-term unemployment may, in turn, contribute to a persistent sense of insecurity among French workers. Low-Wage Work in France provides a lucid analysis of how a highly regulated labor market shapes the experiences of workers—for better and for worse.

ÈVE CAROLI is professor of economics at University Paris X.

JÉRÔME GAUTIÉ is professor of economics at the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.

CONTRIBUTORS: Anne Marie Arborio, Philippe Askenazy, Mathieu Beraud, Jean-Baptiste Berry, Jacques Bouteiller, Lise Causse, Thierry Colin, Emilie Feriel, Benoit Grasser, Christine Guegnard, Annie Lamenthe, Philippe Mehaut, Sylvie-Anne Meriot, Philippe Mosse, Sophie Prunier-Poulmaire, Robert Solow.

A Volume in the RSF Case Studies of Job Quality in Advanced Economies

Poverty declined significantly in the decade after Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 declaration of “War on Poverty.” Dramatically increased federal funding for education and training programs, social security benefits, other income support programs, and a growing economy reduced poverty and raised expectations that income poverty could be eliminated within a generation. Yet the official poverty rate has never fallen below its 1973 level and remains higher than the rates in many other advanced economies. In this book, editors Maria Cancian and Sheldon Danziger and leading poverty researchers assess why the War on Poverty was not won and analyze the most promising strategies to reduce poverty in the twenty-first century economy.

Changing Poverty, Changing Policies documents how economic, social, demographic, and public policy changes since the early 1970s have altered who is poor and where antipoverty initiatives have kept pace or fallen behind. Part I shows that little progress has been made in reducing poverty, except among the elderly, in the last three decades. The chapters examine how changing labor market opportunities for less-educated workers have increased their risk of poverty (Rebecca Blank), and how family structure changes (Maria Cancian and Deborah Reed) and immigration have affected poverty (Steven Raphael and Eugene Smolensky). Part II assesses the ways childhood poverty influences adult outcomes. Markus Jäntti finds that poor American children are more likely to be poor adults than are children in many other industrialized countries. Part III focuses on current antipoverty policies and possible alternatives. Jane Waldfogel demonstrates that policies in other countries—such as sick leave, subsidized child care, and schedule flexibility—help low-wage parents better balance work and family responsibilities. Part IV considers how rethinking and redefining poverty might take antipoverty policies in new directions. Mary Jo Bane assesses the politics of poverty since the 1996 welfare reform act. Robert Haveman argues that income-based poverty measures should be expanded, as they have been in Europe, to include social exclusion and multiple dimensions of material hardships.

Changing Poverty, Changing Policies shows that thoughtful policy reforms can reduce poverty and promote opportunities for poor workers and their families. The authors’ focus on pragmatic measures that have real possibilities of being implemented in the United States not only provides vital knowledge about what works but real hope for change.

Listen to Maria Cancian speak about marriage on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday.

MARIA CANCIAN is professor of public affairs and social work and research affiliate of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

SHELDON DANZIGER is Henry J. Meyer Distinguished University Professor of Public Policy and director of the National Poverty Center at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan.

CONTRIBUTORS: Mary Jo Bane, Rebecca M. Blank, Maria Cancian, Benjamin Cowan, Sheldon Danziger, Robert Haveman, Harry J. Holzer, Brian A. Jacob, Markus Jäntti, Jens Ludwig, Katherine Magnuson, Daniel R. Meyer, Robert Moffitt, Deborah Reed, Steven Raphael, John Karl Scholz, Eugene Smolensky, Katherine Swartz, Elizabeth Votruba-Drzal, Jane Waldfogel, Geoffrey L. Wallace

An Institute for Research on Poverty Affiliated Book on Poverty and Public Policy

In the aftermath of 9/11, many Arab and Muslim Americans came under intense scrutiny by federal and local authorities, as well as their own neighbors, on the chance that they might know, support, or actually be terrorists. As Louise Cainkar observes, even U.S.-born Arabs and Muslims were portrayed as outsiders, an image that was amplified in the months after the attacks. She argues that 9/11 did not create anti-Arab and anti-Muslim suspicion; rather, their socially constructed images and social and political exclusion long before these attacks created an environment in which misunderstanding and hostility could thrive and the government could defend its use of profiling. Combining analysis and ethnography, Homeland Insecurity provides an intimate view of what it means to be an Arab or a Muslim in a country set on edge by the worst terrorist attack in its history.

Focusing on the metropolitan Chicago area, Cainkar conducted more than a hundred research interviews and five in-depth oral histories. In this, the most comprehensive ethnographic study of the post-9/11 period for American Arabs and Muslims, native-born and immigrant Palestinians, Egyptians, Lebanese, Iraqis, Yemenis, Sudanese, Jordanians, and others speak candidly about their lives as well as their experiences with government, public mistrust, discrimination, and harassment after 9/11. The book reveals that Arab Muslims were more likely to be attacked in certain spatial contexts than others and that Muslim women wearing the hijab were more vulnerable to assault than men, as their head scarves were interpreted by some as a rejection of American culture. Even as the 9/11 Commission never found any evidence that members of Arab- or Muslim-American communities were involved in the attacks, respondents discuss their feelings of insecurity—a heightened sense of physical vulnerability and exclusion from the guarantees of citizenship afforded other Americans.

Yet the vast majority of those interviewed for Homeland Insecurity report feeling optimistic about the future of Arab and Muslim life in the United States. Most of the respondents talked about their increased interest in the teachings of Islam, whether to counter anti-Muslim slurs or to better educate themselves. Governmental and popular hostility proved to be a springboard for heightened social and civic engagement. Immigrant organizations, religious leaders, civil rights advocates, community organizers, and others defended Arabs and Muslims and built networks with their organizations. Local roundtables between Arab and Muslim leaders, law enforcement, and homeland security agencies developed better understanding of Arab and Muslim communities. These post-9/11 changes have given way to stronger ties and greater inclusion in American social and political life.

Will the United States extend its values of freedom and inclusion beyond the politics of “us” and “them” stirred up after 9/11? The answer is still not clear. Homeland Insecurity is keenly observed and adds Arab and Muslim American voices to this still-unfolding period in American history.

LOUISE A. CAINKAR is assistant professor of sociology and social justice at Marquette University.

There has hitherto been limited systematic social research on the prolongation and termination of life, and minimal agreement of the resolution of the moral and social dilemmas that dying provokes. Among the topics discussed by the contributors are: the social context of dying—when, where, and why people die; what they think about death; the cultural background of the patients' attitudes; and how medical practitioners cope with terminal illness. The social, ethical, legal, and economic problems arising from the prolongation and termination of life are also set forth.

ORVILLE G. BRIM, JR. is president of the Foundation for Child Development and former president of the Russell Sage Foundation.

HOWARD E. FREEMAN is director of the Institute for Social Science Research and professor of sociology at University of California, Los Angeles.

SOL LEVINE is university professor of sociology and community medicine at Boston University.

NORMAN SCOTCH is professor and chairman of the Department of Socio-Medical Services and Community Medicine at Boston University School of Medicine.

CONTRIBUTORS: Richard M. Bailey, Orville G. Brim, Jr., Diana Crane, Howard E. Freeman, Barney G. Glaser, Robert J. Glaser, Richard A. Kalish, Andie L. Knutson, Louis Lasagna, Monroe Lerner, Sol Levine, Bayless Manning, Robert S. Morison, Osler L. Peterson, David L. Rabin, Laurel H. Rabin, John W. Riley, Jr., Elisabeth K. Ross, Norman A. Scotch, Anselm L. Strauss, David Sudnow, Greer Williams
 

Focusing on issues of particular importance to black people, and confronting the rich variety and the complexity of the black experience, the many contributors demonstrate the broad diversity of research interests and strategies among black psychologists, from the traditional to the innovative. Topics covered include studies of motivation, cognitive development, life-span development, and cultural difference versus deficit theories. Many of the studies directly refute previous conceptions of the psychological functioning of blacks and offer alternative models and formulations.

This book is the first to present soundly designed and executed research that is emphatically linked to the perspectives and the psychological concerns of black Americans. In designing these studies, the authors aimed to ameliorate the pressing educational and social problems of blacks through a better understanding of their life conditions.

A. WADE BOYKIN is associate professor of psychology at Cornell University and associate editor of the Journal of Black Psychology.

ANDERSON J. FRANKLIN is associate professor of clinical psychology in the Graduate Center and at City College of the City University of New York.

J. FRANK YATES is associate professor of psychology at the University of Michigan.

CONTRIBUTORS:  John D. Bacon,  W. Curtis Banks,  Oscar Barbarin, A. Wade Boykin,  Michael Cole,  O. Jackson Cole,  William Collins,  William E. Cross Jr.,  Herman W. Dorsett,  Ozzie L. Edwards,  Anderson J. Franklin,  Lenora Fulani, William S. Hall,  Algea . Harrison,  Janet L. Hubbart,  James S. Jackson,  Ronald M. Jennings,  James M. Jones,  Yvonne B. Kelley, Gregory V. McQuater, Lillian Patterson,  John Peterson,  Diane S. Pollard,  Stephen Reder,  James E. Savage,  Sandra A. Sims,  Anita D. Stearns,  Ewart A. C. Thomas,  M. Belinda Tucker, Janet Williams, Carl O. Word,  J. Frank Yates.

In recent years, the German government has intentionally expanded the low-wage work sector in an effort to reduce exceptionally high levels of unemployment. As a result, the share of the German workforce employed in low-paying jobs now rivals that of the United States. Low Wage Work in Germany examines both the federal policies and changing economic conditions that have driven this increase in low-wage work. The new “mini-job” reflects the federal government’s attempt to make certain low-paying jobs attractive to both employers and employees. Employers pay a low flat rate for benefits, and employees, who work a limited number of hours per week, are exempt from social security and tax contributions. Other factors, including slow economic growth, a declining collective bargaining system, and the influx of foreign workers, also contribute to the growing incidence of low-wage work. Yet while both Germany and the United States have large shares of low-wage workers, German workers receive health insurance, four weeks of paid vacation, and generous old age support—benefits most low-wage workers in the United States can only dream of. The German experience offers an important opportunity to explore difficult trade-offs between unemployment and low-wage work.

GERHARD BOSCH is professor of sociology at the University of Duisburg-Essen.

CLAUDIA WEINKOPF is deputy director of the Institute for Work, Skills, and Training at the University of Duisburg-Essen.

CONTRIBUTORS: Lars Czommer, Karen Jaehrling, Thorsten Kalina, Robert Solow, Achim Vanselow, Dorothea Voss-Dahm.

A Volume in the RSF Case Studies of Job Quality in Advanced Economies

Access to credit is an important means of providing people with the opportunity to make a better life for themselves. Loans are essential for most people who want to purchase a home, start a business, pay for college, or weather a spell of unemployment. Yet many people in poor and minority communities—regardless of their creditworthiness—find credit hard to come by, making the climb out of poverty extremely difficult. How dire are the lending markets in these communities and what can be done to improve access to credit for disadvantaged groups? In Credit Markets for the Poor, editors Patrick Bolton and Howard Rosenthal and an expert team of economists, political scientists, and legal and business scholars tackle these questions with shrewd analysis and a wealth of empirical data.

Credit Markets for the Poor opens by examining what credit options are available to poor households. Economist John Caskey profiles how weak credit options force many working families into a disastrous cycle of short-term, high interest loans in order to sustain themselves between paychecks. Löic Sadoulet explores the reasons that community lending organizations, which have been so successful in developing countries, have failed in more advanced economies. He argues the obstacles that have inhibited community lending groups in industrialized countries—such as a lack of institutional credibility and the high cost of establishing lending networks—can be overcome if banks facilitate the community lending process and establish a system of repayment insurance. Credit Markets for the Poor also examines how legal institutions affect the ability of the poor to borrow. Daniela Fabbri and Mario Padula argue that well-meaning provisions making it more difficult for lenders to collect on defaulted loans are actually doing a disservice to the poor in credit markets. They find that in areas with lax legal enforcement of debt agreements, credit markets for the poor are underdeveloped because lenders are unwilling to take risks on issuing credit or will do so only at exorbitant interest rates. Timothy Bates looks at programs that facilitate small-business development and finds that they have done little to reduce poverty. He argues that subsidized business creation programs may lure inexperienced households into entrepreneurship in areas where little profitable investment is possible, hence setting them up for failure.

With clarity and insightful analysis, Credit Markets for the Poor demonstrates how weak credit markets are impeding the social and economic mobility of the needy. By detailing the many disadvantages that impoverished people face when seeking to borrow, this important new volume highlights a significant national problem and offers solutions for the future.

