Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 33, Issue 4, pp 575–599 | Cite as

Does income support increase abortions?

Original Paper

Abstract

Currently, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs in 32 American states allow low-income childless pregnant single women (CPSW) to receive monthly cash assistance, while 28 states and the District of Columbia use lump-sum payments to divert low-income families from TANF. Past research has not investigated the possible consequences on abortions of these two welfare policies. We construct a theoretical model of low-income CPSW to investigate them. The results of the theory yields the following hypotheses: (1) diversion payments to low-income mothers lower abortion incidence; and (2) diversion payments and CPSW eligibility together raise abortion incidence. We use data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Abortion Surveillance, and a system GMM dynamic panel, two-way fixed-effects empirical model to test our hypotheses. Our empirical results provide statistically significant evidence for the first hypothesis, but not the second.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adema W, Gray D, Kahl S (2003) Social assistance in Germany. OECD Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers, No. 58, OECD PublishingGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson T, Hsiao C (1982) Formulation and estimation of dynamic models using panel data. J Econom 18(1): 47–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58(2): 277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental-variable estimation of error-component models. J Econom 68(1): 29–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bankole A, Singh S, Haas T (1999) Characteristics of women who obtain induced abortion: A worldwide review. Int Fam Plan Perspectives 25(2): 68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barber G, Daugherty B, McAdams D (2002) An alternative to TANF: experience with Kentucky’s Family Alternative Diversion Program. Presented at the National Association of Welfare Research and Statistics Annual Conference, Albuquerque, NMGoogle Scholar
  7. Berggren N (1997) Rhetoric or reality? An economic analysis of the effects of religion in Sweden. J Socioecon 26(6): 571–596Google Scholar
  8. Bertrand M, Luttmer E, Mullainathan S (2000) Network effects and welfare cultures. Q J Econ 115(3): 1019–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bettarini S, D’Andrea S (1996) Induced abortion in Italy: levels, trends and characteristics. Fam Plann Perspectives 28(6): 267–271, 277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blank R (2001) What causes public assistance caseloads to grow. J Hum Resour 36(1): 85–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blank R (1988) The effect of welfare and wage levels on the location decisions of female-headed households. J Urban Econ 24(2): 186–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blayo C (1995) L’évolution du recours a l’avortement en France depuis 1976. Population 50(3): 779–810Google Scholar
  13. Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econom 87(1): 115–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burke V (2003) Welfare reform: TANF trends and data. Congressional Research Service Report 98–369 EPW. http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/index.txl. Accessed 25 Feb 2008
  15. Camasso M (2004) Isolating the family cap effect on fertility behavior: evidence from New Jersey’s Family Development Program Experiment. Contemp Econ Policy 22(4): 453–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC (2000) Abortion Surveillance–United States, 1997. MMWR 49(SS-11). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/sursumpv.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2008
  17. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC (2003) Abortion Surveillance–United States, 2000. MMWR 52(SS-12). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/sursumpv.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2008
  18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC (2006) Abortion Surveillance–United States, 2003. MMWR 55(SS-11). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/sursumpv.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2008
  19. Daponte B, Sanders S, Taylor L (1999) Why do low income households not use food stamps? Evidence from an experiment. J Hum Resour 34(3): 612–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. David H (1992) Abortion in Europe, 1920–91: a public health perspective. Stud Fam Plan 23(1): 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Jong G, Graefe D, St Pierre T (2005) Welfare reform and interstate migration of poor families. Demography 42(3): 469–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dyer W, Fairlie R (2004) Do family caps reduce out-of-wedlock births? Evidence from Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, New Jersey and Virginia. Popul Res Policy Rev 23: 441–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Edwards J, Thames F, Edwards M (2006) Measuring the dissemination of volatility across levels of development. Topics Macroecon 6(2)Google Scholar
  24. Epstein L, Zin S (1989) Substitution, risk aversion, and the temporal behavior of consumption and asset returns: a theoretical framework. Econometrica 57(4): 937–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fang H, Keane M (2004) Assessing the impact of welfare reform on single mothers. Brookings Papers Econ Activity 1: 1–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fang H, Silverman D (2004) On the compassion of time-limited welfare programs. J Public Econ 88(7–8): 1445–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Finer L, Henshaw S (2003) Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000. Perspectives Sex Reproductive Health 35(1): 6–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Finer L, Frohwirth L, Dauphinee L, Singh S, Moore A (2006) Timing of steps and reasons for delays in obtaining abortions in the United States. Contraception 74(4): 334–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Garbacz C (1990) Abortion demand. Popul Res Policy Rev 9: 151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grogger J, Karoly L, Klerman J (2002) Consequences of welfare reform: a research synthesis. Document DRU-2676-DHHS, Prepared by RAND for the Agency for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services. Santa Monica, CA, RANDGoogle Scholar
  31. Harvey C, Berkowitz M (2006) Review of diversion programs. Disability Research Institute, Project number p02–07h. http://www.dri.uiuc.edu/research. Accessed 1 July 2008
  32. Henshaw S, Finer L (2003) The Accessibility of abortion services in the United States, 2001. Perspectives Sex Reproductive Health 35(1): 16–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Henshaw S, Kost K (1996) Abortion patients in 1994–1995: characteristics and contraceptive use. Fam Plan Perspectives 28(4): 140–147, 158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Henshaw S, Silverman J (1988) The characteristics and prior contraceptive use of U.S. abortion patients. Fam Plan Perspectives 20(4): 158–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hetling A, Tracy K, Born C (2006) A rose by any other name? Lump-sum diversion or traditional welfare grant?. JPolicy Pract 5(2–3): 43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones R, Darroch J, Henshaw S (2002) Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000–2001. Perspectives Sex Reproductive Health 34(5): 226–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones R, Zolna M, Henshaw S, Finer L (2008) Abortion in the United States: incidence and access to services, 2005. Perspectives Sex Reproductive Health 40(1): 6–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Joyce T, Kaestner R (1996) The effect of expansions in medicaid income eligibility on abortion. Demography 33(2): 181–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Joyce T, Kaestner R, Korenman S, Henshaw S (2004) Family cap provisions and changes in births and abortions. Popul Res Policy Rev 23(5–6): 475–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kane T, Staiger D (1996) Abortion access and teen motherhood. Q J Econ 111(2): 467–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. King R, Myers S, Byrne D (1992) The demand for abortion by unmarried teenagers: economic factors, age, ethnicity and religiosity matter. Am J Econ Sociol 51: 223–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Klerman J (1999) U.S. abortion policy and fertility. Am Econ Rev 89(2): 261–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lacey D, Hetling A, Born C (2002) Life without welfare: the prevalence and outcomes of diversion strategies in Maryland. University of Maryland, School of Social WorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Levine P, Whitmore D (1998) The impact of welfare reform on the AFDC caseload. In: National Tax Association Proceedings, 1997. pp 24–33Google Scholar
  45. London R (2003) Which TANF applicants are diverted, and what are their outcomes. Soc Serv Rev 77(3): 373–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maloy K, Pavetti L, Schin P, Darnell J, Scarpulla-Nolan L (1998) Description and assessment of state approaches to diversion programs and activities under welfare reform. The George Washington University Center for Health Policy ResearchGoogle Scholar
  47. Matthews S, Ribar D, Wilhelm M (1997) The effects of economic conditions and access to reproductive health services on state abortion rates and birthrates. Fam Plan Perspectives 29(2): 52–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Medoff M (1997) A pooled time-series analysis of abortion demand. Popul Policy Rev 16(6): 597–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Medoff M (1998) Estimates of the abortion demand of young and older teenagers. Popul Res Policy Rev 17: 539–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Medoff M (1999) An estimate of teenage abortion demand. J Socioecon 28: 175–184Google Scholar
  51. Medoff M (2002) The determinants and impact of state abortion restrictions. Am J Econ Sociol 61(2): 481–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Medoff M (2007) Price, restrictions and abortion demand. J Fam Econ Issues 28: 583–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Meier K, Haider-Markel D, Stanislawski A, McFarlane D (1996) The impact of state-level restrictions on abortions. Demography 33(3): 307–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McKinnish T (2005) Importing the poor: welfare magnetism and cross-border welfare migration. J Hum Resour 40(1): 57–76Google Scholar
  55. McKinnish T (2007) Welfare-induced migration at state borders: new evidence from micro-data. J Public Econ 91(3–4): 437–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Moffitt R (2003) The role of nonfinancial factors in exit and entry in the TANF program. J Hum Resour 38(Supplement): 1221–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Morgan P, Parnell A (2002) Effects on pregnancy outcomes of changes in the North Carolina State Abortion Fund. Popul Res Policy Rev 21(4): 319–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Powell-Griner E, Trent K (1987) Sociodemographic determinants of abortion in the United States. Demography 24(4): 553–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Richardson P, Schoenfeld G, Jain S (2001) Welfare recipients, leavers, and diverters in North Carolina, Final report of administrative records data. Reston, VA, MAXIMUSGoogle Scholar
  60. Roodman D (2006) How to do xtabond2: an introduction to ‘difference’ and ‘system’ GMM in Stata. Center for Global Development Working Paper 103Google Scholar
  61. Rossier C, Michelot F, Bajos N, COCON (2007) Modeling the process leading to abortion: an application to French survey data. Stud Fam Plan 38(3):163–172Google Scholar
  62. Rowe G (2000) Welfare rules databook: state TANF policies as of July 1999. Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/Wrd.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2008
  63. Rowe G, Versteeg J (2005) Welfare rules databook: state TANF policies as of July 2003. Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411183_WRD_2006.pdf. Accessed 28 Jan 2008
  64. Rowe G, Murphy M (2006) Welfare rules databook: state TANF policies as of July 2006. Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411686_welfare_databook06.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2008
  65. Schoeni R, Blank R (2000) What has welfare reform accomplished? Impacts on welfare participation, employment, income, poverty, and family structure. NBER Working Paper 7627Google Scholar
  66. Skjeldestad F, Borgan J (1994) Trends in induced abortion during the 12 years since legalization in Norway. Fam Plan Perspectives 26(2): 73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Snarr H, Burkey M (2006) A preliminary investigation of welfare migration induced by time limits. J Reg Anal Policy 36(2): 124–139Google Scholar
  68. Tomal A (1999) Parental involvement laws and minor and non-minor teen abortion and birth rates. J Fam Econ Issues 20(2): 149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Trent K, Hoskin A (1999) Structural determinants of the abortion rate: a cross-societal analysis. Soc Biol 46(1–2): 62–81Google Scholar
  70. Toulemon L, Leridon H (1992) Maîtrise de la fécondité et appartenance sociale: Contraception, grossesses accidentelles et avortements. Population 47(1): 1–45Google Scholar
  71. Weil P (1990) Nonexpected utility in macroeconomics. Q J Econ 105(1): 29–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Welfare Information Network (1999) http://www.financeproject.org/Publications/pamresourceoct.htm. Accessed 15 July 2008
  73. Windmeijer F (2005) A finite sample correction for the variance of linear efficient two-step GMM estimators. J Econom 126(1): 1–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. US Department of Health and Human Services, DHHS (2004) Sixth annual report to Congress http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/annualreport6/chapter05/chap05.htm. Accessed 13 Dec 2008
  75. Valvano V, Goldsmith D, Abe Y, Fischer W, Tseng F (2001) Evaluation of the Colorado works program, third annual report, part 1, diversion programs and work activity participation. Berkeley Policy Associates, Oakland, CAGoogle Scholar
  76. Ziliak J, Figlio D, Davis E, Connolly L (2000) Accounting for the decline in AFDC caseloads: welfare reform or the economy. J Hum Resour 35(3): 570–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.North Carolina A &T State UniversityGreensboroUSA

Personalised recommendations