The economic well -being of low -income immigrants in the U.S.: An examination of the impact of the 1996 welfare reform on immigrants

The 1996 welfare reform, for the first time in U.S. history, set a five-year residence requirement for immigrants to be eligible for federal welfare benefits. This dissertation assessed the impact of the 1996 welfare reform, specifically the immigrant provisions, on the economic well-being of low-income immigrants. This dissertation also explored the roles that migration selection theory and social capital theory play in the economic well-being of low-income immigrants. ^ This dissertation was based on an analysis of the March 1995, March 2002, and March 2006 Annual Demographic Supplement Files of the Current Population Survey (CPS). Both logistic regression and multiple regression were used to analyze economic well-being, comparing low-income immigrants with low-income citizens. Economic well-being was measured in the current survey year and the year before on the following variables: employment status, full-time status (35 or more hours per week), the number of weeks worked, and the total annual wage or salary.^ The major findings reported in this dissertation were that low-income immigrants had advantages over low-income citizens in the labor market. This may be due to immigrants' stronger motivation to obtain success, consistent with migration selection theory. Also, this research suggested that immigrant provisions had not ameliorated employment outcomes of low-income immigrants as policymakers may have expected.^ The study also confirmed the role of social capital in advancing the economic well-being of qualified immigrants. Ultimately, this dissertation contributed to our understanding of low-income immigrants in the U.S. The study questioned the claim that immigrants are attracted to the U.S. by welfare benefits. This dissertation suggested that immigrants come to the U.S., to a large extent, to pursue the goal of upward mobility. Consequently, immigrants may employ greater initiative and work harder than native-born Americans.^

Three empirical essays on startups' survival using the Kauffman Firm Survey

This dissertation studies newly founded U.S. firms' survival using three different releases of the Kauffman Firm Survey. I study firms' survival from a different perspective in each chapter. ^ The first essay studies firms' survival through an analysis of their initial state at startup and the current state of the firms as they gain maturity. The probability of survival is determined using three probit models, using both firm-specific variables and an industry scale variable to control for the environment of operation. The firm's specific variables include size, experience and leverage as a debt-to-value ratio. The results indicate that size and relevant experience are both positive predictors for the initial and current states. Debt appears to be a predictor of exit if not justified wisely by acquiring assets. As suggested previously in the literature, entering a smaller-scale industry is a positive predictor of survival from birth. Finally, a smaller-scale industry diminishes the negative effects of debt. ^ The second essay makes use of a hazard model to confirm that new service-providing (SP) firms are more likely to survive than new product providers (PPs). I investigate the possible explanations for the higher survival rate of SPs using a Cox proportional hazard model. I examine six hypotheses (variations in capital per worker, expenses per worker, owners' experience, industry wages, assets and size), none of which appear to explain why SPs are more likely than PPs to survive. Two other possibilities are discussed: tax evasion and human/social relations, but these could not be tested due to lack of data. ^ The third essay investigates women-owned firms' higher failure rates using a Cox proportional hazard on two models. I make use of a never-before used variable that proxies for owners' confidence. This variable represents the owners' self-evaluated competitive advantage. ^ The first empirical model allows me to compare women's and men's hazard rates for each variable. In the second model I successively add the variables that could potentially explain why women have a higher failure rate. Unfortunately, I am not able to fully explain the gender effect on the firms' survival. Nonetheless, the second empirical approach allows me to confirm that social and psychological differences among genders are important in explaining the higher likelihood to fail in women-owned firms.^

Household Preferences for Financing Hurricane Risk Mitigation: A Survey Based Empirical Analysis

After a series of major storms over the last 20 years, the state of financing for U.S. natural disaster insurance has undergone substantial disruptions causing many federal and state backed programs against residential property damage to become severally underfunded. In order to regain actuarial soundness, policy makers have proposed a shift to a system that reflects risk-based pricing for property insurance. We examine survey responses from 1394 single-family homeowners in the state of Florida for support of several natural disaster mitigation policy reforms. Utilizing a partial proportional odds model we test for effects of location, risk perception, socio-economic and housing characteristics on support for policy reforms. Our findings suggest residents across the state, not just risk-prone homeowners, support the current subsidized model. We also examine several other policy questions from the survey to verify our initial results. Finally, the implications of our findings are discussed to provide inputs to policymakers.