PATRICK BOLTON is John H. Scully ’66 Professor of Finance and professor of economics in the Bendheim Center for Finance at Princeton University.

HOWARD ROSENTHAL is Roger Williams Straus Professor of Social Sciences and professor of politics at Princeton University and visiting professor in the Department of Economics at Brown University.

CONTRIBUTORS: Raisa Bahchieva, Timothy Bates, Patrick Bolton, John P. Caskey, Daniela Fabbri, Robert Kaestner, Malgosia Madajewicz, Mario Padula, Howard Rosenthal, Loic Sadoulet, Lisa J. Servon, Robert M. Townsend, Susan M. Wachter, Antwuan Wallace, and Elizabeth Warren.

One in four American adults doesn’t have a bank account. Low-income families lack access to many of the basic financial services middle-class families take for granted and are particularly susceptible to financial emergencies, unemployment, loss of a home, and uninsured medical problems. Insufficient Funds explores how institutional constraints and individual decisions combine to produce this striking disparity and recommends policies to help alleviate the problem.

Mainstream financial services are both less available and more expensive for low-income households. High fees, minimum-balance policies, and the relative scarcity of banks in poor neighborhoods are key factors. Michael Barr reports the results of an in-depth study of financial behavior in 1,000 low- and moderate-income families in metropolitan Detroit. He finds that most poor households have bank accounts, but combine use of mainstream services with alternative options such as money orders, pawnshops, and payday lenders. Barr suggests that a tax credit for banks serving primarily disadvantaged customers could facilitate greater equality in the private financial sector.

Drawing on evidence from behavioral economics, Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir show that low-income individuals exhibit many of the same patterns and weaknesses in financial decision making as middle-class individuals and could benefit from many of the same financial aids. They argue that savings programs that automatically enroll participants and require them to actively opt out in order to leave the program could drastically increase savings ability. Ronald Mann demonstrates that significant changes in the credit market over the past fifteen years have allowed companies to expand credit to a larger share of low-income families. Mann calls for regulations on credit card companies that would require greater disclosure of actual interest rates and fees. Raphael Bostic and Kwan Lee find that while home ownership has risen dramatically over the past twenty years, elevated risks for low-income families—such as foreclosure—may well outweigh the benefits of owning a home.

The authors ultimately argue that if we want to demand financial responsibility from low-income households, we have an obligation to assure that these families have access to the banking, credit, and savings institutions that are readily available to higher-income families. Insufficient Funds highlights where and how access is blocked and shows how government policy and individual decisions could combine to eliminate many of these barriers in the future.

REBECCA M. BLANK is the Robert S. Kerr Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.

MICHAEL S. BARR is professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School.

CONTRIBUTORS: Raphael W. Bostic, Daryl Collins, Kwan Ok Lee, Ronald J. Mann, Jonathan Morduch, Sendhil Mullainathan, Una Okonkwo Osili, Anna L. Paulson, Daniel Schneider, John Karl Scholz, Ananth Seshadri, Eldar Shafir, Michael Sherraden, Peter Tufano.

A Volume in the National Poverty Center Series on Poverty and Public Policy

As social action programs in health, education, and welfare have expanded, interest has grown in evaluating their implementation and effectiveness. Policymakers and social planners--at all levels of government and in the private sector--are currently confronted with the problem of evaluating the large number of human service programs that compete for available resources.

Academic and Entrepreneurial Research presents a systematic study of the expenditure of federal funds for evaluation research. It reviews federally-supported evaluations of programs, including evaluations of social change experiments and research-demonstration programs funded by the various executive departments of the federal government. Evaluation studies of these large-scale programs vary in scope, quality, and potential utility. Bernstein and Freeman examine all projects initiated during fiscal year 1970 in order to understand better the methods employed, the types of persons engaged in such research, and expectations regarding the utilization of findings.

The book provides data about "high" and "low" quality evaluation research and contains recommendations for restructuring the entire evaluation research enterprise in light of the findings.

ILENE NAGEL BERNSTEIN is assistant professor of sociology at Indiana University.

HOWARD E. FREEMAN is director of the Institute for Social Science Research and professor of sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles.