Mariely Lopez-Santana, Ph.D.
mlopezs1@gmu.edu
Associate Professor
George Mason University
Year of PhD: 2006
Country: United States (Virginia)
About Me:
Mariely Lopez-Santana is an Associate Professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and the Director of the Graduate Program in Political Science. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI). Her main field of study is Comparative Politics with an emphasis on social policy, federalism, and decentralization in advanced industrial states. Recently, she has been working on a new project on local fiscal crises in the United States, including Puerto Rico. She is the author of 'The New Governance of Welfare States in the United States and Europe: Between Decentralization and Centralization in the Activation Era' (SUNY Press, 2015).
Prior to joining George Mason University, she was a Max Weber Post-Doctoral Fellow at the European University Institute. In addition, she was an Erasmus Mundus MAPP Visiting Scholar at the Institut Barcelona D' Estudis Internacionals (IBEI).For more information about my research, see: https://marielylopezsantana.weebly.com
Research Interests
Comparative Political Institutions
Political Economy
Welfare Policies
Federalism, Regionalism, Decentralization
Welfare States
Social Welfare Policy
Covid-19
Puerto Rican Debt
PROMESA
Puerto Rico
Child Tax Credit
Countries of Interest
Puerto Rico
Spain
Italy
United States
Publications:
Journal Articles:
The 2021 American Rescue Plan included the temporary expansion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC)—the largest individual income tax credit program in the United States—for most families with children. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, how did the public perceive this social policy benefit for families, especially in relation to other traditional social programs? By focusing on the CTC, an understudied policy area, and presenting original survey data, this paper first shows that, while the majority of respondents favored the CTC, levels of support for these benefits were lower than support for other social programs. Second, the paper suggests that, compared to older people and people with disabilities, Americans view families as part of the “undeserving” population. Third, by presenting panel data, we show that there is no change in levels of CTC support even among recipients of these benefits. Overall, these findings shed light on important challenges to the development and implementation of family policy in the USA, as well as the possibility of recalibrating the US liberal welfare state.
Recent fiscal crises in Detroit and Puerto Rico have brought Financial Oversight Boards (FOBs) to the forefront. In spite of these developments, there is a notable gap in the literature as social scientists have barely studied this type of oversight organization and its implications. This article highlights intergovernmental and political dynamics that arise with the imposition of FOBs in localities facing fiscal distress by studying the case of the Puerto Rican FOB, commonly known as la junta. By focusing on the governance of the largest debt restructuring in the history of the U.S. bond market, in the context of a newly established territorial bankruptcy regime, this article explores how the presence of the Puerto Rican FOB has been linked to contentious dynamics that challenge local autonomy and democratic principles. By analyzing a variety of legal cases, this article shows how the creation of the Puerto Rican FOB has also put into question the foundations of the unincorporated territory’s self-governance status.
The architecture of fiscal federalism in the United States represents an obstacle for prompt and comprehensive policy responses to economic crises, especially by subnational levels of government. As both a public health and economic crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic has put unique fiscal pressures on subnational governments. This article reviews the pandemic’s fiscal effects on these governments, as well as the federal government’s response. By comparing the response to the COVID-19 crisis during the Trump administration with the response to the Great Recession during the Obama administration, we show that while the speed and magnitude of federal aid was unprecedented in 2020, it was nevertheless conditional in nature and beset by familiar political and institutional obstacles. Despite major fiscal pressures, state revenues rebounded earlier than expected, in part due to the relaxation of public health measures and the collection of taxes from online transactions; yet, state resources remained strained throughout the year, especially in states reliant on the hospitality and the oil sectors. And while local property taxes were buoyed by a surging housing market, cities and counties were confronted with declining revenue from other sources and intense emergency spending needs. Thus, despite unprecedented levels of federal support for state and local governments, the legacies of “fend for yourself” federalism live on.
Does the gang MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha) represent a real national security threat to the United States? Does its presence in the United States justify extreme border enforcement measures and drastic changes in immigration law and policies? How much of this problem is driven by current immigration patterns and policies? This essay seeks to answer these questions by analyzing the scope, structure, aims, and modus operandi of MS-13 in the United States. More specifically, it explores the myths and realities of MS-13 and the influence of US officials’ discourse about this gang on US immigration policy. The findings presented in this study are grounded in interviews conducted with law enforcement officers, practitioners and experts on the subject matter, as well as on content analysis of social media and other electronic platforms covering immigration and MS-13.
The Treaty of Amsterdam launched the European Employment Strategy, a supranational non-binding instrument to boost employment rates and competitiveness. The open method of coordination, a new governance regulatory instrument, rules this common strategy. The article argues that the ‘framing effect’ of soft law is significant to policy-making across states, especially in the case of policy formulation. The analysis is grounded in the argument that to understand the effect of ‘foreign’ non-binding governance instruments researchers studying these types of governance instruments should unpack the ‘black box of policy-making’ and focus on process. Specifically, the article contributes to the literature on Europeanization by studying an instance of ‘soft Europeanization.’ To sustain and illustrate my argument, I present data from interviews conducted in the European Union, in Sweden, Spain, and Belgium at the national and subnational levels.
Books Written:
Until recently, studies of changes in the welfare state have tended to focus on transformations in the nature of social policies and their level of generosity. The New Governance of Welfare States in the United States and Europe concentrates on an often overlooked dimension: territorial and governance transformations. Employing detailed case studies and more than seventy-five interviews, Mariely López-Santana captures how a variety of postindustrial countries across both sides of the Atlantic have transformed the postwar organization of their labor market policy settings through decentralization, centralization, and delegation reforms. These changes have in turn changed the role of national and subnational levels of government, as well as nongovernmental actors, in the organization, management, and provision of labor market policies and services. López-Santana’s multidisciplinary, comparative, and multilevel approach to welfare state change is an original and important step forward in our understanding of welfare reforms enacted since the mid-1990s.
Book Chapters:
This chapter provides an overview of the emergence, consolidation, recalibration, and liberalisation of employment policies in Spain. By identifying five developmental periods, it reviews transformations in the nature and regulation of labour market polices from the early 1900s to the mid-2010s. In addition, it explores changes in the territorial organisation and governance of labour market policies with a focus on decentralisation, (re-) centralisation, and delegation reforms. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of the Great Recession on Spanish labour market policies and structures, including its segmented labour market.
Other:
Easing working and low-income families’ financial burdens continues to be central in the latest iteration of President Biden’s Build Back Better plan. That includes a one-year extension of the expanded child tax credit, a long-standing benefit that Biden’s American Rescue Plan changed in key ways — including sending monthly checks of up to $300 per child to most households, beginning in mid-July. Conservative critics disparage this as “welfare.” Others demand that the benefits come with strings attached, including work and education requirements. Our research shows that while Americans generally support the child tax credit, they’re not enthusiastic about sending money to families with children. However, they were also ambivalent about requiring recipients to work. Here’s what we found. The history behind the child tax credit Launched under President Bill Clinton in 1997, the Child Tax Credit was originally a nonrefundable tax credit for families with children. Nonrefundable here means that if a taxpayer’s credit is higher than the amount of tax owed, the excess will not be refunded — thus leaving out the families most in need of support. In 2001, under President George W. Bush, the tax credit increased from $500 to $1,000 and became partly refundable for some low-income workers — meaning that if the credit was more than some low-income taxpayers owed the government, they received a tax refund. Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump further expanded the credit. Despite previous expansions, until very recently the families of one-third of American children did not receive the full credit because they did not earn enough to qualify. Biden’s expanded version is more generous, in part because it is fully refundable. Besides sending monthly checks from July until December, the American Rescue Plan also increased the benefit from $2,000 to $3,600 for children under age 6 and to $3,000 for children between ages 6 and 17. According to the Center on Poverty & Social Policy at Columbia University, in September 2021, the expanded child tax credit kept 3.4 million children from poverty, enabling families to pay for such basic items as food, housing, clothing, and education. How we did our research: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/10/most-americans-support-bidens-expanded-child-tax-credit-our-research-finds-there-are-caveats/
Is MS-13 as Dangerous as Trump Suggests?
Monkey's Cage piece on Oversight Boards
Media Appearances:
TV Appearances:
Lopez-Santana comments on Biden's inauguration.
On Kamala Harris and the election.
Radio Appearances:
What you need to know about the child tax credit as both campaigns embrace it,
Clawing back unspent COVID funds might contribute to a debt ceiling solution—but not much, Marketplace, NPR, May 15, 2023
On COVID, the election, and the transition
Interview “Sobre los Debates en Estados Unidos,”
Puerto Rico Board, Governor Clash Over Finances
Workfare and Food Stamps in Puerto Rico
Newspaper Quotes:
What’s next for Puerto Rico?
To Hell and Back: Spain's Grotesque Recession and Its Surprising New Economy
Blog Posts:
How Local Governments will Tackle the COVID-Recession: A Road Map
Other:
Lessons from the COVID-era Welfare Expansion. I discussed the findings of this paper on the Child Tax Credit: “Assessing Public Support for Social Policy in Times of Crisis: Evidence from the Child Tax Credit during the COVID-19 Era in the United States.” 2023. (co-authors: Lucas Núñez and Daniel Béland). Policy and Society 42(4): 526-547.