Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:13:42.859Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Female labor force participation and fertility differentials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2019

Irakli Japaridze
Irakli Japaridze*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, McGill University, Room 414, Leacock Building, 855 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T7, Canada
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: irakli.japaridze@mail.mcgill.ca
Get access

Abstract

US women, on average, had approximately two children in both the 1930s and in the 1970s, yet the fertility distribution in the 1930s was less concentrated. This implies change in reproductive behavior, which cannot be captured by models focusing on average fertility. To explain these changes, I have developed a model that makes a distinction between sons and daughters. In this model, the female labor force participation rate is the probability of each girl becoming an employed woman. This endogenizes the empirically observed difference in the propensity for an all-girl household to have another child compared to an all-boy household, generating large fertility differentials at low participation rates. Higher participation rates raise the expected return from an additional child, as well as the expected return from existing daughters. The first effect tends to increase fertility, while the second effect, for relatively concave utility functions, tends to decrease it, so that the distribution of completed fertilities becomes more concentrated.

Keywords

Female labor force participationfertility differentialsson-preferenceuncertainty

JEL classification

J11: Demographic Trends, Macroeconomic Effects, and Forecasts J13: Fertility • Family Planning • Child Care • Children • Youth J16: Economics of Gender • Non-labor Discrimination
Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Demographic Economics , Volume 85 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 123 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aaronson, D., Lange, F. and Mazumder, B. (2014) Fertility transitions along the extensive and intensive margins. American Economic Review 104(11), 3701–3724.Google Scholar
Albanesi, S. and Sahin, A. (2018) The gender unemployment gap. Published on VOX, CEPR Policy Portal (https://voxeu.org), January.Google Scholar
Angrist, J. and Evans, W. (1998) Children and their parents’ labor supply: evidence from exogenous variation in family size. American Economic Review 88(3), 450–477.Google Scholar
Bar, M., Hazan, M., Leukhina, O., Weiss, D. and Zoabi, H. (2015) Higher Inequality, Higher Education? The Changing Role of Differential Fertility. The Pinhas Sapir Center for Development, Tel Aviv University, Discussion Paper No. 2–15, http://faculty.washington.edu/oml/inequality.pdf.Google Scholar
Bailey, M. and Hershbein, B. (2018) US fertility rates and childbearing, 1800 to 2010. Chapter 3 in “Oxford Handbook of American Economic History” by L. Cain, P. Fishback and P. W. Rhode (eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Baudin, T., de la Croix, D. and Gobbi, P. (2015) Fertility and childlessness in the United States. American Economic Review 105(6), 1852–1882.Google Scholar
Ben-Porath, Y. and Welch, F. (1976) Do Sex preferences really matter? Quarterly Journal of Economics 90(2), 285–307.Google Scholar
Birchenall, J. and Soares, R. (2009) Altruism, fertility, and the value of children: health policy evaluation and intergenerational welfare. Journal of Public Economics 93(1–2), 280–295.Google Scholar
Dahl, G. and Moretti, E. (2008) The demand for Sons. Review of Economic Studies 75(4), 1085–1120.Google Scholar
de la Croix, D. and Doepke, M. (2003) Inequality and growth: why differential fertility matters. American Economic Review 93(4), 1091–1113.Google Scholar
Echevarria, C. and Merlo, A. (1999) Gender differences in education in a dynamic household bargaining model. International Economic Review 40(2), 265–286.Google Scholar
Fitch, C. and Ruggles, S. (2000) Historical trends in marriage formation, United States 1850–1990. Chapter 4 in “The Ties That Bind: Perspectives on Marriage and Cohabitation” by L. Waite , Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 404 pages.Google Scholar
Galindev, R. (2011) Leisure goods, education attainment and fertility choice. Journal of Economic Growth 16(2), 157–181.Google Scholar
Galor, O. and Weill, D. (2000) Population, technology, and growth: from Malthusian stagnation to the demographic transition and beyond. The American Economic Review 90(4), 806–828.Google Scholar
Gobbi, P. (2013) A model of voluntary childlessness. Journal of Population Economics 26(3), 963–982.Google Scholar
Hazan, M. and Zoabi, H. (2015) Sons or daughters? Endogenous sex preferences and the reversal of the gender educational gap. Journal of Demographic Economic 81(2), 179–201.Google Scholar
Iyigun, M. and Lafortune, J. (2016) Why Wait? A Century of Education, Marriage Timing and Gender Roles. IZA Discussion Papers, No. 9671.Google Scholar
Jones, L. and Tertilt, M. (2008) Chapter 5: An economic history of fertility in the United States: 1826–1960. Frontiers of Family Economics 1, 165–230.Google Scholar
Kalemli-Ozcan, S. (2003) A stochastic model of mortality, fertility, and human capital investment. Journal of Development Economics 70(1), 103–118.Google Scholar
King, M., Ruggles, R., Alexander, J. T., Flood, S., Genadek, K., Schroeder, M., Trampe, T. and Vick, R. (2010) Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 3.0. [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Larsen, U. (2000) Primary and secondary infertility in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Epidemiology 29(2), 285–291.Google Scholar
Leland, H. (1968) Saving and uncertainty: the precautionary demand for saving. Quarterly Journal of Economics 82(3), 465–473.Google Scholar
Mills, M. and Begall, K. (2010) Preferences for the sex-composition of children in Europe: a multilevel examination of its effect on progression to a third child. Population Studies 64(1), 77–95.Google Scholar
McClelland, G. (1979) Determining of the impact of sex preferences on the fertility: a consideration of parity progression ratio, dominance, and stopping rule measures. Demography 16(3), 377–388.Google Scholar
McDougall, J., DeWit, D. and Ebanks, G. (1999) Parental preferences for sex of children in Canada. Sex Roles 41(7–8), 615–626.Google Scholar
Olivetti, C. and Albanesi, S. (2010) Maternal Health and the Baby Boom. Boston University, Department of Economics - Working Papers Series WP2010-044, Boston University, Department of Economics.Google Scholar
Pollard, M. and Morgan, S. (2002) Emerging parental gender indifference? Sex composition of children and the third birth. American Sociological Review 67(4), 600–613.Google Scholar
Portner, C. (2001) Children as insurance. Journal of Population Economics 14(1), 119–136.Google Scholar
Rosati, F. (1996) Social security in a non-altruistic model with uncertainty and endogenous fertility. Journal of Public Economics 60(2), 283–294.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, D. (2013) The effect of fertility decisions on excess female mortality in India. Journal of Population Economics 26(1), 147–180.Google Scholar
Sah, R. (1991) The effects of child mortality changes on fertility choice and parental welfare. Journal of Political Economy 99(3), 582–606.Google Scholar
Sobotka, T., Skirbekk, V. and Philipov, D. (2011) Economic recession and fertility in the developed world. Population and Development Review 37(2), 267–306.Google Scholar