The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Family Planning

  • Mark R. Rosenzweig
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_653

Abstract

The phrase ‘family planning’ has come to mean the set of institutions, policies and programmes whose principal objective is to alter the family size decisions of households. Family planning institutions, private or public, attempt to influence fertility choices by (a) direct persuasion of couples to adopt socially ‘appropriate’ family size goals; (b) the dissemination of information on techniques of birth or conception prevention, and (c) the provision of birth or conception control services or inputs at subsidized cost. In addition, governments may adopt policies that directly alter the incentives for bearing and rearing children. Such policies may include income tax exemptions or direct transfers which vary by the number of children and/or economic and social sanctions related to family size, such as restrictions on parental work opportunities or restrictions on schooling or consumption privileges when those are principally supplied by the public sector.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Bibliography

  1. Becker, G.S., and H.G. Lewis. 1973. On the interaction between quantity and quality of children. Journal of Political Economy 82(April/May): S279–S288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Easterlin, R.A., R.A. Pollak, and M.L. Wachter. 1980. Toward a more general economic model of fertility determination. In Population and economic change in developing countries, ed. R.A. Easterlin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Heckman, J.J., and R.J. Willis. 1978. Estimation of a stochastic model of reproduction: An econometric approach. In Household production and consumption, ed. N.E. Terlecky. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Rosenzweig, M.R., and T.P. Schultz. 1982. Child mortality and fertility in Colombia: Individual and community effects. Health Policy and Education, February, 125–151.Google Scholar
  5. Rosenzweig, M.R., and T.P. Schultz. 1985. The demand for and supply of births: Fertility and its life-cycle consequences. American Economic Review 75(December): 992–1015.Google Scholar
  6. Rosenzweig, M.R., and K.I. Wolpin. 1982. Governmental interventions and household behavior in a developing country: Anticipating the unanticipated consequences of social programs. Journal of Development Economics 10(2): 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Rosenzweig, M.R., and K.I. Wolpin. 1986. Evaluating the effects of optimally distributed public programs: Child health and family planning interventions. American Economic Review 76(June): 470–482.Google Scholar
  8. Willis, R.J. 1973. A new approach to the economic theory of fertility behavior. Journal of Political Economy 81(March/April): S14–S64.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark R. Rosenzweig
    • 1
  1. 1.