Rural and Urban Differences in Welfare Exits: Minnesota Evidence 1986-1996

This article examines differences between rural and urban counties in the duration of welfare spells. We report evidence that suggests that parents from farming-dependent counties and rural counties are more likely to have shorter spells on welfare. The evidence appears consistent with the literature on rural low-income families in that there may be a concentration of low-wage jobs in rural counties. The difference between rural and urban areas is relevant to welfare policy as it pertains to caseload numbers, parents more likely to reach the sixty-month time limit, and parents more likely to trigger time-based policies, such as employment search. The study uses administrative data of Aid to Families With Dependent Children recipients from the state of Minnesota between 1986 and 1996. The methodology includes constructing descriptive statistics, calculating Kaplan-Meier estimates, and performing a Cox regression analysis with robustness checks across all three methods. Copyright 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd..

Developing credible vulnerability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessment

We address the issue of how to develop credible indicators of vulnerability to climate change that can be used to guide the development of adaptation policies. We compare the indicators and measures that five past national-level studies have used and examine how and why their approaches have differed. Other relevant indicator studies of social facets of society as well as vulnerability studies at sub-national level are also examined for lessons regarding best practice. We find that the five studies generally emphasise descriptive measures by aggregating environmental and social conditions. However, they vary greatly both in the types of indicators and measures used and differ substantially in their identification of the most vulnerable countries. Further analysis of scientific approaches underlying indicator selection suggests that the policy relevance of national-level indicators can be enhanced by capturing the processes that shape vulnerability rather than trying to aggregate the state itself. Such a focus can guide the selection of indicators that are representative even when vulnerability varies over time or space. We find that conceptualisation regarding how specific factors and processes influencing vulnerability interact is neither given sufficient consideration nor are assumptions transparently defined in previous studies. Verification has been neglected, yet this process is important both to assess the credibility of any set of measures and to improve our understanding of vulnerability. A fundamental lesson that emerges is the need to enhance our understanding of the causes of vulnerability in order to develop indicators that can effectively aid policy development