Does it pay to move from welfare to work?

The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act requires welfare recipients to look for work and has made it more difficult for nonworking recipients to remain on the welfare rolls. In addition, the economic boom of the 1990s and changes in federal and state policies have raised the net income gain associated with moving from welfare to work. This paper analyzes data from a panel survey of single mothers, all of whom received welfare in February 1997. In 1999, those who left welfare and were working had a higher household income and lower poverty rate, experienced a similar level of material hardship, engaged in fewer activities to make ends meet, and had lower expectations of experiencing hardship in the near future than did nonworking welfare recipients. Estimations of fixed‐effect regressions of income that control for both observable and unobservable time‐invariant characteristics show that monthly net income increases by $2.63 for every additional hour of work effort. About 60 percent of the observed monthly income difference between wage‐reliant and welfare‐reliant mothers can be attributed to differences in their work effort. Thus, after welfare reform, it does pay to move from welfare to work. © 2002 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

Intergovernmental Relations and Clean-Air Policy in Southern California

In 1989, California adopted a bold and comprehensive Air QualityManagement Plan (AQMP) to bring southern California into compliancewith federal air-quality standards by 2007. California's effortto control air pollution, as outlined in the AQMP, significantlyinfluenced the formulation of the 1990 federal Clean Air Act.This article analyzes the nature of this influence as well asthe way the new federal legislation bolsters specific provisionsof the AQMP. Also examined is whether the AQMP and the CleanAir Act are likely to bring southern California into compliancewith federal air-quality standards.     

Geico and Google settle trade mark/keyword advertising lawsuit

Google's sale of GEICO's trade marks for use in keyword-triggered‘sponsored link’ advertising did not create a likelihoodof confusion where the keyword-triggered advertisements didnot include GEICO's marks in the headings or text, but a settlementbetween the parties prevented the court from deciding Google'sliability for trade mark infringement for keyword-triggeredadvertisements that use GEICO's marks.