IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v18y2019i1p56-61.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Food Assistance Programmes and Food Insecurity in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Craig Gundersen

Abstract

A central goal of the US Department of Agriculture is to reduce food insecurity among the US population. This is pursued both by agricultural policies that focus on food supply and, arguably of greater importance, through food and nutrition programmes. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, is the largest in terms of the number of participants and annual expenditure. SNAP is particularly well‐suited to alleviating food insecurity insofar as it is designed to target those most in need, is flexible enough to address geographical variations in food insecurity, has the ability to expand in times of increased need, such as economic downturns, and gives recipients the dignity and autonomy to make their own food choices. Due to its size – about US$ 70 billion in expenditures per year – the programme has generated proposals to impose direct and indirect restrictions on recipients in order to reduce expenditure. These proposals include removing the ability of states to set higher income thresholds for eligibility, imposing work requirements, and curtailing the food choices of recipients. In contrast, other proposals would build on the perceived successes of SNAP both to expand the number of recipients and to increase benefit levels. Le Ministère de l'agriculture des États‐Unis a pour objectif central de réduire l'insécurité alimentaire au sein de la population américaine. Cette action est poursuivie à la fois par des politiques agricoles axées sur l'approvisionnement alimentaire et par le biais de programmes d'alimentation et de nutrition qui ont sans doute une importance plus grande. Le programme d'aide complémentaire à la nutrition (SNAP), anciennement connu sous le nom de programme de coupons alimentaires, est le plus important en termes de nombre de participants et de dépenses annuelles. Le SNAP est particulièrement bien adapté à la réduction de l'insécurité alimentaire dans la mesure où il est conçu pour cibler les plus démunis, il est suffisamment flexible pour faire face aux variations géographiques de l'insécurité alimentaire, il a la capacité de répondre à l'accroissement ponctuel des besoins, par exemple, en période de ralentissement économique, et il accorde aux destinataires la dignité et l'autonomie pour faire leurs propres choix alimentaires. En raison de sa taille – environ 70 milliards de dollars de dépenses par an – le programme a été l'objet de propositions visant à réduire les dépenses en imposant des restrictions directes et indirectes aux destinataires. Ces propositions prévoient notamment de supprimer la possibilité pour les États d’établir des seuils de revenu plus élevés pour l'accès au programme, d'imposer des exigences en matière de travail et de limiter les choix alimentaires des bénéficiaires. En revanche, d'autres propositions s'appuieraient sur les succès perçus du SNAP, à la fois pour augmenter le nombre de bénéficiaires et pour augmenter le niveau des aides. Ein zentrales Ziel des US‐Landwirtschaftsministeriums ist es, die Nahrungsmittel‐unsicherheit der US‐Bevölkerung zu verringern. Dies geschieht sowohl durch eine Agrarpolitik, die sich auf die Nahrungsmittelversorgung konzentriert, als auch – was wohl von größerer Bedeutung ist – durch Lebensmittel‐ und Ernährungsprogramme. Das Zusätzliche Programm zur Unterstützung der Lebensmittelversorgung (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP), früher auch bekannt als Lebensmittelmarkenprogramm (Food Stamp Program), ist hinsichtlich der Teilneh‐merzahl und der jährlichen Ausgaben das größte Programm. SNAP eignet sich besonders gut zur Linderung der Nahrungsmittelunsicherheit, da es auf die Bedürftigsten ausgerichtet ist. Es ist flexibel genug, um auf geografische Unterschiede in der Nahrungsmittelunsicherheit zu reagieren, es kann in Zeiten des erhöhten Bedarfs, z. B. bei Wirtschaftsabschwüngen, expandieren und es gibt den Empfängern die Würde und Autonomie, ihre eigene Lebensmittelwahl zu treffen. Aufgrund seiner Größe – etwa 70 Milliarden Dollar Ausgaben pro Jahr – hat das Programm Vorschläge unterbreitet, die darauf abzielen, den Empfängern direkte und indirekte Beschränkungen aufzuerlegen, um so die Ausgaben zu senken. Diese Vorschläge beinhalten die Aufhebung der Möglichkeit für die Bundesstaaten, höhere Einkommensschwellen für die Anspruchsberechtigung festzulegen, Arbeitsanforderungen aufzuerlegen und die Lebensmittelauswahl für die Empfänger einzuschränken. Im Gegensatz dazu würden andere Vorschläge auf den erkennbaren Erfolgen des SNAP aufbauen, und zwar mit dem Ziel, sowohl die Zahl der Empfänger zu vergrößern als auch das Versorgungsniveau zu erhöhen.

