Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 1083–1111 | Cite as

Unconditional government social cash transfer in Africa does not increase fertility

  • Tia Palermo
  • Sudhanshu Handa
  • Amber Peterman
  • Leah Prencipe
  • David Seidenfeld
  • on behalf of the Zambia CGP Evaluation Team
Original Paper

Abstract

Among policymakers, a common perception surrounding the effects of cash transfer programmes, particularly unconditional programmes targeted to families with children, is that they induce increased fertility. We evaluate the Zambian Child Grant Programme, a government unconditional cash transfer targeted to families with a child under the age of 5 and examine impacts on fertility and household composition. The evaluation was a cluster randomized control trial, with data collected over 4 years from 2010 to 2014. Our results indicate that there are no programme impacts on overall fertility. Our results contribute to a small evidence base demonstrating that there are no unintended incentives related to fertility due to cash transfers.

Keywords

Fertility Unconditional cash transfers Zambia Africa 

JEL Classifications

J1 I1 I3 

References

  1. Ahmed S, Li Q, Liu L, Tsui AO (2012) Maternal deaths averted by contraceptive use: an analysis of 172 countries. Lancet 380(9837):111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Institutes for Research (2011) Zambia’s Child Grant Program: baseline report. American Institutes for Research, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. American Institutes for Research (2015) Zambia’s Child Grant Program: 48 month impact report. American Institutes for Research, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Arenas E, Parker SW, Rubalcalva LN, Teruel GM (2015) Do conditional cash transfer programs affect fertility and marriage? Long term impacts of a Mexican Cash Transfer Program. Paper presented at the Population Association of America Annual Meeting, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  5. Baird S, Chirwa E, McIntosh C, Ozler B (2010) The short-term impacts of a schooling conditional cash transfer program on the sexual behavior of young women. Health Econ 19(Suppl):55–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baird S, McIntosh C, Özler B (2011) Cash or condition? Evidence from a cash transfer experiment. Q J Econ qjr032Google Scholar
  7. Becker GS (1960) An economic analysis of fertility demographic and economic change in developed countries. Columbia University Press, 209–240Google Scholar
  8. Becker GS, Lewis HG (1974) On the interaction between the quantity and quality of children. J Polit Econ 81(2):S279–S288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Black DA, Kolesnikova N, Sanders SG, Taylor LJ (2013) Are children “normal”? Rev Econ Stat 95(1):21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bongaarts J (2008) Fertility transitions in developing countries: progress or stagnation? Stud Fam Plan 39(2):105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bongaarts J, Casterline J (2013) Fertility transition: is sub-Saharan Africa different? Popul Dev Rev 38(s1):153–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bor J (2013) Cash transfers and teen pregnancy in South Africa: evidence from a natural experiment. Boston University, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. Cain M (1981) Risk and insurance: perspectives on fertility and agrarian change in India and Bangladesh. Popul Dev Rev 435–474Google Scholar
  14. Central Statistical Office (CSO), Ministry of Health (MOH), Tropical Diseases Research Centre (TDRC), University of Zambia, & Inc., M. I (2009) Zambia Demographic and Health Survey 2007. CSO and Macro International Inc., CalvertonGoogle Scholar
  15. Central Statistical Office (CSO), Ministry of Health (MOH), Tropical Diseases Research Centre (TDRC), University Teaching Hospital-Virology Laboratory, University of Zambia, & ICF International (2014) Zambia Demographic and Health Survey 2013–2014. CSO and ICF Macro, CalvertonGoogle Scholar
  16. Cleland J, Conde-Agudelo A, Peterson H, Ross J, Tsui A (2012) Contraception and health. Lancet 380(9837):149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Danese A, McEwen BS (2012) Adverse childhood experiences, allostasis, allostatic load, and age-related disease. Physiol Behav 106(1):29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dewey KG, Begum K (2011) Long-term consequences of stunting in early life. Mater Child Nutri 7(s3):5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Easterlin RA (1975) An economic framework for fertility analysis. Stud Family Plan 54–63Google Scholar
  20. Falcão Silva T (2015) Email on Brazil’s Bolsa Familia from Secretaria Extraordinária para Superação da Extrema Pobreza, Ministério do Desenvolvimento Social e Combate à FomeGoogle Scholar
  21. Goldblatt B (2003) Teen pregnancy and abuse of the child support grant. Addressing the myths and stereotypes. Agenda 17(56):79–83Google Scholar
  22. Gulemetova-Swan M (2009) Evaluating the impact of conditional cash transfer programs on adolescent decisions about marriage and fertility: the case of oportunidadesGoogle Scholar
  23. Handa S, Halpern CT, Pettifor A, Thirumurthy H (2014) The government of Kenya’s cash transfer program reduces the risk of sexual debut among young people age 15–25. PLoS One 9(1):e85473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Handa S, Peterman A, Huang C, Halpern CT, Pettifor A, Thirumurthy H (2015) Impact of the Kenya cash transfer for orphans and vulnerable children on early pregnancy and marriage of adolescent girls. Soc Sci Med 141:36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heckman JJ (2007) The economics, technology, and neuroscience of human capability formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(33):13250–13255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heinrich C, Hoddinott J, Samson M, Mac Quene K, van Nikerk I, Renaud B (2012) The South African child support grant impact assessment. Department of Social Development, South African Social Security Agency, UNICEF, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  27. Heinrich C, Hoddinott J, Samson M (2015) Reducing adolescent risky behaviors in a high-risk context: the effects of unconditional cash transfers in South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  28. Hochfeld T, Plagerson S (2011) The social construction of the cash transfer mother in Soweto, South Africa: the emergence of social stigma?: Johannesburg: Centre for Social Development in AfricaGoogle Scholar
  29. Holmqvist G (2011) Fertility impact of high-coverage public pensions in sub-Saharan Africa. Glob Social Policy 11(2–3):152–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kim J, Prskawetz A (2010) External shocks, household consumption and fertility in Indonesia. Popul Res Policy Rev 29(4):503–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lawrance EC (1991) Poverty and the rate of time preference: evidence from panel data. J Political Econ 54–77Google Scholar
  32. Leroy JL, Ruel M, Habicht J-P, Frongillo EA (2014) Linear growth deficit continues to accumulate beyond the first 1000 days in low-and middle-income countries: global evidence from 51 national surveys. J Nutr 144(9):1460–1466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lund F, (2008) Changing social policy: the child support grant in South Africa: HSRC press Cape TownGoogle Scholar
  34. Macours K, Schady N, Vakis R (2012) Cash transfers, behavioral changes, and cognitive development in early childhood: evidence from a randomized experiment. Am Econo J: Appl Econ 4(2):247–273Google Scholar
  35. Malawi SCT Evaluation Team (2015) Malawi Social Cash Transfer Programme Midline Impact Evaluation Report: Carolina Population Center; UNICEF Office of Research; Centre for Social Research, University of MalawiGoogle Scholar
  36. McQueston K, Silverman R, Glassman A (2013) The efficacy of interventions to reduce adolescent childbearing in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Stud Fam Plan 44(4):369–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ministry of Social Development and Fight against Hunger (2012). Evolution of fertility rates by region and per capita household income between 2000 and 2010. Technical Note No. 067/2012/GAB/SAGI/MDSGoogle Scholar
  38. Namboodiri NK (1972) Some observations on the economic framework for fertility analysis. Popul Stud 26(2):185–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rafalitnanana H, Westoff CF (2000) Potential effects on fertility and child health and survival of birth-spacing preferences in sub-Saharan Africa. Stud Fam Plan 31(2):99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Richter M (2009) Bread, baby shoes or blusher? Myths about social grants and‘lazy’young mothers. SAMJ: South Afr Med J 99(2):94Google Scholar
  41. Rosenberg M, Pettifor A, Nguyen N, Westreich D, Bor J, Barnighausen T, Mee P, Twine R, Tollman S, Kahn K (2015) Relationship between receipt of a social protection grant for a child and second pregnancy rates among South African women. PLoS One 10(9), e0137352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rutstein SO (2005) Effects of preceding birth intervals on neonatal, infant and under-five years mortality and nutritional status in developing countries: evidence from the demographic and health surveys. Int J Gynecol Obstet 89:S7–S24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sedgh G, Singh S, Hussain R (2014) Intended and unintended pregnancies worldwide in 2012 and recent trends. Stud Fam Plan 45(3):301–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stecklov G, Winters P (2011) Do Cash transfers impact childbearing and childrearing? Experimental evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa. Working PaperGoogle Scholar
  45. 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. Popul Stud 61(2):125–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Todd JE, Winters P, Stecklov G (2012) Evaluating the impact of conditional cash transfer programs on fertility: the case of the Red de Protección Social in Nicaragua. J Popul Econ 25(1):267–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Upadhyay UD, Karasek D (2012) Women’s empowerment and ideal family size: an examination of DHS empowerment measures in sub-Saharan Africa. International perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, 78–89Google Scholar
  48. Vekemans M (1997) Postpartum contraception: the lactational amenorrhea method. Eur J Contracept Reprod Healthc 2(2):105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Verbeek M (2008) A guide to modern econometrics: WileyGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilcox BL, Robbennolt JK, O’Keeffe JE, Pynchon ME (1996) Teen nonmarital childbearing and welfare: the gap between research and political discourse. J Soc Issues 52(3):71–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. World Bank (2015) The state of social safety nets 2015. World Bank, Washington, DC. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0543-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tia Palermo
    • 1
  • Sudhanshu Handa
    • 1
    • 2
  • Amber Peterman
    • 1
  • Leah Prencipe
    • 1
  • David Seidenfeld
    • 3
  • on behalf of the Zambia CGP Evaluation Team
  1. 1.UNICEF Office of Research—InnocentiFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.Department of Public PolicyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.American Institutes for Research (AIR)WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations