Assets for Independence Act Evaluation:
Design Phase, Concept Paper
February 16, 2000
2. |
Literature Review |
||
| How Can The Poor Save? | |||
| Assets And The Well-Being Of Children And Families | |||
| Do IDAs Work? | |||
| References | |||
How Can The Poor Save?
A large body of work attempts to explain patterns of saving behavior and asset accumulation. Existing theories, which are actually at various stages of theoretical development, may be classified into four categories: 1) neoclassical economic, 2) psychological and sociological, 3) behavioral, and 4) institutional.
Neoclassical Economic Theories
Neoclassical economic models assume that individuals are rational beings who respond in predictable ways to changes in incentives. From this perspective, there are two broad determinants of individual behavior: opportunities (or constraints) and individual preferences (Pollak, 1998). Preferences are generally assumed to be stable and exogenous. Many economic models also assume that individuals have perfect knowledge and access to perfect markets. With regard to theories of saving and asset accumulation, it is important to note that individual utility (i.e., happiness or satisfaction) is assumed to be a function of consumption. Therefore, economic models generally treat saving as a residual, resources that are left over after consumption decisions have been made.
The two most well-known neoclassical theories of saving are the life cycle hypothesis, or the LCH, (Ando & Modigliani, 1963; Modigliani & Ando, 1957; Modigliani & Brumberg, 1954), and the permanent income hypothesis, or the PIH (Friedman, 1957). Both of these theories assume that individuals and households are concerned about long-term consumption opportunities and therefore explain saving and consumption in terms of expected future income. Proponents of these models view saving as a way to "smooth" consumption in the face of income fluctuations. Since consumption is determined by anticipated lifetime resources (rather than current resources), saving over short periods of time (e.g., a year) is expected to reflect departures of current income from average lifetime resources. In other words, according to these theories, when current income falls below average expected lifetime income, saving decreases, and individuals and households may even borrow to finance consumption. When current income exceeds average expected lifetime resources, individuals and households save. In recent years, a small number of economists have proposed alternatives to the LCH and PIH, the so-called "buffer-stock" models of saving (e.g., Carroll, 1997; Carroll & Samwick, 1997; Deaton, 1991). These models emphasize a precautionary motive for saving, particularly for younger households and for households facing greater income uncertainty.
Psychological and Sociological Theories
Psychological and sociological theories of saving posit that the effects of external stimuli on economic behavior are conditioned by intervening variables such as motives, aspirations, and expectations (Katona, 1975; Olander & Seipel, 1970; Strumpel, 1972; 1975; Van Raaij, 1989). However, unlike neoclassical economic theories, these theories do not assume that preferences and aspirations are fixed. In fact, psychological and sociological theories of saving explicitly seek to explain saving-related preferences, aspirations, and expectations.
The most well-known economic psychologist, George Katona (1951; 1975), has noted that saving is a function of two sets of factors, ability to save and willingness to save. The emphasis on ability to save acknowledges that some individuals, because of limited economic resources or special consumption needs, find it more difficult to defer consumption than others. At the same time, those individuals who can postpone consumption still must choose to do so, a decision that requires some degree of willpower. Katona claims that consumer sentiment (i.e., the evaluation and expectations people have regarding the economic circumstances of the nation and their own households) determines households' willingness to save. For example, households are expected to postpone consumption and save for future security if their perceptions of household finances, interest rates, unemployment, inflation, and so forth are pessimistic.. Other psychological and sociological propositions consider the effects of families (Cohen, 1994), peers (Duesenberry, 1949), and past savings experiences (Furnham, 1985; Katona, 1975) on consumption patterns, saving-related beliefs, and aspirations for saving.
Behavioral Theories
In addition to economic, psychological, and sociological theories, there are a few behavioral theories of saving. These theories note that individuals have trouble resisting temptations to spend, even when they want to save, and may therefore create their own behavioral incentives and constraints (Maital & Maital, 1994; Shefrin & Thaler, 1988; Thaler & Shefrin, 1981). For example, individuals may open Christmas saving accounts, arrange for over-withholding of income taxes, or adopt "rules-of-thumb," such as avoiding borrowing or restricting borrowing to specific purchases. With these strategies in mind, behavioral theories view household saving as "the result of the successful and sophisticated imposition of welfare-improving, self-imposed constraints on spending" (Maital & Maital, 1994, p. 7).
Institutional Theories
Finally, Sherraden (1991) has proposed a theory of welfare based on assets which emphasizes the role of institutions (i.e., formal and informal socioeconomic relationships, rules, and incentives) in asset accumulation. This perspective is part of a larger body of institutional theory emphasizing that societal institutions shape, and give meaning to, individual behavior (see, e.g., Gordon, 1980; Neale, 1987). According to Sherraden, "asset accumulations are primarily the result of institutionalized mechanisms involving explicit connections, rules, incentives, and subsidies" (p. 116). He emphasizes the subsidies provided through housing- and retirement-related tax benefits, including deductions for home mortgage interest and property taxes, deferment and exclusion of capital gains on sales of principal residences, exclusions for employment-sponsored pension contributions and earnings, deferments for Individual Retirement Accounts and Keogh Plans, and employer contributions to employee pension plans. Because these mechanisms for asset accumulation are subsidized or receive preferential tax treatment, Sherraden claims that it is rational for individuals who have access to these institutions to accumulate assets:
...institutionalized arrangements provide tremendous access and incentives to accumulate assets. People participate in retirement pension systems because it is easy and attractive to do so. This is not a matter of making superior choices. Instead, a priori choices are made by social policy, and individuals walk into the pattern that has been established. (p. 127)
More recently, Beverly and Sherraden (1999) have identified four major categories of institutional variables that are expected to shape saving and asset accumulation: (1) incentives, (2) information, (3) access, and (4) facilitation. These authors have also documented differences in access to these institutions. For example, low-income individuals have less access to attractive saving incentives, and those receiving means-tested welfare benefits often face saving disincentives in the form of asset restrictions. Members of low-income households are less likely to have access to financial education (see, e.g., Bernheim & Garrett, 1996) and to mechanisms that facilitate saving, such as payroll deduction and mortgage-financed home purchases. Beverly and Sherraden (see also Beverly, 1997) argue that limited access to institutions that promote and facilitate saving may help explain the low saving rates and limited asset accumulation of low-income households.
Existing Theories and Saving in Low-Income Households
In their current stages of development, none of the existing theories provides a suitable explanation for saving and asset accumulation in low-income households (Beverly & Sherraden, 1999). The mainstream economic theories make unrealistic assumptions regarding the knowledge, foresight, and self-control of individuals. They also assume that individuals have incomes during their later working years that exceed their consumption needs (enabling them to pay off debts and save for retirement) and have savings which can act as a cushion-or access to credit-when current income is low. In reality, imperfect credit markets and uncertainties regarding future income may prevent households from borrowing against future income, and many low-income individuals may never have earnings that substantially exceed their consumption needs. Perhaps most importantly, empirical evidence indicates that most low-income households have very low saving rates and very limited asset accumulation. The fact that these patterns are observed even among households nearing the age of retirement challenges conventional life cycle models and the more recent buffer-stock models of asset accumulation.
Psychological, sociological, and behavioral propositions may complement
economic theories of saving and asset accumulation by explicitly considering
the role of social, cultural, and personal norms, motives, aspirations,
financial management strategies, precommitment constraints, and so
forth. Again, however, few of these propositions explicitly attempt
to explain the saving or asset accumulation of low-income households.
In addition, few have been subjected to rigorous empirical tests.
The only theory that explicitly attempts to explain patterns of low-income
saving is the institutional theory. Although existing evidence suggests
that institutionalized asset accumulation is more substantial than
discretionary saving (Bernheim & Shoven, 1988; Bosworth, Burtless,
& Sabelhaus, 1991; Kotlikoff, Spivak, & Summers, 1982; Shefrin
& Thaler, 1988; Thaler, 1990), scholars are still working to develop
and test a bona fide institutional theory of saving.
Assets and the Well-Being of Children and Families
There is a growing body of literature addressing the relationship between assets and well-being. Much, but not all, of this research focuses on homeownership and its association with various measures of individual and social well-being. The research emphasis on assets in the form of homeownership has been noted in earlier reviews of studies on assets and well-being by Page-Adams and Sherraden (1997), Boshara, Scanlon, and Page-Adams (1998), and Page-Adams, Scanlon, and Moore (1999). Further, Scanlon (1998) offers a thorough summary of research on homeownership and community well-being.
The research reviewed here includes homeownership studies as well as research using other asset measures. This review focuses on the well-being of children and families. Studies are briefly summarized and tables detailing research on (1) assets and children's well-being (2) assets and marital stability (3) assets and health and (4) assets and economic security are provided.
Assets and Children
A number of studies suggest that assets have a positive effect on child welfare. (See Exhibit 2-1.) First and foremost, there appear to be important educational benefits associated with parental homeownership. Green and White (1997), in an analysis of four large, national data sets, find that controlling for parental education and income, 17 and 18 year old children of homeowners are less likely than the children of renters to drop out of school. For girls, parental homeownership was also associated with avoiding early child bearing. The effects of homeownership on staying in school and avoiding early child bearing were particularly strong for low-income children.
Other studies on assets and educational outcomes for children include one by Mayer (1997) who reports that investment income and inherited wealth predict educational test scores and educational attainment better than income. Similarly, an evaluation of Panel Study of Income Dynamics data demonstrates that income from assets, which can be taken as a proxy for asset holding, positively impacts children's educational attainment (Hill & Duncan, 1987). Assets had a particularly notable effect on the educational attainment of girls. The findings from these US studies are consistent with those of an earlier study in England suggesting a positive, independent effect of homeowning on children's educational attainment (Essen, Fogelman & Head, 1977). Scanlon's (1997) work suggests that the residential stability associated with homeowning may provide a partial explanation for the relationship between housing tenure and children's educational outcomes (Scanlon, 1997).
Another way that asset holding may be associated with child welfare is through its effects on the well-being of parents. Homeowners appear to have higher levels of life satisfaction (Rossi & Weber, 1996; Rohe & Stegman, 1994; Potter & Coshall, 1987), physical and emotional well-being (Page-Adams & Vosler, 1997; Vitt, 1994; Pugh, et al., 1991; Rodgers, 1991; Greene & Ondrich, 1990) and future orientation and self-efficacy (Clark, 1997). It would seem likely that children benefit from living in homes with parents who are healthier and more satisfied with their lives.
Other studies addressing the possible intergenerational effects of assets suggest that, controlling for education and socio-economic status, parental assets predict the likelihood that adult daughters who are single parents will be able to maintain their families above the poverty level (Cheng, 1995). A study of factors associated with teen-agers' savings and consumption patterns reveals that parental savings, particularly for college, is predictive of teen savings behavior (Pritchard, Myers & Cassidy, 1989). Henretta (1984) finds that parental homeowning is predictive of adult children's likelihood to own homes, even controlling for income and parental gifts.
Assets and Families
Some of the research on assets and family well-being addresses homeownership, while other studies focus on assets in the form of savings, net worth, or small business ownership. In general, financial and property assets appear to have effects on: (1) marital stability (2) health and (3) economic security. The following section reviews research on these three outcomes for families and households.
Marital stability. Married couples with assets appear to be less likely to divorce than couples without assets. Galligan and Bahr (1978) find that assets, rather than income, have significant effects on marital dissolution among a representative sample of married women in the US. In this study, the effect of net worth on marital stability is strong even when controlling for income, race/ethnicity, and education. Galligan and Bahr's findings are consistent with earlier theoretical and empirical work by Cutright (1971), Cherlin (1977), and Ross and Sawhill (1975) on the significance of assets in explaining marital stability. In a more recent study using PSID data from a sample of 575 married couples, Hampton (1982) finds that property and financial assets are negatively associated with marital disruption for African American couples.
Bracher and his colleagues (1993) find that buying and owning a home outright reduce the risk of marital dissolution in Australia. The effect of homeownership on marital stability is significant even when controlling for the effects of a number of other social and economic factors. The researchers note that homeownership may increase stability by increasing the rewards within marriage or by creating financial or emotional disincentives to divorce. Alternately, couples who are experiencing marital distress may avoid making a joint investment in a home. If this is the case, homeownership may simply demonstrate that marital stability already exists.
A similar caution in interpretation is noted by Page-Adams (1995) whose findings suggest that homeownership has an effect on marital stability through its negative association with conflict and violence between spouses. It may be that homeowning makes couples reticent to put their marriages, and their marital homes, at risk by arguing and using violence. Alternately, serious marital conflict and physical violence may preclude homeownership for many couples. Further, Rossi and Weber (1996) find slightly higher levels of marital disagreements among homeowners, speculating that homeowner couples may have additional stresses associated with home upkeep and repair.
In any case, a negative relationship between assets and marital violence has also been found in a random sample study of married women in the U.S. (Petersen, 1980) and in a control group study of rural married women in a developing country (Schuler & Hashemi, 1994). The latter follows Levinson's (1989) conclusion from a study of ethnographic data that wealth and property ownership patterns in marriage are causally related to domestic violence. Given the strong association between domestic violence and marital dissolution in the U.S., such a relationship between assets and violence would have important implications for marital stability in this country. To summarize, assets may increase marital stability by reducing divorce and by decreasing domestic violence. Exhibit 2-2 provides an overview of studies on assets and marital stability.
Family health. As summarized in Exhibit 2-3, studies from both the U.S. and from Europe indicate a positive relationship between asset holding and physical health. In a review of health research, Joshi and Macran (1991) note that assets are related to lower mortality and that these effects are partially independent of other socio-economic resources. This is consistent with findings from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' Longitudinal Study in England showing positive, independent effects of assets on men's and women's physical health (Goldblatt, 1990; Moser, Pugh & Goldblatt, 1990).
Some studies in this literature point to homeownership as a particularly strong socioeconomic measure in health research. For example, Baker and Taylor (1997) find that, of seven measures of socioeconomic status, homeownership is the most consistently related to health among mothers of infants in England. Homeownership is significantly related, sometimes positively and sometimes negatively, to five of the six common ailments studied. The finding of some negative relationships between assets and health parallels that of Johnston, Grufferman, Bourguet, Delzell, Delong and Cohen (1985) who find that, of seven socioeconomic status measures, only homeownership is significantly associated with multiple myeloma and the association is positive.
However, most of the research reviewed not only points to the strength of homeownership as a health related socioeconomic measure, but also shows a positive relationship between homeownership and health. For example, a study in the Netherlands controls for occupation, education, and employment status and finds that male homeowners report fewer chronic conditions and better general health and that female homeowners perceive themselves to be in better general health than those without homes (Stronks, van de Mheen, van den Bos & Mackenbach, 1997). Hahn (1993) finds that, controlling for income and education, homeownership is modestly but significantly associated with women's health in the US. Further, homeownership helps to explain the generally positive relationship between marriage and physical health for women.
In research from England, asset holding is a better predictor of lung cancer mortality for married women than occupational measures of socio-economic status (Pugh, Power, Goldblatt & Arber, 1991). For example, married women living in owner occupied housing with access to a car are two and a half times less likely to die from lung cancer as those living in rented housing without access to a car. Pugh and her colleagues also find that there are substantial differences in the percentage of women who smoke based on occupational status, but much larger differences based on home ownership. Fifty-seven percent of women who rent are smokers compared with 31 percent of women who own homes. Turning to smoking uptake and cessation, Pugh and her colleagues (1991, pp. 1106-1107) find that "... among women in rented accommodation the rate of uptake was 23 percent while the cessation rate was 12 percent; among owner occupiers these percentages were reversed (12 and 24 percent respectively)." These findings are consistent with research by Yadama and Sherraden (1996) showing that assets in the form of savings have a positive effect on prudence as measured, in part, by smoking habits.
Turning to research on older family members, Robert and House (1996) find that financial assets have positive health effects on U.S. adults when controlling for the effects of income and education. Although assets and health are always positively related, the effects of assets on health are particularly strong for older adults between the ages of 65 and 84. In a study of relatively frail older adults, Greene and Ondrich (1990) control for income and education and find that homeownership is negatively associated with nursing home admission and positively associated with successful nursing home exit back to the community. In this study, neither income nor education significantly affect the likelihood of either nursing home admission or discharge when controlling for the effects of homeownership.
Although this review has focused on research from the U.S. and Europe, findings of positive asset effects on health are consistent with results of studies from developing countries linking assets to increased childhood immunization (Amin & Li, 1997), improved nutritional status of women and children (Quanine, 1989) and decreased infant and child mortality (Amin & Li, 1997; Lee & Amin, 1981). Further, findings of asset effects on physical health parallel those from studies demonstrating relationships between assets and positive mental health outcomes for family members including reduced stress (Berger, Powell & Cook, 1988), increased life satisfaction (Potter & Coshall, 1987; Rohe & Stegman, 1994; Rossi & Weber, 1996), and reduced neurosis (Rodgers, 1991).
Economic security. In an earlier review, Page-Adams and Sherraden (1997) noted that assets appear to increase the economic security of families on public assistance (Raheim & Alter, 1995), female-headed families (Cheng, 1995), as well as other families in the U.S. and in other countries (Krumm & Kelly, 1989; Massey & Basem, 1992; Sherraden, Nair, Vasoo, Liang & Sherraden, 1995). Exhibit 2-4 provides an overview of additional studies on assets and economic security for families in the U.S.
Three of the studies in this review that address family economic security use homeownership as the measure of assets. While Rossi and Weber (1996) find limited differences between homeowners and renters, one important difference between the two groups has to do with asset holding. Controlling for age and socioeconomic status, homeowners have about $6,000 more in savings and about $5,000 more invested in mutual funds than renters. Homeowners are more likely to carry debt on credit cards, installment purchases, and personal bank loans, but less likely to have unpaid educational loans and overdue bills than renters.
Other studies addressing homeownership also control for a number of social and economic factors and find that homeowning reduces the length of joblessness for unemployed workers by some 11.6 weeks (Goss & Phillips, 1997) and increases high school graduation and college entry rates for African American youths (Kane, 1994). Kane's findings are consistent with those of Green and White (1997) who find that children of homeowners are less likely to drop out of school or to have children before the age of 18 than children of renters.
In studies using asset measures other than homeownership, wealth is positively associated with financial transfers to both adult children and parents in their older years (McGarry & Schoeni, 1995) and with the ability of single mothers to maintain their families above the federal poverty level (Rocha, 1997). Rocha controls for age, education, number of weeks worked during the past year, and a number of other socioeconomic factors and finds that single mothers with money in a savings account are significantly more likely to have incomes above the poverty line than those without savings. Neither homeownership nor child support payments were strongly associated with living above the poverty level for female-headed families in this study.
Although this review has focused on research from the U.S., findings of positive asset effects on family economic security are consistent with results of studies from developing countries, especially those linking the mother's assets to enhanced material conditions of families (Quanine, 1989; Noponen, 1992; Schuler & Hashemi, 1994).
To summarize, assets appear to have positive effects on several measures
of children and family well-being. Much more research is needed, especially
on the effects of financial assets such as savings on well-being.
Future research focusing on the relationships between assets and (1)
children's educational attainment (2) domestic violence and (3) poverty
among families that are maintained by women appears as though it will
be particularly promising.
Do IDAs Work?
Can the poor save in a program of IDAs? This policy-analytic question defines the critical policy test of IDAs and other asset-building strategies. Given an IDA program design, do IDA participants save and accumulate assets more than they would otherwise have done? And do they use these assets for homeownership, education, and business start-up (or other allowed uses) more than they would otherwise have done? Only limited evidence exists on IDA evaluations at this time (Sherraden et al. 1999; Lazear, 1999). Other studies of the use of financial institutions by the poor will also be useful (e.g., Caskey, 1994). As evaluation studies continue to be available for the American Dream Demonstration and other IDA initiatives, these will be included.
| Study | Description | Findings |
|---|---|---|
| Green & White (1997) | Examines four large data sets-(Panel Study of Income Dynamics, High School and Beyond Survey, 1980 Census, and the National Bureau of Economic Research-Boston Youth) to determine whether homeownership affects outcomes for 17 and 18 year olds. | Finds that children of homeowners are less likely to drop out or to have children than children from renter households. |
| Henretta (1984) | Examines Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) to determine whether children of homeowners are more likely than children of renters to become homeowners. | Reports that children of homeowners are more likely to become homeowners, controlling for parental income and gifts. |
| Essen, Fogelman & Head (1977) | Study of 16,000 British youth to determine whether housing tenure impacts educational outcomes of children between 11 and 16 years. | Finds that 16 year old children of homeowners are significantly more likely to have higher math and reading scores than other children. |
| Mayer (1997) | Study of two large national data sets (PSID and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth or NLSY) determine the relative impact of factors other than income on well-being outcomes of parents and children. | Finds that investment income and inherited income explain more variance in educational attainment and outcomes than did income measures. |
| Cheng (1995) | Studies effects of parental socioeconomic status (SES), education and asset holding on poverty among adult children with daughters. Examines 836 female heads of household using National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) data. | Controlling for SES and education, assets have a negative relationship to likelihood of adult daughters living in poverty. |
| Pritchard, Myers & Cassidy (1989) | Study of 1,619 teens and parents in the 1982 cohort of the High School and Beyond Survey to determine the impact of family factors on saving and spending patterns of teens. | Finds that parental savings, particularly for college, predicted teens savings patterns. |
| Hill & Duncan (1987) | Study of 845 PSID cases to test effects of asset income on children's educational attainment, controlling for other factors. | Finds parental income from assets impacts education but not wages of adult children. |
| Study | Description | Findings |
|---|---|---|
| Bracher, Santow, Morgan & Trussell (1993) | Examines marriage dissolution using data from a representative sample of 2,547 Australian women aged 20 to 59 years. | Controlling for a number of other social and economic factors, homeownership reduces the risk of marital dissolution. |
| Galligan & Bahr (1978) | Longitudinal study of marital stability among 1,349 married U.S. women using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Labor and Market Experience. | Income has little effect on marital stability, but assets as measured on the basis of net worth have a substantial effect even when controlling for income, race and education. |
| Hampton (1982) | Study of marital disruption among African Americans using PSID data with a sample of 575 married couples in the U.S. | Controlling for income, property and financial assets have a significant negative effect on marital disruption. |
| Page-Adams (1995) | Examines domestic violence using data from 2,827 married women and their husbands who responded to the National Survey of Families and Households. | Homeownership has significant negative effects on marital conflict and on domestic violence controlling for income and women's independent economic resources. |
| Petersen (1980) | Exploration of several measures of socio-economic status and wife abuse among a random sample of 602 married women. | Homeownership has a stronger negative relationship with wife abuse than other SES measures including income and education. |
| Study | Description | Findings |
|---|---|---|
| Baker & Taylor (1997) | Examines socioeconomic status and health among 11,040 mothers of infants in southwest England. | Of seven measures of socioeconomic status, homeownership had the strongest and most consistent relationship to health. |
| Greene & Ondrich (1990) | Study of nursing home admissions and exits among 3,332 frail older adults in the U.S. who were enrolled in The National Long Term Care Channeling Demonstration. | Homeownership, but not income or education, is negatively associated with nursing home admission and positively associated with nursing home discharge. |
| Hahn (1993) | Using National Medical Expenditure Survey data from 9,356 U.S. women, this study examines relationships between marriage, assets and women's health. | Controlling for income and education, homeownership has a positive effect on women's health and helps explain the relationship between marriage and health. |
| Pugh, Power, Goldblatt & Arber (1991) | Study of SES and lung cancer mortality among 10,212 married women in England using data from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' Longitudinal Study. | Assets explain lung cancer mortality better than other SES measures. Women with assets are 2.5 times less likely than those without assets to die from lung cancer. |
| Robert & House (1996) | Explores health effects of assets using data from 3,617 U.S. adult participants in the Americans' Changing Lives Study. | Controlling for income and education, assets have positive effects on health especially for adults ages 65 to 84. |
| Stronks, van de Mheen, van den Bos & Mackenbach (1997) | Examines relationships between various socioeconomic measures and health among 13,391 men and women in the Netherlands who participated in the Longitudinal Study on Socio-Economic Health Differences. | Controlling for the effects of occupation, education, and employment status, an SES measure that includes homeownership is positively related to health (fewer chronic conditions and better perceived health). |
| Study | Description | Findings |
|---|---|---|
| Goss & Phillips (1997) | Using a sample of 1,134 unemployment workers from the PSID, the authors examine the effect of homeownership on the duration of unemployment. | Homeownership reduces the duration of unemployment, controlling for education, occupation, race, gender, home equity, and many other social and economic variables. |
| Kane (1994) | Examines the role of family background, college costs, and local economic conditions on college entry using Current Population Survey data for 18 and 19 year old African American youths. | Homeownership is significantly and positively associated with high school graduation and with college entry for African Americans, controlling for other resources. |
| McGarry & Schoeni (1995) | Using data from the PSID and the Health and Retirement Study, the authors examined intergenerational transfers. | Controlling for a number of social and economic factors, wealth is significantly associated with financial gifts to both adult children and to parents in their older years. |
| Rocha (1997) | Study of economic well-being among 670 female-headed households using data from the National Survey of Families and Housholds (NSFH). | Single mothers with savings are significantly more likely to maintain their families above the federal poverty level than other single mothers, controlling for many social and economic factors. |
| Rossi & Weber (1996) | Using data from the General Social Survey and the NSFH, this study explores the social and economic benefits of homeownership. | Controlling for age and other measures of socioeconomic status, homeowners have about $11,000 more in financial assets and more debt than renters. |
References
Amin, R. & Li, Y. (1997). NGO-promoted women's credit program,
immunization
coverage, and child mortality in rural Bangladesh. Women & Health,
25, 71-87.
Ando, A., & Modigliani, F. (1963). The "life cycle" hypothesis of saving: Aggregate implications and tests. American Economic Review, 53, 55-84.
Baker, D. & Taylor, H. (1997). Inequality in health and health service use for mothers of young children in south west England. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 51, 74-79.
Berger, P., Powell, J., Cook, A. (1988). The relation of economic factors to perceived stress in mobile families. Lifestyles, 9, 4, 297-313.
Bernheim, B. D., & Garrett, D. M. (1996). The determinants and consequences of financial education in the workplace: Evidence from a survey of households (Working Paper No. 5667). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bernheim, B. D., & Shoven, J. B. (1988). Pension funding and saving. In Z. Bodie, J. B. Shoven, & D. A. Wise (Eds.), Pensions in the U.S. economy (pp. 85-111). Chicago: University of Chicago Press and NBER.
Beverly, S. (1997). How can the poor save? Theory and evidence on saving in low-income households (Working Paper No. 97-3). St. Louis, MO: Washington University, Center for Social Development.
Beverly, S. G., & Sherraden, M. (1999). Institutional determinants of saving: Implications for low-income households and public policy. Journal of Socio-Economics, 28(4).
Boshara, R., Scanlon, E., Page-Adams, D. (1998). Building Assets. Washington, DC: Corporation for Enterprise Development.
Bosworth, B., Burtless, G., & Sabelhaus, J. (1991). The decline of saving: Evidence from household surveys. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 183-241.
Bracher, M., Santow, G., Morgan, J. & Trussell, J. (1993). Marital dissolution in Australia: Models and explanations. Population Studies, 47, 3, 403-425.
Carroll, C. D. (1997). Buffer-stock saving and the life cycle/permanent income hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12(1), 1-55.
Carroll, C. D., & Samwick, A. A. (1997). The nature of precautionary wealth. Journal of Monetary Economics, 40(1), 41-71.
Caskey, J. P. (1994). Fringe banking: Check-cashing outlets, pawnshops, and the poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Cheng, L. (1995, April). Asset holding and intergenerational poverty vulnerability in female-headed families. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference of the Society for the Advancement of Socio-Economics, Washington, DC.
Cherlin, A. (1977). Social and economic determinants of marital separation.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California.
Clark, H. (1997). A structural equation model of the effects of homeownership on self-efficacy, self-esteem, political involvement, and community involvement in African-Americans. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Arlington, School of Social Work.
Cohen, S. (1994). Consumer socialization: Children's saving and spending. Childhood Education, 70(4), 244-246.
Cutright, P. (1971). Income and family events: Marital stability. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 33, 291-306.
Deaton, A. (1991). Saving and liquidity constraints. Econometrica, 59(5), 1221-1248.
Duesenberry, J. S. (1949). Income, saving and the theory of consumer
behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Essen, J., Fogelman, K., & Head, J. (1977). Childhood housing
experiences and school attainment. Child Care, Health and Development,
4, 41-58.
Friedman, M. (1957). A theory of the consumption function (National Bureau of Economic Research General Series No. 63). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Furnham, A. (1985). Why do people save? Attitudes to, and habits of, saving money in Britain. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15(4), 354-373.
Galligan, R.J. & Bahr, S.J. (1978). Economic well-being and marital
stability:
Implications for income maintenance programs. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 283-290.
Goldblatt, P. (1990). Mortality and alternative social classifications. In Goldblatt, P. (Ed.) Longitudinal study: Mortality and social organisation. OPCS, Series LS, no. 6. London: HMSO.
Gordon, W. (1980). Institutional economics: The changing system. Austin, TX: University of Austin Press.
Goss, E.P. & Phillips, J.M. (1997). The impact of home ownership on the duration of unemployment. The Review of Regional Studies, 27, 9-27.
Green, R. & White, M. (1997). Measuring the benefits of homeowning: Effects on children. Journal of Urban Economics, 41, 441-461.
Greene, V. & Ondrich, J. (1990). Risk factors for nursing home admissions and exits: A discrete-time hazard function approach. Journal of Gerontology, 45, 6, S250-S258.
Hahn, B.A. (1993). Marital status and women's health: The effect of economic marital acquisitions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 495-504.
Hampton, R. L. (1982). Family life cycle, economic well-being and marital disruption inblack families. California Sociologist, 5, 16-32.
Henretta, J. (1984). Parental status and child's home ownership. American Sociological Review, 49, 131-140.
Hill, M. & Duncan, G. (1987). Parental family income and the socioeconomic attainment of children. Social Science Research, 16, 39-73.
Hunter, A. (1975). The loss of community: An empirical test through replication. American Sociological Review, 36, 2, 537-552.
Johnston, J.M., Grufferman, S., Bourguet, C.C., Delzell, E., DeLong, E.R. & Cohen, H.J.(1985). Socioeconomic status and risk of multiple myeloma. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 39, 175-178.
Joshi, H. & Macran, S. (1991). Work, gender, and health. Work,
Employment &
Society, 5, 451-469.
Kane, T.J. (1994). College entry by blacks since 1970: The role of college costs, family background, and the returns to education. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 878-907.
Katona, G. (1951). Psychological analysis of economic behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Katona, G. (1975). Psychological economics. New York: Elsevier.
Kotlikoff, L. J., Spivak, A., & Summers, L. H. (1982). The adequacy of savings. American Economic Review, 72(5), 1056-1069.
Krumm, R. & Kelly, A. (1989). Effects of homeownership on household savings. Journal of Urban Economics, 26, 281-294.
Lazear, Dianne (Revised September 1999). Implementation and Outcomes of an Individual Development Account Project, policy report. St. Louis: Center for Social Development, Washington University.
Lee, C. & Amin, R. (1981). Socioeconomic factors, intermediate variables, and fertility in Bangladesh. Journal of Biosocial Science, 13, 179-188.
Levinson, D. (1989). Family violence in cross-cultural perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Long, J. & Caudill, S. (1992). Racial differences in homeownership and housing wealth, 1970-1986. Economic Inquiry, 30, 83-100.
Maital, S., & Maital, S. L. (1994). Is the future what it used to be? A behavioral theory of the decline of saving in the West. Journal of Socio-Economics, 23(1/2), 1-32.
Massey, D.S. & Basem, L.C. (1992). Determinants of savings, remittances, and spending patterns among US migrants in four Mexican communities. Sociological Inquiry, 62, 185-207.
Mayer, S. (1997). What money can't buy: Family income and children's life chances. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Modigliani, F., & Ando, A. K. (1957). Tests of the life cycle hypothesis of savings. Bulletin of the Oxford Institute of Statistics, 19, 99-124.
Modigliani, F., & Brumberg, R. (1954). Utility analysis and the consumption function: An interpretation of cross-section data. In K. K. Kurihara (Ed.), Post-Keynesian economics (pp. 388-436). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Moser, K., Pugh, H. & Goldblatt, P. (1990). Mortality and the social classification of women. In Goldblatt, P. (Ed.) Longitudinal study: Mortality and social organisation. OPCS, Series LS, no. 9. London: HMSO.
McGarry, K. & Schoeni, R.F. (1995). Transfer behavior in the Health and Retirement Study. The Journal of Human Resources, Supplement, S184-S226.
Neale, W. C. (1987). Institutions. Journal of Economic Issues, 21(3), 1177-1206.
Noponen, H. (1992). Loans to the working poor: A longitudinal study of credit, gender and the household economy. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 16, 234-251.
Olander, F., & Seipel, C.-M. (1970). Psychological approaches to the study of saving. Urbana, IL: University of IL.
Oliver, M. & Shapiro, T. (1995). Black wealth/white wealth. New York: Routledge.
Page-Adams, D. (1995). Homeownership and marital violence. Doctoral dissertation, Washington University in St. Louis, George Warren Brown School of Social Work.
Page-Adams, D. & Sherraden, M. (1997). Asset building as a community revitalization strategy. Social Work, 42, 423-434.
Page-Adams, D. & Vosler, N. (1997). Homeownership and well-being among blue-collar workers. (Working Paper No. 97-5) St. Louis: Center for Social Development, Washington University.
Parcel, T. (1982). Wealth accumulation of black and white men: The case of housing equity. Social Problems, 30, 2, 199-211.
Petersen, R. (1980). Social class, social learning, and wife abuse. Social Service Review, 54, 390-406.
Pollak, R. A. (1998). Notes on how economists think (Working Paper No. 3). Chicago: Joint Center for Poverty Research.
Potter, R. & Coshall, J. (1987). Socio-economic variations in perceived life domain satisfactions: A South West Wales case study. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 1, 77-82.
Pritchard, M., Myers, B. & Cassidy, D. (1989). Factors associated with adolescent saving and spending patterns. Adolescence, 24, 711-723.
Pugh, H., Power, C., Goldblatt, P. & Arber, S. (1991). Women's lung cancer mortality, socio-economic status and changing smoking patterns. Social Science and Medicine, 32, 10, 1105-1110.
Quanine, J. (1989). Women and nutrition: The Grameen Bank experience. Food andNutrition Bulletin, 11, 64-66.
Raheim, S. & Alter, C. F. (1995). Self-employment investment demonstration final Evaluation report. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa School of Social Work.
Robert, S. & House, J. (1996). SES differentials in health by age and alternative indicators of SES. Journal of Aging and Health, 8, 359-388.
Rocha, C.J. (1997). Factors that contribute to economic well-being in female-headed households. Journal of Social Service Research, 23, 1-17.
Rodgers, B. (1991). Socio-economic status, employment and neurosis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 26, 104-114.
Ross, H.L. & Sawhill, I.V. (1975). Time of transition: The growth of families headed by women. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Scanlon, E. (1997). The economic, psychological and social effects of homeownership on individuals and households. Area of Specialization Statement. Washington University in St. Louis, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Doctoral Program.
Scanlon, E. (1998). Low-income homeownership as a community development
strategy. Journal of Community Practice, 5, 2.
Schuler, S.R. & Hashemi, S.M. (1994) Credit programs, women's empowerment, and contraceptive use in rural Bangladesh. Studies in Family Planning, 25, 65-76.
Shefrin, H. M., & Thaler, R. H. (1988). The behavioral life-cycle hypothesis. Economic Inquiry, 26, 609-643.
Sherraden M. et al. (1999). Downpayments on the American Dream Policy Demonstration: A National Demonstration of Individual Development Accounts, Start-Up Evaluation Report. St. Louis, MO: Center for Social Development at Washington University.
Sherraden, M. (1997). Building Assets Among African-American Males, in Larry E. Davis, ed., African American Males: A Practice Guide. Sage.
Sherraden, M. (1996). Social Security in the 21st Century. Perspective, St. Louis: Center for Social Development, Washington University.
Sherraden, M. (1991). Assets and the poor: A new American welfare policy. Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Sherraden, M. (1988). Rethinking social welfare: Toward assets. Social Policy, 18 (3), 37-43.
Sherraden, M., Nair, S., Vasoo, S., Liang, N.T., Sherraden, M.S. (1995). Social policy based on assets: The impact of Singapore's Central Provident Fund. Asian Journal of Political Science, 3(2), 112-133.
Sherraden, M. and Page-Adams, D. (1995). Asset Based Alternatives in Social Policy.Paper presented at the 1995 National Public Policy Education Conference in Kansas City. St. Louis: Center for Social Development, Washington University.
Stronks, K., van de Mheen, H., van den Bos, J. & Mackenbach, J.P. (1997). The interrelationship between income, health, and employment. International Journal of Epidemiology, 26, 592-600.
Strumpel, B. (1972). Economic behavior and economic welfare: Models and interdisciplinary approaches. In B. Strumpel, J. N. Morgan, & E. Zahn (Eds.), Human behavior in economic affairs: Essays in honor of George Katona with concluding comments by George Katona (pp. 83-107). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Strumpel, B. (1975). Saving behavior in Western Germany and the United States. American Economic Review, 65(2), 210-216.
Thaler, R. H. (1990). Saving, fungibility and mental accounts. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(1), 193-205.
Thaler, R. H., & Shefrin, H. M. (1981). An economic theory of self-control. Journal of Political Economy, 89(2), 392-401.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (1995). Urban policy brief, 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Van Raaij, W. F. (1989). Economic news, expectations and macro-economic behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10, 473-493.
Vitt, L. (1993). Homeownership, well-being, class and politics: Perceptions of American homeowners and renters. Doctoral dissertation, American University, Department of Sociology.
Wolfe, Edward N. (1995). Top Heavy: A Study of the Increased Inequality of Wealth in America. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.
Yadama, G. & Sherraden, M. (1996). Effects of assets on attitudes and behaviors: An Advance test of a social policy proposal. Social Work Research, 20, 1, 3-12.
Yelin, E. (1997). The earnings, income, and assets of persons aged
51-61 with and without musculoskeletal conditions. The Journal of
Rheumatology, 24, 2024-2030.
