{"id":1257,"date":"2017-01-30T13:25:12","date_gmt":"2017-01-30T19:25:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/trot\/?p=1257"},"modified":"2017-01-30T13:25:12","modified_gmt":"2017-01-30T19:25:12","slug":"misaligned-morality-in-poverty-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/trot\/2017\/01\/30\/misaligned-morality-in-poverty-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"Misaligned Morality in Poverty Policy"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Welfare office. Photo by Jacob Norlund, Flickr CC<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The <\/span>New York Times<\/span><\/i> recently faced criticism after publishing a <\/span>factually incorrect op-ed<\/span><\/a> about how much money people receiving SNAP benefits (food stamps) spend on soda and other sweetened beverages. In <\/span>a piece challenging the findings<\/span><\/a>, Professor of Public Policy Joe Soss<\/a> revisits the numbers and finds no substantial difference in spending between people who receive these benefits and people who don’t. Non-SNAP households spend about four cents on soft drinks for every dollar on groceries, and SNAP households spend about five cents per dollar. Soss points out that this error perpetuates stereotypical moral judgments about the poor. Research finds time and time again that these moral judgments often miss the facts, but they nevertheless have a big impact on our social safety net policies.<\/span><\/p>\n

Historical work finds that aid to the poor in the United States developed to be highly conditional — political leaders often justified policies by focusing on certain “deserving” categories of people like soldiers and mothers. As a result, moral narratives about who deserves aid became central to the policymaking process and continue to shape attitudes about helping the poor.<\/span><\/h5>\n