Population Research and Policy Review

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 367–381 | Cite as

The dependent tax exemption, abortion availability, and US fertility rates

  • Stephan F. Gohmann
  • Robert L Ohsfeldt
Childlessness And Fertility

Abstract

The impact of the personal income tax dependent exemption, abortion availability, and other factors on fertility rates is analyzed. US time series data for 1915–88 are used in the empirical model. The results indicate that greater abortion availability in the USA is associated with lower fertility. A higher value of the dependent exemption generally is associated with higher fertility, but the magnitude and significance of the effect is sensitive to specification choice. The results suggest that restricting abortion availability in the USA will increase the fertility rate, but a change in the tax value of the dependent exemption will have a less predictable impact on fertility.

Key words

Abortion Fertility Tax policy United States 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barro, R.J. & Sahasakul, C. (1986). Average marginal tax rates from the social security and individual income tax,Journal of Business 59: 555–566.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, G.S. (1981).A treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bryant, W.K (1990).The economic organization of the family. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Coelen, S.P. & McIntyre, R.J. (1978). An econometric model of pronatalist and abortion policies,Journal of Political Economy 86: 1077–1101.Google Scholar
  5. Deyak, T.A. & Smith, V.K (1976). The economic value of statue reform: The case of liberalized abortion,Journal of Political Economy 84: 83–99.Google Scholar
  6. Duncan, G.J. & Hoffman, S.D. (1990). Welfare benefits, economic opportunities, and out-of-wedlock births among black teenage girls,Demography 27: 519–535.Google Scholar
  7. Ellwood, D.T. & Bane, M.J. (1985). The impact of AFDC on family structure and living arrangements, in: Ronald G. Ehrenberg, ed.Research in Labor Economics, Vol. 7, Green-wich: JAI Press, pp. 137–207.Google Scholar
  8. Espenshade, T.J. & Minarik, J.J. (1987). Demographic implications of the 1986 US Tax Reform Act,Population and Development Review 13: 115–120.Google Scholar
  9. Frejka, T. (1983). Induced abortion and fertility: A quarter century of experience in Eastern Europe,Population and Development Review 9: 494–520.Google Scholar
  10. Georgellis, Y. & Wall, H.J. (1992). The fertility effect of dependent tax exemptions: Estimates for the United States,Applied Economics 24: 1139–1145.Google Scholar
  11. Gohmann, S.F. & Ohsfeldt, R.L. (1993). The effects of price and availability on abortion demand,Contemporary Policy Issues 11: 42–55.Google Scholar
  12. Jackson, C.A. & Klerman, J.A. (1993). Fixed effects, public policy and teenage fertility, RAND Labor and Population Program, Working Paper Series 93-24, July.Google Scholar
  13. Joyce, T.J. & Mocan, N.H. (1990). The impact of legalized abortion on adolescent childbearing in New York City,American Journal of Public Health 80: 273–278.Google Scholar
  14. Rosenzweig, M.R. & Schultz, T.P. (1985). The demand for and supply of births: Fertility and its life cycle consequences,American Economic Review 75: 992–1015.Google Scholar
  15. Singh, S. (1986). Adolescent pregnancy in the United States: An interstate analysis,Family Planning Perspectives 18: 210–220.Google Scholar
  16. Tietze, C. (1982).Induced abortion: A world review. New York: Population Council.Google Scholar
  17. Whittington, L.A. (1992). Taxes and the family: The impact of the tax exemption for dependents on marital fertility,Demography 29: 215–226.Google Scholar
  18. Whittington, L.A., Alm, J. & Peters, H.E. (1990). Fertility and the personal exemption: Implicit pronatalist policy in the United States,American Economic Review 80: 545–556.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephan F. Gohmann
    • 1
  • Robert L Ohsfeldt
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of LouisvilleUSA
  2. 2.School of Public HealthUniversity of Alabama at BirminghamUSA

Personalised recommendations