[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cre/crefwp/136.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A 'Natural Experiment' on the Economics of Storks: Evidence on the Impact of Differential Family Policy on Fertility Rates in Canada

Author

Abstract
From the mid 1980's, the Canadian government froze or cut back the major traditional provisions targeted towards families with children. Faced with the lowest (and declining) fertility rate in Canada, the government of the province of Québec (where the population is mostly French) decided in 1986 to implement incrementally a variety of generous benefits (young children and new-born universal allowances contingent on birth rank, tax credits for dependent children, and family income tax reduction) to reverse the trend. In 1998, this policy was changed for a benefit targeted on family income to finance highly subsidized childcare services in the public sector. The 1986-1997 window offers a 'natural experiment' to evaluate the effects of generous tax and transfer policies on fertility. The paper uses the important change in family policy that occurred in only one province out of ten in Canada to identify the its treatment effects. Different data sets and a variety of methodological approaches are used in the analysis. First, the Vital Statistics by birth order (number of births per year as well as the number of women per age), from 1981 to 1997 for Québec and the Rest of Canada (ROC), permit the application of the Bongaarts-Feeney formula that accounts for the impact of changes in the quantum and tempo of fertility by birth order. Second, the preceding data are combined with a series of yearly repeated cross-sectional data sets to compute aggregate fertility transition rates for parities 1, 2 and 3 (women who are at risk of giving birth to a child each parity). A difference-in-differences estimator is calculated to identify the impact of the 1986-1996 'natural experiment'. Estimates are also computed using standard linear regression methods that control for other aggregate effects that could explain differences in fertility rates between Québec and the ROC. The results show that generous family benefits do have an effect on fertility transition rates. However, we cannot determine whether the benefits simply accelerated the decisions about having children while having no effects on the desired number of children. À partir de 1986, le gouvernement du Québec a mis graduellement en place une série de mesures de soutien financier en faveur des familles (allocations universelles jeunes enfants et de naissance modulées selon le rang de naissances, crédit d'impôt et réduction d'impôt famille) afin de renverser la baisse importante de la fécondité. Durant la même période, le gouvernement fédéral réduisait son soutien financier à l'égard des familles. Ce changement de politique familiale provinciale unique au Québec offre une "expérience naturelle" permettant de mesurer l'effet des transferts et de la fiscalité sur la fécondité. Plusieurs types de données et de méthodes d'analyse sont utilisées pour identifier "l'effet traitement" de la politique au Québec. D'abord, les naissances selon le rang, l'année et l'âge de la mère pour le Québec et le Reste du Canada (RdC), permettent de distinguer, à l'aide de la formule proposée par Bongaarts-Feeney, l'effet de tempo de l'effet de quantum qui peuvent être associées aux changements de fécondité. Puis, les données précédentes sont combinées avec celles provenant d'une série de coupes transversales permettant de calculer des taux agrégés de transition entre différents rang de naissances (les femmes à risque de donner naissance à des enfants de rang 1, 2 et 3). Un estimateur de différence en différences est calculé pour identifier l'effet traitement de la politique. Puis, l'effet de la politique est estimé économétriquement en contrôlant les autres effets agrégés qui peuvant influencer les différences de fécondité entre le Québec et le RdC. Les résultats indiquent le soutien financier généreux à l'égard des enfants a augmenté la fécondité. Cependant, l'analyse ne permet pas de dire si l'aide financières a simplement accéléré la décision d'avoir des enfants tout en n'ayant aucun effet sur le nombre désiré d'enfants.

Suggested Citation

  • Edith Duclos & Pierre Lefebvre & Philip Merrigan, 2001. "A 'Natural Experiment' on the Economics of Storks: Evidence on the Impact of Differential Family Policy on Fertility Rates in Canada," Cahiers de recherche CREFE / CREFE Working Papers 136, CREFE, Université du Québec à Montréal.
    • Handle: RePEc:cre:crefwp:136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.unites.uqam.ca/eco/CREFE/cahiers/cah136.pdf
    File Function: Main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chris Robinson & Nigel Tomes, 1982. "Family Labour Supply and Fertility: A Two-Regime Model," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 15(4), pages 706-734, November.
    2. Ermisch, John & Ogawa, Naohiro (ed.), 1994. "The Family, the Market, and the State in Ageing Societies," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198288183.
    3. Robert Moffitt, 1994. "Welfare Effects on Female Headship with Area Effects," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 29(2), pages 621-636.
    4. Robert A. Moffitt, 2000. "Welfare Benefits and Female Headship in U.S. Time Series," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 373-377, May.
    5. Walker, James R, 1995. "The Effect of Public Policies on Recent Swedish Fertility Behavior," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 8(3), pages 223-251, August.
    6. Whittington, Leslie A & Alm, James & Peters, H Elizabeth, 1990. "Fertility and the Personal Exemption: Implicit Pronatalist Policy in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 545-556, June.
