The Paradox of the Earned Income Tax Credit: Appreciating Benefits but not Their Source

Abstract

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is widely recognized as the United States’ most effective contemporary policy for reducing poverty, and scholars have found that it elevates recipients’ sense of social inclusion. This raises the question of how it influences recipients’ civic engagement, namely their attitudes about government and political participation. We draw on policy feedback scholarship to consider expectations. Then we use a unique dataset to compare recipients of the EITC, Aid to Families With Dependent Children/Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, and nonrecipients of either policy in order to identify how policy features are related to political attitudes and behaviors. We find that despite the benefits they receive, EITC recipients experience low external political efficacy, but are more likely to be politically active than their peers.

Varieties of Policy Feedback Research: Looking Backward, Moving Forward

“…On the one hand, recipients, after filing their taxes, receive a government payment; on the other hand, recipients have little contact with government agencies, typically working through private organizations to receive refunds. Using data from the Social and Governmental Issues and Participation Study of 2008, Shanks‐Booth and Mettler () examine attitudes about government and political efficacy of recipients of EITC, compared to individuals who received welfare and EITC and individuals who did not participate in any of the programs. The authors find “EITC‐only beneficiaries are no more likely than nonbeneficiaries of the EITC or welfare to feel that government has helped them in a time of need” (Shanks‐Booth & Mettler, , p. 12).…”

“…Using data from the Social and Governmental Issues and Participation Study of 2008, Shanks‐Booth and Mettler () examine attitudes about government and political efficacy of recipients of EITC, compared to individuals who received welfare and EITC and individuals who did not participate in any of the programs. The authors find “EITC‐only beneficiaries are no more likely than nonbeneficiaries of the EITC or welfare to feel that government has helped them in a time of need” (Shanks‐Booth & Mettler, , p. 12). But surprisingly, EITC‐only recipients are more likely to report that they are registered to vote, to vote in nonpresidential elections, and to participate in more political activities compared to nonrecipients of EITC or welfare (Shanks‐Booth & Mettler, , p. 12).…”

“…The authors find “EITC‐only beneficiaries are no more likely than nonbeneficiaries of the EITC or welfare to feel that government has helped them in a time of need” (Shanks‐Booth & Mettler, , p. 12). But surprisingly, EITC‐only recipients are more likely to report that they are registered to vote, to vote in nonpresidential elections, and to participate in more political activities compared to nonrecipients of EITC or welfare (Shanks‐Booth & Mettler, , p. 12). In comparison with welfare recipients, EITC‐only recipients are significantly more likely to agree that government officials do not care about people like them and that government officials are unresponsive to them (Shanks‐Booth & Mettler, , p. 12).…”

“…But surprisingly, EITC‐only recipients are more likely to report that they are registered to vote, to vote in nonpresidential elections, and to participate in more political activities compared to nonrecipients of EITC or welfare (Shanks‐Booth & Mettler, , p. 12). In comparison with welfare recipients, EITC‐only recipients are significantly more likely to agree that government officials do not care about people like them and that government officials are unresponsive to them (Shanks‐Booth & Mettler, , p. 12). Shanks‐Booth and Mettler () argue that ETIC participation does not lead to a dim view of government nor does it motivate political activity.…”

“…In comparison with welfare recipients, EITC‐only recipients are significantly more likely to agree that government officials do not care about people like them and that government officials are unresponsive to them (Shanks‐Booth & Mettler, , p. 12). Shanks‐Booth and Mettler () argue that ETIC participation does not lead to a dim view of government nor does it motivate political activity. Rather, participants come into the program with negative views of government and the EITC does not dispel them.…”