Entitlements: Options for Reforming the Social Safety Net in the United States

• Published date: 01 November 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/0002716219884546
• Date: 01 November 2019
• Subject Matter: Introduction

8 ANNALS, AAPSS, 686, November 2019

DOI: 10.1177/0002716219884546

Entitlements:

Options for

Reforming the

Social Safety

Net in the

United States

By

ROBERT A. MOFFITT

and

JAMES P. ZILIAK

884546ANN The ANNALS of the American AcademyOptions for Reforming the Social Safety Net

research-article2019

A combination of demographic aging and diversifica-

tion, volatile business cycle conditions, stagnant real

wages, declining employment, and policy choices have

increased the need to examine the adequacy of the U.S.

social safety net. Is it accomplishing what it is designed

to do? Can it weather a fiscal storm? Current “entitle-

ment” programs are in almost all cases providing

important assistance to U.S. families and are improving

families’ well-being, but they face significant challenges

that will require the attention of policy-makers around

the country. Some programs may need a structural

revamping, while others could do with incremental

modifications. Because U.S. entitlement programs

address complex social issues, they are themselves

complex systems; it follows, then, that meaningful

reform must be thoughtful and nuanced, eschewing

political expediency. Further, federal support is needed

for even more high-quality research that will provide

evidence on the types of reforms that will achieve the

goals of the programs.

Keywords: social insurance; means-tested transfers;

welfare; safety net

A

perfect storm of demographic aging, a

deep and protracted recession, secular

decline in employment and real wages, and

public policy choices at the federal and state

levels have resulted in substantial fiscal

Robert A. Moffitt is the Krieger-Eisenhower Professor

of Economics in the Department of Economics at Johns

Hopkins University.

James P. Ziliak is the Carol Martin Gatton Endowed

Chair in Microeconomics in the Department of

Economics at the University of Kentucky.

NOTE: We are grateful to the Peter G. Peterson

Foundation for financial support that made this volume

possible. The articles benefited greatly from the com-

ments of participants at an authors’ conference, espe-

cially Melissa Kearney, Bradley Hardy, Elaine Maag,

Aaron Yelowitz, Karen Dynan, Angela Rachidi, and

Jeremie Greer. All opinions and conclusions are solely

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the

views of any sponsoring agency.

Correspondence: jziliak@uky.edu

OPTIONS FOR REFORMING THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET 9

pressure on the national debt, with possible consequences for the design and

financial future of the U.S. social safety net. The federal deficit was $779 billion

by fiscal year 2018 and is projected to rise rapidly over the next few years (U.S.

Department of Treasury 2018). The United States spends 18.7 percent of its

GDP on social expenditures as defined by the OECD, slightly less than the

OECD average of 20.1 percent but far above the 12.8 percent it spent in 1980.1

Public discussion of possible reforms of U.S. entitlement programs is conse-

quently more important than ever. Some have argued that we are spending too

much and that many who are not in need, or who could receive help instead from

their own earnings or private sources, are receiving support from the government

and that major structural reform is needed to reduce expenditures. Others think

that many of our programs are inefficient and that the same, or even superior,

services could be provided at lower cost, sometimes arguing for major structural

reform and, at other times, arguing for smaller incremental reforms. Yet others

believe that many families in need are struggling and are still not receiving ben-

efits that should be provided by a wealthy country like the United States and that

major expansions are needed to support those families. Still others think that the

nation’s entitlement programs are doing quite well at the present time, although

many incremental reforms could improve their functioning or their coverage,

without major structural reform. Incremental reforms generally include changes

to program eligibility, funding, and generosity, such as imposing work require-

ments for beneficiaries, replacing matching grants or direct provision with block

grants to states, and capping the amount or duration of benefit receipt.

Fundamental reforms are more sweeping in reach, including, for example, pro-

posals to restructure insurance markets to offer “Medicare for All,” or for whole-

sale replacement of most means-tested transfer programs with a guaranteed

universal basic income.

In this volume, we bring together leading scholars to assess the options, oppor-

tunities, and challenges for reform of the major programs in the U.S. entitlement

system and to bring to bear the available research evidence on the potential

effectiveness of those reforms. The articles aim to bridge the oftentimes wide

gulf between policy and evidence by assessing the efficacy of major proposals to

reform entitlements in light of the best causal research evidence, as well as to

strike out on new territory to offer a number of innovative solutions to the chal-

lenge of providing economic security to a growing and rapidly diversifying

population. The articles should serve to inform evidence-based policymaking at

both the federal and subnational levels of government. The volume is distinct in

the breadth of programs covered—eleven major programs, including programs

providing both social insurance and means-tested transfers—and the simultane-

ous attention to institutional details, research evidence, and policy reforms. The

articles are written to be widely accessible to the policy, advocacy, and research

communities and to serve as a pedagogical resource at the graduate and under-

graduate college and university levels.

In the remainder of this Introduction, we set the stage for the contributions in

the volume by offering a brief survey of the programs covered and their trends in

spending. We do not discuss in detail the reasons for spending trends, as these are