Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The effect of education, family size, unemployment and childcare availability on birth stopping and timing

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Portuguese Economic Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using data from Portugal’s Fertility and Family Survey, I analyze childbearing decisions up to the third birth using a split-population (SP) model. The advantage of this approach is the separability of the covariates’ impact on birth timing and birth stopping. This paper is the first to apply an SP model to investigate the effect of unemployment and the availability of childcare. I also address how education, family size, age at previous birth of the woman and sex composition of existing children influence childbearing decisions, and provide empirical support for each of these. Comparing these with estimates obtained using survival models that do not include a regression on birth stopping suggest that the results of the latter tend to be unreasonable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. SP models are called “mover-stayer models” in labor economics (see for instance Addison and Portugal 2003) and in clinical research they are referred to as “parametric cure models” (Sposto 2002). The mover-stayer model’s stayer group corresponds to the cure model’s cured fraction and to the stopping group in fertility research.

  2. Own calculation based on data available in the library of Portuguese National Institute of Statistics.

  3. This is what Becker (1960 p. 212) calls the quantity elasticity of children.

  4. Note that the effect of income described here is valid as long as women of the same age are compared. In this analysis this requirement is satisfied by controlling for the women’s age at previous birth.

  5. The study of involuntary childlessness goes beyond the prospect of this paper. However, if the probability of being infertile is unrelated to the willingness of having another child (conditional on covariates) it should not influence the results anyway.

  6. In their fecundability study on waiting times to conception Heckman and Walker (1990) estimate that approximately half of the women conceive in 3 months. Adding the average waiting time to conception to the expected 9 month gestation time we obtain one year.

  7. Data on the share of the population in cities are from 2001 and data on average earnings are from 2002. Data are not available prior these years.

  8. The total number of 3–5 year old children comes from census data that were collected only once in a decade. Thus I had to assume that the total change over 10 years happened in equal annual increments.

  9. I also experimented with female unemployment margin and long term unemployment rates similarly to Adsera (2005), but these variables are only available from 1974. Results are briefly mentioned in the next section and available from the author upon request.

  10. Data on unemployment rate by sex and on long-term unemployment rate are accessible only from 1974. Results are available from the author upon request.

  11. Unfortunately, childcare attendance among less than 3-year-olds was not collected in Portugal in the analyzed time period.

References

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Pedro Portugal, Margitta Mätzke, Ágota Scharle, the two anonymous reviewers and the journal’s co-editor for their ideas and comments. I also thank the staff of Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior and of Instituto Nacional de Estatística for granting access to the data, Sofia Gonçalves for her help in data collection and André Camponês for augmenting my knowledge of Portuguese anthropology. The research was partially financed by COST Action IS1102. This article is a revised version of the author’s Master’s thesis at NOVA SBE.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Márton Varga.

Appendix

Appendix

This section explains how to obtain the log-likelihood function of the SP model. The uncensored observations’ contribution to the likelihood is the probability distribution function f(t) and the right-censored observations’ contribution is S(t). I split the time span into one-year-long episodes and assume that the value of a time-varying explanatory variable is constant through a calendar year. The probability of entering year twith t 1>tt 0 is S(t), where t 0 refers to the beginning of the episode (1st January). Now the density of one observation can be written as

$$f(t)^{dS(t)^{(1-d)}S(t_{0})^{-1}}, $$

where dis the censoring indicator with right-censoring if d=0. Taking the logarithm of the expression the contribution to the log-likelihood becomes

$$d\ln h(t)+(1-d)\left(\ln S(t)-\ln S(t_{0})\right) $$

and the sample log-likelihood function can be written as

$$\ln L=\Sigma d\ln h(t)+(1-d)\left(\ln S(t)-\ln S(t_{0})\right). $$

Survival and hazard functions from the non-mixture (Eqs. 12) or the mixture model (Eqs. 34) with the selected link (Eqs. 67) and either the lognormal (Eq. 8) or the gamma density function (Eq. 9) shall be substituted for the numerical maximization.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Varga, M. The effect of education, family size, unemployment and childcare availability on birth stopping and timing. Port Econ J 13, 95–115 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10258-014-0099-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10258-014-0099-1

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Navigation