    7. Cigno, Alessandro & Ermisch, John, 1989. "A microeconomic analysis of the timing of births," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 737-760, April.
    8. Joseph Hotz, V. & Klerman, Jacob Alex & Willis, Robert J., 1993. "The economics of fertility in developed countries," Handbook of Population and Family Economics, in: M. R. Rosenzweig & Stark, O. (ed.), Handbook of Population and Family Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 7, pages 275-347, Elsevier.
    9. Blank, Rebecca M. & George, Christine C. & London, Rebecca A., 1996. "State abortion rates the impact of policies, providers, politics, demographics, and economic environment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 513-553, October.
    10. Liliane Brouillette & Claude Felteau & Pierre Lefebvre, 1993. "Les effets de la fiscalité sur les comportements de fécondité au Québec," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 19(3), pages 260-278, September.
    11. Shelley A. Phipps, 1998. "What Is The Income "Cost Of A Child"? Exact Equivalence Scales For Canadian Two-Parent Families," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 157-164, February.
    12. Kevin Milligan, 2005. "Subsidizing the Stork: New Evidence on Tax Incentives and Fertility," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(3), pages 539-555, August.
    13. Douglas E. Hyatt & William J. Milne, 1991. "Can Public Policy Affect Fertility?," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 17(1), pages 77-85, March.
    14. Lefebvre, Pierre & Brouillette, Liliane & Felteau, Claude, 1994. "Comportements de fécondité des Québécoises, allocations familiales et impôts : résultats et simulations d’un modèle de choix discrets portant sur les années 1975-1987," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 70(4), pages 399-451, décembre.
    15. Meyer, Bruce D, 1995. "Natural and Quasi-experiments in Economics," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 13(2), pages 151-161, April.
    16. Hans-Peter Kohler, 1999. "The Swedish baby boom and bust of 1985-1996 revisited: the role of tempo, quantum and variance effects," MPIDR Working Papers WP-1999-007, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    17. John Mullahy, 1999. "Interaction Effects and Difference-in-Difference Estimation in Loglinear Models," NBER Technical Working Papers 0245, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Felteau, Claude & Lefebvre, Pierre & Merrigan, Philip & Brouillette, Liliane, 1997. "Conjugalité et fécondité des femmes canadiennes : un modèle dynamique estimé à l’aide d’une série de coupes transversales," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 73(1), pages 233-263, mars-juin.
    19. Hans-Peter Kohler & Dimiter Philipov, 1999. "Variance effects in Bongaarts-Feeney formula," MPIDR Working Papers WP-1999-001, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    20. Heckman, James J & Walker, James R, 1990. "The Relationship between Wages and Income and the Timing and Spacing of Births: Evidence from Swedish Longitudinal Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 58(6), pages 1411-1441, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sarah Sinclair & Jonathan Boymal & Ashton De Silva, 2012. "A Re‐Appraisal of the Fertility Response to the Australian Baby Bonus," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 88(s1), pages 78-87, June.
    2. Daniel Parent & Ling Wang, 2002. "Tax Incentives and Fertility in Canada: Permanent vs. Transitory Effects," CIRANO Working Papers 2002s-29, CIRANO.
    3. Daniel Parent & Ling Wang, 2007. "Tax incentives and fertility in Canada: quantum vs tempo effects," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 371-400, May.
    4. Ohinata, Asako, 2008. "Fertility Response to Financial Incentives-Evidence from the Working Families Tax Credit in the UK," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 851, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    5. Ralph Lattimore & Clinton Pobke, 2008. "Recent Trends in Australian Fertility," Staff Working Papers 0806, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia.
    6. Beatrice Brunner & Andreas Kuhn, 2011. "Financial Incentives, the Timing of Births, Birth Complications, and Newborns’ Health: Evidence from the Abolition of Austria’s Baby Bonus," NRN working papers 2011-16, The Austrian Center for Labor Economics and the Analysis of the Welfare State, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.
    7. Ohinata, Asako, 2008. "FERTILITY RESPONSE TO FINANCIAL INCENTIVES: Evidence from the Working Families Tax Credit in the UK," Economic Research Papers 269849, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    8. Kristen Harknett & Francesco Billari & Carla Medalia, 2014. "Do Family Support Environments Influence Fertility? Evidence from 20 European Countries," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 30(1), pages 1-33, February.
    9. Daniel Parent & Christopher Worswick, 2004. "Qualifications et immigration : réforme de la grille d'admission du Québec et composition de la population d'immigrants s'établissant au Québec," CIRANO Project Reports 2004rp-08, CIRANO.
    10. Michal Myck & Anna Kurowska & Michal Kundera, 2013. "Financial support for families with children and its trade-offs: balancing redistribution and parental work incentives," Baltic Journal of Economics, Baltic International Centre for Economic Policy Studies, vol. 13(2), pages 59-83, December.
