http://www.samefacts.com/2006/08/policy-analysis/what-can-ethnography-contribute-to-public-policy-and-how/ Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:54:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.samefacts.com/2006/08/policy-analysis/what-can-ethnography-contribute-to-public-policy-and-how/comment-page-1/#comment-14462 Ragout Thu, 17 Aug 2006 03:41:30 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/08/uncategorized/what-can-ethnography-contribute-to-public-policy-and-how/#comment-14462 I forgot to say that the authors of "Bullets Ain't Got No Name," are all economists, but it's essentially an ethnographic study. I forgot to say that the authors of “Bullets Ain’t Got No Name,” are all economists, but it’s essentially an ethnographic study.

]]> http://www.samefacts.com/2006/08/policy-analysis/what-can-ethnography-contribute-to-public-policy-and-how/comment-page-1/#comment-14461 Ragout Thu, 17 Aug 2006 03:39:23 +0000 http://samefacts.dreamhosters.com/2006/08/uncategorized/what-can-ethnography-contribute-to-public-policy-and-how/#comment-14461 Another excellent ethnographic study is Katz, Kling, & Liebman, "Bullets Ain't got no Name," finding that mothers in housing projects spend tremendous amounts of time keeping their children safe from crime. It's long been obvious to me that the formal rules of welfare programs provide pretty limited information about how programs work "on the ground." For example, another MDRC study from a while ago found that sanctioning rates (cutting welfare checks as punishment for missed appointments and such) varied greatly across counties in California's GAIN program, even though they were all ostensibly under the same formal rules. But economists continue to analyze welfare reform by comparing the rules adopted by different states. So I guess it's not obvious to everyone that the written rules don't matter that much. Another excellent ethnographic study is Katz, Kling, & Liebman, “Bullets Ain’t got no Name,” finding that mothers in housing projects spend tremendous amounts of time keeping their children safe from crime.
It’s long been obvious to me that the formal rules of welfare programs provide pretty limited information about how programs work “on the ground.” For example, another MDRC study from a while ago found that sanctioning rates (cutting welfare checks as punishment for missed appointments and such) varied greatly across counties in California’s GAIN program, even though they were all ostensibly under the same formal rules. But economists continue to analyze welfare reform by comparing the rules adopted by different states. So I guess it’s not obvious to everyone that the written rules don’t matter that much.

]]>