Advertisement

Baby bonus, anyone? Examining heterogeneous responses to a pro-natalist policy

  • Natalie Malak
  • Md Mahbubur RahmanEmail author
  • Terry A. Yip
Original Paper
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

We examine the impact of the Allowance for Newborn Children, a universal baby bonus offered by the Canadian province of Quebec, on birth order, sibship sex composition, income, and education. We find a large response for third- and higher-order births for which the bonus was more generous. Interestingly, though, we find stronger response if there were two previous sons or a previous son and daughter rather than two previous daughters. We also find, in addition to a transitory effect, a permanent effect, with the greatest increase in one daughter-two son families among three-child households. Moreover, we find a hump shape response by income group, with the greatest response from middle-income families. Also, women with at least some post-secondary education respond more to the policy than those with less. These findings suggest that properly structured pro-natal policies can successfully increase fertility among different segments of the population while simultaneously diminishing the effect of gender preferences and fertility disparity related to women’s education.

Keywords

Fertility Baby bonus Fertility incentive Sex composition Difference-in-differences 

JEL classification

J13 J18 H31 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Byron Spencer for his guidance and support. We would also like to thank Philip DeCicca, Arthur Sweetman, Laura Turner, participants at the Canadian Population Society Annual Conference, the European Society for Population Economics Annual Conference, the Canadian Economic Association Annual Conference, the Annual Congress of the European Economic Association, and the University of New Brunswick for their helpful suggestions. We would also like to thank the anonymous referees and the editor, Alessandro Cigno, for their detailed and insightful comments. We would also like to thank Peter Kitchen from Statistics Canada for all his help. The analysis presented in this paper was conducted at the Research Data Centre at McMaster which is part of the Canadian Research Data Centre Network (CRDCN). The services and activities provided by the Research Data Centre at McMaster are made possible by the financial or in-kind support of the SSHRC, the CIHR, the CFI, Statistics Canada, and McMaster University. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent the CRDCN’s or that of its partners’.

Compliance with ethical standards

Natalie Malak has received grants from Ontario Graduate Scholarships for her doctoral degree. Md Mahbubur Rahman and Terry A. Yip have received support from the Ontario Student Assistance Program for their doctoral degrees.

Conflict of interest

Beyond these, the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ai C, Norton EC (2003) Interaction term in logit and probit models. Econ Lett 80:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almond D, Edlund L, Milligan K (2013) Son preference and the persistence of culture: evidence from south and east Asian immigrants to Canada. Popul Dev Rev 39(1):75–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson G, Hank K, Ronsen M, Vikat A (2006) Gendering family composition: sex preferences for children and childbearing behavior in the Nordic countries. Demography 43(2):255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ang XL (2015) The effects of cash transfer fertility incentives and parental leave benefits on fertility and labor supply: evidence from two natural experiments. J Fam Econ Iss 36(2):263–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angrist JD, Evans WN (1998) Children and their parents’ labor supply: evidence from exogenous variation in family size. Am Econ Rev 88(3):450–477Google Scholar
  6. Angrist JD, 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
  7. Baker M, Gruber J, Milligan K (2008) Universal child care, maternal labor supply, and family well-being. J Polit Econ 116(4):709–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Battle K, Mendelson M (1997) Child benefit reform in Canada: an evaluative framework and future directions. Caledon Institute of Social PolicyGoogle Scholar
  9. Baudin T, de la Croix D, Gobbi PE (2015) Fertility and childlessness in the United States. Am Econ Rev 105(6):1852–1882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baughman R, Dickert-Conlin S (2009) The earned income tax credit and fertility. J Popul Econ 22(3):537–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Becker GS (1960) An economic analysis of fertility. In: Bureau U-N (ed) Demographic and economic change in developed countries: a conference of the Universities-National Bureau Committee for Economic Research, vol 11. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 209–231Google Scholar
  12. Becker GS (1981) A treatise on the family. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  13. Becker GS, Lewis G (1973) On the interaction between the quantity and quality of children. J Polit Econ 81(2):S279–S288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Becker GS, Tomes N (1976) Child endowments and the quantity and quality of children. J Polit Econ 84(4):S143–S162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bernard A (1989) Government Policies. L’Année Politique au Québec 1987–1988. Denis Monière, ed. Montréal, Le Devoir, Québec-AmériqueGoogle Scholar
  16. Berrington A (2004) Perpetual postponers? Women’s, men’s and couple’s fertility intentions and subsequent fertility behavior. Popul Trends 117:9–19Google Scholar
  17. Bjorklund A (2006) Does family policy affect fertility? J Popul Econ 19:3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bongaarts J (2001) Fertility and reproductive preferences in post-transitional societies. Popul Dev Rev 27:260–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brewer M, Ratcliffe A, Smith S (2012) Does welfare reform affect fertility? Evidence from the UK. J Popul Econ 25:245–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cigno A (1986) Fertility and the tax-benefit system: a reconsideration of the theory of family taxation. Econ J 96:1035–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cigno A, Ermish J (1989) A microeconomic analysis of the timing of births. Eur Econ Rev 33:737–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cohen A, Dehejia R, Romanov D (2013) Do financial incentives affect fertility? Rev Econ Stat 95(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cygan-Rehm K (2016) Parental leave benefit and differential fertility responses: evidence from a German reform. J Popul Econ 29:73–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dahl GB, Moretti E (2008) The demand for sons. Rev Econ Stud 75(4):1085–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Duclos E, Lefebvre P, Merrigan P (2001) A natural experiment on the economics of storks: evidence on the impact of differential family policy on fertility rates in Canada. Working Paper No. 136, CREFEGoogle Scholar
  26. Esping-Andersen G (2009) The incomplete revolution. Adapting to women’s new roles. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Freedman D, Freedman R, Whelpton PK (1960) Size of family and preference for children of each sex. Am J Sociol 66(2):141–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gonzalez L (2013) The effect of a universal child benefit on conceptions, abortions, and early maternal labor supply. Am Econ J Econ Pol 5(3):160–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haeck C, Lefebvre P, Merrigan P (2015) Canadian evidence on ten years of universal preschool policies: the good and the bad. Labour Econ 36:137–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Havnes T, Mogstad M (2011) Money for nothing? Universal child care and maternal employment. J Public Econ 95:1455–1465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heckman JJ, Walker JR (1990) The relationship between wages and income and the timing and spacing of births: evidence from Swedish longitudinal data. Econometrica 58(6):1411–1441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heiland F, Prskawetz A, Sanderson WC (2008) Are individuals’ desired family size stable? Evidence from West German panel data. Eur J Popul 24(2):129–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hotz VJ, Miller R (1988) An empirical analysis of life cycle fertility and female labor supply. Econometrica 56(1):91–118Google Scholar
  34. Hotz VJ, Klerman JA, Willis RJ (1997) The econometrics of fertility in developed countries. In: Rosenzweig MR, Stark O (eds) Handbook of population economics. Elsevier Science, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  35. Hoynes H (1995) Does welfare play any role in female headship decisions? National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 5149Google Scholar
  36. Jones L, Tertilt M (2008) An economic history of fertility in the U.S.: 1826–1960. In: Rupert P (ed) Frontiers of family economics. Emerald Press, London, pp 165–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kim YA (2012) Impact of direct cash transfer on fertility by income and education subgroup: study of allowance for newborn children of Canada. Korean J Popul Stud 35:29–55Google Scholar
  38. Kim YA (2014) Lifetime impact of cash transfer on fertility. Can Stud Popul 41:97–110Google Scholar
  39. Kravdal O, Rindfuss RR (2008) Changing relationships between education and fertility: a study of women and men born 1940 to 1964. Am Sociol Rev 73:854–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. La Presse (1988) Baisse d'impots pour tous. May 13, p. A-1Google Scholar
  41. Lalive R, Zweimuller J (2009) How does parental leave affect fertility and return to work? Evidence from two natural experiments. Q J Econ 124(3):1363–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. LaLumia S, Sallee JM, Turner S (2015) New evidence on taxes and the timing of birth. Am Econ J Econ Pol 7(2):258–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laroque G, Salanie B (2008) Does fertility respond to financial incentives? CESifo working paper 2339Google Scholar
  44. Manski CF, Pepper JV (2018) How do right-to-carry laws affect crime rates? Coping with ambiguity using bounded-variation assumptions. Rev Econ Stat 100(2):232–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Milligan K (2002) Quebec’s baby bonus: can public policy raise fertility? Backgrounder, C.D. Howe Institute,1–9Google Scholar
  46. Milligan K (2005) Subsidizing the stork: new evidence on tax incentives and fertility. Rev Econ Stat 87(3):539–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Milligan K (2016a) Canadian tax and credit simulator. Database, software and documentation, Version 2016-2Google Scholar
  48. Milligan K (2016b) Finances of the nation. Can Tax J 64(3):601–618Google Scholar
  49. Milligan K, Stabile M (2011) Do child tax benefits affect the well-being of children? Evidence from Canadian child benefit expansions. Am Econ J Econ Pol 3(3):175–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Moffitt R (1994) Welfare effects on female headship with area effects. J Hum Resour 29(2):621–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mogstad M, Wiswall M (2016) Testing the quantity-quality model of fertility. Quant Econ 7:157–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Montreal Gazette (1988a) Have more babies, liberals say. February 28, p. A-1Google Scholar
  53. Montreal Gazette (1988b) Parizeau’s family plan: triple baby bonus. March 15, p. A-1Google Scholar
  54. Neyer G, Andersson G (2008) Consequences of family policies on childbearing behavior: effects or artifacts? Popul Dev Rev 34(4):699–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nitsche N, Matysiak A, Van Bravel J, Vignoli D (2018) Partners’ educational pairings and fertility across Europe. Demography 55:1195–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ost B, Dziadula E (2016) Gender preference and age at arrival among Asian immigrant mothers in the US. Econ Lett 145:286–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Palermo T, Handa S, Peterman A, Prencipe L, Seidenfeld D (2016) Unconditional government social cash transfer in Africa does not increase fertility. J Popul Econ 29:1083–1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Parent D, Wang L (2007) Tax incentives and fertility in Canada: quantum vs tempo effects. Can J Econ 40(2):371–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pop-Eleches C (2006) The impact of an abortion ban on socioeconomic outcomes of children: evidence from Romania. J Polit Econ 114(4):744–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Quesnel-Vallee A, Morgan SP (2003) Missing the target? Correspondence of fertility intentions and behavior in the US. Popul Res Policy Rev 22(5–6):497–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Raute A (2017) Can financial incentives reduce the baby gap? Evidence from a reform in maternity leave benefits. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 23793. Forthcoming: Journal of Public EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  62. Riphahn RT, Wiynck FJ (2017) Fertility effects of child benefits. J Popul Econ 30:1135–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. R v Morgentaler (1988) 1 SCR 30, 37 CCC (3d)Google Scholar
  64. Shang Q, Weinberg BA (2013) Opting for families: recent trends in the fertility of highly educated women. J Popul Econ 26:5–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Testa MR (2014) On the positive correlation between education and fertility intentions in Europe: individual-and country-level evidence. Adv Life Course Res 21:28–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Williamson N (1983) Parental sex preferences and sex selection. In: Bennett N (ed) Sex selection of children. Academic Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  67. Yakita A (2018) Fertility and education decisions and child-care policy effects in a Nash-bargaining family model. J Popul Econ 31:1177–1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Young M (1998) Immigration: The Canada-Quebec Accord. Publication BP-252E, Parliamentary Research Branch, Library of Parliament, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  69. Zhang J, Quan J, Van Meerbergen P (1994) The effect of tax-transfer policies on fertility in Canada, 1921-1988. J Hum Resour 29:181–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalie Malak
    • 1
  • Md Mahbubur Rahman
    • 2
    Email author
  • Terry A. Yip
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Economics and Computational Analysis, Business Administration Building, Rm 327The University of Alabama in HuntsvilleHuntsvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations