Population Research and Policy Review

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 151–160 | Cite as

Abortion demand

  • Christopher Garbacz


Abortion may be characterized as fertility control. Costs and benefits of an additional child are weighed over time. If costs exceed benefits, fertility control is employed. An economic model of abortion demand is developed that incorporates price, income, demographic factors (tastes), and public policy issues such as abortion funding. A key finding is that state abortion funding, substituted for federal funding under Medicaid as a result of the Hyde Amendments, may be important to abortion demand but it is difficult to differentiate its effect from other effects at the state level with an econometric model.


Public Policy Economic Policy State Level Economic Model Demographic Factor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alan Guttmacher Institute (1985).Abortion Services in the United States, Each State and Metropolitan Area, 1981–1982. New York: Alan Guttmacher Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Deyak, T.A. and V.K. Smith (1976). ‘The economic value of statute reform: the case of liberalized abortion’,Journal of Political Economy 84: 83–99.Google Scholar
  3. Gallup, George H. (1984).The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion, 1983. Scholarly Resources Inc. Wilmington.Google Scholar
  4. Henshaw, Stanley K. (1987). ‘Characteristics of U.S. Women Having Abortions, 1982–1983’,Family Planning Perspectives 19: 5–9.Google Scholar
  5. Medoff, M.H. (1988). ‘An economic analysis of the demand for abortions’,Economic Inquiry 26: 353–59.Google Scholar
  6. Michael, R.T. (1973). ‘Education and the derived demand for children’,Journal of Political Economy 81: S128–64.Google Scholar
  7. Nestor, B. and R.B. Gold (1984). ‘Public funding of contraceptive, sterilization and abortion services, 1982’,Family Planning Perspectives 16: 128–133.Google Scholar
  8. Singh, Susheela (1986). ‘Adolescent Pregnancy in the United States: An Interstate Analysis’,Family Planning Perspectives 18: 210–220.Google Scholar
  9. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1987).Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Garbacz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of MissouriRollaUSA

Personalised recommendations