Doctoral Dissertation Research in Economics: State and Local Spending on Poverty Relief in the United States: 1900-1930

这个项目调查了新政之前美国穷人的安全网。在1900年至1930年期间，美国的扶贫体系依赖于不同机构和非营利组织的拼凑。私人非营利组织是最重要的救援提供者，其次是地方政府。这些机构提供临时住房、老年人援助、廉价的儿童保育和降价药品。州政府也提供了救济；然而，它主要是为需要永久帮助的穷人提供的。即使在许多社会学者中，也有一种普遍的看法，即在新政之前，美国的穷人几乎没有或根本没有安全网。这种看法源于联邦政府在这个问题上缺乏收集的数据。调查人员需要收集各个州的记录，以真实地讲述美国如何发展贫困项目的故事。建立一个由州、地方和私人记录组成的数据集将有助于检验许多经济理论，包括公共支出对私人捐赠的排挤。在此期间，政府在扶贫方面的财政有了重大转变。所得税于1913年合法化，随后税法修改，允许慈善捐款在1919年抵税。公共资金很少用于对非营利部门的直接捐赠，这使得今天无法找到一种平衡。历史数据也将有助于更好地了解公共部门的增长情况。各州在扶贫方面存在显著差异。20世纪初席卷美国的科学慈善运动抨击政府开支是有害的。该运动的文献认为，私人机构的谨慎援助是与贫困作斗争的唯一途径。在此期间，政府重点资助医院、精神病院、改造学校和救济院。1910年以后，各州开始为家中的穷人提供公共支持，包括为有孩子的寡妇提供母亲抚恤金和为盲人提供援助。这是公众对如何向穷人分配资金的看法的重大转变。1920年以后，政府对穷人的开支突然增加。然而，随着政府规模的扩大，私人支出也随之增加。用于构建此数据集的文件来自科学慈善运动和州慈善委员会。这些机构大多是在19世纪80年代在东北部建立的，随后在20世纪初从其他州引进。美国国税局还将被用于查找未在国家报告中公布的私人机构的财务税务记录。每个州的详细信息将显示救济类型和提供救济的机构的分类。美国过去的这段时间很重要，因为社会保障、医疗保险和TANF都是从地方形式开始的，然后才发展成为国家项目。各州在资助水平上存在分歧，这种情况一直持续到今天。当研究人员将私人支出考虑在内时，将美国的医疗体系与更多由政府资助的欧洲全民医疗体系进行比较也是可能的。

This project investigates the safety net for the poor in the United States prior to the New Deal. During the time period between 1900 and 1930, America's system of poverty relief relied on a patchwork of different agencies and nonprofit organizations. Private nonprofits were the most important provider of relief followed by local governments. These agencies provided temporary housing, old age assistance, inexpensive child care, and reduced price drugs. State governments provided relief as well; however, it was mostly for the poor that needed permanent help. There is a common perception, even among many social scholars, that there was little or no safety net for the poor in America prior to the New Deal. This perception stems from the lack of data collected by the federal government on the subject. Investigators need to collect individual state records to truly tell the story of how the United States developed poverty programs. Constructing a data set of state, local, and private records will help test many economic theories including the crowding out of private donations by public expenditures. During this time period there was a significant shift in government finance of poor relief. The income tax was legalized in 1913 followed by tax code changes that allowed charitable donations to be tax deductible in 1919. Public money was rarely used for direct donations to the nonprofit sector allowing for an equilibrium that cannot be found today. Historical data will also provide a better understanding of the growth of the public sector.There is significant variation among states on how they dealt with poverty relief. The scientific charity movement that swept across the United States during the early part of the 20th century attacked government spending as harmful. The movement's literature argued that careful assistance by private institutions was the only way to combat poverty. During this time the government focused on funding hospitals, insane asylums, reform schools, and almshouses. After 1910 states started providing public support to the poor in their homes through mothers' pensions for widows with children and aid to the blind. This is a large shift in the public's perception of how to allocate funds to the poor. After 1920 there was a sudden increase in government expenditures for the poor. However, with this increase in the size of the government came an increase in private expenditures as well. Documents used to construct this data set come from the scientific charity movement and the State Boards of Charities. Most of these agencies were established in the Northeast during the 1880s followed by adoption from other states during the early 1900s. The IRS will also be used to find financial tax records of private institutions when the state does not publish them in their report. Detailed information about each state will show a breakdown in the types of relief and institutions that provide them.This time period in America's past is important as Social Security, Medicare, and TANF all start in local forms before they grow into national programs. States differed on their funding levels that continue today. A comparison between America's system and the more government funded universal European system is also possible when researchers take into account private spending.