European Journal of Population

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 369–390 | Cite as

The Effect of Grandparental Support on Mothers’ Labour Market Participation: An Instrumental Variable Approach

  • Bruno Arpino
  • Chiara D. Pronzato
  • Lara P. Tavares
Article

Abstract

Childcare arrangements are key in women’s ability to juggle motherhood and work outside the home. As such, the study of access to childcare and its use is of great policy relevance. We focus on a particular kind of informal childcare, the one provided by grandparents. Empirically, assessing the effect of grandparental childcare is not an easy task due to unobserved preferences. In light of the potential outcome framework, we interpret the biases resulting from unobserved preferences as arising from the non-compliance of mothers to the availability of grandparents and from preferences of grandparents for activities other than childcare. Using an instrumental variable approach on Italian data, we find that the effect of grandparental childcare on mothers’ labour supply is positive, statistically significant and economically relevant. The effect is stronger for less educated mothers, with young children and living in northern and central Italy.

Keywords

Female labour market participation Grandparental childcare Intergenerational transfers Instrumental variables Unobserved preferences 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC Grant Agreement No. 201194-CODEC, which is gratefully acknowledged. ERC had no involvment in the study design, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the paper nor in the decision to submit the paper for publication. Our thanks go also to Arnstein Aassve, Fabrizia Mealli, Steve Pudney, Andrea Salvatori, to the editor Dimiter Philipov, and to two anonymous referees for useful comments on previous versions of the paper.

