Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Cross-National Perspective on Unemployment and First Births

Chômage et première naissance : une perspective transnationale

  • Published:
European Journal of Population / Revue européenne de Démographie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article investigates the impact of unemployment on the likelihood of having a first child. Using micro-data from the European Community Household Panel, I apply event history methods to analyze first-birth decisions in France, West Germany, and the UK (1994–2001). The results highlight weak negative effects of unemployment on family formation among men, which can be attributed to the inability to financially support a family. Among women, unemployment exerts a positive effect on the propensity to have a first child in Germany and the UK, where institutional settings aggravate work–family conflicts. Unemployment increases the likelihood of family formation among women with a moderate or low level of education. This does not, however, generally apply to French women or to highly educated women in Germany and the UK, who, when unemployed, favor a quick return to work over motherhood.

Résumé

Cet article examine l’impact du chômage sur la probabilité d’avoir un premier enfant. A partir des données du Panel Communautaire européen des ménages, des méthodes biographiques sont utilisées afin d’analyser les décisions de la survenue d’une première naissance en France, en Allemagne de l’Ouest et au Royaume-Uni (1994–2001). Les résultats soulignent les faibles effets négatifs du chômage sur la constitution de la famille pour les hommes, qui peuvent être attribués à l’incapacité de soutenir financièrement une famille. En ce qui concerne les femmes, le chômage a un effet positif sur la probabilité d’avoir un premier enfant en Allemagne et au Royaume-Uni, pays où les contextes institutionnels aggravent les conflits entre travail et famille. Le chômage augmente la probabilité de constitution de la famille parmi les femmes ayant un niveau d’instruction faible ou modéré. Cependant, ce résultat n’est pas observé pour les françaises, ainsi que pour les femmes ayant un niveau d’instruction élevé en Allemagne et au Royaume—Uni. Pour ces dernières, lorsqu’elles sont au chômage, la reprise du travail serait prioritaire.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. I focus on first births as this transition implies a much more fundamental life course change—requiring more careful consideration of contextual factors—than the choice to have subsequent children (Hobcraft and Kiernan 1995).

  2. The mentioned studies consider the impact of individual unemployment but lacked a comparative perspective, with Kravdal (2002) focusing on Norway, and Adsera (2011) using pooled data from 13 European countries.

  3. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, since at least some of the economically inactive women had never been in work, and thus differ from unemployed women in their labor market attachment.

  4. Different categorical and functional representations of unemployment duration have been tested. A discussion can be found in the results Sect. (5). Estimate results are available from the author on request.

  5. Relying on data, cloned from ongoing national panels (SOEP and BHPS), panel attrition in the German and British sample is somewhat lower than in the French sample (Peracchi 2002; Watson 2003).

  6. ECHP data structure and questionnaire were originally designed with focus on the SOEP and BHPS survey.

  7. Monthly unemployment data in the ECHP are self-reported. Hence, they are not congruent with the ILO definition of unemployment. ECHP data for Germany are based on reported unemployment.

  8. As ECHP data for Germany lack the month of birth, these data have been reconstructed from the original SOEP.

  9. Example The highest schooling degree at interview date May 1999 was an O-level degree; the highest schooling degree at interview date April 2000 was an A-level degree: The O-level degree would be considered until October 1999, the A-level degree would be considered starting with November 1999.

  10. Sensitivity tests showed that backdating between 10 and 12 months of birth yields similarly robust results.

  11. This introduces a problem of left-censoring, since some men and women who had their first child prior to the period of observation 1994–2001 were excluded from the sample of analysis as they are no longer at risk. The peak hazard of having a first child rests around age 28–30, while hazards before 21 are low. Hence, this left-censoring bias is primarily relevant in the older cohorts. In order to evaluate a potential estimate bias due to this selection effect, all analyses have been replicated with a reduced sample of cohorts 1975–1981. These analyses did not yield any change in the direction of effect and generally support the results presented in Sect. 5.

  12. Time at risk is generally considered to start with age 16. This does also apply to persons, who enter the sample at a higher age. In that case, retrospective fertility histories are used to determine, whether a person is still at risk of having a first child (cf. the previous note accordingly).

  13. Income is based on the monthly share of annual earnings, income from self-employment, as well as from renting and assets, excluding private or public transfers (the latter are included as controls in the estimates).

  14. The consideration of a decreasing marginal effect appears to provide a meaningful representation of the negative relation between unemployment duration and first-birth risk among both French men and women.

  15. Detailed results can be obtained from the author on request.

  16. Note that this effect should be interpreted with caution due to a low level of significance (p = 0.069, see Model IV).

  17. In fact, this share of transitions to work from economic inactivity among British women (47.2 % in 1993) distinctively exceeds the rates in France or Germany (17.6 and 23.5 %, respectively; Rubery et al. 1998, pp. 121, 138).

