Review of Economics of the Household

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 145–170 | Cite as

The Effect of a Family Policy Reform on Mother’s Pay: A Natural Experiment Approach



All parents in Norway with children aged one to three, who do not attend publicly subsidised day care, are entitled to a cash-for-care (CFC) subsidy. Studies have shown that the reform has reduced mother’s labour supply. In this paper we analyse wage effects of the reform. We put forward a framework for evaluating reforms when reforms are uniformly and equally accessible nation-wide. First, running a simple Difference in differences (DD) analysis, results suggest that the CFC reform has reduced the mother’s wages. However, after controlling for “the age of the child” effect, by running a triple difference approach, we no longer find any evidence of negative wage effects.


child care wages public policy difference-in-differences-in-differences 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Albrect, James,  et al. 1998“Career Interruptions and Subsequent Earnings: A Reexamination using Swedish data”The Journal of Human ResourcesXXXIV294311Google Scholar
  2. Asplund Rita. et al. (1996). “Wage Distribution Across Individuals.” In Eskil Wadensjö (ed.), The Nordic Labour Markets in the 1990s. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.VGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertrand Marianne., Esther Duflo., Sendhil Mullainathan. (2002). “How much Should we Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?” Working Paper No. 8841. National Bureau of Economic Research. Massachusetts USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Datta, Gupta, Nabanita, , Nina, Smith 2002“Children and Career Interruptions: The Family Gap in Denmark”Economica69609629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gruber, Jonathan 1994“The Incidence of Mandated Maternity Benefits”American Economic Review84622641PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Harkness Susan., Jane Waldfogel. (2003). “The Family Gap in Pay: Evidence from Seven Industrialized Countries.” In Solomon Polachek (ed.), Worker Well-Being and Public Policy. Research in Labor Economics. Jai Press IncGoogle Scholar
  7. Heckman, James 1979“Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error”Economterica47153162Google Scholar
  8. Hellevik, Tale. (2000). Småbarnsforeldres yrkesdeltakelse og valg av barnetilsyn før o getter kontantstøttens innføring.” (In Norwegian) Report 2000/02. Norsk institutt for forskning om oppvekst, velferd og aldring (NOVA)Google Scholar
  9. Joshi, Heather, Pierella, Paci, Jane, Waldfogel 1999“The Wages of Motherhood: Better or Worse?”Cambridge Journal of Economics23543564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kitterød, Ragni. (2003). Tid til barna? Tidsbruk og samsvar med barn blant mødre med barn i kontantstøttealder (In Norwegian). Report 2003/05. Statistics NorwayGoogle Scholar
  11. Kitterød, Ragni and Randi Kjeldstad. (2004). Foreldres arbeidstid 1991–2001. Belyst ved SSBs arbeidskraftundersøkelser, tidsbruksundersøkelser og levekårsundersøkelser (In Norwegian). Report 2004/06. Statistics NorwayGoogle Scholar
  12. Milligan, Kevin. (2002). “Subsidizing the Stork: New Evidence on Tax Incentives and Fertility.” Working Paper No. 8845. National Bureau of Economic Research. Massachusetts USAGoogle Scholar
  13. Mincer, Jacob, Solomon W, Polachek 1974“Family Investments in Human Capital: Earnings of women”Journal of Political Economy82576608Google Scholar
  14. Mincer, Jacob, Haim, Ofek 1982“Interrupted Work Careers: Depreciation and Restoration of Human Capital”Journal of Human Resources17324Google Scholar
  15. OECD (1996), Employment Outlook. ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. Ondrich Jan., Katharina C. Spiess., Qing Yang. (2001). “The Effect of Maternity Leave on Women’s Pay in Germany 1984–1994.” Discussion paper 289. German Institute for Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  17. Pettersen Silje Vatne. (2003). Barnefamiliers tilsynsordninger, yrkesdeltakelse og bruk av kontantstøtte våren 2002 (In Norwegian). Report 2003/09. Statistics NorwayGoogle Scholar
  18. Reppen Heidi., Elisabeth Rønning. (1999). Barnefamiliers tilsynsordninger, yrkesdeltakelse og bruk av kontantstøtte våren 1999 (In Norwegian). Report 1999/27. Statistics NorwayGoogle Scholar
  19. Ruhm, Christopher 1998“The Economic Consequences of Parental Leave Mandates: Lessons from Europe”Quarterly Journal of Economics113285317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rønsen Marit. (2001). Market work, child care and the division of household labour. Adaptations of Norwegian mothers before and after the cash-for-care reform. Report 2001/03. Statistics NorwayGoogle Scholar
  21. Rønsen, Marit, Marianne, Sundstrøm 1996“Maternal Employment in Scandinavia: A Comparison of the After-Birth Employment Activity of Norwegian and Swedish women”Journal of Population Economics9267285PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Schøne, Pål. (2004a). “Labour Supply Response to Cash-for-Care Subsidy.” Journal of Population Economics (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  23. Schøne, Pål. (2004b). “Kontantstøtten og mødres arbeidstilbud: Varig effekt eller retur til arbeid?” (In Norwegian). Norsk økonomisk tidsskrift (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  24. Lawrence Summers, H. 1989“Some Simple Economics of Mandated Benefits”American Economic Review79177183Google Scholar
  25. Waldfogel, Jane 1997

    “Working Mothers Then and Now: A Cross-Cohort Analysis of the Effect of Maternity Leave on Women’s Pay”

    Blau, Francine D.Ehrenberg, Ronald G. eds. Gender and family issues in the workplaceRussell SageNew York
    Google Scholar
  26. Waldfogel, Jane 1998“The family gap for young women in the United States and Britain: Can maternity leave make a difference?”Journal of Labor Economics16505545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Waldfogel, Jane 1999“The impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act”Journal of Policy Analysis and Management18281302CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Social ResearchElisenbergNorway

Personalised recommendations