References

  1. Aassve, A., Arpino, B., & Goisis, A. (2012). Grandparenting and mothers’ labour force participation: A comparative analysis using the generations and gender survey. Demographic Research, 27(3), 53–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abendroth, A. K., van der Lippe, T., & Maas, I. (2012). Social support and the working hours of employed mothers in Europe: The relevance of the state, the workplace, and the family. Social Science Research, 41(3), 581–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alesina, A., Algan, Y., Cahuc, P., & Giuliano, P. (2010) Family Ties and the Regulation of Labor. NBER Working Paper 15747.Google Scholar
  4. Angrist, J. D. (2004). Treatment effect heterogeneity in theory and practice. Economic Journal, 114(494), C52–C83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 444–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Baum, C. F., Schaffer, M. E., & Stillman, S. (2007). Enhanced routines for instrumental variables/GMM estimation and testing. Stata Journal, 7(4), 465–506.Google Scholar
  8. Blau, D., & Currie, J. (2006). Preschool, day care, and after school care: Who’s minding the kids?, vol. 2, Chapter 20. In E. A. Hanushek & F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of education. Amsterdam: North Holland Press.Google Scholar
  9. Blau, F. D., & Ferber, M. (1992). The economics of women, men, and work (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Borck, R., & Wrolich, K. (2011). Preferences for childcare policies: Theory and evidence. European Journal of Political Economy, 27, 436–454.Google Scholar
  11. Brilli, Y., Del Boca, D., & Pronzato, C. (2014). Does childcare availability play a role in maternal employment and children's development? Review of Economics of the Household, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  12. Brussig, M., & Knuth, M. (2007) Raising statutory pension age: Extending careers or unemployment of the elderly? Paper presented at the 5th International research conference on social security. Retrieved from http://www.issa.int. Accessed 20 May 2014.
  13. Compton, J., & Pollak, R. A. (2014). Family proximity, childcare, and women’s labor force attachment. Journal of Urban Economics, 79, 72–90.Google Scholar
  14. Conley, D., & McCabe, B. J. (2012). Bribery or just desserts? Evidence on the influence of congressional reproductive policy voting patterns on PAC contributions from exogenous variation in the sex mix of legislator offspring. Social Science Research, 41, 120–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dalla Zuanna, G. (2001). The banquet of Aeolus: A familistic interpretation of Italy’s lowest low fertility. Demographic Research, 4, 133–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Del Boca, D. (2002). The effect of child care and part time opportunities on participation and fertility decisions in Italy. Journal of Population Economics, 15(3), 549–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dimova, R., & Wolff, F.-C. (2008). Grandchild care transfers by ageing immigrants in France: Intra-household allocation and labour market implications. European Journal Population, 24, 315–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dimova, R., & Wolff, F.-C. (2011). Do downward private transfers enhance maternal labor supply? Evidence from around Europe. Journal of Population Economics, 24(3), 911–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. El-Attar, M. (2013). Trust, child care technology choice and female labor force participation. Review of Economics of the Household, 11, 507–544.Google Scholar
  20. Ermisch, J. (2002). Symposium on “child care”. Journal of Population Economics, 15, 463–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. European Commission. (2009). Dealing with the impact of an ageing population in the EU. European Commission 2009 Ageing Report.Google Scholar
  22. Farré, L., & Vella, F. (2013) The intergenerational transmission of gender role attitudes and its implications for female labor force participation, Economica, 80(318), 219–247.Google Scholar
  23. Felfe, C., & Lalive, R. (2010) How does early childcare affect child development? Learning from the children of German unification. CESifo Area Conference on Economics of Education, Center for Economics Studies, Mimeo.Google Scholar
  24. Frölich, M. (2007). Non parametric IV estimation of local average treatment effects with covariates. Journal of Econometrics, 139, 35–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. García-Morán, E., & Kuehn, Z. (2012) With strings attached: Grandparent-provided child care, fertility and female labor market outcomes. MPRA Paper No. 37001.Google Scholar
  26. Glaser, K., Ribé Montserrat, E., Waginger, U., Price, D., Stuchbury, R., & Tinker, A. (2010). Grandparenting in Europe. London: Grandparents Plus.Google Scholar
  27. Hank, K. (2007). Proximity and contacts between older parents and their children: A European comparison. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(1), 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hank, K., & Buber, I. (2009). Grandparents caring for their grandchildren: findings from the 2004 survey of health, ageing, and retirement in Europe. Journal of Family Issues, 30(1), 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hank, K., & Kreyenfeld, M. (2003). A multilevel analysis of child care and women’s fertility decisions in Western Germany. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65, 584–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Havnes, T., & Mogstad, M. (2011). No child left behind. Universal childcare and children’s long-run outcomes. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3, 97–129.Google Scholar
  31. Heckman, J. J. (1974). Effects of child-care programs on women’s work effort. The Journal of Political Economy, 82(2), S136–S163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hellevik, O. (2009). Linear versus logistic regression when the dependent variable is a dichotomy. Quality and Quantity, 43, 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ISTAT. (2006). Il sistema di indagini sociali multiscopo. Contenuti e metodologia delle indagini. ISTAT Working Paper Series “Metodi e norme” n.31.Google Scholar
  34. Jappens, M., & Van Bavel, J. (2012). Regional family norms and child care by grandparents in Europe. Demographic Research, 27(4), 85–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kimmel, J. (1998). Child care costs as a barrier to employment for single and married mothers. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(2), 287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leopold, T., Geißler, F., & Pink, S. (2012). How far do children move? Spatial distances after leaving the parental home. Social Science Research, 41(4), 991–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Neyman, J. (1923). On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments: essay on principles, section 9. Translated in Statistical Science, 5(4), 465–480. (1990).Google Scholar
  38. Ogawa, N., & Ermisch, J. F. (1996). Family structure, home time demands and the employment patterns of Japanese married women. Journal of Labor Economics, 14, 677–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Parera-Nicolau, A., & Mumford, K. (2005). Labour supply and childcare for British mothers in two-parent families: A structural approach. IZA Discussion Paper 1908.Google Scholar
  40. Powers, D. A., & Xie, Y. (2008). Statistical methods for categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). England: Emerald, Howard House.Google Scholar
  41. Raeymaeckers, P., Dewilde, C., Snoeckx, L., & Mortelmans, D. (2008). Childcare strategies of divorced mothers in Europe: A comparative analysis. European Sociological Review, 24(1), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shlay, A. B. (2010). African American, white and Hispanic child care preferences: A factorial survey analysis of welfare leavers by race and ethnicity. Social Science Research, 39, 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Staiger, D., & Stock, J. (1997). Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica, 65(3), 557–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Ham, M., & Büchel, F. (2004). Females’ Willingness to work and the discouragement effect of a poor local childcare provision. IZA Discussion Paper 1220.Google Scholar
  46. Zelen, M. (1979). A new design for randomized clinical trials. England Journal of Medicine, 300, 1242–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno Arpino
    • 1
  • Chiara D. Pronzato
    • 2
    • 3
    • 5
  • Lara P. Tavares
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Political and Social Sciences and Research and Expertise Centre on Survey Methodology (RECSM)Universitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Economics and StatisticsUniversity of TurinTurinItaly
  3. 3.CHILD Collegio Carlo AlbertoTurinItaly
  4. 4.Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e PolíticasUniversidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  5. 5.Carlo F. DONDENA Centre for Research on Social DynamicsBocconi UniversityMilanItaly
  6. 6.CESNOVA, Centro de Estudos de Sociologia da Universidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations