Varsity-Packet-Final

19 p a g e states cp bdl answers to mass spending da

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: o encourage participation values. Small communities do not, however, always protect minority civil rights, they do not always produce greater opportunities for citizen participation, and they do not always have the resources to carry out the social welfare preferences of their members. As Paul E. Peterson has observed, localities rarely define their community purposes as "the enhancement of the material well-being of workers, the poor, or minorities." Given interregional variances in wealth, race, and capacity, as well as the greater likelihood of special interest capture of local communities, state primacy - not local control - is critical to the enforcement of a state constitutional welfare right. 16 | P a g e States CP BDL Answers to: Race to the Bottom [____] [____] Studies prove – no race to the bottom with state welfare programs Olivia Golden, project director of the Urban Institute, 2005 (“ASSESSING THE NEW FEDERALISM: Eight Years Later”, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311198_ANF_EightYearsLater.pdf) To better understand what might have driven these significant shifts in the experiences of low -income families, ANF documented and studied state policies. A key focal point was the transition from the old to the new welfare system: the choices states made, the degree of change realized, and the challenges faced. Specifically, we looked at how states responded to increased operating flexibility and the focus on work in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This research drew heavily on the case studies of 17 sites in 13 states that were an integral part of ANF. Based on site visits, these studies say more about formal policy changes at the state and local levels than about how the policies were implemented over time. Since each site was visited twice, researchers could gauge the extent of change by comparing policy and administrative arrangements across the interval. We found that states substantially changed their welfare programs by focusing on such goals as work rather than simply reducing benefits in a “race to the bottom” (as many feared when PRWORA was enacted). More specifically, ANF case studies showed that states moved quickly in 1996–97 to design welfare-to-work policies that emphasized getting recipients into jobs. 17 | P a g e States CP BDL Answers to: Race to the Bottom [____] [____] No race to the bottom Jonathan Adler, Associate Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, 2005 (January, 90 Iowa L. Rev. 377, p. 467-8) In addition, the adoption of minimum federal environmental standards to prevent a race to the bottom in environmental policy would not eliminate the competitive pressures. Rather, it would shift them to other contexts, and the hypothesized welfare losses would remain. n605 Professor Revesz also points out that the same dynamic that could theoretically produce systematic environmental underregulation could also produce overregulat ion. n606 If states are more aggressive at competing for industry through tax policy than through environmental policy, the likely result wo...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 02/06/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online