ReviewScience advances2023
Poverty, not the poor.
Review in Science advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Love, Labour, and Wages: Should Society Pay Parents?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Poverty-modulated tree equity shapes health burdens across U.S. cities.Environmental science and ecotechnology · 2026Article
- Americans favor predistributive over redistributive economic policies.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Errors or Adaptations? A Critical Review of Predictive Processing in Psychiatry.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Impact of Precise Geographic Adjustments on the Supplemental Poverty Measure.Population research and policy review · 2026Article
- Why are some racial disparities harder to interpret than others?Frontiers in sociology · 2026Article
- The long-term health effects of welfare reform.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2025Article
- A Scoping Review of Frameworks for Promoting Employment among Multiply Marginalized People with Disabilities.Journal of rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Multisector Collaboration vs. Social Democracy for Addressing Social Determinants of Health.The Milbank quarterly · 2024Article
- Understanding food insecurity risk in the United States: A longitudinal analysis.SSM - population health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review explains how and why the United States has systemically high poverty. Descriptive evidence shows that U.S. poverty is (i) a huge share of the population, (ii) a perennial outlier among rich democracies, (iii) staggeringly high for certain groups, (iv) unexpectedly high for those who "play by the rules," and (v) pervasive across various groups and places. This review then discusses and critiques three prevailing approaches focused on the individual poor rather than the systemically high poverty: (i) behavioral explanations "fixing the poor," (ii) emotive compassion "dramatizing the poor," and (iii) cultural explanations both dramatizing and fixing the poor. The essay then reviews political explanations that emphasize the essential role of social policy generosity, political choices to penalize risks, power resources of collective political actors, and institutions. This review demonstrates a long emerging but ascending and warranted shift away from individualistic explanations of the poor toward political explanations of poverty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.