Advertisement

Assessing the Causal Effect of Childbearing on Household Income in Albania

  • Francesca Francavilla
  • Alessandra Mattei
Part of the The Springer Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis book series (PSDE, volume 23)

The relationship between demographic developments and economic performance has been the subject of rather intense debate in the economics literature for nearly two centuries.

Keywords

Causal Effect Equivalence Scale Consumption Expenditure Average Treatment Effect Food Share 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aassve, A., A. Gjonca and L. Mencarini (2006). The highest fertility in Europe for how long? The analysis of fertility change in Albania based on individual data. European Population Conference.Google Scholar
  2. Aassve, A., L. Mencarini and S. Mazzucco (2005). Childbearing and well-being: a comparative analysis of European welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy 15 (4): 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aassve, A., L. Mencarini and S. Mazzucco (2006). An empirical investigation into the effect of childbearing on economic well-being in Europe. Statistical Methods and Applications 15 (2): 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abadie, A., D. Drukker, J. Herr Leber and G.W. Imbens (2001). Implementing matching estimators for average treatment effects in Stata. The Stata Journal 1 (1): 1–18.Google Scholar
  5. Abadie, A. and G.W. Imbens (2002). Simple and bias-corrected matching estimators. Mimeo. Department of Economics, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, G. (1985). Human capital, efforts, and the sexual division of labor. Journal of Labor Economics 3 (1): 33–S58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker, G. (1991). A Treatise on the Family. Enlarged Edition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Becker, S. and A. Ichino (2002). Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. The Stata Journal 2 (4): 358–377.Google Scholar
  9. Birdsall, N.M., A.C. Kelley and S.W. Sinding (2001). Population Matters: Demographic Change, Economic Growth, and Poverty in the Developing World. Part III: Fertility, Poverty, and the Family. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cigno, A. (1991). Economics of the Family. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cigno, A. (1983). On Optimal Family Allowances, Oxford University Paper, 35, 13–22.Google Scholar
  12. Cigno, A., Luporini, A. and Pettini, A. (2000). Transfers to families with children as a principal-agent problem Journal of Public Economics, 87, 1165–1177.Google Scholar
  13. Dehejia, R. and S. Wahba (1999). Causal effects in nonexperimental studies: Reevaluating the evaluation of training programs. Journal of the American Statistical Association 94: 1053–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ermisch, F. (2003). An Economic Analysis of the Family. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gibson, J. (2002). Why does the Engel method work? Food demand, economies of size and household survey methods. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 64 (4): 341–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hahn, J. (1998). On the role of the propensity score in efficient semiparametric estimation of average treatment effects. Econometrica 66 (2): 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heckman, J., H. Ichimura and P. Todd (1997). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training program. Review of Economic Studies 64: 605–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. International Monetary Fund (2004). The world economic outlook. The global demographic transition. Tech. Rep., International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  19. International Monetary Fund (2005). Albania: Selected issues and statistical appendix. Tech. Rep., International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  20. Lanjouw, P. and M. Ravallion (1995). Poverty and household size. Economic Journal 105 (433): 1415–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lechner, M. and R. Miquel (2005). Identification of the effects of dynamic treatments by sequential conditional independence assumptions. Working paper 2005–17, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.Google Scholar
  22. Rosenbaum, P.T. and D.B. Rubin (1983). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association 79: 516–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rubin, D.B. (1997). Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Annals of Internal Medicine 127: 757–763.Google Scholar
  24. Schoumaker, B. and D. Tabutin (1999). Relationship between poverty and fertility in southern countries. Knowledge, methodology and cases. Working paper 2, Department of science of population and development, Université catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
  25. United Nations Development Programme (2003). Human development report. Report, UNDP.Google Scholar
  26. World Bank (2004). Making transition work for everyone: Poverty and inequality in Europe and Central Asia. Report, World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WestminsterLondon W1W6UPUK
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsUniversity of Florence59, FirenzeItaly

Personalised recommendations