Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 33–65 | Cite as

Childcare costs and the demand for children—evidence from a nationwide reform

Original Paper

Abstract

Exploiting the exogenous variation in user fees caused by a Swedish childcare reform, we are able to identify the causal effect of childcare costs on fertility in a context in which childcare enrollment is almost universal, user fees are low, and labor force participation of mothers is very high. Anticipation of a reduction in childcare costs increased the number of first and higher-order births, but only seemed to affect the timing of second births. For families with many children we also find a marginally significant negative income effect on fertility.

Keywords

Childcare cost Fertility Quasi-experiment 

JEL Classification

H31 J13 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for comments by two anonymous referees as well as from Matz Dahlberg, Peter Fredriksson, Christian Holzner, Rafael Lalive, Imran Rasul, and participants at seminars at IFN, IFAU, SOFI, Stockholm University, Växjö University, the IFN Stockholm Conference on Family, Children and Work and the 23rd Annual Congress of EEA in Milan, SOLE 2009, the ELE Summer Institute, Bergen 2009, the Econometric Society’s 2009 North American Summer Meeting in Boston, the 2009 NBER Summer Institute, the 2009 IIPF Congress in Cape Town, and the 2010 ASSA Meeting in Atlanta. Financial support from Riksbankens Jubileumsfond is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Adsera A (2004) Changing fertility rates in developed countries. The impact of labor market institutions. J Popul Econ 17(1):17–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adsera A (2005) Vanishing children: from high unemployment to low fertility in developed countries. Am Econ Rev 95(2):189–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angrist J, Lavy V, Schlosser A (2010) Multiple experiments for the causal link between the quantity and quality of children. J Labor Econ 28(4):773-824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apps P, Rees R (2004) Fertility, female labor supply and public policy. Scandinavian J Econ 106(4):745–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Björklund A (2006) Does family policy affect fertility? J Popul Econ 19(1):3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blau DM, Robins PK (1989) Fertility, employment, and child-care costs. Demography 26(2):287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brewer M, Ratcliffe A, Smith S (2010) Does welfare reform affect fertility? Evidence from the UK. J Popul Econ. doi: 10.1007/s00148-010-0332-x Google Scholar
  8. Cohen A, Dehejia R, Romanov D (2009) Do financial incentives affect fertility? NBER Working Paper 13700Google Scholar
  9. Cortes P, Tessada J (2011) Low-skilled immigration and the labor supply of highly skilled women. Am Econ J: Appl Econ 3(3):88–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. D’Addio AC, d’Ercole M (2005) Trends and determinants of fertility rates in OECD countries: the role of policies. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Paper No 27Google Scholar
  11. Del Boca D (2002) The effect of child care and part time opportunities on participation and fertility decisions in Italy. J Popul Econ 15(3):549–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elinder M, Jordahl H, Poutvara P (2008) Selfish and prospective: theory and evidence of pocketbook voting. CESifo Working paper No 2489Google Scholar
  13. Ermisch JF (1989) Purchased child care, optimal family size and mother’s employment. J Popul Econ 2(2):79–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Furtado D, Hock H (2010) Immigrant labor, child-care services, and the work-fertility trade-off in the United States. Am Econ Rev 100(2):22–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirazawa M, Yakita A (2009) Fertility, child care outside the home, and pay-as-you-go social security. J Popul Econ 22(3):565–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kearney M (2004) Is there an effect of incremental welfare benefits on fertility behavior? A look at the family cap. J Hum Resour 39(2):295–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laroque G, Salanié B (2004) Fertility and financial incentives in France. CESifo Econ Stud 50(3):423–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lundin D, Mörk E, Öckert B (2008) How far can reduced childcare prices push female labour supply? Labour Economics 15(4):647–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Milligan K (2005) Subsidizing the stork: new evidence on tax incentives and fertility. Rev Econ Stat 87(3):539–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moffit R (2005) Remarks on the analysis of causal relationships in population research. Demography 42(1):91–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. OECD (2005) Babies and bosses: reconciling work and family life? Canada, Finland, Sweden and the United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  22. Schlosser A (2006) Public preschool and the labor supply of Arab mothers: evidence from a natural experiment. Mimeo Hebrew University, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
  23. Skolverket (1999) Avgifter i förskola och fritidshem 1999. Rapport 174Google Scholar
  24. Skolverket (2003) Avgifter i förskola och fritidshem. Fördjupning av rapport 231Google Scholar
  25. Skolverket (2007) Barns omsorg. Tillgång och efterfrågan på barnomsorg för barn 1–12 år med olika social bakgrund. Rapport 203Google Scholar
  26. Smith J, Todd P (2005) Does matching overcome LaLonde’s critique of nonexperimental estimators? J Econom 125(1–2):305–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Mörk
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
  • Anna Sjögren
    • 4
    • 9
  • Helena Svaleryd
    • 1
    • 6
    • 7
    • 8
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.CESifoMunichGermany
  3. 3.IEBBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.IFAUUppsalaSweden
  5. 5.IZABonnGermany
  6. 6.UCFSUppsalaSweden
  7. 7.UCLSUppsalaSweden
  8. 8.IFNStockholmSweden
  9. 9.SOFIStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations