Journal of Population Economics

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 875–892 | Cite as

Daddy months

  • Volker Meier
  • Helmut Rainer
Original Paper


We consider a bargaining model in which husband and wife decide on the allocation of time and disposable income, and fertility. Since her bargaining power would go down otherwise more strongly, the wife agrees to have a child only if the husband also leaves the labor market for a while. The daddy months subsidy enables the couple to overcome a hold-up problem and thereby improves efficiency. However, the same ruling harms other types of couples and may also reduce welfare in an endogenous taxation framework.


Fertility Bargaining Family policy Labor supply 

JEL Classification

D13 H21 J13 J18 J22 



We would like to thank Dan Anderberg, Rainald Borck, Alessandro Cigno, Hélène Couprie, Elisabeth Gugl, Alexander Kemnitz, Kai Konrad, Panu Poutvaara, Kerstin Schneider, two anonymous referees, and participants of seminars and conferences at Aix-en-Provence, Berlin, Dresden, Hamburg, Klagenfurt, Lugano, and Munich for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Albrecht JW, Edin P-A, Sundström M, Vroman SB (1999) Career interruptions and subsequent earnings: a reexamination using Swedish data. J Human Res 34(2):294–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apps P, Rees R (2004) Fertility, taxation and family policy. Scand J Econ 106(4):745–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu K (2006) Gender and say: a model of household behaviour with endogenously determined balance of power. Econ J 116(511):558–580Google Scholar
  4. Becker GS (1985) Human capital, effort, and the sexual division of labor. J Lab Econ 3(1):S33–S58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergstrom T, Blomquist S (1996) The political economy of subsidized day care. Eur J Polit Econ 12(3):443–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertrand M, Goldin C, Katz LF (2010) Dynamics of the gender gap for young professionals in the financial and corporate sectors. Am Econ J: Appl Econ 2(3):228–255Google Scholar
  7. Binmore K, Rubinstein A, Wolinsky A (1986) The Nash bargaining solution in economic modelling. Rand J Econ 17(2):176–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blomquist S, Christiansen V, Micheletto L (2010) Public provision of private goods and nondistortionary marginal tax rates. Am Econ J: Econ Policy 2(2):1–27Google Scholar
  9. Borck R, Wrohlich K (2011) Preferences for child care policies: theory and evidence. Eur J Polit Econ 27(3):436–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bourguignon F, Chiappori P (1994) The collective approach to household behavior. In: Blundell R, Preston I, Walker I (eds) The Measurement of Household Welfare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 70–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cigno A (1993) Intergenerational transfers without altruism: family, market and state. Eur J of Polit Econ 9(4):505–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cigno A (2012) Marriage as a commitment device. Rev Econ Househ 10(2):193–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cigno A (2014) Is marriage as good as a contract? CESifo Econ Stud 60(3):599–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ekberg J, Eriksson R, Friebel G (2013) Parental leave—a policy evaluation of the Swedish ”Daddy-Month” reform. J Public Econ 97:131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geisler E, Kreyenfeld M (2012) How policy matters: Germany’s parental leave benefit reform and fathers’ behavior 1999–2009. Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Working Paper 2012-021, RostockGoogle Scholar
  16. Iyigun M, Walsh RP (2007) Endogenous gender power, household labor supply and the demographic transition. J Dev Econ 82(1):138–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kemnitz A, Thum M (2015) Gender power, fertility, and family policy. Scand J Econ 117(1):220– 247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Konrad KA, Lommerud KE (1995) Family policy with non-cooperative families. Scand J Econ 97(4):581–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Konrad KA, Lommerud KE (2000) The bargaining family revisited. Can J Econ 33(2):471–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lommerud KE (1989) Marital division of labor with risk of divorce: the role of ”voice” enforcement of contracts. J Lab Econ 7(1):113–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. OECD (2015) OECD Family database.
  22. Rasul I (2006) The economics of child custody. Economica 73(289):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rege M, Solli IF (2013) The impact of paternity leave on father’s future earnings. Demography 50(6):2255–2277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rubinstein A (1982) Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50(1):97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ruhm CJ (1998) The economic consequences of parental leave mandates: lessons from Europe. Quart J Econ 113(1):285–317Google Scholar
  26. Sinn H-W (2001) The value of children and immigrants in a pay-as-you-go pension system: a proposal for a transition to a funded system. ifo Stud 47(1):77–94Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ifo Institute for Economic Research and University of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations