, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 145–155 | Cite as

Job continuity among new mothers

  • Jacob Alex KlermanEmail author
  • Arleen Leibowitz
Women’s Educational Attainment, Employment, and Earnings


In the early 1990s, both state and federal governments enacted maternity-leave legislation. The key provision of that legislation is that after a leave of a limited duration, the recent mother is guaranteed the right to return to her preleave employer at the same or equivalent position. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, we correlate work status after childbirth with work status before pregnancy to estimate the prevalence, before the legislation, of returns to the preleave employer. Among women working full-time before the pregnancy, return to the prepregnancy employer was quite common. Sixty percent of women who worked full-time before the birth of a child continued to work for the same employer after the child was born. Furthermore, the labor market behavior of most of the remaining 40% suggests that maternity-leave legislation is unlikely to have a major effect on job continuity. Compared with all demographically similar women, however, new mothers have an excess probability of leaving their jobs.


Labor Force Participation Maternity Leave Binary Logit Model Longe Leave Current Population Survey Sample 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brazelton, T.B. 1986. “Issues for Working Parents.” American Journal of American Orthopsychiatry 56(1): 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Even, W.E. 1987. “Career Interruptions Following Childbirth.” Journal of Labor Economics 5:255–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hayghe, H. 1986. “Rise in Mother’s Labor Force Activity Includes Those With Infants.” Monthly Labor Review 109(2):43–45.Google Scholar
  4. Klerman, J. 1993. “Characterizing Leave for Maternity.” RAND Labor and Population Program, Working Paper 93-34/RAND DRU-505-NICHD.Google Scholar
  5. Klerman, J. and A. Leibowitz. 1993. “Employment Continuity Among New Mothers.” RAND Labor and Population Program, Working Paper Series 93-33.Google Scholar
  6. — 1994. “The Work-Employment Distinction Among Mothers of Very Young Children.” Journal of Human Resources 29:277–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. — 1998. “Labor Supply Effects of Maternity Leave Legislation: Evidence From the June Current Population Survey.” Mimeographed document, RAND, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  8. — 1997. “Labor Supply Effects of State Maternity Leave Legislation.” Pp. 65–85 in Gender and Family in the Workplace, edited by F.D. Blau and R. Ehrenberg. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  9. Leibowitz, A. and J. Klerman. 1995. “Explaining Changes in Married Mothers’ Employment Over Time.” Demography 32:365–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lenhoff, D.R. and S.M. Becker. 1989. “Family and Medical Leave Legislation in the States: Towards a Comprehensive Approach.” Harvard Journal of Legislation 26:403–63.Google Scholar
  11. McLaughlin, S.D. 1982. “Differential Patterns of Female Labor-Force Participation Surrounding the First Born.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 44:407–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. O’Connell, M. 1990. “Maternity Leave Arrangements: 1961–85.” Pp. 11–57 in Work and Family Patterns of American Women, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 165. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  13. Ruhm, C. 1997. “Policy Watch: The Family and Medical Leave Act.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 11(3): 175–86.Google Scholar
  14. — 1998. “The Economic Consequences of Parental Leave Mandates: Lessons From Europe.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 113(1):253–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ruhm, C.J. and J.L. Teague. 1997. “Parental Leave Policies in Europe and North America.” Pp. 133–56 in Gender and Family in the Workplace, edited by F.D. Blau and R. Ehrenberg. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  16. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1997. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1997, 117th edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  17. Waldfogel, J. 1996. “The Impact of the Family and Medical Leave Act on Coverage, Leave-Taking, Employment and Earnings.” Mimeographed document, Columbia University School of Social Work.Google Scholar
  18. — 1997. “Working Mothers Then and Now: A Cross-Cohort Analysis of the Effects of Maternity Leave on Women’s Pay.” Pp. 92–126 in Gender and Family in the Workplace, edited by F.D. Blau and R. Ehrenberg. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. — 1998a. “Understanding the ‘Family Gap’ in Pay for Women With Children.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(1):137–56.Google Scholar
  20. — 1998b. “The Family Gap for Young Women in the United States and Britain: Can Maternity Leave Make a Difference?” Journal of Labor Economics 16:505–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zigler, E.F., M. Frank, and B. Emmel. 1988. “Introduction.” Pp. Ailenexv-xxv in The Parental Leave Crisis: Toward a National Policy, edited by E.F. Zigler and M. Frank. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RANDSanta Monica
  2. 2.UCLA School of Public Policy and RANDUSA

Personalised recommendations