Journal of Population Research

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 73–90 | Cite as

Births, debts and mirages: The impact of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) and other factors on Australian fertility expectations

  • Peng Yu
  • Rebecca Kippen
  • Bruce Chapman


This paper uses survey data to examine the effect of the income-contingent charge mechanism, the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS), and other demographic and attitudinal variables on fertility expectations in Australia over the recent past. HECS requires former Australian students to fund some of the costs of higher education through the repayment of interest-free loans made by the Australian government. Its defining characteristic is that repayments only occur when and if students future incomes exceed a particular level. Since its introduction in 1989, media and other populist commentary has suggested that HECS has had unanticipated effects on behaviour. Most recently, attention has focused on the effects of HECS on fertility, with some arguing that university graduates are delaying births, and having fewer children, because of their HECS debts. This paper demonstrates that the introduction of HECS has had no discernible impact on Australian fertility rates, nor on the number of children that people expect to have. However, education, age and a number of attitudinal factors are associated with significant differences in fertility expectations.


Australia fertility expectations higher education contribution scheme lifetime fertility fertility determinants education costs religiosity attitude 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Addison, Thomas and Christopher Worswick. 2002. The impact of immigration on the earnings of natives: evidence from Australian micro data.Economic Record 78(240): 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Age, The. 2003. HECS debt fertility warning. <> Accessed 17 November 2003.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, Fiona. 2004. The price of graduation.Australian Nursing Journal 11(7): 22–24.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Various years.Births Australia. Catalogue number 3301.0. Canberra.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). 2004. Unpublished data from the 1981, 1986 and 1996 Australian Censuses of Population and Housing. Canberra.Google Scholar
  6. Baird, Julia. 2002. Dont leave us holding the baby.Sydney Morning Herald 4 November: 15.Google Scholar
  7. Breusch, Trevor and Edith Gray. 2004. New estimates of mothers forgone earnings using HILDA data.Australian Journal of Labour Economics 7(2): 125–150.Google Scholar
  8. Cannold, Leslie. 2005.What, No Baby? Why Women Are Losing the Freedom to Mother, and How They Can Get It Back. Fremantle: Curtin University Books.Google Scholar
  9. Castro Martin, Teresa. 1995. Womens education and fertility: results from 26 Demographic and Health Surveys.Studies in Family Planning 26(4): 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman, Bruce. 1997. Conceptual issues and the Australian experience with income contingent charges for higher education.Economic Journal 107(442): 738–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapman, Bruce, Yvonne Dunlop, Matthew Gray, Amy Lui and Deborah Mitchell. 2001. The impact of children on the lifetime earnings of Australian women: evidence from the 1990s.Australian Economic Review 34 (4): 373–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chapman, Bruce and Chris Ryan. 2002. Income contingent financing of student charges for higher education: assessing the Australian innovation.Welsh Journal of Education 11(1): 45–63.Google Scholar
  13. Chapman, Bruce and Chris Ryan. 2005. The access implications of income related charges for higher education: lessons from Australia.Economics of Education Review 24 (5): 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clarke, Edward H. 1873.Sex in Education, or, a Fair Chance for the Girls. Boston: James R. Osgood and Company.Google Scholar
  15. Edwards, Meredith. 2001.Social Policy, Public Policy: From Problem to Practice. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  16. Fisher, Kathleen and David Charnock. 2003. Partnering and fertility patterns: analysis of the HILDA Survey, wave 1. Paper presented at HILDA Conference, University of Melbourne, 13 March.Google Scholar
  17. Greg, William Rathbone. 1872.Enigmas of Life. London: Trubner.Google Scholar
  18. Harding, Ann. 2003. ABC AM radio interview, 17 November. < content/2003/s990533.htm> Accessed July 2005.Google Scholar
  19. Harding, Ann, Simon Kelly and Anthea Bill. 2003.Income and Wealth of Generation X. AMP. NATSEM Income and Wealth Report Issue 6. Canberra.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, Natalie. 2002. The Higher Education Contribution Scheme—a HECS on the family? Pp. 105–119 in G.A. Carmichael and A. Dharmalingam (eds),Populations of New Zealand and Australia at the Millennium. Joint special issue ofJournal of Population Research andNew Zealand Population Review.Google Scholar
  21. Kippen, Rebecca and Peter McDonald. 2004. Can increased immigration be a substitute for low fertility?People and Place 12(3): 18–27.Google Scholar
  22. Macken, Deirdre. 2005.Oh No, We Forgot to Have Children! How Declining Birth Rates Are Reshaping Our Society. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  23. Macklin, Jenny. 2003. Research reveals uni changes are anti-family. Media statement, 17 November.Google Scholar
  24. McDonald, Peter and Rebecca Kippen. 1999. Ageing: the social and demographic dimensions. Pp. 47–70 inPolicy Implications of the Ageing of Australias Population Conference Proceedings (Melbourne 18–19 March 1999). Canberra: Ausinfo.Google Scholar
  25. Morgan, S.P. 2003. Is low fertility a twenty-first century demographic crisis?Demography 40(4): 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Noack, T. and L. Østby. 2000. Free to choose but unable to stick with it? Norwegian fertility expectations and subsequent behavior for the following twenty years. Paper presented in Session 2 Fertility Behaviour at the FFS Flagship Conference, Brussels, 29–31 May.Google Scholar
  27. Norton, Andrew. 2003. Student debt: a HECS on fertility? Centre for Independent Studies Issue Analysis no. 32. <> Accessed July 2004Google Scholar
  28. Pearse, Hilary. 2003. The social and economic impact of student debt. Melbourne: Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations Research Paper.Google Scholar
  29. Queensland Government. 2005. Submission to HREOC Inquiry into Striking the Balance: Women, Men, Work and Family. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.> Accessed November 2006.Google Scholar
  30. Rindfuss, R.R., S.P. Morgan and K. Offutt. 1996. Education and the changing age pattern of American fertility.Demography 33(3): 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schoen, R., N.M. Aston, Y.J. Kim, C.A. Nathanson and J.M. Fields. 1999. Do fertility intentions affect fertility behavior?Journal of Marriage and the Family 61(3): 790–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smallwood, S. and J. Jefferies. 2003. Family building intentions in England and Wales: trends, outcomes and interpretations.Population Trends 112: 15–28.Google Scholar
  33. Stott Despoja, Natasha. 2003. Speech on the Higher Education Support Bill.Senate Official Hansard, 24 November. <> Accessed September 2004.Google Scholar
  34. United Nations. 2003.World Population Prospects. The 2002 Revision, Volume I,Comprehensive Tables. New York.Google Scholar
  35. Weston, R., L. Qu, R. Parker and M. Alexander. 2004.Its Not for the Lack of Wanting Kids. A Report on the Fertility Decision Making Project. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Demography, Research School of Social SciencesThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations