Why did rich families increase their fertility? Inequality and marketization of child care
A negative relationship between income and fertility has persisted for so long that its existence is often taken for granted. One economic theory builds on this relationship and argues that rising inequality leads to greater differential fertility between rich and poor. We show that the relationship between income and fertility has flattened between 1980 and 2010 in the US, a time of increasing inequality, as high income families increased their fertility. These facts challenge the standard theory. We propose that marketization of parental time costs can explain the changing relationship between income and fertility. We show this result both theoretically and quantitatively, after disciplining the model on US data. We explore implications of changing differential fertility for aggregate human capital. Additionally, policies, such as the minimum wage, that affect the cost of marketization, have a negative effect on the fertility and labor supply of high income women. We end by discussing the insights of this theory to the economics of marital sorting.
KeywordsIncome inequality Marketization Differential fertility Human capital Minimum wage
JEL ClassificationE24 J13 J24 J31 J38
- Attanasio, O., Hurst, E. & Pistaferri, L. (2012). The evolution of income, consumption, and leisure inequality in the us, 1980–2010. NBER WP 17982.Google Scholar
- Bar, M., & Leukhina, O. (2009). To work or not to work: Did tax reforms affect labor force participation of married couples? The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics (Contributions), 9(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
- Baskaya, Y. S. & Rubinstein, Y. (2012). Using federal minimum wages to identify the impact of minimum wages on employment and earnings across the u.s. states. (Unpublished Manuscript).Google Scholar
- Buera, F. J., Kaboski, J. P., & Zhao, M. Q. (2013). The rise of services: The role of skills, scale, and female labor supply (No. w19372). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w19372.
- Cerina, F., Moro, A. & Rendall, M. (2018). The role of gender in employment polarization (Unpublished Manuscript).Google Scholar
- Cortés, P., & Pan, J. (Forthcoming). When time binds: Substitutes to household production, returns to working long hours and the gender wage gap among the highly skilled, Journal of Labor Economics. https://doi.org/10.1086/700185.
- Cortés, P., & Tessada, J. (2011). Low-skilled immigration and the labor supply of highly skilled women. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(1), 88–123.Google Scholar
- Doepke, M., & Kindermann, F. (2016). Bargaining over babies: Theory, evidence, and policy implications. NBER Working Paper w22072.Google Scholar
- Galor, O., & Weil, D. N. (1996). The gender gap, fertility, and growth. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 374–387.Google Scholar
- Greenwood, J., Guner, N., Kocharkov, G., & Santos, C. (2016). Technology and the changing family. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 8(1), 1–41.Google Scholar
- Lino, M., Kuczynski, K., Rodriguez, N., & Schap, T. (2017). Expenditures on children by families, 2015. United States Department of Agriculture, Technical report.Google Scholar
- Manning, A. (2016). The elusive employment of the minimum wage. CEP discussion paper no 1428.Google Scholar
- Ruggles, S. J., Alexander, T., Genadek, K., Goeken, R., Schroeder, M. B., & Sobek, M. (2010). Integrated public use microdata series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database], Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
- Vaghul, K., & Zipperer, B. (2016). Historical state and sub-state minimum wage data. Washington: Washington Center for Equitable Growth.Google Scholar