|
on Insurance Economics |
|
Issue of 2011‒04‒23
three papers chosen by Soumitra K Mallick Indian Institute of Social Welfare and Business Management |
| By: | H. Luke Shaefer (University of Michigan); Liyun Wu (University of Michigan) |
| Abstract: | Using the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), a nationally representative, longitudinal survey, this study examines changing levels of Unemployment Insurance (UI) eligibility and benefit receipt among working low-educated single mothers, 1990–2005. It also examines changing participation in cash welfare and the Food Stamp Program (FSP). Relative to single childless women, there has been no increase in UI benefit receipt among single mothers entering a spell of unemployment in the postreform period, even though single mothers have increased their relative rates of UI eligibility. Because of declining cash assistance receipt, UI became a more common income support than cash assistance for this population during the period 2001–2005. Furthermore, the probability of accessing FSP for low-educated single mothers entering a spell of unemployment increased in the years 2001–2005. As a result, the proportion of this population accessing benefits from one or more of these programs remained virtually unchanged across the study period. |
| Keywords: | Welfare Reform, Unemployment Insurance, Low-educated Single Mothers |
| JEL: | J65 J68 I38 |
| Date: | 2010–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:upj:weupjo:11-173&r=ias |
| By: | Christopher J. O'Leary (W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research) |
| Abstract: | The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 provided financial incentives for UI modernization. The financial incentive is the state share of $7 billion available nationwide. States can receive one-third of their allocation by having an alternate base period (ABP) for monetary determination of UI eligibility that includes the most recently completed calendar quarter. States can receive the remaining two-thirds of their allocation for having two of four additional program features: 1) UI eligibility while seeking only part-time work, 2) UI eligibility after job separations due to harassment or compelling family reasons, 3) continuation of UI benefits for at least 26 additional weeks after exhaustion of regular benefits while in approved training, and 4) dependents’ allowances of at least $15 per dependent up to $50. This paper presents estimates of the UI benefit payment costs of these five program changes based on data from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. To date 39 states have received modernization payments for having an ABP, and 32 states have received the remaining two-thirds of funds available. The numbers of states adopting each of these additional features are as follows: 25 for seeking part-time, 18 for family reasons, 14 for exhaustee benefits while in training, and 7 for dependents’ allowances. Estimates of the UI benefit payment costs for these features, based on Kentucky data, suggest a pattern of states choosing UI modernization features to minimize the expected benefit payment costs. However, for states broadening UI eligibility through modernization, UI benefit payment costs will be higher for any given level of unemployment. Liberalized eligibility rules must be balanced by structural financing enhancements to ensure long-term fiscal stability of the system. |
| Keywords: | unemployment insurance, UI, modernization, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, benefit payments, Kentucky, administrative data, state expenditures |
| JEL: | J65 J68 H83 |
| Date: | 2011–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:upj:weupjo:11-172&r=ias |
| By: | Yosef Bonaparte; Russell Cooper; Guozhong Zhu |
| Abstract: | This paper studies the dynamics of portfolio rebalancing and consumption smoothing in the presence of non-convex portfolio adjustment costs. The goal is to understand a household's response to income and return shocks. The model includes the choice of two assets: one riskless without adjustment costs and a second risky asset with adjustment costs. With these multiple assets, a household can buffer some income fluctuations through the asset without adjustment costs and engage in costly portfolio rebalancing less frequently. We estimate both preference parameters and portfolio adjustment costs. The estimates are used for evaluating consumption smoothing and portfolio adjustment in the face of income and return shocks. |
| JEL: | E21 G11 |
| Date: | 2011–04 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:16957&r=ias |