Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T22:39:52.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CHILD SUBSIDIES AND THE CROSS-SECTIONAL FERTILITY PATTERN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2018

Laurie S. M. Reijnders
Laurie S. M. Reijnders*
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
*
Address correspondence to: Laurie Sarah May Reijnders, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Nettelbosje 2, 9747 AE Groningen, The Netherlands; e-mail: l.s.m.reijnders@rug.nl.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper studies the effect of different types of child subsidies on the economic allocation and the cross-sectional fertility pattern. I construct a rich but tractable general equilibrium model with overlapping generations of heterogeneous individuals, two sectors of production and a government. I derive analytically how fertility choices are affected by changes in household resources and child subsidies and show the numerical results of two policy experiments. A subsidy on childcare favors the birth rates of educated, high-wage individuals. Parents work more so that the subsidy program is partly financed by a rise in labor earnings. In contrast, a lump-sum child allowance stimulates fertility of uneducated, low-wage parents the most. This policy has a larger effect on the average birth rate, but as parents perform most of the care themselves it comes at the expense of a lower supply of labor and a greater tax burden.

Keywords

Family PolicyFertilityChildcare Subsidies
Type
Articles
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , July 2018 , pp. 1207 - 1237
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

For valuable comments and suggestions, I thank the Associate Editor and two anonymous referees, as well as Hippolyte d'Albis, David de la Croix, Paula Gobbi, and the participants of the workshop on “Fertility decisions and endogenous mortality in macroeconomics” (February 2014, Paris) and the Demographic Economics Conference (May 2014, Iowa City).

*Financial support from The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) is gratefully acknowledged (grant number 453-14-012).

References

REFERENCES

Abbott, Brant (2014) The Effect of Parental Composition on Investments in Children. Mimeo. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Attanasio, Orazio, Low, Hamish, and Sánchez-Marcos, Virginia (2008) Explaining changes in female labor supply in a life-cycle model. American Economic Review 98 (4), 1517–1552.Google Scholar
Baudin, Thomas, de la Croix, David, and Gobbi, Paula (2015) Fertility and childlessness in the United States. American Economic Review 105 (6), 1852–1882.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becker, Gary S. (1960) An economic analysis of fertility. In Universities-National Bureau (ed.), Demographic and Economic Change in Developed Countries, Chap. 7, pp. 225–256. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Bick, Alexander (2016) The quantitative role of child care for female labor force participation and fertility. Journal of the European Economic Association 14 (3), 639–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, David M. and Robins, Philip K. (1988) Child-care costs and family labor supply. Review of Economics and Statistics 70 (3), 374–381.Google Scholar
Cherchye, Laurens, De Rock, Bram, and Vermeulen, Frederic (2012) Married with children: A collective labor supply model with detailed time use and intrahousehold expenditure information. American Economic Review 102 (7), 3377–3405.Google Scholar
Domeij, David and Klein, Paul (2013) Should day care be subsidized? Review of Economic Studies 80, 568–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, Hans and Ujhelyiova, Daniela (2013) Fertility, female labor supply, and family policy. German Economic Review 14 (2), 138–165.Google Scholar
Fernández, Raquel and Rogerson, Richard (2001) Sorting and long-run inequality. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (4), 1305–1341.Google Scholar
Guner, Nezih, Kaygusuz, Remzi, and Ventura, Gustavo (2014) Childcare Subsidies and Household Labor Supply. IZA Discussion Paper 8303.Google Scholar
Hazan, Moshe and Zoabi, Hosny (2015) Do highly educated women choose smaller families? Economic Journal 125 (587), 1191–1226.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J. (2006) Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 312 (5782), 1900–1902.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hotz, V. Joseph, Klerman, Jacob Alex and Willis, Robert J. (1997) The economics of fertility in developed countries. In Rosenzweig, Mark Richard and Stark, Oded (eds.), Handbook of Population and Family Economics, Chap. 7, pp. 275–347. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Hubbard, William H.J. (2011) The phantom gender difference in the college wage premium. Journal of Human Resources 46 (3), 568–586.Google Scholar
Jones, Larry E., Schoonbroodt, Alice, and Tertilt, Michèle (2010) Fertility theories: Can they explain the negative fertility-income relationship? In Shoven, John B. (ed.), Demography and the Economy, pp. 43–100. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Lawrence F. and Murphy, Kevin M. (1992) Changes in relative wages, 1963–1987: Supply and demand factors. Quarterly Journal of Economics 107 (1), 35–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reijnders, Laurie S.M. (2015) Child care subsidies with endogenous education and fertility. In Education Choices in a Changing Economic, Demographic and Social Environment, Chap. 5. pp. 151–186. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar