Population Research and Policy Review

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 1–24 | Cite as

The Effect of Cash Transfers on Fertility: Evidence from Argentina

  • Santiago Garganta
  • Leonardo Gasparini
  • Mariana Marchionni
  • Mariano Tappatá
Article

Abstract

In 2009 Argentina introduced a large poverty-alleviation program (AUH) that provides monthly cash transfers per child to households without workers in the formal sector. In this paper we study the potential unintended effect of this program on fertility. We apply a difference-in-difference strategy comparing the probability of having a new child among eligible and ineligible mothers both before and after the program inception. The intention to treat estimations suggest a significant positive impact on fertility in households with at least one child (around 2 percentage points), but no significant effect on childless households. Given the short time window since the implementation of the AUH, we are unable to identify whether this positive effect reflects changes in the timing of births or in the equilibrium number of children.

Keywords

Fertility Cash transfers Social protection AUH Argentina 

JEL Classification

H55 I38 J13 

References

  1. Aaronson, D., Lange, F., & Mazumder, B. (2014). Fertility transitions along the extensive and intensive margins. American Economic Review, 104(11), 3701–3724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acs, G. (1996). The impact of welfare on young mothers’ subsequent childbearing decisions. Journal of Human Resources, 31(4), 898–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agis, E., Cañete, C., & Panigo, D. (2010). El Impacto de la Asignación Universal por Hijo en Argentina. Colección de Textos del Bicentenario, CICCUS/CEIL-PIETTE.Google Scholar
  4. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alzúa, M. L., Cruces, G., & Ripani, L. (2013). Welfare programs and labor supply in developing countries. Experimental evidence from Latin America. Journal of Population Economics, 26(4), 1255–1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amarante, V., Manacorda, M., Miguel, E., & Vigorito, A. (2016). Do cash transfers improve birth outcomes? Evidence from matched vital statistics, and program and social security data. American Economic Journal, 8(2), 1–43.Google Scholar
  7. ANSES. (2012). Boletín Cuatrimestral Asignación Universal por Hijo para Protección Social. III Cuatrimestre 2012. Observatorio de la Seguridad Social, Administración Nacional de la Seguridad Social (ANSES).Google Scholar
  8. Azuara, O., & Marinescu, I. (2013). Informality and the expansion of social protection programs. Evidence from Mexico. Journal of Health Economics, 32(5), 938–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Badaracco, N., Gasparini, L., & Marchionni, M. (2016). Distributive implications of fertility changes in Latin America. International Journal of Population Research, 2016, Article ID 8717265.Google Scholar
  10. Baudin, T., de la Croix, D., & Gobbi, P. E. (2015). Fertility and childlessness in the United States. American Economic Review, 105(6), 1852–1882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Becker, G. S. (1960). An economic analysis of fertility. In Demographic and economic change in developed countries (pp. 209–231), National Bureau of Economic Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Becker, G. S., & Lewis, H. G. (1973). On the interaction between the quantity and quality of children. Journal of Political Economy, 81(2), S279–S288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). How much should we trust difference-in-difference estimates? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(1), 249–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bertranou, F. (2010). Aportes para la construcción de un piso de protección social en Argentina: El caso de las asignaciones familiares. Buenos Aires: OIT.Google Scholar
  15. Billari, F. C., Philipov, D., & Testa, M. R. (2009). Attitudes, norms and perceived behavioural control: Explaining fertility intentions in Bulgaria. European Journal of Population, 25, 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blau, D., & Robbins, P. (1989). Fertility, employment and child-care costs. Demography, 26(2), 287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Card, D. (1990). The impact of the Mariel boatlift on the Miami Labor market. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 43(2), 245–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Card, D., & Krueger, A. (1994). Minimum wages and employment: A case of study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. American Economic Review, 84, 772–793.Google Scholar
  19. Cigno, A., & Pinal, G. (2004). Endogenous child mortality, price of child-specific goods and fertility decisions: Evidence from Argentina. In D. Heymann, F. Navajas, & E. Bour (Eds.), Latin American economic crises. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen, A., Dehejia, R., & Romanov, D. (2013). Financial incentives and fertility. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. D’Elia, V., Calabria, A., Calero, A., Gaiada, J., & Rottenschweiler, S. (2010). Asignación Universal por Hijo para Protección Social: Una política de Protección para los más vulnerables. Revista del Centro Interamericano de Estudios de la Seguridad Social (CIESS) No 260.Google Scholar
  22. D’Elia, V., & Navarro, A. (2011). The impact of the universal child allowance on Argentina´s children schooling gap. Proceedings of the AAEP.Google Scholar
  23. Deaton, A. (2003). How to monitor poverty for the millennium development goals. Journal of Human Development, 4(3), 353–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kremer, M. (2006). Using randomization in development economics research: A toolkit. NBER Technical Working Paper 333.Google Scholar
  25. Dyer, W., & Fairlie, R. (2003). Do family caps reduce out-of-wedlock births? Evidence from Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, New Jersey, and Virginia. Yale University, Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper No. 877.Google Scholar
  26. Ebenstein, A. (2010). The ‘Missing Girls’ of China and the unintended consequences of the one child policy. Journal of Human Resources, 45(1), 87–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Edo, M., Marchionni, M., & Garganta (2015). Conditional cash transfer programs and enforcement of compulsory education laws. The case of Asignación Universal por Hijo in Argentina. CEDLAS Working Paper N. 190.Google Scholar
  28. Fairlie, Robert W., & London, Rebecca A. (1997). The effect of incremental benefit levels on births to AFDC recipients. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(4), 575–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fiszbein, A., Schady, N., Ferreira, F., Grosh, M., Keleher, N., Olinto, P., & Skoufias, E. (2009). Conditional cash transfers: Reducing present and future poverty. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Garganta, S., & Gasparini, L. (2015). The impact of a social program on labor informality: The case of AUH in Argentina. Journal of Development Economics, 115, 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gasparini, L., Cicowiez, M., & Sosa Escudero, W. (2013). Pobreza y Desigualdad en América Latina: Conceptos, herramientas y aplicaciones. Buenos Aires: Editorial Temas.Google Scholar
  32. Gasparini, L., & Cruces, G. (2010). Las asignaciones universales por hijo. impacto, discusión y alternativas. Revista Económica. LVI, 1, 105–146.Google Scholar
  33. Gonzalez-Rozada, M., & Pinto, F. L. (2011). The effects of a CCT on the labor market: The human development bonus in Ecuador. Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Department of Economics Working Papers, 2011.Google Scholar
  34. Grogger, J., Karoly, L., & Klerman, A. (2002). Consequences of welfare reform: A research synthesis. Los Angeles, CA: The RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  35. Groisman, F., Bossert, F., & Sconfienza, M. E. (2014). Políticas de protección social y participación económica de la población en Argentina (2003–2010). Desarrollo Económico, 51, 202–203.Google Scholar
  36. Hoynes, H. M. (1997). Work, welfare, and family structure. In A. J. Auerbach (Ed.), Fiscal policy: Lessons from economic research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Joyce, T., Kaestner, R., & Korenman, S. (2003). Welfare Reform and non-marital fertility in the 1990s: Evidence from birth records. Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 3(1), Article 6.Google Scholar
  38. Kearny, M. (2004). Is there an effect of incremental welfare benefits on fertility behavior? A look at the family cap. Journal of Human Resources, 39, 295–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Laroque, G., & Salanié, B. (2013). Identifying the response of fertility to financial incentives. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 29, 314–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lustig, N., Jaramillo, M., Pessino, C., & Scott, J. (2012). Commitment to equity: An assessment of fiscal policies in Argentina, Mexico and Peru. New York: Mimeo.Google Scholar
  41. Milligan, K. (2005). Subsidizing the stork. New evidence on tax incentives and fertility. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(3), 539–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moffitt, R. (1998). The effect of welfare on marriage and fertility: What do we know and what do we need to know? In R. Moffitt (Ed.), The family and reproductive behavior: Research perspectives. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  43. Moreno, J. M. (2006). La protección social en Argentina. Banco Mundial, manuscript.Google Scholar
  44. Nandi, A., & Laxminarayan, R. (2016). The unintended effects of cash transfers on fertility: Evidence from the Safe Motherhood Scheme in India. Journal of Population Economics, 29(2), 457–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oster, E. (2005). Hepatitis B and the case of the missing women. Journal of Political Economy, 113(6), 1163–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pacharoni, V., & Ronconi, L. (2014). El impacto de la Asignación Universal por Hijo sobre la Tasa de Fecundidad. Proceedings of the AAEP.Google Scholar
  47. Palermo, T., Handa, S., Peterman, A., Prencipe, L., & Seidenfeld, D. (2015). Unconditional government social cash transfer in Africa does not increase fertility. Innocenti Working Paper, 2015-09 (UNICEF Office of Research).Google Scholar
  48. Paz, J., & Golovanevsky, L. (2014), Programa Asignación Universal por Hijo para la Protección Social. Un ejercicio de evaluación de sus efectos sobre los hogares. III Jornadas Nacionales sobre Estudios Regionales y Mercados de Trabajo, Jujuy, Argentina.Google Scholar
  49. Philipov, D., Spéder, Z., & Billari, F. C. (2006). The impact of anomie and social capital on fertility intentions in Bulgaria (2002) and Hungary (2001). Population Studies, 60, 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Puhani, P. (2012). The treatment effect, the cross difference and the interaction term in nonlinear difference-in-difference models. Economics Letters, 115(1), 85–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rofman, R., & Oliveri, M. (2011). Las Políticas de Protección social y su impacto en la distribución del Ingreso en Argentina. Working Paper Series on Social Policy No 6, World Bank.Google Scholar
  52. Rosenzweig, Mark R. (1999). Welfare, marital prospects, and nonmarital childbearing. Journal of Political Economy, 107(6), S3–S32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rosenzweig, M. R., & Schultz, T. P. (1985). The demand for and supply of births: Fertility and its life cycle consequences. American Economic Review, 75(5), 992–1015.Google Scholar
  54. Schultz, T. P. (1997). Demand for children in low income countries. In M.R. Rosenzweig & O. Stark (Eds.), Handbook of population and family economics. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  55. Signorini, B. A., & Queiroz, B. (2011). The impact of the Bolsa Família program in the beneficiary fertility. Texto para Discussão 439, Cedeplar-Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG).Google Scholar
  56. Stampini, M., & Tornarolli, L. (2013). The growth of conditional cash transfers in Latin America and the Caribbean: Did they go too far? Proceedings of the AAEP, Rosario.Google Scholar
  57. Stecklov, G., Winters, P., Todd, J., & Regalia, F. (2007). Unintended effects of poverty programmes on childbearing in less developed countries: Experimental evidence from Latin America. Population Studies, 61(2), 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Todd, J., Winters, P., & Stecklov, G. (2012). Evaluating the impact of conditional cash transfer programs on fertility: The case of Red de Protección Social in Nicaragua. Journal of Population Economics, 25(1), 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Whittington, L., Alm, J., & Peters, H. (1990). Fertility and the personal exemption-implicit pronatalist policy in the United States. American Economic Review, 80(3), 545–556.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEDLAS, Facultad de Ciencias EconómicasUniversidad Nacional de La Plata and CONICETLa PlataArgentina
  2. 2.McDonough School of BusinessGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations