Poverty Law Prof Blog

Great Corbert Report interview of Grover Norquist

Last night, Monday, May 14, 2008, Stephen Colbert interviewed Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform on his show.  For those addicted to the show, the interview stands out for its particularly harsh questions; check it out here (I found it biting and funny). 

-E.R. erosser@wcl.american.edu

Labor and Employment Law & Law and Society Conferences

Two Call for Papers from the Legal Scholarship Blog:

1. 3rd Annual Colloquium on Current Scholarship in Labor & Employment Law, San Diego Oct 23-25, 2008, Call for papers deadline July 31, 2008. 
2. Midwest Law and Society Retreat, Univ. of Wisconsin, Sep. 19-20, 2008, Call for papers deadline June 1, 2008. 

-E.R. erosser@wcl.american.edu

Paper of interest: Levy & Temin on Inequality and Institutions in 20th Century America

This is dated, but I just came across it:
Frank Levy & Peter Temin, "Inequality and Institutions in 20th Century America," MIT Dept. of Econ. Working Paper No. 07-17 (June 27, 2007).  The New America Foundation has an audio file from a panel that featured the paper.  Abstract Below:

We provide a comprehensive view of widening income inequality in the United States contrasting conditions since 1980 with those in earlier postwar years. We argue that the income distribution in each period was strongly shaped by a set of economic institutions. The early postwar years were dominated by unions, a negotiating framework set in the Treaty of Detroit, progressive taxes, and a high minimum wage - all parts of a general government effort to broadly distribute the gains from growth. More recent years have been characterized by reversals in all these dimensions in an institutional pattern known as the Washington Consensus. Other explanations for income disparities including skill-biased technical change and international trade are seen as factors operating within this broader institutional story.

-E.R. erosser@wcl.american.edu

State Welfare Efforts

An article of interest in the New York Times today: Rachel L. Swarns, "State Programs Add Safety Net for the Poorest," NYTimes, May 12, 2008.  The article also has a graphic presenting assistance after welfare programs across the U.S.

-E.R. erosser@wcl.american.edu

End of the Semester Blues - a quick link

Academic Aside: If you are in the midst of either taking exams, or grading exams, it is worth checking out this old post from Daniel J. Solove on Concurring Opinions. 

-E.R. erosser@wcl.american.edu

New Paper: Welfare Reform in a Global Economy

Steven D. Schwinn has posted "Welfare Reform in a Global Economy" (J. of Gender, Race & Justice Vol. 11, No. 2, 2008) to SSRN.  Below is the abstract:

The federal government's welfare reform efforts have two defining characteristics: first, welfare reform requires welfare recipients to work for their checks (and to move toward permanent, self-sustainable employment); and second welfare reform devolves administrative responsibility to the states, punishing states if they fail to meet federal employment targets for their welfare populations.

But these two characteristics are in deep tension with the realities of a global economy. Thus welfare reform shifts the burden of welfare-to-work requirements to the states, even as the states have decreasing control over the size and shape of their local job markets in a global economy, and even as the global economy seems to be handing states exactly the wrong kinds of jobs to lift recipients out of welfare.

This article explores some of the tensions between the goals of welfare reform and the realities of a global economy. First, it explores how the federal government, not the states, increasingly controls the domestic labor market and available jobs in a global economy. Next, it argues that the federal government and the global economy have handed the states exactly the wrong kinds of jobs to lift recipients out of welfare.

The article argues that welfare reform must adapt in order to reconcile its goals with the realities of a global economy. Particularly: welfare reform must either refocus on training and education so that recipients can qualify for sustainable jobs in the global economy; or welfare reform must become a meaningful trade adjustment assistance program.

-E.R. erosser@wcl.american.edu

Global Food Crisis

The "globe's worst food crisis in a generation" is occurring right now and the Washington Post today published a good introduction to the crisis.  Anthony Faiola, "The New Economics of Hunger," Washington Post, April 27, 2008.  A photo gallery is associated with the story, as are two very good graphics, one on which countries have grain, and one presenting reasons for the rise in grain prices. 

Judge Posner and Gary Becker have both commented about the rising prices on their blog (click by name).  A New York times Op-Ed by Tyler Cowen, "Freer Trade Could Fill the World's Rice Bowl" April 27, 2008, makes its premise clear in its title.  The World Bank's website includes a statement by President Zoellick as well as a video overview of the crisis and a policy statement of the crisis/World Bank response.  Maros Ivanic & Will Martin also have a working paper on topic "Implications of Higher Global Food Prices for Poverty in Low-Income Countries" (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4594, April 2008).

UPDATE: A number of other blog postings have covered this crisis in much greater detail (thanks to Patrick S. O'Donnell's comment, which I though was worth bringing out of the comment part of the page):

• Patrick S. O'Donnell at Ratio Juris Blog
• Deven Desai at Concurring Opinions
• Rebecca Bratspies at IntLawGrrls

 

-E.R. erosser@wcl.american.edu    

The Balance Sheet of Low-Income Households

How poor or not poor are low-income households.  Two divergent perspectives on what the poor own and what it means can be found in:

• Adam Carasso & Signe-Mary McKernan, "The Balance Sheet of Low-Income Households: What We Know About Their Assets and Liabilities," Urban Institute, Nov. 2007. 
• Robert Rector, "How Poor are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America," The Backgrounder from The Heritage Foundation, No. 2064, Aug. 27, 2007. 

The charts found in both of these reports are worth checking out and can inspire class debate...
-E.R. erosser@wcl.american.edu

Children's Budget 2008

First Focus: Making Children and Families the Priority, a research/lobbying organization, has finished a report that looks at the amount the U.S. spends on children.  "Children's Budget 2008" does a couple of helpful things: it breaks down the different programs that focus on children and also highlights the direction (up or down) of spending on such programs.  The report is arranged in a way that its findings are easily understood and I think could make a good background assignment for a class.  There is also an associated powerpoint presentation. 

The key findings of the report include:

• For the past five years, only one penny of every new, non-defense dollar spent by the federal government has gone to children and children’s programs.
• Children’s spending now makes up only ten percent of the entire non-defense budget.
• The overall share of federal, non-defense spending going to children’s programs has dropped by 10 percent over the past five years.
• Real discretionary spending on children has declined by more than 6 percent since 2004, while at the same time all other non-defense discretionary spending has increased by more than 8 percent.
  

-Thanks to Christopher Spina for forwarding the info to me.  E.R. erosser@wcl.american.edu

Frank I. Michelman on Socioeconomic Rights in Constitutional Law

Though this blog has not spent time highlighting socioeconomic rights papers, Frank I. Michelman recently presented a draft of a theoretical, yet approachable, piece: "Socioeconomic Rights in constitutional law: explaining America away."  The abstract is below:

The apparent omission of a socioeconomic commitment from United States
constitutional law gives rise to continuing debate. The case is unclear that
this omission has any likely bearing on the actual performance of American
governments in the social welfare field. Might there be other reasons for
treating the omission as problematic? If so, might the omission
nevertheless be explained in terms consistent with belief that some kind of
socioeconomic commitment ideally belongs in the constitutional law of a
country like the U.S.? After briefly reviewing the uneasy instrumental case
for a constitutionalized socioeconomic commitment, this article suggests a
different possible ground for favoring inclusion as a matter of political-moral
principle. It then canvasses possible responses to the American case.
These include both a possible denial that socioeconomic guarantees are in
fact lacking from U.S. constitutional law, and a possible claim that omitting
them is the correct choice for the U.S. as a matter of “non-ideal” political
morality.

-E.R. erosser@wcl.american.edu

Conference Announcement: Labor History

The Pacific Northwest Labour History Association and the Labor & Working Class History Association are sponsoring a conference entitled Indigenous, Immigrant, Migrant Labour & Globalization, June 6-8, 2008 in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.  The call for papers deadline has passed. 

-E.R. erosser@wcl.american.edu

Articles of Interest on Big Box Stores and Wages

I just came across an article of interest, though it is only available through Lexis or Westlaw: Christine Niemczyk, Comment: Boxing Out Big Box Retailers: The Legal and Social Impact of Big Box Living Wage Legislation, 40 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1339 (2007).  Another related but more dated article is David Neumark,
Junfu Zhang, and Stephen Ciccarella, The Effect of Wal-Mart on Local Labor Markets (Draft Oct. 2005). 

-E.R. erosser@wcl.american.edu

Congressional Research Services on Child Welfare Issues in the 110th Congress

For those who don't know... Congressional Research Service is the public think tank of the nation, providing reports to members of Congress on current political issues.  For more on CRS, click here.  Open CRS provides access to CRS reports that are in the public domain... Anyway, there is a new report of interest:

• "Child Welfare Issues in the 110th Congress" (Emilie Stoltzfus, CRS Report for Congress, Feb. 26, 2008) (the summary is on page 2 of the report). 

-E.R. erosser@wcl.american.edu

Land Assembly Districts

For those interested in the relationship between vulnerable communities and state use of eminent domain, a new article perhaps is of interest:

• Michael Heller & Rick Hills, Land Assembly Districts, 121 Harv. L. Rev. 1465 (2008).  Abstract:

Eminent domain for economic development is both attractive and appalling.
States need the power to condemn because so much land in America
is inefficiently fragmented. But public land assembly provokes hostility
because vulnerable communities get bulldozed. Courts offer no help. The
academic literature is a muddle. Is it possible to assemble land without
harming the poor and powerless? Yes. This Article proposes the creation
of Land Assembly Districts, or “LADs.” This new property form solves the
age-old tensions in eminent domain and shows, more generally, how careful
redesign of property rights can enhance both welfare and fairness. The
economic and moral intuition underlying LADs is simple: when the only
justification for assembly is over-fragmentation of land, neighbors should
be able to decide collectively whether their land will be assembled. Our legal
theory solution is equally simple: use property law to retrofit communities
with a condominium-like structure tailored to land assembly. Let’s try
giving those burdened by condemnation a way to share in its benefits and
to veto projects they decide are not worth their while.

NOTE: this article provides a great opportunity, particularly for jr. faculty, for individuals to comment on the article in the Harvard Law Review Forum, the Review's online companion.

UPDATE: Another article on topic that I just ran across is Amanda W. Goodin, Rejecting the Return to Blight in Post-Kelo State Legislation, 82 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 177 (2007).

 

Another article, slightly older, that takes on some of the same issues is  Ilya Somin, Is Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Reform Bad for the Poor?, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1931 (2007). Abstract:

Since the Supreme Court decided Kelo v. City of New London in June 2005, some 35 states have enacted eminent domain reforms laws. In his recent Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy article, which I have been asked to comment on, Professor David Dana argues that most post-Kelo reform efforts are seriously flawed because they tend to forbid the condemnation of the property of the wealthy and the middle class for economic development, but allow the condemnation of land on which poor people live under the guise of alleviating blight. This, he claims, ensures that the reforms enacted in numerous states "privilege . . . the stability of middle-class households relative to the stability of poor households" and "express . . . the view that the interests and needs of poor households are relatively unimportant." I agree with Professor Dana that the problem of blight condemnations and its impact on the poor deserve greater attention, but take issue with his argument that post-Kelo reform efforts have systematically treated the poor worse than middle and upper class homeowners.

Most of the states that have enacted post-Kelo reform laws have either banned both blight and economic development takings or defined blight so broadly that virtually any property can be declared blighted and taken. Several others have enacted reforms that provide no real protection to any property owners because of other types of shortcomings. Only nine states are actually guilty of allowing only the condemnation of blighted areas, narrowly defined. Even these nine flawed reforms are probably better for the poor than no reform at all. Such a law might benefit many poor people who live in non-blighted areas and are potentially vulnerable to economic development takings. Survey data suggests that the poor themselves overwhelmingly oppose economic development condemnations, suggesting that they are not much concerned about the expressive harms that worry Professor Dana. Finally, the exclusion of blighted property from the ban on economic development condemnations in some states is not necessarily explained by indifference to or contempt for the interests of the poor. It could also be the result of other factors, such as voter ignorance about the actual effects of blight condemnations.

-E.R. erosser@wcl.american.edu

From the Editors of the Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy

Dear Professor or Practitioner,

On behalf of the Editorial Board, I would like to invite you to submit an article to be considered for publication in Volume 16 of the Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy (GJPLP).  The GJPLP is the nation's premier law journal on poverty and it publishes articles from distinguished law professors and practitioners in poverty-related disciplines. Highly-regarded and widely-distributed among attorneys, policy-makers, academics, students and public interest groups, the GJPLP plays a key role in forging the national debate on poverty issues by raising awareness, offering analysis, and crafting solutions.
For the 2008-2009 academic year, the GJPLP will continue its commitment to publishing high-quality articles related to poverty.

• Our first issue, 16.1, will explore housing and poverty.
• Our second issue, 16.2, will focus on the unique issues involving poverty and the elderly.
• Our third and final issue, 16.3, will focus on the intersection of juvenile justice and poverty.

In addition, our third issue, 16.3, will correspond with a symposium on the intersection of juvenile justice and poverty, to be held in Spring 2009. Those interested in participating in this symposium should contact the Symposium Editor, Kate Rhudy, at kar79@law.georgetown.edu.

The GJPLP considers traditional law review articles, as well as case studies, case comments, and narrative submissions for publication.  Additionally, the GJPLP welcomes all methodologies and seeks innovative approaches to poverty law and policy.

Please share this information with colleagues, practitioners, students, or others who may be interested in publishing in the GJPLP.  The deadlines for article submission are as follows:

• Volume 16.1 - August 1, 2008;
• Volume 16.2 - September 1, 2008; and
• Volume 16.3 - November 1, 2008.

There are no deadlines for abstracts.  Please note that the GJPLP reserves the right to accept or reject any article, outright or conditionally.

For your reference, attached are the GJPLP's submission guidelines.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly by e-mail at

jplp@law.georgetown.edu

or by phone at 512.796.9195.  Additional information about the GJPLP, including titles and abstracts of past articles, can be found on our web site at  http://www.law.georgetown.edu/journals/poverty/. 

Thank you for your time and consideration.