Suggested Citation

  • Craig Gundersen, 2019. "Food Assistance Programmes and Food Insecurity in the United States," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 18(1), pages 56-61, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:18:y:2019:i:1:p:56-61
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12215
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12215
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12215?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Ganong & Jeffrey B. Liebman, 2018. "The Decline, Rebound, and Further Rise in SNAP Enrollment: Disentangling Business Cycle Fluctuations and Policy Changes," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 153-176, November.
    2. Coleman-Jensen, Alisha & Rabbitt, Matthew P. & Gregory, Christian A. & Singh, Anita, 2017. "Household Food Security in the United States in 2016," Economic Research Report 291968, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    3. Craig Gundersen & James P Ziliak, 2018. "Food Insecurity Research in the United States: Where We Have Been and Where We Need to Go," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 40(1), pages 119-135.
    4. Craig Gundersen & Brent Kreider & John V. Pepper, 2017. "Partial Identification Methods for Evaluating Food Assistance Programs: A Case Study of the Causal Impact of SNAP on Food Insecurity," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(4), pages 875-893.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Craig Gundersen, 2019. "The Right to Food in the United States: The Role of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 101(5), pages 1328-1336, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Craig Gundersen, 2019. "The Right to Food in the United States: The Role of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 101(5), pages 1328-1336, October.
    2. Seungyeon Cho, 2022. "The Effect of Participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program on Food Insecurity of Children in U.S. Immigrant Households," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 501-510, September.
    3. Nicholas Moellman, 2020. "Healthcare and Hunger: Effects of the ACA Medicaid Expansions on Food Insecurity in America," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 168-186, June.
    4. Sunjin Ahn & Travis A. Smith & F. Bailey Norwood, 2020. "Can Internet Surveys Mimic Food Insecurity Rates Published by the US Government?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(2), pages 187-204, June.
    5. Charles Courtemanche & Art Carden & Xilin Zhou & Murugi Ndirangu, 2019. "Do Walmart Supercenters Improve Food Security?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(2), pages 177-198, June.
    6. Keumseok Koh & Michelle L. Kaiser & Glennon Sweeney & Karima Samadi & Ayaz Hyder, 2020. "Explaining Racial Inequality in Food Security in Columbus, Ohio: A Blinder–Oaxaca Decomposition Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-15, July.
    7. Megan Henly & Debra L. Brucker & Alisha Coleman‐Jensen, 2023. "Food insecurity among those with disability: Cross‐survey comparison of estimates and implications for future research," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(3), pages 1672-1692, September.
    8. Bronchetti, Erin T. & Christensen, Garret & Hoynes, Hilary W., 2019. "Local food prices, SNAP purchasing power, and child health," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    9. Santos, Mateus Rennó & Testa, Alexander & Weiss, Douglas B. & Jackson, Dylan B., 2022. "County jail incarceration rates and food hardship in the United States," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    10. Poliana Araújo Palmeira & Ruben Araújo Mattos & Rafael Pérez-Escamilla & Rosana Salles-Costa, 2021. "Multisectoral government programs and household food insecurity: evidence from a longitudinal study in the semiarid area of northeast, Brazil," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(3), pages 525-538, June.
    11. Hamel, Brian T. & Harman, Moriah, 2023. "Can government investment in food pantries decrease food insecurity?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    12. Adam M. Lippert & Barrett A. Lee, 2021. "Adult and Child Food Insecurity Among Homeless and Precariously-Housed Families at the Close of the Twentieth Century," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 40(2), pages 231-253, April.
    13. Becca B.R. Jablonski & Joy Casnovsky & Jill K. Clark & Rebecca Cleary & Beth Feingold & Darcy Freedman & Steven Gray & Xiaobo Romeiko & Laura Schmitt Olabisi & Mariana Torres & Alexandra E. van den Be, 2021. "Emergency Food Provision for Children and Families during the COVID‐19 Pandemic: Examples from Five U.S. Cities," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 169-184, March.
    14. Jiyoon (June) Kim & Matthew P Rabbitt & Charlotte Tuttle, 2020. "Changes in Low‐Income Households’ Spending and Time Use Patterns in Response to the 2013 Sunset of the ARRA‐SNAP Benefit," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(4), pages 777-795, December.
    15. Stacy Dickert‐Conlin & Katie Fitzpatrick & Brian Stacy & Laura Tiehen, 2021. "The Downs and Ups of the SNAP Caseload: What Matters?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(3), pages 1026-1050, September.
    16. Yingru Li & Dapeng Li & Christian King, 2022. "Food Insufficiency among Job-Loss Households during the Pandemic: The Role of Food Assistance Programs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-14, November.
    17. Zheng, Yuqing & (Jason) Zhao, Jianqiang & Buck, Steven & Burney, Shaheer & Kaiser, Harry M. & Wilson, Norbert L., 2021. "Putting grocery food taxes on the table: Evidence for food security policy-makers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    18. James P. Ziliak, 2021. "Food Hardship during the COVID‐19 Pandemic and Great Recession," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 132-152, March.
    19. Tatiana Homonoff & Jason Somerville, 2021. "Program Recertification Costs: Evidence from SNAP," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 271-298, November.
    20. Bradley Hardy & Timothy Smeeding & James P. Ziliak, 2018. "The Changing Safety Net for Low-Income Parents and Their Children: Structural or Cyclical Changes in Income Support Policy?," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 55(1), pages 189-221, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:18:y:2019:i:1:p:56-61. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.