The Parental Leave Benefit Reform in Germany: Costs and Labour Market Outcomes of Moving towards the Nordic Model



Germany is known to have one of the lowest fertility rates among Western European countries and also relatively low employment rates of mothers with young children. Although these trends have been observed during the last decades, the German public has only recently begun discussing these issues. In order to reverse these trends, the German government recently passed a reform of the parental leave benefit system in line with the model practiced in Nordic countries. The core piece of the reform is the replacement of the existing means-tested parental leave benefit by a wage-dependent benefit for the period of one year. In this paper we simulate fiscal costs and expected labour market outcomes of this reform. Based on a micro-simulation model for Germany we calculate first-round effects, which assume no behavioural changes and second-round effects, where we take labour supply changes into account. Our results show that on average all income groups, couples and single households, benefit from the reform. The calculation of overall costs of the reform shows that the additional costs are moderate. As far as the labour market behaviour of parents is concerned, we find no significant changes of labour market outcomes in the first year after birth. However, in the second year, mothers increase their working hours and labour market participation significantly. Our results suggest that the reform will achieve one of its aims, namely the increase in the labour market participation of mothers with young children.


Female labour supply Parental leave Micro simulation study 


  1. Albrecht, J. W., Edin, P. A., Sundström, M., & Vroman, S. B. (1999). Career interruptions and subsequent earnings: A re-examination using Swedish data. Journal of Human Resources, 34, 294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baum, C. L. (2003). The effect of state maternity leave legislation and the 1993 family and medical leave act on employment and wages. Labour Economics, 10, 573–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger, L. M., & Waldfogel, J. (2004). Maternity leave and the employment of new mothers in the United States. Journal of Population Economics, 17, 331–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BMFSFJ – Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (2005). (Hrsg.) Perspektive für eine nachhaltige Familienpolitik, Berlin.Google Scholar
  5. BMFSFJ – Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (2006a). (Hrsg.) Familie zwischen Flexibilität und Verlässlichkeit, Perspektiven für eine lebenslaufbezogene Familienpolitik, Siebter Familienbericht, Bundestagsdrucksache 16/1360, Berlin.Google Scholar
  6. BMFSFJ – Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (2006b). (Hrsg.) Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Einführung des Elterngelds, Gesetzentwurf der Bundesregierung, Kabinettsbeschluss vom 14. Juni 2006, Berlin.Google Scholar
  7. BMFSFJ – Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (2006c) Kindertagesbetreuung für Kinder unter drei Jahren, Bericht der Bundesregierung über den Stand des Ausbaus für ein bedarfsgerechtes Angebot an Kindertagesbetreuung für Kinder unter drei Jahren, Berlin.Google Scholar
  8. Bruning, G., & Plantenga, J. (1999). Parental leave and equal opportunities: Experiences in eight European countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 9(3), 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Büchel, F., & Spiess, C. K. (2002). Form der Kinderbetreuung und Arbeitsmarktverhalten von Müttern in West- und Ostdeutschland. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  10. Büttner, T., & Lutz, W. (1990). Estimating fertility responses to policy measures in the German Democratic Republic. Population and Development Review, 16, 539–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Datta Gupta, N., Smith, N., & Verner, M. (2006). Child care and parental leave in the Nordic Countries: A model to aspire to? IZA Discussion Paper 2014.Google Scholar
  12. Duvander, A.-Z., & Andersson, G. (2006). Gender equality and fertility in Sweden: A study on the impact of the father’s uptake of parental leave on continued childbearing. Marriage & Family Review, 39, 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duvander, A.-Z., Ferrarini, T., & Thalberg, S. (2005). Swedish parental leave and gender equality. Arbetsrapport/Institute för Framtidsstudies (11), Stockholm.Google Scholar
  14. Ekberg, J., Eriksson, R., & Friebel, G. (2005). Parental leave – a policy evaluation of the Swedish “Daddy-Month” Reform. IZA Discussion Paper 1617, May 2005, Bonn.Google Scholar
  15. Gustafsson, S., Wetzels, C., Vlsblom, J. D., & Dex, S. (1996). Women’s labor force transition in connection with childbirth: A panel data comparison between Germany, Sweden and Great Britain. Journal of Population Economics, 9, 223–246.Google Scholar
  16. Gutierrez-Domenech, M. (2005). Employment after motherhood: A European comparison. Labour Economics, 12, 99–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hashimoto, M., Percy, R., Schoellner, T., & Weinberg. B. A. (2004). The long and short of it: Maternity leave coverage and women’s labor market outcomes. IZA Discussion Paper 1207.Google Scholar
  18. Hoem, J. M., Prskawetz, A., & Neyer, G. (2001). Autonomy or conservative adjustment? The effect of public policies and educational attainment on third births in Austria. Working Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, WP 2001-016.Google Scholar
  19. Hoem, J. M. (2005). Why does Sweden have such a high fertility? MPIDR Working Paper WP-2005-009, Rostock.Google Scholar
  20. Klerman, J., & Leibowitz, A. (1997). Labor supply effects of state maternity leave legislation. In F. Blau & R. Ehrenberg (Eds.), Gender and family issues in the workplace. New York: Russel Sage, Press.Google Scholar
  21. Klerman, J., & Leibowitz, A. (1999). Job continuity among new mothers. Demography, 36, 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lalive, R., & Zweimüller, J. (2005). Does parental leave affect fertility and return-to-work? Evidence from a “True Natural Experiment”. IZA Discussion Paper 1613, Bonn.Google Scholar
  23. McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Neyer, G. (2006). Family policies and fertility in Europe: Fertility policies at the intersection of gender policies, employment policies and care policies. MPIDR Working Paper WP 2006-010.Google Scholar
  25. OECD (2002). Employment Outlook 2002. Paris.Google Scholar
  26. OECD (2006). Starting strong II. Early childhood education and care. Paris.Google Scholar
  27. Oláh, L. S. (2003). Gendering fertility: Second births in Sweden and Hungary. Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ondrich, J., Spiess, C. K., & Yang, Q. (2003a). Changes in women’s wages after parental leave. Schmollers Jahrbuch (Journal of Applied Social Science Studies), 123, 125–138.Google Scholar
  29. Ondrich, J., Spiess, C. K., Wagner, G. G., & Yang, Q. (2003b). The liberalization of maternity leave policy and the return to work after childbirth in Germany. Review of Economics of the Household, 1, 77–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ondrich, J., Spiess, C. K., Wagner, G. G., & Yang, Q. (1999). Full time or part time? German parental leave policy and the return to work after childbirth in Germany. Research in Labor Economics, 18, 41–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ondrich, J., Spiess, C. K., & Yang, Q. (1996). Barefoot and in a German kitchen: Federal parental leave and benefit policy and the return to work after childbirth in Germany. Journal of Population Economics, 9, 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pylkkänen, E., & Smith, N. (2003) Career interruptions due to parental leave: A comparative study of Denmark and Sweden. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, DELSA/ELSA/WD/SEM (2003) 1, Paris.Google Scholar
  33. Rönsen, M., & Sundström, M. (1996). Maternal employment in Scandinavia: A comparison of the after-birth employment activity of Norwegian and Swedish Women. Journal of Population Economics, 9, 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ruhm, C. (1998). The economic consequences of parental leave mandates: Lessons from Europe. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(1), 285–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ruhm, C., & Teague, J. L. (1997). Parental leave policies in Europe and North America. In F. Blau & R. Ehrenberg (Eds.), Gender and family issues in the workplace (pp. 133–156). New York: Russel Sage, Press.Google Scholar
  36. Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. G. (2002). Maintenance of and innovation in long-term panel studies The case of the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). Allgemeines Statistisches Archiv, 86, 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Steiner, V., Haan, P., & Wrohlich, K. (2005). Das Steuer-Transfer Simulationsmodell STSM 1999–2002. DIW Data Documentation, 9.Google Scholar
  38. Steiner, V., & Wrohlich, K. (2004). Household taxation, income splitting and labor supply incentives—a microsimulation study for Germany. CESifo Economic Studies, 50(3), 541–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Steiner, V., & Wrohlich, K. (2008). Introducing family tax splitting in Germany: How would it affect the income distribution and work incentives? FinanzArchiv–Public Finance Analysis, 64(1), 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van Soest, A. (1995). Structural models of family labor supply: A discrete choice approach. Journal of Human Resources, 30(1), 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Waldfogel, J. (1998). Understanding the family gap in pay form women with children. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 137–156.Google Scholar
  42. Waldfogel, J., Higuchi, Y., & Abe, M. (1999). Family leave policies and women`s retention after childbirth: Evidence from the United States, Britain, and Japan. Journal of Population Economics, 12, 523–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weber, A. M. (2004). Wann kehren junge Mütter auf den Arbeitsmarkt zurück. ZEW Discussion Paper 04-08.Google Scholar
  44. Wrohlich, K. (2008). The excess demand for subsidized child care in Germany. Applied Economics (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  45. Wrohlich, K. (2006). Labor supply and child care choices in a rationed child care market. IZA Discussion Papers 2053.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIW Berlin (German Institute for Economic Research)BerlinGermany
  2. 2.Free University of BerlinBerlin Germany

Personalised recommendations