    11. Ross Guest, 2013. "Population Ageing and Productivity: Implications and Policy Options for New Zealand," Treasury Working Paper Series 13/21, New Zealand Treasury.
    12. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp1315 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Sinclair, Sarah & Boymal, Jonathan & de Silva, Ashton J, 2012. "Is the fertility response to the Australian baby bonus heterogeneous across maternal age? Evidence from Victoria," MPRA Paper 42725, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Beatrice Brunner & Andreas Kuhn, 2011. "Financial incentives, the timing of births, birth complications, and newborns' health: Evidence from the abolition of Austria's baby bonus," ECON - Working Papers 048, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    15. Jason M. Lindo, 2010. "Are Children Really Inferior Goods? Evidence from Displacement-Driven Income Shocks," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 45(2).
    16. Anne Gauthier, 2007. "The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: a review of the literature," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 26(3), pages 323-346, June.
    17. Natalie Malak & Md Mahbubur Rahman & Terry A. Yip, 2019. "Baby bonus, anyone? Examining heterogeneous responses to a pro-natalist policy," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 1205-1246, October.
    18. Brunner, Beatrice & Kuhn, Andreas, 2011. "Financial Incentives, the Timing of Births, Birth Complications, and Newborns' Health: Evidence from the Abolition of Austria's Baby Bonus," IZA Discussion Papers 6141, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Maarten J. Bijlsma & Ben Wilson, 2017. "Modelling the socio-economic determinants of fertility: a mediation analysis using the parametric g-formula," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2017-013, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anne Gauthier, 2007. "The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: a review of the literature," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 26(3), pages 323-346, June.
    2. Ralph Lattimore & Clinton Pobke, 2008. "Recent Trends in Australian Fertility," Staff Working Papers 0806, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia.
    3. Kevin Milligan, 2005. "Subsidizing the Stork: New Evidence on Tax Incentives and Fertility," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(3), pages 539-555, August.
    4. Lalive, Rafael & Zweimüller, Josef, 2005. "Does Parental Leave Affect Fertility and Return-to-Work? Evidence from a "True Natural Experiment"," IZA Discussion Papers 1613, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Daniel Parent & Ling Wang, 2007. "Tax incentives and fertility in Canada: quantum vs tempo effects," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 371-400, May.
    6. Guy Laroque & Bernard Salanié, 2004. "Fertility and Financial Incentives in France," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 50(3), pages 423-450.
    7. Natalie Malak & Md Mahbubur Rahman & Terry A. Yip, 2019. "Baby bonus, anyone? Examining heterogeneous responses to a pro-natalist policy," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 1205-1246, October.
    8. Volker Meier, 2005. "The impact of family policies on fertility: An international comparison Study commissioned by the Robert Bosch Foundation," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 26, September.
    9. Svetlana Biryukova & Oxana Sinyavskaya & Irina Nurimanova, 2016. "Estimating effects of 2007 family policy changes on probability of second and subsequent births in Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 68/SOC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    10. Kristiina Huttunen & Jenni Kellokumpu, 2016. "The Effect of Job Displacement on Couples' Fertility Decisions," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(2), pages 403-442.
    11. Nicoletta Balbo & Francesco C. Billari & Melinda Mills, 2013. "Fertility in Advanced Societies: A Review of Research," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 29(1), pages 1-38, February.
    12. Gordey Yastrebov, 2016. "Intergenerational Social Mobility in Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 69/SOC/2016, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    13. Jérôme Adda & Christian Dustmann & Katrien Stevens, 2017. "The Career Costs of Children," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(2), pages 293-337.
    14. Pierre Pestieau & Gregory Ponthiere, 2013. "Childbearing Age, Family Allowances, and Social Security," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 80(2), pages 385-413, October.
    15. Ching-Yang Lin, 2014. "Timing of Motherhood and Economic Growth," Working Papers EMS_2014_01, Research Institute, International University of Japan.
    16. Taryn Ann Galloway & Rannveig Kaldager Hart, 2015. "Effects of income and the cost of children on fertility. Quasi-experimental evidence from Norway," Discussion Papers 828, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    17. Laroque, Guy & Salanié, Bernard, 2005. "Does Fertility Respond to Financial Incentives?," CEPR Discussion Papers 5007, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Rafael Lalive & Josef Zweim�ller, "undated". "Does Parental Leave Affect Fertility and Return-to-Work? Evidence from a �True Natural Experiment�," IEW - Working Papers 242, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    19. Jason M. Lindo, 2010. "Are Children Really Inferior Goods? Evidence from Displacement-Driven Income Shocks," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 45(2).
    20. Tom Kornstad & Marit Rønsen, 2018. "Women’s Wages and Fertility Revisited Evidence from Norway," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 34(4), pages 491-518, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    natural experiment; fertility; family allowances; tax and transfers effects;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H31 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - Household
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
    • J18 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Public Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cre:crefwp:136. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Stéphane Pallage (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/crefeca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.