The Effect of Asset Thresholds on Income Assistance Flows in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across Canada, provincial social assistance programs (also sometimes referred to as “welfare”, or “funders of last resort”) impose asset tests for both applicants and recipients. The “good policy” argument argues that asset tests contribute to better program targeting, ensuring that those with high assets cannot access nor continue on social assistance. The “bad policy” argument argues that asset tests force applicants to spend down assets and keep asset levels low, reducing their ability to permanently exit from social assistance. Exploiting a policy change that increased asset thresholds for social assistance recipients in British Columbia, Canada, we test these hypotheses using recipient-level social assistance data. We find that increasing the asset threshold did not motivate people to enter social assistance nor did it help those leaving social assistance to leave permanently. There is some evidence that increasing the asset threshold did reduce the probability of exit from social assistance. From a policy perspective, these findings suggest that further increasing the asset threshold is unlikely to result in non-vulnerable persons accessing social assistance, but it could reduce the burden on those who are vulnerable and do require access to social assistance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".