States can’t solve geographic inequalities, rights-based advantages, or racial discrimination. Federal standards are key to avoid local preferences in implementation.

Over the past decade, inequality has gained increasing prominence in academic and policy circles. Importantly, one of the most significant shifts in the study of inequality is a growing appreciation of geographic inequality, specifically inequality across the 50 US states. Sparked in part by the landmark work of Raj Chetty and his colleagues, which has demonstrated that geography matters— where a child is born, or where an economically vulnerable family lands, shapes their wellbeing, and ultimately their life chances (Chetty and Hendren 2018; Chetty, Hendren, and Katz 2016; Chetty et al. 2020). Growing attention to the geographic aspects of inequality has focused greater attention on distributional inequalities within and between particular settings and jurisdictions (country, state, or local area). Social policy and policy variation are central to our understanding of these distributional inequalities.

The recent economic and public health crises— from the Great Recession of 2008 to the COVID- 19 pandemic— shine a bright light on these geographic inequalities and raise important political and policy questions not just about the extent of government or public responsibility for provision in relation to market or family responsibilities (Esping- Andersen 1990; Titmuss 1958) but, just as importantly, about what level of government might most efficiently, effectively, or equitably take on that public responsibility (Beland and Chantal 2004; Freeman and Rogers 2007; Obinger, Castles, and Leibfried 2005). Such jurisdictional or geographic inequalities are especially important for economically vulnerable families. Not only do the demographic and employment characteristics of poor families leave them disproportionately exposed to economic dislocations and business cycles (Bitler, Hoynes, and Kuka 2017; Moffitt and Ziliak 2020), but their place of residence and the ways they are positioned in relation to a shifting, geographically variable safety net offer a disparate and uneven policy response (Jusko and Weisshaar 2019; Laird et al. 2018). A bright light has also been pointed at not only the racially disproportionate impact of these economic and public health crises but also the multifaceted ways that racism is embedded in the design and implementation of social safety net policies (Alexander and Stivers 2020; Carten 2016; Michener 2019; Soss, Fording, and Schram 2011).

In this study, we examine how social policy provision measured by the generosity of benefits and inclusiveness of receipt— varies across the 50 US states. Inequality in social provision, we argue, should be viewed as an important case of unequal responses to citizens’ needs. We draw on three types of arguments in making the assertion that cross- state variation is a form of inequality. First, from an equity perspective, citizens with similar needs should have access to the public supports that match those needs (i.e., horizontal equity). Second, from a rights- based perspective, social or economic rights, and claims to basic resources based on these rights, should have the same standing as civil and political rights, and thus must be universally granted as part of a nation- based social contract (Blank 1997; Marshall [1949] 1964). Finally, from a systemic justice perspective, it is necessary to recognize that both historically and in the current moment social policies reflect local norms and structures of inequality in labor relations (Piven and Cloward [1971] 1993), gender relations (Gordon 1994; Orloff 1996), and race relations (Lieberman 1998; Quadagno 1994; Soss, Fording, and Schram 2011); proponents of this perspective argue that policies must be redesigned to disrupt the reinforcement of existing inequalities.

In addition to demonstrating the magnitude of cross- state inequality in social provision, we show how this form of inequality is related to policy design; specifically, to the degree to which the policies are decentralized in terms of administration, financing, and rule making. Finally, we explore the degree to which geographic variation in social policy provision maps onto the geographic distribution of racial and ethnic groups across the US states. Combining these, we highlight stark differences in two social policies— Supplemental Security Income (SSI), for disabled children, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), cash assistance for poor families— which represent contrasting policy designs and opposite associations with racial composition. To preview our conclusions, we find that, in the case of TANF, in which states have substantial policy and administrative discretion, there are strong negative associations with the prevalence of Black residents, whereas in the case of SSI, in which state discretion is minimal and federal standards prevail, there are strong positive associations with the prevalence of Black residents. This pattern of social provision and racial composition across programs with different decentralized policy designs suggests that policies with greater state and local discretion provide opportunities for the enactment of discriminatory local preferences resulting in racial disparities in access to safety net programs (McDaniel et al. 2017; Michener 2019).1