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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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.
Own calculation based on data available in the library of Portuguese National Institute of Statistics.
This is what Becker (1960 p. 212) calls the quantity elasticity of children.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unfortunately, childcare attendance among less than 3-year-olds was not collected in Portugal in the analyzed time period.
References
Addison J, Portugal P (2003) Unemployment duration: competing and defective risks. J Hum Resour 38:156–191. doi:10.2307/1558760
Adsera A (2004) Changing fertility rates in developed countries: the impact of labor market institutions. J Popul Econ 17:17–43. doi:10.1007/s00148-003-0166-x
Adsera A (2005) Vanishing children: from high unemployment to low fertility in developed countries. Am Econ Rev 95(2):189–193. doi:10.1257/000282805774669763
Andersson G, Duvander A, Hank K (2004) Do child care characteristics influence continued childbearing in Sweden? An investigation of quantity, quality and price dimension. J Eur Soc Policy 14:407–418. doi:10.1177/0958928704046881
Andersson G, Hank K, Vikat A (2007) Understanding parental gender preferences in advanced societies: lessons from Sweden and Finland. Dem Res 17(6):165–156. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2007.17.6
Axinn W, Clarkberg E, Thornton A (1994) Family influences on family size preferences. Demogr 31(1):66–79. doi:10.2307/2061908
Baizán P (2009) Regional child care availability and fertility decisions in Spain. Demogr Res 21:803–842. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2009.21.27
Becker G (1960) An economic analysis of fertility. In: NBER Princeton: demographic and economic change in developed countries. Princeton University Press, NJ, pp 209–240
Becker G (1965) A theory of the allocation of time. Econ J 299:493–517. doi:10.2307/2228949
Björklund A (2006) Does family policy affect fertility? Lessons from Sweden. J Popul Econ 19(1):3–24. doi:10.1007/s00148-005-0024-0
Boca D D (2002) The effect of child care and part time opportunities on participation and fertility decisions in Italy. J Popul Econ 15:549–573. doi:10.1007/s001480100089
Breton D, Prioux F, Duetreuilh C (2005) Two children or three? influence of family policy and sociodemographic factors. Popul 60:415–445. doi:10.2307/4148181
Buxton A (2013) Cureregr: Stata module to estimate parametric cure regression. http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:boc:bocode:s446901
Easterlin R (1975) An economic framework for fertility analysis studies. J Fam Plann 6:54–63. doi:10.2307/1964934
Gauthier A (2007) The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: A review of the literature. Popul Res Policy Rev 26:323–246. doi:10.1007/s11113-007-9033-x
Gray E, Evans A, Anderson J, Kippen R (2010) Using split-population models to examine predictors of the probability and timing of parity progression. Eur J Popul 26:275–295. doi:10.1007/s10680-009-9201-2
Gutiérrez M (2008) The impact of the labour market on the timing of marriage and births in spain. J Popul Econ 21:83–110. doi:10.1007/s00148-005-0041-z
Hank K, Kreyenfeld M (2003) A multilevel analysis of child care and women’s fertility decisions in Western Germany. J Marriage Fam 65:584–596. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00584.x
Heckman J, Walker J (1990) Estimating fecundability from data on waiting times to first conception. J Am Stat Assoc 85:283–294. doi:10.2307/2289763
Hotz J, Klerman J, Willis R (1993) The economics of fertility in developed countries. In: Rosenzweig M, Stark O (eds) Handbook of population and family economics, vol 1, 1st edn. Elsevier, pp 275–347
Jenkins S (2004) Survival analysis. http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/teaching/stephenj/ec968/pdfs/ec968lnotesv6.pdf, Institute for Social and Economic Research. University of Essex, Colchester, UK
Kravdal Ø (2002) The impact of individual and aggregate unemployment on fertility in Norway. Demogr Res 6(10):263–294. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2002.6.10
Kravdal Ø, Rindfuss R (2008) Changing relationships between education and fertility: A study of women and men born 1940 to 1964. Am Sociol Rev 73(5):854–873. doi:10.1177/000312240807300508
Lambert P (2007) Modeling of the cure fraction in survival studies. Stata J 7(3):351–375. http://www.stata-journal.com/article.html?article=st0131
Lappegard T (2010) Family policies and fertility in Norway. Eur J Popul 26(1):99–116. doi:10.1007/s10680-009-9190-1
Lichtman S (2013) The value of postponing pregnancy: California‘s paid family leave and the timing of pregnancies. Working Papers 1310, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics, http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bgu:wpaper:1310
Macunovich D (1998) Fertility and the easterlin hypothesis: An assessment of the literature. J Popul Econ 11(1):53–111. doi:10.1007/s001480050058
Mills M, Rindfuss R, McDonald P, Velde E T (2011) Why do people postpone parenthood? reasons and social policy incentives. Hum Reprod Update 17(6):848–860. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmr026
OECD (2000) Early childhood education and care policy in Portugal. http://www.oecd.org/portugal/2534928.pdf
OECD (2011a) Doing better for families - Portugal. http://www.oecd.org/portugal/47704295.pdf
OECD (2011b) Society at a glance 2011 - OECD social indicators. www.oecd.org/els/social/indicators/SAG
OECD (2012a) OECD family database, pf 2.5 annex: detail of change in parental leave by country. www.oecd.org/social/family/database
OECD (2012b) Social expenditure: detailed data. OECD social expenditure statistics (database). doi:10.1787/data-00167-en
Parkhurst S (2013) Portugal. In: The marriage and family encyclopedia, JRank Articles. http://family.jrank.org/pages/1291/Portugal.html
Parr N (2007) Which women stop at one child in Australia. J Popul Res 24(2):207–225. doi:10.1007/BF03031931
Pollak R, Watkins S (1993) Cultural and economic approaches to fertility: A proper marriage or a mesalliance? Popul Dev Rev 19(3):467–496. doi:10.2307/2938463
Rindfuss R, Guilkey D, Morgan P, Kravdal Ø, Benjamin K (2007) Child care availability and first-birth timing in Norway. Demogr 44:345–372. doi:10.1353/dem.2007.0017
Santos Silva JMC, Covas F (2000) A modified hurdle model for completed fertility. J Popul Econ 13(2):173–188. doi:10.1007/s001480050132
Schmidt P, Witte A (1989) Predicting criminal recidivism using ‘split population‘ survival time models. J Economet 40:141–159. doi:10.1016/0304-4076(89)90034-1
Sposto R (2002) Cure model analysis in cancer: an application to data from the children’s cancer group. Stat Med 21:293–312. doi:10.1002/sim.987
Thévenon O (2011) Family policies in OECD countries: a comparative analysis. Popul Dev Rev 37:59–87. doi:10.1111/j.1728-4457.2011.00390.x
Van Bavel V, Różanska-Putek J (2010) Second birth rates across Europe: interactions between women’s level of education and child care enrolment. Vienna Yearbook of Pop Res 8:107–138. doi:10.1553/populationyearbook2010s107
Veevers J (1971) The violation of fertility mores: voluntary childlessness as deviant behavior. In: Boydell L, Grindstaff F, Whitehead C (eds) Deviant behavior and societal reactions. Rinehart and Winston, Toronto, pp 571–592
Yamaguchi K, Ferguson L (1995) The stopping and spacing of childbirths and their birth-history predictors: rational-choice theory and event-history analysis. Am Sociol Rev 60(2):272–298. doi:10.2307/2096387
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
Corresponding author
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>t≥t 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
where dis the censoring indicator with right-censoring if d=0. Taking the logarithm of the expression the contribution to the log-likelihood becomes
and the sample log-likelihood function can be written as
Survival and hazard functions from the non-mixture (Eqs. 1–2) or the mixture model (Eqs. 3–4) with the selected link (Eqs. 6–7) and either the lognormal (Eq. 8) or the gamma density function (Eq. 9) shall be substituted for the numerical maximization.
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10258-014-0099-1