IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v101y2011i4p1616-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fertility and the Personal Exemption: Comment*

* This paper is a replication of an original study

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Crump
  • Gopi Shah Goda
  • Kevin J. Mumford

Abstract

One of the most commonly cited studies on the effect of child subsidies on fertility, Whittington, Alm, and Peters (1990), claimed a large positive effect of child tax benefits on fertility using time series methods. We revisit this question in light of recent increases in child tax benefits by replicating this earlier study and extending the analysis. We do not find strong evidence to justify the model specification from the original paper. Moreover, even if the original specification is appropriate, we show that the results are not robust to more general measures of child tax benefits. (JEL H24, J13)

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Crump & Gopi Shah Goda & Kevin J. Mumford, 2011. "Fertility and the Personal Exemption: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1616-1628, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:aea:aecrev:v:101:y:2011:i:4:p:1616-28
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.4.1616
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to AEA members and institutional subscribers.
    File URL: http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/data/june2011/20080617_data.zip
    File Function: dataset accompanying article
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carrion-i-Silvestre, Josep Lluís & Kim, Dukpa & Perron, Pierre, 2009. "Gls-Based Unit Root Tests With Multiple Structural Breaks Under Both The Null And The Alternative Hypotheses," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(6), pages 1754-1792, December.
    2. Bruce D. Meyer & Dan T. Rosenbaum, 2001. "Welfare, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Labor Supply of Single Mothers," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(3), pages 1063-1114.
    3. 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.
    4. Richard Crump & Gopi Shah Goda & Kevin J. Mumford, 2011. "Fertility and the Personal Exemption: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1616-1628, June.
    5. Junsen Zhang & Jason Quan & Peter van Meerbergen, 1994. "The Effect of Tax-Transfer Policies on Fertility in Canada, 1921-88," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 29(1), pages 181-201.
    6. 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.
    7. Perron, Pierre & Qu, Zhongjun, 2007. "A simple modification to improve the finite sample properties of Ng and Perron's unit root tests," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 94(1), pages 12-19, January.
    8. Reagan Baughman & Stacy Dickert-Conlin, 2003. "Did Expanding the EITC Promote Motherhood?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 247-251, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Joakim Westerlund & David L. Edgerton, 2007. "New Improved Tests for Cointegration with Structural Breaks," Journal of Time Series Analysis, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 188-224, March.
    11. Saikkonen, Pentti & Lutkepohl, Helmut, 2000. "Testing for the Cointegrating Rank of a VAR Process with Structural Shifts," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 18(4), pages 451-464, October.
    12. Harvey, David I. & Leybourne, Stephen J. & Taylor, A.M. Robert, 2009. "Unit Root Testing In Practice: Dealing With Uncertainty Over The Trend And Initial Condition," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 587-636, June.
    13. Yoichi Arai & Eiji Kurozumi, 2007. "Testing for the Null Hypothesis of Cointegration with a Structural Break," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 705-739.
    14. Eissa, Nada & Hoynes, Hilary Williamson, 2004. "Taxes and the labor market participation of married couples: the earned income tax credit," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(9-10), pages 1931-1958, August.
    15. Leslie Whittington, 1992. "Taxes and the Family: The impact of the tax exemption for dependents on marital fertility," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 29(2), pages 215-226, May.
    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. Silveus, Neil & Stoddard, Christiana, 2020. "Identifying the causal effect of income on religiosity using the Earned Income Tax Credit," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 903-924.
    2. Lucia Granelli, 2016. "Family Tax Policy in a Model with Endogenous Fertility à la Barro-Becker," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2016010, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    3. Ortigueira, Salvador & Siassi, Nawid, 2023. "On the optimal reform of income support for single parents," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    4. Dong, Xiaoqi & Liang, Yinhe & Zhang, Jiawei, 2023. "Fertility responses to the relaxation of migration restrictions: Evidence from the Hukou reform in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    5. Sara LaLumia & James Sallee, 2013. "The value of honesty: empirical estimates from the case of the missing children," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(2), pages 192-224, April.
    6. Regina T. Riphahn & Frederik Wiynck, 2017. "Fertility effects of child benefits," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(4), pages 1135-1184, October.
    7. Pinto,Maria Florencia & Posadas,Josefina & Shapira,Gil, 2021. "Financial Incentives, Fertility, and Son Preference in Armenia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9705, The World Bank.
    8. Bishop Kelly C. & Mac Donald Diana E., 2022. "The Effect of Paying Parents to Adopt: Evidence from Minnesota's Foster-Care System," Working Papers 2022-01, Banco de México.
    9. Ankel-Peters, Jörg & Fiala, Nathan & Neubauer, Florian, 2023. "Is economics self-correcting? Replications in the American Economic Review," Ruhr Economic Papers 1005, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    10. Choo, Dahae & Jales, Hugo, 2021. "Childbearing and the distribution of the reservation price of fertility: The case of the Korean baby bonus program," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    11. Rannveig Kaldager Hart & Taryn A. Galloway, 2023. "Universal Transfers, Tax Breaks and Fertility: Evidence from a Regional Reform in Norway," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 42(3), pages 1-32, June.
    12. Richard Crump & Gopi Shah Goda & Kevin J. Mumford, 2011. "Fertility and the Personal Exemption: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1616-1628, June.
    13. Sara LaLumia & James M. Sallee & Nicholas Turner, 2015. "New Evidence on Taxes and the Timing of Birth," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 258-293, May.
    14. Wookun Kim, 2023. "Baby Bonus, Fertility, and Missing Women," Departmental Working Papers 2308, Southern Methodist University, Department of Economics.
    15. Lee, Gi-Eu & Chou, Chang-Erh, 2020. "The Ex Ante Price Information Effect on Water Conservation: A Case Study of Taipei’s Water Tariff Adjustment," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304253, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Wookun Kim, 2020. "Baby Bonus, Fertility, and Missing Women," Departmental Working Papers 2011, Southern Methodist University, Department of Economics.
    17. 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.
    18. Elmallakh, Nelly, 2021. "Fertility, Family Policy, and Labor Supply: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from France," GLO Discussion Paper Series 984, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    19. Lucia Granelli, 2017. "Family Tax Policy with Heterogeneous Altruistic Households," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2017019, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    20. Anthony A. Noce & Dhimtri Qirjo & Namini De Silva, 2016. "Enticing the Stork: Can we Evaluate Pro-Natal Policies Before Having Children?," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 184-202, June.

    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. Mike Brewer & Anita Ratcliffe & Sarah dSmith, 2012. "Does welfare reform affect fertility? Evidence from the UK," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 25(1), pages 245-266, January.
    2. Azmat, Ghazala & González, Libertad, 2010. "Targeting fertility and female participation through the income tax," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 487-502, June.
    3. Elmallakh, Nelly, 2021. "Fertility, Family Policy, and Labor Supply: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from France," GLO Discussion Paper Series 984, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    4. Xiaoling Ang, 2015. "The Effects of Cash Transfer Fertility Incentives and Parental Leave Benefits on Fertility and Labor Supply: Evidence from Two Natural Experiments," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 263-288, June.
    5. Wookun Kim, 2023. "Baby Bonus, Fertility, and Missing Women," Departmental Working Papers 2308, Southern Methodist University, Department of Economics.
    6. 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.
    7. Bing Xu & Maxwell Pak, 2021. "Child-raising cost and fertility from a contest perspective," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 186(1), pages 9-28, January.
    8. Bishop Kelly C. & Mac Donald Diana E., 2022. "The Effect of Paying Parents to Adopt: Evidence from Minnesota's Foster-Care System," Working Papers 2022-01, Banco de México.
    9. Regina T. Riphahn & Frederik Wiynck, 2017. "Fertility effects of child benefits," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 30(4), pages 1135-1184, October.
    10. 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.
    11. Pinto,Maria Florencia & Posadas,Josefina & Shapira,Gil, 2021. "Financial Incentives, Fertility, and Son Preference in Armenia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9705, The World Bank.
    12. Rannveig Kaldager Hart & Taryn A. Galloway, 2023. "Universal Transfers, Tax Breaks and Fertility: Evidence from a Regional Reform in Norway," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 42(3), pages 1-32, June.
    13. Lucia Granelli, 2016. "Family Tax Policy in a Model with Endogenous Fertility à la Barro-Becker," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2016010, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    14. Wookun Kim, 2020. "Baby Bonus, Fertility, and Missing Women," Departmental Working Papers 2011, Southern Methodist University, Department of Economics.
    15. Daniel Chen, 2011. "Can countries reverse fertility decline? Evidence from France’s marriage and baby bonuses, 1929–1981," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 18(3), pages 253-272, June.
    16. Alma Cohen & Rajeev Dehejia & Dmitri Romanov, 2007. "Do Financial Incentives Affect Fertility?," NBER Working Papers 13700, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Choo, Dahae & Jales, Hugo, 2021. "Childbearing and the distribution of the reservation price of fertility: The case of the Korean baby bonus program," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    18. Michael F. Lovenheim & Kevin J. Mumford, 2010. "Do Family Wealth Shocks Affect Fertility Choices? Evidence from the Housing Market Boom and Bust," Purdue University Economics Working Papers 1228, Purdue University, Department of Economics.
    19. Azarnert, Leonid V., 2010. "Immigration, fertility, and human capital: A model of economic decline of the West," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 431-440, December.
    20. repec:agr:journl:v:4(605):y:2015:i:4(605):p:133-144 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. 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.

    Replication

    This item is a replication of:
  • 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.

    • More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C22 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes
    • H2 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Fertility and the Personal Exemption: Comment (AER 2011) in ReplicationWiki

    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:aea:aecrev:v:101:y:2011:i:4:p:1616-28. 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: Michael P. Albert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeaaaea.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.