Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 87–108 | Cite as

Economic incentives and the timing of births: evidence from the German parental benefit reform of 2007

  • Michael NeugartEmail author
  • Henry Ohlsson
Original Paper


Economic theory suggests that incentives matter for people’s decisions. This paper investigates whether this also holds for less self-evident areas of life such as the timing of births. We use a natural experiment when the German government changed its parental benefit system on January 1, 2007. The policy change strongly increased economic incentives for women to postpone delivery provided that they were employed. Applying a difference-in-difference-in-difference approach, we find very strong evidence that women with an employment history near to the end of their term indeed succeeded to shift births to the New Year and, therefore, could benefit from the new and more generous parental benefit system. Suggesting a model of chain reactions, we also report evidence that some women with due dates earlier in December tried but did not succeed to shift births to the New Year.


Timing of births Economic incentives Parental benefits Policy reform 

JEL Classification

J130 J180 H530 D190 



This work started when Neugart was affiliated with the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung which generously supported data purchase. Some of the work was done when Ohlsson enjoyed the hospitality of LEM, Université Panthéon-Assas, Paris II. This project was financially supported by a grant of the Central Research Committee of the Free University of Bozen/Bolzano. We would also like to thank the Forschungsdatenzentrum der Länder im Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg, in particular Matthias Klumpe, for their support in handling the data. Helpful comments and suggestions from Mikael Elinder, Jochen Kluve, Håkan Selin, and seminar participants at Bielefeld, London, and Växjö are gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Ai C, Norton EC (2003) Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Econ Lett 80:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bundesagentur für Arbeit (2010) Amtliche Nachrichten der Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Arbeitsmarkt 2010, Arbeitsmarktanalyse für Deutschland, West- und Ostdeutschland. Bericht 58 (2), NürnbergGoogle Scholar
  3. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (2008) Evaluation des Gesetzes zum Elterngeld und zur Elternzeit, 2008. Endbericht, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung: J. Kluve, C. M. Schmidt, M. Tamm, B. WinterGoogle Scholar
  4. Chandra A, Baker L, Dickert-Conlin S, Goodman D (2004) Holidays and the timing of births in the United States. MIT, mimeoGoogle Scholar
  5. Coomarasamy A, Knox EM, Gee H, Song F, Khan K (2003) Effectiveness of nifedipine versus atosiban for tocolysis in preterm labour: a meta-analysis with an indirect comparison of randomised trials. BJOG-Int J Obstet Gy 110:1045–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dickert-Conlin S, Chandra A (1999) Taxes and the timing of births. J Polit Econ 107(1):161–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eliason M, Ohlsson H (2008) Living to save taxes. Econ Lett 100:340–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eliason M, Ohlsson H (2010) Timing of death and the repeal of the Swedish inheritance tax. Working Paper No. 2010:2, Uppsala Center for Fiscal Studies, Department of Economics, Uppsala UniversityGoogle Scholar
  9. Gans JS, Leigh A (2006) Did the death of Australian inheritance taxes affect deaths? Top Econ Anal Pol 6(1):1–7Google Scholar
  10. Gans JS, Leigh A (2009) Born on the first of July: an (un)natural experiment in birth timing. J Public Econ 93(1–2):246–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gutierrez-Domenech M (2008) The impact of the labour market on the timing of marriage and births in Spain. J Popul Econ 21(1):83–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hajen L, Paetow H, Schumacher H (2010) Gesundheitsökonomie: Strukturen, Methoden, Praxis, 5th edn. Kohlhammer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  13. Khashan A, McNamee R, Abel K, Mortensen P, Kenny L, Pedersen M, Webb R, Baker P (2009) Rates of preterm birth following antenatal maternal exposure to severe life events: a population-based cohort study. Hum Reprod 24(2):429–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kluve J, Tamm M (2012) Parental leave regulations, mothers’ labor force attachment and fathers’ childcare involvement: evidence from a natural experiment. J Popul Econ. doi: 10.1007/s00148-012-0404-1 Google Scholar
  15. Kopczuk W, Slemrod J (2003) Dying to save taxes: evidence from estate-tax returns on the death elasticity. Rev Econ Stat 85(2):256–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maghakian T, Schulkind L (2010) What a difference a day makes: a new look at child tax benefits and the timing of birhts. University of California, Davis, mimeoGoogle Scholar
  17. Norton EC, Wang H, Ai C (2004) Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. Stata J 4(2):154–167Google Scholar
  18. Statistisches Bundesamt (2008) Statistisches Jahrbuch 2008. Statistisches BundesamtGoogle Scholar
  19. Tamm M (2009) The impact of a large parental leave benefit reform on the timing of birth around the day of implementation. Ruhr Economic Papers 98, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für WirtschaftsforschungGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Law and EconomicsTechnical University of DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations