Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 723–769 | Cite as

Assisted reproductive technology and women’s choice to pursue professional careers

Original Paper

Abstract

We examine the impact of assisted reproductive technology on women’s choice to pursue professional careers. We hypothesize that the availability of assisted reproductive technology increases the expected benefits of a professional degree by allowing women to delay childbearing in their 20s and 30s while establishing their careers, thereby reaping greater financial benefit from human capital investment. State-level timing differences in the enactment of laws which mandated infertility treatment coverage in employer-sponsored health plans allow us to exploit state, year, and cohort variation in women’s ages at the time the laws are passed. These insurance mandates dramatically increase access to assisted reproductive technology. Using a triple difference strategy, we find that a mandate to cover assisted reproductive technology does increase the probability that a woman chooses to invest in a professional degree and to work in a professional career.

Keywords

Occupational choice Insurance mandates Fertility Professional careers Professional degrees Assisted reproductive technology 

JEL Classification

I13 I26 J13 J24 

References

  1. Abadie A, Diamond A, Hainmueller J (2010) Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program. J Am Stat Assoc 105:490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramowitz J (2012) Assisted reproductive technology and women’s marriage and birth timing: duration and competing risks analyses.Unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  3. Abramowitz J (2014) Turning back the ticking clock: the effect of increased affordability of assisted reproductive technology on women’s marriage timing. J Popul Econ 27(2):603–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adashi EY, Cohen J, Hamberger L, Jones HW Jr, De Kretser DM, Lunenfeld B, Rosenwaks Z, Van Steirteghem A (2000) Public perception on infertility and its treatment: an international survey. The Bertarelli Foundation Scientific Board. Hum Reprod, (Oxford, England) 15(2):330–334Google Scholar
  5. Aleccia J (2011) Fertility math? Most women flunk, survey finds. Today. November 15Google Scholar
  6. Ayres I, Levitt SD (1998) Measuring positive externalities from unobservable victim precaution: an empirical analysis of Lojack. Q J Econ 113(1):43–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bailey MJ (2006) More power to the pill: The impact of contraceptive freedom on women’s life cycle labor supply. Q J Econ 21(1):289–320Google Scholar
  8. Bailey MJ, Hershbein B, Miller AR (2012) The opt-in revolution? Contraception and the gender gap in wages. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 4(3):225–54Google Scholar
  9. Becker GS (1975) Human capital: a theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. National Bureau of Economic Research: distributed by Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Bertrand M, Duflo E, Mullainathan S (2004) How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates?. Q J Econ 119(1):249–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bitler MP, Schmidt L (2012) Utilization of infertility treatments: the effects of insurance mandates. Demography 49(1):125–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buckles KS (2007) Stopping the biological clock: infertility treatments and the career-family trade-off. Boston University, Unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  13. Buckles KS (2013) Infertility insurance mandates and multiple births. Health Econ 22(7):775–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2014) Infertility FAQs. Last accessed June 4, 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Infertility/Index.htm
  15. Conley TG, Taber CR (2011) Inference with “difference in differences” with a small number of policy changes. Rev Econ Stat 93(1):113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldin C, Katz LF (2002) The power of the pill: oral contraceptives and women’s career and marriage decisions. J Polit Econ 110(4):730–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldin C, Katz LF, Kuziemko I (2006) The homecoming of American college women: the reversal of the college gender gap. J Econ Perspect 20(4):133–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gruber J (1994) The incidence of mandated maternity benefits. Am Econ Rev 84(3):622–641Google Scholar
  19. Hamilton BH, McManus B (2012) The effects of insurance mandates on choices and outcomes in infertility treatment markets. Health Econ 21(8):994–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hewlett SA (2002) Executive women and the myth of having it all. Harvard Business Review. http://hbr.org/2002/04/executive-women-and-the-myth-of-having-it-all
  21. King M, Ruggles S, Alexander JT, Flood S, Genadek K, Schroeder MB, Trampe B, Vick R (2010) Integrated public use microdata series, current population survey: version 3.0 [Machine-readable database]. University of Minnesota, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  22. Leung MYM, Groes F, Santaeulalia-Llopis R (2016) The relationship between age at first birth and mother’s lifetime earnings: evidence from danish data. PloS one 11(1):e0146989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Machado MP, Sanz-de-Galdeano A (2015) Coverage of infertility treatment and fertility outcomes. SERIEs 6(4):407–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller AR (2011) The effects of motherhood timing on career path. J Popul Econ 24(3):1071–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller CC (2014) Freezing eggs as part of employee benefits: some women see darker message. New York Times. October 14Google Scholar
  26. Miller CC (2015) More than their mothers, young women plan career pauses? New York Times. July 22Google Scholar
  27. National Center for Education Statistics (2011) Digest of Education StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  28. North A (2012) Young people totally think they’re infertile? Jezebel. February 7Google Scholar
  29. Ohinata A (2011) Did the US infertility health insurance mandates affect the timing of first birth?. Unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  30. Polis CB, Zabin LS (2012) Missed conceptions or misconceptions: perceived infertility among unmarried young adults in the United States. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 44(1):30–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. RESOLVE (2014) RESOLVE Insurance Coverage in Your State. Last accessed June 4, 2014. http://www.resolve.org/family-building-options/insurance_coverage/state-coverage.html
  32. Ruggles S, Genadek K, Goeken R, Grover J, Sobek M (2015) Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 6.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2015Google Scholar
  33. Ryan EG (2011) The fertility denial complex? Jezebel. November 15Google Scholar
  34. Schmidt L (2007) Effects of infertility insurance mandates on fertility. J Health Econ 26(3):431–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. William M, Mercer Company (1997) Women’s health issues: infertility as a covered benefitGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.University of South FloridaTampaUSA

Personalised recommendations