A debate over whether the incentives implicit in welfare programs have a significant effect on out-of-wedlock birthrates has effectively been resolved in the affirmative. But the deniers remain in denial.

It’s tough for conservatives to make a buck these days. Consider crime. Conservatives said if you put more thugs in prison for longer sentences, violent crime would diminish. Why? Thugs in prison cannot mug your sister. More thugs have been put in prison, for longer sentences. As predicted, the violent crime rate has gone down.

But conservatives get little credit. Pop sociologists attribute the drop in crime to new policing techniques, the aging of Baby Boomers, a stronger economy, and fading crack wars. So what? What’s important is that people are safer than they used to be, right? Not right. Progress comes from answering the question: Why?

The Outlines of the Debate

Consider now welfare. Liberals denied any serious link between climbing welfare benefits and climbing rates of illegitimate birth. Such linkage, they believed, would tarnish a noble program by connecting it to ignoble acts.

Conservatives said welfare was a horror show that demeaned both getter and giver. They posited that if welfare were made less attractive, particularly for teen-agers, then illegitimate birth rates would go down, particularly among blacks and Hispanics where out-of-wedlock rates had been highest. This did not necessarily mean that minority teen-agers were having babies to get a welfare check. It could involve a more positive process: Responsible behavior rises in reaction to a lack of viable irresponsible economic alternatives and to the cessation of messages by governments that out-of-wedlock birth is a socially acceptable lifestyle.

Welfare has indeed been made less attractive. As predicted, illegitimate teen-age birth rates have tumbled sharply, particularly among blacks and Hispanics. New data from the National Center for Health Statistics show out-of-wedlock births for blacks fell by 21 percent from 1991 to 1996. Hispanic rates have fallen by 10 percent from 1994 to 1996. The non-Hispanic white rate has fallen by 4 percent during the same time.

Again, no credit to conservative thinking. (Not an oxymoron.) A July 1 front-page story in the New York Times has determined what caused the decline in teen-age minority fertility. It was mostly the economy, stupid. The Times offered reasons put forth by "federal health officials" and "people who monitor fertility rates." These: a booming economic situation, improved contraception use, sex education, abstinence campaigns, and fear of AIDS.

But what about the idea that welfare reform made benefits harder to come by and illegitimacy less feasible? Sorry, says the Times: "Changes in the welfare system have not been a significant factor, according to some people who monitor fertility rates. Noting that out-of-wedlock birth rates for black women have been dropping steadily since 1989, they assert that the decline started before states and the federal government enacted welfare reform measures."

Wrong. Welfare reforms in the states, facilitated by federal "waivers," had gained steam since Ronald Reagan’s first term, when waivers were granted if they were dedicated to the idea that "work is an obligation." In 1991 the Bush administration made the waiver process "easier and quicker."

Bill Clinton is the hero of the middle game. In 1991 he pledged generally "no more something for nothing" and specifically to "end welfare as we know it," the six most important words in recent American political history. Right after his inauguration, Mr. Clinton told the National Governors Association that he would continue and expand the Reagan-Bush waiver policy. By mid-1996, 43 states had some form of welfare waiver. From 1994 to 1996 welfare rolls fell by 11 percent, from 14.2 million recipients to 12.6 million. Clintonites ought to be in brag mode. Instead, they seem afraid to offend liberal sensibilities.

The end game concerned the dramatic 1996 federal welfare reform bill, tougher than the Clinton plan, driven in large measure by the Gingrich Congress. One million people left the welfare rolls in 1996 alone, mostly because of what welfare technicians called an "announcement effect," that is, behavior based not on present reality but on new expectations of future reality.

In fact, the announcement effect had been going on for years. The culture had changed. Society would no longer send out messages that out-of-wedlock births were acceptable, backing them up with cash grants, food stamps, rent supplements, Medicaid, and 80 other welfare programs.

Continuing to Drop

From the beginning of 1997 to March 1998, the welfare rolls have been reduced by another 29 percent, to 8.9 million. When the birth rates are published for these years, we should see minority teen-age fertility drop further. Linkage lives. Welfare did not go down just because of a good economy. During the boom of the early 1980s, welfare went up, not down, revealing how the existing system had been corrupted.

Of course, it’s good that welfare is down. But it is important we understand why. Something for nothing is corrosive policy, damned by recipients as well as taxpayers. Something for something is what works, and should serve as a motto for other decisions.

Ben J. Wattenberg is a senior fellow at AEI.