Main takeaway:
A child benefit significantly increased fertility, in part through a reduction in abortions. Families who received the benefit did not increase consumption. Instead, eligible mothers stayed out of the labor force longer after childbirth, which led to their children spending less time in formal child care
Going through the data sources she uses to see if they are useful to us.
Data on abortions (province-level?):
The National Statistical Institute only reports the number of abortions annually.
In order to obtain the data by month, I contacted the health authorities of each of
the 17 Spanish regions. Twelve of them, representing about 88 percent of total
Spanish population in 2007 (also about 88 percent of national abortions), agreed
to provide the data on monthly number of abortions between 2000 and 2009. I
then estimate equations (1) and (2) using the (natural log of) number of abortions
as the dependent variable.
Data on household expenditure comes from a national survey.
See also has a ton of references on LFP and child outcomes, which might be useful for the future but not necessarily now.
Main takeaways:
We find no evidence that pure income shocks cause statistically significant or economically meaningful changes in divorce rates. However, we do find that positive
income shocks reduce the likelihood that single women will marry in the following
three years by 40 percent.
Main takeaways:
The introduction of a pro-natalist transfer policy in the Canadian province of Quebec lead to a strong effect on fertility. Many interesting citations about fertility and price of children. E.g. Hotz et al. (1997), survey on fertility. Rosenzweig (1999) model on child-bearing decisions jointly within the households.
It seems most of the literature focuses on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Something good about our setting is that the money is not tied specifically to children. Hence, it makes it way more interesting. The lottery does not change the price of children, but alleviates general liquidity constraints. Once that happens, people still decide to have more children, despite many other options becoming available, which it's not the case of AFDC policies.
Models of fertility
Becker (1960) is a seminal article on the economics of fertility. Maximizing utility subject to prices and a budget constraint. Influence of the cost of children on fertility decisions. This could be a nice and simple model for the paper. In his model, the presence of young children leads women to take time out of the labor market. Women facing a higher opportunity cost of being absent from the labor market face a higher price for children, and so will have fewer children. Another model of fertility from Becker(1991) and Becker and Lewis (1973) quality-quantity model. The latter model implies a U-shaped path for the desired number of children
as income rises.
Olsen (1994) provides a discussion of the distinctions between this type of model and standard demographic analysis, which places parents as actors within a system of exogenously given biological processes, reproductive technology, and cultural influences. These models predict no change in fertility decisions in reaction to exogenous changes in prices or incomes.
Econometrics references
Imbens, Guido W., and Thomas Lemieux. 2008. “Regression Discontinuity Designs: A Guide to Practice.” Journal of Econometrics 142 (2): 615–35.
Milligan, Kevin, and Mark Stabile. 2009. “Child Benefits, Maternal Employment, and Children’s
Health: Evidence from Canadian Child Benefit Expansions.” American Economic Review 99 (2):
128–32.
Lindahl, Mikael. 2005. “Estimating the Effect of Income on Health and Mortality Using Lottery Prizes
as an Exogenous Source of Variation in Income.” Journal of Human Resources 40 (1): 144–68
Main takeaway: A child benefit significantly increased fertility, in part through a reduction in abortions. Families who received the benefit did not increase consumption. Instead, eligible mothers stayed out of the labor force longer after childbirth, which led to their children spending less time in formal child care
Going through the data sources she uses to see if they are useful to us.
Data on abortions (province-level?): The National Statistical Institute only reports the number of abortions annually. In order to obtain the data by month, I contacted the health authorities of each of the 17 Spanish regions. Twelve of them, representing about 88 percent of total Spanish population in 2007 (also about 88 percent of national abortions), agreed to provide the data on monthly number of abortions between 2000 and 2009. I then estimate equations (1) and (2) using the (natural log of) number of abortions as the dependent variable.
Data on household expenditure comes from a national survey.
See also has a ton of references on LFP and child outcomes, which might be useful for the future but not necessarily now.
Main takeaways: We find no evidence that pure income shocks cause statistically significant or economically meaningful changes in divorce rates. However, we do find that positive income shocks reduce the likelihood that single women will marry in the following three years by 40 percent.
Main takeaways: The introduction of a pro-natalist transfer policy in the Canadian province of Quebec lead to a strong effect on fertility. Many interesting citations about fertility and price of children. E.g. Hotz et al. (1997), survey on fertility. Rosenzweig (1999) model on child-bearing decisions jointly within the households.
It seems most of the literature focuses on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Something good about our setting is that the money is not tied specifically to children. Hence, it makes it way more interesting. The lottery does not change the price of children, but alleviates general liquidity constraints. Once that happens, people still decide to have more children, despite many other options becoming available, which it's not the case of AFDC policies.
Models of fertility
Becker (1960) is a seminal article on the economics of fertility. Maximizing utility subject to prices and a budget constraint. Influence of the cost of children on fertility decisions. This could be a nice and simple model for the paper. In his model, the presence of young children leads women to take time out of the labor market. Women facing a higher opportunity cost of being absent from the labor market face a higher price for children, and so will have fewer children. Another model of fertility from Becker(1991) and Becker and Lewis (1973) quality-quantity model. The latter model implies a U-shaped path for the desired number of children as income rises.
Olsen (1994) provides a discussion of the distinctions between this type of model and standard demographic analysis, which places parents as actors within a system of exogenously given biological processes, reproductive technology, and cultural influences. These models predict no change in fertility decisions in reaction to exogenous changes in prices or incomes.
Econometrics references
Milligan, Kevin, and Mark Stabile. 2009. “Child Benefits, Maternal Employment, and Children’s Health: Evidence from Canadian Child Benefit Expansions.” American Economic Review 99 (2): 128–32.
Lindahl, Mikael. 2005. “Estimating the Effect of Income on Health and Mortality Using Lottery Prizes as an Exogenous Source of Variation in Income.” Journal of Human Resources 40 (1): 144–68