References

  • Adsera, A. (2011). Where are the babies? Labor market conditions and fertility in Europe. European Journal of Population, 27(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, G. (2000). The impact of labor-force participation on childbearing behavior: Pro-cyclical fertility in Sweden during the 1980s and the 1990s. European Journal of Population, 16, 293–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2000). The gender earnings gap: Learning from international comparisons. American Economic Review, 82(2), 533–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bongaarts, J. (1982). Infertility after age 30: A false alarm. Family Planning Perspectives, 14(2), 75–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruning, G.l., & Plantenga, J. (1999). Parental leave and equal opportunities: Experiences in eight European countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 9(3), 195–209. doi:10.1177/095892879900900301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butz, W. P., & Ward, M. P. (1979). The emergence of countercyclical U.S. fertility. The American Economic Review, 69(3), 318–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charles, M., & Grusky, D. B. (2004). Occupational ghettos. The worldwide segregation of women and men. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crompton, R., & Lyonette, C. (2006). Work-life balance in Europe. Acta Sociologica, 49(4), 379–393. doi:10.1177/0001699306071680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, M. (2000). The gender division of welfare. The impact of the British and German welfare states. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, M., & Rake, K. (2003). Gender and the welfare state care, work and welfare in Europe and the USA. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Bono, E., Weber, A., & Winter-Ebmer, R. (2012). Clash of career and family: Fertility decisions after job displacement. Journal of the European Economic Association. doi:10.1111/j.1542-4774.2012.01074.

  • DiPrete, T. A. (2002). Life course risks, mobility regimes, and mobility consequences: A comparison of Sweden, Germany, and the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 267–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R. A. (1976). The conflict between aspirations and resources. Population and Development Review, 2(3/4), 417–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekert-Jaffé, O., Joshi, H., Lynch, K., Mougin, R., & Rendall, M. S. (2002). Fertility, timing of births and socio-economic status in France and Britain social policies and occupational polarization. Population (English Edition), 57(3), 475–508. doi:10.3917/pope.203.0475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three words of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (2009). The incomplete revolution. Adapting welfare states to women’s new roles. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002). MISSOC. Social protection in the member states of the European union. Situation on 1 January 2002 and Evolution. Luxembourg: European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2011). Employment, social affairs & equal opportunities. MISSOC Database. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/missoc/db/public/compareTables.do?year=20060701&lang=en. Accessed 7 Aug 2011.

  • Eurostat. (2005). Reconciling work and family life in the EU25 in 2003. Employment rates lower and part-time rates higher for women with children. Eurostat News Release, 49.

  • Eurostat. (2012). Eurostat structural indicators. Gender pay gap 1994 to 2006. Accessed January, 2012, from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database.

  • Fagnani, J. (2007). Family policies in France and Germany. Sisters or distant cousins? Community, Work & Family, 10(1), 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, A. H., & Hatzius, J. (1997). Family benefits and fertility: An econometric analysis. Population Studies, 51(3), 295–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golsch, K. (2004). The impact of labour market insecurity on the work and family life of men and women. A comparison of Germany, Great Britain and Spain. Dissertation, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld.

  • Haas, L. (2002). Parental leave and gender equality: Lessons from the European Union. Review of Policy Research, 6, 89–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakim, C. (2003). A new approach to explaining fertility patterns: Preference theory. Population and Development Review, 29(3), 349–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In P. A. Hall & D. Soskice (Eds.), Varieties of capitalism. The institutional foundations of comparative advantage (pp. 1–70). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Happel, S. K., Hill, J. K., & Low, S. A. (1984). An economic analysis of the timing of childbirth. Population Studies, 38(2), 299–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobcraft, J., & Kiernan, K. E. (1995, September). Becoming a parent in Europe. Paper presented in European Population Conference, Milan, Italy.

  • Hoem, B. (2000). Entry into motherhood in Sweden: The influence of economic factors on the rise and fall in fertility, 1986–1997. Demographic Research, 2(4), 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, S. P. (2005). Survival analysis. Colchester: ISER University of Essex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamerman, S. B. (2000). Parental leave policies: An essential ingredient in early childhood education and care policies. Social Policy Report, 14(2), 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kravdal, O. (2002). The impact of individual and aggregate unemployment on fertility in Norway. Demographic Research, 6(10), 263–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreyenfeld, M. (2000). Changes in the timing of first birth in East Germany after re-unification. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 120, 169–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreyenfeld, M. (2001). Timing of first births in East Germany after reunification. Vierteljahreshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 70(1), 74–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurz, K., Steinhage, N., & Golsch, K. (2005). Case study Germany: Uncertainty and the transition to adulthood. In H.-P. Blossfeld, E. Klijzing, M. Mills, & K. Kurz (Eds.), Globalization and youth in society (pp. 51–81). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. (1992). Gender and the development of welfare regimes. Journal of European Social Policy, 2(3), 159–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefbroer, A. C., & Corijn, M. (1999). Who, what, where and when? Specifying the impact of educational attainment and labour force participation on family formation. European Journal of Population, 15, 45–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindenberg, S. (1991). Social approval, fertility and female labour market behaviour. In J. J. Siegers, E. Jenny de Jong-Gierveld, & Van. Imhoff (Eds.), Female labour market behaviour and fertility (pp. 32–61). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, P. (2000). Gender equity in theories of fertility transition. Population and Development Review, 26(3), 427–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinnity, F. (2004). Welfare for the unemployed in Britain and Germany. Who benefits?. Northampton, MA: Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meron, M., & Widmer, I. (2002). Unemployment leads women to postpone the birth of their first child. Population (English Edition), 57(2), 301–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, M., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2003). Globalization, uncertainty and changes in early life courses. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 6(2), 188–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mincer, J. (1963). Market prices, opportunity costs, and income effects. In C. F. Christ (Ed.), Measurement in Economics. Studies in mathematical economics and econometrics in memory of Yehuda Grunfeld (pp. 67–82). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mincer, J., & Ofek, H. (1982). Interrupted work careers: Depreciation and restoration of human capital. The Journal of Human Resources, 17(1), 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misra, J., Moller, S., & Budig, M. J. (2007). Work family policies and poverty for partnered and single women in Europe and North America. Gender & Society, 21(6), 804–827. doi:10.1177/0891243207308445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2005). OECD factbook. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2006). Education at a glance. OECD indicators 2006. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2007). Employment and labour market statistics. Labour force statistics—Summary Tables Vol 2006 Release 03. Accessed October, 2007, from http://oberon.sourceoecd.org/vl=6959625/cl=27/nw=1/rpsv/statistic/s5_about.htm?jnlissn=16081161.

  • OECD. (2011). OECD employment outlook 2010. Moving beyond the jobs crisis. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orloff, A. S. (2009). Gendering the comparative analysis of welfare states: An unfinished agenda. Sociological Theory, 27(3), 317–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ott, N. (1995). Fertility and division of work in the family. A game theoretic model of household decisions. In E. Kuiper & J. Sap (Eds.), Out of the margin. Feminist perspectives on economics (pp. 80–99). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peracchi, F. (2002). The European community household panel: A review. Empirical Economics, 27(1), 63–90. doi:10.1007/s181-002-8359-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubery, J., Smith, M., Fagan, C., & Grimshaw, D. (1998). Women and European employment. London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sainsbury, D. (1996). Gender, equality and welfare states. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, C., Trappe, H., & Wengler, A. (2010). Häusliche Aufgabenteilung wandelt sich nur zögerlich. Demografische Forschung aus erster Hand, 7(1), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soskice, D. (2005). Varieties of capitalism and cross-national gender differences. Social Politics, 12(2), 170–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tölke, A., & Diewald, M. (2003). Insecurities in employment and occupational careers and their impact on the transition to fatherhood in Western Germany. Demographic Research, 9(3), 41–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vikat, A. (2004). Women’s labor force attachment and childbearing in Finland. Demographic Research, Special Collection, 3, 177–212. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2004.S3.8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D. (2003). Sample attrition between waves 1 and 5 in the European community household panel. European Sociological Review, 19(4), 361–378. doi:10.1093/esr/19.4.361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, W. (2001). From restart to the new deal in the United Kingdom. In OECD (Ed.), Labour market policies and the public employment service. Part II. Unemployment benefits and activation measures (pp. 241–262). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witte, J. C., & Wagner, G. G. (1995). Declining fertility in East Germany after unification: A demographic response to socioeconomic change. Population and Development Review., 21(2), 387–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Martin Diewald and Jost Reinecke from Bielefeld University: this contribution profited significantly from their continued support. Moreover, I thank the members of the CIQLE workshop at Yale University, especially Richard Breen and Karl-Ulrich Mayer who provided most helpful comments. I am particularly indebted to the suggestions I received from Berkay Ozcan. Furthermore, I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers, whose comments greatly helped in improving this article. My final thanks go to Deborah Bowen for her professional editing of the manuscript. Any remaining errors are my own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Rostock & Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP), 10108, Mohrenstraße, Berlin, Germany

    Christian Schmitt

Authors
  1. Christian Schmitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Schmitt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmitt, C. A Cross-National Perspective on Unemployment and First Births. Eur J Population 28, 303–335 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9262-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10680-012-9262-5

Keywords

Mots-clés

Search

Navigation