Participation in social programs by consumers and companies: A nationwide analysis of participation rates for telephone lifeline programs

Public Finance Review

Volumn 35, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 606-625

  Hauge, Janice A ^a   Jamison, Mark A ^b   Jewell, R Todd ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Government policy; Regulation; Telecommunications; Universal service; Welfare programs

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547828056     PISSN: 10911421     EISSN: 15527530     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1091142106299019     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Andrade, Carlos, and Faculdade de Ciencias Economicas e Empresariais. 2002. The economics of welfare participation and welfare stigma: A review. Public Finance and Management 2 (2). 294 - 333.
2. Blank, Rebecca M. 1985. The impact of state economic differentials on household welfare and labor force behavior. Journal of Public Economics 28 (1). 25 - 28.
3. Blank, Rebecca M., and Patricia Ruggles. 1996. When do women use aid to families with dependent children and food stamps? The dynamics of eligibility versus participation. Journal of Human Resources 31 (1). 57 - 89.
4. Blundell, Richard, Vanessa Fry, and Ian Walker. 1988. Modeling the take-up of means-tested benefits: The case of housing benefits in the United Kingdom. The Economic Journal 98: 58 - 74.
5. Bruce, Donald, Karie Barbour, and Angela Thacker. 2004. Welfare program reentry among postreform leavers. Southern Economic Journal. 70 (4). 816 - 36.
6. Burton, Mark, and John W. Mayo. 2005. Understanding participation in social programs: Why don't households pick up the lifeline? Working paper, Univ. of Georgetown, Department of Economics, Washington, DC.
7. Currie, Janet. 2004. The take up of social benefits. Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
8. Eriksson, Ross C., David L. Kaserman, and John W. Mayo. 1998. Targeted and untargeted subsidy schemes: Evidence from postdivestiture efforts to promote universal telephone service. Journal of Law and Economics 41: 477 - 502.
9. Federal Communications Commission. 2002, 2003, 2004. Report 43-01, the ARMIS annual summary report. http://www.fcc.gov/omd/pra/docs/3060-0512/3060- 0512-05.doc.
10. Federal Communications Commission. 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004. Universal service monitoring report prepared for the federal-state joint board on universal service, monitoring report CC docket no. 98-202. http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/Monitor/ mr04-intro.pdf.
11. Federal Communications Commission. 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. Reference Book of Rates, Price Indices, and Household Expenditures for Telephone Service. Washington, DC: Industry Analysis and Technology Division Wireline Competition Bureau.
12. Fraker, Thomas, and Robert Moffit. 1988. The effect of food stamps on labour supply: A bivariate selection model. Journal of Public Economics 35 (2). 25 - 56.
13. Garbacz, Christopher, and Herbert G. Thompson, Jr. 1997. Assessing the impact of FCC lifeline and linkup programs on telephone penetration. Journal of Regulatory Economics 11 (1). 67 - 78.
14. - -. 2002. Estimating telephone demand with state decennial census data from 1970- 1990. Journal of Regulatory Economics 21 (3). 317 - 29.
15. - -. 2003. Estimating telephone demand with state decennial census data from 1970- 1990: Update with 2000 data. Journal of Regulatory Economics 24 (3). 373 - 78.
16. Greene, William H. 2003. Econometric Analysis, 5 th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17. Hauge, Janice, Mark Jamison, and R. Todd Jewell. 2006. Discounting telephone service: An examination of participation in Florida's Lifeline program using panel data. Working paper, Univ. of Florida, Department of Economics, Public Utilities Research Center, Gainesville, FL.
18. Hoynes, Hilary W. 1996. Welfare transfers in two-parent families: Labor supply and welfare participation under AFDC-UP. Econometrica 64 (2). 295 - 332.
19. Maddala, G.S. 1983. Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
20. McGarry, Kathleen. 1995. Factors determining participation of the elderly in SSI. Working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
21. Moffitt, Robert. 1983. An economic model of welfare stigma. American Economic Review 73: 1023 - 35.
22. Papke, Leslie E., and Jeffrey M. Wooldridge. 1996. Econometric methods for fractional response variables. Journal of Applied Econometrics 11 (6). 619 - 32.
23. Roston, Gregory L., and Bradley S. Wimmer. 2000. The 'state' of universal service. Information Economics and Policy 12 (3). 261 - 83.
24. Stuber, Jennifer, and Karl Kronebusch. 2004. Stigma and other determinants of participation in TANF and Medicaid. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 23 (3). 509 - 30.
25. The Progress and Freedom Foundation. 2005. Digital age communications act: Proposal of the universal service working group, release 2.0 http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/books/051207daca-usf-2.0.pdf.
26. United States Census Bureau. 2004. The American Families and Living Arrangements: 2003 document, Table 4, www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf.
27. - -. 2005. State level demographic data. http://factfinder.census.gov/.
28. Valletti, Tommaso M., Steffan Hoernig, and Pedro P. Barros. 2002. Universal service and entry: The role of uniform pricing and coverage constraints. Journal of Regulatory Economics 21 (2). 169 - 90.
29. Yelowitz, Aaron S. 2000. Public policy and health insurance choices of the elderly: Evidence from the Medicare buy-in program. Journal of Public Economics 78 (3). 301 - 24.